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.