George Washington Would Blush

Can you imagine George Washington, (Commander in Chief of the Continental army during the American Revolutionary War, founding father of our nation, President of the convention in Philadelphia that drafted the United States Constitution, and first President of the United States of America), making it a top priority of his presidency to seek legislation from the U.S. Congress to promote good, strong and healthy working families in the new republic? 

Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, or even FDR for that matter, turning the high office of President of the United States of America into little more than a mundane statist oriented social welfare agency?   

I can’t imagine that – not in my wildest dreams can I imagine that. I think that the very idea of such unbelievable nonsense back in the day would have made George Washington blush. It’s enough to make all of the above mentioned presidents turn over in their graves with shame. It diminishes the importance, the gravitas, and the greatness of the office of the presidency almost to the point of nil.

But, sadly, that is exactly what the stature this once great office has come to today. President Barack Obama is using his high office to encourage Congress and the country to focus on how to improve the livelihoods of “working families” (whatever that is).  The First lady of the United States will soon be holding a “Working Families Summit” in Washington which will highlight economic issues affecting American families at home and in the workplace.

"Every single day, there are conversations around the kitchen table where people are trying to figure out, this child care is costing so much, I'm not sure that we're going to be able to make our mortgage at the end of the month," declared our President in an interview on CNN." "There are folks who are saying, 'Little Johnny is sick, but if I don't show up at my job, because I don't have paid family leave, we're not going to be able to pay the electricity bill.' "

You see, today our President is greatly concerned about conversations among ordinary families around the kitchen table. That’s what he worries about. So his administration envisions a "21st-century workplace that works for all Americans."

The primary goal of the summit will be "... to lift up the conversation that everybody is already having individually and let people know you're not alone out here," Obama said. He added that "good, strong, healthy families" are the foundation of our society… but today, those working families are struggling to get by as parents are having difficulty juggling their obligations at home and work.

 "And if that's the case,” he intoned, “it’s not just about giving lip service to it… "We've got to reduce the stresses on families. And I think if you ask most families around the country, 'What's the biggest stress?' It has to do with financial pressures and time pressures that are constantly encroaching on them."

The President wants to make sure that all new dads have the chance to burp their newborns while getting paid for it. He’s calling for federally mandated paid family leave, because: "One of the most precious memories that I'll ever have is when my first daughter, Malia, was born… I was lucky enough that my schedule allowed me to take that first month off. And staying up until 2 in the morning and feeding her and burping her creates a bond that is irreplaceable."

He’s worried about workplace flexibility for all Americans: "We always say that we want parents involved in our kids' education… "There are millions of families out there who can't even imagine taking time off to go to a parent-teacher conference."

He’s concerned about high quality child care for all Americans: "We don't do a very good job providing high-quality, affordable child care, and there are a lot of countries, a lot of our competitors do it," declared the President. "That means that it's a lot easier for women to be in the workforce and not have to make choices that ultimately mean they're, in some cases, getting paid less or having less opportunities. And it also means, by the way, that our kids are more likely to thrive."

He wants equal pay to be a federal priority: "We've done some things administratively on that front. I always say that shouldn't be a women's issue because I always wanted Michelle to make sure that she was getting paid fairly because when she brought her paycheck home, that went into the overall pot to help us pay our bills," said the President.

"I'm going to be taking some action, a presidential memorandum directing every federal agency to be very clear to their employees that it is my view that offering flexibility where possible is the right thing to do. We don't want people having to choose between family and work when you've got an emergency situation," Obama promised.

"I've got a strong, successful wife, who I remember being reduced to tears sometimes because she couldn't figure out how to juggle everything that she was doing. And I've got two daughters that I care about more than anything in the world," the President said. "And so this is personal for me. And I think it's personal for a lot of people… This is not just a women's issue. This is a middle-class issue and an American issue,"

This is what the President of the United States of America and his executive administration is concerned about today. And I’m absolutely certain that if the greatest president of them all ever thought this kind of thing would conceivably be happening to his country – that this would be the purpose of the federal government -- in the 2tst century…

George Washington would blush. 

She’s a Lousy Lawyer Too

To most people Hillary Clinton is best known for her role as First Lady of the United States when her husband Bill was President; as a Senator from the State of New York; as a candidate for the Democrat Party nomination for President in 2008; and as Secretary of State during the first four years of President Barack Obama’s administration.

Husband Bill, in 1993, appointed her to head the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. This ultimately resulted in her failed proposal for federally mandated socialized healthcare in the United States, which was quickly dubbed “Hillarycare” by reluctant Republicans and Democrats alike, and consequently went down in flames. That failure was her high water mark of distinction as First Lady.  

By the time that the Clinton’s left the White House, Hillary, to her credit, had amassed a mountain of political chits within the Democratic Party; so much so that she was able to get herself elected United States Senator from the State of New York in 2000, even though she was from Arkansas; before that, Illinois; and had never established herself in the deep blue Empire State. Her Senate years were remarkably undistinguished and mediocre; no major failures; no major accomplishments aside from collecting ever more political chits.

She sought her party’s nomination for President of the United States in 2008, and was considered by her adoring supporters and the mainstream media as the far and away front runner in that contest until she was derailed during the later stages of her failed campaign by the charismatic political personality of Barack Obama. In short, she had an awful lot of Democratic Party political juice, and still does, but she was a lousy presidential candidate.

President Obama appointed Hillary his Secretary of State, not so much because she was the most competent person available for the job, (she clearly wasn’t), but because she would keep her mouth shut and support him as part of his team and not oppose his nomination for a second term.

Her role as the top U.S. diplomat consisted of travelling the world along with a huge entourage in her big private Department of State jet, hobnobbing with nations’ heads of state, all the while indulging to the maximum in fabulous luxuries and accommodations fit for a queen. She didn’t bother herself much with the details of running the United States Department of State.

Consequently her major distinction as Secretary of State was the result of her gross incompetence and direct responsibility for the dire situation at our diplomatic compound in Benghazi Libya which led to the murders of our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans by Al-Qaida terrorists. Afterward, she attempted to disguise her incompetence and irresponsibility by flat out lying repeatedly about her culpability for the situation with led to the deaths. She is still lying about her role in the disaster to this day. Hillary was a lousy Secretary of State

Today, as this lady gears up for another run at the presidency, too many people, I think, have forgotten that Hillary Clinton is a lousy lawyer too.

Her law career, including a partnership position at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas is riddled with questionable ethical and political insider practices which were happening while her husband Bill was governor of that state.

For one example, during a ten month period of time between 1978 and 1979, she, with the help of political insider “friends,” somehow “miraculously” turned the paltry sum of $1,000 one-hundredfold into a small fortune of $100,000 by trading cattle contracts in the commodities futures market though she was a complete novice in the art of commodities trading having never done it before.  

Put in the perspective of reality, the editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said later in 1994: “this is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later.”  According to economists from the University of Florida and Auburn University, the odds of such success happening were at best in the neighborhood of 1 in 31 trillion.

Then there was the Whitewater and Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan scandal about a shaky financial institution and a failed business venture real-estate investment deal involving the Clinton’s and their political friends which landed just about everyone involved – except for the Clinton’s – in prison.

There were allegations that Gov. Bill Clinton was pressuring people to provide illegal loans to Madison Guaranty while Hillary and her law firm were representing Madison. Fortunately for the Clinton’s, nothing stuck and they both eventually skated free from the heat.

Several other questionable ethics and alleged criminal conduct controversies involving both Clinton’s dogged them during their time in the White House. Bill Clinton was eventually impeached by the House of Representatives (but narrowly acquitted in the Senate) over the Monica Lewinsky affair and then disbarred as an attorney in the state of Arkansas for lying under oath in a court of law.

Certain billing records and documents were subpoenaed from Hillary Clinton concerning her activities at Rose Law Firm. Hillary reported them missing but two years later they were discovered in the Clintons’ private White House residence. Now why were Rose Law Firm billing records removed from the law offices in Arkansas and taken to the White House in Washington D.C.?

Then there is the legal case in 1975 involving Hillary’s representation of a man charged with forcibly raping a 12-year-old girl, a 30 years to life in prison felony. She knew he was guilty and eventually plea bargained the case to a sentence of two months time served in jail because of problems in the chain of custody with certain evidentiary items in the prosecutor’s office.

Now, of course there is no shame or ethical problems for lawyers representing criminal defendants and seeking plea bargains, even when the lawyer knows her client is guilty. That was her job and I don’t fault her in any way for that.

The ethical problem arose when Hillary Clinton, during a magazine interview sometime later, freely babbled on at length about her client’s guilt, including the results of a polygraph test he was given, all without his permission.

That is something no ethical lawyer should or would ever do under any circumstances. Ethical lawyers respect the sacred legal doctrine of attorney client privilege. Ethical lawyers never talk trash about their clients.  But Hillary Clinton is not an ethical lawyer.

She, according to Arkansas judicial records, was also suspended from the Arkansas bar in March of 2002 for failing to keep up with continuing legal education requirements. Good lawyers don’t get suspended by the bar association for failing in their obligations as lawyers.  

So the factual record indicates that Hillary Clinton, though she thinks she’s qualified to be President of the United States, really isn’t much good at anything except accumulating political chits. She was a lousy First Lady; a mediocre Senator; a lousy presidential candidate; a lousy Secretary of State and … she’s a lousy lawyer too. 

Libertarian Republican Tea Party Oklahoma Nut Case

When it comes to imagining oneself a “Libertarian,” a “Republican,” or even “Tea Party” advocate politician, one Oklahoma Bible thumping religious nut case has broken the mold. 

This guy wants local community governments in America to enjoy the power to decide whether to kill people who don’t obey God’s laws in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible.

That’s right. Scott Esk, a Tea Party Republican candidate for the 91st district seat in the Oklahoma State House of Representatives, believes that gays should be stoned to death, but wants to leave the issue up to local communities to decide because, he explains, he's "largely libertarian."

Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment banning Sharia law in 2010, a measure later ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, so Esk, who doesn’t oppose religion-based law, thinks it’s perfectly proper to do it so long as the religion is Judeo-Christian. Let’s make the Holy Bible the law of the land in Oklahoma, he reckons. Let’s govern Oklahoma according to Biblical principles.

His God plainly says in the Holy Bible that homosexuality is an "abomination." God prescribes execution by stoning as the punishment for gays. That's perfectly fine with Esk. He has posted Facebook comments expressing his support for stoning gays to death.

"I think we would be totally in the right to do it," he wrote. "That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I'm largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss."

Yes, I think that does go against some parts of libertarianism. I can’t think of any parts of libertarianism, or republicanism, or even teapartyism that advocate stoning gays to death.

"I would hope that libertarians who don't think perversion should be punished in any way between consenting adults would be open-minded and look at the different results between a state that ignores it and one that punishes it severely. And within a state, cities and communities may well have different policies, and I cheer that. That way, people can decide for themselves whether they want to live in a particular community based in part on how things like this are dealt with," Esk explained.

Yes, maybe we libertarians need to be a little more open minded about the prospect of killing people who were innocently born gay. I’ll have to think about that.

It’s curious that Mr. Esk, just like so many other fanatical Christian Bible thumpers, focuses his religious psychosis only on homosexuality and not upon any of the dozens of other death penalty “sins” mentioned by God in the Holy Bible.

Why is it that these perennial nut cases always pick on the gays but never the witches or the little kids who talk back to their mom’s and dad’s?

Why doesn’t he want to kill gluttons; whores; blasphemers; non-believers, and all the other sinners among us?

The answer to that is that he probably does. He really wants to kill everyone who refuses to believe as he does. He just thinks it’s a good idea right now, you know, to get himself elected, politically, from a strictly Libertarian, Republican Tea Party perspective, to start with the gays.

Municipal Kool-Aid Cupcake Cookie Monsters

Long ago, way back in the halcyon summertime days of 1954 America, when I was a wee lad of 8-years, my neighborhood pal Buzzy Acker and me, with our mother’s permission of course, set up a Kool-Aid stand in front of our modest houses on Adams Street in the city of South Bend Indiana.  

We purchased packets of Kool-Aid at the grocery store for a nickel apiece, mixed the contents with ordinary tap water and sugar, and sold 10 small paper cups of ice cold Kool-Aid per packet to thirsty neighborhood customers (mostly other kids), and motorist passersby for a nickel each.

It was fun; it was easy; it was profitable, innocent juvenile entrepreneurship. We weren’t doing anything wrong. No one complained to the government about our activities. No one got sick. No permits or licenses, or health department permission was necessary. Lots of kids did the same thing back then. It was all part of growing up free in America.

Of course, that was before the United Statists of America took over control of the United States of America. Today’s kids don’t have it quite as easy as Buzzy and me had it in 1954. Today a kid setting up a Kool-Aid stand or a homemade cupcake or cookie table is likely to run into a nasty buzz saw of statist bureaucratic government bullshit.

In short, if you’re a kid or even an adult nowadays and don’t have permission from the local government to run a Kool-Aid stand, a church bake sale or the like, the statist municipal Kool-Aid, cupcake cookie monsters are likely to shut you down, perhaps even charge you with a “crime.”

That’s what happened to little 12-year-old Chloe Sirling of Troy, Illinois, when the Madison County Health Department shut down her Hey Cupcake! Homemade cupcake proprietorship operation she started for helping out local fundraisers and churches through sales of baked goods to family and friends. When the local municipal statist cookie monsters found out about it she was squashed for selling baked goods without a license or having a state-certified kitchen.

The sad fact is that, today nearly 30 percent of Americans work in jobs that require some form of federal, state or county licensure. That’s six times the number in the 1950s. And it really has nothing to do with health and safety. When was the last time you heard about someone getting sick from eating a homemade cookie at a church bake sale?

It’s all about money in the municipal coffers from permit and licensing fees and statist government control over individual’s lives. Today one has to buy a permit to repaint their house; to put up a fence; or add a patio to their back yard. None of that bureaucratic nonsense was necessary back in the good old 1950’s.

This week, however, magnanimous Illinois State lawmakers unanimously passed a law dubbed the “cupcake bill” that will allow home kitchen operators earning less than $1,000 per month to operate freely without the intervention of local governments or health departments.

Republicans seized on Chloe’s story after she became a folk hero. You see, they didn’t do it because it is the right thing to do. They did it only because a large number of their constituents made a stink about it and they were consequently worried about their statist political hides. “Some of this stuff seems so stupid to me, that we have these rules,” one lawmaker sheepishly told National Public Radio.

What does a $1,000 per month limit on sales, I wonder, have to do with health and safety, or anything else for that matter? Why does someone earning more than $1,000 per month still need expensive permission from the authority?

The statists, including competition hating restaurant owners, who attempted to block the law, did succeed in amending it to provide that it only applies to home kitchen operations where the local governing body has adopted an ordinance authorizing the direct sale of baked goods.

So many little kids will still have to get government permission to set up a Kool-Aid stand. They’ll still be required to look out for the municipal Kool-Aid cupcake cookie monsters.

I’m Calling You Out

I’ve always thought that all people everywhere should enjoy the basic human right to accept and believe in their conscious minds any stupid, irrational, silly-assed nonsense they like so long as they don’t go out and attempt to force their deranged fantasies on others.

So if you want to believe, for example, that there is an invisible man in the sky who wants you to crawl around on broken glass for miles on your hands and knees begging for forgiveness and salvation while flogging yourself into a bloody pulp all the way to the temple, knock yourself out; it won’t hurt my feelings.

Just don’t try to make me do it.

What sets my teeth on edge are those human beings in positions of political power who aren’t satisfied with keeping the nonsense to themselves and their fellow travelers. These guys have deluded themselves into believing that they have the right to kill people who refuse to go along with their insanity.

In the Islamic dominated hell hole of Sudan, for instance, a judge in a court of law decided recently that a perfectly innocent pregnant Sudanese mother of a two-year-old baby be flogged with 100 lashes from the whip and then be hanged by her neck until she’s dead. 

What did this poor woman do to deserve such horrific punishment? Was it murder; was it high treason? Did she conspire to rape and kill an Imam? No; not at all. She committed the “crime” of marrying a Christian American man and converting from Islam to Christianity, that’s all.  You see, that’s against the law in Sudan. They – the folks in power -- can kill people for that.

"We gave you three days to recant, but you insist on not returning to Islam,” the judge told her.  “I sentence you to be hanged to death." Her crime is apostasy. “They were given ample time to prove their innocence, but I for one believe in upholding our traditions and customs as Sudanese,” explained the prosecutor.

The flogging part of her sentence arises from the fact that she married a Christian. Under Sudanese Islamic law the marriage is invalid. Since the marriage is invalid, the woman has also committed the “crime” of adultery, and adultery gets you flogged with 100 lashes of the whip in the mad as hell hell-hole of Sudan.

Another young pregnant woman in the Islamic insane asylum of Pakistan was beaten to death with bricks outside a court building by her own relatives. Her “crime” was eloping with a man she loved instead of marrying the dirt bag chosen by her family. A group of 20 religious lunatics led by her own father and brothers tied a noose of rough cloth around her neck while her brothers smashed bricks into her skull.  It was a question of “honor” to them.  They think they were doing the honorable thing.

An innocent Saudi Arabian man and co-founder of an online group called “Saudi Arabian Liberals,” has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam,” i.e. having the nerve to start a discussion about it on an internet blog. The Saudi king doesn’t like that kind of thing and claims the right to whip and kill people for doing it.

The government of Iran has announced the execution by hanging of an innocent man for the “crime” of “enmity against God.” He donated money to a political group that seeks to change the government in Iran. You see, if you criticize the existing government of Iran that means you are against God. If you are against God, you die. They kill you.

The Iranian police have also arrested six young people for posting a video online of them dancing to the hit song: “Happy.” The mad mullahs of Iran see it as promoting the spread of western culture. The law in that hell-hole country bans women from dancing in public or appearing outside without a hijab covering her face. 

I’m going to call all this fanatical religious madness exactly as I see it. This is insanity at the highest levels of government. The people in power authorizing this barbarity are insane. I’m calling them out for who and what they are. The rest of the civilized world should be calling them out as well. They are worse than a pack of rabid dogs. They should be put down in the same way civilized people do with rabid dogs. They should be looking over their criminal shoulders for drones.

The United States of America, indeed all of the civilized nations of the world, should withdraw all ambassadors and diplomats from these inhumane hell-hole countries. They and all their government representatives should be summarily booted out of the United Nations and totally isolated unto themselves. No civilized people in their right minds should ever travel to those crazy places, do business with them or recognize their power to any extent.

To all of you insane religious barbarians mentioned above: 

I’m calling you out. 

Statist Food Fighting

First statist Michelle Obama last week came out bristling while using her White house bully pulpit to rally support for federal public school meal nutrition rules she has earlier championed as against congressional House Republican critics who are trying to loosen them.

She successfully lobbied for nationwide implementation the rules back in 2010 along with other government initiatives aimed at dictating the dietary habits of children. But many public schools are complaining that the standards are too restrictive and costly. Lots of kids, for instance, instead of eating what the government insists they eat, are tossing the expensive unwanted food into the garbage.

So House Republicans are proposing an agriculture spending bill that would allow schools to waive the standards if they have a net loss on school food programs for a six-month period. The rules set fat, calorie, sugar, sodium and other limits on foods in school lunches. 

"This is unacceptable," Obama huffed, during a meeting with school leaders at the White House. She doesn’t like the idea of anyone challenging her authority as First Lady to decide what kids are allowed to eat at school. American families are facing a "health crisis," and the "last thing we can afford to do right now is play politics with kids' health," she declared -- as if her dictatorial dietary rules were not about playing politics.

Just like all government statists everywhere this woman actually believes she is in a position of power and has the authority to employ the forces of law to make people eat only what she wants them to eat and not eat what she doesn’t want them to eat. Complaints against her demands are “unacceptable.”

And just like all public education statists she believes that all school aged children and their parents should be compelled to submit to the government agenda by means of compulsory attendance at schools where the kids are indoctrinated on what to think, and all aspects of personal appearance and behavior right down to their dietary habits.

Government education statists aren’t satisfied with their legal authority to dictate what the captive children learn at school. They want to control more than just their little minds. They actually think that they enjoy the right and the legal duty to dictate the nature of their bodies as well.

Today, for example, the education authorities are taking it upon themselves to tell kids they are fat, and forcing them to take official messages home to their parents informing them that they think the kid is fat.

That’s what New York City public education statists did to 8-year-old Gwendolyn Williams. She’s a 4-foot-1 inch, 66-pound little kid forced to take home a so-called "Fitnessgram" to her mother describing her in no uncertain terms as fat.

"My daughter is thin; she knows she doesn't have a weight problem, but that night, I caught her grabbing the skin near her waist, and she asked me, 'is this what they were talking about?,"'  explained her mom. Now she’s confused about her body. "It was awful to see." "Some of her friends found out they were obese," she added. "They were crying."

That’s the kind of damage caused to children by statist food fighting.

Presidential Race Hustling

There you have it – President Barack Obama is a racist. He wants the government to treat people differently and unequally on the basis of race. He wants to segregate human beings because of their race. Some would receive government benefits that others would not solely because of race.

He wants a race based government. He’s willing to create a two-tier legal system in the State of Hawaii solely upon the race of the people within the system. 

One race of people would be subject to a system of taxation not available to other races. Government spending would depend upon racial considerations. One race would be governed by a different system of law enforcement than all the other races.

The President candidly admits that his idea is to create a separate in-state government for those who are “native Hawaiians.” He’s prepared to deny equal protection of the law to people he considers “non-native Hawaiians.”

Who is a “native Hawaiian,”? one might ask. Any person born in the State of Hawaii is a native Hawaiian, the same as I am a native Hoosier because I was born in Indiana, right?

No, that’s not right according to President Obama’s racist logic. “Native Hawaiians” could be born in Indiana, or any other state in the country for that matter, just as long as some of their ancestors were living in the Hawaiian Islands before Hawaii became a state.

So a person might never even have been to Hawaii but still be a “native Hawaiian” eligible to enjoy the many benefits of Obama’s proposed two tiered racial system, while actual native born Hawaiians would be denied the same benefits.

Obviously, the President of the United States of America, a man who once taught constitutional law at a law school, thinks he can simply ignore the Fourteenth Amendment whenever he feels like it.

But seriously, I don’t think that the President of the United States has the power to confer upon one group of American citizens a legal status denied to other Americans upon the basis of racial heritage. Such a scheme is unconstitutional and Obama should plainly know that. 

Not only is it unconstitutional, its racist – just as racist as any other scheme to treat people unequally on the basis of race.

Its Presidential race hustling.