Cop justice NYPD style

Those who wonder why some people hate and distrust the police should consider the plain fact that many cops simply don’t deserve our love, trust and respect. If we’re going to expect justice for the common people we must also expect justice for cops.

Consider this recent video showing Sgt. Eliezer Pabon of the New York Police Department shoving a handcuffed defenseless 14-year-old boy with his back to him against and through a plate glass window. It shattered very nearly killing the kid who underwent 4 hours of surgery to remove shards of glass from his lung and near his heart.

Apparently, the 89 pound teenager said something to the cop that he didn’t like. Sgt. Pabon was found guilty by the department for using excessive force after which the Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Trials assessed his punishment -- cop justice NYPD style for an aggravated assault upon a defenseless kid who was nearly killed.

Did he have to go to trial? 

Did he have to go to prison?

Well, of course not.

His superiors had requested that he be docked 30 days’ vacation. The Commissioner instead decided to dock him only five days. Compare that to the punishment handed down to another NYPD officer who was docked eight vacation days for saying out loud that he wouldn’t have voted for mayor Bill de Blasio.

So one cop is docked eight days’ vacation for saying he wouldn’t have voted for the mayor while the other is docked five days for shoving a teenager through a plate glass window and sending him to the hospital.

That’s cop justice NYPD style. 

Bill O’Reilly’s war

I like Bill O’Reilly and enjoy watching his show. But sometimes I find the man incredibly obtuse. 

He insists, for one example, that dealers of hard drugs are committing violent crimes, and gets angry with anyone who disagrees. The fact that there is absolutely no violence involved with simply selling a substance to a willing buyer escapes him.

The possibility that the buyer might misuse the drug and be harmed equates to violence in his thinking. Never-mind that most buyers won’t overdose, Bill still regards the sale all by itself as a violent crime. Under that logic, of course, the seller of any product, legal or illegal, which might be misused by a willing buyer and potentially cause harm, is an act of violence.

Since ten years ago now, O'Reilly has been fighting against an imaginary “War on Christmas.” Now he boasts that he and the “good guys” have won that war, but that “insurgents” still remain. By “insurgents” he means anyone who doesn’t say the words "Merry Christmas" at Christmas time. Such people are warring against Christmas in Bill’s mind -- that means war.

When Bill O’Reilly visits any business or store at Christmas time he checks to see if the employees say “Merry Christmas” or not. If not, “I’m outta there,” he explains. And that’s exactly what he encourages his millions of viewers to do. He has called for an all-out boycott on any business that doesn’t affirmatively promote a "Merry Christmas" to all their customers. It’s a war – a culture war. And anyone who doesn’t say "Merry Christmas" is the enemy.

After 10 years, and a boycott of all his enemies businesses, Bill now insists he’s won the war on Christmas. His former enemies are finally starting to say “Merry Christmas" again and O’Reilly is gratified. “For me, it was interesting to go through that,” Bill exalts, “because some on the far left actually denied there was any controversy at all and claimed that I fabricated it. More lies from a crew that is incapable of telling the truth.”

Today, the American Family Association has issued its annual “naughty or nice” list, Bill explains. It tells the public which businesses are Christmas-friendly and which are not. Cracker Barrel, Hobby Lobby, Kirkland's, Lowe's, Michael's, Wal-Mart and several others all get 5 stars for being nice. “I remember at one time, Lowe's was a problem. But obviously that's turned around,” says Bill. “All of those companies use the word ‘Christmas’ in their advertising and promotion.”

The enemies that are still naughty include Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, Foot Locker, The Gap, The Limited, Nordstrom, Office Depot, Office Max, Pet-smart, Staples and Victoria's Secret, because they “marginalized Christmas.” They’re “not in the Christmas spirit.”

Now, what does all this tell us about the mind of Bill O’Reilly? It tells me that this is a man who is not quite fully secure in his Christian faith. If some people don’t want to celebrate Christmas exactly the way he celebrates Christmas, it makes him believe that they’re waging a war against Christmas. He feels threatened.

He tends to regard those who don’t agree with his opinions as enemies. He’s obsessed with what everyone believes about Christmas to the point where he’s willing to take action and start a boycott against such enemies.

Really, why should any Christian secure in his or her faith care if someone else says “Merry Christmas” at Christmas time?

Merry Christmas, Bill!

I sure hope that makes you feel better. 

Electoral horror picture show

Did you know that the official 2016 presidential election did not happen on November 8^th; that Donald Trump hasn’t been elected yet and might not be; that the real election happens on Monday December 19^th; that the result is up to only 538 people; and that Hillary Clinton might still become our next President?

Now, I’m not going to panic about this situation. I’m confident that Trump will be elected on Monday by more than the required 270 electoral votes. But I’m afraid that someday, unless it is fixed, our constitutional Electoral College procedure could conceivably turn into an electoral horror picture show which might lead to another civil war.

Even now certain elements in the Democrat Party are fervently attempting to influence the 538 electors to deprive Trump of the presidency and give it to Hillary Clinton. If they are successful that would result in a constitutional crisis and violence in the streets.

You see, right now there are no federal constitutional provisions for a general presidential election like the one we had on November 8^th. That’s why, even though he handily won that election, he hasn’t officially been elected yet. Article 2 and the 12^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution set forth the official procedure for electing the President and Vice President.

Art 2.1 The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows^:

Art 2.2 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…

So, our presidents are not officially chosen by the people in a general election, but by 538 Electors chosen by the legislators of each of the 50 states. Each individual state determines how their Electors are chosen. The states are not required to choose Electors based on the results of any general election. However, most states have a winner-take-all system in which the candidate with the most votes in the state general election gets all the electoral votes and the Electors are chosen by the winning candidate’s political party.

It is generally understood by the voters and the Electors themselves that they are merely the representative stand-ins for the candidates and are expected to cast their Electoral College ballots for the President and Vice President who appeared on the ballot.

But sometimes electors go rouge and refuse to vote for the designated candidate. Many states have laws requiring electors to toe the line but the constitutionality of such laws is presently uncertain.  

This leaves a window wide open for the kind electoral mischief which could lead to constitutional chaos.

The Twelfth Amendment amended Art 2.3 of the Constitution. It sets forth the voting procedure the Electors are to follow in each state to elect the President and Vice President, and to transmit their results to the President of the U.S. Senate. The problem is that there is no federal constitutional requirement that the Elector vote for the candidate who received the most votes in the state’s general election. So each Elector can theoretically vote for whoever he or she desires.

The President of the U.S. Senate shall, on January 6, 2016, in the presence of the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. If no candidate has a majority then the U.S. House of Representatives chooses the President by vote from among the list of candidates; a representative from each state having one vote. The Vice President is chosen in similar fashion.  

I support the Electoral College as mandated by our federal Constitution; however, I think that the provisions should be amended once again to specify clearly and unambiguously that each Elector is bound to vote for the candidate who received the most popular votes in his or her states general election. 

I want to foreclose any possibility in the future of an Electoral horror picture show. 

Death Penalty: When stupid is an advantage

When it comes to the death penalty in the United States of America did you know that if you’re a murderer it pays dividends to be stupid?

That’s right. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that subjecting an intellectually disabled murderer to the death penalty amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Frying an intellectually abled murderer to death is OK, no problem, but the lives of stupid murderers must be spared.

“No legitimate penological purpose is served by executing the intellectually disabled,” reasoned the majority. Furthermore, such individuals face “a special risk of wrongful execution,” said the Court

This precedent from the high court doesn’t make any logical legal sense to me. That’s what I concluded 2 ½ years ago in my post: Too Smart to Live; Too Dumb to Die. There I observed that if a convicted baby rapist murderer is slightly more intelligent than an imbecile, it’s perfectly OK to put him to death. He’s too smart to live.  But if he’s somewhat less intelligent, then putting him to death is cruel and unusual punishment. He’s too dumb to die. 

In my humble legal opinion, the somewhat smarter baby rapist murder is denied equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment doesn’t protect smart murders, only the dumb ones. Killing the smarter murder is not cruel and unusual punishment.

Where in the United States Constitution does it say that dumb defendants must be considered differently than smart defendants when it comes to punishment for precisely the same criminal conduct? Nowhere! This is one of the better arguments I can think of for abolition of the death penalty altogether – it’s way too arbitrarily applied. There is no remedy for any wrongful execution. Death is final.

Now the high court is poised to reaffirm the very same illogical rule. A majority of the justices last week appeared ready to side with a man sentenced to death for a 1980 murder who is challenging how Texas gauges whether a defendant has intellectual disabilities that would preclude execution. His lawyers argued that a lower court which upheld his sentence wrongly used an “outdated” 24-year-old definition used in Texas when it determined he was not intellectually disabled.

The issue is focused on how judges should weigh medical evidence of intellectual disability. His lawyers said that a lower court found that Moore’s IQ of 70 was “within the range of mild mental retardation.” So it looks like the United States Supreme Court once again is going to decide a serious question of life or death based on something as arbitrary and amorphous as an IQ score.

When the death penalty is in question, stupid is definitely an advantage. 

Spooked

The big story today is that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has concluded secretly and is telling Congress that Russian spooks intervened in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump win. But just how do we know that it was Russian spooks and not our own spooks? As for me, I’m inclined to put my money on American spooks. 

Supposedly, certain computer hackers with alleged connections to the Russian government provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, with the intent to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances and thereby boost Trump’s. “That’s the consensus view,” says one unidentified senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators.

Well, sure, someone provided WikiLeaks with the dirt, but unless and until I see solid proof that it was the Rookies, I’m thinking that it’s far more likely our own National Security Agency did it. After all, Edward Snowden established once and for all that the NSA has everybody’s emails, and there is plenty of evidence that many spooks in our own intelligence community were not so keen on Hillary Clinton becoming commander in chief.  After what Snowden revealed, why should anyone believe the CIA? They're  a pack of professional liars.  

The Trump transition team has already dismissed the CIA findings, saying:  “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” Trump himself has said: “I don’t believe they interfered… “[It] could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.” Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said more than once that the “Russian government is not the source.”

 “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

“It's… “ridiculous… just another excuse. I don't believe it,” Trump said. “… Every week it's another excuse.  We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College… Nobody really knows, and hacking is very interesting. Once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act you're not going to catch them… They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place.”

Trump also points to ambiguity inside intelligence and law enforcement agencies arguing that Russia’s role is not clear. While the CIA pointed to Russia, a senior FBI official suggested to lawmakers that the agency and bureau were not on the same page on the matter. “There’s great confusion” Trump asserts. “Democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country.”

So who is spooking who? No one really knows for sure.

All we know is that we’re being spooked. 

Santa and baby Jesus banned?

Oh, my goodness, what is the world coming to when Santa Claus and baby Jesus are banned and can’t be promoted in the classrooms by teachers and administrators in a public school at Christmas time? 

Well, maybe there is at least one public school district in America today which recognizes that it is not a proper governmental function for public schools to teach cultural and religious values to the captive children in their classrooms. If parents want to teach their kids cultural values they should do it at home, at church and in the private sector.

So, in a move to show respect to all religions, the State of Oregon Hillsboro School District has decided to ban religious-themed decorations in the classrooms during the holidays, including baby Jesus and Santa Claus.

In a notice to staff the district advised: "You may still decorate your door or office if you like, but we ask that you be respectful and sensitive to the diverse perspectives and beliefs of our community and refrain from using religious-themed decorations or images like Santa Claus." 

Of course, the individual kids can also wear clothing and bangles depicting baby Jesus, Santa or any other religious symbols if they like. They can exercise their individual constitutional rights without interference.  

What’s wrong with the government being respectful and sensitive to the diverse cultural perspectives and beliefs of all the parents and students in the school district? After all, some of them might not believe in baby Jesus and Santa. Why should they be subjected to the cultural and religious beliefs of Christians in their public school? I can’t think of any good reason why.

As usual, however, some parents aren’t happy with the new rule and believe it's unnecessary. I suspect they’re the ones who think Christian prayers should be returned to the classrooms and that Christian values should be taught to the kids exclusive to all other religious values.

You see, some people believe that the First Amendment applies only to them simply because they are part of a majority.

They can’t stand their baby Jesus and Santa being unwelcome under any circumstances. 

Crony Baloney

Ever since Donald Trump declared his intention to run for president 18 months ago he’s been promising to do all he can to dissuade American corporations from moving their manufacturing operations and jobs to Mexico and other countries to the detriment of the American economy. He put American companies on notice then that they would not be free to relocate their companies outside of the U.S. "without consequences."

In all that time, few if any have complained that his plans would amount to crony capitalism until now with that perennial babbling idiot, Sarah Palin, suddenly wagging an accusing finger at Trump after he started to make good on his promises two months before taking office. As usual, Palin doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence traveled to the United Technologies Carrier Air Conditioner plant in Indianapolis last week to announce that the company has agreed to keep 1,100 jobs in the city instead of moving them to Mexico. Company officials said that the state of Indiana, where Pence is governor, offered the company a $7 million tax incentive package over multiple years, contingent on factors including employment, job retention and capital investment.

Now Palin says that deal amounts to “crony capitalism.”  "When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent," she says. "Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail."

But Trump isn’t stepping in arbitrarily with individual subsidies favoring one business over others. He’s advising all American businesses that there will be unpleasant consequences for them in the form of taxes and tariffs if they move American jobs to other countries to take advantage of cheap labor and lax regulations, and then try to move their products back to America to compete unfairly with American manufactured rivals.  

In short, Trump intends to level the playing field. Republican governors have been offering incentives to businesses forever to get them to locate in their states. That’s not crony capitalism.  

Of course, a level playing field might mean higher prices for American consumers on products manufactured in Mexico and China, but the American economy would benefit enormously. And if Americans decide that they don’t like Trump’s plan they can always vote him out of office in 2020 to make way for a one world order globalist like Hillary Clinton.

Crony capitalism is defined as an economy that is nominally free-market, but allows for preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention based on personal relationships. In such a system, the false appearance of "pure" capitalism is publicly maintained to preserve the exclusive influence of well-connected individuals. It is characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials. Trump’s plan does not fit that definition.

"Foundational to our exceptional nation’s sacred private property rights, a business must have freedom to locate where it wishes," Palin argues. "In a free market, if a business makes a mistake (including a marketing mistake that perhaps Carrier executives made), threatening to move elsewhere claiming efficiency’s sake, then the market’s invisible hand punishes."

Trump fully recognizes that businesses have total freedom to locate wherever they wish. He’s not going to try to prevent that freedom. Carrier doesn’t make a marketing mistake by taking advantage of virtual slave labor conditions and zero regulations in third world countries only to realize a windfall by selling its products back to America without any consequence. America can slap a tax on Carrier’s products just like it may slap a tax on any Mexican products if it deems such action beneficial to Americans.

That’s not crony capitalism. American government interests have partnered with private enterprise for the benefit of Americans since the founding of our nation 240 years ago.  It was done to fight piracy on the high seas; to build Liberty Ships, tanks, bullets and other armaments during wartime, and to build out the vast infrastructure of the United States. 

As long as the private entities aren’t given unfair cozy advantages over their competitors the practice does not amount to crony capitalism.

Sarah Palin’s finger wagging in this instance is just crony baloney. 

Donald’s flag hysteria delusion syndrome

Donald Trump suffers from flag hysteria delusion syndrome along with about 90% of his fellow Americans, including Hillary Clinton, Democrats, Republicans, left, right, center, and all the rest. They think that a fucking flag is sacred -- more important to the people than the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

Now, don’t get me wrong; I like the American flag. As flags go it’s a nice flag; a pretty flag. I’ve flown it on my house during Flag Day and the Fourth of July. I’ve waived it as a child at parades. I like to see it fluttering in the breeze. But I don’t worship it. I don’t worship any symbols. No symbol is sacred. Flags are just pieces of cloth. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

“Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” tweeted the Donald yesterday. He believes that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag should lose their citizenship or go to jail as punishment. People who exercise their First Amendment rights should be punished.

Never mind that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that flag desecration is a classic example of protected speech. Flag burning is a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, the Donald’s hero whom he wants to replicate on the court decided, in Texas v. Johnson, that government attempts to criminalize flag desecration are unconstitutional.

Never mind that the United States Supreme Court has ruled, in Afroyim v. Rusk,  that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will. The government can’t just cancel a person’s citizenship for any reason let alone for desecrating a fucking flag.

Trump should pull his foot out of his mouth, apologize, and recognize that our citizenship and the right to freedom of speech are far more important to Americans that a pretty piece of cloth. I feel sorry for Trump and others who become hysterical and feel offended by those who refuse to worship the American flag but they need to accept the fact that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect offensive expression.

He should get treatment for his flag hysteria delusion syndrome

Indoctrination Nation

Does anyone doubt the fact that our government utilizes its vast nationwide network of public schools to indoctrinate children by teaching them what it wants them to think?

I’ve said this dozens of times on these pages: Public schools should be teaching the kids how to think, not what to think. But teachers and administrators – government agents – think they have a perfect right to impose their personal values – including politics -- upon the captive students in their classrooms. That constitutes indoctrination which violates the First Amendment. It violates the students’ civil rights.

Teachers in San Francisco’s public schools, for example, are offering a classroom lesson plan directed at more than 57,000 students in the district, and supported by administrators that calls President-elect Donald Trump a racist, sexist man who became president “by pandering to a huge racist and sexist base…Let us please not sidestep the fact that a racist and sexist man has become the president of our country by pandering to a huge racist and sexist base," says the lesson plan.

“Educators are entrusted to create lessons that reflect the California standards, support students’ social and emotional well-being and foster inclusive and safe school communities,” explained one administrator. San Francisco schools serve diverse populations and teachers are encouraged to include multiple perspectives in lessons, she said.

Apparently this administrator believes that teachers should be encouraged to create politically oriented classroom lesson plans which flagrantly lie to children.

Naturally, the other side of the political spectrum doesn’t agree. “It’s inappropriate on every level,” declared a Republican National Committee spokeswoman from California. It constitutes “inappropriate propaganda that unfairly demonizes not only the campaign that Donald Trump, the winner, ran, but also all of the people who voted for him.”

How do you suppose Democrats would react to a public school lesson plan teaching students that President Obama is a committed communist who uses his administration to steal property from the rich and re-distributes it to the poor?

The short answer is that public school government agents have no right to teach children political values. It violates the First Amendment and their civil rights. The result is … indoctrination nation. 

Who is Chicken Little?

Sometimes the smartest people come to the dumbest conclusions.

Professor Stephen Hawking, of all people, the brilliant theoretical physicist, cosmologist and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University at Cambridge, England, has concluded essentially that the sky is falling.

Stephen Hawking is Chicken Little.

He actually believes, and has said so during a recent speech at Oxford University, that the whole of humanity has less than 1,000 years left to exist on Earth before a mass extinction occurs, and that the only way our species can avoid dying out is to find another planet to inhabit. “We must also continue to go into space for the future of humanity… I don’t think we will survive another 1000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet.”

Technology will lead Earth to a virtually inevitable global cataclysm, Hawking predicts. “We face a number of threats to our survival from nuclear war, catastrophic global warming, and genetically engineered viruses… The number is likely to increase in the future, with the development of new technologies, and new ways things can go wrong. Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time.”

I wonder where this brilliant cosmologist gets the idea that our Earth is “fragile.” After all, the planet has been in existence for some 3.5 billion years. It’s not exactly like a crystal goblet whizzing about in space. I think it’s safe to say that Earth will still be quite intact 1,000 years from now – Hell, probably a billion years from now – unless we experience some sort of cosmic collision with another galaxy. There is no way that human beings all by themselves are going to break planet Earth.

What if humans do find other planets to inhabit? Won’t they be just as fragile as Earth? Won’t there still be the possibility of nuclear wars; catastrophic global warming; and genetically engineered viruses? Won’t they be faced with exactly the same doom and gloom possibilities that they face right now here on Earth? I think Hawking has been watching too many Star Trek movies. He must think that if humans move to other planets they won’t act like humans anymore.

Doesn’t Professor Hawking conveniently forget that human beings are perfectly adapted to inhabit planet Earth? Our species has been hopping around here for at least 2 million years or more which has given us plenty of time to adapt. This is the perfect planet for us. We’re not adapted to inhabit other planets. Other planets are too far away. Who in his right mind would want to leave this perfect planet only to start all over again someplace else light years away?

You want to know what I think. I think that our Professor Hawking has a political agenda in his head. I think his motives are evil. I think he’s a globalist; a committed socialist – perhaps communist -- who detests national sovereignty and individual freedom. I think he hates human liberty.

In an essay published in The Guardian last July, Hawking argued that in order for humans to survive the massive, serious challenges ahead – you know, climate change, overtaxed food production, overpopulation, and all the other transparent bullshit preached by the globalists -- they need to resist the individualism and isolationism that have fueled political movements like Brexit.

He wants a one world order governed by elites like himself. “We will need to adapt, rethink, refocus and change some of our fundamental assumptions about what we mean by wealth, by possessions, by mine and yours. Just like children, we will have to learn to share,” he wrote. He hates individualism. He hates liberty. He doesn’t like Brexit. He’s really pissed off that Donald Trump got elected. So he thinks we’re all doomed. The sky is falling.

“If we fail then the forces that contributed to Brexit, the envy and isolationism not just in the UK but around the world that spring from not sharing, of cultures driven by a narrow definition of wealth and a failure to divide it more fairly, both within nations and across national borders, will strengthen. If that were to happen, I would not be optimistic about the long-term outlook for our species.”

That’s what Professor Stephen Hawking is all about. He’s not about theoretical physics or cosmology here; no… it’s about his rotten political agenda.

He’s Chicken Little with a hammer and sickle. 

Why Trump Triumphed

Donald J Trump triumphed. He overcame all the odds. His opponents were shocked. The pollsters and pundits were flummoxed. There is rioting in the streets, crying and gnashing of teeth among the inconsolable losers.

What happened? How did he do it? Why?

This election was not a landslide. In fact it was extremely close. It appears that Trump’s opponent won the popular vote by a tiny margin. All of the several key battleground swing states that Trump won – which gave him is victory in the Electoral College – were won by relatively small margins. They might have gone either way depending on voter turnout.

Face it: The influence of progressive socialism in America has grown exponentially during the last several decades. Democrat enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren exemplifies this. The battle between the haves vs. the have nots, the producers vs. the takers, the hosts vs. the parasites, has slowly shifted in favor of the Socialists.

Hatred of capitalism, success, and individual freedom is palpable. Academia, professional teachers and administrators, from pre-school through university on balance has taught our youth the politics of envy, intellectual dishonesty, sloth and entitlement.

Barrack Obama, a charismatic and articulate African American orator, managed to get himself elected twice because of this shift, together with the fact that he would be the first black president. His skin color was far more important to the voters than his mediocre qualifications to hold office.

So despite all his many failures as president those same voters got behind the most corrupt and dishonest person ever to seek the presidency simply because she’s a woman and would thus become the first woman president. Her vagina was far more important to them than her record and political attributes.

In short, Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate for president. She was dishonest, two faced, self-dealing, lazy, and un-charismatic; no one liked her; few trusted her; she carried more baggage than a cruise ship; and her long record of political failures, character flaws, criminality and abysmal incompetence was well documented in so many ways – think FBI investigation, WikiLeaks and Project Veritas. 

This was the gift that kept on giving for Donald Trump.

But there is no doubt in my mind that if Hillary Clinton were simply a halfway decent human being, like Bernie Sanders, for example, she – not Donald Trump -- would be the President Elect today no matter what Trump said or did during his campaign. She would have won in exactly the same way Obama won with his mediocre record in 2012 even though Mitt Romney was decidedly the better candidate for the job.

Did you notice that Clinton spent 3 times or more money than Trump did on her campaign but held five or more times less events and rallies, and that the rallies she did hold attracted many times less people than Trump’s rallies attracted? That’s because her message was boring, stale, scripted, and even her most ardent supporters weren’t interested in what she had to say. She had nothing of substance to say.

Trump’s message by contrast was spot on. His supporters loved it. He would often hold five different rallies per day in five different states, each attracting tens of thousands of screaming, sign waving, enthusiastic supporters, while Clinton could barely manage to pull a few hundred stiffs to her infrequent events. Sometimes she had to pay them to come. And she would often go days and weeks without campaigning while Trump just kept going and going and going.

Donald Trump focused on the issues most important to productive hard working Americans – government corruption in Washington; the economy; jobs; GDP growth; foreign trade deals; illegal immigration; energy policy; taxes; business; stifling government regulations; healthcare; gun rights; education; foreign policy; ISIS terror threats; infrastructure; National defense; and veterans affairs reform.

He successfully convinced his audience that the level of corruption, waste and fraud in America has advanced to intolerable nation threatening levels, and that he will do what is necessary to fix it. He’s going to drain the swamp in Washington.

Imagine the impact of that message with all the elite swamp creatures and cock roaches on K Street and within the D.C. belt-way. These are the rich fat parasites that have been sucking the blood and vital nutrients of our nation for far too many decades and therefore hate Donald Trump’s guts. He’s going to shine the light on them. He’s going to root them out and pick them off like bloated ticks one by one.

Decent patriotic hard working producing Americans love Trump’s message.

That’s why Trump Triumphed.

Bipolar FBI

Does FBI director James Comey suffer from bipolar disease? Is he going out of his way to embarrass himself and his bureau? Does he have a fetish for changing his mind? Or, has he just gone bat shit crazy?

Am I missing something here? Look; I confess; I don’t like Hillary Clinton; I don’t want her elected President; but I don’t want her prosecuted for any crimes either unless there is enough evidence that she’s guilty. If she’s guilty, prosecute her. If she’s not guilty, just leave her alone.

Let’s see if I have this right. After Secretary of State Clinton left office in 2013 there apparently was enough evidence from the 55,000 emails she turned over from her private server indicating  that she feloniously mishandled classified information in violation of one or more federal statutes. The FBI started an investigation which lasted over a year during which hundreds of agents spent thousands of man hours meticulously piecing together the case.

At the end of this long process James Comey told us there was evidence that Clinton violated the law but in his opinion it was not enough to warrant a prosecution. So he closed the case.

That decision caused a firestorm of controversy within the FBI. Agents, who knew otherwise, later discovered 650,000 more relevant emails on a computer shared by one of Clinton’s staffers and her husband who did not enjoy any security clearance for handling classified information. 

On the basis of this “new” information, Comey decided to reopen the case against Clinton just eleven days before the presidential election. That decision caused another firestorm of controversy, this time within the Democratic campaign.

Ok, so there was “new” evidence, and one would think that it would have to be pretty damn strong evidence of guilt in order to cause Comey to change his mind and once again put Clinton in serious jeopardy of criminal prosecution. If she’s guilty, by all means reopen the case, but if it’s nothing, just leave her alone.

But no… now just two days before the election, James Comey changed his mind again. It took him and his G-men over a year to piece together 55,000 emails and decide that there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute, but just one week to analyze 650,000 emails and decide that this so-called “new” evidence amounted to nothing.  

Who does he think he’s kidding?

James Comey must be bipolar; he’s an embarrassment to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; he’s demonstrated a peculiar fetish for changing his mind, and yes, I think he’s just gone bat shit crazy.

Compulsory Nation

The United States Constitution begins with a short preamble setting forth the legitimate purposes for our new government, to wit: “… establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Government is necessary therefore only to preserve and protect the rights of the people – not to compel the people to act against their rights. Sadly, however, over the last 240 years, our government has slowly become less inclined to preserve and protect our rights and more inclined to compel us to act against them. The United States of America has become a compulsory nation.

Nowhere is this fact more evident than in the case of compulsory education. Our government has no legitimate powers or authority under the Constitution to compel parents and children during their entire formative years to participate in educational indoctrination programs. We know that if the government can compel this kind of scheme on children, it can do the same with adults.

It’s unconstitutional; because it plainly violates our First Amendment right to freedom of expression and association. It plainly violates our Fifth Amendment right to liberty. Education, just like religion, is a wholly private and personal aspect of our lives which should be entirely free from government intrusion, interference and coercion.

We have a constitutional right to decide for ourselves and our minor children matters of religion and education. It might be widely considered unwise, for example, when some parents, for religious reasons or otherwise,  believe that their children should not go to school for a formal education during their formative years; should instead grow up on the farm learning from nature and common sense. Unwise, perhaps, but that is their constitutional right.

The lack of a formal institutionalized education might be considered by you and I as a disadvantage to such children, but if so, it is one which can easily be rectified and overcome later in life when the individual is free to pursue whatever learning he or she desires. That is liberty. That is freedom.

Meanwhile, compulsory education routinely leads to egregious outrages like this:

A public school substitute teacher in the Carlisle Area Pennsylvania School District took it upon herself to badger, berate and reprimand an innocent student in front of the whole class for exercising his First Amendment right to remain seated in his classroom during the pledge of allegiance.

“And if you don’t stand up, you’d better have a good reason why,” barked the teacher. When the student declined to answer this nasty rebuke, she continued: “Well OK, then maybe you would just like to leave the country.”

In this instance the teacher was dismissed for her outrageous conduct, but many innocent American children are being coerced daily in their public school classrooms to recite the pledge and conform otherwise to the compulsory government education agenda in violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. This is the kind of government excesses we get when education is compulsory.

Today Americans are compelled by our government to be educated; compelled to file a detailed annual report to our government pertaining to our private finances; we’re even compelled by our government to purchase health insurance.

America has become a compulsory nation.