Indoctrination
(Editorial Comment from the American Heathen® radio show – Air Date 10/02/09)
Fall into lock step. Throw Liberty to the Gods as a sacrifice, and join the parade of deception as millions march to the beat of the religious drums of war!
God is the king of all. It says so in the Constitution. It says so in the Declaration of Independence. Homosexuality is against God’s law, and is an abomination. It leads to pedophilia and predation of children. Prayer in schools is the cure for the secular damnation befallen upon the nation, the Godly, and the just. Abortion is mass murder of innocent lives, and all who support or use it are guilty of murder, genocide, atrocity. Everyone who opposes us are misled, fooled by Satan; are evil, immoral, unethical. We are a Christina Nation, not a secular nation. Our founding fathers were Christian. Do as we say, not as we do. We are a Christian democracy, majority rule, and those in the minority should remain silent. These are our tenets, our laws, governed by the almighty God. We shall lie for Jesus, for the ends justify the means when it comes to doing God’s will.
These are the doctrines of a delusion, born of ancient ignorance, cultivated by fear, and taught as truth in the face of mounds of evidence to the contrary. These so-called truths are the antithesis of truth. They masquerade as solid foundations for humanity, but are nothing more than the dried straw of generational bigotry, hate and fear. They are a clever illusion, created to destroy Liberty in the name of a myth, to empower the few who seek unbridled control over all.
The darkness that looms over the light of Liberty gives no favor. It is composed of the blackness of men’s hearts, the bile of thousands of years of self-righteousness, the stench of human conquest at the expense of the innocent. It thrives on fear, complacency, and ignorance. It intoxicates with malice. It suffocates with pleasure. It is complete in its control. It is religious indoctrination.
Liberty thrives in knowledge. It thrives in manner of progress. It shines in creativity of mind. It is doctrine less. It is not an ideology unto itself. It lives and breaths freedom, in an atmosphere free of the pollution of myth. It is immeasurable, infinite, unrestrained, unencumbered. It does not seek to convert, subvert, or conquer. It is already a natural element, the purest aspect of the human spirit. Yet, so many call Liberty to account for itself. Through the act of transference, the self-righteous zealots accuse Liberty of offenses not inherent to it. Nary a quality assigned to it, by these ignorant accusers, exists in Liberty. But to those who accuse, it is their offenses that are mirrored in the accusations. It is their inadequacies that underly their suspicions. For, the accusers cannot face their own failings. They do not have the integrity and honor to look within. In their self-righteous judgement they claim humanity is unable to embrace Liberty, that Liberty leads to a perilous intersection where human nature and reason intersect.
Perilous? How can human nature and reason of mind be perilous for humanity? Have they conveniently forgotten the intellectual’s whose Liberty, human nature and reason, have brought humanity forward through time, who have given ALL, so much by the power of their Liberty? How easy is it for them to ignore the fact that it is not their indoctrination that has given the gift of Liberty! It is not their myths, lies and deceit that have paved the way for human endeavor. It is Liberty unto iteself!
To indoctrinate the mind is to crush Liberty and destroy progress. To indoctrinate humanity is to destroy knowledge in favor of ignorance. To indoctrinate is to force ideology of dogma upon the innocent, at the expense of Liberty! So, who’s really indoctrinating who?
October 3, 2009 at 11:35 am
Excellent! Nicely said!
October 3, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Excellent as always, RJ, and thanks for posting.
My internet went down about half-way through the show last night. Did any of the Xian nutters from the AU blog have the balls to call?
It’s been a bad week. Missed a couple of days due to bronchitis and sinus infection.
Any chance the broadcasts will become available afterwards for listening should we miss them for whatever reason?
October 3, 2009 at 1:42 pm
You’re welcome muggle. Glad you enjoyed it. As far as AH shows being re-broadcast, or made available… no. I only record them for the archives. They are off-air recordings, which means they are fully processed and therefore become poor when processed again through the station in a re-broadcast. Basically, they sound really shitty being re-processed. I have the ability to record shows without processing, but technical issues specific to the AH show make it impossible to do.
October 3, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Speaking of last night’s show, RJ, when you “boys” talk about cold lakes and shriveled penis’ over at AU, are you flirting with each other? I only ask because I wish to clarify our conversation which ended in a draw.
You issued a disclaimer after dispensing medical advice. I replied with a popular disclaimer often heard on certain tv commercials pertaining to long lasting erections. I won’t say it was tongue-in-cheek ’cause that could go down a whole ‘nother path that I do wish to avoid! I’m not a nurse. (Kim is though!) I do work in a hospital. I wasn’t flirting, but I am glad I was able to bring you some laughter.
October 3, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Also, last night, voting rights were raised by David. He asked where in the Constitution the right could be found, and I replied (through the chat room) -that the right could be found the 14th Amendment. I was refuted by David as he read part 1 of the 14th, and said that the 15th spoke to voting rights.
I’m curious to know if David has since read part 2 of the 14th, which does speak to man’s right to vote.
My eyebrows were raised because, in fact, the right to vote is implied, age, sex, race discrimination is explicitly prohibited, but the wording is precarious about the guaranteed right to vote.
October 3, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Here it is:
—
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
–
The section pertains to the number of REPRESENTATIVES, not to the right of voting itself.
October 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm
David, I am seeing your position, so am not wishing to be adversarial, but when I read, “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,…” I am seeing (granted) a prohibitive. But prohibitive of what?
The same goes for the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. They’re all prohibitive amendments. But to WHAT are they speaking? Voting rights. I will say that I do see that the right is tenuous. That is disturbing.
I also disagree with your assessment of part 2 of the 14th. It is speaking to the right of man to elect representatives, as well as to apportionment.
Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers – but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?
~Ben Franklin
I’m curious, what is your opinion on the voting right’s of a convicted felon? I believe that was part of the topic you brought up on Friday’s show.
October 5, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I’m glad you don’t want to be adversarial, because I was just as surprised as you were when someone pointed out that there really is no definitive right to vote. I had to do the research on the subject myself, and of course I had to read and re-read the Constitution and its amendments.
Your emphasis in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment is on the wrong area. It’s not about the right to vote [i]per se[/i], it’s about what the proportion should be SHOULD the right to vote for individuals is denied for reasons other than rebellion or other crimes. But unlike the Separation of Church and State, where the prohibition on establishment is specifically mentioned (“respecting the establishment”) in the First Amendment, there is no specific right TO vote. There are prohibitions FROM using certain reasons to disqualify someone from voting, such as religious oath (Article VI), race/color/prior servitude (15th Amendment), gender (19th), failure to pay a tax (24th), or age (26th), but there is no specific right TO vote in the Constitution or its Amendments.
Here is one such limitation that was not mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments: the requirement to own property. This was abolished under Thomas Jefferson, but it was done by federal law, not through the Constitution. That means they could always come back and reverse it. Another one was a literacy test. This was actually used during the Jim Crow days to skirt the 15th Amendment. Again, outlawed by legislature by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but not a part of the Constitution, so this too can be reversed by the legislature if they so decide.
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” – US Supreme Court, Bush v Gore, 2000
The fact that the right to vote is MENTIONED does not mean that it in fact guarantees it. This is somewhat like the mistake made by those who think that the reference to the date as “in the Year of Our Lord” (Article VII) to be an automatic endorsement of Christianity (no seriously, if you ask them about that they will point to it).
As for my own feelings about limitations of voting rights… I think that’s a mistake that should have been long corrected by the Constitution. I would agree with you in that there SHOULD be a specific right to vote for anyone age 18 or older. But then again I think we should also eliminate some of the other limitations to voting, such as the colony/territory status of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Isles, and of the District of Columbia. DC should be a state, with representation in Congress, and the territories should make a decision between full US statehood or complete independence.
October 7, 2009 at 9:03 am
Actually I like the idea of bringing back the literacy test… or some sort of test to demonstrate basic cognitive thinking skills. Then at least it would disqualify those redneck hicks who listen to Rush and company.
October 8, 2009 at 9:12 pm
David2, thanks for your response. May I ask – what are those liberties that you believe are protected by the substantive due process under the 14th Amendment?
October 17, 2009 at 2:17 pm
The phrase “substantive due process” is a judicial concept, not something specifically provided for in the Constitution. It is an expansion of specific rights and/or prohibitions from government actions.
The specific text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment…
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
… was written as a counter to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision of 1857. Even though the Congress had already enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1886, this provision was put into the Constitution to prevent either the courts from tossing the Civil Rights Act out under the Tenth Amendment or from future members of Congress from repealing it with a simple majority vote. It does not PROVIDE rights; it only prohibits the government (on all levels) from depriving rights already established.
What has happened is that the judicial system has used this section to expand on specific rights, since “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” were never really established. (Then again “promote the general welfare” is also a vague concept in the Constitution.) It has been a matter of judicial interpretation, not specific constitutional provisions.
For instance, when it comes to voting, the courts COULD argue precisely along your lines, that preventing government from denying people the right to vote under certain circumstances means that there IS a specific right to vote; but it would still be a judicial interpretation, not necessarily a specific constitutional right, and so far that judicial interpretation – at least under the highest court in the land – has been that there is NO specific right TO vote.
October 23, 2009 at 6:02 pm
David, believe me when I say that your comments are prompting me to do my studies before I respond.
To me, and my understanding, the founders left ‘due process’ to interpretation, but it was not a concept derived from the 14th. The 5th was incorporated into the 14th. I believe the life, LIBERTY, property encompassed substantive rights, or natural rights. Even upon inclusion of the BOR, and ratification, the framers understood that “due process” would encompass unenumerated rights. Those opposed to including the BOR objected for the very reason that enumeration would limit our liberties.
So, now I must ask – do you believe that you have a right to privacy?
October 25, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I believe in the *concept* of the right to privacy, but whether or not we actually HAVE a right to privacy has been a matter of contention for well over a century now.
The courts have operated on the belief that the right to privacy is IMPLIED within in the Fourth Amendment. But obviously not everyone in government subscribes to this. The Supreme Court in Katz vs US (1967) ruled that the Fourth Amendment provides a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, but here again that word “reasonable” varies from situation to situation, and they have carved out multiple exceptions.
I am surprised, though, that you have not invoked the Ninth Amendment, specifically that the rights enumerated in the Constitution should not be interpreted to disparage or deny others retained by the people. This is where judicial interpretation of additional rights gets its power from. The Fourteenth Amendment simply prevents the states from using the Tenth Amendment to override the Ninth. But bear in mind as well that judicial interpretation is not set in stone, and it is subject to change (i.e. Lawrence vs Texas, 2003, overriding Bowers vs Hardwick, 1986).
October 26, 2009 at 4:37 pm
The right to privacy was realized long before 1967. SC Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v. US said, “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”
Later Brandeis’ right to be let alone, or right to privacy was echoed repeatedly in matters of child rearing (Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters), marriage (Griswold v. Connecticut), and ultimately the right reached to a woman’s body and her control over it, not just her mind (Roe v. Wade).
The case that you cite was the overturning of Olmstead, but much had been said about privacy rights between 1928 and 1967 besides “a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Of course I see the 9th as reaching privacy, but I think it is more than adequately represented by the 1st, 4th, and the 14th.
Have you ever read “Retained by the People: The “Silent” Ninth Amendment and the Constitutional Rights Americans Don’t Know They Have” by Dan Farber? I found it interesting. My opinion, though, just from these brief exchanges is that you would not share the author’s view on the 9th.