YES JUSTICE SCALIA....I REALLY DO EXPECT YOU TO READ THE LAW !!!

"What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?"

-          Anton Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

The above was asked of Solicitor General of the United States by Associate Justice Anton Scalia during oral arguments on the Affordable Healthcare Act (A/K/A:  ObamaCare). 

My response is; YES, G*DDAMIT, I DO EXPECT YOU TO READ ALL 2,700 PAGES OF THE HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION….YOU POMPOUS A**!  THAT IS WHY WE, THE AMERCAN TAXPAYERS, ARE PAYING YOU $213,900/YEAR!  IF YOU THINK THIS IS TOO MUCH TO ASK, THEN MIGHT I SUGGEST YOU RECONSIDER YOUR CAREER OPTIONS?  FIND ANOTHER JOB MORE TO YOUR LIKING, BECAUSE IF YOU WORKED FOR ME (and you do in a sense), I WOULD FIRE YOU OUT OF YOUR OFFICE WITH A CANNON WITH AN ATTITUDE LIKE THAT!

Regardless of which side of the issue on health care you happen to fall, shouldn’t you be pissed off at such a comment?  Justice Anton Scalia, who I happen to believe is one of the most intellectually dishonest jurists in the history of the United States, actually believes that he is above reading the laws on which he has the power to decide their Constitutionality!  This is abominable! 

We give Justice Scalia the power and authority to render decisions that will affect the people of this nation for generations, and yet, he does not feel it is a position that requires him to actually read the legislation on which he will pass judgment.  Ya, there are those that will tell us he was “just kidding”.  BULLSH*T!!  He is just the kind of conservative, elitist, snob who believes he is above the necessity to actually do the people’s work.  It is beneath him and a waste of his time…and he believes that no one has the authority to tell him otherwise.  It would make no difference as he is absolutely convinced he is perfect and knows everything, so why consider anyone else?  They are wrong.

A man with Justice Scalia’s attitude has no business on the Supreme Court.  He may be learned, smart, and clearly educated beyond his intelligence, but he has lost sight of the concept of public service and, after all is said and done, he is a public servant, supposedly doing the people’s business.  He needs to get off his high horse and do his job!

The Death of Dick Clark Marks the End of an Era

I never had the pleasure or honor of meeting Dick Clark and that is most certainly my loss.  I fondly remember the time of my youth when I would come home and watch him on television.  I had the good fortune of having an after school baby-sitter, Karen, who watched him religiously every afternoon.  I can still remember her dancing just as if she were there on stage with him.  Occasionally I was pressed into service as her dance partner, even though I was 6 or more years younger than she.  It was a simpler time for all of us, especially us kids who had so much less to worry about, really.

I remember the clean-cut young boys and girls that danced on his show and I recall the rate a record, which had a limit on how low or high you could go, so no artist or song was completely without value nor absolutely perfect.

He was in my living room every day for as long as I can remember and had become as near a member of the household as is possible, though his only presence was an image on a TV screen.  I was actually kind of surprised to see him, and the American Bandstand set,  in color, having seen him in black and white for so many years.  I somehow thought he lived in another world where all was black and white, but I was very young and reality did eventually set in at some point.

I also remember the years of ringing in the New Year with Dick, who had become such an institution and such a part of my life that I feel comfortable calling him by his first name.  Somehow calling Dick Clark “Mr. Clark” just does not seem right, unless I was actually meeting him, and I am certain in my heart that he would have said, ”Please, call me Dick.”

My only regret is that someone did not, or maybe could not, convince Dick that, after he had the stroke, it was time to fade away, his image intact.  His incredibly youthful image will only be tarnished by the image of him unable to speak clearly, sometimes confused and unable to move one hand as he hosted the last few years of “Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve.”  I wish we could only remember him as the eternal teenager we had come to love, but I will try to put that out of my mind, as will many, and remember him as the eternally young man, sitting on the bleachers at American Bandstand asking teenie-boppers what they thought of rock ‘n roll songs and artists.

Dick Clark will live on in all of our hearts and memories.  We will hear the songs he played and remember him with a sigh.  We will remember the friends we made watching the show and some of us can remember the girls we shared romances with, holding hands while watching.  We will never, ever, be able to hear Les Elgart’s arrangement of Charles Albertine’s “Bandstand Boogie” without thinking of American Bandstand and Dick Clark.  I am not sure how many people will ever know that is the name of the song used as the theme for American Bandstand, but they will always remember the Bandstand theme, forever. 

The death of Dick Clark is an emotional moment for many of us.  He reminds us of our youth and the good times, but also of the fact that no one, not even America’s Oldest Teenager lives forever.  We should all hope to live our lives a fully as Dick Clark did.  He will be missed and remembered, very fondly.

The Right Does Not Care About People

Today, President Obama will call on Congress to step up federal supervision of oil markets & give regulators new authority over energy traders.  Most Americans have been screaming about high oil prices for, what, years? Decades?  Part of the problem causing high oil prices, as we figured out several years ago, has little to do with supply and demand; it has everything to do with price speculation; a guessing game about how much oil will cost in the future and betting on whether or not speculators are right.

President Obama will call for regulation of these speculators that artificially drive up gas prices to the consumer, that would be you and me, but the Republicans in our government, will tell you that regulation is bad.  There are no exceptions; regulation is bad and must be destroyed, in the eyes of the Right.  As you pump $4.00/gallon gas into your tanks, think about all of this. 

The Republicans are taking care to make sure the people making profits off the gasoline you pump continue to make profits and, even better, make more money and bigger profits.  In effect, they are facilitating the gas and oil companies taking money out of the pockets of consumers, that would, again, be you and me.  Think about how, as the money is pumped into your gas tank, how you are creating jobs with that money through higher prices, according to the Republicans.  While I would argue it is not creating more jobs, just putting more money into the pockets of corporations, if it does create jobs, does that make you feel better?  Does that help you feed your family, pay your bills, make your mortgage payments? 

The Republicans are all about making sure the rich get richer and if the poor get poorer, that is no problem for them at all.  If the middle-class get poorer, they don't care about that either, because the poor and middle class do not make the kinds of campaign contributions that Shell and Exxon do.  Politicians take care of their clientele group.  Obama wants to take care of people and, contrary to the opinion of Mitt Romney, corporations are not the people; at least not the minority of people we need to be taking care of at the expense of the rest of us...okay, just those that drive cars.

I'm As Mad As Hell And I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore !!

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post in violation of one of my rules, I wrote while I was angry.  I really don't think it would have made any difference how long I waited, I would still be angry, so today, I wrote a letter to my Congressman.  I asked him to make a motion to censure Allen West for remarks he made about Democrats in the House of Representatives.  I post it here and invite you, through the wonders of cut and paste, to send it to your own Representative, especially if you are a resident of the State of Florida.  We have to prove we are not all mindless rednecks here in Florida.

April 12, 2012

Honourable Thomas J. Rooney

United States House of Representatives

1529 HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Re:  Censure of Representative Allen West

Dear Representative Rooney:

In light of recent comments by Representative Allen West (FL-22) that 78 to 81 Democratic Members of the House of Representatives are Communists, I call upon you to make a Motion to Censure Congressman West for his statement.

While Representative West most certainly has the Right of Free Speech, which I have defended with the offer of my life in the United States Military, he does not have the right to make such a blatantly false statement.  Representative West engages in the worst kind of red baiting, reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy, for whom one of the most vile terms in American politics is coined; "McCarthyism".

Mr. West's comment is not only untrue; it defames and brings into disrepute the House of Representatives.  His conduct is not in keeping with the respect due Members elected to the House of Representatives and is an embarrassment to the State of Florida as a whole.  Further, Representative West has refused to acknowledge the falsity of his comment and, in fact, continues to use it as a badge of honor and a method of raising funds for his re-election campaign.  This conduct is abominable and disgusting, and should not be tolerated.

It is your duty to seek condemnation of Representative West and attempt to undo damage he has done to the image of The United States Congress and The Great State of Florida.  Thus, as my Representative in the House of Representatives, I respectfully request you make a motion under the House rules to have Representative West Censured.

Sincerely yours,

William A. Miller

ALLEN WEST – IN MY OPINION – A RED-BAITING WEASEL ENGAGED IN McCARTHYISM

I am violating one of my personal rules in that I am writing and publishing my opinion in a blog post while angry….very angry.  Part of the reason I am so incensed is because Congressman Allen West represents me in the House of Representatives; well, my Congressional District, anyway.  If there were a man who does not represent me, my views and how I feel, no better example could be produced than Allen West.

Congressman Allen West (D-FL22) made a statement yesterday that he “heard” there were dozens of [as many as 80] Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are members of the Communist Party.  He made this statement during a town hall meeting at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, FL. 

I do not have polite words to describe this kind of tripe.  This crap is B.S. and if Congressman West truly believes this to be the case, he needs to take a long rest at the mental institution of his choice, or the choice of the Judge that commits him.  If he does not believe this, then he is a red-baiting S.O.B. that is an abomination, the likes of which has not been seen since the days of Joseph McCarthy for whom the term McCarthyism is coined. 

I believe that, as a Congressman, Allen West has become a threat to others; mainly, We the People of the United States, for his reckless disregard for the truth.  I am fearful that we are about to see the rise of another era of McCarthyism, and it scares the Hell out of me.  West needs to be stopped, quickly and hard, for making such bogus statements. 

McCarthyism is the practice of making reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.  I can think of no better term to fit what West is doing.  What appalls me even more is the cowardly way he practices McCarthyism.  He uses weasel words.  His response will be, no doubt, “I didn’t say there were dozens of Communists among the Democratic members of Congress.  I only said I heard that there were dozens of Democratic members of Congress who were Communists.”  The saddest thing is that there are people who actually believe him!!

Like Joe McCarthy, Congressman West does not name the Communists because, again, he only heard they existed.  How could he possibly know who they are?  This is the classic technique used by McCarthy in the “Second Red Scare” of the 1940’s and 50’s.  He gave numbers that dwindled and dwindled and dwindled, never naming names.  He held hearings (The House Committee on Un-American Activities) that ruined countless lives, resulted in the Hollywood “Blacklist” and is a scar on the body politic of this country. 

Congressman West now engages in activity reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy, a man so vile that one of the most derisive terms in politics is based on his name.  What’s next; he holds out a list of the names of the 80 members of the House of Representatives who he purports to be Communists, but refuses to identify them or show the list?  West is already referring to any proposal or program with which he disagrees or takes exception as “Socialism”, much akin to the accusations of “Communist” or “Red Plots” of McCarthyism.   Will we once again hear the terms “fellow traveler”, “pinko”, “Fifth Columnist”? 

In previous posts, I have compared the tactics of the neo-conservative, fascists of the ultra-Right to that of Hitler and the Nazi's.  Allow me to reiterate it is a comparison of tactics, not character, nor beliefs.  Hitler used "The Big Lie."  The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."  This is, in my mind, clearly an example of that tactic in action.

Congressman West was apparently once a good American.  He was a member of our armed forces and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.  He did so only after he was prosecuted by Court Martial for engaging in interrogation techniques that violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice while he served in Kuwait.  I would opine that somewhere along the way to this incident, and his declaration that there are dozens of Communists among the Democratic members of the House of Representatives, West “lost it” and he lacks the judgment necessary to hold public office.  That, or he is a complete moron for making such reckless, defamatory comments.

The allegation, as heinous as it is, must be challenged, immediately, and not allowed to fester like the Cancer that became McCarthyism.  I believe this demands a Congressional Censure.

In an abundance of caution, in the incredibly unlikely event that he could conceivably be right, he must be called upon to immediately identify the source who told him this, where he heard it, or what proof he has that makes him believe there are dozens of Communists in Congress.  If he does, in fact, know who these Communists are, he must reveal them, and, quite frankly, God help him if he can’t prove it.  His political career may be lapsing into critical condition, but if he publicly identifies someone as a Communist, and he is wrong, he can probably count on being a pariah for the rest of his life.

TRAYVON MARTIN’S DEATH….THERE ARE THINGS WE MUST LEARN

Let me reiterate my point that I am not on one side or the other, neither pro-Trayvon Martin, nor pro-George Zimmerman in the case of the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.  I do think that there must be lessons taken from this incident, and I acknowledge that these lessons come at far too high a price.  In this case, the price is the destruction of two lives, but if those lives are not to have been lost in vain, we must learn something.  My particular lessons are focused on how to deal with the law as it now stands, not how some perceive it should be.

When George Zimmerman got a concealed weapons permit, he was granted a privilege.  He was authorized to carry a firearm.  He had, within easy reach, the means to take the life of another.  There are those that would argue that, under the Second Amendment, it was his right to carry a firearm.  Regardless of whether it is a right or a privilege, when you choose to carry a gun, you have a certain responsibility.  Whether you are a private citizen with a concealed weapons permit or a police officer, you have a far greater responsibility than someone that does not carry a gun.  Not even the most diehard NRA Life Member would disagree with this statement.

I have, over the years, adopted certain absolute rules for the carrying of a firearm.   

1.       Never mix firearms and alcohol.

 

I would think that this would go without saying, but the number of beer-drinking hunters that shoot themselves and others every year would say I am incorrect and it must be stated.  If driving a car while drinking is dangerous, multiply the problem ten fold when the expressed purpose of the item being discussed is to kill.

2.      Never go anywhere or do anything with a gun that you would not go or do without a gun. 

Here is where George Zimmerman probably made a crucial error.  He probably chose to confront or follow Trayvon Martin, in part, because he had a gun and could defend himself, if necessary.  Unfortunately, George seems to have put himself into a situation where it might, and ultimately did,  become necessary, at least in his mind.  I was a cop.  I wore a bulletproof vest and a gun.  Let me assure you there were situations I did not want to go into knowing I had both, but it was my job.  I had received a lot of training and had a lot of experience, and I could call a lot of back-up on the radio if need be, but I still would have preferred not to have gone into these situations.

 George was a civilian volunteer.  At the risk of making inaccurate assumptions, I doubt he was properly trained and/or properly equipped to deal with the situation that developed.  Had he been, he would have followed a basic rule; wait for back-up to arrive.  If there are multiple people dealing with a “suspicious” person and the guy gets violent, it is doubtful he will be able to overpower two or more people you have summoned on the radio.

No radio, no back-up, no training and no judgment made for a fatal situation in this case.  George ran out of good options real quick when he decided not to disengage himself from the situation and just leave.

3.      Remember, every encounter you have with every individual is an armed encounter.

This is puzzling to many people.  It is an armed encounter because you brought the gun!  In the “good” armed encounter, the person with whom you are dealing never knows it is an armed encounter.  Your firearm remains concealed; you do not tell anyone you have a gun, and there is no need to pull, display, brandish or otherwise produce your firearm, because when you do, there are generally only bad options.

Really, really bad option one, you pull your gun, it is taken from you and used to shoot you.  It does not get much worse than this.  Police spend hours and hours in police academies all over this country training in “firearms retention”.  Holsters are made for police officers that make it as hard as it can be for someone to take the gun out of it if you are not the police officer carrying it.  (I have actually seen holsters torn from the gun belts of police officers by the grips of the gun with the gun still in the holster.  The gun could not be fired because the trigger was not accessible to the guy that had torn the holster off the belt.  In the case to which I refer, the gentleman was immediately rendered unconscious by a nightstick over the head.).  I am willing to bet that George Zimmerman did not get any of this training and had none of this equipment.

I have no particular sympathy for someone that pulls a gun, not in self defense, but as a means to enforce their will on someone or attempts to gain compliance and then ends up having to shoot someone because they were trying to take the gun away from them.  “I had to shoot him to prevent him from shooting me with my own gun?” 

Bad option number two, you pull your gun and the guy looks at you and says, “Go ahead, shoot me!”  Ridiculous you say?  I beg to differ.  I learned this lesson the hard way, several times.  I pointed a gun at a few people in my career that literally looked at me and said, “What are you gonna do; shoot me? “ Since they did not have a gun and posed no imminent threat to my life, I uttered an obscenity, holstered the weapon and, as they say, the fight was on.  Fortunately, the back-up I had called for on the radio arrived before I got my ass kicked too badly.

Bad option number three, the “bad guy” does exactly what you tell him to do.  Now you are standing around wondering what to do next.  The bad guy puts his hands up, lays face down and now poses no threat to you.  What do you do?  The problem with this scenario is that it can turn into bad option one or bad option two quickly.  My personal policy is that if I carry a gun, I carry a pair of handcuffs.  I cuff the guy to a tree, light pole or some other immovable structure and then I can notify the authorities without having to worry about being attacked.  I will warn you that cops spend hours and hours and hours learning how to cuff a bad guy, because you have to do so up close and personal.  It is really easy to get overpowered in this situation and end up fighting over your own gun.

Bad option number four:  you have to shoot and maim or kill someone.  I don’t care who you are, I’ll bet there are very few people that don’t believe that George Zimmerman, had he to do it over again, would never have confronted, much less shot, Trayvon Martin. 

4.      Never use deadly force or the threat of deadly force unless your life is in imminent danger. 

You have to legitimately be able to say, “Sh*t!  I am about to die, and right now, if I don't do something!!”  Note; I said legitimately.  As I said, I have no particular sympathy for a guy that encounters an individual and, because he mismanages his firearm, finds himself fighting for his life.

Had George Zimmerman been properly trained, properly equipped and used proper judgment, we would not be having this discussion.  I do not understand why a Neighborhood Watch Captain would be carrying a gun in the first place, but that aside, George Zimmerman, in my humble opinion, exercised horrible judgment.  I do not know whether that bad judgment rises to the level of criminal culpability, but it set into motion a series of events that led to the death of one young man and the destruction of two lives; Martin’s and Zimmerman’s.  The only thing we have left to do is to learn something from it, otherwise the destruction of those lives was truly in vain.

TRAYVON MARTIN - TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT

Trayvon Martin: a name which will regrettably live in infamy.  On the night of February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.  That much is clear.  Unlike many others, I do not know what happened to Martin.  I do not know why George Zimmerman shot him.  Zimmerman has made the claim that he shot this young man in self defense.  There may be (and note I use the word “may”) witnesses to the event, but the witnesses disagree on what happened.  Unfortunately, the witness statements, which I have not read, seem to disagree and be mutually exclusive. 

I, and most of the rest of the world, only has media accounts to go by, and these are far from accurate in many cases.  The media tends to be more interested in controversy and being firstest with the mostest as opposed to making certain that what they report is factual and accurate.  The media has a vested interest in reporting what they are being told, not whether what they are being told is accurate or the truth.  

The National Inquirer or The Globe and other similar tabloids (and, in my opinion, more and more so-called “legitimate” news media outlets) are notorious for reporting things “they are told” regardless of whether it is true or correct.  They merely report that “we were told”, and this is an accurate statement, they were.  The fact that what they were told was told to them by some mental case or a person with a serious bias, or the information is just outrageous, is ignored, but it makes a really neat headline that sells newspapers in the checkout line at the grocery or convenience store.

Much has been made of this shooting, and rightfully so, but I would argue that we are premature on the condemnation of Zimmerman.  I say this because the facts are not all in and it is kind of important to try to make decisions like this, decisions of guilt and innocence, based on a full and complete investigation.

 We have one of the best criminal justice systems in the world (I would argue it is not perfect, but it is the best we have) and we need to let it work.  First, police investigate and gather evidence.  Once they reach the point that they have probable cause, they have the discretion to arrest, but probable cause is not enough to convict.  Yes, you can beat the rap, but you can never beat the ride [to jail] in most cases, but if we want to do justice, we must be patient.

After the police have investigated they have a certain amount of discretion in whether to make an arrest.  In the case of an expressed self-defense claim, they have an even more complicated investigation (I know.  I did them.) and because it is complicated, the police will often take the case to the State Attorney (SA) to review.  If the SA believes there is probable cause (there’s that term “probable cause” again) the SA has the discretion to issue an Information (a charging document), have a Warrant issued by a judge, based on an affidavit of probable cause and then have police make an arrest.

The SA also has the discretion to take the case before a Grand Jury.  The Grand Jury reviews the evidence presented to it by the SA and they can make a decision as to whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and who is believed to have committed the crime.  The Grand Jury has the discretion to issue an Indictment (another form of charging document) and then the police can go out and arrest the accused person.  The Grand Jury has the discretion to “No True Bill”  a case (a document saying charges aren't warranted) , based in this case on a finding that Zimmerman had a legitimate right to defend himself, and presumably, absent additional credible evidence, Zimmerman goes free.

It has long been said that the wheels of justice grind very slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.  The search for the truth requires it.  It is not to be a knee-jerk reaction to make a group of people, or all the people for that matter, happy.  You will note that there is a lot of discretion involved in his process.  The idea is to try to reduce the likelihood of convicting the wrong man of the wrong crime.  When the police question whether a crime has been committed, they can go to the SA and ask.  If the SA is not sure, the Grand Jury can decide.  It is a check and balance system at work, and generally it works very well.  However, with all the discretion involved, there is admittedly a lot of room for abuse of that discretion, but discretion has not been abused in this case.

The argument has been made that, had Zimmerman been black and Martin white, we would not be having this discussion.  There are those that believe that Zimmerman would most assuredly be in jail as of the night of the shooting, had he been black.  I am not as positive about this fact as some.  I will admit that I do think they might be right, but I am not as certain as they are.  However, I do not think because there may be a double standard, we should impose the wrong standard on either or both.  Quoting a platitude; two wrongs do not make a right. 

At the time I write this, and most certainly at the time immediately following this incident, no one knows what the facts are, other than George Zimmerman.  We are now learning of additional “witnesses” that are coming forward and making statements.  I use the quotation marks around the term witnesses because, as has happened in the past, and particularly to me when I was a police officer, many so-called “witnesses” step forward that never really saw an event happen.  They step forward, and lie, for their fifteen minutes of fame or, in some cases, just because the can.  The agencies conducting the investigations of this incident need to be given the opportunity to do just that, investigate.  They need to be allowed to gather the information, sort through it, determine or assess its credibility and make the best decision they can.  This applies to the State Attorney and the Grand Jury, if that process is used.

I shall risk sounding like a defender of George Zimmerman, I am not.  Police have not completed sufficient investigation to make any valid conclusions.    We are only now learning Zimmerman may have had a broken nose and other injuries.   If he says Martin broke his nose, we have no one to dispute it, yet.   If Trayvon Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose, then an x-ray will likely prove or disprove it.  A review of a less-than-diagnostic video tape of Zimmerman at the police station is not as conclusive as those with an agenda would have us believe.   You might want to look at that video and note that Zimmerman was handcuffed.  I am not sure there is a circumstance in this country in which he was not under arrest at that point, but that is something lawyers have to argue about if a criminal case proceeds.  I think he was arrested and then released without being charged, an interesting legal conundrum for another time.

What we have in the current situation is a group of people, many with a vested personal or emotional interest in the issue of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, trying to accomplish what has been characterized in the past as a lynching.  We have the moral equivalent of a group of people carrying torches and pitch forks demanding that the sheriff let them do vigilante justice.  To Hell with a trial; to Hell with justice, let’s just string him up on the nearest oak tree, because that is what happened to “us” in the past, and now it is our turn.  Two wrongs still do not make a right.

FOR-PROFIT LAW ENFORCEMENT – HOW POLICE STEAL MONEY FROM PEOPLE

Law enforcement has engaged in a legalized form of theft for many years.  Admittedly, in most cases, it is the seizure of ill-gotten gains (IGG) that are the profits and proceeds of some sort of illegal operation; drug dealing, fraud and such.  However, the police have also gotten into the law-enforcement-for-profit business by seizing just about anything, regardless of whether it is IGG or not.

In the last several months, a married mother of five, while working as a waitress in Moorhead, Minnesota, was left a “tip” by an unknown and unidentified woman.  The police took it, although they call it a “seizure”.  The unknown woman left a box on the table after the waitress had served her.  The conscientious waitress followed the women into the parking lot and tried to give the box back to the woman, but was told to “keep it.”  The waitress had no idea what was in the box at the time, thinking it was just a “doggy bag” sort of thing.  Imagine her surprise when it had cold, hard cash in it.  It contained $12,000 in cold, hard cash.  You know $12,000 in coin of the realm kind of cash.

The waitress, being an honest individual, and believing that the woman must have been mistaken in giving such a large amount to a stranger – a reasonable assumption – called police.  Police initially took the money, advising the waitress that she could come get the money in 60 days if it went unclaimed.  When she went to the police department after 60 days to claim the money, she was told she had to wait another 30 days, for a total of 90 days.  When, after 90 days, she went to reclaim the money, she was told it was being seized.  The police told her it must be drug money!  They said it smelled of marijuana and a drug dog alerted on the money, so it must be IGG of the drug trade.  They decided to seize the money and - wait for it – keep the money themselves.

I am not sure how to express how indignant I am with this incredibly arrogant abuse of authority; because it exists on so many levels.  Thus, in no particular order of importance, allow me to explain.

The police are sending an incredibly bad message to the greater world.  They are telling people, if you do the right thing, if you call the police and report an unusual circumstance that involves money, we will take the money from you.  We will take the money from you, and give it to ourselves.  The clear and unmistakable lesson here is, if you don’t have to, don’t call the police.  They will take your money if they can.  This woman was given a gift, a tip, if you will, and had no reason to need to call the police, but for the fact that it was a lot of money.  She had no idea where the money came from and had no way of knowing.  She is an innocent.  The police apparently think they have the magic crystal ball of truth and determined that this money just has to be IGG?  Do the police get to make the presumption it is IGG and make you prove it is not?  Not in the America I have fought to protect and defend.

The presumption that it is IGG is nothing more than just that, a presumption on the part of police.  They have nothing more than the fact that a drug dog alerted on what they believe was money that smelled like marijuana.  Are we to ignore that a study by the University of Massachusetts in 2009 determined that 90%, yes 9 out of ten, pieces of paper in this country contain traces of cocaine?  I dare you to find money in this country that has neither been used to snort cocaine, nor been folded up with money that has.  If the standard is “it has been in contact with drugs”, then every piece of paper money that has been in circulation for, what (?) hours (?) is able to be seized by police?  Puhleeeze!!!   Yes I know they say it was marijuana, but does a drug dog alert differently for pot than coke; and what difference does it make if the money has been in contact with marijuana?  Do the police get to seize every dolar bill that smells like marijuana??  I think not!

What makes the Moorhead Police think they have a greater right to the money than the woman to whom it was given?  The woman is a waitress, raising five kids for crying out loud.  She is not into drugs by all accounts, so why do the police seem to think she has no right to the money?  I’ll tell you why, because they think they can.  If the police “seize” (read: steal) the money, they truly believe that they can get away with it.  It is a belief born of arrogance and impunity that “we are the police, we can’t legally steal, we seize.”  I invite my friends of the wing nut, neo-conservative, right-wing, fascist persuasion to defend this one.  Oh, and while you are at it, consider the IRS collection process for a minute and defend that too…but I digress.

I have actually been involved with the legal representation of individuals who have had their money seized by police.  The sole rational for the seizure was that it was too much money for a single individual to be carrying around with him.  He got it all back, by the way, but only after he took the police to court.  What the hell gives the police the right to determine how much money I am allowed to carry on my person?  I am not saying it is the brightest thing in the world to do, but if I decide to carry around several thousand dollars in cash, or several hundred thousands of dollars for that matter, what gives the police the right to say it is too much money?  Who gives them the right to take my money and make me prove it is not IGG?  My answer is no one!  It is the opinion of a petty police officer who thinks he gets to decide.  Having been a police officer, I can assure you that what is a lot of money to a cop is very often not a lot of money to someone else.  Thus, I use the term petty to describe a decision often made as a result of jealously.

The woman in Moorhead, MN has had to sue the police to get her money back.  I have no doubt that the police will start making offers to return a portion of the money.  They will threaten to draw out legal proceedings that will use up any money she might get back if she does not settle for less than the full amount.  Remember, the police legal fees are being paid by the taxpayer, you know, you and me.  It is no sweat off their backs if the case drags out for months, or even years.  I suspect that the woman, if she does not “go along” will also become the subject of increased police “scrutiny” (read: harassment) until she agrees to “do the right thing” as defined by the police.  Finally, the cops will make absolutely certain that the IRS is made aware of this woman’s good fortune in an effort to further harass her.  Trust me, it is not because they want to make sure she declares the money on her Form 1040 because it is the right thing to do, they do it as a punitive measure just to “make her pay.”

Police corruption comes in many forms.  In this case it is systemic corruption that benefits and is supported by the police.  It is not a rogue cop abusing his authority in a violation of the law.  It is the police using the law to commit what is morally, ethically and principally wrong.  It is an abuse of the law to commit a theft, period!!  They should be ashamed of themselves.

GUN CONTROL IN THE U.S. – KINDA LIKE BEING JUST A LITTLE PREGNANT?

Disclaimer – I am a gun owner, firearms instructor and live in a community with a rifle range, pistol range and skeet and trap ranges all for the benefit and use of the residents.  I am a member of the NRA, but do not consider myself a “gun nut.”  I happen to like to shoot; at targets only by the way for all you PETA people.  I would like to think I am making a logical argument here, but I will admit the possibility of bias.

While I am a proud liberal and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I am also a member of the NRA, which is almost oxymoronic, given the two organizations have diametrically opposed, and almost mutually exclusive, viewpoints on gun control.

The more conservative wing of the NRA would have us believe that there should be no form of gun control in any way, manner, shape or form.  I have spoken to individuals that have a very logical, but nonetheless ridiculous, argument.  The Second Amendment was put into place by the Framers of The Constitution for, among other things, the purpose of allowing the citizens to rebel against a government that becomes oppressive. 

Place this thinking into context; the United States had, in their recent memory, fought a bloody war and won independence from Great Britain and the oppressive rule of King George III.  The Constitution was, at that time, giving the federal government significantly more power than it had under our first governing document, the Articles of the Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States of (fill in the 13 original states here).  We use the short form to remember it by, “Articles of Confederation”.  Thus, our Founding Fathers and Framers of The Constitution wanted to make sure “We the People” could rebel against the federal government, should it become oppressive, making revolution necessary. 

If it becomes necessary to engage in a new revolution, the argument logically follows that, if the government has a weapon, we need one like it with which to revolt or defend ourselves.  We have heard from some groups, even in our own time, that we have reached the point that so-called “Second Amendment” and “Tenth Amendment” remedies are necessary, because our existing government has become oppressive.  I have this vision in my mind of pre-apocalyptic Tea Baggers from Montana and the U.S. military lobbing nukes at one another in the bad lands of the west, but that is ridiculous matter for another time.

This thinking, however, is why there are a not insignificant number of people that believe “We the People” should have available to us every weapon available in the arsenal of the United States Government, just in case we have to revolt.  In particular, they believe that every citizen of the United States has an “individual right” to keep and bear arms.  I strongly support the Second Amendment, and believe it to be such an individual right.  The Supremes (Supreme Court of the United States) have said so, but I am certain that I have no desire whatsoever to maintain a thermonuclear deterrent, tank, artillery battery nor a flamethrower in my garage or basement, just in case. 

I am not sure exactly where the line between reasonableness and nuts is drawn, but I am certain no one needs a personal A-bomb.  I do not think that the government has a legitimate interest in knowing who has what specific firearms. Thus I am not a believer in gun registration.   It would seem to serve only to allow the government to round up all the guns, if and when they feel it necessary.  The interest of "We the People" is not best-served if the governments can effectively round up all the guns, especially if they see the natives becoming too restless for them. 

Not having a government holding all the cards is a good thing.  An oppressive government is a whole lot less likely to pick a fight with the governed when the governed can shoot back.  If you think me ridiculous, you might recall that the Japanese never seriously entertained the idea of invading the continental United States during World War II because they were afraid they would get shot at by every citizen with a gun, and they believed, right or wrong, that every American had a house full of guns.  unknowingly, gangster movies and westerns made an effective deterrent.

The above arguments notwithstanding, I support limitations on the private ownership of things like explosives, fully automatic weapons and limitations on the carrying of concealed weapons.  When I say limitations, I mean things like background checks, licenses and such.  If you are not a convicted felon, are not a “mental defective” (a legal term), you should be able to own and possess a firearm or get a concealed firearms permit.  Oh, and when I say “mental defective,” I do not mean you have told your doctor you have been a little depressed, but if you are suicidal or feel the need to kill your ex-wife or local college students en masse, we need to talk.  “Reasonable” is obviously a color that has a lot of different shades. 

Gun control advocates, on the other hand, do not embrace this individual right interpretation.  They believe that it is the right of only a “well-regulated militia", basically the National Guard in each state, to keep and bear arms, and believe it to be a collective right.  Their ultra-left-wing nuts would insist that no one needs a gun for any reason and the private possession of firearms of any kind should be outlawed completely.  I am as equally opposed to this ban as I am the personal nuclear option.  The reasonable, as with most things, seems to lie somewhere between the polar extremes.

One of my primary considerations one the issue of gun control is that it is just impossible to eliminate private possession of firearms in the United States.  Just as Prohibition did not eliminate alcohol consumption, gun control will never eliminate guns.  Best estimates are that there are 350 million firearms in the United States.  We live in a country where there exists a firearm for every man, woman and child in the country.  No, not everyone has a gun, but there are enough people with bunches of them that they could be evenly distributed to everyone, with a few left over.   In this environment we could not eliminate private possession of firearms, even if we wanted to.  The environment would take generations to change and let me assure you there would be a bunch of people that would have weapons caches stashed all over the place.  You know the old, when-they-pry-it-out-of-my-cold-dead-fingers types.

Second, I think you can make anything illegal and it does not necessarily eliminate the problem.  Make it against the law to possess a firearm and there will always be individuals that possess firearms, and there will be too many to put them all in prison, trust me.  You also set up the situation where only the bad guys have the guns.  In my home state of Florida, there has never been a case of an individual that has a concealed weapons permit using a firearm in a crime.  There are, however, cases in which individuals with concealed weapons permits, or are otherwise in lawful possession of a firearm, that have defended themselves or others using those guns. 

Criminals are not notoriously future-oriented thinkers.  They do not generally consider whether they face prison time or the death penalty before they rob and kill someone.  I have interviewed hundreds, yes hundreds, of criminal defendants, and one thing was consistent, they did not think about the consequences of their actions before they did something incredibly stupid.  That is why they are criminals…DUH!!

I had the very enlightening experience of working as an investigator for the Office of the Public Defender for the District of Columbia for several months.  I could not carry a gun because it was illegal in D.C., but most of the clients, and many of the witnesses, I interviewed that were not at Lorton Correctional (used then as the pre-trial holding facility for D.C.), were strapping (carrying a concealed weapon, for the less street-wise).  Probably the only reason I did not get robbed and/or shot was the fact that I was working for the lawyer of some “respected” (spelled: F-E-A-R-E-D) ne’er do well.  They had to think, the ne’er do well might get off and he might not be happy if they screwed with the guy that helped get him off (Okay, so maybe they were a little forward thinking).  I completely understand (not approve) why they carried illegal guns as they lived in neighborhoods where I would not get caught after dark on a bet.  One of the axioms of P.D. investigators was not to be caught north of Rhode Island Avenue after dark.  That was about 3 decades ago, however.

Let’s sum up; the Supremes say it is an individual right to own and keep them, too many of them exist to get rid of them, bad guys don’t care that it is illegal to have or illegally use them , some good people, in spite of any law making it illegal, will keep them anyway, and some good people have lawfully defended themselves and others with them.  Yes, there were about  13,000 murders in this country in 2010 (the last year for which statistics are available).  We also had 254 million cars and 32,000 traffic deaths that year and no one is clamoring to take your car away, but that is comparing apples to oranges. 

I just don't think gun control will work, at least not for its intended purpose of reducing crime, no matter what you do.   Having guns in our society is also kinda like being a little bit pregnant, only on a permanent basis and, as everyone knows, you can’t be just a little bit pregnant. There are guns out there.  There are always gonna be guns out there and like the unwanted pregnancy, the time to have dealt with it was before it happened, but in our history we have never had a time when we didn't have guns.  There have always been guns out there, and I don't see guns going away in the foreseeable future.

The Dunces Will Doom Us - Barack Obama, The Muslim...Who Cares Anyway?

I have absolutely no idea why I am so irritated by dunces that they move me to respond, but, alas, I am moved to do so.  First note that I use the term dunce as it is defined in modern times, which I also believe is incredibly fitting for this situation.  A dunce is defined as “an idiot that is specifically incapable of learning.”  With that said, I address the dunces that still ascribe to the so-called “Birthers” that do not believe Barack Obama is legally qualified to hold the Office of President of the United States because he is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution, as prescribed in Article II, Section 1.

Some ultra-conservative, wing nuts still would like us to believe Barack Obama cannot be President.  I know this because I was recently forwarded the “absolute proof” in the form of a YouTube video, forwarded by a person that I can only assume has had somewhat more than half his brain removed.  You can watch the video at: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

Oh, and there is a comment to the video as follows:

“The video starts out with some content from obamasnippets.com, which, of course is contrived. And yet, there seems to be a synthetic truth about what the president says. Is he "natural born" according to the Constitution? No. It's likely that Mr. Obama was REGISTERED in Hawaii, therefore he has a COLB from Hawaii. The truth may well be he was born in Kenya; that is where we believe his "long-form" birth certificate was issued. Nevertheless, "natural born" indicates, and speaks to the fact that BOTH parents have to be U. S. Citizens. His father WAS NEVER a U. S. Citizen, therefore, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a "natural born" Citizen of the United States, thus he is in violation of Amendment 14, and Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution.”

I shall give the lobotomized author of the comment a scintilla of credit for at least recognizing that the video is contrived, but as far as the rest of it, it proves he is truly a dunce.  Let us analyze…

“Is he ‘natural born’ according to the Constitution? No…The requirement is that BOTH parents need to be U. S. Citizens. Two U. S. Citizen parents produce a ‘natural born’ citizen.”

The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.  Interestingly, the Supreme Court of the United States has never been called upon to make a decision as to what constitutes a “natural born citizen.”  So, I guess we shall have to leave it to this definition, and under this definition, Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

Another interesting point, assuming for the sake of argument that the commentator’s argument has any merit, is the fact that none of the Presidents elected prior to Martin Van Buren (The 8^th President of the United States) would have met the “natural born” requirement as they all had either one parent born in another country or they themselves were born British Subjects.  Thus, there is a very important clause in Article II, Section 1, “…or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,…”  I mention this only to point out that the Founding Fathers did, in fact, contemplate a technically foreign-born president.  He (or she, as the Framers could not conceive of a female President – Hey, they may have been divinely inspired, but they were not omnipotent.) did not have to have two parents that were citizens of the United States.

This brings up an interesting conundrum for the wacko wing nuts that insist on espousing this ludicrous tripe.  One of the fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Right is that The Constitution can only mean exactly and precisely what is written on the four pages of the document (Yes, I know The Constitution of four pages long).  Following this logic, how do we know exactly what the Framers meant when they said “natural born citizen”?  Would not one have to engage in that horrendous, democracy-destroying practice of “judicial activism”?  I see absolutely nothing; zip, zilch, zed, nada, that would define a natural-born citizen as requiring both parents to be citizens of the United States.

What we have here is the classic example of “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”  It is not that there is any factual basis for the statements they make, but it is what they want to believe because it suits them.  It is an illegitimate effort to rationalize what they want to do; make Barack Obama not be President.

While we are at it, let us look at another issue; the religion of the President.  Exit polls in Mississippi and Alabama indicate that 52% and 45% of persons voting in the Republican Primary in those states, respectively, believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.  I am not sure, but if literacy tests were required of these citizens, the Republican voting numbers would be reduced in accordance with these percentages.  Actually, you can read and right and still be a moron, apparently, as there are many very intelligent – a relative term – people that believe this and other things about candidates they do not support.  Although, I am hard pressed to find in history the vehemence with which it is believed.

I look at negative beliefs of the Conservative Right about the President and find them interesting to analyze as well.  The same people that believe Barack Obama to be a Muslim, also want to believe that he was a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ, because the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. made statements and took trips that were, to say the least, inflammatory.  Folks, you can’t have it both ways.  He is either a Muslim, or a Christian.  I tend to go with the latter.  The man was married at Trinity United Church of Christ, had his children baptized there and attended services there regularly since he was 26 years old.  Are we to believe that he was some sort of undercover Muslim, infiltrating a liberal “unapologetically black” Christian Church?  Please, gimme a break!!

Thomas Jefferson believed that the survival of a democracy is dependent on an educated electorate.  He said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."  I am terrified that we are doomed because automatons that will believe anything, like Barack Obama is a Muslim, will vote like Conservative, political zombies, without thought or consideration.


Oh, and by the way, assuming Barack Obama is a Muslim; what difference does that make?