Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Libertarians and Abortion!

"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 never understood how libertarians could NOT be against abortion. 

Libertarians say they promote individual liberty and seek to minimize the role of big government, but they then say that they consider a "right to an abortion" to be part of their general support for individual rights, especially in regard to what they consider to be a woman's right to control her body. But that seems, at best, counter intuitive to me. What about the non-aggression principle? Doesn't that apply to all human beings, including the right to life of fetuses? Thus, they should be opposed to the legality of abortion in my opinion. 

The group Libertarians For Life say: "Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors. The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception." 

I'll go one step further and say- while libertarian theory is built upon property rights, it also recognizes a natural limit to the exercise of those rights. That limit is what Locke called, “the law of nature,” which is that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” In other words, a woman may have a right to "evict" an unwanted person from their "property", unless that person is evicted via the act of murder. Therefore, to me, abortion is fundamentally against the ideals of the whole libertarian. 

Having said that, America is not a third world country, and a woman does have a right to choose- rather, she chooses to have sex and must live up to the personal responsibility and consequences of that act in every way, shape and form. Once her choice is made and the result is pregnancy, the choice is no longer hers alone. Other than the man that made a personal choice as well, there is an unborn life that needs a say in the matter, one that had no choice in the previous act at all. 

And in the case of rape, which always gets brought up in this type of discussion, (to use legal jargon) "the offending party must pay recompense to the offended." In other words, the rapist must pay a price for the "property damage" that he has been committed- however that may be. Still, this does not negate the rights of the fetus. Whatever inconvenience is perpetrated on the mother is to be compensated by the offender, not the child. In short, the mother does not have the right to terminate the child's life. 

Libertarians (at least in the way I identify with them) I feel are mostly voluntarist, but recognize the need to coordinate in limited ways for the greater good, and to restrict individual rights when the exercise of those rights impedes someone else’s exercise of his rights. These laws are designed to decide whose rights trump whose when they conflict. 

The bottom line for me is this: Clearly, the most vitriolic case of conflicting rights is abortion, unless you assume that the fetus has no rights. And while that’s an assumption that you can choose to make, I look at it this way: If the fetus is a person (or, to put it another way, at the moment that it becomes a person), then obviously its right to live trumps the mother’s right not to have a baby. 

Unfortunately we have a hard time deciding as a people when the fetus truly does become a person. Some people think it’s at the moment of conception. Some people think it’s when it takes its first few breaths outside the womb. Some people think it’s all about “viability”, and when the child could medically survive on its own. But wherever you draw that line, that’s when it changes from a fetus without rights to a person with rights. 

I personally have no idea when that really happens, but the most obvious way to draw the line is at some sort of physical action we can all point to like the first beat of a human heart. Either way, as long as I don’t know for certain, I feel as though we should err on the side of preserving life, and follow the non-aggression principle 100% no matter what. After all, the potential harm to the fetus if we guess too late is far greater than the presumed harm to the mother if we presuppose too early. 

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Budget and Economy!

"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 

This is an easy one!

First, we start by repealing 16th Amendment effectively abolishing the income tax and property tax. After that, we force the government to live within their means just as we as citizens must live within ours in order to survive. Once we do that, we start paying down the deficit IMMEDIATELY, and stop borrowing from places like China.

After all, the people, not the government, are supposed to run the economy- so, we should fight for more power given to the private sector, not less. Besides, there is no way to control spending when the Federal Reserve creates money by printing it out of thin air to pay our debts off. As a result, we need to abolish the Federal Reserve, too.

In fact, I would go so far as to say we should stop all non-essential aid to EVERY country we currently prop up, as well. Sure, the American people are a naturally giving people, but we need to allow ourselves a small amount of selfishness in this day and age if for no other reason than out of necessity. Frankly, let them get their own collective houses in order, just as we must.

Similarly, hard choices must be made here or we won't survive as the prosperous nation we once were, either. We all have those things we want the government to not cut, but cuts must be made all the way across the board no matter what your pet issue may be. That includes government worker's salaries, Medicare and Medicaid, welfare benefits, veteran's benefits, the the military industrial complex, the public school system- EVERYTHING!

We also need to end as many regulations as possible in order for businesses to do their business without the government taking their share right off the top. And we need competition to get it done. No more "no-complete clauses" with the United States Post Office for instance. Let those of us who know how to run a business show the Feds a thing or two, and let the rest fail.

The truth is, the government is like a drunken sailor on shore leave, they spend way too much even though they have very little to actually give, and when they come home they wonder why they need even more assistance by the government. Our government simply taxes us more and more every day thinking that will somehow regulate our economy magically. But all that accomplishes is anger and resentment by the people when their hard earned money is taken from them and wasted by a clumsy and inept government that can’t run itself as a proper business anyway.

In short, we need to restore our nation by returning to the TRUE conservative tenant of “less government via fiscal responsibility” and force those who govern us- both republican AND democrat- to be personally held responsible for our debt should it ever grow beyond what is acceptable to us as a people. In the end, we can’t legislate economic fairness in a true republic; so the only answer is to make our existing government as small as possible while continuing to still function with the barest of essentials. Then, we allow the private sector to do their thing, and fix the rest!

Having said all of that, the very first step is for the American people to realize that they have a true say with their vote, and that they need to use that vote to make a statement. The two-party system simply isn't working anymore, and we need to kick EVERY big government crony out of Washington on both sides of the isle that isn't a true fiscal conservative. In doing that, we stand every chance of not falling into the trap that so many other nations have fallen into over the years. But this can only be accomplished if we follow the right signs that lead the way out of the darkness.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Gun Control!

"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!: GOP Environmentalist?

"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: Why I hate Sarah Palin!

"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: Who's the terroirst now?!

"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?!

"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: Christianity: The best damn protection racket around!

"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?