Sunday Respite – The Second Waltz

 

For today’s Sunday Respite I chose André Rieu – The Second Waltz. Beautiful photography and music. Wishing everyone a safe and enjoyable Sunday.

Looks like the weather people have missed the mark once again, so good news so far for us. Now just rain.

I suggest watching the video in full screen. Better yet, send it over your smart T.V.

 

Advertisements

Supreme Court’s Decision To Duck a Foie Gras Case – End of Food Freedom?

 

First they came for our toilets. Then our shower heads. Then our lightbulbs. Now they implement a foie gras ban. There really isn’t any limit to how much our newly minted legislators and generation Z’s now want to get their hands on our food supply. Oblivious to the cost of of their demands. Apparently the Supremes have little taste for the case as well.

foie gras definition is – the fatted liver of an animal and especially of a goose usually served as a pâté.

Setting aside the debate regarding the method used to develop the fatted liver, when and where will it stop in regulating raising livestock? Free range chickens only? Pork, Beef. How about farm raised fish?

 

 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it would not (yet) hear an appeal in a case challenging California’s unconstitutional and much-reviled foie gras ban. The case will now head back to U.S. District Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a temporary setback for foie gras producers, chefs, and others fighting the law. They’ve vowed to continue their efforts.

Michael Tenenbaum, who represents the plaintiffs in the case, told me this week that he and his clients look forward to proceeding with the case and that they’re confident they will prevail.Meanwhile, though, restaurants and others in California that serve foie gras could face fines of $1,000 for any violation of the law.

….

Culinary leaders—from California chefs to French foie gras producers—are aghast.

Those interested in learning more may do so by reading the April column on the amicus brief, the brief itself, and other earlier columns on foie gras over the years.)

“We noted in our brief that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed bans on various types of foods and liquors as ‘lunacy’ and ‘despotic,'” says Manny Klausner, a former editor of Reason, a Reason Foundation co-founder and board member, and attorney who joined me on the Reason/Cato amicus brief. “The Supreme Court’s denial of cert. is a sad occasion for those who support Free Minds and Free Markets.”

In the amicus brief and elsewhere—including this O.C. Register op-ed last year—It was argued that the implications and reverberations of the foie gras case extend well beyond foie gras and could ensnare almost any conceivable animal product, including beef, pork, and chicken.

The concerns expressed then are even more apparent today given that the Supreme Court—also this week—rejected challenges to two separate animal-rights laws in Massachusetts and California that, just like the foie gras ban, serve as unconstitutional impediments to interstate commerce in animal products. (The laws, while different from one another, restrict the ability of farmers to cage egg-laying hens and other livestock.)

Interfering with interstate commerce is exactly what these laws intend and what they do. Consider that a poll (much touted among animal-rights groups) last year found nearly half of respondents want to ban slaughterhouses and so-called “factory farming.” A full one-third of Americans, the poll claims, want to ban all livestock farming. Period. A ban on livestock farming would mean that nearly all animal-derived foods—from prime rib to pork chops, bacon, and chicken McNuggets—would disappear for good.

But there’s more. With the foie gras ban and the Massachusetts and California animal-rights laws allowed to stand—for now, at least—there is little doubt that other U.S. states where livestock farming and exports of animal products play a leading economic role will find creative ways to retaliate against California and Massachusetts. Animal rights supports might not like these laws so much.

Lawmakers in a state impacted by California’s animal-rights laws, say, might pass a law that says all eggs sold in their state may come only from caged hens. (Any old justification would do, but let’s go with the food-safety argument that they’re more hygienic than eggs from free-roaming chickens.) Such a law would effectively spell the end of California egg exports to that state. More at Reason

 

Stranded Pelosi and all her junkets – wait, now CODELS!

 

Anyone happening to watch cable news yesterday was in for a real treat. Here-to-for “Junkets” now receiving the term CODEL in everyday parlance. That is the “tell” for this delightful story.

Within an hour of the take off of the latest Congressional junket, Trump pulled the plug. The bus, carrying the participants sans Nancy was loaded and ready to go. Now what to do with the loaded bus?

Apparently the Congressmen were in shock. In disbelief. The bus sat there.

According to Fox News reporter, Chad Pergram, furious phone calls are flying back and forth from The Hill to the State to the Pentagon and White House.

 

Clearly the Congressmen didn’t want to be seen dis-embarking, after much delay round and round in a circle the bus went. Peter Doocy from Fox made a gallant effort by running after the bus to catch the disembarkment.

 

 

 

How about a pic about the disembarkment of Nancy’s wardrobe?

 

 

 

Getting back to Nancy. Let’s take a look at her travel plans when she was head honcho way back.

 

She LOVES to fly on our dime and brings family along. For example Pelosi used the Air Force aircraft for a total of 85 trips, covering 206,264 miles, from March 2, 2009 through June 7, 2010. Wow. Take a look at all of the “incidentals” in keeping Nancy in style

 

Speaker Pelosi came under fire in 2007 for requesting a 42-seat Air Force carrier to ferry the Speaker and her staff back and forth between San Francisco, CA and Washington, DC. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was allowed access to a 12-seat commuter jet for security reasons after the events of 9/11.

“Taken together, these documents show that Speaker Pelosi treats the Air Force like her personal airline,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Not only does Speaker Pelosi issue unreasonable requests for military travel, but her office seems unconcerned about wasting taxpayer money with last minute cancellations and other demands.”

Watch Tom Fitton rip Pelosi (who was House Speaker back then) apart for her outrageous demands and traveling on taxpayer dime back in 2009:

 

 

 

“Purchases for one Pelosi-led CODEL on May 15-20, 2008 included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin,” Tom Fitton said.

“Speaker Pelosi used the Air Force aircraft for a total of 85 trips, covering 206,264 miles, from March 2, 2009 through June 7, 2010. Pelosi, her guests and Air Force personnel logged a total of 428.6 hours on these flights,” Mr. Fitton added.

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal DOD email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s last minute cancellations and changes. The following are a few highlights from the documents, which are linked in full below:

  • In response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one Defense Department official wrote, “Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi’s team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?…[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’…” The email also notes that Pelosi’s office had, “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”
  • One DOD official complained about the “hidden costs” associated with the speaker’s last minute changes and cancellations. “We have…folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc.”
  • The documents include a discussion of House Ethics rules and Defense Department policies as they apply to the speaker’s requests for staff, spouses and extended family to accompany her on military aircraft. In May 2008, for example, Pelosi requested that her husband join her on a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) into Iraq. The DOD explained to Pelosi that the agency has a written policy prohibiting spouses from joining CODEL’s into combat zones.
  • Documents obtained from the U.S. Army include correspondence from Speaker Pelosi’s office requesting an Army escort and three military planes to transport Pelosi and other members of Congress to Cleveland, Ohio, for the funeral services of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Pelosi noted in her letter of August 22, 2008, that such a request, labeled “Operation Tribute” was an “exception to standard policy.”
  • The documents also detail correspondence from intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi issuing demands for certain aircraft and expressing outrage when requested military planes were not available. “It is my understanding there are no G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable…The speaker will want to know where the planes are…” wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King writes, “This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker.”
  • During another email exchange DOD staff advised Kay King that one Pelosi military aircraft request could not be met because of “crew rest requirements” and offered to help secure commercial travel. Kay King responded: “We appreciate the efforts to help the codel [sic] fly commercially but you know the problem that creates with spouses. If we can find another way to assist with military assets, we would like to do that.”

H/T:  Gateway Pundit

Judicial Watch

It’s the Economy, Stupid

 

It’s the Economy, Stupid

by Mustang- Our man on the beat in Great Britain

 

During the 1992 presidential campaign, where George H. W. Bush sought reelection against William Jefferson Clinton, the United States was in an economic recession.  The impact of this can be demonstrated by the fact that in March 1991, Bush had a 90% approval rating (following the ground invasion of Iraq[1]), but in August 1992, his approval rating was somewhere in the neighborhood of 36%.

James Carville, working for Clinton as his campaign manager, addressed his campaign staff on issues that might work for Clinton during the final run for the White House.  Carville thought the campaign should focus on three things: (1) Change vs. more of the same; (2) Don’t forget about healthcare, and (3) It’s the economy, stupid.

We’ve heard that phrase repeated frequently in subsequent elections.  The problem is that beyond its underlying truth, no one really knows how the economy works.  We do have a sense about the level of our disposable income, but most of us have no clear idea how political policies impact against our financial circumstances.  Not to worry, though … economists don’t know, either.

Here’s something else we do not know: recent history.

European Economic Community

In 1957, several European nations formed what was then called the European Economic Community (ECC).  Great Britain was not part of this effort, primarily because French President Charles de Gaulle refused to allow British membership.  The UK’s admission finally came in 1973, after de Gaulle stepped down as president.  But two years later, in 1975, Britain’s ruling Labor Party held a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EEC.  Sixty-five percent of the British people answered with an overwhelming “yes”.

In 1983, the Labor Party was trying to win the national election on a platform of withdrawing from the EEC.  The attempt failed and Margaret Thatcher was reelected by a significant margin.

In 1997, fourteen years after the EEC became the European Union (EU) James Goldsmith formed a Referendum Party, pledging to hold a national referendum on the question of the UK remaining in the EU.  Goldsmith’s efforts garnered him less than 3% of the nation’s support and the referendum party failed to win even one seat in the Parliament.

In 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected calls for a referendum on this issue, but a year later, he announced that a referendum would be held were he to be reelected in 2015.  Soon after his reelection, the European Referendum Act was introduced to initiate the process of national referendum.  In 2016, Cameron announced that the referendum would be held on 23 June.  Cameron was a staunch advocate for remaining in the EU; when the vote overwhelmingly demanded withdrawal, Cameron resigned.  Suddenly, the burden of creating an acceptable formula for Brexit fell upon Theresa May, who at the time was serving as Home Secretary … her political background was that of a “one nation conservative.”

This is the recent history of the Brexit novella.  Now, as to economists …

In the USA, there are somewhere around 15,000 non-academic economists.  They earn from around $83,000 to $150,000 annually.  They earn these remarkable salaries even when their predictions and analyses are completely wrong.  In fact, economics is such a lucrative vocation that American universities grant close to 1,000 PhDs every year.  We find these people employed by private corporations, followed by federal and state governments; at the lower end of the income scale we find college professors who earn their pay by spouting economic theory.

In contrast to the foregoing, the United Kingdom only hosts around 1,000 economists, most of whom work for the government in more than thirty different departments.  What this suggests to me is that there is less “noise” about economics in the UK than there is in the United States —which is not to suggest that we understand it any better than our British cousins, only that we’re exposed to more of it than they are.

Economists earn their robust salaries by “studying and analyzing” data in order to identify trends in various economic activities, predict confidence levels, and attitudes among consumers.  To accomplish this, they rely on mathematics and computer programming (normally referred to as models).  From these processes come recommendations about how to improve the economy or take advantage of developing trends.  In the United States, there are no legally required educational requirements or licensure for an economist.  All that’s needed in order to bill oneself as an economist is 21 semester hours of college study, bolstered by a few more hours of introductory statistics, accounting, or calculus.  There are numerous fields within which an economist could be employed, including banking, finance, accounting, marketing, lobbying, and political consulting.  In other words, an economist has about the same veracity in his field as a meteorologist has in his.

I’m no economist.  In fact, the more I know about such things, the less I understand.  Currently, I’m trying to understand the clamor in the United Kingdom regarding its impending exit from the European Union (called Brexit).  Should I rely on anything British politicians are saying about Brexit, I would end up with less understanding, not more.  In this, I join the ranks of most British citizens.  Unhappily, for the British people, their economists know even less than I do.

So —I’ve been searching for a single document that will tell me what “we” might expect to happen in the post-Brexit world.  I’ve sort of found the answer …

According to a paper created by Gemma Tetlow and Alex Stojanovic of the Institute for Government, the result of Brexit all depends on what your definition of the word is, is.  This rather lengthy paper underwhelming concluded, “Brexit will lead to a significant change in the UK’s relationship with other European countries.”

In essence:

1.     There are as many economic projections about the effects of Brexit as there are British economists

2.     Each projection depends on as many varying economic assumptions (otherwise known as guesses)

3.     None of these economic models will be accurate if any of their assumptions are wrong

 

Well, I suppose that economic relationships are at best difficult to understand.  As an example, two years ago, the United Kingdom was the tenth largest export economy in the world.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that the UK imported from other countries far more than it exported.  We call this a negative trade balance.  In 2016, the UK had a negative trade balance of $235 billion.  Of course, the British trade imbalance is far less than ours, but as a measure of the British economy, comparing it to the trade imbalance in 1995, (using the current value of money) it came to only $52 billion.  The question then becomes, how has membership in the EU benefited the British economy or its people?

There is more that confuses me.  Why wouldn’t the United Kingdom prefer trade with the United States over the European Union?  The US and UK share a common language, a similar legal system, similar institutions, are culturally compatible, and, allowing for sophisticated marketing schemes, American consumers might prefer British goods over those made in China.  In both economies, the service sector is the largest percentage of the national economy.  Neither country produces as many goods as they did forty or fifty years ago … significant because the services sector simply sells things to people who earn their living by selling things to other people.  Wealth isn’t what you sell, it’s what you produce.

The European Union hosts a single market.  There are economists who argue that EU membership fails to serve the interests of the British people, particularly as it applies to agriculture.  EU regulations control the way farmers produce their goods, how much of it they are allowed to produce, and amazingly, how much they can charge.  This is not free-market capitalism—and agriculture is but one sector of several.  Even if we ignore such limitations as language, legal systems, enforcement mechanisms, there is hardly any convincing argument favoring EU membership.

Granted, there is much I don’t understand about the complexities of a national economy —but here is what I do know:  Great Britain is the third largest economy in Europe (after Germany and France).  The agricultural sector is intense, highly mechanized, and perhaps the most efficient in all of Europe.  The UK produces 60% of Europe’s food needs and does so with less than two percent of the total labor force.  The British control large sources of energy.  Financial services are key drivers of British GDP growth.  It’s weakest link: manufacturing.  Why, then, shouldn’t the UK capitalize on its strengths while working to improve its weakest sector?

My guess is that British politicians, much like our own, rely too heavily on the advice of egg-head economists, and not enough on basic common sense.  High tax rates are harmful to every economy.  In Great Britain, social service expenditures are far too high.  Deficit spending is a major problem … one of the highest in the G-7 nations (3.6% of GDP).  Currently, the UK is attempting to lower its corporate tax rate from 20% to 17% … a good first step, but income taxation is a disaster of epic proportions.  British citizens are taxed at 20% of their income up to £46,350, and 40% of their income over that amount to £150,000.  This makes no sense to me; every £1 (or dollar) a citizen pays in taxes equates to £1 (or dollar) that is unavailable for consumer spending or saving.  Consumer spending benefits the national economy; saving money is in the long-term interest of individual citizens.

As Great Britain seeks to reestablish its economy, Brexit may indeed cause an economic slowdown, but in the long-term, the economy could grow substantially … but this depends entirely upon how well British politicians understand the impact of their all-too-often brainless policy decisions.

Maybe there is someone in reader-land who could sort this out for me.  I’d certainly welcome the education.


[1] In the United States, people always approve of ground invasions whenever they don’t have to participate in them.

Mustang has other great reads over at his two blogs – Thoughts from Afar

with Old West Tales and Fix Bayonets

Federal Court orders discovery on Clinton E-Mails, Benghazi, Top Officials to Testify

The operative sentence in the Judicial Watch piece is this:

The DOJ fought against Judicial Watch and colluded with Hillary Clinton’s cronies to limit discovery, but Judicial Watch prevailed.

Benghazi Consulate Victim

Why is Tom Fitton doing all the hard work on this? Having heard the confirmation hearing of Barr for Attorney General yesterday, I hold scant hope that the office will be any better in supporting Congress and anyone else trying to get to the bottom all of the nefarious activities going on in the swamp. He and his family are “good friends” of Mueller. Hope springs eternal.

 

 

Judge Lamberth ordered senior Obama officials to provide written answers to Judicial Watch under oath.

Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes will be deposed under oath on the Benghazi scandal.

Seven Other Top State Department/Clinton Aides Must also Respond to Judicial Watch Querie

 

Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials, including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap, will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:

  • Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
  • whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
  • whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

Discovery is scheduled to be completed within 120 days. The court will hold a post-discovery hearing to determine if Judicial Watch may also depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

The Judicial Watch discovery plan was in response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Lamberth.

Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

The Judicial Watch piece is worth going over for the full read. A nice pick me up after the hearing yesterday.

Nobel Prize Winner James Watson Stripped of Awards over I.Q. and Race Remark

 

 

For years there have been so-called stereo-types about students innate abilities. Asian students score so much better at college testing, that even Harvard may have attempted reverse discrimination. Are these students brighter? Or is it cultural. Then we read that Jews may be genetically I.Q superior? The inference that certain groups of people have a better chance at being successful at life. As science continues its advancement, it is clear this discussion is a no-no in the P.C. culture in which we live.

Yet in all of this, up to now, this discussion took a pass at outrage until it came to 90-year-old James Watson making his statements. Sad, considering his accomplishment was one of the greatest of the last century.

 

James Watson

Distinguished scientist and Nobel Prize winner James Watson was stripped of several honorary titles after suggesting our genetic makeup cause differences in IQ tests.

 

CNN reported:

A Nobel Prize-winning American scientist who co-discovered DNA has been stripped of his honorary titles at the laboratory he once led after repeating racist comments in a documentary.

James Watson, who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA alongside Francis Crick in the 1950s based on the work of British chemist Rosalind Franklin, said in a PBS film that genes cause a difference in intelligence between white and black people in IQ tests.

The 90-year-old’s comments were labeled “reprehensible” by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) on New York’s Long Island, where Watson had been the director from 1968 to 1993.

The laboratory said it “unequivocally rejects the unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions Dr. James D. Watson expressed,” noting the statements were “reprehensible [and] unsupported by science.”

 

Then we have this: A Jewish Gene for Intelligence?

– Scientific American

 

Although the Holocaust was propelled by charges that Jews were genetically inferior to Aryans, a new study in the Journal of Biosocial Science published online in June supports the opposite notion: Ashkenazi Jews may be genetically predisposed to higher intelligence.

In the past, powerful figures, including Adolf Hitler, manipulated pseudoscientific ideas to fuel prejudice. But legitimate biological techniques now allow researchers to identify the functions of specific genes. 

Most scientists insist that cultural factors play critical roles in the development of a person’s intelligence. But Cochran is convinced that across generations, a person’s environment is insignificant compared with strong biological factors. “As genetics marches on, there are a lot of things people think are cultural, and they’re turning out not to be,” he says.

The sordid history of mixing genetics, ethnicity and intellect guarantees a spotlight on this work. But only time and rigorous research will tell if genes are the most important factor in conferring smarts.

Then how about Asians?

‘The wolf of racial bias’: the admissions lawsuit rocking Harvard …

The Guardian:

Oct 18, 2018 – A trial that could eventually decide the fate of affirmative action programs in the … Supporters of the lawsuit say Harvard illegally discriminates against Asian students.Supporters of the lawsuit say Harvard illegally discriminates against Asian Americans, putting a cap on the number of Asians admitted to the university and making it harder for Asian applicants to get in.

In conclusion, Dr. Watson touched the third rail. Even though studies out there indicate there may possibly be a connection between genes and I.Q we are to be silent. Not that one group is superior making others inferior, but in understanding what makes us tick

 

 

 

American Justice? Maybe

 

American Justice?  Maybe.

by Mustang

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” —Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

John Locke

 

The roots of such thinking was John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, wherein he argued that political society existed for the sake of protecting property, which is to say, life, liberty, and estate.  He also argued that a magistrate’s power must be limited to preserving an individual’s civil interests, which he reiterated as life, “liberty, health, and indolency of body and the passage of outward things.”

So the phrasing of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence relied upon this thinking to proclaim these goals on behalf of British colonists demanding (well, at least a third of them) their independence from the British Crown.

Through the years, Americans conclude that we are, therefore, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … happiness being to acquire and maintain property, which was back then, the source of all material wealth.

There ae no absolutes, however.  We may be entitled to pursue happiness, but the government has the power to take away our happiness for its own purposes.  In law,eminent domain is the power of government (local, state, federal) to seize private property while offering the landowner fair compensation —the word fair meaning “according to the government’s determination.”

This right of eminent domain may be delegated to private corporations when they are able to argue that their use of our property fulfills a public good—which also means “economic development” because it is assumed that land development is good for the public.  This may, in fact, be true … but should economic development usurp the inalienable right of citizens to their property?

Bush the Younger said no … he signed an executive order limiting federal seizures to public-use arguments, but his order has no effect on what states and local municipalities may do.  A state, country, city, or town may seize private property for their own purposes and pay the unwilling owner of the property a fair market value for that property.  Then they may turn around and sell that seized property to a developer, who then makes a fortune on land that he was never entitled to.

Pursuit of happiness?  Really?  Whose happiness?

This discussion fits nicely into the question of whether a citizen may sue the government.  The answer is, no … a citizen may not sue the federal or a state government without that government’s permission.  And the government may seize our private property, which is done more often than the average citizen may think.

You own a recreational vehicle and for ten months of the year, you lease it to others.  One of these renters is stopped for speeding along Interstate 10.  During the stop, police alert to the odor of marijuana.  A lawful search is conducted and not only do the police determine the presence of marijuana residue, they also find some quantity of another illegal substance.  Sorry Charlie … you just lost your motor home.  Federal, state, or local police seized it.  It will be auctioned off and you’ll continue making monthly payments.  Police can do the same thing to a house you’ve rented out to others.

Is this fair treatment, or does it fly in the face of our inherent right to happiness?

What does the good book tell us about justice?  “Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you.”  — Deuteronomy 16:20.

 

Mustang has other great reads over at his two blogs – Thoughts from Afar

with Old West Tales and Fix Bayonets

%d bloggers like this: