Sex Crime Psychosis in Ohio

A 33-year-old Lebanon Ohio high school gym teacher was convicted last week of a sex crime felony -- 16 counts of sexual battery -- and sentenced to serve four years in prison for engaging in sex parties at her home with five of her 17-year-old male students. She faced the possibility of a much longer prison term for her “crime,” and might have been put away for decades.  

The age of consent for sex in Ohio is 16, but it's illegal for a teacher to have sex with a student.

The judge refused to buy her insanity defense in which she claimed “medical and psychological issues” resulting in her having no memory of the incidents. Those young men took advantage of her, her lawyers argued. The convict cried pitifully as she was handcuffed and led out of the courtroom.

The five male “victims,” some of them players on the school’s varsity football team, testified that she had been drinking alcohol and was a willing participant who initiated much of the contact during the encounters. A few other students testified on her behalf, hugging her in the courtroom and telling the judge that she was a good teacher, a supportive advocate, who kept appropriate boundaries.

But some observers believe that she got off far too lightly. Parents of two of the “victims” made tearful statements in court. A father complained about his son's “depression and lost motivation,” saying that “he almost didn’t go to college.” He implored the judge to impose a harsh sentence to “send a message that the teacher’s acts are not acceptable and there are serious consequences.”

Another parent said her son trusted his teacher during an extremely low period when his father had cancer and related health problems. "These young men may appear as if they are tough guys, but in reality, they are truly hurting," said mom. "She took advantage of their vulnerability. She crossed the line and it is unacceptable."

Oh, please!

Well, of course what happened here is wrong, unacceptable, and crossing the line – that goes without saying. Teachers shouldn’t have sex with their students; it’s against the law; it’s unethical; it’s disgusting. But 16 counts of felony sexual battery?

If there were an insanity in this case, that is it. Maybe it’s against the law, and maybe it should be; maybe she shouldn’t be a teacher; but only by the delusional psychosis of the legislature does this constitute a serious felony crime.  If a teacher weren’t involved, it wouldn’t even be against the law. The legal system has overreacted here to the point of absurdity.  

This sort of thing occurs only occasionally in America (about once in a blue moon); teachers and students gone wild. When it does happen the headlines are always global. The prudes and the pundits go apoplectic. There’s a big to-do about nothing. Muggers and armed robbers often get less time in prison than this hapless teacher.

What we have in this case is six normal adult human beings, albeit, five of them young adults; one horny woman afflicted with acute alcohol induced nymphomania, and five strapping young men all suffering from raging male testosterone syndrome, giving in to their wholly natural desires for sex.

Does anyone really believe that these guys – these big rugged football team game bangers – were sexually assaulted and battered here? Does anyone really believe that these young men didn’t heartily consent to the activity; didn’t initiate most of it themselves; didn’t thoroughly enjoy every second of it?

If anyone were vulnerable here it was the teacher. Does anyone really believe that she’s a sexual predator? Who is the victim here; the boys or their teacher? Why aren’t these young men guilty of a crime?

If any of these boys were psychologically damaged because of what happened, it surely did not arise out of the sex parties, but more precisely from the reaction to the titillating events by society. Had the parties not been discovered and laid bare, these lucky boys would carry fond memories of them throughout their lives.

I seriously doubt that the kinky sex, for example, caused any depression, emotional trauma or loss of motivation in these lads. Far from it; they loved it; it’s the publicity over it, the court trial, the glaring limelight, the social embarrassment, and the intense media feeding frenzy that causes psychological pain.

So, once again, we have a good productive member of society, a teacher who made a stupid mistake which has, as a practical matter, hurt no one, but a mistake for which she will have to pay dearly for the rest of her life. Years of her life will be wasted in prison. No doubt she will never teach again. She’ll surely have to register as a sex offender and suffer all the indignities and iniquity that entails. She’ll be branded as a felon and a convict to the end of her days.

Prison is not a proper remedy for cases like this one. Prison will serve no valid societal purpose here. This woman is not a danger to the community. There are no victims except perhaps to the integrity of the teaching profession. She should have been fired and her license suspended or revoked.

This case is just one more ridiculous example of sex crime psychosis in America.

Cash No Good in Louisiana

Gestapo forces in the State of Louisiana (the Governor and State Legislature, that is) have banned cash transactions with "secondhand dealers,” defined as anyone, other than a non-profit entity, who buys, sells, trades in or otherwise acquires or disposes of junk or used or secondhand property more frequently than once per month from any other person, other than a non-profit entity.

Cash is no longer king in Louisiana. The law requires that payment must be made in the form of a check, electronic transfer, or money order issued to the seller.

So cash – good old United States legal tender for all debts public and private – is not legal in Louisiana to buy used pots and pans at a neighborhood flea market. Little kids trading marbles in their elementary school yard during recess in Louisiana are violating the law if they use pennies to complete the transactions.

And that’s not all. Every transaction requires a list of personal information from both parties be turned over to the local policing authorities on a daily basis; name, address, detailed description of the item(s) involved in the sale, driver's license number and the license plate number of the vehicle in which the goods were delivered, for example.

If the kid selling marbles refuses to produce to the other kid buyer (“secondhand dealer”) any of the required forms of identification and other information, that kid is prohibited from completing the transaction. If he completes it with cash, he’s a criminal under the law.

All individuals and businesses involved in the selling and buying used goods are forced to report their routine business activity to the police, no matter what. In short, the authorities are forcing innocent buyers and sellers to become police informants whether they want to or not.

The authorities apparently want to crack down on criminal activities in stolen goods, but any fool knows that the criminals will go right on transacting their business in cash right under the noses of the authorities while the innocent are burdened into compliance with this ridiculous law at the cost of their individual privacy, civil liberty and freedom..

But guess who is exempt from this ham handed, and probably unconstitutional law? Pawnshops! That’s right, pawnshops can still deal in cash in Louisiana while a housewife is deemed a common criminal if she buys some used baby clothes at a neighborhood garage sale with cash.

Who says the heartland of America isn’t slowly turning into a police state?

Bigotry Rules on the Religious Right

“They are terrorists as far as I’m concerned,” said Mayor James Bellar, of Whiteville, Tennesee, about the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s complaint objecting to a large Christian Cross that residents erected on top of the town’s water tower.

****

"If judges think that they are unchallengeable, they are…anti-American…profoundly wrong...inevitably corrupted, corrupted in a moral sense," Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said in his speech at the Values Voter Summit.

****

"I think Mitt Romney's a good, moral man, but those of us who are born again followers of Christ should prefer a competent Christian," said Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, at the Values Voter Summit referring to Romney’s Mormonism as a “cult.”

 ****

"Don't listen to these people, who every four years tell you we have to select a moderate from our party and we have to settle for the sake of winning," Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann admonished her socially conservative audience at the Values Voter Summit.

****

What obvious characteristic do each of these statements share in common? They all reveal a smug undisguised religious bigotry on the part of America’s Christian evangelical right at its worst. These people despise the secular nature of American government as conceived by the founders. They won’t be satisfied until the United States of America is a born again evangelical Christian theocracy.

 

“It’s just a cross on the water tower.” “All we’re doing is exercising our right to practice our beliefs down here, but this organization is now going to stymie that,” says the Mayor, as if it’s a given that Christians everywhere in America can simply utilize government property any way they like to promote their sectarian religious beliefs, and no one has the right to do anything about it. To them, anyone who complains is a terrorist.

What do you suppose he would say, though, if some residents put up a big yellow star of David on the city water tower? No doubt he’d be the first in line to take his case to the Freedom From Religion Foundation or the ACLU to complain.

It’s all about their Christian majority rights and to hell with the rights of anyone else. “We don’t have people of that belief [atheists] here and if we do they’re not going to raise that kind of ruckus for the rest of the town,” the Mayor explains. Of course not. “People of that belief” would probably be lynched in Whiteville Tennessee if he and the majority of Christians had their way. After all, they’re terrorists.

Christians can have big crosses on top their churches; big crosses decorating the inside and outside of their houses; all over their cars; on their private property anywhere; they can even tattoo big crosses on their foreheads if the spirit moves them. Why must it always be the public schools, the courthouses, city hall, the public square, and the town water tower? Because they’re not satisfied with exercising their own rights. They want all the minorities, everyone, to know that their town is a Christian town, that’s why. That is bigotry.

Newt Gingrich thinks that the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn’t have the final say on the constitutionality of laws. Federal Judges, for example, shouldn’t have the power to find California's ban of gay marriage unconstitutional. He believes it should be up to the Christian majority in Congress. He thinks it should be up to a vote. Can you imagine that; no third branch of government; no checks and balances? That’s what Mr. Gingrich wants for America.

According to him, law schools teach students a "fundamentally, profoundly, ignorant, anti-American" judicial model that is out of touch with the people and has no understanding of the origins of the United States.

Frankly, as a lawyer myself, I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Since the 1803 landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison, more than 200 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, established once and for all the power of the federal judiciary branch of government to rule on the constitutionality of all laws. That is a fundamental historical fact. Only an evangelical Christian bigot, who doesn’t want constitutional equal protection of the law for gays, would claim otherwise.  

Don't vote for a Mormon, is the message of evangelical Christian pastor, Robert Jeffress, to fellow Republicans. Mormon’s are members of a cult. The Southern Baptist Convention, says Jefress, "has officially labeled Mormonism as a cult" under its "New Religions and Cults" section, which also includes Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Scientology.

Bryan Fischer, a director at the American Family Association, who spoke at the same Values Voter Summit, has claimed that Mormons and Muslims have "a completely different definition of who Christ is" than the founding fathers did, and do not deserve First Amendment protections as a consequence. How about that? This bigot doesn’t think the constitution applies to Mormons, Muslims, or anyone else except his own brand of Christians.

"We need a president who believes in the same creator as who the founders believed," says Fischer. That’s a very interesting statement when one considers the historical fact that Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the “creator” reference in the Declaration of Independence, was a Deist, not a practicing Christian. Never mind; bigot’s don’t care much for facts. Anyone who disagrees should forfeit their First Amendment rights.

Later pastor Jefress denied that his remarks against Romney were bigoted.

Well, let’s see about that. The dictionary defines bigot as: a person who is intolerant of differing creeds, beliefs, or opinions other than his own, especially on religion, politics, or race. Yes, by that definition, pastor Jefress and Bryan Fischer are both dyed in the wool religious bigots.

Look at me; I’m an extremest! Don't settle for a moderate, Michele Bachmann urged Republican Party primary voters at the same Values Voter Summit. "I am here to tell you we are going to win. This year, we don't settle." I wouldn’t bet the farm on that if I were her. As bad a president as he is, Barack Obama would probably wipe the floor with the likes of Michele Bachmann, and all the other religious bigots, in the 2012 general election.

She boasted about introducing legislation in Congress recently that would require women considering an abortion to hear and see the heartbeat of the fetus before making a decision. "We believe that each person - man, woman, black white - no matter the economic circumstances, is made in the image and sacred likeness of the Holy God," she said.

"With a proven fighter in the White House, we will finally win on the issue of life, on marriage, on family," Bachmann declared. "It's time that we score some victories for our movement."

 

What movement is that, you might ask? Why, the evangelical Christian right movement, of course, and Michele Bachmann is seeking the office of President of the United States in a secular nation by being the worst (or best, depending on how you look at it), religious bigot of them all.

Cain Peaks Early As 9-9-9 Unravels

Herman Cain took off like a rocket ship over the last few weeks after he introduced his 9-9-9 tax plan to Republicans hungry for simple solutions to a lousy economy and radical changes to the unwieldy United States tax code.

He describes 9-9-9 as “fair, simple, transparent and efficient,” and has staked his entire nomination chances on its ultimate acceptance by his party.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Cain, a nice man who presents himself well, it appears from the results of the Las Vegas debate this week that his astronomical ascent in the polls, and top tier status among the other candidates, has peaked early. His 9-9-9 plan is coming apart like a two dollar watch.

The trouble is that 9-9-9 is a one trick pony which, upon close analysis, is not what most voters want, and the candidate has nothing left to offer. He’s put all his eggs in the 9-9-9 basket.

In summary, Mr. Cain proposes a 9% flat tax on gross business income; a 9% flat tax on gross individual income; and a 9% national sales tax on new goods and services, ergo: 9-9-9.

He claims that it: “… gets Washington D.C. out of the business of picking winners and losers; using the tax code to dole out favors; and dividing the country with class warfare ... It taxes everything once and nothing twice ... It taxes the broadest possible base at the lowest possible rates.

But close scrutiny demonstrates that these claims are not all true.

Both the business and individual tax parts of the plan create so-called “Empowerment Zones [which] will offer [special] deductions for the payroll of those employed in the zone … [and] additional [individual] deductions for those living and/or working in the zone ... [as well as] charitable deductions.”

I assume these “empowerment zones” will include economically depressed areas such as inner cities and the like, which may be good or bad depending on one’s point of view, but clearly the government with this plan would still be picking winners and losers, doling out favors, and dividing the country with class warfare, at least to some degree.

The claim that nothing would be taxed twice is belied by the fact that gross business income would be taxed at every level of the commercial process leading up to the finished product or service, i.e. raw material procurer, parts supplier, manufacturer, marketer, dealer to customer.

Yes, it does purport to tax the broadest possible base, but not necessarily at the lowest possible rates, and this is actually the biggest problem with 9-9-9 – it severely taxes senior citizens living on social security and other people with entry level jobs, or otherwise extremely modest means, who pay no taxes now, and in all fairness shouldn’t be taxed at all.

When elderly social security retiree’s wake up to the details and consequences of the 9-9-9, tax plan -- millions of senior’s who happen to vote in droves -- they are not going to vote for Herman Cain. They are not going to support his nomination for president.

Why not? Well, social Security recipients, most of whom live entirely on those meager pension benefits, month to month, average $1,082, or about $13,000 a year, according to government statistics. Deduct about $100 per month for Medicare, and they have less than $1,000 per month to spend.

Apply Cain’s 9% flat income tax on that would leave them with less than $900 to spend – almost all of it on goods and services. Then add Cain’s 9% national sales tax, and now they have only about $813 in spending power every month – far less than $10,000 per year.

Now add a 7% state sales tax: $56.91. That would leave them, not counting other state and local taxes, with about $756 per month for their basic necessities. If they own a home, for example, local property taxes would reduce their spending power even further, leaving many of them destitute.

So while Grandma and Grampa are forced to turn down the thermostat in wintertime, eat Spagetti-o’s for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and have no money left over for Christmas presents for the grandkids, the wealthy folks in their mansions on easy street enjoying big incomes will be toasting each other with champagne because of the huge tax break dropped in their laps courtesy of Herman Cain.

Much of the rich folk’s income is derived from capital gains, which won’t be taxed at all, and only a relatively small portion of all their income will be subject to the national sales tax.

Is that fair? You make the call. I know how the social security pensioners will call it.  

Cain's Republican presidential nomination debate rivals made Swiss cheese out of his 9-9-9 plan, and we ain’t seen anything yet, I reckon. Just wait until the next few debates and there will be nothing left of 9-9-9 after the sharks finish their feeding frenzy.

"The fact of the matter is, I mean, reports are now out that 84 percent of Americans would pay more taxes under his plan," said Rick Santorum, referring to a new Tax Policy Center analysis. Moreover, it doesn’t take "care of the families … [since] "a single person pays as much in taxes as a man and a woman raising three children." By removing incentives for people to have children, 9-9-9 risks pushing U.S. birth rates "into the basement," Santorum concluded.

Rick Perry noted that 9-9-9 puts a federal sales tax on top of state sales taxes, or adds a sales tax in states that lack them. It’s "not going to fly," he opined. Newt Gingrich observed that when you get into the details: "there are much more complexities than Herman lets on." Michele Bachmann noted that 9-9-9 would establish a value-added tax, "because at every step and stage of production, you'd be taxing that item 9 percent on the profit."

Cain kept insisting in vain that his rivals were "mixing apples and oranges." "Fine," Mitt Romney quipped, "And I'm going to be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it because I've got to pay both taxes and the people in Nevada don't want to pay both taxes." It was one of the more amusing lines during the debate.

The bottom line is that Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, well meaning as it is, doesn’t get rid of the individual income tax and the onerous IRS; adds a national sales tax which is unprecedented in American history; is not any fairer than the present tax system; but actually penalizes senior citizens and the poor.

The United States of America got along just fine with no income or sales taxes for well over a century, not counting the century plus colonial period – that’s over 200 years without an IRS. In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4,000, which meant that fewer than 10% of households would pay any income tax at all.

By 1913, after ratification of the 16^th Amendment, giving Congress the power to collect taxes on incomes, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000. That’s more than $10 million in today’s dollars. Very few individuals were burdened with an income tax then. Before that, the nation collected sufficient revenue largely by imposing taxes on commerce.

I’d like to hear a candidate for once propose a similar solution to solve today’s revenue problems without requiring every individual to report their private affairs to the government every year. There should be no individual income tax; no sales tax; no IRS, period.

All taxes should be levied upon commerce in my opinion. Businesses and corporations, large and small, are in the best position to do the accounting, pay their fair share of taxes, take their profits, and then pass the costs of taxation on to the consumer in the price of goods and services, just like they pass on all other costs. Competition would keep prices stable and the average individual wouldn’t even notice the process.

That’s my idea of fair. For all individuals, rich and poor, it could be called the Zero tax plan.

I like the way that sounds. 

Gary Johnson: The Most Underrated Republican Candidate

Which of the eight current Republican candidates for president is just as qualified, if not more so, for the high office as Mitt Romney, substantially more qualified than Herman Cain, Rick Perry and all the others, yet least recognized and appreciated in the pack?

That’s right; it’s Gary Earl Johnson, 58, a humble yet hugely successful self made rags to riches businessman, multi-millionaire, marathon runner, triathlete, conqueror of Mt. Everest, and popular two term governor of New Mexico, renowned for his conservative anti-crime, anti-bureaucracy policy, low taxes, budget busting, judicious use of the veto power, and walk the walk libertarianism.

This guy turned a one man door-to-door handyman service to earn money for college into Big J Enterprises, an impressive multi-million dollar corporation, one of the largest mechanical contracting construction firms in New Mexico, employing over 1,000 workers.

Which of the other candidates can boast that kind of success? He knows how to put people to work. He knows how to start, grow and manage a business from scratch. And he knows how to successfully manage government with no nonsense libertarian ideas.

So why is the Republican Party ignoring Gary Johnson? The simple answer: He’s a Libertarian -- not a religionist social conservative, that’s why. He doesn’t pander to the religious evangelical right. He believes in the true meaning of liberty and small government. That’s why the most qualified candidate of them all will not even come close to the nomination of his party for president.

The right wing social conservative statists don’t like the fact that Gary Johnson visualizes and articulates well the benefits of legalizing the harmless substance marijuana, which would decrease the U.S.-Mexican drug trade by 70 percent, significantly reducing illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels border violence.

Gary Johnson would maintain a strong national defense while ending the expensive folly of nation building in countries which take billions of our hard earned tax dollars and give us nothing in return. He understands the futility of our building schools, roads, hospitals in foreign lands, and propping up corrupt foreign governments. He would end U.S. involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, bring the soldiers home, and focus our foreign policy on the protection of U.S. citizens and interests.

Gary Johnson would not condone the torture of criminal or terrorist suspects. He would end the Bush and Obama administration secret death panels and their licenses to kill American citizens and others anywhere in the world without due process. He would end the barbaric practice of holding suspects in places like Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without regard to the most basic and fundamental  legal processes.

In true libertarian fashion, this politician has declared that government should not be allowed to restrict commerce that doesn’t hurt anyone. Online gaming, for example, should be legal for adults. Civil liberties as set forth in the first eight amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and which are foundational to Americans, must be preserved against the tide of national security expediency.

The Patriot Act, for example, should be allowed to expire and proper judicial oversight should once again require federal investigators to establish probable cause in investigations seeking search warrants. Habeas corpus should be respected entirely, requiring the government to either charge incarcerated individuals with a crime or release them.

The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans. The TSA should not have a monopoly on airport security. Airports and airlines should be encouraged to seek the most effective methods for screening travelers, including private sector screeners; screeners outside of government that can be held fully accountable for their successes and failures.

The best way to respect the lives of all citizens is to allow each to make their own personal decisions. Women should be allowed to make their own reproductive decisions. Stem cell research should be conducted by private laboratories that operate without federal funding. Government should not impose its values upon marriage.

Americans can't afford to continue borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar we spend.  Balancing the budget is necessary for Americans to remain a free, prosperous, and secure nation. The terms of entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which threaten to bankrupt the nation, should be fairly revised. Spending on fiscal stimulus programs, transportation, energy, housing, and all other special interests boondoggles must stop.

Government should lower the tax burden to stimulate the economy; eliminate punitive taxation of savings and investment; simplify the tax code; stop using it to reward special interests and control behavior; and eliminate the corporate income tax so that America will once again be a great place to start a business.

Americans should reject crony capitalism, auto and banking bailouts, state bailouts, corporate welfare, cap-and-trade, card check, and the mountain of regulation that protects special interests rather than benefiting consumers or the economy. 

Federal Reserve policy should be confined to maintaining price stability, not bailing out financial firms or propping up the housing sector. Support of Fannie and Freddie should cease.

The federal government should butt out of education. The abusive and failed War on Drugs must end just as Prohibition had to end in the 1930’s. Federal spending must be cut not by millions or billions, but by trillions. ObamaCare and the Medicare prescription drug benefit should be repealed. Military spending and foreign aid should be cut by 43%.

Sensible policies like these reveal Gary Johnson as man of thoughtful integrity. Unfortunately, that also makes him the most underrated and least appreciated of all the presidential wannabe’s.

Pandora’s Box Wide Open

Senior U.S. government officials in the Obama administration have now candidly admitted to reporters on condition of anonymity that American citizens are added to a kill or capture list by the decision of a secretive National Security Council panel which reports its decisions to the president.

If the president approves the decision, government forces are put in motion to hunt down and murder the subject anywhere in the world. Other persons, whether innocent or not, who might by chance happen to be with the subject at the wrong place and time are likewise murdered and their demise simply written off as “collateral damage.”  

If a foreign subject, who is not an American citizen, is targeted on the kill list, the lethal decision is made by intelligence community spooks, and doesn’t even require approval by high-level NSC operatives, least of all the president, according to the officials.

There is no public record of the methods, guidelines, criteria, rules, and procedures leading to the kill, no identity of the participants involved in the decisions, or victims on the list, no account of how long the practice has been going on, and, most importantly, no law authorizing the panel’s operations or even establishing its existence.

In short, American citizens and other foreign victims of this government sponsored death panel are admittedly selected and assassinated by extra-judicial fiat, without any semblance of due process of law as required by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and/or international law.

Supposedly, there is a secret Justice Department legal opinion outlining justification for the murderous operations, but the Obama administration has refused to release it. So Americans can only speculate about why the president thinks he has the right and duty to assassinate Americans outside the protections of the Constitution and laws of the United States, not to mention foreigners anywhere in the world protected by international law.

Two speculative theories of justification are offered by the talking officials: First, that the killings were authorized by Congress as part of the nation’s response to the 9/11 terror attacks; and second, that international law permits a nation to defend itself.

Ridiculous! Neither of these pathetic excuses comes even close to legal justification for nullifying the Constitution and international law under the circumstances. Congress may not pass a law circumventing the Constitution, nor can any international law be relied upon to do so.

Notwithstanding all of the above, Senior U.S. politicians, certain high placed Saudi Arabian officials, and several other shocked world leaders are rattling their sabres, screaming bloody murder, and vowing to hold Iran responsible for an  alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States on American soil, which they describe as "a very serious breach of international behavior."

Attorney-General Eric Holder declared: "I think one has to be concerned about the chilling nature of what the Iranian government attempted to do here." It might even cause a military confrontation between Iran and America.

Iran has strongly denied the allegation, and the claims against it do appear dubious at best, however, even if true, we have to wonder what all the fuss is about. Surely it’s all perfectly legal, right?

Maybe the government of Iran has a secret death list panel similar to the U.S., and maybe they targeted the Saudi Ambassador for secret reasons analogous to the U.S. panel’s reasons for targeting subjects.

What’s the problem? After all, if these death panels are OK now, why can’t Iran have one? Why can’t Iran target people all over the world for extra-judicial murder just like we do it? If the rule of law can be bypassed; if it no longer matters; why can’t any nation do what the U.S. is justified in doing? 

Pandora’s box is now wide open and the world has just begun to greet the consequences.

A Tit for a Tat

Women in the Democratic Party are all in a tizzy these days about an innocent comment from Republican incumbent Massachusetts Senator, Scott Brown, in response to a jab by his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, during a Democratic candidates debate in the Massachusetts Senate race.

A student debate panelist asked the Democratic senate candidates to comment on Senator Brown’s 1982 nude modeling photo shoot for Cosmopolitan magazine:

"To help pay for his law school education, Scott Brown posed for Cosmo. How did you pay for your college education?"

"I kept my clothes on; I borrowed money," Warren remarked snidely to the laughter and applause of the audience.

When asked later, during a radio interview, what he thought about Warren's decision to keep her clothes on, Brown succinctly retorted: "Thank God."

Hah! Excellent! I say. Hilarious! A perfect tit for a tat!

Too bad the Democratic ladies don’t think so. "Sen. Brown's comments are the kind of thing you would expect to hear in a frat house, not a race for US Senate," whined Clare Kelly, executive director of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. "Scott Brown's comments send a terrible message that even accomplished women who are held in the highest esteem can be laughingly dismissed based on their looks."

Brown’s comment showed “disrespect for women,” howled U.S. House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi. “The response … really, I thought spoke volumes about how clueless Senator Brown is … It really spoke volumes about, really, disrespect for women that he may not even realize. I bet you he'd like to take that comment back ... I hope its joke-y. And if it is, then hopefully he will take that comment back. But women know. They hear a comment like that, it tells you a lot about somebody,” Pelosi wailed.

Nonsense! It seems to me that if a grown woman chooses to wade into the deep waters of major league political gotcha games, and take cheap shots at her male rivals, she ought at least to be ready and willing to take some good natured rhetorical abuse in return without slinking off to hide behind the poor little femininity shield.

Come on, ladies; Warren was clearly asking for it, and got exactly what she deserved – rather gently, I might add.  

The whole amusing flap instantly reminded me of the great man himself, British statesman and WWII Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, at his eloquent finest.

“You are drunk Sir Winston, you are disgustingly drunk,” a mean spirited old bat once admonished him. “Yes, Mrs. Braddock, I am drunk,” the sage rejoined. “But you, Mrs. Braddock are ugly, and disgustingly fat. But, tomorrow morning, I, Winston Churchill, will be sober.”

Kind of makes Scott Brown’s retort seem like a compliment, doesn’t it?

And, I wonder what the micro-thin-skinned Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Kelly, and the rest of the angry ladies would think about this perfect tit for tat gem from the quick witted old British gentleman:

“Mr. Churchill, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea!” said his high nosed detractor. “And if you were my wife, I would drink it!” the great man replied.

Porn Again Hypocrisy: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Two burglars broke into a man’s barn in Delhi, California, on Sept. 12 and stole 50 CD-Rom’s thinking they were blanks, but when they took their loot home to burn some music, discovered some of them contained child pornography. Later, a family member convinced the burglars to report the contents of the computer discs to the sheriff’s department and turn the man in.

Investigators served a search warrant on the man’s property finding three desktop computers and three laptops. They believe he has been downloading the images and movies since 2004. He was arrested, booked into jail for felony possession of child pornography, and required to post $25,000 bail.

The two burglars went free. "We did not actually go out and arrest the suspects for the burglary. They were obviously the lesser of two evils," explained a sherriff’s deputy.

Obviously? What’s wrong with this picture?

How is it that burglary – breaking and entering another’s house or building for the purpose of stealing property – a lesser evil than privately downloading from the Internet child porn images on a computer? What right do the police have to rely on burglars to gather evidence for them by committing serious crimes?

Make no mistake, I am in no way attempting to minimize the social and individual harm involved to the well being of children by the production and distribution of child pornography. The prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children is a matter of serious importance. While pornography is generally regarded by the courts as protected speech under the First Amendment, child pornography is not, and for good reasons.

The use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is often harmful to their physiological, emotional, and mental health. Children are not competent to consent to such conduct. Indeed, such exploitation amounts to rape for which severe criminal penalties are justified to the producers of child porn. Likewise, it is proper for law enforcement to eliminate the market for such materials by imposing appropriate criminal penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise promoting the product.

That being said, the man in this case – the victim of the burglary -- was not a producer or distributor of child pornography. This man was not raping or otherwise sexually exploiting kids. In all probability, he is not even a pedophile. In all likelihood, he does not present any danger whatsoever to children. His crime, if you can call it that, was looking at pictures of the victims of crimes. There is no evidence that he’s a dangerous societal pervert or monster.

Like it or not, pornography is a global multi-billion dollar industry. There are literally millions of porn sites on the Internet. Millions, if not, billions of human beings display an enormous and seemingly insatiable appetite for viewing images depicting sex and sexual activities. Every kind of conventional and unconventional sex imaginable is avidly sought out for viewing by normal human beings.

Normal human beings by the millions enjoy watching erotic, titillating and even downright disgusting sexual activities involving other human beings – interracial sex; sadistic sex; humiliation sex; bondage sex; midget sex; animal sex; cuckold sex; old & young sex; anal sex; oral sex; gay sex; lesbian sex; bisexual sex; scatological sex; cartoon sex; femdom sex; group sex; swinger sex; up-skirt sex; voyeur sex; just to name a few of the categories, and the lists go on and on.

Normal human beings can watch a movie depicting gay porn, yet not be gay; sadistic sex, yet not be sadistic; sex between young men and very old women, yet not desire old women; femdom sex, yet have no desire to be dominated by a woman; and yes, even child porn, yet not be a pedophile. It’s disgusting, yes, but normal people are fascinated with disgusting and that is a well known fact.

Ironically, if this man was in possession of images of children being strangled, stabbed to death, or otherwise physically abused in ways having nothing to do with sex, there would be no crime. Which is worse, a picture of a child being physically abused, or a picture of a child’s genitals? Surely, most people are capable of viewing pictures of crime victims without being tempted to commit the same crime. Movies and TV shows depicting crimes are some of the most popular entertainment around. 

Equally ironic is the fact that the police, prosecutor, judge, and jury dispensing “justice” for the “crime” of possessing and viewing child porn, must by necessity commit exactly the same act – the same “crime” -- as the accused. They must possess and view the offensive material just like the “criminal.” How many other “crime’s” can you think of in which that is the case? No one, for example, must by necessity commit rape in order to bring a rapist to justice.

Producing and distributing child porn is wrong, a serious crime, and should be punished accordingly. But merely possessing and viewing the disgusting images is another matter entirely. Yes, perhaps it should be a crime, but not a felony, and it certainly is not a greater evil than the crime of burglary.

The Thief of Caracas

Socialist is just another word for thief.

Socialism is the politics of taking property by force for disposition by the collective. It’s a majority of have-not’s appropriating their miserable livings from a minority of haves.

From each according to their ability; to each according to their need is the standard socialist creed. The quality of life for the average person under socialism is therefore always measured by the lowest common denominator.

No nation dominated by the politics of socialism has long endured. After an initial frenzy of pillage and theft the inhabitants slide into an inevitable condition of apathy, poverty, and despair.

There is no incentive to produce, no private property, no competition, no reason to get ahead of the next fellow. All fruits of effort beyond the minimal are quickly confiscated for consumption by others.

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is once again proving the point. He’s announced recently that his government will seize private homes and property on the picturesque Los Roques archipelago tourist islands in the Caribbean for use by state-run tourism.

"I've always said we should nationalize Los Roques," declared the unabashed thief of Caracas. The beautiful white sand pristine island and private beach properties represent a favorite high end tourist destination for many well off South Americans.

Not anymore. The government will build hostels on Los Roques "for the people," the thief proclaimed. Yachts confiscated from fugitive bankers will be used to transport tourists, he added.

"There are some houses that were illegally built. We're going to take them over … There are some supposed owners. They privatized it, so to speak, the high bourgeoisie, including the international set," explained the dictator.

This is from the same loser who has to go to an economic disaster like Cuba to treat his cancer because decent doctors and medical facilities can’t exist in his own economically looted socialist paradise.

Chavez is seeking re-election next year and maintains his popularity with the have-not’s by stealing and redistributing the property of the haves of Venezuela. He’s already nationalized much of the nation’s economy for the benefit of his supporters in the poorer areas which are the core of his power base.

It’s a safe bet that ten years from now the beautiful islands of Los Roques will look like squalid dumps after “the people” finish using them up. There will certainly be no incentive to maintain them.

And when the oil dries up in the rest of Venezuela; when all else has been nationalized under the thieving politics of socialism, the country of Hugo Chavez will become the North Korea of South America.