Good for the Police - Good for Everyone

Today's Times-Standard front page headline says: A question of self-defense - Fickle Hill shooting highlights complexity of state law. Then goes on to detail the following circumstance highlighting the so-call "shooting."
According to the Sheriff's Office a "highly intoxicated" man "wandered into the wrong home, thinking it was his." Quoting the newspaper:

The homeowners -- a 24-year-old male and an 18-year-old female -- were awakened by their dogs barking and quickly realized they weren't alone. The male homeowner then confronted the intruder in the living room, telling him to leave. The man refused, telling the couple to leave his house, according to the sheriff's office.  

The couple then left their home, taking refuge at a nearby neighbor's house, before the male homeowner and his 42-year-old neighbor decided to go back and confront the intruder. According to the sheriff's office, the neighbor grabbed his shotgun for protection.

Important to note what also happened here as detailed by the Sheriff's Office Lt. Steve Knight:

"...the wife at the neighbor's house, reporting the intrusion and stating that her husband the neighbor were returning to the residence." 

Here, the couple clearly did what every sane, responsible person would do in the face of a "highly intoxicated" person who honestly believed he was in his own home and defending and protecting his right to be there, safe and secure. The police were called, the people were in a safe place. Going back with a shotgun forced a fatal or potentially fatal confrontation that, under the circumstance would easily been handled a deputy or two. To claim "self-defense" under such circumstance, regardless of the home-owners rights is TOTAL NONSENSE!

The homeowner and his adult neighbor created or initiated the confrontation, similar to George Zimmerman's shooting of the unarmed teenage boy, Trayvon Martin. Once the couple left their home they ceded any right they may believe they had, specially once they called the police, to deliberately confront what they knew to be a belligerent intruder to reclaim their home. That is why they took the shotgun.

The problem we all have with the continued discussion in the paper by a couple of "law professors" regarding the individual's "right to self-defense" with the use of lethal force against an unarmed man, in particular enforcing what he justifiably believes is his right to self-defense, is the escalating use of lethal force demonstrated by the police and the unilateral dismissal by the District Attorney to justify such police action as essentially justified "self-defense" - they "felt" their lives were threatened when they initiate the unjustified confrontation. Locally the most current situation that comes to my mind was the shooting to death of Jacob Robert Newmaker by Fortuna police officers Maxwell Soeth and Sgt. Charles Ellebrecht discussed on this blog here.

The problem here, is that the District Attorney Paul Gallegos is hung by his own petard when he allows the unjustified use of lethal force by police officers resulting in the deaths of innocent people simple, in most cases, reacting to the police assault by defending themselves in the same way any human being would act.

Clearly, these two individuals, the homeowner and his neighbor, should be in jail charged with, if the man is still alive and remains that way, attempted murder. However, as a life-long believer in the citizen's inherent right to self-defense I find this application really troubling. Reason why? Because of what was also in today's Times-Standard Opinion Page under "From Time To Time" by The Rev. Eric Duff: Visit to fair triggers thoughts on guns. He concludes his social judgment of the Constitutional rights under Law by saying:

No one should be allowed to use or have access to a gun without training. Guns are not toys; they are weapons. There will always be honest people who choose to own guns for legitimate (hunting) purposes. The rest, the hand guns and the repeaters and so on should be limited to security professionals, who have been trained, and who know the consequences for an accidental, or intentional, shooting.  ***

If you own a gun, are legally qualified to use it, and have safety measures in place, by all means have it. What needs to end is the mindless and needless effort to make guns available to anyone who wants one. This doesn't do any good for anyone.

I DO NOT own any gun for "legitimate (hunting) purposes. I do own a legally registered gun for "legitimate (self-defense) purposes. This is the kind of mindless judgments people have come to expect from an elitist religious preacher. Unless you are "trained" so as to "know the consequences" you are unfit, too stupid and incompetent to own let alone use a weapon to defend yourself. It is this kind of mindless thinking that produced the Mubaraks, the Saddam Husseins and the Bashar Assads of the world that cause the current situation in the Middle East and currently in Syria and Mexico. This is what the Reverend Eric Duff's of this country would bring to America. To understand this, you have to go no further than see how the police across America treated the Occupy Movement people.
[Source]

--Joe

Obamacare's Flim Flam Rolls On

The continued looting of the American people as long orchestrated, but now presided over by President Barack Obama was justified today by the majority of justices in the U. S. Supreme Court splitting hairs. In other words, they finessed their definition to accommodate their purpose, rather than apply Constitutional Law. Here is how the Atlantic reports it:

The Health Care Decision, Explained in 1 Paragraph on SCOTUSblog

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. [Emphasis added]

MacLeod's cartoon, as usual, nails it:

Chief Justice Roberts split hairs in his effort to try to save whatever credibility the Supreme Court has with his decision. Based upon the Court's five-four rulings it whole reason for existence is to protect the looting. To do that, this decision gives it some sort of equanimity; an appearance of deciding issues only on the law. However, if you would like to read how Fox News spins constitutionality, read: Chief Justice Roberts does the right thing on ObamaCare. 

By the way, the so-called Affordable Care Act - Health care costs to date, cost Americans 2.3 trillion dollars annually. Most of that money goes to the 1%.

[Source]

 --Joe

Our Worthless Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is only words on paper. Those words cannot make anyone do anything. They don't pack clubs and guns to beat people into submission; forcing them to yield all power. As the Supreme Court continues to debate and decide the constitutionality of law it cooperates and empowers the Legislative and Executive branches of Government to discredit, demean and void that very Constitution. The American people's elected representatives and their appointed cohorts that are sworn and tasked with defending and enforcing Constitutional Law use it to justify their criminal acts repudiating it's very legitimacy - it's right to exist.

So, what value is the U.S. Constitution? What protection does it provide for the people? If the U.S. Constitution amounts to nothing more than an inanimate, but revered document, what obligates anyone to it?

Before the United States could become legally united, the majority of the people had to create and accept a legal document to legitimize their right to exist, first as an independent people and second, as a sovereign nation. Replacing that legal document with the defacto rule by men delegitimizes the American people's legitimate existence. Rule of Men is defined when they justify their deliberate refusal and failure to obey and enforce the Law: "The punishment does not fit the crime, therefore the crime is disallowed." The "ends" now legally, by precedent "justify the means." To prove that, we have to go no further than the current President Barack Obama's conduct. Here's just one example: Collapsing U. S. Credibility. The historical record for the past twenty years in particular since 2000 clearly demonstrates America's slide into the black hole of anarchy and lawlessness - like cancer, evidence of their illegitimacy. Every American that stands outside of law is responsible for this. Every time you choose to run a stop sign you vote for corruption, you vote for lawless anarchy and chaos. You vote for this:

Nothing Justifies This - from Amnesty International. Read the article and view the clip, it needs to be experienced to realize this happens right here on American soil. It's time for you to make a choice.

--Joe

Honest Reporting OR Journalist Joke?

[UPDATE Below - Update II]

Some months ago I became intrigued with the coming together of two fairly popular blogs, Lost Coast Outpost, ie., Hank Sims, and the Readheaded Blackbelt, ie., Kym Kemp from Southern Humboldt.

The difference, if any, is minor. What is striking, however, is the advertising now displayed prominently on Kym's blog. Since Hank Sims is connected to KHUM radio and he was displaying news reports as part of the normal blog format. Kym Kemp, on the other hand, even before hooking up with Sims was beginning to post mostly local Southern Humboldt news and matters of public interest with a proliferation of police and Sheriff Department press releases. These press releases are canned accounts published online by these organizations given to the general public as accurate news. These agencies tell the public what they want them to know. This kind of one-sided, biased reporting is reprehensible when employed by the Times-Standard newspaper with salaried reporters.

The integrity and credibility of such blog reporting, or I should say LACK of integrity and credibility, was emphasized when I read the following excerpt by Glenn Greenwald in his Salon.com article: “Officials say” journalism - Yet again, the American media misleads by uncritically printing unverified, false claims from the U.S. military. (Or in our case: “claims from the local police.”)

Instead, what we see here is the standard template of American media reports: in the very first paragraph, media outlets typically state as fact what are nothing more than official assertions, and then append on to the end of the paragraph the rote phrase “officials say” (standard first paragraph: A, B and C happened today, officials say“). Over and over, this is the journalistic practice that converts media institutions into little more than glorified press release outlets for the U.S. government and military. They routinely write entire articles where the narrative and storyline are shaped exclusively by unverified claims of officials. There is a protected free press precisely because institutions are needed to check and scrutinize government claims — based on the long-standing recognition that those in power tell self-serving lies, something which has happened over and over in the war in Afghanistan — not uncritically amplify them and convert them into Truth under the guise of independent reporting. 

But this “officials say” form of American journalism converts government claims into journalistic fact. In that regard, it’s not merely redundant, though it is that: who needs a media outlet to re-print government press releases, when one can just go read those press releases on one’s own? It’s worse than redundant: it launders government claims as verified fact, as though they’ve been checked and confirmed by an independent media arbiter. That’s why government officials love to “leak” falsehoods to reporters while hiding behind the shield of anonymity, rather than just themselves dissemintaing those falsehoods: not only does that practice shield them from accountability, but it masquerades their lies as “reporting.” Today’s example is just illustrative, and far from the most important: this is the model, more than any other, that shapes American journalism. [Emphasis added.]

As such, these outlets become nothing more than propaganda tools. In Kym Kemp's case, when I challenged her postings regarding Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman's reports she actively defended him, and her reporting based upon his press releases.

There is an exception I'd like to mention here that I think is rather noteworthy and that is the Humboldt Herald by Heraldo. While the Humboldt Herald occasionally publishes Press Releases the general format is far more newsworthy in it's reporting. Recently, the Humboldt Herald added two others in addition to Heraldo posting articles: Mitch and Eric Kirk. Eric Kirk has the Southern Humboldt blog, SoHum Parlance II.

The diversity in the Herald has certainly increased it's purview.  So, honest reporting or journalistic joke?

---

[UPDATE :: Thursday, June 21, 2012]

Interesting update to this idea of “blog reporting.” Are blogs and bloggers (people that write blog articles and post these articles on blogs) actually “blog reporters”? In other words, should they answer to a higher set of standards and priorities than the average blog opinionator or “glorified press release outlets”?

Would you say that the Humboldt Herald blog predominately “acts” like a blog news outlet? Now compare the Humboldt Herald to Eric Kirk's SoHum Parlance II. Do you get the same answers? I don't think so.

Now look at Eric's post on the Humboldt Herald for Thursday, June 21st, 2012, Drama at the Democratic Central Committee and tell me, even if it isn't by Kirk's own words as timely as he would like, a news report.

So, should these writers – bloggers be held to the “reporter” standard? Or did Eric's use of a bogus picture he says was used as an (unspoken) joke adversely affect the credibility and integrity of the Humboldt Herald? Did he move it into the blemished commonality of an opinionating blog?

---

[UPDATE :: Friday, June 22, 2012] 

 Upon checking the Redheaded Blackbelt blog this morning I found of the seven postings, six were nothing more than Press Releases. Over on Lost Coast Outpost it was basically the same thing.

--Joe

Sellout

Sellout in this instance means:

. a person who betrays a cause, organization, or the like; traitor.

. a person who compromises his or her personal values, integrity, talent, or the like, for money or personal advancement.

From the moment I heard Barack Obama had the Presidency I've waited for this seminal moment – His total betrayal of all the American people that hoped in him and his promises. In this case, however, it isn't just the sell out of American people, but the whole world. The latest revelation here, is that he intends to consolidate and solidify all power and control in the hands of the Oligarchic 1%, even forcing governments to submit to their absolute control.

A segment on Democracy Now this morning Thursday, June 14, 2012: Breaking ’08 Pledge, Leaked Trade Doc Shows Obama Wants to HelpCorporations Avoid Regulations, Amy Goodman says:

“A draft agreement leaked Wednesday shows the Obama administration is pushing a secretive trade agreement that could vastly expand corporate power and directly contradict a 2008 campaign promise by President Obama. A U.S. proposal for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact between the United States and eight Pacific nations would allow foreign corporations operating in the U.S. to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its ruling.”

What's amazing in all of this is that, Barack Obama started this project within SIX months of his inauguration.

This is one of the reasons he treats the Occupy Movement, and the Arab Spring movement with such duplicity and disdain. Even so, here is a recent Facebook posting:

Despite police crackdowns and mass arrests, the Occupy movement has spread to many major US cities as well as to Australia, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and other countries.

Unfortunately, the Occupy movements across the world have not yet come to understand that it is way too late for them. The Oligarchy have totally looted all value, money, property and home value, self-worth, and human rights from the 99% of all populations. In the meantime take a good look at Egypt. Whatever the Egyptians believed they had achieved, this is the reality – nothing changes, maybe only the faces of the dictators. (Democracy Now Headlines – Thursday, June 14, 2012)

Egypt Expands Detention PowersBefore Elections
Egypt’s ruling military government has expanded the powers of state forces to detain civilians just days ahead of the country’s runoff election. In a joint statement, more than a dozen Egyptian rights groups said the decree effectively reimposes martial law and reinforces suspicion the upcoming transfer of power to a civilian government "will only be phony and won’t prevent the military from remaining a major player in political life."

Once these people realize they've been sold out and that there is no recovery they'll just walk away. You can't elect a government of people owned and controlled by the one percent if don't vote. You can't fight wars if no one fights. When money has no value, neither do the taxes they collect. Wall Street and the 1% will be as devoid of value as their worthless dollars.
[Picture Source]

--Joe

Holocaust By Any Other Name

Or a "rose by any other name would smell just as 'rotten.'

As some who's father was on the front lines personally witnessing the German's efforts to eradicate the Jews and other political and religious pariahs – Enemies of the State, I had the opportunity, over the years, to hear some of what he experienced. Of this I experienced his life-long condemnation of the German people for what they did. To him, the Nuremberg trials, judgments and executions was merely “icing on the cake.” Not for what the German's had done to the Jews and others, but for the cost in American lives. Combat troops didn't just blame the German High Command and their soldiers, but all the people. To him the firebombing of Dresden that killed thousands of women and children at the end of the war was totally justified, because no German was innocent.

It was with some interest Tuesday, June 5, 2012, when watching Democracy Now: Polish Resistance Figure Jan Karski, Honored withPosthumous Medal of Freedom, in His Own Words. Here he recounts that his primary reason for coming to the United States and speaking to two incredulous individuals, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and President Roosevelt. He wanted the Allies to drop leaflets all over Germany to make sure that the average German citizen was personally aware of what Hitler was doing to the Jews. What he doesn't talk about it exactly what he was doing to the Americans through Frankfurter and Roosevelt, that of making all Americans aware and responsible.

The paradox, however, is contained in what the remaining Jews did to the Palestinian people the moment they found themselves in a similar situation as the Germans and other European people. Democracy Now, again, highlights this in: Five Broken Cameras: Home VideosEvolve into Stirring Film on Palestinian Resistance to Israeli Wall.

What was done to the Jews and subsequently done to the Palestinian people is a matter of recorded history.

--Joe