Archive

Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Self-Defense then, Legally Sanctioned Justifiable Murder NOW!

Thank you Marc Fiore for the great satirical video; keep them coming!

After the horrendous decision of the jury in the Zimmerman case, the light has been shined on the law that allows this kind of legally sanctioned mis-interpretation of self-defense. This tainted interpretation of self-defense has allowed a jury to use their underlying predisposition of a young black youth to completely obliterate their common sense and proper legal instructions for self-defense.

In Florida, the Stand Your Ground law (SYG) has allowed for and even encouraged/protected unwarranted vigilante behavior of its citizenry. Stand Your Ground law has been effect in Florida for 5 years and since that time the rate of justifiable homicides in Florida tripled; How are you liking that Floridians? This sad state of affairs should make all law-abiding Americans take pause and realize that a reversal is in order on this approach to self-defense.

The Stand Your Ground law essentially gives every citizen the right to kill based a perceived level of threat of bodily harm or possible death regardless of how unfounded that perception is to the reality of the situation. In fact, if a person invokes the SYG law in their defense then they are actually protected against civil law suits. Can you think how America would feel if O. J. Simpson had used SYG as a defense; was found not guilty (as he did in reality); and then was protected from any civil prosecution?

Before the “Stand Your Ground (SYG)” law was implemented in Florida the provisions for and instructions to jurors on self-defense were vastly different. A typical judge in Florida would inform the jury that the following conditions had to be met in order for the defendant to qualify for self-defense in the state of Florida.

“The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he uses every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force. The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his/her use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, if by retreating, he/she could have avoided using that force.”

This was, and should have continued to have been, the standard by which  a law-abiding citizen could invoke a self-defense plea in a civilized society. The fact that Florida has ventured so far from this commonsense approach to self-defense (which has been a part of the American judicial system for many hundreds of years) is an abomination to justice and the health of The Social Compact.

That was the provisions for self-defense in Florida and in all states in America, but in came the Koch brothers money, the American Legislative Exchange Council(ALEC), and the irresponsible Republican and Democratic legislators of Florida and now they have the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida. This law takes an ominous and irresponsible turn on self-defense and now gives legal cover for justified offense; aka murder. It turns or gives cover for John Q. Public to go from a law-abiding citizen who calls upon police to handle a perceived criminal situation and turns them into a legalized vigilante with a license to kill with the added caveat of extra protections from civil liability’

Today, a Florida judge (as was the case in the Zimmerman trail) currently instructs jurors that the following minimalist conditions need only apply in court as a justifiable reason to take the life of another Floridian:

“If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he/she has a right to be; the defendant has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his/her ground and force with force including deadly force; if he/she reasonably believes that it was necessary to do so to prevent great bodily harm or death to himself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” Read more…

Sara Palin: Political Genius?!?

Sarah Palin has officially earned the status and rank of “Political Genius!” from the perspective of the Right side of the political spectrum that is.  This is stated with a great level of reluctance and trepidation, but it is factual in the sense that she has performed a Houdini-like feat of political magic.

When you look at Palin’s lack of mental depth, her non-existence political knowledge, her misunderstanding of historical facts, her primitive social outlook, and her complete lack of common sense, you have to be amazed at what she has accomplished.

The fact that Palin has maintained a level of national relevancy from those on the political right should amaze America as a whole and begs one to wonder WHY?

Palin’s rise (of sorts) has to be examined in order to understand the truly herculean feat of political jujitsu that she has been able to perform on the American corporate media and the Republicon party is nothing short of DUMBFOUNDING. Read more…

Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement, Scaaaaallliiiiaaaaaaaa (Scalia)!

The politicization of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has been evident for some time now, but we are now seeing decisions that demonstrate an amazingly racist, intellectually devoid, and judicially baseless rationales for judicial decisions. Judge (loosely used) Scalia is the embodiment of cancerous judicial activism that does not seek to interpret the constitutionality of laws, it appears that he only seeks to mode law into his warped political worldview.

The new approach to judicial decisions by this SCOTUS is extremely disturbing and warrants the public to be very leery of its decisions and logical leaps. The case of Shelby County v. Holder, which is about whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. This is the case that has shined an ugly light on the thinking (or lack thereof) of Scalia!

Scalia has crossed the line from just being a Supreme Court judge that only made very poor judgments into the realm of racial intolerance or just all out racism with his latest remarks. In the current case before the Supreme Court, Scalia referred to act of continuing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as an “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. A beautifully ugly and racist reference to an act that merely ensures the protection of minorities from discriminatory voting practices by certain states; which was predominately displayed in the election of 2012. His gigantically inappropriate reference to the right to vote as an “entitlement” only demonstrates his ignorance as to what an entitlement is and the stated purpose of the act itself.

Scalia’s rationale for opposition of the act is laced with stupidity and just all out preemptive assertions/justifications that have no base in fact and should not be exhibited by a member of the Supreme Court. Scalia rants by saying “initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it”. He then trolls on about how every-time they reenacted the law there was some measure of opposition to its re-adoption.

Scalia’s logic leap continues as he states that in the last re-enactment of the law there was a unanimous vote to extend the act and this is his rationale for calling the act of reenacting this provision of the law “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. His baseless and fatuous assertion is that the mere fact that the law was passed unanimously is evidence that the act should come into question.

Actually Scalia said it worst with this gem of moronic rationalizing “And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Under this warped logic, the fact that Scalia was confirmed to the bench by unanimous vote by Congress should put into question his nomination; which makes as much sense as what he stated. Scalia must have forgotten this fact before he made his statement. Read more…

Rethink gun laws, NOW!

ar-151

AR 15 is not needed by John Q. Public

The carnage and incomprehensible violence that happened in Connecticut shocked the nation and brought the topic of gun control to the nation’s attention. The correlation between the senseless slaughter of those beautiful elementary kids and guns are a natural response by all that have a moral foundation in peace and love. In reflection of the tragedy, the collective WE all demanded that “assault weapons” be banned and called for the re-institution of the loophole riddled assault weapons ban.

The CT shootings led to everyone shouting from the rooftops about the need to regulate or even outlaw certain “assault weapons” as a cure to the evil that happened at Sandy Hook. The event actually left me quite numb and to be honest, I am still quite numb in many ways about that inhuman mass shooting. With that being said, I dare to say that no matter how tragic that shooting is the reality is that it has very little to do with just gun ownership. It has to do with a lack of gun regulations in terms of nozzle velocity, firing capacity  and gun insurance.

I assert that the proponents of gun laws are taking the wrong stance. The arguable connection between the horrible event at Sandy Hook and “assault weapons” only feeds the argument of those on the gun-side that contend that “the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”. The connection between guns and the horrific mass shooting is as contaminating as the belief that “the answer to gun violence is more guns”; both are wrong-headed.

The two opposing positions are equally poisoning the topic of gun regulations by posturing, hyperbole, division, and political demagoguery. Appealing to the other sides sense of good morality on the subject of guns will only harden their stance in opposition of yours.  The problem lies in the fact that we naturally oppose that which we do not already agree with and this is a matter of human nature.

As Stanford University psychologist Leon stated A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted right to guns. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted gun rights. One can relate this to the theory of “fight or fleet”; this holds true with predators and data. Relating mass shootings to the need for gun control weakens the argument somewhat. America needs to look at gun regulation/control at the level of what is at the bare minimum level of responsibility that all gun owners should accept. Read more…

Know Yo Civics!

civicsThe RNCC (Republicon National Congressional Committee) and the Republicons in general, due to their relationship, have a need for some serious high school civics classes. The rationale for this assertion is their general lack of understanding of how our government allocates and spends money. This is a big deal because the Constitution of the United States has defined the course in which moneys are collected and spent by the government.

Every elected politician should have a firm understanding of which the branches may start the process of taxing, allocating payments, and paying debt. It has become increasing obvious that a great number of politicians either don’t know how government works or are completely comfortable with lying to and dumbing down the American people with their words. This is not ROCKET SCIENCE; this is simple elementary/high school, depending on the school that you went to, civics.

Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states the following in terms of who has the right to raise and spend money; “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”. Only one branch of government that has been given the right to obtain money and pay bills and that is the Legislative Branch and the House of Representatives is where all bills have to originate; see Article 1 Section 7 Clause. These facts seem to escape the RNCC as can be demonstrated by their recent ad on spending, SEE!

rncc

@NRCC You know the coin doesn’t need to be made of $1 trillion worth of platinum, right?

Read more…

%d bloggers like this: