Crime And Punishment

Of course you have heard about the Georgia state representative that was arrested and charged of “knocking while black”……she has been charged with 2 felonies……

Personally I do not think she will be convicted because the charges will be dropped because of the outrage from the people…..but I could be mistaken…..

Speaking of not doing any time……

Most of the 06 January insurrectionists may not serve any time at all…..

A POLITICO analysis of the Capitol riot-related cases shows that almost a quarter of the more than 230 defendants formally and publicly charged so far face only misdemeanors. Dozens of those arrested are awaiting formal charges, even as new cases are being unsealed nearly every day.

In recent days, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys have all indicated that they expect few of these “MAGA tourists” to face harsh sentences.

There are two main reasons: Although prosecutors have loaded up their charging documents with language about the existential threat of the insurrection to the republic, the actions of many of the individual rioters often boiled down to trespassing. And judges have wrestled with how aggressively to lump those cases in with those of the more sinister suspects.

“My bet is a lot of these cases will get resolved and probably without prison time or jail time,” said Erica Hashimoto, a former federal public defender who is now a law professor at Georgetown. “One of the core values of this country is that we can protest if we disagree with our government. Of course, some protests involve criminal acts, but as long as the people who are trying to express their view do not engage in violence, misdemeanors may be more appropriate than felonies.”


Knocking on a door is felony material and charging and breaching a police line that causes injury, destruction and death is a misdemeanor….participating in an insurrection is a misdemeanor?

Let me reiterate…..a black woman knocking on a door is charged with felonies and a pack of overweight in-bred whites join an insurrection could be charged with misdemeanors.

One was black the others are white……thinking about that!

And they say justice is blind….sounds more like bigotry to me.

Since Gitmo is available…I say send them all the insurrectionists there and let them think about the stupidity they were involved in.

There is NO way any participant should get a “get out of jail free card” for insurrection.  PERIOD!

As I have stated many times but it bears repeating….in my younger days I was a far Leftist and in no way did that sort of insurrection enter our minds…..and yet we are painted as ‘hating democracy’….

You tell me who is the bigger threat to democracy…..a bunch that is looking to the people and their best interests or a group that blindly follows some orange tinged megalomaniac?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–26Mar21

This decision in the US Court of Appeals should go all the way to SCOTUS.

I am personally sick of seeing all these mental midgets that tote their guns like their penis and trying to look all macho and intimidating… me they are cowards pretending they are all that and feel they must run in packs.

But a recent decision by the Court of Appeals should do something about the insanity that mental midgets feel they have the right to do.

an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms does not citizens include the right to carry a firearm, either openly or concealed, in public .

The court issued the ruling in the case of George Young Jr. V Hawaii, a lawsuit challenging a Hawaii firearm licensing law, which states residents seeking license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.” The court said, “There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment.”

The majority opinion also states “we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.” The majority further argued that the second amendment applies to the “defense of hearth and home” and “the power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.”


Finally some justices with half a brain has stepped up….to do something to curb the insanity from morons with their guns.

The 7-4 decision said restrictions on carrying guns in public do not fall within the scope of what is protected by the Second Amendment.

“The government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places – including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets – the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly,” Judge Jay Bybee wrote for the majority.

If you need your guns to feel safe then we do not need the police whose job is to protect the people from harm.

Like I said this should send the gun nuts into cardiac arrests and make them whine and moan….and in the end the NRA will step up and take this to SCOTUS.

My last thought….if you are an “originalist”….meaning that the Constitution should be interpreted in its original writing then the guns they wrote about were “MUSKETS”……

Just a thought.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

They Are F*cking Guilty!

Our dear Orange Dude has pardon everyone who has dirt on his worthless ass…..and there are a few things that I want to pass on….

The people pardoned are criminals.

If they accept the pardon then they are admitting that they are truly criminals and guilty of the charges levelled on them.

But let’s learn about pardons for those unsure what they are and do….

The U.S. Constitution, in Article II, Section 2, grants the president the power of executive clemency. Executive clemency includes the power to pardon, in which the president overturns a federal conviction and restores “an individual to the state of innocence that existed before the conviction.”[3] Executive clemency also includes the power of commutation, which allows a president to shorten or reduce a federal prison sentence.

Other powers of executive clemency include postponing a sentence or punishment (a reprieve) and remitting fines.[4]

The Constitution imposes two major limits on the power of executive clemency. The first is that clemency is limited to federal offenses. The president cannot pardon individuals for civil or state offenses. The second is that the president may not use this power to intervene in impeachment proceedings.

A special office in the Department of Justice is dedicated to assisting the president in matters related to executive clemency. It is called the Office of the Pardon Attorney. Requests for pardons, commutations, and remissions begin with the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

Next the reasons for presidential pardons according to scholar P.S. Ruckman…..

First category of explanations are ‘legal’ or ‘technical’ in nature. Generally such explanations relate to (1) the potential, probable or certain innocence of the petitioner (2) mitigating factors or (3) concern for proportionate punishment. [W.H.] Humbert’s [1941] study, for example, found the following factors cited in clemency statements: (1) irregularities at trial, insufficient evidence, conflicting testimony, mistaken identity, grave doubt as to the justice of convictions, disclosure of new evidence, confessions of true offenders (2) absence of premeditation, the heat of passion or extreme provocation, insanity, intoxication (3) technical guilt, pettiness of the crime, excessive punishment, sufficient punishment, and a desire to equalize punishment for all participants in the crime.

A second category of formal, public clemency explanations concerns humanitarian compassion or mercy. Clemency rationales in this category are criticized more frequently, but the appeals to sympathy and emotion in this category of explanations may serve as a powerful shield to the executive. Many pardons, for example, have been issued to federal prisoners near death (Adler 1989; Humbert 1941). […] In some instances, pardons have been issued to those whose health threatened that of other inmates (Humbert 1941). A well-argued statement emphasizing the extreme age, ignorance, or questionable degree of sanity in the recipient of clemency may sway sympathy as well as any ‘death bed’ scenario.

A third and final category of formal, public clemency explanations concerns judgments on reform, or rehabilitation. Explanations in this category may well provide the greatest potential for controversy. As Moore (1993) notes, presidents run certain risks when they attempt to assess the reality and degree of a prisoner’s `transformation.’ […] In the past, presidents have been swayed by the religious conversion of prisoners, charity work (Clark 1984), and promises “never to violate the law again” (Humbert 1941, 124).

Next question is why do we have this situation….it begins with the Framers…..

The concept of governmental relief from the punishment that would otherwise apply to a criminal act has deep historical roots, with some scholars tracing it as far back as ancient Greece and Rome. An English form of pardon power vested in the king, the ‘prerogative of mercy,’ first appeared during the reign of King Ine of Wessex (688-725 A.D.). Over time, perceived abuses ‘such as royal sales of pardons or use of pardons as bribery to join the military’ prompted Parliament to impose limitations on the pardon power. The king’s power to pardon nevertheless endured through the American colonial period and applied in the colonies themselves through delegation to colonial authorities.

Following the American Revolution, the English legal tradition of a pardon power held by the executive directly influenced the pardon provision included in the U.S. Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, the two major plans offered—the Virginia and New Jersey plans—did not address pardons. However, in a ‘sketch’ of suggested amendments to the Virginia plan, Alexander Hamilton included a pardon power vested in an ‘Executive authority of the United States’ that extended to ‘all offences except Treason,’ with a pardon for treason requiring Senate approval. It appears that the rationale for the treason limitation was, at least in part, that the head of the executive branch should not be able to absolve himself and possible conspirators of a crime threatening ‘the immediate being of the society.’ Hamilton’s proposal was included in a subsequent draft of the Constitution, though the requirement of Senate approval for a pardon of treason was replaced with an exception for impeachment, apparently with the thought that exempting impeachment was sufficient to protect against abuse.

Now you know the why and how…..

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

My Representative, Palazzo The Corrupt

Closing Thought–14Dec20

My House Representative for South Mississippi is one Steven Palazzo and he has been caught using campaign cash for personal expenses…..

According to a report from Roll Call Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) is being investigated for diverting over $230,000 in campaign funds to make car payments, pay for home and business repairs and employ family members.

While a spokesperson for the House Ethics Committee refused to comment on allegations made against the GOP lawmaker, he admitted that he is being investigated for expenditures that date back to 2010.

ne complaint dates back to March of last year, when Palazzo was accused of spending “$60,000 in campaign expenditures to rent a farm, Greene Acres LLC, and $127,000 to pay an accounting firm Palazzo founded that is now run by his former wife,” reports Roll Call.

Since he won the House seat from Gene Taylor in 2010 I have not been a fan…..for me he is a worthless yes man that does what the Party wants and not what the people of South Mississippi that he represents needs.

He just won re-election and still has support from morons that will let a crook and spineless politician run their families for them.

He will probably say “My Bad” and be allowed to pay the money back…..I say f*ck him…he committed a crime he should be thrown out of the House.

Plus he is one of the 126 House members that have stated the the election should be overturned…..this also should eliminate this douche from ever representing the people of Mississippi .

Apparently he is in Congress to feather his nest and not represent the people of his district…..and yet he gets re-elected….”Ain’t No Fixin’ Stupid”

“lego ergo scribo”

Biden’s Legal Problems

That would be legal problems for Hunter not Joe.

We all have written about the legal problems that our current president has been facing for the last four years…..and it is a simple joy to have a president-elect that is not facing legal questions…..Joe is not but son Hunter is facing investigations.

Hunter Biden, son of President-elect Joe Biden, confirmed Wednesday that his tax affairs are under federal investigation. “I learned yesterday for the first time that the US Attorney’s Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are investigating my tax affairs,” he said in a statement, per the Hill. “I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors.” Hunter Biden, who served on the board of an energy company in Ukraine while his father was vice president, was attacked by Trump allies during the presidential campaign, with Rudy Giuliani claiming he had a laptop with proof of criminal conduct.

The tax investigation “is not connected to the attacks the Trump campaign and their allies made against Hunter during the campaign,” an insider tells the Washington Post. “President-elect Biden is deeply proud of his son, who has fought through difficult challenges, including the vicious personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger,” the transition team said in a statement. GOP Rep. Ken Buck urged Attorney General William Barr to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden before Trump leaves office in six weeks, saying it “would be wildly inappropriate if his dad’s AG was involved in this matter.”

What could possibly the problems and/or issues that Biden is facing?

The investigation into Hunter Biden’s tax affairs centers around business deals with China, a source tells the AP. Specifically, officials are looking into whether the younger Biden and his associates violated any tax or money laundering laws, sources tell CNN. The probe was launched a year before Joe Biden, who is not implicated, announced his presidential run, but the younger Biden didn’t learn of it until this week; sources say that it was a Justice Department policy barring “overt investigative acts” that might impact elections that prevented investigators from disclosing the probe to Hunter Biden earlier. Now that the election is over, federal prosecutors are serving subpoenas, including one for Hunter Biden, and seeking interviews.

President Trump was, perhaps not surprisingly, crowing about the probe on Twitter: “‘10% of voters would have changed their vote if they knew about Hunter Biden.’ Miranda Devine @nypost @TuckerCarlson But I won anyway!” the POTUS wrote Wednesday. “‘If you’re looking for Election Rigging, look no further. That’s what this is. They kept information from the public in order to influence the outcome of the Election. They RIGGED it.’ @TuckerCarlson.” Needless to say, this whole issue could prove quite tricky for Joe Biden, who has pledged to keep the Justice Department free of political influence; whomever he selects as attorney general could ultimately oversee the probe into his own son if it has not been resolved by January.

It will be interesting to see if the MSM jumps on this as hard as they jumped on the Trump kids….

If he, Biden, is guilty then he needs to be prosecuted… the Trump kids should be.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Legal “Black Holes” Of Outer Space

Since the inception of the newest military branch in the US, the Space Force, I have been trying to get people to see the legal implications of so-called space exploration.

First to me this “Force” will be more about occupation than exploration.

I have written several times about the treaties and the legal aspects of this force in operation in space.

For those that cannot read…..a couple of short videos…..

The US among other international players have signed this treaty…..
By adopting the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty (OST) as an analytical framework in relation to the rise of the so-called US ‘NewSpace’ actors, this essay argues that there are significant legal ambiguities regarding the status of private space companies in orbital space. Such loopholes allow the US government to circumvent its own obligations to the OST, whilst simultaneously undermining the notion of space as a ‘global commons’ through a commodification process. The lack of specificity within the OST surrounding private property rights over extra-terrestrial resources risks the prospect of reinforcing Earth-bound wealth inequalities and US dominance in space, by restricting the potential economic benefits for the broader global citizenry in favour of a narrow class of wealthy American investors. Moreover, the OST’s weak clause regarding the regulation of space surveillance risks the incentivisation of a ‘global panopticon’ network of US satellites. The rise of dual-use technology is blurring the boundaries between military and civilian observations, raising serious ethical concerns over the nature of US space-based data collection. Finally, the increasing number of private satellite constellations is facilitating the possibility of cataclysmic space debris collisions which could exacerbate geopolitical tensions. Such developments are also contributing towards the contamination of the broader space environment in ways that the OST had never envisioned.
This could open up the SciFi scenario of corporations owning space…..
Also the treaty forbade the placing of weapons of offensive style in space…but that has stopped NO one…..
… corporate media repeated U.S. military propaganda: that Russia had “tested new technologies that could lead to so-called ‘killer satellites’” (ABC); the U.S. and Britain “accused Russia of testing a weapon-like projectile in space that could be used to target satellites in orbit” (BBC); “the US has publicly accused Russia of testing an ‘orbit weapon’” (CNN); “The launch could represent a step towards the militarisation of space”(Sky News); and so on.
These reports invert the chronology of events and omit the U.S. agenda to dominate space. Like China’s verified destruction of its own weather satellite in 2007, Russia’s alleged maneuvers in space are—if true—a response to what the Pentagon calls “Full Spectrum Dominance”: “dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment.” This was a Clinton-era doctrine (1993-2001) which continues into the present. The Bush administration (2001-09) extended the policy, going from domination to “ownership”: Like the battles of old, “whoever owned the high ground owned the fight.” So-called Ballistic Missile Defense, which is supposedly designed counter nuclear weapons-carrying ICBMs, are actually missiles with the potential for first-strike capacity.

The Space Wars Have Begun

It appears that all signatories of the 1967 treaty have forgotten their pledge that space would be developed for all of mankind… they are just weaponizing space as quickly as possible.

Time to make these players live up to the treaty they signed all those years ago.

After I completed this draft news cam out about our new Space Force……they now have a doctrine published…..

The Space Force has three guiding responsibilities, according to the document. They are:

  • Preserve freedom of action 
  • Enable joint lethality and effectiveness
  • Provide independent options

“The United States’ ability to project and employ national power is predicated on access to space. Therefore, unfettered access to and freedom to operate in space is a vital national interest,” the document says.

But read the doctrine for yourself…DO NOT take my word for it….

Click to access Space%20Capstone%20Publication_10%20Aug%202020.pdf

Amazing what crap you can sell if you wrap it in the “national security blanket”……

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Let It Go!

Closing Thought–13Jul20

The big story still is that Trump has commuted Roger Stone’s conviction…..

As the Washington Post notes, the last disclosed cognitive test for the president was in January 2018, and that was a fairly basic 10-minute exam in which people are asked to identify animals in pictures and such. It’s unclear if Trump took a more recent exam. Biden, for his part, said Thursday that he can’t wait to debate Trump, referencing Trump’s description of himself as a “stable genius,” per NBC News. At 77, Biden is three years older than Trump, and he said in response to a reporter’s question last month that he is “constantly” tested for cognitive decline, prompting Hannity and other Trump allies to wonder why Biden felt it was necessary to be tested so much, per Fox News. “Look, all you gotta do is watch me, and I can hardly wait to compare my cognitive capability to the cognitive capability of the man I’m running against,” Biden said at the time.

  • Mitt Romney: “Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president.”
  • The Washington Post editorial board: “The United States is supposed to be a place in which laws apply equally to all. And while it never has—and never will—live up to that ideal in full, no modern president before Mr. Trump has so clearly renounced it.”
  • Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg: “Clemency for a crony convicted of interfering with an investigation of presidential malfeasance is a flagrant abuse of power. President Richard Nixon wasn’t willing to pardon the Watergate criminals who broke into Democratic Party offices in the run-up to the 1972 presidential campaign because he knew how bad it would look.”
  • Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker: “Trump had not, until now, used pardons and commutations to reward defendants who possessed incriminating information against him. The Stone commutation isn’t just a gift to an old friend—it is a reward to Stone for keeping his mouth shut during the Mueller investigation.”
  • Corey Lewandowski: “Look, Roger Stone was clearly targeted by an unfair prosecution,” he told Fox News. “Look, I’m not the biggest fan of Roger Stone. … But, the way he was treated by this government should scare the hell out of every American.”
  • President Trump: “Roger Stone was targeted by an illegal Witch Hunt that never should have taken place. It is the other side that are criminals, including Biden and Obama, who spied on my campaign—AND GOT CAUGHT!”

My thoughts is seriously?

Trump telegraphed what he was going to do….and yet the media makes it out as soon sort of surprise…..yet another story that the media will milk for every drop of analysis out of…..look at the BLM…it is still going on but it is NOT all that important to the media.

My advice….LET IT GO!

We knew what Trump is going to do….now move on to something truly important…..

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”



From time to time SCOTUS does make the news….the nightly news that is and this session has made the news on two fronts…..the news is both good and bad…..

The Good…….

There is no guarantee that conserv judges will vote conservatively…..

The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a major victory to supporters of gay rights, reports the AP. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices decided that Title VII, a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protects LGBTQ workers from being fired because of their sexual orientation. Coverage:

  • The law: Title VII bars discrimination at work based on “sex” and other factors, and for the last 50 years or so, “sex” has gotten a narrow definition—basically that women and men can’t be treated differently at work, per the Washington Post. Monday’s ruling expands that definition to the LGBT community.
  • The ruling: “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
  • The surprise: Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, who usually side with the court’s conservative majority, instead joined the court’s four more liberal members, notes Politico.
  • The legal question: “The decisions in this case highlight a tension with textualism,” writes Jonathan Adler at Reason. That is, in regard to the 1964 law, “do we focus on the discrete meaning of the words, or do we focus on the words as they would have been understood and applied at the time they were adopted.” He adds that law schools will be poring over the opinions in the coming year.
  • Gorsuch’s view: His ruling acknowledges that Congress surely didn’t intend to protect LGBT workers when it passed the legislation, but he said that’s irrelevant. “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result,” he wrote. “Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees.”
  • Dissent: Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissent joined by Clarence Thomas, says the court went too far. “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,” the dissent begins. “The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”
  • The cases: The ruling centers on multiple cases, and the New York Times has the details. They included a pair of lawsuits by gay men who say they were fired because of their sexual orientation, and another from a transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, who says she got fired when she announced she would start embracing her female identity at work. Stephens died last month.

And now the Bad….and it is taken from the headlines of today……

The Supreme Court is for now declining to get involved in an ongoing debate by citizens and in Congress over policing, rejecting cases Monday that would have allowed the justices to revisit when police can be held financially responsible for wrongdoing, per the AP. With protests over racism and police brutality continuing nationwide, the justices turned away more than half a dozen cases involving the legal doctrine known as qualified immunity, which the high court created more than 50 years ago. It shields officials, including police, from lawsuits for money as a result of things they do in the course of their job. As is usual, the court didn’t comment in turning away the cases, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-page dissent saying he would have agreed to hear one of the cases.

“I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence,” he wrote, explaining he believes the court’s “qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text.” As a result of qualified immunity, even when a court finds that an official or officer has violated someone’s constitutional rights, they can still be protected from civil lawsuits seeking money. The Supreme Court has said that qualified immunity protects officials as long as their actions don’t violate clearly established law or constitutional rights which they should have known about. The push for the court to reexamine qualified immunity has come both from the left and right, including Thomas, a conservative, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal.

Here was a chance to make a difference…..but I am sure that the issue is not dead.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Are Non-Violent Protests Legal?

Legal in the sense of the law and statutes…..not morally.

The nightly news says it is not but the reports.

Let us think back…..Does anyone remember Ferguson?

The site of massive protests in 2015 over the killing of a black man by police…it is in Missouri in case there is any confusion

We all remember the visions of heavily armed police looking like a invading army as they faced off against protesters demanding justice and accountability…..

It was a moment that could have turned the tract of social justice in this country….instead states across the nation have passed 54 different restrictions against peaceful protests…..

states have introduced at least 154 bills or executive orders to restrict peaceful protest, according to a HuffPost analysis of the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law’s tally, a new report from PEN America, and interviews with free speech experts. So far, 54 have become law. More than two dozen ― including the Louisiana measure, which is awaiting the governor’s signature ― are pending.

These new restrictions on peaceful protest are not directly linked to an uptick in less-peaceful tactics over the past week. In fact, many of the current protesters have condemned actions like brick-throwing and looting, blaming the worst offenses on agitators who don’t share their anti-racist goals.

That is right!

Instead to looking for ways to bridge the gap between the police and blacks…states spent their time trying to make non-violent protests illegal.

And that brings us to today and the Floyd protests….we are hearing lots of woulda coulda shoulda talk and after all this subsides we will be exactly where we are today.

That conversation that ALL keep asking for is still waiting for someone to actually step up and start it in earnest.

I hope I am wrong and all this protesting will actually get the attention of those sitting in the Big Boy seat and change does finally start.

The House representatives have put together a package of bills to reform the criminal justice of the land….

The legislation would provide overarching support for the victims of longstanding and ongoing police violence and are intended to offer solutions for the deep-seated institutional racism that dominates U.S. policing. The suite also includes a sharp rebuke of President Donald Trump’s threats to use the Insurrection Act against protesters.

The package consists of four bills:

  • The National Police Misuse of Force Investigation Board Act; co-led by Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Calif.), forming a federal commission to investigate police killings around the nation.
  • The Bill to Criminalize Police Violence Against Protesters, which allows for the charging of police officers who attack protesters to be charged with a federal crime.
  • The Amending the Insurrection Act; co-led by Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), preventing the president from deploying the U.S. military against protesters.
  • The Federal Relief Fund, providing funding for communities rebuilding after social and economic disasters.

Again I hope that this will be effective but it must get past the barrier known as the US Senate….not an easy task….and some of the reps are just padding their resume for the next election.

One last question…why is a Special Ops unit being used as security in DC?  19th Special Forces Group.

Something is amiss when an SF group is used for crowd control….that is not their job… why are they being used?

Be Well….Be Safe….Be Heard….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

All Those Powers He Does Not Possess

Donald the Orange has a running battle against ….well everybody…..and most of his claims and lies are on his Twitter account. In case you missed the breakdown…..

His Executive Order could strip Twitter and social media their legal protections…..

“This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!” President Trump tweeted Thursday morning. The reason? Late in the afternoon, he signed an executive order that could deal a big blow to Twitter, Facebook, and other social media companies. Among other things, the move could strip the companies of protection from lawsuits stemming from comments or videos posted by individuals. All of this comes amid the backdrop of Twitter’s move to start fact-checking the president’s tweets, which he has condemned as politically biased. “We’re fed up with it,” Trump said at the signing, per the AP. Coverage:

  • 26 words: Get ready to hear a lot about “Section 230.” This is part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and legal experts (and authors) say it includes “26 words that created the Internet,” per CNN. Those words: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The section shields social media companies that act in “good faith” from lawsuits due to content posted on their platforms, and Trump’s executive order directs federal regulators to rethink the law.
  • More on the law: The 1996 statute is controversial because critics say it allows social media companies to reap profits while avoiding accountability for content such as hate speech and terrorist propaganda, reports the Washington Post. Any change in the law “could mean potentially dramatic free-speech implications and wide-ranging consequences for a broad swath of companies,” per the Post.
  • Bias allegations: The executive order also deals with accusations of political bias, and it would charge the FTC with handling complaints and making sure companies are adhering to pledges of neutrality. The current law gives companies much leeway to remove content they deem objectionable, and Trump contends they’re abusing their power, reports Politico. “In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online,” says a draft version.
  • Shift in view: Here’s how the Wall Street Journal sees the change: The executive order “would seek to reshape the way that federal regulators view Twitter and other social-media companies—not as hosts of speech but as monopolies that control millions of Americans’ daily experiences on their platforms.” But any change in regulations would almost certainly end up in court, with companies arguing that the federal government is guilty of overreach.
  • Not enough authority? The AP quotes a law professor at Yale who says any new regulation of social media companies would likely have to be approved by Congress.
  • The politics: Even if the initiative to impose new restrictions on the companies fails, Trump will likely relish the fight against media powerhouses he accuses of bias. The new Twitter fight is an example. “This plays right into President Trump’s hands,” Jason Miller, communications director for Trump’s 2016 campaign, tells CNN. “They basically handed him a massive gift.

Trump’s authoritarian streak continues to chest thumping for the powers that he just does not possess……

Threatening to shut down Twitter for flagging false content. Claiming he can “override” governors who dare to keep churches closed to congregants. Asserting the “absolute authority” to force states to reopen, even when local leaders say it’s too soon.

As he battles the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump has been claiming extraordinarily sweeping powers that legal scholars say the president simply doesn’t have. And he has repeatedly refused to spell out the legal basis for those powers.

“It’s not that the president doesn’t have a remarkable amount of power to respond to a public health crisis. It’s that these are not the powers he has,” said Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas School of Law professor who specializes in constitutional and national security law.

Trump’s attack here is an attack on internet free speech…..and he wants to get rid of it when it applies to him….

You may have never heard of it, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the legal backbone of the internet. The law was created almost 30 years ago to protect internet platforms from liability for many of the things third parties say or do on them. And now it’s under threat by one of its biggest beneficiaries: President Trump, who hopes to use it to fight back against the social media platforms he believes are unfairly censoring him and other conservative voices.

Section 230 says that internet platforms that host third-party content — think of tweets on Twitter, posts on Facebook, photos on Instagram, reviews on Yelp, or a news outlet’s reader comments — are not liable for what those third parties post (with a few exceptions). For instance, if a Yelp reviewer were to post something defamatory about a business, the business could sue the reviewer for libel, but it couldn’t sue Yelp. Without Section 230’s protections, the internet as we know it today would not exist. If the law were taken away, many websites driven by user-generated content would likely go dark.

As I continue to write…..the Saga Continues……

I Read, I Write, You Know

“Lego ergo scribo”