Congratulations to those extremist, obstructionist Senate Republicans on the birth of their baby boy (w/Fox News): Donald Trump!
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Friday, November 18, 2011
Congressman McGovern Introduces the People's Rights Amendment | freespeechforpeople.org
On Tuesday, Congressman/Hero Jim McGovern proposed a bill of timely/timeless importance.
Its purpose is clear and most worthy: To overturn the Supreme Court’s horrifying 2010 ruling in "Citizens United v. FEC".
Entitled the “People’s Rights Amendment”, it's a major breakthrough for the nationwide grassroots movement to end "corporate personhood"; to restore our Democracy; to return the U.S. to US; In other words, to return it to (you know) "We, the People".
“Corporations are not people,” said McGovern. “They do not breathe. They do not have children. They do not die in war. They are artificial entities which we the people create and, as such, we govern them, not the other way around.”
A Thousand Blessings on you, Congressman McGovern.
And yes, it's true that the People's Rights Amendment won't be passed overnight.
But the truly important thing to remember is this: This Amendment will be successfully passed.
Keep your eyes on the Prize!
From freespeechforpeople.org:
Congressman McGovern Introduces the People's Rights Amendment | freespeechforpeople.org
Its purpose is clear and most worthy: To overturn the Supreme Court’s horrifying 2010 ruling in "Citizens United v. FEC".
Entitled the “People’s Rights Amendment”, it's a major breakthrough for the nationwide grassroots movement to end "corporate personhood"; to restore our Democracy; to return the U.S. to US; In other words, to return it to (you know) "We, the People".
“Corporations are not people,” said McGovern. “They do not breathe. They do not have children. They do not die in war. They are artificial entities which we the people create and, as such, we govern them, not the other way around.”
A Thousand Blessings on you, Congressman McGovern.
And yes, it's true that the People's Rights Amendment won't be passed overnight.
But the truly important thing to remember is this: This Amendment will be successfully passed.
Keep your eyes on the Prize!
From freespeechforpeople.org:
Congressman McGovern Introduces the People's Rights Amendment | freespeechforpeople.org
Saturday, October 16, 2010
We All Vote. Whether Actively Or Passively. We All Vote. Please Be Active. Vote On Nov. 2, 2010
My Fellow Americans...
As Americans, we All Vote.
You might not realize it or even think so... but, even if you don't actually register to vote... even if you don't go to your local polling place and choose where to mark your ballot... You are voting...
In spite of your apparent apathy, discouragement or lack of active participation.
Whether or not to Vote Is Your Choice, of course...
But, honestly, wouldn't you prefer to participate in actively steering the ship... rather than simply being a buoy on the ocean?
Considering the Unenlightened, Democracy-Damaging and Utterly Stupid (J.Robert's) Supreme Court "Citizens United" Decision (which has - as predicted - opened the floodgates to allow Unlimited and Un-Traceable political ad campaign contributions)...
And, considering the significant number of crack-pots, kooks, wing-nut extremists & just plain utterly unqualified candidates who've thrown their hats into the political ring...
And, considering the fact that many of those sizable corporate "Citizens United" Decision benefactors - er, I mean anonymous Republican Big-Money Donors - see Nothing Wrong with throwing their considerable financial support behind the aforementioned extremists and unqualified candidates...
It Is Supremely Important That You Vote On November 2, 2010.
If You Are Registered To Vote - Bless You.
If Not, Please Get Registered (Deadlines may vary).
And Vote On Nov. 2nd.
*Here, in California, the deadline to Register is MONDAY, Oct. 18th.*
Thank You.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Follow The Money say O'Reilly/Beck/Huckabee/Fox... So, Follow This: NewsCorp-$1Mill=GOP+$1Mill
What Can You Do If...
You Want To Uncover And Expose Which Crooked Corporations Are Making Large Campaign Contributions In Order To Buy Political Influence in America...
You Need Only Do One Thing:
"Follow The Money Trail!"
~ The Passionate Exhortation Of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck & Mike Huckabee over at Fox "News".
Glenn Beck uses chalk, chalkboards, melodrama and meandering mazes to illustrate the twisted tie-ins he perceives pervade American politics (and, occasionally, he throws in the nazis and/or hitler - I refuse to capitalize those two words.).
Here's a very recent example of exactly how the recent and asinine U.S. Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns may have opened the floodgates to f.s.u. (fk stuff up) in American politics:
NewsCorp (The Parent Company of Fox "News") just gave $1Million to the GOP.
For those who may be accustomed to Glenn Beck's method of doing things, I'm repeating Jon Stewart's example - sans chalkboard - here goes:
Now, Remember What Bill, Glenn and Mike Said, "Follow The Money.".
NewsCorp/Fox-----$1Million Dollars-----GOP/Republicans
Easy, huh?
Check Out Jon Stewart's Delightful Take on this event...
Enjoy!
You Want To Uncover And Expose Which Crooked Corporations Are Making Large Campaign Contributions In Order To Buy Political Influence in America...
You Need Only Do One Thing:
"Follow The Money Trail!"
~ The Passionate Exhortation Of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck & Mike Huckabee over at Fox "News".
Glenn Beck uses chalk, chalkboards, melodrama and meandering mazes to illustrate the twisted tie-ins he perceives pervade American politics (and, occasionally, he throws in the nazis and/or hitler - I refuse to capitalize those two words.).
Here's a very recent example of exactly how the recent and asinine U.S. Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns may have opened the floodgates to f.s.u. (fk stuff up) in American politics:
NewsCorp (The Parent Company of Fox "News") just gave $1Million to the GOP.
For those who may be accustomed to Glenn Beck's method of doing things, I'm repeating Jon Stewart's example - sans chalkboard - here goes:
Now, Remember What Bill, Glenn and Mike Said, "Follow The Money.".
NewsCorp/Fox-----$1Million Dollars-----GOP/Republicans
Easy, huh?
Check Out Jon Stewart's Delightful Take on this event...
Enjoy!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| News Corp. Gives Money to Republicans | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
"Mr. Roberts Goes To The White House."... Or, "Oops! I Did It Again."
(Doug Mills/The New York Times)
The Presidential Oath as written in the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's it. Period. Concise and To The Point.
Hmmm....
Oh Yeah... There's No "... So Help Me God." at the end... It's that Supremely Important Notion of Separation of Church and State and All, I Think.
But when Supreme Court Chief Justice and Constitutional Scholar John Roberts swore in Obama, he flipped some of the words, saying: "I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully."
I'm sure it was just nerves... Yeah, that's it. The Chief Justice just gets butterflies from public speaking.
Or, perhaps... inexperience? After all, he's the youngest ever Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the little issue of now-President Obama having been one of 22 Senate Democrats who voted against Mr. Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2005 — Making this not only the First Time a Supreme Court Justice has sworn in a President who voted against him... But, it's also the First Time said Supreme Court Justice has had to do it TWICE.
Peace.
L.
(From: www.latimes.com/)
Obama Takes Oath Again, Faithfully This Time
A day after he and Chief John Roberts stumbled over the words, Obama decides to do it over to remove any doubt about the legitimacy of his presidency.
By David G. Savage
7:43 PM PST, January 21, 2009
Washington, D.C. - President Obama took the oath of office Tuesday outside the Capitol, as millions watched in person and on TV. He took it again Wednesday night -- this time in the privacy of the White House, with only a few aides and reporters looking on.
The reason: During the inauguration ceremony, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stumbled over the oath's opening words, and Obama repeated them back, incorrectly.
The second time around, they both got it right.
The president's lawyer and constitutional experts agreed that taking the oath a second time was unnecessary. Under the Constitution, Obama became president at noon Tuesday, a few minutes before he placed his hand on a Bible to take the oath.
"We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday," White House counsel Greg Craig said in a statement. "But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."
Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar said, "It puts to rest all the doubts. . . . We lawyers are cautious folks."
As for Obama, he joked that he and his staff decided to repeat the ceremony because "we decided it was so much fun."
Yet it was clear that the administration, having been dogged by false Internet rumors about Obama's citizenship during the presidential campaign, wanted to take no chances about the legitimacy of his presidency.
During Tuesday's ceremony, Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully" when he was reading the oath of office, and Obama repeated the mistake.
The Constitution says the president must solemnly swear "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States." But on Tuesday, Obama said, "I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully. . . ."
On Wednesday, there were no such gaffes. Obama raised his right hand in the White House Map Room about 7:35 p.m. -- there was no Bible -- and repeated Roberts' words to the letter.
"Congratulations, again," the chief justice said, smiling.
"Thank you, sir," Obama replied.
Amar noted that at least two presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur, took the oath a second time after questions were raised. In Coolidge's case, his father was a justice of the peace and administered the oath to his son upon the death of President Harding.
"Coolidge retook the oath in a secret ceremony," Amar said. "He didn't want his father to know about it."
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, said the do-over "was just a matter of caution and compliance with the text."
"But I don't think it mattered. No one would have standing to sue. Obama would still be president. But this would stop people from asking whether or he was legitimately president."
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
This Might Hurt A Little: Supreme Court OK's Lethal Injection In KY Case
(From: www.nytimes.com)
Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: April 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Kentucky's method of execution by lethal injection, rejecting the claim that officials there administered a common sequence of three drugs in a manner that posed an unconstitutional risk that a condemned inmate would suffer acute yet undetectable pain.
*****
Today's news that the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's method of executing those on death row is big news here in California. There has been an unofficial hold on state executions for about a year now, as states waited for the High Court's decision on the practice of execution by lethal injection. (The method used by 35 of the 36 states that allow for the death penalty.)
The challenge wasn't so much to the consititutionality of lethal injection as it was to the details of the injection's administration. The appeal was brought on by two men on Kentucky's death row, each of whom were convicted of double murders.
My feelings about capital punishment have changed over the years. In my first year of college, in a Reasoning and Critical Thinking class, I chose to write a paper in support of capital punishment. But, I didn't know then what I know now. Since writing that paper, I've researched and studied the arguments for and against it at length. I understand - as best I can - wanting blood to be spilled for blood that was spilled. We all have heard the horrific and gruesome details of countless violent crimes committed against innocent men, women and children. Believe me, when I hear about a woman or child being raped and murdered and dismembered, I fantasize about how I would like the guilty piece of shite to be dispatched. It's easy to understand the feelings of the victim's loved ones to feel that the only justice would come from the death of the guilty... and that seeing them executed is still letting them off easy.
But, I also now know that the penalty of death is the sentence handed down more often to people of color than to white defendants, for similar crimes.
And, with the development of DNA evidence being able to be examined and compared, there have been a great number of cases where someone on death row has been found to have been wrongly convicted, and the actual perpetrator identified.
So, my present feeling is that, unless we truly know, without a shadow of doubt, that the person facing execution is undeniably the person who committed the crime(s), then I believe we should refrain from executing them.
Then, there's the common sense statement that - if you keep your emotions in check - makes complete sense: "You cannot teach people that killing is wrong by killing them."
That said...
I can't help but be somewhat annoyed and incredulous at the gall of convicted murderers (with DNA evidence) who, like a recent death row inmate at San Quentin, complained (through their ambulance-chasing mouthpiece lawyer) that just because they might experience some degree of pain during their execution... that we should not execute them (the "cruel and inhuman punishment" cry).
My response is simple:
There are numerous occasions when you or I or anyone has been at the dentist or being seen by a doctor...
and have been informed by the dentist, doctor or nurse that, simply put: "This might hurt a little."
And, it did hurt... sometimes a little and sometimes a lot... but, hey, we get over it and go on with our lives.
In the case of death row inmates, in the 'death chamber', about to be executed...
What the Hell? Those carrying out the death sentence should just inform the convicted that "This might hurt a little."... and get on with it. The person is being executed... for heinous crimes. Execution isn't a medical procedure that they are going to wake up from in a few minutes and then yell, "Damn! That hurt a lot!". They will be gone.
And it will have been a lot less painful than some of the methods of execution that I've imagined for them.
Peace.
L.
(From: www.mercurynews.com)
Executions in California Could Resume With Supreme Court Ruling
By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision to allow lethal injections for death row inmates affirms California's capital punishment procedure and would allow executions to resume.
They have been on hold for two years because of legal challenges in federal and state court.
"I will continue to defend the death penalty and the will of the people, and I am confident that California's lethal injection protocol will be upheld," the governor said in a statement.
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 Wednesday to reject a challenge to the execution procedure in Kentucky, which uses three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates.
California is among the roughly three dozen states that uses a similar procedure. Executions have been delayed in California because of similar arguments claiming the drugs might not always work as intended, leaving inmates to die a painful death.
California has the nation's largest death row, with 669 convicts awaiting execution, including 15 women and 654 men.
In February 2006, California corrections officials halted the execution of convicted rapist and murderer Michael Morales hours before he was to be put to death.
Attorneys for Morales had challenged the three-drug sequence California used for its lethal-injection procedure one month before his scheduled execution.
They wrote that if the drugs were not administered properly it could leave Morales "paralyzed but
Advertisement
conscious and suffering death from ... burning veins and heart failure."
In response, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel recommended that the state monitor the execution with two anesthesiologists. One would be in the execution chamber and another nearby to make sure Morales was unconscious before the two remaining drugs were injected.
Morales' execution was delayed for a day and ultimately canceled after the anesthesiologists refused to participate because of ethical concerns.
"There has been a de facto moratorium," said Seth Unger, a spokesman with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. "The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling opens the door for us to proceed with the Morales case in California."
The next step is a hearing in Fogel's courtroom in San Jose, scheduled for June 12. At that time, the judge could set a schedule for reviewing the state's proposed execution procedure.
In December 2006, he ruled that California's procedure was so badly designed and carried out that it was likely to cause pain and suffering.
Since then, the state has taken a number of steps to address the concerns, including building a better-lighted death chamber at San Quentin State Prison.
Corrections official submitted a new execution plan, but it was invalidated last fall by a Marin County Superior Court judge.
Attorney Brad Phillips sued the state in Marin County, home to San Quentin, on behalf of two condemned inmates. Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor agreed with Phillips that state prison officials had failed to gather public comment and take other required steps in forming their new execution plan.
The state is appealing the Marin County ruling. In the meantime, Unger expects the lethal-injection case before the federal court in San Jose to proceed.
David Senior, one of Morales' attorneys, said he expects the federal judge to delay a decision until California state courts resolve the pending administrative challenge.
"California may ultimately choose a procedure which is completely different from the state of Kentucky's," he said.
No judge in California has scheduled an execution since the one was halted for Morales, who was sentenced in 1983 for the rape and murder two years before of 17-year-old Terri Winchell in a Lodi vineyard.
"There are four people who have basically exhausted all their appeals ... and for whom we could set dates once the Morales litigation is resolved," said Gareth Lacy, spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office.
State attorneys reviewing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Kentucky case preliminarily believe it also will end challenges to California's procedure, Lacy said.
Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: April 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Kentucky's method of execution by lethal injection, rejecting the claim that officials there administered a common sequence of three drugs in a manner that posed an unconstitutional risk that a condemned inmate would suffer acute yet undetectable pain.
*****
Today's news that the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's method of executing those on death row is big news here in California. There has been an unofficial hold on state executions for about a year now, as states waited for the High Court's decision on the practice of execution by lethal injection. (The method used by 35 of the 36 states that allow for the death penalty.)
The challenge wasn't so much to the consititutionality of lethal injection as it was to the details of the injection's administration. The appeal was brought on by two men on Kentucky's death row, each of whom were convicted of double murders.
My feelings about capital punishment have changed over the years. In my first year of college, in a Reasoning and Critical Thinking class, I chose to write a paper in support of capital punishment. But, I didn't know then what I know now. Since writing that paper, I've researched and studied the arguments for and against it at length. I understand - as best I can - wanting blood to be spilled for blood that was spilled. We all have heard the horrific and gruesome details of countless violent crimes committed against innocent men, women and children. Believe me, when I hear about a woman or child being raped and murdered and dismembered, I fantasize about how I would like the guilty piece of shite to be dispatched. It's easy to understand the feelings of the victim's loved ones to feel that the only justice would come from the death of the guilty... and that seeing them executed is still letting them off easy.
But, I also now know that the penalty of death is the sentence handed down more often to people of color than to white defendants, for similar crimes.
And, with the development of DNA evidence being able to be examined and compared, there have been a great number of cases where someone on death row has been found to have been wrongly convicted, and the actual perpetrator identified.
So, my present feeling is that, unless we truly know, without a shadow of doubt, that the person facing execution is undeniably the person who committed the crime(s), then I believe we should refrain from executing them.
Then, there's the common sense statement that - if you keep your emotions in check - makes complete sense: "You cannot teach people that killing is wrong by killing them."
That said...
I can't help but be somewhat annoyed and incredulous at the gall of convicted murderers (with DNA evidence) who, like a recent death row inmate at San Quentin, complained (through their ambulance-chasing mouthpiece lawyer) that just because they might experience some degree of pain during their execution... that we should not execute them (the "cruel and inhuman punishment" cry).
My response is simple:
There are numerous occasions when you or I or anyone has been at the dentist or being seen by a doctor...
and have been informed by the dentist, doctor or nurse that, simply put: "This might hurt a little."
And, it did hurt... sometimes a little and sometimes a lot... but, hey, we get over it and go on with our lives.
In the case of death row inmates, in the 'death chamber', about to be executed...
What the Hell? Those carrying out the death sentence should just inform the convicted that "This might hurt a little."... and get on with it. The person is being executed... for heinous crimes. Execution isn't a medical procedure that they are going to wake up from in a few minutes and then yell, "Damn! That hurt a lot!". They will be gone.
And it will have been a lot less painful than some of the methods of execution that I've imagined for them.
Peace.
L.
(From: www.mercurynews.com)
Executions in California Could Resume With Supreme Court Ruling
By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision to allow lethal injections for death row inmates affirms California's capital punishment procedure and would allow executions to resume.
They have been on hold for two years because of legal challenges in federal and state court.
"I will continue to defend the death penalty and the will of the people, and I am confident that California's lethal injection protocol will be upheld," the governor said in a statement.
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 Wednesday to reject a challenge to the execution procedure in Kentucky, which uses three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates.
California is among the roughly three dozen states that uses a similar procedure. Executions have been delayed in California because of similar arguments claiming the drugs might not always work as intended, leaving inmates to die a painful death.
California has the nation's largest death row, with 669 convicts awaiting execution, including 15 women and 654 men.
In February 2006, California corrections officials halted the execution of convicted rapist and murderer Michael Morales hours before he was to be put to death.
Attorneys for Morales had challenged the three-drug sequence California used for its lethal-injection procedure one month before his scheduled execution.
They wrote that if the drugs were not administered properly it could leave Morales "paralyzed but
Advertisement
conscious and suffering death from ... burning veins and heart failure."
In response, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel recommended that the state monitor the execution with two anesthesiologists. One would be in the execution chamber and another nearby to make sure Morales was unconscious before the two remaining drugs were injected.
Morales' execution was delayed for a day and ultimately canceled after the anesthesiologists refused to participate because of ethical concerns.
"There has been a de facto moratorium," said Seth Unger, a spokesman with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. "The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling opens the door for us to proceed with the Morales case in California."
The next step is a hearing in Fogel's courtroom in San Jose, scheduled for June 12. At that time, the judge could set a schedule for reviewing the state's proposed execution procedure.
In December 2006, he ruled that California's procedure was so badly designed and carried out that it was likely to cause pain and suffering.
Since then, the state has taken a number of steps to address the concerns, including building a better-lighted death chamber at San Quentin State Prison.
Corrections official submitted a new execution plan, but it was invalidated last fall by a Marin County Superior Court judge.
Attorney Brad Phillips sued the state in Marin County, home to San Quentin, on behalf of two condemned inmates. Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor agreed with Phillips that state prison officials had failed to gather public comment and take other required steps in forming their new execution plan.
The state is appealing the Marin County ruling. In the meantime, Unger expects the lethal-injection case before the federal court in San Jose to proceed.
David Senior, one of Morales' attorneys, said he expects the federal judge to delay a decision until California state courts resolve the pending administrative challenge.
"California may ultimately choose a procedure which is completely different from the state of Kentucky's," he said.
No judge in California has scheduled an execution since the one was halted for Morales, who was sentenced in 1983 for the rape and murder two years before of 17-year-old Terri Winchell in a Lodi vineyard.
"There are four people who have basically exhausted all their appeals ... and for whom we could set dates once the Morales litigation is resolved," said Gareth Lacy, spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office.
State attorneys reviewing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Kentucky case preliminarily believe it also will end challenges to California's procedure, Lacy said.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
"Welcome to the Police States of Amerika! Now, as you go through Customs....Please empty all of the contents of Your Rights into the trash bin....Thank You.....No, you won't be getting them back... But, that's o.k.... You won't be needing them anymore... Enjoy your stay......and......Remember: We'll be watching.......listening......All up inside your stuff!"
The Obscene Court has just ruled 5-4 that police, with a warrant, may bust down your door/raid your home.......without identifying themselves as police first.
Hmmmm......
So, if someone drops a dime on you as a stupid joke or to be evil, and implicates you as a trouble-maker......the police can come busting in, day-or-night...
All night-vision, combat boots, kevlar, billy clubs, automatic weapons and trigger-fingers ( Heck, they're acting upon a tip that you are a "terrorist"!).... ala SWAT.....
And... They don't have to say, "This is the Police! We have a Warrant!"........
Now... They just come rushing in like....some........
Well, like Home-Invasion Robbers are known to do....
So.... You jump out of bed and run down the stairs to defend your loved ones, your home, your private property against the swarm of armed invaders and....... they, the armed-up-the-wazoo, home-invading police, thinking you, "the terrorist suspect", is charging them.... well, they just shoot you dead.
I can hear it now... "Oops! Sorry... We were acting on "intelligence" that turned out to be bad....
No, you can't sue us for wrongful death....it was a "National Security Issue", at the time.
It's isn't that far-fetched....
The Authorities in London are in Clean-up/Spin/Defense mode currently for a raid on a private citizen's home in Forest Gate. 250 armed officers converged upon the (Muslim) man's home, busted in without identifying themselves...he thinks he's being robbed...runs down the stairs to defend his family... and ... they shot him on sight...In His Own Home! Thankfully, he didn't die. The man and his brother were questioned...then released without charges....The police didn't even apologize until after the man indicated that he wasn't interested in seeking damages in court...but he wanted an apology... Like he should have to state that to get one?! Tony Blair, of course, is backing the police and the commissioner.
......I hear something ticking.....tick....tick....tick.... Hopefully it is the timer on America's patience/apathy...
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!!
-L
The Obscene Court has just ruled 5-4 that police, with a warrant, may bust down your door/raid your home.......without identifying themselves as police first.
Hmmmm......
So, if someone drops a dime on you as a stupid joke or to be evil, and implicates you as a trouble-maker......the police can come busting in, day-or-night...
All night-vision, combat boots, kevlar, billy clubs, automatic weapons and trigger-fingers ( Heck, they're acting upon a tip that you are a "terrorist"!).... ala SWAT.....
And... They don't have to say, "This is the Police! We have a Warrant!"........
Now... They just come rushing in like....some........
Well, like Home-Invasion Robbers are known to do....
So.... You jump out of bed and run down the stairs to defend your loved ones, your home, your private property against the swarm of armed invaders and....... they, the armed-up-the-wazoo, home-invading police, thinking you, "the terrorist suspect", is charging them.... well, they just shoot you dead.
I can hear it now... "Oops! Sorry... We were acting on "intelligence" that turned out to be bad....
No, you can't sue us for wrongful death....it was a "National Security Issue", at the time.
It's isn't that far-fetched....
The Authorities in London are in Clean-up/Spin/Defense mode currently for a raid on a private citizen's home in Forest Gate. 250 armed officers converged upon the (Muslim) man's home, busted in without identifying themselves...he thinks he's being robbed...runs down the stairs to defend his family... and ... they shot him on sight...In His Own Home! Thankfully, he didn't die. The man and his brother were questioned...then released without charges....The police didn't even apologize until after the man indicated that he wasn't interested in seeking damages in court...but he wanted an apology... Like he should have to state that to get one?! Tony Blair, of course, is backing the police and the commissioner.
......I hear something ticking.....tick....tick....tick.... Hopefully it is the timer on America's patience/apathy...
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!!
-L
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)