The Trayvon Martins of the world v The George Zimmermans of the world

The Trayvon Martins of the world v the George Zimmermans of the world

I don’t often post to my blogs; only those things that appears to me needs to be addressed or that have struck a nerve.  I have been vacillating back and forth, should I or shouldn’t I post this to my blog ever since the jury verdict in the Trayvon Martin case was announced.   Well after hearing on Sunday, July 21, 2013, that Mr. Obama hinted that there will not be a Federal Civil Rights Case filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), my vacillating back and forth came to a screeching halt. When it is all said and done, I am writing this because frankly I am at a lost to comprehend how, with all things being equal; the jury reached its verdict and how DOJ can even consider not filing a case against Zimmerman is beyond me.  To paraphrase John Guy, one of the prosecuting attorneys in the case, what would the verdict have been if the victim was white and the perpetrator was black?  Put another way, if this case is not about race then there never can be a case about race.

Florida Stand Your Ground Law states as follows:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (Emphasis added)

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (Emphasis added)

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). (Emphasis added)

As you will note this law states that a person to whom the statute applies is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action from using force, including the use of deadly force that results in the death of another person.   The determination of whether the statute applies is an issue that should be determined by the court and not the jury because if it applies no prosecution against the person to whom the immunity relates can be had: As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. Once the State of Florida, filed the charges, those charges carried with it a determination that there is probable cause that the force used by Zimmerman was unlawful.  Furthermore, if you look at the last section, section 3, although arguably it is couched in the context of civil litigation, it is the court and not the jury that makes the determination that defendant is immune from prosecution.

George Zimmerman, through his lawyer, waived the stand your ground immunity hearing and instead Zimmerman to argue self-defense, will not seek 'stand your ground' hearing. The whole purpose of the law, as I read it, is to preclude putting the defendant in jeopardy criminally if the Stand Your Ground Law is applicable.  Therefore, logically it would seem that if Stand Your Ground Hearing is waived as Zimmerman did, he effectively waived immunity from both the Criminal Prosecution and Civil lawsuit.

I must admit that when Zimmerman’s attorney waived the hearing and stated that he would proceed under self defense that he in fact meant that Zimmerman would be using the common or jurisprudence version of self defense and not Florida Stand Your Ground Immunity Statute.  However, after reflection on the Florid Supreme Court approved Jury Instructions for Justifiable Use of Deadly Force and the supporting statutes cited in those Jury Instructions, the Stand Your Ground Immunity Statute is in fact Florida’s version of self defense; otherwise, the Jury Instructions for Justifiable Use of Deadly Force used in the Zimmerman case makes absolutely no sense.

I often wondered why George Zimmerman was not arrested on the night of Trayvon Martin’s death; after all he had admitted to the shooting Trayvon Martin but had to do so in self defense.  However, after reading the above statutory provision, specifically subsection (2); it became crystal clear why there was no arrest.  Authorities were prohibited, by this statue, from arresting George Zimmerman before there was a probable cause determination that the force that was used was unlawful.  Once the special prosecutor had made the probable cause determination that the force used by Zimmerman was unlawful, the arrest could be made.  This may also explain why the defendant’s legal team waiver of their client’s right to the stand your ground hearing and chose instead self defense because in all probability they would have lost it and under Florida Law, the Stand Your Ground Hearing appears to be a probable cause hearing and generally the defendant does not give up any rights if he waives it.  Furthermore, in order for Zimmerman to prevail at the Stand Your Ground Hearing, Zimmerman would have had to testify and all of his inconsistent statements would be prove right from his own mouth.

Self defense is certainly considered an affirmative defense, to which the United States Supreme Court in Smith v United States, 568 U.S. _____ (2013); 133 S.Ct. 714 (2013), says that as to the specific affirmative defense raised in that case (which is not present in the Zimmerman case), the burden of proof shifts or rests with the defendant and not the prosecution to prove the affirmative defense.  However, under Florida Law, in a criminal proceeding it appears that all Zimmerman had to do is invoke his right to the statute and force the State to disprove that he was entitled to it beyond a reasonable doubt.  In a civil matter, Zimmerman will have to affirmatively alleged the immunity and prove by the preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to the defense.  The effect of the jury verdict in a subsequent civil matter is left to speculation as well as the weight that a judge in any subsequent civil matter would give to jury verdict in the criminal matter.

As stated previously it appears that the Stand Your Ground Immunity Statute, for all intents and purposes, is Florida’s Self Defense Law.  You can download and read the Zimmerman Justifiable Use of Deadly Force Jury Instructions for yourself here.   The relevant jury instructions given are the ones approved by the Florida Supreme Court and they incorporate the language and make numerous references to the Stand Your Ground Immunity Statute.  Therefore, it appears Self Defense is equivalent to Stand Your Ground Immunity.  You can review the Florida Supreme Court Approved Instruction for Justifiable Use of Deadly Force, Instruction 3.6 (f) here.   You will note that in the Zimmerman case Jury Instruction, there is no Jury Instruction given that relates to Zimmerman being the aggressor, 776.041; although one might argue that one should have been given.

For the purpose of this blog posting I will limit my discussion to the following Jury Instructions:  If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.  If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.(Emphasis added)

Here is my take on the Jury Instruction; in order for the jury to have reached the conclusion it did; regardless of whether the Jury Instructions were proper or not, Zimmerman had to be engaged in a lawful activity when the incident occurred, Zimmerman could not have been the attacker or aggressor and that the force used was reasonably necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to him.  This encounter would not have happened but for the actions of Zimmerman; which were contrary to the law and directives given to him by the Sanford Police Department, the Neighborhood Watch Coordinator and the Home Owners Association Memo, which advise to call the police period.  Zimmerman is stated to have confronted Trayvon Martin.  Zimmerman actually racially profiled Trayvon Martin; something that even the police cannot do. End of Story right; since under the facts and evidence, as I appreciate them; the if clause of the Jury Instruction for Justifiable Use of Deadly Force could not have been met?

Juror b37 in her interview with Anderson Cooper says that under the law they had no choice but to find George Zimmerman not guilty. At least four of the other jurors stated that they also did what the law required.  Juror b37 later put out a statement that the jury instructions tied their hands and that the Stand Your Ground Law needs to be changed. Juror b37 also states that George Zimmerman had done some things that he should not have done (unlawful activity?).  Well she is correct on two things, one George Zimmerman had no right to follow, stalk or harass Trayvon Martin; especially since he had been given specific instructions by the Police Department and the Neighborhood Watch not to, and he had no business racially profiling Trayvon Martin, and no person in their right mind could have reasonably believed that the only option to George Zimmerman was to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin or for that matter believe anything that came out of Zimmerman mouth.  For example, I would imagine that for most people pointing a gun at them would make them back off or even run, especially if they are themselves unarmed, as was the case of Trayvon Martin.  But then again, this might have caused Trayvon Martin to run away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman was having none of that (“these people always get away”).

The gun Zimmerman used was a semi-automatic with a safety switch on it.  How Zimmerman was able to reach behind himself, while he was allegedly pen down on the ground by Trayvon Martin, his word not my, remove his gun from its holster, take the safety off, if indeed it was on while in the holster, and then shoot Trayvon Martin in the chest just doesn’t add up to me; especially when he tells the police officer in his initial interview that he, was disorientated and couldn’t see that good.  This coupled with the fact that this incident occurred in a dark unlit portion of the complex and in an area that was either void of security camera or they were not working properly makes me believe that Zimmerman could have possibly picked the location for the incident. George Zimmerman and not Trayvon Martin was familiar with the area, camera location etc. In fact, in his statement to police, Zimmerman admits that he had knowledge that the security cameras may have been inoperative on the date and time he killed Trayvon Martin.  George Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch duty and was, according to his statement, on his way to the grocery store when he observed Trayvon Martin and circled back around when he observed Trayvon Martin.   The bottom line, juror b37 had her mind made up that George Zimmerman was not guilty no matter what the evidence, the law or the jury instructions state.  As such the jury verdict is tainted and for anyone to say that we should rest upon this jury verdict and move on is absolutely absurd.

The second thing juror b37 is correct on is that this case speaks volume for the proposition that Florida Stand Your Ground Law should be changed, if not repealed.

As stated previously,  it is clear that George Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity when he decided to pursue Trayvon Martin, even after being told not to and he initiate this pursuit because he had racially profiled Trayvon Martin, or he was stalking or harassing Trayvon Martin because of his race ; and therefore, he was engaged in unlawful activity that precipitated the fatal encounter with Trayvon Martin. Consequently in light of this Jury Instruction and under the facts and evidence presented in the case George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin was not justifiable use of deadly force; and therefore, the jury had no right to hold George Zimmerman not guilty; if indeed they followed the letter of the law as it appears in the Jury Instructions which they said obligated them to render the verdict it did.

In light of facts of the case, I cannot help but to wonder if there was another overriding reason for the outcome.  Was it because Trayvon Martin’s parents had already won a settlement in excess of one million dollars against the complex’s Home Ownership Association and its insurance company prior to the trial and therefore, there was no need for George, the name by which juror b37 used to describe Zimmerman, to spend the rest of his life behind bars for killing a black or color boy? Was it because juror b37 and her attorney husband had already written a book and the book would have sold more copies if Zimmerman had been found not guilty or was it that the guilty verdict would have meant that the ending would have had to be re-written?  You can view another blogger’s view of juror b37 here.

For all those that think Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong, I hope none of you would suggest that an insurance company would pay one million dollars to Trayvon Martin’s parents if it did not reasonably believe that its insured would be held liable for an amount greater than that if the case went to trial.  If you would suggest that, then I guess it is safe to say that you would believe someone when they tell you that they would sell you a plot of land and the land’s mineral rights that produces one million barrels of oil per day for $1.00.

The Florida Supreme Court can prevent the injustices rendered by this verdict for future cases in Florida. First, if in fact the Stand Your Ground Immunity Statute is equivalent to Self Defense, than eliminate or strike the stand your ground wording from the presently approved jury instruction for justifiable use of deadly force because in the average juror mind that prompts the belief that the defendant can do anything he or she please to defend himself or herself without punishment, as juror b37 comments amply illustrates. The language “stand your grounds” is not needed to comply with the Stand Your Ground Immunity Statute or Self Defense provisions found in 776.012, 776.013 or 776.031; since nowhere in the statute itself are those words used.  So why are the words “stand your ground” in the approved jury instructions?

Secondly, and this will probably have the most chilling effect on the use of the Stand Your Ground Law or self-defense provision of Florida Law, place the burden of proof of this affirmative defense by preponderance of the evidence, squarely on the shoulders of the one using it, the defendant; especially since it is not an element of the crime charged with which the prosecution should be obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, see Smith supra and Martin v Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), Dixon v United States 548 U.S. 1 (1986).  The chilling effect will come because in most instances it will force the defendants to testify and be subject to cross examination by the prosecutor if they want to carry their burden of proof for the affirmative defense by the preponderance of the evidence and would pass Constitutional guarantees according to Smith, Martin and Dixon, supra. 

In light of the Smith case supra, the Florida Supreme Court did exactly what is being proposed here, see  IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES— INSTRUCTIONS 25.9-25.13, (FL 2013).  Now will it do the same thing for the Justifiable Use of Deadly Force Jury Instruction that is the question?

Even if the Florida Supreme Court would adopt the suggestions above, this will have no effect on the other states that have similar Stand Your Ground Statute. 

Fortunately there are alternative vehicles to correct this travesty of justice and send a loud message to all those that would take matters into their own hands and to perpetrate senseless killings.  The first one is the federal hate crimes.  I hear the Department of Justice say that this or any other civil rights criminal action would be a difficult case to advance.  The only thing that is required to bring the case under the federal hate crime statute is Information issued by the Attorney General Eric Holder or a Federal Grand Jury Indictment. Now if Attorney General Eric Holder is concern that he does not have enough to certify this matter as a hate crime, let the Federal Grand Jury sought the case out; cover for him and Obama.  

Now if they are worried about winning the case, that should not be the overriding concern, let the Jury hear the case and decide it on the merits.  After all that is what the Jury System is supposed to do.  Trayvon Martin deserves no less because the last jury that heard this matter sure didn’t decide the case on the facts and evidence presented or for that matter, the law.  But then again the case would have to be tried in Florida and that may be the overriding consideration.  Well I am sure that as long as the jury selected to try this matter is not composed simply of persons sympathetic to the defendant, as was almost surely the case in the State Zimmerman case, justice will be served.  From all indications even in the jury that found George Zimmerman not guilty, on the initial vote, half was for guilty of some crime and there was at least one that held out for conviction until the very end.  Finally, to those who suggest that the federal government has no jurisdiction in matters dealing with criminal matters you need to take a good look at 18 USC § 249 (b) (1) (C). The Zimmerman case is the kind of case this provision was exactly designed for. Mr. Obama might I remind you,  it was you that signed this provision into law and now you are suggesting that it does not have application.  I wonder if we would be having this debate if Trayvon Martin had been a member of the LGBT community as well as being an African American.

Alternatively, arguably the federal government could have jurisdiction in this case under the Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Statue, since Zimmerman deprived Trayvon Martin his right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by killing him and Zimmerman did, in fact, state that the killing of Trayvon Martin, an African American, was justified by Florida Stand Your Ground Law.  Sounds like a potential Color of Law case to me.  Stretching it, maybe, but please don’t say the federal government has no jurisdiction in these matters.

On the issue of a winnable case, to the Department of Justice less not it forget,  there are several calls of Zimmerman to the Sanford Police Department where the description of the person of interest were all African American Male, forty plus time.  I guess, as far as Zimmerman was concerned, there were no other persons that would fit Zimmerman’s description of suspicious persons other than African American males.  The call Zimmerman made the night of Trayvon Martin death strongly suggest that he had racially profiled Trayvon Martin, code words were used and it is alleged that a racial slur was used by Zimmerman during the call.  A woman identified only as witness number 9 says that Zimmerman and his family harbors racist attitudes toward blacks and that she thought that Zimmerman may have done something to Trayvon Martin because he was black. The special prosecutor in the Zimmerman case has stated in interviews that she believes that the shooting of Trayvon Martin was racially motivated but was prevented from presenting any evidence, whatever evidence she has that substantiate her belief, or even to mention race by the court in the State Zimmerman trial.  Just about every African American in this country believes that this child lost his life simply because he was black, at the wrong place, at the wrong time (within the eyesight of a frustrated and angry white/Hispanic male that was hell bent on not allowing Trayvon Martin to escape from what he perceived Trayvon Martin was) and some vigilante decided to take the law in his own hand. Did the President and the Attorney General mean what they said when they said that they could have been Trayvon Martin?  As I appreciate the unspoken meaning behind these statements, I have been victims of racial profiling too.

Finally here is a quote from a conservative republican: “I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary”, Ronald Reagan. (Source for the Quote: Brainy Quotes)   So if Ronald Reagan was willing to use or call up the National Guard (I am assuming that this is what President Reagan mean when he said at gunpoint) to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I cannot understand why some would denounce using the court system to achieve this objective or to send a message that the type of behavior in the George Zimmerman case will not be tolerated.
Lyndon Johnson was the president who was instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Acts passed.  Both Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson were white.  Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder do you really want to go down in history as the first African American President and Attorney General and do absolutely nothing to enforce the rights of your own people and having the power to do so?  If you really and truly believe that Trayvon Martin could have been you, than stop talking about it and do something to prevent it from ever happening again.

The George Zimmerman case jury verdict defies all human logic and something needs to be done to send a message to all the George Zimmermans of the world, you cannot kill the Trayvon Martins of the world, vigilante style or otherwise, and get away with it without suffering the consequences.  I believe that this country is better than the jury verdict in the George Zimmerman case indicates or the rhetoric spreading since its announcement seems to indicate and I hope that something is done so that this kind of injustice will not happen again.  The Trayvon Martins of the world deserve nothing less.  What better way, than to send a loud message to the Zimmermans of this world that if you kill an unarmed African American, you risk the full arm of the American government coming down upon you via criminal prosecution or whatever other methods are available.  For the federal government not to do anything or only give lip service to the issue is to declare open season on African Americans because George Zimmerman has given the Zimmermans of the world the blueprint to killing African American males and getting away with it.

Now that’s my two cents worth, Leonard.

Fiscal Cliff-How did we get here?

Fiscal Cliff-How did we get here?

As we get closer and closer to the edge and it becomes increasingly apparent that the USA will take the plunge, I asked myself the question how did we get here in the first place. Well the short answer is that we spent our way into this mess. However, nothing in the world is ever that easy to resolve. The Republicans want to say do not raise taxes just cut spending. The Democrats say no give us more taxes and then cut spending. Republicans less government involvement, Democrats this country needs government involvement. Politics as usual and nothing is done. Mind you, no one wants to own up to their respective parts in the mess. It took both parties participation in brokering the deal that will take effect January 1, 2013, if nothing is done to undo it. This “compromise legislation” is what got us facing the fiscal cliff. Yet the President and Congress are considering proposing compromise legislation that will only put a bandage on the bigger problem. Individuals, lobbyists, corporations, political ideologies are shaping this country’s future and in my humble opinion in the wrong direction.

While compromise was written into the United States Constitution in the form and fashion of the three-fifths (3/5) compromise which relegated people of color to less than a person in order to get the southern states to ratify the Constitution, some compromises are not good compromises even if they achieve an immediate goal or objective. I hope no one would argue that slavery or relegating a person to a second-class citizen and the property of another was a good thing. If you do, just do a little research of this country’s history, the causes of the Civil War for starters.

There is a move in this country that is polluting the very fiber and principles upon which this great nation was founded. The words “We the People” are now being translated in Me, Myself and I; i.e. what is in it for me. Our forefathers must be turning over in their graves to see what they created through their blood, sweat and yes tears be relegated to our present belief of anything goes so long as it gets me what I want. I got my, you get yours the best way you can even if you are down on your luck (homeless, food stamps, Medicaid, you name it). Have we grown into a heathen nation of greedy do-nothings? Yes that’s right do-nothings, in the sense that they choose to sit on their wealth and not re-invest it in a nation or its people. At one point during the deep recession, it was estimated that Americans were sitting on some $2 trillion. Now if this is what the rich is going to do with lower taxes, let them be required to pay more to the government and lower its deficit. The Republican Party argument that  keeping taxes lower on the 98% will stimulate the economy and produce jobs just does not hold water with reality. For them to say leave the 98% alone and cut Veteran benefits, Social Security Benefits, Medicare, Medicaid is simply ludicrous. None of these entitlement programs significantly adds to the deficit, if they do at all. The recipients of these benefits have actually earned them, either through their service to our country, or taxes paid at some point throughout their lives and/or monthly insurance premiums. However, the tax rates and deductions the Republicans demand for the 98% actually do contribute to the deficit. Some estimates are as high as $1.3 trillion dollars. These tax cuts, two unfunded wars and Medicare Part D, the unfunded drug plan pushed through Congress by the Republicans during the Bush Administration, is the reasons for the deficit. How dare the Republicans now say America must cut, cut and more cuts to spending and balance the budget when they spent, spent and cut taxes for the rich creating the deficit? I guess it is do as I say and not do as I do that is working here.

When I was back in college studying to get my degree in accounting, I learned that in presenting a balance sheet there is a simple formula used,  Assets= Liabilities+ Equity. A key component of the equity portion of the equation is retained earnings. The simplest forms of retained earnings consist of the accumulation of profit and losses from the business inception. Therefore, if a business has been strictly profitable throughout the years, its retained earnings and consequently, the owner’s equity should be substantial and the liability section of the balance sheet should be significantly lower to make the equation work. Just to keep it simple here, we will say profit equal excess revenues over expenses. If all you do is cut your expenses without raising revenue, eventually your balance sheet will shrink because your assets will not increase because there is not any additional cash coming in to buy other assets. Yes, your liabilities will likewise shrink because outflow will be reduced correspondingly to the cuts, but the effect is no growth only maintaining stability. Consequently, a healthy business or country must not only control spending but it must also increase revenue in order to grow. There is no way a business can continue to survive simply by cutting spending and not increasing its revenues. The math just will not work.

History tells us that when George W. Bush took office, Bill Clinton left him a $1 trillion-dollar surplus and within eight years, not only had George W. Bush wiped out the surplus, but he also left President Obama with a $13+ trillion-dollar deficit. The reason for this is simple. During the Clinton years, revenues were up and spending was not in excess of revenues. During the Bush years, revenues were down, primarily due to tax cuts for the rich, and spending was off the charts, primarily because of two unfunded wars. The math the Republicans used during the Bush years did not work then and just will not work now. Oh I am sorry, I forgot, the math is different for a Democratic President.  Mr. Obama has to balance the budget and reduce the deficit all without a dime increase in revenue.  Next, I guess they will ask him to walk on water.

Now that the USA is facing a fiscal cliff nightmare, we have another problem that coincidentally will occur the same day, the USA debt ceiling would have been reached. It seems that we have been here before. Wasn’t it the negotiations over the debt ceiling that got us the fiscal cliff compromise in the first place and I suspect it will produce an equally bad law this time if the President and Democrats cave to Republicans demands once again to not to tax the rich in return for the raising the debt ceiling. Mr. President I hope you do not allow the Republicans to back you into the corner again because of this impending Debt Ceiling limitation. How dare the Republicans in Congress hold this country hostage by not performing their Constitutional duties they swore to perform, one of which is to insure that the full faith and credit of the United States of America is never called into question? In any event, one scholar has suggested there are three ways Obama could bypass Congress on the debt ceiling issue.  Mr. President what have you got to lose if the Congress will not do their job, you do it for them?


Will it be Déjà Vu or will we see a different outcome this time? If it means enacting another bad compromise or falling off the fiscal cliff, I would choose let us fall. At least we all will suffer not just the poor and powerless.

Now that is my two cents worth, Leonard

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Don't Ask Don't Tell

    Don't Ask and Don't Tell Poster Boy Recalled? The original article read indicates that the soldier that has been the center of the debate of repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy written into law by congress has been called back to active duty. They later published a correction. Whether he is on active duty or reinstated to duty in the National Guard is of little consequence since his being reinstated in the National Guard could potentially allow him to be called to active duty; if and when his unit is activated.

In enacting Don't Ask Don't Tell , Congress made numerous findings and made it against the law for any individual to openly tell what their sexual preference is and more importantly to persistently commit homosexual acts. It should be noted in section (b) (2) of the law, the fact that a person declares himself or herself as a homosexual is not what mandates their dismissal but it is their propensity to commit homosexual acts in the future. Lt. Dan Choi knew he was potentially violating the law and military rules when he openly declared his sexual preference and merely allowed himself to be used as the poster child for this hot button issue. So what is next, the reinstatement of all soldiers who have been discharged from the armed services for not following its rules? If not, then are we telling them, sorry no help for you since you are not on the wrong side of a politically hot button issue? As far as I know, the law is still in effect. So how can this happen? Any good soldier follows orders no matter the personal cost to him or her. Honoring Mr. Choi for his openly disobeying rules of the armed services by reinstating him in his National Guard Unit is not the way to make sure that military orders are followed. To me it gives every member of the armed services a license to disobey military orders or rules that they do not like.

As I read the law, it protects the rights of all armed service personnel. Heterosexuals in the armed services can also be court martial for their sexual preferences, and that is what homosexuality is, a sexual preference, such as fraternizing with subordinates, rape, adulterous relationships; etc.; see for example punitive military law provisions, particularly noting 10 USC §§ 920, 920a, 925, 933 and 934. Should the military personnel who violate these rules be given a free pass also? All too often I have heard Mr. Obama saying that he cannot promote laws that single out a particular group; particular those laws that will promote African-American issues over those of other Americans. So why is Mr. Obama pushing for the repeal of a law, the appeal of which takes into account the wishes of a single group? Mr. Obama, it would appear that you are playing politics and stroking the passions of a very vocal and politically connected group over those that are not so vocal or politically connected.

As will be seen in a recent Politico article democrats are worried about repealing don't ask don't tell; as well they should be. In this article, House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) is quoted as saying on "Meet the Press" recently: "In the middle of two wars, and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?" Now there is very little coming out of John Boehner's mouth that makes sense to me, but this quote is an exception. Mr. Obama and fellow democrats, you would do well not to get into this debate and leave well enough along. If Don't Ask and Don't Tell did not prevent Bill Clinton or George W. Bush from being reelected; it certainly should not prevent you from being reelected. What will, in my opinion, is the lack of leadership you have demonstrated on issues that drive most Americans one way or the other; it is the economy and health care.

Now that is my two cents worth, Leonard.

HEALTH CARE REFORM-LIBERMAN’S WAY

Health Care Reform-Lieberman's Way

 

I have been reading in the news accounts on the web and television stations and it now comes down to one lone senator which states that he will not support healthcare reform bill pending before the U.S. Senate unless it is stripped of its provisions to give senior citizens, ages 55 to 64, who presently do not qualify for Medicare to buy into Medicare; a position that the Senator has in the past supported. Yes I am talking about Joe Lieberman and his power play move in the Senate; to which, it appears that Harry Reid and Barack Obama are poised to acquiesce to. So much for government by the people and for the people when one lone Senator can derail legislation that most logical people would say is long overdue. It is time for real healthcare reform in this country and it is time for anyone with another hidden agenda to step aside or be pushed aside in the name of the greater good. The only way to achieve real healthcare reform is to have a public option available to all those that want one because it is the only way to hold the for profit insurance companies accountable and to get them to play fair.

First, let me say I have no personal agenda in this matter. You see I am already receiving the benefits of a single payer system called Medicare, parts A, B and D and I will received these benefits for as long as I receive Social Security; since my premiums are automatically deducted from my check every month and I cannot be cancelled for any pre-existing condition or change in my health. So you see I have nothing to gain in this fight. In fact, I may lose something if we add millions more to Medicare, so be it. However, the millions of Americans who either cannot afford healthcare, cannot get it because their health conditions precludes them from getting insurance in the private sector have a great deal to loose in this struggle. I would venture to say that this struggle waged by one man with a personal agenda is a matter of life or death to them. But Mr. Lieberman and the republicans poised to vote against this bill don't care about them. I guess they are saying to themselves, I got my you get yours the best way you can so long as it does not affect my political contributions and interests. America this is not what we should be about and this is not what we are about. Special interests should not dictate this matter. What is right and fair to all Americans should.

As for Mr. Lieberman, it seems that his hands in this matter are not clean. His agenda is not for the people it is for Joe Lieberman. If not, how would you explain his about face on the very legislation he says would be an obstacle to his voting for cloture (a procedural move to end debate on a piece of legislation) of the Healthcare legislation. The truth of the matter you cannot. Joe Lieberman has stated from the beginning that he was going to side with the republicans on healthcare and on that issue he has not done an about face. No matter what the democrats give Lieberman, he will not side with the democrats on this or any issue. He has shown his true colors. Did he not participate in the Republican National Convention? Did he not campaign for the Republican Nominee for President of the United States of America? Did he not run as an independent to retain his seat as the Senator from Connecticut after the Democratic Party rejected him in favor of another Democrat? Come on people Joe Lieberman is not for the good of the people of Connecticut, United States of America or anyone or anything else other than Joe Lieberman. The leadership of the Senate and the President of the United States of America should send Joe Lieberman packing to the party of his choice, the Republican Party and strip him of his chairmanship and let him caucus with the party whose luggage he is carrying, the party of NO. Furthermore, it would seem that Mr. Lieberman maybe carrying the luggage of the insurance industry since he has received considerable amounts from them since 2005.

So why doesn't Harry Reid just send the legislation to conference now since it is obvious whatever bill passes the Senate will be in opposition to the one passed by the House of Representatives and have to go to conference committee anyway? Unless, the House of Representatives do a complete about face and agree to a final bill without the public option in it; we will be right back where we are now debating in the Senate over public option in the final bill. So unless the conference report comes back without a public option in it; according to Mr. Lieberman it's dead on arrival anyway because he will not vote for it. At least, what goes to the conference committee will not be a watered down version of a bill and Mr. Lieberman and the Republicans could no longer hold up the process unless there has to be a cloture vote on the Conference Committee Legislation and/or need sixty (60) votes to pass the Conference Committee Legislation.

I would dare to say that had Lyndon Johnson caved into the conventional wisdom of his day, there would have been no Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed. In fact, had Mr. Johnson not used the power of his office, these landmark legislation would still be sitting on the drawing board and there would have been no way the United States of America could have ever gotten to the point where it elected its first African-American president. Mr. Obama, the people of the United States of America gave you a mandate in November, 2008 don't relinquish that mandate to the likes of Joe Lieberman and the party of NO.

Now that's my two cents worth, Leonard.

RULES ARE RULES FOLKS

Hillary Clinton is pushing the seating of Michigan and Florida “delegation” based upon the vote as it was on their illegal, contrary to the DNC Rules . As it presently stands, neither of the states elected delegates, the ones based upon the presidential preference primary, or the Superdelegates are entitled to vote on the presidential nomination. Once any deal is structured to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations both the elected or voted upon delegates as well as the Superdelegates would come into play. As a consequence, the magic number to get the nomination will change to the 2209 that Clinton is striving for; the game changer that she is looking for to get her the nomination. If she accomplishes what she is striving for, most of the Superdelegates from the two states would probably have allegiances to Clinton; simply because she was instrumental in getting their delegations seated.

Rules are rules folks. The Michigan and Florida state legislature and the democratic party leadership was aware of the rules when they voted to set their respective presidential preference primaries prior to the calendar dates set by the DNC. Nobody can be rewarded for misbehaving and giving the Michigan and Florida delegation the opportunity to sway this nomination would in fact reward them for misbehaving. The most that Michigan and Florida can hope for is the seating of half their delegation based upon some formula associated with the vote in presidential preference primary with no Superdelegates being eligible to vote, as mandated by the DNC Rules 20 C (1) (a).

Secondly, I am firmly convinced that Clinton campaigned in Florida both prior to and on the night of the Florida presidential preference primary; and therefore, she should not be entitled to any delegates under the DNC rules; DNC Rule 20 C (1) (b).

We can’t have one set of rules for forty-eight states plus United States territories and another set of rules for Michigan and Florida. We can’t have one set of rules for every other candidate for the office of president and another set of rules for Hillary Clinton. Changing the rules at the end of the game to win is not what life is all about.

Now that is my two cents worth.

Leonard.

CALLING ON BLACK AMERICA

If the Democratic Party does not do the right thing, you do the right thing, stay home November 4, 2008.

Clinton, the Democratic Party and the American people have written you off. Apparently they all think they can win back the White House without you. If they don’t change their mindset and nominate the first viable African-American presidential candidate, Barack Obama, I strongly suggest that you let them win the White House without your vote and stay home November 4, 2008. It is high time that the voting strength of the African-American be not relegated to: it will be good if we had them, but we are not going to do anything to insure that they vote for us, because we know they will in the end. If this is not the mindset of the powers that be, then why do you think tactics and statements, like these, continue to be the norm? Why else would Hillary Clinton even be considering this: Clinton Campaign Considering Nuclear War?

It is suggested that the African-American vote will be there for the party no matter what and they are counting on peace maker Barack Obama to save them, if they don’t do the right thing and nominate him, see Can Hillary win without blowing up the Democratic Party? But I say to the African-Americans of this Nation send a message to the Democratic Party that you made your bed now lie in it without us.

For too many years the Democratic Party has taken your allegiance to them for granted. Their dragging their feet in announcing and backing Barack Obama is a classic example of this. If the threat of losing any other voting block was on the table depending on which way they would go, this nomination process would have been over since February, 2008 after Barack Obama won eleven (11) straight primary victories. There is no doubt in my mind that if the reverse was true, Barack Obama would have been pressured to drop out of the race months ago.

The consistent rationale for their possible support of Hillary Clinton is the potential of bringing back some core white voters that they lost many years ago; presumably because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, A Fault Line That Haunts the Democrats. If the so-called Regan democrats have been gone since 1972, how is offering up Hillary Clinton to them going to get them back. The Regan democrats stood their ground and still went republican in 1992 and 1996 when Bill Clinton won solely on the strength of his African-American voters support. The truth is it will not and this is a mere smoke screen for not wanting to nominate a viable African-American candidate for president of the United States of America, by some democrats and the Democratic Party leadership.

A recent CBS Poll Shows Obama is own a rebound and now leads McCain by eleven points and Clinton by twelve points. This comes after the media attempted to derail Obama’s campaign with its endless coverage of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright distraction. A recent endorsement editorial in The Charlotte Observer made it clear why the Democratic Party should nominate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, as they stated it is Time for a change. Barack Obama has won thirty-one (31) states with twenty-two (22) by double digit leads. Why the democrats would even consider going with someone other than Barack Obama in light of this is beyond me?

Clinton’s whole argument of Barack Obama’s of electability appears to be as one article questions: Obama's "Electability" is code for race? Whether that is true or not I will let you make the call. I do believe that the taking of this presidential nomination from Barack Obama by the Democratic Party and Clinton’s back room maneuverings should be taken as the Democratic Party’s and Hillary Clinton throwing the African-American votes away. So don’t give them what they need to win in November, your vote.

If one woman, Rosa Parks, can say enough is enough and start a ripple in race relations that evolved into a tidal waive, just imagine what millions of African-American voters staying home on November 4, 2008 will do to the Democratic Party and its chances to regain the White House. My take on its effort is it will be dead on arrival.

So if Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party want to go down this path to defeat, let them go down it without the African-American voters in tow and send them a message that will be loud and clear. You have taken our allegiances to the Democratic Party for granted in the past but you shouldn’t have done it this time. Enough is enough. I say stay home, stay home and stay home, if they don’t do the right thing.

Now that is my two cents worth, Leonard.

THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT-BARACK OBAMA

It is time for this distraction to go away and for America and the media to get on track with the real issues affecting America and its people, as Elizabeth Edwards put it in her recent Op-Ed, Bowling 1, Health Care 0. For all of those who want this to be an issue, get over yourself and lets get back to what really matters to Americans, Iraq, health care, the gas prices, the economy and the future of the United States of America. The only issue in this distraction is how America refuses to come to grips with the distinction between the African-American’s and the rest of America’s worship experience and how their preachers preach. There is a real difference in the methodology of the African-American preacher. There is a real difference in the religious worship of the two Americas, if you will. Case in point, Sunday morning worship time is the most segregated time in America. If the worship service experience is the same, why is that?

Whether America wants to admit it or not; including some African-American media commentators, there is a difference between how the rest of America is treated over its religious traditions versus the way African-Americans are treated. John McCain has controversial ministers supporting him, John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Hillary Clinton is a prominent member of The Family or The Fellowship. The media stays away from any comments on these associations, yet continues on an endless loop on Barack Obama’s association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Barack Obama should no more be condemn for his association with the Reverend Wright than John McCain’s association with John Hagee and Rod Parsley or Hillary Clinton’s association with the Fellowship. If you disagree with this; than you should hear all the hype over John McCain’s endorsements and Hillary Clinton’s association with the Fellowship. Don’t waste your time looking for it none exist. Further, two of Hillary Clinton’s surrogates Ed Rendell and Bill Clinton praised Minister Farrakhan. Does that make Hillary Clinton a Muslim? Should Clinton now denounce, repudiate and reject Ed Rendell’s and Bill Clinton’s endorsement of her? Should she explain her husband’s and Ed Rendell’s relationship with Farrakhan as many of the commentators have suggested that Barack Obama should do, again and again? Are John McCain and Hillary Clinton guilty by their associations, as all the media and the candidates themselves want to do with Barack Obama?

Freedom of Speech and Religion is written into the Constitution of the United States of America’s First Amendment. Discrimination is also written into the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1 Section 2, where people of color were designated as three-fifth of a person; therefore, inferior to the rest of Americans. This view of African-Americans unfortunately has not changed to full equality since this great country’s inception. There has been a significant improvement but not full equality. One does not have to look any farther than the treatment of Barack Obama and Reverend Wright over what some feel is a controversial statement and the controversial statements of endorsers and surrogates of the other candidates in the presidential race.

If the Reverend Wright’s detraction was a main issue in this campaign, there is no way that Obama could have closed the lead Hillary Clinton had in Pennsylvania Poll. If anything; if it was a real issue that was a campaign changer, as some commentators had predicated and are now predicting, it should have increased her twenty plus percent lead that she enjoyed in Pennsylvania prior to this distraction. At one time in the Quinnipiac poll Clinton led Obama by 33 points, 10-31-2007 to 11-5-2007 and when the news broke 26 points in the PPP poll, 3-15-16-2008. The final margin of victory for Clinton in Pennsylvania was 9.2 points. It is clear that this distraction was not and is not a game changer and the media and Obama should not let it fester and get back to the issues that really affect the American people. Put it another way, if Barack Obama’s speech on race relations, A More Perfect Union, in America did not put this distraction to bed, if the Jeremiah Wright interview with Bill Moyer did not put this distraction to bed; than nothing will.

Let’s move on America, this election is more important than sound bites, Reverend Wright or the media’s obsession with this distraction.

Now that is my two cents worth, Leonard.