THIS IS IMPORTANT! Listen to this and consider the implications.
H/t Pistol Pete
THIS IS IMPORTANT! Listen to this and consider the implications.
H/t Pistol Pete
They’re LAW SCHOOL students! I have to wonder if the University of Michigan Law School requires future lawyers to be potty trained before matriculating.
Notice how he assumes that Congress will vote that he IS flouting the law? He knows he is; he just doesn’t care. And why should he? Ever since he got into office, he has flouted the law, betrayed our trust with lie after lie after lie … and gotten away with it every single time!
A majority of Americans oppose Obama’s actions. We proved that when we elected a Republican majority to Congress.
But we don’t have a veto-proof majority. Plus, the senior Republican leadership are RINOs who roll over whenever their Democrat massahs want something badly enough. I strongly suspect the Progressives who are really running the show have blackmail-worthy files on every one of them.
Even more pertinent, we don’t have the media.
How did this all go so wrong so fast?
My personal belief is that it wasn’t fast. Satan’s been preparing for the destruction of America for the past 100 years and he’s about to succeed. Our nation has been the greatest force for freedom on the planet; it’s destruction is essential before Anti-Christ can force all nations into his One World Government.
Please get yourself right with God this Lent.
The Rapture is going to be very soon and you do NOT want to be left behind.
Very shortly before He sacrificed Himself for our salvation, Jesus said, “All the tribes of the earth will … see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” Matthew 24:30-31
The U.S. Constitution requires the combined agreement of the House, the Senate and the President to make, change or strike down a law. The only one of these three that can be ignored is the last one; if the President vetoes a law, Congress can still pass it, if there are enough votes. But nothing, Nothing, NOTHING gives any president the right to unilaterally make, change or strike down a law. The law may be the law, but the Obama administration is still going to appeal the injunction and try to force King Obama’s decree on us. The case will now move to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Ted Cruz on The Kelly File
This is a very honest look at the problem of black crime. Sadly, it is written by someone who obviously hasn’t managed to see past his own “liberal” self-identification to discern the true cause. The blacks he describes below are people he encounters in his work, people who have embraced the violence and lies and sin that the deeply racist liberal left has promulgated. They are not people like Ben Carson, who was raised by a single mother in a ghetto, but who rejected those values and embraced what the Gospel of Jesus truly teaches.
Confessions of a Public Defender By Michael Smith – May 9, 2014
I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.
I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.
As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.
The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.
Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.
When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.
A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.
At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.
Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.
Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.
The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.
Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.
Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.
Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.
The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.
If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many black are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.
This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.
My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”
As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.
Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.
Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.
The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.
The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some – and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp – don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person – me – who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.
Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.
The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.
If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.
From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.
At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”
I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.
My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.
However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.
I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.
Planned Parenthood Sued for Doing Abortion on Raped 13-Year-Old, Returning Her to Rapist
by Deborah Myers | Denver, CO | LifeNews.com | 7/11/14 10:40 AM
Smith v. Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood
As far as I can tell, the answer to that is no! NOTE: I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know? However, I did some research after a reader asked the question and, so far as I can tell, the government doesn’t have any right to dictate what name or logo a company uses. It can only refuse to offer trademark protection from the start.
In 1992, a group of Native Americans sued the Trademark Office for ever issuing the Redskins team trademark protection at all. Their case rested on historical evidence that the name was an ethnic slur at the time of the application. In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board found in their favor, rescinding the team’s trademark protection based on evidence from dictionaries and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups. The team appealed and won in federal court on a technicality that the Native Americans say they’ve fixed. The Trademark Board has just renewed their original decision and the team says it will appeal again.
I found an article at Harvard Law explaining trademark law @ https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm. The purpose of trademarks appears to be to protect the rights of businesses to own and control their names and logos. The Redskins can use their name and logo with or without trademark protection, but without it, the courts will not protect them from other people selling Redskins knock-offs.
I think you’ve got a conundrum right there. If a name and/or logo actually is offensive, then why would anyone WANT to use it for their business or their knock-offs? Unless maybe a whole lot of folks don’t agree or else don’t care. The problem for those who are denied trademark protection is that anything they spend on advertising or research and development can be hijacked by copy cats. The Redskins make big bucks off their souvenir products; they don’t want anyone else legally cutting into their profits.
The Harvard law article doesn’t discuss grounds for denial of a trademark application, but Section 6, “Can trademark rights be lost?”, lists only three causes for a business losing a trademark that has been accepted.
The intent in all three cases appears to be freeing up a trademark that has lost its trademarkiness so other people can use it. The first two would only happen if the owner of the trademark stopped caring or screwed up. The third would only happen if the owner sued and the court found in favor of the defendant on the grounds of genericity.
In the case of a trademark acquiring a “disparaging” meaning as a result of changes in the culture, I believe it would be up to the owner to decide to abandon the trademark, not up to the government to snatch it away.
Keep in mind that I only read a couple articles on-line. I could have all or part of this wrong. What I don’t think I have wrong is that the Senate Majority Leader should not be spending time on an issue that is working its way through the courts … unless maybe he’d already finished all the work he’s actually getting paid to do, like passing a federal budget or bringing House-passed legislation to the Senate floor for discussion and vote.
This thing reminds me of the Gates arrest incident back in the summer of 2009. First, Obama and the media blew it up into a RAACIST Police Brutality story. Then, the cops got to tell their side of the story, which was they had followed procedure and been treated like crap by the very guy they were trying to HELP. I’m not saying police never use their authority to misbehave. I know they do. But we should be cautious about tar and feathering them when we don’t have the facts.
On Thursday morning, Austin police appear to arbitrarily pick on, abuse, handcuff and arrest an innocent little jogger. A guy who was across the street having coffee took video and photos, then posted a story critical of the cops @ http://chlorineoverdose.blogspot.com/2014/02/student-arrested-for-crossing-street.html.
Austin Police Department Chief Art Acevedo said that, in the past five years, there have been 96 deaths and 1,757 injuries related to drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians ignoring traffic laws.
In light of this, the APD initiated an effort to improve compliance with traffic signals, cross walks etc. by issuing tickets to drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians who ignore them.
This week, the APD focused on pedestrians jay-walking and crossing against the lights. On Thursday, 28 pedestrains had been stopped and seven citations had been issued. “Our goal is to change behavior, and not necessarily to write tickets or take people to jail,” Acevedo said.
Acevedo said, “All that young lady had to do when she was asked for her information was to provide it by law. Instead of doing that, she decided to throw [herself] to the ground – officers didn’t sit her down – and she did the limp routine.”
According to Acevedo, Stephen was handcuffed after telling the officer not to touch her. Acevedo said the public outcry following the arrest did not faze him.
“I’d rather have everybody angry at me and my officers, then to see a young person lose their life needlessly,” Acevedo said. “I’d rather be up here talking about this, than going to our 97th fatality involving a pedestrian or 1800th injury involving a pedestrian.”