Archive for the ‘Sub-human’ Category
When I first looked to see what Dave Stancliff had written in his Sunday As It Stands opinion column I thought,
“here he goes again – preaching more lawless, mob rule.” After reading the article I decided not to make any observations – the whole thing was way too trite.
So, what changed my mind? You don’t suppose I could pass up another golden opportunity to excoriate Dave Stancliff, do you?
Actually, no. What griped me is the constant drum-beat for more laws to deprive everyone of what freedom, justice and accountability remains in our corrupt society. “Frivolous lawsuits” are just that, FRIVOLOUS.
When every deck there is, is totally stacked against the average working and retired man and woman in this country, using one Mickey Mouse lawsuit to fill newspaper space railing against “frivolous lawsuits” does everyone a disservice. Rather than denigrate the injured, he would have better served everyone had he spent the time and word dealing with the real cause of the problems: greedy, self-serving and amoral lawyers.
Let’s set the matter right – right up front, I don’t have any use for lawyers. First, its been my experience, that they all believe they are better than everyone else. If for no other reason than they are in a position to victimize the people that are forced to use them. The judges in this country think they are too good to speak to or recognize the “common” man. So they breed this special class of royalty that judges will accept past their Bar. Second, if you don’t have the money to pay their exorbitant fees, despite the fact that they are employed by you, the “fee” payer, they exercise their right to betray you, to the detriment and harm to you, your business and your family’s best interest. Even if you have the money, where “money” is no issue, they still treat you like some sub-human, low-class pile of dog crap.
Since that’s pretty much the bottom line when it comes to lawyers, for me personally today, whenever I have a problem, rather than look to a lawyer to purportedly speak in my behalf, I deal directly and personally. Since the gutless, effeminate paranoid have passed so many laws today restricting speech, the safe possibility to personally resolve ANY matter by simple speech (communicating by letter, email, telephone or personally) – actually talking to one another, I realize this is a rather precarious solution. That’s the way people used to settle their problems. So, what’s happened?
Well, in Mr. Stancliff’s case, the “shoe’s on the other foot.”
It wasn’t too long ago that Dave Stancliff was threatening to take me to court for writing an observation or two about his newspaper column. Despite the fact that he was making all kinds of outlandish accusation, from where I stand, that was about as “frivolous” as it could get. His “threats” were not “frivolous,” but the basis he set forth certainly was.
What have we recently learned about how we are justified in dealing with people that makes threats? What was the justification President Obama gave for going to war with Muammar Gaddafi and Libya? His, Gaddafi’s “threat.”
There’s another lesson learned here and that is when you don’t communicate, and I am not talking about arbitrary ultimatums either, the only other way to resolve issues is WAR. The choice: either talk peacefully or act violently. When people refuse to recognize your legitimate rights to exist same as them and then act on that belief refusing to talk to you, they are at de facto war with you.
The best solution is to work out the problems personally – peacefully – one on one. Whenever you bring in a surrogate to speak for you or act in your behalf, you are ostensibly at war. No one ever wins at war. Yet, it seems, that is a lesson few if any wannabe elitist Americans have learned.
April Fool’s Day today, right?
What makes this man guilty for doing exactly what President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have men doing all over the world — Killing innocent people? People they consider to be “‘Untermensch‘ (sub-human) or in opposition” to the governments of America and Israel such as, “those persons of any other cultural, racial, political or religious affiliation deemed” as a “terrorist.”
ACHEN, Germany – A German court on Tuesday convicted an 88-year-old of murdering three Dutch civilians as part of a Nazi hit squad during World War II, capping six decades of efforts to bring the former Waffen SS man to justice.Heinrich Boere, number six on the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s list of most-wanted Nazis, was given the maximum sentence of life in prison for the 1944 killings.
Again we find justice tied to a person’s supposed “intent.” Boere testified:
He said he had no choice but to follow orders to carry out the killings.
“As a simple soldier, I learned to carry out orders,” Boere testified in December.
“And I knew that if I didn’t carry out my orders I would be breaking my oath and would be shot myself.”
But the prosecution said:
Judge Nohl noted that there was no evidence Boere ever even tried to question his orders.
He characterized the murders as hit-style slayings, with Boere and his accomplices dressed in civilian clothes and surprising their victims at their homes or places of work late at night or early in the morning.
“The victims had no real chance,” Nohl said.
What “real chance” has any of the hundreds of innocent civilians had killed by rockets and bombs from helicopters and planes? More importantly from unmanned drones, manned by coldblooded killers someplace in Nevada, etc.? Drones are nothing more than a sophisticated gun used just like Boere used, “silent” and lethal.
Is there any evidence that any member of these hit squads questions their orders? Or does the evidence show that they are all enthusiastic and willing participants in the murders they commit? This is a representative comment regarding lawyers representing GITMO prisoners published here:
“Many of the lawyers who freely took on the task of defending al Qaeda’s killers or advocating on their behalf not only undermined the legal underpinnings for detaining their clients, but also endangered our troops in combat against them abroad. Some call that indefensible; I call it treason.”
Here’s another dealing with military lawyers quoted from “The New McCarthyism”:
But rather than portray the dispute as a conflict over what is and isn’t within constitutional bounds, conservatives argue that anyone who opposed the Bush administration’s policies is a traitor set to undermine America’s safety from within the Justice Department.
“Terrorist sympathizers,” wrote National Review’s Andrew McCarthy in September, “have assumed positions throughout the Obama administration.”
This is the misleading statement you read in the newspaper where I live. The Report has written extensively on this matter in the Joe Blow Report.
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
Posted: 03/19/2010 01:32:42 AM PDT
A Eureka Police officer shot a reportedly armed man in an alley off Summer Street at around 11 a.m. Thursday after a resident wrestled the man to the ground.
First, this statement by John Driscoll is extremely misleading and absolutely not substantiated in anything reported by the “resident” to him or Chief of Police, Garr Nielsen, in the Times-Standard or TV news to what actually happened at the time of the killing. The had absolutely no idea who the “resident” was or who or what the victim was. All they knew is that TWO men were on the ground struggling over a gun. So, what about that man told them who the “aggressor” was?
The officer’s that shot this man did not know before confronting him that he was armed, or that he was the actual owner of the gun. All they knew was two men were fighting on the ground. When he refused to release the gun as reportedly ordered, they, the two officers, summarily executed him, “‘The officer took his gun, put it at the base of Sequoia’s head, and fired a round into Sequoia’s head,’ he said, adding that the second shot ended the struggle and likely killed Sequoia instantly.”
Notice the attitude as reported in the paper on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, that had absolutely NO relevance at the time of the shooting demonstrating a negative bias toward them dead man:
Nielsen said Friday that the shots-fired call was made after Sequoia fired two shots at an acquaintance from whom Sequoia had allegedly stolen more than $1,500.
On Saturday, Nielsen reiterated his belief that his officers acted appropriately in the face of a grave threat.
At a press conference Thursday, Nielsen said that an armed man, later identified as Sequoia, pointed a gun at the officers and refused to drop the weapon.
This same reasoning and biased insinuations are backed up over on the popular blog Humboldt Herald: “Slain suspect acquitted of murder in 2008”. Read the comments on that posting and it will make the hair stand up on your head when you realize the attitudes that similarly allowed for Nazi hit-squads to operate in the open daylight.
If this guy was guilty of the crimes as charged in 1944 then so is everyone else that commits the same crimes today.