Deaths Lies & Traffic Jams

What’s worse in your opinion?

1. being grossly negligent and incompetent in the handling of your responsibilities which ultimately led to the deaths of four people, and lying repeatedly about it afterwards to cover up your involvement, or

2. being unaware that some rouge employee working for you, without authorization, deliberately caused a traffic jam as a dirty trick to punish a political rival?

It’s a no-brainer, right?

Surely the person whose negligence and incompetence led to the deaths of human beings is far worse than the person whose employee, without permission, played a dirty traffic jam trick on a rival.

But no, unfortunately that’s not how the majority of American’s see it.

The person whose gross negligence and incompetence on the job, which led to the deaths of four human beings, people she was responsible to protect, is probably going to get a pass from her adoring gaggle of American dupes – in fact, she’ll probably be elected President of the United States -- while the person betrayed by a rogue employee who caused a traffic jam as a dirty political trick has probably seen his presidential ambitions totally destroyed.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has finally decided to come clean, now that she’s a candidate for president, regarding the September 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack on our diplomatic compound in Libya which resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty.

That incident was: “the most significant failure on [my] watch… [My] biggest regret,” she now admits. "They weren't the only people that we lost, but we lost them in such a terrible, senseless, terrorist action that, you know, it's just deeply sorrowful and it went on for hours, because the CIA annex was attacked after the State Department facility was attacked."

You see, now Hillary Clinton contritely admits what she has plainly known all along – that it was a well planned and executed terrorist attack which killed those four human beings in her charge – not a spontaneous protest over a movie about Islam posted on the Internet by an idiot Christian fanatic.

She knew all of that within minutes after the attack began. She knew that Ambassador Stevens had been begging her for months to provide him with better security protection at the compound. She knew or should have known that September 11 was a particularly dangerous date for a potential terrorist attack in that region. She knew that she was guilty of gross negligence and incompetence for not heeding his requests.

Then after the attack and the deaths of her subordinates she deliberately lied, and deliberately allowed others to lie for her, about what she knew. She claimed that she didn’t know about the potential danger. She claimed that the attack was a spontaneous protest about a movie on the internet.

"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We've seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men,” she declared days later when the remains of the dead were brought home. “We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with."

Later, when she testified about her role to Congress, she tried again to minimize her responsibility: "The fact is we had four dead Americans, was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" she huffed.

But now she admits it was all a regrettable mistake. She wants to put the incident behind her; she wants forgiveness; she wants a pass. And I think she’s going to get it from the irrational American masses who believe that this woman walks on water.

Not so, however, for competent and capable New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, who is also running for President. His presidential ambitions, once soaring high, are now in the tank over a stupid political dirty trick one of his staffers perpetrated without his knowledge or permission. The staffer caused a multi-day traffic jam on a bridge in Ft. Lee New Jersey leading to NY City for the purpose of causing grief to the democrat mayor there.

When news of the scandal broke, Christie immediately took responsibility for what happened on his watch, apologized profusely, and fired the staffer. He swore that it was not his idea; he didn’t authorize it, and had no knowledge of it in advance. All indications as of today, including after intensive investigations into the facts, have vindicated Christie. He told the truth. He had no direct involvement in the scandal. He’s clean.  

Even if he was involved – and I don’t believe he was – we’re talking about a measly traffic jam. As political scandals go, this is just about the most trivial scandal in the history of politics. Yet Chris Christie is not getting forgiveness. He’s not going to get a pass. The facts show that he’s entirely innocent of any wrongdoing but the irrational mob of sheep simply won’t believe him. So his presidential hopes are probably toasted.

Hillary Clinton, the grossly negligent and incompetent Secretary of State who lied about and tried to hide her responsibility for her role in the deaths of four human beings is going to have redemption from the sheep, while Chris Christie the hugely competent governor who did the right thing by firing a rogue staffer for causing a trifling traffic jam is going down the tube.

That’s death, lies, and traffic jams in America.  

Constitutional Rights: Vote Yes or No

When the founding fathers amended the Constitution to add the Bill of Rights I’m absolutely certain that they didn’t intend those enumerated rights be subject to a popular vote. To the contrary; they wanted to make certain that each of those rights were above politics.

Can you imagine then the United States Supreme Court deciding a case allowing the people of a state to vote on the question of whether citizens have the right to free speech, or for that matter, any other federal constitutional right such as equal protection under the law?

Shall we enforce federal constitutional rights in our state? Vote yes or no.

Surely the Supreme Court would never allow that, right?

It’s unimaginable, right?

Wrong!

The Court did the unimaginable just this week in the case of Schutte v. Bamn, upholding the State of Michigan’s popular vote to ban affirmative action style racial preferences for admission to state universities. Essentially the Court held that a state has the authority to put federal constitutional rights, in that case the 14^th Amendment, to a popular vote.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m quite certain that all affirmative action racial preferences schemes are unconstitutional violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments anyway and should therefore be banned everywhere.

What the Supreme Court should have done long ago is simply declare all affirmative action schemes unconstitutional. But they didn’t do what they should have done.  They’re a group of nine cowards. They made the situation worse by deciding that some constitutional rights are subject to politics.

"There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the [courts'] precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions," wrote Justice Kennedy for the 6 to 2 majority. "This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it."

If states can vote on whether or not to adopt affirmative action schemes, (laws which clearly violate the 14^th Amendment Equal Protection Clause), then they might also be allowed someday to vote on whether or not to enforce other federal constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, due process of law or the right to a jury trial.

The two dissenting Justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, not only disagreed with allowing states to vote on whether to adopt racial preferences schemes, but maintained that racial preferences schemes are mandated by the 14^th Amendment. In short, they believe that banning racial preferences violates the equal protection rights of minorities.

They actually believe that equal protection of the law means that whites and Asians, for example, should be denied equal protection of the law when it comes to who should be admitted to a state university.

If, for instance, a black student possesses inferior academic qualifications, i.e. lower high school grades than a white student, he should never-the-less have a preference over the white student solely because of his race, and that preference is his constitutional right under the 14^th Amendment.  

So Ginsburg and Sotomayor would turn the 14th Amendment upside down and inside out, while the rest of the Justices would merely subject equal protection to the popular vote.

Constitutional rights: vote yes or no.

Official Statist Bible Thumping

Statist Bible thumping politicians, those guys herding the sheeple in the great State of Louisiana, the ones who aren’t content to practice their religion in private at home, or at church, are poised and ready to designate the Holy Bible as Louisiana's official state book.

They’re going to make Christianity the official government religion of the Bayou State and they don’t give a damn about any First Amendment objections.

Of course, his bill isn’t offered as a state-endorsement of Christianity or a specific religion, insists State Rep. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport. "It's not to the exclusion of anyone else's sacred literature," he declared. "This is not about establishing an official religion of the state of Louisiana."

Oh, no; the Bible – his sacred literature -- has nothing to do with religion, does it?  It’s just a history book, right?

"I think we're going to open ourselves up to a lawsuit. You can't adopt the Bible and not adopt Christianity," admitted State Rep. Wesley Bishop, D-New Orleans, a preacher’s son who loves the idea, but realizes that it just might violate the First Amendment prohibition of mixing church with state.

Another enlightened opponent of the law observed that adopting the Bible as the state's official book might be offensive to people who live in the state but who aren't Christian. "You're OK with offending some of the citizens of this state?" she asked.

 "It's not meant to be offensive," Carmody replied. "There's no requirement that they would have to follow this particular text."

Well, of course it’s not meant to be offensive. The fact, however, that it will certainly be offensive to a minority of the sheep in Louisiana is of no concern to him. After all, he’s not forcing anyone to go to church or worship Jesus. He’s merely proclaiming officially that Christianity is the State religion in Louisiana as far as he’s concerned, and the Holy Bible is the State Book, that’s all.

What’s wrong with that?

You see, many Christians think that the United States of America is really a Christian nation at the core, therefore the government ought to promote Christianity as long as it doesn’t force the people to be Christians. They will tell you that the First Amendment Establishment Clause requires freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

That’s exactly what Bill O'Reilly, the conservative religious king of Fox News Channel thinks, for example. He’s absolutely certain that America has changed dramatically and gone downhill as a nation largely because more and more people lately are objecting to the government promoting Christianity.  

He agrees that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of any religion upon the people, “however, it was quite clear that the founders based the justice system in the New World on Judeo-Christian tenets. That's why a sculpture of Moses holding the 10 Commandments adorns the Supreme Court building in Washington.”

But wait a minute. Our founders didn’t base our justice system on Judeo-Christian tenets. Far from it; it’s based primarily on the Magna Carta and English common law.

And Moses plainly isn’t the only “law giver” whose visage is sculpted on the walls at the Supreme Court. Hammurabi, Menes, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavian, Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon, are right up there with him.

That’s right; Muhammad, The Prophet of Islam, is depicted in sculpture at the U.S. Supreme Court holding the Koran. Lots of other non-Christians are there – in fact the majority of them are non-Christians. What would Mr. Bill have to say about that?

O'Reilly constantly whines that “The Secular Progressives” are responsible for America going downhill, as if there were such a thing as a secular progressive. Most conservatives are secularists too. I’ll wager that Bill O’Reilly himself down deep in his heart is a secularist. America was conceived by the founders as a secular nation. So they were secularists. I’m sure he would both admit and agree with that. Does that mean he’s a secular conservative?

Mr. Bill has a chronic problem confusing political progressives, i.e. liberals, with secularists. They’re not the same thing. He’ has a bad habit of confusing secularism with atheism -- again, not the same thing.

O’Reilly does that to disguise the fact that he’s trying his best in a losing cause to justify the government sponsoring, promoting, and endorsing his religion, and his religion is Christianity. He’s guilty of exactly the same statist motives as the Louisiana lawmakers who want the Bible as their State book.

So he actually maintains that public schools should be allowed to display large pictures of Jesus on the walls of hallways and classrooms. He actually claims that the public schools should be teaching the philosophy of Jesus Christ to the little school children, and the fact that this is no longer done in America is the reason why America is going downhill.

O’Reilly says that “there is a big difference between philosophy and religion,” therefore it’s OK to teach the kids Jesus’ philosophy. This guy really wants us to believe that the religion can be taken out of the philosophy of Jesus, you know – just like there is no religion in “In God We Trust,” and no religion in “One Nation Under God.”

But I have some news for Mr. Bill: All religion is philosophy but not all philosophy is religion. And all – that’s right all – of the philosophy of Jesus is religion.

He’s not fooling anyone.

Like many other American Christians though, he demands official statist Bible thumping.

Statist Philosophy: What’s Yours is Mine, Part 2

Last week in my post: Statist Philosophy: What’s Yours is Mine, I commented on our statist oriented government confiscating an innocent 91-year-old man’s cultural artifacts collection simply because the agents thought he wasn’t entitled to have any of the items even though there was no evidence whatsoever that he had acquired them illegally.

If the government of the United Statists of America wants something that you have they’ll take it and ask questions later. That’s the philosophy today: what’s yours is mine, and the unwarranted property taking provisions of the Fifth Amendment are ignored.

Now we learn that up to 400,000 Americans might have their federal tax refund checks seized by the feds after Congress removed the 10-year statute of limitations on debts owed to the government. Its one thing to revise a statute of limitations to apply in future situations, that’s perfectly legal, but quite another to intend the revision be applicable to debts which have already lapsed under the statute – that’s an ex post facto law – not legal.

But that’s not the least of it. Now the government blood suckers are targeting the innocent children and even grandchildren of the debtor’s even though they had nothing whatever to do with contracting or giving rise to the debt and were oblivious to the fact that the debt ever existed. In many of these cases, the IRS doesn’t even claim to possess records of the debts.

So the child of a tax debtor who was two-years-old at the time the debt arose say 20 or more years ago and had nothing to do with it will be robbed of his or her present day tax refund check by the statist goons.

A grandchild who wasn’t even born when the debt arose will likewise be robbed, all without notice, hearing, or any other due process under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

This will be a situation of “classic abuse” by the federal government of regular Americans who don’t know how or have the means to defend themselves, former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams told Megyn Kelly on her Fox News show, the Kelly File.  

Kelly cited a case reported by the Washington Post of a woman named Mary Grice whose father died when she was 4 years old in 1977, leaving her mother with five children. Thirty-seven years later, the Social Security administration is claiming that it overpaid someone in her family, but it isn't sure whom, and is going after Ms. Grice for the alleged debt. 

“Going after” is the understatement of the year. They’ve flat out confiscated her property without the slightest pretence of due process of law. The Treasury Department has already intercepted $1.9 billion in tax refunds this year — $75 million of that on debts delinquent for more than 10 years, said Jeffrey Schramek, assistant commissioner of the department’s debt management service. 

The sins of the parents will be attributed to the children and to the children’s children says the United Statists of America:

What’s yours is mine. 

Statist Philosophy: What’s Yours is Mine

FBI goons from the government of the United Statists of America swooped down recently upon the home of Donald Miller, an innocent 91-year-old Indiana man, and confiscated his entire private collection of thousands of cultural artifacts painstakingly acquired over eight decades from his travels around the world.

Miller, who was a local teacher and involved in the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb during World War II, might also face criminal charges for innocently possessing his own personal property.

His collection includes artifacts from Native Americans, Russia, China, and many other nations. No one is claiming that any of the artifacts were stolen or smuggled.  He’s insisting that he "absolutely" is the rightful owner and is cooperating fully with the investigation. "I have been in 200 countries collecting artifacts," he said. Now he can kiss his collection goodbye.

"I have never seen a collection like this in my life except in some of the largest museums," marveled Larry Zimmerman, a professor of anthropology and museum studies and one of several experts assisting the FBI agents in cataloging and preserving the collection. Since the items were assembled over several decades, it will likely take a lot of time to determine the age and origin of all of them.

"The cultural value of these artifacts is immeasurable," FBI Special Agent Robert Jones said at a news conference, but he refused to disclose details of any of the individual items taken from Miller's property. "Mr. Miller has made an attempt to safeguard and protect the items," he added, but claims that the collection was: “wrongfully” in Miller’s possession and that the items will be repatriated to their “rightful owners.”

In short, the government goons have decided to steal all the property now and ask questions later. The statists allege that some of the items were acquired “improperly,” but admit that most of it was obtained legally and before any laws affecting them were in existence. So just who are the so-called “rightful owners?”

If an innocent person has an artifact of which the statists believe has “cultural significance,” they simply deem the person a criminal and seize his property. Let’s say, for example, you are digging in your garden on your own private property and happen to find an ancient Native American skull. If the statist goons want it they’ll take it and perhaps brand you a criminal in the process if it suits their interests.

That’s the philosophy of government agents in the United Statists of America: What’s yours is mine, and if we want it, it’s ours, whether you acquired it legally or not.

Believe the fantasy or be a terrorist

In the Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia today the law specifies that peaceful honest atheists are considered terrorists. Saudi King Abdullah has decided to clamp down with force upon all forms of political dissent and even peaceful protests that could, in his mind, “harm public order.”

Article 1 of the “terrorism” law prohibits “Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based.” Any such thoughts, including peaceful protests and all expressions, whether violent or non-violent, are deemed by this Islamic barbarian as “insult[s] to the reputation of the state.”

The law was introduced by royal decree without judicial oversight. Believe my fantasy or be a terrorist declared the King. Advocating freedom of thought makes one a terrorist says the King. The irony is that Saudi Arabia is a current and recently-elected member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. There is no such thing has human rights in Saudi Arabia.

Of course, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia already has a law requiring the death sentence for apostasy. Conversion from Islam to any other religion, or any expression of atheism was already unlawful and could lead to execution by the state. The lucky ones convicted of apostasy are forced at a minimum to disavow their views and undergo “re-education.”

Much of the king’s wrath is directed at a growing number of Saudis travelling abroad to take part in Syria’s civil war and then coming home with newfound training and ideas about overthrowing the monarchy.

You see, when some intelligent people are exposed to the light of reason they start getting “dangerous” ideas about the nature and purpose of Authority!  They start to question the fantasy of religion.  That’s what all religion is – pure fantasy -- fantasy with a purpose.

Deprived people begin to understand exactly how tyrants like King Abdullah have been using Islam for centuries to domesticate human beings just like it’s done with camels, sheep and goats. Then they start thinking that this statist monarchy under which the tyrant’s have them subjugated isn’t such a great idea after all, and maybe it should be overthrown. That’s what the king fears. He's terrified. That’s why he issues the royal decrees.

King Abdullah and all the princes and privileged elites within the royal house of Saud are not just a bunch of stupid individuals. They aren’t crazy. To the contrary; they know that they have a good thing going for themselves simply by convincing their subjects, if not willingly then by force, to adopt a 5^th century mindset inside their conscious minds which renders them slaves to the religion.

Believe the fantasy or be a terrorist. 

What Victory?

President Obama and his socialist oriented Democrat administration hacks are claiming “victory” and running a ceremonial “victory lap” over the fact that 7 million hapless American suckers have reportedly signed up for ObamaCare as of the March 31, 2014 midnight deadline.

Seven million signup’s was the original goal for the program. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney exalted that the total number of sign-ups by the midnight deadline, despite all the problems with the very rocky website rollout, constituted a "remarkable surge in enrollment."

Victory; what victory?

The ObamaCare law has been an unmitigated disaster so far and the worst is yet to come. That so-called Affordable Care Act has not been affordable except, of course, for the poor, sick, old and previously uninsurable folks who will now get health insurance for next to nothing courtesy of the nation’s young affluent healthy people who’ll be forced to pay for it through the nose.  

"This law is doing what it's supposed to do. It's working," the President crowed from his perch in the White House Rose Garden. "The debate over repealing this law is over," he boasted. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay… there's no good reason to go back.”

But we’re going to find out soon enough that, of that 7 million who signed up on the website, a big chunk of them didn’t pay any premium, so they signed up alright, but they’re not actually enrolled.

We’re going to discover that not enough young and healthy people signed up and paid their premiums to offset the huge cost of enrolling the poor, sick, and older customers who were uninsurable beforehand.

And the facts will show that most of the people who signed up did so only because the law required it, and/or they had their health insurance cancelled because of ObamaCare. In other words, many of these people already had health insurance they were happy with but were forced into signing up for ObamaCare because of the law mandating that they do so.

That’s a victory?

Hardly; It’s like the government claiming victory when, by the April 15^th deadline for filing income tax returns with the IRS, most of the millions of taxpayers comply. Well, of course they comply; the law forces them to comply. If they don’t comply the IRS will slap a lien on their property and they might go to prison.

You see, statist government agents call it a “victory” when, after they mandate laws requiring this or that, most of the sheep comply because they have no practical choice but to comply. If the government erects a stop sign at a highway intersection, for example, and afterword most drivers stop, only because they don’t want to get a ticket and pay a fine for not stopping, the goons call it a “victory.”

The bottom line here is that if 7 million suckers signed up for ObamaCare, most of them did so because they felt compelled to do so. After all, ObamaCare is the law today and those who refuse to sign up will be forced to pay a fine.

Victory; what victory?