A Very Bad Deal indeed

I desperately wanted to be able to support an agreement among the world's major powers and Iran that would prevent that rogue, terrorist nation from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  The President is correct that the alternatives to a diplomatically negotiated settlement of this challenge to the survival of Israel, as well as the existential threat Iran poses to its Arab neighbors are themselves fraught with grave risks.

Of course, when the leaders of the civilized world confront an evil as monstrous as Iran, with its ruling Mullahs believing that God Almighty requires death (meaning: total annihilation) to both the little Satan and us, the Big Satan, there are no pain free/risk free policy choices.  As Winston Churchill observed to Neville Chamberlain after the Munich dismemberment of the Czech nation to appease Hitler's insatiable appetite for conquest:  "You had a choice between dishonor and War, now you shall have both."

By telling the world that he was not elected to be a war president, Mr. Obama has assured every adversary that he will make whatever concessions they demand to prevent even a threat of hostilities.  That posture, wherein the other side absolutely know you will not walk away from the negotiating table and pursue stiffer sanctions or a possible military strike, makes those talks, not negotiations, but rather arranging the terms of surrender.

At least Neville Chamberlain was candid and honest with the people of Great Britain, in telling them that the price of "Peace for our Time" was the enslavement of a free Czech nation to the Nazi vice grip.  Even Churchill respected him for not claiming that what he had done wasn't appeasement, pure and simple, coupled with the assertion that Hitler would keep his word of honor, and had no additional territorial aspirations.  Sound similar - the Mullahs have told Obama that they have no aspirations to possess nuclear weapons.

What would Sir Winston think about our President's announcement last week that he had achieved Peace with Iran?  Here are some of Mr. Obama's assertions in that White House address to the nation:

*BO: "That's the deal.  It has the full backing of the international community."
 WC: "That's a bald face lie, as Israel vehemently opposes this agreement, as most probably does Saudi Arabia, Egypt and ten or more middle east nations fearful of Iran's aggression."  [Possibly, Obama meant to send a message to Israel - you are now considered an outcast, rogue state, unworthy of inclusion in the community of civilized nations.  Nice touch there.]

*BO: "Put simply, ... the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary."
  WC:  That's a bald face lie, when Iran objects to any or all proposed IAEA inspections, IRAN sits on the Committee which will decide whether any such visits are allowed, so the claim that the IAEA decides where and when it will inspect is, put simply, false."

*BO: "If in a worst case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. President in the future ... in a far stronger position with Iran further away from a weapon."
 WC: "That's a bald face lie.  Did he even read that assertion before he read it on the teleprompter? He postulates a "worst case" scenario confronting a future president, but then in the same sentence claims that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon through violating this agreement.  Of course, the "worst case" is Iran gets the bomb, so any future president's attempt to compel their compliance with this dead deal will be against an Iran ready able and willing to annihilate both Tel Avis and Washington, D.C."

That level of arrogance - in bald face lying repeatedly to the American people in the belief that should they know the true level of Obama's appeasement, this deal will be rejected overwhelming in Congress - is truly dishonorable and most probably will lead to war.  Shame on all of us, should we not be contacting our elected representatives night and day from this point forward demanding that this deal be dumped.

Those raisins really were Small Potatoes

Sure, Gay marriage is fine; as a libertarian, I see little or no governmental interest in discriminating against and restricting same sex couples from participating in the full legal right, dignity and respect that society grants those joined in the bonds of matrimony.  Simultaneously, I do not condemn, or even criticize, those who oppose same sex marriages based upon their religious faith.  Those folks are not bigots or haters, so long as they don't abuse or mistreat homosexual persons they encounter in life.

In my acceptance of the rights of gay to marry, I am joined by millions of other Americans.  Indeed, this societal preference for full civil rights for gay couples is so equitably fair that within the next few years a vast majority support by the nation's electorate is inevitable, in my judgment.

Instead of allowing democracy to craft public policy - as this cultural institution of a family's legal composition has been handled since the founding of our country - five unelected, unaccountable lawyers (for God's sake) have totally eviscerated the nation's Constitutional self-government - "... of the people, BY the people ...".

Nonetheless, vast multitudes of people have now hailed the Supreme Court as being the greatest moral and legal institution in all of recorded human history.  How incongruous - when all power of government to establish what is fundamental law resides in five unaccountable persons, these titans of wisdom - self determined by the way - have appointed themselves America's rulers-for-life, or better known as: "We don't need no stinkin Legislature".

Hey, the Divine Right of Kings is a swell gig, so tell me, who, with an ego as large as Justice Kennedy's, would turn down the chance to become one of the immortals - his name eternally to be spoken of in reverence as the Great Emancipator!

Yes, how incongruous for millions to be celebrating their complete disenfranchisement.  American democracy, the liberty of 320 million citizens to chart our own governing principles, seems worth a year or two to reform a marriage code that was in place for the entire 230 years of our collective self-governing experience.

It should be a self-evident truth to every celebrant of this declaration of judicial supremacy - when judges can create, all rights by simple fiat (by their wise words scrolled on parchment to be handed out to their subjects), they therefore must have identical powers to take all those same civil rights from us by their identical whim.  Who can still assert that judicial powers are checked or balanced in our Constitutional system of three co-equal branches of government?

A few weeks ago a state trial judge in New York  presided over a day long hearing on whether captivated jungle animals are entitled to the full array of human civil rights enshrined in our nation's Constitution and legislatively enacted statutes.  Oblivious to the indisputable truth that our nation that adopted the Constitution knew the difference between a human being and a baboon, this arrogant jurist's disdain for the democratic formulation of public policy was on full display.  Now, don't get me wrong, I work tirelessly to strengthen animal protection laws by interacting with my representatives in Congress who speak for us all on such matters of national policy.  This New York Judge decided she was in charge, and legislators were as useless as stinkin badges!

Such a coup de'tat by judges seems incomprehensible to all freedom loving citizens who believe in representative self government. Most assuredly, when animals are deemed entitled to be awarded civil rights by a court of wisdom (not law), soon it is likely judges will feel empowered to remove and deny civil rights to pre-born children, with no allowance for legislative or executive consultations.

An Expensive Raisin in the Sun ...

... is a pernicious poke in the eye of freedom and democracy.  Yesterday, the Supremes invalidated the 1937 federal law - on the books for 78 years - that empowered the USDA literally to drive a truck uninvited onto a raisin farmer's real property, park that vehicle, stuff the bed and haul away as much of his annual crop as the Raisin Administrative Committee deemed necessary to prop up retail raisin prices to the level of profitability demanded by the raisin oligarchs on this Committee.  For full legal reasoning see, Horne v. USDA, decided 6/22/15; (Mr Horne is a third generation family farmer in California's central valley who had the courage to bar entry to the USDA trucks at his private road gate).  Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts; sole dissent by our presumably wise Latina Justice. This decision once again reversed (and if possible, embarrassed) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lower court decision in favor of this rape of our nation's consumers of raisins.  Talk about non-accountability in government employ - I remember reading not too long ago that this most progressive of Circuit Courts gets upheld by the Supreme Court less than 50% of the appeals taken to nation's highest tribunal.

So, with that overview stated, here are the most salient points to ponder as concerned citizens wanting our Constitutional Republic to be restored to its original contours of limited government, with freedom and justice for all:

NEWS FLASH TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT:

As Justice Roberts admonished these legal dullards in his cogent opinion - the 5th Amendment precludes the federal government from seizing w/o. just compensation a person's car, identically as it does that same individual's private home.  Now, I know that many legal concepts are not always objectively obvious in the proper application of governing law.  That said, how is it conceivable that the San Francisco based court - two hundred thirty-nine years after our nation's founding - determined that despite the clear language of the 5th Amend, the feds can take absolutely everything I own with total impunity, but not my dwelling?  Has legal scholarship fallen so far in our law schools, or are these judges just blinded by their ideology.

NEWS FLASH TO THE SUPREME COURT:

Irrespective of the federal government's obligation to pay fair market value for a raisin farmer's produce, when the exclusive purpose of that purchase is to artificially increase super market store prices of raisins - a criminal conspiracy if undertaken by two or more growers in a private sector transaction - that USDA program is not a taking for a legitimate public purpose/use.  Indeed, it is Soviet style price-fixing to the substantial detriment of all American consumers.

NEWS FLASH TO THE CONGRESS:

When the USDA acts in concert with a price-fixing oligarchy of raisin conglomerates to screw the American consumers out of millions of dollars annually, where is the populist legislation to prohibit this outrage against free market competition?  Where are the great champions of the working middle class?  Where is Hillary, where is Bernie Sanders where even is the guy we elected twice to protect us from the deprivations of those evil 1%? (Conglomerate Raisin  producers are billionaires, in case you wondered whether they made campaign contributions to both political parties)

 I guess President Obama, who mandated a vigorous defense of this communist style central planning disaster, might need to check his constitutional law scholar credentials at the grocery counter next time he goes shopping for affordable healthy foods for the working class kids in charter schools he supports equally strongly.  

Why Joanne Chesimard still Matters

Normalizing relations with Cuba may well be a true national security plus for the United States, as the Castro brothers will not live forever, and so their tyranny over the Cuban people may soon be left to the ash bin of history.  Being but 90 miles from Florida, Cuba would seem to be a nation that will be susceptible to the civilizing influences of American culture, ideals and life styles.  Of course, mere proximity will achieve none of these worthy objectives for us or the millions of freedom seeking Cubans should this Obama Administration opening of Cuba be done without out the exchange of value for the immense value given in lifting the half century embargo and isolation of that tiny island.

Possibly the most crucial value that America must obtain from the Cuban government is its repudiation of being a safe haven for terrorists, criminals and fugitives from justice.  It will serve our national security little if civilian avenues of travel from Cuba to the United States are made routine were those daily airline flights and cruise vessels visits to be unfettered access for attacks upon America.

This proposition gets us to the title star of this blog post - Assata Shakur, a.k.a. Joanne Chesimard.  And make no mistake, she is deemed to be a superstar in anti-American circles.  She is treated as royalty in her adopted home of Havana, Cuba, living there free as a (jail)bird since 1986.

Why should the status of one such person constitute a determinate as to whether the United States will help convert Cuba into a nation welcome in the broader community of civilization?  The reason that Ms. Chesimard is the "canary in the coal mine" is because New Jersey State Trooper, Werner Foerster, was viciously executed by Ms. Chesimard firing two shots at point blank range into his head in 1972 along the Turnpike near East Brunswick.  Chesimard was convicted of this henious crime in 1977, sentenced to life in prison, plus 33 years (to assure no possibility of parole), escaped to Cuba several years later where she was welcomed with open arms by the Castros who immediately granted her political asylum.  Her guilt of the murder of Werner Foerster has never been contested, either by her or Cuba's murderous dictators.

Should Cuba want normalized relations with the United States, it is incontestable that it is normal for nations having such diplomatic, commercial, and all other normal interactions to not harbor confessed police killers.  Any normalization with the Castros must include the return of Chesimard to New Jersey's justice system.

President Obama is now facing grave doubts in America regarding his trust and depth of support for our nation's police.  Does he truly believe that they constitute an occupying force needing to be resisted by the folks, or does he believe that they are called upon to put their lives at risk every single day they get into their police cars?

Leading means making choices, Mr. President:  whose side are you on - Werner Foerster's or Assata Sharkur's?  This will be a telling moment for our President - will he stand for American justice or will he act stupidly?

MEMORIAL DAY 2015 - An Uncertain Trumpet

A more solemn day of remembrance is not found on our Nation's calendar.  While Veteran's Day celebrates and honors all living former military service men and women, Memorial Day commands us to say a prayer for all those brave men and women who aren't here to accept the thanks of a grateful people.

From Lexington and Concord, across Bull Run, New Market, Vicksburg and Gettysburg to Bataan and Corregidor, Normandy, Pork Chop Hill, to Pleiku and Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the list of bloody battles and countries where American citizen soldiers gave their last full measure of devotion to our Country covers the globe with their fortitude.  These few fought ever so bravely in defense of two uniquely American ideals that we have at the very core of our national experience - freedom and opportunity for all.

America's social compact - liberty and a better life for each succeeding generation - makes the ultimate sacrifice of our greatest patriots not in vain, and thus willingly given.  Here's why they died:

         * FREEDOM of expression, thought, belief and deed, so don't tread on me or my religious, atheist, libertarian or all other non-conformist personal pursuits;

          * OPPORTUNITY to achieve my individual vision of success and prosperity for my family.  So long as a person works hard and abides the rules, the absence of an aristocracy guarantees him/her a path to great achievements.

These two American bedrock principles gave more than two Centuries of Americans the certain knowledge that their sacrifice would help secure a more perfect Union, one so exceptional that it had  never been duplicated (and most probably never will) in any of the scores of countries they liberated as such high cost in lives and treasure.  Therefore, I cry out in pain on hearing anyone proclaim that: "the system, the economy, the path to success is rigged against everyday Americans, that the middle class is held down by an oligarchy of one percenters, in fact,  that life in America is defined by rigid oppression and class bigotry".

That lie is so grossly UnAmerican; indeed, it is so unjust as to deny the tens of thousands in Arlington and our other national cemeteries the peace, respect and dignity that they deserve today, Memorial Day, and every other day on our calendars.
        

The IRS Carpet Bombs Z Street ...

... regrettably one fatality - The U.S. Constitution, and no, it's not the old sailing ship.

So, let's start at the beginning - my liberal friends are quick to deny the fact of the weaponization of the Internal Revenue Service by claiming (wrongly) that progressive organizations were targeted by Lois Lerner's hit squad in roughly equivalent numbers to the Tea Partiers.   Great defense - persons of all political stripes had their constitutional rights trampled upon, so "move along, nothing to see here."

That canard put to bed, we can now turn to the ongoing federal lawsuit, Z Street vs. Koskinan. (See WSJ Editorial, May 7th).  Incredibly as this litigation demonstrates, despite cries of "Never Again", Jews are being targeted by the Government of a major western nation in the 21st Century.

Truth be told, Z Street, a pro-Israel educational organization, was selected for a "special review" in the processing of its 501(c)(4) tax exempt application years before the Tea Party was anything other than a humorous historical footnote to our War of Independence.  When asked in 2010 the reason for the long delay in deciding its exemption application, the IRS agent purportedly stated that management had directed the Charitable Organization Division to "slow walk" all Israel related applications based exclusively upon their national policy advocacy (otherwise known as exercise of free speech rights).

At oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week, the three Judge panel was absolutely incredulous that the DOJ could contend that the IRS can constitutionally harass any charitable entity because of that group's foreign (or domestic) policy advocacy, when these views are out of favor with the Chief Executive sitting in the White House.

Remember my liberal friends, that tyrant, Richard Nixon, was voted for impeachment by a House of Representative Committee based upon White House overtures to the IRS seeking adverse tax rulings against opponents of his Administration.  Those 1960's requests were advanced in subtle fashion, such that the IRS rebuffed them immediately and completely.  Nonetheless, this Tricky Dick attempt to use the IRS to harass his "enemies"  was deemed so egregious that it warranted his removal from office.

Accordingly, what say you now - you Champions of civil liberties - when the current White House has successfully and repeatedly misused the IRS to harass both Conservatives and Jews?  Who do they have to come after before you will care?  Know well: Z Street is not a fictional nightmare on Elm Street.  It embodies the tyranny of the weaponization of the IRS, all too capable of crushing freedom on every street in America.

O 'Baltimore: Willow weep for Thee

I had the privilege of having the City of Baltimore as a client for about seven years in the late 1990's, as I recall the time frame.  My Firm's long standing environmental representation of the City ended with the advent of the Martin O'Malley Mayoral Administration, which for those desirous of fact checking can establish the exact end date for the services provided by myself and my partners.

Lamentably, getting paid the outstanding balances owed to the firm took almost another year of effort, as I recall the word from City Hall being at that time that we had made more than enough from Baltimore, despite unpaid invoices totally more than $70,000.00.  Moreover, the numerous phone calls from the politically connected (large campaign contributions made) law firm's replacement lawyers seeking advice - for free- on matters both routine and obvious to any environmental law specialist made the insult of being stiffed on these bills all the more offensive.

With that context and possible bias on the record, let me get to the point here.  I still love Baltimore, its Inner Harbor, history, its architecture, sewerage systems, its potable drinking water plants, its good people and most definitely its terrific food and restaurants.  Sure, I saw plenty of decay and urban blight; nonetheless, mostly I inter-acted with very bright, hard working folks who respected their home town and looked to the future with both hope and appreciation for the means to achieve a better tomorrow.  

Today, however, I fear that the Battle of Baltimore may have already been lost, as no society can intentionally withhold the protection of property and police officers lives and expect others than the wild thugs to be enthralled by the devastating realities of such "life on the street."

Just take a moment to ponder the now ongoing thought process of current city business owners and potential business investors in Baltimore - a Mayor repeatedly apologizes for calling looters, arsonists and attempted murders of police officers "thugs".  They are our unsupervised children, after all; yet offers nothing but contempt for the very economic lives of the city's business owners - with the back of her hand, this mayor gave our children all the space needed to destroy these life sustaining institutions, as these thugs needed to vent their anger.

Simply disgusting, and a clear abdication of the Mayor's sworn duty to uphold the law, and to preclude criminals from being given full and complete immunity to purge the town of the racist haunts as is a CVS pharmacy and a religious organization funded senior citizen home.

In sum, I will believe Prosecutor Mosby's refrain that - on her watch (better watch closely before she runs for higher office) - no one is above the law, just as soon as she opens an investigation to determine whether the current Mayor engaged in criminal misconduct in office by stopping law enforcement arrests over a 48 hour period of city riots that gutted hundreds of burned out cars, buildings and citizen belief in the honesty of elected representatives.  Don't hold your breath, or smoke might just get in your eyes.