Friday, October 31, 2014

Instead of wasting time with mandatory "sensitivity" training.....

How about we institute mandatory 1st Amendment training?

Two high school students in Massachusetts were suspended and face possible expulsion after posting a homecoming photo online of themselves holding airsoft rifles.
Tito Velez, 15, and his girlfriend Jamie Pereira posed with the airsoft rifles inside his home before heading to the Bristol Plymouth Regional Technical School homecoming dance in Taunton, a local NBC affiliate reported.
“This isn’t dangerous. … You can’t kill someone with it,” Tito said. “We didn’t shoot anyone. We were pointing them at the floor. Everything was on safe, no batteries, they never left the house. We never took them to school. That’d be stupid.”
Airsoft rifles only shoot plastic pellets and are not intended to be lethal. Still, the two were suspended Monday morning after posting the photo on Facebook, and administrators are considering expulsion, the station said.
“They created a disruption, in our opinion, and that’s what they’re being punished for,” said superintendent Richard Gross.
The issue wasn’t the gun replicas themselves, but the “Homecoming 2014” caption attached to the photo, the superintendent said.
“These students know what is provocative,” Mr. Gross said, a local CBS affiliate reported. “To tie that to one of our school events kind of puts it over the top which brings us into it.”
He said a number of concerned parents saw the post and called the school to complain.
“Whether they had reason to be afraid or not, the fact is they were, and it was created by this,” Mr. Gross said.
He said police would have canceled the dance if they had known about the Facebook post on Friday.


How does the school think that it has the authority to punish students for acting in a law abiding manner in the confines of their own home? And why do parents completely surrender their own authority to government schools?

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Spoiler Alert?

"When you give [Democrats and Republicans] your vote, you're telling them 'Go ahead, keep on doing what you're doing,'" explains Libertarian National Committee Vice Chair Arvin Vohra. "And when you vote for the Libertarian candidate you are telling them, in no uncertain terms, 'You do not have either my approval or my permission to grow or sustain big government: shrink it now.'"

As the midterm elections approach, Democrats and Republicans are making their final pleas to win over undecided voters, with some casting Libertarian candidates as "spoilers" in a few key races. But Vorha, himself running as a Libertarian for Maryland's 4th congressional district against Democratic incumbent Donna Edwards, dismisses the charge. Despite his low poll numbers, Vohra sees the act of casting a vote for the Libertarian Party as a pathway to reform. He quotes a former Libertarian candidate: "Not all politicians are smart, but they can all count."


It's a common refrain from the GOP, when having lost an election to the Democrat candidate, is anything but the ineffectiveness of the GOP campaign, candidate or position on the issues. When a Libertarian candidate is running, that candidate becomes the de facto scapegoat. But there's a few major problems with this tautology.

Libertarians are not Republicans. As such, the GOP has no claim of ownership over any Libertarian votes. Libertarian candidates are also not, as the two major parties and there media enablers would have you believe, "undecided voters" or "independents". Why the American people put up with the concerted effort by the establishment to shoehorn voters into a narrow ideological box with a paper beyond me. Both major parties exist to grow the size and scope of government and their party power [but I repeat myself].

Finally, if the GOP can't motivate it's base to come out and vote, why do they seek blame elsewhere? If the percentage of registered GOP voters who stay home next week is more than the percentage of Libertarian voters who cast a ballot....there's your problem.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

We'll be holding our breath for Holder and Sharpton to apologize......

[Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco] also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.


Not really. The race pimps and charlatans will quietly slink back into the woodwork, until the next opportunity arises for them to whore out there quest for relevance.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

A clear case for civil disobedience

The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court. 
The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa.  The city council approved the law in June. 
The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot. 
However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.
After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors. 
The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.

If the Mayor wants access to what a Preacher says to his flock, she should attend said Church. The State has no right, enumerated or implied, to dictate the surrender of transcripts from any entity, barring the investigation of a criminal act. Since this action is being undertaken by the State, this is a clear case of the violation of 1st Amendment rights....and the Pastors in question should rise up as one voice and refuse this edict. Or in an ironic twist, tell her that the sermons are all on a failed hard drive, sorry.

Now, there are reports that either initial reports may have been incorrectly attributed to the Mayor's Office, or there is a comprehensive effort to cover her ass.
Mayor Parker agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastor’s sermons.  The subpoenas were issued by pro bono attorneys helping the city prepare for the trial regarding the petition to repeal the new Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) in January.  Neither the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until yesterday.  Both agree the original documents were overly broad.  The city will move to narrow the scope during an upcoming court hearing.  Feldman says the focus should be only on communications related to the HERO petition process.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Guess who wants us back?

After rebuking a continued [and legally protected] US presence via a renewal of the Status of Forces Agreement in 2011....and the statement by new Iraqi PM rejecting ground forces just last month...the Provisional Council of Anbar Province is apparently leading an effort to have more Americans die for Iraq.
Iraqi officials have issued a desperate plea for America to bring US ground troops back to the embattled country, as heavily armed Islamic State militants came within striking distance of Baghdad. 
The warning came from Sabah al-Karhout, president of the provisional council of Anbar Province, the vast desert province to the west of Baghdad that has now largely fallen under jihadist control.

Thanks but no thanks. We took out an oppressive, yet stable Sunni counterweight to Iran...and enabled a Shari'a compliant Shia ally...and are surprised by the nine year disaster now being ground zero in the ever continuing war over Muhammad's ghost?

Saturday, October 11, 2014

And so it begins......? Act II

Liberia said on Friday it was banning journalists from Ebola clinics, defying media rights campaigners who have warned panicked African governments against "muzzling" reporters. 
Government spokesman Isaac Jackson made the announcement as he was questioned on a radio phone-in show about reporters being barred from covering a strike at a Monrovia Ebola treatment unit (ETU). 
"Journalists are no longer allowed to enter ETUs. These journalists enter the ETUs and cross red lines," Jackson, the deputy information minister, told listeners to commercial station Sky FM.

Act I is the CDC telling us all that we have nothing to fear, while they lay a smokescreen of ineffectual mitigation measures at US airports.

Act II is journalists being denied coverage of the situation, as noted above.

What does Act III bring? Not sure, but it doesn't bode well. Thus far, the events have seemed to be the opening chapters of every Apocalyptic book and movie.....

Luckily, I at least have a canary in a coal mine. I live not far from a Continuity of Government location. Serials of helicopters headed to that facility triggers the family action plan. I'll put my tin foil away for now....but I'm keeping it close by.

Megan Kelly is a hottie.....and a shill

Just compare her "fair and balanced" approaches to those who toe the right wing party line regarding the US withdrawal from Iraq, and that towards Jon Stolz from VoteVets, who offered a reasoned, yet dissenting voice.

Political theater for the bobble-heads.

But Megan is still hot.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Know Your Domestic Enemy: Hollywood Assclown Edition

Gwyneth Paltrow struggled to hold herself back as she stood next to President Obama on Thursday evening in her own Brentwood backyard. Mr. Obama, she told dozens of Democratic donors, has brought a “passion” to the presidency that would “be one of the most important and scrutinized and looked at.”

She rambled on about why she considers herself his biggest supporter, including his endorsement of equal pay for women, which the millionaire movie star said was “very important to me as a working mother.”

Then came what was apparently on her mind all along. “You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly,” she said before handing the microphone over to Mr. Obama.

Other than her remarks about the president’s looks, Ms. Paltrow stayed on message. She said that the president needed a Congress controlled by Democrats to move the nation in the right direction.

“It would be wonderful if we are able to give this man all the power he needs to accomplish the things he needs to,” Ms. Paltrow said.


Cult of personality, regardless of a dangerous ingredient to an already broken system where the major parties are in an incestuous circle jerk with the compliant media.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

And so it begins.......?

Africa Confirms 3rd Ebola Victims Rises From The Dead, Releases Picture of 1st “Ebola Zombie”

Fear and panic is spreading in Nimba County, an African community where dead Ebola patients have reportedly “resurrected” and roams around among the living. The victims were allegedly women in their 40s and 60s who was thought to have died from the virus in Liberia’s Nimba County.

OK, so the source isn't exactly the AP, and the story remains unconfirmed by any reputable source.

But remember this....the beginning of nearly every Zombie Apocalypse/Plague/SHTF book or movie....always has the CDC saying something like: "The bottom line here is that I have no doubt that we will control this importation, or this case of Ebola, so that it does not spread widely in this country. It is certainly possible that someone who had contact with this individual could develop Ebola in the coming weeks. But there is no doubt in my mind that we will stop it here."

Saturday, October 4, 2014

On Religious Liberty and the Constitution

The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times. 
Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it. 
“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people. 
“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

Wow. That piece of rank ignorance came from a Supreme Court Justice. Probably a good case for injecting the label "activist Judge". The Constitution is absolutely required to protect the religious liberty of the citizen; but nowhere in our founding documents is found the enumerated power of the government to either endorse or favor religious belief.

This latest missive ties in to what I've been saying for years.....the American people have the inherent right to worship the faith of their choosing, or none at all....and this natural right is protected by the Constitution. This is not to say that violations of religious liberty do not occasionally occur, and we must remain vigilant to ensure that these abuses do no occur, and are not condoned by government. But most of the current crusades are not directed at protecting liberty, but advocating for just what Scalia proposes......government endorsement of religious belief. Or more accurately, the religious belief of those conducting the aforementioned advocating.

Case in point...public school prayer. Some believe that removing organized prayer during school hours was a violation of their religious liberty. But this was not the case. Any student or teacher may pray to their chosen deity at anytime time during the school day, provided that it does not distract from the activities or curriculum. Those who believe they have been wronged aren't advocating for the ability to pray in school [as opposed to before or after]...they desire public and government acknowledgment of their beliefs. They desire an institutionalization of their belief in an omnipotent [and invisible] creator.

Government has no mandate, anywhere, to weigh in on the validity of any religious belief. Scalia argues that the Constitution does not prohibit government from acting on this vote of validity...but he is quite obviously confused [or promoting an agenda. i.e activism]. The Constitution, by definition, enumerates the powers of the government. The vaunted document does not comprise of a list of "don't's" is a list of "do's". Scalia in this regard, represents how this nation and society have fallen away from adherence to our guiding laws, and into the arms of political expediency and agendas.

An astute commenter at the linked piece puts it succinctly:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof." 
Any public law or policy that "favors religion over non-religion" clearly violates the First Amendment.
The important point to note is in the wording of the 1st Amendment, where if it were to state "respecting the establishment of religion", then Scalia might have a point. In that case, favoring religious belief would not be the establishment of a government sponsored religion. But as it states "respecting an establishment of religion", this quite clearly refers to religious belief. This states that the government does not possess the power to create law that favors the religious over the secular.

And that's what the debate really bills down to. Some of the faithful, are not seeking religious liberty, because they already possess that. They can already exercise their natural right to worship in accordance with their faith without regulation or restriction from the government [generally speaking, and I think there is too much of this regulation to begin with]. They desire for government to codify in law, their religious belief system, at the expense of or detriment to, those who do not follow their faith or any faith at all.

Given the corrupt and corruptible nature of government, I'm at a loss as to why they would desire their faith to be bedfellows with the State. Doing so only dilutes and degrades both. I'm also perplexed as to why [predominately] Christians would favor establishing legal precedence for other belief the bedwetting and hand-wringing over Islam.