“Hate” Is a Useless Adjective – A Needless Form of Thought Crime

Do we need the distinction “hate” when dealing with violent crime?  Media amplification, maybe?  A “hushpuppy,” for the politically correct?  A first step toward “thought crime?”

Psychopaths, and sociopaths, outlaws, and gang members may not hate their victims at all.  Does that make their crimes less heinous?  How about crimes against loved ones, are they “love” crimes?  How about any other state of mind?  Have we developed mind-reading, telepathy, or other means to know what is in the head of a criminal when they commit offenses?  I say, forget useless adjectives and apply what we already have:  laws.

Laws distinguish first degree murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide, based on circumstances, threat, and intent. The term “aggravated” is added to crimes based on severity, and intent. So, we have legal tools to separate “accidental,” “incidental,” “intentional,” and “self-defense.”  Types and severity of prescribed ranges of sentences are graduated based on degree, and intent.

“Hate crimes” seem to be intentional to me and therefore “first degree,” or “aggravated.”

Verbal and menacing threats are crimes, “assaults,” misdemeanors.  What parts of so-called verbal “hate crimes” are not covered by current laws?

The ultimate punishments for thought crimes are the double jeopardy of federal “civil rights” prosecution, and triple jeopardy of civil suits for the same event.  The costs in time and money will ruin most people, even if they are exonerated.

Watch Out Memorial Day Weekend Drivers! Texas Police Abuse a Little-Known Traffic Law to Trap Motorists

It is Memorial Day weekend.  You are going to the lake or to visit family or friends. You are not a novice driver.  You have been around for quite a while and you know the traffic laws. You try to avoid traffic tickets by staying close to the limits of speed and safety.

You also know that some towns along multi-lane highways are known as “speed traps.”  The usual speed limit is 60 – 70 MPH; the speed limit drops by 10 – 15 MPH at the city limits.  The local police sit there and write ticket after ticket when motorists miss the sign.  Most drivers know this; radar guns only snare the unwary.

But what about this sneaky trick:  Ticket drivers going at or below the posted limit, who do not know the specifics of one Texas law.

  • You are driving on a tollway with a posted speed limit of 80 miles per hour;
  • Up ahead, you see a police car pulled completely off the side of the highway;
  • You notice there is no accident or car pulled over;
  • You wonder why they have all their lights flashing;
  • You slow down to the speed limit or below as you pass the police car;
  • Suddenly the police car pulls out behind you and makes you pull over.
  • You get a $100+ ticket for a traffic law you never knew about.

I never knew the specifics of this law, but I intuitively moved over to the next lane when passing a police traffic stop, accident, or other mishap, and slowed to the speed limit when I was going faster.

The trap is when you STAY IN THE RIGHT LANE.  That’s right, the rules for passing an authorized emergency vehicle with lights flashing require you to move to the next lane to the left, or slow to 20 MPH below the posted speed.

I have no problem with this law where and accident or traffic stop is in progress.  My problem is when there is no reason for the vehicle to be stopped there except to fine motorists.

Why would a police car be parked, flashing lights on, beside the road, with a radar gun pointed out the window?  If this were incidental, don’t you think the officer would issue a warning to an unsuspecting driver going the speed limit or slightly below?  The real reason appears to be money.

To me this is a scurrilous abuse of power.  Until or unless this is remedied, do not fall into the trap.

FYI:  Texas Transportation Code § 545.157.

(a) This section applies only to the following vehicles:

(1) a stationary authorized emergency vehicle using visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702;(

2) a stationary tow truck using equipment authorized by Section 547.305(d); and

(3) a Texas Department of Transportation vehicle not separated from the roadway by a traffic control channelizing device and using visual signals that comply with the standards and specifications adopted under Section 547.105.

(b) On approaching a vehicle described by Subsection (a), an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:

(1) vacate the lane closest to the vehicle when driving on a highway with two or more lanes traveling in the direction of the vehicle; or

(2) slow to a speed not to exceed:

(A) 20 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit when the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour or more; or

(B) five miles per hour when the posted speed limit is less than 25 miles per hour.

(c) A violation of this section is:

(1) a misdemeanor punishable under Section 542.401;

(2) a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $500 if the violation results in property damage; or

(3) a Class B misdemeanor if the violation results in bodily injury.

(d) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code or the Penal Code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or under both sections.

(e) In this section:

(1) “Tow truck” means a vehicle that:

(A) has been issued a permit under Subchapter C, Chapter 2308, Occupations Code; and

(B) is operated by a person licensed under Subchapter D, Chapter 2308, Occupations Code.

(2) “Traffic control channelizing device” means equipment used to warn and alert drivers of conditions created by work activities in or near the traveled way, to protect workers in a temporary traffic control zone, and to guide drivers and pedestrians safely.  The term includes a traffic cone, tubular marker, vertical panel, drum, barricade, temporary raised island, concrete or cable barrier, guardrail, or channelizer.

Is the FBI One Person? – A New Director Will Carry the Baton

I am no staff opinion writer for the Washington Post, but all the squabble over Comey’s firing dazzles me.  Was Comey the only person investigating?  Who is running the store now?  Nobody?  Isn’t the FBI still investigating?  The FBI is not one person, is it?

Will the new director or deputy director stop the investigation?  At best, changing directors or putting his deputy in charge is a very temporary delay.  Won’t Comey’s backup or replacement take the reins?  I am no lawyer, but passing the baton is not the same as stopping the race.

Doesn’t an obstruction block the way?  I do not see anything stopping.  Isn’t the point of all these inquiries to find the facts?  Don’t we really want the results?

As to Sessions’ actions, why don’t we see what he was asked regarding Mr. Comey?  Just as Comey was not the FBI, Comey’s dismissal was not dismissal of the FBI investigation.

Re the recusal:  No attorney general could operate within the critics’ broad theory that Sessions’ recusal of matters relating to the investigation, includes matters relating to anyone in the FBI.  I guess the Justice Department could add all sorts of knotty issues to the newly appointed special counsel’s agenda, conjoining the various conspiracy theories.  That way Robert Mueller’s name can fill the newsways for a while.

What I detect is a strong appetite for the process, per se.  The news media have a voracious appetite for spectacular “content.”  What good are results versus chances to publicly speculate, ruminate, accuse, and read minds?  Who could pass up  opportunities to castigate, lambast, and assassinate national reputations? – oh dear, the excitement, my heart, I think I’ve got the “vapuz.”

Swamp Thing – Voters Witness Their Betrayal

If you voted for President Trump this November, the Republicans in Congress are betraying you.  The Representatives in the House are not representing you, and the Senators are subverting your revolution.  For the first time in decades, they have the reins of power.  Instead of working together to get things straight, they are hobbling the direct, clear reforms you voted for.

The denizens of the Swamp cleverly disguise themselves as cohorts of “the people” during the election.  Yet, as the days pass, and the pages turn, they throw off their masks and camouflage, to reveal themselves as opponents of your wishes, creatures of the same old “Black Lagoon.”

In 2016, America, so tired of being oppressed by twenty percent of our citizens, finally stands up and says “enough.”  Citizens show up in droves and vote to end the politically correct, power broker era; but they do not get what they bargained for.  Instead, they get lip service to transformation, and business as usual.

It seems they are as naïve as the characters in horror movies; they think their hero kills the creature, but here it is as vicious as ever.  They think their only enemies are their obvious enemies, and their allies are their allies.  They are so wrong.  Instead, they learn that their enemies are still their enemies, and their “allies” are out for themselves.  They have no allies; they are abandoned to the voracious creatures who hide in plain sight.  How can we call them cynical, when the truth bears them out?

Those smarmy liars and deceivers who sit smugly on their thrones are thumbing their noses at the plebiscite.  They stymie the movement President Trump champions; they quibble and dribble away opportunities that have waited decades for fruition.

GOP stands for “Got Our Power.”  They need to hear that we see them for what they really are:  cowardly traitors, dreading social media.  Harsh?  What do we call those who subvert their nation for any other reasons?  In this era of virtual lynching, real heroes shun the battle for leadership.  Why?  Because it is suicide to try to lead an army of disloyal, reticent, malingering, uncommitted political egos into real moral combat.  They will not represent the bulk of America; they refuse to restrain the unremitting, minority’s demands on the majority.

Do not believe what they say or what they say they do – challenge or replace them.  Now is time for real revolution.

 

Children Threatened in Public School Classrooms – Federal Laws Deny Them Protection from Disruption

Civilized societies set behavioral norms, and prescribe consequences for violating those norms.  For example, it is not okay to harm another person without cause; it is not alright to harass someone, or “disturb the peace.”  Families can set broader boundaries inside their homes, but not in public.  However, sadly misguided federal laws and rules subject public school children and their teachers to violent, threatening, disturbing, unpredictable, disruptive behavior every day, in the name of “equal education.”  This violates common sense and the rights of the other children to a peaceful education.

In the so-called “real world” normal people do not put up with violent or disruptive people.  The disruptive person is usually fired from a job in a work environment, ejected or arrested in social or public environments.  Medical treatment is indicated, to the extent emotional disabilities or mental illness are involved; punishment and fines are indicated otherwise.  In other words, society separates or isolates disturbed citizens and insulates normal citizens from their disruptions.

I do not know any normal, emotionally healthy people who are made to endure the disturbances of disruptive adults.  Why do we subject our children and public school teachers to behavior normal society does not allow?  Most teachers are not trained psychologists, and none of the students are trained to accept and deal with such frightening, threatening behavior either.  Even if they were, there is no excuse for making public school so trying, and perhaps harmful.

 The current federal laws paint children with “disabilities” and public schools with a broad brush when they require inclusion and mainstreaming without stipulation.  Do they think normal classrooms are therapy for violent and disturbed students?  Do they think the distress and disruption help normal students learn?  Disturbed, violent, and disabled students need added, special resources and treatment that normal students do not.  Why subject the whole class to special efforts that scare them, delay normal learning and deny them the knowledge they are present to obtain?

Special needs children deserve to be taught the same knowledge as other kids.  Many special needs children are not disruptive.  However, their special needs may require different teaching approaches and intensive, trained, instruction to attain that knowledge.

The advocates of “mainstreaming” tout the marginal benefits to special needs students, but blithely avoid discussion of the serious detriment to “mainstream” students and the teachers that must cope with the stress and interference required to produce those benefits.  This attempt at social engineering is so obviously lame, it cannot stand a reality check.  Does anyone remember when even whispering in class, and passing notes were punishable infractions?  They were infractions because they distracted students and teachers from the purpose of the class.  Has this idea expired from political correctness?

If the needs of the few can be met without expense to the many, I say, so be it.  Find another way to fulfill the needs of violent, threatening, and disruptive students.

How Much Equality Do You Want? – Animal Farm?

The Power of Words

Ayn Rand authored several books that captured the attentions of whole generations of rational American readers during a cataclysmic battle between individualism and collectivism.  She was born Jewish in Russia in St. Petersburg, in 1905; prophetically, this was a year of Revolution that began with the tsar’s Imperial Guard firing on a peaceful workers’ demonstration, killing 200, wounding 800, and ended with the formation of the first Duma (lower house of parliament).

The turmoil continued with the people and the aristocracy battling over the supremacy of the tsar.  Ayn grew up during the First World War, the rise of the Bolsheviks, the fall of the Tsar, the death of Lenin, and the union of the communist soviets.

She graduated from Petrograd State University in 1924, 2 years into the formation of the Soviet Union.  She came to the United States in 1926, and became a US citizen in 1931. She witnessed the collectivism of the USSR, and the rise of Stalin, from America, as the global depression suffocated economies and hope; as the world precipitated into war.

Her plays and books advocated reason over emotion, and individualism over collectivism.  Among my favorites are “Anthem,” and “Atlas Shrugged.”  “Anthem” describes a world in which there is no word for “I” or “me;” “mine” or “yours.”  All personal pronouns are collective.  She demonstrated the power of language in controlling the minds of people.

The Myth of Equality = Good

“Atlas Shrugged” tells the story of talented, creative, productive people whose individual efforts and contributions benefit average citizens; they profit personally from their efforts.  When these people are hounded and what they produce is confounded, and impounded, they escape to a hidden, peaceful, prosperous place populated by others like themselves.  They were “inequal” in the parlance of today.  Their society lost the benefits of their gifts.

George Orwell wrote a book, “Animal Farm,” which was required reading in my high school English class.  It tells the story of farm animals taking over the farm because of inequality.  They establish 7 commandments of “Animalism,” the seventh of which was “All Animals are Equal.”  The operation of “Animalism” proved very unequal.

A Call to Collectivism

Now we have lots of vague talk about “inequality.”

Question:  Where and when have equalities ever existed among humans?

Certainly, humans have been born all over the globe and across a wide spectrum of attributes, but nothing has ever been equal on any measurable attribute.  The only “equality” experiments I know of are utopian communes, and communist governments, none of which have had durable successes, except perhaps, to spread poverty and suffering equally among members and comrades.

The most glaring example of equality today, is North Korea.  I am sure the average American pines and prays to have that thrill of starvation and repression in the name of equality.  Oh, and some comrades are more equal than others.

The Absence of Definition & Context

The term “income inequality” is not a recent invention.  Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, in 1754.  He describes two types of inequality:

Natural, Physical– differences one human’s body and another

Ethical, Moral – wealth, nobility, power, personal merit.

He proposes that natural, solitary man is a savage who lacks language, reason, and society. He is not motivated by fear of death, because he cannot conceive of it. He is only corrupted by social association with other men, causing:

  • Competition – best dancer, singer, strongest, fastest, handsomest, smartest
  • Self-Comparison with Others – ranking, e.g. second-best, IQ, “the Joneses”
  • Hatred – envy, jealousy, covetous, fear, anger
  • Urge for Power – dominance, entitlement, control

This led to the source and basis of inequality:  private property.

Angus Maddison, a respected economic historian tracked global income inequality of 25 nations since 1820.  His findings show increases in globalization were the major factor in disparity of incomes.  Retreats from globalization resulted in lower inequality.

The recent rants about “inequality” sound like envy to me.  Envy is not constructive.  The authors neither define equality nor any acceptable level of inequality; they also omit the context, methods and means of achieving less inequality; the ranters do not appear to have a clue about the sources of wealth, business success, or any idea what they are proposing.  This is evident from the example they have chosen to shock the reading public.

The Eight Richest People on Earth have wealth equal to half the people on Earth.  Sounds amazing, until one does the math or looks at who these men are.  Wealth is defined as: $Assets – $Debts.  It does not mean income.  These eight men have $485 billion dollars’ worth of valuable assets more than what they owe*.

Who What Arena Billions**
Bill Gates * Microsoft Computer Software           91.0
Amancio Ortega* Zara and Inditex Fashion Retail           71.2
Warren Buffett* Berkshire Hathaway Investments           73.6
Carlos Slim Helu* America Movil Telecom           49.4
Jeff Bezos* Amazon Computer Retail           67.2
Mark Zuckerberg* Facebook Computer Social Media           50.8
Larry Ellison* Oracle Computer Software           41.8
Michael Bloomberg* Bloomberg Investments           40.0

*Created their own companies

**Bloomberg reports as of 12/31/2016

I am not astonished at these numbers, nor that six of the eight are Americans, nor that five of the eight are in technology.  Look at what they have built.  Think of the services and products they have created and distributed to willing buyers.  Their wealth is the result of creating value for others.  All of them created the companies that represent most of their wealth.

What astonishes me is the fact that 3.6 billion people, (including children) own an average of $135 each.  Who do you know who has $135 total wealth?  Think; who owes more than they own?  Anyone who has a job, rents an apartment, has no savings, uses credit cards, and borrows money to buy a car, or go to college.  During the recent recession, plenty of people were “under water” on their mortgaged homes.  That is here in America; I am sure Asia, the Middle East, India, Central America, South America, and Africa have plenty of poor people with no prospects for improvement.  Whose responsibility are they?

It is unclear what the article is suggesting, but the point is lost on me.  It sounds like envy.

The only thing this article suggests to me is, that if you took every penny from the world’s 8 richest people, and distributed it among the 3.6 billion poorest people, they each would have $135 more than they have now, and we would not have the services and goods these eight produce.

Our Glass House

One thing that stands out about the debate over equality is the way Americans limit their geographic boundaries.  We seem to talk about inequality only within national borders.  Income and wealth disparity is greatest among nations.

If you want to silence a discussion of inequality, mention this: The USA has 4.5% of the world’s population and owns 33.2% of the world’s wealth. We Americans would have to give up 86.4% of what we have, to equalize wealth with the other 7.2 billion people in the world.  Is that what the authors propose?  I doubt it.

One estimate of the total wealth on our planet is $255 quadrillion dollars.  That would mean about $36,000 per person when divided by 7.5 billion people.  However, infrastructure, education, access, communications, logistics, culture, climate, security, resources, health, age, and many other elements are not evenly distributed or available.  Some societies do not allow women to own property or have money unless it is controlled by a man.  Other societies are so corrupt that what they have is stolen from them at every turn.

History suggests that even if all assets were evenly distributed, the money would soon be redistributed to the few who provide the goods and services for the many.

Bloomberg’s listing of billionaires includes 197 whose total wealth is $3 trillion.  I do not know what percentage of the world’s population that matches, but it is about 15% of the $20 trillion national debt of the USA.  That would be $2.86 for every person in the world; $62,700 for each man, woman, and child in America.  What would be the average wealth of an American if we subtracted $62,700 from their net worth to pay the debt?

A Bigger Pie

Consider this:  those who decry inequality pose it as a problem, but offer no solutions.  What would the authors of the inequality protest recommend to raise the wealth of the earth’s inhabitants without confiscating the value created by others?

21st Century Virtual Lynching – Bloodlust Prevails

In 2016, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is moot.  Today, anyone who angers the black community is “dead,” due to the unbridled media, and the overreaching, extremely savage federal laws about “civil rights.” No defendant can survive the excoriation, and crucifixion by the media.  Even if they could, they face the financial impossibility of paying for extended, legal counsel against racist hatred financed by the federal government and black “causes.”

It does not matter if the accused is guilty, the defendant is doomed.  If acquitted by one court, another jurisdiction, another theory of law is employed until the person is strangled and expunged from life.

This is lynching.  What a sad day it is when a person is hounded to moral and social death because protection from double, or even triple jeopardy no longer applies in the USA. “How do I hate thee, let me count the ways.”  The American legal system has become a hydra, growing so many heads of prosecution, persecution, and execution, that no one can survive a racial accusation; so now we sanction rope-less, virtual lynching.

A content-hungry professional media, an uncontrolled social media, an unlimited pool of unscrupulous attorneys and advocates, along with a bottomless well of faceless, racial vitriol produces a cauldron which boils any white police officer action against a black suspect into a festering, puss-filled wound with no remedy but rope-and-tree, execution of the “guilty.”

In most courts, the attorney for anyone accused of murder would be ecstatic with a hung jury mistrial; but not anymore.  Not only will the prosecutor retry the accused, (something that almost never happens in real, non-racial life) but also the accusers will resort to federal suits for violation of civil rights.

What chance does an acquitted police officer have to live again?

 

“From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States.  Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black.  The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched.  These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded.  Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched.  That is only 27.3%.  Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes. “

http://www.chesnuttarchive.org/classroom/lynchingstat.html

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is also regarded as an international human right under the UN‘s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted. Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof. Under Anglo-American common law, the accused is always presumed innocent in all types of proceedings; proof is always the burden of the accuser. The same principle is recognized by Islamic law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence