We must cease this senseless war on marijuana and this unconscionable undermining of marriage law. The opposition (primarily) comes from the religious sector who attempts to make the morality argument. In both cases the proposal set forth is that both activities are moral evils and as such any measure to prevent (including willful law breaking not civil disobedience) them is considered heroic. The fault lies in that the arguments are based on appeals to emotion and authority, not logically rational discussion. Indeed on these issues it would appear that there are gross gaps and severe lacking of any rational reason for prohibition and mountains of impartial evidence on why both activities, under the social contract theory law is based on, should be permitted. It is the willingness of the populace to buy into the fallacies of the prohibitionists and the willful blindness of the consequences inherent in allowing those arguments to hold sway at the ballot box. We must, to progress socially and individually, see past these scam arguments to the facts and reason and carry that into the voting booth. Thoughts or comments?
Category Archives: Supreme Court
The Neighbors
So to create art I just need to do what, in the writing world, would amount to at best plagiarism and at worst/most current series (i.e. random photos in black and white and the infamous “The Neighbors” series) lacking in any semblance of creativity, method (apart from post-production apologies), or even remote interest (apart from those who would call anything “art” without distinguishing Rembrandt from an amateur photographer who learned photoshop and random camera settings and got lucky enough to find an attorney who believes ALL photos are speech, presumably even child pornography). Not everything is art, not everyone with a camera is an artist, and even if he had produced either, not all art or any type of speech is supposed to be protected without some common sense restrictions (which unfortunately the court failed to provide).
Thus no crying “FIRE” in a crowded theater or producing work that is neither original or ethically created (e.g. he could have easily walked across the road and asked for permission, the fact that he avoided even thinking this way, i.e. that his “subjects” were people with their own rights and that he was surprised there was controversy over a man peeping through his window to take photos without so much as the common decency to talk to these Neighbors he was purportedly so “fascinated” by, is indicative of his knowledge that he could not get permission so he would just take what he wanted and call it art, AKA theft with a nice big loophole). Even his most “creative” series, “Faggots”, is inconsistent with his thought process in that he DID feel the need to get permission for these photos but not from the families of the criminals he reproduced (presumably a delightful experience for them to have this family history republished in the digital age, so it can now be accessible to all).
In short, when you can be easily classified as a peeping tom, your most labor intensive work is photographing what other people actually DID create (i.e. photographing other people’s forensic work, which were it possible to copyright such work would be illegal plagiarism; as it stands it is simply clearly plagiarized work) or even photographing men in suits (save the money, Walmart will do the same thing cheaper), you are surprised people objected to you doing what you had the courtesy to do in a couple of previous works that were relevant, and you have the remarkable ability to convince people that third rate amateur photography of things that require no special skills, equipment (using a $20 camera I was able to produce a black and white photo of a man in a suit that gave more clarity than his displayed work, in under 10 seconds), conveys no meaning at all on its face (look at “Madonna and Child” and the meaning is clear instantly), or are even interesting until you are told why you SHOULD be impressed, you are indeed an artist. A Con Artist.
An Aside- The attorney and her arguments in court for Svenson are as equally artistic as his work (i.e. she weaseled her way around he law by solely utilizing the loophole of a lack of a clear definition of what “art” is and ensuring her arguments relied solely on the letter, not both the letter and spirit of the law, AKA she got paid quite a bit to fight against those who desire some at least partial privacy, misconstrued words in both case law where she was losing due to the Supreme Court’s rulings against most of her arguments, and statutory tort law which is so ambiguous as to be laughable, a practical joke can be considered a tort). Come on people, not EVERYTHING is art and photography has to be pretty unique to ever qualify as art (the viewer interprets, the artist should never have to explain beyond basic principles of what style used, not meaning. No sane person would fathom a world where the artist, not the participant, defines what is and what isn’t art. The alternative is to equate the people that produce child pornography, this article (cute how the interview gives little in way of useful information, is extremely biased, and requires the reader to investigate every swath of this man’s work), and the poems of every 3rd grader as art, just as meaningful and artistic as Michelangelo, John Locke, and Robert Frost.
“hdc77494” you are absolutely right. Street Photography CAN be artistic; his work was neither Street Photography nor could any rational person (“Faggots” apparently was an amateur and vastly useless, unless producing the Sears or JCPenny catalogue, piece of sociological pseudo-experiment which he was neither qualified to perform or draw ANY conclusions from) think he is an artist unless they have been swayed by his claims and his attorney’s assertion that he really is an artist, so he should be allowed to take pictures which any corporation would have mountains of paperwork to fill out just to look at regular people, with no restrictions, no retractions, no apologies, not even a nod that he had done anything wrong by doing “Neighbors”, just a well-funded lawyer against a family that, because they don’t print pictures of random objects and have no flowery words to describe it as “art” when they photograph other people’s work (in black and white, and for some reason it’s art?) while reaping the monetary benefits thereof, are only modestly represented. Clean and simple, this is not art, it took no skill (by his own admission), it violated privacy unnecessarily and continued to do so, most of it is plagiarism, and his hiring of an attorney who doesn’t have the legal knowledge to make a statement that doesn’t patently say, “I support any photography as art, even highly unethical and/or illegal photography. Oh, and by the way I intend to use this case to make no distinction between Picasso and John Wayne Gayce’s work.” to the press and all of America. So good show both of you, you have taken freedom of speech and turned it into an absolute right, no matter who it infringes upon or who it hurts! By the way, a decent artist would have gotten permission from his NEIGHBORS or at least removed the photos when he found out that his unethical action was causing severe distress due not to morality, but a common set of decent human standards.
Addendum- the argument has been raised that no identifiable faces were shown. The entire exhibit does show profile faces but faces aren’t the ONLY way we identify people. Clothing, the clear picture of the dog, the general knowledge of Svenson’s apartment location, the photos of the particular style of apartment, precedence (Supreme Court ruled numerous times that what happens in one’s own apartment/house/trailer is afforded to the occupant and that invasion by any means, without probable cause or a warrant, is a violation of one’s right to privacy. Reading through the court documents, it is clear that Svenson could afford a more well known and better quality attorney due to his higher income. In other words, the “Neighbors” never really stood a chance against him, thus no further appeal, they cost money!), furnishings, actions commonly performed and the familiarity of the neighborhood (apart from Svenson), and many other factors can easily identify without a face. The names of the neighbors are also a matter of public record due to the suit (minor) and the Svenson generated media attention (major source). Besides, reason would say that one should never capture another’s image, voice, writing, etc. without permission. ALL of that is Intellectual Property and just as one would not want their car used without permission (physical property) and it is a crime to do so; so to would someone want to protect what they and they alone can produce (Intellectual Property). The difference is the laws governing Intellectual property and modern technology are several decades behind the laws governing physical property.
Ref: Svenson Interview
The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
These past few weeks have been rather eventful though hardly novel. A quick review of the best and worst moments might add a little perspective to the pulse of the United States and the world.
The Good: Not unexpectedly the good comes from a change to once dearly treasured (though not backed by solid research) traditions. Oregon, that great trail of a state (sorry, couldn’t resist the old game reference), has elected a bisexual woman to the highest office of the state, Governor. Though the election has long since past, this woman is preparing to enter her first term as the Honorable Governor of the State of Oregon. Whether this is her only term is debatable, but one thing is sure, she is the first person to open up to the press about this highly personal issue (odd how heterosexual people don’t have to justify their qualifications for office with detailed descriptions of their bedroom activities) and to stand behind her clear beliefs (her platform is well-defined, somewhat partisan though no more than anyone else, and was well enumerated to the people prior to the election on numerous occasions). She is the first lawfully elected Governor that has stated she is bisexual and unabashedly stands behind it. (Before I get a note, here is an addendum: Though she was elected as Secretary of State, she assumes her office lawfully and can thus be considered to be elected to the position of Governor, should the Governor resign, die, etc. as part of the Constitution of Oregon which the people retain.)
Why it’s good: In the LGBTQIQ (Political correctness for the recognized orientations- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexed, and Questioning- Intersex includes things like hermaphroditism, gender dysphoria, and other conditions in which the “parts” as it were are not matching up to the gender a person identifies with. The 2 “Q’s” are best left to the experts(PFLAG) to explain.) bisexualism is seen as the “black sheep” as it were of the community. Gays typically view them as closeted homosexuals and heterosexuals view them as simply promiscuous. A cursory search of the social networks can easily confirm this. Currently the United States seems to vacillate between approving and disapproving of these classifications, but that has nothing to do with the good here. The good is that, for once, the system worked precisely as it should: a candidate expressed her viewpoints and plan of action clearly and concisely during the campaign and started her term as Governor with what appears to be an honest and open administration, the people elected her and soon she will assume office, despite the hemming and hawing of the Right wingers across the nation whose argument against her is only her bisexuality (her platform would have been an easier target since it does all the things they don’t want done, but hey, I’m not their strategist). Her being bisexual is something that shows promise for that state, not because of the orientation issue, but because she was honest about her life (as far as is possible for us to know) and was willing to run with a label that has never been widely approved of attached to her. She did not run away, hide an affair (Gay Governor of New Jersey resigned for this), or try to make it look like anything more than what it is nor did she apologize for her being her. This is the good, hope that politicians might see this and take heed, and that we have a Governor willing to run as she is.
The Bad: The bad is probably readily apparent, but with all the terrible things going on it may have gotten lost in the woodwork: Obama’s War Powers Proposal and Congress’s Response. Essentially it seems that the only way Congress will cross Party boundaries is with their desire to do absolutely nothing. The whole story amazed me but can be broken down quite simply: Boehner and other Hawks in Congress requested Obama do something about ISIS (because using their ability to declare war would require work and would inch them closer to the Constitutional powers they are given). Obama, in a bid to have a moderate strategy came up with a vague but more potent version of 2001’s war powers. Republicans and Hawk Democrats complained it was too mild. Democrats and Dove republicans claimed it was too strong. Both agreed to decline the powers and did NOTHING more. They are the only branch that can declare war but for 14 years they have relied on Executive Orders authorizing military action (the Executive’s version of war-in essence it’s all the death of war, but doesn’t pay our soldiers wartime pay, which is substantially larger than current pay and can be roughly equated to hazardous duty pay or overtime, albeit VERY roughly, and as a bonus it doesn’t require Congress to do their job or put their own necks on the chopping block as it were) and the good old-fashioned, tried and true method of “blame someone else so I can get elected again”.
Why it’s bad: Why its bad should be a little evident already and requires little explanation: 1)Congress declares war and there’s a reason for that- the people are represented in Congress (ideally) and since military action of any kind involves ALL of America, the people should at least be consulted prior to sending their sons and daughters to die. 2)War pays more both in the life and death of a soldier as is commensurate with the dangers and risks inherent in war (or ANY military action beyond EXTREMELY limited engagements-2 weeks tops) and the trauma to entire communities when they lose loved ones. It also provides more supplies to our troops and comes with international restrictions like the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Convention that protect our troops and engender world support (and that we are not currently observing). 3)MILITARY ENGAGEMENTS ARE WAR- excepting in certain circumstances (limited engagements that limit exposure). A famous line from Shakespeare says it all, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” or my version, “You can call a turd a life-vest but if you do, I’m never sailing with you!” Take your pick. finally 4)The three branches of government should all work together, checked by their equals through the Constitution, NOT bickering like children, NOT expanding their own powers beyond what they are lawfully or even ethically entitled to, and NOT IGNORING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! It amazes me how Congress didn’t think to go back to their districts, ask the voters what they want (war or not war) and then return to Washington to REPRESENT their constituents. They didn’t even look at the polls, just their own desires. Tho I will not argue it here in full, if a government (which governs by consent of the governed) is ignoring the very people it is duty-bound to protect, it loses its authority to govern.
AND NOW THE UGLY:
The Ugly is a picture everyone should be familiar with, and ashamed of. Vote by your convictions, not Red/Blue, Dems/Reps, N/S or any other reason.
How far we’ve come or “Welcome Back McCarthy”
A little background information: John McCain on CodePink
First a little background information (for those of you who passed 5th grade civics class I apologize for the review; it’s more for our illustrious representatives): The opening to the founding document and the highest law in the land begins with “We the People,” includes numerations of rights assured to the people (including Freedom of Speech and Expression), and has been interpreted by one of our greatest Presidents as meaning a nation, “for the People, by the People, and of the People.” Even our Declaration of Independence describes the fundamental principles on which liberty is founded and includes, in part, a description of legitimate government as being, “Government by consent of the governed,” and assures us of the right to alter or abolish any unjust government that has become so oppressive as to be tyrannical in nature and practice. Above all though, these documents make it clear that the entire purpose of the legislature (state and/or federal) is to listen to the constituency and act according to what the people want (while protecting the minority from abuse).
Now the current way things work: The legislature is elected by infusing commercials with misinformation and relying on the comparatively tiny amount of voters that participate. Once in office, the majority of them rely on “Campaign Contributions” from special interest groups while conveniently ignoring the pleas of their people (or at least the ones without money).
All of this leads me to the group CodePink, a women’s anti-war group that frequents congressional hearings (their right as citizens) and are routinely thrown out for “disruptions” no different than Republican disruptions in a Democratic congress and vice versa. A good deal of them are Mr. McCain’s constituents, yet because of their unpopular opinion, he calls them scum. Sen. Feinstein (D) threw them out of a CIA confirmation hearing because of less than audible disruptions: Audio of Hearing and no Congress or Executive has given credence to this large movement (a very poignant fallback to the difficulties of the Suffragettes).
If the problem is not evident by now, let me spell it out. While I may agree with CodePink and what they are trying to do, that point is irrelevant. I disagree with Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and many other bigoted groups, but they still have the right to express their opinions (so long as they do not interfere with others self-same rights) and should be heard in the context of their overall populace representation. That is what Freedom of Speech means! I may not like what you say (or I may support it on different levels) but everyone has the right to be heard. Government employees at every level are duty bound to hear and give credence to their citizenry. If they feel it is interrupting their important “business” (you know, bilking the public and so forth), their responsibility would be to offer truly public hearings that would allow those voters to express themselves and give the legislature (Executives and Justices as well) the full picture, regardless of personal opinions.
So let CodePink speak, at the very least, with equal opportunity as the wealthy special interest groups. Their message is sound and agreed with by 66% of American (27% Approve): American Current War Support. And their message is not in least bit unsound: CodePink. Yet the opinions of the citizens (unless they pander and flatter to those with money and/or power) are ignored even though Congress works far less than anyone in any country (not counting their “vacation” which come out of your taxes). To verify, follow this link (the blue days are work days and Congress is paid even when they don’t work): Congress work days and what they spent their time on (bear in mind some activities overlap and were done at the same Time: Congressional Breakdown. This is the President’s priorities (golf is more important than poverty apparently): Presidential time. Finally, the Supreme Court works 5 hours per day(End of October to beginning of June, excluding federal holidays, can choose which cases to accept, recesses frequently and takes an enormous amount of time to be even heard and thus works a maximum of 143 days or 715 total hours: Work days Supreme Court Calculator. The point being that no elected official works enough to even logically say they can’t listen to their constituency.
CodePink deserves to be heard and McCain’s comments are indicative of how Congress feels and by extension how the government feels about our populace. They are so disconnected sitting in their golden mansions an deaf ears that they use the guise of democracy (which we have none nor are we headed towards it again) and placate the people with plenty of gadgets, games, and make sure no one notices the clear violations of the social contract (for example, several wars that are killing our young people in droves but few efforts are being made to change things because as long as we have “Candy Crush” we can ignore our attempt to occupy the world and keep our populace ignorant by reducing education, science, etc.). If we were to educate our young and old people we might understand CodePink, and at least have rational debates on the many viewpoints out there.
I fear, however, that we have past this point. The income divide is too great and the people too indolent to make the changes necessary. I encourage CodePink and any of those who share the beliefs of a free, peaceful, and united nation to join together in arms to set up and defend a nation founded and sealed on truth, justice, liberty, equality, and brotherhood (sisterhood, etc.). We have been oppressed and insulted by the wealthy rulers long enough, We must join together and exercise our right to revolt: Declaration of Independence. If a new and better nation that listens and addresses your complaints, concerns, ideas, etc. sounds like a place you would want to be a part of, feel free to contact me. If you believe we can save this current United States, please contact me for a rational discourse. I am always looking for new ways of looking at things.
Foundational Documents:
Bad Breaking
First-some house-cleaning I am going to start doing some investigative reporting along with the op-ed pieces everyone is used to. Hopefully this will interest and invigorate everyone. Now on to business.
The TV show “Breaking Bad” recently featured methamphetamine that had been colored for marketing purposes. In a classic life imitating art a form of methamphetamine is now being produced called “blue meth”. True to its name, this form of meth is methamphetamine tinted with methylene blue. Other colored forms of meth have been on the market including pink meth which was colored using red dye #5. Blue meth however is making people sick. This is because methylene blue (Unlike red dye #5 which is approved for human consumption) is used as a stain in labs and a potent disinfectant. The makers of meth likely used this rather than the FDA approved blue because bulk methlyene blue is cheaper and easier to procure (food coloring isn’t cheap), however blaming the makers is an exercise in futility. Makers are interested in the same thing as every business man, profit, and their product isn’t exactly safe to begin with. Encouraging them and giving them ideas (like coloring a dangerous drug to make it more appealing to their customers and potential customers) should be something we frown upon, not something we include in our TV programming. The question here is not whether or not “Breaking Bad” was irresponsible or even liable for making an existing problem worse (the last thing meth needs is to make its users MORE sick), but rather whether or not we should prohibit programs from showing content that they know encourages illegal and dangerous activities. It is a fundamental question that has been debated in the halls of congress and in the courts. Both seem to agree that every case is different (with a few standards, like not shouting “fire” where no fire exists or inciting people to riot, etc.) but both desire a standard for what speech is protected and what is not. So what do you think? How far should free speech go before being prohibited or even censored to some extent?
James Bianco, Valeyard
Sovereignty
Wouldn’t it be nice to have the ability to decide whether or not you wanted legal action taken against you? Unbeknownst to most people, the States and their employees (Governor, Lt. Governor, Sec. of State, etc.) as well as most federal officers (President, Congress and Supreme Court, which to respond to my Google+ comment yes it is odd for such a liberal judge to issue a stay outide of her power, but she also receives a large contribution from the mormons and the Supreme Court is no stranger to seizing unlawful and unethical power. As well as the Cabinet of states and the President which can claim sovereignty) all have this ability as well as immunity from all “minor” offenses (misdemeanors, which include Notary fraud and bribes under $5000). Justices of our Supreme Court can even claim more power (the Supreme Court’s power is specifically enumerated in he Constitution but since Marbury v. Madison they have been adding on powers under the guise of “Judicial Review”) AND has the ability to hold in contempt anyone who disagrees with them. They have little interest in justice (see Snyder v. Phelps and listen to the arguments of the justices as well as the announcement of their opinion and you can see their bigotry and complete ignorance of jurisprudence) and often times vote either to appease the public (DOMA ruling came only after a Gallup poll that said 73% of approved of repealing it) or to put themselves in the limelight because they know people forget about them (Snyder v. Phelps was issued not in the interest of protecting free speech, it was issued because Westboro Baptist “Church” was constantly in the news for their atrocious and repugnant behavior as well as Ms. Phelps complete moronic arguments in the Arizona courts). Congress passes law that benefit their pocket books and the President has no courage to challenge any of it. Yet we, as Americans, allow them to continue their behavior and give them infinite “Get Out Of Jail Free” cards with not one qualm. We refuse to hold them accountable (STILL doing the Electoral College and not direct vote), and live in fear of criticizing them or even being civilly disobedient.
What do you think? Should Sovereignty still exist and if so why? Should the people hold everyone in office accountable to their oath to defend the Constitution and represent the will of the people or are things working out just fine as they are? What do you think?
A NOTE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH IS NOT PART OF ANY BAPTIST DENOMINATION AND HAS BEEN DENOUNCED BY ALL OF THEM FOR THEIR MESSAGE OF HATE AND IGNORANCE. THEIR ACTIONS (PRIMARILY PROTESTS AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES), IF EVALUATED BY THE IRS WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE THEM FROM A 501(c)3 (CHURCHES, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, ETC) to a 503(b) (SOCIAL CLUBS, AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS). THEIR STATUS AS A CHURCH IS DUE TO MS. SNYDER (THEIR “ATTORNEY” WHO HAS NUMEROUS BAR COMPLAINTS FOR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR).
James Bianco, Valeyard
How the Judiciary Failed us today both in Utah and in the Supreme Court
It is curious how the Mormons, whose educational system is less than reputable, and who still maintain a doctrine of polygamy could be so sly. Calling upon one of the few Justices whose ignorance is only outweighed by her inappropriate mixing of her religious beliefs with civil law, the State of Utah (one could hardly argue that it is anything less than a state whose official, but unofficial, religion is Mormonism. A story, by the way that’s good for a laugh if one is up to it, but I digress.) asked Justice Sotomayor for an emergency stay halting all gay marriages until the District Court of Appeals rules whether Gay marriage is constitutional. She, being the ever prudent jurist (who has apparently forgotten that the Court has already ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional) decided to grant the stay until the Appeals court decides. Thankfully, the Appeals Court judge actually was paying attention when the DOMA decision was handed down (I believe Ms. Sotomayor was having a mild stroke that month and just signed the dissent to satisfy her HEAVILY religious and conservative lobbyists-follow her paper trail and it reads like Jerry Falwell’s memoirs) placed the ruling under a sort of Fast-Track. So what can we draw from this? The Judicial system was created for one purpose and one purpose alone, to handle disputes when the law is unclear or outright broken. Contrary to Ms. Sotomayor and several other judges’ opinions, it was NOT created to impede the progress of law (until AFTER an initial ruling and then it should not interfere until it reverses that ruling), not to create laws, and certainly not to stop something that has stood numerous appeals and affects only one group of people (gays) in a positive way. Judges, and especially Justices, continue to build their power, issuing their own “executive orders” as it were (stays, injunctions, etc.) and issuing them based only on personal preference, not any educated interpretation of the law. We have seen this happen time and again in famous cases like Brown v. The Board of Education (Stays on the decision to integrate were issued until the Supreme Court could get their grubby mits on it, depriving blacks of what was their right at the time of the stays, as an appeals court had ruled). What is worse is that if we dislike the President and his executive orders, we can impeach him. We cannot impeach sitting Judges, even when they are so old and senile that their decisions are ignored by the others at best, but still become part of case law. We can only wait until they all die and then elect a President to place competent jurists on the bench, and elect a senate that will confirm them.
In short, doesn’t it seem that rather than protecting liberty and allowing the courts to rule in their jurisdiction (Ms. Sotomayor’s decision was WELL outside of the powers enumerated in the US Constitution), our courts have become places where the richer your lawyer, the better your chances, and the more you belong to whatever sociological group the judge does, the better your chances of winning? Does justice rule in our courts? What do you think?
Welcome Back! Part 1 of “The Ideal Government”
I apologize for the delay but I have been contemplating a solution to the problems inherent in our government. At the moment our government is inefficient, overpaid, not listening to their constituency, spying on their own people as well as their own allies, and has on numerous occasions threatened the very existence of our Union. In the Senate they have misused the power of unlimited debate to simply block the passage of laws that the people desire (Filibuster). In the House they have refused to use their power to remove elected and/or appointed officials who have transgressed the public trust (Impeachment). The laws passed rarely reflect the desire of the people and those elected are rarely qualified to do what a public SERVANT should do. Our elected officials are wealthy and indulgent while the average American is middle class and quickly losing all they own to the wealthy. Those in power have made sure that power is retained by the wealthy and prohibit those who represent the interests of the middle class from possibly winning an election (winning an election is directly related to the amount of money put into a campaign, rather than platform or qualifications). Watching Congressional Hearings and speeches is a cavalcade of idiocy. Congress refuses to do what we pay them handsomely for with most speeches given to an empty house and debates are nearly non-existent. Congress does not alone share in this damnable indictment. Our President ignores and acts directly opposite to the people, delegates authority to his bureaucracy who creates law (regulations carry the force of law) not based on true science, but on those they pay to create the conclusions they wish. The Department of Defense, the IRS, INS, CIA, FBI, US Marshalls, NSA, FDA, and most importantly the DEA all infringe on liberty unnecessarily, harass the populace continually, and refuse to listen to science, unless it involves groups like the MPAA (who rely on obscure and unwritten rules. Literally, they just watch a movie and make an arbitrary decision) or special interests who pay to have their “science” justify a particular regulation. The President has become a neutered dog and parrots whatever sound bite sounds good. Rather than lead our nation, he allows ignorant and bloated morons whose pay and benefits are NOT commensurate with their qualifications and who rely on inaccurate data to lead us to fear everything from Marijuana to trans fats (Its amazing how both have been around forever and never caused massive problems until Bloomberg (Sieg Heil Bloomberg!) banned them and now just looking at trans fats can cause a heart attack)(Also, just to clarify, neither trans fats that are in even soda pop and marijuana, which the AMA and numerous other truly scientific agencies have approved in its smoked form as a medicine and is SUBSTANTIALLY less dangerous than the legal drug Alcohol).
Finally, the Judiciary has overstepped its bounds in that they have claimed the right of judicial review without any good reason (read Marbury v Madison) and without approval of the people. They have created and vetoed laws which is not their right. They have ignored the Court of the People, prohibited representation to attorneys which only they can license even when representation by a non lawyer is desired. They have prohibited private criminal prosecution despite it working in every other civilised country and exists now only in despotic regimes. They make access to the court and records expensive and difficult to obtain for all but the wealthy. Judges are corrupt, preferring to stay with the old boys club where they listen and give deference to anyone with a JD, even when the other party has a valid case. Judges do not understand or know the law and attorneys bend the rules and are allowed to. Any question of a judge or attorney will place someone in contempt. Judges are bloated, ignorant, incapable, overpowered, overpaid, and refuse to apply the law equally, even to the point of discrimination.
This is a short indictment of our system and so through the next few weeks I will show you how to fix this. Perhaps with any luck we can call a Constitutional Convention and fix this system that is slowly but surely destroying this nation I love. Let me know what you think would be part of a better government!
The Valeyard 