Unconstitutional Equity

1950s Race Riot

Starting in the mid-1950s, America has been dealing with nigh on constant cries – often violent cries – for equality and the destruction of what racial activists have decried as White Supremacy. That was, as problematical and poorly thought out as it was, a necessary pain. There was at that time deliberate and government-enforced inequality between Whites and non-Whites. As such, cries for equality were not inherently a bad thing.

In all truth, back then, it was a good and necessary thing that they won and that the Civil Rights Movement, for all its chaos and flaws, won the day. Though, even then, it was not enough for the Blacks or their enablers and even the venerated MLK later decided that “reparations” should be handed out to his people, thereby setting the stage for later woes.

And therein was the rot that twisted and distorted Civil Rights into the sick caricature and anti-American thing it is today. Equality was decided soon after it was achieved to be not nearly enough.

Equity vs. Equality

Equality what used to be purported as a good thing and a goal – meant each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equitythe Left’s and their minorities’ newspeak for wanting more – states that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome irrespective of those circumstances or their input into the process.

Blacks Demand Reparations And Equity Because Equality Fails Them Since They're Not Really Whites' Equals

Yes; that’s the sad and maddening truth of what Civil Rights have been corrupted into devolving down to. Equality is deprecated among minorities, especially the Blacks, and their “woke” enablers in these times. Now the word is “Equity” and it is a strident demand for special privileges and advantages, preferably and most often mandatorily at the expense of White people, especially White Men, and most especially Straight White Men.

And this isn’t just hateful and wrongheaded rhetoric. Both government agencies and private sector corporations are putting tangible measure into place to give minorities special advantages and privileges, including but not limited to: prioritized hiring and promotions, special career-based educational programs, and special protections against Whites.

At The Risk Of “Shadowing” Things

At the marginal risk of “shadowing” the issue and its problems, and repeating the judgemental errors of the Warren Court’s opinion on Roe v. Wade, it’s my opinion that the actions taken to further Equity instead of Equality are not just wrong, racist, sexist, heterophobic, and pernicious, they’re unconstitutional and a violation of White people’s – specially Straight White MenFourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. There is little to no functional difference between providing special benefits to people based upon their race, creed, color, gender, or sexual proclivities and denying them such based upon those same criteria. Either way, it falls solidly under the Penumbra of the 14th Amendment and, hence, should be considered a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Of course, the Left, their minorities, and their politicians disagree with this. Or rather, even if they agree with the premise, they don’t care. Their point in switching from equality to equity was explicitly to take current wealth and future opportunity from Whites and redistribute to others. And, the taking is at least as important to them as their redistributing is.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Ceded Authority

Now That You’ve Ceded Authority Once…

Now that you’ve ceded authority to the government for the supposed sake of your safety and everyone else’s once, what now? What about the next time the would-be dictators, benevolent or not, want to strip your constitutional rights away under the penumbra of it being for your health and safety and that of everyone else?

You’ve Set A Precedent

You’ve set a precedent, a precedent that the government at any level can freely violate most parts of the 1st Amendment if they rationalize it as being for the sake of public. Precedents are hard to overturn once established, especially if they’ve been accepted by any court.

And, when a precedent favors the government by expanding their control, it will be used again, each time with a little broader scope or in a context a little further away from whatever crisis was the basis for setting that precedent.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Facebook Bans Conspiracy

Facebook Bans Conspiracy
Facebook Bans Conspiracy

To most Americans it’s obvious that Facebook’s bans are the conspiracy. They’ve doubled-down on probably illegally silencing certain sorts of speech and certain sorts of speech only, while letting at least as “dangerous” things go by without censure or censorship. Indeed, they developed the habit of actively defending their preferred narrative by banning dissenting or complaining comments and those that made them.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Fighting Fascistbook

Fascistbook
Fighting Fascistbook Is Very Possible

Most people believe that there is no real way to fight against Facebook’s fascistic censoring of speech and opinion in its platform because Facebook aka Fascistbook is a private, corporate entity. Fortunately and surprisingly, this is NOT legally true and there is case law to back that up.

The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) that when a corporation is, in essence the public square and functions as such, it must abide by the same restrictions as the State insofar as Constitutional law is concerned. And that Facebook is, in fact, operating in that manner is the held opinion of the SCOTUS, as stated in Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. _ (2017).

Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.

— Justice Anthony Kennedy

The Court’s ruling in Packingham v. North Carolina is of particular importance because it eliminates the potentially countering issues brought up in Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. American Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Pa. 1996), though Facebook’s de facto monopoly and ubiquitousness might well do that already.

So yes, I do believe that we, the People have to capacity to fight Fascistbook and the other dangerously biased and tyrannical social media corporations that have become entrenched in society to the point of it not being completely ridiculous to think of them as utilities.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Adieu Et Bon Débarras

Adieu Et Bon Débarras, Paris!

Adieu Et Bon Débarras, Paris!

Goodby and good riddance, Paris – specifically the The Paris Agreement which was brokered in France during the COP 21 talks. All the signs are present that President Trump will remove America from this Climate Change Agreement. Once again proving he’s a political outsider, strongly looks as if Trump will keep yet another campaign promise.

I’m happy with this and our domestic enemies are livid over it – weeping, wailing, gnashing their teeth, and promising retribution. I will, however give these Liberals and Progressives a small measure of credit this time. This isn’t just another episode of their derangement. President Trump pulling America out of Paris Agreement is apocalyptic for their hopes and dreams of a “greener,” weaker America.

And yes! I’m big enough to admit that I’m petty and mean enough so that a significant part of my happiness with leaving the Paris Agreement is that the Left is so butt-hurt over doing so.

Here, however, is one important point, though not the key point for me: This Paris Agreement isn’t actually that horrific from my point of view. It is and was largely meaningless and without any provisions – or even delusions thereof – of any of its various articles being actually binding or enforceable upon the the 196 signatories. In this it is a lot like NATO.

Is It A Treaty Or Not?

No. My primary reason for being happy about leaving the Paris Agreement is that it really wasn’t legally enacted in the first place or, at least, it was easily arguable that it wasn’t. This is because it’s a treaty or, at least it certainly seems to meet the legal requirement for being one, and Obama just signed it as if he were king without ever sending it to the Senate for ratification, which is constitutionally required. So, if it is a treaty, it is not one that America ever entered into and President Trump would just be correcting an illegal act by Obama.

Then again, some legal experts argue that the Paris Agreement isn’t a treaty, despite it easily meeting the prima facie standard of such under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law” (VCLT art. 2.1(a)) is a treaty. It was, after all, specially and specifically crafted to not be a treaty so that it didn’t need to undergo the required scrutiny by the various states that such things entail. In other words, it was written in a manner that Obama could sign it unilaterally under the auspices of the UNFCCC, instead of sending to the Senate for approval. So it could be argued that this was just an Executive Agreement under the law.

If the latter is held to be true, this is ironic in the extreme since Obama’s signing the Paris Agreement violated the 1992 Executive Agreement with the Senate to submit for their review and ratification any future agreements which contained “targets and timetables” for emissions reductions by the US.

So, there it is. Either it’s a treaty; in which case, it’s null and void due to its unconstitutional and illegal enactment; or it’s simply an Executive Agreement by Obama; in which case, it ceased being binding on January 20th, 2017 and President Trump is well and completely within his rights to either formally rescind our nation’s participation or simply ignore it in whole or in part and to do so for any or no reason whatsoever.

Either way, President Trump would be doing the right thing in my opinion. Whether it was executive overreach on Obama’s part or his simply violating the agreement under which the Senate ratified the UNFCCC in the first place, putting an end to it would the right thing.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |