The idea of classifying a crime as a hate crime is ludicrous. How can you criminalize an involuntary, emotional reaction? You certainly should criminalize some bad behaviors hate can cause.

But, as it stands, crimes labelled “hate crimes” are prosecuted more vigorously and potential consequences for engaging in such behavior are harsher than other run-of -the-mill crimes.

For now we do have “hate crimes”, so…WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.

Jussie Smollett may have perpetrated a hoax, claiming he was the victim of a violent hate crime. This drew 16 criminal allegations. All were dismissed due to his having surrendered his $10K bail and the fact that he’d worked pro-bono for Jessie Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.

Smollett’s claim, if it had proved false, would have constituted as much of a hate crime as it would have been a hate crime if his claim were true. You don’t excuse hate crimes via forfeiture of bail and a few hours of partisan community service. What we’ve witnessed is unequal protection under the law as provided through liberal racism.

There are many styles of humor and I enjoy them all, but the one I prefer is the one that makes me laugh.

Anyone who reads this blog should realize I don’t defend Trump. I am not a member of the Republican party. I try to be fair and report facts as logically as I can.

Special prosecutor, Robert Mueller has released his investigation report to Attorney General, Barr. Barr has released a summation of Mueller’s report. The report found no Russian collusion on the part of Donald Trump or his presidential campaign in 2016. Mueller did not exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice, only saying Mueller didn’t find sufficient evidence to bring such charges. Any further action was deferred to Barr.

In a criminal trial there are two basic points to be established by the prosecution. 1) Motive. 2) Opportunity. The Mueller report discredits any motive. Without motive, there would be no reason to obstruct justice. That is logical.

Yet, the Democrats are now hanging onto the point of opportunity. Would Trump have opportunity to obstruct justice? Yes. Of course he would . He’s the President. But what would be his motive to do so? There’s no motive. Is it just me, or has this gotten well past  the point of embarrassing, sophomoric behavior on the part of those who still refuse to believe Hillary isn’t in the White House?

This didn’t go the way the media wanted it to go, so they will continue to try to keep alive a story which never drew a legitimate breath.

For the three year period of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018 Chicago has had 1991 gun homicides.  This is more killings than in New York City and Los Angeles, combined.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

So why is this happening? Because bad guys don’t obey the laws and keep their guns. Only the people who do obey the laws have been disarmed. No reasonable person could argue that Chicago’s enhanced gun laws work.

Democrats continue to argue for tougher gun regulations. What did Einstein say about trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Guns are not evil. Guns can’t think. Guns don’t have personalities or bad desires. Guns are tools. When used legally, guns are rescue devices, like fire extinguishers. They save lives. When guns are used illegally, they murder people.

People are the killers. Until folks are willing to stop worrying about offending certain groups and place the blame for gun violence correctly with the offending individuals, where it belongs, the problem will continue.

If a U.C Berkeley professor was to take LSD, would he experience reality?

I’m not getting any younger.

I went to see my doctor the other day to find out what is wrong with me. I have aches and pains all the time now. Every time I visit him, I enjoy showing off how much I know about his line of work. I speak to him in his own lingo.

I said, “Doc, I get headaches sometimes. Is there something in my craymien that’s doing that? Perhaps my abdulla oblomonga is swollen or my pitayitory gland needs work? Should you do an electroensnaphlagreph? He smiled.

I said, I’m also having problems with my pre-formance in the sack. I know I have an enlarged prostrate. Sometimes I have premature e-jacko’lantern. Do you think that’s the cause of my pterodactyl dysfunction? He shrugged and said, “Dunno.”

I told him about my hammeroids and asked him if he wanted me to bare my gluteus maxwellhouse. “Won’t be necessary,” he said.

“The last time you were in, weren’t you complaining about some sort of sports injury? “Wasn’t it tennis elbow?” “Golf balls.”, I said. “Oh, yes, I see that in your chart. I stand corrected.”, he mumbled.  “And how are they feeling now?” “Teed off!” I yelled.

“So”, I demanded, “What the hell is going on with me???”

“Well, two things”,” he chuckled. “First, you’re getting a little older. Second, you were educated in California.”

In the wake of the horrible mosque shootings in Christchurch New Zealand, where at least 50 people have died, N.Z. Sen. Fraser Anning made a public comment, “Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?” Everything about the incident was heartbreaking until the senator was interrupted.

A 17 year old protestor with his phone camera in hand recorded himself smashing a raw egg over the senator’s head. The senator calmly turned around and punched the kid squarely in the face…twice. The boy looked very surprised. Apparently the senator is a southpaw.

I didn’t consider what the teen did nor what the senator did to be violent. It was like a Laurel and Hardy routine. I considered these to be “stupid human tricks”. It took me several viewings before it stopped being funny.

POSTSCRIPT: It seems some people are demanding Sen. Anning be charged for punching the teen. This includes the Prime Minister, who wants to see the man suffer the full wrath of the law. She and others don’t believe the senator had a right to physically respond to the assault. Folks should be reminded that the kid instigated the confrontation. He drew first yolk!

Fox News host, retired judge Jeanine Pirro, made a comment regarding Ilhan Omar’s (D Minn,) wearing of a hijab  being a possible adherence to Sharia law. This, following some of the latter’s supposedly anti-Semitic recent public comments.  Pirro said, “Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?

Fox News pulled Pirro’s show, “Justice with Judge Jeanine”, from its lineup and admonished her stating, “We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rpe. Ilhan Omar”…”They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”

At this point, Pirro’s position at Fox News has not been released; but the executives at Fox News should know they have an important decision to make. Their decision will determine whether their policies adhere to the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as they claim…or they don’t adhere to the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Free speech is the issue here. There is also the issue of the loss of some sponsors.

Responding to the uproar, Pirro said (in part), ” My intention was to ask a question and start a debate, but of course because one is Muslim does not mean you don’t support the Constitution.” Pirro hasn’t apologized for her hijab comments.

The question at hand is simple: Will Fox News prioritize advertising dollars over its hosts’ freedom of speech?

Rep. Omar has the right to wear a hijab and to make anti-Semitic comments. Pirro has the right to find fault with Rep. Omar’s comments and insult her for wearing a hijab. Fox News has the right to admonish Pirro.  Fox News has the right to fire Pirro for speaking her mind (or do they?). Pirro has the right to sue Fox News for wrongful termination (unless she foolishly signed a contract disallowing her to exercise her right to free speech on the air). All very hapless, confusing and childish.

By pulling “Justice with Judge Jeanine” from the lineup, Fox News stepped over the line into the censoring/politically correct territory of liberal cable news. This delegitimizes the network.

Fox News executives should realize what Rush Limbaugh knows all too well. You shouldn’t fear controversy… particularly when you have logic on your side.

On the one side you have a completely innocent, unborn child residing in a healthy mother whose vacation will have to be postponed if she gives birth.

On the other side, you have Richard Allen Davis, who kidnapped and brutally killed 12 year old Polly Klass.

Which life does Gavin Newsome champion?

What is the difference between right and wrong?

This isn’t rocket science, boys and girls.

California Governor, Gavin Newsome, just abolished capital punishment in California. He did this in a unilateral fashion, against the wishes of the majority of voters. Gavin purports to be in favor of democracy, but like so many others of his ilk, democracy isn’t the way he wishes to do things if the process doesn’t fit his agenda.

I , too, am against capital punishment, with one caveat. It’s not that I don’t believe certain violent criminals should be spared the death penalty. I just believe the state isn’t the entity that should be taking lives.

Capital punishment isn’t punishment due to the fact that there isn’t a lesson taught to the offender. He/she is dead. The death penalty is vengeance, pure and simple.

My take on the subject is as follows: If someone is sentenced to death, the survivors/family members of the victim(s) are due vengeance and should decide whether the convicted individual lives or dies. The survivors should be afforded the opportunity to kill the murderer if they choose to do so; or they could name the state as proxy to carry out the execution. The state has no conscience. Individuals do. If, in the unlikely event, the wrong person is executed, the individual will have to find a way to live with the guilt. The state can’t feel guilt. Perhaps the survivors might offer mercy or forgiveness and commute the sentence to life without the chance of parole. Perhaps the survivors won’t want to take the chance that the wrong person is being executed and allow the convict to live. Either way, I don’t believe the state has a stake in the final decision. The people who are now without a loved one due to some criminal’s heinous actions are entitled to their pound of flesh.

Richard Allen Davis (the kidnapper/killer of Polly Klass), along with736 other condemned convicts will now not suffer the death sentence imposed on them by the courts. Polly’s dad, Marc Klass, is quoted as saying he is “viscerally angry” with Newsome’s moratorium. I wonder how Newsome would feel in Marc’s shoes. Of course, Newsome’s kids are alive so he has no sense of the blindsiding, slap in the face Marc Klass must feel.

Newsome is nothing more than a pretend kindergarten teacher trying to impose  imaginary “feel good” rules in a real world of adults; and is doing so without their consent. It would be easy to criticize him for his naivete; but there really isn’t any point. He is a liberal progressive and simply doesn’t know any better.