Unequal Protection of the Law

The United States Constitution supposedly guarantees every citizen equal protection of the laws but when it comes to the citizens’ paying taxes equal protection of the laws is a far cry from equal; in fact it’s unequal, unconscionable, unfair, and inequitable.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, provides that: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Thus, the original Constitution did not permit the government to tax commerce among some citizens at a higher rate than upon others. Taxes, duties, imposts and excises must be uniform throughout the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified soon after the Civil War, provides that: “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The United States Supreme Court, in the 1954 case of Bolling v. Sharpe, held that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees all citizens the same equal protection of the federal laws as the Fourteenth Amendment mandates against laws passed by the states.

The equal protection guarantee extends not only to laws that obviously discriminate on their face as did the laws that intentionally segregated races in public schools, but also to government action having a discriminatory purpose, effect, or application.

In other words, the federal government, including the President, Congress, and all administrative agencies, may not make or promulgate discriminatory laws, period. At least thats what the Constitution would have us believe.

Before 1913, less than 100 years ago, the federal government had absolutely no power to tax the incomes of citizens. That was a time when there was still a modicum of liberty in America.

But all that changed with the Sixteenth Amendment which provides that: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Notice that this Amendment made no provision to allow for discriminatory tax laws, so there is still no constitutional authority for the federal and state governments to tax some people at one rate while taxing other people at another while some people are levied no income tax at all.

Suppose that the federal and state governments passed tax laws which mandated that only white people were required to pay income taxes and that all people of color were not required to pay income taxes.

Suppose income taxes were imposed only upon fat people while normal sized and skinny citizens were exempted by the income tax laws. Imagine laws requiring unmarried persons to pay income taxes but not married persons; red haired citizens, but not blondes; men but not women.

Do you think such laws would pass constitutional muster? Would they deprive anyone of equal protection?

Well, of course every one of them would be unconstitutional as they would all deny some citizens of equal protection of the laws.

How is it, then, under the federal Constitution of the United States of America, that the government is allowed to tax some people at much higher rates than others, or make some people pay income taxes while leaving others alone?

I say that the Constitution does not permit it.

If one person must pay income taxes of 50% or more on earnings of $1million while another person is required to pay 20% on earnings of $100,000, that amounts to a denial of equal protection of the law as the former must pay half of his income to the government while the latter must pay only one fifth.

Republican congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland has introduced the Stimulus To Allow Critical Hair Expenses Act — or STACHE Act — to give people with mustaches a $250 tax break each year.

Northeastern State University Associate Professor of Accounting and Tax Policy Dr. John Yeutter recommends the tax loophole, claiming that the “social and environmental benefits to mustache growth and maintenance contribute to the growth of the economy… Given the clear link between the growing and maintenance of mustaches and incremental income … mustache maintenance costs qualify for and should be considered as a deductible expense,” he argues.

Of course, this is barely the tip of the iceberg. Politicians have been denying people equal protection of the laws in thousands of ways ever since the Sixteenth Amendment allowed governments to tax the incomes of citizens.

The American tax system is a system of unequal protection of the law.

Borked!

“Borked” [verb] – a new word added to the American lexicon in 1987 after the U.S. Senate rejected President Reagan’s nomination of former U.S. solicitor general and federal Court of Appeals judge Robert H. Bork to the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Bork, who died last week in Arlington, Va. at the age of 85, was “borked” because of his excessively unpalatable ultra-right-wing socially conservative judicial philosophy. To supporters, getting “borked” is what happens to a nominee rejected for political motives instead of qualifications.

But of course we know that all motives in the Senate are political and there is no question in my mind that the elevation of Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court would have resulted in a political disaster for Americans. This man was palpably unqualified to be a judge much less a Supreme Court Justice.

Bork was the archetypal personification of that angry old white man in a position of authority stomping upon the rights of minorities. He was well known for his opinion that most American judges, acting to please the liberal elite, have hijacked the struggle over national values by overstepping their role, especially in many of the most important decisions on civil rights and liberties, personal autonomy and regulation of business.

Actually, like all social conservative jurists, he wanted to impose his own religiously oriented draconian concepts of national values on the nation and he was not afraid to say so. Conservative judges overstep their roles just as much as liberal judges do.

Just like Antonin (Scary) Scalia and Clarence Thomas do today, Robert Bork advocated a view of judging known as “strict constructionism,” or “originalism,” which seeks to limit constitutional values to those explicitly enunciated by the framers and to reject those that evolved in later generations – that is when it suited his purposes.

He thought that majorities, through legislatures, should be empowered to make all decisions not specifically addressed in the Constitution. He railed, for example, against Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s and ’70s which held that the Constitution implicitly recognizes a right of privacy that bars states from outlawing abortion or the use of contraceptives by married couples.

In 1963 Bork wrote an article for The New Republic condemning the public accommodation sections of the proposed 1964 Civil Rights Act aimed at integrating restaurants, hotels and other businesses. The magazine replied rejecting his reasoning and pointing out that restaurateurs were not legally permitted to reject service to well-behaved whites and that the new law intended simply to extend that principle to blacks.

In a 1971 article in The Indiana Law Journal, Bork argued that the First Amendment’s protection of free speech had been wildly extrapolated beyond the intent of the Constitution’s framers. He maintained that free speech existed to perpetuate the process of self-government; therefore only explicitly political speech about governing was protected.

Bork thought that the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade was a travesty; that civil-rights laws were a violation of the freedom of businesses; and that the Court’s imposition of the one-person-one-vote rule amounted to a judicial overreach.

His role in Watergate occurred in 1973, when President Nixon wanted to keep a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, from gaining access to incriminating White House recordings and ordered him fired. The attorney general, Elliot L. Richardson, and his deputy refused and quit. Mr. Bork, as solicitor general, was next in line to carry out the president’s orders, and he did, firing Mr. Cox and his entire staff.

So much for the moral integrity of Robert H. Bork; his five years on the federal bench showed a record of stark unreasonable conservatism; he often denied plaintiffs the right to a court hearing, and showed strong deference to the executive branch over Congress.

“Robert Bork’s America,” opined Senator Edward M. Kennedy, in a speech after Bork’s nomination, “is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

“He looked, and talked, like a man who would throw the book at you — maybe like a man who would throw the book at the whole country.” observed Tom Shales, television critic for The Washington Post, about Bork’s senate confirmation hearings testimony.

Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter quoted Judge Bork as having written that under the Constitution, executive power had to evolve. Why then, he wanted to know, shouldn’t other constitutional concepts — like individual liberty — have a chance to evolve as well? He accused Judge Bork of selecting evolving rights based on his own preferences rather than neutral principles.

After his defeat, Bork retired from the Circuit Court and took up positions at conservative ideological groups and law schools, writing and speaking against what he saw as the moral decline of the country. “Churchgoers aren’t very powerful, given their numbers,” he said. “And the intelligentsia is powerful, far beyond their numbers, because they control the hype of television. They control Hollywood. They control the newspapers. They control the foundations. They control the universities.”

In 1989, Bork published his best-selling book “The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law” describing a number of rulings as “judicial legislation” by inappropriately activist judges. He said he had become the symbol that liberals needed to destroy. In 1996, he published “Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,” also a best seller. This book took aim at egalitarianism, individualism and other liberal ideas, saying they go against natural law.

“A decline runs across our entire culture,” he wrote, and “the rot is spreading.”

So it is apparent that Robert H. Bork was appalled with the concepts of equality and individualism which are both cherished American values in my opinion.

For those reasons alone, I’m mighty glad he was borked.

Insanity is a Disease in Consciousness

Since the Connecticut grade school shooting last week there has been a whole lot of speculation and hand wringing about what motivated the young killer to murder 20 little school children, six teachers, his own mother and then himself.

Much of the talk by the TV tube pundits, if not about the proliferation of guns in America, has been nonsense about ‘evil’ in the world about which nothing can be done. Mike Huckabee and others were quick to lament that the cause of these kinds of events is the fact that God and religion have been booted out of the culture.

The reality, in my opinion, is exactly the opposite as I explain in detail in my book – Authority!: Implications of Consciousness and the Reality of Existence.

There is far too much deception infused within the consciousness of human beings. Most people don’t realize that they are deceived. Those deceived minds are prone to insanity which is a disease in consciousness that can cause people to self destruct and destroy the lives of others.

Animals, for example, may hide, or confuse, or attract, even trick, but they never deceive, and are never deceived. Deception is employed only by conscious individuals. Only conscious individuals can deceive, or be deceived. Consciousness permits deception when an individual interprets an abstracted mind picture as existence, i.e., accepts nonexistence as existence. 

Psychological problems are always the product of an individual consciousness accepting too much abstract falsehood as reality.  People have consciously caused mental diseases -- ailments which no unconscious individual will ever have.  Consciousness can lead one to jump off a roof, thinking he can fly. It often drives people crazy. 

You will never ever encounter a neurotic, hysterical, delusional, schizophrenic, paranoid, superstitious, or psychotic animal.  No unconscious organism has ever had a psychological or psychiatric problem.  That’s because no unconscious organism has ever been deceived. 

It’s the unending deception, the falsehoods, the lies, and the mental conflict with reality that can make one crazy. When abstract falsehood is successfully promoted and culturally institutionalized as reality, it becomes verified and completely justified as “facts,” and “truths,” and “wisdom,” – Authority -- in the consciousness of a child.

Consciousness alone gives meaning to falsehood. People deceive and are deceived, only in consciousness. Consciousness permits deception, since deception requires the promotion and acceptance of abstract falsehoods as reality using consciousness. Deception requires the acceptance of a falsehood as a reality by a conscious mind.  Deception can only occur in that little “mind space” inside ones head -- his subjective consciousness.

Indeed, we think of those individuals who have completely lost touch with reality as insane.  Their individual consciousness is always permeated to the core with accepted falsehoods.  Abstract constructions of monsters, demons, and gods – conflicting Authorities -- are their “reality.”  They are crippled by their own consciousness, lost in a nonexistent Alice in Wonderland fantasy universe, deceived by conflicting authority to the point of total conscious surrender -- Crazy. 

Intelligent well intentioned individuals know this.  Yet even now, their little children are taught to accept abstract falsehoods as reality every day of their lives, by parents, and teachers, and experts, and preachers, and such, -- Authorities. Falsehood, deceit, and hypocrisy, is culturally promoted and institutionalized in this way

Authority is acquired and perpetuated by individuals in order to exploit individuals.  Ripe young conscious minds become programmed from birth to accept abstracted falsehood right along with cognitive contextual reality: Magic; Religion; Walt Disney “reality.”

That the two “realities” are always in total irreconcilable conflict is the root cause of all human psychological disorders. Pick out any 50 individuals in an insane asylum, and you’ll find 50 people who have accepted non-existence as a reality.  It’s a wonder that everyone isn’t crazy.

On March 27, 1997, thirty-nine adults were found dead inside their rented San Diego California mansion. They were all nice, kind, innocent, productive, intelligent, college educated members of a group known as “Heaven’s Gate.”

Each one fervently believed that an alien space ship was coming, right behind the Hale Bopp comet to take the primitive “consciousness” from their “container” bodies of this earth up to an advanced alien “consciousness,” a “Higher Source,” located somewhere up there in outer space. 

That event was described by the news media as the largest mass suicide in U.S. history.   Actually, it’s just one more horrific example among many, (like the Jim Jones massacre, for instance), of individual consciousness gone mad.

When people begin to learn how to distinguish reality from falsehood they have the tool to avoid that horrible disease in consciousness – insanity.

If that deranged kid in Connecticut had been taught that skill at an early age, instead of being force fed lies and deception, 28 people would no doubt still be alive today.  

Bill O'Reilly’s Illogical Secular Hysteria

Two weeks ago, I observed that our friend Bill O’Reilly was illogically insisting that “Christianity is not a religion,” because he fervently wants the U.S. government to continue sponsoring and supporting it, but knows that such sponsorship violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause, so he decided to simply change the definition of Christianity from a religion to a philosophy.

Alas, that didn’t work – this week he admits my point that the dictionary (every dictionary) defines Christianity as a religion; not as a philosophy – he knows that government shouldn’t promote it -- so now he’s going off on an illogical tangent against those he perceives as his, and the nation’s, arch enemies: secularists.

That’s right; people like me who know for an irrefutable fact that our nation’s founders expressly created a secular republic are the arch enemies of not just Bill O’Reilly, but the United States of America.

The founders weren’t against religion – far from it; many of them were religious men – they just wanted to keep religion separate from government because they knew from experience that religion and politics don’t mix. That’s why they conceived the Free Exercise Clause, so that individuals may freely exercise their religion, and the Establishment Clause so that the government would remain neutral.

The U.S.A was designed on purpose, by both religious and non-religious men, to be secular.

Bill O’Reilly just doesn’t understand that. He thinks that ‘secular’ is a dirty word.

That is what especially offends me about Bill O’Reilly. He personifies the current problem with the conservative movement in this country and the reason why Mitt Romney and the Republican Party lost so miserably in the last two presidential elections.

They are still insisting that God and Government are practically one and the same.

His big mistake is equating secularists with leftists. That’s illogical. They are not the same. They are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of conservative secularists in America who recognize the benefits of separation between church and state. There are plenty of secularists who abhor the leftist socialist line. They just believe that religion doesn’t mix with politics.

There are still plenty of religious Americans who are secularists.

Leftism and socialism are much of what is wrong with America. O’Reilly is right about that, but he must come to understand that a secularist is not necessarily a socialist. I, myself am the living proof of that.

“As we have been reporting, some committed left-wing Americans have been emboldened by the re-election of President Obama,” reports Bill.

“Secular forces [are] on the march.” “I saw it firsthand this week when I was down in Washington. There is arrogance and condescension in many left-wing precincts… The more intelligent Secular Progressives will understand that now is their time in history. The agenda is clear. Above all the secular forces want to change the economy. They want the government to run it and provide cradle to grave entitlements for those Americans who cannot or will not provide for themselves.”

“But believe me,” he whines, “Anyone in this country who challenges the Secular Progressive agenda is going to get hammered. These people are on a mission. They want a completely different America -- A country that embraces social justice, libertine behavior and is secular in every way -- and that brings us to the Christmas controversy which is symbolic, symbolic of the entire culture war.”

O’Reilly and his ilk are proud to call themselves “culture warriors.”  It’s war. The drug war; the war on terror; the culture war; the war on Christmas; they’re constantly at war with the American public.

They want to dictate your culture.

“Here is the big picture,” says Mr. Bill. “The Secular Progressive agenda is opposed by many people of faith. Abortion, gay marriage, legalized drugs, all of those things are opposed by many religious Americans. That is why some far-left folks want to diminish Judeo-Christian tradition and rename the Christmas tree the holiday tree -- The less Christmas, the better… These secular people are now more powerful than ever. Their guy has been re-elected and opposing forces are scattered. And that is what is going on in America on December 13th, 2012.”

No, Bill, the secular minded folks, including myself, many conservatives, Republicans, and even religious people of faith, are not the same as those leftist socialists with their progressive agenda.

Once again you are mistaken, completely illogical and comically hysterical. It’s not a “Secular Progressive agenda,” it’s a leftist socialist agenda.

Why can’t you understand that?

And there are plenty of conservatives, Republicans, and even religious people of faith, who are not culture warriors, who oppose the drug war, the war on terror, and the war against gay people. They believe that drugs should be legal, that gays should be allowed to marry, and that private citizens should be allowed to choose their own culture.

They are also secularists who believe that the government has no business being involved with religion. That’s right, Bill, they’re religious secularists just like many of our founding fathers.

They are no threat to you or to anyone. They’re just patriotic Americans.

So wise up, Mr. Bill – there’s no need for illogical secular hysteria.

Scary Scalia

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks it’s easy to decide “gay rights” cases: the Constitution does not protect gay rights.

That’s it; next case.

If the Constitution says nothing about gay rights then there are no gay rights.

If the Constitution says nothing about abortion then there are no abortion rights.

If the Constitution says nothing about breathing then there is no right to breathe.

So if a state passed a law restricting breathing, Justice Scary Scalia would surely uphold it.

It’s easy; next case.

Scalia fancies himself a "textualist." He applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.

If it’s not in the text, forget about it!

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia told the American Enterprise Institute.

He reckons that if the folks don’t like a law – if they think it’s unconstitutional -- then they should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges to do something about it. Or they should try to change the Constitution.

Good luck with that.

Legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral opines Scary Scalia in his new book: "Reading Law."

"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia replied to a student’s question about gay rights. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"

"I'm surprised you aren't persuaded," he deadpanned:

"It isn't a living document," Scalia said of the Constitution. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead."

"My Constitution is a very flexible one," he said. "There's nothing in there about abortion. It's up to the citizens...  same with the death penalty." Interpreting laws requires adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written.

Well then, when it comes to the Second Amendment and the right of the people to “bear arms,” arms would include only the kinds of arms available at the time the Constitution was written, right? No modern weapons, right?

Well, no; Scary Scalia, as we all know, has already contradicted himself on that point. Laws restricting the people’s rights to bear arms are unconstitutional he has ruled. But the Constitution says absolutely nothing about automatic pistols.

So what?; says Scary Scalia. I’m a Supreme Court Justice. I can contradict myself anytime I like.

So the state can outlaw masturbation but not automatic pistols according to Scary Scalia. That’s what he implied in his dissent in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. Joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas – Scalia said the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."

"Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home," wrote Scary Scalia. "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

So if a legislature votes 51 to 49 that a behavior is immoral, they can ban it and no court may declare the law unconstitutional, least of all the Supreme Court, thinks Scary Scalia, no matter how unreasonably it infringes upon individual liberty.

If a state legislature says you can’t masturbate, eat ice cream, toast your bread, go to bed after 9 p.m., or sleep in until noon, well, then you go to jail, go directly to jail and do not pass go.

That’s how the brilliant mind of Scary Scalia works.

It’s part of his Catholic religion – nothing to do with reason or logic. As far as he’s concerned the word liberty doesn’t carry much weight in the United States Constitution.

And, oh yeah, the Constitution has us all mired in a time warp of 235 years ago. It cannot be interpreted any differently now than it was then, no matter how absurd the result.

Of course, the Constitution does not mention a whole lot of things. There is no right to breathe, for example. Does that mean a modern court may not interpret the concepts of life and liberty to include matters like breathing which are not specifically mentioned in the document?

Yep, says Scary Scalia.

Public Zoo Days

American public schools today are not much different than statist public zoos where the caged charges are spied upon during feeding time, assaulted and battered by teachers and other students in the classroom cages, and even threatened with legal incarceration punishments for their constitutional activities at home.

The Lake County Florida School Board is poised to install surveillance spy cameras on cafeteria trash cans to monitor what kids are throwing away after discovering that students were dumping their federally-mandated fruit and vegetables.

More than $75,000 worth of veggies has been thrown in the garbage in response to the Obama administration’s policy to force schools to provide healthy produce in lunch rooms. Some students have staged strikes while others have launched petition drives urging the federal government to change their policy.

“It’s fairly specific recipe of what they would like us to serve,” said a Board member. “Unfortunately, much of it has to do with fresh fruit and vegetables and it seems to be going into the trash. And that’s not okay.”

 “This is a no brainer,” said one angry parent. “Kids are not going to eat the stuff served at school. Has anyone really looked at these lunch trays?”

“Why not just remove the kids from their parent’s home at 3 – 5 years-old and put them in mass dormitories where their entire lives can be monitored and properly controlled so that they become properly modeled citizens and serve as they are needed by our enlightened leaders,” groused another.

“Because no matter what they say, they are going to try to identify the kids throwing the food away and then social workers and courts will get involved,” wrote one local resident. “If your child doesn’t eat his school lunch, you will face punishment. Think I’m wrong? There are cities and states that punish the adults if the children are truant or get in trouble with the law in any manner. Your kid threw away a carrot? Go to jail. This is what we are coming to.”

My sentiments exactly!

Meanwhile, a fourth-grade teacher at Declo Elementary School in Idaho is punishing students who didn't reach their reading goals by having their classmates paint the slower readers' faces. The students were given the option of either missing recess or having their face painted. Their peers were given markers to draw mustaches, goatees and names on the slower readers.

The school's principal said she was aware of the punishment, and the school district superintendent said the students actually had a say in the punishment. "The class had discussed their accelerated reading goals and tried to put together incentives," she admitted. "One of the incentives is that those who met their goal would be able to paint the face of those who didn't meet their goal."

"Not only was my son punished with bullying but the other students were rewarded with bullying," said one angry parent. "They are being taught that bullying is okay and that there's nothing wrong with this."

But another parent said she supported the punishment. "I'm one of many parents who stand by the teacher's methods and what she does,"

Let’s vote on it. How many are in favor of violating the constitutional rights of little school children who are slower readers than the others? Say Aye!

How many believe that little kids should never be assaulted and battered in their classrooms by their classmates under the direction of their teachers and administrators? Say No!

The Ayes have it! From now on teachers and students at the public zoo  are allowed to violate the intellectually challenged kid’s rights at will and nothing will be done about it.

North Carolina statist politicians have passed a new law aimed at punishing students who criticize teachers online. They might get jail time, even if they are telling the truth; that’s no defense. A student could go to jail for up to 60 days for posting something truthful on the Internet.

It’s been dubbed the School Violence Prevention Act. They want to nail kids who torment their teachers by creating fake online profiles, posting personal information or images, signing them up to pornographic sites or making any statement, "whether true or false" that's intended to "immediately provoke" anyone to "stalk or harass a school employee."

"It became apparent that we had to get some kind of protection," said Judy Kidd, of the Classroom Teachers Association of North Carolina.

Has she ever heard of a civil action?

More particularly, has she ever heard of the First Amendment?

“This law is so vague that it could easily result in a student being arrested simply for posting something on the Internet that a school official finds offensive,” said the ACLU-NC Policy Director. “Young people should not be taught that they will be punished for telling the truth, speaking freely, or questioning authority – yet that is exactly what could happen under this law.”

Let’s take another vote!

How many in favor of trampling upon the student’s First Amendment freedom of speech rights even while they are not in school? Say Aye!

How many think that it’s not a good thing to violate student’s constitutional rights with criminal penalties in order to solve a minor problem that can be rectified in a civil courtroom? Say No!

The Aye’s have it!

The rights of the caged animals may be damned.

Public zoo days in America will continue as usual.

Military Spending: $1,728,767,123 Every Day

The United States of America, we are told repeatedly these days by the parasitical political class, is about to stumble and fall over the proverbial fiscal cliff, which simply means that, on January 1, 2013,  federal income taxes will be restored to the levels they were during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, and there might be some modest spending cuts.

Sounds pretty scary, doesn’t it? But as I remember it, much of the Reagan administration and all the Clinton years were boom times for America. The stock market soared to unbelievable heights between 1982 and 2000. Unemployment levels were low and the economy was strong. Clinton actually left office with a deficit surplus.

It was the abysmal bumbling incompetence of George W. Bush which burst that bubble and started the U.S. down the path where we are today. Perhaps the worst of the numerous GWB economic blunders was to allow the annual U.S. military budget to almost double in just the last 10 years.  

That is not only stupid, unnecessary and irresponsible on the part of our federal government, it’s unconscionable. It’s akin to just flushing $billions of taxpayer dollars down the national toilet every year, year after year. And there will be zero return on the “investment.” The spending does not make us safe.

What’s going on?

Right now the United States of America is financially supporting U.S military personnel in more than 130 nations overseas. I challenge you to even name 130 countries off the top of your head. Chances are that you can name any country except China, Iran, and North Korea, and the U.S. has soldiers occupying the place.

Yes, we Americans are occupying 900 military bases large and small in more than 130 countries across the globe – places like Kyrgyzstan, Aruba, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Norway, Mongolia, Nepal, Gabon, Togo, Suriname, and Peru – not to mention major military activities in Belgium Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Bahrain, Djibouti, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and the U.K.

Why?

What is the threat to the American people which requires the presence of all this military might in all these obscure outposts?

There is no threat.

But that’s not stopping the parasitical politicians from spending more and more $billions on the military every year. Just this week the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly (98-0) approved a sweeping, $631 billion military spending bill. They called it a “defense bill” but that is a joke.

The legislation authorizes money for weapons, aircraft and ships and provides a 1.7 percent pay raise for military personnel. So it looks like there won’t be any fiscal cliff problems for the military next year, even though this bill actually would reduce projected military spending growth. And that’s why President Obama is threatening to veto it.

It would provide some $526 billion for the base defense budget, $17 billion for defense programs in the Energy Department and about $88 billion for the war in Afghanistan. House and Senate negotiators must reconcile their competing versions of the bill in the next few weeks.

The Senate saber rattlers also voted 92-6 to require the Pentagon to report to Congress on the ability of the U.S. military to impose a no-fly zone over Syria. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has pushed for greater U.S. military involvement to end the Syrian civil war, sponsored the amendment. "If military action has to be taken to prevent sarin gas to be used, Congress has to be involved," he said.

So it looks like Syria will be the next Afghanistan and clearly no one, least of all Senator McCain, has the faintest idea whether the Syrian rebels will turn out to be better for the people there than the man in power now.

All we know is that a lot more taxpayer money is going to be flushed down the military toilet: at least $1,728,767,123 every day.

Murderer’s Paradise: Norway

Anyone out there who would love to go on a murder spree just for the fun of it, or for whatever other reason that moves you, should go the murderer’s paradise: Norway.

That’s where you can confess to cold bloodedly assassinating 77 people in one go and have the prosecuting authorities asking the judge to acquit you.

Only in Norway can you set off a powerful fertilizer bomb in a crowded building killing eight innocent people, and later repeatedly fire bullets into helpless young teenagers who are already injured but can’t escape, killing those who try to “play dead,” and driving others into the sea to drown, yet expect to receive a maximum sentence of just 21 years in prison – 10 years minimum if you show good behavior.

Hell, you could annihilate an entire community in Norway with bombs and guns and expect to get no more than 21 years. That’s the maximum sentence in Norway no matter how heinous the crime.

Thirty-three-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, the man who singlehandedly and methodically slaughtered 77 human beings within just a few hours on July 22, 2011, just might be released from prison when he is only forty-three, and certainly by the time he is just fifty-four. The time he has already spent in prison counts toward the term.

The Norwegian prosecutors had actually asked that Breivik be acquitted on the grounds of insanity, in which case he would have been held in a secure mental health unit. In that event, no doubt he might have been eligible for freedom even earlier.

Naturally, Breivik, dressed in a dark suit and tie, had a slight smile on his face as the decision was given.  By all accounts, he “looked pleased" with verdict. He wanted to be ruled sane so that his actions wouldn't be dismissed as those of a lunatic. He says he acted out of "necessity" to prevent the "Islamization" of his country; to fight multiculturalism in Norway.

"We have to make sure nothing like this ever happens again," said Bjorn Ihler, a survivor of the Utoya Island attack, who was glad the trial had concluded and that justice had been served.

Justice? That’s Justice?

That’s not the way, in my humble opinion, to make sure it won’t happen again, but what the Hell, that’s justice in Norway.

Breivik described his actions as a pre-emptive attack in defense of ethnic Norwegian people and culture, the court heard. It was only luck that more people were not killed and hurt in the blast.

Well, who in Norway cares if it had been more? Had his victims been 100 he still would be serving a maximum of only 21 years and a minimum of 10.

He lives in the murderer’s paradise: Norway.

Bill O’Reilly: “Christianity is not a Religion”

Did you know that if you’ve always thought like I do that Christianity is a religion just like Islam or Judaism are religions; well then: “You are wrong,” “You are unreasonable,” “Your view is insane,” “You are a fascist,” “You are so stupid,” and “stone-cold dumb” ?

That new revelation comes to us this week from our old friend, Bill O’Reilly, America’s top ranking battlefield general fighting the so-called “War on Christmas.”

“Christianity is not a religion,” insists Mr. Bill – “it’s a philosophy.” And if you don’t agree with him on this point, then you’re a “wrong,” “unreasonable,” “insane,” “stupid,” “stone-cold dumb,” “fascist.” But at least you aren’t a “pin-head.”

Now, of course, there is a reason why Mr. O’Reilly is taking a stroll down this disingenuous path and playing the obvious fool. He gets it. Bill O’Reilly gets the First Amendment. He understands the Establishment Clause. He likes to describe himself often self deprecatingly as just a simple man, but that’s not exactly true; he’s a smart man, a talented man, a man who knows what he’s doing.

Every year at about this time our Mr. Bill takes advantage of his TV bully pulpit on the Fox News Bill O’Reilly Show The Factor to spout off bombastically about his imagined “War on Christmas”: “The nasty cold-hearted atheists amongst us are trying to tear down and destroy our wonderful American Christmas traditions,” he angrily laments.

He knows the real truth, however, which is that the atheists merely want to have the government get out of the religion business; stop promoting, sponsoring, and supporting Christianity in clear violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause. Atheists don’t want to destroy the American Christmas tradition – far from it – they just want federal state and local governments to observe the United States Constitution.

Bill O’Reilly understands that perfectly. He knows that government cannot promote religion, at least it’s not supposed to. He admits that violates the Constitution. The government can, however, promote a philosophy such as free market capitalism, for example. That would certainly not violate the Establishment Clause because capitalism is not a religion

So O’Reilly decided this year to just re-define the entire concept of Christianity – it’s not a religion – it’s a philosophy. He said so during his interview this week with David Silverman, president of American Atheists:

O'REILLY: Continuing now with our reporting on this year's Christmas controversy situation; many of the actions against public displays of Christmas taken by atheist organizations; with us now is David Silverman, President of the American Atheist group.

SILVERMAN: Thanks for having me.

O'REILLY: I'm really trying to get and I'm not being a wise guy here … I'm trying to give you a point of view here. You are an atheist, you're a non- believer. I respect that. That's fine. I don't look down on you. I don't think you are a pinhead.

SILVERMAN: Thank you.

O'REILLY: If you want to be an atheist that's why we have America. You can be with it. But, why are you messing around with my tradition? Why are you messing around with Christmas? Just leave it alone. Is there a compelling reason for you mess around with it?

SILVERMAN: Well… we are not messing around with anything. We are stopping the government from preferring one religion over another.

O'REILLY: Okay. Stop there…

O'REILLY: … What religion is involved with Christmas? What religion?

SILVERMAN: Christianity.

O'REILLY: That's not a religion. That's a philosophy…

O'REILLY: Mr. Silverman. It is a fact that Christianity is not a religion it is a philosophy. If the government were saying that the Methodist religion, all right, deserves a special place in the public square I will be on your side.

SILVERMAN: So you are going to actually tell me on live television that Christianity is not a religion?

O'REILLY: Correct. It is a philosophy.

SILVERMAN: You and I are fundamentally going to disagree on that point.

O'REILLY: You are wrong…

O'REILLY: … If you read the constitution it says the government cannot promote a religion.

SILVERMAN: No, it says the Congress shall not establish any laws respecting an establishment of a religion.

O'REILLY: Of a religion. Not a philosophy.

O'REILLY: This is so unreasonable you are so unreasonable.

SILVERMAN: No, it's not unreasonable.

O'REILLY: It's frightening…

O'REILLY: ...Your view is insane.

O'REILLY: You and your merry band of fascists.

SILVERMAN: Fascists…

SILVERMAN: …You called me a Fascist.

O'REILLY: Absolutely.

SILVERMAN: I am a patriot, sir.

O'REILLY: You are a fascist.

SILVERMAN: I am a patriot taking the craziest notion that everybody in this country is equal and the government has to treat everybody equally fairly. That's Fascism? ...

So, Mr. Silverman is a “wrong,” “unreasonable,” “frighteningly insane,” “fascist” (not a pin-head though) for thinking that Christianity a religion which must not be favored, supported, sponsored or promoted by the government in violation of the Establishment Clause. When Mr. Bill gets mad he can’t resist the temptation to call people he respects nasty names.

You see, maybe I’m just a dumb fascist too but I’ve always understood that every religion is a philosophy but not every philosophy is a religion. A religion is a particular type of philosophy. Christianity is a religious philosophy.

“No, no, no, no, you stupid fascist,” screams Mr. Bill: “Christianity is definitely not a religion, but merely a philosophy … And the United States, state and local governments, all of them may therefore promote Christianity as they like without running afoul of the Constitution.”

Hummm … OK; let’s explore the ramifications of that position here and suppose for a moment that Christianity is not a religion but merely a philosophy.

If Christianity is not a religion but merely a philosophy, then Jesus Christ, the son of God and incarnation of Christianity in the flesh, was not a religious man – he was merely a philosopher like Plato or Socrates. Those who identify as Christians are following a philosophy, not a religion.

If Christianity is not a religion but merely a philosophy, then The Holy Bible, especially the New Testament, is not a religious book. It’s a philosophical book. The Gospels of Jesus Christ are merely philosophical works, not religion.

The Christian Cross is merely a philosophical symbol like the American Flag. There is no religious significance with the Cross. Christ’s Sermon on the Mount was a philosophical lecture, not a religious sermon. Easter, the Resurrection, Christmas -- all of that is not religious -- but merely philosophical.

Government should therefore be allowed under the First Amendment to promote all of it -- Jesus’ picture on currency instead of George Washington? – No problem. He’s only a philosopher after all.

O’Reilly insists that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid.

Wait a minute … that can’t be right. Maybe I’m crazy but I’m not stupid, so I looked up the word Christianity in several online dictionaries. In my first 5 searches here’s what I found:

Christianity: Chris·ti·an·i·ty – The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus - a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

Christianity: The religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.

Christianity: The Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Christianity: The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices:

Christianity: (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos^[1] and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion^[2] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.^[3] It also considers the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, to be canonical. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.^[1]

Not one of these dictionary references, including Merriam Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary, defined Christianity as a philosophy. This means that, either our friend, Bill O’Reilly, is utterly and completely wrong and the dictionaries are correct, or every dictionary is flat out wrong, and Mr. Bill knows more than they do about the English language. I’m much more inclined to believe the former.

Christianity is in fact a religion and Mr. Bill can’t change that. Federal state and local governments in the United States should not be promoting it at Christmas or any other time of the year. O’Reilly knows that. He doesn’t like it though.

The bottom line is that the “War on Christmas” is a figment of Bill O’Reilly’s fertile imagination. No one is messing around with his tradition. I’m willing to bet money that at Mr. Bill’s residence right now there is at least one Christmas tree and a Nativity scene. Every store where he shops is probably decorated in the same fashion for Christmas. So are his church and no doubt the private homes of all his friends.

Christmas time is alive and well in America.

Merry Christmas Bill!