Best Early Morning News Links
The Latest from The Lady
- #Scandalpalooza: Holder OK’d The Warrant For FOX Reporter’s Emails
- Obama’s Yemen Problem
- I Am Your Worst Nightmare
- When Liberals On Twitter Attack
- Sen. Kay Hagan (D-odge, NC)
- Ricin Letters Update: Dutschke Evaded the FBI
- NCGA House Passes Bill Banning Foreign Law
- #IRS Scandal: Obama Admin Knew In 2012; Possible Catalyst Letter In 2010
- DOJ Refuses Asylum to German Family Persecuted For Homeschooling
- NC Dem Meltdown Update: Now In Costume
Past Musings from The Lady
Category Archives: Constitution
Open Letter to America:
Call me a monster if you wish, I am quite large after all. Funny how when no one is paying attention to how appearances can change. Anyhow, thought I would drop you a note with just a taste of what I have done, what I can do, and what I may do. Keep it on the down low, but I gotta tell ya….I am your worst nightmare.
Here is my resume..
I can go after your beliefs, and your traditions. Nothing will be sacred to me. I will make you to “see it my way” because “it’s for you own good” oh, and if you don’t, I will attack you, belittle you, shame you. You are in the way.
You can speak out about me if you want, however, be careful, because I can hear everything you say. I am everywhere. Don’t think for a moment that my true believers wont root you out. Don’t speak against me.
If you dissent, or oppose me, (do you really want to go there?) I can send out my minions to degrade you, smear you, and discredit you . You will be considered the lowest of human beings. It is in my best interest that I do this. Then, if you continue to defy me, I may keep you from having any platform for you to speak on. You will have no way of getting out any of your views. I will make sure of that. I will take away your ability to learn anything of value. I can make your life a living hell. I will silence you.
Read more… Continue reading
A three part series by Liberty Speaks
Violence and Blame
Part Three: Hypocrisy
In the wake of these shootings where do we go from here? Which path do we take to escape such unsolicited gratuitous evil? Who or what do we blame for the actions of an individual that disrupts our society in a manner that is contrary and hostile to our beliefs? How do we survive and prevent future Loughners, Hyde’s, wounded police officers, and devastated families? How do we prevent another Newtown? In order to answer these questions, like any malignancy that plagues us, we first must realize we have a problem. The answer does not lie in the fact that there are guns, whether they are revolvers, shotguns, AR-15′s, or pistols. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DERANGED WEAPON. A gun is a tool like any other inanimate object, and after all, a hammer is just a hammer until someone picks it up and has the intent to use it against their fellow-man as a weapon.
No. The first thing we must understand with mass shootings such as these is that all were committed by those who suffer from acute mental illness. This is not to say that all homicides in the US are committed by the mentally ill. Only about a 1000 homicides a year can be attributed to those with acute mental disorder. However, when talking mass shootings such as Tuscon, the Hyde murders, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Newtown, mental illness is at or above a 95% affliction rate in these offenders. This is where we begin to answer those questions. What we can do and what we should not do.
Recognizing one problem: Untreated mental illness
An individual with severe mental illness, when diagnosed and treatments and medications have been put into place, can live and function with relatively normal lives just like the rest of us. Some illnesses require more intense treatment than others, some only therapy sessions, others with medication, however, there are approximately 3.5 million mentally ill in the United States who go untreated. One segment of the population that see’s it’s share of mental illness and criminal activity is the homeless. Out of our nations homeless population 1/3 suffers from mental illness.
Sargent Carol Oleksak, now retired from the Albuquerque Police Department, understood too well even before being shot by Duc Mihn Pham; how mental illness affects those specially the homeless. She spent most of her career working in some of the toughest area’s of the city. Though she did not know Pham before he shot her, she had contact with many of Albuquerque homeless many of whom are mentally ill. From the PoliceOne.com article:
“I always wanted to work in the worst part of town,” Oleksak said. She had arrested many people like him: mentally ill transients who were arrested over and over, only to be released after they were found incompetent but not dangerous.
After Sgt.Oleksak was shot and after a long recovery, not only did she find a new cause in her heart but she came to forgive her attacker. Knowing individuals like Pham needed help, Sgt. Oleksak began a campaign to advocate for the mentally ill in New Mexico even winning through N.A.M.I (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill) the Sam Cochran Compassion in Law Enforcement award for her efforts in opening up a conversation on the homeless and mental illness. She believed the system had failed Pham and others like him, and wanted to help change that system so she advocated for the inception of Kendra’s Law in New Mexico.
The law, which originated in New York, allowed for courts – after extensive due process – to order a certain group of narrowly defined individuals with serious mental illness who already have a past history of multiple arrests, incarcerations or needless hospitalizations to accept treatment as a condition for living in the community. Before Kendra’s Law, the law required people so ill they refuse treatment to become dangerous before they can be required to accept treatment. Families felt the law should prevent dangerous behavior, rather than require it. However, the law was struck down after a ruling that the ordinance “pre-empted current New Mexico State Law requiring consent from either the patient or a guardian before treatment could be given..
Oleksak said the state needs some version of the law, tailored specifically to New Mexico’s needs and dealing only with people who are found to be a danger to themselves or others. -PoliceOne.com
Though Sgt. Oleksak is now retired enjoying life on her ranch, she still stays involved with N.A.M.I. helping the mentally ill. Oleksak says, “It’s not that they’re criminal, they need to have some sort of help.”
Agreement: New gun laws will not stop violence
It has been nearly 8 years since John Hyde went on his rampage killing five people, including two Albuquerque Police officers. If there was a group of people in our society who think would be screaming for gun control and tighter restrictions it would be our law enforcement, but you would be wrong. Ironically, those on the front lines who respond to acts of violence, overwhelming understand, that legislating new restrictions and gun bans will not prevent future Newtowns nor prevent those with bad intent from getting a hold of guns, or any other deadly weapon for that matter.
PoliceOne, an online resource for Law Enforcement officers with over 400,000 members, conducted the most comprehensive survey ever in March of this year utilizing 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals. The Survey, focused on gun control, gun violence, gun rights, officer safety and mental illness. The results, it likely came quite as a shock to legislator’s and anti-gun advocates a like.
The take away was this: Continue reading
Chick-fil-A is once again the subject of controversy. I am ashamed to say it is happening in my state of New Mexico. But then again, the word ‘ashamed” is coming up quite often these days in conversation.
A meeting will be held today Wednesday, February 27th on campus of the University of New Mexico as to whether or not a Chick-fil-A can remain on campus. The Associated Students of the University of New Mexico approved a resolution to remove the restaurant because they feel the stance that the stance taken by Chik-fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy, last summer on Gay marriage is not something that UNM wants to represent. Evidently, they don’t “represent” the 1st Amendment either. ASUNM Vice President, Sunny Liu, said that “out of ASUNM’s 20 senators, 15 voted in favor of the resolution, three voted against, and two abstained.”
Liu said the resolution, “reflects the student government’s official stance on the issue. He said the resolution aims to make the University more comfortable for minority groups, especially LGBT students”, on campus, even though 85 percent of students surveyed said they wanted Chick-fil-A to stay. In a current poll online according to the Daily Lobo a vast majority of students want to keep the restaurant on campus. So, the will of the students is effectively being ignored. In a letter posted to the editor of the Daily Lobo it is clear that some students understand a 1st Amendment attack when they see one. Posted in response to the article “ASUNM votes to evict mor chikin,” published in Friday’s Daily Lobo.
I was pretty disturbed to find out that the student government is trying to forcibly remove Chick-fil-A from the SUB. Whether or not we agree with Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s view on sexuality, running Chick-fil-A out of UNM is an exceptionally immature and unfair way to react. By attempting to force out Chick-fil-A, ASUNM is sending a message of discrimination. If our government is attempting to destroy our freedom of speech by shutting down businesses, then where is our government headed? How long before anyone can be run out of UNM for politely and reasonably stating an opinion? Is anyone else disturbed by this? Justin Kesselring
I personally applaud this student for understanding the core ideals and sacred understanding of the First Amendment. People listen to me, the First Amendment was not created to protect only what we are “comfortable” with in society. It is there to protect the individual in society. That includes statement, beliefs, and ideals which are not necessarily our own. I state this because even the VILE Westboro Baptist Church is afforded the right of free speech in this country. I personally do not agree with anything that church has to say, but I will defend it’s right to say it.
Regarding this Chick-fil-A on the UNM campus. It employs ten people some of whom are University students. The removal of the restaurant will impact them greatly. Where will they go? Has anyone even bothered to figure out that this particular Chick-fil-A is not even owned by or managed by Chick-fil-A? It is operated under a company called Chartwell’s, a franchise of its own. In a statement to local news station Channel 7 KOAT Chartwell’s says this:
Chartwells rejects any form of discrimination and has clear and strong policies that embrace diversity, inclusion and respect in the workplace. We have zero tolerance for any behavior that is contrary to these values. Chartwells has a Zero Tolerance Discrimination and Harassment Policy, which enforces compliance with federal, state and local laws that prohibit discrimination or harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, color, disability, age, pregnancy, national origin, veteran status or any other unlawful factor.”
I take them and their statement as being honest and truthful. Speaking directly with a very credible source on this subject, this Chick-fil-A prides its self on the ability to produce a good quality product for the students of UNM and holds its Integrity to a very high standard. In no uncertain terms do they discriminate what so ever.
With that being said, I fear the voice of the students is being denied, the 1st Amendment is once again under attack. It proves to me that if your view is not “a comfortable one” not a PC one, or if you have any dissent that goes against the grain, you will be attacked, ridiculed and thrown out of society. Isn’t that a reason why we left England and the King’s rule in the first place back in the 1600′s? Or is the history of America and what we were founded on being thrown off campus as well? Continue reading
potted a story this morning that talked about John Cusack developing a biopic about Rush Limbaugh. Via Washington Times 24/7:
John Cusack — actor, vocal liberal activist and occasional Huffington Post blogger — is developing a movie about conservative radio show all-star Rush Limbaugh.
Cusack’s production company, New Crime Productions, told the Associated Press that the working title of the new film is “Rush.”
The unabashedly liberal star of movies like “Say Anything,” “Grosse Point Blank” and the anti-gun adaptation of the John Grisham novel “The Runaway Jury” will reportedly play the talk star in the film, set to begin filming next year.
I wonder who he will get to play Rush? I do hope this won’t be another pile of dog mess like Sorkin’s “Game Change”. Cusack blogs for HuffPo on occasion and is a self professed liberal, but perhaps I’m being too hasty in dismissing his ability to show some objectivity about the other side. I say that based on this gem that was passed to me: John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution
The original posting was on August 20th, here. It didn’t appear on HuffPo until September 2nd.
While the piece gets some side topics wrong (death panels in Obamacare and the Auto Bailout), the bulk of it regarding Holder, Obama, killing Americans without due process and the NDAA lands right on target. Of interest is the side conversation going on about liberal media bias. Both Turley and Cusack note how no one on the Left journalistically is pursuing the clear Constitutional violations by this administration; mainly because Obama and Holder are ‘good guys’ in the eyes of the progressive media. In other words, it’s o.k. when we do it.
The one passage that raised my eyebrows is this one:
CUSACK: So would you say this assassination issue, or the speech and the clause in the NDAA and this signing statement that was attached, was equivalent to John Yoo’s torture document?
TURLEY: Oh, I think it’s amazing. It is astonishing the dishonesty that preceded and followed its passage. Before passage, the administration told the public that the president was upset about the lack of an exception for citizens and that he was ready to veto the bill if there was a lack of such an exception. Then, in an unguarded moment, Senator Levin was speaking to another Democratic senator who was objecting to the fact that citizens could be assassinated under this provision, and Levin said, “I don’t know if my colleague is aware that the exception language was removed at the request of the White House.” Many of us just fell out of our chairs. It was a relatively rare moment on the Senate floor, unguarded and unscripted.
CUSACK: And finally simple.
TURLEY: Yes. So we were basically lied to. I think that the administration was really caught unprepared by that rare moment of honesty, and that led ultimately to his pledge not to use the power to assassinate against citizens. But that pledge is meaningless. Having a president say, “I won’t use a power given to me” is the most dangerous of assurances, because a promise is not worth anything.
CUSACK: Yeah, I would say it’s the coldest comfort there is.
It’s well worth the time to read the whole thing. Killing American citizens at will is the bigger fish to fry, but I find it interesting they don’t discuss Obamacare, which affects ALL American citizens and the Constitutional issues it raises.
Also, here is the speech by Eric Holder at Northwestern. Continue reading