FORGET SCALIA. DEATH COULD COME FOR THREE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SCUSA) SOON ENOUGH.

With the death of Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCUSA) justice Antonin Scalia, politicians and pundits have gone into overtime arguing over the merits and demerits of blocking any Obama nomination. Democrats demand that an Obama nomination should be vetted quickly and confirmed. Republicans demand that Obama must be thwarted and thus leaving it up to the next president.

Forget Scalia. His death is but one vacancy. The real story of the SCUSA is the aged state of three justices — Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer.



It's likely that all three either die or become incapacitated over the next eight years. So whoever gets sworn in as president in January, 2017, likely will put three new judges on the SCUSA and thus change the trajectory of law-of-the-land legal rulings for decades to come.

All three aforementioned judges are either nearing or have past life expectancy for the typical American. Kennedy Is 79 and and a half.  Stephen Breyer is 77 and a half. Ginsburg is a decrepit 82 and 11 months.

Removing those judges from thought, right now the court has three republican nominated judges — Clarence Thomas (67), John G. Roberts (61), Samuel A. Alito (65). Two Democrat nominated judges sit on the court — Sonia Sotomayor (61) and Elena Kagan (55).

The Republicans should not be short-sighted here. They should pressure Obama to nominate a left-of-center judge and then confirm that judge, quickly, but after the ruling session, which maybe ends in June.

The next president needs to nominate three Scalia-type judges to replace Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg when their days are done. 

Also, it's time to put a Protestant Christian back on the SCUSA. As it is right now, only Roman Catholics and Jews sit on the US Supreme Court — Catholics: Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor; Jews — Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan.

Yet, American jurisprudence has its basis in Protestant Christian morality and thought. It has nothing from Catholic or Judaic thought. 

Read more ...

AMERICA'S GOT GAYS. US SUPREME COURT ROBES LED BY ANTHONY KENNEDY SAYS SO.

In a queer 5-to-4 ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, the robe-clad coven known as the U.S. Supreme Court have decreed that law givers of the various states must legally recognize that homosexuals can marry each other. Laws of the states' legislators no longer can exempt married gays from getting the same benefits as those law givers dole out to man-woman marrieds.

In spite of the rhetoric of some politicians spewed after the ruling, Americans need to suck it up. The Gay Army has won their war. They're celebrating their V-Day today.



No one should be surprised by the ruling. It was bound to happen.

Two years ago, the witches gathering of the Supremes ruled the Defense of Marriage Act, the anti-gay marriage law passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton could not deny a married gays from getting benefits given by Congress to men-women married couples. Today's ruling builds from that ruling.

In many ways, the outcome of the ruling is the right one though the ruling itself suffers flaws. Legislators have no standing to impose their moral standards upon anyone and then lie with the rhetoric that those moral standards are the will of the people.

As well, legislators lack standing to impose the moral standards of some Americans and their cults to which they belong, cults that all know as churches and religions. That queer ones will have their marriages recognized by agencies of law givers in no way stops anyone from belonging to a church and acting like the hypocrites, praying in public.

Legislators should not tell the people how to live. And all Americans need to stop supporting such immaturity. If adults want to buy and sell sex (prostitution) or substances for recreational purposes (drugs), no one should stop them.

And unlike the fools who say so, queer as folk marrying queer as folk fail to violate the laws of nature. Jumping from a cliff without a parachute leads to consequences that prove men cannot violate the laws of nature.

If all of mankind stopped procreating because all decided to focus on same sex sexuality, then future mankind would die off. Even under this scenario, the laws of nature would not be violated. The consequences of not breeding would be little different than the consequences of trying to fight against gravity.

Codifying gay marriage changes little, in spite of what gays might believe. Atheists don't accept religionists. Protestants don't accept Catholics. And let's not get into the races racing against each other rather than being accepting of each other.

Legalizing gayhood doesn't mean most will stop seeing gay sex and gay love as activities outside the norm of mankind. Many still see those with face tattoos and face piercings as freaks. In spite of the hopes of parents who birthed and raise gay kids into adulthood, legal decrees never have the power to turn their adult children into normal ones.

The gay marriage movement has been about cash and credit, always. Never has it been about love.

Privilege seeking is a political act whether through marriage licenses from politicians to gain preferential treatment for taxes or through collecting welfare benefits at higher rates. It has been mere rhetoric by those behind the Gay Agenda to hide behind the rhetoric of love rather than rhetoric of riches.

Gay marriage is about dollars and little more. It is about survivor spousal benefits of Social Security welfare. It's about adding thousands of new customers for divorce lawyers and the Family Law system annually, a system that employs bureaucrats and technocrats.

No one should be fooled. As long as law givers grant rights to some based on their status and impose duty upon others because of that status, liberty is lessened for all all. When law givers grant benefits to those who are married, law givers decreases liberty precisely because they have created law. All law increases duties and rights.

In life, any adult with an intellect suitably sufficient to decide doesn't always get she or he wants, but but always, gets what she or he deserves. For years, advocates of those marriage should get benefits have played a legal game, one for a time, that has helped them. Now, they are getting what they deserve. They must welcome gays into their anti-liberty club.

The right-minded man or woman at once sees the deleterious effects of acceding authority to politicians who then decree what marriage is and who derives privileges from such arrangements. The right-minded man or woman at once sees the best action is to eliminate marital status as a factor for any government action.

Any individual is right to want to live, right to want to live without an overlord and right to pursue what gives her or him pleasure. All else is nothing but force of one or some ganging upon another or others who is or who are weaker.

Demanding privileges gained by force for what amounts to a private matter is not the hallmark of an enlightened people.

One can only hope for a backlash against today's ruling whereby many push to remove all codified discrimination. No one should get privileges because that one belongs to any artificially constructed social group like gays, blacks, Latinos, women and so on.

Racism is a horrible political doctrine. It devalues every individual and turns persons into monsters as they join groups.

Those of groups revert to base instinct of mankind — the law of survival. Individuals who join groups lose themselves and become cogs of the group, one of the mob, the crowd. They end up doing wicked misdeeds in the name of advancing the group.

Every individual has the capacity of living by the Law of Love — do to others and loving one's neighbor.

Read more ...

OBAMACARE? CALL IT ROBERTSCARE. CHIEF PRIESTESS OF THE US SUPREME COURT DOES IT AGAIN!

The coven-like robed ones were at it again. By a 6-3 vote, the chief scribes of the United States Supreme Court ruled the 111th Congress intended to give any qualified American property in bank credits to be spent specifically on buying an medical bills paying insurance offered by sellers of such products.

The tie-breaking voters included the Supreme Court chief, the High Priestess John Roberts. And with today's ruling in King v. Burwell, once again Roberts proved to the world, he doesn't understand English nor English with respect to law.

This time, those suing over Obamacare claimed the 111th Congress intended to pay for part or all of any American's medical bills insurance, but only in those states of the USA where state legislators established state-run web sites for residents of their states to buy insurance. They made this claim because the writers of the law wrote the phrase "established by the state."

In his affirmative ruling, chief priestess Roberts wrote, "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former and avoids the latter."

In short, Roberts believes his job is to interpret law if a law claims it could do something good regardless of how it is written. Roberts sets a dangerous precedent for all Americans. Henceforth Congress could pass laws and then have their agencies claim extra-law authority merely by claiming Congress intended for this power or the expected results.


Back in 2012, Roberts was the guy who sided with others to decree Obamacare was legal. In that ruling, though Roberts stated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution cannot compel any individual to buy anything, Roberts claimed the taxing authority of Congress somehow can compel anyone to buy anything.

At the time, many Roberts apologists claim that Roberts was right because Roberts said the IRS would be the agency to collect the fines and therefore what would get collected would be taxes and not fines. What a convenient fiction that is.

The essence of a fine is this: If you do A against law and are caught, you must pay B.  The essence of a tax is this: Because you are doing A, you must pay us B, which is a percentage of A.

The purpose of a fine is to stop anyone from doing A. The purpose of a tax is to share in profits generated by doing A without having invested any capital first.

When law givers fine a factory owner for polluting a river, they do so to stop the factory owner from polluting the river, ever. When law givers tax profits of the factory owner, they want a cut of his profits. They're not trying to stop the factory owner from selling anything produced in his factor. Likewise, law givers aren't stopping the factory owner from selling his factory and taking up earning income by another means, say as a singer and a dancer.

With Obamacare, the effect of the Roberts ruling should be clear. Congress isn't sharing in anyone's income regardless of how they earn that income. Rather, Congress is fining everyone caught without medical bills insurance.

Congress is fining you for doing something — living without specifically structured medical bills insurance— rather than taxing you — sharing in your income regardless of what you are doing.  To claim it as a tax and not what it is, a fine, is to throw out about 715 years of English-based jurisprudence.

State legislators fine you when you drive (live) without car liability paying insurance (medical bills insurance). To see Robertscare any other way is to deceive oneself.

The word fine entered into English about the year 1200 from Old French speakers meaning death, fee, payment. By the mid 1300s, the word was being said to mean sum of money paid for exemption from punishment or to compensate for injury.

The word tax entered into English in the early 1300s from Anglo-French speakers to mean obligatory contribution levied by a sovereign.

So the next time you must pay a speeding ticket, by the way Roberts believes, you are not being fined. Rather, you are being taxed. You are not being fined.

Americans should be compelled to buy all kinds of products at least according to the tortured faux-logic thought by the United States Supreme Court creepy robe wearers — Roberts,  Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor.

• All Americans need places to sleep. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves facing homelessness. Requiring Americans to buy housingcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy housingcare insurance.
• All Americans need legal representation. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves facing criminal charges, civil suits or jail time. Requiring Americans to buy legalcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy legalcare insurance.
• All Americans need skills to compete in a globalized economy. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves with obsolete skills and not enough cash to pay for learning new skills. Requiring Americans to buy higher educationcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy higher educationcare insurance. 
• All Americans need fun and recreation for proper mental health. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves without enough cash to pay for tickets to amusement parks, sporting events, concerts. Requiring Americans to buy funcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy funcare insurance. 
• All Americans need to eat. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves without cash to pay for food.  Requiring Americans to buy foodcare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy foodcare insurance.
• All Americans need to wear clothes. Some of the time, many to most Americans could find themselves without enough cash to pay for clothes. Requiring Americans to buy clothescare insurance would be a tax and not a fine. Therefore, forthwith, all Americans should be required to buy clothescare insurance.

John Roberts might have been awarded summa cum laude as an undergrad from Harvard and magna cum laude Harvard Law School, but Roberts is clueless about the concepts words label. In short, he does not get meaning. And if that isn't the case, then the Chief Priestess is corrupt and immoral.

Power. It corrupts everyone. Alas, it wasn't enough to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court for John Glover Roberts. Nor was it enough to be crowned Chief Justice.

Read more ...

TRAGEDY EXPLOITERS WRONGLY CALL THE MENTALLY-ILL DRIVEN SOUTH CAROLINA SHOOTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM. OTHER TWISTED ONES CALL FOR A BAN AGAINST INDIVIDUALS OWNING GUNS.

So in the aftermath of the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church  in Charleston, South Carolina, in which nine Americans were killed, many opportunists of mainstream media have wasted no time to exploit the event for political purposes. While most have called for gun bans in violation of the United States Constitution, many have done something far worse.

Stupidly, many are calling the criminal act an act of terrorism. Sadly, the president of the National Association of Colored People, Cornell William Brooks, in a thoughtless, reactionary manner said the incident is "an act of racial terrorism."

To believe Dylann Roof is a terrorist and to remain logically consistent, one must believe Adam Lanza was terrorist. One must believe James Holmes is a terrorist.

An ill-in-mind shooter who kills more than one during one incident isn't a terrorist. Those who claim this shooting as terrorism have engaged in rhetoric of the worst kind.

Terrorism means living by killing civilians in efforts to get civilians to pressure law givers into changing their policy or to get civilians to rise up and overthrow their law givers.

How is killing some Americans who happen to be black going to get blacks to rise up against law givers and force them to change their polices toward blacks?

Here are notable, actual terrorist attacks:

• The Palestine Liberation Organization Muslims who murdered Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Games in Munich were terrorists.
• The 1995 Tokyo Subway sarin gas attacks that killed 12 Japanese done by Aum Shinrikyo were terrorists.
• The 9/11 (2001) Al-Qaeda Muslim Saudi Arabian and Egyptian hijackers who murdered over 3,000 Americans were terrorists.

For any act to be racist, such an act would need to stop anyone from a claimed group from obtaining work or entering into contracts. That is the correct definition of racism. All other ways to talk of racism is done by racists themselves to mask their own agendas.

The biggest promoters of racism in exchange for power are politicians. Racism is a political doctrine. Racism is a horrible political doctrine. It devalues every individual and turns anyone into monsters as they join groups.

Jim Crow laws were the misdeeds of racist law givers. The Dred Scott vs Sanford (1856) decision by U.S. Supreme Court robes was the misdeed of racist judges. Pace v. Alabama (1883) was yet another racist decision by the U.S. Supreme Court judges as was Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

Foolishly, many Americans revere U.S. Supreme court judges as demigods.

U.S. Supreme Court legal "scholars" universally hated Asians in the 20th century. In five major racist rulings, the revered Supreme Court robes ruled against the individualism of Americans who had Chinese or Japanese ancestry — Ozawa v. United States (1922), Korematsu v. United States (1944), Lum v. Rice (1927), Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), Korematsu v. United States (1944).

Law givers of Americans, especially those of the U.S. Congress are the chief instigators of racism in America. Congress engages in discrimination through laws that establish agencies to support all kinds of racism — subsidy for women-only businesses, education subsidy for so-called minorities, and so forth.

The biggest racists in America today are those organized groups such as the NAACP, NOW, Act Up!, and La Raza, each of which push for privileged privileges like quotas and subsidies.

Racism results in doling political privilege to those in favored groups at the expense of defenseless individuals who fail to belong to any organized group.  If any individual dare speak up about the duty being imposed upon him so political privileges as rights can get conferred to those of favored groups, that individual gets labeled as a racist by those winning the privileges.

Why does anyone seek political privilege? That is the real problem.

It is sad but predictable that those of mankind with political agendas go to great lengths through political theater to deceive the gullible and convince the gullible of all manners of things.

Every individual has the capacity of living by the Law of Love — do to others and loving one's neighbor as you would want others to love you.

Yet when anyone joins a group, the law of that governs the lesser reigns — the Law of Survival. The individual strives to survive as a member of the group by demonstrating to others his or her adherence to the ethos — idealized member. Individuals who join groups lose themselves and becoming cogs of the group, one of the mob, the crowd, who do wicked misdeeds in the name of advancing the group. The leaders who derive much power from others who give up their individual powers strive to keep the group going for their obvious benefit.

Yet when anyone joins a group, the law of that governs the lesser reigns — the Law of Survival. The individual strives to survive as a member of the group by demonstrating to others his or her adherence to the ethos — idealized member. The leaders who derive much power from others who give up their individual powers strive to keep the group going for their obvious benefit.

Everywhere you go, you can find the ultimate group, one based on territory and forced membership. It is to this group that all other groups appeal for support and protection. This ultimate group is forged by law givers, of course.

Since the recorded history of mankind, there has been no greater force of evil the earth other than that of law givers. The men and women of governments — politicians and bureaucrats — are the true mass murderers and manipulators of minds as they dole out crumbs of welfare in exchange for power.

The belief that mankind can get along as long as mankind continue to align themselves into groups stems from a childish rationalism and a grotesque idealism.

Such belief is false, thoroughly. People as group members do anything to push the survival of their respective groups. 

As far as the ban-the-guns angle many tragedy exploiters have taken, I have shown you in KILLERS IN AMERICA WORK SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, over half of all gun deaths are suicides.

According to the CDC, based on 2010 data, more people die from alcoholic liver disease (15,990) than from homicide by guns (11,078). Almost as many die from intestinal infections not classified every year (10,276) as by gun homicide!

Gun deaths that are not suicides account for not even 1% of population nor one-tenth of one percent nor one-hundredth of 1% of population. Gun deaths that are not suicides account for a scant three one-thousandths of one percent of population.

According to the CDC, based on 2010 data, more people die from alcoholic liver disease (15,990) than from homicide by guns (11,078). Almost as many die from intestinal infections not classified every year (10,276) as by gun homicide!

Total gun deaths in 2010 were 30,470, a number that has been falling for years in the face of a growing population. Of those there were a total 19,392 gun suicides. Suicides are 63.4% of all gun deaths!

Homicides by guns account for 0.0035056962% of the whole population and a tiny 0.44% of all deaths!

These numbers are so small relative to total deaths and total population as to be rounding errors. Death by homicide by gun is statistically insignificant in the face of all deaths.

The real killers are heart disease and cancer, which together account for more than half of all deaths (54.9%).

The biggest killer of them all are women who engage in abortion. At 765,651 killed by abortion, by far, abortion was the leading cause of death in the USA in 2010, besting cardiovascular diseases not counting heart stoppage (600,385), cancers (574,743), heart stoppage (179,828), and all accidents (120,859).

Almost every of the 780,213 deaths caused by cardiovascular disease and almost every of the 574,743 deaths caused by cancer and almost every of the 138,080 deaths caused by lower respiratory disease never gets reported on your local six o'clock news. And no one in mainstream media talks about the monthly abortion body count.

Read more ...