This week, while speaking in economically ravaged Wisconsin, President Obama had the gall to boast about the fact that unemployment in Wisconsin has apparently dropped by 1 tenth of a percent in the last month from 7.9% to 7.8%. I guess it sounded good to an audience of paid union cheerleaders, but it’s a classic example of the maxim that “there are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

In our ongoing recession in which there has been no recovery, despite the President’s continued laughable claims to the contrary, we have learned that the official unemployment figures mask a reality in which, even with endless extensions of unemployment payments, more and more people have just given up on finding decent jobs, have taken temporary work, gone off the books, or taken jobs far below their skills and pay level. Many of them have just stopped looking for work entirely and are living hand-to-mouth with one income in a former two income household or getting by on the kindness of relatives.

Wisconsin provides a perfect example of this. Sure, the official unemployment figure is down by .1% in a month. It’s even down by 1.1% over the past year. But the actual figures tell a different story. In fact, 3200 fewer people have jobs in Wisconsin than did last month and 38,000 fewer have jobs than did at the same time next year. That’s not more people working as the President claims, that’s more people walking the streets or sitting home watching TV in despair drinking a beer they can barely afford. Maybe some were lucky and packed up to look for jobs in another state, but they aren’t working in Wisconsin.

Perhaps President Obama should have focused on another figure which is up in Wisconsin — the suicide rate. Reports of calls to suicide hotlines and the number of actual suicides in Wisconsin are at record levels, exceeding the rates in neighboring states and more than 15% higher than the national average. Experts suggest that the increase may be directly linked to the desperate economic conditions in the state.

Perhaps President Obama should have stirred up his supporters at his Wisconsin speech by mentioning that they were more likely to lose their jobs and take their own lives than ever before as a result of his economic mismanagement.

A version of this article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine

Some of us are trying to find a way to put our government back on track — to once again make government the servant rather than the master of the people. We’re demanding integrity and accountability and a new commitment from our leaders to restore our Republic to its founding values as expressed in the Constitution. This is the mission of the Republican Liberty Caucus and we have a strategy to achieve it.

After a decade which has seen our rights legislated away by the PATRIOT Act, big business bailouts, needless foreign wars and costly occupations, some have abandoned any hope of putting the government back on track. We’re now paying the price for a long series of misguided policies from two administrations. They have wrecked our economy, usurped our rights and sold us out to special interests, but it’s still not too late to save the republic if we can take our government back in the next two elections.

The Democrats are a lost cause. They are drunk on power and are using the government to plunder the people and enrich their allies. They have become the party of government excess. But we can still salvage the integrity of the Republican party and it can become the vehicle through which we change Congress and restore the republic, if we can rededicate it to its traditional values of individual liberty, free enterprise and limited government.

This seems like a monumental challenge, especially if you assume that you need to take over the whole party and replace the leadership to before real change can happen, but it may be more realistic than it seems.

You don’t need to actually take control of the party or its leadership to change its priorities. You just need to elect a nucleus of principled leaders who will influence those around them to make the party what it ought to be.

The reality is that in Congress, as in any organization, most of the members are naturally inclined to be followers. There is powerful pressure to go along with the prevailing attitudes in your party. To bring about change you don’t need to replace everyone in Congress, you just need to change who they look to for leadership and the principles which they find advantageous to follow.

If our representatives in Congress see that the prevailing attitude is shifting, their natural inclination will be to follow whatever appears to be the new dominant trend. If a particular stance seems to be wining popular support and getting new members elected, everyone but the most corrupt will follow that trend.

You can’t do this by introducing an alien ideology. You can’t do it with ideas which members of the party don’t already respect. But if the ideas are those which created the party, the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and you can demonstrate that you have made them popular again by electing candidates based on them, then the advantage of jumping on the bandwagon will be obvious.

This is the strategy which has given other minority groups influence out of proportion to their numbers. It worked for the religious right. It worked for the neocons. It will work even better for Liberty Republicans, because the ideas they are promoting have a natural appeal to all republicans.

The specific plan of the Republican Liberty Caucus is to replace 20 percent of the Republicans in the House and Senate with principled, pro-liberty legislators by 2012. That means at least 10 Senators and at least 45 Rrepresentatives, on the assumption that the overall number of elected Republicans grow during the next three years.

With the efforts of the tea parties and other groups and the general anti-incumbent sentiment in the country a lot of Republicans will be elected n 2010 and more in 2012. They may not all be Liberty Republicans, but by the time that Republicans return to the majority there will be enough liberty Republicans among them that they will take a position of ideological leadership, which will change the basic character of our government.

This goal may already be in sight. It seems likely that at least 5 Liberty Republicans will be in the senate by the end of this year, with new Senators like Utah’s Mike Lee and Kentucky’s Rand Paul joining returning incumbents Jim Demint and Tom Coburn. Liberty Republicans will also be heading for the House of Representatives, with at least 30 of them joining representatives like Ron Paul and Jeff Flake after November. Similar numbers in the next two year cycle will make the RLC’s goal a reality and lay the groundwork for real change.

With that core group of principled Liberty Republicans in a position of influence we will begin to see real change very quickly. RLC candidates are united in their dedication to reducing the size and the burden of government. They will eliminate unnecessary government departments, programs and spending. They will roll back government intrusions on our liberties as individuals and on the sovereignty of our states. They will work towards tax reform and reduction and sensible alternatives to Obamacare and Social Security. Ultimately they will reasses the war on terror, homeland security and the war on drugs and effect a realignment of government priorities. Foreign policy will focus on free trade and the military will once again be dedicated to national defense.

It may sound like a utopian vision, and certainly the whole agenda will not be implemented overnight, but it starts with electing enough Liberty Republicans to form a voting block in both houses which will change the direction of the Ccngress.

If you want to be part of that change, you can help by spreading the word about the Liberty Candidates endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus and demanding reform and accountability from your other elected officials. Every Liberty Republican who is elected brings us one step closer to reclaiming our nation for liberty.

Not far away, at historic Dunbar High School, there were no good solutions to be found either. Before a small and unenthusiastic crowd which was uniformly dark skinned and had been bussed in by the SEIU, the AFT and the NEA, speaker after speaker repeated unionist slogans and socialist rhetoric with lukewarm response from the audience who had apparently been paid to show up but not to applaud. Unlike Dr. King’s spontaneous gathering of the people, this was a contrived event funded and manufactured by powerful special interest groups who have seized control of the government and promote an inhumane and exploitative ideology.

The contrast between the two rallies was striking.

Beck’s “Restoring Honor” event was enormous, far beyond anything I would have expected. Estimates of the crowd size place it well over 500,000 people, more than double the turnout for King’s original rally. In comparison Reverend Al Sharpton’s “Reclaim the Dream” event had a small and unenthusiastic turnout which may have barely topped 10,000, though comments from the podium suggested that the unions were still bussing in participants even as the original crowd was losing interest and wandering away during Sharpton’s speech.

The Beck event was largely apolitical. In fact, I found it troubling how heavily religious it was, with extensive references to Mormon symbolism and creepy religious figures spending time talking about moral values and vaguely threatening references to rechristianizing America. The most political speech came from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, but most of the speakers were pushing a religious message, including some black preachers who had marched with King and his neice Alveda King. The union-sponsored event was quite different. Everything was political and the preachers who appeared were among the most radical of the speakers. It was all about blaming Bush and asserting political dominance for unions and activist groups.

At the Lincoln Memorial Beck’s followers were dressed normally and mostly not carrying signs. They were hot but enthusiastic and engaged, though I can’t figure out how most of them could see or hear anything at all given the size of the crowd. Much of the crowd at Dunbar High School showed up in uniform, wearing SEIU provided t-shirts and obediently participating in displays of support, but seeming quite disengaged from the speakers, some of whom became quite frustrated at the lack of response from the crowd.

Frankly, the Beck rally bored the hell out of me. Aside from a creepy bit at the beginning with some blatant token Jews and Native Americans and a bizarre preacher who seemed to e some sort of dualistic or pantheistic heretic with a speech impediment, the only part which kept my attention was Palin’s speech. I wanted more politics and less moralizing. Too much flag-waving and religiosity and a lack of content left me uninterested.

The “Reclaim the Dream” rally kept me riveted because of the obvious anger, hate and frustration on display. It was like looking at the moment where a populist movement achieves victory and begins the transition to despotism and oppression. All they needed was Hugo Chavez on the stage, or maybe not since several of their speakers did a fair but unintentional impression of him.

The rhetoric of revolution sounds like the rhetoric of tyranny when it comes from those who already have power and who are the new establishment. When Marc Morial of the National Urban League talks about poverty it’s impossible to take him seriously when you know he makes $657,000 a year and has a 7 figure benefits package. It’s hard to stick it to “The Man” when times have changed and you are “The Man.”

Perhaps the most ominous moment was when a Gregory Floyd of Teamsters Local 237 in New York City said that “We stand in solidarity with this social movement. Labor and this social movement, this civil rights movement, are one and the same.” Words with terrifying implications from the spokesman of an organization which is notorious for denying workers their right of free choice and free association in the workplace.

Surprisingly, the strongest expressions of ugliness and hate from either event came from a hispanic speaker. Jamie Contreras of the SEIU called Beck’s rally a “shame” and announced that it represented “hatemongering and angry white people.”

Al Sharpton was not far behind, announcing that “they want to disgrace this day. And we’re not giving them this day. This is our day and we ain’t giving it away.” But it’s not and Dr. King would not agree. His message was for everyone and no one, regardless of skin color or political ideology can claim it exclusively for themselves.

47 years seems like a very short time for Dr. King’s dream to have soured and become so misunderstood. When the exploitative labor leaders and hatemongering activists stood up at Dunbar High School and declared that they wanted to “Reclaim the Dream” the sad truth was readily apparent that their goal was to take a dream which was meant for all people and deny it to some while perverting its intent to their own advantage.

If they really believed in Dr. King’s dream they would have been at the Lincoln Memorial with Glenn Beck, demanding an equal voice and speaking to an audience which their presence would have made truly representative of the dream which both groups professed so stridently and unconvincingly to believe in and which neither was really doing anything to advance.

Dave

I was predisposed to view the barbeque favorably, because I assume that Mr. Bones is the revival of the business of the same name which was at the heart of a notorious lawsuit against the city of Austin about a decade ago for the ridiculous action of terminating a contract with a black restauranteur because he refused to register as a minority owned business in order to fulfill their racial quotas. Their original location in north Austin has also had some good reviews, so I had high hopes.

Mr. Bones is located in a nice modern strip mall and the interior decor fits that setting, looking more like an upscale coffee shop than a barbeque joint. The menu is extensive with just about every meat you can imagine plus about a dozen sides. Atypically for a barbeque restaurant it has table service and waiters and waitresses dressed in traditional black and white outfits.

Now, I should have known something was not quite right when, after seating me, the hostess sat down at a corner table to eat a box of Popeye’s fried chicken. With the large selection of meats and sides on the menu, having the employees sending out for food from a chain restaurant doesn’t look good, and letting them eat it where customers can see is a huge managerial blunder which suggests that there may be problems in other areas of the restaurant as well.

As I usually do when trying out a new barbeque place I wanted to order a little bit of everything. Although they did list meat by the pound on the menu, when I tried to order that way my waitress told me that meat by the pound had to be ordered in half-pound amounts of more. Not wanting to kill myself and my wallet with about 4 pounds of meat, I instead decided to order a four meat plate. I wanted to try the beef ribs which a friend has spoken highly of, but they wouldn’t let me have beef ribs as one of the meats and they wouldn’t let me order just one on the side. Frustrating, and not great customer service, but I made the best of it.

From the selection of 8 meats I picked the pork butt, brisket, pork ribs and mutton. I eliminated sausage after being told that they just sell Meyer’s sausage from Elgin. It’s good sausage, but I’ve had it before. I also passed on the pork short ribs, which aren’t a good test of barbeque skill and the turkey and chicken which aren’t my favorites. And, of course, I wasn’t allowed to have beef ribs. My plate came with two sides and bread. I picked green beans and sweet potatoes.

My plate came out quickly and the meat servings were substantial. In volume it was worth the $11 price for the largest meat selection available. Normally I don’t like to put barbeque sauce on my meats, so I set it aside and dug right in and started trying things.

I started off with the brisket, which was not impressive. It had no smoke ring, which is a surprising failing in properly cooked barbeque, plus it was surprisingly tough and dry. Most disappointingly it had a kind of kerosene-like chemical aftertaste which I think might be the product of some sort of liquid smoke style flavoring.

I moved o to the pork butt, which seemed like an easy winner. It’s hard to make bad pork butt, but as far as I could tell the meat was roasted rather than really barbequed and it had no flavor to speak of – certainly not the nice smoked flavor I was hoping for. It still wasn’t bad, but it was disappointing. On the upside it didn’t have the weird chemical aftertaste.

Next I moved on to the pork ribs, which turned out to also be dry and quite tough, and they had been basted in something which again had that chemical aftertaste, but beyond that it seemed not to have imparted any identifiable flavor to the ribs. This aroused my suspicions and I decided to try the barbeque sauce. It was not impressive and clearly contributed to the problems with the meats. Although it was the right color, the sauce was thin and had very little flavor except for a slight sweetness. You can buy better sauce in the supermarket. Since this sauce was clearly used for basting the meats, it explains the general lack of flavor, though not the weird aftertaste.

The one meat I had left turned out to be the best. Although it was basted with the same weak sauce, the mutton breast was pretty good. Admittedly it’s hard to make bad mutton, but the same cooking process which dried out the ribs and the brisket apparently made the mutton less greasy than it often is, so the end result was not bad. It still had a bit of that weird chemical taste, but by then I was used to it.

Overall the meats were just not good. Inferior sauce used to baste them rather than a stronger sauce or a nice dry rub, in combination with rushed cooking with a lack of real smoke and the application of some sort of chemical smoke substitute, produced a very unsatisfactory result. Ironically the best item I ate at Mr. Bones was the green beans, which were loaded with ham and quite flavorful. But it’s not good when the best thing at a barbeque joint is one of the sides.

Worst of all, that chemical smoke flavor stayed with me well into the next day. It was like it had coated the inside of my mouth and it just wouldn’t go away. It left me feeling vaguely nauseous through several subsequent meals.

I suppose that to be fair I ought to try Mr. Bones at its main location, but after this experience I was not encouraged to do it any time soon. I also suspect that because the strip mall location is ill suited to smoking meat they probably cook the meat at their north location and bring it in to this restaurant to serve, but I can’t be sure. Regardless of where they’re cooking it, they have a lot to learn about making barbeque up to the standards we’ve come to expect from the legendary barbeque which is easy to find all over the Austin area.

Proposition 8 was a controversial ballot initiative to ban gay marriage which passed last year after a high pressure media campaign which pitted hardcore religious conservatives and the Mormon church against civil libertarians and Hollywood activists. The result was to override a prior court ruling which had led to a brief period of legalization for gay marriage under which 18,000 couples were married. The status of those couples and of future gay marriages in California remains unresolved until judge Walker decides whether or not to put his ruling on hold pending appeal.

Walker’s ruling depends heavily on the Constitution and focuses on the issue of equal protection under the law, rejecting the idea that a majority vote can take rights away from minority groups. The ruling is a very positive step forward for liberty in California and a triumph for the rule of law over the rule of the mob.

Perhaps the most interesting part of this story is that despite the fact that many conservative groups backed Proposition 8, in many ways this ruling is a direct product of a strong libertarian streak in the Republican party which is only getting stronger going into November’s election.

Ronald Reagan who once commented that he believed that the “heart of conservatism is libertarianism” essentially planted a liberty bomb decades ago when he appointed judge Walker to his first position on the bench. Walker was then and remains an avowed constitutional libertarian and one of only three openly gay federal court judges.

Reagan certainly knew who Walker was politically and personally when he made that appointment and it’s an indication of what direction he wanted the party to go in. No influence lasts longer than a court appointment, so in making appointments like Walker Reagan left an important libertarian legacy which outlived him.

Other Republicans also played leading up to this ruling. It was President George H. W. Bush who elevated Walker to his current position on the federal bench. One of the two lead attorneys suing to strike down Proposition 8 was Theodore Olson who was a Reagan appointee as Assistant Attorney General and was Solicitor General in the George W. Bush administration. And Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was involved in the decision not to have state attorneys argue on behalf of the proposition.

Despite the posturing of the religious right and the reverence in which Ronald Reagan is held throughout the party, Republicans may have to face up to the fact that it was Republican leaders both currently in office and going back decades whose practice of covertly embracing libertarianism has lead directly to Proposition 8 being struck down.

Those pro-liberty values are embodied in the Constitution and were the founding principles of the Republican party. They are also the key to revitalizing the party by taking it back to the Reagan era and beyond, when principle mattered more than political power and Republicanism stood for less government and more liberty.

As this court ruling has shown us, it’s time for Republicans to come out of the closet, embrace Reagan, embrace his legacy and embrace the most fundamental principle of liberty — that all men are created equal and should be treated equally under the law.

This is the first use of the DMCA on this scale and it has frightening implications for the future. Under the act no warrant or any kind of due process is required because the government makes its request directly of the ISP involved and can penalize it administratively if it fails to comply. There is no standard for proof of illegal activity and the target of the action has no protection under the act. Many on both the right and left are concerned that this could lay the groundwork for the shut down of political sites critical of the administration, either arbitrarily or as part of some future campaign finance or net neutrality legislation.

It would be virtually impossible to run a site hosting service with any large membership without having some users engaging in some sort of questionable activity and it is unrealistic to expect a hosting company to police thousands of individual users. Critics of this action believe that first amendment rights and due process should be respected and that the burden of proof should fall on the government to identify and punish only the actual wrongdoers rather than shutting down thousands of innocent sites to get a few malefactors.

Here in the Austin area, Democrat Mark Strama (Texas House District 50) (see permanently sneering image to right) has been particularly adept at trading favors and distorting his record to try to strengthen his position in a district which is fairly evenly split between Democrat and Republican voters. To win and hold his seat he has had to make deals with Republicans and do everything he can to win Republican votes, but since he doesn’t actually vote much like a Republican that means misrepresenting the substance of his record on key issues. He’s clearly feeling the pressure from insurgent Republican Patrick McGuiness and the resulting mendacity is enlightening.

To win over Republican voters, Strama has made use of supportive quotes from Republican Representative Jim Keffer (Tecas House District 60) to look like a model of bipartisanship. In 2006 Keffer said that Strama “worked with Republicans to cut property taxes and keep our public schools open.” Yet further investigation demonstrates that Strama really didn’t do either of these things.

The truth is that Strama did not work on or support any major education initiatives and actually voted against property tax reductions twice in 2006. I can’t imagine how voting against property tax reductions can possibly be defined as working for them, except maybe by a definition broad enough to classify opposing legislation as an important collaborative role.

What Strama actually did do in 2006 was to support Keffer’s anti-business, job destroying and tax increasing franchise tax bill, one of the most negative pieces of legislation to come out of the Texas legislature this decade. This is a classic example of a corrupt bargain. Keffer needed votes from Strama and other Democrats to pass his tax increase, and as payback he provided Strama with a supportive quote to use in his next campaign to hoodwink fiscally conservative Republicans into voting for a tax and spend leftist.

So not only did Strama not cut property taxes as claimed (though the legislature did it without his support), he helped create a whole new strongly anti-busienss tax structure with the collaboration of big government Republicans. Yes, this was certainly bipartisan, but is being bipartisan a good thing when it sells out the best interests of the voters? Bad legislation doesn’t become good just because unprincipled legislators from both sides of the aisle support it.

Despite Strama’s attempts to draw Republican votes by presenting himself as a tax cutter, what we learn from the facts behind his claims is that he opposed tax cuts and supported tax increases, and what’s more that there are some Republicans like Jim Keffer who maybe ought to be looked at with a skeptical eye. Keffer not only authored the franchise tax, but also opposed the indian gaming bill which would have brought in substantial additional revenue for the state without imposing new taxes on the public. Someone with more authentic Republican principles ought to think about running against Keffer in the GOP primary in 2012.

For voters in Texas House District 50 the maxim “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” ought to apply. Strama may have fooled them through his tit-for-tat with Keffer and by misrepresenting his record in the past, but in this election Republicans and moderate but fiscally sensible Democrats ought to know better and vote for Republican challenger Patrick McGuinness instead.

There are some rules and restrictions, but basically the proposed bill does exactly what the title says. It would legalize marijuana, regulate its sale, and tax it heavily to help out with California’s near-terminal deficit situation. It would make California the first state in the nation to move beyond just permitting some access to medical marijuana to full-scale and potentially profitable legalization. The other obvious consequences, like a decline in organized crime and moving billions from the underground economy to the public economy, would naturally follow.

Polls in California are tracking the issue closely and show a gathering momentum for legalization, though support is currently trailing opposition 48% to 50% in the latest Reuters poll. That’s within the margin of error and up substantially from where support was only a few weeks ago.

Because it’s not an electoral slam-dunk, politicians are not exactly lining up to endorse Proposition 19. In fact, once and (possibly) future Governor Jerry Brown has gone out of his way to distance himself from the issue, not only not endorsing it, but making some ridiculous statements in opposition to it which have earned him some hostile coverage from the left. It seems likely that in the upcoming meeting of the California Democratic Party they will follow his lead and decide as a party not to endorse legalization as well. They’ll lose voters to the Greens and the Libertarians and Meg Whitman will benefit as a result, and maybe having a businesswoman in charge will help out the financially troubled state.

Of course, this situation does create an opportunity for anyone smart enough to take advantage of it. The proposition is growing in popularity and just hanging out there with no formal backing outside of the legalization activist community. Wouldn’t it be amazing if the California Republican Party—which has occasionally made some very radical and unexpected decisions—were to take a serious look at the state’s dire financial need and the potential benefits of legalization and decide to endorse Proposition 19?

This scenario was laid out in a recent diary on DailyKos, which more than a few Republicans I talked to read and took seriously. Some were shocked and others were excited. The article is sarcastic and intended to make fun of various Republican concerns, but it accidentally reads rather like a believable account of real events. It’s fashionable among Republicans to butt heads with the federal government right now, and going against the drug war and declaring a sovereign right to regulate marijuana and profit from taxes on it would be a brilliant example of the kind of independence which a lot of Republican activists are pushing for.

Republicans are supposed to be fiscal conservatives and in favor of individual liberty, entrepreneurs, and businesses. A measure like this, which would raise billions in tax revenue and create a huge new business sector and lots of legitimate jobs, is exactly what California needs desperately, and no one is offering them a better solution. Rationally, Republicans ought to jump at the idea. All they need to do is put aside the archaic idea that marijuana is somehow more immoral than other sins we currently tolerate — a stance which looks pretty hypocritical at a political fundraiser while you’re chugging martinis.

As it stands right now the issue is up to the fickle voters and how much interest groups on both sides can influence the public (I wonder if the drug cartels have a PAC?). But if the Republican party stepped in with even a lukewarm endorsement it would shake California politics up and probably give them an unprecedented sweep in the general election. Voters from the left would cross over in droves and all the Republican party would have to do is make sure the also held on to their core constituents.

All they have to do to keep Republicans on board is make the argument on the grounds of states’ rights, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility. I’ve made that argument with some of the most traditional Republicans I know and won over more than a few converts. If your mind is at all open it’s hard to reject the logic behind legalizing marijuana as an alternative to raising taxes. If it also means thumbing your noses at the feds then in the current environment it’s a real winner.

The California GOP doesn’t have to be this creative. They can stay in their safe little box and probably do respectably in the fall. It won’t be all that hard to beat Governor Moonbeam again. But in other states Republicans are anticipating extraordinary victories. A cautious strategy will leave California far behind other state Republican parties in the gains they rack up. Seizing the initiative and endorsing Proposition 19 would drive them to such a dominant victory over the Democrats that they would make history and leave every other state party green with envy.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and setting timidity aside. Why not be bold? Why not be defiant? Why not strike a blow for liberty?

I recently encountered a textbook example of this in the text accompanying a YouTube video titled “WARNING – Microchipping to Begin in 36 Months Under New Health Bill.” It’s a particularly excellent example because the author actually quotes the text of the Healthcare bill and then proceeds to interpret it in a way which obviously has zero connection to the actual words he’s quoting. Here’s the relevant part of the text:

“The new Health Care Bill, H.R. 3200, just passed by Congress has within it the requirement that all people thereunder shall be microchiped. The plans for this microchipping have been in the hopper going back to December of 2004.

Witness the actual FDA (Food and Drug Administration) document dated December 10, 2004 entitled Class II Special Guidance Document: Implantable Radiofrequency Transponder System for Patient Identification and Health Information. This ten page document may be read on the FDA website at…”

Now, if you go to the FDA website listed, what you find is a standard applicaton for FDA approval of a medical device. Nothing about mandatory implantation, just information about the chips which are a commercial product to help doctors track patient records electronically. Yes, the chips are implanted, which is why they need FDA approval, but there’s nothing there about any kind of government program or mandatory implantation. Just because the FDA is the government, that doesn’t mean that it’s endorsing or mandating this product. It’s just reviewing and ultimately approving its use exactly as it has countless other drugs and products.

The bizarre documentary misanalysis goes on from there:

“Witness the wording within H.R. 3200, Americas Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 found on Congresses House Ways and Means website…On page 1001 is Subtitle C National Medical Device Registry which states,

“The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the registry) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that is or has been used in or on a patient.”

In other words, everyone microchipped pursuant to the new Health Care Bill must be registered with the Secretary. The Secretary is defined as the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”

There you have a quote from the document followed by a conclusion which cannot possibly logically result from an accurate reading of the text. The provision in the healthcare bill clearly refers to analysis and registration of the devices. It says nothing at all about registering people or making the devices mandatory. The author just leaps to that conclusion because of his paranoid inclinations.

I think it’s not a coincidence that he then goes on to quote extensively from the Book of Revelation and identifies the microchip as the famous Mark of the Beast. Clearly this very confused individual and what has happened here is that he heard about these microchips on a news report (the video shows that report) and immediately leapt to the irrational conclusion that they were a diabolical plot from a government working for the Antichrist. He then went looking for documentary evidence to support his belief, finding the FDA filing and the section in the healthcare bill which refer to the chips. And then he just assumes that these dosuments support his beliefs, even though they do nothing of the sort.

This is the exact inverse of a normal reasoning process. Normally you would start with evidence and draw conclusions based on the evidence. In this case the writer has started with his conclusions and then looked for evidence to support those conclusions. In the best case he might have found evidence which he could take out of context or shape to fit his conclusions. But in this case he just took evidence which really does nothing to support his conclusions and then points to it victoriously as if it says something which it does not.

This type of inverse reasoning seems characteristic of the thought processes of many conspiracy adherents. Their conspiranoia warps their perception of reality and they literally see and read things which are not there. They can look at video of planes and see guided missiles. They can read a government document and draw farfetched conclusions unrelated to its contents. They can ignore any amount of evidence if it doesn’t fit their predetermined conclusions. My first, charitable inclination is to assume that they just don’t know how to reason properly or can’t understand what they see or read, but given the almost hallucinatory disconnect from reality required to make these leaps of illogic, the less kind but perhaps more accurate conclusion is that this is evidence of some sort of actual mental disorder.

I’m not a psychologist, but I do have some understanding of the difference between reality and fantasy, and when fantasy supplants reality and you begin seeing things which aren’t there or even reading subtext which is not objectively present in a document, that’s a sign that something is very wrong. The fact that we’re dealing with a shared delusion or some sort of mass hysteria which effects a small but notable segment of the population doesn’t make it any less crazy, though it does make it a greater concern, raising the question of whether this particular mental disease is contagious and if so, how can it be contained?