islam is not a religion.  It's a criminal code.

     Here in this great country, America upholds Freedom of Religion.  However, there are other Rights that apply that must not be violated if the government is going to leave one alone.  Among these are the Right to One's Own Life, the Right to One's Own Liberty, the Right to One's Own Property, and the Right to Pursue One's Own Rational Happiness.

So, when it comes to religion and how it relates to the law, it must be asked what the religion in question advocates.  To analyze one example, pick islam.  The koran preaches: death to non-muslims (violating the Right to One's Own Life), political taboos and government punishments against the exercising of non-muslim activities (violating the Right to One's Own Liberty), the coercive extortion of all of a non-muslim's property upon religious conquest (violating the Right to One's Own Property), and the subjection of all to sharia law (violating the Right to Pursue One's Own Rational Happiness).

As you can see, islam is not a religion in the sense that the Founding Fathers were referring to one in the Constitution.  Anyone can buy a koran and see what kind of vice is spewed from its pages, and the crimes that are encouraged.  Indeed, how can common sense conclude that a mandate to: murder, capture, steal and oppress Americans be held sacred by our laws?

islam is not a religion.  It's a criminal code.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Governor Rick Perry Innocent.  Obama Guilty.

     Ignore what the government-subsidized "mainstream" media is saying about the charges towards Texas Governor Rick Perry.  Read the actual judicial document.  All Perry did was to state his political requirements for not vetoing what the gubernatorial office empowers him to have the option of doing.

Now look at what Obama has been doing these last several years.  He usually doesn't threaten to veto at all.  He just conjures "executive orders" to invent "laws" and other government actions he favors.

And, witness the media!  The "indictment" was strategically created on a Friday at 5:30 PM--when it would be too late for most of talk radio to comment.  Considering that almost no one watches what really isn't mainstream media, anymore, doesn't anyone stop to ask how they can physically keep going?  They must be getting our money through government taxes or inflationary printing or something.

I sold my TV in 2009.  While depriving the corrupt media of our viewership won't necessarily stop funneled payments to the criminal media rackets in the shadows, it does go a long way towards avoiding much of the propaganda pollution out there.

This latest assault by the Obama-media fascist and socialist complex should not be treated by Tea Party and Republican Patriots as an issue that calls for strictly defensive maneuvers.  Take it to Obama and the "mainstream" media sources!

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Read RooseveltCare to End Social Security

     I have finished the book, RooseveltCare: How Social Security is Sabotaging the Land of Self-Reliance, written by Objectivist, Don Watkins.

Before reading it, I didn't know that much about the Social Security system.  The book explains how the entire bureaucracy is one big Ponzi scheme--where government takes from the young and gives to the old with false promises to the wary that by the time those younger Americans become old, there will be plenty of future generations able and willing to finance them.

But, Watkins takes his expose deeper than a typical nightmare revealing of a system of vice.  He explores the morality of those who support and oppose what has become the status quo.

My favorite part of his book is the first chapter which enlightens the reader about the historical moral virtue of most Americans before 1934.

"Typically, elderly Americans continued to support themselves through productive work until the end of their lives.  This was seldom a tragic necessity.  Most did not want to retire.  They took pride and found meaning in their work.  The prospect of spending their final years sitting at home without purpose or aim was hardly enticing." (p.19)

The one part of Watkins' philosophy that I don't know whether I agree with, is his argument that Objectivists who have lost large amounts of money from Social Security taxes over the years, should accept Social Security in "restitution".  This conflicts with my personal "amendment" to the Objectivist philosophy--that being having an ethic of trying to "avoid socialism".

About fifteen years ago, I received a check in the mail from some kind of social service government organization for about $1,500.  At the time, I thought I would cash it and try to send the money to Tom Monaghan, the self-made billionaire who built Domino's Pizza.  I had second thoughts because I didn't think he would accept the money and it would be too awkward to approach him with it.  But, then I thought that I could find a more just way to reconcile its ownership than by sending it back to the government.  So, I put it into an independent CD at the bank--where it has sat collecting interest every month, to this day.  Perhaps, accepting money that has been in the Social Security system would have greater restitution, if one returned it to a billionaire who is open to the idea--maybe Bill Gates?

RooseveltCare is probably the best book on Social Security ever written.  I agree with almost all of it--my only reservation being that it could have motivated the reader more to fight for a speedy repeal.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Opting Out of "Entitlements"

     I am currently reading Don Watkins' book, RooseveltCare: How Social Security is Sabotaging the Land of Self-Reliance.  So far, I'm only halfway through it; but a brilliant idea occurred to me today.

Social Security and other "entitlements" are viewed by the majority of the uninformed public as a good deal--or, at least, a lock-box that will return what was taken during old age or other emergencies.  While there are a lot of people who realize that they will not receive back as much as was taken, few realize that, for many, (especially the young), they will be returned nothing at all.

So, this being the case, why doesn't America test the claims of the "entitlement statists"?  I propose that a precedent be set that each American have the legal right to opt out of all future "entitlement" reimbursement and payments from government of every kind.  At the same time, no future: social security taxes, medicare taxes, and new kinds of "future reimbursement" taxation will be charged against any of these "entitlement self-abolitionists".

It is a grave mistake to try to solve the "entitlement" crisis by focusing on those who were stupid enough to believe that government will solve their problem of future self-maintenance.  Instead, I stand for the justice of thinking about the young generations who are innocent enough to deserve to not lose their capital--which would otherwise go to feed those who fed the parasites who started the whole, damn scheme by accepting it.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind