LLR Pages

Friday, March 27, 2009

The Teen "Child" Pornography Madness

The teen "child" pornography madness, which has been a subject of great mainstream media coverage over a number of months, has been getting out of hand. I'm not referring to child pornography itself (a practice which is very despicable), but to the allegations of "child pornography" that have been popping up in the courtrooms and the mainstream media within the last number of months. I'm specifically referring to today's Generation Y a.k.a. adolescents (teenagers), who used to be called "the youth," and are being prosecuted left and right simply for doffing their clothes and taking nude pics of themselves with their camera phones or just posting them on their social networking accounts like Myspace. Let's not forget that there have been cases of teenage males having been prosecuted for filming their girlfriends in the nude (or while they're having sex with one another) and taking naked pics of them.

Just this week a 14-year-old teenage girl from New Jersey was arrested for posting 30 nude pics of herself on her Myspace account. Why did she do this, you might be asking? Because she wanted her boyfriend to see them. According to media accounts, if the poor girl is convicted, under Megan's Law, she would have to register as a sex offender and serve 17 years in prison. Currently, she's been remanded to her mother's custody for the time being. A court date hasn't been set as well.

What started this brouhaha was that someone tipped off the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which then contacted the police. The authorities began a month-long investigation into the matter, sex stinging the girl until they came to the conclusion that she did this for her boyfriend.

An even more interesting fact is that many parents and pundits have lambasted the local law enforcement officials and the district attorney's office, including Maureen Kanka (the mother of the late Megan Kanka whose murder led to her mom lobbying for the passage of Megan's Law) who publicly condemned the arrest, saying that the police should "be ashamed of themselves" for charging the youth. University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Seth Kreimer even believes the arrest was insane as well:

To deploy the nuclear weapon of child pornography charges shows almost as bad judgment as posting the nude photos themselves.

Another case involving another 14-year-old teen girl from Pennsylvania provides a disturbing picture of the out-of-control government's obsession with prosecuting and persecuting adolescent women and men for taking sexually-explicit pictures and filming themselves engaging in explicit sexual activity. It also shows that the state is infantilizing (more correctly, "childifying") our youth and treating them like children, while imposing government-mandated "sex education" in the public "government" schools (which is encouraging kids to have sex). Let's also not forget that most parents do not educate their children about sex, because of their uncomfortability with the subject and their irrational fear that, if they did so, their kids would pursue that kind of activity. Yet it is common knowledge that, once the young children enter their adolescent years, they will learn about sex from either their peers or watch porn (and get the wrong ideas about sex and love) or both. And, because of that, it drives them to have sex, especially when they are not emotionally, mentally, and financially ready for that responsibility. After all, teen pregnancy, while having declined somewhat over the years, is still at an all-time high and sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) is very prevalent as well.

Moreover, the state doesn't get that, as long as it continues to raise teens as little children, Generation Y'ers will act out as children and not as young adults. Once they are childified, it's almost impossible for them to snap out of it and it sticks with them for the rest of their lives.

As long as the state proceeds to prevent teens from learning responsibility and behaving like adults, they will be immature, irresponsible, and insecure. This is what the state is doing to the adolescent population: it's shielding teens from growing up and learning from the consequences of their actions. If teens were allowed to marry, sign contracts, have children, take control of their education, vote, join the military, drink, emancipate themselves from their abusive parents and families, etc., they would be more likely to wait until they were ready to handle those responsibilities. While the state deserves the lion's share of the blame here, the parents deserve it just as much.

Moreover, the sex registry system creates a new criminal class, which sticks with the convicted sex offenders for life. It's almost impossible for them to lose that label. Since there are no victims and the teens who are infantilized by their parents and the state are said to be victims of "statutory rape" (used to be called "jail bait"), the state will accuse the offenders of engaging in these "rapes," considering teen women voluntarily choose to be sexually active with their male lovers (who are usually older than them) and do not cry out rape. Not only that, the offenders are required to re-register with the state whenever they move and find it difficult to land jobs, considering employers tend to be leery about hiring them to begin with.

It's time for the state to get out of this business of protecting teens. It's also time for parents to assume the role of protecting and raising their kids and teaching them about sex, so they can wait until they are ready to deal with all and any adult responsibilities.

[Cross-posted at The Freeman Chronicles.]

Obama and Press Secretary Gibbs to Everyone: No to Marijuana Legalization

Raw Story leaked this story about President Obama's answer to the press about his position on the legalization of marijuana during his town hall Q & A event (simply billed as the "Open for Questions Town Hall event"). YouTubers and the American public, as reported by the mainstream "government" media, print media, and blogs like the Huffington Post, were online, asking him questions from his plan to nationalize the banks and mortgage industries to his insane socialized medicine plan. (Here's a New York Times transcript of the event here.)

In response to the questions that 3.5 million people voted on the "Open for Questions" section of the White House website, one user with the username "Green Machine" asked the following question on the site:

Will you consider decriminalizing the recreational/medical use of marijuana(hemp) so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and a multi-billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?

Obama answered the question by issuing the following statist response:

THE PRESIDENT: Three point five million people voted. I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy -- (laughter) -- and job creation. And I don't know what this says about the online audience -- (laughter) -- but I just want -- I don't want people to think that -- this was a fairly popular question; we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is, no, I don't think that is a good strategy -- (laughter) -- to grow our economy. (Applause) [Emphasis on the "applause" added.]

Here's the video of Obama's response:

Here's White House Press Secretary Robert Gibb's repugnant and sick response to a reporter's question about Obama's position on pot:

[Cross-posted at The Freeman Chronicles.]

Friday, March 13, 2009

Former BTP At-Large Member Steve Trinward's Clarification on His Resignation

Former At-Large Member Steve Trinward, who resigned from the Boston Tea Party last night, has issued a clarification as to why he relinquished his seat on the BTP National Committee and the Party.

Here's the following explanation he gives for his decision:

This confirms my reasons for resigning; comments below

--- In, "Douglass G." wrote:
> Tom's concerns were addressed here:
> This is why it is important for members of the committee to check both forums at least once each day and before voting on a motion.

Clearly, I should never have allowed myself to be nominated for this spot. I did not realize that the only difference between serving on:

a) the National Committee of a multimillion-dollar political party, with multiple organized state affiliates, a number of elected officials and at least some clue of how to proceed; or

b) the National Committee of a non-money-based, fledgling and grassroots online discussion group, whose primary function seems to be passing resolutions that then disappear into the Internet ether ...

is merely the variety of energy-sink they entail.

Instead of quarterly meetings, requiring travel & hotel & meal costs ... this one requires TIME -- constant monitoring of Yahoo discussion lists, with tiny signal-to-noise ratios -- on the off chance something of substance shows up. ANd it's not enough to monitor the committee discuss list, one has to also play in the chat-pool ...

Sorry, folks! IN a very few months (Bastille Day to be exact) I shall be celebrating the completion of six decades in this cycle of human-form existence ... the last four-plus of which I have spent doing some form of "fighting for liberty" or another. Inasmuch as in doing so, I've tossed aside a lot of potentially lucrative pathways, in order to have the time to devote to that "higher goal" (while being taken for granted (and/or undervalued) by a wide variety of folks within the movement and beyond it? but I won't go there), I'm now scrambling to create enough ongoing and self-sustaining ventures so I may not need to be delivering pizzas when I am 80!

no time to check in every day in case something might be of interest; and even less time to do so without some notation that something pertinent to the "business" of the NC might be found there ...

good luck - Steve

Good riddance to a smug, arrogant jackass who really proved to be worthless on the Committee.

[Cross-posted at The Freeman Chronicles.]

Boston Tea Party Founder Tom Knapp and BTP At-Large Member Steve Trinward Resign from the BTP National Committee and the BTP

It looks official: Boston Tea Party founder and KN@PPSTER blogger Thomas L. Knapp has just dropped a huge ball on the BTP members and supporters by posting a message to the BTPNC Yahoo Group list, announcing that he was resigning from the Boston Tea National Committee and the Party as well.

This is what he said:

To whom it may concern,

I have resigned from the party, which in effect means that I've resigned my national committee seat (and any admin role on the site, since my resignation consisted of deleting my account).

I apologize for putting the committee through yet another vacancy-filling election. I also apologize for what looks like, but was not, a suddenly undertaken decision to resign. It's been coming for some time, and the latest episode of "whatever Tom Knapp says has implications for the party" was the straw that broke the camel's back. It's never been JUST my party, but that card's been played so many times that the only way to get it out of the tricksters' deck is for it not to be even partly my party.

I will leave this Yahoo! group as soon as I post this message. Naturally, I continue to welcome personal correspondence with any or all of you.

Best regards,
Tom Knapp

Of course, I have forwarded the post to the BTPNC-Talk list, which is also on Yahoo Groups' server.

Interestingly enough, an hour and 14 minutes later, At-Large Member Steve Trinward (a former Libertarian Party member and Tennessee LP member who once served on the LP's Libertarian National Committee some years ago) decided to follow suit by posting his resignation on the same list.
Here's Trinward's resignation as well:

Dammit, Tommy - Now I look a copycat.

I too am formally resigning from this whatever it is ... when I get a chance I will likely drop off the membership as well.

This has also been coming for a while, but other parts of my life have taken precedence. They continue to do so ...

This latest "resolution" is just the final straw. The effort to "amend" faulty language, while dealing with neither of Tom's concerns as he raised them, says it all. This is just another right-wing cover group, no more worth my energies than any other out there.

it's been ... interesting - Steve Trinward.

Trinward's gripe with a "resolution" is in reference to a resolution I authored and amended (see an incoming separate post, which will discuss the motion [original and amended] in great detail). Basically, this resolution condemns and repudiates President Barack Obama's backpedaling on the war in Iraq, which I believe was well-worded and no other objections were raised (except that Tom issued his concerns about my proposed motion). Former BTP Chairman and current Kansas BTP Chairman Jim Davidson responded to Tom's concerns, which is something that Trinward didn't even to notice.

I'm not sorry to see Trinward go. He has been highly unproductive and hasn't been voting on a number of motions, although he did manually vote on the first two resolutions after I became Secretary of the BTP. I am, however, disappointed and sad that Tom decided not to make a formal announcement of his departure from the Committee and the Party to the party base. After all, the BTP is and always will be his baby, and he is and always will be credited for that.

Although Knapp doesn't want me to publish my private correspondence with him, I will not do it. This is out of respect for the man, so people can draw their own conclusions as to why he left the Party.

[Cross-posted at The Freeman Chronicles.]

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Chesterfield Township Bureaucrats' Outrageous Business Permit "Tax" Fee

Government central planners are even more insane and ludicrous than we thought, especially in my township here in my home state of Michigan. The Chesterfield Township bureaucrats recently voted to hike the town's "business permit fee", which is really a business permit tax on small, local businesses that have registered to pay in order to keep their annual permits up to date. The tax, which is disguised as a "fee" assessed and levied on small, local businesses that are required to pay it on an annual basis to the town officials, has been hiked from an annual rate of $5 to $25.

Here's a snip from the The Voice News (a local, community newspaper that serves cities in Southeastern Michigan like Fair Haven, Algonac, New Baltimore, Chesterfield Township, Richmond, and Marysville), which goes into detail here:

Businesses in Chesterfield Township have paid the same amount for their annual permit for 30 years. However, that's all recently changed in an effort to bridge the 30 year gap and generate extra revenue for the township. More increases are on the horizon to update other decades old fees.

"It's been $5 since the '80s," Township Clerk Jan Uglis said of the business permit fees. "We've got to be financially responsible."

The board of trustees voted at the Jan. 5 meeting to increase the fee from $5 to $25.

In the midst of the economic downturn, Uglis said the township has been looking for ways to cut costs and make increases where needed. While the $25 fee might be a shock to some, Uglis said it's still low compared to other communities.

"It's a way to bring more money into the township without raising taxes," she said.

Also new is a late fee the township is imposing. For every month a business doesn't pay the permit fee, they will be charged $15. Uglis said the code enforcer will be out to make sure all businesses are in compliance and take legal action, if needed.

"It's part of the ordinance," she said.

Uglis said it was easier to change the fee to $25 outright instead of gradual yearly increases. The gradual change would have required yearly resolutions; each of which would be required to go before the board of trustees.

"I know this is a bad time, but you have to understand, your business has increased in 30 years," Uglis said.

"Even at $5 people were years behind."

When the fee was still $5 Uglis said some of the businesses had failed to pay. She said for those who hadn't paid in two years, they had to pay $10 for both years and then the $25 on top of that. It added up, she said, especially if they had to pay a late fee.

Jan Uglis, a highly-overpaid township clerk (who is, by the way, a long-time progressive/socialist Democrat and was a proud member of my old church Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, which I used to attend many years ago), is justifying the hikes, claiming that they had not gone up in recent years, but she's not telling the truth. The true reason why the township is in bad shape is because of government overspending, high taxes, (surprise, surprise!) and a police tax, which have plagued the area for a few years now.

Even one resident has complained about this action and has expressed his ardent opposition to it. The rest of the Voice article gets worse. The next couple of paragraphs showcase, in tonality, the diabolical and vile nature of the beast we call government:

The permit was put into place as a way to safeguard the business and the community. Uglis said the business has to fill out the permit and state what they sell, whether there's any kind of chemicals on the premises and emergency contact information, among others.

"If the fire department has to go in after a fire, they have to know what kind of products are inside," she said.

Considering the fact that the local government's fire department is hardly efficient and swift in the deliverance of its services, I can easily tell you that it takes more than 10 minutes for the Chesterfield Twp. Fire Department to respond to a fire on someone's property, let alone a business. This claptrap about "safeguarding the business and the community" is a ruse, because government bureaucrats, even at the local level, respond by brute force. This tax and other machinations are souped up by big business and township interests to undermine and destroy commercial activity that has been, for the longest time, the backbone of the small business community in the area. By raising this tax, they are doing exactly that.

Here's another hair-raising fact: the town even wants to skyrocket its Class C liquor license. As Uglis admits, the township is preparing to raise it from $500 (which had remained that way for 30 years) to a mind-bending $2,000. If a start-up party store (or convenience store) wants to sell booze, that's too costly for any company to pay that amount. Sure, businesses like my local CVS Pharmacy and Kroger can pay that amount, because, as long-time established businesses, they have the volumes of cash, plus the legal and accounting departments to off-set those costs. A new business with a compliment of 200 employees or less simply can't afford to do that.

At a time when the township's economy, the county's economy, and even the state's economy are in god-awful shape and unemployment is boosting at the local, county, and state levels, this will even deepen the already-known one-state depression we already have, even though it's being officially touted as a "recession."

[Cross-posted at Let Liberty Ring.]