Tuesday, November 16, 2010

General Boykin and "right wing" fear mongers.

I put right wing in quotations because there really is no "right" and "left". Even if there was, they'd be part of the same State bird.

Gen. Boykin is a retired military officer who frequents the American Evangelical church circuit preaching about the "end times", against homosexuality and against Islam. He uses alot of war terms to describe the spiritual fight.

There isn't anything wrong with these positions at all. I do disagree on Boykin's view of eschatology, but that is a minor matter. I am also against homosexuality and believe it is sinful. I think Islam is bondage for those who follow it. There is alot of soldier symbolism for the believer in Scripture. We are told to put on the whole armour of righteousness. We are told to make war against our fleshly bodies which are prone to sin.

Here's the problem with Boykin: he's a Statist. Boykin was involved in the Waco massacre and the massacre of 2,500 Panamanians in order to obtain one man, Manuel Noriega, who was dealing drugs. He was involved in Bush's invasion of Iraq even though that one was based on lies. He was appointed to run the Iraqi prisons and to remake them into the Guantanomo Bay of Iraq.. Basically, Boykin has killed alot of innocent people and is a proud warrior for that criminal gang known as the State.

Boykin has also lost some big ones. He was commander during the failed and famed Mogadishu incident popularized by Black Hawk Down, he was commander during the failed attempt to rescue the American hostages at the US Embassy in Iran.

Since being rebuked by Bush for going too far in his Crusades rhetoric about the US vs. the Mideast, Boykin has been regularly touring Christian churches pushing his message about the problems facing America.

They of course center around the obvious; "socialism" -- which everyone is throwing around these days, "islam" and gays. Today, Boykin is saying that Marxism is making a triumphant return to the US. Now, in my opinion, we already have some elements of Marxism but really we are a Fascist State. Government and business go hand in hand and work together to maximize profits, privatize those profits and then socialize the losses. Come to think of it, the argument could be made that a "State" is fascism in and of itself.




So here we have Boykin in this video talking about Marxism making a comeback and Obama having a civilian constabulary force similar to the military. Okay, so what exactly are the DEA, FBI, CIA and US Marshalls? These arms of the State pretty much control every aspect of our lives today. How about the IRS? It seems that there are always stories of people going to prison for failing to become victims of a robbery.

And that's the trouble with these "right wing" and "left wing" guys, they NEVER seem to point to the State. It's always some symptomatic problem that they focus their attention on. To Boykin's credit, he acknowledges the enemy is Satan, true indeed. But, Satan controls the kingdoms aka "States" of this world. It would then seem logical to attack the evil of Statism as well, right? I won't hold my breath but I hope Boykin gets it someday.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Is Drug Dealing a sin?

I was listening to a pastor this past Sunday say that a person, who used to be a drug dealer, was now on the right track because he was no dealing drugs.

I got to thinking, why is drug dealing considered sinful? What about a pharmaceutical salesman, selling drugs to hospitals and doctors? Or someone who works for Budweiser or, maybe the Marlboro company? Are they in sin?

Selling products to willing consumers in and of itself is not sin. The argument could be made that selling cocaine to a known abuser of cocaine could be considered sinful. But how about selling to the casual user? Or maybe selling marijuana to someone who gets relief from their multiple sclerosis by smoking a joint? This to me, is not sinful.

So when this pastor was making this statement, he likely meant someone selling products without the permission of the State, which is unjust. There is no scripture mandating that you must follow unjust laws. If someone needs a product, and you have the ability to sell it to them and they are willing to buy, that is commendable.

Selling products without the permission of the State is NOT sinful.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

States' Rights?

I've been watching this Arizona battle over immigration, legal or otherwise. Basically, the state of Arizona, feeling that the federal government is not doing their job (surprise!) will start arresting those they feel are not US citizens to have them deported. The way I see it, it will be a revolving door of deporting and immigration. So, look for another bureaucracy to pop up to handle this.

I also see it as a clever ploy. See, Arizona is running record budget deficits. They are up there with California when it comes to budget busting. Right now, the fake fight over immigration is a welcome diversion from their coming fiscal disaster.

Now DC wants to sue Arizona over its new law. The Feds have no place there. The best thing that SB 1070 opponents can do is to keep the fight in the State and not try to get federal help.

My solution? End the welfare and open the borders. Free up the marketplace.

Interestingly, some counties are suing and/or putting forth resolutions condemning the new law! Now, why can't they exercise rights?

County Rights! City Rights! Hopefully with the further talk of decentralization, people will finally come to the realization of the all encompassing respect for individual rights that should be the real goal of society.

Friday, March 5, 2010

Working within the system?

Many times, I wonder if working within the system is all its cut out to be. We have a system of government which is continuously plundering its citizens. The vast majority of Americans believe it is OK to live at the expense of everyone else.

As we get near another election season I see alot of talk about "taking America back". Exactly what are we taking it back to? Maybe it's just a popular term that people say without truly thinking about it.

I'm lukewarm about the success of the Tea Party movement. It appears that most of the supporters are going for corporatist GOP candidates. There are a few exceptions, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, RJ Harris and some others. But look at the Scott Brown victory in MA. This guy is a socialist! He was considered a Tea Party candidate and he was FOR universal healthcare and supported Romneycare.

How can this be changed?

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Obama is a conservative??

When I saw the the title of this post by Anthony Gregory, by I was a bit puzzled. However after reading it I have to say that I agree. Modern conservatism supports nationalism, statism, American Exceptionalism, perpetual war and socialism. Obama embodies all of these characteristics.

Just think about it. Today most conservatives now populate the tired Tea Party protests. I suspect that the Tea Party has been taken over by these conservatives. Don't believe me? Pull one of them aside and ask them what they think of the Iraq War, the American Empire, Medicare, Medicaid or the Income Tax. Most if not all of them will tell you of their support of these socialist monstrosities.

The Tea Party protests for example. The original tea party was a over a dispute over a relatively small tax rate. Today, when you consider property, sales, state income, federal income, capital gains, excise, estate and all other kinds of taxes, it's near 50% of your income! Yet virtually every one of these protestors will go right back home and fill out those tax forms to pay these ridiculous taxes without a peep. Thats a sorry way to protest if you ask me.
So what are they upset about?

They are mainly upset that Obama is in charge of the stolen loot. They would rather a Republican be in charge. Why? that cannot be explained except by a term known as cognitive dissonance. The right needs to get past the Obama-bashing of the Limbaugh types and start questioning this system of plunder currently choking the life out of America.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Extra! Extra! The GOP says I should be offended!!!

Harry Reid makes a comment stating that Barack Obama would not have been president had he had a "Negro dialect" or wasn't dark-skinned. The GOP, never missing a chance to pounce on the supposedly racist comments of the "other side", says there's a double standard since Democrats can say racist things and get away with them but the GOP cannot.

What gives?

Is what Reid said racist? I don't think so. A Negro dialect...that must mean "hood talk". I know of this very well. Its a type of slang that black folks use mostly around other black folks. Now maybe the term "negro" is what the supposed outrage is all about, but who cares? Apparently everyone does.

Would a "jive talking" black man have made it all the way to the white house? Maybe not, thats my opinion. Obama made countless attempts to show he would not rock the boat. He could never be seen as the angry black man so he kept his cool all the time. He made sure to show that he would always continue the welfare state, the warfare state and basically do everything he could to keep the financial house of cards standing.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Gilbert Arenas and the insanity of gun laws...

My opinion on the Gil Arenas situation:

First some background:

Apparently NBA star Gilbert Arenas allegedly pulled a gun on a fellow teammate because of a dispute over some gambling debt. Arenas later described it as a prank. Interesting choice of a prank but, I digress.

Now let's assume that the NBA is a fully private enterprise with the locker room being private property of the NBA. The NBA apparently prohibits guns on their property unless held by police and/or security personell. There is nothing wrong with this. Second amendment rights do not supersede property rights.

Keeping this in mind, I have no problem with the NBA suspending Arenas. I do not think it should be indefinite, but that is their decision. I also have no problem with the fines on the other players.

My problem is with the over-reaching gun laws. Arenas has been charged with "illegal" gun possession by the state before. How are laws like these even possible? These types of laws are blatant attacks on property rights and the right to bear arms. These dictates basically say: you must get permission from the local thuggery (state) to be able to defend yourself.

Support by the NRA, gun-confiscating liberals and "law and order" conservatives for laws like these are the problem.

Gun rights are synonomous with property rights. People should carry guns or choose not to carry them, that is their right.

Just take a look at these ridiculous laws that Arenas is subject to:

As listed in the DC Official Code:
§ 7-2507.06, any person who violates any provision of this Act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, except that: A person convicted of knowingly possessing restricted pistol bullets in violation of § 7-2506.01(3) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not to exceed 10 years and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a mandatory-minimum term of not less than 1 year and shall not be released from prison or granted probation or suspension of sentence prior to serving the mandatory-minimum sentence, and, in addition, may be fined an amount not to exceed $10,000. Additional penalties may apply. (See Part IV, Sections 1 and 6 of this guide.)

Storage of firearms:Policy:
It is recommended that each registrant keep any firearm in his or her possession unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe, locked box, or other secure device.Criminal Offense: The law requires that no person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor under the age of 18 is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person:Keeps the firearm in a securely locked box, secured container, or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or Carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person.

Penalties:
A person who violates subsection (b) of this section is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm and, except as provided in paragraph (ii) of this subsection, shall be fined not more than $1,000, imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both. A person who violates subsection (b) of this section and the minor causes injury or death to themselves or another shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.The provisions of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subsection shall not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry to any premises by any person.

The machinations of the local politic is sometimes unpredictable, however one thing is certain: the local thugs....er..."authorities" will always briefly lift their tax engorged snouts from the public trough in order to enforce these un-constitutional gun laws as Gil Arenas is likely about to find out.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Anarchy in Africa!!

Part of the mostly peaceful Ivory Coast is now becoming a model of anarchy in Africa. This is astounding news!

Of course tyrants likely wont let this continue for long. It shows the promise of non-gov't solutions, a no-no for would-be tyrants and hardcore statists. However, notice that these folks are also heavily armed. So, hopefully this anarchic paradise will continue for a long time.