Patriot Atheist

Don't Investigate the unusual Aspects of 9/11, That would be Illogical!

2010-04-09T09:50:00.000-07:00

Judging by the number of responses my blog has gotten I think I can safely assume that the number of Atheists who think that 9/11 was most likely an inside job and the Fed is not your friend is pretty small. I have had two other commentators who told me they are glad they found me because they were feeling pretty alone.

I can understand why if you look on-line. Here is Atheist Experience, a show I like to watch myself. The caller points out that the three steel reinforced buildings that fell on 9/11 were the only ones to do so in the history of that type of building. Matt responds by saying he has a video of a guy surviving a free fall and then the discussion degrades to the point that he cuts the caller off to make a snarky comment.

After they all start talking over each other my blood starts to boil. The poor guy on the phone does not know how to play patty cakes with the staff of Atheist Experience. To be honest my blood boils a little because I have been on the other end of this type of exchange before with Alex Jones, so I know what the guy is going through.

However bad my experience calling into Alex Jones was, the Atheist "Experience" for this caller must have been worse. Matt and Host try to get him into some retarded contract of agreeing to something he did not agree with in the first place, and then berate him for flip-flopping on it. Hey guys at Atheist Experience, call into your own show sometime and try and make some contentious point about something, see how it feels to get cut-off because you can not hear what is being said on the other part of the line while they are trying to talk over your point. Feels awesome doesn't it?

Now I know that talking to a person on a phone-line as a host for a show requires some skill. If they continue to talk forever you have to cut them off. That said, calling into a show and making points takes more then skill, it is a high form of art. So be nicer to your guests, you guys act live a raving bunch of assholes sometimes. Oh yeah, and published peer-reviewed paper. Do a search on nano-thermite. If you are too lazy or scared to be wrong about nothing going on, just click here for your damned paper.

Getting back to the steel reinforced buildings, it is not logical to point out that a man survived a free fall to show why one should not be interested in steel reinforced buildings falling due to fire that never have before, or maybe it is. You see, the main point this poor fella is trying to make is that these buildings falling should be something of a puzzle, in the same way that the guy falling and surviving should be a puzzle. Scientists in the past have had more huh moments then aha moments. These huh moments happen when some effect causes them to say "huh, that is weird." That is how penicillin was discovered in a petri-dish. It is also how X-rays were discovered by Roentgen in his photographic film. Not all great discoveries are eureka "aha" moments where a light goes off and something new makes sense, probably more are huh moments when something weird happens and you have no idea why.

How did the guy fall from such heights survive when others have not? How did three steel reinforced buildings on 9/11 fall from fires and/or plane impacts when others have never in recorded history done so? Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser think that because some event is unusual it should not be investigated. That is not scientific and definitely not rational. Unusual events scream out for further investigation. Maybe though the world would be better off without Penicillin or knowledge of X-ray particles? Yes, that is it.

I guess I do not even need to ask questions about the strangeness of WTC-1 and WTC-2 because I know about WTC-7. WTC-7 adds in it's own questions quite distinct from concerns about fires or planes. If you have not seen the video, here it is.

Sometimes in life there is something you get presented with that is just so obviously wrong on the face of it you can not look and turn away. For me, that is WTC-7. This building did not have a plane hit it (even though every other steel reinforced building hit by a plane has never come down because it was hit by a plane). Building 7 was on fire for a while but the fire had pretty much ended by the time it came down.

Now look at other buildings falling because of controlled demolition and honestly ask yourself if this is not a controlled demolition. These are all acknowledged buildings done in by controlled demolition.

The videos all look very different from the video showing building 7 coming down. The common feature though between the three buildings above and building 7 is that huge sections of each building came down all at once and at free-fall accelerations. The other feature that is the same with how building 7 came down is the way that each went into its own footprint because of the pattern of explosions. Now you may say that there were no explosions on building 7, and eye-witness reports would disagree with you, but it is unmistakable how there is a kink in building 7 before it comes down falling into its own footprint.

WTC-7 is what caused me to reassess the reassuring thought that no one besides the hijackers were responsible for 9/11. There is a lot more that can be said about all of this, but that is what made me take notice.

In the interests of fairness I have two of the major for and against websites on 9/11 being a conspiracy, in that order.

http://world911truth.org

http://www.debunking911.com

Whatever you think about 9/11, don't ever let some fool tell you that something is not interesting enough to be investigated because it is unusual, especially if it involves the loss of 3000+ lives. Need it even be said that unusual events are what scientists look for. Sheesh, way to drop the ball Atheist Experience.

Cops, Hands-off Damnit!

2010-04-03T08:44:00.000-07:00

I do not know what it is about Cops these days, they seem to be arresting people left and right for videotaping them. I mean, what the hell is going on? Here is a message to Cops, Judges and Public Officials of every stripe who tell people to turn off their cameras or who try and assault people by using their hands or even force-ably trying to remove such a device to cover up any recording: Go Fuck Yourself. I will record everything and so will every other person on the planet. No one is fooled here, by trying to stop people from recording you, you are acting in a nonprofessional manner, your are acting like a thug.

Recording in public is a right that should never be challenged. Even if you try and create draconian laws to try and muzzle the video camera, you will not succeed, we will still tape you. It is getting to the point that people should start demanding a Law that if a Cop, Rent-a-cop or even just some average Joe on the street does try and stop you for recording them, they should go to Jail. Call it FINAC - "Film Is Not A Crime Act". Ron Paul, Kucinich, you listening here?

I could at this point bring up a whole slew of videos where cops, rent-a-cops all try and stop citizens from recording anything, but I do want to point out when there ARE circumstances that someone should be allowed not to videotape. Bathrooms are one instance that comes to mind. If you are a guest in someone's house and they ask you not to tape, either don't or get the hell out of their premises. Basically, if you are in a public place, Restaurant, Hotel Lobby, looking out on the street, leave people alone!

So here are some videos of various people attacking the freedom of the press, also known as the first amendment.

and overseas as well

or what about this little fuck-stick of a Cop?

Small-man ass-hole syndrome?

This problem does not stop there either it seems. Cops seem to also have a difficulty following Lawful orders from Medics and Firefighters. This is an interesting issue that needs to get resolved. Here is the crux of the matter, Medics, while just doing their jobs are being overridden by Law Enforcement for bad reasons making situations worse. This reminds me of the situation in Star Trek that the ships doctor can override the Captain if it is a medical matter.

That makes sense too. Who should be in charge of a medical scene, some beat cop or the Fire Department Rescue Crew? Or how about when there is a fire? The cop probably has some training in what a Paramedic and a Fireman do but it is asinine to think that a Fireman Chief will get arrested by a traffic cop, that is until you see the next video.

Here is a solution, make at least some Firefighters and/or Paramedics have a higher rank then any Cop on an Emergency Scene. Anything outside that scene, they have Jurisdiction over. On the scene itself, they can arrest the Cop if they interfere. As it is I think that maybe just having Cops realize they are not Gods all the time might help. Here is one God-man in action.

Dude, you make me sick. If you don't know the story, the Trooper was speeding and recklessly driving so he could get away with his girlfriend to a motel room or something. The mother in the ambulance needed immediate medical attention but this trooper was more concerned that his roid-rage caused him to almost get into an accident with the ambulance. You MADE me almost hit into you going 90! What is with the choking too?

Hey Cops, stop choking people! That is excessive force and is not called for. If you want to restrain someone, restrain their legs, their arms, hell, even restrain someones head by putting someone in a headlock without choking them, but STOP choking people! Do not do it. IT IS WRONG!
Unless you are trying to save your own life, DO NOT CHOKE PEOPLE. I do not think the following Cop can say he was choking his victim to save his own life. He was doing it so the guy would supposedly not swallow his stash of Marijuana. Funny thing is the guy passes out and he never did have any Marijuana.

Law Enforcement Personnel of the US and other countries, stop acting like thugs. Just stop. Act like professionals. Stop harassing people without probable cause. Stop the stupid mind tricks. Stop choking people and telling them they can not film you. Stop tasering people [oh yeah, lots of those kinds of videos too] because they do not instantly do what you tell them to do. It makes you look like a particularly dangerous bunch of babies. Do those simple things and people will start complaining less. You will feel better about yourself at night.

Bull Shit! show and Pseudoskeptics.

2010-03-31T07:21:00.000-07:00

So I was thinking about how I am sure that there is such a thing as a NWO, that 9/11 is not just some crazy terrorists taking over planes with box-cutters and banks are not our friends, when I saw the interview of Debra Medina by Mark Davis as covered by Alex Jones. Mark Davis asked her if she would agree on record that 9/11 Truth has despicable beliefs for believing that Mr. Bush or anyone else in the government had anything to do with 9/11.

How insane is that? So Mark Davis's feelings about how despicable it is to think that someone might do something bad that is in the government is cause enough not to look into evidence. I guess the kid with his hands caught in the cookie-jar also thought that it was despicable that the mother might think he was up to something. The problem with this should be obvious, without talking about the beliefs you specifically think do not make sense, facts and figures here and not just how you feel about it, you are doing what Stephen Colbert calls truthiness. That is funny for a cable TV show but not funny when interviewing a potential Governor of a large state.

To address this lack of critical thinking in the news media here are some of my suggestions on what a real skeptic does. So if you are a skeptic, a real skeptic, I think that these are some things you should do.

1. Consider as many possibilities as make sense for any given claim.
2. When looking for people to interview, try to find the most respectable and authoritative of voices you can find. Bullshit! on their 9/11 episode found this guy who thought that the planes were a TV trick. That itself is Bullshit that they interviewed him and not 9/11 Architects for Truth for instance.
3. When looking into any idea, really try and evaluate it in good faith. Imagine as if you have no stake in the result of your conclusion in any way and just want to know what makes sense.
4. Avoid the common fallacious arguments, especially ad hominem.
5. Do not think that just because you have concluded someone is wrong about something they are wrong about everything.
6. Why questions are the hardest to answer, work up to them. Start out with who, what, where and when and only then try and figure out a why... you know, journalism.

I guess I could add more, such as how pseudo-skeptics act, but that is another story.
Just a thought.

No God in Government (Please)

2010-03-28T08:59:00.000-07:00

So being a libertarian minded person, I often think about what place God or Gods have in Government. As you might expect, I do not think they should have any place in government. This is a hard sell for people who are religious in the US, or even for my fellow humans the world over. Let's stick though with what I know, the US.

It seems to me that in the US there is this thin veneer that covers politics in religion. You do not always see it, but it is there when you hear a politician end a speech in a prayer, or you here the Pledge of Allegiance end in "So help me God." Speaking of which, here is a video I have always wanted to comment on myself.

I wish I could have coached Newdow, or had an ear-piece connection with him to tell him to point out the difference between him and that Blonde News-babe fascist. Here is the difference, if the US was filled with atheists mostly and the Pledge of Allegiance instead had the phrase "... one Nation, under no God or Gods, ...", Newdow would still think it is wrong. I hope anyone reading this sees the difference. The Pledge of Allegiance should not have ANY mention of God or Gods or anything else supernatural.

The Right-wing Culture warriors of course would disagree. Using the fatuous logic that by having Politicians not mention God and no God mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance, is a tacit admission by the Government that there is no God. This is false logic of the worst kind. Lack of mention is NOT mention of lack. It is just that simple.

The Pledge of Allegiance has been changed three times since it's original version written by Francis Bellamy. The versions changed "my flag" to "flag of the United States" and then added "of America". The final version we have now added "under God" in 1954 because of the Red Communist scare. Here it is.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Compare that to the original by Bellamy.

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

What a nice change. This version does not discriminate between Theist or Atheist alike. It is much more a statement of responsibility because of the "my flag" then the one we have now, which is to a far degree a statement of blind fealty.

Speaking of which, why is it that children in schools daily get up and recite some words that they probably do not know the full meaning of? Isn't that a bit fascist all by itself? Well, at least one child has taken the time to think about what the words mean, as the next video shows.

What a great kid, standing up to peer pressure to make a point. I applaud him with all my heart and hope you do as well.

Fractional Reserve Banking is Public Theft

2009-04-08T07:03:00.000-07:00

Banks in the US and throughout most of the world work using a method called Fractional Reserve Banking. If you do a search on this term you will see that there are those that are for it, and those against it. How FRB or Fractional Reserve Banking works is pretty simple in a way. They "loan" out up to, and usually less then, a certain percentage that they have on the books. I use the words "loan" because if you do not pay them back it is not as if they then loose that money, the bank just looses the profit they might have realized in giving you that loan in the first place. The bank might also take a hit in its credit rating if enough people do that, but that is a different story.

To really understand how a bank works imagine one of your friends is named Conway and he is a counterfeiter. I do not know your name but I will call you Shaun the duped. You both want to go see a movie. When you arrive you realize you forgot your wallet. You have no way to pay for the movie. Conway being a friend offers to pay for the movie with his counterfeit money, but of course you do not know it is counterfeit, otherwise you would have told him no. In the end though you say yes. So you go to the movie and everything is fine. You pay back your friend (with interest, which seems most not friend-like, but you do not protest since you want to see the movie). You see the movie, and the movie house gets to pay for its expenses and earns a profit.

Now since Conway is counterfeiting it would seem logical that someone is loosing and someone is gaining. Obviously Conway is on the gaining side once everything is all said and done. Yeah, he could have just printed up the money he gave you and spent it himself, but through you he did one better, he gets all that money back with interest. He is doing quite well by this transaction. You and the movie house in this deal are co-equal in honesty and agreed upon work and capital (unless you count how much the movie house charges for popcorn!). So who looses? Society looses, that's who. If Conway did community service equaling the value he printed in work then everything would have gone full circle. Yeah, Conway would still be a crook, but at least he would be an honest crook. The money he injected into the economy would have had a chance to act like all money should, which is to say as nothing more then an agreed upon medium of exchange.

Conway though has no desire to spread his wealth around. He takes the money he "loaned" and was repaid for and is free to pay to get all manner of goods and services with it. He buys yachts and big houses, bonds and stock, etc... None of this largess does much good for mothers on welfare checks. They would have had more of a chance getting a job if that money went into the productive end of the economy. Conway gets rich really fast so he opens up a bank. Once he has his bank nothing much changes. Instead of printing the money he puts it into electronic accounts. He is also not free anymore to just "print" up as much money as he wants, he has to follow more regulations, mostly. Life is good for Conway; life is shitty for you and me.

Welcome to Fractional Reserve Banking, where exponential functions rule supreme and everything flows up to the top of the pyramid. There is so much more to explain about how corrupt current banking practices are that it might take a library of books. One good book to start on though is Ellen Brown's book "Web of Debt". Her web page is located at

http://www.webofdebt.com/.

Buy this book! Buy it now! You will learn so much that what you thought you knew before you will realize probably is wrong.

Zero Sum Banking

2009-04-06T16:42:00.000-07:00

I want to introduce an idea here. It is a relatively simple idea. The idea is that all banking should be a zero sum game. Zero sum means that for all loans, any money created from nothing must be matched contractually by money owed, and if the money is not created from nothing the banking must be full reserve banking. This simple change in banking practice is enough to fix the Ponzi schemes inherent in banking today.

To add to this I would add that the Federal Reserve needs to go the way of the dinosaur. Additionally, an amendment should be added to the constitution that Jefferson would have wanted, which is that the Federal Government can never go into debt. All funding for government projects must be Greenback based. No tax for any US company or person at any time and all projects by law must be competitively financed through open bidding, again also by law. Add to that the same for local, county and state governments as well and there would be enough freedom and economic independence to go around. There are a laundry list of other such great ideas that have been floating around, such as limiting terms for senators and representatives to two terms, but for the rest of this article I would like to cover what I call Distributed Fractional Reserve Banking and how it fits into Zero Sum Banking.

Zero Sum Banking using Full Reserve Banking does not need to be covered here since it is an idea that is more then adequately covered by other websites, such as those that talk about Austrian Economics. To understand instead how Zero Sum Banking would need to work if money was created from nothing the rest of this blog entry is dedicated. This method of banking as I stated earlier is called Distributed Fractional Reserve Banking.

One of the problems with Fractional Reserve Banking is not that it creates money from nothing, but that it does so with interest added and never redeems the principal of the loan back to society. The interest that is thus owed is not a paltry portion either. We are talking about 200 to 300 percent for homes and comparable amounts for other types of loans such as for a car. If the bank through double-entry book keeping does not create the excess percentage of interest, a quick question is where does it come from? The answer is people have to fight for it. The first thing to do is get rid of allowing banks to charge front-ended loans where one pays 95% interest on the first payment, then 80%, 72% and so on until you reach 6%. This is how home loans work. So when a bank says a loan is for 6% this is what is meant. This unscrupulous practice needs to end immediately. All loans by law should be simple interest loans where any and every payment takes out the interest part and nothing more.

The next thing that could be done is to have interest accounted to the banks books immediately and be the only profit the bank can have, by law. No charges for withdrawal, no charges for late fees or other arbitrary such petty tricks. Each loan would then have an accounting entry that acts like negative money in that paying into it would make the loan amount owed less. The total loan amount would be the loan principal plus interest. There would be three types of loan payments at the discretion of those having a loans. A loan can either increase, decrease or keep the amount of money in circulation the same. The loan that keeps the amount of money in circulation constant has been described already. The other two types of loans are to be described next and use the static loan as a base.

The other two options for a loan payment are for the money supply to increase or decrease. These two options obviously have opposing goals. There is a pool account to handle the difference in money entered in either type of payment to account for these opposing goals. If someone pays into a loan with the option to increase the money supply this counts as a plus in the pool for how much they paid minus interest, or if they say decrease it, this counts as a negative in the pool minus interest. If the pool is below zero for some fixed time period it is set to zero. The pool is then divided up equally (or by some other rational method to be set by laws) among all people with checking accounts every period. This would mean I hope a democratically controlled monetary policy that would most likely have small inflation and be very flexible (for instance around Christmas time people would probably want more money, so they would choose the option that increases the money supply).

If someone does not pay back a loan, the government takes care of that. The reason is simple, money is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government (or hopefully the will of the people), if someone does not pay back their loan then they are dishonoring the credit of the US. So the government will take the house from the trust of the bank possibly after going to court, resell it, refund the amount that the person has put into the house to the person with the original loan and put it back into the trust of the bank for whoever buys the house next. The government does not make money for this except maybe some fine to the original loan recipient to cover costs to the government for processing. This would probably be done at the state level.

Paper, gold or silver money (non-account money) is the responsibility of the government and the banks in this system. It is their responsibility to have enough on hand to meet transfer from account to non-account money and back requirements of the general public. The bank does not own any of the non-account money and acts only as a trust in storing it. This means there can never be a run on the bank since all that would be required is for the Government to print up more. Non-account money is owned by the people of the US, and rightfully so. Non-account money (paper money) would once again be printed with the words "US Treasury Note".

A symbol for Zero Sum Banking is a good idea. The symbol I suggest is an equation, 0 = 0. This simple statement is a counter to the ideas inherent in all of the skulduggery associated with the Ponzi Schemes that are given by the names Fractional Reserve and Centralized Banking. Patriotic Americans and anyone else who is tired of being ripped off by banks should put the equation on the bumpers of their cars, and store owners who are like-minded should show their support by putting the equation on storefront windows. Another way that this equation is nice symbolically is that the zero numeral '0' is shaped like a coin, stating that one coin unit should equal any other coin unit. In the words of the tortured man from 1984, "Freedom is being able to say two and two makes four." The equation 2 + 2 = 4 is logically the same as 0 = 0. Poor Winston was right, Big Brother Banker wants us to think that 2 + 2 = 5 and pocket the difference.

Check out the following sites:

http://www.webofdebt.com
http://www.patriotatheist.blogspot.com

Why NWO is Bad for Atheists

2009-04-05T11:49:00.000-07:00

So I am not sure if Alex Jones is a fraud, or merely a profiteer using Fear Mongering to sell survival items, it seems to me to still be clear that if the New World Order has any of the objectives Alex Jones or a host of other commentators have said it has, then it is definitely not good news for Atheists, or anyone else for that matter. More to the point, One World Government, One World Religion and One World Corporation sound down right anathema to what the average Atheist would consider a good deal.

First though I would like to get rid of one myth, the myth is that Atheists are all communists or socialists. I could dispose of this idea by merely imploring anyone who reads this to believe me that I personally am not a communist or socialist, but if that is not enough, then the public record of Ayn Rand's economic views should suffice on the matter. The reality is of course that atheism just means no belief in any form of theism, this by itself does not preclude any other ideas such as anarchism, neo-conservatism or many other ism's. That said, there is no reason to assume that atheists do not have any other spread of political ideas as any other group, there being Republican, Democrat and Independent Atheists. The original socialists were Christian as an aside.

With that out of the way, why would Atheists be so against the New World Order? The first reason is that the New World Order most likely has the Vatican at the tip. Even if the Vatican is not at the apex of the NWO, having one world wide religion (which ever religion that might be) should be more then enough to make any atheist cringe. This religion whatever it would be would through its unity provide a dangerous environment for atheists.

It also seems that if there is a NWO, one of its prominent features in connection with the One World Religion is that the resulting religion would be some amalgam of Occult nonsense that has accumulated throughout the ages. The evidence for this conjecture can be found in the gatherings of high-placed individuals in all sectors of society. This is the exact opposite of what is desired by those who are atheist.

Next up is World Government. World government sounds like a good idea until one thinks about how dangerous such a concentration of power could be. Atheists look at science as an example of how to resolve disputes. Science is a decentralized and highly critical activity that requires honesty and perseverance of the highest caliber. Centralized Governments have a way of stifling free inquiry. The type of government an atheist would like is one that is efficient and distributed, based on an organic growth of relationships.

Finally, looking at the historical record, the path from the Vatican to Protestantism to Atheism is clearly one that moves from Superstitious Collectivism to Scientific Individual Freedom.

Alex Jones Fraudster?

2009-04-03T22:06:00.000-07:00

Oh man, it is an old story, you start thinking someone is making sense, although you may disagree in parts with them and then you just do a quick google search and BLAM! Hello Fraudmeister. There do not seem to be that many websites saying Alex Jones is a fraud, maybe because he sues all of them. There are far more videos covering whether Alex Jones is a Jesuit Coadjutor and so on.

One thing is for sure, if you say the sky is falling and at the same time sell umbrellas, well maybe there is something else going on. So Alex Jones advertises for Midas Gold, a commodity that would be useful in an economic collapse, and EFood Direct and so on. I could go on, but it seems clear to me that the motto Caveat Emptor is quite apt here. Perhaps it is best to listen to the advice of Bill Cooper, listen to everyone, trust no one, and do your own research. I feel like I have fallen off the porch and am only now getting back up again.

Called into Alex Jones

2009-04-02T13:56:00.000-07:00

Had an interesting experience calling into the Alex Jones show. I like Alex for his New World Order information and other information, but obviously not so much for his Christian views. One current motif of the show is to look beyond the Left/Right paradigm, which as far as survival goes I agree with, the only problem is that when side issues such as Gay Marriage, abortion and so on do come up, they come up with a Hard Right leaning. Sounds fair to me.

Of course it is his own show, so if he adds in to the mix God or whatever, that is his prerogative, but I wish there was a source of Left based Patriotism with an Atheistic leaning, and to what ever extent that is why I am here.

The experience calling on the phone was weird. I have never talked to Alex in real life so it was kind of nerve racking to call in, let alone the experience of holding onto the phone for two hours or more with my hand falling asleep. So the call made it through and I was live, geese, talk about pressure. George Humphrey was on and he had some serious Goldbug and spirituality leanings so I said "I am an Atheist and a Patriot and I do not think the rhetoric of George helps because ..." and then I was not sure if I was cut off.

The cutting off was a new experience for me. It makes sense I suppose but it is so unlike a telephone call to someone you know, and even more disconnected to meeting someone face to face. You can not read someones face and jump in or stop at appropriate points. I think next time I call in I will just have some script ready and read it and say I will take my answer off the phone. This is because the main time you get to talk is right at the beginning and that is about it. Do not think you will be allowed to debate anything, that is just not happening.

So Mr. Jones, keep up the good work, but I hope some day you will take the time to understand Atheists better. Oh, and there was some talk about how the math says it is so unlikely that there is life on Earth. That is from the ID people and nonsensical Anthropomorphic Principle. While we have not seen life anywhere else, it is likely that if one has conditions even close to Earth there will be life. So where is the specialness?

Patriotism and God

2009-03-19T15:46:00.000-07:00

The oft-quoted statement that is heard when Patriotism in America and throughout other countries in history has been meant to be bolstered is "for God, Country and Family." Being an Atheist and prior member of the armed forces I have a problem with the God part, and maybe the Family part too in a way. Patriotism comes from the word Pater, or father in Latin. I do not want anyone being my father except my Dad, period. So by Patriotism I mean here the Freedoms and Liberties earned by the bloodshed and hard work of those who fought the British Crown in the Revolutionary War and advancing those freedoms.

So what am I for, and what am I against?

1. I am for the Bill of Rights without equivocation of any kind. I am for full gun rights and the Gun Owners of America, the ACLU of the past, and any other organization who honestly sticks up for the little guy without any NWO agenda.

2. I am for Separation of Church and State. I am for individuals being allowed to believe whatever they want at all, but require that arguments for State Policy MUST be made in Secular Terms, in other words, arguments for State Policy should be in terms of Science and Rational Humanism, or in terms of the harm or benefit to sensing beings and experimental evidence. Ideas can be inspired by Religion, but MUST be backed by Science or Rationality.

3. I am against the New World Order, central banks, secret oaths and mind control. I am against fluoridation of water, GMO food, central planning, Eugenics, Nazism and other ism's based on false dichotomies between freedom and security. I am against the existence of Corporations as they allow for individuals to act unethically and be shielded by a large company often with money to spare to crush individuals and communities. I am for co-ops and extreme capitalism based on pure trade and not ownership of other peoples work. I am against fractional reserve banking and believe banking should be a zero sum game and the US Government should stay within its constitutional bounds.

4. I am Pro-choice and realize fully that there are two values I hold that are at odds with each other and that this requires an arbitrary policy choice of when an abortion is no longer allowed (currently set before the second trimester). The two values are the belief that life is precious versus the value that women should have the best life they can have. I am also for condom use, sexual reproductive rights and sensible sex education.

5. I am for the advancement of science and technology in the service of mankind. I am for honesty at all times and the ability for people to demand honesty and accountability in the Government, in Science and in Religion.

6. I have taken an oath in the past to defend the Constitution and fully support the Oath Keepers Blogger website.

If you have a problem with any or all of these, please by all means leave a contact, I would love to either try and change your views or if I find your views make sense to me, change mine.

So do you have to believe in God to be an American Patriot? No, you do not. Do you have to believe in the supernatural to have a set of ethics? No again, you just have to care about the suffering of other sensing beings to have a set of Morals. It is time for all American Patriots, Atheist or otherwise to stand up against the NWO thugs whose current front-man is Pres. Obama. I am a Patriot first and an Atheist second, and I hope that other Patriots recognize that there is no problem with this. Thomas Jefferson was a Patriot, and after reading many of his quotes it should be obvious that he was most likely an Atheist. If you are a Patriot who is a Christian and like some of Jefferson's quotes such as when it comes to banks but do not like his quotes about Religion, I understand. I would only ask that you do recognize that he was a Patriot AND an Atheist.