The Slaughterhouse!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Gun Control!

2012-01-11T09:53:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Plain and simple. To the point. No reason for debate, right? We win. You lose. Guns for everyone!

Sadly, it is never that easy when you are talking to people who want to take freedoms away rather than give even more to the people.

One rhetorical argument given by gun control advocates is that outlawing gun ownership will reduce crime. However, enforcing gun control requires criminal behavior on an even more massive scale: in order to disarm gun owners and regulate gun producers, the government themselves must commit crimes against the people by first violating the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. That is, the government must forcibly expropriate the property of gun owners against their will. Therefore, gun control cannot reduce crime when enforcing gun control is a crime in and of itself. So, the whole idea of gun control for reducing crime is patently absurd in my opinion.

In fact, gun control actually increases crime on other levels, too. Criminals are deterred by armed victims, but gun control disarms law-abiding citizens. After all, a criminal will always find a way to obtain a gun. In essence, unarmed citizens make easy victims- it’s that simple.

Also, an armed populace is a strong check against government gone awry. After all, Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government." Guns simply provide many more designations aside from protecting yourself from home invasion or for the purpose of hunting.

Besides, the gun control debate has long been plagued by systematic bias, emotionalism, and most of all- shocking ignorance. Take the right to self-ownership for example. It entails (in part) a right to own weapons that can be used in a purely defensive manner. Weapons that can be used only aggressively are incompatible with self-ownership. Hence, nuclear weapons (as many gun control rights advocates ridiculously say everyone will want to have if not kept in check) are illegitimate. But weapon ownership of any other kind for one’s own protection (even hypothetical protection from tyranny of Big Government) is perfectly justified here in America.

Another argument often cited by gun control advocates is that “guns kill people” therefore we should endeavor to eradicate every one of them from the hands of any and all Americans. There is so much wrong with that statement, I don’t know where to begin. I suppose the most obvious place to start would be to say, yes, guns indeed do kill people- if they are in the wrong hands. But, you could say the same thing about a hammer, a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a drinking straw or any other object that could be construed as a weapon. Should we ban all of those items, too? After all, a gun is impotent while it sits on a counter, unloaded. It only gains power when a bullet is added to the chamber and the trigger is pulled. In essence, the statement is misleading at best.

The bottom line is guns don’t kill people, people kill people…. that is to say, when individuals utilize them in an improper manner, of course.

So where does that leave us in the day's end about gun control here in America? In the clearest place imaginable if you ask me. Gun control is simply immoral, unnecessary, violates our rights as American citizens and just plain doesn’t work. Period!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: The Drug War!

2012-01-04T09:49:00.001-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

First of all, for the sake of complete disclosure, I have never done a recreational drug in my life. I don’t smoke, I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t even consume caffeine and I am a vegan. Therefore, I would be just fine on a personal level if all of these things I don’t engage in ceased to exist altogether. Still, it generally isn’t my right or especially the government’s right to dictate what we choose to do to ourselves no matter how harmful it may be, or what we decide to put into our own bodies.

Having said that, if your bad behaviors impede on my well being and welfare or the wellbeing and welfare of others around you, I feel that the government DOES have the right to at least impose restrictions and mandates to those that engage in drug use of any kind. In other words, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive while drinking because others can and often are injured and even killed. Nor should you be allowed to smoke cigarettes in any public setting around anyone else because second hand smoke is not only proven harmful, but it infringes on a person's right to self ownership when they aren't allowed to breath free away from another person's vices.

You should, however, be allowed to smoke in a private business if that business deems it appropriate, and you should be allowed to smoke in the privacy of your own home as long as children are not present. An adult, after all, can choose to leave such a setting, but a child is at the mercy of the person who has ultimate authority over them, and if that person is a smoker, the child is forced to be a party to that behavior.

Furthermore, reality dictates that for a multitude of scientific reasons and otherwise, alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking are far more addictive and deadlier than marijuana use for instance. Therefore, the hypocrisy and costliness of the drug war needs to be ended immediately; that, or ALL drugs should be banned entirely. And since the latter is highly unlikely given how lucrative the industry is these days, all drugs should be legal within the context of strict (realistic) rules, regulations and punishments put on them all, all the way across the board.

Besides, we have spent nearly five hundred billion dollars on the War on Drugs since the 1970s, and no one in their right mind would say that this was anything short of a complete failure on nearly every single level. Indeed, failures of that magnitude must always be reevaluated gravely in any situation.

HOWEVER, if the sum total of your entire argument is just to end enforcement of all things harmful, that also is a failure of logic in and of itself in my world. After all, nearly 3,000 Americans died as a result of drunk driving in 2009 alone. Meanwhile, around 16,000 Americans are murdered each year, and 1.3 million American women, and 800,000 American men are assaulted by a significant other annually. Most of which are commited while under the influence of some sort of drug or another.

These grim figures have not yet resulted in a chorus of people demanding that drunk driving, murder, and domestic violence be legalized. Indeed, if anything, a spike in the incidence of a certain crime typically leads to demands for a crackdown, and ultimately stiffer penalties for the convicted. So why, then, do Drug War opponents like to point to that aforementioned "failure” of criminalized drug use as an argument for legalization of all drugs?

We simply need a new approach. Legalization on the whole is a poor option, and prohibition is as well. There has to be another way of looking at this issue with fresh eyes.

Perhaps we should start with decriminalizing drugs completely at the FEDERAL LEVEL only. The Feds should have no control over the states in this regard anyway- that’s why the Constitution’s there. In other words, if California wants to legalize medicinal marijuana, that should be allowed. If New York wants to hand out medical crack cocaine, all the power to them. Conversely, if Utah or Kansas want to ban all drugs of any kind- they should have that right as well without the federal government stepping in and stepping on their toes.

It’s not a perfect plan, but it’s a start- and frankly, it has to be better than the current path we’re on.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: GOP Environmentalist?

2011-12-14T09:34:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

I've always been of the assumption that conservatives conserve. So, why are so many conservatives today not more conservationist-minded and therefore good stewards of the earth and her environment? After all, what is more conservative than producing less waste and responsibly disposing of said waste? It seems to me that purveyors of a wasteful and unnecessarily filthy earth would be the liberals of today, not the conservatives.

After all, a conservative strives to hold onto traditional attitudes and values about things in life, and as a result is cautious about most change. Similarly, if a conservationist wishes to protect the earth from harm or destruction- wouldn't it makes sense for conservatives to be the ones who want the environment to remain unharmed or unchanged by unneeded and unnecessary things that are indeed in our control? Not the few things out of our control, clearly, but those things we can affect in our own everyday lives?

Of course, as with everything, public perception changes the narrative and thus the reality of any one thing when it is distorted for personal or political gain. But I never personally understood popular conservative opinion when it came to the environment. Sure, some people go too far with their rhetoric and what they propose to do to fix the issue, but at the end of the day it is all the same for every one of us. In my mind this shouldn't even be a political or partisan issue since it effects us all the very same way.

Having said that, people that take it to the sometimes illogical extreme like some Global Warming alarmists of the day do tend to get under my skin, as well. I don't do well with the obvious hypocrisy of that level of person, or others who try to tell me that if I don't do exactly as they think I should the universe will implode. Like many Americans, if I am confronted with most ultimatums- especially ultimatums built from lies, half truths and fear mongering- I will generally go the other way even if I agree with what the end result may be. Still, it perplexes me at a fundemental level that it isn't ingrained into all conservatives to police themselves and their own back yards and communities thereby ensuring a safe and clean environment- not to mention a much more fiscally sound one!

In fact, the GOP's own online party platform in regard to Energy and the Environment states in part that we must:

•increase energy efficiency
•develop alternative fuels, particularly cellulosic ethanol, and vehicles that run on biofuels and electricity
•create permanent tax incentives for renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro- power.
•develop new technology to burn coal and liquefy it for use in power plants and vehicles that don't pollute.
•enact a "Climate Prize" for scientists who identify solutions to global warming

The platform even goes one step further by stating, "While the scope and longterm consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment." So, that being the case, why don't we see more republicans who tow the party line require more from themselves in regard to the earth and the environment?

In truth, we CAN— and we probably should— address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly. But truth be told, this is all about personal responsibility and intergrity, not the other. And if modern day republicans want to be seen in that much more positive light, they need to be consistant all the way across the board- not just in parts.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Freedom IS Free!

2011-11-16T10:52:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

More often than not, Americans have the tendency to want to say that “freedom isn’t free”, or talk about the "cost of freedom" as justification for sacrificing some liberties. But they couldn’t be more wrong.

Take faith for instance. No government should prohibit you or prevent you from ever practicing the faith of your choosing. Having said that, by that very same principle, it shouldn't mandate that you accept or practice one religion over another, either. Too many other countries do as much.

The Islamic doctrine in Iran for instance became law right around the time I was born. In essence, it proposes to steamroll everyone in the country to embrace only one religion, regardless of any individual’s personal belief system or morality. Incidentally, that also includes mandatory prayer in a public school setting- something a lot of Christian Americans call for very loudly these days. But that’s why we aren’t Iran, and that's the very reason we have an establishment clause to the First Amendment of our Constitution.

It is the charge of no government to force religion upon its citizens, regardless of whether that religion is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or lack thereof. In fact, just as important as the right to free speech in this country, freedom of religion and the establishment clause is GUARANTIED by that First Amendment of the Constitution, and should always be honored. That’s why we should endeavor to recognize faith for what it is- a private and very personal choice for each and every individual. After all, isn't that the basic definition of freedom- the power to act, speak, or think as one wishes to without hindrance or restraint from anyone, including one’s own government?

But there is still opposition to this way of thinking. Sadly it is from the one group of individuals whom you would think would champion that cause more than any other- from none other than the church itself. To my mind every church in the free world should be thanking those of us who are willing to stand up and fight for separation of church and state, not against us. After all, wasn’t it England who was run by the church and who burned heretics alive before we seceded from that country to form our own?

As a result, our founders and framers decided to not repeat that monstrous mismanagement of justice by subjugating its people with a state sponsored religion. They knew that religion never elevates the state, but that the state somehow does seem to always demean the religion. That's why every theocracy in recorded human history has become a tyranny.

Still, many Christian Americans say that it isn't fair that the church doesn't have a true say in how the government is owned and operated. Don’t THEY have the right to free speech, as well? Not in so many words exactly.

Individual voters pay taxes, and in exchange, we are allowed the right to inform the government on how it should be run. But in return for not being able to do the same, the church doesn't have to pay taxes and is therefore exempt from most Federal and State laws. It’s an adequate exchange I think, even though it is true that IF churches did pay taxes, our National deficit would most likely be wiped out almost overnight.

But yet, because no one church has a vested power in the government, every religion and denomination is afforded the right to flourish and prosper in this great country of ours, which is the very reason there are more churches here in the United States than anywhere else in the entire world. All thanks to "separation of church and state".

Unfortunately, some church leaders I am sure feel that if they ran the government, it would be run much better and smoother, not to mention much more “moral” than it currently is. They would also have you believe that there is in reality no such thing as separation of church and state, and that the First Amendment applies mainly to their religion and not my lack of one. I say, “If you want a voice in how the government is to be run, then you should pay your fair share of taxes just like every other American citizen.” However, more often than not these same church leaders will run to their separate houses of god yelling, “You can't tax the church, it's against separation of church and state!”

Ironic or not, you can’t have it both ways. In fact, the bottom line is: If you want the same rights each and every American citizen is guaranteed in order to shape the government as they see fit, you have to pay that same burden as a citizen. That's simply how it works.

So, yes- separation of church and state is indeed the church's best friend regardless of what they would have us believe. Besides, it's all that stands between them and their absolute worst nightmare: Finding out that some OTHER religion has the power to tell THEM what to do.

And freedom? As opposed to what you may have been told- it IS free. Every bit of it. After all, in the long run, it doesn't cost you nearly as much as you gain. And that's why it’s "FREE"!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: How Pro-Life Are You, Really?

2011-09-14T08:34:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Both terms- "pro-life" & "pro-choice"- are completely loaded terms in my opinion. “Pro-life” advocates are typically also pro-death penalty, pro-military action and war even if it results in the death of innocents, not vegetarians or vegans, and against other life-saving research like adult stem-cell research. “Pro-choice” advocates similarly are generally not for the choice of the father to have a say even though he was clearly involved, or the fetus who will eventually have a voice if left to grow. These individuals are, in essence, “pro-women-only-having-a-say” no matter what the cost because they claim that it is their “right”- simply put, because it is their body.

What they fail to understand is that what is in their body does not solely belong to them anymore because it is “co-owned” (for lack of a better term) by the man who helped to create it. At that stage they are simply a temporary vessel until the baby is born and takes its first few breaths. Call me old school, but that’s how I think. Essentially, this shouldn’t be debated except in cases of incest and rape. And though there are still questions about where life begins, the point is a point of one person’s rights VS another person’s rights and should probably be considered on a case by case scenario mainly. For instance- if the mother’s life is in danger- the mother should be saved without question. That is to say, if the baby will likely not survive, as well.

To use abortion as a means of birth control is simply unacceptable. For the government to mandate that tax payers fund abortion is also equally unacceptable. But the Morning After Pill should be allowed, and perhaps abortion should even be available before a beating heart is heard. Still having said that, sexual education is key, and we should be free to teach it in conjunction with abstinence programs and proper birth control usage. Both sides need a say in this issue, but we need to be realistic that human beings have sexual urges and desires that are often difficult to suppress, if at all. For that reason, while I feel personally that abortion is a poor choice- it is currently a choice. The law doesn’t necessarily need to be repealed, but it surely needs to be amended greatly.

But, regardless of where one stands on abortion, it is none of the Federal government’s business. If you stab someone to death, it is murder. You are typically charged with a STATE offense of murder. So, the Federal government does not need to be involved. And if it is not murder, then they don’t need to be involved because no crime is ever committed.

However, as the Declaration of Independence states, we all have “certain unalienable rights, among these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” in which case we have a right to live no matter what. Which leads me to say that even the unborn have a right to live. Of course, the debate is open-ended since we have yet to come to a consensus of what “life” even is in this country.

Either way, the essence of the issue for me is one of hypocrisy first and foremost. The terms need to be changed to reflect a more realistic and less propagandist connotation before the debate can ever continue in an honest and straight forward fashion. “Pro-life” should become “anti-abortion” only; and the term “pro-choice” should simply become “pro-abortion”. You are either for it or against it with few exceptions. Only at that point can the conversation continue honestly.

However, as for assisted suicide- while I agree up to a point on the issue (after all, I would probably wouldn't want to live like that, either)- I disagree on the procedure as a whole for the sake of my own personal integrity. After all, I am truly "pro-life" all the way across the board- but, assisted suicide is a different sort of animal altogether.

Fetuses have no say in their death. Animals don't, either. Nor do inmates on death row who may or may not be innocent and who may be able to yet be rehabilitated. But a competent, sane person with the ability to make proper choices does. And while I feel it is supremely arrogant and selfish to commit suicide in any instance, it is also one's "right" to do so to echo many people’s sentiment.

However, to put that burden on anyone else but the person wanting to die- whether that person be a doctor or a family member- is simply beyond the pale of what anyone should ever ask of another person. In other words, if you can't do the deed yourself, you probably shouldn't ask anyone else to do your dirty work for you. In the cases of folks that can't do it themselves because of some debilitating disease- I hate to sound cruel- but they usually know what's coming, and should probably have ended their own lives before they ever get to that point if that is really what they choose to do.

In other words- that all being the case, I likely fall on the side its illegality. Sanctioned murder should never be allowed in a civilized society. And no matter what we decide to call it- that is exactly what it is.

Which brings me to stem cells research. This is a relatively controversial topic today because it is a relatively new issue and because it is a very misunderstood issue. Stem cell research and pro-abortion do not necessarily go hand in hand as some have contended. After all, fetal stem cells are not the only stem cells available to science- all humans (fetal to adult) contain stem cells that may be harvested for research.

Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the “blastocyst stage”, destroying the embryo- a developing human life anti-abortionists contend. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Besides, embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (the death of some of the heart tissue).

The choice is clear on this point of view. When you have an adult who is capable of making proper choices about the usage of their bodies vs a life form that is not (much like vivisection), there should be no debate at all. Adult stem cell usage should be pursued. Embryonic stem cells should not.

And the death penalty? In a nut shell, capital punishment does not deter crime, and the death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice. While the debate of where life begins is still in question, death is exact. And when the state has control over a person’s very life-force they MUST be certain of all the facts. Sadly, they rarely are. People are fallible and corrupt by nature, and even if one innocent person is put to death on death row it is one too many. The government should hold no dominion over the life or death of ANYONE without their consent no matter what the context.

Furthermore, capital punishment is cruel and unusual, and murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life- period. For this very reason, murder is abhorrent on any level, and any policy of state-authorized killings is therefore immoral government-sanctioned murder. Not to mention, capital punishment denies due process of law, and also violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of those laws. Besides, executions send society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic means.

After all, reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Plus, capital punishment simply wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel- not to mention it is much more expensive than to put a prisoner in prison. And frankly, if you are in favor of “true” punishment- the death penalty let’s a murderer off the hook with much more ease than without suffering for their crime.

Simply put, a decent and humane society does not deliberately kill ANY living being no matter who pulls the proverbial trigger, or for whatever reason. Life is life, plain and simple. And if you indeed choose to call yourself such, you must live that principle all the way across the board lest you prove your hypocrisy true. You simply can NOT pick and choose your convictions like candy from a candy store, and expect to remain credible in society's eyes.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Won't Some Party Claim Me?

2011-08-24T09:12:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Let's try an experiment, shall we?

I'm a leftist-leaning democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. And anyone who didn’t is a tea-bagging racist.

See how that worked? Half of you just mumbled something about me being a typical liberal. And the other half cheered out loud. And still, it was about as subtle as a sledgehammer and as divisive as a militant atheist at a Catholics-only convention.

It was certainly straight forward, but was it the truth?

Not if you really delve into the complexities of both major parties, it isn't. Democrats aren't just democrats anymore. Republicans aren't just republicans. And most of us would rather be somewhere in the middle if we really had our way about it, as opposed to most of the other political groups out there who are just too small to matter in the country club that is the political machine today.

After all, let's just be frank, the Libertarian Party (which is probably the largest of all the third parties in the United States today) is essentially a politically-impotent movement for the most part and likely always will be. Sure, some will raise up arms in protest by saying it is solely because of the Republican and Democrat Party's ability to overshadow any other movement like the libertarian movement, but that wouldn’t be entirely true, or intellectually honest. For the sake of argument, though, even if it were the case, and even if you buy into the philosophy that your party can be emasculated by any other party by the simple nature of their existence, you are (in essence) saying your own party is filled with so many weak-willed and inept members that you are either so easily swayed into another camp or can't mobilize your own troops well enough to make any real difference anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I understand, and even celebrate the side of me that is overtly libertarian in nature. But I am what you may call a "developing libertarian". After all, the exact term "libertarian" isn't entirely true to who I am, but then again, neither is “republican” or democrat”. I like most of the core ideals of the Libertarian Party, but not the sometimes wild ideas of what is right and what is not so right morally that often come from many party members- much like the Republican and Democrat Parties. I suppose I am best described by some as a "libertarian-leaning conservative", which isn't to say I don't share some of the ideals that liberals in America do today, because I do. Still, does that make me a republican or a libertarian, or even a democrat in the most general of definitions?

Let's take state's rights for starters. Unlike most liberals, I am for state's rights almost to a fault. I also feel that individual states do have a right to institute universal health care if they choose to; to hand out free cars if they want, ban drug and alcohol, or even to force people to eat red lollipops and crap sunshine if the citizens of that state want it that way. But only if it doesn’t violate the United States Constitution in any way, shape or form.

The federal government is essentially barred from such actions, but the states are not for the most part. And guess what? If a state also wants to have a collective mad-on hate for “queers”, “wetbacks”, “niggers”, “cowboys” or “car salesmen”- so be it. It is their right to institute a vote to make it an insane venture for any Hispanic, gay or lesbian, African-American, or pony-riding hick to live there. You can't force these people out of your state by law, or out-rightly discriminate against them, but you can make it near impossible for them to WANT to be there- and I am frankly ok with that. Not the racism that would surely ensue, but the rights of the citizens of that state to decide for themselves what they want within the confines of Federal discrimination laws.

If you don't like Arizona, then move to California. If you don't like California, then head on down to Mexico. If you don’t like Mexico, then I couldn’t blame you at all.

But personally, I am no more a libertarian then I am a republican; or for that matter, even democrat. I have a little bit of each party within me, and I feel that's what makes me the free thinker I believe I am today. I don't pander, and I am no partisan hack for any side. Frankly, anyone who identifies with any party 100% should be institutionalized for bat-shit craziness right out of the gate, and have the key thrown away forever. To be that much behind your party without any reservation makes you an automaton at best, and no better than the other side you choose to attack.

What I believe is different about me is my personal perspective- not my political persuasion. Most libertarians eschew the culture wars, think drugs and pornography should be legal, favor an isolationist foreign policy for the most part and generally believe in shrinking the government to about the size of a walnut- all of which appalls most mainstream conservatives. On these matters, I am a fairly typical conservative republican for all intents and purposes.

Sure, I think Federal government should have much less power than it does today, but to shrink it so small that it has virtually no power at all is sheer lunacy, and also wildly dangerous in this day and age. And to bring all of our troops home right now would be a great idea and one I am all for, but also equally dangerous if not extremely naïve to do all in one fell swoop. But so many libertarians I know of would love these ideas to be made a reality. Not me. Not in the slightest. I am no anarchist or isolationist. I guess I am no “true” libertarian.

Generally, I am in favor of a strong military and am not afraid of our government using it within the confines of our Constitution (which it currently doesn’t anyway). I also reject the idea of immediately pulling American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places for a multitude of different reasons which places me directly at odds with the Libertarian Party. But like many libertarians, I feel that preemption in war is about as wrong as it gets on nearly every single level, and war in general is a very, very bad idea.

However, in the post-911 world we live in today, if you aren't at least somewhat vigilant and don't say you won't retaliate against aggression when it happens to you, you are either a fool who might as well choose to live in a fantasy world where nothing bad ever really happens, or close the door to our country and never let anyone in ever again. Essentially, if you come after my country first and do harm to my people, we have the right and we WILL pound you into squirrel snot given the chance to do so. Otherwise, we're minding our own business for the most part.

Yet, for whatever reason, libertarians are seemingly in favor of completely open borders with no restrictions, and want every illegal alien, criminal, and terrorist to flood our country like never before. I can't even touch on this idea without my head exploding. In this regard, I am COMPLETELY the opposite of a libertarian!

So, does that make me a conservative republican? Not unless you think the terms "militant atheist" or “bleeding heart vegan” are synonymous with republicanism, it doesn't.

I identify with the republican party on a great many levels, but not all- including the religious right who seems to rule the direction the party is headed today.

Take capital punishment for example. I am against it on every level possible. And I am just fine with gays and lesbians getting married and divorced and even joining the military given the chance to do so. And abortion? I actually understand it when some people decide to go that route, believe it or not- but I still think it is personally one of the worst choices you could ever make. So, does that make me a democrat in conservative’s clothing, or someone trying his best to pretend not to be what others’ believe him to be?

I am also against the welfare state to an almost vitriolic degree- including welfare for veterans, corporations, and the elderly- not just the poor, the lazy, or the inept. I feel unions have way outlived their usefulness. I believe that redistribution of any sort of wealth at all is the birth of the downfall of this great country we live in. I am completely for making drugs of any kind extremely hard to get, if not completely illegal- including cigarettes AND alcohol. And while I am not at all behind the Patriot Act, I am also just fine with a little water boarding every now and then if it gets the job done. I am just not so sure I want to know about it when it happens. Oh, and I love my guns and country, too.

So, that must bring me back to being a jingoistic republican, right?

After all, the most common belief republicans have is fiscal conservatism- specifically, advocating for lower taxes at every level of government, a reduction in the level of spending in the federal budget, easing the burden of federal regulations on business interests, the reform of the entitlement system, and ending or making significant cuts to the welfare state. Additionally, they claim to oppose budget deficits and deficit spending, and work to minimize it as much as possible. Too bad that is only in theory. Republicans have become just as diametrically opposite to this way of thinking as the democrats have.

And the Constitution?

Come on, libertarians aren't the only ones who have the market cornered on the Constitution and the rights it affords to all American citizens. Republicans do, as well- again in theory, that is. And I bet I can even find one or two Blue Dog Democrats that would stand behind the greatest document ever written if I look hard enough. But to be clear, these concepts are not exclusively mutual to just the Libertarian Party. Because, while the United States Constitution may have been birthed by forming a multitude of different concepts throughout the history of the world, and from different civilizations and societies and countries over time- it is wholly American, as well. However, the birth of the libertarian movement is predominantly a French concept, not an American one.

Let me repeat that in case you missed it the first time: The birth of the libertarian movement was French!

Wikipedia says, "The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, 'Libertaire', which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the classical liberalism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence the term 'libertaire' has been used as a synonym for left wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s."

“Libertarian communist?!”

Now, I'm not saying the French are all bad, or had only bad ideas, but... come on, they're French!

And the Democratic Party? It "evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s" also according to Wikipedia. So, it is truly an American concept, as well, as opposed to libertarianism. And in its inception, the party favored states' rights and a strict adherence to the Constitution; while opposing a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests much like the Libertarian and Republican Parties do today.

And finally, there's the Republican Party, which is also a 100% American-created and born institution with one of the greatest men to ever be elected to the high office of the Presidency- Abraham Lincoln- as its first. Bottom line, you don't get any more "American" than the Republican Party.

So, that must mean I am one even though I sound libertarian by libertarian standards today even though libertarians were formed out of communist and socialist roots which is what most people accuse the Democrat Party of being today... is anyone else confused yet?

Bottom line, the Republican and Democrat Parties today are not the Republican and Democrat Parties of days gone by, and that concerns me. I am often called a RINO, or "Republican in Name Only", or even the opposite extreme- a neo-conservative- by people who claim to know me. But is that truly fair to me, and does it even matter if I am not EXACTLY the embodiment of one party of another? After all, republicans don't act or talk or think at all like the republicans of the past, nor do democrats, nor do libertarians for that matter.

So...

"Where do I stand?"

"Who do I most closely align myself with?"

"What party best represents ‘me’?"

If I call myself a republican, I am automatically aligned with the religious right and George W. Bush whom I did not vote for. If I say I am a democrat, I am a born again socialist who dreams of communist sheep jumping over Marxist revolutionaries wearing brown SS shirts who voted for Barack Obama- whom I also did not vote for. Independents are nothing more than the bi-sexuals in the political spectrum who vacillate from side to side when it is convenient for them to do so, but never seem to want to really commit themselves to any actual cause or side. And the renewed interest in libertarianism via the Tea Party movement over the last couple of years only seems to me a knee-jerk reaction to conservative republicans losing to our current president in 2008. It seems like it is more of an anti-democrat and anti-liberal movement rather than a pro-liberty or constitutional one.

So, where do I stand?

Perhaps, I am a "diet libertarian", or perhaps even "libertarian light". In other words, I think nearly exactly as most libertarians do, but because I live in Utah and can't vote in the primaries as anything other than a democrat or a republican, I chose the lesser of two evils and am a registered “little (r)”. Just don’t try telling all the other conservatives out there in Mormonland that I am an atheist who supports gay marriage, and who is also against the death penalty. They’ll take my card away, and never give it back.

Perhaps I am with all of these groups and perhaps I am with none of them. That is about as clear as it gets for me… for right now at least or maybe even forever. Maybe that's where it should choose to even stay. Maybe I am more than just the label I am forced to be given, or the mantel I choose to wear. Maybe I am more than the sum of my political parts. Maybe just being called an "American" is more than enough in the world we live in today.

Maybe Superman had the right idea. Maybe "truth, justice, and the American way" is all there really is to believe in when it’s all said and done. Maybe we should form a new political party altogether. Maybe.

Raise your hands if you're for the newly formed "Truth, Justice and the American Way Party"! Now, that's something I could get behind. Up, up, and away, America! It’s time to move beyond the labels we are given by others, and make our own way in the world for ourselves, and for liberty.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Proof of Evolution?

2011-08-23T10:39:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

The Theory of Evolution is just that: a theory. There are holes in it, to be sure. But make no mistake about it, even having said that- evolution is clearly the best explanation we have by far, and it leaves very little room for doubt. In fact, the little doubt that does remain is so astronomically small that it makes one wonder why even have a discussion about it at all. But that is the point of science, and as with all good science, it will remain the best explanation as long as all other scientific disciplines agree with it- which they do for now. Of course, that isn't to say that this won't change. This is because science is ever evolving itself, and leaves no stone unturned. I personally trust that approach in life far more readily than any blind, benighted view that is dictated and never adjusted as we learn and grow over time.

Thus, creationism is neither a science nor a discipline from this standpoint- to say otherwise is deceiving at best. Nor is it terribly rational. It is magic, and we all know magic does not exist. Sure, it’s common knowledge that I don't personally believe in any version of a higher power, but it's not because any scientist told me not to, or for that matter, because I believe in evolution on its own. It is an idea born simply out of reality, and what I see as lending itself to rational and critical thinking. But does that mean that if one believes in creationism their scientific or rational knowledge is severely lacking? Not necessarily.

After all, like I said before, it is a theory- it is not the PROOF of Evolution. But to say that there is no basis for it being a more rational "truth" than, say, a view that a cosmic Zombie Jewish carpenter who was somehow conceived without a father, but who is in some way his own celestial father born of flesh and blood to a virgin; who can also make you live forever only if you symbolically eat his skin and telepathically tell him every night before bedtime that you accept his claim as lord and master over everything in creation; so he can mystically remove the invisible evil force living inside of you like an undetectable tumor all because a woman wearing a fig leaf who was born from a bone fragment and who was convinced by a talking snake to eat a magical fruit from a forbidden tree in a lush, tropical, beautiful garden somewhere in the Middle Eastern desert is laughable.

But is it more laughable than humans evolving from apes? Considering that we have nearly identical DNA as some apes I would say that evolution from this standpoint is much more believable than the other, yes. Is it perfect? Not in the slightest. But we already know (and can see with our own two eyes) that evolution exists all around us without having to take anyone's word for it, and that makes all the difference in the world.

We can see many animals around us that have adapted to their surroundings. We know the Earth has done it's fair share of adaptation, as well. We are aware that plants evolve to suit their circumstances and needs. So, why is it such a leap to believe that we, too, have evolved as a species?

After all, no one knows how old the Earth really is, but geologists were beginning to make estimates that the earth was considerably older than explained by biblical creation long ago. Geologists were learning more about the layers formed by successive periods of the deposition of sediments centuries ago. This suggested a time sequence, with younger layers overlying older layers.

And discoveries of fossils were accumulating during the 18th and 19th centuries. At first naturalists thought they were finding remains of unknown but still living species. As fossil finds continued, however, it became apparent that nothing like giant dinosaurs was known from anywhere on the planet. Furthermore, as early as 1800, scientists pointed out that the deeper the layer of earth, the less similar fossils were to existing species.

And further, we know the world to not be flat today, and that the Earth is not the center of the solar system all thanks to science. But in centuries past we believed it to be so. Again, all thanks to science, we now know the error of our thinking. As a result, I know very few people today that would deny that much, but yet those same few people would deny evolution and the date of the Earth given scientific evidence. Why?

The answer seems to be a simple one for me- willful ignorance. Evidence is something that adds weight to an argument or theory. Proof is absolutely undeniable. Is there proof of evolution? Not in exact terms, no, but there is an abundance of evidence for it. Consequently, there is neither proof NOR evidence for creationism at all. Therefore, in order to believe in creationism all you need is “faith” in your theory, and a healthy dose of skepticism for anything but your point of view and it becomes true in your mind. Willful ignorance.

So, will we ever prove evolution correct without any shred of doubt? Not likely, since that isn't how science really works. Put another way, Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as “the search for truth”. Plainly put, there is always doubt. But it is far more likely that evolution will be proven much more true than creationism ever will be considering the overwhelming evidence that already exists for evolution and the lack of any shred of evidence for creationism.

In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified.

So, when scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur to this day.

Having said that, do I believe in evolution hook, line and sinker? Not in the slightest. I just recognize that it is the most palpable theory out there today. If something more reasonable is presented, including proof of creationism, I will gladly and gleefully entertain the idea just as I have entertained the Theory of Evolution. After all, as Thomas Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Government: Stay Out of My (Gay) Marriage!

2011-07-29T10:22:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Equal rights are not special rights unless you're the one who doesn't have them.

Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups of people. Therefore, there should be no affirmative action for any one group, and no special rights for them, either. However, ALL rights should be equal rights for individuals regardless of your personal preference against any one individual or type of person. Likewise, we should repeal any and all laws currently on record if they are blatantly unconstitutional, or if they deliberately single out one type of person over another one.

For instance, 'gay rights'.

Of course, when I refer to gay rights I am not referring to special rights for the gay and lesbian community apart from the straight community, I am referring to equal rights all the way across the board for all persons- period. What is afforded to one legal citizen MUST be afforded to all legal citizens- without exception. Besides, straight Americans are the ones currently benefiting from special rights by nature of disallowing the gay community to partake in those same privileges- not the other way around.

If you allow special tax breaks, financial incentives, the simple ability to even be married in the eyes of the state, or to have or adopt children in some areas- then, you must by constitutional law offer those same benefits to all the people of this country. If you want to not allow two gay men or two gay women to marry in your private church- so be it, that is also your right. But, the government cannot, and should not allow popular opinion, bigotry or religious belief to sway how they govern individuals.

Basically, everyone should be allowed a civil union sanctioned by the government if they so choose it; or no one should have them at all. The same should go for special benefits and incentives for those people, too. However, if a person would later wish to sanctify that union in the privacy of one’s own church, that should be allowed, as well.

But honestly, I feel the government shouldn’t even be in the marriage business at all. It shouldn’t advocate or allow those benefits to ANYONE. After all, if you do offer special perks for individuals who partake in a civil union or a marriage, you are effectively discriminating against individuals who choose to be single. And that is just as unacceptable to me as the other.

If you want to have your priest sanctify your marriage, or have a ceremony at the top of a mountain while shouting to Mother Earth that you want to spend the rest of your life with another person for all of eternity, you should be allowed to. I just personally believe that the government shouldn’t be involved in any way shape or form in that aspect of our personal lives whatsoever. And they certainly shouldn’t offer you bribes to do so, either.

Frankly, I don't know why anybody would be against gay couples getting civil union licenses in America. I can understand why a Christian would object to the government forcing their hand to allow gay people to be married in their private church- after all, they believe it to be a sin. But what's wrong with them having a civil union in a public, tax-paid-for court house? They are still citizens, too, and the Constitution mattered last time I checked.

The solution, some may argue, is to amend the Federal Constitution, which is what George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich and others endorse. But there is one problem with that: Article Six reads:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Boiled down, this means that the Constitution is barred from contradicting itself. Thus, a Federal Marriage Amendment that would deprive a singled-out populace of any rights runs in clear contradiction to Article Four and also Amendment Nine of the Constitution. And the Ninth Amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Likewise, in reference to another lateral subject akin to civil rights and gay marriage: Gays not being allowed in the American Armed Forces.

For the sake of preserving our nation’s oldest and most treasured and revered document, we should remove and replace the current 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' system with a system giving the same benefits to everyone in the line of duty for U.S. armed services. Equality of all individuals must be honored lest our rights be someday taken away from the rest of us.

After all, in reference to special rights and privileges for some, but not for others: Military members and their spouses are eligible for a wealth of benefits, including health insurance and survivor benefits. However, if a spouse is injured or killed in the line of duty, a gay or lesbian partner does not qualify for any financial or emotional assistance at all. There is no spin available to corroborate this type of behavior for our government to engage in.

Still, one of the largest casualties of 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' may very well be the stifling of fellow service members personal lives while allowing others the opportunity to grandstand and throw in the faces of gay and lesbian soldiers how much they are afforded. This is no more glaring than when gay and lesbian couples are prohibited from bringing their chosen partner to military functions, even if they have been in a long-term committed relationship, nor can they even talk about their partners without fear of losing their jobs. Straight service members are not only allowed to bring their significant others, but encouraged to do so.

If the private sector isn't allowed to openly discriminate in this way or fashion, why is the government allowed to do so?

As a consequence, more than 265 service members have been discharged on the basis of this discriminatory, outmoded, and counterproductive policy since the law was first enacted. Furthermore, the policy has deterred untold others who would wish to defend their country from serving. Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the UCLA School of Law, found that if the proportion of gay men in the military was allowed to rise to equal that in the general population, “the military could raise their numbers by an estimated 41,000 men.” And in a time when we have record low numbers of enlisted persons in our armed forces, we must endeavor to allow ALL individuals the opportunity to serve if they so choose it whether we approve of their personal life choices or not.

Simply put, can they do the job set before them? The answer is, “as well as anyone hired for any job can.” Will their orientation become an issue while on the battlefield? No more than any straight man’s would. Will it cause disruption to all if only a few are allowed to serve openly? Ask the countless other nation’s of the world that currently allow homosexuals the opportunity to serve openly how well it is working for them. And conversely, consider which nations have laws similar to our laws like Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, and Venezuela. That is never good company to be in for any reason if you ask me.

In fact, countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage as well as have allowed gays and lesbians in their respective militaries without any noticeable effect-- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.

Mind you, I am not a Constitutional scholar, nor a lawyer. I am a common, average American citizen who treasures the deep values of justice and equality our Constitution embodies and veterans across the ages have fought and died to preserve.

Ultimately, I am utterly in shock that the fighters for liberty, equality and the right to marry a person with a different skin color than you some 50+ years ago would be the very same ones seemingly to promote that same exact discrimination, hatred and inequality of today against the gay and lesbian community. The Republican Party has changed not only its policies, but also its heart, mind and very soul today. It's no wonder that liberals have co-opted the 'freedom and liberty debate' in this day and age, and have changed the narrative so that conservatives are simply hate-mongers who would discriminate against anyone different than they are- because, if that is the argument, it would sadly be true.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Do Animals Deserve Rights?

2011-06-09T12:56:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Let’s talk animal rights for a bit, shall we?

Admittedly, this is a tricky one for a plethora of different and varying reasons, and one that I could write entire books about. So, where to begin….?

While it is clear that animals and humans are vastly different on a great many levels, they are also very similar on enough levels to warrant the discussion in the first place. After all, the scientist will say he tests on monkeys because they are like us, and then when asked if it is right to do so, he will say “yes” because they are NOT like us. That type of hypocrisy is not uncommon when we discuss animal rights issues with nearly anyone- not just the vivisectionist.

But first, let’s define what animal rights means to me. In my view it is the right not to be made to die and suffer by humans except in self-defense. Period. However, if you take issue with the concept of a "right" for animals, you can instead think of this position as being equivalent to the following proposition: "It is MORALLY wrong to kill animals UNNESISARILY and make them suffer except in self-defense.”

Now, let’s take this oft-discussed hypothetical conversation as an example of why I am for some form of animal rights:

Opponent of animal rights: How can you say that animals have rights? That’s ridiculous.

Proponent of animal rights: Why is it ridiculous?

Opponent: For one thing, animals can't reason. They can't be held responsible for their actions. To have rights, you must have these capacities first and foremost.

Proponent: Wait a minute. Infants can't reason in the regard you are meaning, either. Does that mean that it's open season to hunt and kill babies?

Opponent: Of course not. Infants will be able to reason someday. We must treat them as prospective rights-holders.

Proponent: But what if the infant is terminally ill and has only six months to live? What about a person who was born with part of his brain missing and has the mental capacity of a pig? What about a senile, old person? Is it OK to kill, eat, and otherwise use these people for our own ends, just as we now use pigs and cows and sheep and monkeys?

It's easy to grasp this fact if you do some introspection and ask yourself why it is morally wrong to inflict suffering on a human who can't reason. Why is it morally wrong to torture an infant? Is it because he or she has the potential to become a moral entity at some point? Now, be honest about this: Isn't it really because the infant can suffer and has an interest in NOT suffering? Isn't it because forcing the infant to suffer against his or her will violates its “rights”? Why is it immoral to use a victim of Alzheimer's for target practice? Is it because he is a member of a species whose more normal members can think conceptually and can be held responsible for their actions? Surely not. It's because he can suffer, and therefore, he has an interest in not suffering. To treat him this way against his will goes against his “rights” I am sure everyone will agree.

In essence, all of this also holds true for the monkey, the dog, the cat, or any other animal we know of for that matter. Like a human, the monkey can suffer, and he has an interest in not suffering. To force him to die and suffer needlessly, except in self-defense, violates his “rights”, as well. It's a simple matter of treating like cases alike with pure categorical logic.

Sometimes skeptics make the following objection to animal rights: “If animals have a right not to be made to suffer, doesn't it follow that we should police the wilderness and prevent predatory animals from attacking their prey?” No, this does not follow. Animals should be allowed to defend themselves, but they do not have the right to protection any more than human beings do. What the “like cases alike” argument proves is that it is immoral for moral creatures like humans to treat animals in ways we would not treat humans like except (again) in self-defense.

In truth, because animals are not moral creatures as we know it, what they do is outside the purview of our ethics system. We might as well ask whether a zebra has a “right” not to be crushed by a falling rock. Therefore, we can only concern ourselves with what WE should do and not do. Animals in the wild are on their own for all intents and purposes. At least an animal who is preyed upon in the wild has a fighting chance. It is not locked in a cage or hunted with tools he has no privy to.

Another popular objection is “animals kill and eat each other in nature, so why shouldn't we be able to do the same thing?” In other words: “If animals do it, then we can do it, too.” But that would mean that we are like the animals, and surely it would be illogical to base our moral principles on the actions of animals who can't even engage in simple moral reasoning, correct? Some animals eat their offspring. Does that mean I am morally entitled to eat my offspring, as well? This is one of the many reasons I am a vegan; we are not at the top of the proverbial food chain- we are far, far BEYOND it.

So, do animals deserve “rights” afforded to them? Perhaps not in the context of the same equal rights we are afforded in our United States Constitution, but some basic rights should indeed be in order. Perhaps the same rights infants are allowed and afforded, but not the same rights adult humans are given. Besides, in theory all suffering is immoral when inflicted upon the innocent. After all, animals have no proper voice to speak out, but that doesn’t mean we still cannot hear them cry.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: To Cut, or Not To Cut.... What Was the Question?

2011-06-03T11:40:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

A proposal to ban the circumcision of all male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November 2011 ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a very private family matter. In fact, if the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18, and the practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. And finally, there would be no religious exemptions whatsoever.

Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and dangerous or even sometimes deadly. They go one step further and say parents should not be able to force the decision on a young child who cannot speak out for themselves what their wishes may or may not be.

But, don't parents do that already with a score of other issues including baptization, the foods they choose to feed their children, the places they allow them to play and with whom, etc.? After all, while I may agree with the assessment of anti-circumcision folks out there who say the practice is outdated and fairly archaic, I also have a personal aversion to banning much of anything at all myself.

Besides, State and Federal governments should not ban something that is supported by one's religion or parent's beliefs, right? Doesn't this border on (if not step right into) a war about the constitutionality of the issue at worst, and an unnecessary if not costly battle for tax payers at best that really only effect a small percentage of people in the long run?

Ironically, circumcision is promoted in only two world wide religions, (Judaism and Islam). Most other churches and religions- like the Catholic church for instance- keep a completely neutral stance on the issue altogether. After all, only about 30% of males over the age of 15 in the world are circumcised. In fact, of that 30%- roughly 68% of these circumcised men are Muslims alone. So, is this a matter of religious discrimination?

It seems to come very close to violating one's individual rights as stated in the 1st amendment of the Constitution to me: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Still, the other side says this is a matter of keeping one safe from harm. But if that were true, then what about anti-smoking laws, or the war on drugs? Or the Patriot Act, for that matter? Those hurt (or "protect" as is the case for the Patriot Act), and even kill many more innocents than circumcision ever will.

And what about abortion? Should that be banned too, for similar reasons? What about parents who choose to get little Sally Sue's ears pierced at a young age without her consent? Is that "mutilation", as well? And what about baptization, the unhealthy foods that kids tend to eat, the dangerous places they tend to play in, and the bad influences they choose to play with as I already said above? Where does it all end? And who is to be the final authority as far as mutilation even goes, or the right of the parent to parent as they see fit for that matter?

At the end of the day this seems to me to be nothing shy of retaliation in San Francisco against extreme religious groups because of their aversion to gay marriage. After all, San Francisco is well known as the battle front for gay equality in the United States, and gay marriage is a hot button issue for many people including myself. Is this a "rainbow conspiracy" of sorts that will eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court just like the issue of gay marriage eventually will? Could this be nothing more than a clever attack on religion in the only way they seem to know how- by creating even more laws to ban things that are as close to irrelevant as possible to everyone BUT theists?

Just keep in mind, while I have a personal aversion to religion, in this case I will choose to do what Voltaire said he would do in such similar instances: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Or as is the case here: "... I will defend to the death your right to DO what you choose to do based on your constitutional right to not have the law or Congress supersede your personal religious beliefs."

Besides, like I already said, I have a problem with banning anything that (for the most part) doesn't harm another person or worse. After all, the medical benefits of circumcision are so evident that they can easily be accessed by simply Googling them. Abortion and smoking, however, don't seem to offer much in the way of a benefit to anyone at all- physically, or otherwise- and they kill many more people than a simple medical procedure ever will. So, which is it? Do we steer clear of making new laws to ban things unnecessarily, or do we ban them ALL? I suspect I know which side most people will fall on including myself.

Agree or not, this is a step in the wrong direction for this issue to take. If one truly wanted to change anything including people's minds, they should start off first by spreading the word in as many ways as possible, including petitioning doctors and hospitals to provide information to patients about the pros and cons of the procedure without looking as if they are trying to sway the argument one way or the other. The answer is never to make a new law first, and worry about the consequences later.

Frankly, the answer lies in getting rid of many of the laws we already have!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Why I hate Sarah Palin!

2011-04-25T11:58:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

I need to qualify this first by saying two things up front:

First, anytime I talk about anyone with even the smallest bit of authority or power over the masses- willing to lead their sometimes blind followers to the ends of the earth- whether that idol be an actor, a preacher, a sports star, an artist or a politician- they are doing themselves a great injustice if they simply follow without first asking themselves, “Is this person truly worthy of my praise and hero status I wholly give to them.” After all, as my friend David said recently, “Sarah Palin is little more than a cult of personality in the same vain that President Obama is a cult of personality to his supporters.” Few of these people are nothing more than twisted “fans” awaiting the next American Idol contestant they’ve helped propel to stardom in hopes of watching fail in full view of the public spotlight.

Having said that, I feel that you MUST hold yourself up to the highest standard possible when you command the attention and the imagination of any number of people in the palm of your hand like these individuals do- no matter how many, or how few their supporters are. In other words, if you are a priest you probably shouldn’t molest little boys, if you are a sports star you probably shouldn’t murder innocent dogs, and if you are a homeless man who is given a chance at a new life through instant stardom, maybe you shouldn’t screw it all up by getting yourself thrown back into rehab within the first week of that new life because you have no self control.

Sure, we’re all human, I accept that, but when you wield that much power over your “flock” you simply have to be MORE than human, or choose not to be there at all to begin with. That is the price celebrities pay for their fame, and that is how we judge them in this life- like it or not. And frankly, if one can’t cope with that price, he or she should endeavor to find a new line of work that pays much, much less- figuratively AND literally.

Such is the case for celebrity politicians, as well.

But, on to my second qualification: The rabid and sometimes zealotous fans within these celebrities’ ranks (that I can only compare to each other), have the uncanny ability to often contradict reality at best, or downright lie to themselves (or each other) by making up facts to suit their cause at worst. I have yet to see anything else in modern history perhaps aside from some radical religious groups like the Westboro Baptist folks that even compare to this level of fact-twisting, blind idolatry.

And while every one of these individuals has the right to distort facts as they see fit under our 1st amendment of the United States Constitution, it also makes those of us who actually value truth and honor above all else see them in the worst possible light there is. They’ve done this to themselves, after all, and as the old saying goes, “The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his own deception, and who chooses to lie with sincerity.” If we start to believe our own hype, and stop questioning “with boldness even the existence of God” we might as well put our hand at the level of our eyes, as they say, and believe what we are simply told with blind rhetoric and ignorance as our only guide.

Which brings me to Sarah Palin.

There are three things by which I personally judge people- family, friend, or celebrity alike. The first is: is this person willfully ignorant? Now, I don’t mean school smart vs. street smart, or outright stupid because you live-in-a-trailer-park-in-Kansas dumb. I am talking about the type of person that even with the overwhelming majority of fact via proof and evidence for something set before them, they still choose not to believe in it because they simply don’t want to. I mean, for crying out loud- you have to be a real special kind of lady to believe that Jesus walked with the dinosaurs like Sarah Palin does!

And furthermore, let’s just get this part out of the way since I am sure you are expecting it anyway? Sarah Palin, beyond politics and hype and rhetoric and cult of personality, is simply not capable of true, sincere interaction with the media, other politicians or the American people at all. One doesn’t have to go much further to discover that truth past how she chose not to answer ANY question posed to her during the Vice Presidential debate with then Senator Joe Biden, instead saying things like, “I don’t think Imma gonna answer that, but I will tell you about ‘X, Y & Z!’” Or, the infamous interview with Katie Couric where she couldn’t name a single thing that she reads for news.

Now, I’m not implying that the woman is illiterate, but if you can’t name so much as a comic book that you read…. Well, I’m just sayin’.

After all, just because you invoke the name of the almighty demigod, Ronald Reagan, or say “God bless America” or “Maverick” enough times doesn’t make you a bright individual who will ever be capable of being a competent president. Likewise, just because our current president has schooling under his belt that would make mine look like pre-schooling for retarded squirrels, doesn’t mean he truly understands the American people or the basic tenants of our way of life as a nation, either. Or, for that matter, a folksy, born again Christian like George W. Bush doesn’t equal a man capable of stringing two sentences together to make a coherent thought whatsoever.

Still, the beauty of our country is that any idiot can vie for public office and win. Sadly, it seems, more times than not we find and elect those idiots over the other. Such is another concern I have with Sarah Palin. Where was she found, by whom and why?

The reason in my mind that Sarah Palin was introduced to the American people as John McCain’s running mate in 2008 was a simple one: Barack Obama was young, black and a theoretical political outsider. John McCain was well-known, had been in politics for many, many years and was by all accounts much older and “whiter” than his opponent. Enter Sarah Palin.

Palin was young, fresh, new, attractive, and most importantly, she was a woman. There had to be something to offset all the proposed negatives against McCain as the American people saw it in order to compete with The Messiah: The Count Barackula, Barack Obama. To anyone critically thinking about politics and the election, this was an obvious ploy. Albeit, a ploy we were all eagerly willing to ignore because we knew what lie ahead of us should Obama be elected.

But there was also one more thing Sarah Palin had that we all had hoped would help get John McCain elected: she was much more “conservative” in comparison to Obama’s extreme liberalism, or John McCain’s centrist persona. Surly, this would help counter-balance voter’s concerns as well as rally the Republican base, while making the playing field a little bit more even in the process.

Alas, that was not to be the case. The more Sarah Palin spoke, the more it was painfully obvious that she was there strictly for her youth and feminism, and not for what she actually brought to the table as a leader. In clearer words, she simply wasn’t yet ready for prime time.

After all, some people have “it”, and some people don’t. Sarah Palin I am sure has a lot to offer some people in some capacity- but a high profile public office position is not that thing. And it never will be.

This is painfully clear by the fact that she quit her job as Alaska Governor shortly after failing to become the Vice President of the United States of America. Which is my number two thing by which I judge people I know, or know of: Are you a quitter?

Now, I don’t mean in order to raise the bar in your own personal life or to become a better person in general, but the type who quits something simply because they didn’t win another thing and their ego won’t allow them to continue on, or because they didn’t like something about another person they found out about well into that relationship. This could be applied in marriages, in friendships, as an employer, or in Sarah Palin’s case.

After all, just because you found out that a person you knew for 24 years is an atheist after many years of friendship doesn’t mean you throw them aside like a sack of moldy, old potatoes. Or, if you find out your son is gay, or your spouse snores- that is no reason to end any relationship on a whim.

Sure, I understand that we all have a threshold for some kind of tolerance in some shape or another, and we all have that one or two things we would never forgive in another person- but sometimes it just isn’t warranted to “quit” someone when they truly believe in you. Judge them harshly, yes. Even punish them. But, never, ever quit them. And, I’m not talking the average individual here, either.

The Alaskan people believed in Sarah Palin for better or worse, otherwise they never would have voted for her in the first place. But yet, she quit them like someone would leave a dog behind because their new apartment wasn’t big enough for them. That is just unacceptable in my world.

If you invest in someone (or a great many someones like Palin did), and they rely on you to do the job they elected you to do- you don’t just quit them. This wasn’t McDonalds or some part-time census worker position- this was as the Governor of the largest state in the union who hung her constituents out to dry because she didn’t win in 2008. Not cool.

After all, it wasn’t to run for a higher office in our great nation that she left. And it wasn’t to spend time with her family like she had tried to tell us at first. After all, the first thing she did was abandon her family to gallivant across the country to hock her new book. And then, she got a cushy new job on Fox News as a contributor, and finally as a reality TV star. This woman is nothing shy of a narcissistic egotist of the highest degree. It’s all about her.

Again, if a person wants to better their situation or themselves by obtaining a new job, or even a new relationship- fine- I don’t fault them. That is their right. But like I already said, this wasn’t just any job, and she told us all something that simply wasn’t true.

Which brings me to my number three thing by which I have a tendency to judge people for – right or wrong: hypocrisy. If you want to lie, good for you- I just hope you’re good at it and don’t get caught. But don’t try to blow smoke in my face and tell me it’s pixie dust later. That just makes you an hypocrite. And I LOATHE hypocrisy!

For instance, remember when El Presidente, Senor Obama- towards the end of his approximately 40-minute appearance on Jay Leno in 2008, talked about how he’d gotten better at bowling and has been practicing in the White House bowling alley?

“I bowled a 129”, the president said.

“That’s very good, Mr. President,” Leno said sarcastically.

It’s “like the Special Olympics or something,” the president said.

Yeah, guess who flipped her proverbial wig over that one? If you said “The mother of Down’s Syndrome baby, Trig- Sarah Palin” you win the prize. But it was her defense of Rush Limbaugh as obvious “satire” later that same week for saying even worse tripe about special needs folks that made her the hypocrite.

“But, isn’t she at least the constitutional conservative like she claims to be?” Not even close!

If one is a TRUE constitutional conservative, you would- even in the face of your personal feelings and better judgment- be for the burning of the United States Flag, for the rights of individuals to erect any building they choose to in America, and support the right of EVERYONE to speak out peacefully in any way they choose to regardless of your personal bias. But not Sarah Palin.

She supported the proposed amendment to the constitution to make flag burning illegal. But like Vietnam veteran Richard Savage said,

“…. Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom itself.”

Sarah Palin damns the constitution in favor of her personal opinion, but yet, she does this instead:

Then, she said on her Twitter account of the controversial Mosque at Ground Zero being built, "Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing."

Yet, regardless of your position, if you are a strict constitutionalist you would NEVER propose to tell people they shouldn’t build a religious structure, no matter how ill-advised and disrespectful it may seem to you.

And finally, recently in response to a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a the Westboro Baptists I mentioned earlier that demonstrates at military funerals she said (also on Twitter), “Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square.” She later explained that she was trying to say she was making a point about a double standard on free speech, not that the group shouldn’t have the right to protest. Too late, Mrs. Palin- you are clearly no constitutionalist, so stop pretending to be.

But beyond all of that, she is supremely (and unnecessarily) divisive within her own party. Recently in front of an Alaskan backdrop of grandiose mountains and a lakeside view she found time to tweak a fellow Republican, dismiss the president, and scold a top-rated Fox News talk show host all in one interview.

Palin opened by questioning New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's toughness and attacking President Barack Obama for naivete. After that, she preached about cutting various government programs to Bill O'Reilly before advising him not to interrupt her ever again even though the show was called The O’Reilly Factor, not The Sarah Show. All in a night's work for the ego which is Palin.

"… With all due respect to Governor Christie, you know he has no choice but to cut budgets because he's broke, his state is broke. What courage really is, is in the face of having a surplus when you have opportunity to spend, spend, spend other people's money, and you still choose to rein in government to let the private sector soar,” she said.

“And, by the way,” she finished with a flourish, “that’s what I did here [in Alaska].”

By popular demand, it really IS “The Sarah Show”!

This doesn’t make her look tough or like a rebel by attacking all of these people in the way she did- it just makes her look petty and narcissistic. After all, to say that of a fellow republican potential presidential candidate is just beyond the pale. What would your precious Ronald Reagan say about choosing to break his 11th Commandment of not speaking ill of a fellow Republican? Who is this former Governor of a state with a whopping grand total of 630,000 residents to speak of courage in office when the first thing she did when the going got tough was QUIT!?

And, don’t even get me started on “Crib-Note-Gate”!

Or, the anti-Semitic “blood libel” comments she made after the tragic shooting of Arizona Rep., Gabrielle Giffords.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/blood-libel-sarah-palin_n_808104.html

Or, for that matter, giving that last speech the very same morning Arizona was to have a service honoring the memory for those that lost their lives that day in order to put the focus squarely on her once more. Have I mentioned anything about Sarah Palin’s planetoid-sized ego yet???

In short, Sarah Palin is a canker to the Right. Her ‘scripted reality’ better serves her ridiculous TV show, and not that of public office. She is practically bereft of anything to say but parroting what others have already said before her, or seizing what seems to be the ‘topic of the day’ and expounding on it. She doesn’t really have any original thoughts of her own volition and when publicly dared to have an original thought by the media she falls flat on her face nearly every single time.

Besides, what has Sarah Palin done for the public good since she just gave up and quit on her Governorship? Aside from splitting conservatives in two, it has been all about Sarah Palin- all of the time. Nothing good has been done for anyone else but the Palin family. Well, except for maybe that white trash, ex-potential, son-in-law that knocked up one of the Palin kids (… and, not the retarded one. Well, not the REALLY retarded one.) He got a sweet gig out of it by being well known now for doing just that.

After all, not too long ago she publicly made a promise. She essentially said, “If I become a distraction from the conservative cause I won’t run for President.” Well, what does anyone (except Sarah Palin it seems) think she has been for the nearly the last three years? She has been a distraction from the very beginning of her fifteen minutes of fame, so much so, that she has managed to knead and stretch that 15 minutes into three very long years.

Every time the Sarah Palin gravy train starts to run low on steam and slow down, there she is again showing up on talk shows, attacking fellow conservatives, starting a new reality TV show about Alaska, releasing yet another book about how great she is, or dragging her daughter through the mud behind her on another, separate reality show… perhaps, about dancing? All eyes and ears are on Sarah, all of the time. And that’s the way she likes it.

But, the time is up. She needs to proverbially ‘shit or get off the pot’. Put up or shut up. Do for America a heckuva lot more, and do for Sarah Palin and the Palin clan a heckuva lot less. She’s milking the cash cow for every last drop, which is fine if she makes her intentions to do so clear instead of leading America around by their collective noses like she has been doing since losing to Barack Obama and Joe Biden over 3 years ago.

The bottom line is that Sarah Palin is a self-serving blight on an otherwise potentially exciting conservative landscape, and its future. She is in essence a self-serving distraction to win the White House in 2012 through and through. And she needs to simply just go away. Far, far away!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Weight loss on Tax Day?!

2011-04-14T22:35:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

What better way to celebrate Tax Day than by there being less of me to tax! After all, if the government is going to tax everything in my life including the food I eat, why not make sure I am beholden to them for as little as possible!? Take that, Big Government!

Well, okay, so it isn't THAT simple, but my weight loss for the last 10 weeks has been!

I have never struggled with weight loss in my whole entire life. In fact, most people who knew me when I was younger always said I was 'too skinny', or needed to 'gain more weight'. Then, something strange happened- I turned 30 years old, and it was all downhill from there! Now, at the ripe old age of 34 years old, I have gained over 50 lbs. in only 4 years. How, you may ask?

I became complacent, I was sedentary and had virtually no motivation to exercise at all, plus I really liked food!!! The worse for me, the better. A large Cheese Lover's, stuffed crust pizza with a 32 oz soda and a fistful of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups twice a week? Bring it on! Like I said, I have never struggled with weight loss before now, and I have ate virtually the very same thing for years. I am a vegetarian, after all, and I always thought it strange whenever I would see an obese person with my same eating habits standing front of me. I just didn't know how it was possible to be a fat vegetarian! Imagine my surprise when I became one of them, and saw my double chin staring back at me in the mirror one day.

I have been a vegetarian for more than half of my life, and I simply took it for granted that I was healthy. After all, make no mistake about it, just because you don't eat meat doesn't mean you are in shape. Take my diet for example:

Lots of processed food-stuffs: check!
Hardly any fiber in those foods: check!
Virtually zero whole fruits or vegetables in my VEGETARIAN diet: check!
Tons of sugary drinks and desserts all day long: check!
More candy than an entire army could get on a busy Halloween night: DOUBLE, AND TRIPLE CHECK!!!

Add all of that together in a big ol' ball, mixed with old age and hardly any exercise, and you have a very unhealthy me.

But one day it all changed.

I remember going to a motivational speaker with family members when I was about 12 or 13 years old, who spoke at great length about addiction- including food addiction. He said something that always stuck with me: "If you don't like something about yourself- change it! It's really that simple, no matter what other people tell you."

Some nearly 20 years later, I pulled that little nugget of truth out of my proverbial closet and tried it on for size.

I looked in the mirror, and simply didn't like what was staring back at me- so, I changed it. I mean, I have always had the lion's share of willpower. I don't consume alcohol, I don't smoke, I have never done a recreational drug in my life, I don't even drink anything with caffeine and like I already said, I am a vegetarian of most of my life. But somehow that didn't stop me from one day gaining an unhealthy amount of weight in a very short period of time. So, I changed it.

I said one day that it was time for a change, I made those changes, I stuck to my guns, I saw it through, and I am a much better 'me' than I have been in a very, very long time. In fact, I feel that I am a better man today for so many reasons, and I am just getting better daily. Sure, I make mistakes (sometimes I make some pretty BIG mistakes, still), but I am the best 'me' that I have ever been in my whole life. I like me today, and I can't wait to be an even better me tomorrow. After all, I am not the man I am because of the mistakes I have made, or because of the times I turned right when I should have turned left. I am the man I am because it is who I choose to be, not who I have become.

But how did I do it aside from merely deciding to do it one day? I had help and support from my amazing and loving wife, Celeste. She was my support system, and my cheerleader every day through all of this. I am so thankful for her help to make the journey so much easier, and I couldn’t have done it without her.

But that wasn't it. I also made it a point to exercise every day. Not hardcore exercise, mind you because that would surely back fire on me, but light cardio for 20-30 minutes a day. I simply ate less food, and less high calorie foods, as well. Actually, I ate healthier in general, consumed a lot more fiber-rich foods, drank much more water daily, ate whole fruits and fresh vegetables, less processed junk food, hardly any sodium went on my plate, and virtually no sugar to speak of whatsoever entered my body. Plus, the willpower to see it all through. It was that simple.

However, there was one more thing (I can't lie) that motivated me to lose the weight which a lot of people will find off-putting, but it gave me the strength to be the better 'me' I already spoke of. And it is my ego. I just didn't want to be 'that person' anymore. I wanted to wear nice clothes that fit me comfortably. I didn't want to suck in my stomach every day of my life for fear of someone making fun of my waistline. The bottom line is, I was embarrassed. And that was all the motivation I really needed in the end.

Now, I know what a lot of you will say at this point. "Be happy with who you are." "No one can make you feel bad, but you." "You have a handsome face." But that isn't good enough. The fact is, I was not happy with who I was, not just esthetically, but physically. I was short of breath just walking down the street. I napped long naps every day. I had the first signs of diabetes creeping into my world, and I simply didn't want to shorten my life because it was just starting to get good! After all, the hard truth is that the majority of obese people not only have a multitude of health problems as they age and gain even more weight over time, but they die much sooner than physically healthy individuals who eat right and exercise daily.

But, now for the hard part. This is a life style choice- not just a temporary one- but a forever one. After all, now that I know I am capable of weight gain- and I never want it back again- I need to make this my life from here on out. And so, I have. Perhaps not as strict as when I was trying to lose the weight in the first place, but a life style change, nonetheless. That is what I choose. That is who I choose to be. And that's a good enough 'me' to be.

First day of diet: Feb. 1st, 2011
Current day of diet: April 15th, 2011

Beginning weight: 211.6 lbs
Current weight: 170 lbs (UPDATE! As of May, 9th I am officially 160 lbs!!!)

Beginning shirt size: XXL (Tight)
Current shirt size: M (Comfy!)

Beginning pant size: 36 (Tight)
Current pant size: 30 (Extra roomy!)

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: A Christian Nation?!

2011-01-19T11:19:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

One of the most common statements from the Religious Right in America is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a bald-faced lie at best. The men responsible for building the foundation of this United States had little use for Christianity, and many were even strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were mostly Deists who did not believe in the divinity of Christ or the word of the bible as being the one, true word.

Thus, there is no freedom of religion if there is also no freedom FROM religion. There are some who claim that the United States of America was founded and based on Christian faith and principles, and they would do (and have already done) everything in their power to change the actual history of this great Nation. While it is true that some of the Founding Fathers considered themselves Protestant most were likely Deist or even Unitarian, this did not mean that they forced their beliefs onto anyone like we attempt to do today. In fact, quite the opposite.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

No reference to God. No reference to Jesus. No reference to Christianity. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once. This is simply NOT a Christian nation no matter how hard some people try to explain otherwise.

Indeed, according to Article 11 of the Treaty between Tripoli and the United States, written in 1796, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” And, according to Phillip Schaff in his 1888 book Church and State in the United States, “Separation secures religious thought, speech, and action. Religion is voluntary and cannot be forced. The United States furnishes the first example in the history of a government deliberately depriving itself of all legislative control of religion.”

A few Christian fundamentalists today attempt to convince us to return to the "Christianity" of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations." The Founding Fathers, as well, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although, while they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion in government.

Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is an historical document, not a constitutional one. And as I have already said, "The words 'Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God' are never mentioned in the Constitution."

So, let's stop censoring or ignoring the portion of the populace (by some estimates, 20% of the population) that doesn't believe in a higher being- and who apparently know American history better than anyone else on the right. Furthermore, it shouldn't be impossible for an atheist to hold public office, but in some areas of the country it is still illegal for one to even run. Let's agree that separation of church and state does not seek to take away our religious liberties, and in fact does a great deal of good FOR religious and non-religious people alike. After all, in 1872 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that, “The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority."

When this country was founded, it's founding fathers were mostly slave owners. Women weren't allowed to hold public office nor could they even vote. Women were even forced to wear several layers of clothing, dared not even expose so much as an ankle lest she be thought of in a lesser light, and even kept their heads covered in public.

The point is, since the founding of this country, mankind has grown exponentially ethically and morally, and religion has played virtually no part in that growth. If you base your religion on the Christian Bible then it would be fair to say that you would prefer that we still had slavery today since in Leviticus God gives instruction on how slaves are property to be inherited. It is also clear that in the Bible women are absolutely less valuable than men and are not to be given equal treatment.

Examples of this are vast and numerous, including when Lot, in order to spare the angels of God from having to be sodomized by the towns men, offered instead his two virgin daughters for them to "do as ye will". So if you really want to get back to the "Christian Nation" that you believe the founding fathers meant it to be, then it would stand to reason, as a "Christian Nation" we should bring back slavery, burn "witches", repeal woman's rights, and in order to save higher beings from the degradation of public sodomy, sacrifice our very children to their boss or pay the price forever?... Or have we EVOLVED past the backward thinking that this is indeed a "Christian Nation"?

Most people don't even realize that the phrase one Nation "Under God" was not in the Pledge of Allegiance or the majority of our currency until AFTER June 14, 1954, right in the midst of the McCarthy hysteria. The reasons are obvious and glaring as to why this would occur at this time. A time that we were morally, if not literally at "war" with communism. After all, by making sure that the "godless" communists knew that we were diametrically opposite them in every way- including by convincing ourselves that our founding was that of a god-fearing "Christian" nation- we would show superiority over them and win in the day's end the world's adoration and respect.

I am not now, nor have I ever advocated the abolition of Christianity or even religion in our country. I respect any person's faith, just as I would hope you would respect my lack of it. All I ask is that people realize the truth of our founding as a nation, stop trying to fundamentally change the very fabric of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to suit their purposes and ideological bent, and leave government out of our personal everyday lives. Worship in the way you choose to, but ask not the government to join you in this exercise, or its people that choose not to, as well.

That's all I ask. That's all our framers ever asked. That's all our Constitution asks of you. After all, this is not a "Christian Nation", it is a CONSTITUTIONAL one!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: W.hat W.ould W.onder W.oman D.o?

2011-01-18T11:21:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Every once in a while a person comes along that sets the collective minds and hearts of everyday people on fire with pure inspiration and thoughts of a better world through their very actions and words and deeds. If only more people were like them, what a wonderful world we would live in. Take for instance this:

“What would Jesus do”? Now, it’s pretty well known that I am not a very religious person at all and would never be caught dead wearing this tacky piece of Christian kitsch around my wrist, but it’s the thought that counts in this instance. After all, to aspire to be better than you already are is a very noble act, indeed. Sometimes we just need guidance and physical reminders from other people and things to live in the best way possible ourselves.

Besides, from every account we have heard, this was a man who could lead you by example whether you’re a Christian or not- or for that matter, whether you even believe him to be the actual son of God or not. A rebel who fought persecution and "big government" without ever brandishing so much as a closed fist against those who would harm him or the ones he loved. Someone who preached love and kindness and tolerance and duty above all else. Someone who said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” In essence, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That can’t be all that bad of a way to live your life.

After all, the "Golden Rule" is a rule for all of us to hunger for in this day and age. I know I would do good to follow that advice more often than not in my everyday life- we all could. Therefore, it’s no wonder why Jesus Christ is a hero to so many people- Christian or not- and why they choose to live their lives by his words, and his actions, and his deeds. After all, whether half of what was said about him was fact or fiction (or somewhere in between), it goes without saying that even if he wasn’t the man we believe him to be- that isn’t the most important thing. Even if some or all of what was said about him was embellished or even a flat out lie, and the words weren’t even his own- does it really matter in the day’s end if it encourages people to be better people in their own personal everyday lives?

We all need heroes, after all. In a world like this. Today of all days- we need heroes. Fact or fictional.

Take for instance, one of my personal heroes: Wonder Woman.

Yes, we all know she is a completely fictional creation, but does it really even matter? We can all learn something from the heroism and heroics that is Wonder Woman. WWWWD? "What would Wonder Woman do?"

This woman, created at a time when women didn’t dare step foot out of the kitchen, let alone any closer than no more than 4 feet behind their husbands- stood toe to toe with villains of every shape and size that some men wouldn’t even fight for fear of being beat to very inches of their lives. This woman, front and center in the heat of battle, with her head held high- fighting (not behind), but right along side the likes of Superman and Batman and the Justice Society of America. This woman, who could fight the most powerful man on Earth to a standstill, and on a good day- even kick his ass!... all without the use of kryptonite.

Wonder Woman wasn’t just a hero for women, but for men, and children, and anyone else who is thought of as lesser by virtue of who they are- but yet, who overcame it despite the overwhelming odds stacked against them. A hero who is tough as nails, but drop dead gorgeous, too! Someone who didn’t let the fact that she was a warrior stop her from being feminine without being a feminist. Someone who was a born fighter by her very birthright who used violence always as a last option, and rather preferred to stand for peace in "man’s world of war". Someone who recognized the greatness of our country even though she was not a born or natural citizen of America. An Ambassador. Someone who admired the United States and her ideals so much that she donned the colors of our flag and the very symbol of our freedom on her breastplate.

This is a woman who used- not a sword, or a gun, or even a rock to throw at her adversaries- but instead, a bright and shining golden lasso to subdue her enemies, if not enlighten them, as well. A symbol of hope to compel them to truth, justice and to simply be better people. An Amazon Princess who only fought when she needed to fight. A person so steeped in myth, and honor, and history who fought her very nature to be the person she needed to be in our world today. She was more than a fighter- she was a survivor! A person who knew that she was more than the person she was born to be, or the person she had become over these many years- but, she was the person she CHOSE to be... and that person was a hero!

That’s inspiration right there. That’s someone to be more like if you ask me. Someone whose head is always held high, and who never allows any man or woman to force her to be lesser than who she knows in her heart she isn't.

We could all do worse than have fictional heroes like Wonder Woman, or even Jesus Christ to aspire to be more like. We could have no heroes at all.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Kindness, censorship, the 1st Amendment and me!

2011-01-17T12:23:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Recently, according to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books' upcoming edition of Mark Twain's masterpiece "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" will remove all instances of the "n" word… and when I say “n” word I don’t mean “nachos”.

But the real question is, “why”?

Some people would likely point to the hurtful nature and origin of the term, and the intent of its use, but isn’t it still historical in context, and shouldn’t we always endeavor to make history as accurate as possible? Besides, don’t we have the “right“ to say it if we want to? After all, do we look to censor our public school history books, as well; or for that matter our bibles, holy books, and dictionaries because they also contain words and concepts that some people may find offensive?

Perhaps it is the context of the word, or who wrote them.

If you think that, you couldn’t be more wrong.

Mark Twain was very precise in his verbiage- he knew EXACTLY what he was saying, and more importantly, he knew WHY he was saying it. He used the word because it made people uncomfortable to use it even back then, and frankly, it was simply commonplace to use the term at that point in history. Therefore, he used it to be historically AND intellectually truthful. After all, sometimes harsh language is the only thing some people understand in order to start any kind of dialog at all.

So, having said that, was Twain a racist for the use of the word over 200 times in the novel, or was it something more? After all, it does SEEM a little bit excessive by our standards today.

A little known history that was just uncovered at Yale University found that he paid for at least one black person to attend that University’s Law School and for another black person to attend a southern university to become a minister. That clearly isn’t the actions of a racist if you ask me.

In fact, I think there are very few folks (at least in America today) that are TRUE racists at all. There are some, yes, but I think you have to look very hard to find those individuals who aren't simply "soft bigots" or just being ironic. I think we all agree that racism at it’s core is a very, very ugly thing, and I am sure we would know it if we really saw it in action today.

Still, I was approached with the notion that this will actually allow the book back into school libraries because (as most people already know) “Huck Finn” is one of the most banned books around right now. If this happens, will it increase readership and availability into the hands of children everywhere to be able to enjoy the same story that I grew up with? Or, is it an attempt to pacify a small minority of people who think they know what’s best for us all, and who want to change what we know as “true history”? If it is the former, great! But, I am not so sure that it is.

Honestly, I can't personally see any other motivation other than the unnecessary censorship of a brilliant piece of literature myself. But, then again, censorship is one of my (seemingly many) hot button issues these days. And as Voltaire put it, “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”

Or, for that matter, like our 1st President of the United States of America said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

And that is how I live my life.

Sure, you may not live your life as such, but I do. And if there is a choice between censoring history because a few people are made uncomfortable by some of its content, or allowing it to be available to those who choose to seek it out, untarnished… well, I know which side of the debate I fall on. My personal opinion is, rather than shielding people from the truth and from history, we should allow them access to untainted accounts (whether it be from a history book or a great American novel like “Huck Finn”) to determine for themselves what life truly was like.

Of course, I may be blinded by the blatant censorship of one of my very favorite books, by my very favorite author of all time.

… But, now to the important part: The United States Constitution. The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens, that is true — but only from restriction by Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment and state legislatures, as well). But does that mean it is all-encompassing? Not quite- there are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and often is suppressed.

For example, freedom of speech can be restricted in a work place. Employers (right or wrong) can restrict your right to speak in the office about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about “Desperate Housewives” if they choose to. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments for the most part. For that matter, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press clause- however, no newsstand MUST carry every paper against its owners' wishes.

And then, of course there’s libel, defamation of character, and yelling “bomb!” in a crowded New York City airport. Some forms of speech just simply are not allowed- even in America.

In other words, the 1st Amendment applies to the Federal Government DICTATING how we think and talk to each other, but not how WE think and talk to each other. It also does not dictate which religion we endorse or do not endorse as a Nation. Congress has no authority over us in that regard, but we do have the ability to create local and state laws as individuals and employers if we see fit to do so with the overall understanding that the Constitution ultimately has the final say in the day’s end. After all, we are a land based on constitutional law, not politically correct, religious or personal interpretation of the law.

Having said that, NewSouth Books' does have the "right" to change Twain's masterpiece because this work was published before January 1, 1923, and is thus in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. But the question is, "should they change it?" That is a question that could (and likely will) be debated for many years to come.

Either way, I will say this much- because we are all individuals who have had different experiences over the course of our own lifetimes, we see many things (obviously) much different from one another- for better or worse. My good AND my bad experiences have shaped my world view today- just like I am sure yours did you, and hers did her, and his did his, and anyone else's did theirs.

It's true, I can't walk in your shoes and I don't know what you've been through in life- but, frankly, I’m not so sure I even want to know, either- I have enough of my own bad experiences to live with. I am simply as honest as I can be- I can empathize, but that's about it. Likewise, some of my experiences would seem foreign to you because you wouldn't know how to react if they happened in your life.

Still, having said all of that, I also feel that it doesn't even truly matter if we completely understand one another in this life- all that matters is that we don't kill each other, or intentionally harm one other BECAUSE we're different. Besides, even though I am a product of what my experiences have made me- I am also who I am today because it is who I CHOOSE to be, not who I’ve become.

After all, we all have a thin skin about something even though we try all day long to tell ourselves and each other otherwise. When it’s all said and done, what is most important is the old adage of being true to yourself. That's all there really is, and that's all that ever really matters.

… So, after all of that, do we have the “right” or even the duty to censor ourselves, each other, or history because some people’s experiences allow for a more amplified feeling that they are offended by what we do or what we say to them because of that thin skin? That answer, at least, is a simple one for me: “Fuck no, nigga’!”

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Who's the terroirst now?!

2009-11-11T11:47:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

On November, 5th, 2009 39-year-old Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at a processing center at Fort Hood, the country's largest military installation located in Texas. Thirteen people were killed and 29 were wounded. 5 days later President Barack Obama addressed the survivors, their families, and many other soldiers who risk their lives on a sometimes daily basis for our very freedoms and way of life. He said it was, "hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy." And added, "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor… And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world and the next."

Really?!?! “Hard to comprehend”? From where I sit when someone of Middle Eastern descent stands on a table with 2 loaded handguns and shouts "Allahu Akbar!" — "God is great!" in Arabic — before opening fire on an unarmed group of individuals, it is pretty darn clear to me what his motivations are! And add to that, "U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda” according to two American officials briefed on classified material in the case who told ABC News. Not to mention, the fact that Hasan berated our involvement in the war at every chance to anyone who would listen to him on and off base, and was publically angered at his impending deployment to fight his “brothers in Allah”, as he had allegedly been heard saying.

So to say, "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts” just simply isn’t true. And, no, it's not hard to comprehend. It was the act of an Islamic terrorist who mowed down dozens of people all because he believed he was doing the will of Allah in accordance with the Koran.

It’s that simple.

But, to add insult to injury, the President did not one time mention terror, terrorist, or terrorism when he spoke on Tuesday. What more evidence does it take for our President to admit that this was an act of terror? He did not even name Major Nidal Hasan, the terrorist accused of the killings.

But, was Hasan REALLY a terrorist?

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

It states in part, “the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” As of this act, the victims in themselves were indeed noncombatants. Meaning: Army base civilians not at that time engaged in combat. And Hasan played at very obviously premeditated, politically AND religiously motivated violence.

Independent Senator, Joe Lieberman even said "... There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, this was a terrorist act... In the U.S. Army, this is not a matter of constitutional freedom of speech. If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone."

So starts the ‘blame game’!

So, who is really to blame? The military for cow towing to political correctness and not profiling the shooter from the start? The CIA for not sharing important information about Hasan with the Armed Forces that they apparently had? The soldiers themselves because one of their own once called Hasan a ‘towel head’? President Bush for starting a war in Iraq? Obama for staring one in Afghanistan? Islam? Christians?... Maybe the shooter himself? No, that would be too obvious. The REAL culprit seems to be guns, according to Chicago Mayor Daley.

Here’s a quote from Mayor McDumb-ass shortly after the shooting: “Unfortunately, America loves guns. We love guns to a point where that, uh… we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group.”

Yeah, you don’t blame a group— especially a radically religious group of terrorists hell-bent on the destruction of us and our very freedoms because their "God" told them to. And you certainly don’t blame a person who may or may not belong to a particular group that has the power to vote for you. Because, let’s face it, it’s easier to blame an inanimate object that DOESN’T vote.

But yet it was an ARMED police officer that brought this monster down eventually. And, let’s face facts, the damage would have been very much mitigated if even ONE of the victims would have been armed, as well. Unfortunately, even in the military-- unless you are in a combat situation or a Military Police Officer-- you are not authorized to carry a firearm. So the death toll was what it was.

Mayor McCheese, with all due respect, guns aren’t to blame. Guns could have AVERTED this cowardly act of terrorism and saved the day!!!

And, contrary to President Obama’s personal confusion as to how this act could have occurred, it's clear what the root of the problem truly is anyway. And I don’t even need to say it out loud. You and I both know who and what is truly to blame.

Still, thank goodness for one thing. Thank goodness the shooter was injured and taken out, but not killed. Instead, he is awake and talking as of 2 days ago. Gee, I wonder if his first words were, "Oh shit! I'm alive?!?!? Those MP’s don’t look like the virgins Allah promised me. *gulp* This can't be good...." And why? To paraphrase the infamous words of Colonel Trautman from Rambo III, “God would have mercy. WE won't."

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Swine Flu for you?!

2009-11-04T13:19:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Raise your hand if you are sick and tired of hearing about the dreaded Swine Flu, and that we HAVE to make sure we take the vaccine the Government is offering us!

Yeah, me too. But, unfortunately I feel this is just the beginning, and before it's all over, we will be in for far more than just rhetoric and fear-mongering that we are all in mortal peril because of one sick pig.

If only we could have a little perspective on things such as these, we'd be much better off. For instance:

- 36,000 people die of the seasonal flu every year in the US.
- The White House claims 1000 have died from Swine Flu so far in over 10 months in the US.
- However, that number is grossly overstated since the majority of cases where folks THOUGHT they had Swine Flu were not actually tested by their Doctors. The Doctors made the assessment that they MAY have had the Swine Flu, but the CDC says it was never proven. This larger number is the number that the President's office sites for the over 1000 people that they claim have died from the illness.
- Of those people that have died, they say 100 have been children. This is the number most often in the news; obviously preying on our duty to our children as a Nation.
- But of ALL of the cases where death occurred, ALL of the people were elderly, already had a major illness, or were children with compromised or weak immune systems.
- Not one SINGLE healthy adult has died from Swine Flu!

But even if the high numbers the White House has put out are accurate, it pales in comparison to the numbers of people that die annually because of the regular flu virus-- we need that perspective right now and not be won over by the fear-mongering, people. Afterall, it's not like this is the first time we were scared into believing that the Swine Flu would take us all.

The 1976 swine flu outbreak, also known as the 'swine flu fiasco' killed just one person and hospitalized only 13. Some recipients of the vaccine later developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, a disorder affecting the peripheral nervous system. Overall, about 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurred because of the vaccine, resulting in the deaths of over 30 people.

President Ford was acting on the advice of medical experts, who believed they were dealing with a virus potentially as deadly as the one that caused the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic. So, mass vaccinations started in October, but within weeks reports started coming in of people developing Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralyzing nerve disease, right after taking the shot. Within two months, 500 people were affected, and more than 30 died. Amid a rising uproar and growing public reluctance to risk the shot, federal officials abruptly canceled the program Dec. 16.

In the end, 40 million Americans were inoculated, and there was no epidemic. More technically advanced examination of the virus revealed later that it was nowhere near as deadly as the 1918 influenza virus. The only recorded fatality from swine flu itself was an unfortunate Pvt. in the Armed Forces named Lewis.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should, because much of it is mimicking what is happening 33 years later.

Take this as a warning to NOT take the vaccine today which was hastily made just like it was in 1976!

But if that wasn't enough-- for you animal lovers out there: One of the key ingredients used in ALL flu vaccines (including the vaccines being prepared for the swine flu pandemic) is the diseased flesh of African Green Monkeys. Ingredients used in the vaccine are derived from the kidneys of these monkeys who are first infected with the virus, then allowed to fester the disease, and finally, are killed so that their diseased organs can be used make vaccine ingredients. This is done in a cruel, inhumane "flesh factory" environment where the monkeys are subjected to a process that includes "incubating said inoculated cell line to permit proliferation of said virus."

And lastly, don't forget one of the most important pieces of this frightening puzzle our President is trying to put together for us: Presidential Directive 51, which was made in the closing weeks of the administration of President George W. Bush. It came after months of heated internal debate about the balance of power and the role of the military in a time of crisis, participants said. Officials said the Obama administration had left the plan completely intact.

It states among many other things: The sitting President can claim power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." This Directive also gives the power of the President to completely cancel any and all elections in the United Sates for an undisclosed period of time of his own choosing.

The President's office has already declared America in a National emergency because of Swine Flu. It wouldn't be to difficult of a stretch to turn that "National" emergency into a "catastrophic" emergency. And then, we have a brand new problem to deal with. Don't think it could happen? Let's just hope I am the tin-foil hat wearing, Conservative nutcase Homeland Security warned you about.

The bottom line is this: If you live a healthy life-style, complete with some moderate daily exercise, plenty of liquids, and free from the things that compromise our immune systems like excess alcohol consumption, illicit drug use of any kind, cigarettes and foods we know to be harmful to us, you will likely be just fine. Even if you indulge in these things once in a while, the chances of you developing Swine Flu is still very small. And if you do get the flu, do what you normally do: get plenty of rest, stay hydrated, take TESTED medications that have been on the market for years if need be, and you will get through it like you have gotten through every other flu you have ever had.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Smoker's Rights?!?!

2009-09-08T09:09:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Just the other day, I saw a sight that I thought I would never see again in today’s world. I watched a woman stumble out of a small, compact and crowded car as a wave of cigarette smoke billowed out after her— chasing her like a rabid dingo scavenging for raw meat. But that wasn’t the part that shocked me. It was when she rounded the back of the car to open the passenger’s side door.

She reached in (with cigarette dangling from her mouth like a limp piece of pickled asparagus) and grabbed an infant girl in her arms. The smoke not only wafted into the innocent child’s face and nose and lungs without restraint, but the red hot poker at the tip of the woman’s lips came within a mere fraction of an inch of the baby’s brand new skin.

Barring for just one second how completely inappropriate and inconsiderate second hand smoke is to all of us non-smokers, and just how deadly it can almost always be; it is frankly appalling to me in this day and age (the age of mass and very public information) that smokers even still exist!... Let alone subject their children to their addictive, noxious, and basically venomous behavior.

After all, it is common knowledge that between 70% and 90% of non-smokers in the American population- children as well as adults- are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke actually gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for EVERYONE to breathe. If a person spends more than two hours in a room where someone is smoking, the nonsmoker inhales the equivalent of four entire cigarettes.

Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke. Couldn’t that be construed as grounds for manslaughter in the judicial system today? Why are smokers allowed to kill our children, and get away with it?

Unfortunately, this is all particularly disturbing since less than 20% of the entire population of the United States smokes. Yet, smokers get nearly all the protection under the law, excluding some restaurants and public facilities that have finally gotten smart and banned it from their premises entirely.

"But don’t smokers have rights?" "If we give the government the power to regulate smoking, what comes next?" "Will all of our rights as Americans be completely eroded if the smoker’s drug of choice is made illegal?" Smokers say these and many other things, and are as obnoxious as ever- especially now that we have a President that admits to smoking today. It's like they have carte blanche to engage in this behavior because our Barry does.

For the love of Pete, this is idiocy!

As the old comic book adage goes, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” But I say, “With true freedom, comes personal responsibility.” You must show restraint and consideration for those people around you especially when you engage in deadly and unwanted behaviors that effect the greater good of the majority of the people.

Therefore, we have to consistently rise to the occasion and be the best and most honorable individuals we can be as an entire people, especially for the sake and well-being of our children. They are what’s most important. They are who we must protect. After all, let’s call it for what it truly is: smoking is abuse.

Second hand smoke has been proven to be more harmful than regular smoking, after all. This is something that has been on the radio, tv and in the newspapers for years, yet people continue to smoke around their children and subject them to this "abuse".

Is this any less harmful than the lead that we find in toy products or on our walls or in our schools that we are told will kill us?

Every time a person breathes in second-hand smoke, over 100 harmful chemical agents - carcinogens and toxins are consumed. And in case you don't already know- some of these carcinogens include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, benzoapyrene, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and many others. The bottom line is, things like asbestos are not allowed to be used in homes today, but smoking is still perfectly legal.

Some things I will sadly NEVER understand! But in the meantime, the next time a smoker lights up in front of you or your kids; take a swig from the Big Gulp you bought from 7-Eleven that morning, swish it around nice and slobbery in your mouth (especially if you have recently eaten and still have food between your teeth); then, rear back, hock it right in his face, and say, "Gosh! I hope you don't mind my second hand spit!" That'll teach 'em! ... Or it will get you into a nice, big fist fight. Either way, now you've got their attention.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Christianity: The best damn protection racket around!

2009-09-07T11:15:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!
By Nicholas Meyeres

Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Zombie Jewish carpenter who was somehow conceived without a father, but who is in some way his own celestial father born of flesh and blood to a VIRGIN; who can also make you live forever only if you symbolically eat his skin and telepathically tell him every night before bedtime that you accept his claim as lord and master over everything in creation; so he can mystically remove the invisible evil force living inside of you like an undetectable tumor all because a woman wearing a fig leaf was convinced by a talking snake to eat a magical fruit from a forbidden tree in a lush, tropical, beautiful garden somewhere in the Middle Eastern DESERT…. Do I have that straight?

Makes sense to me too!

Seriously though, Christianity is a belief system that denies all sorts of other beliefs to everyone else here on Earth, but when someone denies ours to us we are outraged, and further, we feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists anthropomorphize other life forms such as great apes as some distant cousin perhaps more intelligent than your average hillbilly uncle from the deep south, but they still have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt, a rib, and a breath of life from an invisible man sitting somewhere in the sky spying on you when you shower. This is the "God" that gives you famine, plague, murder, rape, and United States Congressmen— not a toy train set and a dolly that wets herself on command for Christmas. No. Just all the other really, REALLY bad shit!

Which bring me to a relatively recent census report: According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, it was concluded that Christians make up 75% of the entire U.S. population. And that they also make up 75% of the prison population. While conversely, atheists and agnostics make up almost 20% of the total U.S. population, but only .029% of the total prison population.

Isn’t that just a little interesting? When we grow up being taught that a kind, tolerant, all-seeing, all-knowing, benevolent god that cares for us murders the entire population of the Earth just to "start all over" because he isn’t pleased with the outcome; it makes me wonder if our "nature" to be sinful is really all that ironic given how we were "raised" by a God with more anger management issues than a drunk at Christmas-time. God needs a 12 step program, that’s for damn certain!!! Seriously, isn't this the ultimate Nature vs. Nurture senerio? It's our "nature" to be sinful according to religious folks, but damn it!- God sure does suck in the nurture department, am I right!?!

I mean, to believe a loving Lord who would just as soon banish you to an eternity of Hell rather than allow you to think for yourself makes you wonder how honorable this dude is to start with.

Of course, then there’s the old adage that “God told me to”, which actually works out for some people. Or rather, the ones who say, “I wanted to be just like God—that’s why I killed all those people with a high-powered assault rifle from a cockroach-infested hotel room three stories up.”

But, good news! All we have to do is say to the offender, “accept God into your heart and you are saved”, or that it was all “God’s will” and thankfully we’re all off the hook from actually using our brains and figuring it out ourselves.

God is good, indeed. REAL good. And sneaky as shit!

But hey, I can’t prove the God-nonsense anymore than the average Christian can prove his claim that God IS real, so I guess it’s all a moot point in the day’s end when it’s all done anyway. After all, whether you buy a ticket for the magical Mormon underpants tour, believe in talking bushes that espouse the word of God through musical theatre, think there are entire worlds chock full of virgins waiting for you when you die, or know that Tom Cruise really IS from another planet— there are only two different people in the world. The sane, and the bat-shit crazy!

But are the religious THAT crazy? Religion seems to be a pretty smart racket, to be sure!

Several forms of rackets exist. The best-known is the protection racket, in which criminals demand money from businesses in exchange for the service of "protection" against crimes that the racketeers themselves instigate if unpaid.

Let that sink in for a minute or two.

Alright, done? Religion is the single most brilliant protection racket around!

Let’s break that definition down by the numbers, shall we?

Several forms of rackets (religions) exist. The best-known is the protection racket (Christianity), in which criminals (ministers, priests, reverends, etc.) demand money (tithing) from businesses (sinners) in exchange for the service of "protection" (the right to go to Heaven) against crimes (sins) that the racketeers (the church) themselves instigate if unpaid (you go to Hell).

"Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business that is based on the example of the 'protection racket' and indicates that the speaker believes that the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that it created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed."

You can’t get any clearer than that!

So, when you lie awake in your bed at night wondering if you will go to Heaven or Hell when you die, remember this: Life ain’t so bad on this rock while you’re here, if you let it be. Sure, bad stuff happens to good people and hot pink Capri pants are still being sold in stores; but the sun still shines, birds still sing, healthy babies are born every day, and Ben and Jerry’s comes in 62 flavors and counting! And, if by some stretch of the imagination I am right and this is all you got, you will have wasted it all for the chance at something better that was never really there in the first place. Besides, life is short and you gotta’ lot of ice cream to try!

After all, Thomas Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." And who am I to argue with one of our greatest Founding Fathers?

Welcome to the Salughterhouse: Until there are none, adopt one: Top Democrats who buy pets from breeders

2009-05-20T09:40:00.000-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

I was listening to the Glenn Beck radio program on the way to work this morning and heard him promoting a product as all radio personalities do in order to keep themselves on the air. But this one was different and more than just a little bit personal for me. It was an ad for Purina One dog and cat food.

Now, Glenn is the virtual cry baby of the airwaves- no one denies that. If you have ever heard his radio show, or watched his Fox News program you already know this. He is the in essence the Jerry Fallwell of the conservative talk show circuit. It doesn’t take much to get the water works a’goin’ for ol’ Glenn Beck… especially when he is talking about his beloved family of which he proudly says his dog of many years is an integral and important part of.

Glenn has talked about his dog countless times over the years and also about the benefits of his dog eating Purina One for his health and wellbeing. But he has never talked about how or where he got his dog from before now… at least, not that I was aware of. But he did today, and the verdict was simple: he was adopted from a shelter. In fact, ALL of Glenn’s dogs have been adopted from shelters, and all of the dogs he grew up with as a child have been, as well.

He went on to say it was more than a family tradition or particular upbringing, it was a part of his own sense of morality and his family's morality. And that’s why he supports Purina One. Not only is it a great product, but they are the creators of The One Hope Network, which is, in their words, “…a movement dedicated to helping transform the lives of pets… by increasing pet adoptions, volunteerism, donations and by elevating the status of all pets.”

They go on to explain on their website here:

“Are you ready to make a difference in the life of a shelter pet?...
You don't have to go to a pet store or a breeder to find your perfect pet. From purebreds to mixed breeds, puppies and kittens to already trained adult pets, there's sure to be the right cat or dog for you in a shelter nearby.

When you adopt a pet, you save a life.”

Unfortunately, on the opposite side of the spectrum you have Democratic President Barack Obama who received his dog from a breeder when all the while he promised time and again to the American people that he planned to get the "new puppy" for his girls from a rescue shelter. In fact, it wasn’t just from any breeder, it was the same breeder longtime Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy used for his three purebred Portuguese Water Dogs.

But it wasn’t just the Kennedys and Obamas that bought from breeders. Another breeder, Linda Brown, bred and sold Vice President Joe Biden (also a Democrat) his pure German shepherd puppy.

Even the Clintons are culprits.

They had their cat Socks painfully declawed before abandoning him to Bill Clinton’s secretary, Betty Currie, who lives in Hollywood, Md. The Clintons left the White House and Socks in early 2001, who died recently at the age of 18. Not only did they leave poor Socks behind, but the Clintons hadn’t even visited him since departing their former home on Pennsylvania Ave. before he passed away.

But not all was lost, and the Clintons didn’t leave the most famous address in the world completely empty-handed. They did take Buddy- (that’s right)- their pure bred chocolate lab that they bought from a breeder as they left "the cat" behind.

Incidentally and unfortunately enough, Buddy was ran over by a truck at the age of four as he was left roaming off-leash while in the Clintons' care.

Thank goodness we have conservatives like Glenn Beck who believe in animal rescue and welfare, and who is also vehemently opposed to animal cruelty. He was the one who broke the story of American hero and retired Navy SEAL Marcus Littrell’s dog being executed by multiple teenaged males recently.

Watch the moving clip from Glenn Beck's second broadcast on this tragedy here:

But he isn’t the only conservative of his kind to be kind.

If you love animals, you may shockingly have something in common with Rush Limbaugh, as well. His cat of many years, Punkin, is his pride and joy and also a rescue. Limbaugh has even made multiple PSA’s for HSUS (The Humane Society Of The United States Of America) about opposing animal cruelty, adopting shelter companion animals, and also the connection of religion, kindness, and the "faithful stewardship of animals" as he calls it to morality and personal responsibility.

Listen to the PSA’s here:

And here:

And then, you have Matthew Scully.

When you think of vegetarians and animal rights, most people automatically think of the political left which is usually associated with animal activism, legislation and environmentalism. But, this is not entirely justified— at least not in the political realm. On the conservative front you can just as easily find animal advocates like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Matthew Scully to name a few.

Matthew Scully is not only active in the political right, but he was a speechwriter in the elections of 2000 and served as a speechwriter and special assistant for George W. Bush from 2001 to 2004.

As a vegetarian, he is also the author of the highly acclaimed book "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" in which he draws the attention of the public eye to the fate of the billions of animals suffering and dying daily.

And then you have Executive Producer and Head Writer of the Glenn Beck Show, Stu Burguiere who is not only a conservative who opposes animal cruelty and supports rescue shelter pet adoptions, but he is a vegetarian of many years as well, just like Matthew Scully.

But don’t forget John Mccain, who co-sponsored more animal rights bills than any other Republican Senator currently in office and nearly more than any Democrat. Mccain is an animal lover who has 24 animals including six cats, two turtles, three birds, fourteen fish, a ferret and a mixed breed shelter dog he adopted named Coco.

But now to the rub.

I work at a no-kill animal rescue shelter, and have a love of animals that reaches back likely to the day I was born. I am also a conservative of many years and a vegetarian of over half my life. So, I have a personal vested interest in not just how politicians vote, but how they live their personal lives in regard to animal welfare issues, including where they get their own pets from.

The bottom line is: 5 million American pets die in shelters every year while 80% of new pets are chosen from a breeder or pet store. And with a limited number of homes available, a puppy or kitten purchased from a breeder or pet store takes the home of a rescued shelter pet. In essence, when you buy from a breeder, you indirectly murder a viable, loving, potential family member and companion to you and your loved ones that could have been adopted from any number of shelters the world over. Mostly because a majority of them don’t reside in no-kill shelters like the one I work for.

Top conservatives of the day already seem to have committed these facts to memory. That is one of the tenants of being a conservative, after all, to be personally and fiscally responsible. And what better way to embody this ideal than to see the need to adopt a pet rather than over saturate an already exploding market and contribute to even more irresponsible spending?

Just do me (and shelter pets everywhere) a favor, and spread the word to all the liberal politicians you know: please, adopt from shelters, don’t buy from breeders. The memo was apparently lost when the currier sent it to all of our high ranking democrats in office today— that goes double for you Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Senator Kennedy, former President Clinton, and Madam Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton!

Let Adoption Be Your First Option.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: The vegetarian conservative

2009-04-21T20:38:00.001-07:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Recently a fugitive animal rights activist charged with bombing two California offices made news headlines. 31-year old Daniel Andreas San Diego of Berkeley, California became the first domestic terrorist named to the FBI's list of "Most Wanted" terror suspects.

Law enforcement officials and Homeland Security describe San Diego as a strict vegan who possesses a 9mm handgun. On his abdomen, he has tattooed images of burning and collapsing buildings- most likely representing his extremist outlook and personality to do harm to others.

Which prompts the question: Is there a common personality type amongst vegetarians and vegans, or animal activists in general; and are they all radicals with an agenda of terrorism toward those who disagree with them? Do they all engage in an odd lifestyle through means of their choice in diet, and unnatural love of animals?

For that matter, the same sort of extremism can be said of right-wing conservatives according to Janet Napolitano, United States Secretary of Homeland Security when she issued a newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warning against the possibility of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats, according to a report in WorldNetDaily.

And thus, the move to add a domestic, left-wing terrorist to the list comes only days after the Obama administration was criticized for this report suggesting some military veterans could also be susceptible to right-wing extremist recruiters or commit lone acts of violence. This prompted angry reactions from some lawmakers and veterans groups and perhaps even aided in the addition of San Diego to the list to begin with.

And this got me thinking about the common perception that vegetarians are all tree-hugging, limp-wristed, granola-munching, pot-smoking hippies, which obviously isn’t the case at all. There are common personality patterns, to be sure, but not all stereo-types are accurate. Case in point: Daniel Andreas San Diego.

So, because of San Diego, do all vegetarians have alternative and/or terrorist leanings? After all, Hitler was a vegetarian… so, does that mean all vegetarians are predisposed to support fascist dictatorships? Do all Conservatives have terrorist leanings for that matter because of the warning sent out by Homeland Security? Are all vegans or animal activists liberals? Are all republicans hunters who bomb abortion clinics?

Take this example; liberals typically do not endorse the Second Amendment as heartily as republicans do, but didn't San Diego own a 9mm?

I will say this much: Sure, the largest majority of folks on both sides are in fact in keeping to their respective stereotypes, but not all of them are. Some flat out defy the gravity and seeming logic of their individual Party's platforms in order to become their own person. Some people simply vote their conscience regardless of duty to Party.

When you think of vegetarians and animal rights, most people automatically think of the political left which is usually associated with animal activism, legislation and environmentalism. But, this is not entirely justified. On the conservative front you can just as easily find animal advocates (though, perhaps not as many). One such a conservative vegetarian is Matthew Scully.

Active in the political right, he was a speechwriter in the elections of 2000 and served as a speechwriter and special assistant for George W. Bush from 2001 to 2004. Should he be on the list of potential terrorists for his beliefs, as well? After all, he is not only an animal welfare advocate, but he is a republican associated with the dreaded George W. Bush! He should be on BOTH lists!!!

Since the 1970's Scully has been a vegetarian ever since he saw the awful pictures and images of animals suffering in the modern day animal factories. From that day forward, he decided to go meatless.

As author of the highly acclaimed book "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" he draws the attention of the public eye to the fate of the billions of animals suffering and dying daily. The reviews of his work were very positive and rightly so. The National Review described Dominion as "A fascinating and disturbing read." I can't do anything else but agree. He hits the nail on the head in his books and in the articles on his own homesite. Written from a conservative viewpoint, it shows that you don't have to be "progressive" to be animal friendly.

"But, Nicholas," you ask, "how can one be a conservative AND a vegetarian? Isn't vegetarianism incompatible with the hunting, environment rampaging image that any good conservative not only embraces, but proclaims proudly?"

Bottom line, hunting is and has been on the decline for many years now. The number of people who have hunted in prior years is far greater than it is today. Latent or inactive hunters are people who consider themselves hunters but who have not hunted in the past several years for all sorts of different reasons. Approximately 23 million people have hunted within the last five years according to the Southwick Associates back in 2003.

But back in 2001 the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation shows that there are 43.7 million people in the United States who have hunted at one time in their life. That's a MAJOR decline in just a few short years, and it continues to decline today. So, hunting isn't the issue at all.

In fact, for me it is a much more complicated series of issues. I am indeed a vegetarian of nearly 18 years (much more than half of my entire life) and also a proud conservative. I don't hunt, but I am very much in favor of the right to bear arms and own guns. Not because I use them on a regular basis (in fact I have NEVER used them); I simply believe in our Second Amendment right to own them- not for the sport of hunting, but because our Founding Fathers knew a time would come when we would need them for the purpose of our welfare and protection as an entire people.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government."

Our collective hope is that that day will never come, but from the standpoint of our own history, our Framers felt the need to fight back the tyranny of the British Empire for their very own freedoms. So, it should go without saying that they would ensure that right to all Americans for the same purpose if it should ever come to that. After all, the Second Amendment says nothing whatsoever about our right to bear arms being for the purpose of hunting.

Which brings me to another conservative tenant: the Pro-Life movement.

The Pro-Life movement is a tricky one for many folks to wrap their minds around fully. It is a loaded term that can catch you in a multitude of personal hypocrisies that are nearly impossible to get out of if you let it. For instance, traditionally, if you are 'Pro-Life', you are likely also for the Death Penalty. Or if you are for abortion, you are against owning guns, and also predominately against war. I myself am 'Pro-Life' all the way across the board.

I am against abortion AND against capital punishment; I think war is a last option at best and should be for the purpose of the defense of our country and not for preemptive reasons; I am a vegetarian, I don't hunt, and I strongly support animal welfare issues on both sides of the political spectrum.

It may look like my views are all over the place, but it makes sense to me. I don't just support unborn fetal life, or inmates' lives-- I support ALL life! That is why I can truly call myself Pro-Life and keep my complete dignity and conviction in tact when I say it out loud to others.

Another closely held belief in the Republican Party is that of personal responsibility. And what better way to express that ideal than to not kill when it is not even necessary in the first place. If hunting is a sport, then it isn't urgent for our survival. It is not necessary. Even the Christian Bible speaks to this.

The Bible says in Genesis that we have dominion over the animals, not domination. We were not put on this Earth to control them, or subjugate them, or filet them for dinner at The Outback Steakhouse. We have "dominion": meaning, we are charged with the obligation of personally being responsible for their lives and how they are treated as they walk on our Earth.

Also in Genesis 1:30 God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given green plant for food." And it was so.

This sounds very simple to me. It sounds like we were meant to be vegetarians from the beginning of creation by these words.

To be honest, it makes more sense for conservatives to be vegetarians than anything else. After all, in their namesake, a conservative conserves. Conservation of our liberties and freedoms through our Constitution of the United States of America. Conservation of ourselves through the act of preserving, guarding, and protecting all our sentient brethren as reverent. Conservation in and of itself by not ending the existence of anything prematurely for our own personal gain, or for the gains of the State, or any other intent other than purely for preservation. Conservation of life: plain and simple.

Conservation of all life.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: The most ethical Administration EVER!

2009-02-03T10:46:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Barack Obama campaigned on promising the American people the most ethical, open and transparent Administration ever if elected. Really? Because from where I sit, it sure doesn’t look like it so far!

Let’s start with Uncle Joe Biden’s comments early on in the campaign, shall we? "Paying taxes is a patriotic duty," he said. Father Joe even made it a religious experience by making it a duty — as a Catholic:

“Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most,” he said. “Now it’d be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut.”

I’m really beginning to believe that the VP got his Catholic instruction by mail.

Leaving aside the ridiculous notion that a politician poses as a Catholic on social issues and still supports abortion, Catholics are taught to act as individuals to assist the poor. Nowhere in Catholic doctrine (the catechism) can one find the notion that taxes are required for this purpose.

But still, glad to hear it, Joe! Especially since you also hammered into us all that the "rich" would be the most patriotic of us all, and pay even more than the rest. Like, let’s say, wealthy politicians for example. They should be the first in line to lead the charge for higher taxes, and propel us into this prosperous, and most ethical Administration ever!

Uh, but no. Instead they evade their "patriotic duty" every chance they get, and expect the rest of us to not notice.

The list of excuses offered by Rep. Charles Rangel for failing to pay taxes on at least $75,000 in rental income from his luxury beachfront villa in the Caribbean grows longer and longer and longer. Now, the Associated Press takes the Harlem Democrat, who is chairman of the powerful tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, to task for inaccuracies in his personal financial disclosures to Congress. "I personally feel that I have done nothing morally wrong," he said.

Well, in that case, we forgive you, Chuck!

And who could forget, Barack’s cute and cuddly pick for Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years while he worked for the International Monetary Fund? Oh, and he employed an immigrant housekeeper who briefly lacked proper work papers.

Those issues, and a series of other tax matters were washed away when Geithner was picked as Obama's Treasury Secretary. I mean he will only oversee the freeking IRS, for crying out loud! He then flubbed his own tax returns – some of which he had personally prepared – to the tune of $42,700 in back taxes and penalties. And then, Geithner decided to pay more than half that amount— $26,000— only AFTER Obama decided to nominate him. Obama’s team calls them all “honest mistakes”.

Of course they are. And in that case, Timmah, we forgive you, too.

But then there was Daschle. Tom Daschle says he's "deeply embarrassed and disappointed" about his failure to pay more than $120,000 in taxes. This is the guy Barack picked to head the Health and Human Services Department.

"I deeply apologize to President Obama, to my colleagues and to the American people," Tommy-Boy said recently. Oh, well that makes it all better then, doesn’t it?! "Nobody's perfect," added press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Ain’t that the truth! I know I’m sure not perfect. So, I can see that, too! But why did you "bow out" so quickly, Tom-Tom? You already apologized.

But hold on, there’s more! Nancy Killefer, failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, and then withdrew her candidacy to be the Chief Performance Officer for the federal government.

And of course, there was Obama's first choice for Commerce Secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who took his name out of consideration when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.

And then as his second pic for the post that Richardson had left vacant, Sen. Judd Gregg, became President Obama's new candidate to run the Commerce Department. The problem is, he voted in favor of abolishing that very agency as a member of the Budget Committee while on the Senate floor in 1995.

Oh…. well, I am sure they ALL really did nothing wrong in the first place. I mean just because I would be hunted down and likely imprisoned by the IRS if I "forgot" to pay even a fraction of those kinds of back taxes still doesn’t mean the new "ethical" Administration should be held accountable for their obvious lack of a moral compass. They are under such stress as it is to deliver on "the change we all need", after all, and I am sure every single one of them made actual honest mistakes… and thus, should all be forgiven.

And so should "sniper-fire" Hill for her wrong-doings- all of which I highly doubt I need to go into right here and now.

But there was SOME welcome news when another Cabinet choice, Eric Holder, was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in as the first African-American U.S. attorney general!

.... But wait, Holder's nomination initially had been viewed as problematic because of questions over his role in controversial pardons when he was the No. 2 Justice Department official under President Bill Clinton. But because of that, and just because he was also the guy that defended the extraction of Cuban refugee Elian Gonzales at gun point from his family in Miami and his return to Cuba with his father doesn’t make him a bad guy.

And come on. Even though Holder was the Deputy Attorney General who encountered controversy when, during the closing days of the Clinton Administration, he vetted Marc Rich as a candidate for a Presidential pardon, shouldn’t mean we can’t still respect the guy.

You’ll recall, Marc Rich was a fugitive from justice who had been indicted for tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran in 1983… wait. Tax evasion? Now come on! This is just getting ridiculous, now!!!

And now Holder will be the country's chief law enforcement official as head of the Justice Department.

But, at least he’s black! That counts for something, right?

…. I mean it’s not like Barack has ever lied to us. We have every reason to trust him.

Alright, enough of the sarcasm. As Barack Obama conveniently hid in Hawaii his staff released their internal investigation into the Blagojevich scandal. What does the investigation show us? It shows us that Barack Obama lied to the American people when he claimed that nobody on his staff had any conversations with Blagojevich. HE L-I-E-D! Plain and simple. Although he still claims that none of the conversations were about a pay to play deal the report does state that Obama gave Rahm Emanuel a list of acceptable replacements for Blagojevich to consider.

In later telephone conversations, Rahmbo- also with the Obama’s approval- presented other names of "qualified" candidates including Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Ms. Cheryle Jackson.

While it is entirely likely that St. Emanuel never discussed a deal with Blago and hence there was no wrong-doing, the bottom line is that Obama’s first reaction to the story was to lie about his staff’s involvement. That is just too hard to overlook. Obama’s first “crisis” or controversy and his initial reaction to it was to lie about it. If he had just come clean in the beginning it would have looked a hell of a lot better.

By lying about Emanuel’s involvement it makes him look like he was hiding something. Perhaps he is— only time will tell.

And we have PLENTY of time; we’re only into the first 2 weeks of his new and improved, most ethical Administration ever! …. My ass!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Barack HUSSEIN Obama = censorship!

2009-01-28T01:04:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Barack Obama told top GOP leaders recently, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package- which by the way, will eventually cost more than EVERY single war America has EVER fought since this country has existed.... but I digress. Shortly afterward Limbaugh retorted, "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to this guy, say 'okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails'."

Fair enough. But that isn't where the story ends. Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill that they need to "quit listening" to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and his new administration. A-WHAT!?!?

Pardon me. Are they saying what I think they're saying??? No. Gawd, no.... don't let us go down this road.... I am begging you. Please. Not in America.... not here. Not now.

But yes, it is true.... the petition went out of the White House late yesterday afternoon, January 27th, 2009- "The Day Freedom Died"!

But first, let's be clear about one thing right away; the same people that think it's "cool" for the President of the freeking UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to convince The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to launch an online petition against Rush Limbaugh for hoping he "fails" are the same douche bags that thought it was just aces for the Dixie C*nts... uh, er... Chicks to call President Bush a "Dumb f---"!

The Dixie Chick's movie "Shut Up and Sing" shows the singers watching a news report on President Bush's reaction to their infamous on-stage comment, overseas no less. In the report, Bush says "the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind," adding, "they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street." After watching this footage, Maines then repeats the president's comment and says, "What a dumb f---." She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush himself, and reiterates, "You're a dumb f---." Classy ladies, real classy. No, there's no bias or double standard there at all... nooooo. Not at all, sir.

Bush understood that freedom is a "two-way street", why can't Hussein.... oh golly. I am sorry, did I really say that? I got the memo, but I forgot.... I must be temporarily retarded today. That's right, we can't use that name anymore, can we.... well, f*ck it! Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama!!! HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN!! HUSSEIN!!!

This is America, people! Where our very FIRST Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Read it. Learn it. Believe it. And deal with it!

Rush will NOT be silenced. Not now, not ever. And if he is, then EVERYTHING we ever thought about Barack HUSSEIN Obama was all true!!! And then, the rebellion will truly begin! IF Rush is censored, or God forbid, taken off of the air completely; it will amount to nothing shy of a fascist dictator's vendetta to silence all that oppose he and his ilk. And I swear to you ALL-- mark my words-- this time, change WILL come... but not the kind you all hoped and prayed for.

As for what Rush said: RIGHT ON, RUSH! If Socialist policies, Communistic tendencies, down-right blatant Fascism, a new kind of American dictatorship, corporatism and crapping on the Constitution and our 1st Amendment Rights as freedom-loving Americans is what he stands for.... I hope he fails, too!!!!

.... I just hope we don't all have to fail right along with him....

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Can you spot the REAL racist Party?! Part II

2009-01-22T00:00:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

The Republican Party was born out of the very people that allowed for Abraham Lincoln to become one of our greatest, if not our very greatest champion of equal rights to people of all color. They started as the “Anti-Slavery Party”, and in the early 1850’s the Republican Party was conceived by anti-slavery activists and individuals who met for the first time in a tiny school house in Ripon, Wisconsin. Their motto was, “For Liberty and against human bondage.”

But that wasn’t all they stood for. The new party put forward a vision of modernizing the entire United States — emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities. In fact, it is little known that The Republican Party founded ALL of the historical black Colleges and Universities in the Nation. A fact, they probably don't teach in those same colleges today.

It was the Republicans who also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables into play. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

And, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. President Eisenhower actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military, and under Executive Order 10730, Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school.

And don’t forget, it was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was actually fair to blacks.

Not to mention, President George W. Bush has appointed a more diverse set of top advisers, including women, blacks, and Hispanics, than any president in the history of America. He even named his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to be the first female African-American secretary of State. But, of course, many on the left today still call him "racist" for his slow call to action during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

In comparison, it was Sen. Ben Tillman, another Democrat, who said in 1906, “Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats."

Even the ‘liberal’ New York Times got into the action on May 10, 1900 saying, “. . . The Republican Party committed a great public crime when it gave the right of suffrage to the blacks. . . . So long as the Fifteenth Amendment stands, the menace of the rule of the blacks will impend, and the safeguards against it must be maintained."

But don’t forget it was Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, who headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II.
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.

And then there was Senator Robert Byrd, who vowed that he would never fight in an integrated armed services noting, "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds" The same senator Byrd who was a member of the KKK, and who Democratic Sen. Christopher J. Dodd praised only recently.

And then there was Democrat Jesse Jackson who has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and on a multitude of occasions derogatorily calling New York City “Hymietown.” As well as Al Sharpton, who is a central figure in the Democratic Party today, that fanned the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store in Harlem where protesters used several anti-semetic slurs.

And black Chicago politicians are screaming racism today because Democrat Senator Harry Reid was pushing for Gov. Blagojevic to appoint a non-black replacement for President-Elect Barack Obama, in the much-hyped Gov. Blagojevic "how much am I bid for this seat" scandal.

It shouldn’t come as any great surprise now that the Democrats are still embroiled in racist controversy today; and want desperately to make reparations for it by electing Barack Obama. After all, this behavior has followed them from the very beginning.

It was even Barack Obama’s own pastor of over 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who wrote in a church-affiliated magazine (among MANY other things), “In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.” Or was that just the Democrats?

And then of course there’s James Cone (Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s hero and mentor and theologian of Black Liberation Theology, which Barack Obama himself up until it was deemed politically inadvisable, was a card carrying member of). He said, “Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him.” He goes on to say, “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

And to think that millions of Americans refused to vote for the eminently qualified Mitt Romney because his religion is just a little too weird for the rest of us.

But of course, this very long, vile, degenerate, and telling history of the Democrat Party will all be washed away clean on January 20th, 2009 when Barack Obama is elected as our very first black Democratic President. All of the racism, bigotry, profiling, intolerance, prejudice, bias, discrimination, fanaticism, and hate will cease to exist; when they finally take a cue from the Republicans and begin a new era of fairness, tolerance, and open-mindedness.

…. Of course, until Barack Obama's own Vice Presidential pick calls him an, “articulate, bright, clean and a nice looking guy”, again or says something like, “You can’t go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent." Oops! They did it again….

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Can you spot the REAL racist Party?! Part I

2009-01-20T00:00:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Finally! The Democrats have stepped out of the dark ages of slavery and condemnation of skin color to elect the first black President, and follow suit with what the Republicans have been saying all along! This is particularly historic, not only because today is the day Barack Obama is Inaugurated as our 44th President, but because this is the day after we have paid homage to another great, black, REPUBLICAN leader- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Oh come on, did it really come as any shock to you that MLK was a Republican in an era when nearly every black man and woman was a registered Republican? He was, after all, the man (Democratic) President Lyndon B. Johnson referred to in anger as “that nigger preacher” after Dr. King began protesting the Viet Nam conflict in 1967. Of course LBJ was never quite ‘on board’ with this whole ‘Civil Rights Movement thing’. When he was a then Senator of Texas he said, "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.” Ouch! Especially since I don't even think uppityness is an actual word.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is also the same person President John F. Kennedy (again, a Democrat) had his brother (then, Democratic Attorney General) Robert F. Kennedy undermine by wiretapping and investigating with help from the FBI because the good Doctor was suspected of being a Communist. Bobbie even said in 1961 about the plight of the black man, “I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."

It is interesting to note that most people ignorantly laud President Kennedy as a proponent of Civil Rights, when in fact, he was not. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, and after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King. Not to mention that well into the first two years into his administration, President Kennedy flat out ignored King’s requests for Civil Rights as many historians, including Civil Rights leaders and Dr. King himself would attest to later.

In fact, it was only AFTER television coverage of riots and several very public demonstrations that President Kennedy felt the need to introduce the 1963 Civil Rights Act. And let’s not forget it was a Republican (Ronald Reagan) who saw the value in Dr. King’s efforts as a man of integrity, honesty, conviction, and bravery; and signed into law the very bill that made Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday a national holiday.

But it wasn’t just during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s that the Democrats showed their true ‘colors'. The very simple truth of the matter is that the Democrat Party's sordid history during just this last century is a history wedded with bigotry and hatred stemming largely out of the liberal New Deal era up until our modern day- but it began well before even that!

Let’s hop in the Way-Back Machine, kids, and start at the birth of the Democratic Party at the hands of it’s founder, Andrew Jackson— who was coincidentally enough, a slave owner. Jackson said, “If blacks were given the right to vote, that would place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, hump-backed, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, woolly-headed, ebon-colored Negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man." What a way to start a party!

But it didn’t end there.

Every year after that, until the middle part of this last century, the Democrat Party’s own Party Platform consisted of language the likes of, "Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten states, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and Negro supremacy”. That was from 1868. And then, in 1948 when the party nominated Strom Thurman they said, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

One African-American pundit recently said of the Democrat Party, “It is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.”

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in the bonds of slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. It was the Democrats who fought to prevent the passage of every single civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's. It was the Democrats who have had Klan members serve in elected capacity within the high ranks or the Party. And it was even the Democrats who started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks.

Of all the days in U.S. history, July 4th, 1924; the Democrat Party held their convention labeled the “Klanbake Convention.” While outside the convention on a field in New Jersey, one of the largest Klan gatherings was held in unison and in commemoration of the event itself. The convention was marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the Democrat Convention, and even ended in a cross burning.

As for Civil Rights; Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans.

In fact, a calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by left wing Democrats for obvious reasons, especially on this day of all days.

In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

When Southern states were angered at the implementation of the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it; every Democrat voted against it.

And it was none other than the very first Republican President in the history of this great Nation to win the White House who made it all a reality for a black man to be President of the United States of America. On November 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected as the 16th President of the United States of America. And it was Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War by saying, “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free,” while nearly every single Democrat at the time stood in defiance.

Stay tuned in 2 days for Part II!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Mccain and the animals!

2009-01-18T11:48:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Gun-totin’, animal-killin’, war-mongering, woman-hating, minority-loathing, old, white, Christian men! That’s what the Republican party is all about, right? If that’s what you think; darlin’, you got a long way to go before you get it right!

Democrats at Republican Conventions, washed-up film stars as politicians (wait, that’s been seen before), and now take Mr. Reach-across-the-aisle- Republican Presidential nominee- Senator John McCain, as an example of "not what you'd expect from a Republican presidential candidate". He is a strong supporter of animal welfare issues; in fact, out of all of the potential Republican candidates we saw this last election, he's the only one who took a strong stand in support of animals.

Not only did he cosponsor a bill to stop horse slaughter, but he also supported another one to stop the shipment of live birds between states for the sole purpose of buyers using them for cockfighting. But that’s not all. He loves that silly old bear named Pooh! He backed a bill that aimed to put an end to people killing bears who sell or trade their organs. Now, that’s my kinda’ man-cub, baby!

And Harrod’s beware; the Mac-Attack also took a major stand against the fur industry, voting to eliminate a $2 million subsidiary they had been receiving. But wait! There’s more. He ALSO voted against allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, saving the thousands of animals who lived there.

Come on, there’s no denying it- John McCain is an animal lover. With fourteen dogs, six cats, two turtles, three birds, fourteen fish, a ferret, and the proverbial partridge in a pear tree, he far surpasses the average number of pets per household. So, there you have it.

Animal lover. Grumpy old man. War hero. Patriot. John McCain.

Of course, I’m not saying the ol’ Big Mac is perfect by any stretch; because he’s not— he lost to Captain Distribute-My-Wealth himself, Barack Obama, after all! And some animal crazies like me would be horrified because Mac did vote in support of an amendment to the California Desert Protection Act that would allow hunting for sport in Mojave National Park, and he is a supporter of hunting in general.

But though I am not a hunter myself, I recognize there are still far more self proclaimed hunters in the United States than vegetarians like me, so I don’t plan to get my rutabaga in a bunch over it. It’s those small steps that matter in the long run, after all.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Why I voted Republican this year!

2009-01-16T00:00:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

I was asked recently why it was that I had become a Republican after years of Liberal-leaning tendencies.... the short answer is: because I have grown up. If you are not at least somewhat idealistic when you are young, you are a person with no dreams or hope for tomorrow’s future, and you will likely never change it into a better place at all. But if you don't evolve into a more conservative person as you grow older, you simply lack the drive and ability to become the hard-working, determined person you need to be in order to affect those changes at the end of the day.... but the long answer is a bit more complex....

As a matter of my nature, I have always been much more conservative personally, and much more liberal politically. In essence, what is good for you may not be best for me, but I will respect it regardless.... I will "liberally" accept what you choose, but I will not necessarily accept it for myself or my family. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I have never done a drug in my life- maybe not in the sense of being "Republican", but that makes for a somewhat more conservative lifestyle than most, and I do my best not to contradict my own sense of morality in that. Take the issue of Pro-Life, for instance. Unlike most so-called "Pro-Lifers", I am truly Pro-Life.

After all, Pro-Life is a somewhat loaded term, isn't it? Just because you are for the life of an unborn fetus doesn't make you Pro-Life. I am however against the death penalty, against abortion, a vegetarian,an animal welfare advocate, against the atrocities of war while, all the while, still very much pro-American troops. I AM Pro-Life all the way across the board as much as I can be and not be too much of a hypocrite.

Basically, I vote my conscience.

I heard a politician once say, "If you agree with me on 7 out of 10 issues, vote for me. If you agree with my opponent 7 out of 10 issues, vote for him. If you agree with either one of us on 10 out of 10 issues admit yourself to a psych ward!" There is no way to agree with any politician that often and not paint yourself into a corner you can never get out of no matter how hard you try. Besides, if you do, all you will ever be is a talking head or mouthpiece for one side or the other.

So, that's where I am today.

I don't agree with the Left on every issue, and I don't agree with the Right on every one.... they both have their merits, and they both have their failings. Which isn't to say I am fickle or a flip-flopper; I am just simply practical. There are some politicians who embody more of "me" than others depending on the circumstances of their candidacy and the issues of the day. And isn't that why we vote in the manner we all do in the first place- to find a politician who most closely resembles our ideals and politics TODAY?

Thus, I chose to vote for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in my life this last year. And I likely will continue to do so for the most part from now on.

But why here- why now? The bottom line is: I am no different than any other person who votes Republican. Democrats have the sometimes uncanny habit of over-pontificating every issue no matter how great or how small it seems. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"— a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated notions such as patriotism, freedom, liberty, honor, and so much more. When we are younger, we often see the world though shades of grey, or morally ambiguous at best— (mostly to explain away our brash and sometimes unwelcome social behaviors we eventually "grow out of"). The older we get, often the more comfortable, secure, and devout in our morality we become. That’s why here- that’s why now. That’s why I grew up.

After all, even at the end of Peter Pan, Wendy understood the merits of growing old and wise away from the fantasies of Never, Neverland.

But, make no mistake, life IS built on shades of grey, and comfort sometimes equals rigidness. It is a fine line we walk every day of our lives. And one we need to walk so we understand the complexities around us.

But, while that's the long and the short of it..... I still support the best possible person for the job, regardless of race, religion, gender, war hero or not, party line, or affiliation. And I will vote with that same moral compass and wisdom for the future.… Democrat, Republican, or other…. The best person for the job will always be my personal pick to be the leader of the greatest Nation in the free world!

That's me in a nutshell.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Why we vote!

2009-01-14T10:19:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Abraham Lincoln once cautioned, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God cannot retain it." And though voting, as some may argue, may not be afforded the mantel of a right as perceived in our own Constitution, it most certainly is our freedom as Americans; if not our obligation, responsibility, and duty. It is in fact one of several allowances that accompany American citizenship— the freedom and responsibility of voting. Voting is one of those important privileges we as Americans cherish. Although you may not be able to force a person to vote during any election season, it is their freedom to be afforded the opportunity all the same…. This freedom of all Americans.

Did you realize in 1797 that John Adams succeeded George Washington without a single shot fired, or the title inherited through family ties, or one ounce of blood shed? This was the first time in the history of the entire world where such an act occurred, and it was indeed the birth of our modern day world view of Democracy. It was the dawn of one of the greatest tenants any nation can be granted, and it was exclusively ours for a time. We dare not let that freedom die. We dare not let liberty down.

For, if you choose not to vote, you allow others the luxury of taking from you one of your fundamental expressions as freedom-loving Americans. And then, that single act of Democracy-in-action over two hundred years ago would have all been in vain.
And please, don’t for one second think your vote does not count. It does; in theory, in action, with liberty and justice for all— your vote counts. After all, as Ralph Waldow Emerson said, “Those who stay away from the election think that one vote will do no good: 'Tis but one step more to think one vote will do no harm.”

Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other: Vote your conscience in every election, and let freedom ring! Let freedom ring loud and strong, and let her never cease to shine as brightly as she does this day and forever.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: WHO'S paying the most in taxes?!

2009-01-12T00:00:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

A new poll came out that claims 44% of Americans think that the rich (people that gross more that $250,000) should pay more in taxes.... as if that is rich by society's standards today anyway. But, keep in mind, the "rich" already pay more than 25% in taxes currently of what they earn; not to mention home owners taxes, and insurance taxes, and taxes on food, and gasoline, and their cars, and energy, and propane, and the water we drink; and State and Local, and Federal taxes! Meaning, if El Presidente, The Count Barackula, has his way- he’ll bleed us all dry! Not just the "rich".

Alright, so believe it or not, THAT isn't the part that pisses me off to no end! 44% of Americans think this Robin Hood mentality is just tops…. but now for the rub.... wait for it.... waaait…. for…. it!....

40% of Americans don't even PAY taxes!!!! So, sure those deadbeat, lazy, inept, worthless- dare I say UN-AMERICAN asses, want the hard working and backbone of our country to pay more in taxes while they are on welfare, and cashing in food stamps, and getting stimulus checks from Uncle Sam. (Can you believe that; these people get a freaking stimulus check, too!?) I want to quit my job, lay around the house, live off the government, make babies out of wedlock, have cigarette stained fingers, smell like dirty feet and liquor, and not have a care in the world. Where do I sign up?

Oh, but that isn't all. These people played a big part in how the voting turned out this last November. But, why are they even given that right? In my oh so humble opinion (excluding seniors and stay-at-home mothers or fathers) healthy, viable people who don't pay taxes or work for a living, should not be allowed to vote since they don't contribute one iota to our country's society in the first place. But instead, Barack Obama and ACORN and others rounded these people up like cattle to TAKE them to the polls to GIVE them the most precious of privileges this country has to offer.... (not to mention, register some of them more than once.)

I can't take it anymore!!!!

Remember that old saying, '"First thing we do is eat the rich"? Well, if I had my way, I'd substitute the word "rich" for whatever these people want to be called today, and pig out! At least then, their existence may have some meaning and value. And keeping in mind-- this: from a vegetarian! However, in this case.... toss me a freekin’ leg! I’m hungry!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Michelle Obama wants my pie!

2009-01-10T00:00:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

I know it may seem like old news to everyone out there, but it still bares repeating…. Over and over and over again!

I thought Ms. Anti-America, Michelle Obama, said it all when she claimed she wasn't really proud of this country until her husband ran for office, but now she has taken the cake.... and she wants my pie! “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Alright, I've officially had it with El Presidente, his ilk, and anyone officially stupid enough to EVER support them, and I absolutely refuse to take it for one more second! Now, she claims that in order for our government to give to one person, they must take from another. That the so-called "poor" be even more coddled and catered to by working folks like you and I, who have earned every penny we have today no thanks to government programs and subsidies that do no good but to enable people toward laziness and ineptness and down-right ignorance. As if our welfare system, and uber high taxes weren't bad enough- now they want me to give even more of what I have earned; all for what?! People that don't have the fortitude to manage their own finances and take care of themselves? Government mandated distribution of wealth is not the answer, people.

And a revamped education system, Michelle? We have increased federal spending on education by 58% since 2000 (after inflation), and no one in their right mind would argue that education has improved 5.8%, let alone 58%. In fact, American families will pay $4,000 more per household in taxes this year than in 2003, the highest level since the last year of the Clinton administration. We have already given more of the "pie" for government expansion over the years.

Education spending is at an all time high, Medicare and Social Security are on the verge of bankruptcy, the economy is in the tank, and the bail outs…. Well, just don’t even get me even started with those! But still, Michelle Obama’s idea of “new leadership” is an increased tax burden on the ever hard working middle class to institute yet another government program which will be destined to fail- and fail miserably!

The answer is not giving my piece of the "pie" away, Michelle, the answer lies in teaching others to bake their own god-damed pies for themselves!!!

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: The Sun is really, REALLY hot!

2009-01-08T16:37:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Long ago in a far off land, kings and queens were mostly advised by wizards, star-gazers, flim-flam men and frauds. It is generally believed that these old school Harry Potters would feed on the leaders’ own fears and closed-minded views of the way the world was presented to them- and to that end, these people would prey on entire societies by using the false superstitious beliefs of all involved.

Of course, with the advent of science, these snake oil salesmen all went the way of the Dodo, right? Oh ye’ of little brain power: in the words of that creepy little girl from Poltergeist— “They’re heeeeeeeeeeerrreeeee.” Or more accurately, “They're back!” This time, though, they are no longer cloaked in the dark veil of mysticism and magics, but by the very essence of science itself.

A vocal minority of the scientific community, with the help of unqualified outsiders (Al Gore anyone!), has persuaded many politicians to pursue plans that would be economically devastating to the entire world. And the fear mongering this time centers not on a flat world or falling stars, but rather, around global warming and the end of days.

But are they all lies this time around? Of course not. The best lies contain at least some measure of truth in them. Yes, carbon dioxide in the air has increased in the last century due to the use of fossil fuels. Yes, the global average temperature has increased 0.8 degrees F in the same century. Unfortunately, the temperature increase came first: most of the temperature increase was before 1940, and most of the new carbon dioxide was added after 1960. Would you trust a "scientist" who said the result came before the cause? I think not.

And then, there’s this little bit of oddness: Jupiter is growing a new red spot.

Little is known about how storms form on the giant planet. They are often described as behaving similar to hurricanes right here on Earth. The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of its globe. But how is that if there are no cars, or people on Jupiter? Isn’t global warming man-made???

After all, most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide. So then, how do you explain Jupiter? Or Mars for that matter?

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural— and not a human-induced—cause, according to many scientists' theories. But Mars seems to be melting more rapidly than ever before. So, are the Martians and their not-so-eco-friendly rockets ships to blame on the Red Planet?

Many scientists believe that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on all three planets. Gee. Go figure that. The sun may be mostly to blame for heating things up in our ENTIRE solar system…. The really, really HOT sun.

So, to all you cheats, fakes, fast-shuffle artists, imposters, phonies, pretenders, quacks, shams, and fear-mongers: This isn’t the dark ages anymore, and we’re smarter than you give us credit for… well, most of us are… ok, so not all of us…. alright, Conservatives mainly. Anyway, my point is, do your own research and don’t just take my word for it. After all, I may be wrong… though, not very likely.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Why Capitalism works!

2009-01-06T21:40:00.000-08:00

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

I just heard a pretty good analogy for Capitalism today. Capitalism is like the best vehicle you’ve ever driven and you're the driver behind the wheel. As the person in the driver’s seat, you make all the difference in how it runs and operates and works over time with the proper maintenance done on it, and care for it. You’re the one who turns the key. Your key is your very imagination in the American Dream. You turn the key with your own personal work ethic, and you steer it with the moral compass inside you. That's when Capitalism beats everything else on the road, and leaves them gasping in the dust! It's the driver, not just the car, that is the important thing.

If a car just sits in the driveway and looks pretty— sure, it won’t run anyone over and the streets will be a safer place, but we won’t get anywhere very fast, either, and we’ll all be the same; stumbling around like zombies searching for brains to eat. And contrary to how appealing parts of Socialism- or it’s ugly step-sister Communism- looks to the walking dead in this country right now, it just simply does not work. Humans are too self-aspiring and want-filled and imagination-driven... and in case you were wondering- that’s a good thing! That is of course, unless you heap a dictatorship or monarchy on top of it like Cuba, China, England, or the former U.S.S.R.— then it still works, but we have a whole new set of problems to deal with!

And conversely, Capitalism fails when rather than drive it and keep it running well, we allow it to just collect dust or have too many people tinker with it over time. Sure, we may run a stop light every now and again, but we are usually called on it, and are told to slow down or even given a ticket if we were going too fast in the first place. We still need a car in this day and age- in an industrial society like ours— and don’t we want something safe and reliable for our kids drive that allows them to grow up with dreams and ambitions and the self-worth that they are indeed special and individual?

We are human beings, and the only thing that really separates us from the animals is our ability to make proper choices. Choice is what separates us from the monkeys, and Capitalism is a pretty darn good choice, indeed! After all, if Capitalism is like you behind a great running vehicle, then to paraphrase Bono- socialism is a car crash: Its wheels are turning, but it’s upside down. Socialism will just sit and spin with the rest of the world, and never allow greatness to truly prosper. There’s no other way of looking at it; Capitalism gives the individual the opportunity to put their dreams into that ignition and start it up, unleash the power of the individual and the individual’s own desire for greatness.

Listen to that baby purr! Crank that engine, and drive on into the setting sun; racing the wind toward the future of the free world!