Hog-Tied In Texas

Is it still OK to wave a white flag to call a truce, or is that racist and chock full of privileges and stuff?

It never ceases to amaze me how much cognitive dissonance a Bumbledick can hold in xis/xer/their head without exploding.  I suspect this capacity alone necessitates the crying rooms popping up on campuses around the Western hemisphere.

Here's the deal: Texas passed a law making abortion illegal in most cases after the first month and a half of pregnancy.  I seems that a woman (no, biological males cannot get pregnant) wants to have absolute control over her body and the choice whether to have a baby.  It is not enough that she had the choice not to have sex, or whether to use birth control, or even to have a full 45 days after conception to think about it.

I know women have difficulties making decisions, but come on.  Perhaps this is why there aren't more high-powered female executives?

Anyway, a bunch of people who make a tidy living selling aborted fetuses to medical science took the matter to the US Supreme Court in hopes of stopping the law taking effect.  The Supremes took one whiff of the case and shoved it back across the table.

Well, as even the corner palm reader could have predicted, the Bumbledicks are losing their minds.  How could the government tell anyone what to do with their body?  It's unconstitutional, they screech.  It's unnamaerican, they holler.  It will deprive a bunch of cloning researchers and vaccine makers of their grant money, they opined.  It's anti-capitalist!  Oh OK, I added that one myself.

All of this righteous indignation is coming from - get this - people who have spent the past two years berating, spraying, shunning, brow beating, attacking, molesting, and just plain being nasty to a lot of folks who don't want to be forced to wear masks, get injected with toxic waste and sit alone in their caves because of a wholly manufactured medical emergency.

Now wait a minute.  You say the government has no right to reach its grubby fingers into your uterus, but by golly it has every right to tell you what to wear, and what potions and how many times to inject into your sacred temple.

Maybe I'm a dying breed, and I often feel that way, but I perceive a direct connection between these two issues, where Bumbledicks don't seem to even allow them into the same part of the shambles they pass off as brains.

Though I personally find backing off my revulsion towards infanticide in order to prevent genocide is a grotesque Solomon's Choice, it does seem there is an oppotunity for Bumbledicks to make common cause with rational people.  It's not pretty, but it's a start into more expansive dialog.

Getting government all the way off our backs would be a tremendous victory for everyone involved.

Here's my offer: I would be willing to allow women the ability to abort a pregnancy up to the end of the second trimester, provided there is ZERO government funding (your choice, your cost) and the aborted fetus is immediately and thoroughly incinerated to stop the vile, nay evil trade in body parts.  If a woman can't make her choice in180 days, then there are bigger issues than just an unwanted pregnancy.

In  exchange, Bumbledicks will immediately begin opposing mandatory tests, masks, injections, and medical procesdures of any kind.

We'll call a truce on the cornucopia of other issues until this cease fire sticks.

Despite this purely rational and equitable solution, I know what the Bumbledicks will do.  They will want revenge and will start pushing their assault on everyone else's body integrity rights even harder.  I cut them a little slack, because what's left of their minds is fogged over from vaccines and carbon dioxide poinsoning. 

But hey, it's worth a shot to save the human race.

How It Was Supposed To Work

 Few "American" have any clue how their country was supposed to work.  They have never read more than the first paragraph of  the Constitution, civics classes have been replaced with condom-rolling lessons, and at every turn, the media and politicians pound minsinformation into their heads - not that those idiots have any better clue.

Let's take a moment to imagine what the United States would be like today if it was still the united States.

There is no nation called the United States, and no such citizen as a US citizen.  There are 50 semi-autonomous nations who have delegated certain functions to a central body to share the cost of defense and military command, regulate interstate traffic of goods and ensure people could travel freely among the States, and formulate foreign policy for the mutual benefit of all the States, and most of all to mint a single currency for use in all the States with equal weights and measures to facilitate commerce.

There is no such thing as a US passport and no individual is subject to federal law.  In fact, the only internal power the federal government has over the States is to adjudicate disputes between themn and issue a tax bill every year to fund the federal budget.  

The tax bill is apportioned to each State according to its representation in the federal government (population).  The States then determine the means by which they will collect the taxes and pay the bill - be it sales tax, per capita tax, lottery, or some other means.  The feds have no control over the internal workings of the States, except to protect the rights of individuals from usurpation by the State.  The only other tax the federal body could collect is tariffs on imports and exports.

The decadal census determines how many people live in each State, a number of Representatives is approtioned to the State, then the State divides its population up into equal units, called Districts.  Each District elects their Representative to the federal House.

The people also elect their own Legislatures, who in turn choose the two Senators that each State has.  In this way, the people hold the Legislators accountable, who in turn hold the Senators accountable, who in turn approve of every major action taken by the Executive branch, including appointments and treaties, to ensure the Executive is held directly accountable to the interests of the States.

Other than border patrol and customs, and federal district courts (one district for each Supreme Court justice), there are no federal agencies allowed to operate within the sovereign territory of the States.  The federal government cannot own land, there are no national parks, there are no territories or protectorates (Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.), and in fact the only possession of the feds is 100-square mile plot of swamp land called the District of Columbia, which essentially means it is held in commonwealth for the States.

There is no Department of Homeland Security, no FEMA, no FBI, no Parks and Wildlife, no Health and Human Serices, no Department of Education, no NASA, no National Endowment for the Arts.  The Cabinet could publish advisories on Best Practices for the States, but they could not enforce anything.

The only laws that affect individuals are passed by the States for their own citizens and according to their unique cultures and situations.  This keeps the process and enforcement of laws close to the people who must follow them, because people who live in Connecticut have different sensibilities and living conditions than those in New Mexico.

Folks living in the State have almost no interaction with the federal government other than the gold and silver coins they use in commerce.  There is no national bank.  For those who prefer, the State banks print paper certificates equal to the amount of gold and silver in the State banks, so people can carry and use paper notes in their daily affairs, rather than heavy coins.  

Most folks who travel State to State will cash in their notes before leaving the State, unless the State has a transfer agreement with other States, which most do, since the weight and measure of the coins is regulated by the federal treasury and is the same in all States by Constitutional requirement.

Imagine a world where anonymous jack asses living high on the horse while digging in your pocket don't exist, where your representative lives down the street from you, where hordes of uniformed thugs have no power over you.  Imagine a world where they were treated and acted like servants to sovereign individuals who lived on the land, not citizens.  Imagine a world where your money had had the same value for 6,000 years and couldn't be inflated because they couldn't manufacture it out of thin air.

Image a world where there was only one legal system for everyone, great or small.

That's what the united States were supposed to be.

Unraveling the Impeachy Keen Circus

Given the dearth of civics classes anymore in US schools, it's no wonder most Americans don't understand impeachment, much less the rest of the world, who depend on the laughable Geezer Media to deliver their information.

To really understand what is happening, we must first understand American criminal jurisprudence.  There is a distinct process, based on tradition, law, precedent, and a little bit of ad hoc-ery that defines how a criminal case is brought to trial.

First, evidence of a crime is brought to the attention of a government attorney, such as a district attorney (DA).  The DA investigates the facts presented, determined what specific law or laws have been broken, and may investigate further to determine if there is more evidence of a crime.

If the DA finds sufficient evidence that a law has been broken - say 10USC2378, sec. (a) to make one up - then the case is assembled into a file or dossier.

The DA then empanels a Grand Jury to review the file, test the evidence, perhaps do a bit more investigation, and ensure the facts indeed point to a law being broken.  If the Grand Jury finds sufficient cause (evidence), then it hands down an indictment against the accused.

The DA transmits the indictment to a court, which then schedules a trial to test the facts in evidence, hear testimony, and determine guilt or innocence.  In the US, the trial is presided over by a judge to ensure fairness, but the decision of guilt is made a by jury of the accused's peers.  At no time in this process is the accused presumed to be guilty until the jury renders a verdict.

Now to impeachment.

In the case of impeachment, the process is the same as any criminal process under law, except the the players look a bit different and the terms used are not all the same.

The process begins with the House Judiciary Committee being made aware of possible infractions of law.  Here, the committee is acting like the DA.  It gathers evidence of a crime from facts and testimony, determines whether a specific law or laws were broken, and assembles a file or dossier.

The file is delivered to the full House for consideration.  Here, the House is acting like the Grand Jury.  It reviews the facts in evidence, compares it to the text of the law that is presumed to have been broken, and determines whether there is sufficient proof to proceed.

Just like a Grand Jury, the House votes on whether to impeach, and if yes, then Articles of Impeachment are produced.  This is equivalent to the Grand Jury handing down an indictment.  The Speaker of the House, just like the DA, assembles a legal team (House Managers) to deliver the indictment to the Senate, which in this case becomes the court and the jury.  All 100 Senators are assembled like a jury, attorneys present the case for both sides - just like a regular trial - with the chief justice of the Supreme Court playing the role of a judge in any other trial.

At the end of the trial, the Senators deliberate the facts in evidence, compare it to the wording of the law(s) said to be broken, and like any other jury, render a verdict, with no less than 2/3rds of the Senators required to vote for guilt. Without the 2/3rds majority (super majority), the charges are thrown out and the accused is found not guilty.

If guilty, the accused is then removed from office and the chain of succession takes over.

In the current situation with Donald Trump, a number of errors and irregularities have cropped up, which may end up being fatal to the case as it exists.

At the DA level (House Judiciary Committee), attorneys were not allowed to present evidence or testimony, especially in a forum and under the standard rules of doing such things.  There is also the matter of discovery, where both sides of a case must have unfettered access to all the information the other side has.  In a criminal case, surprises are not allowed.

Next, the file or dossier handed off to the House for consideration did not include the specific laws that were broken.  You can't just accuse someone of doing something wrong, you must show which exact laws were broken.  Remember this the next time you go to traffic court...  Without knowing which laws were broken, no one can determine IF a law was broken and neither a plea nor a verdict can be entered.

In the case of the current fiasco, neither the dossier nor the Article of Impeachment contain a reference to any specific law that was broken.  This is a fatal flaw and in a properly functioning legal system, the case must be thrown out, because neither the court nor the jury can compare the facts to the actual wording of the law supposedly broken.

The next irregularity is that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (DA), has decided not to deliver the Articles of Impeachment (indictment from the Grand Jury) to the Senate (court).

Now imagine you are accused of a crime.  No one can tell you exactly what law you have broken, but the DA takes the case to a Grand Jury that indicts you anyway.  Despite having no clue which law you broke, you are expected to mount a defense, while at the same time not being able to present your side of the argument, or even being allowed to examine the evidence the other side has gathered.

The Grand Jury indicts you of a crime, but you don't know which law you broke.  They refuse to show you the evidence they have, but you are expected to mount a defense.  At this point, the reader should go see Orson Welles' The Trial, based on the Franz Kafka play (see the play instead if possible).

In spite of all these issues, the Grand Jury indicts you anyway.  But wait!  Now theDA refuses to take the indictment to court for trial, so you are now left in legal limbo.  Unable to defend yourself.  Unable to argue against the process itself.  And all the while paying your high-priced legal team to wait for nothing while they prepare to fight a case in which no law has been broken and no public evidence has been presented.

This is where things stand in the US at the moment.  The Articles of Impeachment (indictment) were handed down while following none of the normal and expected rules to do so.  The Speaker (DA) now refuses to deliver the Articles (Indictment) to the Senate (court).  And in no instance can anyone cite the precise laws that were supposed to have been broken.

If this sounds like a kangaroo court, then you finally understand why so many people are upset.  It is truly Kafka-esque in every sense of the term.

There is much speculation as to why all of this has happened.  The most obvious is that Trump broke no laws, so no law can be cited, and the circus that has followed is the biggest legal fraud in US history.  The fact that the Speaker refuses to deliver the Articles indicates she is well aware of the flaws and knows that they would be thrown out on prima facie.

Going further, some suspect a two-fold motive.  Having the Articles is a PR victory - of sorts - because the Democratic caucus knows that almost no one in the US understands what they are doing.  Thus, the image damage is done.

It's possible that this whole charade is also trying to manipulate the 2020 elections.  If the Speaker holds the Articles until January or later, the trial in the Senate would take place at the beginning of primary season in the election.  That Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are Senators means they would be tied up during the Impeachment trial, unable to campaign in the early primaries, leaving Joe Biden the default front runner with almost zero opposition.

No matter how you slice this mess, it comes up a big loser for Democrats.  Trump is quickly turning the whole thing in his favor.  The Democrats look like a bunch of Bumbledicks with no clear understanding of the system they supposedly run, and in any case unwilling to do more important work - such as legislating.

With a clear understanding of what is going on, perhaps now the dear reader is able to sit back and enjoy the circus without investing too much emotional cache.  It's all show.  Nearly all of the players in this charade are lawyers and know what they are supposed to do, and that they are not doing it is quite telling.

There are a number of possible motives at play here, but removing Trump doesn't seem to be the most important.  Instead, there is a grand manipulation of images and politics that we little people are not privy to, so we should just sit back and enjoy the freak show.

If this sparks strong responses either way, be sure to leave a comment below.  Thanks!

Strange Gods, Foreign Altars

A great many Americans and Indonesians seem to labor under a similar misconception, though the circumstances are slightly different.

Ask a random sample of Americans, and the majority will likely say that the US is a Christian country.  In Indonesia, the same question is liable to get the majority response that this is an Islamic country.

Both majorities are wrong.

The US was neither founded by Christians, nor was it intended to be a "Christian" country.  In fact, many of the founders of the US were Deists, which are defined as folks who believe the Creator is separate from the Creation, and that Humanity is allowed to go its own way within the Laws of Nature.  They reject the supernatural and shy away from revelations and miracles, preferring a more scientific approach to things.

If this sounds vaguely familiar, it's because the ideas are woven into the US Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, especially the part where it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof..."

We must keep in mind that a large number of folks who came to the New World from Europe were, if fact, religious heretics and nut cases (by some accounts) and roundly persecuted for it back home.  All the wanted, really, was to be left the hell alone so they could do whatever it was that fulfilled their spiritual needs.

It's a slightly different situation in Indonesia, but the impulse is the same.

When the founders were trying to forge a nation out of a bunch of wildly different cultures with widely varying beliefs stretched out for thousands of miles across thousands of islands, that had all been colonized for centuries, they had to placate many different beliefs.

What eventually made it into the Indonesian Constitution is:

Article 29
(1) The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God.
(2) The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to
his/her own religion or belief.

In actual practice, this has come to mean that you are free to worship if you belong to one of the six "recognized" religions - Roman Catholic, Protestant, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or Islam - and oh, by the way, Islam is more equal than all the others.

This was no more apparent than in a recent story out of Medan.  In brief, a baby boy was found nearly frozen in a cardboard box, abandoned in the town of Binjai, in Sumatera.  A Christian policewoman wanted to adopt the child, but was told she could not because only Muslims are allowed to adopt abandoned children.  Consequently, the evil Social Services (same in every country) snatched the child away and put him in an orphanage in Medan.  Obviously, they are really concerned for the welfare of the child, since an orphanage is preferable to a loving home.

The article goes on to state:

"...A national law, Government Regulation no. 54/2007 on Adoption, states in article 3, “In cases in which the origin of the child is unknown, then the child’s religion is conformed to the religion of the majority of the local population.”

In Indonesia, the religions may not be mingled.   Marriages and adoptions may only be among those of the same (or assumed) religions.  This law is primarily to protect Muslims from internarriage and/or the shameful possibility that children could be raised with liberal ideas concerning religions, such as may happen in a "mixed" marriage or cross-adoption.

To be fair, the Roman Catholics have done the same thing for centuries, though in this supposedly Enlightened Era, this kind of practice seems draconian, if not down-right medieval.

Indonesia is often referred to as the largest Islamic nation on Earth.  It is not.  It has the largest Muslim population under one flag, but it is supposedly composed of six equal religions.  In practice, however, this is obviously not true.

Not only are mixed marriages and adoptions forbidden, but Muslims receive preferenctial treatment by the government's Ministry of Religion, converts TO Islam are perfectly acceptable, but FROM Islam can and often do result in disinheritance, excommunication and even death in some areas.  Everyone is expected to respect (even follow) Muslim practices such as Ramadhan, but Muslims routinely ignore those fasting for Lent.  Mosques are built roughly every 200m all over the country, and their loudspeakers are cranked to 11 with no recourse, but churches and temples are highly regulated and frequently destroyed before construction is finished.

Had a Muslim policewoman, such as in the story, found an abandoned baby in a predominantly Christian area and wanted to adopt, I would likely not be writing this article, as it would never have become an issue of national attention.

I frequently hear local Muslims grousing about the way Muslims are treated in Europe and the US, and even Myanmar.  It is difficult to point out that perhaps some Islamic practices and demands rub the wrong way on others.  Perhaps, I want to say, intolerance begets intolerance.  Perhaps the willingness to heap suffering even on the innocent causes others to recoil in disgust, maybe even horror.

Certainly the upwelling of indignation in Indonesia over this particular case shows that a large number - even a majority - of people in this country want fairness, compassion and generosity, over dogma, inflexibility and favoratism.

Perhaps it's time for Muslims in Indonesia (and elsewhere) to re-examine the meaning of Pancasila and the founding principles of this nation.  People are either free or they are not, there are no partial steps or gradients.

A woman's love and care of a child is endowed by God - not your god or my god, but THE God.  Only a man could find it acceptable to put a child in an orphanage to "save" it from a life under the "wrong" religion and deny a woman's instinct to care for and protect a child.

It's time to ask what is more important, a book or a life?

Anarchy Is Bliss

When no one is looking, some jerk declares him- or herself king, appointed by God with unquestionable powers. He or she can take any or all of your property by declaring a new law this morning over breakfast and by the way, you are property, too.  Oh, and their kids will be the all-powerful rulers after they die.  This is monarchy.

All the folks in your neighborhood get together and decide they are going to charge you a fee to use your car on the neighborhood streets.  If you refuse to pay, they will storm your house and take everything you own.  That's called democracy.

All the people in the neighborhood get together and elect a representative to come to your house and extract a fee to use you car on the neighborhood streets.  If you don't comply, they will nominate other representatives to force you to pay, or yet others will take away your property.  This is called representative democracy.

All the companies in your neighborhood bribe the elected officials to take whatever want from you, regardless of whether you follow the rules or not.  This is called fascism.

Self-appointed "representatives" take over all the companies in your neighborhood and use them to take whatever they want from you, regardless of whether you follow the rules or not.  This is called socialism.

All the folks in the neighborhood decide they are going to share everything equally.  One neighbor can come and help himself to your Makita carbide-tipped circular saw for as long as he needs it, but hey!-you can use his Maserati whenever no one else is (which is almost never).  Ultimately, everyone downgrades to the cheapest crap since they will lose it anyway.  This is called communism.

In all the above systems of government are immoral on their face.  There is nothing that justifies any of these organizations in taking your property.  Even if you are duped into participating in an "election" of representatives, there is still no moral justification to deprive you of your property or compel you to follow rules you don't agree with.

In other words, there is no such thing as moral government.  It doesn't exist.  In all of time and history, there has never been a moral government, only less malignant ones.  At some level and at some point, they all use some justification to take your property "for the greater good," and whether the justification is an imaginary deity or 63 million of your neighbors, it is all immoral.

My lifelong friend and a successful Miami lawyer said to me, "Hey, taxes are the price of admission."

I responded, "So, if your neighborhood Kiwanis club decides you owe dues, and if you don't pay, they show up at your door with guns and take your stuff, that's OK?"

"Well, of course not," he said, "But that's different."

"In what way," I inquired.

"Governments operate by the consent of the people.  They create laws and members of society must follow those laws."

"So, if Dade County voters decided that all lawyers should immediciately be divested of their property and codify it in law, that's OK?  Even if they require you to pay taxes to pay the enforcers who show up at your door to take your property and put you on the street?"

"That's an absurd proposition," he argued.  "That cannot happen because there are layers of checks to prevent it."

I pressed on, "I don't agree with my country going and bombing non-aggressive countries into the Stone Age simply because they want to accept something other than dollars for their raw materials.  If I want to fight it, I must use the very system that is doing the evil acts, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, hire a team of lawyers who are officers of that same system, just to register my disgust?  I would lose in that stacked game before I even started, since the system can decide whether or not it wants to hear my case."

(Pause) "You can move to another country," he countered.

"Oh, so if I don't agree with the Kiwanis demanding dues for a club I don't want to join, I am free to choose another location where the Rotarians or Lions or whoever can demand fees for clubs I don't want to join?"

"Yep, that's about the sum of it," he declared.

"That's immoral," I protested.

"That's life," he said, dismissing the entire issue.

In point of fact, the only moral form of governance is that of Self.  I have the right and moral authority to govern myself.  That's it.  End of story.  To the extent that my wife has half-interest in my property, she has an equal say in its use and disposal.  In that we have guardianship and responsibility for minor children, we can guide and direct them.  That is the full extent of any human's authority.  No amount of "backup" in the form of guns or people or machines changes the equation.  All they do is modify the odds of the outcome.

Within the bounds of my Self and my property, I have the moral right to use and dispose of it however I like, provided I don't cause harm or damage to anyone else.

Think of it - how many social problems in the world right now would be solved by this simple change?  No need for "special" rights.  No need for draconian laws.  No wars of mass destruction.  No human having more or less authority than any other human.

In other words, anarchy is the only moral form of governance ever conceived by humans, and it is the most vilified form, as well.  Probably a relationship there.

Anarchy does not create chaos, it alleviates it.  When people are left alone to live their lives however they see fit, there is nothing to argue about.  Chaos is caused by immoral acts perpetrated by immoral organizations using whatever justifications come to hand.  What follows is war, strife and despair.

The one thing we all fear most - chaos - is the very thing we create with our institutional "authorities".  Since the information we are given is wrong - by accident or design - we can never make a right choice based on it.  Anarchy is good, moral and necessary for genuine peace and happiness - and it is the one thing the immoral organizations fear the most.

In other words, keep you cotton-pickin' hands off my stuff, and I'll do the same for you.