Authority!

The Madness of Fantasy

2012-02-26T16:06:00.000+07:00

Madness, insanity if you will, may be defined as a failure or refusal in a mind using consciousness to differentiate between fact and fantasy. This is the major fault with human consciousness as described in my book, “Authority! Implications of Consciousness and the Reality of Existence.”

Consciousness, characterized by conceptual language, is a cultural, i.e. learned adaptation which distinguishes human beings from all other species on the planet. It represents the foundation of civilization as we know it, and everything that is good about human beings. But it is also the foundation for deception, falsehood and madness, the nature of which afflicts no other species, and everything that is bad about human beings.

Fantasy, the product of consciousness, might be good or bad depending upon whether the individual engaging in it recognizes it for what it is. It can be benevolent or malevolent for civilization. In no case is it more malevolent, however, than with organized religion.

Those who accept fantasy above reality are usually deemed insane, except particularly in the case of organized religion, which seems to engender large measures of respect and credibility even from people who don’t practice it. There are many millions of people who actually believe that their fantasy is more important than reality and are willing to kill innocent people in order to preserve and protect it.

Consider the recent religious uproar in Afghanistan over the burning of the Koran by NATO forces at Bagram airfield. Two American military officers were shot dead at close range inside the Interior Ministry last Saturday, as mindless religious rage continued to grip the country for a fifth day over the burning of the Muslim holy book.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the shootings. The killer would have had to have the highest security clearance to get into the room where the officers were killed according to news reports. So the murderer was not just some ordinary riff raff from the street, but someone trusted with rank and importance that infiltrated the U.S. command.

NATO is recalling staff from its Afghan ministries because the Afghan security forces simply cannot be trusted not to carry out more of these kinds of murderous attacks. The deluded Afghan religious savages consider the Koran to be the literal word of God and, therefore, desecration of a paper book is regarded as the worst sort of blasphemy. Any desecration, whether intentional or unintentional, in their minds gives them a license to kill.

Thousands of Afghans have taken to the streets and at least 27 people have been killed since Afghan laborers at the NATO base found charred copies of the Koran while collecting rubbish. Two other American soldiers were shot dead last Thursday by an Afghan national army soldier who joined the frenzied mob.

Another angry Afghan mob stormed a UN compound in northern Balkh province killing seven people last year after the loons found out that one attention seeking Christian minister in Florida burned a copy of the Koran. Religion, instead of civilizing these fanatics, has had the effect of un-civilizing them. They are dangerous to themselves and others because of religion.

In Padang, Indonesia a civil servant who posted “God does not exist” on his Facebook page faces a maximum penalty of five years behind bars for blasphemy. The man was attacked by an angry mob on his way to work and then hauled away by police after his factually correct post triggered public outcry in the predominantly Muslim nation.

Indonesia, you see, a supposedly civilized nation of 240 million people, allows only five religions by law. Atheism is illegal there. So an honest man was charged with the “crime” of using a social networking site to spread beliefs that violate the law. Exposing fantasy for what it is in Indonesia is a “crime.” The population of that country is apparently deathly afraid of anyone having the guts to point out the truth of their madness.

Meanwhile, in the crazed Islamic Republic of Iran, a former Muslim citizen, who went over the fence to Christianity and became a Christian pastor, has been sentenced to death. That’s because, in Iran, one is not supposed to change religions unless the change is to Islam. These deluded religious savages kill their own people for the “crime” of apostasy. So another poor innocent soul is going to die for refusing to recant his belief in Jesus and declining to recognize Muhammad as his savior.

All of this madness has been going on in the world just within the last week. Billions of human beings on this planet are still living in the Dark Ages.

Not that long ago it was the Christians who were also in the business of killing people who refused to believe. Blasphemy, apostasy, witchcraft, paganism, and just plain old atheism, agnosticism, and freethinking would result in the most excruciating forms of torture and execution for innocent proponents, all for the purpose of perpetuating the madness of fantasy over reality.

There are still some Christian American politicians even today who would love to take us all back to the good old days of yore when blasphemy was a crime and not believing right would get you death. Thankfully, they are slowly losing their influence in the west.

Sadly, it won’t happen in my lifetime, but the time will eventually come on this Earth when every organized religion has been mocked, excoriated, and laughed out of existence and the madness part of fantasy will finally be cured.

Rick Santorum: Mr. Biblical for President, Part 2

2012-02-23T13:04:00.000+07:00

My last post discussed the numerous reasons supporting my conclusion that Rick Santorum personifies the term “religious bigot,” and why his criticism of President Obama for leading America based on a so-called theology different from that in the Bible, amounts to clear evidence of his own intent if elected president to govern us by his Catholic Biblical theology.

Today, I will demonstrate once and for all, from the candidates own mouth, the fundamental irrationality within the mind of Rick Santorum, Mr. Biblical, and why, if nominated by the Republican Party, Barrack Obama is virtually certain to win the general election.

When it comes to politics and government, Mr. Biblical tends to view the world in stark terms of black and white – good and evil. He actually believes that Satan has his sights on America and that his mission as president will be to lead our nation on a crusade of spiritual warfare.

Four years ago, in 2008, when he wasn’t running for any office, Mr. Biblical told a socially conservative Catholic audience at Florida’s Ave Maria University in so many words that president Obama's position on abortion was the work of Satan.

Quoting Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, North Dakota, he argued: “Catholics who support so-called ‘abortion rights’ support a false right, promote a culture of death and are guarded by the father of lies." Then he praised the bishop for pledging to deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights saying the matter went beyond politics and was a symptom of Satan’s reach in U.S. society.

"This is not a political war at all, this is not a culture war at all, this is a spiritual war," declared Mr. Biblical. "And the father of lies has his sights on what you think the father of lies, Satan, would have his sights on -- A good, decent, powerful, influential country, the United States of America."

"If you were Satan, who would you attack?" he continued. "There's no one else to go after other than the United States, and that's been the case, for now, almost 200 years."

Then Mr. Biblical described in detail how the devil has attacked the United States in several areas: its foundations, academia, the Protestant Church and government.

Satan attacks us as a nation, and our great institutions, "using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition," First, Satan successfully, attacked academia. After academia fell to pride and its own truths, the Protestant Church fell next in the United States, according to Mr. Biblical.

"We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it," insisted the Catholic, Mr. Biblical, against his fellow Protestant Christians.

Next, he denounced American culture; the National Basketball Association, for example, along with rock concerts and movies. "They are peacocks on display, and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable," all of which is just more evidence of spiritual warfare.

Politics and government have also “fallen to Satan,” insists Mr. Biblical, referring to then presidential candidate Barrack Obama’s position on abortion and a response he made during an interview in 2004 on the question of “What is sin?” "Being out of alignment with my values," Obama replied.

"So now we have the first truly post-modern presidential candidate. Clearly, explicitly defining his own reality," huffed Mr. Biblical.

"I’m a person of faith. I believe in good and evil," Mr. Biblical told CNN in Arizona this week regarding his Ave Maria University speech. "If somehow or another because you’re a person of faith and you believe in good and evil is a disqualifier for president, we’re going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president," he insisted.

Oh, I don’t think so, Mr. Biblical. Most if not all of the candidates would describe themselves as person’s of faith and believers in the concept of good and evil, but I seriously doubt that they would make a public speech attributing all of America’s ills to the work of Satan and vowing to enter America into a state of spiritual warfare. Sure, the Bible thumpers love it but most rational people would be appalled.

"If Rick Santorum is the commander in chief, he will do what no other president has had the courage to do: declare war on hell,” joked Stephen Colbert on his comedy show. "It's simple: All we have to do is take our nuclear missiles out of their silos and put them back in upside-down."

Rick Santorum: Mr. Biblical for President

2012-02-21T15:16:00.000+07:00

Last month I pointed out in morbid detail all the evidence indicating that Rick Santorum is the physical embodiment of the term “religious bigot.” This man, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not, revealed his true character once again last week when he explained to an ultra religious socially conservative audience that President Barack Obama leads this nation based on a theology different from that in the Bible.

“You may want to call it a theology; you may want to call it secular values. Whatever you want to call it… it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church,” he declared to thunderous applause.

Obama is not motivated by "your quality of life,” Santorum continued. Obama has reached a “low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before.”“In the Christian church there are a lot of different stripes of Christianity… I’m just saying he’s imposing his values on the church and I think that’s wrong,” he said.

Liberals on “the left” have been imposing their own moral code on Americans for quite some time, he added. “You can call it a theology, you can call it a moral code, you can call it a world view,” “They want to impose [that] on everybody else while they insist and complain that somehow or another people of Judeo Christian faith are intolerant of their new moral code.”

To me his message is crystal clear: If elected President of the United States, Rick Santorum would lead this nation on the theology of the Holy Bible. Rick Santorum is an unabashed Christian theocrat. He’s Mr. Biblical. As president, he’ll impose his own religious values on us.

After his remarks raised media eyebrows, however, he tried to backpedal: "I wasn't suggesting the president's not a Christian. I accept the fact that the president is a Christian," he said. "I was talking about the radical environmentalist; I was talking about energy, this idea that man is here to serve the Earth as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a phony ideal.”

Right; it wasn’t about religion. It was really about energy. It just came out wrong. "I mean, this is just all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government," Santorum said. Sure, Barrack Obama is a Christian – just not the right kind of Christian according the Mr. Biblical. He’s not Biblical enough.

Then he tried to do a complete flip-flop on his position against birth control: He claims he’s been misconstrued by the difference between his public policy position, and his personal beliefs which are guided by his Catholic faith. "I support Title X, I guess it is, and have voted for contraception and although I don't think it works, I think it's harmful to women, I think it's harmful to our society," he said in an interview with Fox News.

But his campaign website says he wants to "repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion."

He voted for contraception but thinks it’s harmful for women and society and wants to repeal it. He believes that abstinence education is the better alternative to birth control. So what exactly is his position again?

Last March, Rick Santorum insisted that America should go to war over “moral” values. The fact is that Rick Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.”

“Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” he preached recently. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young.

Asked once if he would allow the police to search marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives, he replied: “[t]he state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right; the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”

That’s because Rick Santorum actually believes in his heart that there is no human right to privacy in the United States of America. "[The] right to privacy…doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution," he once declared.

There is no fundamental right to privacy and absolutely no right to gay marriage either according to Mr. Biblical. “[When] I say things like marriage should be between one man and one woman, I’m called a bigot,” he readily admits. He signed a solemn pledge and voted “yes” on a proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In fact, he wouldn’t offer any legal protections at all to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president.

Mr. Biblical believes that religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right in the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.” Santorum once declared.

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” “[Gay marriage] threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country.”

So marriage has nothing to do with love in the mind of Mr. Biblical. And he is disgusted by gay people. “Gay people should stop being gay… This is common sense. This is nature, and what we’re trying to do is defy nature because a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society.”

“Life begins at conception, no exceptions for incest, rape, or the life of the mother, and doctors performing abortions should be criminally charged,” proclaims Mr. Biblical on the subject of abortion.

“The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions; I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire,” opines Mr. Biblical on the issue of whether the fundamental right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, includes an individual’s right to pursue his or her own wants and desires.

Mr. Biblical also rejects the concept of cultural diversity for America: “The elementary error of relativism becomes clear when we look at multiculturalism. Sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of “diversity” as a central educational value… The goal of diversity is wrong.”

Mr. Biblical approves of torture: “[John McCain] doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information.”

Mr. Biblical approves of murder: “The U.S. should assassinate certain nuclear scientists from countries like Russia, North Korea and Iran.”

“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical,” says Mr. Biblical.

Mr. Biblical says of Democrats in America: “The American Left hates Christendom. They hate Western civilization.”

“Poor children should have to suffer hunger and other ills to prevent them from developing the sense of entitlement that comes from relying on government social programs... suffering, if you’re a Christian, suffering is part of life… Isn’t that what Jesus meant by suffer the little children?’” asks Mr. Biblical.

Mr. Biblical wants a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration; a loosening of restrictions on cell phone wiretapping; increased penalties for drug offenses; and reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

The government shouldn't require health care providers to cover prenatal tests like amniocentesis, which can determine the possibility of Down syndrome or other fetal problems, said Mr. Biblical last Sunday – not because it’s big brother government – but because amniocentesis "more often than not" results in abortion.

But then Mr. Biblical admitted that such prenatal testing revealed his own three year-old daughter’s chromosome disorder that often results in stillbirths or early childhood death. Such testing is good enough for him and his family but should not be part of every health care policy.

He and his wife decided against an abortion, which was their right, but other families would probably decide differently, and Mr. Biblical doesn’t like that idea. He laments the fact that in such cases "we know that 90% of Down syndrome children are aborted."

And he insisted that it’s President Obama, not him, whose intent on starting a cultural war. His ultra-right-wing socially conservative and religiously oriented audience loved it and roared with applause.

As president, he will call upon the country to build a foundation that will "defend the church, defend the family, defend the nonprofit community, defend them from a government that wants to weaken them," promised Mr. Biblical.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

The Audacity of Taxing and Spending

2012-02-19T14:24:00.000+07:00

President Obama announced his 2013 proposed budget last week calling for about $2 trillion dollars in tax hikes and fees. In fairness it also includes some new tax cuts and credits for some which would lower that total to roughly $1.5 trillion – not much if you say it fast.

The orgy of profligate government spending during the last two presidential administrations continues unabated under this budget, and to keep it going strong, taxes will be drastically increased for successful individuals while any spending cuts here will be more than offset by more spending there.

Remember the Bush tax cuts? You know; the ones that did nothing whatsoever to strengthen the economy but, together with massive increases in military and other spending, resulted in the greatest economic collapse in America since the great depression? Well, they are scheduled to expire at the end of this year and the president can’t wait.

He hopes that by allowing the cuts to expire the government will collect about $968 billion in extra revenue over the next ten years from taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year. Their income tax rate will jump back to the neighborhood 39.6 % of earned income. They’re already paying 35 % now, and the rate they’ll pay on dividend income would leap to 39.6 % from the 15% they pay now.

Long term capital gains for these folks will be taxed at the new rate of 20%, up from the current 15%, and the estate tax when they die balloons to 45% of what they accumulated during life, from the current 35% death tax now.

All of this means that, just with federal taxation alone, these folks will have to fork over about 40% of any income they receive during their lives, and then if they somehow manage to save anything for their kids, the government will confiscate nearly half of it when they die. If you are successful in this country, your government regards you as a golden goose.

Even God Almighty Himself, during biblical times, was more than satisfied and happy to take 10% in sacrifices from His flock of sheep. The United States Government, by contrast, demands more than four times that figure and it is never satisfied. It just keeps taking and spending; spending and taking.

The hike in investment income taxes, for example, is not quite enough to satisfy the government monster. It plans to implement a surcharge of 3.8 % to fund the federal health care overhaul, which will bring the top dividend tax rate to 43.4 %, and the top capital gains rate to 23.8 %.

Investors in the economy would be taxed on their profits as ordinary income, instead of at the current 15% rate, if the president has his way -- a tax increase amounting to more than 100%. And every household enjoying income of more than $1 million annually will be caught up in the “Buffett Rule,” which ensures that at least 30 % of it is taxed.

On top of all that, the value of all itemized deductions for households making more than $250,000, including items such as mortgage interest and charitable contributions, would be cut to a 28 % rate with the hope of raising another $584 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years. So the cost of owning a home and giving to charity goes way up under Obama’s new budget plan.

Airline tickets will cost more too with stiff new fees to pay for “airline security.” I guess this means that the TSA won’t be going away anytime soon. Financial institutions will be charged some $61 billion-over the next decade in "financial crisis responsibility” fees, which will no doubt be passed right on down to the consumer – you and me – making the cost of doing business higher than ever.

The president considers things like the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as “savings,” and claims that his proposed budget will result in $4 trillion in “deficit savings,” yet the deficit is still expected to rise by at least $6.6 trillion over the next 10 years. It’s quite clear, then, that any “savings” generated by this budget will be far outweighed by new spending.

Don’t count on the Republicans to put a halt to the spending spree, unless by some miracle the libertarian, Ron Paul, is elected president. Republicans spend just as much or more as Democrats and want less taxes to boot which results in even greater deficits and debt.

Case in point: The Obama administration wants to cut funding for the “D.C. Opportunity Scholarship” program, a $60 million political pet project of House Speaker, John Boehner (R-Ohio), which helps underprivileged children in Washington D.C. get vouchers for private schools. This has politicians on both sides of the aisle screaming bloody murder. The president can’t even cut $60 million worth of pork without causing hysteria on Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, the powers that be at NASA, are crying “irrational,” over proposed cuts for exploration of other planets, especially Mars. Two years ago, President Obama said his ultimate goal was to send astronauts to Mars. Faced, however, with a choice between spending massive amounts on a new space telescope, or massive amounts on expeditions to Mars; Mars lost. Mars missions will continue, of course, but not at the rate of spending earlier anticipated.

The cuts to the Mars missions are part of a proposed reduction of about $300 million in NASA's $1.5 billion annual planetary science budget. The current Mars budget is $581.7 million. "To me, it's totally irrational and unjustified," carped Edward Weiler, NASA's former administrator for science. "We are the only country on this planet that has the demonstrated ability to land on another planet, namely Mars. It is a national prestige issue."

You see, as far as United States government agency administrators are concerned, it’s perfectly right and proper to spend $billions of taxpayer dollars on boondoggles such as national prestige issues. Why not? The money isn’t coming out of his pocket.

Instead, NASA is planning to spend a lot more taxpayer dollars on a replacement for the aging Hubble Space Telescope, and save Mars missions for later. The new James Webb Space Telescope, originally estimated to cost $3.5 billion, is now projected to cost around $8 billion, a budget busting cost overrun of more than 100%.

Where is the savings?

There are never any savings in politician land; only taxing and spending.

Remember the great Solyndra fiasco and scandal? The United States government guaranteed a loan for the staggering sum of $535 million – over a half $billion taxpayer dollars -- to a company which was going bankrupt, and the money simply disappeared into the sinkhole.

Now we know where at least a small portion of it went. Solyndra executives were awarded quarterly bonuses worth up to $60,000 apiece as the California solar-panel Company was headed for bankruptcy. The payments were described by one former employee as "retention" bonuses to slow the high rate of turnover at the company. The rats were deserting the sinking ship and taking the bonuses with them.

This is the audacity of government taxing and spending.

Chicken Nugget School Lunch Nannies

2012-02-16T12:37:00.000+07:00

Here’s a typical conversation between a parent and four-year-old child while the kid is getting ready for morning pre-school kindergarten:

“What would you like Mommy to pack for your lunch today, sweetheart?”

“I want a turkey sandwich with cheese, a banana, potato chips, and some apple juice, Mommy.”

“OK, honey.”

“Thanks, Mommy.”

Sounds yummy to me; I like all that stuff for any meal; nutritious too, right?

Wrong, say the chicken nugget school lunch nannies at West Hoke Elementary School in Hoke County North Carolina.

A state Gestapo agent assigned to the pre-kindergarten school cafeteria for the sole purpose of inspecting every child’s lunch box thought that this kid’s homemade lunch didn’t have enough nutritional value, i.e. “did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture Division of Child Development and Early Education guidelines.”

The state sanctioned nanny confiscated the poor little kid’s lunch, forced her to eat chicken nuggets instead, and then sent her home with her offending uneaten packed lunch, a note chastising Mommy for not properly feeding her daughter, and a bill in the sum of $1.25 for the three nuggets she eventually ate.

The note explained that students who didn’t bring “healthy lunches” would be offered the missing portions and that parents would be charged for the cost of the cafeteria food. “When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones,” say the nannies.

Naturally, the child’s mother was offended by school officials telling the kid that her mother wasn’t “packing her lunch box properly.” This is what the little kids are learning in school nowadays -- that the state knows better about how to take care of them than their own parents. The state employs the child as an agent to “correct” the parent.

This incident might seem as no big deal to some people, but to me it’s another incredible outrage connected with compulsory education in America which should not be tolerated. Free people should not be forced to endure this kind of tyranny at the hands of the criminal dictatorial state. That nanny and those school officials are criminals in my opinion and should face an appropriate penalty.

First of all, what the hell are paid states agents doing at a pre-school kindergarten cafeteria inspecting little kid’s lunch boxes in the same fashion the TSA inspects passenger’s belongings at airports? What makes them think they have the right to search children’s belongings as though they were inmates in a state prison?

Come to think of it, that’s exactly what they are as far as the state is concerned – little prisoners who are forced to line up every day, recite the pledge of allegiance to the state and otherwise conform like everyone else or be singled out for punishment. What’s next; going through their pockets and book bags searching for contraband? It’s simply inconceivable; it’s over the top.

Secondly, what in the name of reason is wrong with a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, a bag of chips and a carton of apple juice for a 4 year-old girl? That’s exactly what she wanted and it’s just as complete and nutritious as any other lunch I can think of. How dare these statist bastards come between a parent and child to dictate what the kid can and can’t have to eat for a homemade lunch at school?

And, sure enough, in this instance, after the media uproar over the outrage, the school officials backed down and admitted that this packed lunch was perfectly appropriate for that little girl. There was no reason on Earth to put this family through that ridiculous ordeal.

Let’s suppose this mother fed her child a big breakfast that morning and she didn’t want any lunch? Would that give these public school Nazis the right to force feed her with chicken nuggets and send her home to her Mommy with a disparaging note and a bill? Lots of people don’t eat lunch and you can count me as one of them. Two meals a day is enough for me.

Finally, as far as I can tell from this story there was no apparent evidence that this little girl was malnourished, emaciated, starving, or deprived of sustenance in any way. It’s not like she showed up at school suffering with rickets, pellagra or some other horrible nutritional disease. She’s a healthy, happy, well nourished 4-year-old kid. So how is it that these nannies feel they have the right to meddle into her family’s domestic affairs?

That’s the problem with compulsory public school education in America. Parents are forced to send their children to school, and kids are forced to attend for 13 or more of their most formative years. If that isn’t bad enough, the state then takes the liberty of teaching their captive audience exactly what it wants them to think instead of how to think, with the object of turning each and every one of them into obedient slaves of the collective, incapable of thinking for themselves, and totally allegiant to the state.

And nowadays it starts early in pre-school kindergarten with chicken nugget school lunch nannies.

Does the First Amendment Apply Only to Christians?

2012-02-14T17:09:00.000+07:00

Last week I opined that the Catholic Church is quite correct with their complaint that president Obama’s contraception insurance healthcare mandate as applied to religious oriented institutions violates their right to religious expression under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

I stand by that opinion now even after the president’s most recent compromise offer which does absolutely nothing to cure the violation. This is because, under the proposed compromise, religious institutions will still be at least indirectly responsible for furnishing contraceptive products and services insurance coverage to employees contrary to their deeply held religious convictions.

That being said, I still have to laugh and shake my head at the ignorance of the Church, and its selfish understanding of what the First Amendment means. They simply don’t have a clue. It’s as though the First Amendment applies to them and no one else.

Now they’re taking the position that they won’t be satisfied until the mandate is lifted from any person of faith who objects to facilitating contraception coverage for employees. They’re in no mood to compromise.

You see, it’s all about their faith, their religion, and to hell with everyone else. They just don’t understand how the First Amendment was conceived to protect the freedom of expression and conscience of everyone, not just people of faith. So it’s perfectly alright for Obamacare to force the insurance mandate on everyone else as far as they are concerned just as long as they don’t have to furnish coverage for contraception.

If Obamacare mandated that government provide money to the Catholic Church, or otherwise promoted religion in direct violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, that would be just hunky dory. If president Obama mandated Catholic prayers to be led by teachers to students in public school classrooms, that’s perfectly fine with them. They wouldn’t see any constitutional violation at all.

The bishops characterize the Obama mandate as government coercion of religious people to do something to which they have a moral or religious objection, and that is quite true, but when the shoe is on the other foot they could hardly care less. Both the government and the church have been guilty of plenty of coercion upon humanity in their time, but any complaints about that from the secular side usually falls upon deaf ears.

Right-wing social conservative politicians and religious zealots love to describe their First Amendment constitutional complaints in military terms, e.g. the government insurance mandate is “an attack; an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.” President Obama is waging a “war; a War on Religion.”

It conjures up images in my mind of President Obama and his minions of executive branch thugs brandishing machine guns and tanks in a pitched battle with poor little huddled and oppressed Christian victims holed up in their churches.

Nonsense! It’s just government being government. Not a day passes without the United States government doing something unconstitutional somewhere.

The Church is going to file suit in federal court over this egregious constitutional violation. If the court vindicates their rights it will be seen as a victory against government religious oppression, i.e. against the state interfering with religion. That is as it should be.

But when atheists, for example, win a court case upholding their First Amendment Establishment Clause constitutional rights requiring separation between church and state and government neutrality in matters of religion, they see it as the work of activist judges who ought to be yanked from the bench.

Religious zealots in America want a government God. They don’t want separation between church and state until the state starts messing with them in ways they don’t appreciate.

As far as the Church is concerned: The United States Constitution and the First Amendment apply only to Christians.

Bulls-eye Building: Bin Laden’s Multi-Billion Dollar Manhattan Monument

2012-02-12T15:47:00.004+07:00

The last thing in the world which should be built at the site of the 9/11 Twin Towers World Trade Center disaster in lower Manhattan is another lavish World Trade Center Tower complex. But that’s exactly what it’s going to be – a huge skyscraper together with an elaborate memorial and museum for the sake of historical posterity.

Now the entire 16 acre site is a permanent reminder and monument to the dark triumph of Osama Bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda terrorist mastermind who successfully brought it down, and a big red bulls-eye target for the next terrorist attacker to aim at.

Aside from a suitable plaque memorializing the victims, and perhaps a small park with a few trees and a fountain, a better idea for the rest of the site, in my humble opinion, would have been a parking garage connected to a shopping mall or some other kind of innocuous facility – anything to divert attention and memory from the horror of 9/11.

But no; the irrational emotionally driven American powers that be felt compelled to dub the site “ground zero,” right from the beginning, and construct the most impracticably expensive building in the history of the world there.

From now on, hapless New Yorkers are going to have every wannabe Al Qaeda terrorist America hater and his mother flocking to the “ground zero” site in droves to pay tribute to their hero, Osama Bin Laden, at the place of his victory over the American imperialist crusader enemy. That is, until one of them finds a way to bring the new skyscraper down.

When first proposed, the building was expected to cost about $2 billion. Resting firmly in government hands, however, the price tag for One World Trade Center, the lavishly conceived replacement for the original Twin Towers, has ballooned to more than $3.8 billion to date, making it by far the most expensive office building in world history.

The developer of the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest tower, located in Dubai, UAE, by comparison cost in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion. The difference is mostly because of the politically charged nature of the World Trade Center project and the elaborate precautions which are deemed necessary to protect the building from future terrorist attackers.

Lengthy construction delays alone together with a myriad of political challenges and squabbles have resulted in eleven years of a still unfinished project. The site has been boarded up for more than 10 years.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, owners of the project, are displaying typical government malfeasance, mismanagement, and incompetence in the whole affair. Cost increases in the billions have resulted in higher bridge and tunnel tolls and reduced spending on other vitally necessary transportation and infrastructure projects in New York City.

Construction is far more complicated and expensive than with a traditional office tower, mostly because of security costs on a site that has been the target of two separate terrorist attacks in the past. The Twin Towers were bombed by terrorists in 1993 and then destroyed completely on 9/11/01.

Consequently, the new 1,776-foot skyscraper sits atop a heavily reinforced, windowless podium, and a thick core of steel and concrete surrounds its elevator shafts. The government run Authority has given up on any hope that the new World Trade Center will be profitable for a very long time.

For now, it’s just a big bulls-eye building – a multi-billion dollar Manhattan monument to Osama Bin Laden.

Who’s Responsible for Contraception and Birth Control?

2012-02-09T12:15:00.000+07:00

The Obama administration, as part of its Obamacare law, is enforcing a mandate that every health insurance plan, including those provided by religious institutions, such as parochial schools and charities, must cover contraception and other birth control products and services. Churches are specifically exempted from this mandate, but their affiliated hospitals, universities, charities and the like are not.

Thus, Obamacare not only forces employers to provide health insurance to their employees, but dictates the substance of the coverage which must be included, even if such coverage, e.g. for contraception and birth control, is patently contrary and offensive to a provider’s deeply held religious convictions and philosophical beliefs.

This has ruffled the feathers of all the cardinals, bishops and priests in the Catholic Church, who complain loudly and bitterly that it violates the Church’s constitutional First Amendment rights to religious expression under the Free Exercise Clause.

Its proof of the Obama administration’s “War on Religion,” they insist. They don’t approve of, much less want to pay for, birth control, as it is against the teachings the Church has professed for many centuries.

On the opposite side of the coin, the ACLU and others argue that this is not about religious freedom so much as reliance upon religion to discriminate against and deny millions of women access to birth control.

According to them if the churches get their way on this issue, a woman teaching at a Catholic university, or a nurse working at an evangelical Christian hospital could not get coverage and would consequently be denied access to basic health care.

Don’t count me as an apologist for religion in any form; I think it’s been the worst plague upon civilization since before and after the Black Death, but in this instance I’m compelled by the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution to agree that the Catholic Church is at least partially correct.

Clearly, president Obama is not by any means waging a War on Religion; heaven forbid, but forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage to their employees, including contraception and birth control products and services, violates their freedom of religious expression under the First Amendment.

Employees of Catholic institutions or evangelical Christian hospital’s will not be denied access to basic health care if their employers aren’t required to include contraception and birth control coverage. They would just have to find it elsewhere. That’s been the American way for the last 235 years.

Religious institutions should have their way in this matter, but if that is so, it only follows naturally that the rest of us should get our way as well. If Obamacare is unconstitutional for religious institutions it’s just as unconstitutional for non-religious individuals and institutions. Why should churches and their religious institutions get an exemption from the mandate but not other groups?

The Obamacare mandates fly in the face of my deeply held philosophical beliefs and convictions too. I don’t want to be forced to pay for Sally’s breast augmentation surgery and Harry’s Viagra pills.

Why aren’t the cardinals, bishops, priests and the ACLU standing up for my constitutional rights?

More Laws for the Mentally Challenged

2012-02-07T16:00:00.000+07:00

Politicians take a lot of blame for the stupid laws they pass, but most of the fault lies with the mentally challenged masses they represent who constantly demand more and more “action” from them. Yes, it’s the constituents out there who are the real problem. The politicians are just performing a perceived obligation to satisfy the needs of their flocks.

When I use the term mentally challenged I’m talking about those otherwise intelligent morons among us who either can’t or won’t take charge of their own lives by thinking for themselves but desperately want the collective to do their thinking for them as well as for everyone else. You know; the ones who really mean it when they say: “there ought to be a law…”

This is why the federal register of new congressional legislation grows by tens of thousands of pages every year. It’s why the volumes of statute books in every state have multiplied to fill law libraries to overflowing, and why this avalanche of mandates together with local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations have come to stifle human liberty and the pursuit of happiness everywhere in America today.

Here are just a few of the many thousands of examples:

The Texas legislature passed a law last year requiring doctors who provide abortions to show and describe in detail an ultrasound image, and play sounds of the heartbeat of the fetus, to pregnant women seeking an abortion.

Women may not decline to undergo this legally mandated protocol unless they qualify for an exception under the statute. Such exceptions suspiciously include situations in which the woman was raped, the fetus is a product of incest, or has congenital abnormalities.

Thus, this law was plainly promulgated for the sole purpose of allowing the state of Texas to insult and intrude upon the personal liberty of innocent women by harassing and attempting to dissuade them from exercising their constitutionally protected reproductive rights.

Governor Rick Perry, the unabashed anti-abortion zealot who signed this outrage into law, praised it as “a victory [which] ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying."

A federal district judge declared the law unconstitutional but was overruled by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. "The required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information," Chief Judge Edith Jones wrote for the three-judge panel.

I guess this means that a state legislature can dictate the substance of what every doctor must advise a patient in any medical situation as long as the information is truthful and non-misleading. If, for example, a state wants to mandate that doctors, during every doctor visit, tell all their patients they should eat spinach for their own good, that’s just fine as far as the federal judiciary is concerned.

Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed into law recently an ordinance requiring porn actors to use condoms to prevent STD’s. It also forces film production companies to pay a fee for a film permit in order to finance inspections.

According to Nina Hartley, a registered nurse and long-time professional porn actress, most porn films feature sexual intercourse that lasts 30-60 minutes, and wearing a condom for that long would lead to chafing, open sores and a greater risk of transmitting diseases. “It’s a disaster for health and safety. I know it looks different from the outside, but it will not work to protect anybody,” she explained.

But what does the L.A. Authority care about health and safety? All they care about is issuing permits and collecting fees charged to create jobs for inspectors and to regulate film companies the privilege of shooting films on their turf.

A Kansas state legislator has introduced a bill to give the dog breed that played Toto in "The Wizard of Oz" special status by making it a state symbol. The proposed law designates the Cairn terrier the official dog of the state of Kansas right up there along-side the official state tree and grass.

The lawmaker says the issue was important to constituents and the terrier is an "appropriate choice." Apparently legislators in Kansas have nothing better to do with their time and taxpayer money.

A Lake County, Fla., judge didn’t even bother to wait for the passage of a law allowing her to impose her arbitrary will upon hapless prisoners under her Authority!

George McCovery, a 345-pound man jailed for driving with a suspended license was freed nine days early thanks to the judge’s self imposed nanny style "lose-a-pound, gain-a-day" deal. "She gave me a chance to prove myself, and I didn't want to let her down," he told the Orlando Sentinel after shedding 25 pounds in 20 days.

Judge Donna Miller, whose courtroom proceedings are replayed in the TV show "Lake Courts," is famous for her unusual sentence deals. In her 17 years as a judge, she has ordered defendants to start jogging, take a dance class, tutor math and write Christmas cards. "I do what I do to try to change the person in front of me," she explained.

She decides on her own, without the benefit of law, what her prisoners need, and doesn’t hesitate to discriminate when it comes to her deals. "If the person needs jail, they get jail," she said. It’s no longer any surprise to me that judges don’t give a damn about administering the law.

Last year, the statist city fathers of San Francisco, CA, passed the Healthy Food Incentives Ordinance, prohibiting chain restaurants, i.e. McDonald’s; from giving away Happy Meal toys with high-fat, high-sugar food orders that do not meet San Francisco’s nutrition standards.

Yes, the city of San Francisco actually has nutrition standards mandated by law.

This particular ordinance appears to be far more about politics than nutrition though. “We should not be nannies, but we should not be ninnies either,” opined Dr David Katz, director of the Yale Prevention Center, who supports the law.

“McDonald’s puts toys in those meals because well-paid executives have advised them that doing so would drive demand and sales. Parents need to exercise responsibility, but the defaults in our culture should not conspire against the weight and health of kids. No reason to make the job tougher than it already is.” The toys and the trinkets “clearly goad children to prefer and request less nutritional meals,” Katz huffed.

Who would’ve thought?

But Dr. Keith Ayoob, associate professor of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, disagrees. “It’s misguided to think that this is going to combat childhood obesity,” Ayoob, who grew up in San Francisco, says. “We should be focusing on school lunches, where there are a lot more calories and fat than Happy Meals, and what kids are eating at home.”

“These politicians want to be seen as childhood advocates, and they were probably feeling the pressure to do something,” he added. “But [if] they really want to be seen as that, they should be doing something like mandating physical education for all grades in the school system.”

You see, they all want their politicians to mandate something here or ban something there; many things; it’s just a question of what now to these mentally challenged anti-liberty morons.

Has all of this nonsense hurt McDonald’s?

Nope. Instead of giving away the Happy Meal toys for free, they’re now charging an extra 10 cents for the trinkets, and are therefore in total compliance (and circumvention) of the law – for now at least – but probably not for long.

There will always be more and more laws for the benefit of the mentally challenged.

Donald Trump: Kingmaker?

2012-02-05T15:02:00.000+07:00

Early last week Donald Trump drew big-time attention to himself once again when he broke the “urgent” news that he was going to make a major announcement very soon. Buy Wednesday night press speculation reached a fever pitch about it and several news organizations reported confirmation that “The Donald” was going to endorse the candidacy of Newt Gingrich in the Republican Party presidential primary race.

All of it was typical Donald Trump bombastic blustering bullshit though. There is no doubt in my mind that he deliberately leaked a fib to the news media for the sole purpose of engendering even more attention to himself together with shock and surprise the next morning when he revealed that his endorsement would actually go to Mitt Romney.

Only a few short weeks ago, “The Donald” was shocked, surprised and miffed over Romney’s snub, when he turned down an invitation to participate in a Trump moderated debate in Iowa. He mocked Romney’s business credentials then, but boasted that: "He [Romney] talked to me about it and I probably could have gotten him to do it if I wanted to," as if he really didn’t want to.

A few days later, Trump was forced to cancel that event when it became clear that only two candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, had agreed to show up. Trump was so incensed after that pathetic debacle that he publicly renounced his membership in the Republican Party and became a registered Independent. Today, Donald Trump is not even a Republican.

So why endorse Mitt Romney now; why endorse any Republican for that matter; and especially why not Newt Gingrich, his purported bosom buddy? Remember, Trump was singing the highest praises for his pal Gingrich just weeks ago. “Newt is a great guy,” and “a member of my club,” he gushed.

Mitt Romney had just soundly trounced Gingrich in the Florida primary the day before Trump’s urgent revelation to the press about a forthcoming major announcement. Romney was also far ahead in the Nevada polls. Now the handwriting was on the wall. Romney would most likely be the Republican nominee. Clearly, Trump, who prides himself as being a winner, had waited on that result until he knew he had a sure thing before going all in on Mitt Romney and making his endorsement known.

But when the actual endorsement event occurred on Thursday at a scheduled and hyped-up press conference in Trump’s lavish Las Vegas hotel and casino, it was an empty anti-climactic flop. By now, everyone – the press, the public, even Mitt Romney -- knows that Donald Trump is not sincere. They know that none of it was done for the benefit of Mitt Romney; all of it was done for Donald Trump.

So there wasn’t much excitement and little applause at the Trump casino as Romney with his wife standing next to him shook hands tepidly with “The Donald” and acknowledged the nod. "There are some things that you just can't imagine in your life," Romney managed to say. "This is one of them."

Trump said earlier that he was “impressed” by Romney’s debate performances of late, and now believes that he can easily beat President Obama. "Mitt is tough. He's smart. He's sharp. He's not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country that we all love,… go out and get 'em." Trump cheered from his perch.

It all looked rather suspiciously like the final episode of one of his “Apprentice” TV reality shows. Donald Trump – kingmaker. Mitt Romney – Apprentice.

And that was it. The entire production was over in less than six minutes; Romney took no questions from reporters, then quickly left the building by a back door, as if he was embarrassed by it all, leaving Trump on his own to tell reporters how much he thinks his endorsement will help Romney.

Trump crowed that he has "a lot of good relationships with a lot of groups." "If you look at the tea party; if you look at the Christian coalition; if you look at a lot of different groups, I have very, very strong relationships with them," he bragged.

He pointedly ignored a cogent question about whether Romney had once expressed concerns about Trump challenging the validity of President Obama's birth certificate last year. He’s done a lot of dopey things like that over the years. Not surprisingly, he doesn’t want to talk about them.

Romney’s senior campaign advisor said of the endorsement: “You haven’t seen us turn down any endorsements yet… Hopefully [Trump] can help raise money and it ain’t like he’s camera shy.” Trump might be willing to do some grassroots campaigning among so-called “hyper-conservatives.”

Maybe so; maybe the Trump factor is great for attracting the hyper-conservatives.

But a Fox News poll last month revealed that Trump actually might do Romney more harm than good. Trump’s endorsement would make 27% of respondents less likely to support Romney, and only 10% more likely to vote for him. Most voters say it makes no difference to them at all. And the Democratic National Committee was happy to mock the Romney-Trump alliance with a video pointing out the fact that "They both like firing people.”

This is one of the problems in my way of thinking with the current Republican Party. The average American voter and working stiff often associates the GOP, especially the right wing elements of it, with insincere self-aggrandizing rich guys like Donald Trump, and his endorsement of Romney has the overall effect of confirming that impression.

“The Donald” has worn out his welcome with a lot of people, me included, in just the last year. How many times has this man teased us with the idea of a Republican presidential run, only to demonstrate that it’s bullshit again and again? The last time it was all a publicity stunt to gain attention for his TV show. He was insincere then and he’s insincere now. We all know it, especially Mitt Romney.

Amazingly, even now, Donald Trump is still refusing to rule out the possibility of a third-party run for president. "Certainly if Mitt gets the nomination and he runs, I wouldn't be running again… If for some reason something happens, then it’s open season," he told Fox News.

Perhaps because he’s endorsed Mitt Romney, he’ll get another chance.

I hope not.

Rand Paul: U.S. Senator and TSA Potential Terrorist Suspect

2012-02-02T17:58:00.002+07:00

United States Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the son of United States Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas, was recently singled out and victimized as a potential dangerous terrorist suspect by armed and uniformed TSA thugs at his home based Nashville International Airport.

Just last year, Rand Paul sharply criticized the TSA for conducting unnecessary pat down searches. At a senate hearing, he told TSA administrator John Pistole, "I think you ought to get rid of the random pat-downs. The American public is unhappy with them, they're unhappy with the invasiveness of them."

Referring to reports of little kids getting intense, random pat-down searches, Paul said during the hearing, "It just really [s]hows that no one is thinking... We need to be doing better police work and doing less of the universal giving up of our freedom to live our life the way we would like to live our life." He suggested that there be a "trusted traveler" program for people who travel frequently, like congressmen who are known as non-threatening.

But now, at the airport, our homegrown American Gestapo agents were telling him that there was an “anomaly” when he passed through the gate scanner. They demanded that the senator submit to a full-body pat down search. He refused.

Paul then offered to pass through the scanner again. The TSA thugs refused. And then they detained him for hours in a small cubicle for the “crime” of not meekly submitting to their authority like the rest of the cowering sheep at the terminal, causing him to miss his flight to Washington.

After this latest outrage was publicized, the TSA disputed that the senator was “detained,” and pointed to an incident report referring to Paul as “a passenger being irate.” However, a video released afterward by the Metro Airport Authority shows Paul being escorted by an airport official to a small glass cubicle while being watched by authorities, and at no time does he appear to be irate.

“It is our protocol to refer to law enforcement when a passenger refuses to complete the screening process,” explained a TSA official. Passengers who refuse to comply with security procedures are denied access to the secure gate area. In this case, Paul was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement, according to the TSA.

Sounds like an arrest and detainment to me.

Hours later, the senator was re-booked on a subsequent flight and re-screened without incident.

His father, Ron Paul shortly released a statement to the press vowing that, as president, he would eliminate the TSA. "The police state in this country is growing out of control," he declared. "One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe.”

Truer words were never spoken. If this kind of thing can happen to a United States Senator, of all people, surely the rest of us miserable peons are in a world of trouble in the United Police States of America.

When everyone no matter what is a terrorist suspect, including those who are obviously not, we should rightly and properly suspect that it’s the United States government, and TSA that are the real terrorists.

Lobbyist or Consultant: Distinction Without Difference

2012-01-31T16:57:00.000+07:00

Mitchell Delk, the newly installed chief lobbyist at The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), a.k.a. “Freddie Mac,” in 1999, hired Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, a prominent Washington insider to advise him on how to build support among conservatives on Capitol Hill, reports Reuters recently.

Gingrich’s job was to help strategize the firm’s building of goodwill in Congress by, among other things, holding fundraising events for influential members of House and Senate committees that had oversight of Freddie Mac. Gingrich had expertise in such matters as an architect of GOPAC, one of the Republican Party's most important and influential political action committees.

Was Newt Gingrich a lobbyist for Freddie Mac? Technically, no; at least that is the label Gingrich specifically wanted to avoid in his contract with the firm, so there is a clause in the initial document specifying that he would not do any lobbying. He now claims that he was paid as a “consultant” – more specifically an “historian” -- not a lobbyist.

A “lobbyist” is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest. A “consultant” is a person who gives professional or expert advice. In this case, Newt Gingrich was in reality a consultant employed to give professional expert advice to Freddie Mac lobbyists in regard to how best to influence legislation on Capitol Hill on behalf and in favor of Freddie Mac.

Lobbyist or consultant – here it was manifestly a distinction without a difference. Newt Gingrich was paid a total $1.8 million under two separate contracts between 1999 and 2008 to advise Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist and his lobbying team about how best to influence Congress. He taught the lobbyists how to lobby.

Gingrich was part and parcel of that lobbying team right up until the U.S. Treasury placed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae under conservatorship after the firm sustained $14.9 billion in losses when the U.S. housing market crashed. In short, Freddie Mac played a major role in the subprime lending crisis causing the U.S. housing market to implode, and Newt Gingrich was involved in the mess up to his eyeballs.

Gingrich's campaign admitted last year that part of his job was to help Freddie Mac build bridges to conservatives. His contract stated that he would work with Delk and other Freddie Mac officials, i.e. lobbyists, on "strategic planning and public policy," as well as contribute to “corporate planning and business goals."

He joined Delk’s government affairs department at Freddie Mac right at the very time the firm was actively hiring several former members of Congress and congressional aides for his lobbying team. It was when conservative Republicans in Congress were seeking regulations to rein in the profits of government-sponsored lenders such as Freddie Mac.

Delk successfully opposed such regulation attempts by hiring dozens of outside consultants, including Newt Gingrich, and spending as much on lobbying as many major corporations. His lobbying team came under investigation by the FEC in 2003, and Freddie Mac was found to have improperly used corporate resources to put on 85 fundraising events that raised about $1.7 million for federal candidates, a majority of them Republicans.

In 2006, Freddie Mac agreed to a $3.8 million settlement for violating federal election rules, the largest civil fine the FEC had ever levied. In 2007 the housing market crashed when too many un-creditworthy homeowners given generous mortgage terms by Freddie Mac and other lenders began defaulting on their loans. And the rest is history.

The painful irony now is Newt Gingrich’s pitiful characterization of his job with Freddie Mac as an "historian." It’s laughable to say the least. The lobbying team at Freddie Mac was hardly interested in the subject of history in 1999 when the boss hired Newt Gingrich, the consummate Washington insider. It wasn’t history they sought; no, it was much more about how to get influence on Capitol Hill.

It was about influence peddling -- lobbying, consulting and influence peddling; in this case it’s all the same – a distinction without a difference.

Newt Gingrich: Evangelical Space Cadet

2012-01-28T16:47:00.000+07:00

Newt Gingrich is often described as the smartest most intelligent man in the room as compared to his rival running mates on the debate stage, however, if this is so, it’s a mystery to me how he can come up with some of the dumbest must unintelligent ideas I’ve ever heard.

Most of the candidates, with the refreshing exception of Dr. Ron Paul, feel obligated to pander to the evangelical religious right with their pious anti-gay and family values positions. Gingrich does all of that too but then goes far beyond any semblance of rational hyperbole with inane attempts to please his Bible thumping constituents.

Lately, for example, the Newt has been on what he calls an “anti-religious-bigots” jag.

The standard dictionary definition of the term “bigot” refers to a person who is utterly intolerant of anyone different than himself, usually in regard to physical appearance, such as skin color, cultural practices or beliefs. Thus, “bigot” is often correctly applied to uncompromising religious people who vilify and want to discriminate against those who do not conform to their standards of religious morality.

Newt Gingrich, for example, fits the dictionary definition of a religious bigot, but being the slippery tongued disingenuous politician that he is, he likes to turn that definition around one hundred and eighty degrees to the opposite so that a “bigot” in his fraudulent lexicon is the one who won’t conform to his personal religious ideas, and perhaps objects to being imposed upon by them, especially in the name of government.

Government in America is supposed to remain neutral in matters of religion. Gingrich knows this but has taken the liberty to turn that proposition around on its ear by asserting that government officials who adhere to religious neutrality as they are supposed to do are anti-religious-bigots. That has been his incredulous position in the last several debates.

Gingrich declared in South Carolina: “One of the key issues is the growing anti-religious bigotry of our elites and if you get a chance, if you go to newt.org, my campaign site, there's a fifty four page paper there on the balance of power, putting the judiciary back in its proper role and eliminating dictatorial religious bigots such as Judge Biery in San Antonio…,” (who issued a ruling against organized public school prayers at graduation ceremonies.) “Now, we don't have speech dictatorship in America by anti-religious bigots, period.”

During the last Florida debate, Gingrich ranted: “Third, one of the reasons I’m running is there has been a war on religion, particularly on Christianity in this country, and I frankly believe it’s important to have leadership that says, enough, we are given the right for religious freedom, not religious oppression by the state.”

You see, according to the Newt, Judge Biery is an anti-religious-bigot for not allowing a public school function to be taken over by Christian prayer. There is a war on Christianity in America being waged by anti-religious-bigots who object to government sponsorship of his Christian religion.

The proper role of the judiciary is to support his religious beliefs. Any jurist who refuses to do that is an anti-religious-bigot. So he’s going to reform the judiciary by getting rid of anti-religious-bigot judges who have the temerity to enforce the First Amendment Establishment Clause. Religious freedom in the United States of America is limited to Christianity, period.

Now these are pretty dumb ideas, for sure, but it gets even worse. It seems that the ultra-right-wing evangelical fanatic Newt Gingrich is also a dedicated and fanatical space cadet. If elected president this so-called fiscally conservative Tea Party Republican vows to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in a “bold vision” to put an American colony on the Moon by 2020.

Campaigning (i.e. pandering) on Florida’s “Space Coast,” last Wednesday, Gingrich made no apologies for his admittedly “grandiose ideas” on space. “I accept the charge that I am an American and Americans are instinctively grandiose,” declared the Newt, referring to a proposal he made early in his career, which called for American residents of the moon to petition for statehood when they reached a population of 13,000.

Gingrich admitted on Wednesday that the proposition was “the weirdest thing I’ve ever done,” but said he was still a proponent of the plan. “I will, as president, encourage the introduction of the ‘Northwest Ordinance’ for space to put a marker down that we want Americans to think boldly about the future, and we want Americans to go out and study hard and work hard and together we're going to unleash the American people to build the country we love,” he said.

Businessman, Mitt Romney mocked the proposal as prohibitively expensive and outrageous, but Newt was undaunted, contrasting himself to Romney: “Here's the difference between romantics and so-called practical people, I wanted every young American to say to themselves, ‘I could be one of those 13,000, I could be a pioneer.’” Americans should feel “part of a generation of courageous people who do something big and bold and heroic.”

The Newt doesn’t want to stop at a mere 13,000 member Moon colony and statehood for his Moon inhabitants. He also has his sights set firmly upon Mars. “By the end of 2020, we will have the first continuous propulsion system in space capable of getting to Mars in a remarkably short time, because I am sick of being told we have to be timid and I am sick of being told we have to be limited in technologies that are 50 years old,” Gingrich enthused.

If he is so smart, why has he dismissed the simple truth that there is nothing on the Moon or Mars that people want, at least nothing worth the trouble and expense to go after now. President Kennedy launched the Moon expeditions for the sole purpose of proving that it could be done. Well, it was done alright, and for the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, the American people have nothing whatsoever to show for it save a lot of worthless bragging rights.

This is why Newt Gingrich, and other fanatical evangelical space cadet minded politicians shouldn’t be allowed to represent much less govern people here on planet earth.

They’re just too damned “smart” for our sake.

Kiddie Porn Punitory

2012-01-26T14:05:00.000+07:00

The U.S. Supreme Court last November declined to hear an appeal examining whether a person convicted of possessing child pornography can be forced to pay the full amount of restitution to a child victim depicted in the seized images even though not responsible for the initial crime.

The case arose out of a federal undercover sting operation on an Internet chat room believed to be used by pedophiles. A subsequent raid caught a defendant named Monzel in the net along with more than 800 images of child pornography on his computer. He was convicted of possessing the material and sentenced to a 10 year prison term.

Thirty children were identified by experts from among the pictures, three of whom, including a nine-year-old victim named “Amy,” filed requests for restitution under a law, known as Section 2259, passed by Congress directing the courts to order defendants convicted for crimes involving sexual exploitation of children to pay restitution to cover the “full amount of the victim’s losses.”

This punitory damages law has resulted in a wide variety of decisions within the federal judiciary over the question as to exactly what Congress intended. Amy’s lawyers requested that the judge order Monzel to pay Amy restitution in the sum of $3,263,758, even though he had nothing to do with her sexual abuse.

So the question is: should someone guilty of possessing child pornography be subject to the same potential multimillion-dollar restitution penalty as the criminal who actually physically abused the child, recorded the abuse, and distributed the resulting illicit images?

One federal district judge in Florida ordered a defendant convicted of possessing six images of a child victim to pay her full restitution totaling $3,680,153 even though the man had nothing to do with her abuse. Several other courts have similarly ruled that mere possession of illegal images can make a defendant liable for the full cost of a child victim’s injuries, including all the underlying sexual assaults and abuse.

But other federal courts in Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania have declined to order any restitution at all in situations where the defendant merely possessed pictures. These decisions hold that there must be evidence showing that a defendant’s conduct in possessing the illicit images was a proximate cause of the child’s injuries.

A California federal court ordered $3,000 in restitution under the law; a Virginia court, $4,500; an Indiana court, $5,448; and a Georgia court, $12,740. A Washington judge ordered $1,000 for each of 65 photos found in the defendant’s possession -- $65,000 in restitution.

Child victim advocates insist that the law requires anyone convicted of any involvement with child pornography including mere possession of pictures must be forced to pay the full amount of the child’s damages resulting from the abuse. The law should be interpreted as a powerful deterrent to pedophiles and to undercut the flourishing international trade in images of child sexual abuse, they argue.

Paul Cassell, a Utah law school professor, claims that “Congress broadly commanded that district courts must award restitution in every single case for the full amount of the victim’s losses.

More reasonable minds, including those in the Obama administration, disagree, arguing that restitution should be commensurate only with harms caused by the particular defendant. An overly broad enforcement of the law raises constitutional issues about fairness, due process, and excessive punishment, they reason.

The law doesn’t specify exactly how judges are to decide the question. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the comprehensive restitution approach, the Second; Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have favored more targeted restitution tied to proof that actions by the defendant were the proximate cause of injuries.

Amy’s lawyers have filed more than 700 requests just in the U.S. for full restitution of more than $3 million. “I am being exploited and used every day and every night somewhere in the world by someone,” Amy said in a 2009 victim impact statement. “How can I ever get over this when the crime that is happening to me will never end? How can I get over this when the shameful abuse I suffered is out there forever and being enjoyed by sick people?”

The judge in Amy’s case rejected her request, ruling that the law authorized compensation for the harm caused by Monzel, not the total harm she suffered. He set the amount at $5,000. The appeals court reversed the $5,000 award and remanded the case back to the judge to determine an appropriate level of restitution that reflected the actual harm done to Amy by Monzel’s possession of the images of her being abused.

Her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, as indicated above, was denied.

Few reasonable people would argue least of all me that victims of child sexual abuse were injured and deserve damages for their suffering and humiliation – from the criminal; the abuser who caused the damage – not from those who merely looked at the pictures.

To argue or hold otherwise is patently insane. It’s like holding a person fully responsible for a murder for merely looking at a picture of the victim after the fact. By that reasoning the police who seized the porn pictures, the prosecutor, judge, jury, experts and anyone else who looked at them during the trial process should likewise pay the full amount of restitution.

This is just another example among many of the collective irrational hysteria over “thought crimes” which cause no harm whatsoever to victims, but somehow offend the Authority’s sense of morality.

The idea of forcing someone to pay punitory damages in the millions of dollars for merely looking at pictures of criminal activity – kiddie porn punitory -- crosses way over the line of what is right and what is wrong.

Rape Baby

2012-01-24T16:56:00.000+07:00

Mike Huckabee hosted his Fox News Channel talk show recently featuring a nice attractive young woman who was born the product of a rape. Her message, supported avidly by Huckabee, was how wonderful it was to be alive, how grateful she was that her mother didn’t decide to abort her, and why every woman who is raped and impregnated by her rapist should bring the product of the rape to term.

I happen to like Mike Huckabee. He seems like a genuinely good hearted well meaning and kind spirited human being. I don’t agree with his religiously oriented position on abortion and other politically charged social issues but I like him as a person none-the-less.

And I’m happy for the woman who was born the product of a rape. I’m glad she survived. She is understandably grateful for her mother’s sacrifice, just as we all should be for the sacrifices of our parents. Her life is just as valuable and important now as yours or mine.

But all of that is frankly beside the point. I consider myself just as “pro-life” as they are. Anti-abortion advocates do not own a monopoly lock on the concept of “pro-life” just because they have appropriated that term for their political causes.

The anti-abortion zealot’s are no more concerned with the value of “life” than me or anyone else, especially those of us who hold that the concept of liberty includes a woman’s right to control her own body and her own capacity for reproduction.

In fact, I have concluded long ago after much attention and study to the issue that it is not so much the matter of “life” that the anti-abortion proponents are concerned about as it is their desire to force their religious values upon the lives of everyone. It is not enough for them to follow their own consciences as to whether or not to reproduce themselves in their own lives; they want to force their personal life choices upon others.

Of course, that is one of the biggest problems with the Republican Party over the last several decades. All of the candidates must satisfy a so-called “pro-life” litmus test, and if they fail that test, their chances of securing a presidential nomination are next to nil.

The major consequence of that is the fact that a substantial majority of rational people in America believe in fundamental liberty and a woman’s right to choose. We simply don’t want to be governed by the right-wing evangelical’s religion. It scares us. This situation makes it much more difficult for Republicans, who might otherwise espouse good political ideas, to be elected president.

Which brings me back to Mike Huckabee and the new documentary movie he’s been touting to his flock of religious conservatives called “The Gift of Life,” about the story of the aforementioned “rape baby,” and her purportedly “powerful” anti-abortion message.

The premiere of the film last December before the Iowa caucuses was attended by all four of the presidential candidates representing the most ultra of the ultra-right-wing faction of the Republican Party -- Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum – each of whom boasted and pitched their conservative credentials to the assembled crowd for votes.

Santorum garnered the biggest applause line when he quipped against his competitors: “I have some problems with some of the folks running for office these days when they say, ‘I believe life begins at conception.’ That’s like, I say, ‘I believe the sun rises.’” “Why would you say you believe something that’s a fact?” he asked rhetorically.

Newt Gingrich had spoken just minutes earlier in favor of a congressional bill that would define personhood as beginning at conception, an idea which was seemingly not extreme enough to satisfy Mr. Santorum.

The fact is, however, that Gingrich, Santorum, and all the rest of them are blinded by religion and therefore badly mistaken in this regard. Life most certainly does not begin at conception. Not even the Bible, which is silent on the matter of abortion, supports that assertion.

Life is an ongoing continuum which began on Earth billions of years ago, and conception is merely one stage in the process. Every human egg and sperm is alive and has only to unite in order to keep a particular line going.

A woman produces hundreds of eggs within her reproductive lifetime; a man millions of sperm. It is therefore entirely a matter of random chance that any one of us became a product of that process. Chance determined the timing of our parent’s coital activity which resulted in our conception. Chance determined the selection of the one particular egg out of many which was present on that occasion. Chance determined the single sperm cell out of millions which happened to unite with that egg.

The odds against any one individual surviving are enormous. Had a different sperm cell succeeded on that same occasion, the product would not have been you or me, but a different individual entirely. There was no magic moment intended by God; just random chance as is the case with the reproduction process of every other species of animal and plant on planet Earth.

We are all extraordinarily lucky to be here – not just the “rape baby.” It’s as though each of us has won the multi-million dollar lottery. For every one of us who survived the ordeal, millions more have died and were discarded by nature in the process. Nature discards many lives – inevitably all lives – in the ongoing continuum of life.

Why are the religious conservatives; Huckabee, Gingrich, Santorum, and the rest of them not concerned with all these other discarded lives? The answer to that question is that it is not the life they care about but their religion and the importance to them in forcing it upon everyone.

They aren’t concerned with the life of a woman who has been raped. They want to force her to carry the spawn of the rapist inside her. They don’t mind if she feels that she is being raped again and again every day of her life thereafter, not only during the pregnancy, but until the day she herself dies. They don’t care about her husband or father or other loved one who would be forced also to witness her anguish.

They don’t worry about the lives of victims; their only concern is religion. They are more concerned with an imagined afterlife than the fact of your life and my life. It is that profound irrationality that leads them to conclude that the spawn of a rapist is more important than the life of a victim.

What’s Wrong With Moderate?

2012-01-22T11:44:00.000+07:00

The astounding results are being tallied right now as I write this post. Newt Gingrich has clearly won big in the State of South Carolina. This, I fear, is going to make the Newt’s already bulging head swell to hydrocephalic proportions. His penchant for unbridled grandiosity will magnify well beyond insufferable to the point of unbearable in the coming days and weeks.

Much of the credit is due to Newt’s two successful debate performances during which he fed his hungry Obama hating audience the all ultra-right-wing evangelical socially statist pabulum they love to hear.

He also got a huge assist right at the beginning of the last debate from John King, the CNN moderator, who started the contest with the stupidest and most irrelevant question I have ever heard in a presidential debate: “Do you want to talk about your ex-wife’s infidelity allegations against you?”

Not surprisingly, Gingrich blasted that puff ball out of the park and got a standing ovation in the bargain. The audience was his from that point on. Their fervid emotional hatred for the left-leaning mainstream media overwhelmed and blinded them to any semblance of sober and rational judgment. And they carried that hot emotional response right on through into the primary voting booths.

Newt Gingrich likes to paint his major rival, Mitt Romney, over and over again as a “Massachusetts moderate,” as if that’s a bad thing, but I ask you: what’s wrong with moderate? What is wrong with moderation in politics as well as in life?

Obviously, the alternative to a political moderate is a political extremist. Newt Gingrich is therefore admittedly a political extremist. His views are extreme. His politics are extreme. Both he and Rick Santorum are political right-wing-ultra extremists; war mongers; interventionists; social statists; and religiously oriented tyrants by any definition of those terms.

Do the Republican’s really believe that they can successfully run a right-wing political extremist against Barack Obama in the general election?

Some hard core right-wingers like to think that Obama is a leftist extremist, but next to Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama looks like an attractive moderate. Hell, next to the Newt, he looks like the soul of moderation. And on top of that, Barack Obama, at least, appears to be a nice guy, an amiable fellow, which is a hallmark of personal moderation.

Newt Gingrich admitted in an interview just recently that if the presidential election were a popularity contest he would lose because he is not perceived as a nice guy. He apparently knows too well that he comes across as a mean spirited, puffed up, angry, old white man; the kind of person who disdains moderation in all its forms.

I have some news for Mr. Gingrich: presidential elections are definitely popularity contests of the first order.

Contrast the Newt with Mitt Romney, who seems like a nice guy. He doesn’t get mad. He doesn’t raise his voice. He doesn’t become vicious. He just remains steady, intelligent, capable, caring, even keeled, rational, and likable. What’s wrong with that?

If there is one thing that irritates me with Mitt Romney it’s that he won’t own up to being a moderate. He’s a moderate, and that’s a good thing. He should make the most of it. Moderation is the stuff that will beat Barack Obama in the general election.

So when the likes of Newt Gingrich despairingly call him a “moderate,” Romney should answer them simply and concisely: “Yes, I’m a moderate; I will govern as a moderate conservative. Do you want the alternative? Do you want an extremist? If that’s what you want, then go ahead and vote for Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann – the unelectable political extremists of the Republican Party.”

Mitt Romney didn’t lose in Iowa and South Carolina because he’s a moderate. It wasn’t his tenure and success at Bain Capitol, or his reluctance to disclose his taxes that did him in. And it wasn’t Gingrich’s skill at the debates either. He lost because he’s a Mormon, and most of the ultra-right-wing evangelical Christian bigots in those two states simply will not bring themselves to vote for a Mormon, even if it means Obama will be re-elected president.

A Mormon trying to pander himself to those types as someone he’s not is going to lose their vote and that is what happened in those Bible thumping states. If he would only assert that his conservative moderation is what’s necessary to win the general election, and start to paint Gingrich and Santorum as the statist political extremists they are, he’d revive his candidacy in my opinion.

But when it comes to the ideal of moderation in politics as opposed to extremism, Ron Paul is clearly the winner hands down. Of the remaining candidates, Romney comes in second by comparison, even though the blood thirsty ultra-right-wingers of the Republican Party call Paul’s politics extreme.

To that nonsense, I can only say:

Since when is the concept of liberty extreme?

Since when is the idea of sound money extreme?

Since when is the notion of thrift in government extreme?

Since when is advocacy for world peace extreme?

Since when is non-intervention; non-aggression; and non-violence extreme?

Since when is respect and tolerance for the rights of all extreme?

What’s wrong with moderate?

Newt Feeds Raw Meat to Snarling GOP Big Cats

2012-01-19T17:52:00.000+07:00

Thursday, January 19, 2012

“South Carolina in the Revolutionary War had a young 13-year old named Andrew Jackson. He was sabered by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life. Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America’s enemies: Kill them,” Newt Gingrich expounded to a standing ovation and thunderous applause at Monday night’s Republican Party presidential debate in South Carolina.

The Daily Beast described the line as “a killer rhetorical blow.”

Fox News political pollster analyst Frank Luntz called it “the best line of the entire debate. Those kinds of statements are what propelled Gingrich to the leader of the pack back in December, until Mitt Romney’s super PAC took him down. I think you’ll see some movement from this debate.”

“Gingrich’s performance was epic,” gushed The Daily Caller website in a story headlined Newt delivers potentially game-changing performance. “It very well may have been the single best performance during any debate in the current cycle.”

“[A] dazzling success that drew an unprecedented standing ovation and could propel him back into close contention for the nomination,” declared Newsmax.com. By Tuesday afternoon, Gingrich's performance was receiving kudos from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who admitted to jumping out of his chair on several occasions while watching.

“It was everything that the establishment Republicans don’t want to hear and don’t want to see,” said Limbaugh. (Yes and probably a majority of the general electorate as well, I think.) “I have to say I think it was the best debate yet. It was Newt’s night, but they all did well,” Limbaugh concluded. “Obama doesn’t stand a prayer, if Newt were the nominee . . . in the debates.”

Most Republicans, especially the bible thumping evangelical Christians amongst us, just love to watch and listen to their political Authority screaming and banging the podium while dishing up raw red rhetorical meat about killing our enemies and waging endless wars. That always brings them to their feet accompanied by loud cheers, shrill whistles, and wild applause. Newt Gingrich knows exactly how to serve it up to them.

The same ravenous crowd hissed and booed the libertarian candidate, Rep. Dr. Ron Paul, when he implored his Party to bring the troops home, dismantle the 900 or so military bases abroad, stop all the mindless killings and endless wars.

Many Americans today – predominately evangelical right-wing Republicans -- are downright bloodthirsty when it comes to perceived and imagined enemies of what they think of as our “exceptional” nation. It’s the reason why the United States of America is so utterly despised and reviled by rational people all around the world.

America’s war mongers have forgotten the hard lessons of Vietnam and all the other murderous killing fields in our shameful militaristic historical past.

Newt Gingrich, especially, calls himself a devout Christian, and so do most, of not all, of his admirers, yet they are so quick to forget the central message of their own God, and his alleged representative on Earth, Jesus Christ, who reportedly exhorted God’s commandment: “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex: 20) and said, “Ye have heard that it has been said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Matt: 5)

“Kill them,” proclaims Newt, and the crowd goes wild. “No, we must find a way to stop the killing,” reasons Dr. Paul, and the crowd cat-calls him. They don’t want peace; they want war! They want to spend America’s blood and treasure on killing adventures all over the globe.

And while we’re at it, let’s have the poor children, especially the black skinned ones, picking up after their more fortunate peers at school while the rich ones look down at them, play football, and otherwise enjoy their leisure time, opines the Newt.

Asked by debate moderator Juan Williams whether he could understand why his comments that “black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps” and that “poor kids lack a strong work ethic” and perhaps should “work as janitors in their schools” were insulting to African-Americans, Gingrich dismissed the notion out of hand. “No, I don’t see that,” he said smugly, again to wild applause.

You see, that’s Newt’s solution to the flagging economy: put the black school children to work in their schools instead of the unionized janitors. The crowd loved it. “Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history,” Gingrich declared, to more thunderous applause. “… It just lit up the audience, and they continued to applaud right into the commercial break,” said Luntz:

Gee, I don’t agree much with Barack Obama’s economic policies either, but I surely didn’t know that one of his responsibilities was to put people on food stamps. I thought that policy was formulated long before Obama became president, and there have been plenty of people on food stamps ever since, with Republican and Democrat presidents alike.

Hey, I always like to give credit when credit is due, and the truth of the matter is that Newt Gingrich is a pretty good debater – a lousy leader; poor candidate, mean spirited, and unlikable human being -- but a pretty good debater. That’s about as far as his political attributes go. He might possibly best Barack Obama in a one on one policy wonk style debate but Barack Obama would make mince meat out of Newt Gingrich in a general presidential election.

Newt Gingrich is simply not electable. He was recently described, and I think rightly, accurately, and humorously so, by one Republican Party pundit as: “an angry little attack muffin.”

He came in a distant fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth out of a field of six in the New Hampshire primary race, yet now, after just one admittedly decent debate performance in South Carolina, he has the nerve to urge his fellow rivals, Rick Santorum (who beat him in both contests) and Rick Perry, to get out of the race so that he can become the so-called conservative alternative to front runner Mitt Romney.

"So I am respectful that Rick has every right to run as long as he feels that's what he should do, but from the stand point of the conservative movement, consolidating into a Gingrich candidacy would in fact virtually guarantee a victory on Saturday," Gingrich boasted in Florence S.C. after the debate. "And I'd be delighted if either Perry or Santorum wanted to do that."

Gingrich added that the reason conservatives should coalesce around him and not Santorum is because he knows how to design a national campaign. "I actually know how to set up a conservative alternative to Obama in a way that will be very, very effective and very strategic. And I don't think Santorum can do any of that. Again, it's not because he isn't a nice guy. He doesn't have any of the knowledge for how to do something like this."

According to Newt, nobody has much knowledge about anything except him.

"I'm a friend of Newt's, he's a good man, but the idea that someone who is 0 and 2 in races is that I am hurting him. Yeah I'm hurting him. I'm beating him. That's the difference," Santorum retorted.

For once, Rick Santorum has said something I can agree with. Newt Gingrich is great at the job of throwing raw meat to the ravenous crowds. He’s not so great at being a leader or even getting himself elected.

Assassination Nation

2012-01-17T17:53:00.000+07:00

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, age 32, along with his driver, was the third Iranian nuclear scientist in two years to be successfully assassinated last week during the morning rush-hour in Tehran by a bomb attached to his car. It was the fifth similar assassination attempt targeting Iran’s nuclear scientists. One scientist managed to survive an earlier plot.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's top religious cleric blames the United States Government Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Israel’s Mossad Intelligence Agency for the killings, claiming they have hard evidence of their involvement.

"We have reliable information, documents and evidence that this terrorist act was planned, guided and supported by the CIA [to assassins] directly involved in Roshan's killing," the Iranian foreign ministry said in a letter handed to the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, who represents U.S. interests there in as much as Washington has no diplomatic ties with Iran.

This shows that "the global arrogance spearheaded by the U.S. and Zionism has reached a deadlock in confrontation with the determined, devout and progressive nation of Islamic Iran," Ali Khamenei declared. They will not own up to it but this "has been carried out by the planning or support of CIA and Mossad, like all other crimes of the network of international state terrorism."

Iran reportedly also delivered a letter to Britain accusing it of having an "obvious role" in the killing. It said that a series of assassinations began after British intelligence chief John Sawers hinted in 2010 at intelligence operations against the Islamic Republic.

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency is also blamed in light of the fact that it made public a list of Iranian nuclear scientists and officials that "has provided the possibility of their identification and targeting by spy networks."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, both condemned and "categorically" denied any role in the assassinations, but urged Iran to halt its quest for a nuclear bomb. "We were not involved in any way … I'm not sure who was involved, we have some ideas as to who might be involved... but I can tell you one thing: the United States was not involved in that kind of effort, that's not what the United States does," said Panetta.

Israeli President Shimon Peres said Israel had no role in the attack, to the best of his knowledge. "I have no idea who targeted the Iranian scientist but I certainly don't shed a tear," said Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, a spokesman for Israel Defense Forces.

Iran has accused Israel in the past of causing major mishaps to its nuclear program. Israeli officials never comment on their involvement but some have publicly expressed satisfaction at the results. The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear dispute. Iran says it would retaliate if attacked.

Republican presidential candidate and bombastic war mongering chicken-hawk, Rick Santorum, said afterwards that the U.S. was wrong to condemn the assassination. "Our country condemned it. My feeling is we should have kept our mouth shut," Santorum opined at a campaign event in Greenville S.C.

"If these are people who are developing a weapon to be used to either destroy the state of Israel or to spread terror -- a reign of terror -- around the world, we shouldn't be sitting on the sidelines and letting it happen," Santorum added. "They cannot have a nuclear weapon, because you, in Greenville, will not be safe."

So Rick Santorum, the American prince of jingoistic sanctimony, believes that our nation is perfectly justified in indiscriminately going around the globe sponsoring assassination squads to murder in cold blood innocent civilian scientists simply because they are involved in projects such as nuclear facilities with which he disapproves.

The last time I checked, America, Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, France, the U.K., and especially Israel, can all boast of having nuclear scientists, nuclear weapons, and nuclear facilities. Many more nations on the planet have nuclear scientists and nuclear facilities if not also nuclear weapons of mass destruction. If Santorum’s reasoning is sound then any nation is justified in assassinating the nuclear scientists of another nation in the interests of safety.

This is just an educated guess on my part, but my gut tells me, despite all the pious denials, condemnations, and disingenuous denunciations, that America, Israel and the U.K. are up to their eyeballs in this appalling violation of international law. No other entities have the motive, means and opportunity to carry out such a vile scheme. It has CIA written all over it.

If they are involved, and if our own government believes that this kind of criminal conduct is justified by any stretch of reasoning, then they must accept the plain truth that the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 on the United States, and all other terrorist acts before and after, are perfectly justified as well. After all, those criminals likewise didn’t approve of our aims and projects either.

Sadly, it appears likely that the United States of America; the land of the free and home of the brave, has become a criminal assassination nation.

Dear Leader

2012-01-15T20:49:00.000+07:00

North Korea announced last week this latest nauseating scenario: the embalmed corpse of its former “Dear Leader,” the late Kim Jong Il, now formally enshrined with the label “Eternal Leader,” will be put on permanent display as a macabre object of worship at Pyongyang's Kumsusan Memorial Palace, near the moldering corpse of his late father, dubbed the “Eternal President,” Kim Il Sung, founder of the Korean communist Kim dynasty.

February 16, the Dear Leader’s birthday, will now and forever hereafter be known as the "Day of the Shining Star," a supposed reference to his "military first" policy, just as his father’s birthday is called the "Day of the Sun." Statues and portraits of the Dear Leader together with "towers to his immortality" will also be set up everywhere in the country.

The Political Bureau of the Workers' Party Central Committee declared North Korea's "unanimous desire ... to hold the great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il in high esteem as the eternal leader of the party and the revolution." His father got exactly the same cult of personality treatment when he died in 1995.

And the dynasty lives on for now in the form of the son, twenty-something year-old Kim Jong Un, who inherited a boat load of his daddy’s magnificent political and military titles with the hope that he too can impose himself and his personality on the nation’s pitiful populace with absolute power and manufactured legitimacy as well as his authoritarian father and grandfather did before him.

The never ending propaganda praising Kim Jong Il's life and works has gone up several notches since his death and the privileged class has vowed to uphold his policies in an attempt to justify the hereditary transfer of communist power to the kid.

All of this has got to be the most bizarre version of George Orwell’s Animal Farm I have ever witnessed. It is the horrible nightmare of Authority run amok. It is big government and big military completely unrestrained where the truth is far stranger than the fiction. The people of North Korea are starving; there is zero freedom; no dignity; no life, liberty or pursuit of happiness; no rights whatsoever; nothing to live for. They are beyond pity.

The life of the average North Korean is a perpetual charade in which their very being is entirely exposed, monitored, dominated and controlled 24/7 by human monsters -- humanoids deprived and devoid of empathy, bereft of sympathy, totally lacking in even the tiniest shred of human kindness, mercy or decency.

North Korea makes the proverbial Devil’s territory of Hell in the Holy Bible seem like a desirable summer vacation destination.

And now we learn that these monstrous savages are actually rounding up and punishing numerous hapless souls who fail to sufficiently exhibit sincere manifestations of sadness and despair at the death of the Dear Leader.

According to North Korean sources, the brutal regime “authorities are handing down at least six months in a labor-training camp to anybody who didn’t participate in the organized gatherings during the mourning period, or who did participate but didn’t cry and didn’t seem genuine.”

Amnesty International reports that there are about 200,000 offenders and families held in North Korean prison camps camps known as “zones,” where 40 percent of inmates in the camps will die from malnutrition and every former inmate interviewed for the report had witnessed at least one public execution while being held.

Total Control Zones, are for people who have committed “serious crimes.” People in these camps are never released. Revolutionary Zones, are camps for people who have committed less serious offenses such as making critical comments toward government policy or trying to cross the border. Sentences range from a few months to 10 years in these zones.

This is what people get when they seek a Dear Leader – when they seek Authority!

Compulsory Education: The Slippery Slope

2012-01-11T11:49:00.000+07:00

"I believe that every child should have the opportunity, even if they don't go, to at least apply to a college," gushed Washington, D.C. Council Chairman Kwame Brown last week.

That’s nice. What a sweet guy – thinking about kids. I believe every child ought to have opportunities too. Certainly, if a kid, after finishing high school, desires a chance to apply for admission to a college, he or she ought to have the opportunity to do so.

It’s part of the American dream: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Is that what Councilman Kwame is talking about? Liberty? Freedom? Opportunity? Equality under the law?

Unfortunately, no; I’m afraid it’s the opposite. He’s talking about forcing his own personal agenda upon every young man and woman within his ambit of political power whether they like it or not.

He introduced a bill to require every high school student to apply to a college or trade school even if the student has no interest or desire in attending.

The bill would establish a "mandatory workshop" to teach teenagers how to apply for aid and admission. It would then require all to apply to at least one post-secondary school before graduation, and further require that every kid take the SAT or ACT college admission tests..

Brown says he’s worried that that some D.C. students aren't going to college simply because they "don't know how to navigate the enrollment process," and he wants to make sure they all learn it whether they want to or not. He doesn’t care what they want for themselves. He just wants to exercise his power over them.

Actually, Brown has it ass backwards. These kids don’t know how to navigate the college enrollment process because they simply don’t want to go to college. It’s as simple as that. Why should they learn it? They aren’t interested in pursuing more formal education. They lack the skills and aptitude for college. They’re sick and tired of compulsory education, teachers, principals, school administrators and people who think they know better about how to lead their own lives than they do. They want their freedom!

The main reason why high school and undergraduate college education in America is quickly becoming worthless these days is because of the attitudes and statist thinking of Authorities like Councilman Kwame Brown. When every kid graduates from high school, including those who are dumber and less ambitious than a bag of marbles, a high school diploma is next to meaningless. When every kid is admitted to college, college loses its value.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that compulsory education laws in America are patently unconstitutional, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Incredibly, the highest court in the land has ignored the Constitution altogether and held that the state as a proper function of its police power may require school attendance – for their own good.

Forget about liberty. Forget about the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments; the right to free speech; freedom of religion and personal conscience; freedom of association; due process; and the rest of the Bill of Rights – none of it matters when the Authorities want to dictate how you lead your own life.

If the Authority is looking for justification for ObamaCare and the individual mandate for every person to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, there is no better precedent than the laws mandating and upholding compulsory education.

If the state can compel the attendance of children in school, it can compel the conduct of adults to buy health insurance – or to do anything else for that matter – for their own welfare; for their own good.

And the United States Constitution may be damned.

Frivolous Lawsuit Hypocrisy

2012-01-08T13:28:00.002+07:00

Politicians, especially Republicans it seems, love to complain about the justice system in America and what they call “frivolous lawsuits.” As far as they are concerned, for instance, every lawsuit against a doctor or hospital brought by an injured patient victim of medical malpractice is frivolous.

Lawsuits brought by little people against big shots and fat cats for fraud, negligence, product liability, or breach of contract, are almost always frivolous according to these blabbering blowhards. They’re constantly demanding judicial reform designed to slam the courthouse door in the little guy’s face regardless of the merit of his claims.

Moreover, when a little person claims a fundamental right not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, or the right to do as they wish with their own body, these same statist politician hacks are quick to say: “Oh, no!; no way! – if it’s not specified in the Constitution, then it doesn’t exist,” they always proclaim.

Trial lawyers who have the temerity to represent injured poor people on a contingent fee basis to remedy the deliberate, reckless, or negligent conduct of wrongdoers are deemed “ambulance chasers” and “legal vultures” by these politicians who yearn for “tort reform,” i.e. harsh rules and procedures which would intimidate the little guy from bringing a meritorious lawsuit.

Yet when one of these sanctimonious fork-tongued political weasels gets the idea that he’s been somehow “wronged” by an individual, a group, or the system at large; or if he thinks his rights have been violated, he’s always the first to run crying and whining to the lawyers and the courts for relief.

That’s because the legal rights, complaints, and causes of politicians are never frivolous in their eyes, especially when they believe that their own ox has been gored.

Take the recent Virginia ballot-access lawsuit situation for example. Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Perry failed to meet the long-standing legal requirements for ballot access in the state’s March 6^th presidential primary contest because his campaign didn’t collect enough valid signatures. So he filed a lawsuit in federal district court demanding inclusion on the ballot anyway.

Days later, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman, all of whom either failed outright to satisfy the same requirements, or simply failed to even try, ran whining to their own lawyers clamoring to join in on the lawsuit claiming that their constitutional rights are violated and demanding that their names also be included on the ballot.

Virginia requires presidential primary candidates to obtain 10,000 valid signatures from registered voters in the state, including at least 400 from each of 11 congressional districts. It’s been the law there for many years.

Mitt Romney and Ron Paul both satisfied the requirements without difficulty and their names will be on the ballot.

Newt Gingrich said his campaign's failure to qualify was a result of fraud. "We hired somebody who turned in false signatures. We turned in 11,100 – we needed 10,000 – 1,500 of them were by one guy who frankly committed fraud,” Gingrich told CNN.

Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Michelle Bachmann didn’t even go to the trouble of filing the necessary paperwork to be included on the ballot. Santorum whined that Virginia's strict rules favor the richest presidential candidates. Perry claims his freedom of speech rights have been violated and calls the requirements "onerous."

“We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot, and we hope to have those provisions overturned or modified to provide greater ballot access to Virginia voters and the candidates seeking to earn their support," declared Perry's communications director.

"The challenge in Virginia isn't about the candidates; it is about the voters," Gingrich said with a straight face. "For the voters in Virginia to be told that ... their options are limited to two people who between them are clearly a minority of the Republican voters is probably unacceptable."

It’s not about the candidates – it’s about the voters. It’s not about me and my failure – it’s about you, Newt explains without even a trace of shame. He was “defrauded” he claims, but if so, it certainly was not by the State of Virginia. He admits his own hired hand is responsible.

And now he claims like the rest of them that his constitutional rights are violated.

But, where is it spelled out, or even inferred or implied, in the Constitution the right to be included on the Virginia Republican Primary contest ballot in the absence of minimal compliance with the rules?

The “onerous” rules were in place for many years but none of these bumbling candidates ever thought of challenging them until after the fact. The fact is that they all failed to meet the simple requirements plainly set forth in the rules, and three of them didn’t even bother to try. The situation is as plain as day.

This is a frivolous lawsuit. If there were ever a frivolous lawsuit, this is it. This is exactly and precisely the kind of lawsuit that these disingenuous politicians always complain about when they holler at the top of their lungs for judicial reform against the little people.

A frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit brought by a party which has either trivial or no merit whatsoever under the law or the facts, and therefore this is a blatant, obvious, trivial, frivolous lawsuit; an archetypal, quintessential, law school textbook definition of a frivolous lawsuit, and there is simply no way around it.

But wait a minute! It’s not quite over yet. Corrupt and sleazy politicians usually get their way when it comes to their own selfish interests, and here there just might possibly indeed be a way around the rules.

Virginia's Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, another slippery politician, spoke out immediately, again after the fact, against what he now calls a "deficient" system. He plans to propose “emergency” changes to the system which would re-open the process and “loosen the rules” for the pathetic failed candidates.

Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has also indicated that he is “open to reviewing Virginia's rules."

All of this is proof once again (if such proof were ever necessary) that when it comes to the interests of politicians, in stark contrast to the little people they claim to represent, they demand entitlement to immunity from their own frivolous lawsuit hypocrisy.

Rick Santorum: Republican Candidate for Religious Bigot in Chief

2012-01-05T15:03:00.000+07:00

“I’m always told that what I say is controversial. Why is it controversial? Because I speak from a tradition that has now fallen out of favor with the dominant media in this country. And so when I say things like marriage should be between one man and one woman, I’m called a bigot.” – Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum.

Yes, it certainly is what he’s always told, and that statement about marriage is among some of the more mild and moderate utterances from the intolerant mindset of Rick Santorum. This fellow represents the physical embodiment of the word “bigot.” He makes Archie Bunker look like a paragon of personal liberty, reason, acceptance and social tolerance.

Last March, Rick Santorum insisted that America should go to war over “moral” values: “America is about an idea, and it has to be about shared value, or what is it? What is it? And that's why these moral issues, that everyone says oh, maybe we should step to the side and have a truce on, you can't. It is who we are. It is the purpose of our country. And I have been out fighting the wars on these moral issues.”

Add my name to the list of those congratulating Mr. Santorum today for his smashing success: almost beating Mitt Romney flat out in the Iowa caucuses; a virtual victory which has left me dazed and amazed by the inept political judgment of the people of Iowa.

I shouldn’t be. The result is merely an affirmation of the fact that, if California is the land of fruits and nuts, Iowa is the land of scolds and religious bigots.

“You can say I’m a hater. But I would argue I’m a lover. I’m a lover of traditional families and of the right of children to have a mother and father… I would argue that the future of America hangs in the balance, because the future of the family hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?” he asks. “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”

Rick Santorum has voted “yes” on a proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In fact, he wouldn’t offer any legal protections at all to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president.

During his 99-county tour of Iowa, he frequently compared same-sex relationships to inanimate objects like trees, basketballs, beer, and paper towels; and even tried to blame the economic crisis on gay people.

He believes that religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right in the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.” Santorum declared.

“Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships.” “Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” “[Gay marriage] threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country.”

You see, Rick Santorum has it in his head an obsession that the United States of America should be likened to a huge ant colony and he’s vying for the job of Queen ant. The only purpose of love and marriage as far as he is concerned is to produce children for the society. The future of our nation hangs in the balance on the issue of (gasp!) gay marriage.

Santorum is positively disgusted by anyone who might tolerate gays in society. “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts,” he once said. “Gay people should stop being gay.” “This is common sense. This is nature, and what we’re trying to do is defy nature because a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society.”

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum told The New York Times Magazine in May 2005.

Huh? Couldn’t the exact same conclusion follow from the right to have consensual straight sex within your own home?

“Does that [gay consensual sex] undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created [in] Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family.”

There you have it! Santorum’s religious bigotry is not just limited to homophobia, no; he actually believes that the fundamental constitutional right to liberty in America does not include a right to privacy – the basic human right to be left alone. "[The] right to privacy…doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution," according to Rick Santorum.

Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal… but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen… This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

“I don’t think it [contraception] works,” he opines. “I think it’s harmful to women, I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. I think it has, as we’ve seen, very harmful long-term consequences for society. So birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”

Asked once if he would allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives, Rick Santorum, employing his ‘states rights’ argument, replied: “the state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”

Not surprisingly, Mr. Santorum also spews an absolutist anti-liberty position on the issue of abortion: “Life begins at conception, no exceptions for incest, rape, or the life of the mother, and doctors performing abortions should be criminally charged.”

Speaking out on Christian television early last year he said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,” he explained.

“Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more ‘professionally’ gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment… Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders.” Rick Santorum; It Takes a Family, Pg. 95, July 2005.

This guy actually stated recently that the fundamental rights to “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness,” as set forth in the Declaration of Independence by America’s founding fathers, does not include any individual’s right to pursue his or her own wants and desires.

In short, we don’t enjoy the right in America to pursue our own version of life, liberty and happiness according to Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum, Heritage Foundation Lecture #804: “My colleague Senator John Ensign of Nevada told me a story that epitomizes the selfishness of our culture: ‘When I was a teenager, I had a sticker in my car with a picture of a bear scratching himself on the tree, and under it was the saying, “If it feels good, do it!”’ “That was the motto of the '60s and the '70s, and certainly it is the motto today. The image of the bear scratching himself highlights a view of human beings as animals, and that people should do what pleases them at the moment without a thought to the broader long-term consequences of their actions.”

“The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire,” says Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum fervently believes that the state has an absolute right to prevent you from scratching your own itch. All it has to do is pass a law, says Rick.

“The elementary error of relativism becomes clear when we look at multiculturalism. Sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of “diversity” as a central educational value… The goal of diversity is wrong.” Rick Santorum: It Takes a Family, Pg. 406, July 2005.

Everyone should be the same, think the same, and act the same in America, according to Rick Santorum. Cultural diversity is wrong.

Rick Santorum on the efficacy of government imposed torture: “[John McCain] doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information.”

Rick Santorum on the problem of nuclear proliferation: “The U.S. should assassinate certain nuclear scientists from countries like Russia, North Korea and Iran.”

Rick Santorum on the War on Terror: “The war against Islamic fascism will be won or lost in America.” “We have a great game plan [in Iraq], and Rumsfeld does fine job.” “War in Iraq is one front in war on Islamic fascism.” “Iran is at the heart of the Iraq war.” “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical.”

Rick Santorum on big government: “Candidly, I believe most corporations actually don't mind big government.”

Rick Santorum on the Democratic Party: “The political base of the Democratic Party is single mothers running households that ‘look to the government for help.’” “The American Left hates Christendom. They hate Western civilization.”

Rick Santorum on President Obama: “Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans - helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions.”

Rick Santorum on poverty in America: “Poor children should have to suffer hunger and other ills to prevent them from developing the sense of entitlement that comes from relying on government social programs... suffering, if you’re a Christian, suffering is part of life… Is that what Jesus meant by suffer the little children’”?

Rick Santorum, as a U.S. Senator, voted YES on recommending a Constitutional ban on flag desecration; YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping; YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses; YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act; and YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provisions.

Rick Santorum voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees; and NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

Calling Rick Santorum an ultra-right-wing religious extremist is putting it mildly. Next to him, statist tyrants like Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich seem like timid moderates. That being the case, I don’t envision Santorum coming close to capturing the Republican Party nomination, much less the presidency, but stranger things have happened in the course of history.

In this regard, Mitt Romney is surely the lucky beneficiary as his chances to win the nomination are enhanced. The fact, however, that the Republican Party in Iowa has given this man Santorum political credibility within the GOP ranks, I think, bodes ill for Republican chances in the November general election against Barack Obama.

The average American now is going to view the Republican’s as a bunch of religious extremists as Rick Santorum is allowed equal status with Romney in the debates and at the convention leading up to the eventual nomination.

They’re likely to view the whole process from here on out as the:

Republican Candidate’s for Religious Bigot in Chief.

Pulpit Politicking Pastors in Iowa

2012-01-02T16:45:00.000+07:00

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich held a conference call with Iowa pastors last week in a last ditch effort to seek their support and the flagging support of their congregations in the Iowa caucuses race for the GOP nomination.

Conservative Christian leaders Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in San Diego and Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, both of whom are supporting Gingrich, also participated in the call.

In a letter sent to pastors inviting them to call in, Wildmon emphasized Gingrich’s “thrust to remove elitist judges who ignore the American people, like the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who voted in 2009 to impose homosexual marriage on all Iowans.”

Several other GOP candidates in the race have been doing the same and many Iowa pastors have been actively involved in the process. At a forum on moral values held at First Federated, an evangelical church in Des Moines, candidates sharply attacked secularism and the Supreme Court while calling for greater restrictions on abortion and gay rights.

Gingrich decried a shift toward secularism in America which he called a “disaster.” “The degree to which the left is prepared to impose intolerance and to drive out of existence traditional religion is a mortal threat to our civilization and deserves to be taken head-on and described as what it is, which is abuse of government to oppress the American people against their own values,” he said.

Two politically active Iowa pastors said recently that an effort has been under way to persuade either Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann to consider quitting the Republican presidential race and endorsing the other to avoid splintering this influential voting bloc’s influence in the state’s caucuses.

“Otherwise, like-minded people will be divided and water down their impact,” explained Rev. Cary Gordon, a Sioux City minister. He said he asked Santorum several weeks ago to consider exiting the race but has since endorsed the former Pennsylvania senator, who is rising in polls. Rev. Albert Calloway, a retired pastor from Indianola, said he asked Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, several days ago to consider quitting the race.

Jeff Mullen, pastor of one of the Des Moines area’s mega churches, helped lead Bachmann’s winning campaign for Iowa’s Republican presidential straw poll last summer. Bachmann told reporters she wasn’t quitting and planned to announce additional clergy who were supporting her candidacy. “The pastors who have endorsed my campaign want to see me as the next president of the United States,” she explained.

Several Iowa pastors spoke with reporters recently about their views on the presidential campaign, sharing advice they have to give to Christian voters about how to determine what a good president will be from a Biblical standpoint, and how to search for the qualities that will allow a candidate to lead the people in a just and Christian way.

Pastor Steve Schmaljohn from the Apostolic Church of Tipton, IA, wrote to his congregants in a long email that there are no perfect candidates: “I believe that we have a responsibility as Christians to choose a candidate prayerfully and in a way that gives consideration to all of the important issues and the needs of the nation. I think it is unwise to choose a candidate based on one single issue, while neglecting others … So, I think first and foremost, for me to support a candidate, they must be respectful towards religion, and particularly (as I believe that Christianity is under attack from many quarters) they must be respectful towards Bible-based Christianity.”

Of course, all pastors on behalf of their churches and their congregations have every right to involve themselves in political campaigns to whatever extent they wish. They can do all the partisan politicking they like from the pulpit and there is nothing to prevent them. That right is guaranteed by First Amendment Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.

But nowhere in the United States Constitution are pastors and churches in Iowa or anywhere else in America guaranteed the right to continued IRS tax exempt status as religious organizations regardless of their partisan political activities.

Religious organizations in America as well as all other non-profit entities enjoy tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This means that they are exempt from reporting their income and paying taxes on it like the rest of us working stiffs as long as they comply with certain rules.

Non-profit organizations receive tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious and the government, rightly or wrongly, has decided that these activities should not be taxed because of the so-called “benefits” to society. That tax benefit comes with conditions. One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics.

In 1954, Congress approved an amendment to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in any political campaign activity.

Pastors on behalf of houses of worship may not endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. Penalties for violating the federal tax laws in this manner include loss of tax-exempt status.

Moreover, the vast majority of Americans -- 75% according to a recent survey – believe that it is inappropriate for churches to publicly endorse candidates for public office.

Bottom line: Churches have no business mixing partisan politics with religion. In the United States of America there is supposed to be a separation between church and state.

These pulpit politicking pastors in Iowa are blatantly violating the federal tax laws and therefore the IRS tax exempt status of their religious organizations should be revoked.

War That Never Ends

2012-01-01T15:28:00.000+07:00

Johnny came marching home for Christmas from Iraq only to learn that he’ll be marching straight back to Afghanistan in six months time.

That’s because former president George W. Bush spawned a war that never ends.

World War I, the war to end all wars, lasted about four years, from 1914 to 1918.

World War II, the greatest world conflict in history, lasted about 6 years, from 1939 to 1945.

The Korean War, though technically not formally ended, lasted just over three years, from 1950 to 1953.

U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War escalated in the early 1960’s, peaking by 1968, and ended in ignominious defeat in 1975, after about 14 years.

Bush’s so-called “War on Terror” started shortly after September 11, 2001, and there is no end in sight.

U.S. Soldiers who just returned from Iraq are being ordered shortly to Afghanistan as part of a mission designed to beef up Afghan forces ahead of a planned 2014 U.S. military withdrawal.

The Obama administration supposedly has a plan to withdraw forces, beginning by pulling 33,000 "surge" troops deployed to help quell the violence by the end of 2012. The remaining 68,000 troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2014. It’s a plan that many military commanders have said is unreasonable. They want to halt it.

It looks like the military brass is going to get their way.

Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, Marine Corps Gen. John Allen, wants to keep a U.S. "military presence" in Afghanistan beyond 2014 when NATO is scheduled to withdraw its forces. He has indicated that forces should remain as long as 2016 when the Afghan Air Force is completed.

Meanwhile, according Reuters, to the Obama administration is considering transferring to Afghan custody, at their request, Mohammed Fazl, a senior Taliban official and "high-risk detainee" held at the Guantanamo Bay, suspected of major human rights abuses, as part of a long-shot bid to improve the prospects of a peace deal in Afghanistan.

Fazl is said to be responsible for the killing of thousands of Afghanistan's minority Shiite Muslims between 1998 and 2001. Military documents also indicate that he was on the scene of a November 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Michael Spann, the first American who died in combat in the Afghan war.

Now, senior U.S. officials are proposing an exchange of "confidence-building measures," including the transfer of five detainees from Guantanamo and the establishment of a Taliban office outside of Afghanistan in an attempt to set up negotiations between the Taliban — a fundamentalist group that refers to Americans as infidels and which is still killing U.S., NATO and Afghan soldiers on the battlefield — and government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

All of this despite the fact that supporters of the potential deal admit that the odds of striking a peace accord are slim.

That’s right; Obama is considering handing over without a trial the worst of the worst Taliban thugs as a “bargaining chip” for a peace that will never happen. He knows like you and me and everyone else that the moment U.S. forces are gone in Afghanistan the place will return immediately to what it was before 9/11 – a Taliban controlled nation.

The same is true in Iraq. Very soon now that place will be worse off than it was under the tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

George Bush’s “War on Terror” never ends.

Perry’s Epiphany

2011-12-29T14:14:00.002+07:00

Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Perry was watching a movie last week while campaigning in Iowa when he experienced yet another profound religious epiphany – a sudden intuitive insight into the mind of God – which moved him to change his anti-liberty position on the issue of abortion.

"You're seeing a transformation," Perry later told reporters about it.

Does this mean that the man who wears the badge of Christianity on his sleeve, and has made religion, and religious faith the focal point of his campaign, is now a pro-liberty Republican?

Hardly.

The movie was a documentary about abortion produced by former Baptist minister, Arkansas Governor, and 2008 Iowa caucus winner, Mike Huckabee. After the screening, Perry met with a woman depicted in the film whose mother was raped leading to her conception and eventual birth.

The meeting "started giving [me] some thought to the issue of rape and incest," Perry explained. "When the lady who was in it was looking me in the eye and saying, `You need to think this through,' she said, `I am the product of a rape' and she said `my life has worth,"' … "It was a powerful moment for me."

Before that, Perry’s position was that he would allow abortion in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk. Now he piously declares that he has strengthened his opposition to abortion and opposes it even in the case of rape, incest or when the woman's life would be at risk.

Get it? He would allow …

Perry's “transformation” from staunch anti-liberty to ultra-anti-liberty politician comes curiously just one week before the Iowa caucuses, a place where right-wing evangelical social conservatives dominate the Republican Party and where Mike Huckabee just happened to win four years ago in a surprise upset victory over Mitt Romney.

He also signed the “Personhood USA” pledge, which states that "abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited."

Perry is desperately trying to regenerate the overwhelming support he generated from evangelicals when entering the race last summer but lost after a series of horrendous debate performances against his more politically nimble opponents.

All of this has had the effect on me of my own profound rational epiphany -- a sudden intuitive insight into the mind of a tyrant – which leads me to understand even more clearly the cancer of religion upon the body of civilization throughout the history of human consciousness.

This man, like all other religious and political tyrants throughout history, would have no problem whatsoever with his conscience in forcing all women – in the name of Jesus Christ -- to bear unwanted offspring in every single instance, without exception, no matter what the consequences.

Get it? Now he would not allow…

Forgive me for thinking the unthinkable, but: if Rick Perry’s wife or daughter were, may chance forbid it, brutally raped and impregnated by a filthy evil lowlife criminal cretin; if afterward he had to face the prospect of witnessing his loved one endure nine months of unrelenting emotional anguish while carrying the vile perpetrators offspring inside her body to term; and then the indelible stain thereafter upon her physical and psychological well being for the rest of her life; I wonder …

Would he just possibly experience another epiphany?

Religious Expression and Government Money

2011-12-27T20:07:00.000+07:00

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, D.C., speaking this week on "Fox News Sunday," said the federal government must take care not to penalize religious expression.

I agree.

The government should never penalize religious expression because that would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Catholic Church in America has always enjoyed a fundamental constitutional right to freely express its religion.

"The church has always been the public effort to meet issues like feeding the hungry, providing care for people in need, the homeless, that we would always be a part of that, and to do that today we need to be all the more respectful of the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religious expression of everyone of us," says the Cardinal.

Yes, there is no question about it; the Church must be permitted to go about its religiously oriented ministrations free from government interference.

But the good Cardinal isn’t really concerned about government interference with his church’s right to religious expression. No; what he’s really concerned with is keeping the uninterrupted flow of generous taxpayer funding in support of those activities while insisting that there be no strings attached. He wants government money without restrictions or any sort of regulations which might conflict with church doctrine.

"One of the things that our conference of bishop has done in response to some of the regulations and some of the difficulties that our Catholic institution are finding is to call all of us to reflect again on the importance that in a pluralistic society, the importance of respecting the religious traditions, the religious freedom, the freedom of conscious of everyone," Wuerl explained.

Yes, in a pluralistic society like ours, it is important to respect the religious freedoms of everyone, but, of course, that is not the point. If the government, because of its insistence upon compliance with its regulations, stops giving his church money that amounts, in the mind of the Cardinal, to government interference with religious expression.

At issue with the Cardinal, among other things, is the fact that the Obama administration in September denied funding to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to help victims of human trafficking because the bishops refuse to refer victims of the slave trade to contraception or abortion services.

The Department of Health and Human Services, prompted by a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, decided to award the grants only to agencies that would refer women for those services. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry calls that evidence of a government "war on religion."

Federal laws provide that no funding can be given to groups that directly provide abortion services and religious organizations cite that in support of their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. Yet when the laws operate against them upon similar grounds they bitterly complain.

"We serve whether it's in education, catholic charities, whether it's in relief of migrants, immigrants, whether it's in social service ministry," said Wuerl. "We serve people all over this nation. What we don't do is violate the conscience of all of us involved there's some things we won't do but that should be respected because it's always been respected."

That’s all very commendable, well and good; the Catholic Church must be permitted to continue doing those things without government interference.

And without taxpayer money.

Pathological Partisan Political Pledging

2011-12-25T16:29:00.000+07:00

There is something decidedly foul and unseemly in my mind about some vote pandering politicians – usually Republicans -- who are willing, for the purpose of appeasing the obsessive and peculiar fetishes of various special interest groups, to sign pledges solemnly promising and committing themselves to do this or that shameful overtly partisan deed if elected to office.

Almost invariably these politicians are asked by right wing social conservative organizations to formally declare, in effect: “I promise to be and act like a religious bigot just like you and your organization if elected.”

True to form, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently became the latest Republican presidential candidate to sign the National Organization for Marriage presidential marriage pledge. NOM is a special interest group dedicated to fighting same sex marriage and preventing same sex couples from adopting children.

“We commend Newt Gingrich for signing NOM’s presidential marriage pledge, committing himself to play a leadership role as president to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” said the group’s president, Brian Brown. “Mr. Gingrich joins all the other major candidates who have made a similar commitment, save for one — Ron Paul. Now we will embark on an intensive communications program to inform Iowa voters who will stand with them to preserve marriage, and who has abandoned them on marriage.”

Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney have already signed the pledge, vowing to support a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, to protect the Defense of Marriage Act in court, appoint conservative judges and a conservative attorney general, create a presidential commission to investigate harassment of same sex marriage opponents and put same sex marriage up to a vote in D.C.

The single major candidate demonstrating the courage and integrity to say “no!” to this group of religious bigots is the libertarian, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, even though he has said that in principle he personally supports the Defense of Marriage Act and personally believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

For his principled omission of apostasy, ignoring this and other similar political pledges, NOM has singled Congressman Paul out for harsh criticism as a sort of false conservative Republican lost black sheep candidate and therefore a proper political target for their ire. Paul has also refused to sign a pledge by the Family Leader, an Iowa-based Christian conservative group. Gingrich signed the marriage pledge last week.

“Many of Ron Paul’s supporters in Iowa believe that he is on their side when it comes to preserving traditional marriage, but he isn’t,” Brown lamented. “While Paul says he personally believes in traditional marriage, he has refused to sign our pledge and, worse, has said that marriage is strictly a private affair and that government has no role in regulating marriage. This is a dangerous position with profound consequences for society.”

If someone rightly believes that marriage is a private affair which is none of the government’s business, that’s a dangerous opinion according to NOM.

“NOM is not going to endorse a candidate in Iowa, but we will be making it clear through online ads, telephone calls and other actions that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann stand with Iowans on defending traditional marriage, and Ron Paul does not,” Brown vowed.

Mr. Brown clearly has the unabashed sympathy of our friends at Fox News, including supposedly “fair and balanced” news anchor, Chris Wallace, who declared to all the world that Republicans in Iowa should not go wasting their votes on Ron Paul.

Wallace, showing his undisguised journalistic bias in favor of former Fox News analyst and Republican statist candidate, Newt Gingrich, maintained that a Paul win “won’t count” nationally and would “discredit” the Iowa caucuses.

“The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this,” Wallace intoned, “But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee …. So therefore, Iowa won’t count … It would certainly be a knock to Gingrich because, you know, right now he was the front runner — or a week ago he was the big front runner in this state so it would be missed opportunity for him.”

Well, so what?

I don’t believe that Ron Paul will likely get the nomination either, but a win in Iowa would go a hell of a long way in establishing the force of his libertarian credentials in the Republican Party and the credibility of his libertarian ideas on the national stage. In that sense, Iowa would most definitely count.

I for one hold a great deal of admiration and respect for Ron Paul, a principled candidate who has the integrity to forswear the temptation to pathological partisan political pledging.

Military Angst

2011-12-22T15:10:00.000+07:00

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has turned up the heat on Congress warning that looming automatic budget cuts of $600 billion or more over the next decade would undermine national security and set off a financial chain reaction from the Pentagon, to the battlefields of Afghanistan, to civilian assembly lines.

"The impacts of these cuts would be devastating for the department," Panetta told the two most influential U.S. government military hawks, Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina in a recent letter, saying they would trigger 23% across-the-board reductions and a halt to many new projects.

"It's a ship without sailors. It's a brigade without bullets. It's an air wing without enough trained pilots. It's a paper tiger, an Army of barracks, buildings and bombs without enough trained soldiers able to accomplish the mission," Panetta whined pitifully at a recent news conference, implying it would lead to a military with a shell but no core.

"It's a force that suffers low morale, poor readiness and is unable to keep up with potential adversaries. In effect, it invites aggression," he insisted. The reductions would "generate significant operational risks: delay response time to crises, conflicts, and disasters; severely limits our ability to be forward deployed and engaged around the world; and assumes unacceptable risk in future combat operations," Panetta warned.

"The consequence of a sequester on the Defense Department would set off a swift decline of the United States as the world's leading military power. We are staunchly opposed to this draconian action," the senators responded in a joint statement. "This is not an outcome that we can live with, and it is certainly not one that we should impose on ourselves. The sequester is a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and it should not be allowed to occur."

Gee, the situation sounds terribly dire, doesn’t it? If we can’t stop spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars every year on new military stuff and new military adventures which would ultimately bankrupt the country, we’ll turn into a paper tiger nation with no claws or teeth. Oh, dear!

But wait a minute. President Obama just declared an end to the war in Iraq and brought home most of the troops. That ought to save us a ton of money in the future, right? That should help ease the pain of the looming defense cuts, right? We won’t have to spend so much money in the Middle East cesspool any more, right?

Wrong! The Obama administration was planning all along to bolster its military presence in the Gulf after pulling out its remaining troops from Iraq because U.S. military officers and diplomats are worried that the withdrawal could bring instability to the region.

So Washington has been negotiating to maintain a combat presence on the ground in Kuwait and is considering deploying more warships in the area. The U.S. also wants to expand its military ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

We’re “ending the war” in Iraq and pulling out the troops so they can stay scattered all over the Middle East waiting around for another conflict which is sure to start. Bottom line -- we’re not going to save a nickel.

Moreover, the U.S. is planning on staying in Afghanistan indefinitely and far into the future. A long-term security pact is in the works.

An Afghan national assembly has endorsed President Hamid Karzai's decision to negotiate a long term military pact with the U.S. with conditions, including an end to unpopular night raids by military forces searching for insurgents.

The U.S. calls it a “Strategic Partnership Document.” As part of a future deal, both sides visualize a force of several thousand, which would train Afghan forces and help with counter terrorism operations. The Afghans want a strong and binding agreement to govern the presence of American forces in the country after 2014.

Washington insists it is not seeking a "permanent" military presence in Afghanistan, saying instead it is looking to help Afghan security forces with intelligence sharing, air power and logistics beyond 2014.

"If they want military bases, we will allow them, it is in our benefit, money will come to us and our forces will be trained," said Karzai. "Regarding the strategic partnership with the United States, everyone said it is a must for the Afghans. It is the only way for Afghanistan to survive," said Mahmoud Karzai, the president's brother.

Karzai also reassured Afghanistan's neighbors, many of whom are concerned about a long-term US influence in the region, that any strategic partnership deal would not hamper relations with them. "Afghanistan sees its national interest in having good relations with neighbors and want our independence to have good relations with neighbors such as China, Russia and others."

But the average poppy pickin’ Afghan peasant doesn’t want us in their country any more than the average American peon wants us there. More than 1,000 university students, for example, blocked a main highway in eastern Afghanistan in protest of the pact to keep thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan past 2014.

"Death to America! Death to Karzai!" they shouted. They won’t accept any partnership with the United States.

The Taliban predictably condemned the pact calling its supporters traitors and puppets of the Afghan government. NATO and U.S. forces are occupiers in the eyes of the Taliban.

You see, the Karzai puppet government needs us to keep it in power. They want our continuing supply of cash. They want us to protect them while they do business with our rivals, Iran, China, Pakistan, Russia, and the rest of the motley lot. They want us to pay for it all while our rivals pay nothing.

It’s a sweet deal for Afghanistan and everyone else in the region who hate our imperialistic guts -- a sour pill for the American taxpayers – we get nothing out of the deal.

If the U.S. simply packed up and got out of the Middle East altogether as we should, leaving the myriad bands of savages there to fend for themselves; if we only put ourselves back where we were before George W. Bush caused this mess, our military financial problems would be solved in a heartbeat.

Leon Panetta and the rest of us would no longer have to suffer any military angst.

Newt Gingrich’s Statist America

2011-12-20T16:57:00.002+07:00

Newt Gingrich, who just like at least 100 million other innocent Americans, candidly admitted once that he smoked marijuana while in college, now (unless he’s changed his mind in the last 15 years) believes in the death penalty for marijuana offenders.

That’s right. Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newton Gingrich, in a serious attempt to position himself to the political right of Attila the Hun during the mid 1990’s, introduced H.R. 4170: the “Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996.” Under this draconian proposed law a mandatory death penalty would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of importing two ounces or more of marijuana or other controlled substance across the U.S. border.

“If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs, it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children,” he explained at a 1995 fundraiser. “I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”Gingrich went on to suggest that a few mass executions of people convicted under such a law might prove an effective deterrent.

About his own marijuana possession and smoking days, Gingrich explained: “That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era.” “See, when I smoked pot it was illegal, but not immoral.” “Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality… That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t,” he told a reporter in 1996.

Just last week, Gingrich declared that if he had his way all post conception birth control methods would be illegal in the United States of America.

He supports a federal “fetal personhood” constitutional amendment, and formally signed the Personhood USA group pledge which proclaims “unalienable personhood for every American from the moment of conception until natural death," pledging also that he would “endorse legislation to make clear the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children ... without exception and without compromise.”

If elected president, he pledged further to “only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human beings at every stage of development are persons with the unalienable right to life.”

Never mind that such loony statist and religious ideas have now failed to pass with voters in Mississippi, the heart of the American Bible belt, and every other state where they have been on the ballot; Newt Gingrich is concerned only with dishing out red meat to his religious ultra-right-wing social conservative base in an effort to secure an Iowa caucuses victory and ultimately the Republican Party nomination so he can lose the 2012 general election to Barack Obama.

Then during the recent Iowa debate, in what I can only describe as a spectacular proclamation of un-Americanism bordering on an outright personal declaration of treason against the Democratic Constitutional Republic of the United States, Gingrich stated that if elected president he would work to abolish federal judges if he didn’t agree with what he called their “anti-American” or “dictatorial” rulings.”

“It alters the balance because the courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful,” Gingrich opined. “I’ve been working on this project since 2002 when the Ninth Circuit court said that ‘one nation under God’ is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance. And I decided that if you had judges that were so radically anti-American that they thought ‘one nation under God’ was wrong, they shouldn’t be on the court.”

Apparently, Newt’s insistence on the incredibly trivial point of maintaining his Government God in the Pledge of Allegiance is more important to him than upholding the fundamental constitutional integrity of the three separate branches of government and the corresponding checks and balances so arduously conceived and implemented by the founding fathers of this nation.

"There is steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as nonreligious … which is enormously dangerous," Gingrich said on CBS's Face the Nation.

I have a news-flash for the former speaker: America IS and always has been a secular nation; the government IS non-religious, and all of it was designed that way on purpose. He’s the one who wants to redefine America – as a Christian theocracy.

He’s obviously far more concerned that judges support his religion than he is with judges following the provisions of the Constitution and the law. "An overwhelming majority of Americans are going to say when a judge is aggressively anti-American, aggressively anti-free speech, and aggressively anti-religious -- that judge ought to not be on the bench," Gingrich told reporters later.

Anti-American; who is anti-American in this picture? If Newt Gingrich doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court, he’ll abolish it, and he thinks that’s American.

Newt Gingrich actually believes that if a few dissatisfied members in Congress don’t agree with this or that legal ruling, they should have the power to subpoena judges to come before them to “explain” and be reprimanded for their court decisions -- an outrageous, unconstitutional and totally unprecedented crackpot idea.

Doesn’t he know that judges always explain the legal reasoning and precedent for their decisions in written published opinions? Just read the opinion, Newt, and you’ll get your explanation. I’ll bet he’s never read a legal opinion in his life. If a litigant doesn’t like it, they can appeal.

Former staunchly conservative attorney generals under President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, told Fox News that they were alarmed by Gingrich's argument that Congress should be allowed to subpoena judges after controversial rulings to "explain their constitutional reasoning."

"I think we have a great government, a great country because it's built upon the foundation of the rule of law. And one of the things that makes it great and the rule of law is protected by having a strong independent judiciary," said Gonzales.

I never much liked Mr. Gonzales; and I don’t believe we have such a great government anymore; but if anything is still good about it, it’s the separation of powers mandate in the Constitution.

Judges in America shouldn’t be reduced to the status of rank politicians. Judges in America shouldn’t be so easily subjected to intimidation and bullying by the ragged political mob. True justice is only possible when judges are independent of politics and bound only by the constraints of the law.

Newt Gingrich should know better.

Are Courthouses Christian in Texas?

2011-12-18T11:51:00.000+07:00

“I’ll tell you this — I’m going to fight this until hell freezes over,” Henderson County Texas Commissioner Joe Hall bellowed in response to a Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) letter politely asking that a Nativity scene erected on the county courthouse lawn be removed because it violates the Constitution. He called the letter “stupid” and vowed to do whatever it takes to stop the Atheists.

“I hope and pray that we leave it up … It’s been up there for decades without any complaints,” he told Fox News. “I’m an old country boy, you come to my house looking for a fight, you’re going to get one … That’s from the bottom of my heart.”

Enough is enough declared a group of east Texas pastors about the FFRF request. “It’s time that Americans stand up and take America back for the faith that we were founded upon,” said one of them from the First Baptist Church. “We’re going to stand up and fight for this.”

“It’s time to draw a line in the sand and start standing up for the Christian faith … Christianity is under attack in America … Our country is quickly heading down a direction which the Christian faith is taking a hit; it’s quickly becoming suppressed,” cried the man of God, who wants his children to grow up in the same country that had the religious freedom and opportunity to “worship Jesus as I did,” he explained.

“So now they’re trying to take Baby Jesus,” whined one shocked and rattled resident in the overwhelmingly Christian community. “What is so offensive about a baby in a manger? If it does not mean anything to you, why does it offend you?”

A huge community rally is planned to defend the courthouse Nativity scene. “We cannot sit by,” said the pastor. “It’s a hill to die on. It’s a fight worth having. I’m here to be a voice in that movement. We are a people of the Christian faith.”

And now the Attorney General for the State of Texas is getting into the act by offering to defend Henderson County in court in the event of a lawsuit.

“Don’t mess with Texas” is his official government response to the FFRF.

“Our message to the Atheists is don’t mess with Texas and our Nativity scenes or the Ten Commandments,” Attorney General Greg Abbott declared in full agreement with the group of aforementioned pastors. He apparently believes as does the First Baptist Church pastor that courthouses in Texas are places to go to worship Jesus.

“There has been an ongoing battle between the forces of Atheism and the forces of those who are antagonistic to all things religious against those who recognize the religious heritage of this country, the highest ranking government lawyer in the State of Texas proclaimed. “And by defending Nativity scenes, by defending the Ten Commandments and by defending students who try to say a prayer at a graduation ceremony, we’re trying to preserve, protect and defend what we know is perfectly legal.”

Perfectly legal; did he say it’s perfectly legal? If it is perfectly legal for courthouses in the State of Texas to be avowedly Christian; for the Ten Commandments to hang on courthouse walls; and for prayers at public school graduations; then the First Amendment Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution is null and void in Texas. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down every one of those government infringements.

I wonder what Attorney General Abbot would do if a rebellious courthouse in Texas hung a big bright banner over the front door entrance with the message in bold letters: “Gods Are Imaginary,” and a Christian in the community complained about it. I’m absolutely sure he’d go to court in a rage to have it removed.

I wonder what Henderson County Texas Commissioner Joe Hall would think -- from the bottom of his heart -- if he came home from a long day of work to find an Atheist sitting in his living room armchair eating his popcorn while watching his TV set. I bet he’d think exactly the same thing a non-believer thinks when he sees a Christian Nativity scene on his public courthouse lawn and the Ten Commandments displayed on his public courthouse wall.

I wonder why some Christians don’t understand the simple fact that courthouses and other public buildings belong to everyone – not just Christians. They don’t understand the simple constitutional concept that government is not supposed to take sides in matters of religion.

Every time someone in a religious minority objects to government sponsorship of Christianity, these Christians interpret it as an attack on Christianity when nothing could be further from the truth. No one complains about Nativity scenes on church lawns or anywhere else on private property, least of all Atheists. Nativity scenes, Ten Commandment displays, and religious rituals belong on private property.

These Christians, of course, would be the first to complain bitterly if the government was openly sponsoring Atheism on public property. And they would rightly rest their legal case on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which was written to protect the rights and freedoms of every one.

Non-believers now make up roughly 17% of the American people – more than the numbers of Jews and Muslims combined – a significant minority. Those who think of themselves as non-religious are growing percentage wise in numbers faster than those in any religion, including Christianity. They have rights too. Public buildings belong to them too.

Perhaps that’s why some Christians perceive their religion as under attack. If the government stops sponsoring them they think it’s attacking them. They’re willing to fight to preserve what they regard as their government God.

No, Mr. Attorney General, courthouses aren’t Christian in Texas.

Pretty Please Give Me Back My Spy Drone

2011-12-15T14:13:00.000+07:00

The Obama administration this week formally requested that Iran return our U.S. spy drone airplane captured by Iranian armed forces recently after flying over Iranian territory in Iranian air space in violation of international law.

The President, without offering an apology for violating Iran’s sovereignty, said that he wants the sophisticated top-secret aircraft back. "We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," he stated on Monday.

Fat chance of that, I think. Why should they give it back?

"The Americans have perhaps decided to give us this spy plane," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gloated. "We now have control of this plane." "There are people here who have been able to control this spy plane, who can surely analyze this plane's system also. “... In any case, now we have this spy plane." "Very soon, [the Americans] they're going to learn more about the abilities and possibilities of our country."

Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi shrugged off the request for return of the spy drone and said the United States should apologize for invading Iranian air space instead of asking for the return of the unmanned aircraft.

Former Vice President, and rabid foaming at the mouth military Chicken Hawk, Dick Cheney, insisted that Obama should have immediately ordered an “air strike” on Iran after they captured the drone. He called the incident "a significant intelligence loss," and mocked the President for limiting his options by begging to “please give it back.”

“The right response to that would have been to go in immediately after it had gone down and destroy it,” Cheney barked. “You can do that from the air. You can do that with a quick air strike, and in effect make it impossible for them to benefit from having captured that drone.

That’s the same old bloodthirsty torture happy saber rattling war mongering Dick Cheney from Bush days of yore talking. In his opinion, by jingo, the United States should compound its violation of international law with an all-out act of war.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta both said they are not optimistic about getting the drone back because of recent Iranian behavior that Clinton said indicated "that the path that Iran seems to be going down is a dangerous one for themselves and the region."

"We submitted a formal request for the return of our lost equipment as we would in any situation to any government around the world," Clinton sniffed. "Given Iran's behavior to date we do not expect them to comply but we are dealing with all of these provocations and concerning actions taken by Iran in close concert with our closest allies and partners," she added.

How about that? Forget about American provocations, concerning actions and bad behavior, i.e. illegally sending a drone airplane into Iranian airspace to spy on them; just blame Iran instead for embarking down a dangerous path for not meekly submitting to our request for giving it back.

After all, it’s not really a spy plane in Clinton’s arrogant and deluded mind; the U.S. didn’t do anything wrong as far as she’s concerned; it’s simply “lost equipment” we would expect any government around the world to return to us.

The nerve of that woman! The nerve of Dick Cheney and my U.S. government! Have they no sense of shame?

What would they be saying and doing if the tables were slightly turned? If Iran launched a spy drone over New York City or Washington D.C., and we captured it, are they having us believe that we noble Americans would just give them back their “lost equipment,” pretty please?

I hardly think so.

If it were up to old blood ‘n guts Dick Cheney, in that situation, we’d be giving Iran another flying gift wrapped present -- one of our nuclear warhead missiles to chew on.

Rick Perry’s Promise: I’ll Trash the Establishment Clause

2011-12-13T18:10:00.000+07:00

“I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school,” Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry whined pitifully in his latest TV campaign advertisement which he calls: “Strong.”

“As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion,” he promised. “And I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.”“Faith made America strong; it can make her strong again.” “I’m Rick Perry and I approved this message."

“Bringing America back starts with faith;” faith in the Almighty, who created us; faith in our friends and allies, in a time of trouble; faith in each other to not give up hope,” Perry told the Republican Jewish Coalition last week.

The nicest thing I can think of to say about Rick Perry is that he’s not the least bit bashful about showing his true colors to all the world all the time every time. He’s refreshingly honest -- not a lying weasel like so many other politicians.

He tells us straight out in so many words: “I’m a religious bigot.” “I’m a homophobe.” “If you elect me as your president, I’ll trash the First Amendment Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.”

He was flying so high right after he first announced his candidacy only to plunge to the ground, crashing and burning, when the majority of normal reasonable people found out who he is and what he stands for.

I feel somewhat sorry for Gov. Perry. He’s basically a likable man, but I’m afraid he has one or two loose screws rattling around in his head which too often cause him to play the fool. This TV commercial is a perfect example. It tells us a lot about the real Rick Perry.

First off, I’ve never known a Christian who was ashamed to admit it. So why would Rick Perry say “I’m not ashamed to be a Christian.”? Doesn’t that go without saying in the mind of all Christians? Doesn’t it go without saying in his mind? After all, what is there to be ashamed of about being a Christian?

This was the tip off to me as to what he was going to say next – things that normal people, whether Christian or not, would indeed be ashamed to admit: “… but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.”

That’s what he admits yet he knows deep inside his mind that he’s rightly and properly ashamed to admit it. He’s prejudiced against gays and non-Christians. He’s ashamed to admit that if elected president he would flatly discriminate against gays and non-Christians upon religious grounds using his powers as chief executive of the United States government. If elected president he would diligently look for ways to circumvent the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

You see, Gov. Perry and all the other ultra right wing social conservatives in this country know very well that all the kids can openly celebrate Christmas and pray in school any time they want, right now today, and there is no law anywhere to stop them. The Constitution does not and never has prevented kids from openly celebrating Christmas and praying in public schools. That is their constitutional right under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.

But Perry and his ilk aren’t concerned about that. What they are after; what they really want; what they won’t say out loud, but what they won’t be satisfied with until they get, is teachers and principals and school administrators using the facilities of the public schools to lead all the kids in prayer and celebrations of Christmas in the classrooms during school hours, baby Jesus, nativity scenes, Christian crosses on the walls and all.

What the Christian right desperately wants is to teach their Christian religion at the exclusion of all others in the public schools to all the kids regardless of their own family and personal religious beliefs.

Secondly, Gov. Perry, and his gang of right-wing Christian zelots know for a fact deep down inside their sanctimonious souls that Obama has never waged any “war on religion” during his presidency. That’s ridiculous. They know that there have never been any “liberal attacks on our religious heritage.” And they know that “faith” is not what “made America strong.”

Perry knows enough to be ashamed of such outrageous statements because he knows that the problem with people like me who care about the Constitution is not religion but keeping religion in its proper place in America – separate from government. He’s smart enough to know that the Establishment Clause protects the rights of all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike.

That is why he hates the Establishment Clause and has, in effect, promised on national television to trash it if he’s elected president.

Update: Trump Dump Becomes Dump Trump

2011-12-11T15:11:00.001+07:00

Trump Dump, as I referred to it in my December 6^th post, has become Dump Trump as three more Republican presidential primary candidates have decided to decline their invitations to the scheduled December 27 News Max Iowa debate set to be moderated by “The Donald.”

Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman were the first to respectfully bow out last week from the forthcoming tacky political TV reality show circus; Paul explaining in his usual candid style that such a debate format was beneath the dignity of the office of the presidency.

Trump was clearly miffed at this development so he proceeded to verbally attack Paul viciously as a marginal candidate who “has zero chance of gaining the nomination” anyway. He also dismissed Huntsman as a non-factor in the race.

But then Texas Gov. Rick Perry followed suit, together with former MA Gov. Mitt Romney, and MN Rep. Michelle Bachmann, leaving former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and former PA Sen. Rick Santorum as the only invited guests to Trump’s party event who actually plan to attend.

The latest snubs have left “The Donald” surprised, furious, and baffled, wondering even whether to reconsider putting on the show.

Trump told CNN that he was surprised when Romney turned down his invitation. "He wants my endorsement very badly. We've seen him come up. We speak. I like him a lot. I think he's a terrific guy, but I was really surprised that he didn't want to do the debate."

Michele Bachmann's decision had “The Donald” fuming: "You know who I'm very disappointed in? Michele Bachmann," he whined. "She's come up to see me four times; Four times. She's called me, she's asked me for advice, she said she'd like to think about me for the vice presidency, all of these things."

"Most importantly I did like a two hour phone call for her with her people and it caused me certain problems … People asked if I was endorsing her, and the answer was no. And then after all of that, she announced she's not going to do the debate. It's unbelievable. You know, it's called loyalty. It's actually called loyalty. How do you do that? You know, it's amazing to me."

Loyalty; did he say loyalty? Who does this guy think he’s kidding? She wants his endorsement. He tells people “No,” she can’t have it, and then he expects loyalty? If you ask me, he’s the one who is unbelievable – Donald Trump: kingmaker rebuffed by his subjects, the peasants.

Don Imus asked Trump if he will still do the debate if only Gingrich and Santorum show up. "I don't know, I'd really have to look into it and see," he said. "They want me to drop my status as someone who's going to run as an independent, and I don't think I'm going to do that."

Trump actually has the nerve to wonder out loud why any self respecting candidate would hesitate to participate in a debate that he will moderate when he’s told the world that he plans on endorsing one of them afterward; and that he might just become a candidate – again – himself if he doesn’t approve of the eventual nominee. The raw arrogance of this man is unbounded.

"I know a lot of the moderators and some are wonderful, and some aren't, but I know the issues better than the moderators" he bragged shamelessly while touting the ratings of his TV reality show “The Apprentice” as an additional incentive to participate.

But Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chair, criticized Trump’s role as moderator: "I think that having a successful businessman serving as a moderator has a lot of value but the issue here is whether the moderator should be a person who is still batting around the idea of running as an independent," he explained. "I think it would be malpractice for me as an RNC chairman not to believe that's an issue."

"I would have an issue with that and I would understand candidates who say, 'Look, I don't know if I want to avail myself where the moderator might be… still talking about potentially running as an independent candidate,'" he added. "I think that's a problem."

That’s what this is all about with “The Donald.” It’s called self promotion. Self promotion and self aggrandizement is his role in life. TV ratings and attention are what he craves.

He’s not the least bit serious about running for president – he never was -- but he wants the suckers out there to think he is so that he can keep the spotlight on himself and his inflated sense of “importance” in the political process for as long as possible.

If “The Donald” does moderate the debate, as currently planned, I for one won’t be watching. Fortunately for us, most of the candidates with integrity in the process have also wised up to this clown’s political charade and decided to dump Trump.

Free Speech is a Crime in Manhattan

2011-12-08T17:49:00.001+07:00

Jury nullification advocacy is a crime in New York City – jury tampering -- according to a Manhattan prosecutor who has charged our hero, 79-year-old chemistry professor Julian Heicklen, for merely handing out his pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jury Association near a courthouse.

The prosecutor, Ms. Rebecca Mermelstein, told the court that Heicklen was tampering with the legal process because he hoped to “target prospective jurors,” with information about jury nullification. “I’m not telling you to find anybody not guilty,” he allegedly told an undercover officer. “But if there is a law you think is wrong then you should do that.”

Mermelstein claims that jury nullification advocacy is “not protected by the First Amendment.”

Heicklen wants a jury trial. Mermelstein asked the court not to grant the request, arguing that Heicklen would ask a jury to nullify the charges.

Yes, Mr. Heicklen was indeed targeting prospective jurors in front of that courthouse. He was exercising his First Amendment right of free speech by informing potential jurors that they have the right and the power to nullify the law as applied to the facts in a given case before them if they are convinced that its application would be unjust.

That’s been the law – like it or not -- around these parts, and in Western Civilization, for centuries.

During the alcohol prohibition days of yesteryear a substantial majority of cases against defendants in court were nullified by jurors who believed that the application of those laws was unjust.

Nullification was common in Alien and Sedition Act and Fugitive Slave Act cases. The doctrine was also used to frustrate many civil rights prosecutions in the South, and is often employed today in minor drug offense cases.

The use of nullification in drug trials is what brought Heicklen to his activism in the first place, he told the New York Times. In the 90s he smoked marijuana out in public, just so he could get arrested in protest of its prohibition. That’s when his advocacy of jury nullification began, arguing for its use as a means of negating minor drug and gambling charges.

Yes indeed Mr. Heicklen would ask a jury to nullify the charges against him if it came to that. He has a constitutional right to rely upon the law in his defense.

Any fair judge would have tossed the prosecutor’s case out of court long ago on the grounds that Mr. Heicklen enjoys a First Amendment Constitutional right as a matter of law to advocate the doctrine of jury nullification in a public place. There is no question of fact to decide.

Yes he can advocate, even in front of a Manhattan court house. He wasn’t tampering with a jury. He was exercising free speech.

What sane human being could argue otherwise?

A statist Manhattan prosecutor, that’s what.

To her, freedom of speech is a crime in Manhattan.