Supreme Court gets the chance to review police action without warrant

I learned of this story through a Washington Post report written by staff writer Robert Barnes. The tale is based in Kentucky, much later in the report we are told this took place in Lexington. The first paragraph tells us that the police were following a man who had just sold drugs to an undercover informant. We are not told that the police knew this man, he is only identified as ‘a man’.

I’m going over this story trying to make some sense out of it and I am not having any luck without jumping to conclusion, much in the same way the story is being told. The story leaves me with unanswered questions. And that does not bode well for the reporter. There are too many holes and leaps of conclusion that no well-written story should have. This reason I am focusing on this aspect of this story ahead of the subject is because this type of sloppy reporting is becoming all too common in today’s main stream media. One can expect this from what these so-called professionals refer to as street reporters. But I have read many street reporters who do a much more thorough job than Robert Barnes.

Anyway, I will try to wade through this mess and along the way I will point out the inadequacies of this reporter’s writing style.

Still in the first paragraph, we are told that the police entered a breezeway and heard a door slam and that they now had two choices. So far I am lead to believe that the police don’t know which door slammed or if it was even slammed by the as yet to be identified man they were following.

The second paragraph informs us that behind door number one (leap of faith, because how do they know which door he was behind since they only ‘heard’ a door slam?) and behind door number two is another person named Hollis King along with two people smoking marijuana.

Paragraph three tells us that after smelling ‘the drug’ (are we still talking about marijuana or some other drug?) they banged loudly on King’s apartment door and identified themselves as police and after hearing what they thought was evidence being destroyed they kicked the door down. Several questions arise here, since they are pursuing the dealer and they ‘know’ he is behind door number one, why are they pounding on door number two? Are they abandoning the pursuit of the guy who they have hard evidence against? Plus, by yelling out that they are police didn’t the dealer just become alerted and most likely did get rid of evidence? This sounds all very rookie-ish to me.

In the fourth paragraph the reporter has abandoned any reference to the dealer the police were pursuing. Instead he states that King was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Kentucky Assistant Attorney General Joshua Farley backed the police decision to kick down the door. Of course he would. And this is part of the problem. He claims to believe the story from his officers that they ‘heard noises’ that led them to believe ‘evidence was being destroyed’. I have to laugh at this claim. What ‘noises’ did they hear, a toilet being flushed? A match being struck to burn the evidence? This is beyond the realm of ridiculous. I cannot for the life of me imagine what ‘evidence being destroyed’ in this situation would sound like. They chose to use this lame excuse because of the three reasons for entering without a warrant this is the only one that they had a half-assed chance of getting away with. There was not a life being endangered, they were not concerned with the suspect escaping because as we read in this stellar report these were not even the guys they were chasing.

This Assistant Attorney General Joshua Farley should be ashamed of himself for using such a flimsy basis for taking this case to trial in the first place. By doing this only shows me that he along with many other legal system lackeys are emboldened by what the police are allowed to get away with.

The point of this Washington Post report is that the U.S. Supreme Court heard this case on Jan 12, 2011 and is in the process of deciding whether or not police can abandon the Fourth Amendment and kick down a door because the police claim they smelled marijuana.

I am in agreement with justices Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor on this that police would indeed roam the halls and sniff for ‘reasons’ to kick in a door. Justice Scalia said the police did nothing wrong and that the occupants could have told police they could not enter without a warrant. Where has this guy been living? He is clearly out of touch with what law enforcement has been getting away with.

Police departments all across this nation have a growing reputation for abusing the ‘probable cause’ tenet. Therefore, I see this as a good opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally define police powers in similar situations. However, I realize that given the current atmosphere of law and order in this country, chances are good that the police will be given a free ride on this issue.

I must say here that I am in complete agreement that the illegal drug issue needs to be addressed. Drug abuse in this country has cost Americans untold billions of dollars in lost productivity and tax revenue, years of freedom in the ridiculously unbalanced and unfair prosecution, and the waste of lives alone should make this issue a top priority.

I admit I am being hard on the police. They need to do things the right way. If, as Justice Scalia says, criminals are stupid, they will eventually be caught at their illegal activity. There have been many instances where police have busted down the wrong door. In some of those cases innocent law-abiding citizens have been terrorized and killed. Given this environment, of course people are going to panic when they hear that thunderous pounding on their door followed by “Open Up”, “Police.”

Listen, drugs need to be removed from our streets. Criminals need to be punished. I object to the citizenry becoming victims due to over-zealous police forces who would rather bust heads and let God sort it out.

Oh, and as far as this reporter goes, how about giving us some hard facts and stop leaving out information like what happened to the dealer the police were originally pursuing.

Toothless FDA is at the Root of Our Food Safety Problems

An Op-Ed in the Washington Post calls for more regulation to protect our food system. More regulation will not help.

The root of the problem, exemplified in the Peanut Corporation of America case, compares with the revolving-door-justice given to drunken drivers as they go through the legal system. They are continually allowed back on our roads until someone finally is killed due to their reckless irresponsibility.

In my opinion the last judge who set them free should be held responsible just as the bar tender who gave them the last drink is.

The FDA discovered that PCA shipped salmonella-tainted product 12 times in 2007 and 2008. PCA is the drunk driver in this case.

PCA was not required to report their positive findings to the FDA. Responsibility for this ‘oversight’ falls to the FDA. It is incumbent upon the FDA to ensure that no tainted food is released to the public. A few simple words on the part of FDA regulation would have prevented situation to escalate.

The FDA is supposed to be made up of a body of experts, hired to foresee any potential problem and regulate it out of existence. What we need to do is give the FDA some teeth and allow them to bring charges against any corporate or business entity that knowingly jeopardizes the public health or safety.

Why do we drag our feet on these blatant violations and then call for more of the same type of legislation that won’t get enforced. We do not need more regulation what we need is someone with the intestinal fortitude to punish these immoral characters for cocking a loading gun and aiming it at the general public.

Fossil Fuel Profits vs Human Rights

On November 4, 2007, a Buddhist monk, writing under the name U Gambira, published an op-ed in The Washington Post advocating democracy for his Southeast Asian nation of Burma.

U Gambira wrote: "It matters little if my life or the lives of colleagues should be sacrificed on this journey. Others will fill our sandals, and more will join and follow."

As U Gambria wrote, the regime already had arrested his father and brother, holding them as hostages to flush him out. It found and arrested him on the same day that his article appeared.

Since then, U Gambira has been forcibly deprived of his monastic robes and tortured in Burma’s notorious Insein Prison. A half-dozen other members of his family have been arrested or forced into internal exile. At age 29, he has been charged with “crimes” that could bring years in prison.

What are those “crimes”? Leading a non-violent demonstration protesting the oppressive rule of Burma’s military leadership and asking for something we in America take for granted: Democracy and basic human rights.

On Tuesday Nov 4, we in America exercised one of our most cherished rights, to vote a change in leadership. The people of Burma don’t have this right. If they did General Than Shwe and his band of murderous, thieving, oppressors would be ousted and the Burmese people would once again enjoy the enlightened lifestyle of a free democratic society.

The brutal and oppressive military leadership of General Than Shwe and his policies have looted and destroyed sacred monasteries in his efforts to round up political and religious leaders. He has brought Burma’s economy to its knees. They have emptied what was once considered the breadbasket of Asia to the point that it cannot feed its own people. Burma, once known as a light for education and literacy now has closed its schools and universities.

Last September, the Burmese people spoke up against General Shwe’s rule and many were imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered for it. That bloodbath brought the world’s attention to Burmese plight but very little has changed. General Than Shwe has since sought to portray this uprising as a singular event, now over. A veneer of quiet has replaced the sounds of gunfire on city streets. Unfortunately, many in the international community buy in and actively support this propaganda.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his special adviser, Ibrahim Gambari, have taken steps to open a dialogue with Burma's generals but little progress is being made.

China and Russia continue to block the UN Security Council from facilitating a dialogue between democratic forces and the regime.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations have condemned the regime's actions but have done little else.

The world's largest democracy, India, continues to provide military assistance and trade deals that help finance the regime's war on its people.

The U.S. claims to be a stalwart of human rights and yet allows human rights atrocities to continue in Burma, Zimbabwe, Tibet, etc. and even writes its laws to allow a U.S.-based corporation to profit from it.

Chevron, based in California, has been making huge profits in Burma as part owner of a natural gas project and is therefore complicit in the human rights abuses through its investment. U.S. sanctions prevent most U.S. companies from working in Burma, but Chevron's investment there existed before the sanctions were imposed and continues under a grandfather clause. The message being sent around the world is “Profit trumps human rights”.

Chevron’s answer to the many letters of protest they have received over their part in Burma is to remove all references to Burma from their webpage.

U Gambira, and many others like him, is willing to die to gain freedom for his fellow countrymen. Chevron and the U.S. is willing to let him die at the hands of a tortuous dictatorial regime in order to make a profit. Now jump to Iraq where Bush’s lies led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to lose their lives in a scheme to enrich his buddies in the oil and gas industry. The main difference between Bush and Shwe is the U.S. Constitution.

Is profiting from fossil fuel worth more than human lives? Those of us who live under ethical and moral standards would say "of course not". But, ask Bush and the CEO of Chevron and we get a much different answer.

Bush feigned moral outrage over Saddam Hussein’s torture of his own people and so therefore felt a "moral obligation" to "save" Iraq from Saddam’s madness. Where is that outrage now against what the Burmese are suffering from? The only difference between Iraq and Burma is that Iraq has more oil reserves.

We owe it to our own conscience to stop supporting Chevron and any other company that makes a profit on the misery of any person.

It is easy to simply buy Chevron gas with our credit card ignoring the fact that in doing so we are aiding Chevron in their complicity in the suffering that the Burmese people endure every day. It is more difficult to think about our actions, tear up that credit card, drive past every Chevron gas pump and not aid and abet in their profiting from human suffering. But really, how difficult is all of that when compared to U Gambira being tortured in a jail cell for standing up for his right to be free?

Further reading:
Words of Power
San Francisco Chronicle

National Speed Limit to save Gas? Wake Up!

Once again some politician thinks he can help alleviate the citizens pain of high fuel prices through legislation. Let’s all give him three cheers! Why didn’t we think to drive slower to save gas? How utterly shortsighted of us not to have seen this simple tactic on our own.

This guy is living in his own never-never land where he probably never has to pay for his own gas, is completely insulated from the fact that very few people heed the national speed limit already in place and then thinks just by passing legislation everyone will have more money in their pockets.

Senator John Warner, R-Virginia, come down out of your ivory tower and work on something meaningful like blocking all the money you guys give away to big oil, or forcing auto makers to build more fuel efficient vehicles, or forcing industrial polluters to stop polluting our environment.

The oil companies are getting all the record subsidies that you politicians can give them via our tax dollars in spite of their record profits and here you are attempting to show the voters that you are doing something to ease our pain from having to continue to feed these corporate fat cats at the gas pumps.

Studies show that when a 55 mph speed limit was imposed in 1974 the U.S. saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year. Despite these two very solid and perfectly good reasons for slowing down we Americans refuse to drive slower.

I don’t know about you senator, but I drive this nations freeways. I try to drive the speed limit and try to be as careful as possible because I accept the fact that when I am behind the wheel of an automobile I am responsible for the life and safety of not just my passengers but every vehicle around me as well. There are very few drivers like myself on the road. While driving the speed limit I get passed by people of all age groups. I am forced over to the right-most lane because I fear for my safety if I attempt to drive the speed limit in the number one lane, commonly referred to as ‘the fast lane’. People, there is no ‘fast lane’. The speed limit applies to every lane equally.

Senator, try driving on the freeways just before a holiday weekend and you will witness a mob mentality that takes over motorists and dictates that everyone should drive even more recklessly. For instance, yesterday afternoon July 3, just ahead of a three day weekend. People leaving work early, racing to get to their campsite or to just get home, everyone is in an even greater hurry than during the usual daily ‘rush hour’. The number of traffic accidents go up, tempers flair even more easily, middle fingers fly at the slightest provocation. And these are the people you think you can reach just by passing your silly legislation?

So pat yourself on the back senator for creating yet another ‘busy work’ study for the Energy Department to determine once again at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient, how much fuel savings would be achieved, and whether it would be reasonable to assume there would be a reduction in prices at the pump if the speed limit were lowered.

The only thing that will get people to use less gas is to tax the hell out it. And with that extra tax money maybe more policemen could be put on our nations freeways to slow down those fools who will ignore a posted speed limit no matter what good intentioned reason for having it posted.

Does Al Sharpton Encourage or Prevent Civil Disobedience

It’s pretty easy to empathize with Reverend Al Sharpton’s reason for wanting “to plan the day that we will close this city down” following the acquittal of three police officers involved in the 2006 shooting that claimed 23-year-old Sean Bell’s life and injured two friends on his wedding day.

We have witnessed police officers seemingly ‘get away with murder’ for many years as the result of what is apparently a carte blanche attitude towards police by our criminal justice system.

There is an underlying message here that says if police are to be held criminally negligent in any officer involved shooting, then the future safety of all police officers will be in jeopardy. This understanding is accepted as factual by the police and the court system. They believe that policemen who think twice about using their weapons are providing their suspect with enough time to shoot first. Therefore they are trained to shoot first and question later. And they are trained to shoot to kill. This leads to inevitable situations where innocent victims are shot to death.

Here we have a situation where a group of men, members of a bachelor party, celebrating one of its members good fortune of marrying the woman of his dreams. As these parties do it lasted well into the night with much celebratory drinking. Undercover police officers were at the same nightclub where this party took place due to a history of past rowdiness. They saw in this group of men a possibility that trouble could arise, based on what only they would know.

When the group left the club, undercover officers decided to follow them. Out in the street as the Bell party was getting into their car the plain clothes officers drew their weapons (again, why, only they would know) and according to witnesses did not identify themselves as police officers. From Sean Bell’s point of view they were under threat of car-jacking or robbery so naturally his first thought was to get out of there quickly, as I am sure any rational thinking individual would do.

The police immediately used the euphemism ‘vehicle as a deadly weapon’ scenario and assumed that they were about to be run over. So without any further thought one policeman opened fire. In any similar situation when one officer begins shooting they all begin shooting. It is sort of a crowd mentality. One officer even reloaded and continued firing. This is the one point that makes this scene particularly disgusting and barbaric.

All cops will justify using their weapons by saying they thought they were under attack. No cop is going to admit that they did not identify themselves. All cops will stand up for each other even when they know they are in the wrong.

The history that is mounting in the courts, that police officers do not receive criminal charges for killing someone, sets the stage for every police officer to feel complete immunity for using their weapons. Therefore they feel completely justified to shoot first and ask questions later.

Police officers who, even accidentally, shoot an unarmed, non-guilty person should not be bolstered into believing they will never be punished. Mistakes are made, certainly, but this lack of punishment, this air of complete immunity has created the idea that policemen are above the law and the public is getting fed up with it.

The media also has a hand to play in this. We read initial accounts of an officer-involved shooting reported by a media system that quite often tells a partial story, and gets the facts wrong, in the their own self-interest in publishing the story first. Follow-up reports that would more thoroughly clarify actual events are rare or buried because it is ‘old news’. A mis-informed public runs with what they first hear as fact and incorporates those ‘facts’ into opinions already compiled about the police and when the inevitable news from the courtroom is acquittal then people feel justified in their outrage all over again.

If the case involves a person of color (read black) Reverend Al Sharpton is on the scene ready to rally all outraged citizens with the kind of “massive civil disobedience” once led by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. seemingly unfazed of the hatred he is fomenting in bystanders yelling “kill the police”.

I am not going to comment on whether peaceful or non-peaceful protests will do anything more than vent frustration at a system everyone knows will never change. But to see the Reverend Al Sharpton suddenly appear as the mouthpiece for every miscarriage of justice against a black that garners national coverage just seems to me to be in his own self-interest. Perhaps I am reading this wrong. Maybe if he did not show up at these demonstrations, maybe if he did not focus the energy of the demonstrators into a march after these abortions of justice, perhaps an unruly mob would turn violent. Maybe he is the one calming factor necessary in these situations.

Getting high has many hidden costs

How many times have you been to the zoo? Any zoo. I have been to several zoos across this country, multiple times. I have never seen any animal become aggressive towards any human. Oh, I have heard stories of an animal attacking or becoming aggressive with a feeder or trainer, while in the enclosure with the animal, but not towards the general public.

This recent case involving the tiger that attacked and killed a teenager at the San Francisco zoo illustrates several behaviors that humans continue to engage in, that, in this case, resulted in the death of a young man, the death of a wild animal, wasted police manpower, wasted taxpayers money, allowing more lawyers to peddle their trade of lies and shifting blame, and nearly caused a zoo to lose accreditation.

All this, because three men felt they could not enjoy themselves on a visit to the zoo without getting ‘high’. They ignored warning signs by taunting wild animals, they shunned common sense by taunting wild animals, they broke the law by being drunk in public, they broke the law by possessing and using illegal drugs, they are helping to keep the illegal drug trade alive (one of our biggest roadblocks to making this society as strong and productive as it could be) and they paid a terrible price. But so did a bunch of other people.

The public can no longer enjoy the pleasure of seeing that tiger at the zoo because of the careless and stupid actions of these three young men.

On Christmas day, 2007, there were reports of a group of men taunting animals at the zoo. The public saw these actions and reported it to the authorities. Carlos Sousa Jr, 17, Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal 24, were witnessed yelling at the tiger, waving their arms aggressively and standing on the railing of the enclosure. This, obviously, must have been acceptable behavior from their alcohol induced point of view.

What this tiger saw was some humans exhibiting some unusual and extraordinary behavior directed towards it and the tiger reacted.

Once the animal climbed over the fence, an action he never had reason to attempt previously, he attacked the provokers. Just wild animal reactionary behavior.

The lawyers say, “if the wall was higher this would not have happened”. I say bullshit to that. If these guys had not acted like damned fools the tiger would not have acted like he did. If you are going to use hindsight for cause/effect then go the whole way. If we didn’t live in a society where we thought it acceptable to cage wild animals, this would not have happened. If we didn’t live in a society where lawyers are allowed to lie to keep criminals and wrong doers from being punished, these lawyers would not make stupid statements like this. Well, actually, this is a real stretch because they would still lie due to their twisted view of what justice is.

After these guy’s actions had been reported to zoo authorities, and after the tiger reacted to their taunting, their cries for help were ignored. Why? Because since these intoxicated men had exhibited such rowdy behavior no one believed their story of an escaped animal. This is just human nature. We figure they are drunk or mentally unstable, so how can we take them seriously about anything? We tend to ignore people who have shown themselves to be idiots. Plain and simple. How can anyone know when these guys calls for help is serious after displaying such idiotic behavior? There is no way to know unless witnesses verify their need for help. This is another good reason not to drink and behave like children I public.

After it was verified that their story was indeed true, calls went out to 911 and help did arrive.

Their lawyer is trying to put the blame back onto the zoo by saying if help had arrived sooner the boy would still be alive. In reality the blame lies with the men themselves due to their previous behavior. If they had not acted like fools then their story would have been taken seriously when it was first told. This action by their lawyer is just another underhanded trick they like to use called shifting the blame and placing doubt where it does not belong. So, yeah, we can all speculate. The bottom line is they alone are responsible for their actions. They alone chose to ignore common sense and tease a wild animal. It doesn’t matter that the animal was caged it is simply a stupid thing to so.

Paramedics arrived on the scene as quickly as they could after receiving the call and found a large puncture wound in the victims neck. It is doubtful he could have survived the attack if they had gotten there any sooner.

Police found the tiger sitting down not bothering anyone and when they approached it got up and moved away. Just as you would expect it to. At this point, they claim it started to attack another person, which I personally think is bull. They saw this as justification for killing the animal rather than try to get it back into the enclosure, a particularly daunting task I am sure.

How long has this tiger lived in this enclosure without being a threat to the public? As a result of these idiots actions, the zoo will have to spend more money to protect the animals and the public from fools such as these guys.

Toxicology results show Paul Dhaliwal’s blood alcohol content at 0.16, twice the legal limit. Why is it still acceptable to go out into public drunk? His brother, Kulbir, was within the legal limit, which showed some responsibility on his part since he drove them to the zoo. But still, he was drinking and driving.

Upon first being questioned they both lied about taunting the tiger or any other animal, even though many others had reported them doing exactly this. They have finally admitted to this only after they realized other people actually saw them do it and told authorities. They thought is was okay to lie to authorities. Another problem with this society, in general. They thought everyone would believe that they were innocently strolling past the tiger enclosure when it lunged at them. They actually believed that the thousands of people who have walked past this same enclosure without any indication of aggressiveness on the part of the tiger would believe their story.

Their lies brought about the possibility of a law suit against the zoo. Did they think there would not be an investigation? Why would they risk being found out that not only were they stupid enough to do what they did but would also be found to be liars and lawbreakers by being intoxicated in public?

I know, I know, they were trying to cover their own butts. But this is exactly my point. If they had told the truth to begin with, accepting their own responsibility, then the taxpayers would not have had to pay for the investigation and these lawyers would not have been given the chance to participate in their lies by trying to shift the blame from them to the zoo.

This lawyer could have kept his mouth shut and waited for the investigation to conclude to determine whether or not his client was lying. But no, he had to back up their story in the press. Is he stupid enough to believe their story of innocence or just jumping at the chance to get his name in the paper even if it is based on a lie? This is another problem with this society, lawyers who try cases in the media in an attempt to cover up these guys responsibility.

Where is the common sense and common decency that we are born with? Where is the intelligence that we humans know these are not actions to be taken against a wild animal and against the society that we live amongst?

Oh, and yes, there was marijuana involved. Can’t these guys get high enough with just one or the other? Marijuana is supposed to make you mellow not stupid like alcohol does. The waste of money spent on ingesting two different drugs that counteract each other just shows another level of stupidity and weakness.

When they told police they each had a couple of shots of vodka, everyone knows instinctively that ‘a couple of shots’ always translates to more than just ‘a couple of shots’. So they lied to police about this as well.

Lack of respect for authorities, and themselves, and personal weaknesses resulted in the death of their friend and the outing of themselves in public as liars. Was getting ‘high’ worth it?

Another attempt to rewrite history

George W Bush is in Israel this week with plans to broker a peace deal in a region that knows nothing but war and hate, and subscribes heavily to revenge as a matter of national policy.

That region will never know peace. This attempt to paint himself as a stalwart of foreign policy and a ‘friend to the world’ will fail as badly as his attempt to present himself as an environmentalist after signing one weak, lame piece of environmental legislation. And the very fact that he thinks just by taking this one action will reverse the effects his illegal actions had on Iraq just proves how much faith he puts in Americas gullibility.

Mr. president, your record on foreign policy is abominable. Do you honestly think the American history books will portray you as a peace activist by virtue of this one trip in this final year of your eight year term? You think you will be exonerated for your crimes against the constitution and the American public by shaking hands with foreign dignitaries in their own land?

The bloody shadows of Iraq and Afghanistan, the campaign of hate against Iran, the threat of World War III, the destabilization of relations with Russia, the egotistical stance against any attempt to combat global warming, these are not the earmarks of a master of foreign relations.

The spying on American citizens in our own homes, the replacing of military leadership until you found one that agrees with you, the rewriting of scientific finding until they matched your personal beliefs, the refusal to do anything meaningful to alleviate environmental pollution, the blatant appointments of under-qualified personnel to key administration posts, the denigration of habeas corpus, the weakening value of our dollar, the selling out of the cornerstone of our economy (Wall Street) to foreign investors, exposing CIA operatives, covering up crimes under the guise of executive privilege, profiteering from war under the threat of terrorist attacks on our shores.

Just what good have you done for this country? This list of crimes against the American people is disgusting, sir. And this doesn’t even begin to address the crimes and short comings of your personal life that were overlooked due to your ties with your father.

If you had not been born into such a wealthy politically powerful family, I have no doubt your life will have ended up an alcoholic wreck depending on the very charities your political party turns its back on, cowering from the police state you have managed to foster. You could very well have become a victim of the very egregious record number of Texas death row inmates you helped populate as Texas governor.

The best thing to happen to this country will be the collective departure of you and your administration from public office. It cannot happen soon enough.

You and your puppet masters may attempt to rewrite history, sir, but the majority of people in this country know you and Dick Cheney for what you really are, sad remnants of an old west mentality of shoot to kill and declare yourself as the moral, law-abiding authority.

Church protest at funeral is vulgar

On Nov 1, 2007 I learned how low a church would stoop in order to force their beliefs on other people. Their practice of taunting dead soldiers at military funerals is one of the most despicable displays of human indecency ever visited upon another human.

After the family of the fallen soldier sued the church for invasion of privacy and intent to cause emotional distress a jury awarded the family a settlement and now constitutional lawyers have the audacity to proclaim that the church’s rights may have been violated.

This case is a matter of common decency over man-made laws involving ‘legal’ rights. The church has the ‘right’ to voice its opinions, as granted by the constitution, but civility and human decency dictates that families have the right to bury their members in peace and with dignity. Anyone, usurping this right should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

The funeral ceremony is one of the most sacred and solemn rites to be bestowed on a human and as such demands privacy and is therefore free from outside sources using it as a forum for their own agendas.

When that outside source is a church then they need to take a serious re-evaluation of what ‘service’ they are providing mankind.

Constitutional law ‘experts’ may determine this a violation of the church’s First Amendment rights of free speech, but when one right tramples on another then civility needs to win out. It is abhorrent that anyone would disrupt a funeral. Especially a church who is in the business of these matters. Any church that disrupts funeral proceedings is not a true representative of Gods will.

David Hudson of the First Amendment Center claims that "If people can be sued because people are offended by other people's speech, then we've really curtailed freedom of speech." You miss the point entirely Mr. Hudson. Civility dictates that a family has the right to bury family members without being accosted by anyone. This is the biggest problem with lawyers, they throw civility out the window when it comes to ‘protecting’ civil rights. To lawyers it is only a matter of the financial bottom-line as to what they ‘believe’ at the time.

They will struggle for victory no matter where the results take us, even at the cost of civility and human decency. There is a line that no one should be able to cross and that line is indelibly drawn around funerals.

You can quote all the lawmakers theories you want, Mr. Hudson, but anyone who intrudes on the sacred and solemn proceedings of a family burying their loved ones should rot in hell. When a so-called Christian group who masquerades under the banner of spreading Gods word is the driving force behind the intrusion, well, there should be a special place in hell for them.

Border Patrol found lacking

In my on-going series of highlighting any instance where people are not doing their jobs this one is extremely problematic. Border Patrol officials have been found to be complacent and inattentive in their duties by undercover investigators. Weak management controls have also been found. Border Patrol is our first line of defense for the security of every U.S. citizen both physically and financially.

As with most jobs in law enforcement, Border Patrol is one of the toughest, and it is, like every law enforcement branch, under-manned. This is nothing new. Everyone claims they want law and order but there just are not enough people willing to put their lives on the line to enforce it.

Government watchdogs have found that thousands of people who shouldn't have been admitted to the United States were allowed in last year because of security lapses at legal border crossings. Granted, not everyone who comes in is a danger to our physical well-being and they certainly are not all terrorists. But some of these individuals are connected with criminal enterprises which is where our financial well-being is threatened most and why the lack of job performance on the part of the Border Patrol is most egregious to the safety of their fellow Americans.

GAO investigators arriving at one point of entry found no border agents in the inspection booth, while at other locations, agents didn't ask for travel documents, according to the report. I, myself, have driven through Otay point of entry and found no border agents in the booth while re-entering the U.S.

The number of inadmissible aliens who managed to enter through official ports of entry in 2006 has not been disclosed by the Government Accountability Office. However, a source who has seen a full version of the report, in which those statistics were included, put the total at 21,000.

The government, for obvious reasons, does not want to release the numbers of how many escaped the attention of Customs and Border Protection. One reason is there is no way to know the actual number so any number they come up with would have to be prefaced as being an estimate. Another reason they don’t release the numbers is they don’t want the taxpayer, who is paying their salaries, to know they are not performing their duty. They don’t want the very people they are supposed to protect to know they are not performing their duty.

Men and women of law enforcement are a special breed of people. They want to see the bad guy put away, as all of us law abiding citizens do, but they alone are willing to strap on a gun and a badge and put their own lives at stake to put those bad guys away. Those of us who sit back in our easy chairs from the comfort of our homes should be shamed for ever casting a bad light on those who are doing their best. I applaud those individuals and give to them my utmost deepest felt respect. It’s the individuals who have sworn to protect the laws and citizens of this great country and turn their backs on us by slacking in their job performance that should be reprimanded to the fullest extent of the law. To allow possible criminals to get into the U.S. because they did not do their jobs is criminal itself.

Those who are conscientiously doing their sworn duty can get very frustrated when they see criminals they have caught and then released by liberal judges or asshole lawyers who defends the criminal and convinces the judge to let the criminal go.

I can understand the frustration that Border Patrol agents feel after two of their own were arrested and put in jail for shooting a known drug smuggler. But that is no excuse for jeopardizing the safety of U.S. citizens.

The Customs and Border Protection's stance is that at busy border crossings, it has to balance security with commerce. This is blatantly putting commerce ahead of safety.

The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 17,600 Customs and Border Protection officers manning ports of entry, said the agency is understaffed and poorly managed and officers are overworked and not adequately trained. Why can’t we put National Guard to help them? Since Bush can send them to Iraq in the name of keeping terrorists from coming to America then he can certainly send them to our borders in America.

Whether we think the threat is real or not, we cannot afford to assume the threat is not real and slack off on our duties. The U.S. taxpayer deserves to get our monies worth when agents are hired to protect us.

Air Force officers relieved of duty over loose nukes

Here’s yet another case where routine became the enemy to safety protocol.

Air Force investigators found that a “lackadaisical” attention to detail in day-to-day operations allowed a B52 bomber armed with six nuclear warheads to fly across the U.S.

I understand how day-to-day routine can create a false sense of well-being, a sense that ‘nothing bad ever happens and therefore nothing bad ever will’. Policies are put in place so that, theoretically, nothing bad can happen. But they are only as good as the individuals assigned to follow them.

This one could have been extremely disastrous if that bomber had met with an accident. And everyone knows it can happen.

Policy is written for everyone’s safety, not just a routine that has become a nuisance and is interfering with your ‘free’ time. This happens every day in different jobs across this country. Countless manhours are lost due to someone somewhere ignoring a policy, or rule or law. Why do we think it is not necessary to follow them? Many hours have put applied by experts in their fields to write safety measures for our protection and yet we choose to ignore them. Are we stupid? Are we lazy? This is what I mean about how lazy we Americans have become. This laziness invites injury, death and destruction. Why do we ignore this?

Just because this incident did not result in disaster doesn’t mean it won’t in the future. Maybe personnel need to be rotated out of this job more often so that fresh eyes will follow procedure to the letter as it is designed to be.

Disregarding policies, rules, and laws endanger ourselves, our loved ones and strangers who do not deserve to die as a result of our carelessness.

We are our own worst enemy

New Orleans. Thoughts of that town once brought forth visions of jazz clubs, Mardi Gras, Creole cooking, and laid back southern living. A very eclectic atmosphere of an unhurried lifestyle that could be found only in the Big Easy. It also reminded me of mean streets that lurked behind the party atmosphere of the French Quarter.

Since the destructive winds and flood waters that is Katrina’s legacy, we only see the mean streets part, along with the ugliness of opportunistic greed that humans bear onto one another.

Federal and state governments have put in place a network of aid organizations to assist any member of our society who has befallen the ravages of nature. Americans, out of the goodness of their hearts, freely volunteer their time, money and themselves to help cleanup after natures blind rampages.

After the initial shock of natures fury has worn off, after the volunteers have gone back to their own lives (as they must), after all of the glorious, self-indulgent political speeches are given about how we always come together in our countries moment of need, New Orleans sits with its piles of putrid rubbish, it’s broken down homes and ruined lives. After all of this, the promises have all slowly diminished into memories. This is when we see the true worth and the true value of our government agencies and the private enterprises designed to be the safety nets after such disasters. This is when humans fail each other.

The biggest offenders, in the private arena, are insurance companies. They sell you policies that promise to help you put your life back together after a disaster has struck. They say so in every advertisement they put in front of the public. But when a disaster strikes, their lawyers step in and cite all of the loopholes for reasons to not help you put your life back together. They argue, the wording was there in black and white when you signed the contract. Of course, they word it all so you easily get confused trying to decipher it, but, it is true, the wording was there when you signed it.

The second biggest offenders are contractors. Humans have come up with ingenious ways of screwing disaster victims out of their money. When a person is down and desperately needs help is the perfect time for these low-life thieves to come knocking. And they do by the thousands. They demand contracts be signed, they demand money up front, they drag their feet getting the work done, if they do it at all. Some do very shoddy work with substandard materials and the home owner is once again left with an even bigger mess when their work inevitably falls apart.

That government network of aid organizations looks good on paper. But they are managed by humans. Once again we get to see petty jealousy and graft at work. Money that is promised at the top is whittled down on its way to the people who really need it. Money is stolen by people pretending to be in need. When what is left of the money does finally get to the needy, bureaucrats tie it up at the local level by fighting over how to best spend it.

This is not a very glowing treatise of humanity. It sickens me that we put up this flowery show of how much we care, because deep down we know we are supposed to, and when an opportunity presents itself to ‘misdirect’ the money or back out of the promise, we jump on it. We go through the motions of showing we care by setting up legal avenues of funneling financial help to where it is needed. But somewhere along the way we have begun to put ourselves ahead of all others. Suddenly, our humanity to our fellow man has taken a dreadful demoralizing downturn. We can justify our actions by rationalizing that we have been slighted in some way by our government and therefore, while there is a chance of not being caught, we take the money for ourselves. We begin buying into the rationalization that if someone is willing to trust me with their money then that is their fault, I’m going to take as much as I can because I deserve it.

New Orleans is trying to rebuild itself. It is trying to rebuild itself into the image that all of us remember New Orleans to be. The saying that comes to mind is ‘You can never go back’. That old, residential New Orleans is a memory, one that needs to be updated. The downtown New Orleans, the French Quarter was not damaged as badly and can be rebuilt.

The blueprint being released Friday by city Recovery Director Ed Blakely is not as grand as the plan that was issued in March. Our grandiose plans seldom ever work out once they meet the reality of expense. Under this new, downsized plan, work would begin in the next few years on green space, health clinics, community centers, housing and libraries. Shopping centers would be redeveloped and streetscapes and storefronts spruced up. Even this more modest plan requires a very large outlay of money. Money that was promised by the federal government. Money that should actually be given to New Orleans, since it was promised, and not used to line the pockets of every politician that gets near it. Money that should be wisely spent. Money that we all know will end up paying unscrupulous contractors outrageous fees.

Lets try to show the world that community pride truly does exist. Try to prove to people like me that you can work towards the grand goal of putting New Orleans back together without further ripping off the unfortunate victims of this natural disaster. Don’t follow in the footsteps of the insurance companies and the politicians.

Let the cops chase real criminals

Why are we continuing to arrest people for marijuana use?

FBI stats, just released in September 2007, show an all-time record 829,627 marijuana arrests in 2006. Up by 43,000 from 2005.

The number of arrests for simple possession totaled 738,916. This is about 90% of all marijuana arrests and does not include trafficking, just possession.

By comparison, there were 611,523 arrests last year for all violent crimes combined.

This amounts to a lot of manpower and expense thrown at taking a natural herb off the streets that has never been shown to cause violent behavior in anyone. In fact, scientific studies have shown, long ago, that, compared to alcohol, marijuana is much safer. For one thing, marijuana is much less addictive with only 9% becoming addicted as opposed to 15% for alcohol users. Marijuana use has never been shown to cause any permanent harm to the body whereas, it is well documented, alcohol damages the brain and liver to the point that it leads to death. Alcohol, also well documented, incites violence and aggression, marijuana does not.

Cops love to keep marijuana illegal because it keeps their arrest numbers up which ‘proves’ to our community that their services are needed. Also, marijuana users are more docile than alcoholics and therefore are easier to arrest, with less chance of fighting back. Whereas, violent criminals tend to endanger them and the citizenry by using weapons to prevent being arrested.

Where cops are really needed is on our roadways where their heightened presence is more likely to catch drunk drivers that tend to kill us. Their presence would help decrease the number of speeders who are more likely to lose control of their vehicles and kill us. Their presence is needed to prevent careless and reckless drivers from killing us. Their presence is needed to help prevent road rage that can kill us.

There has never been one documented case in which a marijuana user has caused the death of anyone.

Does this show that the priorities of law enforcement officers are misplaced? You bet it does.

With these arrest figures carried out to daily arrests, this means that every 38 seconds of every day a marijuana user is arrested.

Since most people don’t really take anything seriously until it affects their finances, let’s look at some numbers. It is estimated, by people who spend a lot of their time examining such mundane things, that if marijuana was a taxable commodity, the U.S. government could conceivably collect $31 billion from the estimated $113 billion annual marijuana business. Wow! How much healthcare could that figure cover?

The extra time that cops would have on their hands for not arresting these non-violent people could now be focused on catching the actual violent offenders who are still on their most wanted lists.

Taxes collected on marijuana sales could help fund cancer research since they are damaging their lungs through inhaling smoke. Because let’s face it, tobacco smoke has already been proven to cause death from lung cancer, why would you think marijuana smoke is any different. Personally, I think it is foolish for anyone to put such carcinogenic substances into your body. Everyone would condemn anyone who purposefully did this to another human being and call it torture and cruel and unusual punishment (true, it would take a long time to work and you would be happy along the way, but it still will kill you). But hey, it’s your body.

In case you are too high to pick up on it, I don’t think marijuana is a ‘crime’ that warrants this much time, effort and money pursuing. I think cops should spend their time on more worthwhile endeavors. I certainly do not think that marijuana users should be labeled as ‘hardened criminals’. And I don’t fall in step with our drug czar in the all too common belief, shared with other non-drug users, that smoking marijuana leads to harder drug use. This is just urban legend. True there are some smokers that will occasionally experiment with harder drugs but it is by no means the next ‘logical’ inevitable step. The number of those that do is no higher than for those who never smoked pot and went straight for the harder stuff.

I think marijuana users, and alcohol users, are wasting a lot of money that could be better spent on things like a savings plan for the future, either theirs or for their kids. That money could be better spent to improve your living conditions.

It has been proven through studies, and I am sure you have seen this yourselves, that smoking marijuana causes stupidity. If you smoke pot and are one of the lucky few to still have a job, don’t jeopardize it. Too many of you are smoking at work or getting stoned on your way to work. This is just stupid. One, because just having marijuana is still illegal, two, you could get fired if caught with it (let’s face it, if you are stoned at work, you cannot hide it for very long) and most importantly, your job performance suffers and you could cause injury to your self or someone else, depending on what you do for a living. Come on people, keep it strictly recreational if you are going to insist on continuing to use it.

If marijuana was legalized, following in the steps of alcohol legalization in the 1930’s, then there would not be any profit for gangs and other criminals to fund their other criminal, and more violent, enterprises. This is just a no-brainer. By leaving any involvement with marijuana illegal, the legal system has created, and is maintaining, a criminal underground that is more dangerous to this society only because it’s use is illegal. If you want to argue that marijuana impairs your driving and therefore that makes it a danger to society then I have to agree with you. But so is alcohol. And since they are both detrimental to safe drivers everywhere why is one illegal and the other not?

Also, our jails would not be so crowded, because, believe it or not, a large population of inmates, 44% in 2006 according to the FBI, are incarcerated for marijuana offenses. Arguably the least criminal characters in jail today. Is it really necessary to build more prisons to house these non-violent offenders?

America’s prison population totaled 2.1 million inmates as of mid-year 2006, according to Department of Justice Statistics.

The overwhelming majority of drug arrests are for possession of marijuana, and most persons in prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or high-level drug selling activity.

Virtually all of these prisons are horrifically overcrowded. State prisons were operating at 99 to 113 percent of capacity, and the federal prison system was operating at 134 percent of capacity. This compounds the dangers and brutality of prison life. Inmates are exposed to physical and sexual assault, and put at risk for diseases such as HIV/AIDS or developing mental illness.

It does not take a excessive amount of brain power to figure out that by removing these non-violent ‘offenders’ from the equation, we could solve the over-crowding issue and not be faced with raising taxes to pay for more, even larger prisons.

Killers go unpunished, society loses again

This falls under the category of eroding moral values and a weak judicial system that does nothing to curtail this type of behavior.

Michael Vick was suspended from NFL 'indefinitely' as a result of his ‘association’ with activities surrounding a dog fighting ring that he bought and paid for. This only goes so far (and not far enough) in the NFL’s efforts to make "a strong statement that conduct which tarnishes the good reputation of the NFL will not be tolerated," as spoken by Falcons owner Arthur Blank. But, Vick’s conduct obviously is not “incomprehensible and unacceptable" enough for Blank to completely cut Vick lose.

Vick is playing the legal system. And there are lawyers out there who are more than willing to facilitate his attempt to get off with as little punishment as possible.

This exemplifies how our legal system has become a ‘dog without a bite’. Please pardon the pun.

Just look at pictures of Vick surrounded by his lawyers. He is smug. He looks like he is challenging the world and he knows he will win. And why not? Our legal system has a long track record of letting people off with as lenient a punishment as they can.

Laws are written to prevent the type of behavior that Vick is accused of and has several witnesses to, but Federal prosecutors agreed to ask for the low end of the sentencing guidelines. Why?

Why is the court system always going for the ‘low-end’ of sentencing guidelines? Can they not convict Vick of the charges based on actual eyewitnesses who have already confessed to being a part of these charges?

Vick admitted to participating in a dogfighting ring. Vick also admitted that he and two co-conspirators killed dogs that did not fight well. This is not just ‘hear say’, the legal term for something that cannot be backed up with proof. He made these statements to members of the law enforcement community which makes them admissible in court. He should be charged with these crimes as well.

Vick said he would plead guilty to one count of "Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture" in a plea agreement filed at U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia. Why is he in control of what he will plead to? How is it that he is the one who decides what he will be punished for?

In an additional summary of facts, signed by Vick and filed with the agreement, Vick admitted buying pit bulls and the property used for training these dogs to fight, and to actually pitting these dogs against each other but the statement said he did not bet on the fights or receive any of the money won. He further states that gambling wins were generally split among co-conspirators Tony Taylor, Quanis Phillips and sometimes Purnell Peace.

Oh Please!! Vick expects us to believe he bought everything needed for dogfighting and for training dogs to fight but did not intend to benefit in any way from dogfighting. That he went through all of this expense for the sole benefit of his co-conspirators? What crap!! Nobody is going set up a betting situation and not take advantage of it in order to get his money back and then some.

You prosecutors cannot possibly be this blind. Everybody on the outside of this judicial system who is paying attention is laughing at you. The federal prosecutors, should be ashamed of themselves.

Vick also agreed that "collective efforts" by him and two others caused the deaths of at least six dogs. This is awfully 'big' of him to admit since he has witnesses that said he did exactly this.

Around April, Vick, Peace and Phillips tested some dogs in fighting sessions at Vick's property in Virginia, the statement said. "Peace, Phillips and Vick agreed to the killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning.

The prosecutors are not going to convict Vick or any of the others for killing these dogs. They are not going to be punished for the brutal, callous ways in which these devious minds thought up to ‘punish’ these dogs for the ‘crime’ of not having the heart to fight.

You know what they say about people who torture and kill animals? They ‘graduate’ to killing and torturing humans. This is a proven fact. This is not just made up by me to write something more sensational about these sub-humans. These ‘men’ are going to be allowed to live amongst law-abiding citizens after admitting to killing for the pleasure of it. There was nothing ‘humane’ in the way these dogs were killed. These ‘men’ took pleasure in it.

What saddens me even further is that there are NFL ‘fans’ who will think Vick should be allowed to go unpunished just because he is an athlete. Maybe these prosecutors are among those misguided, blind fools.

So, yes, Vick is playing the legal system using low-life manipulative lawyers. He is also playing on the fact that athletes and entertainers always get special treatment above all others. This is an indictment against the legal system and this society in general.

Hiding behind a lawyer

How many times is this defense going to play out? I brought the gun to school but I didn’t mean to hurt anyone. What a load of crap!

A 16-year-old kid, in this the most violent gun-worshiping country on earth, knows what guns are for, that’s why he chose this lethal tool to force his principal to do what he wanted. If there truly was no intention of hurting the person this kid pointed the gun at then why was his finger on the trigger? If you don’t intend to use the gun then you have no need for it to be loaded.

Why is this case wasting courts time?

This is another example of how this justice system needs to be revamped. Prosecutors must prove that 16-year-old Eric Hainstock intended to kill John Klang, Weston Schools principal, the moment he pulled the trigger, three times.

This is nonsense. A loaded weapon has too great a potential to cause death for anyone to believe it can be used ‘just to threaten’ or wound.

The judge only needs to review the basic facts and match them up to a mandatory sentence and tell the defendant what the sentence is. The facts are, he took a loaded gun to school (it doesn't natter what his intentions were) and as a result his clearly intended victim was killed. There should be no room for lawyers to lie about extenuating circumstances in an attempt to get him off of these very serious charges.

And clearly, in hindsight, the principal was foolish to think he could be hero enough to wrestle the gun away from him. He should have let the police take care of it. I know it could have turned into a hostage situation but who can say it would not have anyway?

These school kids need to be given avenues of airing their grievances. They need to be aware that if someone in authority is not taking their complaints seriously then they can go to someone who can investigate and get the matter settled.

This boy should not have been made to feel that he was so alone in his troubles that this was his only option.

But, he alone chose this option and as a result, several families lives have been shattered and we, as taxpayers, will have to support him for as long as he is incarcerated. And, once he is incarcerated our stellar example of a prison system will only serve to damage this kids social skills and psychological outlook at how this society views him. And who can tell what the image of this man dying in front of him will do to this kid and all of those who witnessed it?

What led up to this event? He claims that bully’s were picking on him and that the principal and teachers ‘turned their backs’ to it. I don’t think every teacher turned their back on him. I don’t think the principal would not do something to end this behavior. Do I think there is some mental problem with this kid? Yes, there obviously is a problem if he thinks he has to use a gun to get attention.

The investigators, who I am confident know their jobs, need to investigate this and decide if his claims are true. If so, then charges should be brought against the school system and possibly those teachers involved in this so called 'conspiracy’.

But whatever the outcome of that investigation, this kid needs to spend time in prison for resorting to such drastic measures. That much should be ‘cut and dried’ regardless of his so called ‘attention deficit disorder’ and his claimed ‘abused at home’. These are nothing more than tools of deception used by manipulative lawyers to paint their client as the real victim in hopes of leniency.

Someone out there will say that because of his ‘mental problems’ and his ‘abusive home life’ he should be spared. To this I say these are not valid contributing factors. There are many kids out there who are abused (a very sad fact indeed) and they don’t use a gun to try to end any of it. Besides, if he was abused at home why didn’t he use the gun at home?

As far as ‘attention deficit disorder’ goes, his attention span was long enough to plan this course of action, to collect the two guns he took to school with him and to load the guns. His attention was clearly not deficient. He was focused for far too long to claim he was unable to focus on anything.

Don’t take this lawyers claims as truth. Any lawyer will lie and manipulate the facts to win their case.

This kid shot his principal three times, there is no way anyone can honestly think this was an accident. And his lawyer should be ashamed herself for trying to get leniency for him.

Supreme Court as a tool of the President

Is school integration ending? Is the U.S. Supreme Court against integration in our public schools? Their latest ruling shows that they are.

A school district in Kentucky, along with all others throughout the nation, has been told that the school district’s racially diverse programs have to end.

In June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down racially diverse programs that were started voluntarily in Louisville and Seattle, using race as a factor to determine public school placements. The court's decision has left schools across the country scrambling to find a way to protect diversity in their classrooms.

More than 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decision, known as Brown v. Board of Education, declared that separate schools are inherently unequal and therefore must become racially diverse. Thus began a painful and sometimes violent process for school districts to become compliant with that ruling.

I believe this process helped unify our nation and bring us more in line with the notion of ‘America, Land of the Free’. I believe this decision helped make our country stronger.

50 years of busing students out of their school districts to other schools based on race has resulted in more racially diverse schools. We needed it. Without the Supreme Court decision to force integration it would not have happened.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has made a decision that will undo everything we have struggled to achieve and will set race relations back 50 years.

School districts have now been told, by this conservative U.S. Supreme Court, that race cannot be a factor in promoting desegregation. Schools have been trying to comply with that 50 year old decision based on race and now the court has said that basis is wrong. What does this government want?

Do we have George W. Bush to thank for this? He appointed the two most recent, most conservative justices he could find to serve on this Court. Both of those justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, played major roles in undermining the tenets of Brown v. Board of Education.

This turn of events is in itself an education for students. What they take away from this is that no decision of our highest court in the land is final. No final decision remains, as it is not written in stone. We can no longer believe in what the courts tells us, because another court will strike the decision down.

This is why the once noble practice of law has become so overrun with unscrupulous lawyers. Because they can manipulate the justice system to get the decision they want based on the fact that our court system is not unified and that no court decision is final. We live in a world of wishy-washy ‘decision makers’ that change their minds based on which way the political wind is blowing. If there had been different justices on the court 50 years ago there is a strong possibility that integration never would have happened.

We, the people of the United States, need to have a firm foundation to define us, to unify us. The U.S. Constitution is that foundation. But, the U.S. Supreme Court, through the appointments of the President, keeps changing that foundation. The U.S. Constitution says that were are created equal and as such should all be treated as equals. Before Brown v. Board of Education, and other court decisions, the U.S. government was not treating all of us equally because of the way the school system was set up and because racial discrimination had become so institutionalized. The government was forced to correct these injustices by forcing integration and now the U.S. Supreme Court tell us that they were wrong to do it in this manner.

When a decision as strong and righteous as Brown v. Board of Education has been made and it has been proven to be as successful as it has it then becomes too important to be over turned by a future court just because the current president loads the court with people of his choice.

It’s About Time! Shoot to kill a right

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt signed legislation which says people can use deadly force once an intruder illegally enters their home, vehicle or other dwelling, including a tent. The Bill provides an absolute defense against being charged or sued by eliminating the requirement for people to try and run first if they're attacked. The issue is drawing quick reaction. "It ensures law-abiding Missourians will not be punished when they use force to defend themselves and their family from attacks in their own home or vehicle," Governor Blunt said in a written statement.

States are finally giving our citizens the right to protect their property. This right has been suppressed for far too long. We are tired of being afraid to shoot at an intruder for fear of prosecution. The intruder does not have this same restriction put on him, he will shoot if he is threatened, without reservation. The home owner, on the other hand, has to think twice because he can be sued for wrongful death and\or manslaughter (this is because of unscrupulous lawyers). Now, without this fear, homeowners have a new power to protect their property and others the way they should have been able to all along. The power has shifted from the scum-bag felon to the homeowner where it has always belonged. I’ll bet you that home break-ins will finally decrease in number.

I hate like hell to give any politician hero status, but Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has just become a hero to a lot of people.

This bill is long overdue and I urge every state to follow his lead immediately.

I am not an NRA member, and I am not a gun fanatic. I just believe in the very basic right that everyone should be able to protect themselves and their property from anyone. We have always had this right but low-life, money-grabbing lawyers will sue anyone if the price is right and have turned the tables on law-abiding citizens for far too long. I just pray those same ‘gun for hire’ bastards don’t screw this up for us too.

The next law that needs to be passed is one that will give battered women the right to kill their bastard, coward husbands who have a history of beating them.

Farm Subsidies and Congress

Here's something we 'common-folk' don't hear much about. Farm subsidies. This is a nifty little group of programs that someone came up with to pay farmers to not grow certain crops. We should all be farmers so we can get in on this gravy train.

It turns out that many members of congress receive USDA subsidies. I wonder if somewhere in a new-congress-members 'welcome packet' is a form for them to fill out so they can be sure to 'hook themselves up' with this lucrative benefit.

Anyway, sometime during 2007, Congress will get a chance to reauthorize this legislation and will likely be able to vote on its passage. Wouldn't you like to be in a position to vote on whether or not you get to keep a financial benefit, especially when it involves doing nothing on your part? And, these guys get paid to vote on this! Incredible! Is this a great country or what!?!

What this means to you and me, the taxpayers who get to foot the $35 billion annual bill for these 'benefits', is that our standard of living gets to be reduced even further by the higher taxes needed to fund these farm programs and by the higher food prices caused by agriculture subsidies, and the related unproductive restrictions, and regulations.

Although politicians love to discuss the plight of small farmers, the vast majority of farm subsidies go to the largest farms. In recent years, the biggest 10 percent of farm businesses have received 72 percent of farm subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group.

In most industries, market prices balance supply and demand and encourage efficient production. But Congress short–circuits market mechanisms in agriculture which damages the economy. Farm programs cause overproduction, the overuse of marginal farmland, land price inflation and excess borrowing by farm businesses.

As with any government backed subsidy there is fraud, the Government Accountability Office found that improper farm payments amount to as much as $500 million each year. Since 2000, the government has paid $1.3 billion in subsidies to people who own "farmland" that is not even used for farming. The government also frequently distributes disaster payments to farmers who don't need them and often didn't even ask for them.

Some farm programs raise food prices and hurt consumers directly. Federal controls on the dairy industry raise milk prices to consumers. Controls on the sugar industry raise U.S. sugar prices to about twice the world level, pushing up consumer costs for breakfast cereals, chocolate and other food products.

For a long list of reasons why farm subsidies should be banned, click here. As someone who is a direct victim of this unconscionable blood-letting I am appalled that our representatives in congress are taking advantage of this gross misuse of taxpayer dollars for their own personal gain.

These programs need to be abolished immediately. But guess who is going to vote on abolishing them. That's right, the very people who benefit from not abolishing them. Can you say conflict of interest?

A little history is in order, many of these programs were enacted during the Great Depression of the 1930’s and others at times when the U.S. farmers' over-production caused a drop in the price that the farmer could get for their crops. As a result of the lower market prices and other factors farmers were loosing their farms. The creation of these programs, while designed with the best of intentions, no longer work in today’s more prosperous and dynamic economy. It has been taken advantage of by the very people who put it into place and therefore congress has no incentive to discontinue these programs.

Members of Congress who benefit from this program financially should either recuse themselves from voting on any farm legislation or forgo any farm subsidies for which they and their families and relatives would be eligible. But, since we are dealing with American politicians, we all know that they will simply find a solution that will allow them to keep this ‘golden egg’ while giving the appearance to the general public that they have somehow sacrificed. This is why abolishing these programs is the only answer.

If you would like to see a list of those congressional members and organizations receiving these free subsidies check it out here.