Thursday, July 20, 2017


HAT TIP: Navy Pilot

WASHINGTON (AP) –16 July 2017

President Trump disclosed that he has reached an agreement with Enrique Pena Nieto, President of Mexico, which provides for the sale of substantially all of the State of California to the country of Mexico.

President Trump noted that this deal, which he claims “is his largest real estate deal ever” is a win-win for everyone involved. One of the benefits he says he will highlight during a prime time address from the oval office later this evening, will include using the proceeds received by the US from Mexico to:

1) pay for the Wall (fulfilling yet another campaign promise), a wall which will now include the length of the eastern border of California,
2) fund all the infrastructure spending in the remaining 49 states and
3) pay to relocate the 67 Republicans that currently reside in California.

He also noted that Federal money saved from the reduction of California citizens on US social programs will allow those social programs to be cash positive in less than 3 years.

Mexican President Nieto announced that he has already introduced a bill to the Mexican Congress asking to change his country’s name to MexiCal.

Other benefits President Trump intends to discuss during this evening’s prime time address include:
California will now be able to act as a sanctuary state within MexiCal noting that there is much more room for the refugees who will find the climate in the State of California more desirable than the climate in US cities such as NYC, Detroit or Chicago.

The elimination of the existing border between Mexico and California will allow drugs to flow more freely between Mexico and the users in Hollywood.  Drug tunnel diggers at the Tijuana boarder will now be able to use their skills to dig tunnels under Los Angeles to help ease congestion in that city and allow rioters to move about the city’s universities more freely.

The U.S. taxpayer will no longer be on the hook for any future disaster relief required once the next megaquake hits California. The space in the Capitol and other DC buildings vacated by representatives of California will be fumigated and turned into “time-out rooms” for the press as well as Liberty Centers where US citizens can meet with their congressmen to discuss the pursuit of economic freedom.

Nancy Pelosi released a statement stating that she looks forward to making the Mexican President’s life miserable and prefers the year round weather in Mexico City to that of DC.  Her office has already announced a schedule of fund raising activities for what is believed to be an upcoming campaign to run for President of MexiCal. Papers released along with Trump’s statement reveal that a newly incorporated real estate company, pmurT, Inc., which was intimately involved in the deal discussions, will receive a broker fee of $25 billion on the California sale.  An anonymous pmurT, Inc. representative has revealed that the profits on the deal are HUGE and will be used to purchase, develop and convert all abandoned US Federal facilities in California into special high end retreats and resorts which will assist California residents with managing their euphoria and transition into the nanny state they have so long desired to be. The exact northern border of the new MexiCal is still under negotiation.

Apparently the White House is concerned that certain members of congress may be unwilling to give up California’s wine country and are suggesting that the northern border align with the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge. California residents will be issued special blue cards to cross the border into the US so that the total number of California liberals entering the US can be tracked and at any point in time not exceed predetermined levels. Residents that remain in California after the effective date of the sale will not be allowed to seek refugee status in the US in the future.

Mexican President Nieto stated he is thrilled with the deal and is looking forward to declaring Spanish the national language for his newly acquired territory and opening SSL (Spanish as a second language) schools throughout California.  He also noted that funding for the transaction would come from the Mexican drug cartels, which have agreed to provide low interest loans to Mexico so long as they are allowed to move their cash out of Switzerland and the Cayman Islands back into Mexico tax free. 

White House representatives refused to confirm rumors that a similar deal was in the works for the sale of Northeastern states from NY through Maine, to Canada.

President Trump wrapped up his statement stating, “this deal is HUGE and will help Make America, albeit a little smaller, Great Again”

Lawsuit Alleges Michigan Agency Told Grandfather He’d Have to Give Up Gun Rights to Foster His Grandson

'If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights'

The following article appeared in the Free Beacon on July 19th

By Stephen Gutowski 

A lawsuit filed in federal court on Monday alleges the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) violated the gun rights of foster parents.

Caseworkers from MDHHS and a county judge told William Johnson of Ontonagon, Mich., that he had to choose between his Second Amendment rights and fostering his grandson, according to a complaint filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The 54-year-old Johnson is a retired, disabled Marine with a Michigan Concealed Pistol License. He and his wife were asked by the state of Michigan to foster their grandson. According to Johnson's suit, however, the issues began as soon as he arrived at MDHHS to pick up the child. 

Johnson said he was searched for a firearm and, although he was not carrying a gun, officials demanded to see his concealed carry license. He was then told he would need to give MDHHS the serial numbers of all of his firearms, including rifles and shotguns, and register them with the agency. After questioning why he would have to register his firearms in order to foster his grandson, Johnson said he was told by one caseworker, "if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights." When he objected, he was told there would not be a "power struggle" and MDHHS "would just take his grandson and place him in a foster home" if he didn't comply with their requests.

Two weeks later, during a hearing on placement of the child, Johnson said a Gogebic County Court judge similarly told him, "if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights."

Michigan requires that anyone who wants to be a foster parent must register his handguns with the state as well as keep the guns unloaded and locked in a safe separate from the ammunition. Foster parents in states like Nevada and Oklahoma have challenged similar laws in recent years after being denied foster children over their legally owned firearms. The case against MDHHS also features plaintiffs Brian and Naomi Mason, who said the gun regulations keep them from becoming foster parents.

The Second Amendment Foundation, which is party to the suit, said the actions of MDHHS were "outrageous," and the policy violates the civil rights of Michigan foster parents. 

"The statements from the caseworker and judge are simply outrageous," Alan Gottlieb, the group's founder, said in a statement. "This amounts to coercion, with a child as their bartering chip. I cannot recall ever hearing anything so offensive and egregious, and we've handled cases like this in the past. Blatantly telling someone they must give up their civil rights in order to care for their own grandchild is simply beyond the pale."

MDHHS said it could not comment on the allegations in the lawsuit because the case is still ongoing. "Our department generally does not comment on pending litigation," Bob Wheaton, MDHHS public information officer, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Gottlieb said the lawsuit was a necessary step in ensuring public officials respect people's rights. "This is a case we simply must pursue," he said. "State agencies and the people who work in those agencies simply cannot be allowed to disregard someone’s civil rights."

Soooo, what other constitutional rights must be given up by prospective foster care providers according to the State of Michigan? First, Fourth…where is the list, I wonder?   Ed.

Harvard proposes expelling students who join social clubs

The following article appeared on the Campus Reform website on July 14th

By Natalie Bao Tram Le  

  A faculty committee wants Harvard University to dramatically ramp up its assault on "unrecognized single-gender social organizations" by eliminating all “fraternities, sororities, and similar organizations” by 2022.
The school previously sought to crack down on the "discriminatory" social clubs by preventing members from holding leadership positions on campus or qualifying for Rhodes or Marshall scholarships.
New Harvard Dean Wormer

A Harvard University faculty committee has proposed completely eliminating all “fraternities, sororities, and similar organizations” to end their “pernicious influence” on student life. 

In a 22-page report released to the public this week, the Committee on the Unrecognized Single-Gender Social Organizations (USGSO) advocates the dramatic approach as an alternative to the university’s previous efforts to tamp down on “final clubs”—unofficial, single-gender student groups that administrators have deemed “discriminatory.”

In May 2016, Harvard announced that members of single-sex, off-campus organizations would not be eligible for Rhodes or Marshall scholarships, and could no longer hold leadership roles in student clubs and athletic teams, but the USGSO committee is now suggesting that students who participate in such clubs face suspension, or even expulsion, as part of an effort to “phase out” the groups by 2022.

The report acknowledges that some USGSO’s “have already taken steps to admit members of both genders” in response to the ongoing campaign against them, but asserts that “even if all of these organizations adopted gender-neutral membership in a timely fashion,” the clubs would still exert “socially distorting and pernicious effects” on the campus community.

Despite the “profound sense of belonging” reported by many final club members, the report asserts that this “comes at the expense of the exclusion of the vast majority of Harvard undergraduates” because of the “invidious manner in which such clubs form their memberships and generate their guest lists.” 

The Committee explicitly modeled its proposed solution on policies in place at Williams College and Bowdoin College, both of which prohibit students from joining fraternities or other “selective-membership social organizations” under threat of disciplinary action. 
A "Selective Membership Organization"

Both policies were included in the report because Committee members could not settle on a single example, with some favoring the “simplicity” of the Williams policy while others preferred the more-detailed Bowdoin policy.

Biology professor David Haig wrote the sole dissenting opinion in the report, arguing that the Committee’s recommendation represents an affront to “student autonomy” with little prospect of advancing “non-discrimination and inclusivity” on campus.

Citing a 2016 student referendum that showed 60 percent support for repealing the previous sanctions on final club members, Haig observed that “there is a disconnect between these numbers on student opinion and the general tone of this committee’s report, which emphasizes deep unhappiness among students with the social environment created by the clubs.”

Indeed, he even pointed out that “the various committees on USGSO policy, including this one, have never sought quantitative unbiased data on student opinions but have relied on selected comments of students opposed to the clubs,” asserting that while he has heard many positive testimonials from students about final clubs, “it would be wrong for me to conclude from my data that most students support the USGSO’s because my data are a highly biased sample of opinions.”

Emily Hall, a Harvard student and Campus Reform Campus Correspondent, said she finds the proposed policy “incredibly troublesome and far-reaching,” calling it an excessive intrusion into the private lives of students.
"Heteronormative" representative

"This new policy recommendation is paternalistic and an appalling affront to students' right to freedom of association,” she declared. “While the initial policy was already overreaching into students' private lives, the new sanctions go a step further by allowing no way for clubs to adhere to the policy and by threatening expulsion for those who choose to join.”

Conor Healy, the president of the Harvard Open Campus Initiative, likewise blasted the move as paternalistic, describing it as a blatant attempt to impose the administrators’ values on students.

“The college administration wants to remake Harvard’s social life in their own image, and that kind of parental supervision is unwelcome to me and should be unwelcome to any students who value individuality,” he told Campus Reform.

Healy found the report’s argument that “gay men will likely feel unwelcome at male clubs that reinforce heteronormative social life” especially absurd, declaring that, as a gay student himself, he feels that “the unwelcome places for gay students are within the administration that is so ideologically entrenched.” 
You're OUT you little shit!

Healy’s Open Campus Initiative also released an official statement arguing that the debate over social clubs was “not just about freedom of association,” but in fact has ramifications on the “very ability for campuses to remain strongholds of individualism.”

It remains unclear whether the administration will approve the Committee’s recommendations, Haig told the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, noting that even if the report is endorsed by Harvard President Drew Faust, “it is unclear whether it would be brought to the faculty for approval rather than just comment.”

In short, students who join social clubs are certain to be exposed to ideas/information which have NOT been approved by the "right" people. Such uncontrolled/unfiltered thoughts represent a danger to the authority of the left.  Ed.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Words That Kill

The following article appeared on the American Thinker website on July 12th

The Massachusetts conviction last month of Michelle Carter for involuntary manslaughter in the suicide death of boyfriend Conrad Roy raises a host of legal questions and related speculations about what precedents it has set. After repeated urgings via texts by Carter, Roy, having outfitted his own vehicle with a device to channel its exhaust, died by carbon monoxide poisoning on July 14, 2014. Carter was not present at the scene. Roy was eighteen years old at the time, and Carter seventeen and classified as a juvenile under Massachusetts law.

Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of a human being directly caused by some act done recklessly. The Massachusetts law is a fairly standard representative of the law of all the states. It can be committed by “wanton or reckless conduct” or by “wanton or reckless failure to act.” The conduct that kills is intentional, but the killing is not. Death is not intended. By contrast, in first and second-degree murder and in voluntary manslaughter, there is an intent to kill. 
Michelle Carter

A clear example of involuntary manslaughter is vehicular homicide where a driver speeds or otherwise drives recklessly and causes an accident that kills someone. The reckless driver does not intend to kill. (In most states, death caused by drunken driving is second-degree murder.) An example of failure to act is the fire that killed 36 people in the warehouse used as an artists’ collective in Oakland, California, in December 2016. Two proprietors of the building have now been charged with 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter for failing to properly outfit and maintain the building -- that is, they recklessly failed to act.

A major problem in the Massachusetts case concerns the everyday definition of words. The numerous news stories about the incident have gone into lengthy detail about Michelle Carter’s emails urging Conrad Roy to kill himself. That is, she voluntarily intended his death. But in directly causing his death, she is convicted of involuntary manslaughter. With that contradiction, the average citizen may find it difficult to comprehend what actually happened in the case.

In a car accident, it is the car that kills. In a fire caused by recklessness, it is the burning building that kills. In this case, the court has ruled that Michelle Carter’s words killed Conrad Roy. In point of fact, what killed Roy was carbon monoxide from an apparatus Roy himself placed in his own vehicle. The judge who decided the case found that Carter was guilty of the required “wanton and reckless conduct” necessary for involuntary manslaughter when she “instructed” Roy to get back into his truck after Roy had expressed reluctance to follow through on his suicide. So, the legal conclusion is, Carter’s words killed Roy. 
Conrad Roy

Words can certainly be evidence of any crime, but this appears to be the first case in which the words themselves are the instrument of death. Words can be the prime evidence of a criminal threat but almost always in the context of a victim experiencing fear of an immediate or plausible danger. Words can be charged as an incitement of an imminent criminal act. Words can be evidence of a conspiracy, that is, an agreement to commit a crime, or of aiding-and-abetting a crime, but the conspiracy or other crime must exist on its own. There was no conspiracy here in that Roy was not guilty of a crime, suicide not being criminalized by any statute in Massachusetts. And Massachusetts, unlike the majority of states, has no law criminalizing the encouragement of suicide.

Finally, the judge in the case extended the law in an additional way. Our legal tradition is that the law obligates no one to be a Good Samaritan. But the Massachusetts judge also found that Carter had a duty to attempt to stop Roy by calling the police or notifying Roy’s family.

After she is sentenced on August 3, Michelle Carter is certain to appeal both her conviction and her sentence. In our Anglo-American system of law, every decision of a court, civil or criminal, unavoidably sets a precedent. But this widely discussed case, even without its final resolution, has already set its own precedent.