Thursday, August 29, 2013

There's interesting news from my hometown, Albuquerque, New Mexico, where it appears the County Commissioners are contemplating a county ordinance limiting picketing in residential areas.


So Bernalillo County, where Albuquerque is located, will limit residential picketing.

The thing is, the proposed ordinance prohibits pickets targeting a particular residence (what might "targeting" mean) "without the express prior consent of the occupant(s)." Hmmmmmm.  "Express consent" is an interesting catch phrase.

Suppose a pro-Abortion group wants to show support for local abortion doctor?  Permission granted, based on the beleaguered occupants desire for a sign of affection from the community.

Suppose a pro-life group wants to protest against local abortion doctor.  Permission denied, equally obviously.  After, a man's home is his castle.

Nor do the obvious ham-handed likely possibilities draw the limits of the variations that are possible:

Suppose the husband of abortion physician has disliked his wife's practice for sometime (as an African American he has come to understand that Jesse Jackson was right when he referred to abortion as the genocide of the black race).  So he tell the pro-life group, "sure, you can picket but your signs have to educate and inform on the racial implications of abortion."  The abortionist wife, on the other hand, says, "no you can't."

What if children say no, but parents say yes.

And that pesky tenant in basement apartment, suppose she says yes even though the landlord upstairs says no.

And still there's that "targeting" language.

Is it targeting to identify abortion as the modern American equivalent of the Holocaust, even where no effort or speech connects that rhetorical consideration with the occupants of the residence?   I mean, suppose the sign just says, "Abortion ... The American Holocaust."  No sign saying, "Dr. Smith at 1234 Sesame Street Is Akin to Josef Mengele."

Must occupants be identified in a way that sets them apart from neighbors, than others living in the community?

What if the picketers go two doors down with signs indicating that the house two doors up is occupied by an abortionist, her husband and kids?

Of course, the First Amendment has never stopped pro-abortion politicians from pandering for votes.  And, sadly, it has never stopped pro-abortion justices of the Supreme Court from pandering to their constituencies.  Yet, as the article indicates, Commissioner Johnson at least offers the hope that sanity will prevail (along with Freedom of Speech).

Monday, August 19, 2013

Potentates Don't Obey Laws

Here's a puzzlement.
If the State in which you live requires that you register your car within 30 days of moving it into the State, and six months later you are stopped by a constable and ticketed for having out of state plates, will your plea of insufficient time be heard as a defense to the offense?

If you enter a local park that has posted hours, and warns that presence during closure constitutes trespass, will your plea that you had insufficient time to depart from the park be heard as a defense to the offense?

The truth is, and it is as true a truth as comes along the pike, the government DOES NOT CARE about your excuses. When it imposes timetables and deadlines on citizen behaviors, it holds citizens feet to the fire (and often toasts citizens toes with criminal prosecutions).

But whaddya care if the Government imposes deadlines BY FEDERAL LAW and then just blows through them like Elvis in a 67 Caddy blowing through a one-speed trap town near Tupelo?
Yet that is just what the Obama administration has done, blowing deadline after deadline in a law that was NOT drafted by Republicans out to set booby traps for an unwary president, but was drafted by boobies in Congress (Pelosi being the Chief Booby) laying meaningless traps for an out-of-control, egocentric president.
You can read about the deadlines in an UNPUBLISHED Congressional Research Service memorandum here. 
You can read a great summary, in Forbes, about how Obama's administration has blown past more than half the deadlines here.

Imam Obama and the Fatwah Against Liberty



Imam Barack Obama took to his radio mosque of the air this weekend to unload yet another fatwah against the enemies of Obamanism, this time on the topic of health insurance.  Here's the introductory paragraph on the White House web site:
"WEEKLY ADDRESS: Working to Implement the Affordable Care ActWASHINGTON, DC— In this week’s address, President Obama said we are on the way to fully implementing the Affordable Care Act and helping millions of Americans.  Unfortunately, a group of Republicans in Congress are working to confuse people and are even suggesting they will shut down the government if they cannot shut down the health care law."
Of course, to be a fatwah, there must be a demon.  Imam Obama takes care to paint the demon a deep conservative red:
"Right now, we’re well on our way to fully implementing the Affordable Care Act.  And in the next few months, we’ll reach a couple milestones with real meaning for millions of Americans.

...

Many Members of Congress, in both parties, are working hard to inform their constituents about these benefits, protections, and affordable plans.  But there’s also a group of Republicans in Congress working hard to confuse people, and making empty promises that they’ll either shut down the health care law, or, if they don’t get their way, they’ll shut down the government.Think about that.  They’re actually having a debate between hurting Americans who will no longer be denied affordable care just because they’ve been sick – and harming the economy and millions of Americans in the process.  And many Republicans are more concerned with how badly this debate will hurt them politically than they are with how badly it’ll hurt the country.A lot of Republicans seem to believe that if they can gum up the works and make this law fail, they’ll somehow be sticking it to me.  But they’d just be sticking it to you. Some even say that if you call their office with questions about the law, they’ll refuse to help.  Call me old-fashioned – but that’s lousy constituent service.  And it’s not what you deserve.Your health insurance isn’t something to play politics with.  Our economy isn’t something to play politics with.  This isn’t a game.  This is about the economic security of millions of families."
Can you see the demon as cast in the Imam's fatwah:

     --     Selfish it is ... "If they don't get their way, they'll shut down the government."

     --     Maniacal too, planning to cause harm to America ... "having a debate between hurting Americans who will no longer be denied affordable ... and harming the economy and millions of Americans in the process."

     --     Patricidal as well, actively planning, it appears, to attack America's beloved Imam of Obamanism:  "A lot of Republicans seem to believe that ... they'll somehow be sticking it to me."

     --     Cold-hearted, deliberately ignoring requests for help from those that elected them, "Some even say that if you call their office with questions about the law, they'll refuse to help."

The only thing missing from the Imam's fatwah is the specific iteration of what punishment the
faithful must inflict on these enemies of America.  Does the Imam only want these heretics removed from office?  Does he want them prosecuted or persecuted (as the persecution inflicted by his Muslim Brotherhood friends in Egypt on the minority Christian Copts there)?  Does he want the Chamber in which these heretics hold sway and are the majority to suffer the fate of the Reichstag?

Of course, a proper fatwah must proceed from an essential truth of the faith.

What is the essential truth of the faith on which Imam Obama rests this fatwah?

The Imam stated that all these attacks by the deep red demon are assaults on the right of the people to health INSURANCE.  (Note, this right is to health insurance, not to health care, nor to good health.)  In his own words, "[I]n the United States of America, health insurance isn’t a privilege – it is your right.  And we’re going to keep it that way."

There you have it, health insurance is a RIGHT.

Mind you, this right to health INSURANCE appears nowhere in the United States Constitution, nor in the Constitutions of the States.  Even after twenty-five years practicing federal civil rights and constitutional law, I am unable to adumbrate an expressed right to health INSURANCE, to health CARE, or even to GOOD HEALTH in our federal Constitution.

Of course, I stand in contradistinction to Imam Obama, he that is oft-described as having been a Professor of Constitutional Law.  But for the twelve years in which he served as Law Lecturer and Senior Law Lecturer, his principal course was "Racism and the Law."  No, he did not teach, "Fundamental Constitutional Rights."  No, he did not teach, "Constitutional Law:  Structure and Substance."  He taught, "Racism and the Law."

Pay attention.

There is a category of human being that will never forget the day that the words were spoken by the President, "health insurance is a right."  And they will resent, forevermore, the actions of those that would diminish or eliminate that "right."  Declaring war on the "right" ... restoring the common sense understanding that health insurance is a private contract among parties (which right to engage in such private contracts, as it happens, is a LIBERTY INTEREST) ... this must be done. 

But if that fight is successful, when it is successful, those who have bought the moronic, anti-constitutional, socialist lie of the Soros sock puppet will still believe their RIGHT has been violated.  And that means that there will continue to be a struggle to maintain the truth that health, health care, and health insurance are privileges and liberties, precious, easily lost, hard maintained.  No, that message is not sexy, and it is not a promise of eased burdens or lessened responsibility as are government guaranteed and provided benefits. 

Often the truth and reality are harsher than the lie and the fantasy.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Book Review: B.H. Obama's Citizens in the Attic

Beware his powdered sugar!Not since VC Andrews first penned "Flowers in the Attic" has a tale of such chilling cruelty been told.

Real life publications presents B.H. Obama's first book, "Citizens in the Attic."

Read the true life tale of a nation whose citizens are an embarrassment to its socialist/Marxist President. A nation of citizens that are inconvenient. A nation of citizens that remind a President of his own inadequacies, his own weaknesses.

Follow with horror as the Citizens in the Attic are fed a melange of poisons, presented as treats, each powdered sugar coated to disguise the poisonous tang of political arsenic: government bailouts of banks and motor companies; tax increases; hijacking of the health care industry.

Who will live? Who will die?

Will those that should care, that should intervene, that should stop the madness of the nation-o-cidal maniac act? Or will the Citizens in the Attic wilt, droop, die?
Beware his powdered sugar!

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Former ACLJ Employee: Robertson's Ragamuffin Remark Evinces A Godless Stupidity

Sometimes you just have to "man up."  Sometimes, "manning up" means apologizing for being stunningly, amazingly, incredibly stupid.

Pat Robertson just has to apologize for his offensively stupid and amazingly idiotic remarks this past week.

On the 700 Club program on July 31, Pat Robertson spoke about poverty and contraception.  He touted the importance of birth control to population control as an important affect of humanity.  Ben Johnson, at LifeSiteNews has reported:
On today's episode of the 700 Club, a woman asked whether the use of birth control is sinful, something about which Catholics and Protestants disagree.

When Robertson's co-host, Wendy Griffith, said not all families could afford to have multiple children, Robertson replied, “That's the big problem, especially in Appalachia. They don't know about birth control. They just keep having babies.”

“You see a string of all these little ragamuffins, and not enough food to eat and so on,” he said, “and it's desperate poverty.”

“I'd say yes, birth control is absolutely an important thing for people to use,” he added, saying contraception “is a very important part of humanity.”

Robertson said that “birth control in the Protestant churches has always been permitted,” because they “feel that the care and rearing of children is a tremendous obligation.”

Robertson heartlessly concludes that contraception had an laudable value in the moral hierarchy.  But why?  Well, and there's not polishing this immoral apple of thought:  because contraception can suppress the number of Appalachian ragamuffins.  Robertson's comments reveal a chasmic distance between the heart of Robertson and the heart of God.

It wants noting, as well, that Robertson's assertions are flawed for other reasons.

First, the "Protestant" Church has not always, or uniformly, approved of contraception. 

Second, Natural Family Planning is not a violation of the Old Testament.  It certainly does not replicate the sin of Onan.  Nor does it equate with the levitical prohibition on sexual relations during menstruation, as Robertson implied.

Robertson's remarks are triply offensive. 

First, for their historic dishonesty -- the Protestant Church has not always approved of birth control (unless "always" is limited to mean "as long as Pat has been around."  Second, for their mischaracterization of Natural Family Planning -- baselessly portraying Natural Family Planning as some sort of Catholic plot to drive men and women into a lifetime of menstrual intercourse.  Third, for their heartless inhumanity -- making out the sons and daughters of impoverished Appalachia as drags and anchors on their families.

That last offense and sin strikes harder and cries louder:  it is so distant from the love of Christ, who rebuked His own disciples and warned them, "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven."  Indeed, Robertson seems to have drunk a very old elixir of Malthusian kool aid.  For me, when malthusians burp their crap onto the social stage, I find no more soothing salve than a short passage of Dickens that eviscerates their heartless spiel:
``Spirit,'' said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, ``tell me if Tiny Tim will live.''
``I see a vacant seat,'' replied the Ghost, ``in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.''

``No, no,'' said Scrooge. ``Oh, no, kind Spirit! say he will be spared.''

``If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,'' returned the Ghost, ``will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.''

Scrooge hung his head to hear his wn words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.  
``Man,'' said the Ghost, ``if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!''

Scrooge bent before the Ghost's rebuke, and trembling cast his eyes upon the ground. 
It remains to be seen whether Robertson will have the humility to "bend before the Ghost's rebuke, and trembling cast his eyes upon the ground."