US Government’s Loss Spells Win

In: Mish-mash, Red Said

According to Matthew Dowd, prior to these latest scandals, (AP, Benghazi, and IRS), the level of trust in government was at an all-time low and is now even lower. SQUEAL!!!!! Yes, folks, this is something to rejoice about for as my dear friend, Derrick J says, “The jig is up!” Everyone is catching on to the fact that Government is immoral by nature and that the so-called legitimized use of force is evil- something that good people want no part of and are waking up to.

For my readers who are monotheistic, particularly Christians who believe that having a “nation under God” means a worldly government, I suggest you reconsider what your relationship to God is. Author, Tim Suttle wrote, “Participating in the organization of society is a sacred calling, part of our original vocation to have dominion, to fill the earth, subdue it, till it, keep it, and cause it to bear fruit”. What he fails to point out is that it is THE EARTH that is to be subdued, not its inhabitants. Sadly, that minute, but absolute fact is lost on so many well-meaning believers…I guess that is what it is to be deceived. Heartbreaking really. It is tragic to think that one might justify dominating another in the name of God, doing the right thing, having the best of intentions, the greater good. But, to me, what is worse is the fact that that thinking undermines a personal relationship with God, dependence upon Him for righteousness, and intimacy with the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us.

And for those who are humanists…still true! Whether created, or not, humans possess a neo-cortex and not merely a limbic system. Metacognition, awareness of one’s ability to think, and other advanced cognitive skills, such as social intelligence, planning and reasoning depend on a region of the brain known as the prefontal cortex. In order to exercise those abilities, one must be free to think, act, and then experience the natural consequences. I cannot imagine that anyone would fault the three women who were recently rescued from a decade of captivity and abuse for any means they deemed necessary to survive, nor would we hold someone who is mentally challenged or who has not reached the age of reason to the same standard we would a fully functioning human. There is a direct correlation between thinking and doing, and any hindrance diminishes capacity and therefore humanity.

So whether Christian (God believing) or Atheist, the conclusion ought to be the same when it comes to freedom and autonomy: it must be absolute with the only social rules for behavior being ones that are voluntary and can be opt-out of, as well as natural law- that morality most often attributed to Aristotle, which is distinct from positive law. The three scandals currently facing the Administration are all rooted in positive law: entitlements and the oppression of one person or group to grant favor to another.

So yes, the jig is up. Oppression, theft, abuse, and violence are not repeatable processes that will allow and foster freedom (choice) which is the chief cornerstone to humanity. Governments are nothing more than an expanded feudal system, which, as we know, benefits a few at the expense of everyone else. The fact that people grant them legitimacy via a voting process is a scam, for as we know, simply saying “I’m sorry” to the IRS will not be keeping Lauren Hill out of jail. And those who have been hood-winked to believe that they have a right to the fruit of her labor are waking up to that lie that for so long placated them since they themselves were under the burdensome yoke of the Government taskmaster. As more and more people stand up to the evil, whether we believe it to be spiritual in nature or purely physical, in order to embrace our own humanity, the State will be revealed for what it is: Anti-human.

The Internet is for More Than Porn!

In: Mish-mash

How fortunate we are to live in the information age when we have access to knowledge formerly restricted and hidden. Larken Rose who is an extraordinary liberty activist has compiled an exceptional video that is a must-see. I am proud to feature it here under B.I.T.C.H.E.S.  He is my first beautiful, intelligent, thoughtful, charitable, hottie eradicating statism that I am highlighting. He has a website where you can learn more about him and what he is doing to declare himself a human while supporting your humanity also.

As an interesting point of reference, a DEA agent whom I met on a dating site (he contacted me even though I said “No law enforcement or military” in my profile) assured me that he was one of the good guys. However, when he said the following to me, I knew that, whether intentional, or not, he has bought into the idea that force and violence is acceptable if it is for “one’s own good”: “People think what I tell them to think; that’s how authority works.”


Let’s All Be Gay!

In: Mish-mash, Red Said

Shocked, horrified, appalled, disgusted, dismayed, amused. So goes the cycle of my emotional responses to the cat-and-mouse game played between politicians and the citizenry whom they supposedly serve. And the latest point of contention is not whether the politicians ought to continue spending the taxpayers money for the interest on money borrowed from the Federal Reserve, nor is it regarding the half dozen wars going on in the name of the taxpayer, nor is it the fact that the trade controls implemented by the federal government has undermined the free-market principles upon which this grand experiment was predicated but rather whether, or not, consenting adults of the same sex can enter into a marriage union and receive all of the “benefits” granted to that special class of people who have chosen to unite themselves as a couple to the state. Don’t kid yourself…that is exactly what a civil ceremony does.

Prior to interracial marriage, the sacred union was a religious ceremony that united the couple, their families, and their properties. But once those colored people wanted to marry the uncolored people, well that required a whole set of guidelines, rules, and restrictions that only the government could establish, implement, and enforce. Imagine Andrew Jackson being told that he was not actually married to Rachel because he was “married” to someone else, or George Washington being told that he and Martha were living out of wedlock because he simply “took her home”? Were they any less married because they lacked a certificate granting them permission by the US government? Of course not! Oh wait! There wasn’t a United States government when George and Martha were married…but then again, he wasn’t the first president of the citizenry either, but that is another story.

So what is it that all of these gay and lesbian people want that has the politicians spending your money debating over? Before I address that question, let me back up and ask what it means to be “gay”. Does it mean that you have sex with people of the same gender? Is that the clarifying distinction? And if so, does the opposite hold true that a “straight” is someone who is having sex with people of the opposite gender? And if that is the case, does that make me “graight” because I am having sex with neither, or would I have to be having sex with both in which case maybe I am a “stray” for being sexless? Okay, so maybe this argument isn’t about where you put your fingers and phalluses after all…Maybe, it is a distraction enveloped in opportunity for the lobbyists/special interest groups, politicians, and to love

I hear gays decrying the government for not “allowing” them to love whom they want and yet nobody can stop you from having an emotion or acting on it. I hear straights lambasting gays for trying to destroy the institution of marriage as if the 50% divorce rate (of straight couples, mind you) wasn’t already sufficiently doing that. If John and Steve are a couple, how does them having a certificate that says it is “legal” for them to be together make their union any more meaningful or the marriage of Dan and Delores any less so? It doesn’t but the lobbyists/special interest groups, politicians, and media would have you think it does.

I do not believe the solution is to have the federal government or any state, county, city, or township create or enforce a law that grants marriage contracts. What I do believe is the solution is to remove government from marriage altogether. For one thing, I do not believe in polygamy…and yes, when you enter into a state-sanctioned marriage, you, as a couple, are joining together with the state as a third party. (Keep in mind that it becomes the final arbiter of the status of the relationship as well as the legal owner of all property, including children born into the union. Why else would the state be able to “grant” you custody? Hmm…)

If couples are already acknowledged as couples by their family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and merchants with whom they trade, what is the problem? The problem is entirely centered around the discrimination that the very same government, who is claiming authority over one’s marital status, has created: married couples get tax breaks, unmarried couples do not (Solution: eradicate taxes.); married couples have rights to will property to spouses, unmarried couples do not (Solution: eradicate government ownership of property.). Case closed, problems solved.

20 years ago, a gay man could not visit his lover dying of AIDS in a hospital; public outcry and the market changed those restrictions, not government intervention. Let that be a template for future change. And let the fact that the government will not “allow” public outcry and the market to determine change to serve as a warning to you that the government has overstepped its bounds and needs to be restrained, so that you and everyone you know can live according to their values and principles that guide them as individuals, so long as they do not use force or aggression against you. And last I checked, no amount of hanging with dykes and fags has turned me into one but my good taste, fashion sense, and appreciation for all things pretty has made me a certifiable Flame Dame who is a “graight stray”.




Beware of the Redheads!

In: Mish-mash, Rad Red

Aaahhhh, the allure of the redhead. We are everywhere and in hot demand. But as a young girl, being a redhead was a cause for ridicule, not adoration. So what changed? I’d like to think that I was part of that change. Yes, you heard it here folks..I was one of the 200 plus women who were part of the Redhead International Club that opened the doors to redheads being models, actors (other than, whores or comics), and the envy of all. What a sight we were walking through Universal Studios and Knott’s Berry Farm, clad in white t-shirts and with the varied hues and wide age-range. I was the youngest at fifteen and the eldest was a ripe 35. Women were so desperate to prove the authenticity of their color that one woman pulled down her knickers and flashed her fanny.

Over the summer, there were several events, including a beauty pageant with the one and only “Ginger” as one of the judges. And other than the “flasher,” there was only one incident that was bizarre or “witchy” which took place between the two women who would be crowned winner and runner-up. Apparently, the one was accepting help from the other with her make-up and the temptation to mess it up was too much for the one who painted a big swathe of emerald green across the other’s face. 30 years later, I can still see the seething auburn beauty hissing before exploding. I always wondered if she won, not because of her incredible beauty, but because we were all terrified of her.

Other than the redhead dressed in a fetching red gown, parading her buxom bodaciousness as a fated captive on the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland, the most impactful use of redheadedness, to me, has been the following video by MIA. Whether you like her music, or not, the message is undeniable. And how clever of her to have used redheads who, according to scientists, are doomed to extinction by 2060, not by murder but by breeding. So whether Jews, Aborinines, or redheads, the segregation of one type of people by another for the purpose of extinction is immoral and when seen in such a harsh manner as the video, one can easily surmise that fact. The insightful step is to see how that bullish and forceful behavior translates into other oppressiveness by one group over another. Straights over gays, rich over poor, citizens over immigrants.

Rather than use force to influence your thoughts and ideals upon a person or a society, let what the Redheads International Club did be a template of how you can change hearts and minds through example rather than force, fraud, or coercion. It is moral; it is lasting; and it is peaceful.


Liberty to Do What is Right

In: Mish-mash, Mom's Oracles, TNT (Think Nice Thoughts)

Growing up in the 70’s, I recall hearing “It’s a free world,” often. It was typically a response said with a tone of defiance. Whenever I heard it, I cringed; something did not sit right with me, because it sounded more like “Go fuck yourself!” than a joyous expression of humanity. As one who has always loved being unrestrained, I have enjoyed the ability to move about with my body, think and express myself in an assortment of ways, and live with passion. Those times when I was not able to do so was crushing to my spirit. Being free was my source for joy, unencumbered expression, and the communication of my unique self, not an opportunity to be rude, inconsiderate, nor offensive, which is what seemed to be the goal of those most often heard saying “It’s a free world.”

Liberty means the ability to have absolute freedom to do whatever you wish, with the caveat that you not jeopardize another’s liberty. In its most basic form, that idea is summed up with the Non-aggression Principle.  http://

However, I dare say that we can take it even further. The Bible states in 1 Corinthians 10:23 that “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.” I shared a version of that quote with my very dear friend, Derrick J, a couple of years ago and despite not being a fan of Paul who is credited with writing it, he loved the concept and agreed wholeheartedly with the sentiment. (He has the liberty to agree with what someone may say even if he doesn’t like the person. Inherent in that is wisdom.) It is easy to understand when you consider that one is free to eat junk food, but it is not in one’s best interest. But what about when it is simply abstaining from eating meat because your guest is a vegetarian?

Somehow people have lost their way on this concept however. The act may be something as small as using foul language in the presence of mixed company, claiming, “It’s my party, I can do what I want,” even though it offends the very guests you are hosting, or being late for appointments (something I have been guilty of and am successfully overcoming). Or it can be something far more egregious. I’m free to huck loogies onto the sidewalk, but it is unsightly to others; I’m free to have trash in my yard and not maintain my home, but it offends my neighbor who has to look at it; I’m free to call all those who believe contrary to me “Idiots,” but it is unkind.

Ultimately, isn’t it in my own best interest to be thoughtful, kind, and considerate, exercising the most rigorous of self-government? I have the best chance of having the most friends, the most peaceful existence, and the greatest opportunity for a network of people who will treat me with the same consideration. So liberty is not simply having the ability to do whatever you want; it is also having the liberty to do what is good.

I was challenged by TSA while on my way back from Las Vegas in December when I helped Travelin’ Val with her bags. She has spina bifida and quite clearly could not remove the things from her chair before being searched “for everyone’s safety.” Despite there being 9 agents within 30 feet of her and a near empty airport, not a single one of them lifted a finger to help her. I assured her that once I was on the other side, I would also lift her bags back onto her chair and that she would not be left alone. And for that act of charity, I was rewarded with a second and third search by these same agents who claimed that only someone with something to hide would help a person like that. I was horrified. I asked one of the women why she didn’t help her herself and she said, “Because I don’t have to.” Now that is what happens when people look to an authority outside of themselves to determine their course of action.

We must be diligent in our efforts to stand firm in our humanity. And that means maintaining the dialog of respect for others that is outlined by the Non-aggression Principle, as well as denying ourselves when there is an opportunity to treat someone else to a kindness, convenience, or charity that does not compromise our integrity or principles. Rest assured that if you are a vegetarian and a guest in my home, there will be food prepared special for you; if you are Muslim, we will not be eating pork; and if you are a recovering addict, I will not be lighting up a joint in front of you and will be serving raspberry lemonade and not my near famous whisky sours.