jump to navigation

So, my life should be forfeit? May 20, 2017

Posted by lawrencemerithew in anti-totalitarianism, Opinion, politics.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

A few days ago in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a police officer was acquitted of killing an unarmed citizen. He was shot by the officer as he walked away from her, his hands held above his head.

Let that sink in a moment. Walking AWAY from the officer, hands in the air. The officer was concerned he was reaching into his vehicle, for what, she didn’t know. Through a CLOSED vehicle window. With a SECOND officer assisting at the scene.

Yesterday (19 May 2017), she was cleared to return to the force, in a non-patrol position.

One account of the incident and acquittal can be found at the CNN website.

Here’s why I titled this blog post as I did.

I have been told I have a very intimidating appearance. Standing just under 6′ and weighing roughly 290 pounds, it’s easy to understand that belief. Further, I’ve been asked on more than one occasion whether I was under the influence of narcotics. No, I’ve never done anything like cocaine, heroine, meth, PCP, nothing like that. Hell, I don’t even want to take prescription painkillers if I can help it.

I do, however, tend to behave erratically at times, which I will explain at the end of this post.

Based on the general information giving in the Betty Shelby case, and the similarity to my own history, should my life be forfeit?

One justification she gives for firing is Mr. Crutcher’s refusal to follow orders. Is ignoring a police officer a sufficient reason for the officer to act as judge, jury, and executioner, if that is his only verifiable crime at the time?

If so, what does that say about American society, where disobeying your government masters is punishable by death?

Are police officers still public servants, or not?

While I’m sure the majority of officers would take a more measured response, can we still ignore the small minority that believe they are in the force to “BE served (by the citizens) and (BE) protected (by the “justice” system)” FROM those same citizens?

In short, when did America become a nation where those in government, in whatever capacity, are exempt from accepting personal responsibility for their actions?

To return to the issue of whether my life is forfeit:

So far, all you know is what any person on the street, or police officer, would be aware of when meeting me in public. What you, or they, would NOT be aware of, is that my erratic behavior can be the result of weak response to stressful situations, combined with being a diabetic.

So, I ask again:

Should my life be forfeit, simply because a chronic disease happens to manifest its symptoms at an inopportune time?

Advertisements

Republicans to America: Screw You June 23, 2016

Posted by lawrencemerithew in non-fiction, Opinion, politics.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

A short post, shooting from the lip.

Yesterday, members of the Democratic party staged a sit-in in an effort to force votes on gun-control legislation. House Speaker Paul Ryan twice gavelled the House into session to deal with totally unrelated business. One was a failed attempt to override a presidential veto.

In the second case, a Democratic representative tried to ask a question regarding procedure, namely whether opposition to a bill would have its customary right to control 30 minutes of debate on the measure. The acting chair refused to answer that inquiry, asking only if the representative wished to record the yays and nays on said issue passed by voice vote. Not only that, the acting chair claimed “in the chair’s opinion, the ayes have it” BEFORE the Democrats even had an opportunity to express their side of the voice vote.

In other words, the Republican majority chose to ramrod legislation with no allowance for discussion.

The same thing they claim President Obama has been doing for 7 years.

Today, cries are becoming louder for the delegates to be free to vote their “conscience” at the Republican convention. Forget the fact their presumptive nominee was awarded the majority of delegates. Forget the fact the presumptive nominee won more popular votes than all other candidates combined, and more than any other candidate in primary history.

Their reasoning? “We must allow the delegates to vote in the best interests of the party.” No mention whatsoever of the PEOPLE.

I’m sorry, I was brought up to believe political parties and their candidates were selected to work the will of the PEOPLE.

The Republicans have revealed their true colors. They have only one agenda: control the country, and by extension the world, AT ALL COSTS.

Republicans want to screw the people? My response: Republicans, SCREW YOU.

On being a Christian nation May 22, 2015

Posted by lawrencemerithew in non-fiction, Opinion.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Every so often, my Facebook page fills up with comments from well-meaning people posting links to photos proclaiming the US as being a Christian nation.

Understand, I have no issues with Christianity as a religion and personal belief system.

My issue is with those that hide behind it while trying to promote other, less noble agendas.

Let’s look at some of the implications of these reminders about America’s Christian heritage.

First, the American population (primarily derived from white European ancestry) forget that we’re, in a sense, the new kids on the block. There were a number of indigenous peoples here before us. The Inuit in Alaska. Polynesians in Hawaii. Iroquois in the region of present-day New York. Seminoles in the Florida region. Sioux in the northern plains region of the Dakotas. Apache and Anasazi in the Southwest regions. To place Christianity at the forefront is to imply that the beliefs of these peoples are subordinate to Jesus, if they have any legitimacy at all.

Few, if any, of these “Christian nation” screamers seem willing to allow an exception for such civilizations.

Who would they grant an exception for?

Obviously, the Jews. Christ was a Jew, so we have to allow them entrance to the club.

The challenge is that the more orthodox sects of Judaism deny the divinity of Christ, as far as I understand. Do we disallow those sects, thus continuing to pick and choose who qualifies? Or do we admit them, even if they see Christ as another prophet of God at best?

And if we do accept them, it forces us to accept Muslims, since they also see Christ as a prophet, rather than as Messiah.

Ah, there’s the rub. The “Christian nation” crowd is, in reality, searching for a way to portray Christians as the good guys and Muslims/Islamists as the villains.

We haven’t even begun to look at eastern beliefs, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto …

Let’s set that aside for the moment and look at things from a Constitutional perspective.

To officially name the US as a Christian nation would call for a Constitutional amendment. This amendment would require the following, at a minimum:

— repeal of the First Amendment, or at least the establishment and free exercise clauses regarding religious rights.

— altering the Constitutional prohibition against office holders not being subject to any kind of religious test.

In effect, it would require paving the way for a religious mandate to hold high office. There’s a name for that mixture of church and state: theocracy.

Seemingly, we are led to believe that we would support such a theocracy, as long as it were a Christian one. However, the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, realized the danger that lie in that direction, thus the Constitutional prohibition and amendment.

Too, if we want to allow our nation to become a theocracy, why should we deny other nations the same right of self-determination? At one time, India was a Hindu state, but we remained silent when Great Britain tried to subjugate the Hindus to the ideals of the Anglican Church. Iran is a Muslim theocracy, and we condemn it for being such. ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State is another, and we condemn them even louder.

No, proclaiming the US a Christian nation is not about religion, it’s about trying to subjugate other people/cultures to our way of thinking, using religion as a smokescreen to justify it, and military might to impose it.

Funny, I keep hearing everyone say that’s what Islamic extremists are doing.

%d bloggers like this: