Reflections From a Murky Pond

The interaction between adults, especially adults in titular positions of authority, and children is always interesting and often amusing.

President Obama went to a primary school to talk to the kids. After his talk he offered question time. One little boy put up his hand, and Obama asks him his name. The little boy responded that his name is Walter.

“And what is your question, Walter?” Asked Obama.

“I have four questions” Said Walter.

“First, why do you think you can negotiate a treaty with Iran without Congress?”

“Second, why did you grant amnesty to millions when you said earlier you didn’t have the authority to do so?”

“Third, why did you say that Bowe Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction” yet now he’s being charged with desertion?”

“Fourth, why was Hillary Clinton allowed to run a private email server when that clearly broke the law?”

Just then, the bell rang for recess and Obama informed the kiddies that they would continue after recess.

When they resumed, Obama said, “OK, where were we? Oh, thats right: question time. Who has a question?”

Another little boy put up his hand.

Obama pointed him out and asked him his name.

“Steve,” he responded.

“And what is your question, Steve?” Asked Obama.

Looking slightly worried, little Steve responded, “Actually, I have two questions: First, why did the recess bell ring 20 minutes early? Second, what happened to Walter?”

And so the class learned an important life lesson.

Never Question The Supreme Leader

There is always a certain amount of risk in questioning authority but there is often great peril in questioning those who are unworthy of authority or who have gained or maintained it through less savory means.

I love Mass spanking and, by that, I mean I truly love the latest ruling on spanking as a form of corporal punishment by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court somewhat less than I mean that I have any fondness for the actual act as a punishment. I have neither any fondness nor antipathy for spanking children.

I also  love how the lower courts got spanked. 😉

In 2011 Jean Dorvil was arrested in Brockton, MA on charges of assault and Battery for spanking his child. During the trial the judge made the odd remark, “If you’re in public with your kids, it’s not appropriate to discipline in this fashion.” Dorvil then lost his appeal based on the appellate court’s view that the child lacked the capacity to understand the discipline and that the father spanked her “when he was upset and angry.”

OK, so we have one judge that thinks that spanking is wrong and constitutes assault and battery if it’s done in public and another set of judges who thinks that spanking is wrong and constitutes assault and battery if the parent is angry when they spank the child. Combined, these two judicial statements imply that spanking is legally A-OK if it’s performed in private and if the parent is neither upset nor angry. Hence, by their statements, it’s perfectly fine in the privacy of your own home to spank you child if you just enjoy doing so.

No! That’s not what the courts meant…but it is what, in the language of the law, they said. They created an arguable defense with their idiocy.

Thankfully, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned Dorvil’s conviction and coded that parents have the right to use corporal punishment to discipline and safeguard their children. Even better, they specifically codified that that a parent or guardian may not be subjected to criminal liability for the use of force against a minor child under the care and supervision of the parent or guardian, provided that:

1. the force used against the minor child is reasonable;
2. the force is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct; and
3. the force used neither causes, nor creates a substantial risk of causing, physical harm (beyond fleeting pain or minor, transient marks), gross degradation, or severe mental distress.

Yeah, I love Mass spanking and, even more, I that the court now has this particular ruling on the books because legal precedence counts for more than legislative text.

Well there’s a differentiator you don’t normally see a political candidate, especially a presidential candidate, invoking. Apparently Hillary Clinton wants us all to know that regularly communes with the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt. Well, either that or Bill’s getting back at her for something or other by claiming that she speaks to the dead on a regular basis…and theoretically the dead answer her too.

Yeah, nothing says, “I’m fit to be POTUS” like claiming you regularly commune with dead people. 😯

“A special thanks to the members of the Roosevelt family who are here,” Clinton said, at the park, located on Roosevelt Island.  “And the one who is not, Eleanor, who made sure that the four freedoms were included in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.”

“I know that because, as all of you famously learned when I served as president, my wife, now the secretary of State, was known to commune with Eleanor on a regular basis,” he said.  “And so she called me last night on her way home from Peru to remind me to say that.  That Eleanor had talked to her and reminded her that I should say that.”

But let’s leave the truth, falsehood, or appropriateness of Hillary’s purported mediumship aside for a nonce. Perhaps more telling of Hillary’s character and qualifications is which dead person she’s talking to so often – Eleanor Roosevelt.

So what we have is an alleged lesbian former First Lady who was largely estranged from her husband due to his infidelity, ran a “Shadow Presidency,” and never showed much love for- or loyalty to America communing with a a dead alleged lesbian former First Lady who was largely estranged from her husband due to his infidelity, ran a “Shadow Presidency,” and never showed much love for- or loyalty to America.

Yeah, those are some “lovely” qualifications…

A number of the world’s governments are very concerned about the Obama Regime’s agreement with Iran over that nation’s ongoing attempt to develop nuclear weapons. Even more so, they are very concerned with the probability that Iran has violated the existing 2013 interim agreement covering such things.

As bad as that is, what the nations should be worried about is the Obama Regimes continued, consistent, and ongoing defense of Iran against all the nations who are so worried.

Obama Lending Aid & Comfort To Iran

For over a month now the Obama’s State Department has been staunchly defending Iran from accusations that it was on the verge of violating a requirement to reduce its low-enriched uranium stockpile under a 2013 interim nuclear with major powers. They’ve also been “deflecting” international criticism of continued Iranian violations of UN sanctions and reports of attempts to illicitly procure nuclear technology for use in activities the West wants it to suspend. All this despite the fact that the Obama Regime admits to being aware of suspected breaches.

Don’t be mistaken. Such behavior on Obama’s part is not surprising. He’s merely lending material aid and comfort to his allies and defending them from their joint enemies.

This Is Racist!

Yep! A Black woman in a kerchief, holding a slice of watermelon – that’s just got to be racist, racist, racist! Hellfire and perdition! If teaching Shakespeare and serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist, then this picture and post must be as well.

But hey! I’m a White man and according to the Blacktivists, their followers, and the Liberals and Progressives who enable and pander to them I’m racist just because of my race. Hence, none of the specifics matter.