Stop Government Funding of a Notorious Fraudulent Scheme, College

It is well known that high school is a complete waste of time.

All government funding, subsidies, and grants should be stopped to our colleges. The government should not be funding treason indoctrination camps of the Democratic Party. With 90% of faculty belonging to the Democratic Party, the nation should not be subsidizing its own destruction.

In the case of law school education, such loans and grants actually fund the radicalization of intelligent students into a criminal cult enterprise. It must be crushed, with mass arrests, brief trials and summary executions of its 25,000 strong hierarchy. They have supernatural beliefs. They indoctrinate law students, not educate them. They are producing deniers. For example, they all support judicial review of laws by the Supreme and other appellate courts. Yet, Article I Section 1 grants "all" lawmaking powers to the Congress. If they wish to have judicial review, they should ratify an amendment. The cover up of this facts is 100%.

There Have Been So Many Sexual Harassers Fired, They Should Start Their Own Cable Network, the She Network

It would provide all aspects of a network, from production, to comedy, to news, to drama, to opera, to public radio, to celebrity chefs, to theater, to entertainment news, to civil rights commentary, to ballet, to constitutional law commentary,  by the smartest appellate court judge in the country, to a late night talk show hosting, the New Yorker reporter, the female Democratic Party candidate,  who caused the take down of a Presidential aide, the left wing editor of a liberal paper.

The voters reject feminist allegations. They have voted for notorious gropers, even if they did not bother to deny the allegations. That is because these allegations, the voters know, are meaningless. If you have any honor,  as a woman, you will slap the offensive pig, and leave. Such immediate response is far more effective than a lot of human resources procedure, investigations, reports, and legal advice. These are all ridiculous and ineffective at defending the honor of females. If the guy retaliates at work, send your brother to just beat his ass with a bat, then with the lid of a garbage can. The instructional video is here.

I predict Judge Roy Moore will win his election in Alabama, to the Senate, in 3 weeks. Just the image of employment lawyer, Gloria Alred, on TV is worth 100,000 votes for him. Everyone human detests her and her clients.

If the voters do not care, why do employers rush to fire the person, even before verifying the allegations, even if the allegations are from years ago?

The answer is simple. They could lose the entire business to predatory employment lawyers and appellate court judges. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. That is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional no matter what the dozens of Supreme Court decisions may falsely claim. Their primary purpose is to generate lawyer employment. All discrimination laws are really designed to enrich and empower lawyers. They have always had hideous effects on the classes they were meant to help. All racial disparities in social pathologies soared. Prior to the 1960's, it is hard to believe. Blacks had slightly higher rates of social pathologies, in unemployment, the rate of bastardy, poverty, crime victimization. Thanks, to this law, the rates are now an order of magnitude higher, and no longer just slightly higher.

The law against discrimination against the handicapped devastated their employability. This male witch hunt will make it harder to hire a female. Hire a female, hire a lawsuit. Females were hired because of technology, booming economies, labor shortages,  their education and skills, and, of course, their competitive, lower wages.

These anti-discrimination laws all violate the Right to Free Association inherent in the Freedom of Assembly Clause of the First Amendment.

In the case of sexual harassment claims, do people know the harasser is never named in the complaint, only the employer? This is true even if the employer was never informed of the harassment. That practice shows the real nature of these claims, to plunder the funds of productive entities, mostly run by productive males.

Such litigation may also be catastrophic to the successful plaintiff. Say, you win $1 million in a verdict or settlement for sexual harassment. The typical expenses were $400,000. That leaves $600,000. The lawyer may take a third in a contingency fee. That leaves $400,000. The federal and state tax will be on the full $1 million, because there was no physical injury, just discrimination. Your legal costs are not deductible from the taxable settlement. You may have to pay taxes close to $500,000. You may have to borrow $100, 000, to pay federal and state taxes. The IRS legal analysis and guidance is here.

Naturally, you will never work again. You would not be hired to swab the floor at a McDonalds, after suing an employer.

Failing to discuss the tax and employability implications of a discrimination verdict or settlement is lawyer malpractice, in my opinion. It may even rise to the level of fraud, since you go to a lot of trouble, ruin your future, and get nothing. The lawyer gets a lot of your money, making the work fraudulent if not openly and loudly disclosed, and put into writing. You could then sue your employment  lawyer by hiring a lawyer malpractice lawyer. He should tell you the tax implications of suing your employment lawyer for malpractice, or you should sue him. Lawyer malpractice claims, you should be warned, are nearly impossible to win. You should not sue unless certain of getting $5 million or more in settlement. Even then, the feminist plaintiff will be shocked at what is actually collected by her for damages.

This is an example of a ridiculous sex discrimination suit. This was over tenure. It could have easily been over the use of the non-preferred, but real world pronoun to address it. The federal court forced this transgender person down the throats of a decent university, using men with guns to impose its tyranny. People should be aware that Title VII has been stretched to justify $250,000 fines for using the non-preferred but real world pronoun of a transgender. Starting in 2018, in California, you may go to prison for a year for each infraction of calling the transgender by the non-preferred pronoun. I like the gender neutral pronoun, it.

Now, hire a gay, a female, a black, a handicapped, hire a lawsuit. They were doing well, before anti-discrimination laws, but  suffered after they were enacted. Employment  lawyers are doing much better.

Marriage Equality Hits Australia

Anyone who hates homosexuals, wants to see them suffer unspeakable agonies, for a long time, will strongly support marriage equality.

Today, only a self defeating fool would get married, especially the productive male. The legal system is on a jihad to take his assets and to destroy his life. It is totally rigged against the productive male. So the marriage rate has markedly dropped, down to 30% in blacks, and 60% in whites, in the 2010 Census.

Family law lawyers are desperate for work. They concocted this scheme to get homosexuals to marry. You homosexuals fell for it. It was never a homosexual idea. It was always a family lawyer idea.

In countries where it has existed a long time, very few homosexuals, especially productive males, are falling for this trap.

Although I do not particularly like homosexuals, I still see them as human beings. So, I do not relish the idea of seeing the spectacle of the blood bath headed their way in marriage equality. To all my homosexual friends, I say, "Run, it's a trap."

I feel like the cryptographer in this Twilight Zone Episode, To Serve Man, who figures out the real meaning of what the space alien is saying, and is running, screaming toward the people being loaded onto the space ship. When they are having you over "for dinner," the earth people are the dinner, not the guests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29

Veteran Status is Not a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing for Crime

Here.

Of course, veteran status is an aggravating factor.

1) Veterans were screened. They were superior to the general population. They endured training requiring great discipline and self control, to go forward in the face of live fire, not to run away, to coordinate attacks, to plan ahead, to judge great uncertainty, and to obey inscrutable orders. PTSD makes people try to avoid conflict, not hurt others.

2) What makes them hurt others are traditional reasons. Alcohol and caffeine addiction. Antisocial personality. Paranoid and mood disorders with onset after discharge, the average age being in the 30's and 40's.

3) Because being veteran implies training to hurt people, veterans are more dangerous than matched non-veterans. They should be incapacitated more than non-veterans.

4) The above reports, 1 in 12 prisoners are veterans. That validates veteran status as a protective factor against criminality. 1 in 4 adult males in the United States are veterans. Because of the screening, training, treatment, being a vet makes one more likely to be a moral, upstanding, productive person, and drops the chance of committing a crime by 2/3.

5) Making this a mitigating factor, is similar in logic to the Leona Helmsley defense. Juries did not buy it. She evaded $4 million in taxes, after claiming work on her private home as a business deduction. She claimed to have paid $400 million in taxes. What is $4 million after paying 100 times more? Large, past tax payments should mitigate her culpability and sentencing. Jury did not accept that argument.

6) The idea of veteran status as a mitigating factor is an insult to the sacrifices, and high level of performance of our service members.