Crooks in the Books

Ever since George W. Bush started the still unending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $billions upon $billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have ‘escaped’ the books so to speak, never to be seen by honest participants again.

There are crooks in the books.

Huge sums of cash shelled out for waging the wars, and afterward for reconstruction, simply cannot be accounted for. That money hasn’t just disappeared in to thin air. It now resides in the pockets and bank accounts of crooks – American crooks, Iraqi crooks and Afghani crooks. They stole it. They embezzled it. They misappropriated it to their private use. 

Even those sums which can be accounted for have vanished into the thoroughly corrupt black hole of the Middle East. I say vanished because America – the average American citizen -- is going to realize nothing whatsoever from the expenditures after eleven years and counting of U.S. conflict and occupation activities. No profit. No gain. Not even the return of a single dime in principal. It’s all gone.

That which technically isn’t gone has been wasted. Even the U.S. government admits with certainty that, of the mega $billions spent, or should I say dumped into the cesspools of Iraq and Afghanistan, way too much has been wasted, and the government can’t even determine how much. 

The U.S. Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Funds reports of the largest reconstruction project of its kind in U.S. history that "billions of American taxpayer dollars [are] at risk of waste and misappropriation."

In what was called its final audit report, it spelled out a wide range of accounting weaknesses. "The precise amount lost to fraud and waste can never be known," said the report. Auditors found huge problems in accounting for the huge sums. One contractor, for example, got away with charging $80 for a pipe fitting that its competitor was selling for $1.41 because its invoices were not reviewed properly.

Mountains of cash were literally being shipped to Iraq on pallets at one time yet there were not enough auditors in charge to account for what happened to it. "Given the vicissitudes of the reconstruction effort — which was dogged from the start by persistent violence, shifting goals, constantly changing contracting practices and undermined by a lack of unity of effort — a complete accounting of all reconstruction expenditures is impossible to achieve," the report concluded.

This is so despite the fact that the office has spent more than $200 million tracking the reconstruction funds and producing numerous reports which documented criminal fraud kickbacks, bribery, bid-rigging embezzlement and outright theft of government property and funds.

A $35 million Pentagon project was started in December 2006 to establish the Baghdad airport as an international economic gateway, and the inspector general found that by the end of 2010 about half the money was "at risk of being wasted" unless someone else completed the work.

Of the $51 billion that Congress approved for Iraq reconstruction, about $20 billion was for rebuilding Iraqi security forces and about $20 billion was for rebuilding the country's basic infrastructure. The programs were run mainly by the Defense Department, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

So let me see if I have this right.

The U.S. government, under the direction of President George W. Bush, shelled out hundreds of $billions to prosecute the war in Iraq. In the process we destroyed the country’s basic infrastructure and decimated the Iraqi Army and security forces, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of deaths and destruction we caused to Iraqi private property.

Now the U.S. government is involved the largest reconstruction project in history, rebuilding the Iraqi Army and security forces with $billions upon $billions of dollars, and spending $billions upon $billions more to rebuild the Iraqi basic infrastructure. The largest U.S. embassy in the world is now located in Baghdad Iraq.

We destroyed the country at huge cost and now are rebuilding it a huge cost, yet the average American is going to get nothing from the scheme.

Am I missing something here?  

Adding insult to injury, now we learn that that more than $200 million was wasted on a program to train Iraqi police that Baghdad says is neither needed nor wanted. Auditors said the U.S. has spent about $8 billion to train and equip Iraqi police since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The Police Development Program -- which was drawn up to be the single largest State Department program in the world -- was envisioned as a five-year, multibillion-dollar push to train security forces after the U.S. military left last December. But Iraqi political leaders, anxious to keep their distance from the Americans, were unenthusiastic.

"The U.S. government has a tendency to go ahead with programs that it has decreed are in the host country's best interests," said an embassy spokesperson. "This was such an expensive program, and there was plenty of time to get the Iraqi government to help shape it in such a way that they could eventually take it over. But we never got that buy-in."

Meanwhile, a report by the special inspector general for Afghanistan warns that handing over security to Afghan forces as the US withdraws its troops would also likely balloon the costs of US-funded aid schemes. Millions of dollars in US funds have been lost due to poor planning and workmanship in projects to help rebuild Afghanistan and billions more are at risk.

More than $89 billion US dollars have been squandered on Afghan reconstruction. Audits of various projects taking place across the country found significant construction problems and flaws. The basement of one expensive building, for example, is now being used as a chicken coop.

All of this leads to one inescapable conclusion:

There are too many crooks in the books. 

Olympic Obsequium

The summer Olympic Games have returned this year along with its legions of pretentious fawning obsequious hangers-on who contribute absolutely nothing to the event while shamelessly advertising their own personal political status and self importance.

Leading the pack of parasites this time was First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, who formally opened her stint as leader of the U.S. Olympics delegation on Friday at a breakfast for the athletes saying she was "just in awe" of their company.

"Try to have fun. Try to breathe a little bit, but also win, right?" she remarked banally while mingling with the U.S. athletes, posing for photos, shaking hands and sharing hugs. "Every few years, these games bring pride, excitement and wonder to millions of people around the world. And that must mean so much to all of you."

The rest of her pep talk was mostly about her. She told the U.S. athletes that some of her fondest memories in sports stemmed from watching the Olympics on television; and how her father, who was athletic, contracted multiple sclerosis "in the prime of his life." "He retained his love of sports, truly," she recalled. "And the Olympics was a special time for him to watch amazing athletes of all abilities compete on the world stage."

Afterward the first gadfly was off to the lavish grounds of Winfield House, the official residence of the U.S. ambassador in London to promote her healthy living "Let's Move!" campaign aimed at tackling childhood obesity with hundreds of children gathered on the lawn.

She appeared with several past U.S. Olympic and Paralympics standouts, including Brandi Chastain, Gabriel Diaz de Leon, Grant Hill, Summer Sanders and Dominique Dawes. "Being here is otherworldly for me," the first lady oozed; "I am still so inspired."

"I think this is amazing and what the first lady has done to get kids to move is truly wonderful," said former outstanding U.S. Olympian track star, Carl Lewis. "Both she and the president love the Olympics and the Olympic movement."

Then she attended a reception hosted by Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace and finally took her premium VIP seat for opening ceremonies at Olympic Stadium. On Saturday, Mrs. Obama will meet with Samantha Cameron, the wife of British Prime Minister David Cameron, before watching U.S. athletes on the first full day of Olympic competition. She’ll see more events on Sunday before departing.

The Olympic Games are no longer much of a sporting event. It’s become a political show. The athletes are merely pawns in a spectacle of international political competition. Which nation has the better athletes? Which will win the most gold medals?

USA!!! USA!!! chant the salivating American morons in the stands.

Naturally, this kind of grand recurring contrived event attracts politicians, their wives and entourages like flies to a dung heap.

President Obama and Michelle certainly knew that when they brazenly but unsuccessfully tried earlier to use the powers of the presidency to manipulate the Olympic Committee to locate the 2012 summer games in the city of Chicago, their hometown and the seat of their political influence, so that they could capitalize on the political goodies for themselves and their friends.  

Never mind that. If she can’t land the big political prize for her home town, at least she’ll lead the American delegation of political parasites and sycophants to London where she’ll hobnob with the Queen and all the lesser high born privileged nobles of international society. She’ll still have the attention; the best seats; the finest food, and plushest accommodations.

How much did the American taxpayers have to shell out for this latest unnecessary extravaganza? I’ll bet she didn’t spend a dime of her own money. Surely she didn’t travel by commercial airline. Of course she took the secret service with her. How many millions did it cost us to feed the First Parasite and her entourage for three days of hobnobbing and attention seeking in merry old England?

Why is it that a politician’s wife – the president’s wife -- always gets the honor of leading the American delegation to the Olympics? At Lillehammer in 1994 it was Hillary Clinton. Laura Bush got the nod in 2006 for the Turin games.

Why is it even necessary to send an official American delegation?

Why not just send the athletes and let them compete for the love of the sport?  

Chick-fil-A Filet

People today often wonder why there are so many lawyers amongst us.

Well, the following story represents the kind of unmitigated nonsense that keeps us lawyers happy, prosperous and busy.

Mayor of Boston, Thomas M. Menino, has vowed to thwart the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain from opening one of its fast food fried chicken franchises in his city solely because he doesn’t approve of the CEO’s personal religious beliefs.

This petty statist tyrant has already blocked Wal-Mart from a Roxbury development last year because of his personal perception of the company’s supposed impact on neighborhood businesses and lower-wage workers. Now he’s after Chick-fil-A because the company president, Dan Cathy, favors traditional marriage.

Cathy, a religious man, gave an interview last week to the "Biblical Press" affirming his personal Christian values, saying that he and his company are "guilty as charged" in supporting a "biblical definition" of the family and suggesting that gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.” While Chick-fil-A is not a "Christian business," it is run on "biblical principles," he said.

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” croaked the mayor. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city; we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion… That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

But Chick-fil-A is not excluding anyone. The company released a statement saying it has a history of applying “biblically-based principles” to managing its business, such as closing on Sundays, and it insisted it does not discriminate. “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,”

So Chick-fil-A the business is not discriminating against anyone. The CEO just has personal religious beliefs which mayor Menino doesn’t like. He’s going to make the business pay for the personal beliefs of its executive. He said he plans to fire off a letter to the company’s Atlanta headquarters “telling them my feelings on the matter.”

“If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned. “It doesn’t send the right message to the country,” said the tyrant. “We’re a leader when it comes to social justice and opportunities for all.”

Open up their policies? This has nothing whatsoever to do with Chick-fil-A’s business policies. The mayor, who heads the government in the City of Boston, wants a private individual to change his religious beliefs or face the consequence of deprivation of his right to do business in the city.

That is a clear cut violation of a private individual’s constitutional First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. A city mayor doesn’t have the right to deny a business license to a person because he doesn’t approve of that person’s religious beliefs.

Any good lawyer would have a field day with this case.

If mayor Menino doesn’t like Cathy’s Bible thumping beliefs he doesn’t have to patronize Chick-fil-A but he may not use his government powers to punish the man and his company by violating their rights.

I’m all for gay rights, and don’t agree with Mr. Cathy’s religious beliefs either, but that’s not going to keep me from enjoying Chick-fil-A if the food is good. It would be a different story if the business discriminated against gays as a matter of policy but that is not the situation here.

Apparently lots of people don’t like Dan Cathy’s stand on gay marriage and their response to it is voting with their feet by boycotting his restaurants. Nearly 4,000 people have signed a pledge to boycott Chick-fil-A, and Jim Henson Co., creator of “The Muppets,” “Labyrinth” and “Fraggle Rock,” is backing out of a proposed deal to make products for Chick-fil-A kids’ meals.

There’s nothing illegal about that but it makes no sense to me. It’s not going to change anything and the people doing it are simply missing out on a good meal.

On the other side of the issue, Mike Huckabee and his band of loyal Christian followers are rallying around Dan Cathy and his Chick-fil-A restaurants. Huckabee called the Cathy clan “a wonderful Christian family who are committed to operating the company with Biblical principles and whose story is the true American success story” – one “that is being smeared by vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left.”

He declared Aug. 1 “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”

“Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm traditional values, we're considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant,” Huckabee wrote.

This will probably result in more customers for the restaurants than there would have been before this controversy started.

It looks like Chick-fil-A will avoid the filet

Men on Mars: Why?

The United States government is Hell bent on sending men to Mars.

Why?

Men were sent to the Moon 43 years ago. They walked around on the surface. They collected some rocks. They even drove an expensive car. They hit a few golf balls. Then they got into their capsule and came home.

Those Moon missions cost $billions upon $billions of taxpayer dollars.

For what?  What did we get for it?

There was nothing of value gained in those missions which could not have been achieved with unmanned missions. There is nothing on the Moon aside from rocks and dust – no air, no water -- nothing. There was clearly no good reason to send human beings to the Moon. They were sent there solely to fulfill a popular science fiction fantasy.

And some of the men involved in those missions lost their lives.

Now, 43 years later, NASA is spending $billions upon $billions of taxpayer dollars again -- on another manned space mission – the Orion manned mission to Mars. The first Orion four man capsule crew model arrived at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida last week to undergo testing and development before an initial unmanned flight scheduled for 2014.  

The first manned mission to Mars is scheduled for sometime in 2021.

"This is the first time we've had a vehicle that will truly send us where we've always dreamed of going," gushed NASA's Josh Byerly to Fox News.

At least he admits to the real reason of the mission. It’s to fulfill a dream – a science fiction dream -- not for any practical or sensible purpose.

The Orion capsule is a part of what NASA had planned as the sprawling and ambitious Constellation project that would offer a replacement for the space shuttle -- and a means to ferry humans into outer space and back to the moon – then to Mars, NASA hopes, within the next 10 years.

NASA never bothers to explain exactly what benefits to mankind these missions will provide aside from the fulfillment of the science fiction fantasy – an Earthling walking on another planet -- cool. That’s it; because there really is nothing to be gained by manned missions which could not be accomplished by unmanned missions.

It’s exactly the same situation we experienced with the manned Moon missions. The reward will simply not justify the expense. The risks, hazards and dangers to human life will outweigh the benefits to mankind.

You see, there is a huge difference between the arduous, risky and dangerous manned Earth explorations of the 15^th century and afterward compared to the manned space explorations of the mid 20^th century to the present.

Human beings are adapted to life on Earth. Everything that human beings need to survive can be found right here on Earth. The atmospheric pressures are right. The temperature range is right. All of the special conditions for human survival are right almost everywhere on Earth.

By contrast, on the Moon and Mars, none of the special conditions are right. There is little or no atmospheric pressure everywhere. There is no air. Temperatures are at the extremes everywhere. It’s either blazing hot or freezing cold. There is no food anywhere. There is lethal radiation everywhere.

Men on Mars would have to stay in complicated, expensive and fragile containers all the time, and everything else necessary for their survival would have to be taken with them to last for the entire mission.

Mistakes made on Earth may be rectified. Mistakes made in outer space will be fatal. There is very little margin for error on missions to outer space.    

Add to all of this the fact that there is nothing on Mars except rocks and dust – exactly the same situation as on the Moon. If there is life it is microbial life; hardly worth the risk and expense of the trip. Even if there were gold and diamonds to be found, the practicalities of successfully mining it and bringing it home would not justify the risk and expense of the effort.

There is just nothing of practical value to be gained by manned missions to Mars. Our nation cannot afford them. The risks are far too great.

So again I ask: Men on Mars: Why?

  

American Jingoism Olympic Style

"I'm so upset, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid whined to reporters last week when asked to comment about the summer 2012 U.S. Olympic team’s Ralph Lauren-designed uniforms being manufactured in China. I think the Olympic Committee should be ashamed of themselves,"

"I think they should take all the uniforms, put them in a big pile and burn them and start all over again… If they have to wear nothing but a symbol that says USA on it, painted by hand, that is what they should wear," he huffed.

Several other members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are fuming about the decision of the Olympic committee allowing such treasonous activity while the American textile industry struggles with millions of U.S. workers desperate for jobs.

Six Democratic senators have said they plan to introduce legislation requiring the ceremonial uniforms be produced in the United States.

Ralph Lauren also is dressing the Olympic and Paralympic teams for the closing ceremony and providing casual clothes to be worn around the Olympic Village. Nike has made many of the competition uniforms for the U.S. and outfits for the medal stand.

The U.S. Olympic Committee has defended its decision to have Ralph Lauren Corp design the outfits and oversee the manufacturing process.

The outrage amounts to “nonsense” a USOC spokesman said in a statement. “Unlike most Olympic teams around the world, the U.S. Olympic Team is privately funded and we're grateful for the support of our sponsors We're proud of our partnership with Ralph Lauren, an iconic American company [that] financially supports our team -- An American company that supports American athletes.”

The uproar is "hypocritical" and "irresponsible," China's official news agency said Monday.

"The Olympics spirit is all about separating sports from politics, but these U.S. politicians are going too far and trying to force a political tag onto the uniforms," U.S. lawmakers should perhaps be banned from "wearing anything or using any product" that was made abroad. If there is anything that should be burned, it should really be the hypocrisy of the U.S. politics,"

"The reason this issue has stirred people up is because the words 'made-in-China' touch upon the most sensitive topic of the U.S. election - 'outsourcing'," the agency said, noting that the U.S team's uniforms have also been made abroad in previous years.

The Chinese are right this time. American politicians are hypocrites.

This controversy is all about pure political theater. Senator Reid and the other flag waiving congressional jingoists would probably have to go without wearing underpants if they got their wish that all products be manufactured in America. Wal-Mart, Costco and every other major retailer of clothing in the U.S. would have to go out of business.  

What about the loss of all those jobs? What about the loss to American consumers who would be deprived of the benefits afforded by global trade?

Why shouldn’t Ralph Lauren do business with China if China can give them the best deal on the contract? What business is it of the politicians who contribute nothing but hot air to the process?

Americans are getting their share of the business. Ralph Lauren has indicated that it will produce Made-in-the-USA uniforms for the winter games in 2014. And Russia’s Olympic team is reportedly in talks with Los Angeles-based American Apparel for a deal to design its clothing for the 2014 games.

As it happens so often with politicians they are constantly complaining and wanting to do something about “problems” which don’t exist.

And money is literally no object with these politicians. Senator Reid would have all the China made Olympic uniforms piled up and “burned.” He would have the people who shelled out all the money for them “start all over again.”

What’s a few million dollars here and there when it comes to American jingoism Olympic style?

Inside a Socialist’s Mind

Barack Obama, the current United States Socialist in Chief, actually believes in his thoroughly saturated statist mind that the government is responsible for the success of all businesses.

That’s exactly what he was crowing about to a group of his hard core supporters in a speech last week at a campaign stop in Roanoke, Va.

The President is adamant that successful business owners have an obligation to pay a lot more taxes than they’re paying now because they owe their success – not to individual hard work and risk taking – but to government investment in infrastructure and other projects.

“…if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” he declared.

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” said the statist.

“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own.”

“I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

“Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.”

“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

“The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet,” he proclaimed.

This has to be the most unbelievable, outrageous, dishonest, disingenuous, load of bullshit I have ever heard from the mouth of a politician in my entire life.

Exactly the opposite is true regarding everything he said.

Before there was government there was business. Government stifles business. Businesses succeed in spite of government and often fail because of it.

Businesses, i.e. individuals, create all the wealth. Business creates everything which is valuable. Government creates nothing. Government merely takes from the individuals who do business and redistributes the wealth as it pleases.

Individuals build successful businesses by taking risks and working hard. Government never takes risks. If a government project fails the government simply makes up for the failure by taking more money from the individuals who do business. The individuals who run the government lose nothing because they have risked nothing.

It takes a lot more than smarts and hard work to build a successful business. Success involves innovation, persistence, drive, and risk taking. There are a few smart hardworking people in government too, but they produce nothing, take no risks, and are always working with other people’s money.

That’s the difference.

Where does President Obama think the money comes from to make possible these “investments” – government printing presses? Who is really doing the “investing.”?

Every dime the government receives and then distributes to public school teachers, the building of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure projects came from individuals doing business and paying tribute to the government.

It was businessmen who created the American System – not government. The businessmen had to first declare their independence from the British government before it was possible for them to create our American system.

Business created government. Government did not create business. Without business government could not exist.

Government most certainly did not create the Internet. Al Gore claimed that he created it but we all know that was a lie.

President Obama and all the other socialist parasites feeding at the trough of our American government today have completely forgotten that the only purpose of government as conceived by the founding fathers was to secure the rights of individuals so that we could freely go about our business of enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Barak Obama shows us what evil thoughts lurk within the socialist mind.

Dr. Keith Ablow: Fox News Resident Statist Psychiatrist

“Why aren’t ‘Booty Pop’ boy’s parents in jail?” queries Fox News medical A-team psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Ablow in his weekly Fox News opinion piece.   

“Carla and K Roundtree, parents of a 6-year-old rapper and Tyler Council, producer of the boy's ‘Booty Pop’ music video should be legally charged with child sexual abuse, convicted and made to register as sexual offenders.  The parental rights of his parents should be suspended, pending an investigation by child protective services,” he opines.

He accuses them of “conspiring” to put the boy in a music video in which he raps suggestively while shooting a “very phallic” water pistol into the air – mimicking orgasm with scantily clad adult women dancing “erotically” inches from him. The poor kid is “clearly exposed to erotic behavior from adults” … “and is portrayed as a sexual conqueror himself.”

Whew! – It sounds downright pornographic, doesn’t it?

Is that why the good Dr. featured a big photograph of the scene at the top of his op-ed along with a computer link to the full video so that his readers could view it in its tawdry entirety?

“…if the women in the video were to have approached this young boy on the beach and danced within inches of him, suggesting they would be happy to have sex with him, police would be called. So, they should be called now. That seems pretty clear and sensible, doesn’t it?” Ablow concludes.

Not at all, I say.

Obviously the video isn’t even close to being child porn or Dr. Ablow would not have shown a photo of it and linked the entire video to his article. The boy and the ladies are at a swimming pool and all are appropriately dressed in swimwear.

Admittedly, the whole thing is in rather poor taste. All rap music is in poor taste in my opinion, especially when performed by kids, and it is somewhat sexually suggestive in a jocular silly sort of way. It looks like everyone is having fun though. There is no abuse; no touching; no foul language; nothing explicit whatsoever. The kid comes off as a junior stud muffin or something -- stupid, yes; pornographic, no.

There is no evidence that this 6-year-old has been harmed in any way.

But the sanctimonious statist psychiatrist wants all the adults to go to jail and the kid yanked from his parents to be put in a foster care home.  Whatever possible harm this episode caused the boy – and I submit there is none -- would pale in significance compared to being taken away from his parents. Any qualified psychiatrist ought to know that.  

You see, the statist psychiatrist, Dr. Ablow has no problem with denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to normal people who are not guilty of any crimes. In previous posts I have demonstrated: He doesn’t understand liberty. The concept of liberty eludes him. He doesn’t even understand psychiatry.

“… Americans have declared open-season on children as sexual objects,” Ablow rants. “In August, 2011, Vogue magazine published extremely sexual pictures of child model Thylane Blondeau, with full makeup, heels and a come-hither stare.  Abercrombie and Fitch marketed padded bikini tops to 8-year-old girls to make their breasts appear larger.  And, this May, Time magazine published a cover photo of a four-year-old boy being breast fed by his beautiful, model mom, while he stands on a stepstool and stares directly at the camera.” 

Nonsense!

The Dr. is merely citing more examples of poor taste. Poor taste is not a crime even though Dr. Ablow would have it so. He wants all those involved in the above examples to go to jail.

Little girls dressing and playing grown-up is hardly a sexual phenomenon. I suppose the Dr. would equally object to the beauty pageants in which thousands of little girls across the country participate every year. Of course he would. He sees sex while the rest of us simply see cute little girls acting like grown-ups.

Like it or not, there are some four-year-olds out there still nursing mother’s milk. That may be offensive to Dr. Ablow and others who think all 4-year-olds should be weaned, but there is nothing at all sexual about it (except perhaps in his filthy statist mind), and it is certainly not a crime.  

“This epidemic of sexualizing children will reinforce the pathological view common among pedophiles that children are sexual beings, wrongly portrayed as innocents, who can engage in sexual activities with adults and not be harmed,” says Ablow. “This epidemic suggests to children that they mimic adult feelings and behaviors, rather than remaining true to their authentic feelings and behaviors, short-circuiting normal psychological development.” 

More statist psychobabble nonsense!

There is no epidemic of sexualizing children (whatever that means). And pedophiles aren’t looking for kids who are acting like grown-ups. They fancy children precisely because kids do not present a threat to them as adults do. They’re looking for children who act like children.

Would Dr. Ablow put the parents of children who live on a farm in jail because the kids are exposed to cattle and horses and sheep and pigs explicitly mating in front of them thereby damaging their tender sensibilities?

I think he would do just that; because he has a pathological hang-up about sex.

If it weren’t for the First Amendment, a good case could be made for putting parents in jail for teaching their vulnerable kids about Santa Claus, Jesus Christ, and God. Surely, those things cause as much psychological damage to kids as exposing them now and then to adult themes.

But again, I’m sure Dr. Ablow doesn’t think so. He’s a psychiatrist, a pseudo scientist who actually believes that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky and created the entire universe. That is the kind of thing he wants little kids exposed to.

“All this may be happening because our increasingly technological, anonymous world is flailing wildly as it looks for something to anchor it to reality,” says the Dr.

“The body—especially sex—is the knee-jerk antidote to being disembodied by Facebook and instant messaging and GPS systems.  And, now, that antidote is being spilled everywhere:  Women by the millions are buying books about being tied up and sexually conquered.  People who would have never considered getting a tattoo are getting three.  Body piercings are more commonplace than ever.  And children are being doused with sexuality, too.”

Facebook, instant messaging and GPS systems are destroying society according to this psychiatrist. Women are buying bondage novels. People are getting tattoos. Body piercings are commonplace.

Oh, my!

I think the statist psychiatrist could use a good psychiatrist.

Rich Runaway Slaves

The United States of America has historically treated its runaway slaves as something less than human beings entitled to freedom, fairness and equality under the law.

Dred Scott v Sanford, a.k.a. the infamous Dred Scott Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, illustrates the point. The court ruled that human beings of African descent brought to the United States as slaves and their dependents, whether or not slaves, were not protected by the U.S. Constitution and were not U.S. citizens.

Congress never had any authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, said the court, because slaves were not citizens, could not sue in court, and as private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process of law.

It took a Constitutional Amendment after the Civil War to nullify this horrible decision. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

But what if a United States citizen, for good, sound and practical reasons, wishes to renounce his or her citizenship and become a citizen somewhere else?

Well, in that case their “owners,” the political parasitical class of the United States government, treats them like runaway slaves.

The government indignantly demands its pound of flesh.

Lots of rich people, for good, sound and practical reasons are choosing to renounce their U.S. citizenship these days and the parasite politicians are in a state of apoplexy.

Wealthy socialite Denise Rich has renounced her U.S. citizenship recently and now resides in London. By doing so, tax lawyers say she is able to legally avoid paying significant taxes on her estate. In January, Rich put her Fifth Avenue Manhattan penthouse on the market, according to her real estate agency, Corcoran. The property, which boasts 20 rooms and 11 baths, is on sale for $65 million.

"It may not be coincidental that some of these high profile expatriations are occurring when asset values have been relatively depressed," said tax attorney Dean Berry. According to expatriation tax legislation passed in June 2008, she is considered a covered expatriate and will therefore have to pay an exit tax on the net gain calculations of her assets.

In 2011, nearly 1,800 people renounced their U.S. citizenship, a six fold increase from 2008. Experts say the increase in expatriations comes in part because of the Internal Revenue Service’s crackdown on undeclared and untaxed foreign holdings of U.S. taxpayers.

Unlike many countries, the U.S. taxes citizens and residents on their worldwide income, but the rules were loosely enforced for many years. That changed after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and, separately, evidence that giant Swiss bank UBS and other offshore providers were encouraging U.S. taxpayers to hide assets abroad. If Rich has extensive foreign holdings, “she just may not want to pay U.S. tax on that income,” another tax attorney opined.

Other rich folks in the U.S. are also facing the prospect of higher tax rates next year. Even if Congress extends current tax rates for a year or two, a new 3.8% tax on investment income for most couples with adjusted gross income above $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) will take effect in order to help pay for the heath-care overhaul.

Rich will still pay a stiff price for renouncing her citizenship. She’ll owe exit taxes. U.S. citizens and residents who expatriate are treated as though they sold all their property the day before they renounce, even if they will continue to own it and pay property or other federal, state or local taxes. Capital gains are taxed at the current top rate of 15%, and some assets (such as individual retirement accounts) are subject to tax at ordinary income rates as high as 35%.

She will also have to show proof of tax compliance for five years, and may have trouble re-entering the U.S. without a visa.

Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin is another prospective victim of the parasites. He stands to rake in about $3.84 billion from his 4 percent share of the company which recently went public. Ordinarily he would have to pay several taxes, including taxes on salary and investments. He’d have to pay about $600 million in capital gains taxes whenever he sold his Facebook shares.

Saverin became a U.S. citizen in 1998, having moved to the country in 1992 from Brazil. But he also renounced his U.S. citizenship for residence in Singapore where there is no capital gains tax. “Eduardo recently found it more practical to become a resident of Singapore since he plans to live there for an indefinite period of time,” said a spokesman for Saverin.

Of course, he’ll have to pay the same exit tax which Rich will pay even if he doesn’t sell his shares. Renouncing your citizenship well in advance of an IPO is “a very smart idea,” from a tax standpoint, said a tax attorney. “Once it's public you can’t fool around with the value.”

Government parasites, Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) announced plans to introduce a bill to respond to Saverin’s move, which they characterize as a despicable “avoidance scheme.”

“The senators will call Saverin’s move an outrage and describe a plan to re-impose taxes on expatriates like Saverin even after they flee the United States and take up residence in a foreign country,” says their press release, and the legislation would also bar individuals like Saverin from re-entering the country.

Their bill will be called the “Ex-PATRIOT” Act, which stands for the “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy” Act. It provides that “any expatriate with either a net worth of $2 million or an average income tax liability of at least $148,000 over the last five years will be presumed to have renounced their citizenship for tax avoidance purposes,” and they would pay 30 percent capital gains tax — the same rate as people pay in the U.S.

Sen. Casey said that actions such as Saverin’s are an insult to middle-class Americans. “We simply cannot allow the ultra-wealthy to write their own rules… Mr. Saverin has benefited greatly from being a citizen of the United States but he has chosen to cast it aside and leave U.S. taxpayers with the bill.”

Our government parasites unabashedly count the citizens of the United States of America as little more than slaves. Casey and the rest of the U.S. government parasites in Washington are screaming that anyone who wants to legally take necessary steps to preserve his own legally acquired property and assets from the predatory tax authorities in this country is the equivalent to a runaway slave who has deprived the owner of his value.  

Biblical Justice for Juveniles in Utah

There is something strange about being elected or appointed a county judge which makes ordinary run of the mill attorneys start to thinking all of a sudden that they now have the Wisdom of Solomon and can make up the rules for sentences and punishments as they go along without any reference to the law.

I’ve seen it happen again and again. It’s easy for human beings to become petty tyrants if given a little power. After all, most judges are politicians too and we all know what happens when a politician is given power.

Utah District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen fits the mold. He recently told the mother of a 13-year-old girl before him for the “crime” of cutting a toddlers hair that he would reduce her daughter's sentence if she would cut off her hair in court.

Judge Johansen figured that an eye for an eye Biblical style punishment would be just fine – never mind that no law on the books gave him that option. So he ordered the mother to make a choice between having her daughter spend an extra 150 hours in detention or to cut off the kid’s long pony tail "right now" with courtroom scissors.

"She definitely needed to be punished for what had happened," mother told reporters. "But I never dreamt it would be that much of a punishment."

Her daughter, along with an 11-year-old friend, found their 3-year-old toddler victim at a McDonald’s restaurant. They asked a server there if they could borrow a pair of scissors. When their request was refused, they went to a nearby dollar shop to buy a pair and returned to the restaurant to carry out the act on the child.

At an earlier hearing, this same judge ordered the 11-year-old girl to have her hair cut as short as his but allowed the child to have the haircut in a salon.

Apparently there were no attorneys to represent the parties at either hearing and the judge simply felt that he had free reign to exercise his power unchecked by the law.

The mother, feeling substantial coercive intimidation during the proceedings, eventually submitted to the court’s order and cut off a lengthy portion of her daughter's long blonde hair in open court.

Afterward, the mother of the three-year-old girl, who supported the decision, was asked by the judge if she was satisfied with the length which was cut. "No," she replied. "My daughter's hair that had never been cut, that was down to [the middle of her back], was cut up to here [her jaw]." So judge Johansen then ordered the other woman to "take it off clear up to the rubber band."

Later, she expressed her anger over the judgment and said that she had filed an official complaint against the judge. "I guess I should have went into the courtroom knowing my rights because I felt very intimidated, she said. An eye for an eye, that's not how you teach kids right from wrong."

Biblical punishments: That’s not how judges sitting on the benches in our courts of law are supposed to dispense justice either.