A year-and-a-half ago I published THE LATEST ASSAULT ON THE DEATH PENALTY: THIS RED HERRING MAY HAVE LEGS (MARCH 12, 2006) because lawyers had come up with a novel approach to stop executions by filing appeals claiming that lethal injections resulted in excruciating pain, thereby violating the cruel punishment prohibition of the Constitution. Such appeals stopped executions in Florida, Missouri and California.
Those red herrings did have legs and now the death penaly is on life support. Last Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the cruel and unusual "pain" appeals in two Kentucky cases. The court ruling will not be handed down before next summer, thereby effectively halting most, if not all, executioons scheduled between now and then. What a shame!!!
Despite reports to the contrary, there is no reliable proof that lethal injections result in excruciating pain, a condition that is masked because the lethal cocktail allegedly paralyzes the prisoner and renders him unable to cry out. All of that is pure conjecture. In this case, the abolitionists have given us nothing but a "dead man talking" scheme to abolish the death penalty.
Last December, Gov. Jeb Bush suspended all pending Florida executions after it took 34 minutes and a rare second dose of chemicals to put a prisoner to death. Abolitionists use this case to bolster their claim that lethal injections are cruel. But, this particular incident resulted from an execution botched by a poorly trained prison guard, rather than from a failure of the drugs. And most noteworthy, there were no reports indicating the prisoner suffered any pain.
A case against lethal injections has been made in California (the land of nuts and fruits) by a member of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists who claimed that the combination of drugs used in executions - sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride - had been rejected by his peers because they would likely cause pain in animals. If that's the best the abolitionists have to offer, there may yet be hope for the death penalty.
Tlhe Supreme Court's decision to hear the lethal injection arguments has reinvigorated the death penalty abolition movement. Who would have thought that a court with a majority of conservative justices would ever consider what I believe to be a frivolous death penalty issue?
Newspaper editorials across the nation are now calling for a halt to executions until the court renders its decision on the lethal injection issue. The left, with its rabid opposition to the death penalty, is jumping up and down with joy. Now it is no longer inconceivable that a conservative court may yet rule the death penalty itself, no matter the method of execution, to be cruel and unusual punishment.
The irony of it all is that lethal injections came into being as a more humane way of executing prisoners than by electrocution, gas, hanging or firing squad, methods which are all still legal. Of the 38 states with death penalties, ten still allow electrocutions, five still allow death by gas, two still allow hanging and two others allow death by firing squad. In 37 states, lethal injection is the preferred method of execution, while Nebraska requires execution by electrocution.
Lost in the arguments over lethal injections and the call for an end to the death penalty, is any concern for the murder victims and their loved ones. God help us if those vicious killers who inflicted so much pain on their victims should themselves be made to suffer some pain.
If you read my blog of March 12, 2006, you know there is good empirical evidence that the death penalty served as a deterrent to premeditated murder, especially during the years before it became common for the condemned to stay alive for up to 20 years or so because of endless appeals.
The abolitionists claim the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. They say it is merely an act of revenge. Revenge may be the Lord's, but I say revenge is sweet. Texas is referred to as the execution capitol of the world. MAKES ME PROUD TO BE A TEXAN! I hope the Supreme Court does not remove the death penalty from life support. I pray that the court will help it make a full recovery to enjoy a long, long life.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
JUSTICE FOR JENA? FORGET IT
Lately, there has been much in the news about the alleged injustices in "The Jena 6" case. What I am going to say about this case will probably result in accusations that I am a racist. As a matter of fact, I have been called a racist on many occasions. Is that because I hate minorities? Is that because I feel superior to minorities? Is that because I favor discrimination against minorities? The answer is a resounding "no" to all three questions.
Actually, I abhor all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination and intolerance. Because I call my shots as I see them, I am sure there have been occasions when my views on minority or religious issues have pissed-off some blacks and Hispanics, and lots of Muslims. In the past, I've been accused by white liberals of being a racist. They've even called me a Nazi. Call me insensitive if you like, but does that make me a racist? That aside, let's get to the administration of justice in the central Louisiana town of Jena.
Jena is a sleepy little Southern town of some 3,000 residents, 85% of whom are white. While its high school is integrated, students tended to cluster socially around their own racial group, as is the case in every high school in the country. There is a sort of voluntary resegration in which different groups stake out their own territorial domain. In Jena's high school, white students chose a shady oak tree as their domain.
Here is a synopsis of the events that heightened racial tensions in Jena. A black student asked for and was given permission by the principal to sit under the "white tree." White students then hung some nooses from the tree. That led to a number of fights between black and white students, as well as other incidents, some involving adults. Several weeks later, six black youths brutally attacked a white student, beating and kicking him into unconsciousness.
"The Jena 6" were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder, a charge which was subsequently reduced. Only one has been tried so far. Mychal Bell, 16 at the time of the unprovoked attack, was tried as an adult and convicted by an all-white jury on charges which could have sent him to prison for 15 years. An appeals court overturned the conviction, ruling that Bell, who had four prior violent crime convictions, should not have been tried as an adult. With his prior history of violence, he was denied bail and remains in custody pending juvenile court proceedings.
Let's look at the complaints of racial injustice by black activists, including those of Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson. They complain that the three white students who hung the nooses from the tree should have been arrested and charged with committing a hate crime. The school authorities considered the incident a prank and sent the three to an alternative school for a month and then placed them on two weeks of in-school suspension.
In my opinion, as a prank the nooses were neither funny nor innocuous. They were offensive and painful to blacks because, as we all should know, the nooses are symbolic of a dark period in our history replete with the lynchings of innocent blacks. But a hate crime? I don't think so. Now, it would have been a hate crime had the students gone to the home of a black resident and hung a noose from the homeowner's tree. By the way, come to think of it, when "The Jena 6" attacked that white student, they were by law committing a hate crime.
The black activists complain that no white students were arrested for fights they got into with blacks, while "The Jena Six" were arrested and charged with a number of felonies. They contend that, like the other fights, "The Jena 6" incident should have been handled like a simple school-yard altercation.
Say what?!!! None of the other students were hospitalized. The victim of "The Jena 6" was brutally beaten, kicked and rendered unconscious by six assailants and had to be taken to a hospital where he was treated for a concussion, swollen shut eye, and other injuries to the face, ears and hand. Even though the victim attended a social function after his brief stay in the hospital, that was definitely not a simple school-yard altercation. It was what it was - a felonious assault.
The activists complain about the attempted murder charges, claiming that if the assailants had been white, they would never have faced any serious charges. I do not agree that the charges were racially motivated, but I do agree the authorities should never have charged the six with attempted murder. Nationwide, upon an arrest, it is not unusual for the police to pile on multiple charges on top of the most serious charge they can come up with, a practice I have never favored.
The acitivists complain that Bell was convicted by an all-white jury. That complaint is groundless because no blacks were excluded from the jury. Fifty blacks were included in Bell's jury pool but none of them bothered to show up for the juror selection proceedings.
I am sure that some of Jena's whites are racists because there are racists of all colors in every community of this country. So, were "The Jena 6" the victims of a racially biased justice system? Not at all. When Mychal Bell and his five codefendants started kicking the downed victim, a simple assault escalated into a felonious assault, their shoes becoming dangerous weapons, soft sneakers notwithstanding.
Jena has been unfairly tarred and featherd as a hotbed of racism because the felonious assault arrest of six black youths led to a distorted media frenzy which was pounced upon by black activists. Consequently, thousands of demonstrators and hundreds of police descended on Jena last week.
And who led the demonstrations in Jena? Those racist reverends, Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, the former shouting his trademark slogan, "No justice, no peace." The results? Whatever racial tensions there may have been in Jena have now been exacerbated. Any winners? Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, of course. Any losers? The town of Jena and its residents, both white and black. Justice for Jena? Forget it.
Actually, I abhor all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination and intolerance. Because I call my shots as I see them, I am sure there have been occasions when my views on minority or religious issues have pissed-off some blacks and Hispanics, and lots of Muslims. In the past, I've been accused by white liberals of being a racist. They've even called me a Nazi. Call me insensitive if you like, but does that make me a racist? That aside, let's get to the administration of justice in the central Louisiana town of Jena.
Jena is a sleepy little Southern town of some 3,000 residents, 85% of whom are white. While its high school is integrated, students tended to cluster socially around their own racial group, as is the case in every high school in the country. There is a sort of voluntary resegration in which different groups stake out their own territorial domain. In Jena's high school, white students chose a shady oak tree as their domain.
Here is a synopsis of the events that heightened racial tensions in Jena. A black student asked for and was given permission by the principal to sit under the "white tree." White students then hung some nooses from the tree. That led to a number of fights between black and white students, as well as other incidents, some involving adults. Several weeks later, six black youths brutally attacked a white student, beating and kicking him into unconsciousness.
"The Jena 6" were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder, a charge which was subsequently reduced. Only one has been tried so far. Mychal Bell, 16 at the time of the unprovoked attack, was tried as an adult and convicted by an all-white jury on charges which could have sent him to prison for 15 years. An appeals court overturned the conviction, ruling that Bell, who had four prior violent crime convictions, should not have been tried as an adult. With his prior history of violence, he was denied bail and remains in custody pending juvenile court proceedings.
Let's look at the complaints of racial injustice by black activists, including those of Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson. They complain that the three white students who hung the nooses from the tree should have been arrested and charged with committing a hate crime. The school authorities considered the incident a prank and sent the three to an alternative school for a month and then placed them on two weeks of in-school suspension.
In my opinion, as a prank the nooses were neither funny nor innocuous. They were offensive and painful to blacks because, as we all should know, the nooses are symbolic of a dark period in our history replete with the lynchings of innocent blacks. But a hate crime? I don't think so. Now, it would have been a hate crime had the students gone to the home of a black resident and hung a noose from the homeowner's tree. By the way, come to think of it, when "The Jena 6" attacked that white student, they were by law committing a hate crime.
The black activists complain that no white students were arrested for fights they got into with blacks, while "The Jena Six" were arrested and charged with a number of felonies. They contend that, like the other fights, "The Jena 6" incident should have been handled like a simple school-yard altercation.
Say what?!!! None of the other students were hospitalized. The victim of "The Jena 6" was brutally beaten, kicked and rendered unconscious by six assailants and had to be taken to a hospital where he was treated for a concussion, swollen shut eye, and other injuries to the face, ears and hand. Even though the victim attended a social function after his brief stay in the hospital, that was definitely not a simple school-yard altercation. It was what it was - a felonious assault.
The activists complain about the attempted murder charges, claiming that if the assailants had been white, they would never have faced any serious charges. I do not agree that the charges were racially motivated, but I do agree the authorities should never have charged the six with attempted murder. Nationwide, upon an arrest, it is not unusual for the police to pile on multiple charges on top of the most serious charge they can come up with, a practice I have never favored.
The acitivists complain that Bell was convicted by an all-white jury. That complaint is groundless because no blacks were excluded from the jury. Fifty blacks were included in Bell's jury pool but none of them bothered to show up for the juror selection proceedings.
I am sure that some of Jena's whites are racists because there are racists of all colors in every community of this country. So, were "The Jena 6" the victims of a racially biased justice system? Not at all. When Mychal Bell and his five codefendants started kicking the downed victim, a simple assault escalated into a felonious assault, their shoes becoming dangerous weapons, soft sneakers notwithstanding.
Jena has been unfairly tarred and featherd as a hotbed of racism because the felonious assault arrest of six black youths led to a distorted media frenzy which was pounced upon by black activists. Consequently, thousands of demonstrators and hundreds of police descended on Jena last week.
And who led the demonstrations in Jena? Those racist reverends, Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, the former shouting his trademark slogan, "No justice, no peace." The results? Whatever racial tensions there may have been in Jena have now been exacerbated. Any winners? Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, of course. Any losers? The town of Jena and its residents, both white and black. Justice for Jena? Forget it.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
ONCE AGAIN, JESSEE JACKSON SHOWS HIS TRUE COLORS
Twenty-three years ago, the Reverend Jessee Jackson revealed himself to be nothing more than a hateful bigot. During the past week he has done it again. Why does the media keep treating this charlatan with kid gloves? Why do the democratic presidential candidates keep sucking up to this racist hypocrite? There is only one reason - he's black.
In 1984, while Jackson was seeking the democratic nomination for president, he had a conversation which he thought was private and off-the-record with Milton Coleman, a Washington Post reporter. During that coversation, Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown." The term Hymie stems from the once popular name - "Hyman" - given to Jewish boys and is used as an ethnic slur by bigoted gentiles.
A highly publicized storm of anger erupted in the Jewish community when his bigoted slurs were revealed. At first, Jackson denied the remarks, but when the Washington Post stood behind its reports of the slurs, he accused Jews of trying to defeat his presidential bid. With Jackson at his side, his long-time ally Louis Farrakhan, the rabid anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, then threatened Coleman and warned Jews that "If you harm this brother (Jackson), it will be the last one you harm."
In my blog BLACK ANTI-SEMITISM (September 6, 2006), I informed you that, by and large, blacks have always been one of the most anit-Semitic groups in this country, ranking right up there with the KKK and other Christian survivalist groups. That would explain Jackson's slurs, as well as fellow demagogue Al Sharpton's conduct against Jews in the Crown Heights riot and in the Freddie's Fashion Mart protest.
Now once again, Jackson has shown his true colors. Jackson criticized presidential candidate Barack Obama for not forcefully condemning the alleged injustice of "The Jena 6" case by accusing him of "acting like he's white." Jackson was speaking at Benedict College, a predominantly black school in Columbia, South Carolina. That was clearly a racist remark, suggesting that whites are bad.
When his remarks were published, Jackson first said he could not remember making the "acting like he's white" comment. Later, he released a statement saying he was " taken out of context." Like hell he was. Over the years, Jackson has revealed himself to be what he truly is - a racist and a bigot.
There seems to be an unwritten law in the mainstream media that you can report the racist remarks of black demagogues like Jackson and Sharpton, but you cannot comdemn them for their racist demagoguery. Hence the kid glove treatment. And in order to curry favor with black voters, democratic politicians put a high premium on their appearance in public alongside the two racist reverends.
When prominent whites make racist remarks they are raked over the coals by the media and deprived of their livelyhood. In 1988, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, a sportscaster, was fired by CBS over an innocuous, but stupid explanation he made for the success of black athletes. And more recently, there was the Don Imus affair. Snyder and Imus lost their jobs, while Jackson and Sharpton are frequent guests on news talk shows and democratic presidential candidates continue sucking up to those racist hypocrites.
In 1984, while Jackson was seeking the democratic nomination for president, he had a conversation which he thought was private and off-the-record with Milton Coleman, a Washington Post reporter. During that coversation, Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown." The term Hymie stems from the once popular name - "Hyman" - given to Jewish boys and is used as an ethnic slur by bigoted gentiles.
A highly publicized storm of anger erupted in the Jewish community when his bigoted slurs were revealed. At first, Jackson denied the remarks, but when the Washington Post stood behind its reports of the slurs, he accused Jews of trying to defeat his presidential bid. With Jackson at his side, his long-time ally Louis Farrakhan, the rabid anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, then threatened Coleman and warned Jews that "If you harm this brother (Jackson), it will be the last one you harm."
In my blog BLACK ANTI-SEMITISM (September 6, 2006), I informed you that, by and large, blacks have always been one of the most anit-Semitic groups in this country, ranking right up there with the KKK and other Christian survivalist groups. That would explain Jackson's slurs, as well as fellow demagogue Al Sharpton's conduct against Jews in the Crown Heights riot and in the Freddie's Fashion Mart protest.
Now once again, Jackson has shown his true colors. Jackson criticized presidential candidate Barack Obama for not forcefully condemning the alleged injustice of "The Jena 6" case by accusing him of "acting like he's white." Jackson was speaking at Benedict College, a predominantly black school in Columbia, South Carolina. That was clearly a racist remark, suggesting that whites are bad.
When his remarks were published, Jackson first said he could not remember making the "acting like he's white" comment. Later, he released a statement saying he was " taken out of context." Like hell he was. Over the years, Jackson has revealed himself to be what he truly is - a racist and a bigot.
There seems to be an unwritten law in the mainstream media that you can report the racist remarks of black demagogues like Jackson and Sharpton, but you cannot comdemn them for their racist demagoguery. Hence the kid glove treatment. And in order to curry favor with black voters, democratic politicians put a high premium on their appearance in public alongside the two racist reverends.
When prominent whites make racist remarks they are raked over the coals by the media and deprived of their livelyhood. In 1988, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, a sportscaster, was fired by CBS over an innocuous, but stupid explanation he made for the success of black athletes. And more recently, there was the Don Imus affair. Snyder and Imus lost their jobs, while Jackson and Sharpton are frequent guests on news talk shows and democratic presidential candidates continue sucking up to those racist hypocrites.
Monday, September 17, 2007
ACLU SUPPORTS SEN. CRAIG
No wonder that cops detest the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has filed a lengthy brief with the court in support of shithouse sexual solicitor Sen. Larry Craig's attempt to have his guilty plea withdrawn. The ACLU contends that Craig was exercising his protected speech rights under the constitution when he solicited sex from an undercover police officer inside a public toilet. The ACLU also contends that Craig was a victim of entrapment.
In fairness to the ACLU, on numerous occasions over many years, that organization has come to the defense of individuals and groups that have been deprived of their civil rights or liberties. For that I must commend the ACLU. However, whenever someone complains about mistreatment by the police, the ACLU seems quick to assume that the accuser is being truthful in claiming that cops beat the supreme shit out of him or otherwise violated his rights.
Let's look at the entrapment issue. Legally, entrapment is a defense only when an officer entices someone to commit an offense which that person would not have otherwise committted. Let's take a prostitution sting operation as an example. When a female undercover officer, wearing a cleavage revealing blouse and a micro mini-skirt with fishnet stockings and garter belt, stands on a street corner or walks up and down the sidewalk, does that constitute entrapment if a man stops his car and negotiates a price with her for sex? Absolutely not.
In that situation, the motorist recognized what he believed to be a prostitute, stopped his vehicle and entered into a discussion of what kind of sex he desired and how much it was going to cost him. Regardless of how provocatively the female officer may have been dressed, he was already inclined to engage the services of a prostitute. Thus, there is no entrapment.
Now, had the female officer jumped in front of his car, forcing him to stop to avoid running over her, and then offered her services to him, that would definitely constitute entrapment. Entrapment would also occur if the officer flagged down the motorist from the sidewalk and she initiated the offer for sex. However, if the peovocatively attired officer had merely loitered along the curb, it is not entrapment if the motorist decides to stop and shoptalk sex with her.
In Craig's case, the arresting officer did not slide his foot into an adjoining stall to touch the senator's foot. He did not brush his hand underneath the partition. Nor did he stick his dick through any stall opening or otherwise expose himself to entice Craig into seeking sex. The officer was sitting in a stall during a shithouse stakeout, waiting for some creep to solicit him for sex. That was not entrapment. It was the senator who encroached an adjoining stall to touch the officer's foot and it was the senator who brushed his hand underneath the partition.
As to the senator's rights in a public toilet, the ACLU contends that soliciting sex in a private place is protected speech rgardless of where it happens. "It is not a crime to solicit sex that would occur in private. It is a crime to solicit sex that would occur in a public place." The ACLU argues that the state cannot prove Craig intended to have sex inside that public toilet. Accordingly, he committed no crime.
How about the ACLU's contention that Craig had a free speech right to solicit sex in a public toilet? What a crock of shit! I could care less if men have consentual sex with each other in the privacy of a home or motel room. I could care less if Sen. Craig had made sexual advances to another man in a gay bar. But in a public toilet? Bullshit!
What about the rights of "straight" men in a public restroom not to be subjected to unwanted and unpleasant sexual advances by other men? When Craig's actions in a public place infringe on the rights of others, that behavior constitutes an unlawful offense. The only right Sen. Craig had in that men's room was to enter, find an empty stall, take a crap and wipe his ass, and leave, all without bothering anyone else or being bothered by anyone else.
On this one the ACLU is full of crap! We may not like it when that organization comes to the aid of the KKK or neo nazis when their rights to hold a parade or public meeting have been denied, but these despicable groups have the same rights the rest of us do. But to defend Craig's lewd conduct in a public place on the grounds he has a free speech right to do so, that's a real stretch.
In fairness to the ACLU, on numerous occasions over many years, that organization has come to the defense of individuals and groups that have been deprived of their civil rights or liberties. For that I must commend the ACLU. However, whenever someone complains about mistreatment by the police, the ACLU seems quick to assume that the accuser is being truthful in claiming that cops beat the supreme shit out of him or otherwise violated his rights.
Let's look at the entrapment issue. Legally, entrapment is a defense only when an officer entices someone to commit an offense which that person would not have otherwise committted. Let's take a prostitution sting operation as an example. When a female undercover officer, wearing a cleavage revealing blouse and a micro mini-skirt with fishnet stockings and garter belt, stands on a street corner or walks up and down the sidewalk, does that constitute entrapment if a man stops his car and negotiates a price with her for sex? Absolutely not.
In that situation, the motorist recognized what he believed to be a prostitute, stopped his vehicle and entered into a discussion of what kind of sex he desired and how much it was going to cost him. Regardless of how provocatively the female officer may have been dressed, he was already inclined to engage the services of a prostitute. Thus, there is no entrapment.
Now, had the female officer jumped in front of his car, forcing him to stop to avoid running over her, and then offered her services to him, that would definitely constitute entrapment. Entrapment would also occur if the officer flagged down the motorist from the sidewalk and she initiated the offer for sex. However, if the peovocatively attired officer had merely loitered along the curb, it is not entrapment if the motorist decides to stop and shoptalk sex with her.
In Craig's case, the arresting officer did not slide his foot into an adjoining stall to touch the senator's foot. He did not brush his hand underneath the partition. Nor did he stick his dick through any stall opening or otherwise expose himself to entice Craig into seeking sex. The officer was sitting in a stall during a shithouse stakeout, waiting for some creep to solicit him for sex. That was not entrapment. It was the senator who encroached an adjoining stall to touch the officer's foot and it was the senator who brushed his hand underneath the partition.
As to the senator's rights in a public toilet, the ACLU contends that soliciting sex in a private place is protected speech rgardless of where it happens. "It is not a crime to solicit sex that would occur in private. It is a crime to solicit sex that would occur in a public place." The ACLU argues that the state cannot prove Craig intended to have sex inside that public toilet. Accordingly, he committed no crime.
How about the ACLU's contention that Craig had a free speech right to solicit sex in a public toilet? What a crock of shit! I could care less if men have consentual sex with each other in the privacy of a home or motel room. I could care less if Sen. Craig had made sexual advances to another man in a gay bar. But in a public toilet? Bullshit!
What about the rights of "straight" men in a public restroom not to be subjected to unwanted and unpleasant sexual advances by other men? When Craig's actions in a public place infringe on the rights of others, that behavior constitutes an unlawful offense. The only right Sen. Craig had in that men's room was to enter, find an empty stall, take a crap and wipe his ass, and leave, all without bothering anyone else or being bothered by anyone else.
On this one the ACLU is full of crap! We may not like it when that organization comes to the aid of the KKK or neo nazis when their rights to hold a parade or public meeting have been denied, but these despicable groups have the same rights the rest of us do. But to defend Craig's lewd conduct in a public place on the grounds he has a free speech right to do so, that's a real stretch.
Friday, September 14, 2007
KILL ONE OF US, WE KILL YOU !!!
Within a five-day period, shooting incidents in Odessa, Texas and Miami, Florida took the lives of four police officers and left three others wounded. In Odessa, three officers died. In Miami, one officer was killed and three wounded. There was a marked difference between the way these two incidents concluded, one with a satisfying ending and the other with a dissapointing one.
On Saturday night, September 8, three Odessa officers responded to a domestic disturbance call. They were met outside the home by Judy White who complained that her husband, Larry White,58, had been mistreating her. The officers, wanting to talk to Larry White, could not gain entry through the front door.
When they went into the back yard, White came out shooting, killing officers Arlie Jones, 48, and John Gardner, 30, with shots to the head, and fatally wounding officer Abel Marques, 32, with a shotgun blast to the face and throat. White, an avid hunter, had been drinking beer all day long. After a four hour standoff, this cop killer surrendered to officers who had surrounded the scene.
On Thursday morning, September 13, four Miami-Dade County police officers were in their car on a burglary stakeout when they observed a vehicle driving eratically. They left their stakeout to follow the vehicle and made a traffic stop. The driver, Shawn Labeet, 25, came out shooting and killed officer Jose Somohano, 37, while wounding the other three, with a female officer being the most seriously injured.
Labeet escaped and an extensive manhunt for this cop killer ensued. When he was tracked down some twelve hours later, he was wearing body armor. Labeet was then killed by the officers who found him. Two different cop killings, two different outcomes, one satisfactory and the other one not.
The killing of a police officer, whose duty is to protect society, is the most capital of capital crimes. I am reminded of a cop killing many, many years ago. Two crooks killed a police officer in New Jersey. When they were tracked down to a room in New York City, the cops did not yell "Come out with your hands up, we have you surrounded." Instead, without warning, they kicked in the door and entered the room with guns blazing. Within a few seconds two cop killers were dead from multiple gunshot wounds.
NOW, THAT WAS A SATISFYING ENDING. Naturally, what followed was that civil libitarians howled like stuck pigs, accusing the New York cops of assassinating and disregarding the rights of the New Jersey killers. Not being politically correct, in a case involving cop killers, I say "fuck the civil libitarians." But you ask, what about due process? Well, those killers received exactly the same due process they provided the cop they killed. And that brings me to the Odessa police killings.
If I had been in charge of that operation, Larry White would no longer be among the living. He was alone in his home while the Odessa officers sweet-talked him for four hours. The minute I found out he was alone, my officers would have fired dozens of tear gas shells into that house and shot him dead if he came out. If he failed to come out, I would have had my officers enter the house wearing heavy duty full-body armor with guns blazing until the bastard was dead. No negotiations, no asking him to surrender.
White is now facing extended and expensive court proceedings. During his trial some psychiatrist is bound to psycho-babble that this cold blooded cop killer is the victim of prenatal trauma and an abusive childhood. He couldn't help himself because his mama looked backwards in the mirror when she was pregnant and his daddy took away his rubber duckie while he was in the bathtub. And, after he has been sentenced to death, he will have ten years of appeals on those issues and on the claim that he was inadequately represented by incompetent counsel.
Justice was served swiftly in Miami with the shooting death of a cold blooded cop killer. Unfortunately, in the Odessa case justice has been delayed and will continue to be delayed for many more years to come because the police negotiated for a politicially correct peaceful ending.
In my years as a criminal justice educator, I always advocated the highest standards of proper and ethical law enforcement and I never defended bad policing. In every course, I placed a great deal of emphasis on human relations in the administration of justice. However, when it comes to cop killers, I draw the line and say "Kill one of us, we kill you !!!" I am certain that deep down in their hearts all cops, from the lowest rank to the highest, feel the same way I do. Career-wise, they just cannot afford to admit it.
On Saturday night, September 8, three Odessa officers responded to a domestic disturbance call. They were met outside the home by Judy White who complained that her husband, Larry White,58, had been mistreating her. The officers, wanting to talk to Larry White, could not gain entry through the front door.
When they went into the back yard, White came out shooting, killing officers Arlie Jones, 48, and John Gardner, 30, with shots to the head, and fatally wounding officer Abel Marques, 32, with a shotgun blast to the face and throat. White, an avid hunter, had been drinking beer all day long. After a four hour standoff, this cop killer surrendered to officers who had surrounded the scene.
On Thursday morning, September 13, four Miami-Dade County police officers were in their car on a burglary stakeout when they observed a vehicle driving eratically. They left their stakeout to follow the vehicle and made a traffic stop. The driver, Shawn Labeet, 25, came out shooting and killed officer Jose Somohano, 37, while wounding the other three, with a female officer being the most seriously injured.
Labeet escaped and an extensive manhunt for this cop killer ensued. When he was tracked down some twelve hours later, he was wearing body armor. Labeet was then killed by the officers who found him. Two different cop killings, two different outcomes, one satisfactory and the other one not.
The killing of a police officer, whose duty is to protect society, is the most capital of capital crimes. I am reminded of a cop killing many, many years ago. Two crooks killed a police officer in New Jersey. When they were tracked down to a room in New York City, the cops did not yell "Come out with your hands up, we have you surrounded." Instead, without warning, they kicked in the door and entered the room with guns blazing. Within a few seconds two cop killers were dead from multiple gunshot wounds.
NOW, THAT WAS A SATISFYING ENDING. Naturally, what followed was that civil libitarians howled like stuck pigs, accusing the New York cops of assassinating and disregarding the rights of the New Jersey killers. Not being politically correct, in a case involving cop killers, I say "fuck the civil libitarians." But you ask, what about due process? Well, those killers received exactly the same due process they provided the cop they killed. And that brings me to the Odessa police killings.
If I had been in charge of that operation, Larry White would no longer be among the living. He was alone in his home while the Odessa officers sweet-talked him for four hours. The minute I found out he was alone, my officers would have fired dozens of tear gas shells into that house and shot him dead if he came out. If he failed to come out, I would have had my officers enter the house wearing heavy duty full-body armor with guns blazing until the bastard was dead. No negotiations, no asking him to surrender.
White is now facing extended and expensive court proceedings. During his trial some psychiatrist is bound to psycho-babble that this cold blooded cop killer is the victim of prenatal trauma and an abusive childhood. He couldn't help himself because his mama looked backwards in the mirror when she was pregnant and his daddy took away his rubber duckie while he was in the bathtub. And, after he has been sentenced to death, he will have ten years of appeals on those issues and on the claim that he was inadequately represented by incompetent counsel.
Justice was served swiftly in Miami with the shooting death of a cold blooded cop killer. Unfortunately, in the Odessa case justice has been delayed and will continue to be delayed for many more years to come because the police negotiated for a politicially correct peaceful ending.
In my years as a criminal justice educator, I always advocated the highest standards of proper and ethical law enforcement and I never defended bad policing. In every course, I placed a great deal of emphasis on human relations in the administration of justice. However, when it comes to cop killers, I draw the line and say "Kill one of us, we kill you !!!" I am certain that deep down in their hearts all cops, from the lowest rank to the highest, feel the same way I do. Career-wise, they just cannot afford to admit it.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
DENIS LEARY ON LARRY CRAIG
I just got through watching the Jay Leno show on NBC. One of Jay's guests was Denis Leary, the actor-comedian and Emmy nominated star of FX's Rescue Me. Denis and Jay got into a discussion of Sen. Larry Craig's recent arrest for lewd conduct in a public toilet. Denis called the good senator a liar and gave three examples accordingly.
No. 1. Denis mentioned the press conference Sen. Craig held in which he said "I am not gay." Denis told Jay that anytime someone has to hold a press conference to announce they are not gay, they're gay.
No. 2. Denis talked about Craig's excuse for his foot sliding into the adjoining stall by telling the arresting officer that he spread his legs because he is big. Denis laughed that lie off by pointing to basketball star Shaquille O'Neal who is a great deal bigger than Craig. Denis said that if you spread your legs based on your size, Shaquille would have been arrested every time he used a public toilet.
No. 3. Denis laughed at Craig's claim that he placed his hand down only because he dropped a piece of toilet paper on the floor and wanted to pick it up. Denis asked Jay if he had ever been in an airport toilet. Denis went on to say that the floors there are so filthy, that if you dropped a fifty dollar bill on the floor you wouldn't ever pick it up.
As you know, in my blog CONSERVATIVE FAMILY VALUES COLLIDE WITH A SHITHOUSE STAKEOUT (August 29, 2007), I too called Sen. Craig a liar. Using his own comedic style, Denis Leary has reinforced my personal belief that Sen. Craig is indeed a liar. In this "he said, he said" controversy, I have to go with the arresting officer's version and judgement.
No. 1. Denis mentioned the press conference Sen. Craig held in which he said "I am not gay." Denis told Jay that anytime someone has to hold a press conference to announce they are not gay, they're gay.
No. 2. Denis talked about Craig's excuse for his foot sliding into the adjoining stall by telling the arresting officer that he spread his legs because he is big. Denis laughed that lie off by pointing to basketball star Shaquille O'Neal who is a great deal bigger than Craig. Denis said that if you spread your legs based on your size, Shaquille would have been arrested every time he used a public toilet.
No. 3. Denis laughed at Craig's claim that he placed his hand down only because he dropped a piece of toilet paper on the floor and wanted to pick it up. Denis asked Jay if he had ever been in an airport toilet. Denis went on to say that the floors there are so filthy, that if you dropped a fifty dollar bill on the floor you wouldn't ever pick it up.
As you know, in my blog CONSERVATIVE FAMILY VALUES COLLIDE WITH A SHITHOUSE STAKEOUT (August 29, 2007), I too called Sen. Craig a liar. Using his own comedic style, Denis Leary has reinforced my personal belief that Sen. Craig is indeed a liar. In this "he said, he said" controversy, I have to go with the arresting officer's version and judgement.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
ONE CASE WITH MULTIPLE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE
Mike Nifong, the malicious rogue prosecutor in the Duke rape case, has just finished serving 24 hours in jail for criminal contempt. He was sentenced to jail for intentionally lying to the court when he told a judge that he had turned over all DNA evidence to the defense. Nifong, disbarred last June for more than two dozen acts of misconduct, could have been sentenced to 30 days in jail.
While the families of the defendants and their lawyers felt justice had been done, I most certainly do not agree. His having been disbarred aside, considering what Nifong cost the defendants and their families over the course of a year, he deserved nothing less than the maximum sentence of 30 days in jail. 24 hours? Shit, that's not even a slap on the wrist. That's just a little pat. Paris Hilton served 23 days for something less serious than lying to the court.
Nifong, currying the votes of Durham county blacks for his reelection as District Attorney, rushed to judgement on false accusations of rape by a black stripper against three white Duke lacrosse team members. During daily news briefings, this rogue prosecutor publically villified the accused. His reelection campaign turned into a malicious prosecution because, from the begining and for months thereafter, he chose to ignore mounting evidence that the stripper was lying and that the accused were innocent.
The three lacrosse players will always carry the stigma of accused rapists, the result of Nifong's misconduct, despite their having been officially exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing. During the course of a year, the services of lawyers cost the families of the defendants several million dollars. There was justice in Nifong's disbarrment, but not enough. The 24 hour jail sentence constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice.
There have been other gross miscarriages of justice in this case, among them the conduct of "The Group of 88," that of the loudmouth reverends Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, and that of the hyper-active media. 88 Duke faculty and staff members led by professors from the African and African-American Studies department, took out a full page ad in Duke's student newspaper villifying the lacrosse players as racist and sexist white privileged hooligans.
These left-wing academics constituted a lynch mob. Even after the accused were exonerated, each of the 88 refused to even consider an apology or a retraction of their racially charged statements, Instead, they broadened their condemnation to include all of the campus as a center of racism and sexism. Tenure and academic freedom notwithstanding, they should have all been fired for fanning the flames of racial hatred. Their continued employment at Duke is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson were quick to jump on the anti-Duke bandwagon. Their presence at demonstrations for "racial justice" in Durham helped to further fan the flames of racial hatred. Any peep out of them since the exoneration of the accused? Not a word. Instead of being condemned as race baiters, these two continue to be rewarded with appearances on television news programs. And, the leading democratic presidential candidates continually suck up to these two charlatans.
Sharpton continues to be a frequent guest on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and on that network's Tucker Carlson show. Matthews and Carlson slobber all over themselves whenever he appears on their shows, despite his checkered past - his leading roles in the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax, in the 1991 Crown Heights riot, and in the 1995 deaths of eight people following a demonstration he led against the Jewish landlord of Freddie's Fashion Mart. Sharpton and Jackson's part in the Duke rape case without any meaningful rebuke, constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice.
The print and television media covered this story with the zeal of a feeding frenzy, devoid of any semblance of fairness or objectivity. Their coverage, including that of the New York Times, quickly helped to convict the falsely accused in the court of public opinion. The media pictured Durham as a great racial divide with privileged whites oppressing poor blacks. When the accused were exonerated, the media did a quick fade-out. No apologies on television or in the printed press - another gross miscarriage of justice.
To a lesser extent, the failure to prosecute the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, is also a miscarriage of justice. And the Duke administration - which immediately fired the lacrosse coach and cancelled the lacrosse season, and then suspended the accused students - got off way too easy. I cannot recall another case with so many miscarriages of justice.
While the families of the defendants and their lawyers felt justice had been done, I most certainly do not agree. His having been disbarred aside, considering what Nifong cost the defendants and their families over the course of a year, he deserved nothing less than the maximum sentence of 30 days in jail. 24 hours? Shit, that's not even a slap on the wrist. That's just a little pat. Paris Hilton served 23 days for something less serious than lying to the court.
Nifong, currying the votes of Durham county blacks for his reelection as District Attorney, rushed to judgement on false accusations of rape by a black stripper against three white Duke lacrosse team members. During daily news briefings, this rogue prosecutor publically villified the accused. His reelection campaign turned into a malicious prosecution because, from the begining and for months thereafter, he chose to ignore mounting evidence that the stripper was lying and that the accused were innocent.
The three lacrosse players will always carry the stigma of accused rapists, the result of Nifong's misconduct, despite their having been officially exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing. During the course of a year, the services of lawyers cost the families of the defendants several million dollars. There was justice in Nifong's disbarrment, but not enough. The 24 hour jail sentence constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice.
There have been other gross miscarriages of justice in this case, among them the conduct of "The Group of 88," that of the loudmouth reverends Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, and that of the hyper-active media. 88 Duke faculty and staff members led by professors from the African and African-American Studies department, took out a full page ad in Duke's student newspaper villifying the lacrosse players as racist and sexist white privileged hooligans.
These left-wing academics constituted a lynch mob. Even after the accused were exonerated, each of the 88 refused to even consider an apology or a retraction of their racially charged statements, Instead, they broadened their condemnation to include all of the campus as a center of racism and sexism. Tenure and academic freedom notwithstanding, they should have all been fired for fanning the flames of racial hatred. Their continued employment at Duke is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson were quick to jump on the anti-Duke bandwagon. Their presence at demonstrations for "racial justice" in Durham helped to further fan the flames of racial hatred. Any peep out of them since the exoneration of the accused? Not a word. Instead of being condemned as race baiters, these two continue to be rewarded with appearances on television news programs. And, the leading democratic presidential candidates continually suck up to these two charlatans.
Sharpton continues to be a frequent guest on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and on that network's Tucker Carlson show. Matthews and Carlson slobber all over themselves whenever he appears on their shows, despite his checkered past - his leading roles in the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax, in the 1991 Crown Heights riot, and in the 1995 deaths of eight people following a demonstration he led against the Jewish landlord of Freddie's Fashion Mart. Sharpton and Jackson's part in the Duke rape case without any meaningful rebuke, constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice.
The print and television media covered this story with the zeal of a feeding frenzy, devoid of any semblance of fairness or objectivity. Their coverage, including that of the New York Times, quickly helped to convict the falsely accused in the court of public opinion. The media pictured Durham as a great racial divide with privileged whites oppressing poor blacks. When the accused were exonerated, the media did a quick fade-out. No apologies on television or in the printed press - another gross miscarriage of justice.
To a lesser extent, the failure to prosecute the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, is also a miscarriage of justice. And the Duke administration - which immediately fired the lacrosse coach and cancelled the lacrosse season, and then suspended the accused students - got off way too easy. I cannot recall another case with so many miscarriages of justice.
Friday, September 07, 2007
DOWN THE DRAIN WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS
I hope what follows will get you pissed off more with the government than with me. I am going to bitch about the way billions of our tax dollars have been wasted and will continue to be wasted on NASA, on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and on the Hurricane Katrina disaster. I'm referring to manned spaceflight since the end of the Cold War, the money given to the 9/11 victims, and the money appropriated for the rebuilding of the low flood-prone areas of New Orleans.
MANNED SPACEFLIGHT. The space program started out as a competition for prestige during the Cold War (1946 - 1991) between the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1957, we were shocked when the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik I, the first earth orbiting satellite. In 1961, we were shocked again when the Soviets launched the first man, Yuri Gagarin, in space. What followed was a race to see who would place the first man on the moon. The United States won that race in 1969.
Once we had beaten the Soviets to the moon, they immediately abandoned any further attempts to send their Cosmonauts there. Why? What would have been the point? Instead, the Soviets turned to building a space station. Not to be outdone, we decided to build a bigger space station. Our project became so expensive that, since the Cold War was over, we invited Russia to join us in building and maintaining the current space station. Several years ago Russia ran out of funds and since then we have been subsidizing their part in this joint venture.
Will the space station ever be fully completed? Some experts do not believe so. And, if it is ever completed, how much use will we get out of it? The predictions - very little, if any. We have sunk billions and billions of dollars into manned space flight with relatively little in return, except for our pride. It is true that a good number of useful innovations for use by industry and in the home have been developed through the space program, but most of those came into being well before the end of the 20th Century.
Recently, President Bush ordered NASA to carry out a project which will return us to the moon. Good grief, what in the hell for? Apparently, to launch manned space flights into outer space. Billions and billions more of tax dollars going down a black hole. Instead of going to the moon, many experts believe we can learn everything there is to know about Mars and the other planets through the use of unmanned space vehicles.
Todate, NASA has received more than 419 billion dollars (more than 618 billion dollars when adjusted for inflation). Most of these funds have gone toward the manned spaceflight programs. And now, they are spending billions more on developing a new fleet of manned space shuttles. I am all for unmanned space exploration, like the two rovers that have been operating on Mars for the past 43 months, but let's put an end to the endless drain of our tax dollars for manned spaceflight. Let the private sector take over this boondoggle for what it's worth.
9/11 VICTIMS COMPENSATION. The terrorist attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon, as well as the Pennsylvania airliner crash, killed 2,551 civilians and seriously injured 215 others. 460 fire fighters, police officers and medics were also killed or seriously injured. The federal government established the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund as an airline bailout program because in order to receive any compensation from this fund, each recipient had to agree not to sue the airlines used by the terrorists.
By the end of 2004, the 9/11 victims, individuals and businesses, had received 19.6 billion dollars (51%) in insurance payments and 15.8 billion dollars (42%) in government compensation. New York businesses received 62% of the total compensation. An average of 1.2 million dollars in government payments was made to each of the widows and widowers of those killed, with some receiving up to 4.7 million dollars. Those govenment handouts were made in addition to any funds they may have received from insurance companies.
Many of the 9/11 victims were not satisfied with the handouts, demanding even more from the government. I'll bet that many of the 9/11 victims who have received these government handouts have long complained about the handouts given to welfare recipients. By contrast, the Oklahoma City bombing victims received no compensation from the government, even though the bombed building belonged to the federal government. Having seen how the 9/11 victims were compensated, the Oklahoma City victims then clamored for equal compensation from the government.
I truly feel deeply sorry for the loss of lives and their effect on the surviviors, but I do not believe the federal government had any obligation whatsoever to compensate the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing or the 9/11 attacks. Shit happens! Although some would argue to the contrary, the government was not at fault in either case and thus, no federal compensation is warranted, the probable bankruptcy of airlines notwithstanding. As far as I'm concerned, almost 16 billion of our tax dollars have gone down the drain.
REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS. With the breach of the levees, 80 percent of New Orleans was flooded by Hurricane Katrina. Especially hard hit was the Lower Ninth Ward, an area populated mostly by poor working class blacks. Who can forget the pictures of those poor souls standed at the New Orleans Convention Center under the most horrifying conditions imaginable.
Was the federal government responsible for the failure of the levees. To some extent, yes. The government could have done a better job maintaining those levees. Was the federal government responsible for the Convention Center debacle. Most certainly not. That was the fault of the inept city government, led by the "Chocolate City" mayor, Ray Nagin.
Congress has allocated 62 billion dollars for the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Most of that funding is to be spent on rebuilding New Orleans. The government should help to rebuild that city since it failed to adequately maintain the levees, But, rebuilding the Lower Ninth Ward and other flood-prone areas of New Orleans just doesn't make any sense. Civil rights activists have made the Lower Ninth Ward into a racial issue. The working class blacks of New Orleans deserve better than to be subjected to a similar disaster, one that is bound to happen again if the flood-prone areas in which they resided are rebuilt.
If the government is going to spend billions of dollars rebuilding New Orleans, they should spend the money on building homes in areas adjacent to New Orleans which are not likely to flood. The Lower Ninth Ward and other flood-prone areas of the city should just be razed and abandoned. Their former residents should be given homes in areas not subject to flooding. Any expenditures on the flood-prone residential areas of New Orleans would only constitute another humongous nonsensical waste of our tax dollars.
MANNED SPACEFLIGHT. The space program started out as a competition for prestige during the Cold War (1946 - 1991) between the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1957, we were shocked when the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik I, the first earth orbiting satellite. In 1961, we were shocked again when the Soviets launched the first man, Yuri Gagarin, in space. What followed was a race to see who would place the first man on the moon. The United States won that race in 1969.
Once we had beaten the Soviets to the moon, they immediately abandoned any further attempts to send their Cosmonauts there. Why? What would have been the point? Instead, the Soviets turned to building a space station. Not to be outdone, we decided to build a bigger space station. Our project became so expensive that, since the Cold War was over, we invited Russia to join us in building and maintaining the current space station. Several years ago Russia ran out of funds and since then we have been subsidizing their part in this joint venture.
Will the space station ever be fully completed? Some experts do not believe so. And, if it is ever completed, how much use will we get out of it? The predictions - very little, if any. We have sunk billions and billions of dollars into manned space flight with relatively little in return, except for our pride. It is true that a good number of useful innovations for use by industry and in the home have been developed through the space program, but most of those came into being well before the end of the 20th Century.
Recently, President Bush ordered NASA to carry out a project which will return us to the moon. Good grief, what in the hell for? Apparently, to launch manned space flights into outer space. Billions and billions more of tax dollars going down a black hole. Instead of going to the moon, many experts believe we can learn everything there is to know about Mars and the other planets through the use of unmanned space vehicles.
Todate, NASA has received more than 419 billion dollars (more than 618 billion dollars when adjusted for inflation). Most of these funds have gone toward the manned spaceflight programs. And now, they are spending billions more on developing a new fleet of manned space shuttles. I am all for unmanned space exploration, like the two rovers that have been operating on Mars for the past 43 months, but let's put an end to the endless drain of our tax dollars for manned spaceflight. Let the private sector take over this boondoggle for what it's worth.
9/11 VICTIMS COMPENSATION. The terrorist attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon, as well as the Pennsylvania airliner crash, killed 2,551 civilians and seriously injured 215 others. 460 fire fighters, police officers and medics were also killed or seriously injured. The federal government established the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund as an airline bailout program because in order to receive any compensation from this fund, each recipient had to agree not to sue the airlines used by the terrorists.
By the end of 2004, the 9/11 victims, individuals and businesses, had received 19.6 billion dollars (51%) in insurance payments and 15.8 billion dollars (42%) in government compensation. New York businesses received 62% of the total compensation. An average of 1.2 million dollars in government payments was made to each of the widows and widowers of those killed, with some receiving up to 4.7 million dollars. Those govenment handouts were made in addition to any funds they may have received from insurance companies.
Many of the 9/11 victims were not satisfied with the handouts, demanding even more from the government. I'll bet that many of the 9/11 victims who have received these government handouts have long complained about the handouts given to welfare recipients. By contrast, the Oklahoma City bombing victims received no compensation from the government, even though the bombed building belonged to the federal government. Having seen how the 9/11 victims were compensated, the Oklahoma City victims then clamored for equal compensation from the government.
I truly feel deeply sorry for the loss of lives and their effect on the surviviors, but I do not believe the federal government had any obligation whatsoever to compensate the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing or the 9/11 attacks. Shit happens! Although some would argue to the contrary, the government was not at fault in either case and thus, no federal compensation is warranted, the probable bankruptcy of airlines notwithstanding. As far as I'm concerned, almost 16 billion of our tax dollars have gone down the drain.
REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS. With the breach of the levees, 80 percent of New Orleans was flooded by Hurricane Katrina. Especially hard hit was the Lower Ninth Ward, an area populated mostly by poor working class blacks. Who can forget the pictures of those poor souls standed at the New Orleans Convention Center under the most horrifying conditions imaginable.
Was the federal government responsible for the failure of the levees. To some extent, yes. The government could have done a better job maintaining those levees. Was the federal government responsible for the Convention Center debacle. Most certainly not. That was the fault of the inept city government, led by the "Chocolate City" mayor, Ray Nagin.
Congress has allocated 62 billion dollars for the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Most of that funding is to be spent on rebuilding New Orleans. The government should help to rebuild that city since it failed to adequately maintain the levees, But, rebuilding the Lower Ninth Ward and other flood-prone areas of New Orleans just doesn't make any sense. Civil rights activists have made the Lower Ninth Ward into a racial issue. The working class blacks of New Orleans deserve better than to be subjected to a similar disaster, one that is bound to happen again if the flood-prone areas in which they resided are rebuilt.
If the government is going to spend billions of dollars rebuilding New Orleans, they should spend the money on building homes in areas adjacent to New Orleans which are not likely to flood. The Lower Ninth Ward and other flood-prone areas of the city should just be razed and abandoned. Their former residents should be given homes in areas not subject to flooding. Any expenditures on the flood-prone residential areas of New Orleans would only constitute another humongous nonsensical waste of our tax dollars.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
EUROPE'S EXTERMINATED JEWS REPLACED BY 20 MILLION MUSLIMS
Those of you who have been reading my blogs know that I have written several blogs on the hatred against Jews and other infidels by fundamentalist Muslims. A good friend just sent me the English translation of an article which was published in one of Spain's newspapapers on May 22, 2007. The article, ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ, was written by Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez, a Spanish author.
Rodrigez writes about the aftermath of the holocaust in which six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. It must be noted that, while Hitler and the Nazis planned, rounded up and transported Europe's Jews to extermination camps, they were far from being solely responsible for the holocaust. The people of most other European countries did not hesitate to assist the Germans in finding and rounding up the Jews for shipment to Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps.
Long before the rise of Nazi Germany, Poland was well known for a series of anti-Semitic progroms. The Poles, possessed by a virulent hatred of Jews, did not just assist their Nazi occupiers in identifying and rounding them up, but they did so most willingly. The people of Austria, the Balkans, Greece, France, Spain and other Nazi occupied European countries also helped the Germans find and round up the Jews. Unlike those Nazi collaborators, the people of Denmark tried their best to protect the Jews in that country.
Of course, right after the Nazis were defeated, a multitude of Germans and other Eropeans crawled out of the woodwork to proclaim that each had hid out a Jew from the Nazis. If that had been true, the number of Jews who would have survived the holocaust would be several times the total number of Jews who existed in the world before the rise of Nazi Germany.
Rodrigez writes about what Muslims have done to "our beautiful Spanish cities," but his complaints also apply to France, England and other European countries. Ironically, the 20 million Muslims welcomed by Europe are people whose hatred of the Jews they have replaced, equals if not exceeds the hatred of the Nazi era Poles.
Rodrigez impressed me most for being the only author I know of, who blamed all of Europe for the holocaust, not just Nazi Germany. But then, what about the rest of the world? The Muslim world applauded and supported Hitler's extermination of the Jews, while the Christian world, including the United States, turned a blind eye to their plight.
Following is the English translation of the Rodrigez article.
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz . We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance,
religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for
people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.
Rodrigez writes about the aftermath of the holocaust in which six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. It must be noted that, while Hitler and the Nazis planned, rounded up and transported Europe's Jews to extermination camps, they were far from being solely responsible for the holocaust. The people of most other European countries did not hesitate to assist the Germans in finding and rounding up the Jews for shipment to Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps.
Long before the rise of Nazi Germany, Poland was well known for a series of anti-Semitic progroms. The Poles, possessed by a virulent hatred of Jews, did not just assist their Nazi occupiers in identifying and rounding them up, but they did so most willingly. The people of Austria, the Balkans, Greece, France, Spain and other Nazi occupied European countries also helped the Germans find and round up the Jews. Unlike those Nazi collaborators, the people of Denmark tried their best to protect the Jews in that country.
Of course, right after the Nazis were defeated, a multitude of Germans and other Eropeans crawled out of the woodwork to proclaim that each had hid out a Jew from the Nazis. If that had been true, the number of Jews who would have survived the holocaust would be several times the total number of Jews who existed in the world before the rise of Nazi Germany.
Rodrigez writes about what Muslims have done to "our beautiful Spanish cities," but his complaints also apply to France, England and other European countries. Ironically, the 20 million Muslims welcomed by Europe are people whose hatred of the Jews they have replaced, equals if not exceeds the hatred of the Nazi era Poles.
Rodrigez impressed me most for being the only author I know of, who blamed all of Europe for the holocaust, not just Nazi Germany. But then, what about the rest of the world? The Muslim world applauded and supported Hitler's extermination of the Jews, while the Christian world, including the United States, turned a blind eye to their plight.
Following is the English translation of the Rodrigez article.
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz . We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance,
religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for
people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)