Sunday, August 10, 2014
Saturday, August 09, 2014
Too Many People Are Abusing Our American Flag
Don't stick flags in your flower bed so that they are touching the ground or draped across a plant and don't leave them out at night unless you have a light shinning on them.
A flag isn't supposed to be used for advertising. I won't do business with a company that flies the flag to attract the business of patriots. When a business flies several flags, every day, all night and in the rain, it isn't to honor our flag.
Don't wear the flag around you neck, on your forehead or as a scarf. Just because a company makes and sells flags for that purpose doesn't make it right. Don't wear it as a patch on you coat unless you are in uniform and you are military, police or firefighter.
When a flag is no longer in presentable condition it must be properly retired. Tossing it into a trash can is not an approved method. The flag should be burned. If you don't or can't retire it properly, take it to your local VFW or American Legion. They will do it for you.
Eric Garner's Death Due To Homicide
Eric
Garner regularly sold individual cigarettes, called loosies, for 75
cents or 2 for a dollar. Eric bought the cigarettes for $5 a pack and
sold them for $7 per pack up to $15 a pack sold individually. Eric's
profit was about $150 per day. In Midtown, a pack can cost $12.50 so
there was a demand for Eric's cigarettes.
Eric has been arrested several times for selling untaxed cigarettes, which is a misdemeanor. He pays a fine and goes home.
Eric was recently arrested again. The policeman in this situation should have issued a citation or a summons and ordered Eric to stop selling. Instead the policeman called for backup with the intent of taking Eric into custody.
Eric knew that being arrested was improper and he protested civilly. The police decided to use force and wrestled Eric to the sidewalk. One policeman, with a record of excessive force, put Eric in an unlawful choke hold that is specifically banned by police regulations.
Eric complained repeatedly that he could not breathe but the police held him down and cuffed him. Eric lost consciousness. The onlookers called on the police to help Eric but they were ignored.
Two emergency medical technicians showed up and checked for a pulse but did nothing else.
While the police and EMTs stood by, Eric died.
The EMTs have been suspended or fired. Some of the police have been placed on modified duty. The medical examiner has ruled that Eric's death was a homicide.
At least one policeman is expected to be charged with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.
Manslaughter, in my opinion isn't enough. Charging one policeman is not enough. All of the police and the EMTs stood over Eric as he died at their feet. Each of these professional guardians of our safety chose to ignore Eric's medical distress. Had they attempted to relieve his distress in any way and he still died, I would charge all but one policeman with manslaughter and the policeman who choked Eric with 2nd degree murder.
But not one of them acted to prevent Eric's death. They knew he was having difficulty breathing and did not act. They knew when he lost consciousness and did not act. They knew his heart had stopped when the EMT checked Eric but none of them took any action. They knowingly allowed Eric to remain in a state of stress that could and did kill him.
They should be charged with premeditated murder because they decided, at a time when Eric was still alive, to withhold assistance that would have saved Eric's life. Assistance that they are entrusted to provide.
Eric's death was not accidental. It was not unintentional. Eric was intentionally murdered for selling cigarettes for 75 cents.
Eric has been arrested several times for selling untaxed cigarettes, which is a misdemeanor. He pays a fine and goes home.
Eric was recently arrested again. The policeman in this situation should have issued a citation or a summons and ordered Eric to stop selling. Instead the policeman called for backup with the intent of taking Eric into custody.
Eric knew that being arrested was improper and he protested civilly. The police decided to use force and wrestled Eric to the sidewalk. One policeman, with a record of excessive force, put Eric in an unlawful choke hold that is specifically banned by police regulations.
Eric complained repeatedly that he could not breathe but the police held him down and cuffed him. Eric lost consciousness. The onlookers called on the police to help Eric but they were ignored.
Two emergency medical technicians showed up and checked for a pulse but did nothing else.
While the police and EMTs stood by, Eric died.
The EMTs have been suspended or fired. Some of the police have been placed on modified duty. The medical examiner has ruled that Eric's death was a homicide.
At least one policeman is expected to be charged with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.
Manslaughter, in my opinion isn't enough. Charging one policeman is not enough. All of the police and the EMTs stood over Eric as he died at their feet. Each of these professional guardians of our safety chose to ignore Eric's medical distress. Had they attempted to relieve his distress in any way and he still died, I would charge all but one policeman with manslaughter and the policeman who choked Eric with 2nd degree murder.
But not one of them acted to prevent Eric's death. They knew he was having difficulty breathing and did not act. They knew when he lost consciousness and did not act. They knew his heart had stopped when the EMT checked Eric but none of them took any action. They knowingly allowed Eric to remain in a state of stress that could and did kill him.
They should be charged with premeditated murder because they decided, at a time when Eric was still alive, to withhold assistance that would have saved Eric's life. Assistance that they are entrusted to provide.
Eric's death was not accidental. It was not unintentional. Eric was intentionally murdered for selling cigarettes for 75 cents.
No Place For The Confederate Flag
Americans shouldn't honor the flags of
traitors.
The current flag of Mississippi contains the confederate flag on a background of the bars and stars confederate flag. Until this century the Georgia flag contained a confederate flag. The current flags of Georgia and North Carolina have backgrounds containing portions of the confederate bars and stars flag. Flags of the confederacy or one of the confederate states are the flags of traitors and enemy governments.
Flying any of these flags or a flag that honors them is disrespectful of the United States, its Constitution and its citizens.
Some Southerners call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. This is untrue. The Confederacy started the Civil War when it seceded from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter.
The current flag of Mississippi contains the confederate flag on a background of the bars and stars confederate flag. Until this century the Georgia flag contained a confederate flag. The current flags of Georgia and North Carolina have backgrounds containing portions of the confederate bars and stars flag. Flags of the confederacy or one of the confederate states are the flags of traitors and enemy governments.
Flying any of these flags or a flag that honors them is disrespectful of the United States, its Constitution and its citizens.
Some Southerners call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. This is untrue. The Confederacy started the Civil War when it seceded from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter.
Ugandan Anti-Gay Legislation Overturned! Sad Day For Some Evangelicals.
The evangelical Christians were Scott Lively, an author who has written several books opposing homosexuality; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-professed former gay man who conducts sessions to heal homosexuality; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, an organization devoted to promoting "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ". The three men held conferences in Uganda with the theme being the "gay agenda": "how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how 'the gay movement is an evil institution' whose goal is 'to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity' "
These claims are untrue. Homosexuals do not recruit heterosexuals. Homosexuals are not pedophiles; pedophiles are pedophiles! The gay movement is not out to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity. They want to expand society's definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. As for promiscuity, these evangelicals need to refer to Matthew 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" The divorce rate of evangelicals is highest among major U.S. religions, including atheism. The Bible Belt leads the nation in the consumption of Gay and straight internet pornography. The majority of states with a high percentage of gay viewers is in the South. According to internet site data, Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia lead the South in gay porn consumption, and the state with the highest percentage of gay porn viewers in the nation is Mississippi at 5.6%.
Does President Obama Favor Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants?
President Obama does not intend to grant
amnesty to illegal aliens. He has asked Congress to enact immigration
reform. But the House Republicans are committed to blocking anything
that the President wants and anything that the Senate has passed.
The Dream Act, which is NOT amnesty, was passed by the Senate 2 years ago. The House Republicans won't put it to a vote in the House. Since the Republicans will do nothing, the President instructed the Justice Department and Homeland Security not to deport any youth that the Dream Act would apply to.
Currently, the President is considering a similar temporary order that would apply to adults who meet very strict requirements. The order would halt deportations, grant work permits and allow some to get drivers' licenses.
The President and the Democrats would prefer to pass immigration reforms but the House Republicans, who appear to be taking their instructions from Senator Ted Cruz, will not vote on any reasonable reform legislation. The only bills they have passed on immigration won't pass the Senate. One such bill would accelerate deportation, especially the deportation of the children, many of whom are qualified for asylum.
Less than one year ago Senator Marco Rubio and other prominent Republicans had proposed a bipartisan bill for immigration reform, which was expected to pass both houses. Later Rubio advised his Republicans to oppose the legislation. I suspect that Rubio changed his mind because he did not want to upset the Tea Party and their far far right base.
As the President works to accomplish something in spite of the Republicans, the Republicans have shifted from working on a bipartisan reform to suing the President for doing what they now refuse to do.
Anyone who thinks that President Obama has been soft on undocumented aliens is reminded that he has spent more to secure the border than previous presidents, he has deported many more people than any other president and he has prosecuted more employers who persistently employ undocumented aliens than any other president.
Before condemning what the administration has done or is considering, make sure you know the facts.
The Dream Act, which is NOT amnesty, was passed by the Senate 2 years ago. The House Republicans won't put it to a vote in the House. Since the Republicans will do nothing, the President instructed the Justice Department and Homeland Security not to deport any youth that the Dream Act would apply to.
Currently, the President is considering a similar temporary order that would apply to adults who meet very strict requirements. The order would halt deportations, grant work permits and allow some to get drivers' licenses.
The President and the Democrats would prefer to pass immigration reforms but the House Republicans, who appear to be taking their instructions from Senator Ted Cruz, will not vote on any reasonable reform legislation. The only bills they have passed on immigration won't pass the Senate. One such bill would accelerate deportation, especially the deportation of the children, many of whom are qualified for asylum.
Less than one year ago Senator Marco Rubio and other prominent Republicans had proposed a bipartisan bill for immigration reform, which was expected to pass both houses. Later Rubio advised his Republicans to oppose the legislation. I suspect that Rubio changed his mind because he did not want to upset the Tea Party and their far far right base.
As the President works to accomplish something in spite of the Republicans, the Republicans have shifted from working on a bipartisan reform to suing the President for doing what they now refuse to do.
Anyone who thinks that President Obama has been soft on undocumented aliens is reminded that he has spent more to secure the border than previous presidents, he has deported many more people than any other president and he has prosecuted more employers who persistently employ undocumented aliens than any other president.
Before condemning what the administration has done or is considering, make sure you know the facts.
Thirteen Years in Afghanistan
Many of our troops in Afghanistan were in preschool when the Afghanistan War began.
How many more of our children and grandchildren will we lose in Afghanistan?
How many more of our children and grandchildren will we lose in Afghanistan?
Do Native Americans Have The Right To Be Offended?
I posted a picture of a Kansas City Chiefs fan dressed to mimic a Native American alongside of a couple of pictures featuring black face. I said that they are all equally shameful.
An old friend commented, "My grandmother on my dads side was full blooded Indian. I have a lot of Indian blood in me. I am not offended one bit by the Indian costumes. Maybe I'm not the norm."
I think a person has to have more than Native American ancestry. According to my DNA analysis my mother and father come from Irish ancestors but I'm not personally offended if a Brit demeans an Irishman but I disapprove of such comments. My wife is as Italian as Trevi Fountain but she often refers to things uniquely Italian as "quinea" this or that. I don't like it when she uses that word in that way but it means nothing to her. That's not true of all Italians. If an Italian is offended when she says guinea it is not the Italian's fault, it is her fault.
Just because the offender doesn’t see the problem with his demeaning language doesn't disqualify the feelings of the person offended.
Too many of us act and speak without any consideration of the impact they have on the people around them. They claim that they are exercising their personal freedom. But doing so without considering others is irresponsible and a violation of the rights of others. Operating a motorcycle or a car with inadequate exhaust muffling or, worse yet, a muffler designed to accentuate exhaust noise is considered a personal liberty by some but most people are annoyed by the unnecessary noise and feel that their rights are being violated. I think such noise is illegal and I think an adult that takes pleasure in making excessive noise is immature and offensive.
If you were a Native American that observed Native American traditions and practiced one of the many Native American religions, you would be a Native American in spirit, which you would not be simply because one of your grandmothers was a Native American. Then you might very well be offended when someone said "redskin" or wore makeup and a costume to mimic the appearance of a Native American just as "black face and big white lips" mimicked African Americans.
An old friend commented, "My grandmother on my dads side was full blooded Indian. I have a lot of Indian blood in me. I am not offended one bit by the Indian costumes. Maybe I'm not the norm."
I think a person has to have more than Native American ancestry. According to my DNA analysis my mother and father come from Irish ancestors but I'm not personally offended if a Brit demeans an Irishman but I disapprove of such comments. My wife is as Italian as Trevi Fountain but she often refers to things uniquely Italian as "quinea" this or that. I don't like it when she uses that word in that way but it means nothing to her. That's not true of all Italians. If an Italian is offended when she says guinea it is not the Italian's fault, it is her fault.
Just because the offender doesn’t see the problem with his demeaning language doesn't disqualify the feelings of the person offended.
Too many of us act and speak without any consideration of the impact they have on the people around them. They claim that they are exercising their personal freedom. But doing so without considering others is irresponsible and a violation of the rights of others. Operating a motorcycle or a car with inadequate exhaust muffling or, worse yet, a muffler designed to accentuate exhaust noise is considered a personal liberty by some but most people are annoyed by the unnecessary noise and feel that their rights are being violated. I think such noise is illegal and I think an adult that takes pleasure in making excessive noise is immature and offensive.
If you were a Native American that observed Native American traditions and practiced one of the many Native American religions, you would be a Native American in spirit, which you would not be simply because one of your grandmothers was a Native American. Then you might very well be offended when someone said "redskin" or wore makeup and a costume to mimic the appearance of a Native American just as "black face and big white lips" mimicked African Americans.
Phony 'Victims' of Obamacare
Karl Rove's propaganda machine is running a
new ad featuring another "victim" of Obamacare. As with all the
previous attack ads this victim's claim, that her family is hurt by
Obamacare, doesn't agree with the available facts. The ad blames
Democratic Senator Mark Udall for voting for Obamacare. The victim,
Richelle McKim, is an employee of an energy company which is one of the
largest donors to Senator Mark Udall's opponent in the upcoming election.McKim claims in the ad that she had to go back to work because of Obamacare but in an interview with a local news reporter she said that it was not due to the Affordable Care Act. McKim's husband has high blood pressure and until the Affordable Care Act, he could not get affordable insurance. McKim claims in the ad that health care reform has hurt families in Colorado but the facts indicate that the number of uninsured in Colorado has dropped significantly due to the Affordable Care Act.
Mark Udall is a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a strong advocate for developing renewable energy sources and reducing our use of carbon based fuels. This is the reason that Karl Rove and McKim's employer want to defeat Udall. However, instead of attacking Udall's position on renewable energy, Rove is attacking his support of the Affordable Care Act.
And, since the Affordable Care Act is doing good things for Coloradans, Karl Rove has to create phony victims who are willing to tell lies.
Capital Punishment; How Many Innocent Victims?
Three
arson cases are in the news. A man jailed 42 years ago at the age of
16 has been released because the latest arson science proves that the
fire was not arson. A second man, jailed for 24 years, may soon be
freed for the same reason. Arson experts found that a fire for which a
third man was sentenced to death in Texas was not arson. A special
commission in Texas found that the man should be
retried. The Texas governor dismissed the commission and their
recommendation and allowed the man to be executed because a prison
inmate testified that the accused confessed that he was guilty.
However, 10 years later investigators have found that the prosecutor
concealed the fact that the inmate was promised a reduced sentence if he
testified that he had heard a confession. The jailhouse witness has
also admitted that his testimony was a lie.
Three innocent men. They were in prison a total of 77 years in prison. One is still in prison. One was executed. All were innocent.
Hundreds of convicted people have been found innocent and released. Now there is significant evidence that at least one innocent person was executed. How much longer will the US allow states to execute people, when we know that our legal process convicts innocent people, sometimes because of misconduct by the prosecution?
Three innocent men. They were in prison a total of 77 years in prison. One is still in prison. One was executed. All were innocent.
Hundreds of convicted people have been found innocent and released. Now there is significant evidence that at least one innocent person was executed. How much longer will the US allow states to execute people, when we know that our legal process convicts innocent people, sometimes because of misconduct by the prosecution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)