Tag Archives: Freedom of Speech

Canadian Suppression of Free Speech: Harbinger of the Near American Future?

Ezra Levant: ‘Crazy’ prosecutions

Republish Reprint

Ezra Levant, Special to Financial Post | July 23, 2015 3:42 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

This October Ezra Levant will be prosecuted for being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.”

Canadian PressThis October Ezra Levant will be prosecuted for being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.”

It would be unprecedented to prosecute a journalist for having the wrong opinions about a government agency

Here we go again.

This October I will be prosecuted for one charge of being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission” and two charges that my “public comments regarding the Alberta Human Rights Commission were inappropriate and unbecoming and that such conduct is deserving of sanction.”

Because last year I wrote a newspaper editorial calling Alberta’s human rights commission “crazy.”

Have you ever heard of a journalist being prosecuted for being disrespectful towards a government agency? A journalist in Canada, that is — not in China or Russia.

I’ve been through something like this before. In February of 2006, I was the publisher of the Western Standard magazine. We ran a news story on the Danish cartoons of Mohammed and the deadly Muslim riots that followed. Being a news magazine, we included photos of the cartoons to show the central element of the story.

Muslim activists filed “hate speech” complaints against the magazine, and me personally, for reporting this legitimate news story. What followed was straight out of Kafka: a 900-day investigation by no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats and lawyers for the thought crime of publishing news “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.” Truth was not a defence; journalism was not a defence. The commission had invented a counterfeit human right not to be offended.

I spent $100,000 on legal fees before the commission dropped the charges against me — because it was taking such a beating in the media. Even the provincial cabinet minister in charge of the commission at the time, the Hon. Lindsay Blackett, told reporters the commission had become a “kangaroo court.” I guess he’s allowed to say that, but I’m not.

Over time human rights commissions have gotten much more scrutiny, and the federal human rights commission even had its censorship powers repealed by Parliament. But last year, Alberta’s commission stumbled back in the news. A Czech immigrant had failed the provincial engineering exam three times, so he complained to the commission that the exam was “discriminatory.” In a shocking ruling, it agreed and ordered Alberta’s engineering profession to lower its standards and pay the complainer $10,000.

I have an opinion about that. I think it’s: crazy. You may have the same opinion and, if you’re not a lawyer, you’re allowed to express it. I expressed it anyway. After all, I was a journalist and hadn’t practiced law in many years. My job was to express my opinion. Sun News hired me, as a journalist, to do exactly that.

This time the commission didn’t come for me. But one of its prosecutors did. Arman Chak filed a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta about my column. Even though I haven’t practiced law in years, I’m still a lawyer. That was his angle.

At first, the Law Society dismissed his complaint without even a hearing, as it does with other nuisance complaints filed against me over the years by my political opponents. It would be unprecedented to prosecute a journalist for having the wrong opinions about a government agency.

Alberta benchers aren’t always so fastidious about courtesy. Earlier this year Dennis Edney, Omar Khadr’s lawyer, stood outside the Edmonton court house, blaming Khadr’s legal situation on the legal system’s anti-Muslim “bigotry.” But like Chak, Edney is a law society bencher himself. He is not being prosecuted. Nor should he be — we need passionate lawyers, zealously advocating for their clients, even if they’re sometimes prickly.

To my knowledge the decision to prosecute me is unprecedented. Unlike Edney and his court-house remarks, I’m not even a practicing lawyer. I’m a journalist who happens to be trained in the law. There are tens of thousands of inactive lawyers like me in Canada. They include politicians like Peter MacKay and Thomas Mulcair. Sometimes these politician-lawyers are polite. Sometimes they aren’t. Two years ago, my fellow member of the Law Society of Alberta, an opposition politician named Rachel Notley, compared the Alberta Energy Regulator to a “banana republic.” It’s a quasi-judicial tribunal, like the human rights commission. But it’s unthinkable that the Law Society would have prosecuted her for being “discourteous” to a government agency. Because we live in a democracy and value public debate.

Well, I do too. And I’m going to keep calling the human rights commission “crazy” for the rest of my life. And the fact is that their old prosecutor is still trying to get me — that is a bit crazy, isn’t it?

_____________________

Canadian Journalist Faces Jail Time
For Calling Government Agency ‘Crazy’
by Sputnik News
July 24, 2015
Canadian lawyer and media personality Ezra Levant, who was cited by the Law Society of Alberta for remarks he made about the province’s human rights commission, said his prosecution is “crazy.”

In a March 2014 Toronto Sun opinion column titled “Next stop, crazy town,” Levant called out the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s ruling that the province’s engineering exam “discriminated” against an immigrant who failed the test three times. Levant also slammed the commission’s order to Alberta’s engineers to pay him $10,000 and lower their standards.

“But with human rights commissions, when you think you’ve hit rock bottom, you haven’t,” Levant wrote. “The crazy keeps going down. You gotta get out your shovel and dig to get to the crazy that’s underneath the crazy.”

Lawyer and then-Alberta Human Rights Commission member Arman Chak launched a complaint to the Law Society that same month, saying Levant’s comments were “inappropriate and unbecoming” of a lawyer, even though Levant had not practiced law in years.

The complaint was initially dismissed without a hearing, with the Law Society ruling that Levant was acting as a journalist when he made the statements about the Commission. But Chak appealed last fall, and the panel granted his appeal seven months later, paving the way for a hearing on the citations in October.

Interestingly, a month after Chak appealed the Law Society’s ruling in Levant’s favor, he was dismissed from the Human Rights Commission. Chak has since sued the Commission for wrongful termination and defamation.

In an opinion column published Thursday in Canada’s Financial Times, Levant writes: “Have you ever heard of a journalist being prosecuted for being disrespectful towards a government agency? A journalist in Canada, that is – not in China or Russia.”

“To my knowledge the decision to prosecute me is unprecedented,” he wrote. “I’m not even a practicing lawyer. I’m a journalist who happens to be trained in the law. There are tens of thousands of inactive lawyers like me in Canada.”

Levant said that he values public debate, and is “going to keep calling the human rights commission ‘crazy’ for the rest of my life. And the fact is that their old prosecutor is still trying to get me – that is a bit crazy, isn’t it?”

With thanks again to Paul From, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, for sharing this and making me aware of this madness—I used to consider that Canada was a much calmer and saner nation, and it’s population much more stable, than the USA—but apparently that world, like so many others, is now “Gone with the Wind…”

Anti-Bullying Laws: Why do the SPLC and other Freedom-Hating Groups Promote these?

Mindin' Other People's Business seems to be High Tone, I got all that I can do just to mind my own….

The SPLC wants full time police surveillance of your home, your Church, your neighborhood parks, and above-all your schools….

These so-called anti-bullying laws would be the absolute last nails in the coffins of each of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution. “Bullying” is such a vague, ambiguous, and over broad concept, it will take the police state into the farthest reaches of every person’s life.

There will be no right to privacy left whatsoever, no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no security in anyone’s persons, papers, or homes, and no due process of law whatsoever. No reserved rights. Anti-bullying laws are truly the Constitutional Anti-Christ. Think of the possibilities:

(1) Did you just tell a woman that she was by far the most beautiful and desirable in a room at a party or at a beach? Do you really pretend you don’t know what effect that kind of statement has on every other woman (and even the gay men) on the beach? YOU ARE A BULLY.

(2) Did you just refuse to give up your seat on the bus to an ugly person or a drunk or a person on drugs? Do you pretend not to know that you might condemning that person to be arrested or hospitalized? YOU ARE A BULLY!

(3) Did you just walk into the PTA meeting bragging about your son’s or daughter’s straight A+ Reportcard, fourth semester in a row? How do you think that makes all the other parents feel? How does your child think his or her performance makes the other children feel? You are an unfit, antisocial family of BULLIES, and you should all be separated and sent to social re-education camps!

(4) You should never behave in any way that makes you seem superior or “better” than anyone else.

(5) You should behave humbly and quietly, just as they do in North Korea and as they did in Maoist China.

(6) Only capitalist pigs try to show themselves as better than others.

(7) The true communist never attempts to elevate himself above others.

(8) Christian morality, the law of the Hebrew Bible, the ancient codes of Honor among the Greeks, Romans, and Northmen, these are all evil assertions of superiority?

(9) But who are we, who want to impose these anti-bullying laws, to say so? We, who want to outlaw “misbehavior” which we dislike, are the arbiters of good manners and correct behavior in a absolutely egalitarian society, and we will smash all you bullies with our monopoly on Police Power.  Everyone knows or should know that Freedom and Equality are INCOMPATIBLE, and Equality must triumph, and shall forever triumph in the Communist State, over Freedom.

(10)  It is to suppress bullies that we want to make sure that no one has any guns—even though the Colt six shooting Revolver used to be called “THE GREAT EQUALIZER.”  But the government which exists to protect the ignorant slave masses from each other, must make ensure ABOVE ALL that  no equality shall ever subsist between the Police and the People.  The Police, by definition, in any Police State, must be SUPERIOR in every way to the People.  America is already a Police State, but Police Control over EVERY DETAIL OF LIFE is sadly imperfect, and the SPLC with all it’s red-Izod shirted good looking young paid white employees in the malls and city streets, wants to do its part to perfect the Communist totalitarian State in America.

The Family is the Template and Tool of the State: the Importance of Keeping Children as Chattel Slaves—or, why Megan Stammers was a Threat to the U.K. Nanny State’s Socialist Public Order

Back in “the bad old days” before the Nanny State, children ran away all the time.  There are no statistics on such things, for the most part, because keeping careful statistics is also a feature of the Nanny State.  A hundred years ago, it is reasonably certain that the major scandal involving Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest is that they didn’t get married.  As I have commented before, given how anxious they were to be together, I’m quite sure that if marriage had been an available option, and especially an available “cure-all” option, Jeremy and Megan would now be man and wife—and given the status of modern marriage, that would surely be punishment enough for the both of them.  

But “morality” is not even remotely at issue in the Forrest-Stammers arrest and trial and (now) conviction.  And on the whole, that’s a good thing for the both of them—about the only good thing for them in the whole bloody picture in fact.   They are as immoral as Tristan und Isolde, Tannhauser and any number of the denizens of the Venusberg, the incestuous brother-sister couple Siegmund and Sieglinda, and the maidens of the Perilous Castle in the story of Parzifal.   But in fact, the Wagnerian couple of most relevance to the story of Jeremy and Megan is the Flying Dutchman and Senta.  

To relax my mind from the horrible stress of wanting to go over to Lewes in East Sussex and set off rocket launchers in the direction of the Court and prosecutor’s office (it’s a long shot from the South Jersey Shore, and I lack the necessary technology….unfortunately), I have been celebrating the eve of the Summer Solstice watching fireworks out my window and listening to the Flying Dutchman (a really peculiarly staged and set up 2010 Production of the Netherlands Opera, Netherlands Philharmonic, and the Amsterdam State Theatre; how peculiar? try to imagine Act II, if you can, the spinning scene, with a single spinning wheel in the middle of a rather luxurious modern lady’s spa, complete with swimming pool and totally out of place black men randomly stalking around [trying to pick up blonde Norwegian girls I guess?] with most of the girls wearing white terrycloth bathrobes and some walking around topless or in their underwear—yes, ahem, THAT peculiar).

Anyhow, the  plot of Der Fliegende Holländer juxtaposes an “Ordinary Mortal” Sea Captain, Daland, against the mysterious and effectively supernatural, vampiric, Captain Hendrick Vanderdecken (whose ship is called “The Flying Dutchman).  

The Dutchman is infinite in every way, unhappily immortal by a curse he invited upon himself, from which curse he can only be released by the eternal devotion of a woman who will be treue zum Tod.  It is one of the hard lessons I, and so many other men, have had to learn that women willing to true to until death are as rare and, at least in my generation, entirely as mythical as selkies, mermaids, and sea captains who sail the sea forever, but apparently R. Wagner knew this when he was 30, because it was at that age that he wrote and produced this opera, for the first time in Dresden, and Daland’s daughter, Senta, is in fact almost as eerily abnormal as Vanderdecken himself.

The way that this story bears on the story of Megan and Jeremy is just this—the Dutchman offers Daland literally a boatload of treasure if he will introduce him to his daughter.  This refers back again to “the bad old days” when children who DID not run away from home, especially girls, were often treated as chattels for exchange or barter.  Now, as it happens, Senta had already fallen in love with the myth of the Dutchman before the met the reality, but that is just the trope fantasy of the age of arranged marriages.  (Cf. Fiddler on the Roof: “Matchmaker, Matchmaker…..playing with matches a girl can get burned”).  

In the story of Megan Stammers, and the case of Jeremy Forrest, I think we see the darkest side of the Brave New World of Socialism in action: children must be controlled, and their residence and mating habits must be controlled, if the Socialist State is to have effective control over the future (and by this we mean the replacement and extermination) of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic populations of England (and the Anglo-European population of America, as a whole).  

All slave societies seek to control mating habits.  The biological definition of a “domesticated animal or plant” is one whose reproduction is controlled by human agency.  The biological definition of a slave is, likewise, a human being whose reproduction is controlled by other human beings.

On this auspicious Summer Solstice 2013, I had occasion to speak several times to Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, a really dear and very respected friend now resident in Ashtabula, Ohio.  By some coincidence Thursday, June 20, in my Forward Day-by-Day Pamphlet not only celebrates the reckless love of God or quest for God’s love implicit in the Widows’ Mite, but also urges us to pray for the Diocese of Ohio, where Melinda is a devoted Church of Englander aka “Anglican Province V: Episcopal Church).  Melinda is a loving grandmother as well as conservative-libertarian activist who has done more than her share to save the White Race, and she was sadly recounting the story of one of her highly intelligent daughters (Dawn) who had made the decision not to have children.  Melinda is one person I know who is critically aware of the government’s ambitions to replace the current population of Western Europe and North America with a race of slaves.  

But slave-conditioning is unnatural, and that’s why the Stammers-Forrest case was so incredibly important, in my opinion, to the modern British government.  An example had to be made of this mad, reckless couple, to deter other couples who might be both more moral in the traditional Christian and Victorian senses and more reproductively oriented.

This is not just my opinion as a mad radical.  The “Child Custody” and “Family Protective Services” rackets in the United States are just that, and are being widely recognized as such, see, for example, Children_as_Chattel by Kurt Mundorf, (http://www.parentsinaction.net/english/Children_as_Chattel.pdf).

The life of my son and at least one of my son’s neighbors in Cedar Park, Texas, are examples of the nightmare that convinces me that Megan Stammers’ case is part of a very sinister plot against children’s freedom to choose.  

It is hard for me to accept and believe that it was eleven years ago, more than 20.7% of my life, since my wife Elena and I broke up at the end of July 2002, for the last and final time, leading to my son apparently developing some very severe developmental and emotional problems.  I have so often written about the villains in this psycho-drama, chief among them Attorneys J. Randall Grimes, Laurie J. Nowlin, and Judge Michael P. Jergins of the 395th District Court in Georgetown, Texas, in and for Williamson County.  It has been ten years since Grimes, Jergins, and Nowlin took control of my son’s life, and effectively destroyed it, and his psyche, and his will to freedom.  I have already sworn a vow never to forgive or forget them, but always to remind the world of where I first learned of the conspiracy to enslave all our children and make them prawns, I mean pawns, in the Brave New World game.

The issues were really quite simple: did I, as a father, have the right to discuss my son’s welfare with my son?  I have recently heard from a mother in Williamson County, reporting that Judge Jergins only recently compared her communications with her children as child abuse equal to her husband’s drinking.  Daniel Louis Simon, John Henry Franks, Michael Houghton, Rhonda Moe Malmquist, and so many more were the victims of this trio of criminals in Family Court and their relentless assault on freedom of speech and the rights of parents to talk to their children about what they wish and want.  Rhonda Moe was actually jailed for two months for her conversations with her son (Jergins’ original sentence against her was four months).  

Jergins’ told me that my open and frank discussions with my son amounted to “felony child abuse.”  Judge Jergins’ simply included illegal injunctions against free speech against all of the parents and children over whom he presided.  When John Henry Franks was enjoyed against discussing anything with his daughter, his daughter was barely a year old (and thus highly unlikely to be discussing anything at all).  Despite the fact that Judge Jergins’ injunctions against all manner of freedom of speech were utterly illegal and contrary to Federal and State Precedent regarding the issuance of “prior restraint” censorship against free speech, both the State and Federal Courts in Texas refused to review the matter meaningfully, and sanctioned me (and Dan Simon) for trying, rather severely, too. Judge Walter S. Smith of Waco particularly faulted me for spearheading a crusade to have the Texas Family Code declared unconstitutional as applied, to restrict fundamental, enumerated, “Footnote 4” rights.

My son Charlie tragically bears the scars of all this ordeal to the present day.  A friend of his from just down the street, whom I will call “Chris B” suffered even worse because he was a repeat runaway from home—and knowing me and who I was and what I stood for, he always ran to me.   I did what I could to protect him and give him the freedom he wanted.  But the State of Texas, those fine Williamson County Judges, found reason to go and get him from my home in Lago Vista.  And he too was scarred for life.  Arresting a runaway and treating him as a criminal is about as counter productive as any kind of law enforcement could possibly be.

I see no reason to think that parents know better how to make their teenage children happy than the teenage children do themselves.  That is why I believe in a fundamental right of teenagers to engage in exactly the same “self-emancipation” as runaway slaves.  Keep in mind that in the early 19th century, runaway slaves were treated alternately as insane or criminal, or as insane criminals.  

That is how our children who choose freedom are treated today.  The result of this treatment is that our children are being turned into one of three things: good slaves, criminals, or insane people.  I am more than slightly mortified that my own son, now an adult, has, as a result of Laurie J. Nowlin’s conditioning, at least in part, chosen a life which appears to linger at the border between the good slave and the insane person.  He has dropped out of college and apparently attempted to continue his own education with the remnants of my library, I guess, at our old home in Cedar Park under his mother’s watchful eyes and firm thumb.

And that is why I urge all freedom loving Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Europeans to demand the immediate release of Jeremy Forrest and immediate and final emancipation for Megan Stammers, that they may live their lives, happy, sad, or indifferent, be a couple or not according to their own compatibility, not state control, and above all, that they serve as a beacon of hope and a template for the freedom of all children in the English speaking world to choose and determine their own future without state interference. 

Parents can and should always and eternally provide for, teach, counsel and advise their children, but the best way to teach them freedom is to let them be free.  The State should have no role in this at all except to give both parents and children a safe world in which to live and attempt to thrive as best they can.  But the State that exists to “protect and serve” on any micro-level, is a Slave-holding state.

Canadian Censorship has gone much further in prosecuting controversial statements as “Hate Crimes” than is YET Possible in the USA—YET….I have visited Quesnel, in British Columbia…a lovely spot…

From: Radical Press <radical@radicalpress.com>
To: Radical@smtp10.hushmail.com; “Press <radical”@radicalpress.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:42:10 PM
Subject: [Anti-ZionistCanada] Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #13 by Arthur Topham

Dear Reader,
Here is the latest report on my case with Canada’s censorship commissars (B’nai Brith Canada) and the Canadian court system. Please try to pass it along to all concerned with the issue of Freedom of Speech in Canada.
Also, as a special bonus treat for Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the leader of BC’s “Hate Crime Team”, I’m enclosing here a political cartoon featuring Terry’s mugshot and mindset, a grim reminder of where our national police force’s heads are at these days. Please feel free to pass that along to your sources on the net. I know that Terry just loves to have his picture in the media. 🙂
Sincerely

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

_____________________________________
Screen Shot
 2012-12-14 at 11.52.30 AM.png
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #13
Dear Supporters of Free Speech and a free Internet,
Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, saw the return to the Quesnel provincial court house of myself and my dear and lovely wife for yet another appearance on the charge of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ as written in Canada’s criminal code sec. 319(2).
At this stage of the proceedings it has become virtually impossible to know what to expect beforehand when attending them. The last time I went on May 16th I was greeted with a completely new strategy by the Crown when they informed the court they had decided to go for a “direct indictment” rather than have the case unfold in a normal manner by allowing me to present evidence at a “preliminary inquiry” in order to determine whether or not the Crown actually had sufficient and viable evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial.
Crown told the court that they were awaiting a decision by the B.C. Attorney General’s office that would confirm this and that they expected it would happen prior to May 28th.
Well, as we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men, that decision by the AG’s office didn’t manifest and so the Crown told Judge Morgan that they would have to postpone that part of the proceedings until a later date at which time they fully expected that the Attorney General’s office would make up its mind one way or another.
Judge Morgan, the Honourable Judge who has been attending to my case from the beginning and who was absent on the previous court appearance, looked over the documents that were awaiting him when he entered the court room in order to get the drift of what had taken place on May 16th. He noted that I had filed an application for particularization of the Crown’s disclosure material and in perusing the document he read out excerpts to the court wherein it was stated that because of the volume of materials (over 1000 pages) presented that it was virtually impossible for me to address what specific posts on my website the Crown deemed to be “hatred”.  After doing so he addressed the Crown prosecutor, Jennifer Johnston, and asked her what she had to say about it.
The Crown’s response was rather vociferous and protracted, the main thrust of the argument being that the Crown was not legally bound in any way, shape or form, to divulge to the defendant the specifics of what posts they intended to argue were the ones they felt might prove to a court of law that I was guilty of the said offence. In the words of Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston, “There is no case law anywhere” that says they are bound to do so. 
Crown then further worded its argument to the effect that by doing so they would be giving away to the defendant their strategies and in saying that CC Johnston then proceeded to hand to the Judge a number of photocopied pages taken off my website that referred to an online book written by Elizabeth Dilling titled, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. The document that Judge Morgan was presented with first was the Forward to Dilling’s book giving an overview of her various works and her experience in dealing with the negative influences that had come to bear upon America during the course of World War II and afterwards by Zionism.
Judge Morgan quickly scanned the page and then, giving Crown counsel Johnston a rather quizzical look, asked her if this was the sort of thing that Crown was planning to present to the court as evidence?
CC Johnston then launched into a somewhat convoluted and forceful explanation bordering upon become a diatribe. She told the Judge that the article in question was an example of how the defendant’s website was presenting the writer as a credentialed and erudite researcher and writer when it fact she was really just another anti-Semitic hate monger (this was not stated but inferred in her comments) using the excuse of communism to spread lies about the Jewish Talmud and that the Forward to her book might be compared to a sexual predator who, by sending out an email to someone online telling them about a wholesome family camping trip and inviting them to attend, by stealth and deception lures the innocent (and presumed) youth into meeting them so they can then violate them sexually!!!
It’s at times such as these that keeping a calm, straight face in the court room becomes extremely challenging.
After her presentation Judge Morgan then stated that he could sympathize with the fact that there was such an abundance of disclosure and that I might well be overwhelmed by it. He said that he was unable to give me any legal advice but that he felt that I should consider bringing this matter up in my Rowbotham application as an illustration of why I felt it was vitally necessary to have counsel to represent me in the event of a trial.
With respect to the Rowbotham application the Judge asked me whether I had filed it and I told him that I had sent off the proper papers to the government but that I was awaiting further word as to whether or not Crown would get their “direct indictment” decision which was to have happened today. Earlier the Crown had informed the Judge of the letter which I had been sent from the legal department for the AG’s office instructing me to either file a Rowbotham application for a counsel to represent me at a preliminary enquiry or to wait and file an application in the event of a trial. I told Judge Morgan that I had gone no further with the application pending today’s appearance because I didn’t know which way the Crown was going with the case. He appeared to have no problem understanding what I was saying.
Judge Morgan then decided that it was not the time make any decisions regarding any of the matters that came up and that he would, once again, have to postpone the case to a later date when Crown felt that they would know for certain whether a direct indictment was happening or not. Crown concurred with him and suggested that they might know better by the end of June or the early part of July, 2013. At that point the Judge instructed me to go to the office next to the court room after adjournment and I would be given the exact date when I was to return.
Following his instructions to me I asked the Judge if I might speak. He gave his permission and I then told him that I wished to register a strong objection to the manner in which Crown was continually making reference to Radical Press and comparing the website to either cases of child pornography or else, as in today’s arguments, cases of sexual abuse. I told the Judge that I felt this was highly unfair and prejudicial and that there was no comparison to what I publish and what the Crown was attempting always equate with those two references. The Judge then said that my objection was registered and following that the case was adjourned to Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 1:30 pm.
—-
PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on. 

The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. 
 
Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses. 
 
I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.
 
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
Canada
V2J 6T8
 
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
 
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,
 
Sincerely,
 
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

Today Let us Give thanks: (1) for People with Bad Manners who Insult us for No Reason (closely related to 1A: for our own ability to insult them right back JUST because they insulted us first), (2) People who Do NOT Respect Authority of ANY kind, (3) Hate Speech and Subversive Speech, the most Valuable Kinds of Speech of All

Thanksgiving is not REALLY my favorite Holiday—more than anything else it celebrates the victory of Massachusetts Puritans over Virginia Cavaliers as the mythically historical “founders” of America.  Virginia was the first and greatest of all the British Colonies, but its formative role in the American Union was symbolically forfeited by its joining and ultimate leadership in “the Second American Revolution” of 1861….. which led to the imposition of Marxist Ideology from Illinois and Massachusetts…. and I myself joined in the ritual reification of those places through my own education (at Harvard GSAS and the University of Chicago Law School).  

Today, more than anything else, I want to give general thanks and honor for and to Politically Incorrect Hate Speech, and to give private thanks and honor to my sister-in-law Alexandra Kourembana whose gracious invitation to Thanksgiving Dinner in Austin I was unable to accept because I’m on my way to Hawaii…. 

I have often written on this blog about the importance of Hate Speech and of “Compassing the Death of the King” (which was a crime of subversion and sedition bordering on treason in Jolly Old England).    In essence, I have ONLY this to say: HATE SPEECH, SUBVERSIVE SPEECH, SEDITIOUS SPEECH AGAINST OUR FELLOW AMERICANS AND FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS AND ESPECIALLY AGAINST THE POWERS THAT BE—these are the most important kinds of speech, and the kinds of speech most needing in First Amendment Protection.   If a speech or written text doesn’t upset someone, it is not in need of any protection.  And any set of thoughts or images that doesn’t upset someone isn’t going to lead to any change in human behavior: social, cultural, political, religious or economic.

One of the lesser known Citizens of L. Frank Baum’s “Land of Oz” was a character, “The Patchwork Girl of Oz,” introduced long after the Wizard and Dorothy in a later book composed after 1900.  Her key line was “I HATE Dignity.”  She was a rebel and a model for all of us: she had no manners, and she NEVER would have respected the norms of Political Correctness.

In 1990 in Greece, I married a young lady for the second time, one Elena Kourembana, in Athens, Greece.  The whole summer was a bit of an ongoing wedding party and celebration, coordinate with a tour through only recently post-Communist Eastern Europe and a fellowship I held, and a related conference on Northern Maya (Yucatec) archaeology and history, at the University of Bonn in West Germany, all sponsored by Volkswagenwerk A.G., just after finishing my Ph.D. at Harvard.

One of the members of this ongoing wedding party was my wife’s beautiful sister-in-law Alexandra, then still a teenager, who was in her own way a bit of a “patchwork girl” and quite a rebel, really, with absolutely no respect for anybody at all.  

One of our expeditions that summer was to visit some cousins of my wife’s family in Greece, one of whom was the Mother Superior of the (Eastern [Greek] Orthodox] Convent of Saint Irene, which had been commissioned to burn some gigantic candles, of varying heights matched with my height and Elena’s, and to keep these candles burning throughout our lives (I have no idea what may have happened to these candles over the past 10 years since Elena and I effectively parted company for the last time).  

That experience, visiting the Greek Orthodox Convent of Saint Irene, was one of those memories for which I am not exactly “thankful”, although I will carry it to my grave, or actually, a series of memories I will carry to my grave.   For one thing, my wife’s cousin the mother superior was a rather unusual shape and size, in that her vows including abstaining from the consumption of meat, and she had been (I presume involuntarily) pledged to these vows from her childhood as a VERY little girl, and so she had spent her life eating sweets, which were all over the priory.   Needless to say, she was under 4 feet tall and exactly the same in circumference as height, but as the Mother Superior no one in her presence could ever have his or her head higher than the Mother Superior’s head.  This led to a series of thrones and daises, and a lot of bowing, genuflecting, and scraping.

So far as I could tell, no woman who ever entered the priory ever got out.  The sisters prided themselves that all the sisters stayed with the living throughout eternity, and they had a phenomenal collection of thousands of deceased sisters’ skulls pilled up or shelved row-on-row in various sacred precincts of the priory as proof of that point.   When we talk mortification of the flesh, we’re talking MORTIFICATION here with an emphasis on MORT (i.e. death….)

Clearly the mortification of the flesh was an important aspect and element of the “life” of the Sisters of the Convent of Saint Irene, and man was I mortified….. especially when my delightful sister-in-law was denied admission at the gate….

It seems that the high spirited Sister-in-Law Alex, an American born although bilingual Greek-American teenager who rather normally prided herself on her exceptional beauty and extraordinarily sexy appearance, could only be admitted if she covered herself up, more or less consistent with Sharia law….. and as it happened Alex was simply NOT in the mood to cover up her summer sundress-wearing self, (loose sundress with plunging neckline and exceeding short, i.e., high hem-lines), in any way that would have made her acceptable to the nuns of the Orthodox Convent of Saint Irene, never mind to her own blood cousin the Mother Superior.

Now, historically, Saint Irene was a rather dull gal, not one of the more heroic or inspiring of “All the Saints”, at least not in my opinion.  Irene was the sister of Pope Saint Damasus I (c. 304-384). She and her devout mother Laurentia are said to have often spent whole nights in the catacombs of Rome, keeping vigil in prayer beside the tombs of the martyrs. At the age of twenty, Irene consecrated her virginity by vow to Christ. When in 366 her brother was elected to the pontificate, one faction of the Roman clergy refused to recognize him, schismatically electing their own rival candidate and violently seizing the papal throne for their antipope, Ursinus. Irene ardently prayed for an end to the schism. A year later, the imposter Ursinus was expelled from Rome by the emperor Valentinian I. Pope Damasus wrote for his sister a book on consecrated virginity.  Following Irene’s death in 379, he buried her in a small church where he had interred their mother, and where he was later to be buried. The pope composed a loving epitaph for his sister, in which he testifies to her holiness and purity.

For some reason, perhaps because I just didn’t think much of the holiness of purity of Saint Irene as a reason for as much repression and suffering as I saw in this convent, I felt moved to spontaneously erupt in the middle of all this ghoulishly archaic pageantry and mortification of the flesh to advocate for Alex’s Freedom of Expression through Teenage Style.  I claimed a level of seniority and status in American law and society to which I was essentially not entitled, and lectured them about the freedom of the body and exposure of the flesh as the essence of our national heritage…..  

I have been told that arguing with me is not one of the most pleasant experiences in life, especially when it all has to be translated into Archaic Church Greek by the living who speak modern Greek….. but the Sisters ultimately gave up and I won the argument…. but as of today November 22, 2012, I give thanks that I dared to defy the traditions and authority of one of the creepiest places I have ever been to in the planet, and I praise all who defy tradition and engage in bad manners in similar situations to maintain their “Freedom of Choice” as to lifestyle and general choices of “style.”

In all my days as an archaeologist I have never seen more preserved skulls than were displayed at that convent….  My argument on that hot day in the summer (July of 1990) was entirely ad hoc and disrespectful in the extreme, I’m sure, but I neither regret it nor apologize for it, any more than I expected my sister-in-law Alex to apologize for or cover up her perfectly reasonable choice of dresses for touring through the Greek Countryside.

The choice of dress style is an expressive aspect of speech, philosophy, and thought which is fundamental to Western European and American Society.

The confrontation between the Western European and Islamic traditions is fundamentally a confrontation between individual freedom of expression and suppression, uniformity.  Sharia law is antithetical to the American Way, to the culture of Western Europe, and although its adherents may be entitled to freedom of Religion, as are the Sisters of Saint Irene entitled to behave and think in exactly the same way as the sisters did in the days of the Emperor Justinian.  Mediaeval women covered their bodies in this way even in Western Europe, as can be seen in tapestries, paintings, and illuminated manuscripts of the period, but time and styles change.

FACEBOOK IS PROGRAMMED TO DEFEAT ITS OWN FUNCTIONING: I say that this is a deceptive trade practice and that their format constitutes consumer fraud?

Originally published November 2,  2011, at 12:34 am, five months before they deleted my profile.  But now I repeat the question:

Who else wants to sue Facebook for Consumer Fraud/Deceptive Trade Practices? They pretend to create a free “cyber meeting house” on-line for all the people of the world but they are constantly curtailing my freedom of speech as if they were a government agency, specifically Homeland Security—I wonder to what degree they’re doing what they’re told to do. Facebook has repeatedly BLOCKED me from sending messages even to people I’ve already been in touch with and by sending “Friend” requests to people I know in the real world or have gotten to know on line even when we belong to the same “Facebook Groups”. Who else has experience irrational limitations on Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, the Right to Privacy, and other invasions of peaceful and civil behavior by FACEBOOK? Who wants to join me? (E-mail me at lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com if interested and if Facebook removes this “Status” post, which I fully expect them to do? “Conspiracy between private and governmental agents gives rise to Civil Rights Liability as surely as if through purely governmental action.”  And it is absolutely, positively, impossible to find out why they do these strange things.  I think that their computers are either overactive or programmed in effect to DEFEAT the BASIC PURPOSES OF FACEBOOK.   I think these self-defeating aspects of formatting or programming frustrate the very purpose of Facebook:  Who’s with me on this?

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

ALL FINANCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL MONOPOLIES, AND LEGAL IMMUNITIES FOR WRONGFUL TAKINGS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY MUST END, WITH FULL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE ILLEGITIMATE MONOPOLIES AND TAKINGS.  Government licensing and government regulation of the economy are inherently destructive to the public welfare they seek to protect.

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

My interim campaign managers in this venture are: in Orange County: Renada Nadine March (949) 276-1970 and Aurora Isadora Diaz (714) 767-3311; Ed Villanueva in San Diego County (858) 231-5033; as well as my Campaign Treasurer, National Coordinator, and longtime personal trustee Peyton Yates Freiman (512) 968-2666.

Anyone interested in promoting “diversity” in the Democratic Party and U.S. Senate by electing a Conservative, sound money, pro-Private Property, pro-Common Law, pro-10th-Amendment, Libertarian Candidate to replace the hopelessly establishmentarian and politically correct Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has played a leading role as member of the Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Intelligence in approving and ratifying the corruption which shackled America, should seriously consider backing me for Senate.

To elect anyone with my “outsider” credentials and background would “send them a message” inside the Washington Beltway that the people are uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the Status Quo and want real change.

My specific platform planks are:

(1) restoration of full First Amendment rights, and the abolition of all forms of governmental regulation of speech and expression, including the elimination of penalties for advocacy and repeated submission of petitions for redress in the Federal Court system.

One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is Luke 18:1-8, the Parable of the Unjust Judge—which tells of a Judge to whom a widow repeatedly brings her petition for redress, and which Judge finally grants her relief rather than hear her plea again.  Apparently, in Ancient Israel, it was unimaginable that any person would be penalized for repeatedly seeking justice—even it was by no means certain that this particular widow or any person would obtain anything by her efforts.  The Federal Courts, with Congressional support, have all but cut off the power of the people effectively petition through the Courts.  Federal Courts seem to exist only for the benefit of large corporations and law firms.  This particular corruption must end, even though, harking back to one of the passages in the Hebrew Bible, it is an ancient problem.

The following, from Isaiah 59, seems to me to embody my own frustration, and the frustration of many I know, with the Judicial System and its most numerous “officers of the court” who are the lawyers (one of my Great Grandfathers was a Judge & Justice in Louisiana—according to family legend he had a plaque on the walls of his chambers which read, “Dead Lawyers Lie Still”.   ISAIAH 59:

4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
5 They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spider’s web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing;
they cannot cover themselves with what they make.
Their deeds are evil deeds,
and acts of violence are in their hands.
7 Their feet rush into sin;
they are swift to shed innocent blood.
They pursue evil schemes;
acts of violence mark their ways.
8 The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads;
no one who walks along them will know peace.
So justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.
14 So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

(2) restoration of full Second Amendment rights, on the grounds that the power of the people to defend themselves against government is the necessary backup to the freedoms secured by the First Amendment (an all-powerful army and police force with the monopoly of legitimate violence is simply incompatible, in both the long and the short term, with meaningful individual or social freedom). We must reinvigorate the concept of the civilian militia, composed of every adult man and woman in society.

Switzerland and Israel both follow this model of public participation, which just shows that there are no guarantees of anything in life or politics: Switzerland by its rigid neutrality has avoided direct involvement in all the wars of the past century, while Israel has been in a state of nearly constant war since even before its creation 63 years ago in 1948.

In the United States, we have somehow combined both worlds: up until 1992, we had enjoyed a century of nearly complete domestic peace.  Discounting several dozen essentially disorganized and nearly random urban riots relating to the Labor movement in the 1890s and the Civil Rights and Vietnam War Protest movements in the late 1950s-early 1970s, there was no serious conflict or “state of hostility” on United States soil following the withdrawal of occupying forces from the South in 1877 and the dawn of the “Decade of Domestic Terrorism” which ran from 1992-2001, and led to the transformation of American government and the near obliteration of civil rights.

(3) freedom of contract from governmental interference of every kind;

To fully implement this phrase would eliminate such a large portion of the United States Code and the work of lawyers generally that overtaxed pulp-tree farms (and recycling plants) everywhere would heave a sigh of relief.   Just as an example, the IRS code and many Federal Courts frown on contracts for barter or exchange—meaning that the most basic instinct of exchange of goods, labor, or services of any kind for negotiated substantive value without assigning any formal cash value has been very nearly made a Federal crime.

(4) reduction in governmental subsidies with a goal towards ultimate elimination, of  corporate welfare, individual welfare, and all programs which foster dependency on the state rather than freedom and social-interdependence of people on each other as equals—again of absolutely every kind;

(5) reduction in governmental power over all aspects of human life, but including especially but not limited to all regulations which tend to affect individuals as members of families, and to alienate the individual from his family as a considered governmental “benefit” or “service” in support of “domestic relations” laws; and also including all regulations which tend to impose uniform philosophies or beliefs, or enforce normative standards of human philosophy, religion, or ideology of any kind.

Returning to the point about the First Amendment above, a free society (such as existed in the United States during the Colonial, Early Republican, and up through mid-19th century period at least) must foster the development of new and divergent lifestyles based on emergent new philosophies rather than trying to straightjacket society and culture into a “one-size” fits all narrow menu of politically correct and socially acceptable choices.

(6) abolition of government programs such as massive environmental regulation (including the construction and maintenance of dams and nuclear power plants) which necessarily increase the dependence of the people on the government and government controlled monopolies for their very survival;

(7) the abolition of all kinds of official immunity, including but not limited to judicial and prosecutorial immunity, for violation of civil rights, and especially for those violations and abuses of office which design or promote private or unofficial political and “social engineering” goals;

(8) any and every attempt by the state or federal government to regulate or control family organization in the name of “public welfare”;  here again, multiple apparently opposing interests may be reconciled creatively.   The interests of so-calle “social conservatives” will be served because the Federal government would no longer subsidize the state-sponsored breakup of families, pitting husbands and wives against each other in an eternal redistributive battle which ultimately enriches only lawyers and empowers only Judges and social workers.   Moreover, the power of Churches, Religious, Philosophical, and/or even Private Social or cultural groups to institute, promulgate rules, and regulate marriage and the education of the young will be restored.

However, persons of a socially liberal bent will find that the abolition of all civil and criminal restrictions on “gay marriage” and any other (victimless, voluntary) “alternative lifestyles” will lead to complete individual choice and private decision-making, limited only by individual imagination and the criminal laws against physical injury and slavery of any kind.

In a truly free society, if the Unitarian Universalist and other churches wish to solemnize gay marriage, they shall do so according to their own rules and regulations without leave or license from any state officer. But at the same time, the Conservative Presbyterians and Southern Baptist Convention will be free to ban and forbid membership to any individuals choosing what appears to these groups an “ungodly” lifestyle.  The marketplace of ideas, in short, will be open to all competing models, and the triumph or failure of any ideology will be utterly without beneficial or detrimental consequences in the law.

(9) a restoration of strict construction of the constitution and civil rights as respecting life, liberty, and property ownership;

(10) a complete restructuring of the banking and government finance systems, including but not limited to abolition of the Federal Reserve and the Federal income tax;

(11) a restoration to the people of the power (and the duty) to structure their own lives and social relations by contractual agreement without governmental interference, the major legitimate function of the courts being to enforce and judge the fairness of private contracts, including but not limited to marriage contracts and other agreements relating to domestic relations, such that the marriage license and state-sponsored divorce should be forever abolished and erased from the American social scene, restoring true freedom of association and freedom of religion to the people so that MEANINGFUL cultural and social diversity can flourish in the absence of regulation.   In this connection, all victimless crimes should be abolished, and the definition of “crimes against society” or humanity should be strictly limited to those behaviors which actually place real individuals in physical danger.  “Moral” or “Mental” injuries such as the consequences, for example, of merely “hateful” expression (without associated conduct such as assaultive behavior) must no longer be allowed to be a cause for criminal punishment (although tortious actions for “emotional distress” and other forms of non-physical victimization would be greatly expanded and liberalized, although subjected to the funnel and fulcrum of trial-by-fully-informed juries).

(12) corporate and professional, like governmental immunity, should be abolished or at least severely curtailed so that corporate, like governmental, officers, cannot hide behind legal shields while they wield immensely destructive financial swords, (

13) electronic voting should be carefully and independently monitored and subject to citizen audits, as should all governmental actions, but electronic voting should be supplemented by duplicative paper ballot receipt systems where the voter casts his vote electronically, but then casts and keeps a confirming paper copy of his vote, so that recounts will have double and triple built in security systems,

(14) all ancient prerogative writs, including quo warranto should be restored and forever guaranteed to the people,

(15) Federal judicial rules should be reformed in favor of freely amended pleadings and limiting the discretion of judges to dismiss complaints based on subjective criteria such as “plausibility”, while the right to decide all matters of credibility and fact-finding should be strictly reserved to juries, which should also have the power to decide whether laws are fairly applicable in each individual case.

I submit that I am a candidate for all the people.  As an individual, I was born a “WASP” from the Upper Middle Class of White America, and for much of my life I thought of myself as a “Goldwater-Reagan” Republican, albeit with deep admiration for Conservative Democrats such as populated the South through at least the 1970s.   But as an Anthropologist and Historian, I should hope I have a deeper than average appreciation for the mechanics and implications and demands of REAL socio-cultural and political diversity.

And because of my unusual individual life-history, I should find a “common table” with traditional elements of the California “Blue State” Democratic coalition including California’s Hispanics (I am fluent in Spanish and support official bilingualism in Government and the Court System on what you might call “the Canadian Model”), as California’s African Americans (I have suffered more than my share of unjust judicial and financial oppression and I recognize that they have been uniquely victimized as a group), along with California’s labor unions, for whom I would always defend the rights of freedom to organize, freedom to associate, and freedom to negotiate and contract without governmental interference.

Finally, I think that my social-“diffusion of power” program regarding lifestyle choices and values should appeal not only to every ethnic group belonging to the California “plurality of diversity” but also to every Californian who shares in this state’s tradition of eccentricity and the embrace of real normative divergence. The socialist tyranny which has characterized California politics and social policy during most of my lifetime stands in marked contrast to the real diversity of the California population—at least by origins.   All who enjoy support California’s diverse makeup must admit that such diversity cannot meaningfully coexist with homogenization through coercive unitary educational, financial, and legal systems.   “Good fences make good neighbors” and the freedom the build good fences and maintain actual distinctions is one of the freedoms to whose protection I am most deeply committed.

Above all I think I will appeal to California’s homeowners and property owners of every ethnic and class background: like no one else in this or any other race, I will fight first and foremost to restore the integrity and reality of private property against all Federal Tax-based schemes and programs of securitization and transfers of real ownership as a result of corrupt banking and lending laws.   A

s an anthropologist and archaeologist, I think I have a better appreciation for the cultural history and diversity of all groups in California than anyone else, and understand the importance of maintaining identity and actual diversity by avoiding forced assimilation of any and every kind: “Vive la difference.”

As strongly indicated above, I also support absolute freedom of expression and religion, and would work to remove all Federal Support for or mandates involving state licensed or controlled marriage or relating marriage or support to the social security system, which has turned the State Family Courts into surrogate Federal Tax Collection facilities for the purpose of welfare and wealth redistribution.

As a United States Senator I would demand proof of the legitimacy and honest integrity of all our programs, institutions, and officers, including but not limited to the monetary system (the value of the dollar, the threat of renewed inflation), the Federal Reserve Banking System as a whole, every branch of the Federal Government, and yes, even of the Presidency and of the current occupant of the White House.

I would specifically fight in the U.S. Senate for amendments to the Civil Rights Statutes of Titles 18, 28, and 42 which would amendments would ensure the color blind application of the civil rights laws.   “Equal opportunity under the law” must flourish and promote itself as among the greatest of American Values, not so much as a divisive but unifying slogan and ideal in our courts—available to the members of the DAR and recent immigrants alike.

I would also fight for the repeal of the recent National Defense Authorization Act, the Patriot Act, and the Real ID act, FISA, and the secure restoration of meaningful Habeas Corpus, and the removal of every sort of unnecessary governmental program intruding upon or regulating any aspect of business or private life.

My approach to developing a policy for California’s ecological and environmental would be simple: nature is best, all modifications of nature which pervert demographics from their natural tendencies are bad.  In particular, no more dams should ever be built with Federal Funds and those dams which exist now should be subjected to retrospective environmental assessment to see which can be removed to restore rivers and lakes to their natural configurations.  I think that the restoration of natural hydrology will ultimately lessen the need for governmental regulation and intervention in economic and social life, as well as solve many of the most pressing environmental threats to all life on earth.   I will support every sort of incentive to develop non-fossil fuel energy bases EXCEPT hydroelectric based on damming our rivers.  Deserts should probably remain dry rather than the site for suburban sprawl.  Restoration of natural water flows will decrease the tendency for the United States Federal Government and State Governments to become modern day examples of “Oriental Despotism.”  Energy independence for the individual household and family or local communities through wind and solar power is the ideal to be preferred.

Please consider supporting me in my attempt to shake up the California Democratic Party and Washington establishments!  In sum, and conclusion, I would just offer as a Haiku-like motto

“Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call freedom.

Statement originally published on May 20, 2011 @ 1:54, & May 21, 2011 @ 2:08 AM