novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

At the Worth Youth Chess Championships in Durban, South Africa, our pride of Virginia, Jennifer Yu, won the GOLD MEDAL in the 12G division (girls 12 and under). A little further down the page, you will will see Akshita Gorti, also of Virginia, in 12th place.

And our own Aasa Dommalapati took 14th place in the 10G division.

Doing Virginia proud, girls! Congratulations!

So, the Калифорния legislature passed a bill restricting government surveillance with drones. Gov. “Moonbeam” Brown vetoed it.

Check out the stupidity:

Brown said in a statement that the bill appears to be too narrow and could go beyond what the state and federal constitutions would prohibit.

“There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate,” he wrote. “The bill’s exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.”

Uh, Guvn’r, if the bill didn’t put tighter restrictions on your misuse of drones than the U.S. and Калифорния Constitutions require, there would be NO DAMNED POINT TO THE BILL AT ALL.

You can read all that happy horsecrap where he was the best; how he changed everything for the better; how transparent and truthful and trusting and unbiased he was. Read this as a starter and then read any other articles you want. I personally lived it. I hope the guy never gets another job that can hurt the American citizens. I also hope that he is indicted for crimes of corruption, abuse of power, violation of the Constitution, lying and just being a nasty, mean spirited, racist individual. I also hope I win the lottery and, as with this, know how that will turn out. Best that can happen is there is no AG approved before the mid-term elections or we will end up with more corruption and destruction.

The reason I first went to The Angry Bear was posts this one. (Too bad it’s infested with intolerant liberals in charge.)

The author of this post is the current (and last) Postmaster of Webster, NC, and speaks of his area of expertise, the United States Postal Service.

It always confuses the big-government liberals, stuck in the false-dichotomy mindset that says if they support Big Government and all Big Government programs, then conservatives opposed to Big Government must oppose all Big Government programs. What they cannot seem to wrap their minds around is the concept that we DO support the U.S. government’s running those programs which a the U.S. Constitution says it is supposed to run. Among these are the Army, the Navy, and the Postal Service.

So why this fascination (among conservatives mostly, I suppose — I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong) with the idea that the Postal Service is supposed to be self-supporting? We do not expect the Army to be self-supporting. It probably could be. We could probably sell enough weapons, and rent out enough troops, to make it so. We do not expect the Department of the Interior to be self-supporting. We could probably place high enough rents on mining and grazing operations, and high enough fees for visitors, to make it so.

The point is that profits are not what the government is about. Efficiency is desirable, but the primary mission of those agencies is to provide the services, not to turn a profit.

This is why we conservatives oppose Big Government — because Big Government is inefficient. That is why the Constitution cedes to the U.S. government only those things that cannot be done by the States and the People. At the time of our founding, the operations of the Postal Service could not be done by any other agency than the government of the United States. If, in the age of email, UPS, and Federal Express, we think that that situation no longer pertains, then we should amend the Constitution to remove that Power from the U.S. government. But killing a government program by forcing it to turn a profit, knowing that government programs are by nature inefficient, is, at best, disingenuous.

This topic has been weighing on my mind for some time. Even now, I am reluctant to write about it. But it is important.

Early in the swim season, one of our young instructors was accused by a parent of “inappropriately touching” her daughter while teaching her how to swim. The police investigator asked the boy and his mother to come in for an interview. During the “interview” (interrogation is a better word), the interrogator “mislead” (lied) about evidence saying, “We had a nurse specialist perform an examination of the girl. What if I told you we had DNA evidence?” (See? The interrogator didn’t say they DID have DNA evidence, only “what if….” In fact, the examination showed no evidence of assault.) The interrogator implied that there were other accusations. There were not. The interrogator implied that there would be leniency if he just admitted to the crime, when in fact she just wanted him to incriminate himself enough for her to file charges. He did, finally saying he had done it “once or twice” during backstroke, when he was holding her level so her bottom didn’t sink. The interrogator charged him with sexual assault.

Then came the court case. They got the interrogator, on the stand, to admit that she lied to get the “confession.” (From that point on, anything the interrogator says is immediately suspect. If she will lie to get a confession, why would she not lie to get a conviction?) She admitted that the accused and his mother had not been informed of his Miranda rights, nor was he or his mother told that the interrogation was being recorded.) Then, the accuser herself took the stand. She said the alleged assault came every day while she was doing breast stroke. Then she was asked whether the person who had done that was in the courtroom. She took a minute to look at everyone in the room, and said, “No.” The defense attorney, obviously, saw no point to cross-examining.

So them the girl’s mom took the stand. First, she lied and said she was at every practice. Then, she recanted on that. She then said she had not see any other swim instructors that day, when one was sitting in the courtroom (and the woman had walked by her three times already) and two more were sitting outside! Apparently, she knew the name of the accused boy’s mother, knew he was one of the instructors, found a three-year-old facebook picture, and accused him!

My suspicion is that this was a girl who was not a good swimmer (thus she needed help staying afloat during the backstroke) and didn’t want to go to practice anymore. “Well, WHY don’t you want to go?” “I don’t like it.” “But WHY don’t you like it? Did something happen?” “Yes.” “What? Did someone do something you didn’t like?” “Yes” “What?” “Nothing, really.” “What do you mean, NOTHING? Did someone touch you?” And it just degenerates from there. Mom with the leading questions, and the girl going along because she hates swimming. (Which doesn’t look good because her mom is on the Board for that pool. It was not the accused’s home pool.)

What kind of an effed-up justice system do we have that an boy can be accused of such a crime, which would result in his being barred from ever working with children again — not in swimming, not in Scouts, never — with ZERO evidence and a bullied confession given with false promises of leniency? This “investigator,” who did not actual investigation at all, should be fired and charged with misconduct. The mother should be charged with making false accusations, and at a minimum, should be required to pay the accused’s legal fees.

Banned from yet another leftist blog. I got there via the The Middle Class Political Economist, which has some interesting articles. Unfortunately, the host “moderates” all comments, which can take days (if at all — it seems some get “lost”), so there is no conversation to speak of. But some articles were cross-posted, and does not so “moderate” commentary.

Well, at first viewing it looked like a sane economics blog, with some interesting analysis of Fed interest rate policy, labor share and labor force participation rates, etc. No such luck. It’s full of intolerant libs who, if you disagree with their socialist policies, start calling one racist, stupid, arrogant, anti-poor, 370H $$@, etc. Finally, I was banned — ostensibly for repeatedly “introducing a new topic” (a.k.a. “hijacking”) threads. Indeed, in the last instance, the topics I was discussing were introduced by the original poster herself. It seems that the “new topics” I introduced were facts, logic, and reason. And they just cannot handle that.

I doubt that any of the commenters there will deign to come here. I applaud Troll and Special Ed for having the balls to stick to their guns when they are in the minority. The folks at Angry Bear cannot handle the comments of even a single conservative.

Well, our House of Representatives have voted to arm the “lite” jihadists (that we are calling “moderates”) in Syria to the tune of billions of dollars (that we do not have by the way). The Senate likewise passing this madness is pretty much fait accompli. Oh, to be a weapons contractors this month! (Or even a private military contractor)

So after Asaad is gone and the Islamic State group withdraws (note, NOT defeated), the war hawks (read: McCain and Graham) will come back and demand that we “secure the victory” by paying for a massive rebuilding project and oversee the installation of a democracy. That will cost another trillion dollars for so! Oh, and meanwhile the Islamic extremists (armed with our weapons) will continue guerrilla tactics, suicide bombings and such against us during the new occupation. No one is even debating ANY of that. And the biggest irony will be that Obama will have led us into this disaster.

The Islamic extremists have baiting us into spending ourselves into oblivion (to what end?) and are doing it again. Will we have a nation to leave to our children following all of this madness. But at least our ruling elite will be taken care of right? They have been leading a war on the rest of us for the past 20 years or so.

I can only hope that by 2016, perhaps neo-cons will be back out of favor again. But then again, are we – as the NY Times mentioned – in the “great unraveling”? The elites are leading us into decline and everyone is clapping for the freak parade.