There are virtually no leaders in Washington, only posers and narcissists, corporate lawyers and trial attorneys, each playing a game from the perspective of someone who knows how to bend the rules for fun and profit, how to abuse the system, some with a few morals still intact but most without. It's office politics taken to a whole new level, and like the office, the meanest, angriest, most evil sociopaths often rise up to the highest heights, hiding amongst the others and trying hard to appear as caring sheep-like leaders: "Do it for the children. There is an epidemic of violence against women. End global poverty." They rely on sweet-sounding words, which when investigated always turn out to be false and misleading for purposes of pure manipulation. They change the definitions of words without a thought because words are simply tools for them, tools to deceive in order to receive ever greater power. They acknowledge no Truth because to do so would require them to acknowledge that they themselves are habitual liars.
Sex Offenders
On the subject of sex offenders, both male and female, if the courts were just and fair, I'd say that if it is reasonable to think they’d do it again then execute them. Or if the single instance of their crime was especially bad, especially vicious and cruel, then it is death for them. No sexual mutilation, that's just making a very angry person much angrier. It serves no legitimate purpose.
And it's unconstitutional for a good reason.
Politicians, and judges and prosecutors are politicians, cannot be trusted with the power to torture or sexually mutilate a citizen, no matter what justification they give, no matter how much emotion they can illicit from the masses to gain their support. History supports this in countless instances. Our Constitution and its' strict limitations on the power of the State is based on a vast wealth and excellent understanding of history, not ever-changing emotions as has become so popular among lawmakers of today's ADHD society.
Anyone who viciously rapes someone of either gender, or mutilates the genitals of another out of a jealous rage, this person forfeits their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Execute them, not for revenge, but for the protection of the people. Society is under no obligation whatever to risk being attacked again by someone like that. And by the way, attacking a man's genitals is sexual battery, even if the assailant was just mad, jealous, or drunk. Plenty of rapists are just mad, jealous, or drunk, too. Lock them all up, male and female. But the politicians are scared to death to prosecute females for sexually assaulting or battering male victims. So they never do.
Lorena Bobbitt is a violent sex offender. She bragged to her friends months in advance that she was going to do what she did if he ever cheated on her. She told the police that she did it because she was mad that he had an orgasm and she didn't. Then she changed her story and claimed to be the "real victim." She cried 'rape' to avoid the consequences for a premeditated sexual hate crime. She should be registered as a violent sex offender like any man would be. It wasn't her first violent sex crime. The police knew the Bobbitt's address by heart and knew her to be a vicious and violent woman who frequently expressed her violence in attacks on her husband's genitals. All the neighbors knew, too, as one of her attacks on John's groin took place in the driveway. She repeatedly pummeled his groin with a broomstick while he lay helpless on the ground. The final attack was by far the worst and the only one most people heard about, but it wasn't the only attack by any means. After Lorena got away with her crime there were endless copycat crimes, most barely reported, and almost all with the same results, except that most of the male victims could not be restored because the women learned from Lorena's crime and destroyed the severed genitals in a secondary premeditated sexual hate crime. Almost none of these women did any time for their crimes (the longest sentence I saw was 72 days) and not one was charged as a sex offender. It would have been "politically incorrect" even though it would have been just and right. One woman chopped off her husband's testicles as he slept because he had simply danced with another woman at the party they had just attended together. She was arrested, but the state declined to prosecute her.
The courts are not just and fair. Politics and corruption increasingly prevent justice in our courts. So let it be life without parole for vicious sex offenders and the wrongly convicted can at least try to prove their innocence over time, as they have successfully done over and over again in the past several years, proving repeatedly why sexual mutilation would be a horrific mistake as punishment for any crime. Because no matter how horrible the crime the wrong person will on occasion be convicted for it. In some areas, with some prosecutors, the wrong person will frequently be convicted.
If their crime is such that they serve a set sentence and are then let out again then leave them the hell alone. No signs in their yards, no microchips in their necks, no collars on their ankles. If it is highly probably that they'll repeat their crimes, as in the case of pedophiles, then their sentence should allow for no parole. If it is almost certain that they'll do it again then don't let them out in the first place. Sentence them to life without parole.
Drugs, Guns, Seatbelts, Helmets, and Child Safety Seats
I do not see how the State can criminalize the growing of a particular plant. I am not a lawyer and I'm sure if it were properly explained to me then I might understand it, but I cannot see arresting someone because there is marijuana growing in their yard. There should at least be some sort of evidence of criminal intent.
I most certainly cannot and will not agree with the confiscation of the accused person's home, car, bank account, etc no matter what they are accused of. This is unconstitutional and was passed by using the false claim that drug dealers are all billionaires who get away because they have the best lawyers. If this were a good reason for violating the Constitution then the same methods should be applied to corporate CEOs charged with theft of company money, millionaire Senators charged with various money-laundering crimes, a President up for impeachment for perjury, or a former professional football player charged with double murder. This should never have been allowed and if our representatives in Congress had honored their legally binding oaths of office to uphold the Constitution then it never would have been.
I do believe the State has the legal authority to criminalize the public use of various substances, but I think the Voters should ultimately make that decision. If the People’s Republic of California wants to legalize marijuana then I think they can. But if the Federal Government makes it illegal for the entire nation I also think it can. I just don't think it necessarily should. I think it oversteps its' bounds when it does that without a highly compelling reason.
The entire Bill of Rights was written to define the rights of THE PEOPLE. It is made perfectly clear by the authors and there is no confusion or mistaking of this fact. Those who deny this always do so in order to excuse blatant violations of the Rights of the People. They should be impeached immediately.
The 1st and 2nd Amendments are both very clear. No government, state or federal, can prohibit a citizen from worshipping God, even if they want to pray over their lunch in a public school. Nor can they limit our speech prior to an election, especially if said speech is about the election. The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bare arms means that we, The People, do not have to justify why we want our guns because it is OUR RIGHT. The free exercise of a Right does not have to be explained or justified to anyone, especially not to our various governments, even if the gun is really, really scary-looking to Senator Schumer.
Driving is not a right, because we drive on public roads which the government built using our tax money. Thus, the government can take your license away, but I do not think they should be allowed to take your car.
I also don't think it should be permissible for the sale of a car to be taxed more than one time. Once the sale of a car is taxed I think that car should be marked as 'paid' and no subsequent sales should ever be subject to any further taxation.
Once I am deemed old enough for a driver's license I think I am either to be viewed and treated as an adult or else the government should be liable for any recklessness and carnage that I may cause. That is to say, if Big Tobacco is to blame for people smoking and Gun Manufacturers are to blame for criminals abusing guns, especially stolen guns, then Big Government is to blame if I run you down with my car. That is, unless I am an adult and allowed to make all of my own decisions, as an adult should be. And if the same government who gave me my license is not liable for what I do, then neither is Big Tobacco or the Gun Manufacturers.
I think the view that Big Government is a good substitute for parents, and that even adult Americans are too dumb to be responsible for their own health, lives, and children, leads to a grossly immature and irresponsible society and a horribly oppressive tyranny.
I am an adult. I am more qualified to decide what is best for me than any government politician or government employee of some deeply embedded, bullshit, tax dollar dependent, social program. Thus, if I don't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle that is my decision to make and no one has the right to make the decision for me. Freedom requires that all free men have the freedom to make stupid decisions even if those decisions may hurt or kill them.
If I want to drive without wearing a seatbelt then that is my decision. The only justification ever given for seatbelt laws is that they save lives, thus reducing the cost of insurance. This is not a valid reason for this law. Not allowing any of us to drive at all would save even more lives. Never allowing any of us to leave our houses for any reason would save still more lives. But Freedom requires that we permit risk and foolish choices. Either we are free or we are not. I am unwilling to live in my Mother's house wrapped in a plastic bubble that I am never allowed to leave because trapping citizens in plastic bubbles in their mother’s houses "saves lives."
Child seat laws are Big Mother going overboard and taking large doses of Valium. Worse than that, they are totally corrupt. The manufacture and sale of this year's approved child seat is the biggest racket since the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA.) Sexist female supremacists testified falsely before Congress to get $4.6 billion and then had it raised to $10 billion, all based entirely on already disproved lies and heavily marketed hysteria. There is no War On Women and never has been. This was a book of hate written by Marilyn French and was based on her hatred of men, not the other way around. Studies by non-politically affiliated or funded researchers, both male and female, have repeatedly disproved the entire basis for the VAWA, but politics trumps truth almost every time and several of these researchers were both threatened and physically attacked by feminist recipients of the massive slush fund. It is a scam run by terrorists.
Child seats are a great way to tax parents and prevent carpooling. As if it isn't expensive enough to raise a child, now you have to buy a new child seat every single year. And despite the cheap materials used to make them, despite the low cost of their manufacture, they cost parents a bundle. And oh by the way, you may not reuse them with your next child because by the time he is big enough to sit in it Big Mother will have decreed that your old child seat, which was good enough for the previous child, is now horrifyingly dangerous and unsatisfactory and thus you must destroy it immediately. This assures the steady sale of new seats and the enrichment of the very legislators who mandated the use of these plastic buckets for children. It relies almost entirely upon the exploitation of the maternal instincts of a mother. If she refuses to use the seats she is a bad mother. She doesn't love her child. She should be shunned. She should be arrested. At minimum she will be ticketed and before long her photo will be up on a "child seat offender" website for all to see. Shame on you, Bad Mother, you must wear this scarlet letter marking you as evil because you don’t use child seats.
Yes, I'm saying that women are often more susceptible to this particular type of manipulation than men. It relies entirely on fear. It relies on both the fear of a child being hurt or killed as well as the fear of being shunned by society and labeled a "bad parent."
If child seat laws had existed when I was a kid and parents who failed to use them were simply scorned and shunned, My Father would have laughed and thrown us all into the car just like always. We would have ridden in the car exactly as we did, which by the way I might point out we all lived through without the slightest near-death experience. You could call him any name you wanted. You could shun him all you wanted. He couldn't have cared less what you thought. But My Mom, she would have peed her pants trying to figure out how to work the damned things, ultimately having to have My Father explain it to her (yes, seriously) and then she would have bitched and yelled at each and every one of us every single time she drove us anywhere because of the incredible hassle of putting 5 kids into seats and then taking them back out again. She would have made us suffer for you making her suffer. And it would have cost my parents a fortune which they couldn’t have easily afforded. I’m betting very few Americans can easily afford to provide child seats for 5 kids at once.
As for carpooling with child seats, forget about it. We rode to school 3 to a seat, sometimes 4. We wore our seatbelts when we could, and not at all if we couldn't. Sometimes we rode in the back of a stationwagon, sliding free and having a great time. If child seat laws had existed when I was a kid then almost none of my neighbors would have carpooled. They most certainly would not have agreed to ever drive me with them anywhere as almost every family in my neighborhood had at least 4 kids of their own already. I would never have been allowed to play basketball because it was only the fact that my coach lived across the street and drove me to every practice and game that made it possible. With the added frustration and expense of car seats I would most likely have been left to walk to school, ride my bike, or if we had lived close enough to where the bus stopped (we didn’t), to ride the bus.
And I notice that school buses are apparently exempt from child seat laws as well as seatbelt laws. Is it because they aren't really that necessary? Or is it because the Government would have to pay for them and finds the additional cost too much to bear? Why do we add this expense to our already burdened families then? We do we punish average, ordinary heterosexual young couples, most already struggling, who produce the next generation of Americans? We scam them with overpriced plastic child seats and ticket them when their child pops off his seatbelt without their knowledge, as if this is any of the Government's business and is somehow important enough for cops to spend their time worrying about?
Freedom means being free to be stupid. Unfortunately, when free people really are stupid freedom is quickly lost to scams and scam artists.
You have read this article with the title Libertarian Rant, Apparently. You can bookmark this page URL https://thebohemianbunny.blogspot.com/2005/10/libertarian-rant-apparently.html. Thanks!
