12:04 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Our first public county meeting

Tonight from 6-9:30 we held our first meeting of the Santa Clara County WTP coordinator, volunteers and guests, at the IHOP in Santa Clara (city).

We had about 12 people all told, and we had a pretty good time. Only one guest was not well-informed about WTP, so only a little time was spent telling him the story. Almost all the rest of the time was spent going around the table, each of us introducing self and telling how and why we got into this movement.

Not much real "business" got done, but I hadn't planned for it to be done. As I told everyone at the beginning, it was planned to be a somewhat informal get-to-know-each-other meeting. We'll start more serious agendas when the regular meetings begin on Sept 9th.

And get to know each other we did. As one attendee said as he was leaving, he was glad we did that, because he found himself impressed with the depth of the group and that they were all thinking people who were in this for reasons that went beyond self-interest or shallowness.

We found that we are a very substantial core group.

This is what I had hoped would happen. Later, as the inevitable frictions arise, we'll all have reasons for staying connected despite small differences. A solid basis for mutual respect. And that means that frictions will result in negotiation and adjustment more often than abandonment. Thus we will grow and meld together as a group, and that should give us power to accomplish things.

Hopefully, my management style, which includes this kind of communion and also the practice of assigning people to do the things they already care about most, will drive us to great accomplishments.

That is my hope and my intent. So let it be done.

        12:24 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Ask and Receive

Blogger-buddy Gerald Klaas asks Mongo's advice.

But not before commenting on my discussion of the relationships of the courts, Alabama, its citizens and the feds. I would like for him to have spent a little more time looking at my argument regarding US Article IV-4-1. I think he'd not have jumped to the conclusion that we disagree.

After all, we both think the federal courts shouldn't have been responding to a First Amendment petition from within a State; he says they don't have jurisdiction, I said it's moot because the proper action lies under Article IV. And we both say that the Ten Commandments is religious.

True, I went into the Alabama constitution because that is really where Judge Moore goes astray, and Gerald didn't appear to spend much time on that.

But still, I don't think there's all that much disagreement. Maybe....

Anyway, Gerald asks Mongo's help:

Gerald: ... I hope he can help me clarify a dilemma in my own mind. ...how do I justify claiming 1st Amendment violations if a State government were to ban books?

Actually, Gerald wants the response to come upon the premise that he disagrees that the feds can enforce First Amendment restrictions against a state.

Happily, he may not have a dilemma after all. Here's why, if he can get satisfaction with it. Gerald lives in Sacramento, California. The CA state constitution has echoing rights guarantees akin to the federal Bill of Rights. (Well, many of them, anyway.)

CA ARTICLE 1, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.

The banning of books by a state is presumably done by the Executive or Legislative branch, and where that's the case, one turns to the courts for relief.

CA Article 1 Section 2(a) gives him his cause of action and confers jurisdiction on the courts to hear and act on his complaint or petition.

What if the banniing is done by a court, as through an injunction preventing the sale or distribution of a book. The relief is through appeal by the author(s), distributor(s) and readers whose lives can be shown to be diminished should the book remain unavailable.

Yet, what if the banning is upheld all the way through the state Supreme Court?

Does he have to give up there?

No.

Consider this little gem:

CA ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

This little beauty incorporates the United States constitution into the California constitution.

So if Gerald can't get satisfaction from the California Supreme Court, e.g., the CA Supreme Court refuses to enforce the CA constitution at Article 1 Sec. 2(a), then Gerald can appeal to the federal court under CA Article 3 Section 1, point of contention being US Article I of the Amendments.

Thus Gerald's dilemma is not the one he thought, but rather whther he is willing to change his mind, because he is wrong, at least in California, in his position that the feds can't enforce First Amendment restrictions against a state.

At the state's own invitation, the feds can enforce any measure of the US constitution against the State of California and any of its officers and subdivisions.

What about other states?

Nevada:

[PRELIMINARY ACTION.]

Whereas,

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four "To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States," requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved,

That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

ARTICLE 1
Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.
All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States;...

Montana:

ARTICLE I

COMPACT WITH THE UNITED STATES

All provisions of the enabling act of Congress (approved February 22, 1889, 25 Stat. 676), as amended and of Ordinance No. 1, appended to the Constitution of the state of Montana and approved February 22, 1889, including the agreement and declaration that all lands owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States, continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana.

Arizona:

ENABLING ACT
Act June 20, 1910, c. 310, 36 U.S. Stat. 557, 568-579
Sec. 20
That the delegates... shall declare on behalf of the people of said proposed State that they adopt the Constitution of the United States,...

More?!

It's all out there. Almost every state has such a subordination clause, either in its Enabling Act, its Ordinance No. 1, or within the actual body of its constitution.

You just have to be willing to look for it.

But you don't need to cite it to invoke federal court jurisdiction. You can simply rely on the US Constitution's own "grandfather clause", which operates so universally that it doesn't need to be cited, it's operation is automatic and understood:

US Article VI Clause 2
This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,...

So... Dilemma resolved? Sorry.

        5:17 PM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

It's not about Christians

I'd like to have this Alabama-thing discussion done with as much as anyone else. But I just can't keep quiet about serious misconceptions and misunderstandings.

My blog-buddy David Goodyear comments, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, that at some time in his past, Allen Hacker was abused by Christians.

Whether that is true is irrelevant, and to think that it might be the reason I've spoken out against Judge Roy Moore's transgressions can only be the result of not knowing me.

I have said that I grew up in an abusive pseudo-christian family. But I have also been far more abused by Humanists in the school system and government.

It might be okay with me to say that my past unhappy experiences with totalitarian dictatorial jerks of all stripes has moved me to take up my crusade for liberty and Free Will against all trespassers.

But make no mistake about it. I don't hate Christians, or anybody else. I am capable of loving my enemies as I kill them.

In fact, in that respect, I do consider myself to be morally head and shoulders above most of the Christians I know--people who hate commies and athiests and 'other' "evil" people. Hate is a waste of self, and I haven't the time for the pain.

I have just as firmly contested with local governments: Palo Alto when their Humanist-dominated politburo spent city money to bring in the Dali Lama and pretended that it was just a cultural event while denying Christans any visible participation in their little "peace and brotherhood ceremony"; San Jose when they stuck a multicultural rainbow up the taxpayers' collective ass and paid for a truly ugly sculpture of an Aztec god to be placed in a city park, where it sits to this day, looking for all the world like a huge dog turd.

And the biggest separation of church and state stink I have ever raised is an entire chapter in my book, On the Precipice of Epiphany, against the Humanist subversion of the public school system.

David Goodyear says that placing an item of religion in a courthouse doesn't turn it into a place of worship. I wonder if he would also say that removing all vestiges of monotheistic religions from the public schools and replacing then with a proactive indoctrination of students into Humanist theory and pantheism doesn't turn the schools into atheist churches.

Of course it does! You just have to understand that the word "religion" describes Christianity, etc., and not the other way around. By this I mean that if you think that for something to be religious it must follow the structural pattern of Christianity, you will never see the enemies of your church coming.

Ah, well, this is a never-ending argument. And it gives me sorrow that my Christians friends are so defensive and territorial that they can't see an ally when he is standing right in front of them pointing to the beams in their eyes.

Remember, only your real friends will tell you when your breath has gone sour.

If you want more from me on this, you'll have to get it from my book(s).

My first, Mind Matters, is free on the AEscir website. Follow the publications and free materials links. The second half is technical, not a breezy read.

Several of my articles on various subjects are also available on that site, some of them in the same place as Mind Matters, some in the Articles section of the Articulate Management subsite.

Some of those articles also got included into my last book, available by clicking the On the Precipice of Epiphany link over there on the right. (Note that this book is not free. Nopr is it any easier to read than my blogging.)

Final note to all my friends:

You should not generalize me, nor try to understand me in common psychobabbel terms. What you need to do is read carefully what I write and stop assuming that disagreement and opposition are anger and enmity. If you do read me carefully, you will see that I include lots of clarifiers and quaifiers, and I try to say things with pedantic precision. True, that often makes reading me laborious and may send you to dictionary.com more often than you'd like, but it also leaves no excuse for misunderstanding such painful writing, or for twisting it into a tortured image of some substitute me.

The typos, now that's another story....

Maybe someday I'll write something on how the word-processor saved me from a lifetime of dyslexic frustration. (I once thanked Steve Wozniak for that.)

Did you know that I can mistype something as many as three characters off from center on the keyboard in any direction and still go back and read it, and tell you what it should have said? Something, Huh? Talent within disability.

Confucious said one's greatest strength is also one's greatest liability. Perhaps the opposite is also true, that there might be a silver lining in a disability that can serve one well.

Whatever the sugar-coating, I had to learn to read very carefully. But I don't think I'm the only one who should make the effort.

        1:05 PM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Questions

To those who are saying that Judge Roy Moore is being wrongly directed by the federal courts in violation of the state's rights of Alabama.

Their argument is that the US constitution cannot dictate to a state, that a state may define its own affairs.

Normally I would agree, but....

1. Have you read the Alabama constitution?

Specifically, Article 1, Declaration of Rights, Sections 1 and 3?

Article 1, Section 1, Equality and rights of men:

That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Article 1, Section 3, Religious freedom:

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Does Alabama Article 1 Section 1 state that all men in Alabama have equal rights?

Yes.

Does Alabama Article 1 Section 1 state that the rights of men in Alabama cannot be removed?

Yes.

Does Article 1 Section 1 state that men are made by God?

No.

Article 1 Section 1 state that men are endowed by a creator, but it does not say what that creator is.

It is true that the Alabama constitution's Preamble does invoke "Almighty God", and thus some may argue that this requires an inference of "Almighty God" throughout that constitution. However, nowhere is "Almighty God" defined as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim version, nor can it be without such a definition being inconsistent with Article 1, Section 3.

Can an Alabama office or official place a religious monument in a public building?

No.

To do so would violate clauses 3 and 4 of Alabama Article 1, Section 3, to wit:

[3] that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship;

[4] nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry;

Does placing a religious monument in a public building violate Alabama Article 1 Section 3, Clause 3?

Yes.

Placing a religious monument in a public building converts that building to a place of worship.

People are required to come to public buildings in order to gain the benefits of their rights to the governmental services provided there. More strongly, in the case of the Alabama State Supreme Court building, people can be compelled to appear in that building as a matter of judicial process.

Therefore, since "no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship", no public building in Alabama may lawfully be converted into a place of worship, at the least unless there is absolutely no possible compulsion for anyone to come there.

Does placing a religious monument in a public building violate Alabama Article 1 Section 3, Clause 4?

Yes.

Taxes were used for building the Alabama Supreme Court building, and are used for maintaining it and the grounds around it.

Further, when Chief Justice Roy Moore places a religious monument in the Alabama Supreme Court building, he makes himself the high priest of his now-established (and illegally-converted) place of worship.

However, Judge Moore is being paid with tax money, the same tax money that paid for the building and pays now for its maintenance. He reinforces his defacto priesthood when he makes speeches or gives press conferences within or on the grounds of that building wherein he witnesses and advocates the God that he believes in; yet at the same time he is speaking as Chief Justice. Therefore, tax money is being used to maintain both a place of worship and a ministry.

Is Chief Justice Roy Moore correct in his declaration that he is upholding the constitution of the State of Alabama?

No.

He is in fact in violation of Alabama Article 1, Sections 3 and 4.

Are those among Chief Justice Roy Moore's defenders who declare this to be a separation of powers issue and a state's rights issue correct?

No.

The pleadings against Roy Moore at the federal court may be in error if they only allege violations of federal provisions, since those pleadings were not necessary to establish violation.

The more interesting question is whether or not the citizens have the right to appeal to the federal courts for a Writ of Mandamus or other order to enforce their state constitution against their top state officials should those officials go rogue. Well,

Do the citizens of a state have the right to appeal to the federal courts for a Writ of Mandamus or other order to enforce their state constitution against their top state officials should those officials go rogue?

Yes.

US Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,..."

When the top judicial officer of a state abandons the republican form and begins to conduct himself and the resources of his office and/or the assets of the state in a manner contrary to that form, the people have a right to appeal to the federal government on the grounds that there is no higher state official to whom appeal may be made.*

US Article IV Section 4 Clause 1 requires the United States to step in and restore the republican form of government to the state in question.

* The only rebuttal I can think of to this would be for the defendant rogue to move for dismissal on grounds that the people have failed to exhaust their available state-level remedies, in that it appears that no one complained to the relevant county Sheriff for relief under Posse Comitatus. However, a weak argument against that rebuttal might be a lack of faith in the Sheriff's willingness to stand up to a "higher" elected officer, particularly a state Supreme Court Justice who in the normal course of things does have the power to issue orders directing that Sheriff. Therefore, given the general level of ignorance in this country among themselves regarding the true powers and authorities of county Sheriffs, and their own recent obsequiousness toward presumed federal authority, this argument might well justify jumping directly to the federal level.

What is the best net result?

The complainants got the correct answer, but to the wrong question.

Had the complainants asked the correct question, they would have gotten the same answer, but they also would have clarified the issue rather than further muddied it.

Case-wise, the best net result occurred in the order that was issued. But for the public, the better net result would have been the clear understanding that a rogue state Supreme Court Justice attempted to subvert state assets in support of his personal religion, and was stopped by the religious guarantees of his own state's constitution, through the proper protections provided the states by the US constitution.

Are the Ten Commandments "religious" in the sense that posting them in a public place by a public official constitutes a violation of the religious rights of people who do not adhere to the Judeao-Christian-Muslim (JCM) supersect?

Yes.

The first four of the commandments are not universal principles, as the defenders of the Ten Commandments prefer to position the entire document; they are religion-specific proscriptions that require the JCM mindset.

To wit:

1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Are these statements of Commandments 1-4 correct?

Yes, well enough.

Actually, there is no explicit statement titled "The Ten Commandments" in the Bible. There is admonishment to keep the commandments, and many commandments given across the pages of the Bible, but no standalone listing of them. Theses statements of them include the explanatory and parallel commandments that fall into the same topic of each. Resource: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c7.htm

Keeping to the point, however, there is no statement possible of any of these four commandments that cannot be construed as religious. They are, in the legal sense, "administrative", in that they set a tone, require a perspective, and dictate personal behavior with respect to a deity as distinct from personal behavior with respect to other people.

While it may be argued that commandments 5-10 are merely universal principles, and there can be strong arguments mounted against even that contention in the case of certain of those, that argument cannot hold with respect to commandments 1-4.

Therefore, my conclusion is that to put all this into the proper perspective, one must break the commandments apart into at least three categories:

1. Universal principles;
2. Widely-accepted rules of thumb;
3. Religious proscriptions.

It is category 3, Religious proscriptions, that makes posting the Ten Commandments unconstitutional under both the federal and Alabama constitutions, and quite likely, nearly all if not all of the remaining state constitutions.

        12:48 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Points of Clarification

Hopefully, my last on Moore (???)

One

In my view, it is not possible for a public official to commit a private act in a public area of a public building.

Everything Judge Moore does inside the Alabama State Supreme Court building is a public act, committed as Chief Justice Moore and not as just plain ole Roy Moore.

This opinion is supported by innumerable court rulings that clearly state that one of the consequences of public life is a diminshing of certain rights, most notably privacy, and that one of the consequences of employment is the right of the employer to make rules about the type of conversations you can start or engage in while in your capacity as an employeee, or while using company resources. That would be a legitimate restriction of speech. There's a sense running through those rulings to the effect that you make certain trade-offs when you ask for privilege.

Therefore, Judge Moore has not been asserting his individual rights, because in his actions as an official of the state, he can only act vis a vis the goup, the citizens of the state. A consequence of his having been given the privilege of the position he asked for.

One could try to argue that he was acting in an individual capacity when he brought his rock into the building after hours. Not that after hours is a bad idea, the thing being big and heavy and there being possibly legitimate public safety considerations. However, if he entered the building after hours as a private citizen, then he was trespassing. Would the guards open the doors after hours so a rabbi could install a menorah? Do any Buddhists or Hopis have their own keys, so that they might come in and create a sand thingie on the floor? And then refuse to remove it?

No. Either judge Moore was acting illegally as a private citizen using a public building to promote his particular faith, or he was improperly allocating a public resource to make a religious statement.

Two

It is irrelevant that past officials at various levels have committed whatever religious acts, statements and proclamations as may have been done from their official positions. All such were unconstitutional.

American jurisprudence says two things about this point. First, an unconstitutional act or law is unconstitutional from inception, not just from the moment it is so declared. So the fact that all these past acts occurred and no one contested them "back then" is not evidence of correctness. People get away with things all the time. Crass as it may sound, getting away with rape because the victim never filed a complaint does not make rape legal.

Second, despite the fact that there is a common law function known as the Doctrine of Acceptance, which says generally that customs long standing should not be disturbed simply because an unenforced law could be revived, the US Supreme Court has long since ruled that this doctrine does not apply to issues of constitutional question.

You put these two legal facts together and you find that it is not true that it is okay to do an unconstitutional thing today simply because it was done in the past and nobody challenged it. Indeed, we must instead say that what was done in the past was as unconstitutional then as the current action is now.

Three

Keeping religious artifacts off public property does not deprive anyone of their religious rights, while putting particular religious artifacts where they cannot be avoided by people doing necessary business with the government does infringe on some people's religious rights.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be quiet, to not speak. And freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. What has been said about the freedom of speech applies equally to the freedom of religion.

What is not understood by Christians is that non-Christians experience unavoidable public displays of religion as religious tests. In my own experience, far too many Christians think nothing of offending the religious sensibilities of non-Christians in any number of subtle ways.

For example, a Christian pastor and I went out to lunch at a patriot confab a little over a year ago. Where I waited to begin eating so as to allow him his profession of grace before his meal, he insisted that I say grace despite the fact that he knew me to be a Deist. He doesn't believe Deism is a religion, so he disrespected me. And when I declined, he took offense. A religious test, the punishment for the failing of which is that I am now shunned by him. Good riddance, I say. Though I do grieve the loss in me of the tremendous respect I'd built up for the man over the past 25 years.

For example, Christians having us over for dinner and demanding that we hold hands and bow our heads while they say grace. It wasn't enough that we would wait and be silent while they performed their ritual. They had to make a big deal out of it and embarrass their kids. Again, we get shunned, and again I say, good riddance.

For example, one of my own brothers, answering the telephone with "Praise the Lord!", and then taking offense because I hung up. And when I went over to his house to discuss some family business, kept punctuating the conversation with "Amen!" and "Hallelujah!", and then getting indignant when I called off the meeting and later took the business up with other siblings instead.

I think I've made the point. But just in case anyone refuses to take it gently, here it is, bluntly.

Declaring the United States to be a Christian nation is offensive behavior in disrespect to all the rest of us. Putting Judeo-Christian artifacts in public buildings creates a potential religious test that might be administered at any moment by any nutcase who thinks we haven't been deferential enough as we passed by.

Putting a sculpture of Quetzalcoatl in one of San Jose's downtown parks and then defending it by calling it merely cultural while all encyclopedias clearly state that Q was an Aztec god, is offensive. (I get my secret revengne on this one, though, in my delight that from behind the sculpture looks exactly like a huge pile of dog shit.)

Anyway. Nobody wants the city's budget director to sit in the back row at Sunday Service and work his calculator and shuffle papers. Not even if he's a member of the congregation. More than a few people, from the pastor on down, would feel quite free to remind him that this is not the place for that.

And they'd be right, of course. Just as right and for all the same reasons that a person in a government building to take care of secular business might say to a clerk hanging a picture of Jesus over his window so thet you see it before you see the clerk, "This is not the place for that."

Are you listening, Roy? You're not Roy when you're Judge Moore. And the rotunda? This is not the place for that.

Four

Here's a little religious test for all you Christians who think I'm making a big deal out of nothing.

If you walked through a government building, and there on the wall above the pictures of the officials who work in that building, you noticed a depiction of Jesus, would your heart be warmed? Would you feel gratified? Would you feel at home, knowing that the people who work in this building profess your savior?

Of course you would. Admit it. You wouldn't be able to help yourself.

And then, admit that all of the opposite feelings are stirred up in everyone who does not profess Jesus, when they see that same thing. And stop dismissing their reactions, in light of the fact that you cannot control your own, either. Just because yours are gratificational and their are negative, doesn't make them wrong. It makes the hanger of the picture wrong.

Government must give us equal treatment and equal access. It cannot do that if its objective space is slanted by a demostrated preference for one point of view over another. When you get right down to it, that's where the dissent lies. And that's where it will win the argument.

        1:58 PM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

More on Moore

To begin with, I respect people who stand up for what they believe.

But I also know that stubbornness is the hallmark of stupidity: "Those who lack the capacity to perform at a particular level also lack the capacity to comprehend that they lack that capacity." Thus they cannot know what they cannot know. Thus they assume that they do know. Thus they are stubborn, because they can't hear arguments to the contrary.

People of faith are similar to this unquestioning blindness. So are people who are caught up in wishful thinking. Those of you who are on Larken Rose's mailing list have seen him discussing the effects of wishful thinking in detail lately.

The idea that this is a Christian nation is wishful thinking. True, this nation was colonized by Christians. But it was founded by both Christians and Deists. In those days, Deists had to hide their light under a bushel basket, so to speak, to avoid being shunned and ignored if not economically ruined by clannish Christians. So between the fact that many Deists never identified themselves as such, and today's rampant revisionist writings by certain wishful-thinking (self-deluded) Christian "historians", it is difficult to know to what extent the founders were actual Christians.

And we also have a really big unanswered question as to what is meant by "Christian". When I read the words of Christ, I am a Christian in that I agree. But I don't find those words in the bible, per se. I find them via reverse translation, doing a lot of hard work with concordances and multi-language dictionaries, and such.

On the other hand, if I have to agree with Paul, then that is not "Christian", that's "Paulinism", more commonly known as Papism. That's not me. And while most Protestants think it's not them, the truth is, if they quote the old testament and say things like, "Render unto Caesar...," then they are not Christians, they are dissident Jews and Paulinist. Not Christians.

Christ said that the old law would pass when he is come again. Christ comes not as Man, but as comprehension; not in a body in the material world, but as spirit descending upon one, in understanding. So when Christ manifests within you, then the old law is passed, and there is only Christ's law: Love god and love one another as yourselves.

So if you're out there screaming Deuteronomy, you're not Christian, you're Jewish.

And if you're sucking up to Caesar, you're not Christian, you're Paulinist.

This is how it is that Thomas Jefferson and I can say that we are Christians in ways that most people will not understand, and that in fact it is they who are not Christians. This is why our bible (the Jeffersonian bible in his case, and endless metaphysical translation scrolls in my case), are so different from the book all these not-quite Christians are carrying around.

Our bible does not serve as a club. It recognizes that no one comes to god (whatever that is) except by an act of free will. Pseudo-Christians hate free will, worship original sin (Papism again), and use their book as a bully-club.

BUT.

None of that matters before secular law, because we have the First Amendment. No government official at any level in this country can sanctify one religion over another. Not my local mayor, not POTUS, not Judge Moore.

I am getting bored with people asserting that Judge Moore is asserting and defending his own religious rights.

Judge Moore waived that argument when he put his rock on public property. I've made that point and will not reiterate it in detail; just scroll down if you missed it.

It's been suggested that since Christ is not on Moore's rock, the rock is not Christian. And it's been suggested that the Ten Commandments are common to all religious thought. Both of these are wrong, for almost the same reason.

The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian. Therefore, Jesus, Daniel, and all the other Judeao-Christian lawgivers are there by direct implication. However, Buddha, Confuscious, Lao-Tsu and the Dali Lama are not. They are not, because their religions don't fully agree with all ten commandments. This may be incredible to you, if you think only the Children of Abraham are religious.

Children of Abraham? That's what I call the Judeao-Christian-Muslim super-sect. One giant religion, split into three major factions, each then additionally split into a few or many sub-sects. All these people are believers in the god of Abraham.

And ignorantly, almost all of them assume that everyone else is a pagan and not religious.

Judge Moore stands there and spouts god, never realizing that he is talking about an entity, potentially itself only the fiction of wishful thinking, that simply doesn't exist for over half the world's population. And, truth be told, neither does it exist for over half the US's population.

So when Judge Moore says he's not being Christian, he's just acknowledging God, he's still violating the equal rights of more than half of the citizens in this country who don't accept that god. He's violating their rights because he's making his religious statement using public property and money.

This is not merely a state-level issue. Alabama, like all the other states, is a whore for federal "money", and for as long as that is true, how each penny of that money is spent in Alabama is of just as much interest to us all as how any penny of it is spent anywhere else.

How that money is being spent in this issue is against my religion. Religions are involved in a competition, a contest for the hearts and minds of men. Judge Moore, taking advantage of his position, paid with our tax dollars, using a public building he is supposed to manage according to the law, which building is also paid for with our tax dollars, is in blatant violation of several state laws, and the federal and Alabama constitutions.

It's been noted that I should not be concerned that Judge Moore is demostrably prejudiced, because at least I know his prejudice. And that I should not fear being judged by someone with his moral standards. But that's a near-sighted advice, since its author doesn't know my details. I do not want to be judged in a secular court under ecclesiastical law. I don't agree with all of eccleastical law's positions. And I am not an adherent of the bible most people use.

Specifically, just to help everyone understand: Even though I am in a monogamous marriage by choice, I do not believe monogamy to be a natural tendency. I won't debate this just now, don't get your panties in a bunch. Bottom line is, if my wife and I decide to change the nature of our marriage on that point, that's our private business. And it doesn't matter to me that the popular bible says, 'one man and one woman'. It also says to stone adulterers, and I won't do that either. Simply, I am not a subscriber! So there's no way I'm going to walk into a court where I know that the judge is not only prejudiced against my world-view, but I also know that he has taken a defiant, self-destructive and legally incorrect position in public to effectively say that he doesn't care what the law is, in matters of religion he is going to do what he wants to do. The only thing I can trust the guy to do is to violate the law. And with it, all too probably, my rights.

In that sense, Judge Moore is an anarchist. And unlike my favorite brand of libertarianisn, "rational anarchy", he is not rational, by my standards. No one who proceeds strictly from faith can be rational on any faith-dictated point. Not even me.

Also, it has been wondered that I would choose group rights over individual rights. Boy, is that a confused assessment, my friend. In the first, and only, place, Judge Moore is not exercising an individual right. He is using public money and property to make this statement, and therefore, he is not making an individual statement, he is making a publicly-subsidized (group) statement. Thus I never made any such choice because no such choice ever existed.

I've said I defend Judge Moore's right to his view, his beliefs, and their proper expression. But unlike Judge Moore, I respect the equal rights of others. He refused to allow competing icons next to his rock. He is using state resources to promote a specific religious perspective, that of the Children of Abraham, to the exclusion of all others. That's illegal and unconstitutional.

And I'm being the big guy here, by the way, because I'm defending the proper exercise of his rights by a guy who is obviously lacking in the capacity to see that he is lacking in the capacity to fully comprehend the venue in which he is operating.

In that analysis, I'm glad that all this happened. Sincere or not, this man should not be a top judge. He isn't qualified. Worse, he doesn't know and can't know that he isn't qualified. So he is stubborn, obtuse, and in error. And he always will be, because he lacks the capacity to rise above all that.

We all have our ceilings, and none of us knows his own. We all live under that limitation. The dangerous ones among us are those who won't admit it. Unfortunately, stubbornness, wishful thinking, and blind faith are all the same thing in this regard. Those are the symptoms of our universal ignorance that make public dangers and potential tyrants out of those of us who yield to them.

If you think you can just walk by that rock and not suspect that you'll be misunderstood, scorned, or even punished if you disagree, and if you think that a man who does what Judge Moore has done and continues to do will give you a fair sheke when it comes down to the contest of philosophies of law, then you simply haven't been to court often enough.

You haven't seen the terrible truth, that the real reason we don't have a libertarian society is not because of tyrants, it's because by and large people aren't ready to be anything more than tyrants themselves, given the chance and the power to dictate the lives and actions of others. In short, we're just not up to real liberty. That's why a self-annointed group of planetary babysitters has presumed to set itself up to take care of us miserable waifs, to save us from ourselves. Don't believe me? Look back at the original Catholic Church. Give some real thought to terms like "children" and "flock". Think things have changed? Read Bill Clinton's guiding light, Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope.

The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions.

Judge Moore is sincere, and within his particular capacity to comprehend the world and cosmos around him, he is of the best intentions, despite his limitations.

And, therefore, on his own private road to hell.

The really sad part is that he's carrying so many hitch-hikers along for the ride. Some of them are friends of mine. They don't see that their admiration for a sense of integrity in the man is clouding their view of his position.

But hey, people are gonna do what people are gonna do, right or wrong, wise or stupid.

It is what it is.

        12:32 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

9-11 Pilots "Not in Control"

If you liked "Find the Boeing", you'll love this one. Published in Portugal back in March 2003, not a peep has been echoed here in the states.

I've put in a permanent link near the bottom of this blog's left column, just after "Find the Boeing", below the Blogger logo.

Big thanks to George Kysor!

        11:32 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Fightin' Woids

Over on Fred Smart's blog, we can read an article, apparently from the People's Awareness Coalition by Dr. M. Sidney Wallace, entitled, Who is God anyway?.

It's not a very good article.

First, it has nothing to do with its title. The question isn't addressed at all.

I was really disappointed --I thought I was finally going to get the answer. (Not!)

Dr. Wallace says some really dumb things in trying to torture logic into his conclusions. As when he says,

The German Nazi Empire had Adolph Hitler as their deity, and rose and fell in a period of less than 20 years. The Communist Empire had Lenin as their deity, and collapsed in less than 75 years, and never really achieved anything of consequence. The Empire of Japan, had Tojo as their man-god, and lasted approximately 40 years.

Wrong, wrong and wrong!

Hitler was an occultist Christian, and the German Nation was actively Lutheran.

The people of Russia didn't worship Lenin, they just stayed alive by trying to fool everybody into thinking they followed him.

And even where the Shintos did consider their emperor to be god incarnate, their dynasty lasted far longer than Tojo's single lifetime in the job.

Dr. Wallace should be forever held up for all to admire as a shining example of what you can expect from someone with a pin-hole perspective.

But none of the above is Dr. Wallace's worst offense in this pitiful attempt at literacy. That would be this:

Some individuals who, for whatever reason are afraid to attempt anything on their own, are terrified with the principles and morals of the Christian religion.

Dr. Wallace says this in lumping together everyone who doesn't want to kiss his ass.

He imputes that all of us who have a problem with having wierdo Christianity shoved in our faces in public places are "afraid to attempt anything on their own".

He cannot be talking about me or thee. If he even looks like he might be, he'd better hope Mongo doesn't hear about it.

And being disgusted with the morality of the Christian religion is not the same thing as being terrified of it.

Churches kill people. They stone them, burn them at the stake, torture them into spiritual oblivion, send them off to die in ideological wars, and otherwise do everything possible to destroy their intellect and stifle their spiritual existence. Their leaders have affairs and molest children in the name of god, they offend everyone around them with their idiotic self-centeredness, and then they blame everybody else for the public relations messes they cause.

Right here in my current home town a local preacher who is loved by all and who almost died of cancer is manipulating people left and right, playing his illness to the hilt in getting the mindlessly sympathetic to volunteer for good things but for all the wrong reasons. In short, the man has no integrity. No wonder he has cancer.

If Dr. Wallace wants to promote his religion, that's fine with me. But he should do it honestly, with objective scholarship, and in support of what it offers, rather than by innuendo, misrepresentation, mudslinging and general obtuseness.

He should find an honorable way to do it, without embarrassing thee and insulting me.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Mongo say, "Challenge bitch to duel."

        10:03 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Hero in Error

Judge Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, installer and defender of the ten-commandments rock in 'his' court's foyer, is wrong.

So are most of the supporters who say that he is defending our rights.

He's not defending my rights.

I grew up in the northwestern end of the so-called bible belt. It wasn't safe there to raise any questions. But it was very safe to be oppressive and belligerently stupid. So I grew up without the luxury of having anyone to talk to about the bigger questions of life.

I know, most Christians would object that this is all they talk about, and children are encouraged to learn about these things. No, I say, they are not. They are encouraged to accept the official opinion without question and call it faith. They are not learning if there's no conversation and no What-if: they are just being programmed.

Programmed with allegation and fear.

Burn in hell if you disagree? That's not religion, that's tyranny.

Judge Moore is wrong because he put his rock on other people's property.

It's just that simple.

There's nothing stopping him from putting his rock in his own front yard.

But when he puts it in the foyer of the state Supreme Court, he's making a public policy statement. He's telling me that when I come in there, he's prejudiced. He's telling me that he's going to slant his rulings toward his personal religion, toward the unsubstantiated demands of his understanding of God.

His God, not mine. His Jesus, not mine.

I have a tax-based interest in the public property of the State of Alabama. And I don't appreciate anyone, no matter how well-meaning, putting a declarative and therefore exclusionary monument on my property, even if my share of ownership is miniscule.

And I don't appreciate yet another overwhelming voice in my ear if I walk through there, telling me that I am an outsider, that I can't get an objective conversation, that I'm not kissing the right feet.

Or ass.

Judge Moore is wrong. He has no authority to make a blanket religious statement on behalf of us all, including those who disagree or dissent.

And make no mistake about it. It is a religious statement, not merely an historical one. The proof in that is the overwhelming attitude of his supporters, who make no bones about it being an issue of their religious freedom.

Make no mistake about it. I love Jesus. But I can read for myself, and no man tells me what to do.

But neither do I have to be told when I am trespassing.

And Judge Moore is trespassing. Upon public property, and into the minds of the passers-by in that building who have an absolute right to a neutral space there.

Judge Moore has destroyed the neutrality of the legal sanctuary over which he presides.


Buy some very publicly-located land, Judge, and build a private park, and put your rock there for all to see.

In your own yard, not mine.

I'll even come visit (and shudder in awe) next time I'm in town.


Oh, and by the way...

No, Judge Moore is not doing the same thing as the US Supreme Court, who also have the ten commandments displayed over at 'their' place. Theirs is part of a larger display that actually does depict the history and evolution of our law. Other references and icons are included, indeed, integrated.

Judge Moore, on the other hand, according to the San Jose Mercury News, has refused to allow any additional items to be displayed alongside his rock.

That is exactly where he loses. In its sanctified space, Judge Moore's rock is a Judeo-Christian statement, not mere legal history. And in that capacity, it is an affront to all those of us who do not toe Judge Moore's party line.

Therefore, it must be removed from public property.

        9:30 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Flat tax, Fair tax

Same smell.

        1:41 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Flat Tax?

Mongo is asked coupla times, "What think of flat tax?"

Mongo know answer to question.

Just not know how type funny sound at end of bowel movement.

        9:30 PM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

New Blogger

Welcome Jim Paulson, to the blogosphere.

        8:44 PM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Freedom Rally again

This was good. Great speakers, a large room packed with constitutionalists all liking each other....

You shoulda been there.

Another chance next year, it's an annual event.

I'm beat. That's all you get for now. Gonna kick back.

        7:06 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Freedom Rally

Today and tomorrow are the Free Enterprise Society's annual Freedom Rally in Sunnyvale CA, just down the road a couple of miles from my house, next town over.

I was at the hotel lats evening far too late schmoozing with people from all over the country. Had dinner, shuffled around, had a good time.

I left at about 11:30 PM. Bill Stegmeier (WTP state coordinator, Sount Dakota) wasn't there yet. Flights from the East were still messed up. Bob Schulz, WTP president, got there close to 11. Had to detour through Las Vegas.

Larry Becraft was there. He said the reason they were so slow in answering questions was that Fox set the scene as casual, telling them they would have about ten minutes. And then blindsided them.

Gotta go; Tim Randolph, CA WTP state coordinator, and I as Santa Clara County WTP coordinator, are setting up and manning the WTP table from 8AM through the day, with assistance of Rick George, San Mateo County (CA) WTP coordinator.

BTW, Renee, Larry's not mad at you....

        7:53 PM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Faux News!

Mongo LIKE!

Not care who Doug took from.

Mongo TAKE!

Gonna say Faux News from now on.

Thanks Doug Kenline!

        12:10 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Hannity & Colmes hatchet Kuglin

Well, there you have it.

Anybody who thinks the Fox News Channel is objective is breathing his own swamp gas.

But then, as I've discussed below, our side helps the other side far more than it needs to.

When Hannity asks Kuglin something to the effect that, "So what you're saying is that none of us should be paying this tax?" WHY NOT JUST SAY "Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying!"

We should not be trying to explain all this legalese. We should just say it simply:

"No, you're wrong in accusing me of not paying when everyone else is, you should be accusing everyone else of being ignorant and doing something the law doesn't appear to require them to do!"

"Of course I'm paying my fair share. And I pay all of the taxes I know I owe. But I am not in the habit of paying over my money without question to just anyone who sends me a bill and won't tell me what my legal obligation is to pay it."

How about if Vernie had just said,

"Really, Sean, aren't you just a little bit jealous that you don't understand the world around you and I've gotten free?"

And what's with that little no-chance-to-reply segment-closing remark by Alan Colmes that "We just want to see that the law is obeyed and the taxes are paid."

Is that an agenda or what? And a false one at that? And to pursue it, they had to deflect all the conversation away from the simple fact that the whole case was about whether or not there actually is a law!

Remember this folks:

There are stupid people.
They're everywhere.
They don't know they're stupid.

And stupid people are stubbornly pushy that they know all about something they really could never understand.

"We stupid people believe that there's a law. Therefore you have to obey it."

        3:22 PM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

NY Times, Fox News, on Kuglin

The NY Times has broken the story on Vernice Kuglin's trial. Here is the article on their website.

Important note

According to the article, Kuglin says that the remark attributed to the judge that he doesn't work for the IRS is a false report.

Note also that the article is by David Kay Johnston and includes his usual spin and cock-eyed editorializing.

Also...

Fox News is covering the story today, three times:

1. John Gibson's "The Big Story"
4:40 Central
Vernie Kuglin and Attorney Larry Becraft

This one already happened. I watched it. Comments below.

2. Hannnity & Colmes
8:30 p.m. Central
Vernie Kuglin and Attorney Larry Becraft

3. Gretta Van Susteren
9:15 Central
Attorney Robert G. Bernhoft

Larken is right

Larken Rose says we are in a propaganda war. I agree.

The evidence is in the way we talk about the issue. All of the TV people I've seen so far consistently refer to "paying your taxes", "paying her taxes", etc. The language used to discuss the issue prevents intelligent discussion of the issue.

You can see that fact in the tone of Mr. Johnston's article. Very clearly, he has the thing set up in his mind that either you know the truth, which is that you owe everything anybody alleges you owe, or you are criminally intent on tax evasion. And if you speak against the tax, it matters not why, you must be a promoter of a scheme.

This was further evidenced by the little difficulties Kuglin had in framing her responses to John Gibson's questions: she had to think about how to say these things correctly. Not because she isn't sharp, but because you can't use the common language associated with the issue to attempt to enlighten people on the issue.

It makes no sense to say, "I didn't pay my taxes because I didn't owe them." If you say, "my taxes", you are saying you do owe them. So you have to say something else. You have to think of what the truth is and then devise a truthful and accurate response, such as, "I didn't pay the alleged tax because there was no evidence that I owed it."

And even better, you should always challenge questions that use the installed language that traps the issue: "Sorry, Mr. Gibson, but what information do you have that supports a question presupposing that I owe anything? You have to stop people from saying "your taxes" --until you do, you are not answering the questions they ask. You have to make them ask the correct questions, or you have to restate their inquiry into a correct question, and then answer that question.

It's called repositioning.

Put the ball back into their mouth instead of trying to re-spin a trap question.

Or take the ball away from them completely.

That's the belligerent claimant's Way.

        12:23 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Speaking of Stupid...

It's worse than you think out there!

My neighbor Dick and his wife Carol have moved away to Kansas City and put their house up for sale. It's a 1006 square-foot cottage with one bath and one-and-a-half bedrooms. (You have to go through one or the other bedrooms to get to the bathroom, so while people can sleep in both rooms, those in the central room won't have any privacy whenever company is over.)

The house is on a 50x135 lot. It's listed for $628,000.00 and after 4 days on the market it appears there will be a bidding war.

Obviously, this house will not sell to your average garage mechanic. It will go to someone who made a lot of paper money during the tech boom. One of, as they like to call themselves, "the best and the brightest".

Anyway, here's the stupid stuff.

This morning, Chuck, the real estate agent, told me that one of the people who wanted to buy the house was concerned because "the next door neighbor has a militant flag on the front of his house!"

That would be me.

That would be the Culpeper Minute Men / Patrick Henry Brigade battle flag that two of my ancestral cousins fought under back in the good ole days. Says "Liberty or Death" right on it.

I confess. I put that flag up the day after 9-11. Everyone else was putting up Old Glory. But I thought somebody ought to put up something to remind the real perpetrators, the domestic enemies in Washington and on Wall Street, that they'd better watch out.

The Old Glorys are all gone now, but the Culpeper is still flying.

Because the domestic enemies are still in power.

Yes, I am militant. I am, after all, the belligerent claimant in person, Yes?

And I get a lot more positive feedback than negative from the thousands of people who've seen my flag. Particularly from people over 50, people who grew up before the commies got control of the government schools.

There are neighbors who talk to me who don't talk to anyone else on the street.

And a lot more neighbors than that who feel free to call on me; nobody around here calls the cops anymore. They know where the fastest response time is. The cops don't even patrol this street any more.

So Chuck, who happens to be another neighbor of mine, and a friend if not a kindred spirit, asked the caller if he knew the history of my flag. "No." The guy didn't know.

Chuck explained that it was a historical flag, a battle flag from the revolution. Chuck had a feeling that he'd need to explain a bit, so he added, "The American revolution."

Guess what? The caller gets really indignant. He is nearly screaming into the phone: "The American people have never revolted against their government!"

There you have it, right from the mouth of the best and the brightest.

Chuck was stunned. The guy didn't have a clue. The conversation went downhill from there and ended quickly. (I asked Chuck, "Please don't sell the house to that guy!" He told me not to worry, the guy was out of the picture.)

That, my friends, is what we're up against.

        12:00 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Vernice B. Kuglin --Legal Cite

Courtesy of Freedom Law School, here is the legal citation for Vernice Kuglin's win over the IRS:

U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee (Memphis) # 03-CR-20111, USA v. Kuglin

As most people who care about these things must know by now, Kuglin, 58, was charged with six counts of tax evasion that could have meant up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines. The government accused Kuglin of filing false W4 forms for the period from 1996 to 2001. Kuglin, a pilot for FedEx since 1985, said she had paid taxes like anyone else for most of her life. But about 10 or 11 years ago, she began to question the federal tax system. She began to read court documents, legal opinions and the federal tax code.

She said she found what she felt were contradictions. She wanted to know where in the federal tax code it said she was liable for taxes. Kuglin wrote the Internal Revenue Service twice in 1995 with questions but said she didn't get a response.

Note that in the report on this story that provided the above information (the August 9th edition of the Memphis daily newspaper, The Commercial Appeal), prosecuting US Attorney Murphy, is quoted in closing arguments on Thursday, as saying Kuglin did have an opportunity to discuss her situation with the IRS, to learn what she owed and what documents she was required to file "and she didn't."

Note that even Murphy is non-responsive and misdirecting in his pretended response to Kuglin's question!

Kuglin didn't ask how much she owed, because she had stopped assuming that she owed anything at all. And she didn't ask what forms to file, because she had stopped assuming that she was required to file any forms at all.

Kuglin asked only that the IRS tell her where in the federal tax code it said she was liable for taxes.

US Attorney Murphy was probably only trying to redirect the jury into thinking something different than the facts. Or he had just spent the night on Mars and hadn't yet gotten over rocket lag.

Obviously, the truth means nothing to these people. And apparently, neither does respecting the intelligence of the jury.

It's true that there are a lot of hopelessly stupid people around, but to treat a jury like idiots is a sure-fire path to losing. At least it was in this case, where the jury didn't buy the smoke and mirrors.

        2:01 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Boycott Electonic Voting

I was going to write a detailed article illustrating how to do this in California, assessing the specifics and how to comply with the legal requirements and procedures. But I decided that it isn't that hard to figure out, and that writing specific instructions for a single state still leaves the people in the other 49 having to work it out for themselves.

Maybe I'll get into the specifics on the LawfulGov.org site. If I do, I'll post a notice here. But for now....

What to do

1. Learn the rules for absentee voting, available from yout county voter registrar, often right there on their website.

2. Request and timely file an absentee ballot according to the local procedures and requirements. This may include first planning a trip if necessary to be out of town on election day so that you can honestly file the request, if that's a condition. And then make damn sure you actually do go out of town for the day, so you don't get into trouble for illegally abusing the absentee-ballot option.

Generally....

--Absentee ballots are paper.

--Absentee ballots have to be counted by hand.

--Absentee ballots have to be preserved for the record and physically re-counted if there's a challenge.

Gee! Absentee ballots give us everything everybody's been saying we are going to lose because of electronic voting.

Simple, eh?

        1:50 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

WTP Lawsuit NOT Filed Yet

I've been noticing a few bloggers saying that Bob Schulz / WTP has filed a lawsuit against the government concerning the right to petition.

This is not true.

The suit is projected to be filed on or about September 2 of this year. It hasn't been filed yet.

        9:20 AM -:- Posted by Allen   0 comment(s)   View or Comment! -:-  

Duh... Constitution? ...um....

From the August 8, 2003 LPNews (Libertarian Party News):

Susan Marie Weber of Palm Desert, California, had to appeal to the Ninth Circuit in her lawsuit to prevent electronic voting machines from being deployed in Riverside County, California.

The appeal was still pending as of publication.

It seems that judge Steven V. Wilson ruled against the suit on September 3, 2002, saying,

...the state's interest in easy, attractive voting machines which might increase voter turnout outweighed the voters' interest in verifiable results..., Weber paraphrases.

Easy, attractive...

Sounds like any number of the second-rate hookers I knew in my casino days in Vegas. (The classy ones were even more attractive, but at the prices they commanded, they weren't easy....)

At the least, this is the state putting cosmetics and speculation above the law, above the voters' interests.

How can the voters have any interest at all in an election other than verifiable results?!!!

I have an idea of how to kill electronic voting, how to get around it even if they shove it down your precinct's throat.

Tell you later. Gott go just now.