Bookeemonster: a voracious appetite for books, mostly crime fiction.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Current Events - December 9, 2012
Blame the Man, Not the NRA:
Jovan Belcher, Bob Costas and theories of causation
By Gayle Trotter
At 6’2” and 228 pounds, Kansas City Chiefs’ linebacker Jovan Belcher
was a formidable opponent. In the NFL, his body became a weapon on the
football field. Before becoming a professional football player, Belcher
had excelled as an all-American wrestler. Did Kasandra Perkins have a chance against an NFL linebacker’s murderous rage? Certainly not while unarmed. Had she wielded a gun, the answer could have been different. Guns make women safer.
Guns are the great equalizer for women facing threat of murder, rape,
physical attack or robbery. Opponents of the Second Amendment do not
like to admit that. They also deny that causation is difficult to reduce to one single thing. Consider the facts: 1. Belcher and Perkins had just had a child together out of wedlock, leading to elevated stress and depression. 2. By definition, unmarried new parents know that the permanence of their relationship is uncertain. 3. Compared to married couples, those who cohabit experience
significantly higher rates of child abuse, domestic violence and
breakup. 4. Belcher reportedly spent the previous night on an alcohol binge with another woman. 5. He repeatedly abused drugs, according to other reports. 6. Like many sports leagues, professional and otherwise, the NFL is
no stranger to violent and aggressive behaviors. This is no surprise
when you consider that the players have spent most of their lives
cultivating the skill of deploying violence and aggression. So, in light of all this evidence, what did Bob Costas conclude about Belcher’s acts of murder and suicide? When Costas took to the airwaves with his commentary, did he blame out-of-wedlock childbirth? Did he blame the demise of marriage? Did he blame cohabitation or domestic violence? Did he blame alcohol? Did he blame illegal drugs? Did he blame NFL culture or the game itself? Indeed not. “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra
Perkins would both be alive today,” Costas said, quoting from an editorial. In analyzing this dreadful tragedy, Costas committed the logical fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc
(“After this, therefore because of this”). Correlation does not prove
causation any more than the rooster’s crowing causes the sun to rise. Worse still, Costas selected from a complex and interrelated chain of
causation one particular fact as the necessary and proximate cause of
the tragic outcome. Handguns, said Costas, “exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate
arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding
it.” Just like alcohol. Ditto illegal drug use. Did football have something to do with Belcher’s murder-suicide? “Who
knows?” said Costas, suddenly agnostic about the fine-grained
distinctions of causation. But he takes it on faith that Belcher’s handgun was causally
necessary for the murder-suicide. But for Belcher’s gun, he and Perkins
would both be alive today, according to Costas. Murderous athletes can easily accomplish their ends without firearms.
If you don’t believe this, look no further than the fatal injuries to Nicole Brown Simpson and UVA lacrosse player Yeardley Love. Do mainstream media pundits really care about the real causes, or do
they just want to promote their liberal agenda? How else does Jason
Whitlock get from Jovan Belcher to “the NRA is the new KKK”? Imagine that the real reasons for this crime were conclusively shown
to involve a complex interplay of factors including drug and alcohol
abuse, domestic abuse, sexual competition and a lack of a healthy
marriage relationship. In that case, is there any doubt that liberal
elites would suddenly lose interest in the admissibility of causation?
“Move along, folks, nothing to see here.” Unarmed, Kasandra Perkins had no chance against Jovan Belcher’s
homicidal fury. Sadly, liberal pundits lash out against the Second
Amendment rather than seeking to address the problems that truly caused
Perkins’ heartbreaking death.
By the time you get into major TV shows, the “talking heads” of
infotainment are in an economic level much higher than the average
viewer. Bob Costas has options regarding where he lives, how much
security he has, what kind of lawyer he can afford, and what kind of
leverage he would have if he were abused by the police. His viewers, on
average, have nowhere near his level of power and privilege.
The fact that Costas wants a regime where it is illegal for us, the
little people, to own a gun, just tells you how little he cares about
us. But even blaming Costas is inaccurate. Despite how his remarks are characterized, they were not “a rant.” On the contrary, they were carefully thought out.
Costas’
words were obviously preplanned, rehearsed, and almost certainly
displayed for him to read on a teleprompter. There is no reason at all
to believe that his remarks had not been vetted in advance by NBC. This
wasn’t just Costas lecturing us; this was the whole network informing us
of our place in this world. We really should not be surprised if we
eventually discover that he did not write the message himself.
I
saw one person ask on Twitter if there was nowhere she could go that was
safe from liberal propaganda. That, I think, was part of the purpose of
Costas’ delivered speech. We have all been informed that our lives are
completely under the control of liberals. There is nowhere we can go to
escape their immoral moralizing. Every single part of the big, blue
screen is under their domination.
We live in an age where a small
ruing class is trying to inculcate a slave mentality through propaganda
masquerading as education, entertainment, and athletics, as well in all
other areas. This latest push for gun control should be seen, not as one
man’s opinion, but the voice of the ruling class trying to browbeat us
into becoming even more vulnerable to their coercion.
Verizon has filed a patent on a new digital video recorder (DVR) that
will record the speech and movement of viewers in an effort to “target
advertisements” to their specific interests, says an article at Yahoo News.In the 2011 patent filing by Verizon, which was just released, the company states:
“If
detection facility detects one or more words spoken by a user (e.g.,
while talking to another user within the same room or on the telephone),
advertising facility may utilize the one or more words spoken by the
user to search for and/or select an advertisement associated with the
one or more words.”
While it may be simple to attempt to paint this as something
harmless, or without implications, the examples given by Verizon on how
it works, ought to send chills up the spine of anyone using a DVR:
Sounds
of couples arguing would trigger ads for marriage counseling while
sounds of “cuddling” would prompt ads for contraceptives.
No word on whether or not this gathered information would be sold to
advertisers, the government or other groups or people. However, with
this technology available, one can safely assume that any information
gathered will not be limited to targeting television advertisements.
After all, nearly all Americans pay for TV service. What a great way to
break a window into the living rooms of families across the nation.
Community Jerk Causes First Grader to Remove ‘God’ From Poem Honoring Grandfathers’ Military Service
A first grader who attends West Marion Elementary School in the
McDowell County Schools in Marion, NC wrote a poem about both of her
grandfather’s military service in the Vietnam War. The poem was
selected as part of a Veteran’s Day Ceremony display. One of the lines
in her poem read:
“He prayed to God for peace, he prayed to God for strength.”
Someone
in the community had to be a jerk and complained that they didn’t like
the poem because it mentioned God. The school reacted to the jerk’s
complaint, and forced the little girl to remove the line from her poem
before it was allowed to be used in the Veteran’s Day ceremony.
The
school’s response hasn’t set well with the girl’s family or a number of
others in the community who fear that the school will use its
censorship in other unconstitutional ways. They sought help from Alliance Defending Freedom, who in turn sent a letter to the school on behalf of a number of residents of the county. Matt Sharp, legal counsel handling the case wrote to the school saying:
“America’s
public schools should encourage, not restrict, the constitutionally
protected freedom of students to express their faith. Students should
not be censored when speaking about their faith or honoring those who
valiantly served to protect our freedoms. The poem described the
historical actions of her grandfather, and the Constitution protects
such student expression at school.”
“School officials may not
suppress or exclude the personal speech of students simply because the
speech is religious or contains a religious perspective.”
“The
censorship of this young student’s poem about her grandfathers is
repugnant to the First Amendment rights of all students and sends an
impermissible message of hostility towards religion. The First
Amendment protects the right of students to discuss their
faith–especially when they are discussing a historical event like this
student in her poem honoring her grandfathers.”
WND
tried to reach school officials to get their side of the story, but
none of their requests were answered. They did note that Superintendent
Gerri Martin posted the following statement on the school’s website:
“I
am looking forward to collaborating with the board, our attorney, and
our community to revise policy and create guidelines that will ensure
the rights of free speech and freedom of religion consistent not only
with the conscience of this community but the requirements the law
places on us as a public school system.”
I see two
major problems with this entire situation. First, the school listened
to ONE person’s complaint that they didn’t like the mention of God in
the girl’s poem. So what? I see and read lots of things that I don’t
like, but I don’t set out to trample on the author’s constitutional
right to say it. If everyone was censored based on just one person’s
opinion, we would not have anything in writing, audio or video
recording, billboards, magazines, newspapers. Everything would be
blank, because there is always at least one person that won’t like it.
When
I see something in print or video that really bothers me, I will write
and tell the source that they have lost my business or that I will never
watch their show, but I won’t try to stop their right to do and say
what they believe. Too many Americans have died and been wounded
winning and protecting the rights of free speech and religion. To
censor those rights would mean that they all died in vain, and I’m not
willing to say that.
The second problem is that the school
knowingly violated the girl’s constitutional rights. This has been
happening in America’s public schools more and more. As liberal
progressives become emboldened by our liberal progressive president,
they follow his example and attack the constitutional rights of
students, parents and teachers. And like the president, they do it with
full knowledge of their actions. In fact, in some cases, the schools
have purposely trampled on the rights of students and parents in their
efforts to usher in the socialist agenda of the NEA.
Parents, if
you are unable to educate your children yourself or send them to a good
Christian school, then you need to be actively involved with what your
child is being taught and how they are being taught. Look closely
because a growing number of schools are teaching globalism and one world
economy and government. Students are being taught that American pride
and patriotism are evil and the root of many of the nation’s problems.
They are also taught that mom and dad are evil and part of the problem.
Is this what you want them to learn?
If they really believe that the rich are not paying their so-called
“fair share,” then they are either misinformed or corrupt. Rep Keith
Ellison (D-Minn.) writes the following in a USA Today opinion piece titled “GOP Plan Fails the Fairness Test”:
“When
the American people re-elected President Obama last month, they sent an
unmistakable message to Washington. The wealthiest among us should pay
their fair share and protect benefits that American families rely on.”
This is class warfare of the worst kind because it assumes a moral and constitutional foundation for the premise.
Mr.
Ellison took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I want Mr. Ellison to
tell me where in the Constitution it says that when a majority of
people vote for a President that the State can steal from people and
give the stolen money to other people, in the name of what you maintain
are “protect[ted] benefits that American families rely on.”
When
did confiscating people’s property become fair?...
I want to know who gets to define what constitutes a “fair share.” The
“fair share” narrative is used for the 51 percent of Americans who are
(1) ignorant, (2) low information voters (misinformation voters), and
(3) those who have larceny in their hearts. These people want the
government to steal for them. It keeps them from feeling guilty.
... The real problem is the size and scope of the Federal Government.
Ellison needs the money from the top earners (who are fewer in number)
to buy the votes of low-income voters to keep him and his fellow
confiscators in power. It’s not about fairness; it’s about control.
Ellison and his ilk want to make the United States a colony of the
Democrat Party.
A July 2012 Congressional Budget Office report
“found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths
of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid
67.9 percent of taxes.”
Basic elementary knowledge seems to be missing from our country these
days. Let’s go back to grade school for just a few minutes, shall we??
Does anybody remember the lessons of how plants live on carbon dioxide?
We exhale carbon dioxide and the plants love it! The more carbon dioxide on the planet, the greener the planet is. This transfer is called photosynthesis. It’s a good thing!
Definition of photosynthesis: The
process in green plants and certain other organisms by which
carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using light
as an energy source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a
byproduct.
Evidently Obama and three generations of
Marxists in charge of our schools have convinced children to learn a lot
about social engineering, sex ed, and lies regarding Global Warming, instead
of learning about photosynthesis. There is a reason Obama, and his
buddies, Al Gore and Carol Browner, want stupidity to reign supreme. If
people are too stupid to know the laws of photosynthesis, then these
guys can control every amount of human activity and make g’zillions of
extortion bucks in the process. Stupid people voted for extortion. And
now we will all be marks, ahem, I mean Marxists.
There is so much
wrong with “climate change” theories that you could never, in a hundred
years, get through all of the lies being spread to an uneducated public.
In the interest of helping the unlikely passerby who might want one
solid reason to get off the bandwagon and stop drinking the Kool-ade, I
am showing you a video to explain the actual amount of “man-made” carbon
dioxide in the air. I found this video at Icecap.us Enjoy!
Atheists Threaten New Congressmen-women About Joining Prayer Caucus
The Congressional Prayer Caucus was formed in 2005 by Rep. Randy
Forbes (R-VA). Today, the caucus has over 100 bipartisan members and
meets weekly in Room 217 in the US Capitol Building. Currently Forbes
and Mike McIntyre (D-NC) co-chair the caucus.
However, you can forget your freedom of religion if you’re one of the newly elected members to the US House of Representatives.
The American Humanist Association
has sent a letter to all of the newly elected members of the House,
warning them against joining the Congressional Prayer Caucus. Part of
the letter reads:
“Incoming House members should know
that approximately one in five of their constituents are not religiously
affiliated, and even more insist on maintaining the wall of separation
between church and state.”
Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director of AHA also warned in the letter that any type of endorsement of public prayer will:
“…alienate millions of non-religious Americans who oppose the joining of religion and government.”
“What
these extremist groups are fighting for – and they’ve got a lot of
dollars and they’re well orchestrated – is they want to make certain
that no one in government can even mention God or faith or religion, and
no one in the church can mention anything about government. That is
far from what the First Amendment was written to protect.”
Someone
needs to point out to all of the new House members that received this
letter that it states 1 in 5 are not religiously affiliated. That
leaves 4 in 5 that are! I don’t know about you, but if I were a
Congressman, I would be much more concerned about the 80% than I would
be about the 20%. Twenty percent won’t get you elected to anything, but
sure 80% sure can.
Additionally, a member of Congress will
alienate many more millions of Americans who oppose the fallacious
separation of church and state.
The bottom line is that a minority
is trying to threaten newly elected House members by drawing their
attention and focus away from the majority of their constituents to a
small minority. That godless minority will succeed if we, the Silent
Majority, remain silent and say nothing to our representatives in
Washington. It’s up to every one of you to make your voices heard and
urge your Congressman-woman to join the Congressional Prayer Caucus and
ignore the letter they received from the AHA.
Online sales tax to be added to defense authorization bill
This may be the last Christmas of online shopping without paying sales tax. A proposed online sales tax has been offered as an amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act, much to the ire of opponents. The Computer
and Communications Industry Association, a group that opposes this
move, says that an online sales tax will burden small businesses, “some
of the most promising candidates for future economic growth.” “This proposal, and other online sales tax collection proposals like
it, would allow states to penalize the innovative e-commerce business
model by targeting small online businesses as convenient sources (and
collectors) of revenue,” said CCIA President and CEO Ed Black. The Marketplace Fairness Act, and its House counterpart the
Marketplace Equity Act, seek to clarify, and arguably overturn, a 1992
Supreme Court ruling that requires retailers to have a physical presence
in a state in order to collect sales tax on goods. “Severing the relationship between taxation and physical presence
would be a fundamental transformation in how we consider taxes,” Black
continued. “Such a significant step deserves more extensive
consideration than attachment to the unrelated Defense Authorization
bill.” Still, a recent poll indicates that the majority of Americans support the idea, describing
an online sales tax as “common sense”. They also feel that a tax for
online purchases would encourage people to buy local and keep tax
dollars in their community.
Collecting the tax across state lines however poses as a challenge
for small businesses that sell their goods in multiple states. “It is not the job of small businesses to collect taxes to provide
tax revenue relief for state and local governments outside their
jurisdiction,” Black said, suggesting that an online tax would protect
existing businesses at the expense of consumers and growth.
Easter Seals Instructed Mentally Challenged Person to Vote for Obama
Darlene Pearson
is a full grown woman who is intellectually disabled and functionally
illiterate. She can only read words like ‘a cat, dog’ or just a few
simple words like that. She lives with 5 other women in a group home
operated by Easter Seals . In 1995, a North Carolina court declared
Darlene to be incompetent. Even though she was ruled incompetent,
North Carolina law allows for Darlene to marry, enter into contracts and
vote. So her parents became her legal guardians in 1996 to prevent
anyone from taking advantage of their daughter. However, they
believe that the individuals running the group home did take advantage
of their daughter to exploit their own personal political views.
Unbeknownst to her parents, the group home staff took Darlene to the
Division of Motor Vehicle in 1995 to obtain a photo ID. While obtaining
the ID, she was also registered to vote, but has never exercised her
vote until now. Without notifying Darlene’s parents, since they
are her legal guardians, the group home staff took Darlene and the other
women to an early voting station where, with the help of an election
staffer, placed her vote for Barack Obama. When her parents found out,
they became furious. They claim that since Darlene basically can’t read
or mentally function beyond a very young age, that there is no way she
could have decided to vote for anyone on her own. Therefore, they
allege that someone among the group home staff coerced their daughter to
vote for Obama. Cecil Pearson, Darlene’s father stated:
“My
wife and I became her legal guardians in 1996 to prevent exploitation
like this. We were not consulted. She is not capable of making an
informed choice, and as her guardians we would not have approved it.”
Since
then, Cecil has been trying to get the North Carolina Board of
Elections to remove his daughter’s name from the voter registry because
of her severe disability, her inability to read and make such an
important decision. He has also asked the Easter Seals people to
explain their action.
When The Daily Caller contacted Easter Seals about Darlene Pearson, they were told by Jeff Smith, the Chief Communications Officer:
“We
are here to support the individual’s rights and we help them exercise
their rights as adults. We were providing the support for those
individuals based on their community involvement and desires, and in
this case their desire was to vote. It’s not my role to refute law or
otherwise. They are individuals and they have the same rights. … They
were fully in their right to vote.”
Smith also claims that
none of their staff did anything to influence Darlene or others on who
to vote for, but her parents say that their daughter is incapable of
making such a decision, especially when she is not able to read Obama’s
name or anything on the ballot. He also informed them that when he
talked to Darlene, she told him that she had voted for Obama but could
not recall any other person who she voted for or were on the ballot. First
of all, how can any state legally allow a person who has been deemed by
the courts to be incompetent to enter into any type of legal contract?
Anyone signing a contract who has been drinking or had surgery within
the past 24 hours is legally not allowed to sign any legal forms,
including entering into a contract. So how can someone who is mentally
incompetent and unable to read be allowed to vote? Secondly, since
Darlene’s parents are her legal guardian, the staff at the group home
should have informed them that they were taking Darlene to vote,
particularly when a presidential election is such as important thing.
The Pearson’s have every right to be furious with the home especially
when they know their daughter is incapable of knowing who or what to
vote for and since it was not the person of their choice. I
believe it is obvious that the staff member involved took advantage of
Darlene and acted unprofessionally and illegally in convincing her and
the others to vote for Obama because of their own personal political
agenda. This typifies the actions of so many members of the Democratic
Party who stooped to all sorts of unethical and illegal means to
re-elect the most corrupt president in history. If I were
Darlene’s parents, I would be looking at filing charges against the
staff member(s) involved and if possible, look for a new group home for
their daughter. If I were an executive with Easter Seals, I would have
been apologizing profusely for the actions of their staff and would have
taken every disciplinary action possible against them.
By Dennis Lund Inspired
by the words of Thomas Paine, the new nation's leaders sought to
resolve grievances with the government to allow the citizenry to live
free from tyranny, while remaining true to the concepts of civil rights
and individual liberty.
James
Madison, in his letter of October 24, 1787 to Thomas Jefferson voiced
concerns: "a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority." His words have now been proven justified.
In
writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson, guided by Thomas
Paine's 'Common Sense', laid out the grievances against the king, many
of which have now been foisted upon us by our current rulers. President
Obama, with new found empowerment from his recent victory, now has the
flexibility he sought, without the constraints of seeking reelection.
The result will be a more all encompassing government ruled by those who
favor state control.
Looking
closer at Jefferson's grievances, which the patriots were willing to
die for, we see that we have now fallen into that which Madison feared;
Oppression by the majority abetted by a government which is now "but a
necessary evil." One
has to wonder if President Jefferson would have had the same response
to the actions taken today by this administration, as well as by those
who have enabled these actions:
"forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance" --
The Justice Department has continually fought actions by individual
states, not just on immigration control, but on photo ID laws ruled
constitutional by the Supreme Court.
"endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners"
-- Amnesty is now the agenda. Illegal residents are rarely deported by
those pandering for votes. Our borders seemingly no longer serve the
purpose intended.
"obstructed the Administration of Justice"
-- Inspector General Gerald Walpin was fired for seeking criminal
prosecution of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter. J.
Christopher Adams was forced from office for seeking actions against
Black Panther Militants for their election-day intimidation tactics of
white voters. This election saw a return of this, as well as Republican
poll watchers forcibly removed from polling stations. Members of the
Justice Department Civil Rights Division, have, as stated by Mr. Adams;
"abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens". Statists have
joined in a vendetta attacking Mr. Adams for daring to give voice to the
injustices he witnessed.
"erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people" --
Obamacare provides for 16,000 new IRS agents to ensure our obedience.
The president has appointed 43 "czars" of which 33 were not subject to
Senate approval. The EPA is now used as a tool to punish enemies of the
state such as Arch Coal, BP and Shell.
"affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power"
- In June of 2011 the President overruled lawyers from the Justice
Department and the Pentagon to arbitrarily declare his authority to
continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval.
"combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution" --
UN Agenda 21 is being implemented across the country with over 500
participating cities. Members of the Supreme Court look towards foreign
laws for guidance; "I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha ...
about referring to foreign law," -- Justice Ginsburg.
"imposing Taxes on us without our Consent"
-- ObamaCare was passed against the will of the people on the grounds
that it was not a tax, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, resulting in
celebrations by the statists. The law was not even read by many members
of Congress who voted to impose their will upon us.
"depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury"
-- For the first time in history a president has authorized the
detention, without trial, of people suspected of aiding and abetting
terrorism, an action strongly opposed in the Senate, as well as by the
ACLU. Basseley Youssef, arrested in the dead of night by police, acting
at the request of federal authorities, is accused of making a film,
which was blamed for the Benghazi attack, the claim, false when made,
has now been fully disproven. Mr. Youssef remains jailed on charges of
"parole violation."
"excited domestic insurrections amongst us.
-- Last year the Occupy Wall Street crowd , encouraged by Democrat
leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi, or Democrat favoring organizations such
as Moveon.org willfully interfered with the civil rights of others while
committing hundreds of illegal acts throughout the country. In Oakland,
California of 400 protestors arrested on a variety of charges such as
resisting arrest, vandalism, public urination,
theft, refusal to disperse, sexual assaults as well as others, yet only
8 faced charges while cases dropped against the others.
By
their concurrence with the above actions, those who enable government
control as preferred policy have fallen guilty to abetting government
tyranny over the minority.
Thomas
Paine in 'Common Sense' described this reasoning as "A long habit of
not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being
right."
The
focus of the government today seems to be an increase towards largesse;
looking for ways to provide financial support, yet avoiding the
encouragement of personal responsibility. This represents a very
generous attitude on the part of the electorate.
Yet how can one justify generosity towards others when said generosity is enforced by threat of law?
Thomas
Jefferson expressed the unacceptability of tyranny in the Declaration
of Independence, a document whose importance was summarized by Abraham
Lincoln: "our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation,
conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that 'all men are
created equal'."
Today
Mr. Jefferson would likely not be pleased with what the nation has
become, as liberty has been eroded, equality has been set aside,
preferences have risen to the forefront.
The direction taken by those leading our nation not only lacks common sense, it is also a departure from 'Common Sense'.
It
is imperative for the future of our nation that we decide now: Are we
to be a nation based on the Constitution, or are we to be a nation based
on forced largesse of the minority by an overreaching majority?
A
study of history would clearly indicate where Madison, Jefferson, Paine
as well as the others would have stood. Unfortunately, history seems to
not be part the curriculum.
No comments:
Post a Comment