In, 1999 - a long, long time ago, indeed, way back in a previous century - Neil was preparing over the summer to enroll in Vermont's Middlebury College. Striving to assist my son matriculate the ball down the field toward a more successful academic career than my own, I endeavored to incorporate in a multi-page narrative all the best examples of classical logic and rhetoric (with comparisons to sophistry) from my Davidson College years.
Now, sixteen years later, I remember very little of my essay, about which Neil has confirmed having no recollection whatsoever, despite its classical prose honed at the desk of Classics Professor George Labban, R.I.P. The exclusive recollection still fresh in my own mind is that the rhetoric of logic, when done well, is the most persuasive form of the rational polemic. Here is the very example I shared with Neil: A raging dialectic debate, then in the forefront of U.S. opinion makers just as it is today, focused on the transformational utility of gun control measures. These gun control advocates advanced as their central tenet the purported direct cause and effect correlation of private gun ownership prohibitions with achievement of the universally desired goal of the eradication of gun violence, citing accurate crime stats from several nation's with these prohibitions that had experienced sharp drops in firearm murders. For them, however, that fair proposition was invariably followed up by pure sophistry. These gun banners then asserted unequivocally that such mass gun confiscations, by ending unlawful shootings, secured universal public safety by prevention of homicidal criminal violence.
Regrettably, logic and reason immediately put the lie to this grandiose claim. As I wrote to Neil:
"After Great Britian banned the private ownership of firearms, murders by garroting increased by over 2000 per cent annually."
Now, I did not actually research England's record of strangulation homicides. Nonetheless, the imperative of comparing all methods of murder to ascertain effectiveness of any particular prevention policy is obvious and would not to be overlooked by intellectually honest persons seriously proposing to repeal an Amendment to our Constitution enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Again the obvious - humans bent on doing murderous harm to others will readily substitute alternate available weapons for the guns denied them.
Indeed, a recent news article from Great Britain reported that a Member of Parliament was calling for restrictions on the sale of steak knives due to a recent significant increase in homicidal stabbings. One could easily ask - would serving forks with multiple prongs be next up for confiscation in England?
In sum, therefore, this rhetorical exercise has demonstrated by irrefutable logic that the evil in men's hearts will not be deterred by mere gun control laws; they are no panacea in that all western societies having implemented them have achieved little if any enhancement to public safety. Would that our nation's policy makers and talking heads had been graduated either by Middlebury or Davidson.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Sunday, August 2, 2015
A Very Bad Deal - Part Tres
For his entire term in Office, President Obama has pledged to Israel and to the entire civilized world that he would take any and all steps necessary to prevent the mad mullahs of Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, as they are sure to use them against the Jews and us, as well.
Indeed, seemingly out of step with his nation's plans to annihilate Israel, one former Iranian President expressed appreciation for the existence of the national Jewish homeland, stating that it made their total destruction so much swifter due to having the vast majority of the world's Jews gathered so close together in a "ONE BOMB STATE". Nice touch there. Hitler would be envious of this good Muslim's sense of efficiency. [ Please, everyone offended by Governor Huckabee's oven analogy, be assured - I am not implying in any sense that President Obama's antipathy toward Israel, while very real and deeply felt, is analogous to the Nazi regime's final solution. ] In my heart, I feel that Obama views Israel as the bully in the Middle East region, able to intimidate and push around its neighbors because the Jews possess the Bomb, and have the where-with-all to use it effectively from Tripoli to Tehran. Accordingly, truth be told, the President sees Iran, with a short break out time to possess its own nuclear weapons, as a necessary counterweight to Israel and that nation's war propensities. Mr. Obama has, in fact, spoken repeatedly of his full acceptance of Iran as a very significant "regional power" in the Middle East.
Of course, that very candid acceptance, seeming approval even, makes the logical alternative to Obama's false choice between - a terrible 10 year agreement and war - off the table for the Administration. Having ousted Israel from the international community of civilized nations, and welcomed back in Iran with open arms (to be funded by a 150 billion dollar pay-off), any international cooperation on effecting regime change in Tehran now is absolutely prohibited.
What a shame. In 2009, the entire civilized world saw the mad mullahs rocked to their very core by pro-democracy protests in Tehran. Rather than support the people of Iran desperately wanting to become free again, this President sent secret letters to the mullahs asking them to forgive America for its many transgressions against Iran, starting with the 1952 CIA sponsored coup that put the hated Shah back on his imperial throne in Tehran. Thus, abandoning the millions fighting and dying in the city streets, President Obama got into bed with these murderous thugs to make nice with them and there unbounded hatred of Israel and us. They remain, despite this Deal of Total Appeasement, at war with America (or are their chants of "death to America" merely seeking our demise as the result of old age), and now the President has forbidden the entire civilized world from even saying rude things about, let alone seek their removal from power, these murderous rulers. We shall all reap the bitter fruits of this harvest of shame.
Indeed, seemingly out of step with his nation's plans to annihilate Israel, one former Iranian President expressed appreciation for the existence of the national Jewish homeland, stating that it made their total destruction so much swifter due to having the vast majority of the world's Jews gathered so close together in a "ONE BOMB STATE". Nice touch there. Hitler would be envious of this good Muslim's sense of efficiency. [ Please, everyone offended by Governor Huckabee's oven analogy, be assured - I am not implying in any sense that President Obama's antipathy toward Israel, while very real and deeply felt, is analogous to the Nazi regime's final solution. ] In my heart, I feel that Obama views Israel as the bully in the Middle East region, able to intimidate and push around its neighbors because the Jews possess the Bomb, and have the where-with-all to use it effectively from Tripoli to Tehran. Accordingly, truth be told, the President sees Iran, with a short break out time to possess its own nuclear weapons, as a necessary counterweight to Israel and that nation's war propensities. Mr. Obama has, in fact, spoken repeatedly of his full acceptance of Iran as a very significant "regional power" in the Middle East.
Of course, that very candid acceptance, seeming approval even, makes the logical alternative to Obama's false choice between - a terrible 10 year agreement and war - off the table for the Administration. Having ousted Israel from the international community of civilized nations, and welcomed back in Iran with open arms (to be funded by a 150 billion dollar pay-off), any international cooperation on effecting regime change in Tehran now is absolutely prohibited.
What a shame. In 2009, the entire civilized world saw the mad mullahs rocked to their very core by pro-democracy protests in Tehran. Rather than support the people of Iran desperately wanting to become free again, this President sent secret letters to the mullahs asking them to forgive America for its many transgressions against Iran, starting with the 1952 CIA sponsored coup that put the hated Shah back on his imperial throne in Tehran. Thus, abandoning the millions fighting and dying in the city streets, President Obama got into bed with these murderous thugs to make nice with them and there unbounded hatred of Israel and us. They remain, despite this Deal of Total Appeasement, at war with America (or are their chants of "death to America" merely seeking our demise as the result of old age), and now the President has forbidden the entire civilized world from even saying rude things about, let alone seek their removal from power, these murderous rulers. We shall all reap the bitter fruits of this harvest of shame.
Monday, July 20, 2015
A Very Bad deal - Part Deux
Hope and change captivated a nation six very long years ago, when multitudes - almost beyond counting -roared their approval of President-Elect Obama when he assured us that soon the seas would stop their rise, summer temperatures would cool and peace among all nations was achievable by America simply extending an open hand to our adversaries, instead of the confrontational closed fist of the Bush bullies. Well, at least in foreign policy implementation (contrary to the Obama promises of keeping our doctor and health insurance), this President has been true to his word, by pursuing an American leadership retreat across every continent on the globe. Instead of projecting American power to deter, or if undertaken, to punish hostile acts by our adversaries, this Administration has asked all the evil-doers of the world to play nice with us because we truly do want to be friends with everyone.
In Mr. Obama's public announcement last week of the Iran Nuke deal - not Peace for our Time, but peace for the next 10 years, after which most all restraints on Iran's nuclear weapons program will be lifted- he called out the blood thirty butchers of Tehran and pleaded with them to enter "Like" on the President's facebook page:
"Our differences are real and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored.
But it is possible to change the path of violence and rigid ideology in foreign policy based upon threats to attack your neighbors ... That's a dead end.
A different path, one of tolerance and peaceful resolution of conflict leads to ... more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.
This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it."
Ah, if only the REAL WORLD'S malevolent dictators were swayed by such SWEET REASONING to repudiate their brutal intentions to dominate and conquer. Most assuredly, insane monsters such as Hitler and Stalin, having lived through the horrors of WWI, with millions upon millions slaughtered, would have recognized, had Obama told them, that going to war again just 20 years after the 1920 Paris Peace Treaty was definitely a "dead end". Of course insane dictators care little, if at all, for the millions upon millions killed in their wars, so long as they triumph - as they always expect to do.
So, count me skeptical as to the mad mullahs of Iran being swept away by the silky tones of Mr. Obama's offers of warm fellowship and friendship, when their sole and exclusive objective is making everyone worldwide bow down in obedience to their Deity, or die.
In Mr. Obama's public announcement last week of the Iran Nuke deal - not Peace for our Time, but peace for the next 10 years, after which most all restraints on Iran's nuclear weapons program will be lifted- he called out the blood thirty butchers of Tehran and pleaded with them to enter "Like" on the President's facebook page:
"Our differences are real and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored.
But it is possible to change the path of violence and rigid ideology in foreign policy based upon threats to attack your neighbors ... That's a dead end.
A different path, one of tolerance and peaceful resolution of conflict leads to ... more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.
This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it."
Ah, if only the REAL WORLD'S malevolent dictators were swayed by such SWEET REASONING to repudiate their brutal intentions to dominate and conquer. Most assuredly, insane monsters such as Hitler and Stalin, having lived through the horrors of WWI, with millions upon millions slaughtered, would have recognized, had Obama told them, that going to war again just 20 years after the 1920 Paris Peace Treaty was definitely a "dead end". Of course insane dictators care little, if at all, for the millions upon millions killed in their wars, so long as they triumph - as they always expect to do.
So, count me skeptical as to the mad mullahs of Iran being swept away by the silky tones of Mr. Obama's offers of warm fellowship and friendship, when their sole and exclusive objective is making everyone worldwide bow down in obedience to their Deity, or die.
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.
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.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
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.
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.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)