freshwest
freshwest's JournalHow does he feel about this man who's been physically disabled for 50 years?
If Dawkins wants to play the eugenics game, he'd better be in perfect health forever or someone may say it's time for him to 'exit stage left.'
I know folks like Stephen Hawking and others with Down's and many who fall in between. What right has this guy to judge who should live or die?
What he is presenting as 'immoral' is the same logic Nazis used with Aktion T4 as mercy killlings, no matter what their parents or their caregivers wanted.
The reason given to sell the program was the cost of care of 'useless eaters.' I know people with Down's who are able to work and fully support themselves. So what does Dawkins want or is he just speaking from a place of privilege?
Aktion 14 eventually grew to the point it would have put Hawkin to death when he got sick and never allowed him to develop his potential.
UGH! Dawkins need to take a break with his arrogant blather.
A careful read of this may answer that question, but I'm really busy right now. Here's the law:
18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts(a) In General.—
(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or
(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
(A) In general.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—
(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(I) death results from the offense; or
(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
(B) Circumstances described.— For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that—
(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim—
(I) across a State line or national border; or
(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)—
(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
(3) Offenses occurring in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the united states.— Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.
(4) Guidelines.— All prosecutions conducted by the United States under this section shall be undertaken pursuant to guidelines issued by the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, to be included in the United States Attorneys’ Manual that shall establish neutral and objective criteria for determining whether a crime was committed because of the actual or perceived status of any person.
(b) Certification Requirement.—
(1) In general.— No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that—
(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
(2) Rule of construction.— Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.
(c) Definitions.— In this section—
(1) the term “bodily injury” has the meaning given such term in section 1365 (h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;
(2) the term “explosive or incendiary device” has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
(3) the term “firearm” has the meaning given such term in section 921 (a) of this title;
(4) the term “gender identity” means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and
(5) the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
(d) Statute of Limitations.—
(1) Offenses not resulting in death.— Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.
(2) Death resulting offenses.— An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
Note that the state may not have a hate crimes law as many refused to pass them. The GOP has fought these state by state and federally. But this was passed and they have not been able to repeal it... yet. The 2014 elections may let them do as it is their stated intent to repeal more laws than making any. Which is the another reason they won't do a thing to help the people, economy or anything else that does not directly go into the pockets of their masters.
As a decent non racist white person, I disagree with that stance. I don't go for RW smears of a man
who while not perfect, is in tune with those he's speaking about.Complaining about the family's choice of Rev. Al is as patronizing and racist as Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly have been. I don't give a damn if they wanted Farrakhan to say a few words. It's not my son being buried.
Bashing Obama and Holder on this are just as patronizing as the RW pundits telling 'those people' how to handle things. Obama and Holder will not be there because it would be considered an illegal, undue influence which was proven here in the case I cite below. Does anyone at DU remember how this turned out?
I did and so did Obama:
Judge: Obama sex assault comments unlawful command influence.
Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively discharged, if found guilty, because of “unlawful command influence” derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a Hawaii military court this week.
Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.
On Wednesday and Thursday, Fulton approved the pretrial defense motions, which used as evidence comments that Obama made about sexual assault at a May 7 news conference:
“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.
‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”
Continued in article:
http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974
to okaawhatever:
He wasn't talking about Johnson or Fuentes, he was making policy. It was in response and support of a bill to end sexual assaults in the military by not allowing them to be swept under the rug by technicalities, such as how good a soldier they'd been otherwise. I believe most fair minded Americans agreed with every word he said, but:
The victim represented by the US never saw justice because of the way that the judge interpreted those words. I think the judge was wrong but that is what happened. So in order to not let that happen again, he cannot visit or say what he thinks on Wilson and all the rest of it.
It's not about him being a coward, not caring, or any of what he's been accused. It's about caring for the victim and his family enough to not have his words used to allow the shooter to escape justice.
His tough talk taken out of context hurt a victim.* Is that not a higher goal than satistfying voyeurs on the net demanding to see him rip into Ferguson PD and the shooter?
Is that cheap thrill worth letting Michael Brown and his community suffer by letting the defense use his words to establish undue influence to free Wilson?
Most of us know damn well that they will. This is a disgrace to talk about a man who is trying to get the best thing done, not go for the political win in the short run and lose the bigger goal of justice.
JMHO!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025408241#post108
*Note, he recieved little praise on DU for that tough speech in the interview on his stance, either, only fault finding that there were any rapes going on at all. Obama has two daughters and is called the First Feminist President by some women. Why think he doesn't care?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025408826#post66
It's not for lack of caring that he's not there, nor is he or Holder not in the loop. They sent the FBI, done another autopsy, and are making a case that will change things in Feguson in the future, which is what the people there really want.
I expect the DOJ is going to make a case the PD will not be able to escape from and take control of the town's police force. An example of past cases effecting major changes, which got no media coverage or credit at DU:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/law-disorder/17-justice-dept-investigations-into-police-departments-nationwide/
Some people have been thinking about the process involved there:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025407386
I'm not ascribing those things to you personally. But DUers need to look at the context.
It's not the right of us as white people to criticize how the Brown family chooses to grieve the death of Michael.
JMHO.
Media owners, like kings of old, only tolerate dissent from their jesters, is why.
If they go too far, like Olbermann or Rather, they will be villified then replaced by another who speaks to the American sense of indignation and their longing for justice. As they are shown the door, the masses focus on that and not the truth of what got them tossed off the air. Thus the narrative cannot build upon itself with repetition to effect needed change.They are proud of the world order they want to create, as Europeans were of slaughtering NA's.
VICE may have shown their videos of them raping those women and girls and killing them, and trumad may have seen those videos. He has kids. I'm sure that Obama saw those before he ordered humanitarian aid and the airpower to support it. But he spoke carefully, not throwing any red meat like Bush did to satisfy the desire of the masses for bread and circuses. Just as he's been circumspect on Ferguson, but it's deprived many of their meal, too.
He is doing so because he cares about results, not what people think of him. Last time his policy words, which most Americans would agree with fully, set two alleged rapists free:
Judge: Obama sex assault comments unlawful command influence.
...Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively discharged, if found guilty, because of “unlawful command influence” derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a Hawaii military court this week.
Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.
On Wednesday and Thursday, Fulton approved the pretrial defense motions, which used as evidence comments that Obama made about sexual assault at a May 7 news conference:
“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.
‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”
Continued in article:
http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974
to okaawhatever:
He wasn't talking about Johnson or Fuentes, he was making policy. It was in response and support of a bill to end sexual assaults in the military by not allowing them to be swept under the rug by technicalities, such as how good a soldier they'd been otherwise.
The victims represented by the US never saw justice because of the way that the judge interpreted those words. I think the judge was wrong but that is what happened. So in order to not let that happen again, he cannot visit or say what he thinks on Wilson and all the rest of it...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025408826#post66
Our leaders will be found wrong by all sides no matter what they say or do on these situations, but will stick to the longer term goal, no matter who complains.
In the meantime, there is no national will to stop ISIS in the world by the USA mobilizing to do such and I'm not saying we should. We will stand by and hope it all goes away without overt or covert actions. We can't be seen as endorsing any military or monetary policy to eliminate them on DU. We can't join in the chorus of Islamophobic RWers, they are wrong.
This is a tough time to live in this world with increased population and depleted resources and the ravages of climate change. Things are going to get very rough. JMHO.
WHY Obama cannot make any remarks considered prejudical or visit: WILSON WILL WALK!
Who remembers this? I did and so did Obama:
Judge: Obama sex assault comments unlawful command influence.
Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively discharged, if found guilty, because of “unlawful command influence” derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a Hawaii military court this week.
Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.
On Wednesday and Thursday, Fulton approved the pretrial defense motions, which used as evidence comments that Obama made about sexual assault at a May 7 news conference:
“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.
‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”
Continued in article:
http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974
to okaawhatever:
He wasn't talking about Johnson or Fuentes, he was making policy. It was in response and support of a bill to end sexual assaults in the military by not allowing them to be swept under the rug by technicalities, such as how good a soldier they'd been otherwise.
The victim represented by the US never saw justice because of the way that the judge interpreted those words. I think the judge was wrong but that is what happened. So in order to not let that happen again, he cannot visit or say what he thinks on Wilson and all the rest of it.
It's not about him being a coward, not caring, or any of what he's been accused. It's about caring for the victim and his family enough to not have his words used to allow the shooter to escape justice.
His tough talk taken out of context hurt a victim.* Is that not a higher goal than satistfying voyeurs on the net demanding to see him rip into Ferguson PD and the shooter?
Is that cheap thrill worth letting Michael Brown and his community suffer by letting the defense use his words to establish undue influence to free Wilson?
Most of us know damn well that they will. This is a disgrace to talk about a man who is trying to get the best thing done, not go for the political win in the short run and lose the bigger goal of justice.
JMHO!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025408241#post108
*Note, he recieved no praise on DU for that tough speech in the interview on his stance, either, only fault finding that there were any rapes going on at all. Obama has two daughters and is called the First Feminist President by some women. Why think he doesn't care?
WHY Obama cannot make any remarks considered prejudical or visit: WILSON WILL WALK!
Who remembers this? I did and so did Obama:
Judge: Obama sex assault comments unlawful command influence.
Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively discharged, if found guilty, because of “unlawful command influence” derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a Hawaii military court this week.
Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.
On Wednesday and Thursday, Fulton approved the pretrial defense motions, which used as evidence comments that Obama made about sexual assault at a May 7 news conference:
“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.
‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”
Continued in article:
http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974
to okaawhatever:
He wasn't talking about Johnson or Fuentes, he was making policy. It was in response and support of a bill to end sexual assaults in the military by not allowing them to be swept under the rug so many times.
The victim represented by the US never saw justice because of how the judge interpreted those words. I think the judge was wrong but that is what happened. So in order to not let that happen again, he cannot visit or say what he thinks on Wilson and all the rest of it.
It's not about him being a coward, not caring, or any of what he's been accused. It's about caring for the victim and his family enough to not have his words used to allow the shooter to escape justice.
Is that not a higher goal than satistfying voyeurs on the net demanding to see him rip into Ferguson PD and the shooter?
Is that cheap thrill worth letting Michael Brown and his community suffer by letting the defense use his words to establish undue influence to free Wilson?
Most of us know damn well that they will. This is a disgrace to talk about a man who is trying to get the best thing done, not go for the political win in the short run and lose the bigger goal of justice.
JMHO!
Wow. Underthematrix is a voice who is speaking an inconvenient truth.
There is a lot of willful ignorance out there and it's Tea Party Proud.
Here's something to cheer you up, then!
REO SPEEDWAGON ~ Tough Guys
She doesn't like the tough guys.
They think that they can do anything they please.
But they're gonna get a surprise,
When she brings them to their knees.
'Cus she doesn't like the rough guys.
They act like they can have any girl they choose.
They've got tricks, but my baby got wise,
So in case you haven't heard the news,
She doesn't like the tough guys.
She doesn't like the rough guys.
So find some one you own size,
'Cus she's not afraid of you.
She doesn't like the tough guys.
She thinks that they've got brains all where they sit.
They think they're full of fire,
She thinks they're full of shit.
She doesn't like the tough guys.
She says she's heard enough lies.
She's gonna call your bluff, guys.
And you better believe it's true.
She don't like you.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 11:36 PMNumber of posts: 53,661