The Black Robed "Supremicists"

The latest Supreme Court ruling dictate that official government functions may begin with an overtly Christian prayer and if there are any Jewish or other religions represented there, well, it's just too bad for them.  We are NOT a "Christian country".   The constitution says that "No religious test shall ever be required to hold government office" and yet Jewish and Islamic and other religions "Just have to get used to the idea of feeling uncomfortable" at these meetings now.  It's hypocracy because they will say that local school districts are BANNED from ever allowing prayer, which clearly is a local or state jourisdiction.  And yet for congress and the like, we somehow have to accept this state imposed religion because we've always done it that way or something.  Phillis Schaffley was on the Thom Hartman program the other day and Thom Hartman said something amazing.  He said there was a clause in the Constitution that allowed Congress to carve out Exceptions to what the Court may rule on' and Thom suggested that "Perhaps congress should carve out exceptions in certain areas such as abortion or gay marriage of campaign financing where the Court may not intervene".   Thom also said something else that buttressed the argument of the John Birchers actually.  He said that throughout most of our history these constitutional "Overturns" of a duly passed law, applied ONLY to the case wherein they were brought.  For instance Abraham Lincoln said "Perhaps it's too late for Dread Scott, but it's not to late to do something about the fate of the others".   Presidents Jackson, Jefferson, and Lincoln all spoke out in strident terms against this power the Court claimed for itself of overturning duly passed lagislation "Because it was Unconstitutional".  And Thom Hartman said "On an issue like abortion" and one might add to this list Citizen's United and Brown verses the Board of Education, the High Court way overstepped its authority in ruling on these cases both broadening the peramaters of these cases, and broadening the number of people whom they apply to.  But couldn't we for instance on the abortion issue, have just let the issue work its way through the State Legislatures and in time we would arrive at some sort of a national concencus.  But the court instead created a Red Hering ruling that is still a contraversial issue today.  If you don't like a bad law such as Sodomy laws, for example, then just change them.  That's the legislative process.  I know the Constitution grants to congress the power to Impeach Supreme Court Justices.  As you know I firmly believe Justice Clarence Thomas should be Impeached.  But then we have this cell phone thing.  Apparently the Obama Administration is arguing FOR the right of the Supreme Court to specifically ALLOW the contents of anyone's cell phone to be gone through and inspected by Law Enforcement on a mere traffic stop or something, when there is no probable cause.  Wouldn't this going into one's cell phone records- - where your whole life is stored- - be equivelent to authorities rifling through your persons, papers and "effects" in the old days, coming into your home?  There seem to be countless times when the Obama administration has just decided that if congress won't pass a law I'll just legislate with my pen with an executive order.  While I as a liberal may welcome this move sometimes, if I am to be consistent, I have to stand up and say "No.  This is wrong.  If I'm going to criticize Reagan for doing it and Bush for doing it, then it's just as wrong if President Obama uses executive orders to legislate points of law.  Indeed one of the things Justices of the Court were saying on this Phone thing was "Gee this is a complex issue.  How we go about legialating policy on this issue?"  It's none of their damn business!   - THAT'S what.  It's like coming up with this whole elaborate tri-mester thing on Abortion.  There is no legislative precedent for that.  The Justices just made it up out of thin air.  And when Ronald Reagan decides via executive order in 1982 apparently (according to Thom Hartman) that the Sherman Anti Trust act, passed in 1890, will just not be Enforced any more- - this clearly bode ill for business and commerce and competetion in general and the consumer has suffered.  No matter what the corporations say, or even what Consumers believe at the time,  Mergers of giant corporations, particularly in the communacations area- - is invariably BAD for customers both as to quality of Service and the prices they now or will soon have to Pay for the the services they receive.

Another thing Phyllis Schleffley discussed and that Thom and I both regard as important, is this whole idea of terrifs.  Because- - up untill 1980 or so-  terrifs on foreign goods ranged from 25 to 30 percent.  This meant that there would be no slave substitance wage workers in other countries competing with goods produced in this party.  The Republican Party was founded as a protectionist party.  Actually the Republicans stood for such thing as free homesteading (forty acres and a mule) and also the building up of the infrastructure such as the trans contenental railroad, and also things like acquiring government land, and Ulisys Grant was the first President to form a National Park in 1872 when Yellowstone National Park was created.  Teddy Roosevelt was also a conservationist.  So today's Republican party is a far cry from its founds not only on racial matters but also on these other issues I have outlined.  Certainly this whole Free Trade thing- - someone called it "a racket".  Because it subsedizes places like Thailand and India and Viet Nam- - and places with virtual slave labor, and also places where they don't respect the environment- - and NAFTA and SHAFTA or whatever- - these treaties will compromise our environmental laws.  Thom Hartman once said "Perhaps there are cells in the body, but cells have walls to determine what is allowed IN and poisons that are kept OUT.  Today we seem to have forgotten this.  Both Hartman and Pat Buchannon say that economic nationalism is not a bad thing.  And if Latinos in Mexico and other places south would fight for their OWN rights in their OWN country instead of coming here it would work out better for everybody, us and them.  If they had fought for their OWN rights in Mexico they wouldn't have all come here when Reagan opened up the floodgates in 1986 and come here to depress OUR wage base.  Hartman believes that we should charge other nations the difference in the COST of what the same item would be if it were produced here as opposed to what is cost them to produce it overseas.  Thom Hartman spoke of the "supply chain" where in the old days if you needed something like a battery- - you'd just go a couple blocks down the street and get it- - or some particular widget may be produced on the other side of town.  Now you have to literally span the globe for needed parts in the supply chain.  We need to think about these things.  I think I'm going to throw in a paste or two on a later posting.

People say that in the Pre Adamic Rebellion period it was a Garden of Eden on Planet Earth and sin was unknown.  Nature was in perfect harmony.  Why the lion would stroke the antelope lovingly without a thought in the world about having it for dinner.  Just to use a Rush-ism.  But alas things were not like this and right now I'd like to resume our little narritive from Sunday night about how things Really were on Planet Earth long before the Bible people rewrote the record of Natural History.  And the problem was too many trees because suddenly trees had evolved plant cell structure that bacteria couldn’t eat because they hadn’t evolved the ability and termites did not yet exist.  But the trees grew so high that vegetation was out of reach and animals died, and for some reason all the trees died and there was this mass of dead wood- - and the wood became petrified.  With so much death in nature occurring the carbon balance was thrown off and there was more methane in the atmosphere now- - which along with the added CO2 meant major global warming.  Add to this sulphur dioxide- - and then we got acid rain and there was horrible eruptions of volcanoes worse than anything today and temperatures ranged from ice but mostly a heatwave that could not sustain life and nearly everything died.  And this state of affairs continued for fifty million years or so.  During this period the continental drift occurred- - and I’m not sure how dinosaurs could cross from Africa to Brazil because I thought the atnoshere and hot weather killed them all off.  And once again it was some woman researcher in the twenties that discovered the truth of the matter, and the men slowly had to come around to accepting it.  So to continue then - - today we have a choice about "Cap and Trade" or the Carbon Tax thing.  Now they say that congress will not take up this bill.  And those in the know say even if Hillary becomes President or for that matter if the Democrats take over the House in 2014, they say "The carbon tax is dead because- - after all the democrats tried to introduce the bill before and it failed, so why do it again and only "make themselves look bad" on places like FOX news?

There is a "smoking gun" or evidence that hasn't seen the light of day on the Bengazi matter.  Because it has come to my attention that the President "Wanted t keep the Arab Spring going' for political purposes, and so got NATO to authorize intervening in Libya to overthrow Quadafi.  As you know the Orion Federation has always supported Qadafi's remaining in power.   But now we hear that the CIA flip flopped and switched sides once again- - and now are supporting Al Qaeda type groups in Libya setting up the whole Bengazi thing because the CIA was headquartered in Bengazi because this is where the anti Qadafi activity was coming from.  And this whole thing could indeed reflect on Hillary's decision to even RUN for President in 2016.  Because- - just as the tea party said- - Obama had staked his hopes in an Arab Spring- - where democracy would take over in the whole region.  So people like Gingrich and Michelle Bachman were right in saying that getting rid of Qadafi was not wise.  Because as they put it "We don't know who we will get in their place".  But of course now we know.  Like it or not- - we are going to get Bengazi'd to death on FOX news and probably the rest of the media.  Because our government is so mixed up it doesn't know terrorists from those who genuinely wand democracy.  I'm not saying anything about Syria at this point.  I believe that's a whole other matter.  So yes there was a Video showing all over the mideast in maybe fifteen different Islamic countries from Moracco to Indonesia - - but it wasn't the Video that was the problem but rather our own CIA for reasons of its own- - siding with terrorists in Libya, according to George Washington's blog.

E J made the phone call and met with a guy in the park to have Nick Fallon murdered within 24 hours.  Nick talked to Julie today, and also Nick engaged in taunting, abusive behavior with Abigail.  Alley told Samantha that Nick was her favorite cousin because he was so smart and helped her a lot with her science.  Again, I can no support any of Nick Fallon's recent actions of the past week or so on that show.  He's way over-played his hand.  I think the whole child custody agreement idea was a pretty ill advised idea to begin with.  I would have were I Nick, have tried to steer Gabriel away from the whole concept, and then I could rightfully have made out Samantha out to be the bad guy- - or "protagonist" on this issue and I would have told Gabriel "Samantha wants to limit YOUR rights to your own daughter" and this line of argument would have reframed the whole discussional reference.  Now Nick has crossed the line- - and if he gets bumped off he'll have no sympathy, even after he's gone.  Eric now is suddenly passion struck and wants to marry Nicole as soon as possible.  We still don’t know the secret that Jordan Ridgeway and Benjamin share, but you get the feeling there is still a whole lot of “stuff” we don’t know.