What did you want to be when you grew up?

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a cowboy. 

Then I went through a phase (when I had a Honda XR-75) where I wanted to be a professional daredevil/motorcyclist like Evel Knievel.

I had other friends who wanted to be professional athletes, farmers, or (occasionally) marijuana distributors. 

One really close friend wanted to be a lawyer.  He's now in jail for mortgage fraud. 

The girls I knew wanted to be nurses, teachers, or mothers. 

But I don't think I knew a single person who grew up wanting to be a household slave.  And if you live in the USA, that's what you're going to be until sometime around April 18th. 

April 18th will be the day you can stop working for Barack, Boehner, Bush and Co. and start working for yourself.  It's called "Tax Freedom Day", and occurs later and later every year. 

You might think that you're working from January 1 through April 18th for the good of society.  Seriously? 

Do you think Cash For Clunkers, TARP, or Porkulus were for the good of "society"?  If so, I need you to come wash my truck.  Partly because I need it done, mostly because you're an idiot, and maybe because you had an adolescent fantasy of being forced into some bondage gear and forced to shine Nancy Pelosi's shoes. 

Who are you working for today?  Did you sign a "social contract" stating that you would give Barack the money you earned through April 18th? 

I didn't think so. 

It's time for a slave revolt. 

The Libertarian Party awaits. 

Washington D.C. - Back To The Plantation

Southern plantation owners were responsible for the health, feeding, shelter, children and old-age provisions of their slaves. 

Emancipation supposedly ended all of that.  This is a good thing. 

(I don't want you or Barack to take care of my cholesterol level.  I don't want Michelle's advice and hectoring about the superiority of her damn organic garden.  I've already bought a house, and didn't need HUD to intervene between me and the previous owner. If I had the money I've "invested" in Social Security, I would already be retired, and doing quite nicely.) 

Why do so many people now want the government to behave like a plantation owner?

 

"You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom."

I posted this John Quincy Adams quote on Facebook the other day, and it got the usual number of "likes" and "reposts".   (For those who have mobile devices that aren't good with pics, it's a marble slab with the following quotation: "You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom.  I hope you will make good use of it.")

What Adams said is now bugging the crap out of me. 

I think if Adams' generation of rebels could get inside the heads of my generation of passive sheep, they would be depressed. 

Some of us don't want to have our freedom preserved.  We want Barack to give us 40 acres and a mule. 

We want to live on a plantation where the owner gives us 3 hots and a cot.  We want him to pay for our healthcare, and we want him to "invest" in our retirement, and we want him to withhold our taxes so he can pay our tribute to our superiors without the money entering our grubby little hands. 

We want the plantation owner to withhold our child support.  If we can't afford to live on our own, we bitch about him not paying us enough to do so, rather than gaining some skills that would increase our worth to someone wanting to trade money for them.   

Some of us don't want our freedom preserved.  We learn about government munchkins eavesdropping on our correspondence, and we assume that it's the cost of remaining a free society. 

We don't want our freedom preserved.  We see a civilian with a gun, and we break out in tumors and rashes. 

We don't want our freedom preserved.  We let Washington and Austin and Downtown rack up huge bills that will be paid by our great-grandchildren, and we just assume that things will continue to be as they always have been.  (Herb Stein's Law:  If something can't last forever, it won't.) 

We don't want our government to merely act as a referee, groundskeeper, cheerleader and security guard.  We want leaders !  Quarterbacks !  Linebackers !  Coaches ! 

If there's ever been a generation that was ungrateful for freedom and liberty, it is this one.  Sorry J.Q.  Maybe you and your dad shoulda stuck to law. 

Sorry for the bad mood tonight.  I'll try to be funny tomorrow morning. 

Best quote ever on government-funded education

"The education of a free people, like their property, will always be directed more beneficially for them when it is in their own hands. When government interferes, it directs its efforts more to make people obedient and docile than wise and happy. It devises to control the thoughts, and fashion even the minds of its subjects; and to give into its hands the power of educating the people is the widest possible extension of that most pernicious practice which has so long desolated society, of allowing one or a few men to direct the actions, and control the conduct of millions. Men had better be without education—properly so called, for nature of herself teaches us many valuable truths—than be educated by their rulers; for then education is but the mere breaking in of the steer to the yoke; the mere discipline of a hunting dog, which, by dint of severity, is made to forego the strongest impulse of nature, and instead of devouring his prey, to hasten with it to the feet of his master." - Thomas Hodgskin, Mechanics' Magazine, 1823

The picture of a dog bringing a duck back to the feet of his master came from here. 

Chronica 2012 with DFW/NORML

The good folks at DFW/NORML are letting me speak at their "Chronica 2012" year-end party. 
Here's what I plan to say....

Hello, my name is Allen Patterson, and I’m Chair of The Tarrant County Libertarian Party.


For those of you who aren’t familiar with us, the Libertarian Party is dedicated to the radical idea that other people are not your property. I’ll be glad to talk with any of you about our beliefs later on tonight.

I’m here for four reasons, and I’ll be brief…..

First, I want to say thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. For years and years, the Libertarian Party made small increases in its Tarrant County results. Bounced around with somewhere with a 10-15% increase every couple of years.

From 2010 to 2012, straight ticket Libertarian voting DOUBLED, from 1500 votes to 3000. Think about it, folks….there are now 3,000 people in Fort Worth and Arlington who are willing to go to the ballot box and vote for your right to be left alone. 3,000 voters willing to stand up against the Prohibitionist. And you good people at DFW/NORML are responsible for a huge part of the increase. Shaun McAlister, I love you like a brother, sir !! And in 2014, we’re going to go for 6,000 Libertarian straight ticket voters, or die trying.

The second thing I want to do tonight is piss you off. How many of you have seen the new Quentin Tarrantino movie “Django Unchained”? Slavery was a horrible system, wasn’t it???

That movie was set in 1855. It was an awful time. People did awful things to each other. But in the year 2012, 155 years later, we have more black men living in steel cages, or on probation or parole, than The Confederacy had living in steel cages in 1855. Most of those guys are in that situation because of the Drug War. 31% of Florida’s black male population can’t vote. They’re convicted felons. Convicted for owning a weed !! (And Shaun, we’ve got to get some more Brothers into the movement. Agreed?)

Since Richard Nixon started the War On Drugs in the early 1970’s, our government has spent 1.5 TRILLION dollars (that’s a fifteen with eleven zeroes) on the Drug War. That doesn’t include the amount we suffer from lost productivity, by the way. 1.5 trillion dollars !!

So how many of you have ever voted for one of these people as candidates for President or Vice President, in a primary or a general election? Bill Clinton George W. Bush Howard Dean John Edwards Newt Gingrich Al Gore John Kerry Sarah Palin Gary Johnson Barack Obama ?

Guess what they have in common? They’ve all smoked weed. Just like the 1.5 million people who were arrested for non-violent drug charges in 2011, all of them, at some point in their lives, have lit up a fat one. If you get caught, you get locked up in a steel cage with violent criminals. If you don’t get caught, you can be President. Go figure. So why do all these former tokers and smokers still support the drug war?

It’s because if the War On Drugs were to end tomorrow, it would eliminate the need for approximately 1 million government jobs. Barack Obama has one million jailers, narcs, border patrollers, torturers, parole officers, probation specialists and prison contractors who are voting for the status quo.

So what do we do?

Colorado and Washington State recently passed voter referendums on marijuana legalization. HMMmmmmm….. Let’s do that. But there are still some legal hassles involving growing, possession, transportation and the like. We need some people on the inside.

That gets me to point number three. The Libertarian Party needs candidates. We want to give voters a choice between Freedom and Prohibition, instead of flipping a coin between Team Red and Team Blue. If you want to put yourself out there, we’re waiting with open arms. We’ve got three levels. You can run as a “paper” candidate, just to offer a real choice for your neighborhood. All we ask is that you fill out newspaper surveys about your campaign. Better yet, you can run as an “educational” candidate, someone who goes to candidate forums and college campuses and speaks about why freedom is better than slavery. Then there’s the third level – you go out and do some fundraising and sink some money into a campaign that will scare the crap out of the Prohibition Parties.

We need you ! If you’re interested, go to the Tarrant County Libertarian Party website. You’ll see how to contact me.

Plus, Tarrant County’s going to be doing something special in 2014. We’re going to look at this year’s results by precinct, we’re going to look at the opposition in each race, and we’re going to try to determine which part of Tarrant County already has the most freedom lovers and NORML members. Then we’re going to select one candidate for that area’s Texas House race. We’re still going to give all the other candidates some love and affection. But the big effort is going to go into that one campaign. And it could be yours. We’re going to have a winner. I’ve heard a lot of County Chairs say that they weren’t in the business of picking winners and losers among their candidates. Screw that. We’re going to pick a winner, and we need your help knocking on doors, making phone calls, putting out yard signs and stuffing envelopes. If you love freedom enough to be a part of DFW/NORML, you already one of us.

I’m looking for a Moses to come out of the wilderness. I’m looking for someone who will get elected and go down to Austin and Washington to tell Rick Perry and Barack Obama to bulldoze their steel cages, lay off their Narcs, and fire their jailers. I need someone who will look Barack Obama in the eye and say “Barack Obama……..LET YOUR PEOPLE GO!!”

That gets me to point number four, and this is the last one. I don’t smoke, so I’m gonna go have a drink. Thanks so much for your support, your future support and your attention!!!

The Tale Of The Slave - by Robert Nozick

From the Duke University Educational Society.  Robert Nozick's "Tale Of The Slave".  Think of this as a progression for one slave to experience.   
The last question is a zinger. 

"The Tale of the Slave"
from Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 290-292.

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.
   
   Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.
   
7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?

A Day In The Life Of A Statist. Or A Departmentist.

Someone (with the aid of schoolteachers, The Department Of Education, and the roadbuilders of the Information Superhighway) has written a clever little socialist parable that is making the rounds on Facebook:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads to my house, which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshall’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how socialism in medicine is bad because the government can’t do anything right. 

-Anonymous Wingnut

It begs for a response, doesn't it?  If the phrase "electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy" doesn't make you break out in fits of giggles, hell, it can't be done.  And then there's the long lists of unnecessary government departments, all staffed with tens of thousands of useless seat warmers, helping this guy get through his day. 

Because if the government didn't provide those services, the private sector could never ever do so.  Is that really what this dude believes?   

Someone called Ipster76 on Reddit wrote a response that goes as follows:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the local public power monopoly. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the latest misleading liberal dominated mass media reports are. I watched this while eating my unhealthy, subsidized corn-byproduct dominated breakfast thanks to the US Department of Agriculture.

Had I written this, I would've put in something about "the US Department of Agriculture - a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto."  But I tend to over-write. 

I then get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration used automobile, whose renewed title I was forced to pay an exorbitant amount for when I bought it. I then set out to my job on the roads built by the local, state and federal departments of transportation, passing by groups of 8 or more Union laborers, of which only about 2 are actually doing work at any given moment due to their collective bargaining agreement. I am also forced to slow down or risk being caught and fined by speed cameras implemented by the local government, despite the fact that I am a fully competent driver with no violations on his record, and the highway repairs have yet to be finished after 5 years. I also do not stop to purchase exorbitantly priced fuel from Big Oil subsidized by the Federal Government using legal tender that has lost value thanks to inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank. At some point in the future when I am married with children, I will drop off my kids off at a private school 20 minutes away, because despite my future residence in a decent neighborhood, I am zone for an unsafe public school fraught with gang activity, and staffed by underpaid teachers.

This guy must live on Fort Worth's East Side. 

After work, I drive by the same unproductive union workers in the alleged construction zones, and am again forced to slow down because of the speed cameras. I do not stop by the liquor store, because although I am legally an adult who can vote and serve in the military, I cannot legally purchase alcohol, thus violating my rights under the Equal Protection Clause of Section I, Amendment IIV of the Constitution; however, because I am over the age of 18, it will also remain on my permanent record if I am caught in possession of it. I continue driving my car back to my apartment, which I discover has been plundered of all its valuables. I contact the local Police Department, who make a cursory investigation and fail to find any evidence, because they are too busy fighting the prohibitionist war on drugs under which gang activity has flourished for the past 30 years. I consider smoking some marijuana on my own private property to relax after a long, hard day at work, but I can’t because it has been made illegal by politicians that receive campaign funds from big pharma and the liquor lobby.

I then get on to the internet, which the Federal Government is trying to stifle through regulation and censorship, and proceed to post on r/politics about how libertarians are selfish and that the government needs to be more involved with healthcare.

Well done, sir.  Well done. 

A Biblical Defense Of Slavery

I recently found an old seminary Bible Course Syllabus from 1885.  It was written by Dr. J.B. Shearer of Southwestern Presbyterian University in Clarksville Tennessee, "For the use of schools, colleges, and private bible classes" is the subtitle. 

This book makes me angry.  Stark raving nuts. 
I have no words to describe the human misery caused by the thinking in this book.

Please keep in mind that J.B. Shearer was an educated man with a Doctorate.  His book on the Old Testament is still in print, at least in a download edition, for those of you who are interested. 

Here's the section from Shearer's Bible Course on "The Scripture Doctrine Of Slavery".

Please stay with me. I'm going to go through Dr. J.B. Shearer's doctrine, point-by-point.  Shearer's bullet points are in bold type, scripture references are in italics, and my stuff looks like what you're reading now. 

Here's the syllabus used for part of Dr. Shearer's classwork.  

1)  I'll never be able to flesh out Shearer's first point, the one about slavery as a social institution vs. slavery as a sin.  Dr. Shearer's lectures are lost to history.  His later bullet-points reveal his sympathies, though. 

2)  Slavery has indeed existed in all ages.  It still exists.  Dr. Shearer is drifting into the "If God doesn't want it to be, then why does it happen?" argument. 

3)  "Jewish slavery antedates The Theocracy". 

You can go here to read the story in Genesis 14:13-16 of some of Abraham's relatives being captured by Sodomites (yeah, you in the back row, Sodomites) and carried away to be household slaves. 

If the Sodomites used military captives as slaves, then slavery was around before God set up his Theocracy of priests, prophets and such.  All political systems in place at that time were part of God's plan.  And God wouldn't have allowed slavery to exist if he didn't approve of it.  

4)  Dr. Shearer sees slavery as a "positive", but not a "moral" institution.  I don't own the other volumes of Dr. Shearer's syllabus that he refers to. 
I do have this picture, though.   

5) Abraham's slaveholding was recognized in the Abrahamic Covenant....(Genesis, Chapter 17)

12  He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
13  Both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
14  Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

So not only was God giving them the right to your labor and effort for the rest of your life, your owners also have the right, if not the responsibility, to cut off part of your reproductive organs.  Dr. Shearer helpfully points out that this is a universal covenant (or agreement).

Slavery was acknowleged and justified in the New Testament as well as the Old.  (Galatians, Chapter 3)

27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29  And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

According to these verses, whether or not someone owns you and keeps you in a cage at gunpoint, you are now a child of Abraham/God/Jesus and will earn your heavenly reward.  But it's a heavenly reward, not to be given in this life.  We've still got a lot of cotton to pick.

6)  The master's right and authority are reconized in the fourth and tenth commandments.  Deuteronomy, Chapter 4.  (Here is the 4th Commandment.)

12  Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
13  Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14  But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.

(And the 10th Commandment:)

21  'And you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.'

The statues of The Ten Commandments that Alabama judges want to put in their courtrooms are edited to simply state "Honor The Sabbath" and "Thou Shalt Not Covet".

A useful strategy to combat that lunacy is to insist that the uncensored commandments be posted in the courts.  Commandment advocates would then have to defend slavery or explain the omissions, and that would be fun.  

7)  Moses' law forbade permanent Jewish slavery, but encouraged Pagan slavery.  Exodus 21: 2-3.  Leviticus 25:40-46. 

I included a little more of the Exodus passage because it includes some helpful information on how to treat the daughters of your slaves:

Here's the Leviticus 25 passage.  Do you see why Damn Yankee Christians had such a hard time convincing their Southern counterparts that slavery was pure evil?

2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.
3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’
6 then his master must take him before the judges.  He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.
8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.
9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

8)  Moses' law recognized, defined, limited and defended the rights of master and slave minutely.  Exodus 21:20-32 

The logic in this law, supposedly handed down by God, was clear:  Whip your slave too hard, you take a loss, and you get punished by the community.  But if the slave is back at work in a couple of days (with an improved attitude) the process is no different than tuning up an engine. 

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.  

9) Captives in war were divided by Divine direction.  And in the tithing, the Lord's portion was duly set apart.  Numbers 31:28-40.

This passage from the book of Numbers explains how the Israelites divided the slaves and loot after a battle.  When the author says that certain things were to be given to "the Lord", he means Eleazar and the priestly caste.  If we were to do this in our Middle East adventures, 1/500th of the oil would go to Jimmy Swaggart, the eleven Cardinals now representing the U.S. in the Roman Catholic Church, and Thomas S. Monson, now head of the Mormons in Salt Lake City:

28  From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one one of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep.
29  Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the LORD’s part.
30  From the Israelites’ half, select one out of every fifty, whether people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD’s tabernacle.”
31  So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.


32  The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep,
33  72,000 cattle,
34  61,000 donkeys
35  and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
36  The half share of those who fought in the battle was: 337,500 sheep,
37  of which the tribute for the LORD was 675;
38  36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72;
39  30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61;
40  16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the LORD was 32.

If you aren't disturbed by verse 35 up there, the one which explains who gets the young virgins, you should be.  

10)  Slavery was in its origin a merciful system.  "Servus Quia Servatus" (The servant is saved).  The weaker were protected in the family, first by the master's interest and then by his affection.  The freemen became citizens. 

Yeah.  Well, Dr. Shearer, no one saw your Presbyterian ass signing up for a few years of picking other people's cotton in this merciful system. 

I don't have the time or desire to go through the rest of J.B. Shearer's drivel point-by-point.  Here's the second page of his chapter on slavery.  Boil it down to basics, and Shearer proves that the God of the New Testament approved of slavery just as much as he did in the time of Abrham, Isaac and Jacob. 

According to the book that we now call "Bible", God approves of slavery.  You can look it up. 

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

Finally, there is the story of Onesimus, the runaway slave that Dr. Shearer mentions in bullet point #12.  Onesimus was a Christian.  Paul told him to return to his former masters.  Go here.  With the exception of "Buy Enron Stock" that's probably the worst advice in history. 

The collection loosely called "Bible" is just a book.  We don't know who wrote it.  Parts of it are interesting, parts of it are incredibly dull, and parts of it are downright evil.  It doesn't hold together very well.  If God really did inspire the book of Leviticus, then he is bat-shit crazy.  I defy you to read it and tell me otherwise.  Here's part of the leprosy cure from Leviticus 14:

Then the priest shall command to take for him who is cleansed two living and clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose in the open field. He who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean. After that he shall come into the camp, and shall stay outside his tent seven days.

For those who got lost, here's a paraphrase:

Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times. That's all there is to it.

The Bible shouldn't be used as a manual for doctors.  The Bible shouldn't be used as a justification for opposition to gay marriage.  It shouldn't be used as an excuse to close restaurants or bars on the Muslim, Jewish, or Christian Sabbaths. 

It should have never been used as an excuse for using other humans as slaves. 

Perhaps some of you disagree.  If so, please remember some of us have more guns than you, and might have some cotton that needs picking.   

Something to think about

The documentation for this startling statement is in the fine print at the bottom of the poster. 

Some info on Michele Bachmann's "Re-Closeting" Clinic and the values conveyed by Jewish and Christian scripture

From ABC News comes this account of Michele and Marcus Bachmann's counseling center, a business that will help lead gay and lesbian clients back into the closet:

A former patient who sought help from the Christian counseling clinic owned by GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, told ABC News he was advised that prayer could rid him of his homosexual urges and he could eventually be "re-oriented."

"[One counselor's] path for my therapy would be to read the Bible, pray to God that I would no longer be gay," said Andrew Ramirez, who was 17-years-old at the time he sought help from Bachmann & Associates in suburban Minneapolis in 2004. "And God would forgive me if I were straight."

In the past, Marcus Bachmann has disputed the clinic has treated gay patients this way. But Ramirez's account, which was first reported by The Nation, is similar to the counseling session that appears on new undercover video shot by a gay rights advocacy group last month. That footage shows another counselor at the Bachmann clinic telling a gay man posing as a patient that, with prayer and effort, he could eventually learn to be attracted to women and rid himself of his gay urges.

Here's why the Bachmann campaign is getting so much attention on this issue.  There's a guy in Iowa named Bob Vander Plaats who has gotten a few Republican candidates to sign a "pledge" affirming their belief in heterosexual marriage, the Defense Of Marriage Act, opposition to Sharia Law, and the like.  The "pledge" begins with the following preamble:

Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order - as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders - upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.

Does Bob Vander Plaats not own a Bible?  And if so, has he ever cracked the cover?  Please allow me to climb into the pulpit of the sepulchre for today's scripture readings, helpfully assembled by a website called BiblicalPolygamy.com:

Abraham had 3 wives - Sarah, Hagar and Keturah

"Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar." Genesis 16:1

"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." Genesis 16:3

"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah." Genesis 25:1

Here's a brief summary of the marital career of King David, who made Newt Gingrich look like an amateur.  David had at least 18 wives - Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam of Jezreel, Eglah, Maacah, Abital, Haggith, and Bathsheba, and "10 women/concubines"

"Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." 1 Samuel 18:27. (See also 1 Samuel 19:11-18; 25:44; and 2 Samuel 3:13-14; 6:20-23.)

"David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife. 1 Samuel 25:39

"David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives." 1 Samuel 25:43

"But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife," 1 Samuel 25:44

"Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;" 2 Samuel 3:3

"And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David's wife. These were born to David in Hebron." 2 Samuel 3:4-5

"And David took him more concubines and wives" 2 Samuel 5:13, 1 Chronicles 14:3

"And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:7-8

"And David comforted Bathsheba his wife..." 2 Samuel 12:24

"And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left ten women, which were concubines, to keep the house." 2 Samuel 15:16. (See also 2 Samuel 16:21-23.)

If you're reading this rant in a U.S. hotel room, chances are there's a Gideon Bible in the nightstand.  Here's an account of Gideon's record as a Baby-Daddy:

"And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives." Judges 8:30

Here's the wife count for Abraham's grandson Jacob, who had 4 Wives - Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah:

"And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her." Genesis 29:23

"And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also." Genesis 29:28

"And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her." Genesis 30:4

"When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife." Genesis 30:9

And here's what Vander Plaat missed on racial justice and gender equality:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

And if you do go out and capture some foreigners, for god's sake please get 'em circumcised:

Genesis 17:13 "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Genesis 17:27 "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

Mr. Vander Plaats and Mrs. Bachman, those are the traditional values conveyed by Jewish and Christian scripture. 

Those traditionas are wrong.  It's that simple.  They aren't wisdom, they aren't just, they aren't humane.  They're wrong.  Humans shouldn't own each other.  It's wrong.  Men shouldn't own women.  That is wrong.  I don't believe that it makes sense for someone to have 40 wives.  I don't think you believe it either. 

Those teachings aren't inspired.  They're the best that we could do at the time, based on what we knew. 

It's time to out grow them, not just on slavery and racism, but on the rights of our gay and lesbian friends. 
I almost forgot this one.  Mr. Bachman, why are you letting Michele out of the house so much?

Here's what happened when God saw that Eve had eaten from the Tree Of Knowledge, bringing sin into the world.  

Genesis 3:16   "To the woman, the Lord God said  'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

The Ten Principles Of A Free Society - by Ron Paul

Ron Paul has a new book "Liberty Defined" coming out in about a week. 

This is in the appendix:

The Ten Principles Of A Free Society: 

Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.


All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.

Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.

Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.

Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.

Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.

Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.

All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.

Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

An explanation of the lyrics of "The Star-Spangled Banner"

Have you ever had the experience of growing up with a song, having it become part of your sub-conscious, and not understanding or even thinking about what the lyrics mean until you are much older? 
I think that's how a lot of people experience "The Star-Spangled Banner".  How many people still know what a "rampart" is? 
There's been a lot of buzz about the song ever since Christina Aguilera butchered it during Super Bowl Disaster Week in Arlington. 
As a public service, I would like to offer an explanation of the lyrics to our national anthem. 

The song was written by amateur poet Francis Scott Key.  He was held captive on a British warship during the War of 1812, and had a front row seat for the bombardment of Baltimore's Fort McHenry.  As humorist Richard Armour once explained:

In an attempt to take Baltimore, the British attacked Fort McHenry, which protected the harbor. Bombs were soon bursting in air, rockets were glaring, and all in all it was a moment of great historical interest. During the bombardment, a young lawyer named Francis Scott Key wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner", and when, by the dawn's early light, the British heard it sung, they fled in terror. 

The thing requires a vocal reach of an octave and a half.  As many a vocalist will tell you, if you start off in too high of a first note, you're going to be in big, big trouble when you get to The Land Of The Free. 


That's all the preliminaries you need.  Here are they lyrics. 

O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,

It's morning.  The only light you have to see by is the dawn's, and the dawn's light is early.  Pointing out that the dawn's light is early seems redundant, but it was necessary for the meter and the rhyme scheme. 
We're looking for something that we saw last night, something that we were so proud of that we hailed it, even though it was dark (twilight). 
So an evening has passed.  Something was there last night, and we're wondering if it is still there the next morning. 

Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?

The thing we're looking for had stars and stripes, and it was capable of "streaming gallantly".  Do you know what the thing was?  Do you?  Give up?  Ok, the thing with stars and stripes, capable of streaming gallantly, the thing that was there the night before but could not be seen clearly the next morning, it was our flag !!

All through the perilous (dangerous) fight (for Fort McHenry), Francis Scott Key watched the flag from the other side of the ramparts (a type of defensive wall).  Got it?  The flag is flying on one side of the rampart, and you're on the other side in a boat with Francis Scott Key every time you sing this song.  You're taking part in an 1812 battle reenactment. 

Fans of the Dallas Stars hockey team put particular emphasis on the word "Stars" when singing the anthem. 

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;

Remember, it is still nighttime but the bloody British are still bombing the daylights out of Fort McHenry.  What are they using?  Rockets.  Bombs. 
What do the rockets and bombs produce?  Glare.  Bursts. 
Why are the glare and the bursts important?  The rocket's red glare and the bombs bursting in air do nothing but provide enough light to prove to everyone on the ship that the U.S. flag is still flying over Fort McHenry. 
This couplet is a little jab at the declining effectiveness of British Sea Power, proven true later at Dunkirk and the overkill in the Falkland Islands. 

Fans of the Houston Rockets basketball team put particular emphasis on the word "Rockets" when singing these lines.  Fans of the Cincinatti Reds baseball team put particular emphasis on the word "Red" when singing these lines.  The remaining fans of the Dallas Cowboys football team put particular emphasis on the word "Bombs" when singing these lines, because that's what their team has done ever since coach Jimmy Johnson abandoned Jerry Jones. 

O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

The last two lines are less complicated.  The poet is simply asking if our flag with stars all over it is still waving over his country. 
And every time we sing the song, that's where we end it.  We never answer the question.  Francis Scott Key is stuck on the boat in Baltimore harbor, with nothing to eat but truly godawful British food, wondering if the flag is still flying. 
UNLESS YOU SING THE REMAINING VERSES, OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM MAKES NO FREAKIN' SENSE !!!! 

Look at the first verse of Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God".  If you just sing the first verse, and nothing else, it's like you're singing a song about the power of Satan. 
Singing the first verse of The Star-Spangled Banner without singing the rest is like singing the Beverly Hillbillies song, but stopping before you get to the part where Ol' Jed's a millionaire. 

So why don't we ever sing the other verses? 
Give me time.  I'll get there. 
Here's the second verse, the one that ends the suspense. 

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,

Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,

I'm not sure if this verse is referring to the American army reposing or the British army reposing (haughtily).  I don't think it matters.  The important thing is that it's still misty and things are only "dimly seen". 

What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now we're getting somewhere.  Something is blowing fitfully in the breeze on the "towering steep" hill.  Half concealed, half revealed....

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:

we're getting ready for the big reveal here....what is it....what is it....???


'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I think I'm as patriotic as the next person, but I'm glad I got that over with.

So why don't we ever sing the rest? 
Because the third verse is kind of embarrassing, especially in light of the "land of the free" business. 

In the War of 1812, the British augmented their army with divisions of mercenaries and freed slaves.  These slaves were promised an opportunity to shoot their former owners if they would help out the redcoats. 
Heck, that's a bargain I would have probably taken. 
Now, look at the third verse in that light: 

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.

The British army stunk up the place with their foul footsteps, but we used their blood to wash the place out. Kinda militaristic and barbaric, but we've all felt that way before, haven't we? 
Now for the money quote:

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:

Yeah, if you try to create an army with hirelings (mercenaries) and slaves (ours), then you're going to get what you paid for.  But by contemporary standards, bragging about a military victory over an army of freed slaves makes the closing couplet into a freakin' joke:

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh...The...Irony.

Let's move on again.  The fourth verse has created all sorts of mischief.  The sentiments have been inappropriately placed in the mouths of our Founding Fathers, created lawsuits about The Ten Commandments in our courtrooms, and have even shown up on our currency.  As far as I can tell, this is where one of our American slogans makes its first appearance:

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war's desolation.

As long as the freemen are (ahem) white. 

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!

That would be a strong Constitution, giving power to the people and acknowledging that we are governed by our own consent.  Our government works for us, not vice-versa.  If higher Powers were involved, it was in pounding that basic concept into some of our heads. 


Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

I don't have time to deconstruct that one.  Gotta be at work in thirty minutes.  Let's just say that we've had a long, long run of Presidents who could find a "just cause" for war by looking into a kindergarten dispute about nappy time.   

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

It wasn't our motto until Francis Scott Key said that it was.  End of story.  Why couldn't the boys at Fort McHenry just sink his damn boat? 



And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave
Done.  Complete.  Explained.  Hope this has helped. 

A brief warning about sacrificial offerings

From the Tarrant County Libertarian Partys chair-dude John Spivey's Facebook page:

"It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."    -  Ayn Rand

Why is the government allowed to take money but not labor?

This is from the Libertarian subdivision of Reddit:

If it's ok to take someone's money to build a road. Is it also ok to force someone to do the labor required to build it?
Why is it always assumed that it's ok to take money but not labor? Why do the people who build the roads need to be paid? Why don't the poor people, who are getting all the benefits of socialism, but aren't contributing, do their "fair share" by working in press gangs to build roads and parks?
The answer is easy. The answer is "slavery is wrong". But for some reason we don't consider it slavery if we steal someone's past labor. Only if we steal their current labor.