Half of the Federal Laws Do Not Apply to All Americans: Explaining Positive vs. Non-Positive Law

Table of Contents

Part I: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and Dual Federalism

Part II: Positive Law vs. Non-Positive Law

Part III: Additional Resources

Content

Part I: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and Dual Federalism

     It would seem absurd, at first, to suggest that about half of the federal laws do not apply to all Americans. But considering the text of the Tenth Amendment, it should come as no surprise.

     Amendment X to the Constitution for the United States reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

     Many Democrats, and people on the left, will argue this is a “states' rights” perspective - and that this perspective is outdated, useless, and not favored by the current Democratic administration- and use this line of reasoning to conclude that Congress and the national government must reign supreme over nearly every issue. This argument is incorrect, however, and the Tenth Amendment remains the law.

     Furthermore, this is not necessarily a “states' rights” perspective, or at least it is not solely a “states' rights” perspective. The Tenth Amendment guarantees that powers are reserved to the states “or to the people”. “States' righters” and populists both benefit from the Tenth Amendment.

     This populist view is perfectly valid in and of itself, as well, since the Ninth Amendment appears to suggest that our rights don't come from the Constitution, and don't even come from the law. The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

     Basically, the fact that not every right is listed in the Constitution, doesn't necessarily mean that that right doesn't exist. Your rights are so numerous that the Constitution couldn't possibly name all of them.

     The Ninth Amendment also suggests that the people's freedoms supersede the needs of our states, if the people wish to refrain from making state-level statutes on all possible policy issues. If our rights don't come from the Constitution, nor from the law, then doesn't our right to thrive necessitate that we have a trade or engage in some sort of work?

     If the state licenses every profession, then those of us who wish to distance ourselves from the state, or boycott it, are reduced to hunting, foraging, and fishing in order to survive. We can survive, but not thrive, if every single profession is regulated by a state-level professional regulation. That is why it is necessary to nullify the states', and the federal governments', supposed authorities to regulate our lives and the way we make a living.

     This is why it is necessary to discuss the Tenth Amendment. I'm not the person who decided to start calling that “the states' rights amendment”, and I wish that it had never been called that. Before and during the Civil War, the State of Wisconsin, and other abolitionists, cited the Tenth Amendment, Jeffersonian nullification, and jury nullification, to oppose the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. The Tenth Amendment can be used as a tool of states to enforce their order, and it can be used to free large numbers of people from slavery and from control of the federal government at the same time.

     The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution specifically to prevent the federal government's size and scope from expanding too much. Critics of the amendment may argue that limiting the federal government's power breeds corruption, but term limits are a form of limitations upon government, and many opponents of the Tenth Amendment agree with term limits.

     Limited government, and the Tenth Amendment, are useful, because they help separate national affairs from state and local affairs, and separate national affairs from the people's own business. At least that is what the Tenth Amendment was intended to achieve.

     The concept of dual federalism is that, as it pertains to regulation, the spheres of influence over certain policy topics are split between the federal government and the states. The federal government's powers are specifically enumerated in Articles I through III of the U.S. Constitution – with Congress's powers listed in Article I – while all those powers not mentioned therein, are reserved to the states or to the people.

     Ignorance of the contents of Article I Section 8 – the "Enumerated Powers"; that is, the specifically authorized powers of Congress – has led us to believe that Congress has powers that it simply does not have. These include the supposed powers to regulate the following policy topics at a national level:

- health / Medicare & Medicaid
- energy
- the environment (E.P.A.)
- retirement / Social Security
- welfare
- child support
- federal income taxes
- housing and urban development
- banking (aside from bankruptcies)
- immigration (aside from establishing a uniform rule of naturalization)
- building interstate highways
- building Post Offices
- management of lands outside the District of Columbia
- protecting patents whose durations are routinely increased
- the wages and union negotiations of people not employed by the federal government

     None of these things are authorized by the Constitution, if you read Clauses 1 through 17 of Article I Section 8 as what it is, a list of all powers which have been specifically granted to Congress.

     The following list is a summary of the powers which Congress has:

 - the power to regulate the military
- the power to coin money and regulate its value
- the power to establish post roads
- the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization
- the power to lay and collect taxes (within certain limits) and borrow money
- the power to regulate interstate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the tribes
- the power to establish tribunals and courts
- the power to protect patents for a limited time
- the power to punish piracy and felonies committed on the high seas
- authority over lands purchased by the government (mostly for reasons essential to national defense)

     This is not an exhaustive list. Please see the original text of Article I Section 8 for the full list of Congress's powers.

     The president and the Supreme Court also have their own powers which I have not mentioned here.

     When the Tenth Amendment says all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people, it means that all powers not specifically mentioned in Article I (Legislative Branch), Article II (Executive Branch) and Article III (Judicial Branch) are just that: reserved to the states or to the people.

     This means that the first list that you see above, is a list of policy topics, and problems, which are supposed to be regulated, and solved, by the people or their state governments; not the federal government. Also, it means that the second list consists of what the federal government is allowed to do and the states are not allowed to do (except for the power to lay and collect taxes, which both are allowed to do).

     What this all means is that, whenever the federal government is attempting to enforce a law on health, environment, education, retirement, welfare, etc., it is actually breaking the law (the law I'm referring to, being, of course, the Constitution, and specifically Amendment X). The federal government is in violation of the Tenth Amendment – which is both a law and a limitation upon the federal government's ability to create law – whenever it tries to enforce acts of Congress which pertain to that first list of policy topics.

     But the point of this article is not to focus primarily on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, nor on the delineation that is supposed to exist between the national government and our state governments. I have included this information only for its use as a review of the background for the point of view that approximately half of federal laws are not binding upon all Americans.

     It is necessary to review the Ninth and Tenth Amendment – and dual federalism, and how they limit Congress and the rest of the national government – to illuminate us as to why this radical view should be acceptable in the first place.

     It is one thing to assert that the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and dual federalism still hold meaning and value in today's society; in 2021, nearly 250 years after the Constitution was ratified. But it is another thing to prove that these laws on health, environment, welfare, and retirement were never constitutional, and never binding law upon all Americans, in the first place.

     But we can prove that that is the case, through the study of the difference between positive law and non-positive law; and then, by understanding which sections of U.S. Code are positive law, and which sections are non-positive law.

Part II: Positive Law vs. Non-Positive Law

     Positive law is called positive law because it posits something. That is, it takes a position that somebody is obligated to perform a positive action. Positive law is law that obligates people to do something.

     Positive law is binding upon all Americans, and the set of sections of U.S. Code which are positive law, include those which outline how the military is supposed to behave, and how the flag is supposed to look, and other things related to basic official duties of the government, as a government.

     Non-positive law, on the other hand, is law which does not obligate people to do anything, unless they are part of a certain class of people. Unless you elect to engage in certain behaviors – such as committing federal crimes like piracy or treason, or earning income which is legally taxable by the federal government – then the law in question does not apply to you.

     If you belong to a federally protected group of people, or a certain class of people which is obviously under the national government's regulatory purview and protection (such as the military, and all federal workers), then sections of the U.S. Code which are non-positive law, may apply to you.

     The reason why all American workers didn't get their wages increased to $10.10 an hour, after President Obama appeared to call for that, is because the federal government can't raise the wages of people it doesn't employ, except for those employees whom are covered under the federal government's minimum wage law protections as outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (F.L.S.A.).
     State governments decide whether state employees get raises, and private entities decide whether their employees get raises. Additionally, state governments are free to set their minimum wage rates higher or lower than the federal government's, and this is completely legal and constitutional.

     A new federal minimum wage raise has been projected to affect only 0.2% of non-tipped workers, which is less than 1 in 500 workers considering that tipped workers exist as well. So why, if far less than one percent of American workers will be affected, are people jumping up and down at the thought that they're going to get a raise?
     Could it be because they're reading articles such as the one below? Author David Cooper claims that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would "lift wages for 33 million workers". That is probably true; if the federal minimum wage were to apply to all American workers, which it doesn't. Mr. Cooper evidently made his projection based solely on mathematics and his own hopes, without allowing the issue of which workers the federal minimum wage pertains to, to enter into the equation.
     http://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-15-by-2025/
     The Wikipedia entry for "Minimum wage in the United States" says, "Employers generally have to pay workers the highest minimum wage prescribed by federal, state or local laws." However, that sentence does not have its own source. Furthermore, not only are states free to set lower minimum wages than the federal government's minimum wage; two states are still doing it (Georgia and Wyoming). Additionally, five states have not even adopted a state minimum wage: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

     This is happening because not all American workers are subject to the wage protections to which the federal minimum wage laws pertain. Only the lowest-paid federal workers, and the lowest paid workers covered under the F.L.S.A. will see their wages increase, if the federal minimum wage increases.

     Read this table about minimum wage laws in the United States. Under "jurisdiction", next to "federal", you will see that it says "Fair Labor Standards Act". This is because only the workers covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act are the ones who are subject to the federal minimum wage law protections.
     http://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped

     When Obama called for a $10.10 minimum wage, he was referring to the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which Tom Harkin proposed and co-sponsored in 2013. Harkin was the sole co-sponsor, so it's likely that Obama's support - and maybe even Harkin's as well - were intended solely as symbolic moves. The Minimum Wage Fairness Act never passed. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, the same as it has been since July 2009 (Obama's first year in office). Obama subsequently supported an increase of the federal wage to $9 per hour.
     The Minimum Wage Fairness Act would have amended the 1938 F.L.S.A. if it had been passed and signed into law. The entry for the Minimum Wage Fairness Act on www.congress.gov is available at the following link:
     http://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1737

     The article "Who is Covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act?" is available at the following link: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter2-2.html#:~:text=Employers%20Who%20Are%20Covered,law%20covers%20nearly%20all%20workplaces.
     In that article, author Barbara Kate Repa explains that there are two classes of workers, as it pertains to the F.L.S.A.: 1) workers whom are exempt from the F.L.S.A.; and 2) workers whom are not exempt from that law.
     Repa writes, "The FLSA applies only to employers whose annual sales total $500,000 or more or who are engaged in interstate commerce. You might think that this would restrict the FLSA to covering only employees in large companies, but in reality, the law covers nearly all workplaces. This is because the courts have interpreted the term interstate commerce very broadly"
     Repa's observation should come as no shock to anyone who has read my previous essays about the overly broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause (which I have written about the most in reference to national health insurance policy). Repa continues: "courts have ruled that companies that regularly use the U.S. mail to send or receive letters to and from other states are engaged in interstate commerce. Even the fact that employees use company telephones or computers to place or accept interstate business calls or take orders has subjected an employer to the FLSA."
     Repa continues, "A few employers, including small farms--those that use relatively little outside paid labor--are explicitly exempt from the FLSA."
     The preceding facts should establish the following: 1) some employees are explicitly exempt from the F.L.S.A., and hence, the federal minimum wage protections; and 2) there are some employees who are currently being covered by the F.L.S.A. and its wage protections, who wouldn't be subject to those protections if the interstate commerce clause were not interpreted in the overly broad way that it is now.
     These facts affirm that it is only due to the misinterpretation of the Constitution that certain federal laws on domestic policies are thought, and are being held, to do things they are not explicitly authorized to do, and which they arguably never had the appropriately delegated authority to do in the first place.

     The preceding facts should make it clear that the claims that the federal minimum wage law still applies in these seven states, hinge on two flawed notions: 1) that all workers are covered by the federal law which outlines the federal minimum wage; and 2) that the federal government can make its own minimum wage laws applicable upon workers only tangentially engaged in interstate commerce (and not even physically) in states which are exercising their Tenth Amendment recognized authority to set wages as they please.
     The federal minimum wage law does not apply to all workers. Thinking that it does, lulls us into a false sense of security about our corrupt government. It only buys our corrupt government more credit, and a little more time to keep fooling around behind the scenes, before we realize it is not working in our interests.

     The F.L.S.A. amended Section 29 of the U.S. Code, which pertains to "Labor". Section 29 is non-positive law. It only applies to certain groups of people, based on their industry, profession, location, or federally protected status. Just like the federal laws on hospitals (found in Section 24), environmental conservation (Section 16), agriculture (Section 7), education (Section 20), retirement (Section 42), and other titles of non-positive law which also "happen to be" topics that aren't specifically mentioned in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

     Our ignorance on the law has led us to assume that the federal government has powers that it simply doesn't have. We have allowed the federal government to promise to do things for us which it is incapable of doing, and which it is literally illegal for the federal government to do (because it's not explicitly authorized by the Constitution).

     This is happening because we don't understand the Constitution, and don't read it anymore; and because most of us have never heard of positive law and non-positive law.

     Acts of Congress are not automatically law just because they are passed by both houses. The president needs to sign it into law, or else Congress has to override the president with a supermajority. Additionally, the Supreme Court has to refrain from declaring it unconstitutional.

     But another step has to occur before that act of Congress can become part of the positive law. It has to be enacted.

     According to us.code.house.gov, every title in the U.S. Code, which is in a section of the code that is positive law, is a federal statute. Each one of those titles has been enacted, as a whole, by Congress, because, in a way, Congress regards it as complete. This is to say that a statutory text which appears in a positive law title, is regarded as having Congress's “authoritative imprimatur”(seal of approval) with respect to the wording of the statute.

     When Congress enacts positive law titles, the original enactments are repealed. One reason for this is that it is not necessary to include things like enabling clauses in the actual set of applicable laws; this would make the U.S. Code even longer than it already is.

     It is not the act of Congress which is being enforced; what is being enforced is a federal statute based on the original act of Congress that changed the law. Each new act of Congress which doesn't create a new section of federal statutes in the U.S. Code, must necessarily amend some certain previously existing section of the code. This means that turning a section of the code from non-positive law into positive law, is probably a very detailed and time-consuming process.

     It has been said about the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, that it is a law which it would take weeks and weeks to read, because you have to have the entire U.S. Code in front of you in order to understand it. The Patriot Act includes numerous references to very specific parts of the code, and details the changes which are to be made to that code.

     In July 2018, legal blogger Sam Wice explained positive vs. non-positive law for a blog called Notice & Comment, which is billed as “A blog from the Yale Journal on Regulation and ABA [American Bar Association] Section of Administration Law & Regulatory Practice.”. In his July 25^th, 2018 article “When to Refer to the U.S. Code Versus the Underlying Statute”, Sam Wice wrote, “This year, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel has prepared for Congress a bill to enact Title 6 of the U.S. Code as positive law.”

     Well, what is Title 6 of the U.S. Code? That happens to be the section on “Domestic Security”! It seems clear, based on these facts, that the Patriot Act was a massive reorganization of domestic security laws, which paved the way for the transformation of Title 6 on Domestic Security from non-positive law into positive law.

     The following 26 sections of U.S. Code are positive law:

- Section 1. General Provisions
- Section 3. The President
- Section 4. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States
- Section 5. Government Organization and Employees (incl. Federal Advisory Committee Act)
- Section 9. Arbitration
- Section 11. Bankruptcy and Bankruptcy Rules
- Section 13. Census
- Section 14. Coast Guard
- Section 17. Copyrights
- Section 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure, incl. Unlawful Possession or Receipt of Firearms
- Section 23. Highways
- Section 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
- Section 31. Money and Finance
- Section 32. National Guard
- Section 35. Patents
- Section 36. Patriotic and National Observances
- Section 37. Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
- Section 38. Veterans' Benefits
- Section 39. Postal Service
- Section 40. Public Buildings, Property, and Works
- Section 41. Public Contracts
- Section 44. Public Printing and Documents
- Section 46. Shipping
- Section 49. Transportation
- Section 51. National and Commercial Space Programs
- Section 54. National Park Service

     It is plain to see, from a comparison between this list, and the first list in this article (the list of powers specifically delegated to Congress), that the positive law titles consist of powers specifically authorized in Article I Section 8 (such as the various military powers, the monetary powers, copyrights, bankruptcy) and in the rest of the Constitution (such as the Census).

     The other topics mentioned, are there because they have been inferred as Congress's powers based on the Necessary and Proper Clause (such as the Postal Service section). Section 51 on National and Commercial Space Programs is probably justified based on the defense-related implications of the space program.

     This all seems to check out, with the exception of Highways and the National Park Service. Section 23 on Highways is likely justified based on the need to establish post roads, which arguably can be done without actually building those roads. The National Park Service is probably justified based on the need for the government to own lands essential to national defense.

     But aside from those two exceptions, it's easy to see how the vast majority of positive law titles derive from the set of powers specifically mentioned in Article I Section 8.

     It's also easy to see how the non-positive law titles do not derive from Article I Section 8, when you compare the names of the sections of non-positive titles of the U.S. Code against the first list in this article. When you compare it to the second list in this article - the list of policy topics which the federal government is not authorized to regulate, but does anyway as it pertains to certain classes of eligible people – it becomes apparent what is going on here.

     The federal government is attempting to enforce laws that were never authorized by the Constitution, and which the people don't want badly enough to bother enshrining it into the U.S. Code permanently (by either turning it from non-positive law into positive law, or passing a constitutional amendment which would authorize the Congress to have exclusive jurisdiction over a policy topic which the states previously had the authority to regulate).

     The following is a list of non-positive titles in the U.S. Code:

- Section 2. The Congress
- Section 6. Domestic Security
- Section 7. Agriculture
- Section 8. Aliens and Nationality
- Section 12. Banks and Banking
- Section 15. Commerce and Trade
- Section 16. Conservation
- Section 19. Customs Duties
- Section 20. Education
- Section 21. Food and Drugs
- Section 22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse
- Section 24. Hospitals and Asylums
- Section 25. Indians
- Section 26. Internal Revenue Code
- Section 27. Intoxicating Liquors
- Section 29. Labor
- Section 30. Mineral Lands and Mining
- Section 33. Navigation and Navigable Waters
- Section 34. Crime Control and Law Enforcement
- Section 42. The Public Health and Welfare (including Social Security, which includes child support titles)
- Section 43. Public Lands
- Section 45. Railroads
- Section 47. Telecommunications
- Section 48. Territories and Insular Possessions
- Section 50. War and National Defense
- Section 52. Voting and Elections

     [Note: There is not currently a Section 53 of the U.S. Code.]

     Given this list, it makes sense that non-positive laws only pertain to certain classes of people. Section 25 on Indians only pertains to Native Americans. Section 8 on Aliens and Nationality only pertains to immigrants. Section 2 on The Congress only pertains to the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.

     It's easy to see how sections 7, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, 34, 45, 47, and 48 could pertain solely to certain classes of people and workers as well, and people in certain locations and industries. It's likely that a lot of the New Deal -era legislation ended up in Section 7 on Agriculture, Section 12 on Banks and Banking, Section 15 on Commerce and Trade.

     In all federal and state courts, positive law titles constitute legal evidence of the law. Non-positive law titles, on the other hand, have only “prima facie” evidence of existing. This is to say that the evidence only exists on the face of the law. These laws exist in name, or on paper, only. Prima facie evidence is evidence which would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact, unless that evidence is rebutted.

     According to the U.S. Code website, “A non-positive law title of the Code is prima facie evidence of the statutes it contains”. This means that a non-positive law title of the U.S. Code is not exactly permanent and enacted law, but more accurately it is evidence of a law. On its face, it is evidence that a law has been passed; i.e., an act of Congress. But acts of Congress are sometimes declared unconstitutional. And just because an act of Congress hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet, that doesn't mean that it won't.

     Non-positive law titles are the law, but they are only the law until it is proven otherwise. Again, the Tenth Amendment is a law, but it is also a limitation upon the federal government's ability to create new laws. Proving that certain federal laws are unconstitutional, will prove that it was never legal for those to exist in the first place. Once an unconstitutional law is proven unconstitutional, it's as if it never existed in the first place. That's certainly how it feels when the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional. The people simply stop observing the law, and it ceases being enforced. Nobody has to suffer through that unpopular, unconstitutional law any more.

     The American people have every right to demand that all federal laws which are unconstitutional, be recognized as such by all courts from now on. And the American people have a right to fight to transformation of non-positive law into positive law, because that means making more laws obligatory upon all Americans, and it risks permanently expanding the size and scope of the national government.

     They have been passed by Congress, but they pertain to only a certain group of people, such as those who are specifically protected, or those who elect to be affiliated with the federal government for purposes outside those listed in Articles I through III.

     For all other people, the federal law should not apply. Yet here we are, still having income taxes levied against us, using currency that's backed by neither gold nor silver, and allowing the federal government to trample upon our states' authorities to regulate their own domestic affairs.

     In effect, federal laws on health, retirement, education, welfare, etc. are encroaching upon the limited sovereignty which the states are supposed to be exercising. The states are supposed to be sovereign in those policy spheres, while the federal government is sovereign on money, mail, military, and other things. The federal and state governments are supposed to be “co-equal sovereigns”. Yet they cannot be so, if the federal government is “stepping on the toes” of the state governments, and making it impossible for states to regulate their own domestic affairs without being pressured to accept federal funds and federal laws.

     These laws should therefore be considered null and void. They should be considered “waiting to be declared unconstitutional”. Not all Americans are obligated to obey federal laws pertaining to policy topics not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

     Here are some more facts about what, specifically, it means, for something to be a non-positive titles of the U.S. Code:

     - Non-positive law titles of the Code are compilations of statutes.

     - The Supreme Court may deem – or has deemed – provisions of non-positive titles, to be inaccurate descriptions of the law (which is why the original enactments are repealed when non-positive law becomes positive law).

     - Non-positive law titles might not constitute legal evidence of the law in all federal and state courts, but only in some courts. If a court deems Congress's seal approval with respect to the wording of the statute in question, to be either nonsensical, unenforceable, or not authoritative, then that court should be able to declare that the prima facie evidence that the law exists, is not sufficient or important enough that it should be considered a law. [Note: This is basically a description of Jeffersonian nullification, the process by which a state nullifies a federal law.]

     - A non-positive title of the U.S. Code is comprised of many federal statutes, which have been enacted individually, and have been compiled and organized into the title.

     - A non-positive title of the U.S. Code has not yet been enacted.

     If a non-positive title of the U.S. Code hasn't been enacted yet, then it is not the law yet. Courts are still free to deem it as unconstitutional, and treat it as if it were not the law.

     The American people have every right to allow unconstitutional federal laws to lapse into non-enforcement and desuetude (i.e., obsolescence and “unenforceability”). Non-enforcement of these laws is more desirable then their continued enforcement, but repealing them is the best outcome.

    For those federal laws which are clearly unconstitutional, and are unquestionably still being enforced, whomever has standing to sue, should file a lawsuit, and resist the continued application of laws which vast swaths of the country have long considered to have never been authorized in the first place.

     Such lawsuits must occur before the federal government's defenders begin to argue that “these laws don't need to be repealed, because they aren't being enforced anymore, and therefore they don't affect us anymore”. That is not good enough for us, and it is not good enough for our children to turn the federal government into a mousetrap that snaps their neck in two the moment their parents die.

     We must treat unenforced laws as if they could come back at any moment. Just as we should remember that registration for the Selective Service has not ended, and that therefore the military draft could come back at any time.

Part III: Additional Resources

     Please see the following articles, which I wrote, to learn more about how I believe that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution should be interpreted, and other background information which will help explain why I think many federal laws do not apply to all Americans:

- "How to Easily and Permanently Memorize the Enumerated Powers of Congress" (February 2020)
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/02/how-to-easily-and-permanently-memorize.html

- "What is Congress Allowed to Do and What is it Not Allowed to Do (Without an Amendment)?" (January 2021)
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html

- “Letter to Political Science Professor David T. Canon on Constitutional Law” (January 2021)
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/letter-to-political-science-professor.html

     Please read the U.S. Code, and articles about it and positive and non-positive law, at the following links:

- http://www.yalejreg.com/nc/when-to-refer-to-the-u-s-code-versus-the-underlying-statute/

- uscode.house.gov

- http://libguides.stonehill.edu

- http://libguides.stonehill.edu/c.php?g=16657&p=92624

- http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml

- http://uscode.house.gov/codification/term_positive_law.htm#:~:text=The%20bill%20repeals%20existing%20laws,Code%20are%20compilations%20of%20statutes.

- http://cmlawlibraryblog.classcaster.net/2017/07/05/what-is-positive-law-and-why-should-you-care/

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude

- Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp-48d_jSb4

Written on January 31st and February 1st, 2021

Edited and expanded on February 1st, 2021

Published on February 1st, 2021

Alan Dershowitz Cited Ethnicity to Defend His Opposition to Statutory Rape Laws

 

This opinion-editorial was written by Alan M. Dershowitz,

and published by the Los Angeles Times, in 1997.

     Dershowitz served as convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's attorney at least twice before Epstein's reported death in 2019. Epstein's main accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, claims that Alan Dershowitz flew on Epstein's plane "The Lolita Express" and had sex with minors.

     Dershowitz, who is married, maintains that he never took his pants off, and merely got a massage from an old Russian woman. Dershowitz maintains that he never had sex with any children, despite the fact that he has publicly gone on record as being against statutory rape laws.

     In the op-ed, Dershowitz says that he supports prohibitions on sex with very young children. After the op-ed was published, Dershowitz explained that he was making a constitutional argument, not a moral argument.

     However, that does not mean he is morally opposed to having sex with teenagers. In the article, he focuses on teenagers having sex with each other; probably to distract the reader from the fact that eliminating statutory rape laws, or lowering the legal age of consent, would result in adults having sex with teenagers.

     The one thing that Dershowitz and I agree on is that morality certainly doesn't enter into his argument. There are certainly arguments which can be made about statutory rape laws, which are both moral and constitutional. Dershowitz's argument is not one of them. It is odd for Dershowitz to claim that his argument is a constitutional one, when he doesn't even mention the Constitution a single time in the article.

     In my opinion, Dershowitz's goal, with this op-ed, is to use the "constitutional" (or legal) argument which could be made in favor of loosening or eliminating statutory rape laws, as a sort of Trojan Horse. His goal is to cloak the defense of teenagers having sex before they are old enough to consent, in a legal argument, and frame it as a constitutional argument.

     It is important to notice that the very title of the article is "Statutory Rape Is an Outdated Concept". If he were questioning the concept of statutory rape only in a legal sense but not in an ethical sense, then he would have titled the article "Statutory Rape Laws Are Flawed" or something to that effect. He is clearly questioning both the legal and ethical bases for statutory rape laws.
     Dershowitz writes that "It is obvious that there must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group." Dershowitz shows with this sentence that he is either unaware of the idea that teenagers are not old enough nor mature enough to consent to sex, or else he is simply opposed to the idea and wishes to give it no recognition in his article.

     Nothing in this op-ed suggests that Dershowitz is opposed to adults having sex with teenagers. He doesn't even mention it. It's as if he thinks he has no responsibility to, or that adults having sex with teenagers has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. It absolutely does.

     Even more shameful in all of this, is the fact that Dershowitz cited the fact that "puberty is apparently arriving earlier, particularly among certain ethnic groups". I do not know what Dershowitz is referring to, but an article published by WebMD in 2002 confirmed that African-American girls begin puberty before white girls. However, they only begin puberty an average of six months earlier. That is not even a full year, and thus is hardly a justification for lowering the age of consent.

     That article can be viewed here: http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20021009/girls-menstruating-earlier#:~:text=While%20the%20average%20age%20of,months%20earlier%20than%20white%20girls.

     Considering this small difference, consider what it could mean that Dershowitz is citing ethnicity to justify eliminating statutory rape laws. The argument that "some ethnicities, like African-Americans, 'mature' earlier", is not very different from, and aligns perfectly with the way of thinking that informs the "black girls like wild sex" stereotype. Some African-American women have been exposed to violent sex, and heard their aggressors make the excuse that they had heard that black women liked wild sex. This stereotype is fed by the old idea that Africans are "wild", which is based on the idea that they're sub-human, and basically animals, and need to be controlled. The idea that black girls "mature earlier" is thus a medical fact, but not a noteworthy one considering the probability that the fact is only cited to justify raping African-American teenagers. It also potentially implies that black people immature, an idea which could be used to justify controlling them. And rape is a form of control.

     "If there's fluff on the muff, she's old enough" is not a medical saying. Nor is it a legal saying.

     If getting your period makes you a woman, and that makes it OK to have sex, then by that logic it's OK to have sex with young girls if they experience precocious puberty. Twelve and thirteen years old are not the youngest ages at which a female has experienced menarche (first menstruation). That age is four.

     There should not be a purely biological standard regarding when losing one's virginity is appropriate. Nor should that standard be dictated by "maturity", nor ability to earn money and have a career. There are plenty of talented children, child stars, and children capable of performing labor or investing in stocks. That does not make it OK for adults, or other children or teenagers, to have sex with them. That does not make it OK to marry children. Child molesters will tell teenagers and children that they are mature all day; they do this in order to justify treating them like adults.

     Age must be the standard; not biology, nor race, nor puberty, nor maturity, nor financial independence, nor work capability. If being at a "lowered capacity to consent" makes it OK for two drunk adults to have sex, then the same logic could be used to justify a retarded old man having sex with a little girl. Or getting drunk in order to be "on the same level as" a sober teenager.

     Age must be the standard. We must maintain the purpose of statutory rape laws, which is to place the obligation to prove the younger person's age, upon the older person, if and when there is any question about whether it was legal for the people in question to have sex, given their possible ages.

     We must maintain statutory rape laws and age of consent laws, and improve upon them, to prevent the federal government from unnecessarily and unconstitutionally intervening in child trafficking laws in a manner which causes the lower federal age of consent to trump the state's higher age of consent. (Note: You can learn more about this topic by researching the case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions.)
     Laws against trafficking children out of state for sex, are useless, as long as the federal government has an age of consent of twelve, with a defense written into the law that basically instructs child molesters to argue that they reasonably thought that the victim was at least 16 years old.

     This country's child sexual abuse laws are a complete mess, and Dershowitz's arguments only help the types of attorneys and other people in the legal professions who would be in the position to read this article. Dershowitz's "op-ed" thus amounts to little more than advice to child molesters and wannabe child rapists - especially those in or connected to the legal professions - who want to use these twisted arguments, and the "black girls mature earlier" argument, to justify having sex with minors which is both illegal and wrong.

     I appreciate the fact that Alan Dershowitz defended Julian Assange on rape charges. I also appreciate that Assange's victim was represented and was able to file charges. Everyone has the right to a defense. But we should be concerned that Dershowitz is leveraging his reputation as the nation's best defender of the "duty of adequate representation" (the duty to adequately represent your client) in order to justify his continued defense of accused child rapists and Israeli spies.

     When you see a Jewish lawyer defend Israeli spy, after Israeli spy, accused of child sex trafficking after Israeli spy after rapist, and see him defend eliminating statutory rape laws in an article in the paper, maybe it's time to wonder whether he's a pedophile. The fact that Epstein's main accuser, Virginia Giuffre, alleges he's a pedophile, ought to suggest that anyone connected to Dershowitz, or anyone who's been following him since 1997, might have been watching him for advice on how to abuse children and get away with it.

     They can certainly go to the U.S. Code section on child sex crimes for similar advice.

Written and published on January 31st, 2021

Edited and Expanded on February 6th, 2021

Understanding Libertarian Pedophilia Scandals

     This pamphlet was created in March 2020. I delayed publishing it because I wanted to add Walter E. Block, and the red "pedophile" or "not a pedophile" boxes, which I have just added recently.

     I regret not publishing it sooner, but I did not do so out of a desire to keep these scandals a secret, nor a desire to leverage this information for personal benefit. I printed the almost-complete pamphlets and tried to hand them out at the 2020 Illinois Libertarian Party Convention, later on in the same month that I created them (March 2020).

     The only reason I delayed publication of this information, is because as soon as I had printed multiple copies of the pamphlet, I realized that I wanted to make changes, and I deemed it as not yet complete enough to publish on this blog.

     All references to "current" presidential candidates, refer to people who were still running for president in spring 2020. Arvin Vohra and Mark Whitney subsequently lost the nomination to Dr. Jo Jorgensen, and are not currently running for president as of the time of this publication (January 2021).

     For ease of reading, this works best as a pamphlet, so it might help to download these images, print them back-to-back, and fold the pamphlet, before you read it. Click on the following images, and open in new tabs or windows, and download the image files, in order to see them in full detail, and print in the greatest detail possible.

Outside of pamphlet (cover on the right, back on center, inside flap on left)

Inside of pamphlet

     Please read the following article to read about why I think Walter E. Block may be a pedophile. If Block got his way, and sex work were legal, and child labor laws were repealed, then legal sex work by children would be legal. Block has either failed to notice this, or desires this outcome.

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/06/critical-letter-to-dr-walter-e-block-on.html

Created in March 2020

Finished and published on January 31st, 2020

Updated on April 30th, 2021 and June 18th, 2021

Anti-Bodyshaming Movement Begets Culture of Shamelessness (On Hunter Biden)

Table of Contents

1. Anti-Bodyshaming Movement Helps All the Wrong People
2. Hunter Biden's Shamelessness
3. Joe and Hunter Biden Are Both Child Molesters
4. Hunter Biden's Defenders Don't Feel Bad for Him
5. Shamelessness Helps Sexual Predators
6. Shamelessness Helps Karens and Cancel Culture Resisters
7. Shamelessness Robs Children of Their Childhoods
8. Shamelessness Promotes Vanity and Risky Behavior
9. Shamelessness Promotes a Culture of Silence About Objectification
10. Shamelessness Promotes the Cult of Anti-Negativity
11. Conclusion
12. Author's Note on Additional Resources

Content

1. Anti-Bodyshaming Movement Helps All the Wrong People

     “Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.” ... "Give us this last man, O Zarathustra," they shouted. "Turn us into these last men!"

- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

     It has been observed by others, and correctly, that the movement against body-shaming helps all the wrong people.

     Numerous articles have been written, several by so-called “intersectional feminists”, that the movement to stop people from heaping shame upon others for their appearance – which should more appropriately be defending people who are disabled, differently abled, or disfigured, or paralyzed people (people who really need to know that their bodies are not something to be ashamed of) – has come to defend people who are slightly strange-looking, and people who are morbidly obese or are otherwise unhealthy more or less because of their own decisions.

     (One of such articles can be found here: http://studybreaks.com/culture/body-positivity/)

     But there is a new problem, and it is much worse. The movement against bodyshaming has begotten a culture of shamelessness.

     This has had, and will continue to have, vast, serious, and damning repercussions upon the basic premises of decency and privacy which previously kept our culture from drifting into sin, degradation, vanity, materialism, denial of the need to solve problems, and normalization of child sexual abuse.

2. Hunter Biden's Shamelessness

     When pictures leaked in October 2020 (and then again in January 2021) of Hunter Biden having sex with a female stripper who appears to be under the legal age of consent, opponents of Joe Biden were enraged. Some of Biden's defenders, and certain miscellaneous unconvinced people, stooped to defending the new president's son, however.

     Statutory rape laws were instituted in order to put the burden of proof on the older person involved in the sexual act, to prove that the younger person was of legal age to consent, when there is any question. In complete disregard of that fact – or, probably more likely, complete ignorance – some Twitter users who saw the leaked Hunter Biden photos, argued “You can't prove that the girl is underage.” That is not how the law works.

     The details of that particular legal argument aside, the point is that Hunter Biden is getting undue defense. It seems that the movement against body-shaming might have something to do with this as well, because some of Hunter Biden's defenders have been arguing something to the effect of “It's not fair for Trump, or anybody else, to 'target' Hunter Biden like this. He clearly has a problem and you have no right to shame him for it.”

     It may be true that we should not shame someone for having a cocaine habit, which the president's son was obviously still struggling with as recently as summer 2018 (when the photos were taken). But are we to believe that grown men in their mid- to late 40s, who have sex with teenagers, should never experience shame at having that fact exposed to the public?

     What has Hunter Biden done, that he should have some protection and defense from having to feel ashamed for what he has done? Even if you think he has contributed to our society politically and financially, is that enough to give someone immunity from shame?

3. Joe and Hunter Biden Are Both Child Molesters

     Between the second wave of Hunter Biden photo leaks in January, and Joe Biden's inauguration, Hunter's defenders were still citing the fact that his father wasn't president yet, as a reason not to worry about Hunter's behavior.

     Hunter's defenders argued additionally, “It's not like Hunter's behavior means that Joe Biden is a child molester. Hunter's actions shouldn't reflect upon his father.” They continue to say this, even though it's been six years since Joe Biden was shown live on C-SPAN, pinching the right nipple of the young niece of Senator Steve Daines of Montana. That girl was approximately eight years old.

     Biden also grazed the nipple of one of the daughters of Senator Michael Bennet, probably intentionally. Biden has also been photographed with his hand over a boy's mouth, his hand on a police officer's knee, his hands on both sides of an Asian-American girl's face, and his hand in a handshake position over a baby boy's crotch. Based on observations from videos, it's also possible that Biden has been pulling little girls back against his groin, and pushing his groin into their backs, during congressional swearing-in photo sessions.

     The idea that Hunter Biden's pedophilic behavior shouldn't reflect on his father is one thing. But the question is moot because Joe Biden has been directly filmed live on television pinching a little girl's nipple. Joe Biden is a child molester, and Hunter Biden has now been photographed with a girl who is somewhere between the ages of 12 and 18.

     It's fair to assume that she is under 18, because: 1) of all the females who appear in the leaked photos, she appears, far and away, the youngest; and 2) one of the images leaked from Hunter Biden's phone is a screenshot of a text message from a woman named Allie (probably an ex-girlfriend of Hunter's based on context clues) who told Biden that he had let a stripper take-over his life, whom she described as “A CHILD”.

Did I censor these photos in order to shame this girl?

Or did I do it in order to protect her innocence,

and to provide her with

what little bare minimum of decency and privacy

that she still needs and deserves

in this sensitive situation in which a high-profile individual's

reputation and freedom are at stake?

 

     Neither 1) the fact that this girl is a stripper, nor 2) the fact that she is wearing a thong, proves that she is of legal age to consent to sex. Legally, the burden is on Hunter Biden, to prove that she was of age, at the time when the photos were taken (summer 2018).

     Don't console yourself, or try to soften this blow, with thoughts of “If she were underage, Hunter Biden would have been put away by now.” I have been told for years that I am a dreamer and I need to get real, yet now I'm the one telling people to stop making “if” statements. Let's deal exclusively with reality. Let's deal with what we know, based on the photographic evidence, and previous reporting about Joe Biden's corruption and about Hunter's "misbehavior".

     Hunter Biden is the president's son. He's gotten away with his misbehavior for more than just the three years since those leaked photos were taken. His father has gotten away with pinching girls for six years, and staring at their chests for 40 years. Joe Biden swims in his pool naked when he has guests coming, and his security guards know it, and they help him make sexual advances against women. Hunter Biden's uncle James once owned property near Jeffrey Epstein's island. The Bidens have the Kerrys to protect their interests at Burisma, and the Podestas to protect other related and unrelated interests in Ukraine. Aside from Hunter Biden getting kicked out of the military for cocaine use, and his father probably helping him escape consequences for it.

     Do you really think this is all a big coincidence, and that Hunter Biden would be punished if he were guilty? You are making an “argument from benevolence”, which is typically used to make the case that God could not allow something bad to happen because that would make God evil. The government is corrupt; it is not infallible, and it is certainly not of God.

     Do not deny what you see in front of your own eyes. Hunter Biden probably committed statutory rape, and if he did, he probably also enticed a minor into delinquency, and possibly also cocaine use or even addiction. If the government is good, then it should arrest Hunter Biden. It's as simple as that.

4. Hunter Biden's Defenders Don't Feel Bad for Him

     These Twitter users, and other defenders of Hunter Biden's pedophilic behavior, are not genuinely sympathetic towards Hunter Biden. No normal person would react to the possibility that a man in his mid-40s may have raped a minor child, with sentiments expressing more of a focus on their sympathy for Biden than for the impressionable child who was taken advantage of.

     Rest assured that a fair quantity of Hunter Biden's defenders actually think that what he did is awesome. If you ask enough of them, eventually one of them will admit that they think having sex with underage strippers and doing cocaine is “the life” and “the American dream”.

     Well, excuse me, but I want an American dream in which children do not have to sell themselves for sex, and become coke whores and strippers, and suck old rich guys' dicks in yachts in international waters, in order to earn what they need to survive and thrive. I want an American dream in which every child is fed, and every person is given shelter, and nobody can be pressured to sell their body, or accept unwanted flirting, in order to live comfortably.

5. Shamelessness Helps Sexual Predators

     The culture against body-shaming has thus morphed into a culture which is against all forms of shame in general. And there is nobody who is less deserving of protection from shame than Hunter Biden. For one, he is obviously attractive and fit, and probably has not experienced much body-shame.

     Except for some perhaps undue attention to his five-o'-clock shadow in the leaked photos, which make him look almost completely different from his over-made-up, kabuki-like mannequin look that he sported when stumping for his father in campaign videos. It's too bad the make-up people did such a good job! Biden's defenders have even said “That's not Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden looks like the over-made-up mannequin we saw in the Joe Biden campaign videos.” It's Hunter alright.

     But, getting back to the point, Biden needs no protection from shame. What makes you think that Biden is even ashamed of what he has done? Or that his supporters are ashamed of what he has done, instead of thinking that he's pushing boundaries and being a rock star?

     Shameless people do not need any protection from shame. They already have denial, and their own narcissistic egos and insane defense mechanisms, to protect them from ever having to feel the shame for what they have done. Narcissists, and psychopaths / sociopaths, do not experience remorse in the same way that other people do. They are incapable of accepting that they caused someone hurt or harm. They have every tool they need to rationalize-away what they did, and minimize its damage, and make others feel ashamed about completely unrelated things that they might have done, in order to avoid feeling shame, and in order to delay and deny the delivery of the consequences.

     Anti-shaming culture protects the guilty, who are covert and use their lack of shame and remorse to convince themselves that they're not guilty, and convince others of the same. They have convinced themselves that what they did wasn't wrong. They do not believe they have done anything wrong; that is why their attempts at deflection and minimization can seem so convincing. But the fact that they work hard to convince us that what they did wasn't wrong, or didn't happen, or isn't as bad as some would make it seem, does not mean that we have to tolerate immoral people who lack a conscience and fail to understand the harm they've done. 

     Child sexual predators do not need to be defended from having to experience shame as part of the consequences of their crimes. And whether they are defended from shame or not, they certainly do not need to be defended from prosecution and jail time.

     Powerful and rich people who abuse children typically get off with a slap on the wrist. Hunter Biden has not been arrested yet. This means there is absolutely no reason to withhold criticism of him, based on these photos. He should be criticized, and loudly, so that – and until - the authorities do something about his possible crimes. These photos were apparently taken in Los Angeles, so the Los Angeles police or the county police should charge Biden with criminal sexual abuse of a child.

     If he isn't arrested, then we should still be glad that we brought this issue to the public's attention, because being publicly shamed will then be the worst consequence he experiences as a result of what he did. Especially considering the fact that Biden might claim that the evidence is inadmissible since the photos were stolen. But if the person whom Biden gave his hard drive to, to repair, turned these photos over to authorities, and that is how we got them, then that argument would be wrong. It's not clear yet (at least to me) whether that evidence will be admissible or inadmissible if Hunter Biden is charged with statutory rape.

     A simple answer of "I'm not guilty, I don't know what you're talking about" is not enough. Non-Disclosure Agreements (N.D.A.s) are not enough. As Richard Nixon said "The people have a right to know whether or not their president's a crook", we have a right to know whether our president and his son are child molesters. If we continue to deprive people of trials - whether they're terror suspects or child sexual abuse and assault survivors - then we have a failed state on our hands. Charges must be filed against Hunter Biden, which obligate him to prove that his stripper girlfriend was of age.

6. Shamelessness Helps Karens and Cancel Culture Resisters

     We should wonder whether anti-bodyshaming culture has combined with the Karen culture, and with the culture that wants to protect racists, and rapists, and fascists from experiencing consequences for their actions (even non-violent, legal consequences, to which they react like vampires having the curtains pulled open on them in the middle of the day).

     Apparently, some white right-wing conservatives and Republicans, and some neo-liberal middle-class suburban white women, believe that they have the right to be blatantly homophobic and racist in public, to the point where it interferes with people's ability to avoid feeling shame at the fact that they are black, or transgender, etc..

     They believe that nobody has a right to resist them, and that if you call the police on them for cutting black people off in traffic, and screaming at them and calling them the N-word, then you are shaming them. Additionally, you are putting their life in danger because they might get fired when their employer finds out they're a toxic racist who likes to terrorize certain groups of people because they're different.

     This may seem unrelated to Hunter Biden, but virtually the same thing is going on here. Someone white, who is in a position of wealth or power, is committing a crime against a person of a lesser status. Hunter Biden raped a minor, and old white women get away with being racist against black people by screaming in fear and pretending they're being attacked. And then calling the cops on the person they're attacking, for attacking them.

     In the same manner, when Donald Trump criticized Hunter Biden in the first presidential debate of 2020, Democrats rushed to defend Hunter Biden, many of them having no clue about what the worst things were, that he was suspected of doing. (Note: I will remind you that the photos of Hunter Biden originally leaked no later than October 2020, when the debates were occurring.) So an accusation of sexual impropriety - even of raping a child - is now treated as an attack in this country, because it puts the person at risk.

     This is what happens in a culture in which there is a taboo against “making people feel shame”. People take it as free rein to be racist, sexist homophobes who rape children. And then the seriousness of what they did is diminished by the legal system that doesn't take it seriously, and sentences the child rapist to a few classes, or reading some pamphlets about how to avoid being so "stupid" and "careless" that you "accidentally" rape children all the time. You made a mistake! Read a book. No therapy necessary.

     People accused of sex crimes and hate crimes may tell us, “You can't do this to me.” Well, that was probably what your victim was saying while you were victimizing him or her! “My reputation is at stake.” Your pleas do not exist in a vacuum. Something brought this on. You should have thought about your reputation, and your money and your job, before you decided to rape a child, or cut off a black person in traffic and scream racial epithets at them.

     For each “Karen”, there are many other victims aside from the one black guy that one Karen was caught cutting off. And one reason they're called Karens is because many people behave this way. And like the “Karen” who gets caught one time cutting off a black guy in traffic, Hunter Biden likely has other underage victims, and there are certainly other people like Hunter Biden in politics (and likely in the energy industry as well).

     A single photo of a probably underage girl next to Hunter Biden, both nearly undressed, may not be enough to prove that Hunter Biden raped a minor. But combined with what else we know about the Biden family, and the way our government typically deals with wealthy people accused of child molestation and rape, should indicate that something bigger is going on here. Don't forget that Hunter Biden's now deceased brother Beau praised a Delaware prosecutor who let DuPont heir Robert H. Richards IV off with a light charge for his sex crimes against his very young son and daughter.

     It's likely that Hunter Biden is involved with sex trafficking in Ukraine, very likely involving minors, or at least, very young women. It's likely that Hunter Biden is not just “having sex with, and partying with, strippers who happen to be underage”. Maybe he used his position of superior wealth and power to coerce some poor family into giving up a daughter, like Jeffrey Epstein did with the help of Jean-Luc Brunel.

     But even if Biden didn't seek out a girl in as direct a manner as that, it's likely that he used his position to enrich himself at the expense of the people of Ukraine, which indirectly resulted in political turmoil and poverty, which would have made Ukrainians more financially desperate, and thus more likely to consider resorting to “uncouth” measures in order to make ends meet.

     We don't know what happened. There needs to be a trial. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let some      general “anti-shame-ism” culture, treat Hunter Biden like an underage baby who didn't know what he was doing, and wants to stop the big mean man from putting the “shame-cuffs” on him. I just hope that "cannibal-shaming" Armie Hammer isn't next!

     This man was 47 years old, having sex with a girl who was probably no older than 17. The age of consent in California is 18. Hunter Biden needs to be criminally charged.

7. Shamelessness Robs Children of Their Childhoods

     There are several unspoken rules in American society. One is “Do not discuss religion or politics”. Following this rule has led to silence on the issue of corruption in government and the Church. Another rule is “Don't take from another man's plate”, or “Don't interfere with the way someone else makes his money.”

     But should that really extend to child traffickers? People like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, whom for years, worked in close proximity with people sharing Biden's wealthy, elite profile?

     This generalized culture against shame, defends teenage girls who want to become prostitutes the best of all. After all, if you body-shame a child, you must be some kind of sick, pedophilic monster! Why else would you be interested in a child's welfare, unless you wanted to have sex with them!? After all, there is no reason to pay attention to children other than for sexual purposes, and that's how every normal adult thinks. Right?

     Because it's totally normal for every adult - as a part of being an adult - to be obsessed with their appearance, and body, and sexuality, to the point where it's a focal point of their identity, and even the basis of their political opinions. Young people today act as if having gay sex automatically makes them woke, or a socialist, or a minority who is entitled to more rights than others, because they've been oppressed. Like a high school boy can suck a dick, and all of a sudden he's Harvey Milk or Marsha P. Johnson. Sucking a cock doesn't make you a communist; it makes you a cocksucker. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The point being: sexual liberation is not, by itself, a complete or cohesive political ideology.

     Gender identity has become the most important identity among the younger generation. Numerous articles have been written, which criticize the sexually-obsessive undertones of "gender reveal parties" (which have caused several wildfires). Kids today grew up with their parents hyper-focusing on their children's bodies - dressing them in tight clothes, and adult clothes, making them look like little grown-ups - and many of them have shared embarrassing or revealing photos or videos of their children on social media before they are old enough to be able to consent to it. The worst parents think of their children in terms of what their kids can do for them some day, and think about their kids' potential to start working early, and eventually be used and sold for their parents' profit.

     If kids grow up to think there's nothing wrong with talking about their sexuality constantly, then they will have no cause to suspect it's creepy when an adult fixates on their sexuality. So shut the fuck up about your stupid fucking pussy!

     Being obsessed with one's appearance, and constantly talking about other people's appearances, has become so normal for adults, that now, we're also going to make children feel ashamed if they don't succumb to other kids' pressure to wear revealing clothing, wear lots of makeup, dancing provocatively, and having sex prematurely. Any child who minds being stared at, must be hiding something! It's a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset, but the aim is to prove guilt rather than innocence.

     The anti-bodyshaming culture happens to work well with, and is easily cloaked by, the culture of bullying virgins and virgin-shaming in schools. According to this widely accepted culture, which is rarely regarded as the bullying which it is, any child who doesn't want to have sex early, isn't cool! And, so the twisted "logic" continues. Roughhousing, fun and games, risky behavior, pressuring other kids during "Truth or Dare" games... this is just part of being a child nowadays! 

     If you don't want children to be in danger of being objectified and  exploited by adults - and only pushed into certain professions like dancing and contortion because adults are looking for excuses to touch and ogle their bodies - then you are shaming kids "for being kids".

     Any child who doesn't want to get a titty-twister, and get pushed into the pool, deserves it, because they're intruding on other kids' good time! So some children's right to have fun, apparently pre-empts and negates other children's rights to safety and innocence and decency, and their right to say no.

     Being embarrassed or ashamed is the worst thing you can possibly do, among young people these days. It is practically a sin to feel shy, humiliated, or afraid, all of which are "negative" emotions. The phrase "U mad bro?" is often used on the internet to poke fun at, or shame, someone who is angry or frustrated. All of this creates a culture in which children and young people are afraid to voice objections, complain, or alert others when they feel uncomfortable. We are creating a culture in which kids are not free to say no.

     We are treating children as if they have a right to be protected from knowing how much danger they are in. Forgive me for "danger-shaming" children, but I believe that children should look and act like children. They should not have to suffer so much hyper-focusing on their appearance, and celebration of and attention to their sexuality, because that robs them of their childhood. Warning children that people are trying to shame them about their looks, while disguising it as being against body-shaming, doesn't rob kids of their childhoods.

     Telling a child to wear more make-up, or telling a transgender person that they need to pass - and saying that doing so will make them feel better about themselves - is body-shaming. You are telling them that they are not currently acceptable, the way they look. That is body-shaming, disguised as body positivity. Some of these people who are against body-shaming are thus secretly in support of it.

     Additionally, telling a minor what clothes or make-up to wear, is grooming. It's only pedophile grooming when it involves unwanted touching. But adults who want to see children in tight clothes - like Abby Lee Miller, and parents of girls who take dance classes, and child molesting gymnastics coach Larry Nassar - will often obsess over what girls are wearing, in order to control what they are wearing. Larry Nassar prohibited his female students from wearing anything under their leotards. He may have had rational-sounding explanations for this rule - probably that underwear would restrict flexibility - and he probably got away with that excuse for a while because "he's the expert", and you wouldn't want to question him! How do we know he didn't make that rule so he could ogle the girls' genitals more clearly? How do we know he didn't pursue control over what they did with their leotards, so that he could steal them, or sniff them, or wear them?

     There is no reason not to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior which could be pedophile grooming. By the time you would notice behavior like that, it is usually too late, and something has already happened to your child. Always relentlessly question any adult's attempt to make your child submit to touching, or control over their clothing, even if that person claims to be an expert on something. The risk to your children is too great, to worry about whether you are shaming your child for "being excessively free with their body", when what they are actually doing is submitting their body to the control of adult authorities whom you barely know. You can shut the fuck up with your nonsensical grasping at straws, and rationalizing, and trying to find something wrong with what a man is telling you about how children should be protected. Men have as much of a right to try to protect children as women do, and we don't have time to debate all the "what-ifs" that a rationalizing woman might come up with, to justify her own child's "freedom of sexual expression" (outside of her own bedroom) while also justifying her own promiscuity as a teenager. Just because you were a slut in high school, doesn't mean your kid has to be on Dance Moms, and then come out as gay and have a million grown-ass adults talking non-stop on Twitter about what effectively amounts to the fact that your daughter wants to eat pussy. I'm talking about Jojo Siwa. And I have nothing against her, nor do i wish to make an issue of her sexuality, nor do I wish to dwell on "How are parents going to explain Jojo being gay, to their children?". Jojo Siwa did nothing wrong. Her dumbass mother chose to put her on a show for pedophiles. The girl is innocent; she's a minor and can't be held legally responsible for becoming an Illuminati mind-controlled sex slave. The producers of that shitty show for pedophiles and child molesters are the ones who did that to her and her family. They are the reason Jojo Siwa had to live apart from her father and brother for several years. The need to be rich and famous broke her family up temporarily. She is not alone in this.

    I have no doubt that countless fathers have left their wives after discovering that they intend to glam-up their daughters, and enroll them in an endless parade of pageants, and let them date older teenage boys while they're still 13, and drink alcohol and get tattoos. Half of these mothers are probably doing it in order to get close to their daughters' boyfriends. These mothers are sick, and the fact that they are women does not shield them from shame, nor does it prevent them from being wrong, nor does it make them liberal.

     They are still conservatives - fascists - because they support the sexual oppression and exploitation of young girls by adults and by older teenage boys. As Wilhelm Reich explained, the sexual objectification of the child begins at home, and fascistic parenting predisposes children to sexual abuse. This is because of the shame and secrecy involved in sexual repression.

     Sexual repression is damaging to children, but it is also damaging to encourage a child to be too public about their sexuality. It makes a child feel ashamed to dress conservatively (or even just non-provocatively), and ashamed to refrain from having sex at an early age. A child who is peer-pressured into having first sex early, is raped, because pressured sex is coerced sex, and coerced sex is rape.

     In my opinion, the remote possibility that children are being mass-bullied into losing their virginity, is much more dangerous than the absolute certainty that many moderately pretty girls in middle school don't yet view themselves as sex symbols, or as worthy of their own TikTok dancing channels.

8. Shamelessness Promotes Vanity and Risky Behavior

     Some American women have become so obsessed with their appearance, that they derive their entire sense of self-worth from how they look. Not just to the point where covering themselves with make-up makes them feel unashamed enough to go out the door, but also to the point where the fact that they look good covers for the fact that they are shitty, toxic, amoral human beings who value nothing except artifice and materiality and appearance.

     Billy Crystal's impersonation of Fernando Llamas described the 1980s version of this attitude perfectly: "It is better to look good, than to feel good." Now the sentiment is "It is more important to look good, than to be a good person." This sentiment is what allowed Shane Dawson to grasp onto his fifteen minutes of fame, long after everybody knew he was a pedophile, by beginning to film and post videos of himself applying layer after layer of multicolored make-up to his face. Dawson evidently thought, "As long as you look like a pretty transsexual clown with a big fake smile, you can talk about looking up pictures of naked babies all day long." Maybe if he had started applying make-up a day earlier, young people wouldn't have cancelled him.

     The culture against shame thus protects both sexual predators and their victims, whether they're good looking or not, and whether they're bad people or not. This, and the culture against victim-blaming, combine, to tell us that there is nothing a victim can ever do to put themselves in a dangerous situation! Pointing out that a girl shouldn't become a prostitute, is now victim-blaming and victim-shaming, because you're unfairly assuming that the sex trade is dangerous.

     I recently discovered that Jamie Peck, co-host of the Majority Report with Sam Seder, was sexually victimized by photographer Terry Richardson. We should support Peck because of what happened to her. But having read Peck's subsequent comments on the incident, it seems that she still holds the attitude that "not every photographer is like that". In 2010, Peck wrote, "This man has built his business/pleasure empire on breaking the cardinal rule of asking a young girl you don't know to come over to your house and hang out naked: don't be a fucking creep."

     http://fashionista.com/2010/03/but-will-there-be-consequences-for-terry-richardson

     And it is certainly true that you shouldn't be a creep. If you invite a young girl you don't know to come over to your house and hang out naked. Excuse me, but did I miss something? Miss Peck evidently believes that there is nothing intrinsically creepy about asking a young girl you don't know to come over to your house and hang out naked. 

     I am a man, and I will say it now, loud and clear: Every man is a potential sexual predator. Everybody "might be" a sexual predator. Anybody might sexually harass a woman. Anything bad, might happen, at any time. Trust no one. Especially not photographers, and especially not guys who invite you over to their house and want to "hang out naked" and don't know you. Am I the first person to say this to you? Don't shoot the messenger! Women should not have to worry about rape, but men should not have to be worried that women will criticize them for "stereotyping" all guys who want to take naked pictures of barely legal women, as potential sexual predators.

     The following excerpt from an article by Camille Paglia, published by Time Magazine in September 2014, says it perfectly: "Misled by the naive optimism and [']You go, girl!['] boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature."

     http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

     Rape victims are never at fault. However, the culture of female empowerment has become stubbornly headstrong, in the face of criticism. Some of that criticism of feminism is deserved, and some of it is not. That debate aside, some feminists treat adult women as so competent, and so empowered, that it's almost as if they could never lose control, and get raped.
     That line of logic is actually a form of victim-blaming in its own way, because it causes men to worry that it would seem sexist to suggest that a woman could ever get raped. If you are drunk or on drugs, or a very young adult or a virgin, you could probably benefit from a few words of caution about sexual predators now and then! Just because Camille Paglia and her cohorts were right to fight against the universities' overly protective attitude towards young adult women, doesn't mean that everybody who is not a woman, is being overly protective towards young women.
     I know a guy whose girlfriend left him for a guy that we had previously nicknamed "Stabby Jack". We called him that because he stabbed people. We had long since stopped hanging out with him after he tried to stab a friend of ours for throwing a donut at him. My friend tried to warn his girlfriend about Jack, and she refused to listen. I don't know if anything bad happened, but the point is that we have the right to tell people things they may not want to hear.

     The fact that I'm observing that lots of men are rapists, or potential rapists - and saying that you should protect yourself - doesn't mean I'm victim-blaming! The fact that men are pigs does not relieve you of the duty to protect and defend yourself when and if no man will. Yet it is almost impossible to caution a woman or girl about danger, and to try to anticipate possible dangers, without being accused of blaming the victim.

     As if a single woman not being disgusted by the sight of Harvey Weinstein naked in the shower, means that nobody has the right to assume that Weinstein suddenly appearing naked before them, could possibly be interpreted as an awkward sexual advance. There's nothing awkward about it, because there is no shame! We are in Heaven, where God has relieved us of our shame, as if we were in the Garden of Eden! Harvey is free to show all the angels, and creatures of the Earth, the filthy naked disgusting body he was born in, and nobody gets to "shame" him by telling him to keep his penis to himself! It's God's penis now! It's everybody's! We're all in a holy marriage with God and Harvey Weinstein's penis!

     Fuck off!

     But no, you're shaming the teenage girl on the basis of her profession - nude model, or whore, or child erotic dancer (or "rhythmic gymnast", as they're called now) - which she clearly chose of her own volition! Having so many additional skills and opportunities to consider, at the age of eighteen! Right? And the girls on Dance Moms and Toddlers and Tiaras, I'm sure they gave fully informed consent to be involved in a show like that, since children are deemed as capable of consent for commercial purposes nowadays, as long as their parents "consent on their behalf".

     The girls on these shows have no idea what kind of damage it will cause them, to have appeared in these shows, until they reach an age at which they are capable of consenting, and of fully understanding the consequences of allowing adults to dress them up and film them dancing in a cage, or on a stripper pole, et cetera. They will not understand what harm it did to them, and understand what it means to grow up famous in front of a large audience (including possibly having information about their sexuality or sexual history revealed in a very public manner).

     But - we are told - discrimination on the basis of profession is wrong! Everybody knows that sex work is not something to be ashamed of; it is no less shameful than any other job! So just because it is no less shameful than other jobs, it must be something dignified, right? The fact that a prostitute doesn't want to work on an oil rig, must mean that prostitution is all fun and games, and that oil is good for seals and penguins and polar bears because the oil workers don't want to suck any cock. But does that make sense? Is there pride in sucking cock for money, just because you can use "whataboutism", think of a profession that seems worse, and point to it?

     By that measure, Hunter Biden didn't have sex with a ten-year-old, so it's almost like he didn't do anything wrong. By that measure, only the single worst person alive should ever be in prison, and all the other criminals should go free because what they did wasn't as bad.

9. Shamelessness Promotes  a Culture of Silence About Objectification

     You and I have every right to warn teenage girls against “getting a sugar-daddy” (a/k/a becoming a child prostitute), and Democrats have no right to shame me for wanting to protect children. How about that? How about "Don't innocence-shame me", or "Don't prude-shame me"?

     We have the right to caution impressionable children against getting too many piercings and tattoos, and having sex, at too young an age. We have the right to caution children against the evils of imbibing the deadly neurotoxin alcohol if their parents are irresponsible alcoholic asses. We may risk being labeled "body-shamers" for cautioning children that dancing on TikTok and Instagram, or appearing on Abby Lee Miller's Dance Moms, is likely to lead to their exploitation and objectification, but we retain the right to bring this to their attention nonetheless.

     Most girls in this position are being exploited by their parents, so who are we to say that we have no individual responsibility to stop such an active case of child abuse? Did John Brown reckon that he had no responsibility to set slaves free, since the slave-masters weren't personally bothering him too much? No. This affects all of us.

     If we all have the right to be protected from shame, then where is my protection from the shame I feel when the defenders of child predators try to make me feel powerless to protect children?

     Teaching people not to be ashamed of their bodies, has nothing to do with our right to caution teenagers that sex work is dangerous. It is not "conservative", nor "conformist", nor "uncool" to be worried that an 18-year-old (or younger) who "enters the sex trade" (i.e., allows themselves to be captured as a sex slave, if they're still a minor) will come to harm.

     Ron Paul once said that "Freedom is the right to tell people things they don't want to hear." We have the right to tell people that prostitution, and "having a sugar daddy" is dangerous. And spending the prime of your youth having sex with old people for money, isn't exactly something to be proud of. It's not so shameful that you should kill yourself, but it's shameful enough that you should ask yourself whether you were taken advantage of.

     Is that really so crazy to suggest?

10. Shamelessness Promotes the Cult of Anti-Negativity

     The culture against bodyshaming can also be characterized as a pro- "body positivity" movement. The phrase "body positivity" exists because everything in our society has to be positive. Just as we have a problem with shame in our society, because it's “negative”.

     “Being negative” is apparently the worst thing you can do, in a society that's evidently still drunk on the feel-good, pro-human, positive vibes that they discovered in the 1990s. If you complain, you're being negative, and you should relax and be positive.

     If you criticize your government, you're being negative. Don't worry about it. If you report a crime, or abuse against yourself, you're being negative. Forget about it, it's not a big deal, nothing will probably ever be done about it anyway. If you're so sad or depressed from the government not doing anything about the molestation or rape that you endured that you want to kill yourself, you're being negative. Cheer up! It's your responsibility to be happy all the time.

     Even if you're sad, distract yourself with happy thoughts, and "put on a happy face" for others. Or else you're "being a bummer" and "you need to bring something to the table if you want others to treat you with respect".

     This is the attitude of a society that would have no problem if the authorities started taking unproductive and unhappy people behind a shed and shooting them. We are already being divided into "essential" and "non-essential" workers, and strikes are done by government permission. We're not far from that fascist vision of the future.

     We are not supposed to fake happiness for our friends and family members the same way we are paid to pretend to be happy at work. And even that can result in depression, and possibly even a "split personality disorder" such as dissociative identity disorder. Employees at Tokyo Disneyland experienced this first-hand.

     Our society is so vehemently against all things negative, that even liking things and having preferences have been attacked. A British school once reprimanded a girl for having a best friend. The rationale goes like this: having a favorite, or a best friend, implies that all the other choices are "bad", and that's negative, and therefore not allowed. It's also hierarchical and discriminatory, in the minds of neo-liberal schoolteachers who are trying to get credit as being "woke".

11. Conclusion

     We must not let this cult of positivity and shamelessness blind us to the need to improve society, and to file charges and arrest people suspected of crimes so we can have trials for them and find out whether they're actually guilty.

     Maybe we need a little shame every now and then. This society clearly needs at least a small dose of it. Hunter Biden, the Karens, and the fascists in the Republican Party clearly need it.

12. Author's Note on Additional Resources

     I have previously written on the topics of Hunter Biden's sex crimes, and the objectification of children. Those articles are available here:
      http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-your-children-are-sexualized-and.html
      http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/joe-bidens-son-hunter-does-drugs-next.html

     

Original meme by the author

Written and published on January 29th, 2021

Edited and Expanded on January 30th and 31st,
February 3rd and 6th, and May 8th, 2021

Meme added on June 23rd, 2021