Category: Law and Judicial

Roe v. Wade

Roe v WadeLike my last couple of posts, this is not a boxing match, at least not a traditional one. This is about if we, as a nation, have the right to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body. Roe v. Wade is a 1973 Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of abortion. The left, Democrats, say it is a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body while the right, Republicans, say that aborting a fetus is murder. The dilemma is no easy one. Both point of views are captivating and have some merit. Personally, for me, what a woman does with her body is no one’s business but her own. If she chooses to have surgery done than it’s her decision and she has to live with the consequences of that decision. I could never ask a woman to abort a fetus, especially after becoming a father, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. The funny thing to me is, if you have an abortion, you are most likely a liberal or a moderate because conservatives are against abortions. So why do conservatives care so much? Why does it bother them so much that a liberal is aborting a fetus that will most likely vote against their policies? It’s a really odd situation. Politics is so polarizing that people literally hate each other over it, shoot each over it, set themselves on fire over it, why is it that they feel that this particular issue is something that they must triumph over. I think it’s a cause that they lost in court and maybe they are sore losers because honestly, they hold rallies on how much they dislike the left, they insult them from the moment they are born to the day they die. Politicians want to jail other politicians from the opposite side of the aisle for any inconvenience and you are telling me that they really care that their political opponents choose to have an abortion? The logic is not there for me, I would think they would be ecstatic. The hate, as you can see in every news outlet, in every talk show, in every newspaper, is real. These people honestly hate each other. There are no kind words, no good jobs, no well done, there is only she wore a a jacket that said something or this person has a low IQ or attack your political opponent when they go eat. This is ridiculous. Who would want to raise a child in this environment? Politics has become so nasty that the new policy for both sides is do the opposite of what the other side is doing. I mean, come on, are you telling me that there isn’t a policy that both sides agree on? It seems that all votes these days are along party lines and that’s disconcerting. Can we agree on anything? We should at least agree that choice is the most important thing, it’s what separates from all the other animals, not that all our choices are good ones. When you start removing people’s right to choose, that’s from abortion to guns to where I can hang my hat, then you might as well let Kim Jong Un run our country.

For those that aren’t familiar with the case of Roe v Wade, like me when I started to write this article, it’s a very interesting read. Roe, who’s real name was Norma McCorvey, was trying to have an abortion of her third child. She was 21, single and had prior legal problems. Wade refers to Dallas County District Attorney, Henry Wade. In Texas, at that time, abortions of any kind were illegal except in cases of medical emergencies and possibly rape or incest. The case was heard by Federal District Court which found that the restricting abortions was illegal. The case was then appealed and it made it’s way to the Supreme Court. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court stated that the rights to abortion had to be weighed with the State’s right to protect its citizens. This gave way to the ruling stating that an abortion of a non viable fetus, a fetus that could not live outside the womb on its own, was the decision of the woman and trying to regulate or make a law otherwise violated some very good laws, including privacy laws. This ruling seems to be just in its face meaning that it doesn’t go to far and it doesn’t take away from individual rights. There are a lot of people that say this ruling was wrong because it has nothing to do with constitutional rights but I disagree. If you can tell woman that she can’t have an abortion, and you agree with that statement, then you should be able to tell a woman that she can’t get pregnant. They should then make it where you have to apply for a license just to get pregnant and have the government decide if you will be a fit parent. I feel that this case is not only constitutional but it is an exemplary illustration of a really good decision. To say that States can regulate your choices but the United States can’t regulate the States is absurd. In other words, if a State can make a law, then the United States can determine if that law is constitutional. There are no independent State laws and no state is immune from the United States. While conservatives attack Roe v Wade under the pretense that it allows abortions of late term pregnancies, that case is actually Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). So when you see people yelling at women going into an abortion clinic and yelling that their baby is old enough to survive outside the womb, then you are actually complaining about Planned Parenthood.

Just to note, in PP v Casey, 6 of the Justices were Republican nominees and one of the Democratic nominees had previously voted against Roe originally. In hearing this case, they had a chance to overturn Roe but didn’t because ultimately, when you are a spectator, you have the luxury of saying their wrong but when you are the one making the decision, you have to think about the decision and you can see what voting against Roe would lead to. This is why I think, can’t be absolutely certain, that it doesn’t really matter what Justice gets the nomination, at least in terms of overturning Roe.

An additional note, if you are a politician that asked a girlfriend to have an abortion so your wife wouldn’t find out or have had a wife have an abortion and no qualms with doing it then, voting against Roe makes you a hypocrite that only desires power and you shouldn’t be in office because you are only there for yourself, not the people. I’m talking to you former Idaho congressman.

Weedmania Is Facing Roadbloacks

Legal Marijuana

I don’t know what you want to call it. Sixth sense or ESP without the N or just plain common sense but this was foreseeable. In an article by Bloomberg, the news outlet is reporting that marijuana farms are starting to go under. That there are too many of them and with the new rules and regulations, like you can’t sell to kids, and with the taxation, most people are starting to head back to the illicit market. The other problem is that you just can’t get a prescription from your friend who plays doctor with his girlfriend anymore, you need a real medical reason. With real rules and taxes placed on the businesses, the rage of weedmania might be heading for a dip in the market. I blogged about this exact thing prior to it becoming legal, here and there (just click on the links and it will send you to the articles), saying that the fad of legalizing marijuana is akin to prohibition. Once you make something legal, it will almost be impossible to make it illegal again. With marijuana, it was better to keep it as one of those illegal substances. You’re not going to make that much money on it, you will send a message that an addictive narcotic is ok to use and when people start getting low on cash, they’re just going back to the person that sells it cheaper, the person on the corner without the overhead. The narcotrafficantes, that’s Spanish for scumbag smugglers, are aware that all you’re doing is letting people, that might have not used prior, get a taste of their product. These guys are buying stores and putting up fake licenses to sell and never pay a dime in taxes and they are underselling the real businesses, So, ATF or MATF, you have work to do.

This is just my opinion. I thought that weed and automatic machine guns should be viewed the same, item non grata. Also, I believe that you would make more money confiscating illegally obtained funds with drug busts then you would from the taxation of legalizing the wacky tobacky.

Immigration, It Isn’t For Everyone.

The Current immigration debate has Americans has us pitting against one another. The fears that our country will be overrun by illegal immigrants and

Immigration

that our society will unravel has many people concerned. The current administration  has taken a hard stance on illegal immigrants. They have chosen stricter enforcement and to treat each instance as an attack on our freedoms. I, respectfully, disagree

with their stance. I understand that there are laws in place and that those laws are meant for the better welfare of our country and that no one, no matter who you are, is above the law. The question I have is, if those laws are meant to justify our societies actions then why are they not being followed as it was designed to do. Illegal immigration, or entering the country without permission is not a felony. In other words, the crime they have committed under 8 USC 1325 is less than driving under the influence. Most cases are handled administratively, unless you committed another crime that is more serious, and hardly any see, well… used to see, the inside of a jail. These people are still citizens, albeit illegal, while they are inside our borders. According to the Supreme Court, our nations highest court, illegal citizens have the same right to due process as anyone here legally. Would you separate a family who committed a misdemeanor and traumatize children for a crime that doesn’t rate more than 6 months in jail? The most likely scenario would be to keep the mother with the children, incarcerate the father, if necessary and have them appear in court or immediate departure for the whole family. In other words, the Justice Department can reason that safety for the children is more important than incarceration for a misdemeanor. Can’t they?

I get taking a hard stance when a caravan of people come to your border and defy your warnings but how harsh does your stance have to be? Of course, this is just my opinion, Immigration 1but I feel that you can house the mothers with the children and separate the dads, if a separation needs to be done. If you look at it, what you did is incarcerate everyone separately, for a crime as dumb as and equal to driving without a license. That is an extreme and hard line to take. Extreme, most fitting this scenario. Maybe we should explore the reason why people immigrate in the first place and why we were tolerant of those that did.

Illegal immigration is usually a financial crime in disguise. People come here to make money and send it home to their families so they can survive. Some people say that we shouldn’t be burdened with their countries inability to provide for their citizens but the truth is that we already have decided to help those countries. We send money to third world countries all the time to try and help. We send resources and we try and stave off dictatorships and promote democracy. That’s what America does. To say that we shouldn’t and that we should let those country’s democracy fail is a big mistake because eventually dictatorships will erode our country. America and and other democracies are aware of what happens when dictatorships, i.e. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and some other countries, take hold. It leads to crazy rulers deciding that they want a little more and start invading other countries, i.e. Iraq/Kuwait. Their thirst for power is never quenched and they will always pose a threat. So, illegal immigration from democracies, while not want we want, helps us in that battle, at least little. We can’t provide enough money to other countries to become like us, we can provide a little help, and if illegal immigrants sometimes make it across the border and work in jobs that Americans will not then where is the actual harm in that misdemeanor. I’m not saying to let them in, I’m saying that we should focus on the carp’s or criminal alien requiring prison, or aliens that have violent felonies and are returning or have returned into our country not people that have never done anything and because of someone’s biased views decided to call ICE and have them deported.

This doesn’t mean that we should let them run wild through our borders but that if they do slip through, then let them deliver the pizza, let them serve you your food and drinks, let them help you build your home, let them care for your children, let them make a living to help us help them (because in this country those are unfortunately the only jobs they would be able to pursue with proper paperwork) like we already do and if they screw up, they already know, paycheck is gone, money that you were sending home is gone, and your gone. This is the win win scenario, at least to me. The bible says help thy neighbor and you will be rewarded in heaven, or something like that. I’ve learned the hard way that the Justice Department can choose which case to prosecute and which cases they can choose to defer for later review, I think that choosing to turn the other cheek in matters where it doesn’t harm us is alright, maybe even better than alright, humane. But if we do choose to do that, then we must treat them like we treat each other. We can’t become savages and make demands that are unreasonable, that’s why I don’t believe in sanctuary cities or 100% enforcement of some laws. I believe in a moderation. Those two scenarios don’t quite fit the bill. As an Airman in the Air Force, while working as a Security Police officer, I have given another airman a ride home when he was borderline on the Field Sobriety Test. I knew that they wouldn’t be able to reenlist and that maybe they were drunk but decided that because that being a few hundred yards from home, just the warning would be enough. I would just drive them there and then give them their keys. We’re not robots you know, we can empathize.

While I don’t like extremism of any kind, I believe that sanctuary cities are an extreme reaction to an extreme action. We have to be careful and should start a dialog before extreme becomes the norm, like school shootings. Another thing is, have any of the advocates for immigration tried to consult with AG concerning the separation of families and if they have, did they ask nicely. The AG is not breaking the law, he’s doing it by the book so taking a hard opposite stance is not going to work. You have to ask if he is amnenable to letting the mother’s stay with the children. Since his actions are not wrong you have to present your counterpoint in a way that makes sense and you have to be respectful. In the end, it’s his decision.

 

 

Freedom of The Press: Keep America Safe by buying a newspaper.

freedom of the press

The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads as follows; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Being that this is the first amendment, our founding fathers thought that these particular rights were very important for the success of a democratic nation to succeed. Those were their first thoughts and inclinations on what was needed to establish a free society. That was why the most important war fought in our country’s history, the revolutionary war, was all about. I have a tremendous amount of respect for news organizations. They are, in many ways, the bedrock of our great society. They inform the masses of factual events and raise awareness to injustices that would threaten those freedoms. How important is a free press? To a democracy, it’s as important as breathing. But it isn’t enough for a press to be free, it also has to be fair and accurate. How important is a fair and accurate press, to the people that make up the democracy, well, not to sound redundant, but it’s as important as breathing.

When the American settlers decided to form their own government and break from, what they saw as, an oppressive monarchy, they had certain realizations in mind. Those realizations, the first ten amendments as well as the preamble to the constitution, weregeorge washington thought of and written in a time when their human and civil rights had been discarded and just regained. They were written when monarchies made the rule of law and decided what was best for everyone. They, the king or queen, would decide what was best for the people and they would also decide what information the people should know, what religion the people should practice, what they can utter in public and if they were allowed to protest. If anyone decided to disagree with them, they would be jailed, tortured or executed.

One of the greatest philosophers of our time and the person that most influenced our Constitution, John Locke (I’m an Immanuel Kant fan myself), was very aware of what

john locke
John Locke

tyrannical monarchies could do and wrote the Two Treatises of Government. Not to go to in depth about his works right now, it pretty much said that people should pick who governs, for which the monarchy exiled him and would later try and blame an attempted assassination of the king on his works. His only fault was that he wrote something that he felt was right and true, that all people are created equal. We would later find out that he only meant people that looked like him but the point is that he distributed these treatises and would later be punished for his views. He had no idea of knowing that those treatises would be the principles that formed our government today. The one that he did not write, the one that he, himself, openly demonstrated was the right to express your views as well as publicize them.

James Madison is credited as being the architect of the first amendment. His thoughts were that if he had to choose between a free government or a free press, that a free press was more important. John Adams, our second President, didn’t agree. He would enact a

james madison
James Madison

Sedition Act that could arrest press members if they wrote anything that was not true. The Sedition act would be repealed after he left office. What these Presidents knew, and every President from George Washington to our current President, have had to contend with is that the press, with the release of information, empowered the people, for information, factual information, is power. Ask the NSA, they are an agency built around that very motto. They don’t exactly agree with the dissemination of that information but they love gathering it. They’re the tight lipped relative that hears all the secrets but never tells anyone.

The importance of investigative journalism is detailed in an essay by former Managing Editor of the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser. He discusses the importance of a free press

woodward and berstein
Woodward and Berstein

in his latest Bookings Essay. How powerful is the press, it brought down a President, Nixon (1972, Woodward and Bernstein expose Watergate), it forces lawmakers to enact laws, the civil rights laws (tv news coverage of the atrocities happening), it fights corruption (1902, Ida Tarbell profiles J.D.  Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Co.), it fight sexual harassment and inequality (2017, #me too movement and 1992, Florence Graves reveals sexual misconduct in Congress), it fights government overreach (1953, Murrey Marder dogs Sen Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt and 2013, NSA Surveillance on American Citizens). When it comes to politics, some organizations seem more like lobbyists then reporters, you just have to read both sides and see where the similarities are and where they differ to get the truth, but most outlets report facts when it comes to the above mentioned items. The press is as necessary to free society as oxygen is to living, there I go again, being redundant.

True journalism, not the barbie and ken dolls that get on TV and tell you what outfits to wear, but true journalism like the Woodward’s and Bernstein’s, Dan Rather’s, Daphne Caruan Galizia (Killed in a car bomb 10/2017), Eliah Lovejoy (anti-slavery abolitionist killed by angry mob 11/1837), Irving W. Carson (killed covering the civil war 4/1862),

freedom of press rating
Do you notice that the one’s that are orange and below are countries that you would never want to live in.

Walter Ligget (drive by shooting while reporting about mafia and political associations 12/1935), Don Bolles (car bomb while reporting about organized crime 6/1976), Manuel de dios Unanue (assassinated by Colombian drug cartel while reporting on the cartel’s activities 3/1992), Chauncey Bailey (shot dead on a Downtown Oakland street on August 2, 2007, the victim of a crime syndicate he was investigating for a story) is what this country is made of.

They’re not all dead, nor do they have to die to be a true journalist, some are still living;

  • Eric Lipton of The New York Times

    For reporting that showed how the influence of lobbyists can sway congressional leaders and state attorneys general, slanting justice toward the wealthy and connected.

  • Eric Eyre of Charleston Gazette-Mail, Charleston, WV

    For courageous reporting, performed in the face of powerful opposition, to expose the flood of opioids flowing into depressed West Virginia counties with the highest overdose death rates in the country.

  • Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eileen Sullivan and Chris Hawley of the Associated Press

    For their spotlighting of the New York Police Department’s clandestine spying program that monitored daily life in Muslim communities, resulting in congressional calls for a federal investigation, and a debate over the proper role of domestic intelligence gathering.

  • David Barstow of The New York Times

    For his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.

  • Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith of The Washington Post

    For their indefatigable probe of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff that exposed congressional corruption and produced reform efforts.

There’s more but I’m a blogger, not an author. Without these people, none of these issues would have been addressed, may I add at great peril to their safety and security. It isn’t easy telling the government that they are wrong, they don’t take it well, not well at all, trust me, I know.  Now, I know that some TV journalists have to fill their hour up, ratings matter so they can break these stories that are necessary, and I applaud them because I know that they want to hit the system hard with that they see wrong, they give you the fashion ten minute review so later then can give you a breaking news story. I don’t mean to degrade anyone.

Can we, today, invest in a journalistic magazine, buy an online subscription to a credible news source, not mine, a real one, keep America safe by buying a newspaper, trust me, you’ll thank me in the long run. By the way, I’m a fan of propublica, they make everyone look bad. Check out their site.

 

Legalizing Steroids

SteoidsThere has been a lot of talk about legalizing marijuana in the past few days. Talks of who supports the laws and who opposes them. News of people taking a stand and how that would hurt their electability in public office. Stats on how much revenue the sale of the narcotic would bring and how many people would be employed by this industry, if only the powers to be would let it thrive. But that’s it, it’s the revenue that really matters. Money is an alluring Muse that transcends all boundaries. It doesn’t matter your gender, race, sexual preference, age or disability, this allure does not discriminate. It makes people do things that they wouldn’t dream of doing otherwise. There’s a show based on that premise, Fear Factor, wait… there’s another one, The Amazing Race,… still some more Bachelor, Big Brother, Survivor…. just plug in any reality show name there and you get the picture. All these people are doing crazy, outlandish things for money. the end result is that you want the prize that lays at the end of that neurotic syndication and the more neurotic you are, the better chance of you winning that prize. Money. What do they say about money…. “it takes money to make money”… no that’s not it, “a fool and his money are soon departed”..true but not the one I was looking for…..got it…”Money is the root of all evil”, it’s actually “The love of money is the root of all evil”. When all you can say about a product is that it will make you money, then you are lost. you are no good for a civil society that should cherish other virtues over money. If you want to tout a product that is currently illegal to buy over the counter and only used for medicinal purposes, then tell me what good it’s going to do. How will this product improve life? How will it help? In the curious case of marijuana legalization, there really isn’t a way to do that. There is one product that you can legalize, make a crap load of revenue on and it actually helps people, with way less negative side effects than marijuana. It’s testosterone and human growth hormones.

The fact about getting old is that no one really wants to. We all want to stay young and in shape and live a productive life. Love our significant others forever, I’m talking about libido ofcourse, and feel as young as possible. Aging is difficult for some and easier for others. It all depends on your past habits of eating right and exercising. There’s an old saying in boxing, the only true undefeated fighter in boxing is father time. We all get to that point where we aren’t the person we used to be, but how about if we can slow down the aging process. Would you be interested?

Louis v Schmelling
24 year old Joe Louis knocking out Max Schmelling for the Heavyweight crown
Marciano v Louis
37 year old Joe Louis getting knocked out by Rocky Marciano for the heavyweight crown

 

So, which person would you rather be, the one getting knocked out or the person doing the knocking out, figuratively, not literally.

Facts on anti-aging hormones differ depending on who you talk to. Some doctors will tell you that using these products will only lead to destruction of your regular hormonal balance and will eventually create more harm than good while other say that, if used properly and not abused, then the side effects are minimal and the positive results far outweigh any negative result. Let’s be real for a second. I want you to choose, in my right hand I have a marijuana cigarette, it will get you high, you will laugh a lot, you will eat a lot, you will get nothing done, you will eat again, you will beef up… not in the right way because potato chip are all carbs and you will eventually pass out. In my left hand, I have a bottle of anti-aging product, you will feel great, you will go for a run, you will be productive, you will get things done, you will have energy to play with your kids, you will socialize, you will go for another run and then you will pass out, from exhaustion because you did so many things. Which would you rather have?

Let us talk about the revenue. the big hype in legalizing marijuana is the revenue it will bring. Do Anti-aging products bring in just as much? Anti-aging products are said to bring 191.7 billion dollars globally. What!?!?!? And that’s just anti-wrinkle cream and botox and things of that nature. What do you think will happen when you give them something they can actually use in their bodies to help things like osteoporosis, which is a by-product of the slowly withering testosterone in both men and women. So there you go, not only did I just give you a better selling item, I linked it to a positive side effect that it will actually provide. It helps other diseases as well like obesity, depression, joint pain and cardio vascular disease as testostserone is linked to the build up of fatty plaque in your circulatory system. Keep in mind that I’m talking about reasonable usage not Schwarzenegger levels.

Steroids 1
Moderatation
Steroids 2
Moderation

Moderation is key, in both men and women. You would have to get your blood levels checked yearly and not exceed the recommended amounts for your sex.

 

 

 

 

The problem in anti-aging, as in marijuana, is the tendency to abuse the product. This where you would have to make sure that you regulate the product by pre packaging it in a ready to go hypodermic and allow only one per customer. If not, well then you can look like this.

steroid abuse lady
maybe a smidge too much

The goal is to be fit and happy, not bench press a car or in the case of the person below, to become that big where going to the bathroom might prove difficult.

steroid abuse
Could be that he abused the product a little

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right now, there is no movement to legalize these hormones. There should be, if used properly, it could create a better way of living.  Mind you. I’m blogging, I’m not a doctor but I researched these facts from credible sources like CDC website and webmd that is ran by the mayo clinic, not steroid sites. Those sites also say that prolonged use of these products will eventually lead to a number of difficulties. This is why it’s important to educate yourself on how they work and realize that you should take time off from using them to give your body a rest. But this is true for all drugs, including marijuana. Eventually using these products will shorten your life span. Not using them will probably allow you to live 10 years longer. So, if your were planning on doing a ton of things between the ages of 82 to 92, then you should probably not use these items. If you weren’t, then maybe it’s the right product for you. Mind you, I’m only putting this out as an alternative to legalizing marijuana.