Tyrant Judge triple bogies child golf prodigy’s career

I’ve experienced some horribly bad judges in my time but Judge Jeanette Irby of the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia, surely takes a prize as one of the worst of all time. Time and time again I’ve witnessed intelligent, good natured and well respected attorneys change into block-headed dictatorial monsters simply by putting on a black robe and ascending the judicial bench.  

This loony tune jurist took it upon herself in a child custody dispute case to enter an order, for no apparent good reason, banning a 10-year-old golfing prodigy from playing competitive golf. The child “shall not be permitted to play competitive golf for one year,” Irby ruled. Father says his daughter plays plenty of sports but golf was the only one targeted by Judge Irby.

This wasn’t about the normal mundane decisions over which parent will enjoy custody of the kid on her birthday, Thanksgiving or Christmas. No; this ruling can have the potential effect of ruining the budding career of a genius at her sport.  It’s like ordering that a child musical genius may not play in a concert or even take piano lessons from a professional for a whole year during the most formative stage of her life.

That’s right. This judge’s ruling bans the little girl, not only from golf tournaments, but from even taking golf lessons from professionals as well. All this at a time when the 10-year-old child has been thriving at her sport; she’s won 11 of her last 12 tournaments; shot a six-under par 30 in one nine-hole kid’s tournament as a 9-year-old, the lowest nine-hole score for any 9- or 10-year-old in the entire U.S. for the year. In the first and only 18-hole competitive round she ever played, she won the all-ages women’s division on a 5,500-yard course.

The child told an interviewer for a regional golf magazine in 2014 that her dad got her first set of plastic golf clubs at three years old, and a real set a year later. She also said that going to pro tournaments with her dad, and getting to see such stars as Tiger Woods and Lexi Thompson up close, shaped her career goals. “All of these events have made me really want to play better and maybe play professionally,” she said.

“She’s really good,” says 24 year LPGA tour professional, Kris Tschetter, who has given lessons to the child. “Like, really, really good.” She attested to the child’s potential to Judge Irby, saying that she’s already talented enough to play college golf. 

Irby doesn't care how much talent the kid has, and made it clear in her decision that she doesn’t want her playing much golf. “[She] shall not be permitted to play competitive golf for one year. Competitive golf is defined by the court as no tournament and no lessons with any golf pro with the exception of the father. The father and [child] may play no more than one round of golf per week for five hours with putting and practice whichever is greater.

Thusly, the tyrant Judge triple bogied a 10-year-old child prodigy’s golfing career

Why do some people think that the First Amendment exists only for them?

Is the USA a free country? If it is then why all the fuss about conscientious objectors, and those who choose to sit out the national anthem, or pledge of allegiance? Why do some people think that the First Amendment exists only for them?

One of the greatest injustices in the history of American professional sports occurred in 1967 when the boxing authorities stripped Muhammad Ali of his heavyweight title and prohibited him from participating in the sport at the pinnacle of his career solely because the man was exercising his First Amendment rights as a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War.

On top of that, the U.S. government convicted him of the crime of refusing to report for induction into the U.S. military. I still remember that Ali was then considered the most reviled human being on the planet by the American public – just for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Eventually, however, in 1971, a unanimous United States Supreme Court struck down his conviction and validated his fundamental right to be a conscientious objector. And eventually his reputation as perhaps the greatest boxer who ever fought was rightfully restored. Now he is considered one of the most loved and respected sports figures who ever lived.

Shame on the U.S. government; shame on all the people who believed that the First Amendment only applied to them and those they agree with. 

Have these ignorant people finally learned their lesson? In a word – no! They still believe that fundamental constitutional rights apply only to them. 

There are still many public schools in the USA, for example,  that force children to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance every day in spite of the longstanding Supreme Court decision that held that practice unconstitutional.

Today the unruly mob is all apoplectic over the news that San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has refused to stand or the playing of the national anthem at preseason football games. They simply cannot stand to witness someone who won’t conform totally to their idea of how American patriotism should be culturally forced on everyone.

Kaepernick explains that he is a practicing Muslim protesting what he deems are wrongdoings against African Americans and minorities in the United States. "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," he said. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

Now I don’t agree with his protest but I do agree with is right to express it by not participating with the majority in its patriotic show.

"The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem," the 49ers said in a written statement.

Niners coach Chip Kelly told reporters Saturday that Kaepernick's decision not to stand during the national anthem is "his right as a citizen" and said "it's not my right to tell him not to do something."

Well, I for one am gratified that there are still at least some intellectually honest people among us who believe that the First Amendment exists for everyone. 

Statists run amok in France

I hate it when statist government goons make laws banning and criminalizing personal conduct which harms no one, except perhaps the feelings of those nasty busybodies among us whose only mission in life is to stifle the lives, happiness and personal choices of others. 

There are laws on the books that beg to be flouted. 

Yes, I hated, for example, the mindless Drug Wars from the beginning and defied the statists without any sense of guilt. Thankfully I never got caught. Many did, however, and too many of them had their lives ruined without mercy. It wasn’t so much the drugs that caused the damage; it was the government thugs who trapped them in their nets.

It seems that the statists have learned nothing from the days of liquor prohibition when the American people flouted the laws en mass. Today the French resort of Cannes has banned full-body, head-covering swimsuits – burqinis -- from its beaches.

Can you imagine that? Can you think of any possible harm to others that could be caused by a Muslim woman wearing a burqini on the beach? I can’t. But the French statists want you to believe that a woman wearing a burqini poses a danger to French national security. They simply can’t be serious, but they are deadly serious and now they’ve criminalized the wearing of swimsuits they don’t like.

Cannes Mayor David Lisnard issued an ordinance in late July forbidding beachwear that doesn't respect "good morals and secularism." It notes that swimwear "manifesting religious affiliation in an ostentatious way, while France and its religious sites are currently the target of terrorist attacks, could create risks of trouble to public order." Violators face a fine of 38 Euros ($42).

Lisnard labels burqinis "the uniform of extremist Islamism, not of the Muslim religion," and said that the ordinance might also apply to saris worn by Indian bathers, because the clothing could hamper rescuers' efforts to save them in an emergency.

You see, the French government statist goons think they have the right to punish people who do not appear to be “secular” enough in public. French law, for example, already forbids face-covering veils anywhere in public, and headscarves in public schools. 

There is plenty enough statism here in America while statists run amok in France.

Sheriff trashes First Amendment; stiffs taxpayers $41K

I’ve always thought that government officials, agents and employees, including cops, should pay the price of their own deliberate malfeasance out of their own pockets instead of stiffing the taxpayers for their wrongdoing. That way maybe they would think twice about how they follow the laws while exercising their considerable powers over us. 

Bradley County Sheriff, Eric Watson, doesn’t think so. He likes to use his powers to deliberately create legal messes in his jurisdiction and then let the taxpayers pay for cleaning up after him – in this case $41,000 dollars for stubbornly violating the First Amendment prohibition against establishing religion in his official office.

I’m sure this guy knew better but unfortunately his religion got in the way of his legal duties and common sense. He thought that one of his duties as sheriff should be to proselytize and promote Christianity, Easter and Jesus Christ on the job using the official Bradley County Sheriff’s Department Facebook page. Watson posted the message: “He is Risen,” and then deleted all comments from detractors while allowing any and all comments from supporters.

When he learned that this violates the First Amendment, because it constitutes a government establishment of religion, he continued doing it anyway and stubbornly refused to stop until his department eventually got sued and ended up settling the case for $15,000 in damages and $26,000 in legal fees. Part of the settlement has the Department agreeing not to promote any religious belief.

Defiant to the end, Watson denies violating the plaintiffs' rights. He says the settlement was a business decision made by the county. That “business decision,” paid for by the taxpayers, was necessary to clean up the legal mess he deliberately created and therefore he damn well ought to be responsible to pay them back out of his own pocket – if not, his hide.

Flag flogging statists in Iowa

No mere idea; no mere symbol is sacred in the United States of America. No idea or symbol is above reproach, derision, and yes, even desecration. We are not required to worship any concept be it religious, philosophical or nationalistic. We are not required to worship any flag. Instead we all have the absolute fundamental constitutional right to express the opposite of what the majority considers cultural orthodoxy.

In short, critically thinking Americans don’t think and do like the Nazi’s did. We won’t tolerate tyranny. Our founding fathers enshrined our fundamental freedoms, especially the right to free and full expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Americans may not, for example, be arrested and put into a cage by the statist culture Gestapo for desecrating the American flag.

Is the State of Iowa part of the United States? I always thought so. But just last week the statist flag flogging culture Gestapo there arrested a U.S. Army veteran for the “crime” of flying his own American flag upside down under a Chinese flag in his own yard. He did it to protest an oil pipeline being built without his consent next to a well that supplies water to his home.

This is classic expression protected by the First Amendment.

First the Calhoun County sheriff department goons trespassed on veteran Homer Martz’s property to take down his protest flags. They told him: “You can’t do this. We have a statute… So I walked back out and put them back up, said Martz, and they arrested me."

Calhoun County Attorney Tina Meth-Farrington, apparently totally oblivious to the United States Constitution and First Amendment, said that Martz faces a simple misdemeanor and if convicted he could get a fine and at least 30 days in jail for his desecration. She charged him under an Iowa law for trying to "publicly mutilate, deface, defile or defy, trample upon, cast contempt upon, satirize, deride or burlesque, either by words or act, such flag, standard, color, ensign, shield, or other insignia of the United States, or flag, ensign, great seal, or other insignia of this state.”

This statute is patently unconstitutional on its face.

Martz is smart enough to know that his rights were trampled on – certainly a lot smarter and better informed about the law in this country than the air headed prosecutor persecuting him. "I'm a soldier," he explains. "When I walked to the airport in the '70s with my dress uniform on, I was spit on. I stood in front of people that were protesting, and I've been cussed at. And like I said, that's their rights. I've never infringed on their rights… But you know, freedom of speech, freedom to protest - people can burn the American flag," Martz said. "It's legal. That's the Supreme Court."

He’s absolutely correct.

The SCOTUS case is Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas, to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others. A Texas court tried and convicted him. He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment. 

The Supreme Court agreed. Freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech, wrote Justice William Brennan for the majority. (Note that Justice Antonin Scalia was part of that majority).

No symbol is sacred in the United States of America – not even the American flag. 

That’s my message to the flag flogging statists in Iowa. 

Animals we eat deserve better than this

Chicken is at the top of my list of favorite foods but it turns my stomach to find out how these and other innocent creatures are often treated in the process of putting them on my table. Sometimes I have to be reminded of the degradation and inhumanity involved in the business of breeding and harvesting animals for human consumption. It makes me realize that the vegans amongst us have a point which can hardly be ignored.

 Consider the ghastly and thoroughly disgusting recent revelation of animal cruelty documentation of the inhumane treatment of breeder chickens by certain human monster animal abuser employees at meat producer Tyson Foods.  It’s enough to make me think about never eating chicken again. These psychopaths didn’t learn, or just deliberately ignored their lessons on how to provide proper animal welfare to the innocent chickens in their charge.

Animal rights organization Compassion Over Killing successfully infiltrated a Tyson Foods chicken breeder facility in Virginia in order to document the gut wrenching evidence of systemic animal cruelty. Newly released videos show Tyson workers stomping, kicking and suffocating chickens at facilities in three Virginia counties.

“The people shown in the video by Compassion Over Killing were all trained in proper animal handling, yet chose to ignore it and failed to alert management about the despicable treatment on these farms,” admits senior Tyson company executive, Christine Daugherty, who described the mayhem as "disgusting." She claims that the ten workers who can be seen in the video have been fired.

 “Animals in our care deserve to be treated humanely. It’s our responsibility to ensure that everyone who works for our company behaves properly. Our management team is dedicated to continue fostering a culture of proper animal handling,” she continued.

The abusers knew exactly what they were doing and that it was wrong. One of them is caught on video warning the undercover investigator that "you can't let nobody see you do that" as he stepped on a chicken's head to suffocate it. "You don't know if he's working for the animal rights, says the monster. “ It is inhumane standing on his head and let them suffocate. They'll take you to court for that."  Workers are also shown punching, kicking and roughly tossing the birds by their delicate wings.

Faced with this inexcusable documentation, Tyson admitted in a statement, “we believe we haven’t gone far enough and must do more to stop this inexcusable behavior.” The company is now evaluating further steps it can take to ensure animal well-being procedures are being followed throughout its operations. They are finally discontinuing, for example, the gruesome practice of shoving plastic tubes into rooster's beaks, something known as beak modification that helps chicken growers prevent males from eating females' feed.

Formal complaints about the abuse have been submitted to prosecutors and animal control officers but to date no charges have been brought. "We believe that Tyson as a company needs to be held accountable," said an animal rights spokesperson. “This is too common of a problem being documented for Tyson's to be pushing this aside as a few rogue workers or bad apples. This is a systemic problem.”

Yes, the company needs to be held accountable, but in my opinion every one of those black-hearted workers should be doing a proper stretch in prison. Tyson executives have been in touch with local authorities about the situation but have declined to say whether the company wants to see the employees criminally charged.

That is irresponsible.

"We take animal well-being very seriously, and we are going to get to the bottom of this," Daugherty said.

I don’t believe it.

The animals we eat deserve better than this.

Khizr Khan’s DNC speech: A political smear job

Khizr Khan’s diatribe speech at the Democrat National Convention viciously attacking Donald Trump was a cleverly manufactured political smear job for which Hillary Clinton and her Democratic Party should be eternally ashamed. I thought there was something fishy about it the moment I saw it. Turns out I was right.  It stinks to high heaven.

Yes, it now appears that Mr. Khan has selfish motives for smearing Trump. Obviously, Donald Trump is not responsible, cannot be blamed for, and had nothing to do with the loss of Khan’s son in the Iraq war. Trump was against that war from the get go. Khan’s son would not have been serving in Iraq, and would not have been killed, if Trump had been president. It was Hillary Clinton who supported and voted in favor of the Iraq war. So why isn’t Khan blaming her?

Khan had the nerve to imply that Trump has never read the U.S. Constitution and then facetiously offered to lend him his copy saying:  “In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law'.” The fact is that Khan was given his copy of that document by Democrat operatives two hours before his speech and encouraged to use it as a prop. Since when has Donald Trump been accused of being against liberty and equal protection of the law?  Never!

Then he accused Trump of sacrificing nothing and no one for his country; a cheap shot if there ever was one.  What and who has Hillary Clinton ever sacrificed for her country? Why isn’t Khan attacking her?

Khan and his Democrat Party puppeteers are attacking Trump’s position on immigration. Trump wants a moratorium on allowing refugees from Muslim countries like Syria easy entry into the United States without a proper means of vetting. He merely wants to prevent potential terrorists from slipping into our country until we can know who they are and why they’re coming.

You see, that’s just one of Khan’s motives for attacking and smearing Trump. It turns out that Khan is an immigration lawyer who specializes in assisting wealthy Muslim internationals to relocate to the United States and establish businesses. Trump’s immigration position in Khan’s mind threatens his lucrative law practice. Khan doesn’t want us to know about that so he deleted his law firm’s Internet web site after his DNC speech.

It has also come to light from a witness inside the DNC that the Party allegedly paid Khan, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, $25,000 for his smear speech; that he didn’t write it; that it was written by operatives from the Clinton campaign; and that the copy of the constitution he showed during his smear was bought just hours before by a female Clinton staffer. 

According to this source, Mr. Khan was contacted by the Clinton Campaign after his name was given to them by the White House four days before the convention; this after 5 other families turned down the offer to speak, all of these families had to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements, and each were paid $5,000. 

Khan apparently owes back taxes to the IRS of around $850,000 plus interest and penalties. Since he agreed to smear Trump, the IRS has put his case on hold.  Khan has also been paid by CNN and NBC News over $100,000 to tell his fake story to them, plus he has been given a bonus of $175,000 by the DNC aka the Clinton Campaign, plus $375,000 from the Clinton Foundation.

So this guy is using the death of his son in the Iraq war to profit, make money and settle his considerable debts.

Khizr Khan’s DNC speech was a political smear job

Suspicion confirmed

The first time I heard on the news the revelation that Hillary Clinton, while U.S. Secretary of State, had surreptitiously deleted more than 30,000 emails from her unauthorized home based private server in order to hide them from public scrutiny, I suspected that the United States National Security Agency (NSA) had most likely collected them all in the same way it has collected all of everyone’s emails just like Edward Snowden told us.

Well, now my suspicion has been confirmed. According to William Binney, the man who designed the NSA’s clandestine computer surveillance program, now turned whistleblower, the agency does indeed have all of Hillary’s deleted emails and the FBI could access them if it wanted to. 

But it doesn’t want to. The FBI has never asked for them and the reason is because our corrupt federal government doesn’t want to admit that it has been spying on all Americans for many years.

According to Mr. Binney, 2011 testimony by then-FBI Director Robert Mueller before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing revealed that the NSA has access to "sophisticated, searchable databases" allowing the agency to “…go in with one query and get all past emails and all future emails as they came in on a person," just like Edward Snowden told us. 

“So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those [Clinton] emails,” Binney  says. “So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now.” 

Naturally, the FBI has declined to comment. 

This is just one more indication that current FBI director James Comey was never seriously looking for evidence of Hillary Clinton’s crimes. 

The fix was in from the beginning.

Suspicion confirmed.

Judge squashes First Amendment in court

I think that black lives matter, because all lives matter to me. But I don’t believe in the Black Lives Matter political movement; it’s racist and divisive. What I do believe in, however, is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and its mandate for freedom of expression. So if a lawyer wants to exercise her freedom of expression by wearing a Black Lives Matter lapel pin in the courtroom, no judge has the legal authority to squash that right.

Yet that is exactly what Youngstown Ohio Municipal Court Judge Robert Milich has done to attorney Andrea Burton in his courtroom. He found her in contempt of court and sentenced her to five days in jail for refusing his demand that she remove her BLM lapel pin. He’s squashing her First Amendment rights. If anyone ought to know not to violate the First Amendment, it’s a judge in a court of law.

"There’s a difference between a flag, a pin from your church or the Eagles and having a pin that’s on a political issue," judge Milich insists.

No, judge, you have to know that the First Amendment makes no such distinction and therefore you are not at liberty to decide the matter. An American flag lapel pin is just as much a political expression as a BLM pin. If one is acceptable expression then so is the other.

"He indicated to me he didn't know if I was trying to seek attention from the news or whatever the case was, but that legally I wasn't allowed to wear it and I deferred and said that I'm respecting my First Amendment right," said attorney Burton.

It matters not the reason she is wearing it. An attorney wearing an American flag pin might be seeking attention as well by showing that he or she is a patriotic American. Burton is simply expressing her support for BLM. It would be different if she was using a large poster or wearing a BLM t-shirt instead of proper courtroom attire which would have the effect of disrupting the proceedings. Lapel pins are too small and unobtrusive to create a disruption.

The judge has no authority to squash the First Amendment in his court.