A very revealing political compas test

I just discovered an interesting political test from a friend on Facebook.
Here is a link to the results of me taking it.  You can try it yourself here.

Why is this so revealing to me?  Not because of the results I got.  It's really interesting because of the amount of bogus ideas the questions reveal.  I would assert that most of these bogus ideas come from public schooling - so most of us fall for one or the other.


It seems profitable to me to go over all the questions/statements here and comment on what I think of when I see them.  See if you agree with me.
Note that even I would have thought myself to end up on the far right of the test - but I'm smack dab in the middle!  Why?  See my conclusion at the end.


On with the questions:

• If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

What is it?  Economic globalization - what does that mean?  World Government?  Or does it mean unimpeded trade across national borders?
If Economic Globalization is defined as free trade between individuals or groups then how can it be treated as a single entity directed to "serve" a single purpose?  If it can be directed to serve a purpose, then the individuals in it cannot really be free can they?  So I guess this question has to mean that "Economic Globalization" means world government.
So this is a socialist premise and it is inviting you to put on your "Mr. Socialist Dictator" hat and make a nice decision for the test.  This happens a LOT in this test.

• I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

Right and Wrong imply a worldview with a given morality.  What is "my country"?  Sounds like this has to mean "My Government".  If your government is a socialist dictatorship it doesn't really mater what you think now does it?  If your government were limited to only doing that which does not violate the rights of individuals (that in itself must be understood) then you'd have to be a loon NOT to support it.

• No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

Once again what does "My Country" mean?  It would be foolish to be proud of the dirt or address where you were born - how does that matter?  But if "My Country" again means "My Government" then what kind of government that is would dictate whether or not we should be proud.  Past generations of Americans were generally very proud of their government because (they thought) it stood for liberty and justice - something to be very proud of because few governments in history have ever achieved that goal.  Then again, if your government is a socialist dictatorship, well that's not much to be proud of is it?

• Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

Once again we have to define race.  Race could mean our culture and some cultures are certainly superior to others.  Americans of the past were proud of their culture of individual freedom and respect for the rights of the individual.  I personally have a hard time with the racist card since I believe we are all descended from one father and mother and thus we are all of the same "race" or "type" of life form.  If you define "race" as the color of your skin, well how can a color be superior to another in any absolute way?  An American of previous generations might see the "black" race as the stereotype of the typical uneducated black man of his time.  It was an unfortunate misconception if its day that the fruit of the culture bred an inferior or superior human being.  This idea showed itself in the eugenics movement of the early 20th century culminating in the Nazi regime.

• The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

A provocative statement for sure.  I happen to know friends who would never consider each other worthy of friendship.  I like the differences people have within themselves - it's just more interesting that way.  If you are planing on using your friends to get at your enemies then I suppose you would support this statement.  But is that really what friends are for?

• Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

I think you have to know WHICH international law you are talking about first.  Then you have to define the purpose of the Military.  Then you have to define who or what justifies any action.  If justification is defined as what you can get away with then you are living in a lawless environment.

• There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

What are we worried about?  I suppose the problem here is people not caring about what they see on TV or the movies.  The question is "is what I am seeing true or not?"  If you cannot know the truth of what you see, you cannot really make much of a judgement on it or get very worried about it.  We are living in a very post-modern era where truth is a fairly unimportant or nonexistent point.  The fusion of information and entertainment is a product of the overall philosophy of a society - it is not the cause of the problem.

• People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

Class - that's a Marxian term.  It is actually a distinction made via the economic power of an individual - a power that often changes over time for most people.  There is a set of people however who seem to keep their wealth from generation to generation and I would have to say that being in or out of that class makes a big difference.  As we approach the destruction of national sovereignty it naturally is becoming more and more true that what class we are in makes more difference than our nationality.  But this doesn't mean that money means everything - it means that the cultures and governments of the nations are all becoming the same - postmodern, agnostic, socialist, fiat economics, etc.
Class distinction has historically been useful more as a propaganda tool to divide people.  Since there have always been the rich and the poor, what better distinction to use to divide people - I dubt any system in the world could ever "fix" this situation - just like I doubt we could all be made the same weight and height.

• Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. 

What a bunch of implied premises.  The root of this problem is the loss of true ownership of land - ownership that is tax free and crosses generations.  Originally, corporations could not own land allodially and this was a big check on them - but now "persons" are corporations and so nobody can own land allodially and if I don't have true ownership, why should I care about the property I am "renting"?  There are family owned corporations in America that have been using the same land for generations - these don't generally seem to be destroying their own backyards.
We have key parts of our law and society screwed up which is producing environmental destruction and waste.  But government regulation has historically never solved any problem - therefore its not really a solution for anything either.
Note also that corporations are no more trustworthy than is any group of people, or individuals for that matter.  What was it Jefferson said?  "Bind them from mischief by the chains of the constitution".  It's not a question of "who you gonna trust".  You can't  "trust" anybody.  You can however make clear boundaries to protect individual rights and try to put them in concrete so they can't be moved or eroded - then everyone must meet the standards of love and respect.

• "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

Word for word right out of the communist manifesto!  You agree?  Not me.

• It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Why should it be sad?  People live in cities and trust their governments to manage their water supply - so now good water is hard to come by and the entrepreneur is there to supply the need.  Nobody says you have to buy it.  But we have lost control of our own property/land so this is what we are left with.  Note that free enterprise like this is the natural way to redistribute wealth - from where it is abundant to where it is scarce.  This is done without theft and generally without prejudice.

• Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

This is also out of the communist manifesto - the abolition of private property.  Our problem is that land is no longer really ownable so no one cares about it.  "The Government will take care of it for us".  Land is not bought or sold in America - it's only rented - from the government of course.

• It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

True we have people making money mostly by theft via government systems of redistribution of wealth - including inflation/fiat currency.  But this is because we have allowed "theft" to be "OK" as long as it's "legal".  People however who make a living by exchange and not the generation of a service or the creation of a product, are not criminals and they have a great beneficial effect on society.  Traders make a profit by taking products/services from places where they are plenty to places where they are scarce.  This is a service in the distribution of wealth by free enterprise.

• Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

What is protectionism?  Is this tariffs?  Is this regulated prices/wages?  The later is intrinsically repugnant to private property and personal freedom of choice and I reject it in all cases.  The former, however, can have good reason to exist and should generally be controlled by the will of the collective people via their representatives.  Tariffs are one of the least unfair ways for a government to tax a people but beware - the complexity of a tariff law belies its special interest influence.
I know I am saying the evil word should here but these shoulds come from basic maxims of law, something you are not taught in public (I mean government) schools.

• The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

I think the righteous goal of any corporate endeavor should be the betterment of mankind - but that's not the way things are.  Profit is central because we have rejected truth, law, love, and God.  Once again, the worldview of society is driving everything else.  Religion does matter!

• The rich are too highly taxed.

Who are the rich?  If you answer affirmative to this one obviously you don't consider yourself part of the "rich".  This is all about selective collective theft.  Theft is wrong (by the authority of God's word) and if that is accepted, taxing anyone more or less than another is collective theft and is equally wrong.

• Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.

This one is really loaded!  What are rights?  What do rights have to do with medical care?  And where does the "should" come from?  Medical caregivers are people with skills.  What they do generally requires money, but not necessarily.  In a socialist system that controls medicine, the supply and quality of medicine is controlled.  If you can't get what you need in such a system, it isn't the medical provider that is the problem - it is the system that controls it that is the problem.  I recently discovered how good and cheap medical care is in some foreign countries where it's not "regulated to death" like it is in the U.S.  Bahamas medicine costs about one tenth of American on average.  This is not because the Bahamian's are more socially righteous than American doctors nor is it because "everything is cheaper there".  Socialist control of anything tends to create shortages because people just don't like to work as much in a controlled environment.  The best and brightest go where they can make good money and do what they want undisturbed.

• Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

Governments are given the mandate by scripture to punish evil and protect the Innocent.  Stopping the propagation of lies is core to that mandate.  Whether the source is an individual or corporation makes no difference.  Any lie is detrimental to society and should be exposed and the consensus perpetrator needs to reconcile with society for the damage done.
It is a known fact that many of the textbooks used to teach our children in government schools have known untruths in them.  The problems have been clearly pointed out to school boards and other related authorities for many years - yet they go on - producing the fruit of stuff like this test.

• A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

This is a contradiction on its face - a "genuine free" needs "restrictions".  This is neural linguistic programing at its classical best.  As long as an economy remains truly free, monopolies that exist do so at the consent of the customer. 
Early in school I remember the old "robber barons" diatribe telling us how the evil railroad tycoons had "company stores" and prevented any competition from coming in - they got their power from government grants of land.  The Standard Oil robber barons were a little different in that I can't recall any overt government support for them but I suspect they were in cahoots with the FED types which were granted an economic monopoly by congress and leveraged that to control oil.  If today government simply let us dig oil wells wherever we wanted to and the courts simply held everyone to the same environmental standards - IE "don't make a mess" and "innocent till proven guilty", we would have so much cheap oil we wouldn't know what to do with it all and there would be no monopoly on oil - multinational or not.
Note also the label predator.  Kind of sounds like the equally loaded label robber barons to me.

• The freer the market, the freer the people.

Generally economic freedom is the result of lawful government and a moral people - not the other way around, but it can seem reversed when one is not taught the facts of history and observe that acts of congress tend to create the problems that government then offers to grow to solve.
Generally, I find that the culture moves government which moves law which moves economics.

• Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

Abortion is a taking of life so if a government wants to honor and protect life - yes of course it should be illegal.  This comes right from the preamble - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  People that disagree with this will soon find themselves in a euthanasia line.  Life is either sacred or its cheap.

• All authority should be questioned.

There is natural law - natural authority that, if questioned, tends to result in the death of the questioner. (just test the law of gravity sometime by jumping off a cliff without a parachute or other device to help you defy it)  It is not wise to question true legitimate authority.  It is wise however to identify true from fraudulent/usurped authority - something we have done a poor job at in the last century.  I believe a lot of this Pavlovian training starts in kindergarten (a German term from where the whole idea of social education came from) when we all stand in line to be counted and led back inside from recess.

• An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Quoted from the bible, this is the concept of pure justice.  It is a half-truth that will place a society in a ditch without its complement - mercy.

• Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

First of all the term Taxpayer is a legal term out of title 26 (IRS code).  It is a deception in and of itself because it applies to anyone who happened to voluntary pay income taxes, which are not required for most Americans to pay, yet who will be severely punished if not complied with - which makes it not really voluntary does it?  Tax dollars, however obtained, are public property and so long as the public is properly represented, can be spent how the people want.  However we clearly see that our tax dollars are not spent how most people would want them spent and this shows that our system is broken, either due to a corrupt society or corrupt government - and probably due to both.

• Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.

By Schools this clearly means "government schools".  It is interesting that public school in America was first instituted in Virginia by Jefferson and in the west by the Northwest Ordinance.  Both of these systems were birthed with the idea that the reason we needed public education was to ensure a moral society by teaching the Bible and the tenants of "true religion" IE classical Orthodox Christianity.  The compulsion was justified by this end.  Once again the old adage "the end justifies the means" created a monster that is now so far from its cage as to be a sure and present danger to society.  When education leaves its mandate to tell the truth in love, it looses all authority to force attendance.  Biblically, education is the father's responsibility.

• All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

Another oxymoronic statement - rights except for shoulds.  "Kind" clearly must mean race and the argument for the should here is utterly absent.  In fact it is precisely the question: should ... which is asking for a moral judgement.  Where does the authority for this should come from?  If it has no legitimate authority then there is no argument - it is just an opinion and carries no moral weight.  Americans have been conditioned to consensus negotiation for morality - IE majority rule on morals.  Might (or numbers) makes right is what we have been taught - but is such a concept really true?

• Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.

Once again we are being asked to make a moral judgement here with no reference to any authority.  A Christian would site the commandments of the bible which tells children that it is wise to obey their parents - there is a promise of long life for doing so.  Discipline is required to turn a child into an adult - we know this by human nature which biblical authority tells us is fallen and evil by nature.  From that context this statement rings true.  But if you don't accept the biblical authority as true, then you're stuck here.  Any judgement on spanking, or anything else for that matter, without reference to a legitimate authority is just an opinion and without an authority for a society to operate by you have chaos and with chaos you must inevitably subjugate the majority to the whims of a minority of someone.  A society without a true authority for truth must become enslaved eventually.

• It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.

Well it does happen so I suppose from observation it's natural and thus this statement must be true.  But saying this statement is true is not a moral judgement that it should be true unless the meaning of natural implies a should somewhere, in which case, again, if you have no authority for your moral judgement - it's just an opinion.

• Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.

The question is why should it be criminal?  If one accepts the idea of "innocent till proven guilty" and trusts people with liberty, then even taking drugs (much less possessing them) can't be a crime if there is no victim.  This I say based on the fact that I have no biblical authority to say that taking drugs is a crime - though our body is the temple of God and in such a case, taking care of it is the right thing to do, but how you do that becomes a pretty complex question. Note that I take criminal to mean Mala-in-se - evil by definition.  What we have become conditioned to accept is that Mala-prohibita is just as wrong as mala-in-se - that is, just because a law says something is right or wrong makes it so - which I don't subscribe to.  The law should reflect the authority we live under but it in itself should not become the ultimate authority of morality - this would be circular if true.
On the other hand, if we had a justice system that punished people that did true crimes under the influence of drugs, holding them responsible for their actions - including the action of deciding to mess up their head with drugs, then we have a logical and moral system of justice that enforces restitution to the victim(s) with mercy applied as deemed appropriate by the peers judging the case.

• The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

If this is true then you truly live in an economic social dictatorship.  So who schools the ones that make the jobs?  Or are businessmen just in a class above the average Joe because they don't need schooling to do what they do?  This kind of thinking leads to the common misconception that society just exists to support the individual's needs.  This is another lie from hell.  It cannot work that way because society is composed of individuals.  It's like trying to go to the moon by lifting your boot straps.

• People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

Maybe this should be stated: Are you God?  Just what does serious mean?  And what probability of inheritance constitutes inheritable?  And just where do reproductive rights come from?  Anyone agreeing to this has just signed their own life away to whatever the state deems is necessary.

• The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.

Another pretty random statement meant to evoke an emotional response to the question.  I would say that logically, the most important thing a child should learn is how to learn which in itself can require some discipline to accomplish.  But what does discipline mean?  Spanking?  Public shaming?  Sitting in the corner?  Working 8 hours a day?  Bringing an apple to the teacher?  What would constitute acceptance of a discipline?  Does this mean children should just obey what they are told by any authority figure?

• There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.

Well there are different cultures but savage and civilized need definition.  Once again, generic or relative terms are being used to ask questions.

• Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

Sounds good on the surface and I am sure I agreed to this but what is able?  I can think even if I am a wheel-chair bound Stephen Hawking but is that work?  If such a person refused to think would that be even detectable?  Once again, society is personified like a anthropomorphism.  Its like some creature or entity we can control and judge like an individual.  The individuals within that society are masked out completely and the whole assumes a personality of its own.  When we charge society to do something we must, by definition, enslave everyone in that society to perform our will or we must punish or ostracize any dissenting individuals.  Once you give society a job, you enslave yourself and everyone around you to do that job.

• When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

Sorry, these questions are getting to me.  What does this have to do with anything?  Is this a measure of how well trained you are to work under duress?

• First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.

A blanket statement to which I am sure there are exceptions whichever way you answer it.

• What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

Another absurd generalization meant to force an opinion one way or another on something that clearly should be handled on a case-by-case basis.  These kinds of generalizations are how the worst laws get written.

• No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

I basically agree with this one but once again it's a should question.  Once again I am asked to direct society to do what I think is right without any reference to a valid authority.  The reason I oppose this is because of the biblical mandate against theft.  Taking taxes from one person to benefit another person is just theft and is therefore wrong.

• Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

Clever.  Our civil liberties.  Those are the privileges granted by government.  They aren't mentioning the trampling of absolute God-given rights - oh let's not bring Him into it!

• A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Arguments would still take place within the party.  Its just a matter of how you label it. What is progress in a democratic system?  Where are we trying to go?  The premise of all socialist systems is that government is the solution to every problem.  But historically, governments make far more problems than they solve.  It makes for a nice infinite job description for a tyrant - be he an individual or a collective.

• Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.

If the rights of man had never been trampled by governments throughout history, I might even want to believe this one.

• The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.

I have to agree because my authority, the bible, prescribes death in some cases.  However, I would actually prefer involuntary servitude to serve restitution over the death penalty if it is acceptable to the victim.  Mercy should always have room to work.

• In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

So civilized means hierarchical order?  Specialization and organization define civilization?  I beg to differ.  Civilization is defined by the culture which is defined by the world view of its people.  A great civilization is defined by how well individuals in the society fare and how glorious it is to the God of truth and love - not how efficient it is at overproducing.
In a good society the leaders are really the biggest servants of all.

• Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.

This is saying that the term Abstract art is an oxymoron.  It may well be.  And what does this have to do with politics?  Nothing.  It just evokes an emotional response to help make all of us dictators over society IE ourselves.

• In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.

Punishment's main argument is as a deterrent to crime.  Rehabilitation's main argument is to prevent repeated crimes.  What about Restitution?  Shouldn't THAT be our goal?

• It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.

Probably right.  Forget rehabilitation.  If possible restore that which was lost - and if you can't do that, then forfeit the same thing you destroyed for someone else as a fair deterrent.

• The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

On what basis?  By what authority does one support Green and oppose Yellow?  Indeed, the poet might be argued to be the founder of the inspiration that allow all other classes to exist.

• Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

This is true because nature dictates it so.  It is logical from the facilities that females are endowed with that rearing the next generation is best suited to them.  If more mothers did this we wouldn't need public education which is where most of these crap questions came from IMHO.  Notice the may - we shall assume the right to dictate to others what may or may not be done - without any moral authority I might add.

• Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

Give me a case in point.  What is unethical when you have no moral authority?  How are genetic resources of any value at all in a post-modern evolutionistic society?

• Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

Making peace with the establishment has to mean conforming your conscience to the morality of the majority.  I cannot concur.  You must hold to what you think is right - to deny that is to deny the your soul.

• Astrology accurately explains many things.

Huh?  So let's set the congressional budget by astrologers and fire these cotton picking politicians!

• You cannot be moral without being religious.

An absolute truth.  Moral judgement requires a world view and that requires a religious position - a position of faith.  Few realize that Humanism/Secularism is in itself a religion.

• Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

True.  The alternative to charity is theft and theft is neither productive or efficient.

• Some people are naturally unlucky.

And some would naturally have to be lucky then.  So should we punish the lucky to care for the unlucky?  You know, make the luck thing an even playing field.

• It is important that my child's school instills religious values.

Yes and they should be YOUR values not that of a central authority that can mold society over time into the model it desires. I have always contended that a variety of viewpoints in a society is more healthy and productive than a single mindset - especially if that mindset is enforced by a centralized force.  This way errors tend to cancel each other out and people will tend to think more for themselves if confronted with differing views.  A herd mentality can lead the whole society over a cliff.

• Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.

Its also generally hurtful, selfish, unproductive, costly, unhealthy and undermines the family which is the unit of civilization.

• A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

I could rant on this one all day.  There is an inherent DESIGN in nature that REQUIRES a male and a female to reproduce.  Adoption is a redistribution of reproduced people but the true creation of people can ONLY happen between a man and a woman.  To deny that natural order is another case of trying to test natural law.  You will eventually destroy the family and civilization by messing with the man/woman law.  It takes a few generations to do so but historically it has been a pretty consistent pattern.  Not to mention that biblical authority calls such an abomination.
Why is it that majority rule is fine for most concensus negeotiations but somehow Gay/Lesbian issues are absolute rights even if only a few percent of the population is really in that class and even if the statistical data (see Steve Pidgeon's research on this) shows that same-sex partners have a horrible record for health and well-being compared to the normal man-woman relationships.

• Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.

This is a slippery slope and it is difficult to define the damage pornography does to families, relationships, and children. The premise of this statement is found in the word consenting.  It implies that the decisions of man carry moral weight.  It implies that man is the measure of all things.  It is a religious statement - a Humanistic statement if you will.  What is your authority? 
Why would something be wrong for children and right for adults?  That seems like an arbitrary line to me.

• What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.

See the previous comment.  This has more merritt though in that privacy is an inherent natural thing especially in our thoughts.  The state certainly has no business invading privacy but God does because He created all things and thus has full ownership.  If what you are doing you could not do before a perfect God, it cannot be completely right, regardless of what the state thinks.  And I don't think anybody is completely right - based on my biblical authority of course.

• No one can feel naturally homosexual.

You can FEEL anything you want.  Is this a justification for something?  Are feelings the measure of what is right?

• These days openness about sex has gone too far.

Honesty about sex is good.  Display of sex, especially to make buck, is not.  The lust of the flesh has never been known to build up civilization.

Conclusion

Here's my point.  This test is mostly a series of imprecise questions designed to evoke an emotional response.  Your political position is measured by your emotional responses.  This implies that there is no real substance to any political stance.  Like the test says there is no right answer.

So why did I score right in the middle?  I think it is because I have decided to use the word of God as my measure for what is right and wrong and I think God is actually the most balanced person(s) there is/are.   As you can see from this blog, I like to think about these kinds of things.  I don't consider myself any better than anyone else inherently - I just have a great God that lends me his wisdom sometimes but I am certainly very flawed and covet your feedback.
The test simply enumerates so many misconceptions and inaccuracies in one place, I just had to comment.  I hope it was of some help to someone.

The Dispairing Prayer of an Idealist

I cannot express the deep sadness I feel right now.  I have awoken from a fitful sleep freting over an investment that frustrates me.

It chills my soul to near the point of death.  It makes me not enjoy the very breath of life.  I am at a total loss.
I got into a private placement for a small company and have been attempting to "cash in" on that investment.  The method of converting my interest to cash requires exchanging my interest for shares of stock in the company at a large discount.  The problem is, the stock is so cheap right now that my exchange now makes me a larger than 10% owner of the company and creates "restrictions" on my stock.  It is stock I cannot sell except under SEC guidelines.
This is where Bill Gates is and was when he owned tons of MSFT stock and was utterly unable to sell it before its value crashed in 2001.
But looking at this from a principled point of view, as I try to look at everything that way, revealed to me more fundamental problems that explains my inner distress and anxiety.
You see I freely entered into a contract with that company I invested in.  And our contract is supposed to fully describe the circumstances of our agreement.  But there is a hidden third party in every contract now.  That interest is so complex that few can understand it and no set of persons can fully agree on its meaning - so we hire lawyers.  Let's call him the USG.  He has userped the power to amend all contracts at whim, despite the fact that this is explicitly not allowed in the Constitution.  He can take my interest and lock it up and prevent me from returning its state back to cash.  And even cash itself is another contract - a debt instrument - which itself has the same hidden third party, Mr. USG, that can create and destroy those instruments at will - thus manipulating their true value.
The whole thing starts to look like a morbid game.
God created me with physicality.  I have senses, muscles and a brain.  I am made to organize and dominate this planet.  Yet that wicked third party, Mr. USG has successfully separated me from my world.  I am unable to breath, think or move without his ever watchful eye and influence over me.  I can never be truely free with his presence in my every affair.  1984 is real and alive - I can feel it.
Man was also made to be a collective living mass.  His interactions define his existance collectively.   When all those interactions are controled, he becomes a slave in every sense and is shackled from his birthright and will and desire - Freedom.
I woke with the clear realization - again - that I am an utter slave.  I live with lots of stuff and in the midst of nature - yet I long to extricate myself from this straight jacket that is our decaying social construct.
But doing so has mostly just removed me from my fellow man.  That was not my intention.
Now every day feels like tax day - something that has so offended my heart that I have never been able to bring myself to look at my signing of my tax forms every year since I first signed an EZ40 in college.
Now every monetary transaction feels like theft or graft or some kind of dirty deal.  Mr. USG is there, watching, and applicable to every transaction I can concieve of - and this is far more than the cost of sales tax.
The ironic thing is, to help me complete the redemption of my interest in this company, I need to hire a lawyer to write a letter that somehow un-restricts my shares.  The company has no interest in this as it is not of benefit to them in the bargain, but I do and must illicit and fund this third party to help extrictated me from the mysterious Mr. USG's interest in our transaction.
It is theft I tell you!  It violates all fundamenals of sound law - but law and truth and right have nothing to do with our world these days.
So I pray.  I pray to God with all my heart!  "Free me Lord from this tyrant!"  "Ease my burden and help me to live in faith, knowing that you are REAL and you are JUST and you are TRUTH and you are LIFE!"
As our entire world now revolves around jumping hoops to live, instead of building wealth, supporting each other, and converting matter and time to things useful for mankind.  We are so conditioned to this state of hoop jumping that most seldom see it.  Dealing with bills, bugs, designed decay and inefficiencies, lies, "security" and basically our sin all day.  It eats up life at its core and sucks joy out of each day.
May we all be free of this one day!
Praise be to our maker who has freed us from this by the death of His son!  May I feel the truth of His love beyond the illusion of this life and may he grant me rest from all my toil, fear, and frustration with a peace that defies all logic.

I smile at the sunrise.

My story about going to jail

Brazil in Cayman

This has been a very strange thing for me.  It has taken me awhile to process.

A word about the photo:

This photo was taken at the Immigration office in Grand Cayman.  Note the pictures of the King and Queen of England.  Also note all the glass booths.  There is a computer terminal which you sign in with that places you into one of about a dozen possible queues.  You take a seat and a monitor overhead shows how long your wait time is.  Mine was 45 minutes to get an extension to my visit.  All the other queues happened to be about 2 minutes strangely enough.

The place gave me the creeps.  People behind the glass moved slower than Cayman Turtles and could care less how efficient things were done.  The people all sat in the nice air conditioned room waiting their turn - their liberty suspended - as they were "processed".

Cayman bureaucracy is worse than your DMV in the states.  It blows me away how bloated the government is there despite the fact that the country only has a population of about 60,000.

The Facts:

I was invited to come work for a company in the Cayman Islands as CTO for a start up company.  The idea was that I would work for a month and then consider if I wanted to make a longer commitment.

I arrived in Nassau, Bahamas to work on a off-shore project while the central office got me a temporary work permit.  But lines got crossed and my paperwork didn't get to the central Cayman office for a week.  It became impossible to get a work permit in time.  After two weeks I was flown to Grand Cayman to start work on what I came there for.

It was a little disconcerting to be working when it was illegal but I was assured there would be no problems.

About 2 weeks in the shop I was working at was raided by the immigration authorities.  They walked in like they owned the place and one officer came up behind me as I was composing some email and asked me "are you working here?" and I foolishly responded "yes" before even seeing who it was.  As soon as I saw that it was an immigration officer I added "but I haven't been paid".

Now it turns out that in Grand Cayman, "working" is a vague term apparently.  If it "appears" you are working, then you are working.  If you are seeking employment - then you are working.  If you are volunteering to help someone accomplish something - even for free - you are "working".

The Cayman Islands don't have income or property taxes.  They make their income from import and export duties and ... you guessed it: work permits.

Work permits in the Caymans can cost an employer thousands of dollars and much bureaucratic hassle.  Prospective employees must be off-shore while their work permits are being processed.  Work permits are for a limited time for a specific postion with a specific employer.

So far this seems pretty reasonable to me.  A country should have the right to protect its own people from loosing job opportunities to foreigners.  A simple work permit, if done reasonably and quickly seems like a pretty fair tax to me.

The Bust

When the authorities raided the business I was working for, they pulled aside 6 of us and took our IDs and passports.  Eventually we were cuffed and taken in a van to the Enforcement office of Immigration.  The silly thing here is that none of us showed the slightest resting of arrest - we were very cooperative - yet cuffing as "policy" we were told and was simply "required".  We were placed in cells, 3 guys to each cell, and awaited "processing".  I have pictures of me in cuffs but at this time I cannot access them.  I will try to add them when I get a hold of them.

The Process

Being "processed" means you are under "suspicion" of a crime and must be photographed, fingerprinted, and a "statement" taken.  "Book'em Danno!" 

The 6 of us were processed by at least 4 officers in only 9 hours!!!  That's right.  I would think it was a record for inefficiency.

I was the last one to be done and I offered to type up my own statement - as the officer was a pretty bad typist.  We had a meal while there as the bust was on a Friday afternoon and by now it was 9 PM.  I got out of there around midnight.

My boss came in to help get us out of jail.  I was advised not to request a lawyer to be present by my boss - mainly because at that time on a Friday, it's pretty much impossible to get a lawyer and there isn't much a lawyer can do for you either.

The "statement" you must provide is their way of gathering evidence against you - just like their question asked of me while my back was turned.  We were marandized AFTER the fact which I think should make my admission of "working" inadmissible.

Anyway, none of us could leave till we signed a bail agreement subjecting us to a hefty fine and/or significant jail time if we didn't show up the next week at the Immigration office for further "processing".

My boss got out of there around 2AM.

The Story

You see, the officers explained to us that they were assembling a very large "file" on us and when it was done, their supervisor would be consulted to determine if there was sufficient evidence to push for prosecution.

This sounds quite reasonable till you find out what happens next.

The Hook

The jail time was fun at first but after about 2 hours the fun was gone and it was just getting ridiculous.  We came back as instructed the next week for further processing.  We had to be there by 10 AM and could not leave till dismissed.  We waited 2 hours before anyone would see us.  After more time they said they just weren't ready to finish us up so we had to sign another bail agreement to come back again the next week.  Note that their bail forms have about 6 spaces for re-setting the appearance time to a later time.  Each time we had to come back, a different officer would be on the form so every time we had to go over everything again - as if nothing had been processed before.

One of us had just left another job in the Cayman Islands in order to start a new job at our business.  He had scheduled a flight off the island for a few weeks so his temporary work permit could be processed.  But they held him till AFTER his flight, forcing him to expend significant money to reschedule to a later time.  It was difficult for him to reschedule because there was no indication of when Immigration might be through with him.  So here is a guy that is in trouble because he was there, yet processing him for this violation causes him to be unable to leave.  Ironic no?

The room you wait in is interesting.  On the wall is this big picture that says people that even talk offensive will be jailed.  Then there are the articles on the wall telling about business men that were fined like $40,000 because their employee skipped bail.  Also interestingly enough is a summary of the immigration laws.  Did you know that if you happen to work for the government - the whole work permit hassle is waved?  That could be a handy thing to know someday.

The next week we came back and had a very similar experience.  We waited 2 hours before anyone would see us, screwed around with the officer, and were eventually re bailed.  I explained that I had a flight out the day before the next appointment and they had to see me sooner.  The officer said that I should come in at 8:30 the day of my flight and he would come in early and help me get finished in time to make my flight.  He gave me his home phone number and email so I could email him my itinerary.

I was there on time.  The office didn't even open till 9AM and I waited till 1PM before being able to talk to anyone.  The officer who promised to see me early "took the day off"!  Another officer spoke with my boss and we did everything we could to get them to hurry up - but I missed my flight.

It was interesting that an hour after my flight left, the officer came to an agreement with my boss to pay a fine and I was free to go.  I left the next day on a later flight costing about $1000.  My boss I believe had to pay about $4000 to get us out of that situation.

Coincidence?

Incidentally, shortly before my flight was to leave and as I was waiting in the office for processing, my friend said he had overheard the officers talking about "training" us.

Also, as I was being processed the first night in the cell, I noticed a white board in the office showing a table of years and fines and officer names - it was like a poll showing who got the biggest fines for each year.

The Legal Rub

What we have here, looking back on it, is a classic case of using the privilege of "detention" to extract evidence, confessions, and money from the "suspect" without the need of any hearing, trial, council, magistrate or jury.  Mind you, compared to other countries such as Mexico or Russia, I think we were handled pretty nicely.  I merely had to come home a day late and waste about 20 hours of my time and I was lucky to have a boss that cared and got me out of there quickly.

But the scary thing is - I could have been there indefinitely.  I remember my boss consulting with our lawyer about what to do, as they wanted him to basically sign a confession of guilt in order to pay the fine and get me out in time to catch my flight.  The lawyer said that it could take 6 months to a year to fight the charges and it would cost a fortune to do battle.  She advised that it definitely was worth admitting guilt and getting things over with.

So what we have here is a complete and effective bypass of due process using detention to wear down and pressure the suspects into forfeiting their rights.  The delays are just increased until the suspect (or should I say victim?) is begging to give them a confession and whatever fine is required - so they can go on with life.  The whole process is done in a nice civil fashion and unless you know your rights you would think things were just "normal due-process".  But actually, if you think about it, such "processing" is a minor "act of war" against your person and due-process is NOT what you are getting.

There is a reason the US Constitution guarantees a "speedy" trial and a trial by jury for cases involving more than $20 in value.

The fact is, because I and my boss were forced into confessing things we didn't want to confess or that weren't even true at all, the Cayman Immigration officials had all they needed to keep us for a very long time if they wanted to.  I could still be there to this day and much longer.  I could have even been beaten or starved or whatever they wanted to do to me - because without due process - there really is no law at all.

The Patriot Act authorizes indefinite detention for anyone suspected of "terrorism".  That means that ANY AMERICAN at ANY TIME and really for ANY REASON can be taken, locked up, tortured, whatever, with no due process.  That means, at least on paper, the law is no more.  There is no protection for any American from the government.  Public opinion has not yet been swayed enough to accept this in the open, but I am sure it's happening even now in secret.  Somewhere in America there is a poor suspect sitting in detention wondering if they will ever see freedom again.  There need be no real evidence.  There is no facing your accuser.  There is no peer review or common sense applied.  Your viewpoint, circumstances or even legal arguments have no bearing whatsoever.

It is interesting that Cayman Law is clearly based on Common Law but bureaucracy has twisted the whole thing into a mind numbing "process" that removes all lawful due-process from the affair.

This experience has really given me a lot to think about.  It's not so much what did happen - it's what could have happened.

Consider this and vote appropriately.

P.S. This just in from C4L...things are getting serious.  If you've never been detained for 9 hours, consider... forever!

Dear Sanford,

Today, Congress had a chance to fix a mess of their own making - and they blew it.

Instead of prohibiting indefinite detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil who have been merely accused of“substantially supporting” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces,” Congress actually made things worse.

In a moment, I’ll ask that you contact Congress.

But first, allow me to briefly explain what happened.

As you should be aware, last year, Senator Carl Levin authored a provision, Section 1021 and 1022, into the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that allows the President to indefinitely detain American citizens and foreigners who are arrested on U.S. soil on the mere accusation of supporting terrorism.

In a signing statement, the President assured Americans that he wouldn’t use this power.

With all due respect to the President, his word is not much to go on and certainly not enough to relieve my concerns.

That brings us to today.

Early this morning, Congress voted on the Smith(WA)/Amash/Berman/Garamendi/Duncan(TN)/Johnson(GA)/Gosar/Hirono/Paul/Jackson Lee/Tipton/Labrador Amendment that would have prevented indefinite detention of persons detained on U.S. soil.

This was the only amendment that would have substantively addressed the problem by definitively stating the President does not have the authority to indefinitely detain persons arrested on U.S. soil in military custody.

Unfortunately, it failed by a vote of 182-238.

There are several reasons for this.

For one, Congress was offered a smokescreen amendment that was voted on immediately after the Smith/Amash amendment was rejected.

This amendment, offered by Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-1), was even worse than doing nothing, and it will likely exacerbate the problems and ambiguity regarding the detention of “suspected terrorists.”

The first part simply reiterates that Americans have Habeas Corpus rights.

Except no one is arguing otherwise.

In fact, the Constitution clearly states that the “Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended” unless by an act of Congress. Since Congress has not explicitly passed an act stating it is suspended, all persons in the United States have that right.

Where it has potential to make the problem worse is two-fold, as Steven Vladeck blogged at Lawfare:

“First, it introduces uncertainty regarding whether individuals arrested within the United States but out of immigration status are entitled to pursue habeas relief (never mind the countless immigration cases where such relief has historically been available—and the compelling constitutional arguments supporting that jurisprudence). Second, the 30-day provision would arguably allow the government to preclude a detainee’s access to court (or counsel) for 30 days, whereas under current law, the detainee may file the moment he is ‘in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States.’”

So, in addition to rejecting an amendment that quite clearly would protect due process and the rule of law, Congress actually managed to make the situation much worse by passing the Gohmert amendment by a vote of 243-173.

Another reason for the Smith/Amash amendment failing is the outrageous and hyperbolic accusations lobbed at it from Wall Street Journal op-ed pages and even by alleged “Tea Party” members of Congress.

One such attack came from Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-16). Rooney issued a press release Thursday claiming the Smith/Amash amendment “coddled foreign enemy combatants” and would provide incentive for attacks on U.S. soil.

Excuse me, but since when did suicide terrorists suddenly begin to contemplate whether they’ll end up in a military tribunal or Article III court before carrying out their dastardly deeds?

In reality, if a terrorist were able to carry out an attack on U.S. soil, the government should look inward – at the failure of the intelligence community and their own national security state in this post-9/11 world.

Nevertheless, these are the sorts of absurd, illogical statements that were used to convince your member of Congress to vote against the only amendment that would have prevented the government from indefinitely detaining you.

By failing to adopt the Smith/Amash amendment, the government still has the authority to indefinitely detain anyone the government accuses of “supporting terrorism.”

And remember, not too long ago, it was C4L members who were listed in a Missouri Fusion Center report, later referred to as the MIAC report, as domestic extremists to be watched.

And it wasn’t just C4L members on that list, but people displaying third party logos and bumper stickers and supporters of specific politicians.

In the past, everyone from gun owners, to pro-lifers, to tea partiers, were labeled “terrorists” by their political opponents.

This is why it’s of the utmost importance that the indefinite detention of persons by the military be prohibited.

Perhaps this President won’t use such authority, but what about the next? And the one after that?

R 112 2nd U.S. House of Representatives 270 H R 4310 On Agreeing to the Amendment 29 Smith of Washington Amendment No. 46 
RECORDED VOTE Failed 18-May-2012 9:45 AM 
Party       Ayes Noes Answered"Present” Not Voting
Republican  19   219  0                 3
Democratic  163  19   0                 8
Independent 0    0    0                 0
Totals      182  238  0                 11

Against Detention          For Detention            Not Active

Ackerman          Aye      Adams             No     Amodei            NotVoting 
Altmire           Aye      Aderholt          No     Cardoza           NotVoting 
Amash             Aye      Akin              No     Clay              NotVoting 
Andrews           Aye      Alexander         No     Costello          NotVoting 
Baca              Aye      Austria           No     Filner            NotVoting 
Baldwin           Aye      Bachmann          No     Gosar             NotVoting 
Bartlett          Aye      Bachus            No     Pascrell          NotVoting 
Bass(CA)          Aye      Barletta          No     Rogers(AL)        NotVoting 
Becerra           Aye      Barrow            No     Sanchez,Loretta   NotVoting 
Berkley           Aye      Barton(TX)        No     Slaughter         NotVoting 
Berman            Aye      Bass(NH)          No     Speier            NotVoting 
Bishop(NY)        Aye      Benishek          No 
Bishop(UT)        Aye      Berg              No 
Blumenauer        Aye      Biggert           No 
Bonamici          Aye      Bilbray           No 
Boswell           Aye      Bilirakis         No 
Brady(PA)         Aye      Bishop(GA)        No 
Braley(IA)        Aye      Black             No 
Broun(GA)         Aye      Blackburn         No 
Brown(FL)         Aye      Bonner            No 
Butterfield       Aye      BonoMack          No 
Capps             Aye      Boren             No 
Capuano           Aye      Boustany          No 
Carnahan          Aye      Brady(TX)         No 
Carney            Aye      Brooks            No 
Carson(IN)        Aye      Buchanan          No 
Castor(FL)        Aye      Bucshon           No 
Chu               Aye      Buerkle           No 
Cicilline         Aye      Burgess           No 
Clarke(MI)        Aye      Burton(IN)        No 
Clarke(NY)        Aye      Calvert           No 
Cleaver           Aye      Camp              No 
Clyburn           Aye      Campbell          No 
Cohen             Aye      Canseco           No 
Connolly(VA)      Aye      Cantor            No 
Conyers           Aye      Capito            No 
Cooper            Aye      Carter            No 
Courtney          Aye      Cassidy           No 
Critz             Aye      Chabot            No 
Crowley           Aye      Chaffetz          No 
Cummings          Aye      Chandler          No 
Davis(CA)         Aye      Coble             No 
Davis(IL)         Aye      Coffman(CO)       No 
DeFazio           Aye      Cole              No 
DeGette           Aye      Conaway           No 
DeLauro           Aye      Costa             No 
Deutch            Aye      Cravaack          No 
Dicks             Aye      Crawford          No 
Dingell           Aye      Crenshaw          No 
Doggett           Aye      Cuellar           No 
Doyle             Aye      Culberson         No 
Duncan(TN)        Aye      Davis(KY)         No 
Edwards           Aye      Denham            No 
Engel             Aye      Dent              No 
Eshoo             Aye      DesJarlais        No 
Farr              Aye      Diaz-Balart       No 
Fattah            Aye      Dold              No 
Frank(MA)         Aye      Donnelly(IN)      No 
Fudge             Aye      Dreier            No 
Garamendi         Aye      Duffy             No 
Gibson            Aye      Duncan(SC)        No 
Gonzalez          Aye      Ellison           No 
Green,Al          Aye      Ellmers           No 
Green,Gene        Aye      Emerson           No 
Griffith(VA)      Aye      Farenthold        No 
Grijalva          Aye      Fincher           No 
Gutierrez         Aye      Fitzpatrick       No 
Hahn              Aye      Flake             No 
Hanabusa          Aye      Fleischmann       No 
Hastings(FL)      Aye      Fleming           No 
Heinrich          Aye      Flores            No 
Higgins           Aye      Forbes            No 
Himes             Aye      Fortenberry       No 
Hinchey           Aye      Foxx              No 
Hinojosa          Aye      Franks(AZ)        No 
Hirono            Aye      Frelinghuysen     No 
Hochul            Aye      Gallegly          No 
Holden            Aye      Gardner           No 
Holt              Aye      Garrett           No 
Honda             Aye      Gerlach           No 
Hoyer             Aye      Gibbs             No 
Huelskamp         Aye      Gingrey(GA)       No 
Israel            Aye      Gohmert           No 
Jackson(IL)       Aye      Goodlatte         No 
JacksonLee(TX)    Aye      Gowdy             No 
Johnson(GA)       Aye      Granger           No 
Johnson(IL)       Aye      Graves(GA)        No 
Johnson,E.B.      Aye      Graves(MO)        No 
Jones             Aye      Griffin(AR)       No 
Kaptur            Aye      Grimm             No 
Keating           Aye      Guinta            No 
Kildee            Aye      Guthrie           No 
Kind              Aye      Hall              No 
Kucinich          Aye      Hanna             No 
Labrador          Aye      Harper            No 
Langevin          Aye      Harris            No 
Larsen(WA)        Aye      Hartzler          No 
Larson(CT)        Aye      Hastings(WA)      No 
Lee(CA)           Aye      Hayworth          No 
Lewis(GA)         Aye      Heck              No 
Loebsack          Aye      Hensarling        No 
Lofgren,Zoe       Aye      Herger            No 
Lowey             Aye      HerreraBeutler    No 
Luján             Aye      Huizenga(MI)      No 
Lynch             Aye      Hultgren          No 
Maloney           Aye      Hunter            No 
Markey            Aye      Hurt              No 
Matsui            Aye      Issa              No 
McClintock        Aye      Jenkins           No 
McCollum          Aye      Johnson(OH)       No 
McDermott         Aye      Johnson,Sam       No 
McGovern          Aye      Jordan            No 
McNerney          Aye      Kelly             No 
Meeks             Aye      King(IA)          No 
Michaud           Aye      King(NY)          No 
Miller(NC)        Aye      Kingston          No 
Miller,George     Aye      Kinzinger(IL)     No 
Moore             Aye      Kissell           No 
Moran             Aye      Kline             No 
Murphy(CT)        Aye      Lamborn           No 
Nadler            Aye      Lance             No 
Napolitano        Aye      Landry            No 
Neal              Aye      Lankford          No 
Olver             Aye      Latham            No 
Pallone           Aye      LaTourette        No 
Pastor(AZ)        Aye      Latta             No 
Paul              Aye      Levin             No 
Pelosi            Aye      Lewis(CA)         No 
Perlmutter        Aye      Lipinski          No 
Peters            Aye      LoBiondo          No 
Petri             Aye      Long              No 
Pingree(ME)       Aye      Lucas             No 
Polis             Aye      Luetkemeyer       No 
Price(NC)         Aye      Lummis            No 
Quigley           Aye      Lungren,DanielE.  No 
Rahall            Aye      Mack              No 
Rangel            Aye      Manzullo          No 
Rehberg           Aye      Marchant          No 
Reyes             Aye      Marino            No 
Ribble            Aye      Matheson          No 
Richardson        Aye      McCarthy(CA)      No 
Richmond          Aye      McCarthy(NY)      No 
Rothman(NJ)       Aye      McCaul            No 
Roybal-Allard     Aye      McCotter          No 
Rush              Aye      McHenry           No 
Ryan(OH)          Aye      McIntyre          No 
Sánchez,LindaT.   Aye      McKeon            No 
Sarbanes          Aye      McKinley          No 
Schakowsky        Aye      McMorris,Rodgers  No 
Schiff            Aye      Meehan            No 
Schrader          Aye      Mica              No 
Schwartz          Aye      Miller(FL)        No 
Scott(VA)         Aye      Miller(MI)        No 
Scott,David       Aye      Miller,Gary       No 
Sensenbrenner     Aye      Mulvaney          No 
Serrano           Aye      Murphy(PA)        No 
Sherman           Aye      Myrick            No 
Shimkus           Aye      Neugebauer        No 
Shuler            Aye      Noem              No 
Sires             Aye      Nugent            No 
Smith(WA)         Aye      Nunes             No 
Stark             Aye      Nunnelee          No 
Sutton            Aye      Olson             No 
Thompson(CA)      Aye      Owens             No 
Thompson(MS)      Aye      Palazzo           No 
Tierney           Aye      Paulsen           No 
Tipton            Aye      Pearce            No 
Tonko             Aye      Pence             No 
Towns             Aye      Peterson          No 
Tsongas           Aye      Pitts             No 
VanHollen         Aye      Platts            No 
Velázquez         Aye      Poe(TX)           No 
Visclosky         Aye      Pompeo            No 
Walz(MN)          Aye      Posey             No 
Wasserman,Schultz Aye      Price(GA)         No 
Waters            Aye      Quayle            No 
Watt              Aye      Reed              No 
Waxman            Aye      Reichert          No 
Welch             Aye      Renacci           No 
Wilson(FL)        Aye      Rigell            No 
Woolsey           Aye      Rivera            No 
Yarmuth           Aye      Roby              No 
                           Roe(TN)           No 
                           Rogers(KY)        No 
                           Rogers(MI)        No 
                           Rohrabacher       No 
                           Rokita            No 
                           Rooney            No 
                           Ros-Lehtinen      No 
                           Roskam            No 
                           Ross(AR)          No 
                           Ross(FL)          No 
                           Royce             No 
                           Runyan            No 
                           Ruppersberger     No 
                           Ryan(WI)          No 
                           Scalise           No 
                           Schilling         No 
                           Schmidt           No 
                           Schock            No 
                           Schweikert        No 
                           Scott(SC)         No 
                           Scott,Austin      No 
                           Sessions          No 
                           Sewell            No 
                           Shuster           No 
                           Simpson           No 
                           Smith(NE)         No 
                           Smith(NJ)         No 
                           Smith(TX)         No 
                           Southerland       No 
                           Stearns           No 
                           Stivers           No 
                           Stutzman          No 
                           Sullivan          No 
                           Terry             No 
                           Thompson(PA)      No 
                           Thornberry        No 
                           Tiberi            No 
                           Turner(NY)        No 
                           Turner(OH)        No 
                           Upton             No 
                           Walberg           No 
                           Walden            No 
                           Walsh(IL)         No 
                           Webster           No 
                           West              No 
                           Westmoreland      No 
                           Whitfield         No 
                           Wilson(SC)        No 
                           Wittman           No 
                           Wolf              No 
                           Womack            No 
                           Woodall           No 
                           Yoder             No 
                           Young(AK)         No 
                           Young(FL)         No 
                           Young(IN)         No 

R 112 2nd U.S. House of Representatives 291 H R 4310 On Passage 
RECORDED VOTE 
Passed 18-May-2012 12:46 PM 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
Party       Ayes Noes Answered-“Present” Not Voting
Republican  222  16   0                  3
Democratic  77   104  0                  9
Independent 0    0    0                  0
Totals      299  120  0                  12

For Detention            Against Detention        Not There
Ackerman          Aye    Amash             No     Amodei            NotVoting 
Adams             Aye    Baldwin           No     Braley(IA)        NotVoting 
Aderholt          Aye    Bass(CA)          No     Cardoza           NotVoting 
Akin              Aye    Becerra           No     Costello          NotVoting 
Alexander         Aye    Blumenauer        No     Filner            NotVoting 
Altmire           Aye    Bonamici          No     Gosar             NotVoting 
Andrews           Aye    Burgess           No     Pascrell          NotVoting 
Austria           Aye    Butterfield       No     Ryan(OH)          NotVoting 
Baca              Aye    Campbell          No     Sanchez,Loretta   NotVoting 
Bachmann          Aye    Capps             No     Slaughter         NotVoting 
Bachus            Aye    Capuano           No     Speier            NotVoting 
Barletta          Aye    Carson(IN)        No     Sullivan          NotVoting 
Barrow            Aye    Castor(FL)        No 
Bartlett          Aye    Cicilline         No 
Barton(TX)        Aye    Clarke(MI)        No 
Bass(NH)          Aye    Clarke(NY)        No 
Benishek          Aye    Clay              No 
Berg              Aye    Cleaver           No 
Berkley           Aye    Clyburn           No 
Berman            Aye    Cohen             No 
Biggert           Aye    Conyers           No 
Bilbray           Aye    Crowley           No 
Bilirakis         Aye    Davis(IL)         No 
Bishop(GA)        Aye    DeFazio           No 
Bishop(NY)        Aye    DeGette           No 
Bishop(UT)        Aye    DeLauro           No 
Black             Aye    Deutch            No 
Blackburn         Aye    Doyle             No 
Bonner            Aye    Duncan(TN)        No 
BonoMack          Aye    Edwards           No 
Boren             Aye    Ellison           No 
Boswell           Aye    Eshoo             No 
Boustany          Aye    Farr              No 
Brady(PA)         Aye    Fattah            No 
Brady(TX)         Aye    Frank(MA)         No 
Brooks            Aye    Fudge             No 
Broun(GA)         Aye    Garamendi         No 
Brown(FL)         Aye    Gibson            No 
Buchanan          Aye    Griffith(VA)      No 
Bucshon           Aye    Grijalva          No 
Buerkle           Aye    Gutierrez         No 
Burton(IN)        Aye    Hahn              No 
Calvert           Aye    Hastings(FL)      No 
Camp              Aye    Himes             No 
Canseco           Aye    Hinchey           No 
Cantor            Aye    Holt              No 
Capito            Aye    Honda             No 
Carnahan          Aye    Huelskamp         No 
Carney            Aye    Jackson(IL)       No 
Carter            Aye    Johnson(GA)       No 
Cassidy           Aye    Johnson(IL)       No 
Chabot            Aye    Jones             No 
Chaffetz          Aye    Keating           No 
Chandler          Aye    Kind              No 
Chu               Aye    Kucinich          No 
Coble             Aye    Labrador          No 
Coffman(CO)       Aye    Larsen(WA)        No 
Cole              Aye    Lee(CA)           No 
Conaway           Aye    Lewis(GA)         No 
Connolly(VA)      Aye    Lofgren,Zoe       No 
Cooper            Aye    Lowey             No 
Costa             Aye    Luján             No 
Courtney          Aye    Lynch             No 
Cravaack          Aye    Maloney           No 
Crawford          Aye    Markey            No 
Crenshaw          Aye    Matsui            No 
Critz             Aye    McClintock        No 
Cuellar           Aye    McCollum          No 
Culberson         Aye    McDermott         No 
Cummings          Aye    McGovern          No 
Davis(CA)         Aye    Michaud           No 
Davis(KY)         Aye    Miller(NC)        No 
Denham            Aye    Miller,George     No 
Dent              Aye    Moore             No 
DesJarlais        Aye    Moran             No 
Diaz-Balart       Aye    Murphy(CT)        No 
Dicks             Aye    Nadler            No 
Dingell           Aye    Napolitano        No 
Doggett           Aye    Neal              No 
Dold              Aye    Nugent            No 
Donnelly(IN)      Aye    Olver             No 
Dreier            Aye    Pallone           No 
Duffy             Aye    Paul              No 
Duncan(SC)        Aye    Pelosi            No 
Ellmers           Aye    Peters            No 
Emerson           Aye    Pingree(ME)       No 
Engel             Aye    Polis             No 
Farenthold        Aye    Price(NC)         No 
Fincher           Aye    Quigley           No 
Fitzpatrick       Aye    Rahall            No 
Flake             Aye    Rangel            No 
Fleischmann       Aye    Richmond          No 
Fleming           Aye    Roe(TN)           No 
Flores            Aye    Rothman(NJ)       No 
Forbes            Aye    Roybal-Allard     No 
Fortenberry       Aye    Royce             No 
Foxx              Aye    Rush              No 
Franks(AZ)        Aye    Sánchez,LindaT.   No 
Frelinghuysen     Aye    Sarbanes          No 
Gallegly          Aye    Schakowsky        No 
Gardner           Aye    Schrader          No 
Garrett           Aye    Schwartz          No 
Gerlach           Aye    Schweikert        No 
Gibbs             Aye    Scott(VA)         No 
Gingrey(GA)       Aye    Serrano           No 
Gohmert           Aye    Stark             No 
Gonzalez          Aye    Thompson(CA)      No 
Goodlatte         Aye    Thompson(MS)      No 
Gowdy             Aye    Tierney           No 
Granger           Aye    Tonko             No 
Graves(GA)        Aye    VanHollen         No 
Graves(MO)        Aye    Velázquez         No 
Green,Al          Aye    Wasserman,Schultz No 
Green,Gene        Aye    Waters            No 
Griffin(AR)       Aye    Watt              No 
Grimm             Aye    Waxman            No 
Guinta            Aye    Welch             No 
Guthrie           Aye    Wilson(FL)        No 
Hall              Aye    Woolsey           No 
Hanabusa          Aye    Yarmuth           No 
Hanna             Aye
Harper            Aye
Harris            Aye
Hartzler          Aye
Hastings(WA)      Aye
Hayworth          Aye
Heck              Aye
Heinrich          Aye
Hensarling        Aye
Herger            Aye
HerreraBeutler    Aye
Higgins           Aye
Hinojosa          Aye
Hirono            Aye
Hochul            Aye
Holden            Aye
Hoyer             Aye
Huizenga(MI)      Aye
Hultgren          Aye
Hunter            Aye
Hurt              Aye
Israel            Aye
Issa              Aye
JacksonLee(TX)    Aye
Jenkins           Aye
Johnson(OH)       Aye
Johnson,E.B.      Aye
Johnson,Sam       Aye
Jordan            Aye
Kaptur            Aye
Kelly             Aye
Kildee            Aye
King(IA)          Aye
King(NY)          Aye
Kingston          Aye
Kinzinger(IL)     Aye
Kissell           Aye
Kline             Aye
Lamborn           Aye
Lance             Aye
Landry            Aye
Langevin          Aye
Lankford          Aye
Larson(CT)        Aye
Latham            Aye
LaTourette        Aye
Latta             Aye
Levin             Aye
Lewis(CA)         Aye
Lipinski          Aye
LoBiondo          Aye
Loebsack          Aye
Long              Aye
Lucas             Aye
Luetkemeyer       Aye
Lummis            Aye
Lungren,DanielE.  Aye
Mack              Aye
Manzullo          Aye
Marchant          Aye
Marino            Aye
Matheson          Aye
McCarthy(CA)      Aye
McCarthy(NY)      Aye
McCaul            Aye
McCotter          Aye
McHenry           Aye
McIntyre          Aye
McKeon            Aye
McKinley          Aye
McMorrisRodgers   Aye
McNerney          Aye
Meehan            Aye
Meeks             Aye
Mica              Aye
Miller(FL)        Aye
Miller(MI)        Aye
Miller,Gary       Aye
Mulvaney          Aye
Murphy(PA)        Aye
Myrick            Aye
Neugebauer        Aye
Noem              Aye
Nunes             Aye
Nunnelee          Aye
Olson             Aye
Owens             Aye
Palazzo           Aye
Pastor(AZ)        Aye
Paulsen           Aye
Pearce            Aye
Pence             Aye
Perlmutter        Aye
Peterson          Aye
Petri             Aye
Pitts             Aye
Platts            Aye
Poe(TX)           Aye
Pompeo            Aye
Posey             Aye
Price(GA)         Aye
Quayle            Aye
Reed              Aye
Rehberg           Aye
Reichert          Aye
Renacci           Aye
Reyes             Aye
Ribble            Aye
Richardson        Aye
Rigell            Aye
Rivera            Aye
Roby              Aye
Rogers(AL)        Aye
Rogers(KY)        Aye
Rogers(MI)        Aye
Rohrabacher       Aye
Rokita            Aye
Rooney            Aye
Ros-Lehtinen      Aye
Roskam            Aye
Ross(AR)          Aye
Ross(FL)          Aye
Runyan            Aye
Ruppersberger     Aye
Ryan(WI)          Aye
Scalise           Aye
Schiff            Aye
Schilling         Aye
Schmidt           Aye
Schock            Aye
Scott(SC)         Aye
Scott,Austin      Aye
Scott,David       Aye
Sensenbrenner     Aye
Sessions          Aye
Sewell            Aye
Sherman           Aye
Shimkus           Aye
Shuler            Aye
Shuster           Aye
Simpson           Aye
Sires             Aye
Smith(NE)         Aye
Smith(NJ)         Aye
Smith(TX)         Aye
Smith(WA)         Aye
Southerland       Aye
Stearns           Aye
Stivers           Aye
Stutzman          Aye
Sutton            Aye
Terry             Aye
Thompson(PA)      Aye
Thornberry        Aye
Tiberi            Aye
Tipton            Aye
Towns             Aye
Tsongas           Aye
Turner(NY)        Aye
Turner(OH)        Aye
Upton             Aye
Visclosky         Aye
Walberg           Aye
Walden            Aye
Walsh(IL)         Aye
Walz(MN)          Aye
Webster           Aye
West              Aye
Westmoreland      Aye
Whitfield         Aye
Wilson(SC)        Aye
Wittman           Aye
Wolf              Aye
Womack            Aye
Woodall           Aye
Yoder             Aye
Young(AK)         Aye
Young(FL)         Aye
Young(IN)         Aye

If your representative voted against the amendment and/or for final passage of this year's NDAA, I need you to contact them immediately and demand they change their misguided views and stop allowing the military to arrest and detain innocent citizens.

Let your representative know you’ve seen through the smokescreen that was the Gohmert amendment, and you aren’t fooled for a second.

In addition, make sure your representative realizes that Section 1021 of the NDAA was declared unconstitutional this week in a U.S. District Court, and that a temporary stay on enforcement of that measure has been granted.

Finally, make it clear you'll be telling your fellow constituents that your representative abandoned them to a growing police state.

Congress created this unconstitutional mess, and it’s Congress that will have to fix it.

After you've contacted your representative, get in touch with your senators to demand they vote against the NDAA as long as it contains these indefinite detention provisions.

And stay tuned to CampaignforLiberty.org, as we look ahead to fighting this bill in the Senate next week and doing our best to prevent the government from being able to indefinitely detain innocent Americans.

In Liberty,

Tim Shoemaker
Director of Legislation

P.S. Earlier today, the U.S House voted down an amendment that would have prohibited the military from being able to indefinitely detain you. It later voted for final passage of this year's NDAA.

If your representative voted against the Smith/Amash amendment or voted for final passage, contact them immediately to demand they change their misguided view and stop allowing the military to arrest and detain Americans!

Then contact your senators to urge them to vote against the NDAA as long as it contains these provisions.

As the fight over the FY 2013 NDAA heads to the Senate, please chip in $10 or $25, or whatever you can afford, so C4L can continue leading the fight to prevent the military from detaining you for as long as it wants.

Principles In Liberty #60 - Ron Paul visits U. of I. AGAIN

Download
Just a brief interview with one of the Ron Paul Supports at the Rally on 3/5/2012 at the University of Idaho in the Kibbie Dome followed by Ron's remarks - unfiltered and complete.

Brushfire in the minds of men - PIL 59

Download
Recorded on 2/17/2012
Today I attended a Ron Paul rally in Moscow Idaho at the University of Idaho's Student Union Building.

What a concept

Order Here

I will be attending Ron Paul's Rally today in Moscow Idaho. Hope to come back with a post with pictures and audio real soon! Stay Tuned!!!