Archive for April, 2013


I have talked extensively on freedoms and the government projecting the illusion on us – the sheeple of the US.

Gay marriage is a “hot topic” in the mainstream media right now. I think it is actually a little less a hot topic than they are making out. I also think more people do not care about this than do. Given the gay marriage conversation, let us talk about freedoms. The US is the beacon of freedom and liberty in the world right? Actually, no.

You have been lied to. You are not free, you are a slave to your government and probably do not even realize it. In order for you to get legally married and enjoy the benefits of that (insurance, property, banking, etc.) the government grants you the PRIVILEGE to marry under a government controlled legal contract. Did you ever even consider that before? Were you aware that your government can deny you the opportunity to marry? This is what is happening to the gay community. The government says this is marriage and you do not qualify, so therefore do not receive the legal benefits of that contract that we GRANT to others. So what am I babbling about already?

Freedom and the illusion of freedom.

How can you claim to be free when you have to register your children like property at birth – just as you were registered at birth, get permission to join your life with the one you love, and share your life the way YOU see fit. You see, you have to understand that all of these decisions are dictated by your government, you are merely picking which option you QUALIFY for. These are not rights, they are government granted privileges. Now the real issue is not and never was can two men get married, as most only care due to their version of religion. The issue is how much freedom will your illustrious government ALLOW you to actually have…

– Me


Love it

I took a brief break from watching or listening to politics altogether as a personal experiment. As I thought, my life changed none, and I am way more relaxed now. This was the first day I listened again and immediately heard something stupid:

Six attorneys are going to decide if a law a state made is legal or not. The six attorneys should stay out of the state’s business because that messes with the Democratic process.

The six attorneys being denounced as useless and in the way happen to be the Supreme Court of the US, and the law that was made legal was the gay marriage law. Now it gets interesting if you know how to argue.

The person I was listening to clearly had no skill in framing his position, almost to the point that he could not justify why he thought this way. I hate but cannot remember what radio talk show I was listening to when I heard this. This was a Republican Congressional member from the West somewhere, possibly CO or WY making this statement. He is suggesting that judges are participating in judicial activism, and they would never do that (sarcasm intended). The odd thing was he was defending gay marriage rights, which I care neither way. I say let them marry, who does it harm? Anyway, this guy was suggesting that if a state passes a law, then the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction which = absurdity. If that were the case, then there would be all sorts of oppressive laws out there (and that is a guarantee). It is the judicial branch’s job to check the power and Constitutionality of laws created by the legislator. If the dispute is not resolved at the lower courts – for you dummies out there, I am talking about the States themselves – then it goes Federal. That is the process and always has been. Is this Congressional member (someone who represents others) suggesting the Supreme Court should not exist or is only in existence to clear up Federal disputes? Once again, absurd.

Second, the democratic process – voting for something – is not a fail proof way of making laws. Remember everyone before you go off pissing in my drink, there used to be laws like this and if I remember correctly, women and colored people were excluded because of a law like this. The white men said they were the only ones who could vote, passed a law by popular vote due to the fact that only they could vote, and by popular vote, they won. Go figure.

For the record, where I am concerned, the “six attorneys” are very relevant although a small amount of judicial activism is unavoidable. Reason I say that is everyone has an opinion. I staunchly disagreed with Obama Care, but the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax. Granted this was sold as something and argued as something else, that is not what the Supreme Court took into account. They looked at the fact that Obama Care was a tax and said Congress could do it. Not being overly happy about that decision did not make me say the Supreme Court should not exist or that the twelve judges are somehow outdated or irrelevant.

I guess after being away from politics for a couple of weeks, and coming back today, I immediately picked up on something extremely stupid. A false anger and fake argument. I did agree with his overall assessment that marriage should be between anyone who wants it and meets a certain age (18 without parental consent). I just would have argued this differently and noted how many judges actually sit on the Supreme Court.

– Me

%d bloggers like this: