Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Does Nancy Pelosi Own Your Kids’ Hopes and Dreams?

In Opinion on January 6, 2015 at 5:48 pm

Screen Shot 2015-01-06 at 5.16.11 PM

Do not comply. Take back your life by forcing them, all of them, to understand that their self-declared dominion over you is invalid ab initio. (See below)

“They have entrusted us with their hopes, their dreams; they have asked us to address their challenges. The financial stability of a strong middle class and those that aspire to it, is the bedrock of our economy and the backbone of our democracy. We have a moral imperative to ensure that working men and women enjoy the bounty of their unprecedented productivity, and to expand the purchasing power of families.”

— Nancy Pelosi – Remarks at the opening of the 114th Congress.

They honestly think that they’re somehow in possession of, ‘entrusted’ with the hopes and dreams of Americans, your dreams and mine. The dreams even of YOUR children, they presume, are in their filthy, grimy, thieving hands. That the ‘bounty’ of life is the state’s to . . . determine? own? control? distribute? That elected officials have a ‘moral imperative’ to make some or all families richer? Which ones? Who chooses?


Have they no humility, no sense of their real, much more mundane purpose? To administer a body that protects my liberty by enacting laws [a finite number, please!] that prohibit another man from intentionally harming me by force of fraud is not the same thing as to manage or have anything to do with my hopes, dreams, challenges, bounty-enjoyment or purchasing power.

She closed with even more loftiness: “May God continue to bless the Members of this House of Representatives. This is the People’s House. This is the People’s gavel. In the people’s name, it is my privilege to hand it to the Speaker of the House for the 114th Congress, the Honorable John Boehner.”

I know that she didn’t speak in my name when she said ‘in the people’s name.” Indeed, that’s the biggest, most common lie of them all. NO ONE voted for Nancy Pelosi or any of the other clowns resident in DC (whether Rep or Dem) to give away the gavel of control over everyday life. Even those who voted for her want her to control SOMEONE ELSE‘s life (and money), and ditto for John Boehner and his ilk.

Do not celebrate the new Congress in the hope that the GOP will miraculously unwind a century’s worth of tyranny. Their power comes with, and only with, your sanction. Do not comply


Think for Yourself

In Opinion on December 24, 2014 at 4:26 pm

By my lights, there are two versions of the Golden Rule.

Screen Shot 2014-12-24 at 4.09.02 PM

Most people have concluded, have been taught that they are contradictory. I submit that they are perfectly congruent, even redundant if read properly.

» Both establish love of one’s self as the highest moral standard for the treatment of one’s fellow man.

» Both affirm the self-evident axiom that a person’s understanding of his rational self interest is the benchmark of all social interaction.

» Both reject the injustice of any man’s life being subordinated to another’s.

» Both rebuke treating Peter’s life merely as the means to Paul’s ends, absent mutual, volitional agreement.

That one has been misconstrued as a moral obligation to pursue self-immolating altruism and the other wrongly decried as the mantra of soulless, greedy egomaniacs is the victory of tyrants, a.k.a. preachers and politicians. The fact that statists have made both objects of derision ought to be a warning.


Sony and South Korea: It’s not about the movie.

In Opinion on December 19, 2014 at 3:37 pm

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is no more offended by an offensive movie than were the Islamists who raided the US embassy in Benghazi in 2012. The WSJ (see photo) Screen Shot 2014-12-19 at 12.06.12 PMand others have suggested that the US government buy the movie from Sony (i.e., confiscate $44 million from taxpayers and compensate Sony for it’s poor business judgment) and distribute it ‘for free’ so as to “turn North Korea’s victory into an own-goal [I’ve heard that’s a soccer reference] and show [whom?] the West won’t bow to threats” and . . . and, er, nothing! I guess I was mistaken to believe that the editorial board was comprised of people with an average age greater than nine. What makes them think that spreading sophomoric humor around the globe is or ought to be part of a serious national security strategy? They, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, must be taking advice from Tommy Vietor and Ben Rhodes. Or maybe it’s George Clooney calling the shots.

Get a grip. If the FBI, DoJ or DHS has evidence that North Korea is guilty of theft and extortion, fire up the B-52s. If our president is not prepared to defend the country, he should resign. In turn, if the country at large is not prepared to have the president stand up to such a pathetic tyrant, disband the armed forces, run up the white flags, and let’s see where the chips fall.

Similarly, if there is not credible evidence to substantiate the purported threats against Sony and American movie audiences – a threat communicated by something comparable to a Twitter post, by the way – we should either (a) ignore the threats or (b) stop wasting 100s of billions of dollars on “Homeland Security.” If DHS can’t distinguish between a high school prank and a legitimate national security threat from a rogue foreign power, what good is it? And I want a refund.

In a nutshell: Sony made some questionable business decisions, among them to produce another tasteless, slap-stick comedy and then to pull it from distribution. End of story – unless there’s a bona fide national security threat, in which case, see above. It is asinine for the federal government to be involved at any level other than confirming (or not) the existence of a threat against American lives and responding accordingly.

Where are the adults?

No Winners. Only Victors and Victims.

In Opinion on May 17, 2014 at 11:17 am

Less than a year ago, on July 19, 2013, President Obama made a 17-minute speech to share his thoughts about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. It  was really two speeches? One group claims to have heard inspirational rhetoric of historic importance, a call for peace, justice and racial reconciliation. Other listeners speak of the president’s insinuation that criminal behavior by ‘young black boys’ is justified by injustices of the distant past and consequential, uncontrollable resentment.

A single, solitary speech. Two diametrically opposite interpretations.


One group is enthralled by high-minded rhetoric, moved to irrational, emotional celebrations, prepared to take to the streets in the name of racial justice, silencing opposition with claims of moral superiority, and waving the bloody shirt of Trayvon Martin as their flag and a photo of their fellow citizen, George Zimmerman, as the symbol of evil, the target of their wrath.

The other group is disgusted by the vile, ugly picture of ALL Americans implicit in the speech. For the speech to reflect America, it’s necessary to believe that whites perpetrate, condone or intentionally ignore hard-core acts of race-based oppression against black victims who are, in this speech, relegated to a state of sub-human savagery, incapable of taking responsibility for their actions and accountable to no rules or standards, black victims rendered helpless without a federal police force to protect them from racial profiling.

And so now, if we listen to the President, we have two sides in America. Both to some degree indignant, emotional, aggrieved . . . pushed to the edge.

Obama’s message? It’s war. He presents us with a choice between two lies. He concludes that justice chooses sides, it is not impartial or impersonal. He asks, “which will it be, Justice for Trayvon or Justice for George?” and tells you to choose carefully your hero or prepare to be trampled.

I’m not encouraged about the prospects of reconciliation. In a battle with justice and truth on the sidelines, unhinged emotion pitted against indignant logic, there are no winners, only victors and victims.

There is a better way – let’s find it together. Reject both lies. Soon, or else . . .

The Face of A Revolution?

In Opinion on March 10, 2014 at 9:38 am

Palin CPACSarah Palin treats CPAC to 30 minutes of folksy applause lines delivered with syrupy condescension.

[See full speech here Palin @ CPAC 2014]

Insulting liberals, demeaning Barack Obama, denouncing establishment Republicans and waving the flag is no way of taking power from an entrenched regime. It may sell books and draw crowds, it may even get a few people elected to the House or the Senate. However, it is not the basis for a sustained effort to undermine the power of the machine that controls Washington, DC.

She’s been in her cocoon for too long. Her speech is an incoherent series of slogans and phrases borrowed from bloggers and rabble-rousers. Since leaving Alaska, she has learned that enthusiastic applause and passion translate to power and money. She has become a hero and a character actor. She will cause a stir, but no one ever signed up for a revolution, no king overthrown, because he was about to “bankrupt our nation.”

She and many of her cohorts are fools to think that her targets, your elected officials, will voluntarily put down their guns, or that all will be well in the land if only we might find a man with (R) after his name to be POTUS and elect 51 or 60 of his ilk to the US Senate.

America’s decline began long before January 21, 2009, and no number of election cycles will stop it. The only way to win is to make elections irrelevant. If enough of us ignore their unjust laws, stop sending the checks, stop wasting time listening to cutesy speeches and attending pep rallies, stop looking for freedom in its antithesis – politics and state power – the kings will either (1) be honest about their objectives and come for you with guns (shoot back!) or (2) leave their no longer cushy perch in Washington to find real jobs to feed themselves. Either way, you’ll win unless you surrender, unless you fear them or worship them.

She does not want less power to reside in Washington, she wants people who will listen to her to hold that power. Who do you want to own your life?

Why So Much Security?

In Opinion on December 14, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Put aside the NSA and CIA. Think a few minutes about the US Secret Service.

A group of thousands of men and women spending an undisclosed amount of money on the most sophisticated weaponry and security apparatus available, and who, on a whim, exercise military control over the population – try crossing the street when the motorcade is within a mile of you in downtown DC, for example. All this to protect the class of people who make the rules that determine how you will or may live your life, guarding the people who ceremoniously and self righteously grant you permission to do this or that, but only within those certain guidelines spelled out in a code of laws that consumes hundreds of thousands of printed pages that are indecipherable to any single person. They enforce the law that makes it a felony to threaten to hurt the POTUS or any elected federal official – can you say thought crime? – and if you smoke too much weed, stiff the IRS of its vigorish, or advertise your un-homoginized milk for sale in the wrong state, you will be shot if you run when they come for you with the handcuffs.

What do they fear? Isn’t the Secret Service their admission that their benevolent front is a fraud? Similarly, what’s the need for hundreds of super secret meetings – in Congress, in the White House, all over DC – about how to spend your money, how much of it to take from you on April 15th, which person to kill with a drone strike, or who will be appointed to this judgeship or that cabinet position? Why, for the love of Pete, conduct secret meetings about a web site meant to make it easier/cheaper to see a doctor for a sore throat or a triple by-pass? Secret meetings about what border crossings are legal and which are not? Secret meetings about who gets to build the next Air Force One?

Secrecy – who is protected by secrecy? What purpose does it serve? Is it like keeping a surprise party secret from the birthday boy? Is it about national security? Yeah, right. They are deciding how they will force YOU to live YOUR life under THEIR thumb, and they’ve made it illegal for you to have information about their deliberations, because it’s “classified.” And, you’re supposed to tell them thank you, to honor them by addressing them as Senator, Congressman and MISTER President, as they live the high life spending your money. You’re meant to believe the lie that what they do is properly called “public service” and that they are selfless, angelic creatures dispensing goodies to the underprivileged who would, apparently, be destitute if left to fend for themselves or to rely on the benevolence of ‘ordinary’ people who have neither the proper training to be good community organizers nor the guns to enforce their version of compassion.

Make ’em get their own life. Elect yourself to take back yours.

Papal Economics – FAIL 2.0

In Opinion on December 5, 2013 at 11:50 am

Pope FrancisAfter posting a critique of Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium, I was accused of not having read carefully enough or taking certain parts out of context.

Not this time.  My line-by-line mark-up is here > Evangelii Gaudium Markup.

I look forward to your retort and request that you:

(a)  offer responses as specific as are these comments, critiques and questions;

(b)  refrain from pointing out typos and parsing my words – I didn’t edit or review my comments, so some might not be perfectly drafted;

(c)  excuse the occasional snark – Pope Francis poked mankind in the eye, and I took the liberty to poke back; and

(d)  not make the silly comment that I’ve taken something out of context – it’s interlineated in the context (and that’s redundant).

I addressed only the section of Chapter 2 that discusses economic matters directly.  If there is a superseding never mind or notwithstanding Chapter 2 provision, elsewhere in the document, I hope you’ll point me to it.

My comments are in red.


In Opinion on November 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm

US-ECONOMY-PROTESTS-STATEGYAlexis deTocqueville, writing of the activists of his day:

“The members of these associations respond to a watchword, like soldiers on duty; they profess the doctrine of passive obedience; say, rather, that in uniting together they at once abjure the exercise of their own judgment and free will; and the tyrannical control that these societies exercise is often far more insupportable than the authority possessed over society by the government which they attack. Their moral force is much diminished by these proceedings, and they lose the sacred character which always attaches to a struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. He who in given cases consents to obey his fellows with servility and who submits his will and even his thoughts to their control, how can he pretend that he wishes to be free?”

healthcare reformHealth care is a right, background checks, freedom of choice, economic security, climate change, the common good – these are the modern watchwords which, like soldiers, liberals salute and obey with no regard to their own judgment or will.

That your liberal brethren have surrendered their freedom is the root of their violent objection when you declare that your own is not for sale.  Do they loathe being unfree?  Do they envy and resent that your free will and better judgment have empowered you to refuse to be equally unfree with them?

Yes and Yes.  Wouldn’t that make you scream in anger too?

Who owns the poor?

In Opinion on November 29, 2013 at 5:27 pm

How much of a man’s life can he sell you?  How much do you want to own?

It’s time we stopped taking life from the poor.  We rob them of life by giving them someone else’s money for food and shelter.  Let them be free.  Free to fail.  Free to starve.  And free to succeed and to thrive.  That’s living; without the risk of failure, there is no success.

The progressive “givernment” does not want to poor to live, it wants them to survive, to subsist.  Oh, and vote.  Vote to keep progressive government in charge of the lives of their slaves . . . oops, I meant to type their ‘dependent class’ but I guess my keyboard made me type the truth.

Are they free? Do we know the answer?

Unconditional, anonymous, clerical ‘charity’ – the kind referred to as entitlements – enervate the human spirit and stultify initiative.  It is destructive.  It kills.

Stop the killing.

Papal Economics – FAIL

In Opinion on November 27, 2013 at 1:35 pm

Pope FrancisIn his apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel) Pope Francis speaks of wealth as a thing to be shared while he ignores, rather assumes and takes for granted its having been created by the minds and labor of men. In the world he seems to imagine and advocate, there will be nothing to share but misery, equally distributed. Accumulating wealth is deemed immoral, and the highest calling is self-sacrifice with the aim of eliminating economic inequality. But, Your Excellency, if man is merely a syphon, where is the fount, what is the source of the bountiful cornucopia to be spread evenly among the masses?

Why does the Church preach destructiveness? Why do its congregants choose to ignore the evidence, dismiss all the lessons of history and blindly accept a worldview that a momentary peek at the rest of their lives would disprove? If you think your God wants you to be miserable and poor as you sacrifice for others, you’re reading your Bible upside down.

“Be fruitful and multiply.”

“The truth shall set you FREE.”

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

“Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Those are not commands to the lowly and meek. Those are words to LIVE by, whether you think Christ walked on water or not. Look carefully – unto YOU, as THYSELF. A man’s love for himself is offered as the highest standard; loving others as thyself is the measure of a man. To fritter away a life because the Pope decrees that “materialism” is sinful will feed no one and starve that life. We’re told to frown at lavish displays of wealth, to be shocked and shamed that some men have yachts while others starve. We’re meant to infer that sailing is to deprive someone of the food the boat’s price could have purchased, because they (intentionally?) forget that the boat was not delivered by unicorns. It was built, and is crewed, by men who buy their family’s food with their wages. (See also, Romney, Mitt – car elevators.)

The call of the Catholic God is for men to be extraordinary, each in his way and of his own free will. The win-win mutual benefit of voluntary trade motivated by each trader’s self-interest is the moral and just basis of capitalism. Absent force, men will not strive or yearn for an unknowable, ephemeral common good as defined by either Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan. How unfortunate that Pope Francis, speaking we’re told for God, calls for an end to, or at least curbs and limits on, an economic system based entirely on pursuit of mutual benefit via volitional interactions among men made, the Pope would tell us, in God’s image. Instead, he writes in favor of another, unnamed system that will only exist as a consequence of the forcible coercion of men to act against their will. That’s why we’re here – so that other guy can eat?

“Do unto others . . .” If you’re having money troubles, do you want your family, friends and neighbors to give unto you the URL or phone number for the welfare office. Or would you prefer they do unto you a personal gesture of goodwill and, when called for, a kick in the behind and a chance to feed yourself?