Indicting Hillary?

Periodically the news ripples slightly with news of federal agencies investigating Hillary Clinton and her staff about her use of an unsecured, private email server to conduct classified State Department business. Each time there’s a ripple various and sundry people rub their hands together and salivate, believing she’ll be indicted and possibly even convicted of one or more high crimes against America.

Even If Hilllary Was Indicted
Even If Hillary Was Indicted…

Ah hope – it springs eternal in the breasts of men and is itself the wellspring of despair and disillusionment.

In this case and in this time Hillary Clinton is untouchable. She’s got a get out jail free card. She’s not only a Democrat, she’s the in-all-but-name Democrat Nominee for the 2016 Presidential Election. As every member of every agency that is supposedly investigating her is employed at the pleasure of Obama, Hillary will not be indicted until and unless a Republican is in the Oval Office.

Really! Can anyone in America truly believe that Obama would allow such a thing to happen to Hillary? No matter whatever the boy’s personal feeling about the Clintons might be, he’d never scuttle the Dems’ best and only hope to keep the White House. Hillary could literally hold the young women down while Bill raped them and Obama would do his level best to not let it affect her campaign.

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

I Love Mass Spanking

SpankingI 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.

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

Too Young For Rights?

The 9th Curcuit of the US Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that Constitutional and Civil Rights are not fully applicable or to be enjoyed by juveniles in the setting of a state-run school with their decision upon Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District.

They have ruled that it is no violation of students’ rights to force them to either leave school or change clothes for wearing shirts with the US Flag upon them on Cinco de Mayo. Such juveniles don’t have the same level rights as adults enjoy under the law.

Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in a civil rights suit brought by high school students who were asked to remove clothing bearing images of the American flag after school officials learned of threats of race-related violence during a school-sanctioned celebration of Cinco de Mayo.

The panel held that school officials did not violate the students’ rights to freedom of expression, due process, or equal protection. The panel held given the history of prior events at the school, including an altercation on campus, it was reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real. The panel held that school officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances.


McKeown, Circuit Judge:

First Amendment rights and the operational and safety needs of schools. As we noted in Wynar v. Douglas County School District, 728 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2013), “school administrators face the daunting task of evaluating potential threats of violence and keeping their students safe without impinging on their constitutional rights.” In this case, after school officials learned of threats of race-related violence during a school-sanctioned celebration of Cinco de Mayo, the school asked a group of students to remove clothing bearing images of the American flag.

The students brought a civil rights suit against the school district and two school officials, alleging violations of their federal and state constitutional rights to freedom of expression, equal protection, and due process. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the only defendant party to this appeal, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, and its denial of the students’ motion for summary judgment, on all claims. School officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances. As a consequence, we conclude that school officials did not violate the students’ rights to freedom of expression, due process, or equal protection.

Given the text of the opinion in the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District this was a solid legal decision on the part of the Court. Tinker did, after all, hold that school administrators could violate the constitutional and civil rights of students for the purpose of maintaining order and preventing disruption of the normal operations of the school.  As disruption in the form of violence was likely, Mckeown’s ruling, displeasing as it is, was right based upon earlier Court precedents.

It’d be better if the 9th Circuit had undertaken to decide that, even in the case of minors in school, “Hecklers’ Vetoes” are unconstitutional. Sadly, the 9th Circuit and Judge McKeown is particular has a trend in holding strictly to Tinker. Expecting a significant policy change isn’t really realistic.

A Small Thought Experiment

What actually happened was that during the school’s 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, a Hispanic Assistant Principal, Miguel Rodriguez demanded that some White students remove their shirts which had the US Flag on them because Hispanic students were likely to become violent towards them based upon both current and previous behavior by those Hispanic students.

That was not a violation of any the White students’ rights.

What could have happened in an alternate reality is that during that 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration a Caucasian Assistant Principal, John Smith demanded that some Hispanic students remove their shirts which had the Mexican Flag on them because White students were likely to become violent towards them based upon both current and previous behavior by those White students.

Care to wager whether or not that would have been a violation those Hispanic students’ rights?

A Final Consideration

It might actually be that Tinker sets forth the correct constitutional rule in this case. Schools do have special responsibilities to educate their students and to protect them both against violence and against disruption of their educations. Thus a school might thus have and require the discretion to decide that prevention of disruption, even at the cost of suppressing speech, is acceptable.

That, however, does not address the fact that in parts of California it is utterly unsafe for White ,American students to wear or display our nation’s flag while at school due to the reasonable fear that Hispanic students will physically attack them for doing so. Worse, the only way that the schools can- or is willing protect them is by restricting their freedoms rather than punishing and/or reeducating the violent Hispanics.

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

Obama’s Insecurities

Obama InsecureOne can tell a great deal about an individual by who or what they fear. Even more than love or desire, fear is a telling marker of one’s beliefs and the content of one’s character. Insecurities make the man as it were.

Obama’s insecurities and who and what he fears should themselves strike a chord of fear or, at least, concern in hearts of the American people. This is because Obama fears us, not our enemies, and his actions clearly show this to be case.

Late Friday, December 20. 2013 the Obama Regime moved to prevent a federal judge in California from ruling on the constitutionality of warrantless surveillance programs that they’ve been using throughout Obama’s tenure as POTUS. They claim that, despite all the recent exposures of National Security Agency domestic spying, litigating the case in an open court would jeopardize state secrets.

That’s a very telling position for the same regime that strove for years to have Muslim terrorists removed from Gitmo and tried in US federal courts, despite constant warnings from Congress, the military, and the intelligence services that doing so would would jeopardize state secrets and not be in the interests of American national security.

Obviously, Obama has no fear of Muslim terrorists but a great deal of fear of the American people. He’s seemingly only insecure about state secret pertaining to his regime’s covert surveillance of the American people.

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

Greasing The Slope

Slippery SlopeThe Slippery Slope is generally considered to be a fallacy. It is an argument in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another, prior event without any providing any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between the eventual event and the one being argued against but no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed or enacted in their turn.

In general I agree. The Slippery Slope is a fallacy and, much more often than not, sloppy thinking. But what if we’re greasing the slope as it were?

Many laws, especially those dealing with sexual partnering, sexual acts, and sexual relationships are wholly or primarily based upon societal mores and cultural “prejudices.” Many of those laws that once had valid scientific rationales at one time have lost those rationals due to medical advances. Others had and still have outcome-based basis in the effects such things have upon the titular children of such unions, yet those negative consequences have been ignored in favor of a new ideology.

As you chip away at those laws that are based upon societal mores and cultural “prejudices” or apply new societal mores and cultural “prejudices” to existing situations you can make it so that each increase in permissiveness makes the next incremental increase that much more likely through normalizing or “main streaming” what was once unthought-of, abhorrent, and/or outre.

Western, especially American, jurisprudence also has to be taken into account because it’s inherently based upon Common Law and under the US interpretation of such court cases are decided based upon prior argument, precedents, and judicial pronouncements rather than solely on legislative enactments. in other words, arguments and verdicts in prior, similar court cases can be compelling or even binding precedents in current and future cases.

The Slope As It Was, Is, and Will Probably Be

Past Present Future
Miscegenation Sodomy Gay Marriage Polygamy
Fornication Incest
Adultery Pedophilia

Progress Is Opinion. Progression Is Mathematics

The battle to overturn the laws against miscegenation was long and hard-fought but it was victorious. But many of the same arguments that were successfully used Loving v. Virginia to end those “Jim Crow” statutes were later used in Lawrence v. Texas to abolish or make largely enforceable the various laws against: Sodomy, Fornication, Adultery, and violent sexual fetishism (BDSM). In turn, arguments from both Loving and Lawrence have been used to legalize Gay Marriage in various states and to overturn DOMA at the federal level.

Each set of court cases added their levels of grease to the slope, making it increasingly slippery. Hence, there is no logical reason not to predict that this progression will continue and that these increasingly entrenched arguments and precedents will be used to legalizing polygamy, incest, and some forms and/or levels of pedophilia.


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