Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Equal means color blind -- Not

No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does that sound familiar? It should. That’s what the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says – verbatim. All persons in every state in the United States are considered equal under the law. The laws must therefore protect all persons equally. White, black, yellow or red doesn’t matter under the plain meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Equal means color blind.

One would think that every Justice sitting on the United States Supreme Court would know that. It should be a no brainer for them. No law may apply differently to persons based upon the color of their skin – their race; period. That is the clear and obvious intent of the Fourteenth Amendment which was ratified after the Civil War in order to guarantee equality to all persons regardless of race.

So every SCOTUS justice should, by the mandate of his or her sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, vote to strike down any state law which does not protect all persons in the jurisdiction equally, right?

Wrong, say Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Anthony Kennedy, in a 4 to 3 decision upholding a Texas affirmative action policy which blatantly takes the race of student applicants for admission to the University of Texas into account, and thereby denies equal protection of the law to whites.

When it comes to college admissions all persons are not necessarily equal they ruled. Equal is not color blind. Blacks are entitled to racial preferences and that’s OK under the Fourteenth Amendment. In order to achieve a diverse student body at colleges and universities, Texas' unique method of singling out some minority students for admission to its flagship campus in Austin is constitutional.

Never-mind that some white students, like the girl who brought this case, who was indeed better qualified for admission than the blacks who were admitted, will be denied equal protection of the law. You see majorities on the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes just make up the rules as they please in spite of what the Constitution says.  

"Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission," Justice Kennedy opined. "But still, it remains an enduring challenge to our nation's education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity."

But… but… the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the pursuit of diversity of student bodies at universities… nothing! It plainly says that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the law… that’s what it says. Tough luck says Kennedy; universities may consider a person’s race in the admissions process and that doesn’t violate equal protection.

Oh, Nino (Scalia)… where were you when justice needed you – when a majority on the SCOTUS decided that equal means unequal; equal is not color blind. 

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Dump Trump Hallucinations

I’m disappointed but fascinated all the same to watch the insane lengths to which some hallucinating Republican morons will go to get Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States simply because they don’t like Donald Trump. Politics is indeed a blood sport and many participants are willing to dishonestly abase and embarrass themselves in public if that will satisfy their impossible fantasies.

Now there are reportedly hundreds of delegates to the Republican convention who openly seek to disavow their solemn legal obligation to vote for Trump on the first ballot. In short, they think they can get away with nullifying the voting results in the many state primary contests that Trump won. They want to stiff the voters in their own party who are relying on them to honestly perform their legal duties.

Trump won Virginia's primary in March. Carroll B. Correll, a Virginia delegate to the convention has actually filed a class-action lawsuit challenging his state law that commits him to backing the presumptive nominee. This moron served as a campaign co-chairman for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. He’s still sore because his candidate lost so he’s trying to weasel out on his commitment to his own Party.

How this guy found an attorney to bring on this laughingly frivolous case is beyond me, but he apparently found a disreputable one. They’re out there. His complaint states that: “Correll believes that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as President of the United States and that voting for Donald Trump would therefore violate Correll’s conscience. Accordingly, Correll will not vote for Donald Trump on the first ballot, or any other ballot, at the national convention.”

Now if Correll  came to me and said that, I’d tell him that he has a simple remedy. Just resign his commission as a delegate, don’t go to the convention, and don’t vote for Trump or anyone else. Let someone who has a modicum of human integrity take his place. It’s that simple. But he’s not interested in integrity; he wants to be a weasel and vote for Cruz even though Cruz has lost and he’s obligated by Virginia law to vote for Trump.

That law provides in pertinent part: delegates are bound to vote on the first ballot for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary “unless that candidate releases those delegates and alternates from such vote.” Correll claims this violates his First Amendment rights. So he’s seeking an injunction to exempt him from criminal penalties under Virginia law or possible retaliatory litigation by Trump for backing another candidate on the first ballot. 

He knew what the law was when he sought to become a delegate. He knew exactly what his obligations would be. He enjoys no First Amendment right to be a delegate. You weren’t, for example, selected as a delegate. Does that violate your First Amendment rights? Hell no!

Correll’s claim is baseless, groundless; ridiculous on its face. It’s frivolous. His lawsuit should be summarily dismissed. He should be financially sanctioned. His attorney should be disciplined by the bar and have his license to practice law revoked.

There should be consequences for bringing frivolous lawsuits and engaging in dump Trump hallucinations.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Statist goons claim Moon

Do statist goons own the moon? They think so. They own planet Earth, don’t they; so why not the Moon? And while they’re at it the statists might just as well claim ownership also of the Sun, our solar system, the stars, and galaxies – even the entire universe. Why not? They claim to own everything, including you and me.  They constantly demand that we ask for their permission to go anywhere and do just about anything. 

Today the U.S. government claims it has the constitutional and legal authority to demand that a private company first obtain its permission before going to the Moon. The statists even now are formulating temporary rules to allow a private company permission to land a spacecraft on the moon next year, while Congress weighs a more permanent legal framework to govern future commercial missions to the moon, Mars and other destinations beyond Earth’s orbit.

The nerve of these statist bastards is astounding. They actually claim ownership of the Moon and beyond. Apparently there is nothing in the entire cosmos that can escape their greedy grasp.  Right now, plans by private companies to land spacecraft on the moon or launch them out of Earth’s orbit face legal obstacles because the United States has not put in place regulations to govern space activities, government officials say.

“We do not have formal authority today to deal with what happens on orbit or on other planetary terrestrial bodies. That’s the issue that we’re wrestling with,” said George Nield, head of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. “What is being looked at right now is a Band-Aid fix because the system is broken,” he told the American Bar Association last week.

An international treaty took effect in 1967 which ostensibly provides the authority to the U.S. and other signatories to authorize and supervise space activities by non-government entities. Now Moon Express, a private Florida-based Company, has requested permission from the U.S. government to land a spacecraft on the moon in 2017. “No commercial company has ever asked to go outside of Earth orbit and go elsewhere before. We’re a pathfinder out of necessity,” Moon Express Chief Executive Bob Richards explains.

“We don’t want to create the environment where there’s a competitive advantage for payloads to go overseas,” said space attorney Michael Gold, who chairs the FAA’s commercial space advisory panel. 

You see, if there’s a payload involved the statists want their cut. Heaven forbid that an American private entity might someday want to evade the U.S. statist goon’s claim to the Moon. 

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Speech police arrest First Amendment

The First Amendment mandates under no uncertain terms that government may not abridge the freedom of speech. Of course it means that every person has the absolute right to express unpopular, offensive and downright disgusting opinions, and government may not punish anyone for exercising that right. 

After all, that was the purpose of the First Amendment. That’s the way it’s supposed to be in the United States of America but lately there has come in to existence an army of government speech police who think they have the authority to arrest the First Amendment. They punish people for engaging in free expression when they decide that they don’t like such expression.

Yes, these speech police don’t have constitutional authority to arrest the First Amendment. They can’t do it. It’s unconstitutional. But today they’re not only doing it, they’re getting away with it. They actually believe that they have the authority to adopt and enforce speech codes. It’s as if the First Amendment is null and void today.

The Florida State Attorney’s Office recently punished an assistant state attorney, suspended him from his job, for violating the office’s social media policy. Apparently, state employees in Florida do not enjoy First Amendment rights in their personal Facebook accounts. The speech police have adopted a social media policy arresting freedom of speech.

Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis, an employee in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Florida State Attorney’s Office, was disciplined for posting a Facebook message in his personal account expressing what the speech police deemed “scathing“ opinions about the recent terrorist massacre in Orlando that left 49 dead and dozens wounded.

"Downtown Orlando has no bottom,” Lewis posted. “The entire city should be leveled. It is void of a single redeeming quality. It is a melting pot of 3rd world miscreants and ghetto thugs. It is void of culture. If you live down there you do it at your own risk and at your own peril… If you go down there after dark there is seriously something wrong with you. Disney does everything in its power to shield visitors of Disney from its northern blight. That doesn't change reality. Disney may be the happiest place on earth but Orlando is a national embarrassment. If this is an act of domestic terrorist it is so important that we don't publish the religion, name, or motive of the terrorist as not to offend anyone."

This rather benign series of comments is apparently what violated the State Attorney’s Office social media policy according to speech police officials. Lewis has been severely disciplined and is now subject to termination. He had been disciplined previously for making a “crack hoes” comment on Facebook in 2014.

In short his constitutional First Amendment rights to freedom of speech have been arrested and abridged. And it appears that the speech police in Florida are probably going to get away with it.

A judge in Daytona Beach Florida has already upheld a decision by the speech police there to fire a central Florida beach police officer who posted what were deemed “racist comments” on his private Facebook account about the killing of Trayvon Martin.  Officer Todd Snipes was fired for posting messages allegedly “celebrating the shooting,” calling the deceased a “thug,” using a racial slur, and stating that people should know to pull their pants up and be respectful.

Were the comments he posted unpopular, offensive, and perhaps downright disgusting to some? Probably, yes. But in the United States of America a person has a constitutional right to hold and express such opinions. That's the purpose of the First Amendment.

The speech police have no lawful authority to arrest the First Amendment. 

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Religious savages

An innocent 22-year old Dutch girl made the unfortunate decision to go to the Islamic nation of Qatar with a friend on vacation as a tourist. They went for drinks at their hotel bar in the Qatari capitol of Doha. While there, someone drugged her drink. When she woke up later dazed and alone her clothes were torn and she had been raped.

She then did what any innocent victim of rape should do anywhere in the world. She went to the police to report the rape. Big mistake; and her nightmare in Qatar only became far worse. The police detained her for nearly three months. The Islamic savages charged her with adultery for having sex out of wedlock.

That’s right. In the Islamic state of Qatar a woman who is drugged unconscious and forcibly raped is considered a criminal; being raped is a crime in Qatar. This unfortunate girl was actually convicted by Islamic savages for the crime of being raped. Any sexual activity out of wedlock is illegal in Qatar.

This was not an isolated incident among the many Islamic countries in the Middle East. An Australian woman reported that she was gang raped in 2008 at a hotel in the United Arab Emirates. The Islamic savages there put her in prison for eight months. A Norwegian woman received a 16-month prison sentence for being raped in the Islamic state of Dubai. The religious savages eventually pardoned her for the crime of having sex outside of marriage and let her go home to her native country.

In Saudi Arabia as well as in most other Islamic states the punishment for being born gay is death. The savages have been known to throw gays off tall buildings to their deaths. The punishment for changing one’s religion from Islam is death. Women are not allowed to drive a car or even leave their homes without a male relative for escort.

Married woman are forced by law to obey their husbands who can beat them silly any time they please.  A starving child can have her hands chopped off for stealing a loaf of bread. The list of legally sanctioned atrocities that can be visited upon innocent human beings under sharia goes on and on with these savages.

As for myself, I have personally vowed to never set foot inside any nation on Earth which is governed by Islamic law. I recently had to fly over some of those places while on a flight from Bangkok, Thailand, to Amsterdam, Netherlands, and the thought of having to make a forced landing in a country like Qatar made me consciously queasy. I simply want nothing to do with any of those Hell holes. The Qatari capitol of Doha will be hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup. I won’t be there and I think that any foreigner – especially innocent young girls -- is taking unnecessary risks to life and limb by attending.

I wouldn’t mind if the USA withdrew all diplomatic relations with every Islamic nation. We shouldn’t maintain embassies in those places. I remember vividly when the American embassy in Tehran Iran was invaded by Islamic savages who held American diplomats and staff as hostages for 444 days.  The Iranian authorities sanctioned those savages. One of them later became the president of Iran.

I don’t mean to suggest that all Muslims are savages. Most of them are innocent people who mean no harm, but the ones who govern the Islamic nations, the ones who administer Islamic sharia law, hate the West and especially hate Americans.  That’s why Americans today have to watch out for radical Islamic terrorists even in our own country who are more than willing to sacrifice their lives in the process of murdering as many innocent Americans as possible.

They do it in the name of Islam – in name of religion.

We are plagued by Islamic religious savages.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Losers love company

Mitt Romney is on a mission to sabotage the candidacy of Donald Trump and he could care less if he ruins the presidential election chances of his GOP in the process. That’s because Mitt Romney is a loser and losers love company.

This is the guy who by all accounts should have easily won the presidential election in 2012. Barack Obama, the incumbent had done a miserable job with his first four years in office. He was vulnerable. He was ripe for the picking. But Romney mounted only a tepid campaign at best.  He won the first debate but then gave it all up. He failed to engage his opponent. He refused to go for the jugular when he had the chance. He choked like a dog at the end. He’s a loser. And he knows it.

So now he wants Donald Trump to lose. He wants his own Republican Party to lose and he doesn’t mind if it means that Hillary Clinton the incompetent felon will win. He doesn’t care if his nation will have to endure a proven self-dealing criminal in the White House because that will make him feel better about losing it so pathetically before.

Romney chastised a group of top ranking Republicans at his E2 Summit this week for supporting Trump saying that Trump is a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe and a provocateur of violence.  He will not support Trump because of the “example” he sends. "These things are personal," an emotional Romney said to sustained applause. "I love this country. I love the founders. I love what this country is built upon and its values, and seeing this is breaking my heart."


Romney surely didn’t believe any of that nonsense four years ago when Trump was supporting him, donating large sums of money to him, and working behind the scenes to get him elected President. No, he took Trump’s money, took all of his kindness and support only to trash his generous benefactor now.

Only now does Romney have the nerve to suggest that Donald Trump “appeals to racism, xenophobia, misogyny, violence… I just can't do that… I don’t want to see trickle down racism… I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny; all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."

Trickle down racism? What the Hell is that? What is this loser blabbering on about? Donald Trump is not a racist by any reasonable definition. He isn’t any of those things Romney accuses him of. Romney and some of his other deluded Republican friends are simply parroting the lies that the leftists like Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton are spreading about Trump.  

The leftists are calling Trump a racist because he complained about a judge, whose parents immigrated to America from Mexico; a judge who just happens to be treating him unfairly in litigation. Both Trump and the judge are of the same race. They’re both white. So how does that possibly make Trump a racist? Of course, it has nothing at all to do with race and everything to do with the possibility of judicial bias against Trump who has promised to build a wall on the Mexican border.

Romney is feeding us the leftists line. He would rather have the leftists running the government now that he has lost his chance at the prize. He wants Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to pick the next crop of SCOTUS justices. He’s fine with that. All he cares about is sabotaging Trump.

That’s because Mitt Romney is a loser, and losers love company.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Frivolous football follies in Texas

It’s been said that everything is big in Texas and when it comes to bilking the municipal taxpayers for frivolous public school spending follies it could hardly get bigger than nearly $63 million dollars for, of all totally unnecessary things, a football stadium.

That’s right. The McKinney Texas Independent School District authorities have successfully talked 63 percent of the gullible taxpayers of this town of less than 150,000 inhabitants into footing the bill for a luxurious $62.8 million dollar 12,000 seat football stadium for high school football games.

This one tops them all – barely -- as the most expensive boondoggle ever built for high school football. The tiny hamlet of Katy Texas (population 15,000) is building another $62.5 million dollar, 12,000-seat facility for their high schoolers, and a $60 million dollar high school stadium has already been constructed in Allen Texas (population 92,000).

“We’re visionaries,” says Rick McDaniel, McKinney Independent School District Superintendent, after convincing the taxpayers of his community to pass a $220 million bond issue to fund the stadium and other district improvements. “And we believe we have a vision for McKinney ISD that will propel us forward for a long time.”

“We’re disappointed,” declared Mike Giles, a disgruntled McKinney taxpayer. “But the people have spoken.”

Yes, and I think those people have been drinking too much Kool-Aid. 

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Statist public schools to students: conform or else

It was public high school graduation time again in America this year and the statist education administrator’s couldn’t let the hapless captive students go on with their lives without reminding them once more that they still enjoyed no constitutional rights at school.

You see, American public school administrator’s think that they have the power to force their charges to conform to their dictates or else – or else they won’t allow them to graduate with their peers. Students can’t have the diplomas they earned unless they bow one last time to the arbitrary whims of their statist overlords.  

Andrew Jones, for example, a straight “A” “Student of the Year” senior at Amite High School in Louisiana was denied his graduation diploma because he refused to shave his face clean. His facial hair violated school policy.

This kid sported a beard all year long while receiving all “A’s” in his classes, excelling in sports, and being awarded a college scholarship, but when he showed up at the commencement ceremony the statists wouldn’t let him participate with it. They think they have the right to ban facial hair on men. So Jones got an ultimatum: shave your face or go home without your sheepskin. He had to turn in his cap and gown over a goatee.

“I feel they should have let me march,” said Jones. “The hair on my face has nothing to do with school. I wasn’t distracting anybody.” “What was the real issue that he couldn’t walk with his class?” his aunt Sabrine wondered “He was top of his class, you know. That moment was the most important of his life.”

.Statists don’t care about stuff like that, aunt Sabrine. 

Students don’t enjoy constitutional rights at school. They must conform or else.

Marine Corps Pvt. Megan Howerton finished up her studies early at McHenry West High School in Illinois so she could start her career as a Marine. But when she returned to the school to join her classmates at graduation, she wasn’t allowed to walk with them on the commencement stage. That’s because she chose to wear her dress uniform instead of the traditional cap and gown.

“There was no communication to the administration that attire protocols would not be followed prior to the ceremony,” explained the statist school district administrator. “The tradition of cap and gown regalia is aimed at the idea that our graduates are celebrated as a whole and in similar attire.”

Yes, the school policy involves conformance – conform or else. 

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Flouting the Constitution in Oklahoma

What would you think if your state legislature tried to make a law mandating it a felony for lawyers to represent anyone charged with a crime? You’d think that would be patently unconstitutional, right? Of course it would be. Anyone charged with a crime enjoys a constitutional right to employ a lawyer. If lawyers were banned by law from representing criminal defendants that would plainly violate the accused’s constitutional rights.  

The very idea of such a situation is unthinkable. That’s because all lawmakers have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. When they try to make laws which are plainly unconstitutional they are blatantly violating their oath of office. Any lawmaker who tries to undermine the Constitution in that fashion should be impeached and stripped of office.

Sadly, however, American lawmakers everywhere are constantly trying to undermine the Constitution and our precious constitutional rights by making laws which are plainly unconstitutional.

It is settled constitutional law in America, for example, that a woman has the right to an abortion. Never-mind that say Oklahoma lawmakers; they recently approved a bill without debate making it a felony punishable with prison time and loss of license for doctors to perform abortions

So you see, it’s not at all unthinkable to the ultra-right-wing religiously oriented lawmakers in America. They have no respect for the Constitution unless it serves their religious agenda.

Fortunately they didn’t quite get away with it this time. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, (a fervent anti-abortion advocate in her own right), vetoed the bill because even she recognized that it was brazenly unconstitutional. State Sen. Ervin Yen, the only doctor in the Senate and also a Republican described the legislation as “insane” and voted against it.

My prediction, however, is that those same miscreant lawmakers will keep their offices and continue right on flouting the Constitution in Oklahoma.