“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
- Abraham Lincoln; Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
And do you know who grew me? The Bush Administration. That’s right. I am a homegrown terrorist, thanks to the for-profit entity currently occupying the executive branch of our government - BushCo.
But they won’t get blamed for their malfeasance… I will. They planted the seed, they plowed the field, and they made sure I (and others like me) had plenty of sustenance upon which to feed. And now, with the help of the other party that controls the government, the responsibility for cultivating this brand of terrorism will rest squarely on my shoulders.
I am a homegrown terrorist.
Doesn’t quite seem fair, does it?
In a previous post, in the process of describing the unprecedented power claimed by the current administration, I made a passing mention of the fact that we were only “one rubber-stamped, unread law away from instituting the thought police.” At the time, I must reluctantly admit, I was completely unaware of the existence of H.R. 1955, and the fact that it had almost unanimously passed the House vote a month earlier. This is a bill sponsored by a democrat, a California democrat no less, a member of the same party that has derided the USA Patriot Act for its encroachment on civil liberties and abuse of power. I know they didn’t read the Patriot Act, but what’s going to be their insufficient excuse for this piece of shit? You can’t try to excuse your vote for it if you wrote the damn thing!
But I digress…
I am a homegrown terrorist, as defined in the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007:
The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
I state here, unequivocally, that I am an individual born, raised, and operating primarily within the United States. I also state that I am purposefully and willingly threatening the United States government with the use of force and violence in and effort to intimidate them and coerce them in furtherance my political objective of protecting the Constitution of the United States.
In case I’m not being clear enough, let’s have just one example. If a government employee attempts to enter my house, procure my papers or effects, or in any way touch me or my property, whether it be owned or leased by me, without a warrant issued by a court or probable cause to do so, I am actively planning and threatening the use of force in defense of my political agenda that includes coercing and intimidating them into obeying the limits set by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In the following video, Ron Paul says, in his own words, exactly the point I was trying to communicate in my last post and the subsequent comments. You know… in case the video of him saying it in that post wasn’t enough for some people.
Personally, I value the separation of church and state. “Congress shall make no law…” And I think that in oder to keep from prohibiting free exercise of any and all religions, government should completely disassociate itself from any religion. For any relationship between the two is the first step on that slippery slope that the first amendment was written to guard against.
I believe that a woman has a right to choose, because until a fetus becomes able to sustain itself outside of the mother’s body it is merely an extension of the woman - part of her body and under her control.
I believe that some system that provides healthcare for every one of our fellow citizens (though I have no idea exactly how to achieve it) is a worthy and necessary goal.
I think that some federal departments and programs are useful when they are restrained and kept from the abusive power and control that corrupts their intended function.
I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they choose. I don’t think the federal government should care about the ratio of y-chromosomes in the relationship (the church can care their little hearts out), so long as the union is entered into willingly by both parties and without undue pressure or influence.
And I don’t think the so-called “free market” is the answer to every one of our societal ills (Note: even though it’s not an end all be all solution specifically espoused by Ron Paul, it’s a charge he is often leveled with because people like categories and generalizations, and since he is more libertarian than anything else, it’s a label that people choose to give him).
Given that I hold these personal philosophies that are often pigeonholed as ‘liberal’, and the fact that they are almost completely at odds with how some people see Ron Paul’s beliefs, make those people think that I should be afraid of Ron Paul. But as I tried to explain before, I can still wholeheartedly support his candidacy for president precisely because of what he says here…
Again and again, Ron Paul proves that he understands the job of a president better than any other candidate that is running or has run in a long time. Make no mistake, it is absolutely different and separate from his job as a congressman. In case you’ve been confused by all the times that Bush Jr. has redefined his “job” for the American people, please take another look at the promise that these presidents make to the American people before they take office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
…A promise that has not been kept.
I’ve posted about Ron Paul in the past, and I’m doing it again, damnit. I never thought I’d be quoting a Fox News host to do anything aside from point out the obvious marginalization of reason and rationality, but in the words of Neil Cavuto…
“At first he was just an internet curiosity, then he became an internet phenomenon. Fourteen bands had wrote songs about him… fourteen! Rich and not-so-rich fans raised more than 4 million dollars in one day. They love his IQ, his EQ, and now, apparently his GQ, because he is among that hit publication’s Men of the Year.”
I’m one of those that found him to be a curiosity. But encouraged by the numerous soundbytes I heard of him so intelligently pontificating on the ills of deficit spending, and war-mongering, and unchecked power and growth of government, I read more. I researched his political career, and now I’m one of those not-so-rich fans.
A Fan of Ron Paul
As a fan, I almost wish that I donated on the 5th of November when Ron Paul supporters raised that $4.3 million. To be a part of something so historic would be unforgettable. Alas, the gods (and by gods, i mean people) have smiled upon me and all others that haven’t yet made the leap from future voter to proactive supporter. Marking another historic anniversary that celebrates dissent from authoritarian rule, the grassroots supporters have organized another website for a major donation - Teaparty07.com.
Also as a fan, it’s encouraging to see someone like a self-absorbed host from Fox News almost fawn over Ron Paul when that same host was so eager to interrupt Ron Paul’s explanations in past interviews. You see, Neil hasn’t always been so nice to Ron Paul. Just a few months prior, Cavuto was trying to pigeonhole Paul by marrying his political views to the people that holed up in their homes after not paying their taxes in protest. Near the end of the interview, Cavuto presented Ron Paul with an opportunity that Paul seized, and handled brilliantly…
“If you were president of the United States, would your first statement be on January 20th, ‘look, you don’t have to pay income taxes, nor should you’?”
And Paul’s response is something everyone should listen to, especially those people that are calling him the “worst kind of god-pusher” or preaching that liberals shouldn’t believe the hype because he’s against abortion or doesn’t push hard enough for the separation of church and state, or anybody that thinks he’s someone to be feared. His response to Mr. Cavuto?
“No. But I would certainly work with the Congress, the proper way, and get the Congress to pass a law to change it, and to repeal the 16th amendment. So no, a president… you’re always making the assumption that the President is an authoritarian. The President should be responsive to the government and to the Congress and to the people. But a president like myself, even though I would believe this, I couldn’t do it. But I would try to persuade people to do it, just as I do in the Congress, and just as I do in campaigning for the presidency.”
In case you’re interested, here’s the interview in its entirety…
Now, in this instance Ron Paul was speaking specifically about abolishing the IRS, and related tax issues. But this philosophy can be applied to all of Ron Paul’s positions. All of them. The overarching point that people seem to miss when they preach fear of Ron Paul’s political ideals is that he doesn’t seek to use government the way it’s been used for the past 7 years (and perhaps longer).
“Every war, when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.”
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”
- George Orwell
The proof… courtesy of the (former) mayor of Crestwood, IL…
This is probably related to my last post, if you’re paying attention. It’s also kind of ironic considering Mr. Stranczek is the son of Polish immigrants, and didn’t speak a word of English until he was 8 years old. Apparently the implicit need to learn the English language isn’t as strong as it was when he was a kid, so a persuasion of the more explicit variety is required these days… like an artificial designation of English as “our language”.
Of course this is perfectly in line with the tried and true New American Century Republican party line - ‘Let the market/individuals decide, unless we don’t like which way the market is going, then government will take care of it’. You know, like when “the market” wouldn’t choose Halliburton to build their outhouses, much less an entire country’s infrastructure.
But what the hell am I talking about? The dubious sign isn’t about war or government or no bid contracts. To go down that path requires entirely too much nuance and, oh, what do they call it, critical thinking. The sign is about immigrants, damnit! You know, those people who come here and siphon our tax dollars through welfare and public education systems, and don’t contribute anything, except direct evidence that Reaganomics doesn’t work because it creates the incentive for businesses to provide jobs to the people who are willing to accept the lowest standard of living (thus widening “the gap“).
But I digress. This sign isn’t necessarily about immigration itself. It’s about language. More specifically, it’s about the inherent annoyance of people speaking a language that you do not know. I’m sure if the unfamiliar language that was being spoken in this country most predominately was Polish instead of Spanish, then Chester wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it. But really, beyond the feeling of insecurity and the almost unavoidable suspicion that they are talking about you (you conceited bastard), what’s the problem with people speaking a language that you do not?
The answer is “nothing”… that is, until someone becomes so attached and possessive of their language that they expect everyone to cater to them by either 1) speaking their language or 2) finding someone who can translate in lieu of learning. Seeing as how we are supposed to be a free country and as a result government doesn’t declare an official language. Those two characteristics create an interesting juxtaposition.
The problem is that people like Chester see it as a one way street when there is nothing but their righteous indignation to suggest that it is.
That’s what the “Generals on the ground” (i.e. the voices in Bush’s head that he has been listening to so intently for 4 years) are trying to do to this administration’s dreams for Iraq. Their hubris, their resolve, their misguided preordained righteousness. Like any bad habit, it’s an addiction that will be difficult to break, even for those whom the decider has promised to listen to.
Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.
In other words, settle for the government that Saddam had in place. Perhaps? Just maybe? I’m willing to bet they’d take that trade-off at this point. I’m not saying Iraq would be better off with Saddam still there, it’s just odd that his government meets the qualifications of what they’re willing to settle for now. Oh, if only they could have 1980’s Saddam back, wouldn’t that be dreamy.
This would be funny it weren’t so fucking late… by about 84 years. And if it wasn’t just another nail in the coffin for the rose-colored predictions that the Bush administration got absolutely 180 degrees dead wrong, it might even qualify as ironic.
I might even be dumb enough to think it will have an effect on this administration’s policies if I hadn’t already seen the video of 1994 Cheney telling us that these exact circumstances would exist in Iraq if we “liberated” them. If I wasn’t so sure that they’d trumpet the old “9-11 changed everything” slogan right in the face of perfect evidence that it, in fact, did not, then it might be worth it to hope that the habit can be curbed.
But it’s not.
…but you can get thrown in jail or fined, you filthy Atheists! So watch out!
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy
Section 36. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
This is not to say that Massachusetts is alone in having arcane and unenforceable laws on the books, they are just first on my list. Perhaps I’ll turn this into a series that highlights these kinds of laws, which appear in more than just those famous states where you can’t hold office without pledging your allegiance to the appropriate god.
Indeed, you can’t get stoned in Massachusetts, but what about everywhere else? We’ll see. 
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Loading ...
