Hair Raising Public School Statists in Texas

American Public education statists believe that they have a perfect right to compel by force all human beings between the ages of five and eighteen years to forfeit their precious time, liberty and constitutional rights for seven hours of collective confinement every weekday 280 days every year.

And while they’re at it, these same statists claim the right to force their school-aged victims to conform in all manner of behavior, dress, personal appearance and thought. The children are treated just like inmates in a state penitentiary; penalized for the slightest infractions. It is not enough that they are prisoners; they’re expected to conform like sheep.

Witness the sad case of straight-A student, Devin Gonzalez, a junior at Elysian Fields High School in Ark-La-Tex Texas. She was penalized with suspension because of her hair color. "I got sent home because my hair is red" she explains. 

It had been that same color for more than a year, but now the statist administrators are forcing her to change it. They think it’s distracting and doesn’t meet the school dress code.

"I was allowed to come back Thursday because I attempted to dye my hair a different color, but it didn't work obviously," she said. So she was suspended again. The statist principal insists that student hair must be a natural color. "It can't be two-toned and it has to be a natural color.”

"I do volleyball, softball, I'm in FFA, OAP, I'm in one of the plays, I tutor little kids at the elementary on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, I don't feel like I'm a trouble maker. I freak out when I get a B," she added. Now she’s hoping her new hair color won't cause any more trouble or stand in the way of her education again.

Yes, they’ve taught this poor little lamb well.  She’s meekly caving in to their criminal demands which violate her First Amendment right to freedom of expression as though she’s the trouble maker deserving punishment. She’s just another hapless victim of those hair raising public school statists in Texas.

Inequality is a Virtue

When I was ten years old I tried out for the local little league baseball program, got cut from the team and went home crying. The coach told me to be sure to try out again the next year so I did; was cut again, and went home crying.

It was one of the worst setbacks in memory to my childhood self esteem because, while admittedly I was not a great athlete, at least I knew that I was a lot better than some of the younger boys who made the team.

The rotten part about the system was the fact that every year an equal quota of 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 year-old tryouts had to be selected. I was better than all the 8 and 9-year-olds, but too many of the kids my age were better than me so I got cut, not just once but twice. So I never had a chance to play little league baseball.

It wasn’t fair.

Attempting to force equality among unequals isn’t fair.

Later on in my life, as all kids do, I learned that some of my peers had more and better stuff than I had. A few of them had no trouble acquiring the prettiest girls, achieving the best grades, and effortlessly displaying the most pleasing physique and appearance, while the rest of us could only wish for such qualities.

But it never occurred to me that some God or the government ought to step in and try to force a system of equality so that every kid could have the same stuff, the prettiest girls, the best grades and looks. Even as a kid I knew that such a thing would be quite impossible, and that even if it were possible, it wouldn’t be right.

One of the best lessons of life is learning that inequality is a fact of life. Inequality is what enhances life and makes life worth living. Inequality is good. Inequality is a virtue. The satisfaction with life is learning how to play the hand that nature dealt you. Poverty can be overcome. Physical appearance can be improved. Success can be achieved by anyone willing to put forth the time and effort.

While the plain facts of nature guarantee inequality among all organisms, as human beings we can still rightly aspire to guarantee each person to equality under the law. There is a big difference between equality of status and equality under law. The former is simply not possible and not desirable, yet the latter is not only possible but necessary to a fair system of human societal organization.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee equality under the law. That means that the laws are supposed to treat every person equally; justice is supposed to be blind; and no one is supposed to be above the law. Of course, it doesn’t always work out that way in practice but the idea is right. It’s an idea worth fighting for.

But one thing the Constitution does not guarantee is equality of status. There has always been inequality, and there always will be inequality of status. Some from among us are just naturally smarter, more talented, well endowed and better looking than the rest. That is as it should be.

Try to imagine a scenario in which everyone was actually equal to everyone else in every way. That is an unimaginably bleak and foreboding thought to my mind. The nearest I can come to contemplating the concept is imagining what it is like to live in North Korea, the worst hellhole existing on planet Earth.

But that fact doesn’t keep your average committed statist politician like Barack Obama from trying to force his socialist utopian system of equality of status on all Americans. Income inequality is the “defining challenge of our time,” the President will exclaim in his State of the Union speech this week.

He thinks that forcing employers to pay a higher minimum wage will help solve the “problem” of income inequality. He thinks that low entry level and low skilled employees ought to earn a higher proportion of a business’ earnings compared to the owners and managers. He believes that “workplace fairness” means that everyone must be compensated exactly the same. And he thinks that the government ought to use force to make it that way.

When will the statists of this world ever learn that their socialist ideas won’t work? There is a good reason for inequality of status; a good reason for inequality of income; and a good reason to believe that:

Inequality is a virtue.

Unequal Protection

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution together provide that American citizens are entitled by right to equal protection of the laws, both federal and state, but many politicians think they have the right to ignore that mandate and grant by the force of law special privileges and advantages to some to the disadvantage of others.

Case in point: President Obama believes that he can arbitrarily and by fiat create so-called anti-poverty “Promise Zones” which will grant special privileges and advantages to people living within them while denying the same benefits of the law to people living outside such zones.

Invoking his own personal story, the President aims to combat poverty, declaring recently that: “this is going to be a year of action.” He’s expected to elaborate that plan during his upcoming State of the Union address by announcing five communities that will be targeted for tax incentives and federal grants under a government Promise Zone program -- all to be accomplished without the necessity of any congressional action.

He’s simply going to order it by Presidential decree. “We’ve got to make sure this recovery — which is real — leaves nobody behind,” he said. “And that’s going to be my focus throughout the year.”

“There was a period of time in my life where I was goofing off,” Obama explained, “I was raised by a single mom; I didn’t know my dad…” This is his justification for violating the Constitution -- granting some people special privileges and advantages while denying equal benefits to others. He didn't know his dad. 

The first 5 of an expected 20 anti-poverty Promise Zones which the President intends to announce over the next three years are located in San Antonio, Texas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, California, southeastern Kentucky and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

Communities within these zones will have a higher priority when applying for federal grants; will benefit from more coordinated government assistance, and be singled out for possible Congressional approved tax incentives.

But why should people who live in southeastern Kentucky be allowed special benefits provided by the law which are denied to similarly situated folks living just outside that arbitrary zone?

It’s just like the President declaring by fiat that people who live in Los Angeles will now be taxed at a lower federal rate on their incomes than taxpayers who live in San Francisco simply because they live in Los Angeles.

I call that unequal protection.

Pot “scares” DEA out of its wits

James L. Capra, chief of operations at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), had to apologize twice for the elevated level of excitement in his testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing on the subject of legalizing marijuana.

“It scares us,” he exclaimed breathlessly.

Do you think that Mr. Capra, who makes his living from the War on Drugs, might be scared out of his wits about the possibility of legalized recreational drugs because he might lose his job as a government parasite charged with the responsibility of sucking the blood, liberty, happiness and joy out of peaceful, honest, innocent American human beings? 

I do.

Such a “bad, bad experiment” would be “highly dangerous” and cost the United States both socially and criminally, he whined. “I have to say this… going down the path to legalization in this country is reckless and irresponsible… I’m talking about the long-term impact of legalization in the United States. It scares us.”

Then he claimed that pot legalization has failed in every place it’s been tried. “There are more dispensaries in Denver than there are Starbucks,” he lamented. “The idea… that this is somehow good for us as a nation, that this is good for the next generation coming up is wrong. It’s a bad thing, and this body will get its door knocked on ten years from now and say, ‘How did we get where we got?’”

Gee, and I thought that the “experiment” he’s so afraid of has actually worked out quite well in every place it’s been tried. Am I missing something?

At an international drug conference in Moscow, he continued, foreign officials wondered why the United States was scaling back its war on drugs. “Almost everyone looked at us and said: Why are you doing this, you’re pointing a finger at us as a source state… I have no answer for them. I don’t have an answer for them.”

Well, I have an answer for them: here in America, as opposed to Russia and other statist oriented foreign states, we’re supposed to have liberty and be protected by the Bill of Rights. 

Capra actually choked up as he described how people misperceived federal drug agents as being concerned with small drug possession crimes. He claimed the agency was only concerned with drug traffickers. “I’ve never arrested an addict,” he crowed.

Yes, local, state police and federal DEA agents are some of the nicest people one would ever what to meet. They never hassle pot smokers, right?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), statist in chief of the U.S. Senate, said she agreed with Capra’s concerns because pot is a “gateway drug.”

I’m sure she means that people who become addicted the heroin and other hard narcotics always started out experimenting with pot, so pot in her reckoning causes heroin addiction. That’s the typical “gateway drug” argument that statists like to employ against protecting our liberties.

Forget about the fact that the exact same argument can be made about coffee, candy and ice-cream. I’m absolutely certain that every single heroin addict in America started out experimenting with and enjoying coffee, candy and ice cream before they ever got the inclination to use heroin.

So coffee, candy and ice-cream are gateway drugs too, I suppose. Coffee shops, candy stores and ice-cream parlors are therefore reckless, irresponsible and highly dangerous experiments impairing the greater good of the United States.

It’s scary, isn’t it?

But come to think about it, what does the good of the nation have to do with whether innocent people can enjoy coffee, candy, ice-cream, and yes, even pot? If someone enjoys ingesting a perfectly innocuous substance, that’s automatically bad for the nation? 

Are we all obligated as citizens then, to refrain from exercising our precious liberties simply because a group of committed statists believes it would be better for America?

You see, statists actually believe in their hearts and minds that citizens are supposed behave just like cattle and sheep when it comes to what they demand is best for the greater good of the nation.

That’s the twisted concept which causes all the human misery in statist oriented nations.

The possibility that we as Americans are slowly waking up to this reality regarding pot scares the DEA out of its wits.

Illegal Tender

Did you know that it is considered an illegal act and you are presumptively deemed a criminal if you use too much cash, i.e., legal tender, to pay for something in the United States of America?

That’s right. You can be arrested and all your legal tender confiscated by the American Gestapo goon squad if you have too much cash in your pockets.

Did you know that if an American Gestapo goon squad police dog sniffs you and smells the slightest trace of any recreational drugs wafting into its snout from a $20 bill in your wallet, you are subject to arrest, incarceration and criminal charges even though you might be innocent of any crime or wrongdoing?

That’s right. If any amount of your honestly acquired legal tender alerts an American Gestapo dog to the possibility of some blow on the bills, however minute, you’re a presumed criminal; your cash will be confiscated and your sorry ass taken to jail.

Too much cash in your pocket is illegal in America.

Cash that doesn’t smell quite right is illegal in America.

Mr. Conor Guckian, American citizen, age 33, found that out the hard way in Nashville Tennessee this week after he paid $20,000 in cash to charter a private plane to California. That act alone rendered him a "suspicious individual" in the statist oriented minds of the Nashville airport police. They don’t believe that anyone should be allowed to pay for something with a large amount to legal tender. They think it’s illegal.

So the airport goons obliged Mr. Guckian to be sniffed by one of their Gestapo K-9 unit dogs. Sure enough, the beast “alerted to the smell of narcotics,” coming from within the criminal suspect’s suitcase. A search was conducted based upon their trumped up  “suspicion” and $153,000 was found. All the cash was confiscated; Guckian was arrested and charged with money laundering.

You see, if you have a large amount of cash in your pocket, that makes you guilty of money laundering. The hapless suspect told the goons that he paid for his charted plane with cash and was transporting the large sum in order to buy gold in California. He was chartering the plane because he thought it would be a safer way to transport his money.

He eventually consented to a second doggie search whereupon the goons claim that the pooch detected a narcotic odor on 32 bundles of bills secured with rubber bands inside his bag. "The manner in which the U.S. currency was wrapped is consistent with that of drug proceeds," explained the Gestapo goons.

Which is it? Is it money laundering or drug crimes?

Never-mind; Guckian remains in jail in lieu of a $10,000 bond. Of course the cops wouldn’t let him make bail with his own money. That wouldn’t be right. Whether he’s ever convicted of any crime or not, that cash – that perfectly legal tender – now belongs to the goons.

Now I don’t know if this guy is a criminal or not, and I don’t care. Neither money laundering nor drug dealing is a crime as far as I’m concerned because there are no victims, and if there is no victim that makes Mr. Guckian innocent.

I suspect that he’ll never be formally charged with any crime.

But sadly, he’ll be forced to say goodbye to his cash. He won’t be buying gold with it in California anytime soon.

What I do care about passionately is the fact that in the United States of America your hard earned legal tender can be summarily taken from you simply because you might be carrying “too much” of it in your pocket or suitcase or handbag.

The goons can steal it from you if they claim one of their Gestapo K-9’s sniffed drugs on it, and they can keep it for their own use and benefit even if you are never charged or convicted of any crime.

In the United States of America “too much” or “odoriferous” cash on your person is deemed: illegal tender. 

Cussing Kid Kidnapped in Omaha

Last week the Omaha Nebraska police department posted a confiscated video depicting a diaper wearing toddler cursing, swearing obscenities, profanities, and using the infamous ‘N’ word in response to the encouragement of his uncle and other adults who apparently thought it was cute.

The cops found no evidence that any crime had been committed. But now that video is all over the Internet and TV pundits are aghast over the fact that the adults were not punished and the toddler taken away from them.

Of course they were unable to charge a crime here. That’s because in the United States of America we still have the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment which supposedly guarantees the right of free speech no matter how disgusting or offensive it might be to others.

In short, as despicable as it might seem to statists, parents and family members in America have a First Amendment right to teach their kids religion if they so choose; or to curse and swear in front of them, teach them swear words, racial slurs, hate speech, and other vulgarities.

The First Amendment provides no exceptions for vulgar speech.

But that fact never stops determined statists from having their way. After the story broke and millions of other statists saw the video, the Omaha authorities wrung their collective hands and eventually found a dubious pretext with which to remove the kid from his home and take him, along with four other children there, into “protective custody.”

The frustrated authorities – offended by the content of the speech -- reviewed the video over and over again with prosecutors who reluctantly determined no criminal activities had taken place. But then they went to Child Protective Services anyway alleging “concerns” for the toddler's “well-being.” That led to an investigation and a finding of “safety concerns” in the home which “justified” the abduction of the four little kids.

They kidnapped the kids for cussing. They’re protecting them from “offensive” speech and a cultural atmosphere that they deem is “unsuitable.”

The police union officials explained that they had an obligation to share the video so the public could learn about "the terrible cycle of violence and thuggery that some young innocent children find themselves helplessly trapped in…"The whole point of this is to give an unfiltered view of what police officers deal with every day."

Every talking head TV tube puppet I’m aware of thinks that the kidnapping of these kids was justified because they were being taught to use offensive speech.

But I say: what about the First Amendment?

Not once did the First Amendment enter into the debate about what happened here.

Now, personally, I don’t agree with what this little toddler was being taught. I think it’s disgusting. There are lots of cultural ideas that make me wince at the thought of teaching to little children. Kids are routinely being indoctrinated with religious and other statist bullshit every day in their homes, schools, on TV and the Internet. So they grow up warped.

But what really makes me sad is the fact that so few people today give a damn about the Constitution; the Bill of Rights; and the First Amendment. They think that the statist collective is perfectly justified in trampling on our rights as the best means to justify their ends.

They think it’s OK to kidnap cussing kids in Omaha.

Dog Eats Man

Of course, we’re all aware that it’s a dog eat dog world nowadays. That’s nothing new. In the extreme statist communist government hellhole of North Korea, however, it’s apparently become dog eats man.

If you’re looking for examples of just how bad things can get when a statist government turns over complete social and political authority to just one individual, look no further than North Korea and Kim Jong Un, the latest punk dictator in the Kim family dear leader dynasty.

This retarded little sociopath was born and raised by sociopathic parents and grandparents in a national cesspool; a thoroughly poisoned atmosphere devoid of all empathy, compassion and benevolence for the rest of humanity.

If recent reports are true, (I have a hard time contemplating it as reality), this humanoid monster actually ordered his uncle stripped naked and thrown into a cage with a pack of 120 ravenous dogs to be ripped to pieces and eaten alive.

The uncle, Jang Song Thaek, is the man who facilitated baby dragon Kim’s elevation to power after the death of his father, Kim Jong Il. He’s believed to have been in charge of training his young nephew to take over.

It appears then, that no good deed will go unpunished in the fledging regime of North Korea’s new dear leader. Very shortly after he took control and consolidated his power, the monster accused his uncle as a traitor – a "despicable human scum; guilty of “corruption, womanizing, gambling, taking drugs and attempting to overthrow the state" – and then literally threw him to the dogs.

The Hong Kong based pro-Beijing Chinese newspaper Wen Wei Po reported that Jang and his five closest aides were set upon by 120 hunting hounds which had been starved for five days. Monster Kim and his brother Kim Jong Chol supervised the one-hour ordeal along with 300 other officials. They were "completely eaten up."

Meanwhile, another semi-mentally-retarded kindred spirit of the newly installed dear leader, American Hall of Fame basketball player Dennis, the “worm,” Rodman arrived in North Korea as if nothing had happened with a team of former NBA players in tow to celebrate the baby monster‘s birthday with an exhibition game against a North Korean team as part of the next step of his program of so-called "basketball diplomacy."

"It's about trying to connect two countries together in the world, to let people know that: Do you know what? Not every country in the world is that bad, especially North Korea,” gushed Dennis. "People say so many negative things about North Korea. And I want people in the world to see it's not that bad… He’s my friend first. He’s my friend. I don’t give a (expletive). I tell the world: he’s my (expletive) friend, I love him."

Right! Kim Jong Un just had his own uncle, his mentor and political benefactor, thrown to the dogs to be eaten alive -- but it’s not that bad.

My advice to Dennis Rodman, for whatever it’s worth, is that he had better be careful, extremely careful, not to do anything which might possibly disappoint the dear leader, his loving North Korean sociopathic friend, lest he and his troupe of former NBA buddies be the next group of hapless suckers to suffer the horrible fate of:

Dog eats man.

Give it up!

That’s what thugs, robbers, muggers, gangbangers, and assorted other ruthless criminals always demand when they want to plunder innocent victims of lives and property. Even if they don’t come out and say it outright they’re still thinking it all the while inside their twisted criminal minds.  

When it comes to all the common methods employed upon the innocent by assorted ruthless criminals, don’t forget your local, state and federal governments. They’re determined not to be outdone. The only difference between a common ordinary criminal and a government operative is that the government thugs claim legitimacy for their criminal acts.

And the federal judiciary of the United States is demonstrating that it is just as complicit in the entire scheme of legitimizing government thuggery as the other two branches. Americans can no longer confidently go the courts to vindicate their lawful constitutional rights against government criminals who constantly demand that we “give it up!”

Just last week a U.S. federal judge upheld the “right” and authority of government border thugs to confiscate and search the contents of computers, flash drives, memory sticks, digital cameras and other electronic equipment belonging to all travelers, American citizen and foreigner alike, including news reporters and photographers, without even so much as a reasonable suspicion of a crime.

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman granted the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by civil rights attorneys that claimed the practice was unconstitutional and sought to have it halted.

Of course, such government conduct is clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, which provides no exceptions for unreasonable searches and seizures at international border crossings, but the judge got around that pesky impediment by declaring that the plaintiffs hadn't shown they suffered an injury that gave them standing to bring the suit.

The court also cited pervious decisions holding that the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches doesn't apply to the government's efforts to secure international borders from outside threats. So he’s not the only judicial miscreant out there who’s complicit in the government’s ongoing campaign against the constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights.

How about that? Nowadays Americans have no standing to challenge government routine conduct which violates our constitutional rights according to the judiciary, the very branch of government which was created by the founding fathers to enforce those rights.

Where in the Constitution does it provide that unreasonable searches and seizures can be conducted at random by government thugs at border crossings?

The judge didn’t answer that question because he knows full well that the Constitution simply doesn’t allow it.  He simply ignored it in the interest of the governments claims of national security.

"Unfortunately, these searches are part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight," explained one of the ACLU attorneys who brought the suit.

The plaintiffs: "must be drinking the Kool-Aid if they think that a reasonable suspicion threshold of this kind will enable them to 'guarantee' confidentiality to their sources, or protect privileged information," opined the judge. "Nor is this the only consideration that prevents them from guaranteeing confidentiality. The United States border is not the only border that must be crossed by those engaging in international travel."

“[The plaintiff] "cannot be so naive to expect that when he crosses into Syrian or Lebanese border that the contents of his computer will be immune from searches and seizures at the whim of those who work for Bashar al-Assad or Hassan Nasrallah," the judge added, referring to the president of Syria and leader of Hezbollah.

Right; if those other nasty governments can violate the rights of innocent travelers, so can the United States, even against its own citizens, reasons the Judge. Anyone else, such as advocates of the Bill of Rights, who reason otherwise, must be drinking Kool-Aid.

No doubt this criminally complicit judge would rule exactly the same way in favor of the NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance and outright spying methods against innocent American citizens, not at the border, but inside the country on their own soil.

After all, what is the Fourth Amendment compared the government‘s “right” to ignore it?

Now we learn from our American hero, Edward Snowden that the NSA has embarked upon a $79.7 million research program titled “Penetrating Hard Targets,” in the process of building a quantum computer capable of cracking the most sophisticated of today’s encryption types currently protecting medical, banking, business and government records around the world from prying eyes.

That’s not the least of it. There are also reports that NSA’s hacking unit uses James Bond-style spy gear to obtain data, including intercepting computer deliveries to customers in order to outfit them with sophisticated spying software. Its so-called Tailored Access Operations unit, TAO, is an elite team of hackers specializing in stealing data from the toughest of targets.

The NSA wants everyone in the world, including all Americans to give it up, and if they don’t want to give it up, they’re going to find a way to take it anyhow. They want the capability of knowing all our personal secrets; our emails; bank accounts; everything; they’re leaving no stone unturned.

We might as well just give them a key to our homes and let them violate us as they please.

And the U.S. judiciary is going along with it.

I envision the United States Supreme Court one day soon saying:

Give it up!

Republicans: Religion Trumps Science

Religion is the number one reason why Republicans have lost their credibility and control of the United States government since the disastrous administration of George W. Bush. Religion and the ghost of GWB cost John McCain the election in 2008 and Mitt Romney the presidency in 2012. Religion is the reason why Democrats hold a majority in the Senate.

The Democrats have made a huge mess of things under the Barack Obama administration. By all rights then, Republicans should have a field day in the 2014 interim elections, and the next presidential election in 2016 as well. 

But the Republicans’ never-ending extremist fixation on the subject of evangelical religion together with their utter intolerance on social issues will likely do them in again if they don’t get their act together.

More than half of those who identify as Republican, for example, believe that religion trumps science.

In the 21^st century it’s become mighty hard for most reasonable people to give political credence and credibility to those who actually believe in crazy things like the biblical scriptures literally; that the earth is only 6,000 years old; that an imaginary being that resembles a man created not only the earth but the entire cosmos in six days; and that all living things, including humans were created in an instant in their present forms.

That’s right. Shockingly, despite Charles Darwin’s famous scientific discovery more than 150 years ago, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, more than half of all Republican’s today (57% of them) categorically reject the documented scientific fact of evolution by natural selection solely because it contradicts their biblical creation fantasy.

In fact, whenever any scientific fact contradicts their fantasy they will tell you with a straight face that religion trumps science. The poll found that: overall fully one-third of all Americans actually believe the incredible biblical creation story that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support that belief.

So, most Republicans today – more than ever before -- reject outright the entire factual foundation for the science of biology, not to mention geology and many other established scientific disciplines.

Yes, disbelief in science among Republicans is actually on the rise nowadays while the vast majority of Democrats, Independents and virtually all Libertarians agree that science trumps religion.

I don’t know about you, but I could never bring myself to vote for a candidate who rejects the scientific fact of evolution no matter how much I agreed with that person on other issues. Those Republicans have zero credibility in my mind.

Reasonable people are just not going to vote for a Republican who believes that religion trumps science.