Archive for the ‘Justice’ Category

Is the World on the Brink of World War III?

August 14, 2010

By: Frosty E Hardison

Well, for two years we’ve been talking about it and hearing about it and even passing sanctions over it. I’m talking of course about Iran and their pursuit of nuclear energy. Well, here’s how it’s likely going to go down:

One day quite soon, Israel is going to grow tired of arms passing from Iran, through Syria and into Lebanon and Gaza. One day the last rocket breaking the proverbial camels back and really ticking off the wrong administration in Israel, will lead to an all out war. Israel will grow tired of having their nation bombarded by rockets with no world remorse for it, especially from the UN, who flipped over a ship running the blockade a few weeks ago. Fed up enough to take out the rockets in Lebanon. This in step brings Syria into the fray and missiles from Syria fly into Israel. The new Israeli missile defenses are great but not good enough for 100% protection. One or two missile(s) get(s) through and kills Israeli citizens. Israel issues an ultimatum to Syria – Cease all military actions against Israel or die. Israel begins moving troops to invade Lebanon, Syria launches another barrage of missiles.

Israel nukes Damascus with a huge neutron bomb. Damascus is GONE. 5 million people are vaporized. Key point here, the bomb is a super bomb. Because Israel had to develop their bomb in secret, there were no tests. The bomb yield is much greater than anyone expected. A neutron bomb several kilo-tons larger than 50 Hiroshima bombs. It is so accurate and devastating that the whole world is alarmed by it. Even the most devout Islamic terrorist is shaken by their spirit in fear of this weapon. Iran is in fear too, as Syria, it’s most important pipeline of weapons to Lebanon and Gaza is no longer a functioning nation – state. Iran, who furnished the Syrian missiles, sees how ineffective missiles are against Israel, as Israel seems to be super naturally protected against everything levied against it. Iran, learning from this, in turn launches missiles into the oil rich states not protected so fiercely, those of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai and UAE killing the oil flow to the western world and getting the US, Russia and EU involved at least in some peace negotiations to call off Israel’s “aggression”. Israel will then finish the job they really wanted to with Iran and take out Iran’s known nuclear facilities. I say their known facilities for a reason.

To avoid a larger war, Obama will propose a 7 year peace treaty, one that removes Iran’s influence from Gaza and Lebanon – not hard because the middle man Syria is virtually no longer an acting nation. Somehow this peace includes a deal with the Muslim world somehow granting Israel the ability to build their Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Must be because Iran is the strongest and most radical of Muslim countries and HAD the most terrorist influence. With that militant backing gone, with the radical Imams silenced in Iran for the time being and the Iranian people presumably back in control, the world accepts the fact that Israel should be allowed to build their Temple, especially if it is to bring about God’s Holy presence on earth again, which don’t look now, is in the best interest to everyone on the planet – not just these few.

The world will rejoice but Iran will be humiliated in the eyes of the world, just like Germany was after the armistice. In just a few years, Iran will try to pull a Germany and regain their honor and glory through war again. This time they will have nukes because not all their facilities are known and were not destroyed or not totally destroyed.

Just food for thought.

Litmus Test for Liberalism

March 6, 2010

By: Frosty E Hardison

I have developed a short list of principles that you MUST support if you are a liberal. If there is just one you do not agree with – then you are not as liberal as you might think. In fact you might want to reconsider that donation to the DNC and ACLU- if you don’t agree with them all.

1. You have to be against capital punishment for repeat offenders, but support the murder of an innocent child through abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that it’s alright for your kids to have sex in your home or wherever they choose to – without your permission and if they get pregnant at 12, it’s ok for them to seek an abortion without your knowledge or consent.
3. You have to believe that the state knows more about parenting than you do, can do a better job at it and therefore can take your kids away at the whim of your neighbor and put them into foster care where they are 80% more likely to be beaten, sexually abused and murdered.
4. You have to believe that every pagan thing is about freedom of expression and that everything Christian is just another religious zealot believing in outdated myths and legends.
5. You have to believe that funding the Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas, so they can buy weapons “to defend themselves”, is the only way to peace in the middle east.
6. You have to be against the building of the third Temple in Jerusalem because it will give credibility to Jewish claims to the land.
7. You have to believe that you are smarter than the natural law of thermodynamics and entropy; that you are the descendant of an ape and that at some point your species came from some scum sucking primordial ooze.
8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
9. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of the Chinese, Iranians and North Korean communists.
10. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
11. You have to believe that global temperatures are more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs than by scientifically documented cyclical changes in the sun and earth’s climate.
12. You have to believe that gender roles are offensive, discriminatory and artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
13. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
14. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
15. You have to believe that sportsmen and hunters don’t care about nature or protecting the pristine environment they enjoy but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
16. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something right.
17. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion of the Christ for financial gain only.
18. You have to believe that the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
19. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
20. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.
21. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas, government forms for services printed in every language and special treatment for illegal immigrants and minorities are not.
22. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is a normal working class woman and is a very nice person.
23. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.
24. You have to believe that conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
25. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, public nudity and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
26. You have to believe that illegal funding by the Chinese, and other foreign governments, of the Democratic Party is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
27. You have to believe that it’s okay to give federal workers the day off on Christmas Day, but it’s not okay to have a Christmas tree displayed in their office or even their personal cubical or for them to say “Merry Christmas.”
28. You have to believe that a mandatory court ordered anger management class, specializing in the parenting of teenagers, can be taught by a teacher that has gone to school for years but has never had a child of their own.
29. You have to believe that the government is your friend, that the Federal Reserve Bank is a part of the Federal Government and that the dollar will always be the world’s most stable reserve currency even though the U.S. is now the largest debtor nation in the world, we owe over 74 trillion dollars to other countries and our currency is no longer based on tangible assets such as gold, silver or copper.
30. You have to believe that there is a finite amount of oil in this world and that we have discovered every single deposit there is and that that fact alone is the reason a barrel of oil is trading at $90 – $140 a barrel.
31. You have to believe that a diploma or degree can be a substitute for intelligence and common sense.
32. You have to believe that this message is part of a vast right wing CONSPIRACY.

God help us all.

Frosty E. Hardison is a graduate of Colorado Technical University with a degree in Business Administration. An MBA honors student with a 3.83 GPA, Frosty is most recognized for standing up against the Al Gore film “An Inconvenient Truth” being shown as a stand alone “science film” in his daughter’s science class in January 2007. He specializes in data research and analysis as well as work flow/production efficiency. For questions, see his website.

Supreme Court Clerks

January 22, 2010

Craig Lerner & Nelson Lund, guest-blogging at The Volokh Conspiracy, propose a reform to the way clerks are assigned to the Supreme Court Justices. (link)

Ideally, the justices would be in complete control over what cases get heard by the court, and what exactly is decided. A tremendous amount of energy is put into their nomination and appointment, and a tremendous amount of trust is put on their shoulders.

As it is today, the justices are filtered from each other and the “real” world by their clerks. This has the deleterious effect that the Justices aren’t really in control of what comes in or goes out of the court. The clerks have a great deal of power to control what the justices see and what they write or say.

The proposed solution is to have clerks work for the court rather than individual justices. Any work they do should be available for all the justices. When it comes to writing opinions and reading legal papers, they will have to do that on their own.

I’m not one to impose my will on how the court works. If there is anyone who truly understands what the court needs to do their job better, it is the court. Any artificial constraints we put on them will, at best, only hurt their efficiency a little bit, and at worst, become an impassible roadblock.

However, it does concern me that some justices hide behind their clerks. At the very least, I would encourage the justices on the court to somehow give the American people a feeling that they are really in charge. I can only imagine what kind of damage the reputation of the court would suffer if the American people came to believe it was being run by a bunch of twenty-something, never-legally-employed college graduates.

The same goes, of course, for the House and the Senate, and the presidency.

I believe the problem largely stems from the massive size of government. Congress tries to do too much. The president is president of too much. There are too many laws, and too many ways to interpret the constitution. Each branch should be focused on keeping their jobs doable, and should rightly question any new workloads people wish to add to them.

If this means the courts take measures to limit the number of writs, then so be it. That’s up to the justices, though.

If this means we need more justices on the supreme court, or another layer of courts between them and the people, so be it.

Regardless, this is a problem they have to tackle. Until the American people are satisfied, they have not resolved that problem.

Judicial Fight Looming

January 22, 2010

One of the hallmarks of the Bush Presidency is the disgusting opposition tactics the senate democrats employed to stall his judicial nominees. Among them, they used the filibuster, which was never used to stall a judicial appointment.

Today, Pres. Obama has the possibility of choosing another supreme court justice. There are also several positions throughout the judiciary that remain empty despite President Bush’s nominations.

Some people are calling for some sort of reconciliation and peace treaty. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is wise.

The democrats have so violated any kind of trust we might have in any sort of promise, especially regarding judicial fights, that we cannot now acquiesce to any of their demands in the expectation that they would honor ours. Any promise they make is shallow and dishonest.

Instead, I call on senate republicans to stand firm and employ any and every tactic to keep President Obama’s nominees out of the court system. This includes the tactics of “Borking” and the filibuster. Without 60 votes, no Obama nominee will even get a vote.

The American people want and demand a constructionist judiciary. We don’t want our laws to change except when our legislators change them. And we certainly don’t want the constitution to have different meanings for different people. There is a process for changing laws and constitutions, and it doesn’t involve the courts.

Senate republicans should apply a strict litmus test. If a judicial nominee wants to be on the Supreme Court, or any inferior court, they must exemplify the constructionist judicial philosophy. If they don’t, then the senate republicans should employ every means possible to block the candidate, and simultaneously educate the American public on why they believe that particular nominee doesn’t belong in any federal court. As long as they combine a solid defense of their ideals with a solid explanation of that defense, they can win every political battle every time.

We should never compromise our judicial integrity ever again. We should not seek a “balance” on the courts, only ensure that all judges are constructionist.

As part of this new “war” with the left, we should also take a new action. The House of Representatives should impeach, immediately, any judge who fails to uphold the high standards of strict constructionism. If the constitution doesn’t allow it, and I believe it does, then we should specifically pass an amendment, or begin a major national campaign to ask for such an amendment. This will ensure that the people can trust the courts, because those justices and judges in the courts with whom the people regard as non-constructionist may be removed from office.

Supreme Court Upholds Constitution

January 21, 2010

A lot of liberals are freaking out about the Supreme Court’s ruling today. They seem to draw a distinction between the “people” and the “corporations”. I’ve never understood this myself.

What is a corporation? It’s an entity created to aggregate the efforts of several people into one. It’s the ultimate dream come true in a world of property rights. Now, you don’t have to be the sole owner, you can share ownership. Corporations are a creation of the people. You are free to create a corporation whenever you want one.

Now, granted, some corporations are very large. But these corporations are large because they represent a lot of people. Coca-Cola, for instance, is composed of all the board members, the chief officers, the managers, salesmen, marketers, manufacturers, scientists, bottlers, distributors, and shareholders of that company. It represents the economic interests of those group of people, all working together for a common goal.

The people have the right to form corporations, for any lawful purpose, and they have the right to direct that corporation to speak on their behalf. Such speech isn’t free in price. The right to bear arms isn’t free in price either. Getting your message out to the people you want to reach in the way you want to reach them is really expensive. So these corporations have to spend a great deal of money, time, and effort to see that they communicate the right idea with the right people.

When such speech is directed to politics, it is no more malevolent than any other political speech. In fact, the corporation, by the facts of the situation, is all but guaranteed to say that which will only help the economic interests of the people who make up the corporation. When Coke speaks to politics, it speaks on behalf of the jobs of millions of people.

Liberals worry about politicians being bought and sold. This is absurd, unless you are of the mindset that politicians are for sale. I don’t support people who will sell their vote. I don’t expect you to do so either. Elect those people which have shown themselves to have a conscience and have shown themselves to put a higher priority on that conscience than their economic situation, and you will at least choose an honest politician.

But let’s suppose politicians were so corrupt that they could be bought. (Imagine all senators were like Sen. Nelson, willing to trade his moral stance on abortion for federal funding in his state.) What then?

Why, those people who have the greatest interest in politics will spend the most money and buy the most politicians. In essence, the government would be for sale, with those who stand to benefit the most working hardest to take control.

Who benefits the most from government? A free people or the despot? It takes a bit of faith in the free market to see that a free people are more prosperous than a despot. In other words, the sum total aggregated wealth of the American people is far greater than any despot who could ever hope to rule over the same.

In other words, the economic interests of the people will always coincide with that which maximizes freedom. Yes, I am saying that were the people free to buy their own government, they would purchase a government that would give them economic liberty, just laws, low taxes, and limited government.

It is only when we keep the people out of politics that bad things happen. By eliminating the limits to corporate spending on politics, the people (who are the corporations) can now influence politics in the right proportion to their economic interests.

It is this, and this alone, that the liberal fears most. Because ultimately, the liberal does not want individual rights and limited government.

I Don’t Blame Huckabee

December 1, 2009

A lot of words have been written condemning Gov. Huckabee’s decisions regarding the cop-killer. Here’s his explanation. (link)

I don’t blame Huckabee for the deaths of the cops.

I blame the cop-killer.

I blame the people around him who helped him kill those cops, either by teaching him or encouraging him to do so, or protecting him from the police and legitimate investigation into his abnormal and criminal behavior.

I blame the justice system as it currently stands. I can’t find fault in any of the actors who have dealt with this thug. They did their job, as far as I know, the way they were asked to, and they did it with a conscience free of guilt. It isn’t the people in the system who are at fault—it is the system. Just like we can’t blame the teachers for our broken education system—we have to blame the system.

There are two changes I’d like to see coming out of this. One, I’d like to see our justice system revisited so that violent criminals don’t get to walk around town and trials happen faster. This will require changes in law and our interpretation of the law, as well as adaptations to our understanding of our unalienable rights, all the way across the board, locally, state-wide, and federally.

Two, I’d like to see the thugs who supported, helped, and otherwise assisted the cop-killer punished to the full extent of the law. That punishment should exclude keeping them out of our society for good.

Also, those among us who have a shred of sympathy for this cop-killer need to think deeply. What kind of sympathy does he deserve? None that I can tell. All of us, in all levels of our society, need to agree that anyone who murders cops in cold blood doesn’t deserve to draw another breath on planet earth.

On Crime and Punishment

October 30, 2009

Seeing an “expert” in the field of crime and punishment post his thoughts on how to reform our judicial system to get less crime and punishment has got me thinking: Why is this so hard in the first place?

I think the answer lies in complexity. We, as humans, do terrible with complicated things. The more complicated something becomes, the more likely we are to get it all wrong. The tale of the blind men and the elephant wouldn’t be so fascinating if they were examining something simple, like a stick.

I don’t think the reason why we have so many criminals is because they don’t understand the law. I doubt there is anyone in prison today who thought they were keeping the law when in fact they broke it. (If there is, it is an injustice to keep them in there.)

The reason why we have so many criminals is because the law is so complicated that crime actually pays. See, if you pull of a massive fraud on investors, it will take twenty years for investigators to discover the crime, another ten to put together a case, and then a couple more years to actually hand down your sentence. That’s a long and full life of crime, where you are untouched by the law. Crime does pay.

If the law were simpler, then crime would be easier to punish. And if it were easier to punish, we would punish more criminals. And this would be a deterrent.

So, for example, if you decided to perpetrate a fraud on the people, investigation would take an afternoon, the trial would last another day, and sentencing would be a few hours. And then you would be suffering the punishment for your crime, rather than enjoying a lifetime of benefits from your criminal acts.

We have built up traditions and practices and policies, and even laws, that prevent us from doing the above. We are so sensitive to people’s rights that we forget the victim’s rights in all of this. The law is supposed to balance the two, not give preference to one or the other. Traditions and practices and policies are supposed to expedite the application of law, not hold it off its application for as long as possible.

To change our judicial system, I propose we go back to a simpler time when laws read more like the 10 commandments and less like legalese you’d find on the back of your credit card statement. I am confident that we can boil down all of our civil laws into a few simple statements focused around individual rights. All of court procedure and investigation procedure can likewise be boiled down to a few lines of text. The entire state and federal code should be something you can read in a few hours, maximum. Little children should be able to memorize the principle concepts and adults should be able to memorize the whole thing.

But we’ll need the cooperation of the courts. As long as appellate and supreme courts keep themselves busy overturning lower courts on the most trivial of technicalities, cases are going to drag on and on. Appellate courts and supreme courts should only act in obvious cases of injustice.

Most importantly, if we, the people, begin to demand a simpler judicial system and the faster application of the law in criminal cases, we will get what we ask for. Simply evaluate candidates and determine whether they will help you get what you want or stand in the way, and vote appropriately.

Why Justice Matters

July 29, 2009

The Black Panthers camped out in front of a polling station—with weapons. They threatened people who came to vote.

The case was taken up by the Bush administration. The defendants lost. Then the Obama administration lets them go, scot free, for purely political reasons. (link)

Without justice, something changes in our society. Instead of people reporting crimes to the police, and allowing the justice system to do its work, they will take matters into their own hands, acting as police, judge, jury, and executioner.

See, the right to defend oneself and one’s property is unalienable. We are temporarily allowing the government to use some of our unalienable rights to make our lives better by taking care of the messy stuff for us. The moment that trust is broken, then the government no longer governs. It’s not political theory, this is political fact, seen countless times all over the world.

Next time the Black Panthers do this, I won’t be surprised if shooting breaks out between the people and the Panthers. Why? Because the people know that the Obama administration won’t do anything to protect the voting rights of the people, leaving the people to fend for themselves.

This is the kind of thing that leads to civil wars.

Who will be to blame? President Obama. If he merely enforced the law and brought criminals to justice, people from both sides of the aisle would trust the system to work. Unlike President Bush, who fiercely pursued both republicans and democrats caught breaking the law, President Obama intends to only pursue Republicans, and those Democrats who no longer serve his purposes.

Sotomayor: Perjury

July 15, 2009

Sotomayor is lying. She is lying to the senate and the American people. She doesn’t believe most of what she is saying, except to believe that perhaps we might buy the lie and accept her as one of the 9 justices we turn to to settle grievances with the federal government or between parties in different states.

Why do I say she is lying? Because she is. She sounds like a Scalia, Alito, or Thomas, not the type of judge she truly is. She is contradicting her stated beliefs, her past speeches. She hasn’t said she has changed, she is talking as if those things never happened.

My question to Sonia Sotomayor is this: If the senate sustains your nomination, and it turns out you lied about any part of your testimony, should you be impeached? What if another judicial nominee told such tall tales and was discovered after sustaining. Should that other judge be impeached?

I doubt her two answers would be the same, since she has trouble understanding what justice truly is, and what the statement of fact “God is no respecter of persons” truly means.

Perhaps we can get her more simply. Ask her, plainly, “Where do the people’s rights come from?”

If she says “God”, then continue. If something else, then expose how rights given by anything but God can never be rights since rights cannot be revoked.

Then ask her, “Where does government come from, and what are they for?” If she says, “from the rights of the people, to protect the rights of the people”, then continue. If she says anything else, then ask her what the meaning of the preamble to the constitution is, and under what conditions the constitutionally established federal government can be dissolved. Then ask her, if she cannot see any way that the federal government could ever be dissolved, whether God gave her or anyone else the right to trample on other people’s rights, and what recourse they have when they do, and how such a system will ever lead to anything but revolution. Has God established her as an elect leader, a crowned princess or queen, to lord over His subjects on behalf of Him?

Finally, ask her, “What does a supreme court justice do?” If she does anything but quote the constitution or plainly interpret it according to the common understanding of the words at the time they were written, then ask her the final question: “By what authority do you suppose you are allowed to do anything you pretend to want to do as a supreme court justice? Because, ma’am, you have just told us that you have no authority to do those things.”

And if she agrees with all the above according to the common understanding of our Founding Fathers, then it is time to expose all of her writings and rulings which contradict what she said, closing with the question, “Why should a liar serve in any position of any government?”

Sonia Sotomayor: Not Fit

May 27, 2009

If you love the rule of law, and not of men, then Sonia Sotomayor cannot be confirmed as a member of the Supreme Court.

As an appeals court judge, her conduct was more that of an activist than of a judge. Rather than represent the ideals of justice and fairness, she embraced injustice and unfairness. Anytime someone on the bench shows preference for one side or the other, and does anything more than preside over the courtroom during hearings and apply the law as it has already been written and interpreted, is a time that they go beyond their duties and begin the malpractice of injustice.

As a country, we rely on the law. We rely on judges being an arbiter of what the law means. We rely on them applying the law equally for everyone. That is, as a rich, white male, I should get the same treatment under the law as a poor illegal immigrant from Mexico. I should be judged on my actions and intentions, not on arbitrary distinguishing characteristics such as skin color and heritage.

We’ve moved beyond that racism. We’ve long ago decided that the ideal of justice is too important to leave in the hands of politicians and administrators, entrusting that sacred duty to those who can be kept impartial and separate from politics by force of constitution.

I understand why leftists like Barack Obama rely on judges who are not just. The law is simply not in their favor. After all, even way back in 1787, when the constitution was first adopted, the constitution was put into place to protect the people from tyrants like Barack Obama who come with a message of hope, love, and peace, but come bearing the sword of destruction through government imposition. If the constitution were applied as it was written and intended, Barack Obama and socialists all over our government, from both parties, would find themselves completely stripped of the power to hurt the people with their policies and laws.

It requires a special kind of judge, a judge who can read the constitution, read the laws, and then decide for herself what it should mean rather than what it does mean, and then change the laws and constitution of our country to suit the case. Without this kind of judge, socialism would’ve died a long time ago in the USA.

Sonia Sotomayor, and any person who cannot read the constitution and understand what it meant so long ago, and apply those same principles to cases today, is not fit to serve on that bench. To allow them to do so cuts the constitution to shreds, to the point where we are today, where the federal government is not bound by it and in truth, neither are we. It leads to chaos, anarchy, the rule of men and not of law. It leads to injustice, social or otherwise.

I cannot permit Sonia Sotomayor to sit on that court. I hope that all those who value the rule of law will oppose her appointment, as well as any nominee like her. The senate can and must hold President Obama to appoint someone who will rule based solely on the facts of the case, the original meaning of the constitution, and the current state of the laws of our country. No other justice will do.