Friday, October 23, 2009

More Accurate

From XKCD, who's author writes: "We live in a world where there are actual fleets of robot assassins patrolling the skies. At some point there, we left the present and entered the future."

Targeted for Termination...

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Farmers Arrested Planting Hemp On DEA Headquarters Lawn

A group of civilly-disobedient hemp farmers and business leaders were arrested Tuesday morning while digging up the lawn to plant industrial hemp seeds at the headquarters of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

David Bronner, the president of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, a more than 60-year-old company that does tens of millions of dollars of business annually, was among those arrested.

Bronner buys the hemp used in his soaps from Canadian farmers. He was arrested outside the DEA museum, which shares space with the headquarters.

"Our kids are going to come to this museum and say, 'My God. Your generation was crazy. What the hell is wrong with you people?'" he said as Arlington County Police handcuffed him and walked him to a waiting car.

The group was arrested for trespassing.

Read more at HufPo, and please let me know if you have a better source of info, preferably from the organizers. Video on the bottom of that page.  You know, when they get out of jail for protesting the unconstitutional ban of a plant that is legal to own, and has no psychoactive propertiesl. Ever wonder why pot was illegal? its because of the interests of competive technology to Hemp, and Racism. Legal propriety be damned.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Sonnet: England in 1819

An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying king, -
Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow
Through public scorn, -mud from a muddy spring, -
Rulers who neither see, nor feel, nor know,
But leech-like to their fainting country cling,
Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow, -
A people starved and stabbed in the untilled field, -
An army, which liberticide and prey
Makes as a two-edged sword to all who wield, -
Golden and sanguine laws which tempt and slay;
Religion Christless, Godless -a book sealed;
A Senate, -Time's worst statute unrepealed, -
Are graves from which a glorious Phantom may
Burst, to illumine our tempestuous day.

-- Percy Shelley

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Declaration of a National State of Terrorny

The Difference between this President and the Last?

Well, the old one wasn't eligible for re-election...

"Hmm, unprecedented executive power seized in secrecy and fear, you say?"

"What kind of government did we get," they asked Franklin as he walked out of those great halls, and I'm sorry to say, he did not answer "I'm sorry, thats classified."
Don't know if this one is supposed to be a secret, as it is definitely, not classified, but I only found the following in the Federal Register, buried, after it left the desk of the same President who stated at the beginning of his term that (paraphrase) "Every Executive Order I sign, will be posted on the WhiteHouse web page, for public review, within hours of my receiving signature"

Well, let me know if you see what I found on an obscure government page, between thousands of pages of bureaucratic notices and assorted federal minutia, on the White House page, where it was promised. Ill even give you the link.

No? then I'll paste it here for you, at the bottom of this post, from the President who promised you transparency, and a "radical departure from the policies of the previous administration."

And as I wrote last October:
[...I]f he was willing, he would have drug these skeletons out in to the open and painted himself as a hero setting off to slay an abusive totalitarian state. But he hasn't, and he continually dismisses any mention of it. And why? Because that leviathan state is what he voted for, It's secrecy and shadows are what he needs, and its abusive totalitarian power is what he craves.

He entered this campaign with a smoking gun, and all he could think of is how many bullets might be left in the magazine.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Sometimes I hate it when I'm right...
Tempus Fugit.

Notice of September 10, 2009-- 

Continuation of the National Emergency  
With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks                           

Presidential Documents      
Title 3-- The President  [[Page 46883]]                  

Notice of September 10, 2009                    

Continuation of the National Emergency With                  
Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks 
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National                 
Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for                  
1 year the national emergency declared on September 14,                  
2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the                  
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the                  
continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on                  
the United States.                  

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national                  
emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the                  
powers and authorities adopted to deal with that                  
emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14,                  
2009. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an                  
additional year the national emergency the former                  
President declared on September 14, 2001, with respect                  
to the terrorist threat.                  

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register                  
and transmitted to the Congress.  
(Presidential Sig.)                  
THE WHITE HOUSE,                     
September 10, 2009.  

[FR Doc. E9-22119 Filed 9-10-09; 11:15 am]  
Billing code 3195-W9-P

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Warsaw Uprising Hero Dies

"When you cannot defend freedom through peaceful means, you have to use arms to fight Nazism, dictatorship, chauvinism"...

From AP:

WARSAW, Poland – Marek Edelman, the last surviving leader of the ill-fated 1943 Warsaw ghetto revolt against the Nazis, died Friday at the age of 90.

Edelman died of old age at the family home of his friend Paula Sawicka, where he had lived for the past two years.

"He died at home, among friends, among his close people," Sawicka told The Associated Press.

Most of Edelman's adult life was dedicated to the defense of human life, dignity and freedom. He fought the Nazis in the doomed Warsaw ghetto revolt and later in the Warsaw city Uprising. And then for decades he fought communism in Poland.

His heroism earned him the French Legion of Honor and Poland's highest civilian distinction, the Order of the White Eagle.

Read More from AP

For more Information on the Uprising itself, and what brave men and women like Edelman put on the line so many years ago, see Mike V's Strippers, subtitled: 'Juden haben waffen!':

"I, myself, remained on the balcony and fired at the confused and embarrassed Germans with my Mauser. From my balcony, I could see them in all their helplessness and their loss of control. The air was full of wails and shouts. Many of them tried to run to the walls of the houses for cover but everything was barred and beyond that, death was pursuing them. In the noise, the fluster, and the cries of the wounded, we heard the astonished outcry of one of the Germans: 'Juden haben waffen! Juden haben waffen!' ('The Jews have arms!') . . .

The battle lasted for about a half an hour. The Germans withdrew and there were many corpses and wounded in the street."

Then repeat after me:
"Never Again."
Fighting men and women will always be missed, but never forgotten.

Ron Paul on the Daily Show, 9/28/09

End The Fed.


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Ron Paul
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorRon Paul Interview

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Whoring Off the Future

Welcome to Arizona, a state I am normally quite proud of. But after a recently disappointing legislature session, I am not feeling quite so boastful.

Now, keep in mind this is another reason I don't bother watching the news, after what has been now months of scanning for reasonable news stories on what I saw happen live in our state legislature's first emergency budget session, the most accurate report I've seen, and the only one that asked the obvious question, "Uh, and what about next year?" comes from the Daily Show.

The National Media is a Joke.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Arizona State Capitol Building for Sale
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests

Now, the state capital building is the attention getter, certainly, but not by far the extent of this whore of a trading common sense away for cash idea. Also to go are all of the state's correctional facilities, and several other large state owned - free and clear - properties, which will then be leased back from their new owners for the state's use at the price tag of many millions of dollars per year, over the next 20 years, as a source of constant debt. I know the first thing I do when I am having trouble coming up with cash for my monthly bills is not to say cut the amount of money I'm spending every month, it is to purposely go out and create more bills so i can use items I already own, that don't cost me anything to use now.

There is a phrase used for this level of economic misunderstanding and blunder, It's called "you fucktards". This particular malady is endemic to the political process on all levels, from other states in similar budget crisis-es to the current national debate on socializing healthcare. This sort of "Get what you can today, don't worry about tomorrow," is exactly why the economy was shot out a 1% fed lending rate bubble and into the toilet, as well as a slew of other future obligation/entitlement snafus accross the board.

Now, all this in a time when a graph of the economic projection for next year looks an awful lot like tipping off the backside of a half-pipe, and state revenue (derived mostly from percentage based theft) is dropping at near terminal velocity, you might understand why I am expecting to see corporate sponsorship for state properties, services, and legislation, any day now.

Oh, that is right, we already have corporate sponsored license plates, which our noble and gullible public is able to pay an additional yearly tax, (on top of yearly arbitrary and capricious fees and an asinine percentage of value registration tax) to proudly display their consumer addiction on the rear of their alternative fuel SUV's and drive around while they look for a job...

Nothing like paying the government for the right to display advertising for a corporation that payed the government for the right to advertise to show how oblivious you are to the concept of corporate fascism.

Did I mention the unemployment rate is well over 10%, and climbing? (9.5% deflated and official, based on several month old statistics)

Great. We will have to see how the next few years handle a blow like this one, but I am quite sure this state will have to do so without this particular set of whores in its legislature.

Vote them out, then ask them to move.

I hear the fire weather in California is nice. I am sure they will fit right in.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Civil War in Jericho.

No, no, not that Jericho, but here is, a much more real, and definate sign of the times. As the economic depression deepens, people start to realize that just because their livelyhoods and communities are dwindling and shrinking, does not mean that the government, and its armed enforcers, have any intention of following suit. The pressures of stealing for your livelyhood from those who have nothing can always be a bit stressful, and my sympathies go out to the following officer of the law, who evidently couldnt handle the pressure any more, and snapped.

"It was just too much, having to return to court twice on the same day to
contest yet another traffic ticket, and Fire Chief Don Payne didn’t hesitate to
tell the judge what he thought of the police and their speed traps.

The response from cops? They shot him. Right there in court."

In this AP story about the troubles of a small town in Arkansas sounds a little bit like a parable for what is happening all over the country, first in small towns, and then, gradually, in larger and larger cities.

[The town] saw its last business close its doors a few weeks ago.

"You can't even buy a loaf of bread, but we've got seven police officers," said former resident Larry Harris, who left town because he said the police harassment became unbearable.

"You can't even get them to answer a call because normally they're writing tickets," said Thomas Martin, chief investigator for the Crittenden County Sheriff's Department. "They're not providing a service to the citizens."

Theres more to the story, so I do suggest you follow the link, though I warn you, you might be suprised how quich things can turn ugly, police cruisers having to be parked out of town because of repeated vandalism, an officer shoots a man in anger in open court, and no one will identify him, and another government official states that no charges will be filed, unless they are fired against the victim, while everyone is wondering where all the money the police department and courts stole at gunpoint went, exactly. The mayor didnt have a comment, but the reporter did note the government purchased car parked in her driveway. Seems this small town has all the elements needed for a classic tale of grift and corruption.

Well... Almost everything. On second thought, it sounds like they could use their very own Jake Green, and a little bit of luck. Remember, things do change fast, and when it rains, it pours.

~Tempus Fugit

Thursday, August 20, 2009

What Kind of Statement?

"In America, at least for now, at least in America, the people have a way to say NO."
-- Chris B. at recent Phoenix Presidential Event, when asked what kind of statement he was trying to make.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Forget the Whole Text, Read the First Three Words

In letters so big you could practically read them from across the room.

We the People...

Hopefully we all know what that is from, and understand why it was there to begin with, so emphasized. 

Jay commented on my previous post to express his concern that the strength of the Individual States to fight federal overrule is greatly impaired by the Supremacy Clause, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and that the Individual States may find themselves without a leg to stand on as they begin to assert their rights to self rule.

I understand his concern there, and thought I would reply with my own thoughts, though I don't know if I have too many ideas on the subject that are not already known to most of you.

These are the two snips in question, which some people think have lent credence to the idea that the Federal Government may overrule the will, and law, of the individual states of its union, and in some cases, have allowed it to do so. 
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." -- The Supremacy Clause.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." -- Privileges and Immunities Clause, 14th Amendment.
Personally, I don't think that they do in fact, override, legally, the rights of the states to make their own governments, as such is clearly protected by the 10th Amendment, and I'll try to explain my reasoning, though  wont get into individual case citations, and leave it as just a broad overview.

The 14th amendment is clearly of less concern, out of the two of them, as it is written to protect the privileges and rights of the Citizens and not of the Federal Government, and I don't think it offers any real resistance to a state blocking federal law enforcement activities. Being raided and arrested by UncleBATFEcker is hardly a privilege, now is it? This clause was really only intended to limit state governments and extend the first 8 Constitutional amendments, constituting the bill of rights, which limited congress, to limiting state legislatures. (though this was actually done, instead, through the Due Process Clause, to all but the second and third amendments and as such, the Privileges and Immunities clause, though very strongly worded, had little legal effect)

The Supremacy Clause, on the other hand, is indeed a bag of worms, and one which both theory and the Supreme Court's actions based upon it have been swinging back and forth for years. John Marshall, named chief justice of the Supreme Court in 1801, was the first person to take the viewpoint that no state law could conflict with federal law, and stated "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action." This would be very much of concern if this was still the viewpoint the courts would take, as it leaves little room for questioning any Federal Authority, in an age where much of the limited power Marshal spoke of has long been expanded.

However, by the time the War Between the States was over, the court changed its position thoroughly, and consistently upheld state laws in contradiction to federal, by invoking the 10th amendment. Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. 

Then came the Great Depression, and back to broad national overreaching powers we went, some say by necessity, and some say by design.

Where we are today, in the court's oppinion, is hard to say, but if the number of states who have passed resolutions affirming their 10th amendment rights is any indication, our own state of Arizona included, and most recently, Alaska, (I should have a link here to the full list, but i couldn't find one) I would say at least popular support is heading the direction of States Rights. No matter which side you would choose to support, there is plenty of case law to support either viewpoint, and case law offers some guidance in setting conditions to decide if the Supremacy Clause is sufficient for the courts to decide to override the laws of an individual state, on a case by case basis.

Two issues arise when state action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress by the constitution. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. This, for once, is a very consistent viewpoint of the courts, even if they vary on their opinion of what exact powers the constitution does grant to Congress. The second issue we have to consider is whether Congress intended its policy to supersede state policy. Congress often acts without intent to preempt state policy making or with an intent to preempt state policy on a limited set of issues. Congress may intend state and federal policies to coexist, and if no intention of preemtion was present, there no reason that they cannot be made to coexist.

What we have here is a law potentially supported by one constitutional phrase, and forbidden by another. If given the choice between the two conflicting laws, and indeed, two conflicting clauses of the constitution, I would assume any reasonable man would support the more qualified of the two, irregardless of the supremacy clause, who's effect, doubtlessly, is nullified by a violation of the 10th amendment, the support of which both states have already stated was their sole motivation in drafting these particular laws. The states do in fact have a right to regulate intra-state commerce, without any question, and the federal government has no power to do so, over the states, at least not granted through the Constitution.

Sounds open and shut to me.

As I said, I am uncertain, today, if the current Supreme Court would see it that way, but the fundamental point of my last post was that it shouldn't matter what the Supreme Court thinks, in the end, as the states have just as much right to review and interpret the constitution, if not more, than the Supreme Court does, and they need to start doing so, not just on this matter, but several others. As I quoted in that last post, "[I]f the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it. How, then, may it be urged that the States ‘unequivocally surrendered’ the control of their most fundamental rights, in the last resort, to a Court they themselves created?” There is no escaping this fundamental fact, the states are sovereign entities of and to themselves, with political power granted directly by their citizens, tasked with serving and protecting the interests of those citizens, and they must act accordingly. 

More important than these conversations about what legal avenues lie before us, or what constraints generations and generations of legislators and judges have placed upon us, is the fundamental question: what should government be allowed to do, to best ensure Justice and Liberty? That is, quite simply, what our government should be limited to.

Unfortunately, since 1788, "Is" and "Should Be" have often found themselves at odds, both in this country, and its individual states, partially because we have continually allowed the Federal Government to be the sole interpreter of the agreement imposed upon it by the states that formed it, leading to a dramatic imbalance of power nationally, and partially because of a lack of interest on the part of the people, to take action and involve themselves in these issues. It is important that we look to the constitution as a great document and example of what great minds once set down, as guidance, but, and I can not assert this more firmly, the Constitution of the United States is neither immutable, nor is it the final word, in any matter. Common Sense, (and not just this kind, though it is a start) in the present era, though often difficult to locate, should always be the final word and the supreme guidance set before our actions. Though I mean it with the utmost respect, the Constitution of the United States is just a piece of paper, and if it is used to justify tyranny or injustice over the people or the states, it should be torn asunder as quickly as the tyrants that use it as a shield. The Individual States have the sole power to revise or abandon it (and as a logical extension, to question and check its advances), and the people have the sole power over the states. Two Hundred and Twenty + Years of bickering and erosion and bill-drafting can never be expected to bind the people or their representatives and stop the righting of wrongs, when the obligations and force of Liberty, being more powerful than any words, can so easily can free them to continue in their just campaign 

As Jefferson stated in the HBO series John Adams, ”[the constitution] could prove a breach in the integrity of our revolutionary ideals through which would pour the forces of reaction” and, in the end, re-institute the very tyrannies they had fought to protect themselves from.

"I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to its laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another"

Much more important than the words contained in the constitution, is the intent behind its creation, that men shall, for the first time in history, since the beginning of civilization, rule solely over themselves, as equals, in balanced and just form, protected by the rule of law. The constitution serves to protect those ideas, and it must never be allowed to be used to protect the will of those who do otherwise, and seek to rule over men as vassals.

Today we suffer not only by the mistakes of our legislatures and courts, but of all the legislatures and courts there have ever been in this country. This can be easily be interpreted as Generational Tyranny, no matter how great the original intentions were in the laying its foundation.

(for a more accurate and [imho] less quotable and theatrical version of Jefferson's opinions, and radical solutions, see the original words here)

I hope that the individual states will do the right thing, but it remains to be seen, what, exactly, their commitments on the subject may be, and in our delicate balance of power, if the states fail to act to correct an injustice, once identified by the people, the responsibility to do so falls solely upon the source of all legitimate political power, the people themselves, who operate neither with the balance, nor the legal delicacy of the State. If there is a federal injustice, that injustice, in all good reasoning, must be removed, and the Courts, The Legislatures, and the States are by far the best, but by no means the last, force with which to do so.

After all, as John Kennedy pointed out in 1962: 
"those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"

Godspeed, Citizens.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

"What Matters is the Badge, Not the Law"

It seems that The ATF has issued two public letters declaring that the state laws of both Montana and Tennessee are considered null and void before them, without court ruling or public reflection, and that following those states' recent laws, which are intended to assert the sovereign protections afforded to the individual states by the 10th amendment to the Constitution of The United States, will result in legal persecution by the Agents of America's most feared (and dangerous) Federal Agency. You can read the two letters, here, and here.

Many people are stating that such a conflict can only be resolved in court, most likely the Supreme Court of The United States, for resolution under the terms of the Constitution as the Court interprets them, and after the court  issues a resolution that will be binding to both parties. Until then, of course, we have only the ATF's word that they intend to ignore the law entirely, and pretend it simply doesnt exist. And, well, the people in those states, that do know that it does exist, and intend to simply comply with it, they risk facing the wrath of the full force of the ATF, and the Federal Court System, a wrath we have only seen too well, over the years.

Though taking it to federal court is exactly what Montana is intending to do, I am not sure it is the proper step to take. As some people are suggesting, what should be done instead, is the states, under the very Governors that have just signed these acts into law, commiting to absolute enforcement of the law of the state, as it stands, in Montana and Tennessee. The ATF or any other Feral, er, Federal Agency wishing to infringe the rights of citizens under the protection of State Law, acting within its limits, should be prevented from doing so by local, county and state law enforcement, principally the County Sheriffs, which several schools of thought hold to be the highest ranking law enforcement officer in any given jurisdiction, and any Agent violating that law in arresting those citizens protected by state law, should be arrested by the County Sheriff and charged as criminals in state court.

Asking a federal court to over-ride the interest of federal authority is both risky in outcome and dangerous in submission, and is alot like asking a group of people appointed by horse theives, if stealing horses should be illegal, and agreeing to be bound by their decision. The interests of loyalty and self preservation do not lend themself well to impartial or fair decisions.

The best course of action, and the most relevant example in history, is Thomas Jefferson's chosen plan of attack in opposing the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, which among other things criminalized libel or slander against the mostly Federalist government, and the members thereof. This law was not only in violation of the 1st amendment, but fundimentally violated the 10th amendment, which clearly states that the federal government had no authority to pass laws over the states concerning freedom of speech or the press. Recognizing that the laws were unconstitutional, and knowing that as the law was being enforced arbitrarily, and being used to punish opposition to the Federalist party, while rarely applied to slander upon the Republican Party, the clear accepted constitutional course of action would have been to ask the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional laws. However, the arguments both for an against the acts, publicly, were divided deeply along party lines, and almost all, if not all, of the Supreme Court justices were either appointed by, or were themselves strict Federalists, and were more than a little likely to side solely with their own party. Jefferson, not trusting the courts, of which he was a frequent critic, decided to take a much different approach.

Jefferson suggested that it was in the very nature of compacts, such as the Constitution that created the Federal Government, that no one side could have the exclusive right of interpreting its terms, and allowing only the Federal Government, through its own agent the Supreme Court, to decide how it was applied, or what it was limited to, was contrary to the both the interests of the states, and the intentions of the compact. The obvious long-term consequence of allowing this one sided judgement would be the eventual concentration of power as the Federal Government, and its courts, would consistently hand down rulings in favor of itself. Instead, he insisted that states have their own rights to review the terms of the Constitution, as they were the original parties to it, before there even was a Federal Government. His proposal for doing so came in the form of State Nullification. Esentialy, that enough states, one by one, and of there own sovereign powers, could cease to comply with an unconstitutional law, and effectively, and totally, nullify it from the entire union.

The only way, as Jefferson saw it, short of secession and revolt, for a state to retain its liberties in the face of an unconstitutional act by the federal government was for that state to declare the federal action null and void and refuse to enforce it, not to ask the federal government, who was in fact not a party to the original compact, to interpret it as they saw fit, and hope that they reconsider their own actions. In this vein, he, (who was Vice President of the United States at the time,) wrote what is now called the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, for that state's legislature.

RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:

AND FINALLY, in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of federal compact; this commonwealth does now enter against them, its SOLEMN PROTEST.
The Alien and Sedition Laws were never effectively Nullified, as they expired with the end of aggressions and intrigue with France, but a clear course of action had still been set upon, and an example made. No one had any intention of asking a federal court to rule on the matter, and this principle still stands as an excellent guide today, when again, we are faced with federal law that oversteps, clearly, the boundaries of the 10th amendment, and seeks to undermine the sovereign authority of the individual states. It is more difficult today to defend citizens from federal overstep than it once was, as in Jefferson's time the federal government had no law enforcement goons with which to enforce its own will, but if anything, that makes the necessity of that protection all the more clear and above all, essential, for a free and balanced society to continue to exist.

Throughout political history this was heralded time and time again as the correct course of action. John C Calhoun made a very clear case for it in in many of his writings, and his Fort Hill Address in 1831, having greatly built upon the earlier writings of Jefferson and Madison. You can read that here, if you need any further reflection on the subject.

As James Kilpatrick, an American journalist, wrote in the 1960's (I believe):
“If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before. But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it. How, then, may it be urged that the States ‘unequivocally surrendered’ the control of their most fundamental rights, in the last resort, to a Court they themselves created?”
The logic there is insurmountable.

I think asking the court to review the two laws that are in contradiction, is both foolish and dangerous, as by submitting to them, you are conceding to their final ruling, and are effectively surrendering the very 10th amendment rights you are seeking to uphold.

We cannot afford to allow a federal agency, that has only proven its abusive nature too well, to be the only one allowed to Nullify and Ignore laws as it chooses.

The result of that, looks something like this:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Hopefully, The People.

Monday, July 20, 2009

You Cant Save a Free Society by Closing It

Labeling alternative viewpoints as "terrorism" or otherwise controlling speech that is undesirable, in order to prevent "extremists" from building a movement to attack "western values" and destroy an open society is is a bit like shooting your horse so it cant be stolen. No matter if you are talking about Racist National Socialists or Fundimental Islamic Militants, in all cases, it is essential that they are free to speak whatever they think, both so that they can be publicly opposed, and because to do otherwise would be the same as allowing them to win. Otherwise, at some point, you have to wonder what you are trying so hard to keep, if you are willing to give it away.

In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Neo-Nazi parades and demonstrations. Skokie, Illinois at the time had a majority population of Jews, totaling 40,000 of 70,000 citizens. A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court. The ACLU's action in this case led to a rift between the Jewish Defense League and the ACLU. According to David Hamlin, executive director of the Illinois ACLU, "...the Chicago office which chose to provide legal counsel to neo-Nazis who have been planning to march in Skokie, has lost about 25% of its membership and nearly one-third of its budget." 30,000 ACLU members resigned in protest. The financial strain from the controversy lead to layoffs at local chapters. In his February 23, 1978 decision overturning the town ordinances, US District Court Judge Bernard M. Decker described the principle involved in the case as follows: "It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear ... The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."

And yes, the NeoNazi's legal counsel was Jewish.

Just a snippet I thought I should share, as I now have a new computer, and can now access this project.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

So what have we learned in 2,063 years ?

From Jerry Pournelle:

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero - 55 BC

Everytime history is forced to repeat itself, the price goes up.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Current Conditions or Just a Bad Dream?

From the House Record comes the following, I dont know how I missed it, guess I've been busy. If anyone has the video, be sure to send it my way, once again, the gentleman from Texas nails it:

CURRENT CONDITIONS OR JUST A BAD DREAM -- (House of Representatives - May 19, 2009) Page: H5771]

Chair: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX14]:
Could it all be a bad dream, or a nightmare? Is it my imagination, or have we lost our minds? It's surreal; it's just not believable. A grand absurdity; a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions; based on preposterous notions; and on ideas whose time should never have come; simplicity grossly distorted and complicated; insanity passed off as logic; grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff; evil described as virtue; ignorance pawned off as wisdom; destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism; violence, the tool of change; preventive wars used as the road to peace; tolerance delivered by government guns; reactionary views in the guise of progress; an empire replacing the Republic; slavery sold as liberty;

We have broken from reality--a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom. Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press or escalating deficits.

We're now in the midst of unlimited spending of the people's money, exorbitant taxation, deficits of trillions of dollars--spent on a failed welfare/warfare state; an epidemic of cronyism; unlimited supplies of paper money equated with wealth.

A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper. Yet, cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and Detroit.

We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed, as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century.

We assume that by keeping the already-known torture pictures from the public's eye, we will be remembered only as a generous and good people. If our enemies want to attack us only because we are free and rich, proof of torture would be irrelevant.

The sad part of all this is that we have forgotten what made America great, good, and prosperous. We need to quickly refresh our memories and once again reinvigorate our love, understanding, and confidence in liberty. The status quo cannot be maintained, considering the current conditions. Violence and lost liberty will result without some revolutionary thinking.

We must escape from the madness of crowds now gathering. The good news is the reversal is achievable through peaceful and intellectual means and, fortunately, the number of those who care are growing exponentially.

Of course, it could all be a bad dream, a nightmare, and that I'm seriously mistaken, overreacting, and that my worries are unfounded. I hope so. But just in case, we ought to prepare ourselves for revolutionary changes in the not-too-distant future.

Preparations are afoot, I assure you, Mr Paul, on both sides of this chasm of reality. Those in the middle, I'm sure, are well overdue for a rude awakening.

-Viene la tormenta!
-What did he just say?
-He said there's a storm coming in.
-[sigh] I know.

Friday, May 22, 2009

All The Gear and Preparation in the World

Will never be able to replace the will to fight, or to defend yourself.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday praised an Army soldier in eastern Afghanistan who drew media attention this month after rushing to defend his post from attack while wearing pink boxer shorts and

In fact, Gates said he wants to meet the soldier and shake his hand the next time he visits Afghanistan.

"Any soldier who goes into battle against the Taliban in pink boxers and flip-flops has a special kind of courage," Gates said in remarks prepared for a speech in New York.

"I can only wonder about the impact on the Taliban. Just imagine seeing that: a guy
in pink boxers and flip-flops has you in his cross-hairs. What an incredible innovation in psychological warfare," he said.

Army Specialist Zachary Boyd, 19, of Fort Worth, Texas, rushed from his sleeping quarters on May 11 to join fellow platoon members at a base in Afghanistan's Kunar Province after the unit came under fire from Taliban positions. A news photographer was on hand to record the image of Boyd standing at a makeshift rampart in helmet, body armor, red T-shirt and boxers emblazoned with the message: "I love NY."

When the image wound up on the front page of the New York Times, Boyd
told his parents he might lose his job if President Barack Obama saw him out of

"I can assure you that Specialist Boyd's job is very safe indeed," Gates said in the speech.

The U.S. defense chief was scheduled to deliver the speech at New York's annual Salute to Freedom dinner in Manhattan.

Thursday, May 21, 2009


Am I the only one who laughed when they saw today's headline?
"House sends credit card bill to Obama"
Heh, its too bad he just going to, in turn, forward the bill to John Q. Taxpayer.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Public Safety?

Lyle, at Joe Huffman's blog (which you, as well as I, should read more often) has some great comments on the fallacy of "Public Safety"
We in the pro-freedom camp (Americans) spend too much time arguing about safety. Or rather, we argue safety far too often in the terms laid down by our enemies-- the enemies of liberty. Though the statistics are often on our side, we're granting the basis for the argument (that government exists to promote the physical safety of the individual) to the enemy.

Wrong premise
You should read the rest here.

UPDATE: Danny Hauser, Fugitive from Poison.

It appears the state's test of faith Failed. Danny Hauser, pictured with his mother Colleen, above, is now the subject of a national manhunt after the two did not show up for a court hearing on Tuesday. (follow the link for the original story)

This is, of course, immediately following another hearing in which Brown County, Minnesota District Judge John Rodenberg found that the state has demonstrated "a compelling interest in the life and welfare of Daniel sufficient to override fundimental constitutional rights of both the parents and Daniel" 

In response to the mother and child failing to appear before the same judge who has already ordered Danny to be subjected to chemotherapy against his and his parents will, the judge issued an arrest warrant for Colleen, and ordered Danny to be remanded to the custody of child welfare services, citing that "It is imperative that Daniel receive the attention of an oncologist as soon as possible." His father, Anthony, (mistakenly identified as David in the media) did appear for the hearing, but after his claim of marital privledge, the right that no person can be forced to testify against their spouse, was overruled by the judge, he testified that he does not know where his wife and son are and that they left the family's farm on Monday afternoon, after his wife told him that they had to leave "for a while." The father also testified that Danny was not there at that time.

State and national crime alerts went out Tuesday afternoon, along with a copy of the arrest and detainment warrants for both Colleen and Danny, but at this time, their location is unknown.

Danny, as well as his mother believe that the Chemotherapy will do great harm to his body, as well as cause great pain to the 13 year old boy. They also beleive, as a matter of principle, that it is immoral to willingly and knowingly cause harm to another human being without that persons consent. In this sense, i agree with them 100%, and a short list of Chemotherapy side effects is all that it really takes to prove that it is in fact harmful.
Hair Loss
Immune System Suppression
Brain Damage
Vascular Problems
Heart Damage
Liver and Kidney Damage
Lung Damage
Eye Damage
Mouth Sores
Weight Loss
Excessive Pain
Sensitivity to Light
Wart and other skin problems
Increased Risk of Certain Types of Cancer

and Yes, Death. To include just a few.
In fact, a study released in January of this year by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Deaths in Britain, looked at the cases of 600 cancer sufferers in the country who had passed on within 30 days of treatment. The study found that about 1 in every 4 of such deaths had either been sped up or was probably caused by chemotherapy. The study's findings also included the discovery that 2 out of every 5 of the patients had suffered significant poisoning from the treatment. Danny Hauser stated in court that he beleived another round of Chemotherapy would kill him, and he might be right. In most, if not all cases of chemotherapy, even if they survive the treatment, the patient is likely to still die of Cancer

And so the Hausers feel, that irregardless of the potential (and no one has ever claimed it is a sure thing) benefit of chemo, it would still be immoral to subject little Danny Hauser to the known side effects of the most toxic drug set in the world, at the very least, without his consent. 

Many Cancer patients feel the same way, chosing not to undergo chemo, every day, in increasing numbers, as more and more of them have previously seen the effects of chemo firsthand.

The state, on the other hand, has no such compunction, and feels, as it does in almost all matters it takes into its hands, that no sacrifice, be it lives, propriety, or constitutional rights, is too great, as long as there is potential benefit for itself.

Godspeed Danny and Colleen Hauser, forced to flee from the reach of government intervention or to subject Danny to a test of faith in the immutible power of The State, who, of course, always knows whats best for you, or your children.

"When they Outlaw freedom, only Outlaws will be Free"

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Correcting Home-schooling Misconceptions

At risk of sounding like I think that Parents should be free to raise their children as they see fit, be it in deciding how much poison should be pumped into a childs body, or how they decide to educate them, I have to touch on the subject, again, today, though not from the perspective objecting to government interference (yet.)

You see, a friend of mine ran into some particularly unfriendly professionals when they took their daughter to the dentist this morning, apparently the staff was offended that they would dare to educate their own child. This sort of reaction is all too familiar to many home-school parents when they encounter people who would never question "the way it is supposed to be" and can be even more complicated when the uneducated dolts they have to deal with work with the government or its school system, and can be difficult to overcome. I drafted the following letter to the owner of the practice in response, and thought I would also share it here.

To Whom it may concern:

It has come to my attention that members of your staff have some very strong misconceptions about home-schooled children and their parents, and have gone so far as to make derogatory and offensive comments to the parents of a home-schooled child that was in your office today. While I doubt that these parents will ever return to your practice with their wonderful daughter, I hope I can fix some of those misconceptions and prevent your employees from so offending other parents, in the future, with their ignorance and inappropriate comments. This is an issue that should be considered in all seriousness, as today in the United States somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million children's parents choose to educate those children at home, to become more involved in the process of raising a well educated and responsible child.

I encourage you to share the following facts with your staff:

1. Home-schooled children are not neglected or disadvantaged educationally. 

In 1997, a study of 5,402 home-school students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that home-schoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. These scores were all compiled from the educational industry standard Stanford Achievement Test, the same test that is used to benchmark the educational progress of children in public school. 

These 5,124 home-schoolers' composite scores on the basic battery of tests in reading, math, and language arts ranked 18 to 28 percentile points above public school averages. For instance, 692 home-schooled 4th graders averaged in the 77th percentile in reading, the 63rd percentile in math, and the 70th percentile in language arts. Sixth-grade home-schoolers, of 505 tested, scored in the 76th percentile in reading, the 65th percentile in math, and the 72nd percentile in language arts.

The home-schooled high schoolers did even better, which goes against the trend in public schools where studies show the longer a child is in the public schools, the lower he scores on standardized tests. One hundred and eighteen tenth-grade home-school students, as a group, made an average score of the 82nd percentile in reading, the 70th percentile in math, and the 81st percentile in language arts.

The fact is, on average, Home-schooled children are better educated than their Public School Peers, as evidenced by numerous studies on the subject, both from home-school advocacy groups, and by the various State Departments of Education. This academic aptitude results in a very high rate of acceptance into college and university programs, even, sometimes, at an accelerated age.

2. Home-schooled children are not neglected or disadvantaged socially.

Most families who choose to home-school their children are very active outside the home and make opportunities to practice social skills. Home-school parents have more natural opportunities to coach their children on social skills, and home-schooled children have more opportunities to relate to people of all ages, rather than only being isolated with twenty-five people their age in a classroom, and simply told to sit still. Many children, for example, may find a small home-schooled physical education class easier to adapt to than a public school class with all of its social distractions and disturbances. 

There are numerous sport or other social activities that are available to home-school children, even in most school districts, the ability to join sports teams or gym classes

Organizing social activities takes time, and some families, in some places, do struggle to avoid isolation, but even in these cases, enrolling a student in public school does not guarantee good social skills, a good social life, or good friends, either. As one mother said of her children's experiences in public school, "They don't really get social skills at school, and what they do get, I find to be negative." Examples of this abound, from grade school drug epidemics, to gang activity starting at ever younger ages, or as simple as social reinforcement of behavior that would be addressed as rude or inappropriate if addressed by a responsible adult. With their parents so often at their side, home-schooled children were able to see what good manners and self-confidence looked like, rather than be forced to adopt the jungle code of the average high school corridor.

By and large, it has been my observation and experience that home-schooled children grow up to be very polite and sociable, with the added benefit of being able to relate and interact with people outside of their own peer-group. They have fulfilling friendships, and have no social problems in day to day life, and have more experience in interacting in "the real world."

3. Parents do not only home-school "problem children" or children with learning disabilities.

Families will choose to undertake home-schooling their children for a variety of reasons, often something as simple as wanting to provide the best educational experience available. Many parents, in fact, come up against the opposite problem, that their child is learning faster than the classroom environment can provide new material. Many parents find it difficult or impossible to get the public education system to skip their child ahead a grade, or to skip subject levels they have already mastered, and don't want their child held back, or dumbed-down, just to keep up with an arbitrary age based curriculum system.

Other Parents simply want to be more involved with their children, and spend more time with them, something that can hardly be put in the realm of "neglect." One parent I know works long hours, and only has time off during the week, he says that if he didn't home-school, he would never see his own children. Instead, they do schoolwork the hours that he works, at home, and they take their days off together as a family. 

It is true that some parents can become frustrated by the public schools inability to address specific difficulties their child may experience, in a group setting, and choose to address those issues at home, in a one on one setting, but the majority of home-schooled children have no educational or behavioral problems, and shouldn't be treated any different than an average child coming from public school.

4. The Parents of home-schoolers are not all "Religious Zealots" or members of some "Lunatic Fringe."

Homeschooling families come from all walks of life, and can fit nearly as many descriptions as could be applied to parents of children in public schools, with, perhaps one exception. None of them can be called "uninvolved." 

There is no leader, and no reigning ideology that home-school parents must follow. For example, the Home School Legal Defense Association, despite its energetic lawyers and many admirers, is not the leader of home schooling in this country. Instead there a number of children whose families want them to learn at home for many different reasons, often having little to do with religion or politics.

The stereotypical image of home-schoolers as lockstep religious conservatives quickly falls apart when you discover that some of these parents have been shunned by their fundamentalist churches for teaching their kids at home rather than sending them to the church's school, and for many many parents, religious concerns play little to no part in their choice to become more involved in their children's educational process. As I have already mentioned, there are many reasons a parent would choose to home-school their children and those parents come from many different perspectives and backgrounds. 

Perhaps the most telling example I can think of is the sheer number of Public School Teachers who chose to home-school their own children. As one teacher, Maureen, volunteered apologetically: "I didn't want my children to be treated the way I treated some kids," She has a B.A. in psychology and a B.Ed. qualifying her as a teacher and has 13 years experience teaching in a public elementary school in Vancouver. She doesn't say this to claim that she was mean or uncaring, but says that in order to run a class with so many children, she had no choice but to engage in some form of manipulation, however subtle and well-intentioned it was. A desire to provide a better environment for her children why she now home-schools her two daughters. And its not just teachers, as there are several Public and Private school Principles who also chose to home-school their children, in addition to the scores of parents from every conceivable public and private background.

To assume someone is a religious fundamentalist or a member of some anti government political fringe, just because they chose to home-school their children is simply ignorant and is not borne out at all by the facts.

As a long time advocate of Home-school, and having been home-schooled myself, I hope this information helps you in understanding the reality of the present state of homeschooling in the United States, and contributes to your office's sensitivity in the future.

The basic idea to be considered can be boiled down to who cares more about a child's learning, than their own parents? Regardless of the situation or your staff's understanding of the issues at hand, no one has the right to insult a parent for doubtlessly doing what they feel is best for their children. 

Thank you for addressing this,
R. Franz.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Hippocratic Oafs

Poison your child or we will take your child from you.
Submit to the taking of your child, or we will imprison you. 
Submit to imprisonment, or we will kill you.

In the Police State, the penalty is always death, and the choice is never yours.

Submit, or die.

In what seems mostly oddly comparable to the biblical story of Abraham and Issac, a Judge in Minnesota has ordered a 13 year old boy's parents to resume submitting him to chemotherapy treatment for Hodgkin's Lymphoma, despite the fact that neither the boy, nor his parents feel that is best for him, or his health. If Anthony and Colleen Hauser refuse to sacrifice little Danny Hauser to illustrate their obedience to the all-knowing State, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg states that the boy will be taken from his parents custody, and will consider charging them with Medical Neglect. Of course, unlike the biblical fable, the government is unlikely to say "just kidding" at the last minute. These tests of faith are for keep.

The boy, Danny, had completed one course of chemo, which the parents felt they were coerced into accepting, and decided after seeing the side effects of chemo treatment firsthand, that they would explore other treatments available to them. They stated through their court appointed lawyer that they felt that "the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time,"

Danny himself is vehemently opposed to the treatment, stating in his court testimony that he believes the chemo will kill him, and said: "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."

After that initial treatment, the Hausers decided they wouldn't subject Danny to any more chemo without his consent, and began to explore other treatment options, include homeopathic and native American methods. The doctor who administered the Chemo was concerned by this, and contacted the County Prosecutor's office, who asked a judge to intervene. He did.

A large segment of the alternative cancer treatment crowd feels that Hodgkin's lymphoma has a very high success rate with non-chemo treatments, but medical experts offered their opinion that without Chemotherapy treatment Danny has a 95% chance of dying. (I didnt even go to med school, but im fairly confident that the actual chance of mortality is somewhat closer to 100%, in all cases.) But they made no mention of the fact that when Danny orriginaly went to the doctor, he could barely breath, and now (despite suffering from a Deep Vein Thrombosis that appeared in his arm immediately following the initiation of chemo) he claims to feel just fine, much better than he did immediately after the treatment.

A court-appointed attorney for Daniel, Philip Elbert, called the judge's decision unfortunate.

"I feel it's a blow to families," he said Friday. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."

Which, of course is the legal precedence that is set forth here, that the government and its approved sources of information are better qualified that you to make personal decisions involving your health, or that of your child. The money quote from the judgement was that the state has demonstrated "a compelling interest in the life and welfare of Daniel sufficient to override fundimental constitutional rights of both the parents and Daniel" 

While many people claim that the chemotherapy in question might help Danny overcome his illness, none are willing to state that the chemotherapy will not hurt him, and this is where the Hauser family comes to odds with contemporary popular opinion, as they don't believe it is ever acceptable to cause harm to another human being, without that beings explicit permission. In essence, they have their own, voluntary, Hippocratic Oath, and they meant to keep it. The government, of course, borne out of the concept of "the greater good," has no such compunction, feeling that no sacrifice is too great, as long as it receives benefit from it in the end. Perhaps the profit seeking medical industry has adopted the same outlook, in search of profits. 

A commenter on one story I read has accepted this judgement with blind faith in science, without ever having looked at it himself. Not very scientific of him, I don't think, but i think this is how the majority of public opinion swings, today. Accepting the opinion of "Great Authority" without qualification, or their own understanding of the moral issues at hand. This great vox populi stated:

Jonathan May 17
The only choice is between Scientifically proven methods or Voodoo. Of course it is child abuse when parent such as this and the last commentator continue to try and cure their children with voodoo. Ignorance is not an excuse.
I think scientifically proven is a bit of an unfounded statement there, isn't it Johnathan? It is proven, I mean there were studies right? they must have proved them, after all. Yes, of course. But proven to do what?

It is proven to Kill cellular tissue, as most poisons of that type will, and in certain types of tumor, it is proven to reduce tumor size by a statistically significant amount in a statistically significant segment of a test group.

That is it. It does not say it will cure cancer, no one has ever claimed it will, and most people who undergo chemotherapy eventualy die of cancer. (I'd venture that the majority of those who dont, die in auto-accidents and by suicide, if not complications from the immune system crushing that is chemo.) There is no guarantee that it will even extend the life of the patient, and in some cases it will drastically reduce it.

And that is to say nothing of what is "proven" in the way of the worst side effects of any drug still allowed on the market.

In essence, all that is proven 100% of the time, is that the outcome will be a crap shoot, and the experience painful and miserable. In the case of something that benefits a percentage of individual patients, but harms 100% of patients, human judgement must be used to figure out if that particular case would be better served by the application of treatment or not.

A child is not a statistic, and neither is any other patient. It might be proven to statistically improve a percentage of patients, but those statistics are only designed to guide the judgement of applicability to the INDIVIDUAL case. This is why, in the US, which is one of the heaviest pro-chemo medical industries in the world, still does not prescribe chemo in 100% of cancer cases.

It is only after the consideration of the type and stage of the cancer, as well as the general health and age of the patient that many sufferers of cancer are told by their doctors, that chemo treatment is not advisable, and that they should go home.

In the case of an individual, these choices are recommended by the doctor and the final decision is made by the patient. In the case of a child, who is better able to make these judgements than the parent who knows the child, and is responsible for looking for their well being?

The choice presented isnt as was stated, between "proven science and voodoo" it is between something that may help, with blind luck, but is guaranteed to simultaneously create great suffering, and something that may also help, but also, and more importantly to at least these parents, will not hurt the child.

This decision is to be made as a judgement call, and not by statistical analysis, or it would have to treat every case of gran mal seizures with a hemispherectomy, no matter that the treatment could be as simple as a mild anti convulsant. It is a parent's right to do what they think is best for their child, especially when the alternative can be nothing but suffering, and a painful, hairless, vomiting death.

Well, Johnathan, if ignorance is not an excuse, what is yours?

And what is the state's excuse, and you, Doctor, what is yours?

Perhaps you forgot this portion of your precious oath: 
"Above all, I must not play at God."

How quickly we forget.

If you would like to read more about Danny Hauser's case, and the judge that ruled neither he nor his parents have say over what is done with his body, you can, here