AMERICA - WE ARE THE MOST LITIGIOUS SOCIETY IN THE WORLD!

AND THEREFORE, THE LEAST INCLINED TO ACCEPT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! The following is a BIG part of the problem...

From today's news - "SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A lawsuit that seeks to stop McDonald's from selling Happy Meals must be dismissed because parents can always prohibit their children from eating them, the hamburger giant said in a court filing.

The lawsuit claims McDonald's unfairly uses toys to lure children into its restaurants. The plaintiff, Monet Parham, a Sacramento, Calif. mother of two, claims the company's advertising violates California consumer protection laws."

The article goes on to mention names and Mickey D's position on the lawsuit (if I was on the jury hearing the case, this woman wouldn't stand a chance, and I would never change my position). Here's how I see it...

If you don't want the kids to hassle you for the Happy Meal, don't take the little bastards to McDonald's! Take them somewhere else for lunch or dinner. Or, here's a really unique idea - fix their meals at home! DON'T blame the seller if you buy something for your kids that you don't want your children to have. But, I suppose that suing somebody else for your personal inability to parent your kids, is better than being forced to admit that you can't accept your parental responsibilities and simply say, "No. You can't have that because it's not good for you. It may taste good, but it's not good for the rest of your body."

Then the situation is compounded by courts that will actually hear such ridiculous cases... which simply encourages more idiots to file suit to protect their self-image. It seems that most people would prefer to pin the blame on somebody else - especially if that somebody else has a very "deep pocket" - rather than exhibit self-discipline in matters of child rearing. And, they will do so every time, rather than examine their own fragile ego for flaws.

The legal profession has been guilty of "looking out for their own" for centuries. Judges today are the end-product of practicing lawyers, and they are keeping other lawyers cash flow positive with every lawsuit heard, no matter how groundless it may be. That explains why baseless lawsuits, that 50 years ago would have been dismissed as "frivolous" and a waste of the court's time, are allowed to go forward today. Inasmuch as 90% of our law makers are lawyers, that explains why our laws have become so complicated that the common man can no longer understand his rights, and why common sense has been effectively banned from our court system. The lawmakers feather their own nest, and the nests of their legal brethren, by insuring that Joe Average cannot understand the laws that govern his daily behavior. Should Joe find himself afoul of the law, he is defenseless without the expensive services of an attorney.

Citizens today will be greatly disappointed if they go to court expecting justice. With all the technicalities now built into the system, the main purpose of which is to protect legal practitioners, justice is an extremely rare commodity. What the plaintiff or defendant will get is a king-size helping of law, which is frequently lacking even a side order of "justice". To correct that we need panels of at least three judges, two of whom have common sense and have never practiced "law". It would then be incumbent upon the trained judge to convince the majority which party should be the victor in any case - civil or criminal.

But, that's just how I view systemic stupidity in our country. Stupidity, along with corruption, is rampant in all branches of our government... from municipal government to the federal government, what we have is the best government money can buy. We should all have that kind of money... or perhaps, less expensive lawyers.

D.C. Just Gets "Curiouser and Curiouser"

Lesbos and Marxists and fags... OH MY! Has anybody else noticed that the Obama administration seems to be loading the federal government with radicals of various and sundry bents, or am I the only one paying attention? In his efforts to destroy the American Republic as we knew it, he has done everything in his power to create irreparable harm within the federal infrastructure. There is at least one Hispanic/gender radical on the Supreme Court (Elena Kagan), an "I'm here and I'm queer" (Kevin Jennings) "Safe Schools" czar, and Obama's latest federal appointee, (Amanda Simpson, Obama’s Transgender Appointee) who proudly proclaims "...as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds". Now there's something to which we can all look forward, eh?

Okay... time to play "Did you know?" Did you know that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition), underwent a "text revision" (known as the DSM-IV TR), in the year 2000? Granted, the DSM-IV (and all of it's predecessors) is a relatively obscure publication to most (99.999%) of us - not nearly as well-known in the general public as any of Stephen King's works - it is, nonetheless, the premier volume relied upon by mental health professionals around the world. You may be muttering to yourself, "Get back on point, Gil... what did the text revision do?" What DSM-IV TR did was remove from homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, trans-gender, and virtually all sexual lifestyle choices, the heading of "Sexual Deviations". Suddenly, after 47 years of documented case studies, indulging in aberrant sexual behavior is no longer "deviant". What happened to cause this reversal? It is not that the behavior is no longer deviant... it is that it is not officially classified as such - thanks to pressure from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gender alliance. (Enter the Democratic Representative from Massachusetts Barney Frank - who probably spends more time on his knees than the Pope. Not praying... playing!)

Barney Frank, the Flaming Fag From the Fourth (Congressional District, MA), sponsor of the "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009" (HR2981 ). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of ENDA. Everybody should be allowed an opportunity to work in their chosen field. HOWEVER - it is the employer who should determine what is or is not appropriate dress and behavior while on the job, not the applicant or the government. The employer is, after all, the sole entity responsible for production and marketing, establishing and maintaining a harmonious working environment, and providing appropriate compensation/benefit packages for their employees. What would be the outcome if say 65% of the sworn officers of the San Francisco Police Department decided they should be able to wear colorful dresses to work instead of those boring blue uniforms with badges on them. And, although those 4" heels would be a bit more difficult to run in while pursuing a fleeing suspect, the more fashion conscious officers may feel compelled to wear them. Should they be denied that "right"? At the risk of repeating myself from earlier blog postings - DAMN RIGHT THEY SHOULD BE DENIED! Employers must have the right to determine what type of person can best represent their company's interests in an appropriate manner - but only during working hours. When the employee is on his/her own time "he" can dress like the Queen of Sheba, and "she" can dress like a lumberjack if they so desire. But, at work... if you take the man's money, you must play by the man's rules.

"Equal protection under the law" is the main thrust of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for special protections for any individual or group, yet the Obama administration is working hard to establish special protections for radicals of any and all stripes, and he (and/or his minions) are unceasingly chipping away at the foundations of our Republic. THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!

Where's The Birth Certificate?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will once again bring up the absence of an acceptable certificate of birth for Barak Hussein Obama. The following actions have been initiated, and most also resolved in some fashion, regarding this situation. The US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." (Taken at face value, a candidate would have to be at least 222 years old to satisfy this particular requirement.)

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.


• Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  
  
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.


• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.


• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.


• Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  
  
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  
  
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  
  
• Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  
  
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.


• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.

As you can see, the only actions taken by federal courts thus far is to deny the plaintiffs their "day in court". This does not necessarily mean that these suits are groundless, it means that the federal court system, and the Congress of the United States, have "circled the wagons" in order to protect His Holiness the Democratic Socialist Messiah. The corrupt court system could easily be bypassed if Congress simply demanded irrefutable proof of citizenship. However, corruption runs both wide and deep in our government, and the likelihood of such an action being taken by our Democratically-controlled Congress is somewhere up there with pigs flying.

Student Wins Suit Against Anti-Creationist Teacher

I just heard on Fox News that a California student has won a lawsuit against one of his teachers for violating the students First Amendment rights. This is a court decision about which I have mixed feelings.

I am a great believer in freedom of speech, thought, and expression, as the founders of our nation obviously were - that's why they made it the First Amendment! I don't know that there's anything in the First Amendment that could be interpreted to mean that one would never have to hear opinions with which they disagreed. However, as an individual, the teacher supposedly has the same First Amendment protections guaranteeing freedom of speech, thought, and expression.

In this case though, the teacher, in his official work capacity, is an authority figure representing the school district in which he teaches. The school district generally establishes curricula, and they normally require lesson plans to reflect those educational goals. I don't believe that our primary and secondary educational institutions are the proper venue for teachers to express their personal opinions, unless they preface their remarks with a statement similar to, "This is my personal opinion, and...", and then encourage discussion during and/or after they present their point of view. They must be ready to logically defend their position without ridiculing their students opinions.

The purpose of a lesson plan is to ensure, as best we can, that information is imparted to the student in a consistent manner within the state educational system. Without strict guidelines, the learning (or indoctrination) process would be even more chaotic than it is currently! The expression of the authority figure's (the teacher) personal viewpoint, without inviting ridicule-free discussion, is where the unauthorized indoctrination takes place (as opposed to the officially sanctioned indoctrination).

I don't believe in bashing anybody's Judeo-Christian belief system, as it has a history of over 2,000 years of world wide support. And, the last place to attack any individual's belief system - or even their choice not to believe - is in the public school classrooms! Our tax dollars are ostensibly spent for education, not indoctrination!

On the other hand, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed more... the student or the teacher? As I see things, neither is more guaranteed or more protected under the First Amendment, but one is more appropriate. So, my question to those few intrepids who actually read my blog is this, "Which one, and why?" Think about it.

You never know, I could be entirely wrong about this... and Obama could ocassionally publicly acknowledge that equal part of him which is white. The odds of either of these being realistic possibilities are about the same.................