Archive for law

What Man in His Right Mind Wants Four More Wives?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

polygamy

Of course, it's a question best posed for Orthodox Utah.

It's a great article, at Addicting Info, catch it all here, but these excerpts are a little scary. The Church of the Latter Day Saint$ has a whole lotta' growing up to do before they are truly inclusive.

Utah’s attorney general said Wednesday he was considering an appeal of a U.S. federal judge’s ruling that declared part of Utah’s bigamy law unconstitutional and which sided with the star of reality television show “Sister Wives” and his four wives.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes’ office said in a statement that attorneys were reviewing the ruling and could file an appeal in coming weeks.

josephsmithfhfhfh

Now I followed Big Love rather religiously when it ran through HBO the first time, and as much crazy that went on on that program, truth is always stranger than fiction. Hands down.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups on Wednesday finalized a December ruling that struck down a section of the law that bars consenting adults from living together in a romantic arrangement and criminalizes their intimate sexual relationships.

hellosir

And could you imagine the alimony figures? The Mormons are a 'plainer' people historically, but I think I'd wager that the Roman Catholic Church could go toe to toe for assets.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

President Obama Stumping For the Middle Class in Kansas City #StopHatin

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

oz we're not in kansas any more
So what has the GOP done for you lately? Obama himself pointed out that the only thing Congress seems to be producing right now is rancor and obstructionism.

President Obama hit it out of the hypothetical park in Kansas City, calling for the GOP to do Something. Anything. "Work with me!"

And that this lawsuit business is but a "political stunt'.

Something about Kansas (the BBQ?) had really relaxed the under-siege, in the crosshairs of the current Congressional litigious 'acting out' … liturgy after liturgy after bloody liturgy.

IQ

President Obama had some quips that will stay with you.

KCTV5

"I know they're not that happy that I'm president, but that's OK," he said. "Come on. I've only got a couple of years left. Come on, let's get some work done. Then you can be mad at the next president."

johnO

E.J. Dionne explained today that issue goes beyond "the open demands for throwing Obama out from Sarah Palin, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Tex.) and many others on the right wing. The deeper problem lies in the proliferation of loose impeachment talk linked with one overheated anti-Obama charge after another."

Jonathan Capehart expressed the absurdity with such aplomb and wit it's worth the whole read.

The plan all along has been to crash the Obama agenda and then climb on top of the wreckage and seize power. Not only are Republicans complicit in the “failures” they rail against, but they are also the reason the president has had to resort to executive action to get some things done. Even Will agrees Obama is within his authority to do this. He just doesn’t like the degree to which he has done it. Poor dear.

President Obama did a memorable job of telling us precisely what he thought of the Regressive Right's foaming at the mouth and ability to simply make shite up.

richard-nixon-not-crook

 

Stop Hatin'. Finally, President Obama said what he truly thought of the post-Tea Party idiocy, with just the proper soupçon of sarcastic … was pretty damned proud we elected this guy, twice.

Time for the Tea Party to pack up and ride on home.

turn_off_fox_news_anti_fox_news_bumper_sticker-r8d67ea0ba69d4d61844af13038d133e1_v9wht_8byvr_512

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Pedophile Pastor's Most Amazing Apology -- You Don't Say

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

TV Quiz Show

Years ago there used to be daytime game shows on every network. They were a staple item, so to speak. It was soaps, gamers and an occasional talk show -- Mike Douglas and Merv Griffin come to mind.

One of the very popular audience participation shows -- the technical name for game shows in that era -- was one called, "YOU DON'T SAY." Its concept was to get your partner to say a famous persons name based on clues. These clues were discerned when the player left off the last word of the sentence. From that the partner had to guess a famous name. An example. "The head of a college or university is usually referred to as the (blank). The hope is the partner would answer dean and then they would guess Dean Martin. Pretty simple stuff. Leaving off the last word was the gimmick of YOU DON'T SAY.

The point of the story is that the host of the show, first Jack Barry and later Tom Kennedy, would begin show with the immortal words, "It's not what you say that counts, it's what YOU DON'T SAY."

Well, perhaps this show has been brought back and you didn't know it. But from the feverish rantings against the Christian Journal, some people have gotten the memo.

From Raw Story comes this headline:

Ex-youth Pastor Describes Felony Sex Crimes as Extramarital ‘Friendship’ in Christian Journal

The clue here are the words, extramarital friendship when used to describe a pedophile rape.

The story goes on to talk about the apology letter the convicted youth pastor wrote and was printed online at the Christian Journal. It drew such ire that a hashtag was set up and used by hundreds of Twitter users urging Leadership Journal, which is published by Christianity Today, to #TakeDownThisPost.

What's got all of these folks in an uproar? Well, despite a 2,540 word essay of apology, the convicted child sex offending pastor neglected to mention the words "rape," “crime,” “law,” “statutory,” or “illegal.” Imagine an apology of 2,540 words and somehow none of the truly descriptive nouns or adjectives made their way into this essay?

How do you apologize for committing the illegal crime of statutory rape on a child which is obviously against the law without using those words. See, I used all of those words in one sentence. I didn't need 2000+ to do it.

And that's what got me thinking. Maybe this pastor is auditioning to be a contestant on the return of YOU DON'T SAY.

He's certainly got the concept down -- it's not what you say that counts, it's what you don't say. Where's that Tom Kennedy when you need him?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

That Massive GOP Elephant in the Womb Lumbers Into Kansas. Agin'.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

GOP

Written by guest contributor, "hardybear" of the wonderful Free Range Talk site:

I don't know about the rest of you liberal dames and the gents who honorably defend us, but I've had ENOUGH of the GOP slash TeaNut asshattery standing their ground in our collective uterus.

Regressives have found a deep pocket of flat-lander Teabangelical cray cray in the great state of Kansas, and it spikes as high on the Boots On the Necks of Women Scale of Shame as tyrannical old white men can aspire to. [Hang onto your knickers ladies, they are about to get an Atomic Twist.]

Image, Alternet

 

TJWomenVotingRepublicanIn this scarifying corner of the American heartland, the conservative attack on women, our lady parts and modernity in general has limboed to a new low. Meet House Bill 2613, which will force every woman who has just suffered the agony of a miscarriage to get the stillborn fetus an official Birth Certificate to provide to the nearest Sugar Daddy in Gub'Mint. [The ones the Regressives want out of their lives but into women's vaginas.]

Alternet does their level best to explain this latest insult to our intelligence. Excerpts below.

House Bill 2613 was an attempt to give grieving families the opportunity to obtain a “certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth” rather than a certificate of death. And that’s all it was supposed to do. GOP Rep. John Doll hoped that the bill wouldn’t become embroiled in his party’s fight over abortion. But one Senate Republican couldn’t let the legislation pass without turning it into a threat against women across the state.

Cagle Cartoons

Cagle Cartoons

Frank Bleeping Baum wouldn't recognize Kansas. They don't leave it there, oh no -- time to persecute and prosecute women for miscarrying.

Breeding is their purpose for breathing, after all. [And if abortion is banned, you know those loose women and their crazy libidos are going to self-Abort- Abort-Abort.] 

In short, the bill would force doctors to report women who have a miscarriage to the state. They would have their names entered into a database that state officials could use as a tool to go on witch hunts. The privacy of these women would be violated. The nightmare scenario is that women would be investigated by the state and could be arrested and jailed for miscarriages. Such a law would undoubtedly cause many women to not seek medical attention.

Image, thishistorictimes.com

Image, thishistorictimes.com

Every woman with an un-White-Washed brain is clicking her heels in increasing desperation. Listen hard, you can hear them ... and we cannot let down the dames in the sickest Red states, fellow libs. The midterms are vital.

Vote these tyrannical asses out of our vaginas. There's entirely too much unsolicited traffic in here already ladies, and we need to take back our own ports of authority and shut some tunnels down like Chris Christie was paying us overtime to.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

What Is The Purpose of Prison, Punishment Or Rehabilitation?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Prisonw398h248

Why do we send people to prison? One reason is punishment for committing a crime. Another is to rehabilitate those who committed the wrongdoing. What good is locking someone up if they're just going to come out and commit the same or worse crimes? And so, that leads me to this report from ABC News 10 San Diego:

The part that interests me is the rehabilitation part of incarceration. If someone does time and then gets out of the slammer and commits another crime, then their initial stay behind bars was a failure in my eyes. We paid to feed, clothe and house them. Then we send them out to re-commit those crimes or maybe worse, new crimes they learned about while behind bars. In that case, we got nothing in return but more crime. So we didn't do our job.

Now you take Judy Lynn Hayman. She was 23 years old when she escaped from a Midwestern prison 37 years ago. Yesterday she was captured in San Diego where she lived a crime free life for THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS.

Hayman pleaded guilty in June 1976 to a larceny charge in Wayne County, Mich., and was sentenced to serve between 16 months and two years in custody, according to prison officials there.

Ten months later, she escaped from the Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility. She remained a fugitive until this week, using various aliases.

Let's consider whatever she did was wrong, non-violent, but wrong. She pleaded guilty and served 10 months time -- perhaps enough for her particular non-violent crime of larceny. Unfortunately, her sentence was for a minimum of 16 months, so her early departure wasn't condoned.

Prison was too barbaric and cruel to her. She felt she was ready to reintegrate into society as a law abiding citizen. She couldn't take it any longer and she took a huge chance and broke out. We may think she was free, but think again.

She lived not only the remainder of her sentence but the ensuing 35 or so years constantly looking over her shoulder, the fear of being discovered and re-apprehended for who she really was, an escaped con. That's a hefty weight to bear. Living in fear can be even more of a punishment than a physical prison.

During that time she gave birth to, raised and supported a son -- he's living crime free so obviously she was a good and strong influence on him and his character or he'd be doing time in a cell like his mom once did.

The point is not whether this woman was right in escaping, but what to do with her now? Should she be charged with unlawful escape and add that onto her prior sentence or should we look at what the purpose was in incarcerating her to start with? She was to be punished, granted. And she did serve 10 months, basically 2/3's of her minimum sentence. But hasn't she proved by her exemplary existence after her escape that she had learned her lesson? Aren't those 30 plus years living in fear worth some credit?

judy-hayman-jpg

I hope the Michigan justice system will take into consideration what for and why they sentence people to jail. I'd prefer a woman or man who's rehabilitated be back on the streets than someone who's served their term and reverts to recidivism. Prison isn't a good environment under any circumstances. Yet it does serve a purpose. But sometimes correctional institutions (notice the word correctional and not punishment) don't do their job. Maybe they did with Judy Lynn Hayman. She's proven she's learned the lesson of her bad ways. I'm hoping Michigan can see that and take it into consideration. We'll see.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

How Far Should Diplomatic Immunity Reach

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

DPL plates

When I was growing up I took a trip with my older brother to New York City. While we were walking around and seeing the sights, I noticed for the first time a license plate that had the "DPL" imprinted on it. I had never seen that before, growing up in the suburbs of Boston. I wasn't exactly a rube, but I wasn't big city either -- at least at that time.

So my big bro pointed out that the initials indicated that these cars belonged to people in the diplomatic corps. They had immunity and could break the law at will and even flaunt it. That was my brother's take and he even pointed out that the DPL car we were looking at was parked in a red zone.

From that time forward, through my years living in major cities, I've noticed lots of DPL cars and maybe not surprisingly, they always were parked in no parking zones or with time expired on the meters. I guess that's because they don't have to pay to park like the rest of us.

My interest was piqued when I caught this on Reuters:

In New York, Devyani Khobragade, a deputy consul general at the Indian Consulate in New York, was arrested on December 12 on charges of visa fraud and underpaying her housekeeper, an Indian national. She was released on a $250,000 bail.

In an email to colleagues, Khobragade complained of "repeated handcuffing, stripping and cavity searches, swabbing" and being detained in a holding cell with petty criminals despite her "incessant assertions of immunity".

In essence, this deputy consul was keeping an illegal slave. Let's just be honest here. And when she was subjected to the same treatment as the rest of Americans, her arrogance and immunity took over. She was demanding to be treated better than anyone else.

Maybe my brother was right. Being a diplomat means you can do anything to anyone and get away with any crime, large or small. That may be the way the government sees things, but if the NSA is going to eavesdrop on our calls and emails, maybe they need the power to hold possible criminals who are harboring sleeper cells on our soil.

I'm not saying Khobragade is running a sleeper cell or that her "slave" was a terrorist. But they could be. And this also could all be just one big misunderstanding. But we need to look at what diplomatic immunity really means. Can you come over here, kill an American citizen and just go back to your home country? Actually yes. And it's happened before with Soviet drunk drivers killing pedestrians and all they got was expelled back to their country. The dead victims didn't get to go home. They got planted six feet under. No charges were levied.

Readers Digest wrote about this:

Diplomatic immunity affords foreign diplomats in America a blank check for bad behavior. Unpaid bills, drunk driving, sex crimes and even slavery - what's the recourse?

In early 2005, Virginia police closed in on a suspected child predator — a man in his 40s who cops say drove four hours to meet a 13-year-old girl he’d met on the Internet, promising to teach her about sex. It turned out the girl was really a cop, and officers arrested the man at a shopping mall.

But then it was the police who got an unpleasant surprise. Their suspect, Salem Al-Mazrooei, was a diplomat from the United Arab Emirates — and therefore covered by “diplomatic immunity.” The cops had to let him go. Days later, Al-Mazrooei left the country, never having spent a night in jail.

Now back to the current crisis. The government of India has it tighty-whities all up in a bunch. They're taking retaliatory steps against the US embassy in India. They've taken down the protective barricades which keep our diplomatic corps over there safe.

The measures included a revision of work conditions of Indians employed at U.S. consulates and a freeze on the import of duty-free alcohol.

You know they mean business when they freeze the import of duty-free alcohol.

It's about time we get real here. Respect and privacy are one thing to grant visiting dignitaries. But freedom to overtly break our human rights laws, to become general parking scofflaws and to commit horrific human crimes is not above the law for us, or for them.

So India, spend a bit more time thinking about why you're defending a slave holder and less on making the US presence on your land less safe.

And Obama -- maybe you need to get John Kerry off the plane a little longer to look at the way we are protecting law breakers here under the guise of diplomatic immunity.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

You Say Tomato And I Say 'You're Stupid'

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

tomato tomahto

Tomato, tomahto, potato, potahto, let's call the whole thing off. Thank you Gershwin brothers. Great song and so appropriate for this little expose.

Well, when we're talking about the Affordable Care Act, we're not going to call anything off. We'll tweek, fix, expand and provide coverage to all, but it's not now nor will it in the future be going away. And to borrow from another Gershwin classic, "our ACA's here to stay."

It's with nothing short of amazement that I've read the recent outrageous claims the Republican party are making about the ACA law. First they didn't like it despite it being their own plan. They they voted against it 45 or so times. After that they shut the government down over it. They followed that up with criticism and obstruction on the faulty rollout -- like none of their plans (like they've had any) have never faced a rocky start. Okay, give them this one -- the rollout was a disaster -- but the rollout wasn't the law. It was the delivery service.

That argument about the rollout is like blaming UPS when a package you were expecting didn't arrive or came damaged or late. It wasn't the fault of the contents of the package. It was the delivery service. Who you hired for the delivery service may have been a mistake, but your product didn't change. It was still as strong as when it was shipped.

After figuring that out once the website started running relatively well, the GOP nay-sayers needed another argument. So this one became, Obamacare is part of the war on women.

Oh yes, the pot calling the kettle black. The misogynist party went to some genius Republican strategist to concoct this one. Fight fire with fire, so to speak. Only the Democrats have flame throwers to the GOP's flicking their bic in this argument.

Here's the GOP's new take on the Democratic ACA law as voiced by Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), a nurse who serves as the chairwoman of the Republican Women’s Policy Committee. (Somewhat surprising that the GOP didn't pick a male nurse, so let's give them points for trying with dear, sweet but used, Renee.)

HUFFPO:

“If you want to talk about a ‘war on women,’ look no further than this healthcare law,” Ellmers countered in the weekly address. “After all, it’s often women who make the healthcare decisions for our families.  We put a lot of time and thought into these choices and how they’ll affect our budgets. So by canceling your insurance – despite a promise to let you keep your plan – the Obama administration is essentially saying it knows what’s best for you and your family.”

Let that digest a moment. Okay, that's long enough. No reason to wallow in the stupidity of those remarks very long.

This inanity drew a rather pointed and fact-based response from Ashley Etienne, Nancy Pelosi's spokesperson. Nancy undoubtedly was too dumbfounded to even utter a reply.

"This pathetic attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act is a profound insult to the intelligence of women across this country," she said.

"Under the Affordable Care Act insurance companies cannot charge women more than men for health insurance coverage, and hundreds of thousands of women are now enjoying access to preventive care, like breast and cervical screenings. The question before House Republicans is why they're trying so desperately to take these benefits away from women?," she continued.

There you have it. The GOP leaves no stone unturned, even if it's a rock that rolls back over and crushes them. The fact that women are covered without the stigma or expanded expense of being childbearing and therefore falling under the scrutiny of having a preexisting condition hasn't registered with GOP numbnut Renee Ellmers. Perhaps she forgot everything she learned in nursing school. I guess we should be glad she's in congress. They don't do anything there and in a hospital, who knows what harm a fool like herself could be doing to others.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare