Photo from Telegraph.uk.co files
I just read an article of Tom Leonard’s dated October 2009 titled “Texas man faces execution after jurors consult Bible to decide fate”.
Here are some excerpts:
“Amnesty International has appealed to the state to commute the sentence on Khristian Oliver, 32, who is due to die on November 5.
He was sentenced to death in 1999 for murdering a man whose home Oliver was burgling. The victim was shot in the face and beaten with his own rifle.”
Note: Anyone who lives in America is well aware how seriously Texas is about carrying out the death penalty. Notice how Mr. Leonard opens the article with “Amnesty International” to attempt to give credibility to the issue to be discussed.
“It later emerged that while deciding whether he should be given the death penalty, jurors consulted the Bible. Four jury members admitted that several copies had been in the jury room and that highlighted passages were passed around.
At one point, a juror reportedly read aloud from a copy, including the passage: "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death."
Defense lawyers argued in appeals that jurors had been improperly influenced by the Bibles but the trial judge rejected the claim, a decision upheld by a Texas appeals court.
The US constitution calls for the separation of state and religion. In 2005, the state supreme court in Colorado overturned a death penalty on a convicted murderer because jurors had consulted the Bible while deliberating over his sentence.”
Note: In this latest passage he scorns the fact that some of the Jury members refer to the Bible in their deliberations. The Trial lawyers, doing what they do best in raising any kind of issue to spare their clients punishment appealed, and lost (again Texans take their death penalty seriously as well as their right to consult a higher authority). Finally, the exasperated Mr. Leonard refers to the “US Constitution’s separation clause” citing a liberal State that is home to Ward Churchill as the more progressive legal precedence.
He ends his article again with “Amnesty International” – “Kate Allen, Amnesty International's UK director, said Oliver's trial was a "travesty".
"Religious texts provide consolation and spiritual guidance for billions of people the world over, but this use of the Bible to decide life or death in a capital trial is deeply, deeply troubling," she said.”
The next article that I read from Mr. Leonard was written on December 31, 2009 titled “America's armed militia on the rise”.
Here are some excerpts:
“Extremist "patriot" groups and other armed militias have undergone a dramatic resurgence in America, their numbers more than doubling in the past year amid growing Right-wing fears over expanding federal power and gun control.
Such groups – a mix of libertarians, gun rights advocates and survivalists – appeared to be in terminal decline before the election of Barack Obama, according to monitoring bodies.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which tracks extremist organisations, says it has so far counted more than 300 patriot groups this year, at least double last year's total of 150. The real total will be much higher as many groups do not go out of their way to publicise their existence.”
Note: Notice how Mr. Leonard starts with “extremist patriot groups” and other armed militias. While he added the “armed militias” after calling American’s who consider themselves patriots (follow the Constitution and the Founding Fathers visions) are called extremists. It was the Southern Poverty Law Center that he cites (like he cited “Amnesty International as the norm) are the ones that Janet Napolitano used as her source to put out that “Right Wing Extremist” memo to law enforcement before pulling it and apologizing to Veterans.
“A similar wave of anti-government groups, some of whose members dress in camouflage gear and conduct military training at weekends, sprung up during the Clinton administration.
However, SPLC researchers said there was a new race factor reflecting President Obama's ethnicity and immigration fears.”
Note: Notice the “extreme right wing conspiracy” angle that the Clintons use to pull out when things did not go their way politically. The author could not help himself to pulling out the race card as well.
“One of the new patriot groups is called Oath Keepers. Its members, like those in other groups, look for guidance from America's Founding Fathers.
Formed last spring, Oath Keepers' members – limited to current or former servicemen and police – swear to obey the US constitution rather than politicians.
Stewart Rhodes, the founder, told The Daily Telegraph that the situation was a "potential powder keg".
He said: "The one thing that would probably lead [groups] to armed resistance is if the government did try to confiscate weapons, but that was what finally led to fighting in the American Revolution".
Note: Boy those “Oath Keepers” sound dangerous indeed. How dare they swear to obey the US Constitution rather than politicians? The real reason the author finds them dangerous, as Janet Napolitano and the SPLC did is because they are current and former military and law enforcement personnel – oh, and plus they will not turn their guns on the mothers, brothers, sisters, brothers and neighbors when the politicians tell them to during a “fabricated crisis” to declare martial law. The founder of the Oath Keepers only confirmed that the impetus for “armed resistance” would be the confiscation of our Constitution right to bear arms. Once again, how dare they threaten to uphold a Constitutional provision?
Mr. Leonard ends this article with the one thing he can hang his hat on, a lone wolf –
“Richard Poplawski, a Pittsburgh man who shot dead three police officers in April, complained to friends that the government was infringing gun rights.”
Another article from Mr. Leonard that I read was truly astounding even if came from a socialist writer it was written in June 2009 and was titled “Business students now swear that greed is bad.”
“Lots of talk about the Obama stimulus package; but the most successful government incentive scheme I've seen is the one encouraging hapless fools to become terrorists. The formula is simple: find some unpleasant characters with a lot of hate but little clue what to do with it and then facilitate, facilitate, facilitate.
Four New York men were in court last week charged with a plot to bomb two synagogues and bring down a plane. In fact, the crack-addled ex-jailbirds had pretty much everything done for them by the FBI. The bureau's informant drove them around possible targets and the Feds supplied the hardware. Cue dramatic arrests, politicians gushing about calamity averted and even talk of "America's finest hour". A prosecutor said it was "hard to envision a more chilling plot".
How about the one in 2007 when four men were arrested for planning to blow up gas lines to JFK airport, billed at the time as "one of the most chilling plots imaginable"? The four are still in prison, no trial date set. Then there was Hemant Lakhani, a British businessman now serving 47 years, so hopeless as a supposed international arms smuggler that the Feds had to get their Russian counterparts to buy the missiles for him. New York's leaders presumably feel that, in the shadow of 9/11, they can never belittle the anti-terrorist triumphs of their protectors. I'd draw the opposite conclusion: a city that has known serious terrorism deserves to be spared all the phoney baloney.”
Note: The plot was this – “Prosecutors say Defreitas, 63, a Guyana native who worked as a cargo handler at the airport until 1995, hatched the plot to blow up a jet fuel artery that runs through residential neighborhoods and feeds Kennedy airport. They say the group sought the help of Jamaat al Muslimeen, or JAM, a group based in Trinidad that is known to be violent and involved in killings, kidnappings and weapons trafficking during the past two decades.”
I think perhaps, Mr. Leonard hasn’t gotten past the fact that the US defeated the English a long time ago over most of the very same issues:
Religion, Gun Rights, Exceptional Patriotism and freedom from oppressive regimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment