God Said: Thou Shalt Not Kill!!! Really? Somebody had better tell most of humanity.

This thought woke me out of a sound sleep this morning. If that being, he/she/it, that we call God did in fact meet with Moses on the mountain and did in fact give him ten commandments and one of those was THOU SHALT NOT KILL, something is very wrong. First of all notice that they were commandments, not rules, not laws, not suggestions, they were COMMANDS. Second notice that it was Thou Shalt NOT Kill, not thou shalt not kill unless, or except, it was NOT.
As to the ten commandments, people, all people, have been cheerfully breaking each on a daily basis since they were given to us. We all say one thing, that we are believers and go to church to demonstrate our belief, and then go ahead and do something else, proving we are not believers at all.
Back to Thou Shalt Not Kill, just that one, shows that all people are evil.
I can't count the times that I've read, in reference to some one hurting or killing another person, he/she should be shot/hung/suffer the death penalty. In other words killed, in direct opposition to what he/she/it/God commanded.
Of course, our predilection to killing each other, is a form of population control. We haven't seen anything like the plague for a long time, it hasn't been needed as we're killing each other instead.
Unfortunately, the thought that woke me up is gone, and I'm starting to flounder.

Murder Is The Norm For Human Beings And Their "Gods"???

I've been reading Zecharia Sitchin's earth chronicles, which started me thinking. Briefly it's about another planet in our solar system and the people who came from there. The planet is named Nibiru and the people called Anunaki. This is all taken from translated clay tablets written by Sumerians and others. The books detail how the Earth is created and how the Anunaki come here about 450,000 years ago in search of  gold to save the atmosphere of their planet. Eventually they create man as a slave species to take over the labor from their own people. Eventually the flood takes place and while man is supposed to be eliminated, he isn't because one of the Anunaki warns a man who builds a boat and saves himself, others, and animal species, aka Noah, or Utnapishtim.  These people, aliens, really are no different than us, their creations, they did everything that we do and probably worse, allegedly before we even were.
After the flood mankind rebuilds. All of this is also related in the Christian bible as I mentioned above in the story of Noah, and in the story of Gilgamesh. Which as I've said before means that the humans, the men and women, that God or the gods, resolved to destroy weren't destroyed. The men and women that were so bad, so destructive, so amoral, so EVIL, that complete destruction, an essentially re-terraforming of the earth to remove a parasite, was the only answer lived on.  God or the gods failed and the parasite went on, WE ARE IT, OR THE DECENDENTS OF IT.
Since this planet became livable, if you read and believe Sitchin, meaning the ancient Sumerians, or if you read and believe the Bible, Koran, Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim (which are commonly called the Torah or Jewish bible), or ancient Indian texts Vedas, (  the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda), it becomes clear that while man claims to abhor murder, he/she has been committing murder from day one. That God or the gods kill each other and lesser creatures like us, is the stuff of legend and religious writing. That we kill them, if possible, and ourselves is likewise the stuff of legend, religious writing, and more relevant books, newspapers, tv, radio, popular media in general.
It occurs to me, that the problem may be that we're still locked into a tribal mentality. That we need to learn that the cop that murders an unarmed, or armed person is shooting him/herself, a soldier that murders an enemy kills him/herself, a thief that murders a victim is killing him/herself. We need to learn that there's just one big tribe, and just because you don't know someone they're still a member of your tribe. I don't understand the urge to kill, but it seems that it's an inborn trait of the human. We don't need a reason to murder, we just do it. Murder is normal, not to is, it seems, unusual. True, a lot of people go their entire lives without killing, but that can change in a split second. Actually tribe may be overstating the problem, because how many times does someone murder a family member or friend?
It can be reasoned that murder is a part of the human mentality because it's a form of population control, sort of opposite the other ingrained trait, the urge to fuck, to procreate. Without war, and murder in general this planet would have every square inch covered with people at some point. So, population control, why not? We start to die the second we're born. We convince ourselves that we'll live forever, that we deserve a long life, yet look around you could drop dead any second. Death is just as normal as life. So, what's the big deal if we die in our sleep at eighty or are hit by a car crossing the street, or slip in the bathtub cracking our skull, or pick up a disease as an infant, or are murdered by a cop or criminal? Dead is dead, we all end up there sooner or later, so what difference does it make how we get there?
We are the descendants of the people, for lack of a better term, that God determined to murder, to destroy, the largely corrupt, murderous, sex obsessed people who were supposed to be destroyed in the flood. It's our nature to kill each other, just as apparently it's God's or the god's. We apparently were created in his/her/its image after all.
Priests of all denominations rant in their sermons that killing is wrong and against God's word, yet the next sermon will be a rant for the young men to join the army and murder the enemy, yet somehow these priests fail to see the hypocrisy. All through the legends, stories, religious writings of all types God or gods are murdering all sorts of people for all reasons, for instance when the Jews left Egypt with Moses, God had murdered thousands maybe millions of Egyptians mostly to make a point, then when the Jews were invading the "promised land" God helped them again by murdering thousands perhaps millions of the people that were already there. Murder is the norm, even for God or gods.
Take the instance I've mentioned a couple of times, God or gods, determined to completely eradicate, or murder, the entire population of the earth, for the simple reason that they displeased him or them. The hypocrisy starts there, he/she/it is a murderer, plain and simple, so where does he/she/it get off saying Thou Shalt Not Kill?
Priests, politicians, leaders and pundits all say that murder is against Gods, or the gods, will, that it's wrong, yet at the first opportunity send us off to war, isn't the hypocrisy obvious? Then why don't people see it? For some reason they don't, they buy into it instead.

Lee Murray

Our Broken System: Lessons from Ferguson

I came across this article at Personal Liberty Link to Personal Liberty and it says many things that need to be said, many things I wish I said first. But the author Ron Lee as a professional writer and author has more credibility. So here's the article read it for yourself and see what you think.

Lee Murray

PS  The emphasis is mine...

Our Broken System: Lessons from Ferguson

This article was published originally by the US~Observer. Link US Observer

We, the people, lost in Ferguson, Missouri — not because the people took to the streets and smashed and burned and shot and looted, however mindless those activities were and made humanity seem. It was a greater loss, the further erosion of our rights and just superiority as sovereign citizens above government officials who are nothing more than our employees. In a system of justice that I know — and report on regularly — that lies and steals and cheats to get its man, I know, too, it protects its own with the same vigilance. And the lack of an indictment was, to me, no exception. It was a reminder that the system is broken and the media manipulative, that the world we live in is controlled — and not fairly or justly.
What I personally took away from the explanation of how and why the grand jury came to its decision to not indict Officer Darren Wilson is that had he been anyone other than a police officer, he would likely be facing charges.
Let’s be real. A grand jury isn’t a magical group of people who know all and see all; it is a group of people who get to see only the evidence the prosecuting attorney decides to show them. So if the prosecutor has an agenda to not prosecute, the evidence will reflect that agenda. And the grand jury will come back with the corresponding ruling. It’s that simple, and everything is supported by the government’s own statistics. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in only 11 of them.
It really is an “us” and “them” thing now. And no matter what your ethnicity, we as citizens just got reminded that to be them means they get treated differently than if they were us.
It’s sad. And what is worse is you have the mainstream media out there promoting this as either right (Fox News: a triumph of a system that you can trust in) or wrong, but both sides are calling it a race issue and not seeing it for what it really is — a miscarriage of justice, pure and simple.
Police agencies have paid out millions of dollars in civil liability claims across this country where bad police officers have killed, maimed or otherwise harmed the citizens they are supposed to protect. But few, if any, ever face criminal charges for their obviously criminal actions. If they are held civilly liable, they should be held criminally liable as well.
Every day, there is more evidence of corrupt police officers overstepping their bounds and abusing their authority. And there are more people facing false charges, stacked by scum-sucking prosecuting attorneys who just want a conviction. What a joke.
So what is the solution?
In our day and age of technology, there is no reason that every police officer shouldn’t be mandated to wear a personal recording device to ensure that all of the unadulterated evidence is available to the public.
Also, we have to eliminate the immunity prosecutors and judges enjoy. With their protections gone, bad police officers will have no one to protect them. The system will be taken back by the public it is supposed to serve.
We have to ensure our justice system blindly seeks justice and the corruption that now plagues it is extinguished.
I invite all righteous prosecutors, police officers, public defenders and truly unbiased judges to join me at the US~Observer as we continue our fight against everything that is wrong in the system. Join us as contributors and expose those who violate their oaths and harm the citizens.
We have to make sure that what happened in Ferguson, and in every other city where the system has overstepped its bounds, doesn’t ever happen again. That is something I am sure we can all agree on.
Read my last article, “Obstruction of Justice.”
–Ron Lee

This entry was posted in Power Of The State 

It's Just A Movie... But Is It?

My friend and fellow blogger Bill McDonald aka Morongobill, said in reference to a comment I made about some movie once while riding down to Sammy's Camera, "it's only a movie." But is it? Isn't it more? You could also say, it's just a book. A lot of people over the centuries have said just that. Bill has a preference for books, but none for movies. Like most people he sees movies as nothing but entertainment, like a fictional book, just a story, with no value beyond that. But is that true? Think about it. Non-fiction is easy basically it's history. But, let's look at fictional books for a moment. In fiction, the writer has a tougher job than a non-fiction author, he must create a world that we the readers recognize, understand, and accept, at the very least as possible, if not being our own world. He must create characters that fit the same parameters. For this reason the job is at the very best difficult, at the worst impossible as illustrated by thousands of bad books. For instance regarding bad books,  I started reading a book called  "A Game of Thrones," a fantasy which with the others in its series is the basis of a TV show. It was recommended by a guy I work with, who watches the TV show.  So far I'm about 30 pages into it and the ignorance and violence, the psychotic nature of the characters is disturbing and unreal. It's set in a supposed time I suppose similar to the middle ages.
But, you can't say it's just a book, I'd like to, but a lot of people enjoy and believe the story it tells, and see the characters in themselves. See the fantasy world disturbing as it is as possible.
To me most movies, and books, are windows into worlds I'll never experience or into the past. But some like "Game of Thrones," and its ilk, like a lot of video games are windows into worlds most of us could not, or would not, or should not recognize.
Thinking about it I have to add: It seems that all of it, movies, TV and books of all kinds are descending to the lowest common denominator at the speed of light, as are people themselves and life in general in many ways. I'll leave the how and why to your imagination.

Lee Murray      

Excellent Article On JF Kennedy's Assassination

A very interesting article. I was in the 9th grade in Buena Park High School, sitting outside under a tree at lunch. Suddenly a loud speaker said the school was being closed that we should all go home, that President Kennedy had been shot and killed. Arriving home the only thing on TV was that, on all channels. My aunt Edythe came later, in tears, she went to the Catholic church across the street and prayed. Personally I didn't, at the time, understand. I was more disturbed that it was pre-empting all my favorite TV shows. It wasn't until much later that I began to understand, and to realize there was more going on, than most of us knew about. Today I understand that this, like the twin tower destruction, was engineered to achieve a purpose, not by those accused in Pravda west, our media, but rather by those who had millions, billions, even trillions to gain.

 Lee Murray  

 Who Killed Kennedy And Why He Had To Die

November 20, 2013 by John Myers 

 

 

UPI FILE

“One pristine bullet? That dog don’t hunt!” — Senator Russell Long, as portrayed by Walter Matthau in Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie “JFK”
This Friday marks the 50^th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It also represents a breaking point for all Americans. Either you were old enough to remember one of the worst events in American history, or you weren’t. I just turned 56, so I was just 6 years old and I remember it like it was yesterday. A children’s TV program was on, my favorite part of my morning, and it was interrupted by the news from Dallas. My mother overheard it, and she shrieked and began to sob. At 6, you don’t understand events; but you understand when your mother is upset.
I even remember later that evening when the family went for dinner. It was the first time I had ever tasted pizza, and I remember my brother was stoic but my mother and my sister were crying.
Over the following decades, my father and my uncle were always discussing who killed Kennedy. Big deal, you might think. Masses of others were, and remain, fixated on that question. But what made my dad, Vernon, and his brother, Dick, special was not only that they were both intelligent and successful men, but they were also expert marksmen who hunted big game in North America and in Africa. My dad told me that with his then-state-of-the-art bolt-action rifle, a 300 Weatherby Magnum, he was fortunate to fatally strike a charging elephant with a single shot that felled the animal 50 steps from where he stood.
They spent time after the assassination at Dealey Plaza in Dallas. Their conclusion that the three fatal shots that the Warren Commission pinned on Lee Harvey Oswald and his $13 rifle were next to impossible. This, above all the other improbable events (notably, the subsequent assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald), left both my dad and my uncle believing to their dying days that there was a second gunman.

Is It Possible BHO Serves The BHO?

Is it possible that President Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a pawn of the Black Helicopter Organization — a powerful, global government? It seems more likely that than the official explanation on the Kennedy assassination.
Many well-meaning Americans are calling for a third major political party. Few consider that since Kennedy’s death, there really has been only one party in the White House. This explains why Presidents such as Republican Richard Nixon prosecuted the Vietnam War the same way as his Democratic predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson, and why Democratic President Obama’s Mideast war machine is a continuation of Republican President George W. Bush’s. They are all members of The Presidents Club and all work for a higher authority than themselves or the government we think we elect to represent us.
Kennedy was independent — a President who rejected the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s directions during both the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Kennedy told two of his closest confidants, Ken O’Donnell and Dave Powers: “They couldn’t believe that a new President like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”
More importantly, Kennedy was giving serious consideration to ending involvement in Vietnam because he believed it was a lost cause. His predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, has said this on Jan. 17, 1961, 1,039 days before Kennedy’s murder:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

CNN debuted a special about the killing of Kennedy. Ironically, the main sponsor of “The Assassination of President Kennedy” was Lockheed Martin, one of the largest members of the military-industrial complex. My question is: Had Kennedy lived, would Lockheed Martin even exist? And if it did, how big would it be? As Deep Throat famously says in the 1976 film “All the President’s Men” about another President who, like Obama, was also an infamous liar, “Follow the money.”
The Lockheed Martin F-35 is an astonishing tactical fighter and interceptor, perfectly designed to shoot down Soviet bombers that once carried huge nuclear payloads to the edge of American airspace. But their efficacy in fighting clandestine Islamic terrorist organizations is almost nil. Still, they will fly the friendly skies six years late, in 2019, at a price of $161 million apiece.
The development of such an airplane along with America’s bloated military budgets were impossible before the coup d’état that launched the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Yet 50 years later, the military-industrial complex is more influential and powerful under Obama.
For half a century, Presidents have made boldfaced lies (from the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which launched the Vietnam War, to fresh revelations that Obama blatantly lied about Obamacare). They only further cement the power and wealth of the ruling elite, who garner ever greater control of our Nation as they shred our Constitution.
Things have become progressively worse for America since Johnson took the oath of office aboard Air Force One in Dallas. The past 50 years have been evolution in reverse; good leaders have mutated into cavemen with little less than greed and lust.
My birthday last week reminded me that I am on the downside to 60 and that, before long, few Americans will have firsthand memories of Eisenhower’s warning or Kennedy’s assassination. What they will remember is Presidents like Bill Clinton and Obama, who so easily lied and got away with it.
To borrow from T.S. Elliot: This is the way America ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
The sound of the shots fired by two rifles 50 years ago Friday in Dallas are an echo that reverberates today.
Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers
P.S. If you remember where you were and how you felt when you learned President John F. Kennedy had been shot, please share your memories. We live in remarkable times, and remembering the past is critical to finding a way through this fog to a better and more prosperous future.
                  

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Personal Liberty Digest™

Waco: Remember When the FBI and Attorney General Janet Reno Committed Murder By Burning Adults and Children To Death?

Death Visits Fullerton California In The Guise Of Six Fullerton Police Officers Continued

Today there was the start of a new stage in the story. The District Attorney Tony Rackaucaus, who many accused of dragging his feet, and trying to whitewash this murder of a homeless person held a press conference. He talked about the investigation, the crime and criminals, and the charges. He described what the evidence shows, and what the still unreleased video from the bus depot showed. It per his description, is if anything worse than anybody imagined, frankly I'm not really sure I want to see it, and watch a man be murdered by police officers who knew him, and didn't even consider him a threat, to the point that apparently they didn't even pat him down for possible weapons.
The DA announced that only two of the cops are being charged. One with felony second degree murder and felony involuntary manslaughter. This is officer Manuel Ramos, who is facing 15 yrs to life. The other is being charged with felony involuntary manslaughter and felony use of excess force. His name is corporal Jay Cincinelli who's facing 4 yrs. 

Cincinelli and Ramos booking photos

Allegedly, due to a lack of evidence, criminal charges weren't filed against the remaining four officers who were at the murder site, these include Officer Joseph Wolfe, Officer Kenton Hampton, Sergeant Kevin Craig, and Corporal James Blatney. A lot of people are asking why. The reason given, is that while they were there, and apparently did participate, they were not aware of the illegal basis. Frankly I call that bullshit. If a gang without badges had committed this crime, and crime it is, it wouldn't matter if they were aware or not.
This is another instance of the double standard between regular people and cops. The truth is without the video or with it, if left to their own devices none of these 6 cops would be arrested and prosecuted, it would be as it was before all the uproar, Kelly Thomas would be dead, and all 6 cops would still be working every day, just as they were for what, 4 weeks after the murder.  If they were just regular people, they'd all have been arrested and tried. For felony murder, under the California Felony Murder Rule, if you commit certain felonies and someone dies even accedentally murder attaches, for instance if the felony were mayhem or torture, which

Let's look it up,
California's felony-murder rule creates murder liability for individuals who kill another human being during the commission of a dangerous felony. California courts have long relied on this rule, holding that someone who engages in reckless behavior shouldn't be excused from killing someone just because it wasn't part of their original plan.

The rule has two stated purposes. First is to deter people from killing others during the commission of another felony. Second is to deter the commission of the underlying felony itself.4 It doesn't matter whether the killings were intentional, accidental, or negligent…if someone was killed during the commission of a felony, the felony-murder rule attaches

would certainly be apt, intent and/or awareness, is not required to make a case for felony murder, either murder 1 or 2.
How many times have people who've been say sitting in a car, when a crime went down and they were prosecuted as accomplices or accessories? In the opinions of most, these other 4 were at least accomplices, or possibly accessories before and after the fact, and should be prosecuted as such, at the very least.  The same thing applies to the dispatchers on duty, the superior officers such as the watch commander, and those that kept having the 6 re-write their reports, while watching the bus depot video, until they were just right. They are accessories after the fact at least. In the case of the dispatchers and watch commander, they're also accomplices before the fact, as they watched the video, one dispatcher actually zoomed in on the murder, and did nothing to stop it or save Mr. Thomas' life. Not to mention every other cop, keeping their mouthes shut behind the blue wall of silence, and protecting their "brothers."  What is an accomplice/accessory anyway? The definition of accessory and accomplice is:

Accessory: In most U.S. jurisdictions today, however, an accessory can be convicted even if the principal actor is not arrested or is acquitted. The prosecution must establish that the accessory in some way instigated, furthered, or concealed the crime. Typically, punishment for a convicted accessory is not as severe as that for the perpetrator.

An accessory must knowingly promote or contribute to the crime. In other words, she or he must aid or encourage the offense deliberately, not accidentally. The accessory may withdraw from the crime by denouncing the plans, refusing to assist with the crime, contacting the police, or trying to stop the crime from occurring.
An accessory before the fact is someone behind the scenes who orders a crime or helps another person commit it. Many jurisdictions now refer to accessories before the fact as parties to the crime or even accomplices. This substitution of terms can be confusing because accessories are fundamentally different from accomplices. Strictly speaking, whereas an Accomplice may be present at the crime scene, an accessory may not. Also, an accomplice generally is considered to be as guilty of the crime as the perpetrator, whereas an accessory has traditionally received a lighter punishment.
An accessory after the fact is someone who knows that a crime has occurred but nonetheless helps to conceal it. Today, this action is often termed obstructing justice or harboring a fugitive.

Accomplice: One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

An accomplice may assist or encourage the principal offender with the intent to have the crime committed, the same as the chief actor. An accomplice may or may not be present when the crime is actually committed. However, without sharing the criminal intent, one who is merely present when a crime occurs and stands by silently is not an accomplice, no matter how reprehensible his or her inaction.
Some crimes are so defined that certain persons cannot be charged as accomplices even when their conduct significantly aids the chief offender. For example, a businessperson who yields to the Extortion demands of a racketeer or a parent who pays ransom to a kidnapper may be unwise, but neither is a principal in the commission of the crimes. Even a victim may unwittingly create a perfect opportunity for the commission of a crime but cannot be considered an accomplice because he or she lacks a criminal intent.
An accomplice may supply money, guns, or supplies. In one case, an accomplice provided his own blood to be poured on selective service files. The driver of the getaway car, a lookout, or a person who entices the victim or distracts possible witnesses is an accomplice.
An accomplice can be convicted even if the person that he or she aids or encourages is not. He or she is usually subject to the same degree of punishment as the principal offender.

As you can see many of the persons discussed above were accessories and/or accomplices. The most reasonable thought for why they're not being charged is that the DA doesn't think he can get convictions, thereby messing up his conviction rate. It's also been said all along that he's never prosecuted any cop for murder, that he protects the police. In my opinion, while I don't completely agree, he's taken a step in the right direction. He's going against the police and police unions, at least three of the city council members ogf Fullerton, and who knows who else, and is trying to do the right thing. He's gambling his political future, yes surprise, he is a politician, to try and do the right thing.  I listened to his press conference, and from what I heard, not only what he said, but how he said it, his voice almost breaking, quivering in some places, I honestly think he is as disturbed, perhaps horrified, by what was done to Mr. Thomas, as all of us who became aware of and followed or participated in the protests, the city council meetings, the recall, and everything else. I'm starting to hope and believe that he is less interested in the whitewash and more interested in prosecuting the offenders, even though they happen to be cops, than thinking he's prosecuting for the least crime posible with the easiest sentence to please his political backers, inother words throwing as few as possible and the least important under the bus. No matter how you look at it, it's not going to be easy getting a conviction in Orange County, CA, where many people probably think Kelly Thomas got what he deserved, irrational as that may be.
Here's a post by Attorney Mark Cabaniss written before the charges being filed today. He's provided us with more expert analysis on the potential prosecution of the Fullerton police officers responsible for Kelly Thomas’ death:

It is getting close to decision time for the DA in the Kelly Thomas case. While the investigation is still not completed and must be before any charges are brought, if any are brought, some of us are nervous, and increasingly disturbed at the way things are going, or not going, and at the unseemly deference given to the six police.
Unfortunately, in public pronouncements about the case, the Orange County DA’s office has sometimes given the impression that they are on the side of the police, even though the police are the criminal suspects. This is unusual. Usually the DA is on the side of the people, and against the alleged criminals. Usual prosecutorial practice is to charge as many people as possible, with the most serious charges possible, in order to create the most leverage for the DA to get people to plead guilty and settle the case without a trial. For example, in a case with multiple defendants, the DA might make a deal for one or more defendants to agree to testify against the other defendant(s) in exchange for reduced charges, or even outright immunity. And in every case the DA charges the most serious charges warranted by the facts, so that he can get the defendant to plead guilty to a less serious charge, in exchange for getting rid of the more serious charge. But in this case, the Kelly Thomas case, the DA has set a pattern of preemptive surrender, conceding points to the (possible) criminal defense even before any charges are filed, indeed, even before the investigation is complete.
For example, the Orange County DA said, HERE, that he had seen the unreleased surveillance tape, and had seen no evidence of intent to kill. Legally speaking, this is an inane non sequitur, equivalent to saying that he had seen the tape, and seen no evidence that anyone was left-handed, or 5 foot six—it simply has no legal significance to the case whatsoever. If the police are charged–and we have to wait to see what the investigation reveals about any criminal culpability–they might be charged with felony murder, under which a death is murder, even if unintentional, if it somehow is caused by the commission of any of several dangerous felonies. For example, kidnappers might accidentally leave their hostage locked up too long in an airtight room, where he suffocates. That would be felony murder, even if the kidnappers were racing home out of concern for their hostage’s air supply, and were delayed too long by a flat tire. The bottom line is simple, and for the defendant, brutal: In felony murder, intent is irrelevant. So why is the DA talking about some legally meaningless point? A cynic might say that it looks like an attempt to mislead the public, telling them that there is no evidence of intent to kill, so that the public won’t question a decision not to prosecute the police for murder. But the police can absolutely be prosecuted for murder even if Kelly Thomas’ death was unintentional, as long as they can be prosecuted for an underlying dangerous felony, such as mayhem or torture. I for one am betting that the DA knows this, since his office prosecutes felony murder cases all the time. In fact, there is a case of the Orange County DA’s office prosecuting an unintentional felony murder in this past Friday’s Los Angeles Times.
If the DA were to decide on torture felony murder as the appropriate charge, he has at least one capable prosecutor to handle the case, the one that got a torture conviction for the Orange County DA’s office against an Austin Powers bit player (LA Times).
Certainly the conduct in the above torture case was horrific, but not, I think, more horrific than tasing a man over and over while he cried out for his Dad to save him.
Another non sequitur or red herring found in the story above is the phrase “excessive force,” as in “We will prosecute if the police used excessive force.” But the phrase “excessive force” is not found in the California Penal Code. It is a phrase used in civil lawsuits, civil rights lawsuits alleging police brutality, to get money out of the taxpayers to compensate the victims and survivors of police brutality for their suffering. In a criminal context, the only way that I can think of to use the phrase would be in an attempt to talk a murder charge down to an involuntary manslaughter charge. To illustrate: one definition of involuntary manslaughter is when a death unintentionally results from doing a lawful act in an unlawful manner. In this case, the defense lawyers could attempt to beat a murder charge by arguing that the defendants were, at most, guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The argument would go like this: The police were doing a lawful act, making a lawful arrest, but may have done so in an unlawful manner, by using excessive force, unintentionally killing the defendant. If the jury goes for it, the defense would have reduced a murder charge down to a much less serious involuntary manslaughter charge. But that is an argument for the defense to make, not the DA. Simply put, the use of the phrase “excessive force” might be seen as an attempt to hide the truth rather than illuminate it, in that it is a subtle way to introduce the idea that an involuntary manslaughter charge is somehow appropriate to a case that is still under investigation, and which looks, at least at this juncture, to possibly warrant a charge of felony murder. Presumably the DA knows that the phrase “excessive force” isn’t in the Penal Code. So why is he using it?
Moreover, an involuntary manslaughter charge in this case would rest on what may turn out to be a very flimsy premise, namely, that the police were doing something lawful (“making an arrest”) in the first place. Normally, the prosecutor would scoff at such a self-serving statement as a misstatement of the facts, and say that beating an unconscious man to death is not “making a lawful arrest.” Normally the argument that a murder was actually only an involuntary manslaughter would be the defense lawyer’s argument to make, since it is customary practice in criminal trials for the defense lawyer to defend the accused, not the prosecutor.
Second: the DA’s office put out a statement, found HERE, saying that if the police are prosecuted, they will be prosecuted for second degree murder. What happened to the idea that we had to wait until the investigation was complete before jumping to conclusions regarding the culpability of the cops? Why second degree murder? Shouldn’t the DA prosecute a first-degree murder case, if that is where the investigation leads? There are felony murder cases that can be brought for both first degree murder and second degree murder. There is even at least one first degree felony murder charge, which might be applicable to this case, with mayhem as the predicate felony, under which the DA can seek the death penalty, and probably already has, in cases in which the suspects were ordinary criminals, instead of alleged police criminals. The DA’s office, in this statement, for some reason, indicated a desire to give the six suspects a huge break, possibly even sparing them from the death penalty, before the case is even investigated, even charged, or even plea bargained. That is not how things normally work.
To be fair, the DA himself also said, HERE, that everything was on the table, including, presumably, first degree murder prosecution. Still, it does make one wonder what kind of internal discussions they are having in the DA’s office.
The third concerning statement, to come out of the DA’s office regarding the Kelly Thomas case is found HERE, and was in reference to the various threats that have been made against the police, which threats were used as justification for not releasing the names of the six police officers to the public. One of the “threats” enumerated by the DA’s office was the following statement: “Kelly Thomas was murdered by numerous officers and they should get the death penalty.” Strange, isn’t it, that the DA walks into court every single day and says “This murderer should get the death penalty,” and yet, for some reason sees that exact same statement as a “threat” in this case. It might be a threat if the statement had been “the police are murderers and WILL get the death penalty;” but the use of the conditional words “they should” by whoever made the statement indicates a belief in a qualifying condition precedent to the imposition of the death penalty, i.e., that the murdering police should get the death penalty IF they are found guilty of capital murder. If I say “State law provides that those who are found guilty of capital murder can get the death penalty,” while that certainly sounds threatening to those who have reason to fear state law, it is, nonetheless, a statement of fact. If a criminal defendant were to say to the judge, in court “Your Honor, the DA is threatening me. He is calling me a murderer and he is trying to get me the death penalty,” the judge would nod and explain that yes, the DA is doing his job. In sum, the law is a “threat” only to criminals.
The police department spokesman complained that the “threats” were anonymous, and thus difficult to track. But I am not anonymous, and I believe that the witness accounts of the beating death of Kelly Thomas that have appeared in the media, i.e., that six police beat a man into unconsciousness and continued beating him even after he stopped moving and lost consciousness, are, if found credible after the current investigation, strong evidence to support a charge of felony murder against all six officers involved. I also believe that if the investigation reveals that Kelly Thomas would have needed plastic surgery to repair his face had he lived, or that he had broken bones, or permanently and severely damaged organs, such as his eyes or ears, that a charge of felony murder with the crime of mayhem as the predicate felony would be legally warranted. I further believe that if the police were subject to a felony murder prosecution with mayhem as the predicate felony, then the prosecutor should seek the death penalty. Finally, I also believe that if the police were to receive death sentences after trial, then they ought to be executed, just like other killers.
In sum, the DA must soon decide whether to charge the Fullerton six, and if so, with what. I for one wish him well. In the first story linked above, the DA called the killing of Kelly Thomas “a tragedy.” It wasn’t. A fatal accident is a tragedy. A young man dying of cancer is a tragedy. A young man getting shot or stabbed or beaten to death is a crime.

                                                              The DA's Press Release



Now while it's not perfect, not all of the 6 are being prosecuted it's better than it was, 2 are, and the DA says they are the two most culpable. Most don't agree that the others did nothing wrong. They should have had a moral obligation to stop the murder. True as the DA said later there was a lot going on there, but any idiot could see there was something wrong when Cincinelli was beating Mr. Thomas eight times with the tazer, drop kneeing him in the face, tazing him up to six times, and Mr. Thomas was laying there unmoving. Most don't agree that the others did nothing wrong piling their weight, estimated to be 1200-1500 pounds fully armed, on top of Mr Thomas, creating his inability to breathe, ultimately causing his death. I'm hoping they all remember for the rest of their lives that they helped murder an innocent man, but have a horrible feeling that they don't think they did anything wrong. 

Death Visits Fullerton California In The Guise Of Six Fullerton Police Officers

Kelly Thompson after the Fullerton Police were finished

Death came on July 5th to Fullerton Calif., to a 135 lb. schizophrenic homeless man. A man named Kenny Thomas. A homeless resident of Fullerton, off and on, for years. Death came embodied in the form of six murderous police officers, of course perhaps only 2 or 3 committed the actual murder, but six were there, and none prevented it,  all covered it up, participating in the cover up and white wash. Those who conducted the white wash are believed to be the 6 cops, of course, their superiors including the watch commander, the dispatchers, who viewed, or could have viewed, the video of the murder in real time, as it happened, every police officer who failed to break the thin blue line and come forward, all those in the locker room and heard one of the 6 murderers allegedly bragging and crowing about the severity of his beating to the homeless man, and let's not forget the Chief, when he got back from his two week vacation.  We can't forget the Mayor and city council, two of whom acted with some concern, two of whom, a former cop, and the former police chief, and of course the mayor who all acted with no concern, doing their best to join the white wash with the Orange County District Attorney, and make the whole thing disappear.
Unfortunately, unknown to the 6, or perhaps known, there was a video camera on a pole in the bus yard taking pictures of the whole beating. Nobody of importance has seen it yet. So far,the dispatcher, who zoomed in on the beating, the watch commander whose office had a monitor too, they both saw it as it happened, then of course the 6 murderers who watched it as they did their reports to make sure their lies were consistent and redid them then redid them and redid them again until their superiors were satisfied that their lies were perfect, I guess. I'm not sure who beyond that has seen the video, perhaps the chief, though he denied it, perhaps the city council, surely the DA's staff as they're investigating. Nobody important, not the family, not the people who pay the salaries and benefits of the people who did.
The story by an unnamed anonymous  witness inside the FPD, who appeared on a local radio show, the John and Ken show, confirmed that death embodied in the six cops returned to the station house and watched the video as the reports were written, over and over until their superiors were satisfied. He also confirmed that at least one of the 6 bragged loudly about the punishment he'd rained down on the victim.
Kelly's picture, showing a man beaten to a pulp, started a public outrage that has grown exponentially as time has gone on. Every weekend there's more and more people peacefully demonstrating in Fullerton, in front of the Police station and city hall. They're calling for the jailing and trial of the 6 murderers, the firing of the Chief, and the recall of the Mayor and two of the city council.
Well this so far is as far as the tale of Death's visit to Fullerton has gone. The six cops are waiting on paid vacation, of course if the public outrage that developed had never happened they'd still be out there looking for another victim, as it was it took something like 5 weeks for their superiors to take them off the streets.  I recently looked at http://www.youtube.com/ and searched police brutality, finding that it's a disease run rampant throughout this country and the world.  Death has taken over the bodies of police everywhere and is running amok killing uncontrolled.
Here are links....

Friends for Fullerton's Future Blog

Justice for Kelly Thomas

Pictures before and after of Kelly Thomas

A Recap in an article from the Orange County Register

Lee Murray

The Answer is FEAR!!!

Have you ever noticed, or thought about the fact that this country has had an enemy constantly since we entered World War 2?  Why? Fear is the answer. 
There are two reasons for fear really. The first is that our government, and the corporations and banks that control it, telling our "elected leaders" what to do, when to do it, and who to do it to, discovered during our last legitimate war, WWII, how much money there was in war. The profits from the money  paid from our taxes by our "leaders," for making weapons, the money paid to our "leaders" by everyone from friends to enemies for these same weapons, the profits in destroying a country, only to rebuild it, the profits from their share of foreign aid and bribes to the "leaders" of the defeated countries,  So, the first fear is the fear of loss. Our "leaders," and their corporate bosses, fear the loss of that virtually infinite income.
The other fear is what keeps them, our "leaders," in power and able to generate millions of dollars in income.
A brief tangent.  Have you ever noticed how many, if not most, politicians enter office as regular people, not rich, not poor, and amazingly they all seem to have fixing the system as their goal. But funnily before long they're using the system like pro's, generating income, taking advantage of their benefits, the goal of fixing the system forgotten.
Let's use Bill "Caligula" Clinton as an example. Here's a man who never did anything really, other than getting elected as governor. He was possibly the poorest and least experienced of men elected to the office of President, before Hussein Obama, maybe not.  He entered office poor, his wife earning much more per year legally, and possibly illegally according to the rumors. She's secretary of state Hillary, in case you don't know. Today after being president for two terms, filling their pockets, Hillary and Bill are multi-millionaires.
Something is clearly wrong, when the employee becomes a millionaire, and the people that employed him are losing jobs, losing their homes, going hungry, getting sick and dying because they can't afford medical care and medication, in many cases literally living in boxes and eating out of dumpsters. Something is clearly wrong. The whole system is wrong, somehow the employees have become the employers, no, worse, the rulers of the rest of us. I wouldn't be surprised that one day Mr. Hussein Obama, or someone like him writes an executive order changing his title to Emperor, would you?
Back to fear, the other fear is that they make sure that we, the people feel, and it allows them to get away with what they do. In the fifies they called it a cold war, the commies were out to get us. It was the west against the east, like a football game. They built weapons, nukes, jets, warships, the draft dragged willing and unwilling into the military. All for nothing, the Soviets, (who were playing the same game, making the commisars, etc. rich and average people poor), collapsed and the cold war was over.
Then our "beloved leaders" realized that without fear, they were eventually going to be broke and out of a job, metaphorically. They needed a new object of fear to keep us in line, paying taxes, and filling their pockets.  Several things were tried, but none really took hold, until George the 2nd and his minions had a brainstorm.  Terrorists!!!!  There's the ticket. 
So, George the 2nd and his minions thought and thought, until they came up with the idea of a terrist attack that would drive the people into a frenzy of fear, similar to that in the prime of the cold war.  They found some pilots and "terrorists" to do the dirty work. Allegedly they were middle eastern, but who knows really, I don't think bodies were recovered. They put the "terrists" to work in hyjacked airliners, destroyed the twin towers, some minor damage to the pentagon, and one plane crashed in a field. Americans were murdered by their own president. What I've called Pravda west, the tame American media, shouted terror to the rafters, George the 2nd lied his ass off, convincing everybody that we had been "attacked." Next thing we're back at war, in the oil rich middle east, all his buddies, and bosses, are making money. Regular peoples kids are being murdered by their own president. Mr. Hussein Obama now is in office, well on his way to becoming a millionaire, and he's making sure that all George the 2nd's policy's and wars are kept going, and that all George's buddies and bosses are making money.  Fear.... Everybody's afraid, the biggest fear though is that our "leaders" fear that we are going to realize what they're really up to someday.

A Question Occurs to Me

Watching a movie from 1941, as it ended something came on the screen that brought a question to mind. It was a plea for the audience to buy War Bonds. Parents put Gold Stars in their windows. There were canteens in every town. There were movies, radio shows, books.  A member of the military could go anywhere and be befriended. Not anymore. 
My question is this, if all the wars this country has manufactured since WWII were SO important. If our very survival as a nation was at stake. Why isn't the public being asked to support them too? I believe the German and Japanese of the WWII era were evil personified. This was a legitimate war, a necessary war, our last.
I guess the answer is that simple, in the days since, all wars have been created simply to make money. The politicians, the corporations, the banks, Wall Street, they all fill their pockets. Everyday people, see their sons, and now daughters, murdered.
What fascinates me is that all the kids who in the sixties and seventies objected, shouting ban war. All those who said they'd never make the same mistake as their parents and grandparents, those of us from the Age of Aquarius," are now responsible for allowing this country to currently be in six, or is it seven, wars. Just like in the sixties the rich keep their kids out, so they can become the new generation of warmongers, the average people see theirs die.
The good news is that in today's wars, the total murdered are fewer than those killed in a few minutes in earlier wars. Which is not even counting the millions of civilians and foreign military murdered by Bush, Obama, and others who went before. Not much comfort to any of their their families though. The biggest industry in this country is war, the second biggest is prisons. Says a lot doesn't it? The truth is our "leaders" are too stupid to do  anything else, I guess.

Lee Murray

My Comment on Yahoo a second ago, pertaining to jubilation over the Murder of Osama

Heroic? Not to be unAmerican or anything, but what's heroic about 40 or so professional killers breaking into a private home in the middle of the night to murder an unarmed, and apparently sick on kidney dialysis old man together with other unarmed men, women and children?
Not to mention, that we only have the unsupported word of a proven liar, George 2nd, and his minions and cohorts, that the old man was even involved. Why the rush to secretly dispose of the body? Why the refusal to publish the pictures? Life magazine published pictures of the Nazi death camps and other instances of man's inhumanity, probably as brutal or more so, and we weren't hurt by them. Was the old man even murdered by our new Assassin in Chief, G. Bush Jr., aka Obama? What are they hiding?
If he was in fact guilty, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? A trial would have been inconvenient, slowing down if not stopping the blood lust of the US. What if he'd stood trial and been proven innocent? Or if he was guilty why not take him alive, (after all it would only have required the restraint of one killers trigger finger), and bring him here to find out what he knew? I'm sure if guilty he'd have known a lot we should know and now never will because Obama the Assassin preferred him dead. Why? Obama keeps saying that justice has been done. I find that just as offensive, how is murdering a defenseless, sick old man justice? Even if guilty as sin the actions of vigilantes performing a defacto lynching is wrong. He should have been brought here and tried. Calling it an act of war is just another lie, he did not resist.
Final point why does the kill squad, (who ever thought the US would condone, let alone use murder squads like some Central American dictatorship), feel the need to hide their identities, if this was in fact on the up and up? If it was on the up and up, I'd be proud to take credit, if it were me.
This is NOT the USA that I was born in, when and why did it turn into Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cambodia, or some Central American murder capital? This country is on a fast slide down the tubes, and our "leaders" seem to be pushing us to slide faster.

Here is a link to the article  Link to Article

One thing I've come across since posting this is, and I wasn't aware of this, there was a huge reward, 25 million or so, for the capture of Osama, dead or alive I guess. Of course dead is easier. So in fact the killers were less military "heros" and more bounty hunters. Are they going to split up the money between the whole team including the dog that may or may not have been there, or just give it to the one killer who shot him in the head.
Or perhaps because they were military, Obama gets the 25 million as the "leader"???? Better yet the government keeps it, not paying it out to employees, they really can't afford to pay it out anyway.

'Fog of War' My Ass: White House and CIA Caught in a Lie about Osama Bin Laden Assassination

Found this at the This Can't Be Happening Link to Site

It says everything I've been thinking, that this country now uses Murder Squads in addition to torture and other odious techniques for the alleged purpose of protecting the "Fatherland," I'm sorry the "Motherland," no  I'm sorry I meant homeland.  Der Furher and his minions, Stalin, Mao, and others if alive, would be proud to accept the modern US into their ranks. As I told a friend yesterday the "war on terror," is never going to be over, how can it be when lead by the largest, best organized, best armed, and once the richest terrorist of them all? First of all was it ever proved beyond doubt that Obama, sorry I  meant Osama was in fact responsible for the destruction of the towers? Or was that just another lie by George the Second, along with his many other lies that got us in this mess in the first place?  Well read the article, it speaks for itself...

Lee Murray

'Fog of War' My Ass: White House and CIA Caught in a Lie about Osama Bin Laden Assassination

by:  Dave Lindorff


In the end they couldn't get away with it.
As I noted back on Monday in my first article on the Sunday Navy SEAL raid into Pakistan that killed Osama Bin Laden, President Obama himself spilled the beans in his initial midnight statement, when he said, “After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.”
After that perhaps unintentionally honest account of an execution, the lies began, with White House chief counter-terrorism advisor (great title huh?) John O. Brennan fabulating that Bin Laden had "engaged in a firefight" with the SEALs who "entered the area of the house he was in," and adding, "Whether or not he got off any rounds, I frankly don't know." Then there were the lies that Bin Laden had shamefully used his wife as a "human shield," that he had been armed with an assault rifle, etc.
In the end, the truth came out. There had been no fire-fight at all with Bin Laden. The 79 (!) Navy SEALs who assaulted the compound (originally we were told "two dozen") were resisted by a total of four men, with no reports that the women and children who comprised the rest of the residents of the compound offered any armed resistance at all (unless you count Bin Laden's unarmed wife who allegedly "charged" the men entering the bedroom, and unless you count her actual arms as "arms").
By the time the assault team members had reached Bin Laden's third-floor boudoire, the entire compound had reportedly been secured, with every one of the residents either dead or bound up and cuffed, and most of the team was busy packing up computers, hard drives and other potential evidence to be stowed on the escape helicopters.
The cornered Bin Laden was, at that point, simply executed with two shots to the forehead.
There was, as I correctly surmised from the available evidence on Monday, no attempt at all made to capture him alive.

The only thing missing from the assault narrative at this point is an admission from the White House that in fact the goal of the mission was precisely to kill Bin Laden, and then make him vanish.
The fabricated story of his resistance and his cowardly hiding behind a wife was a Jessica Lynch-style fable that fell apart faster than a popping balloon, with the White House attributing the whoppers to "the fog of war." Try the foghorn of propaganda.
My guess is that the White House had no choice but to come clean. Photos of the bedroom airing on Pakistani television on Monday showed that it had been barely disturbed by the confrontation. There were no bullet holes in walls. The clear glass windows were unbroken. The arch-villain's waterbed had suffered no leaks. There wasn't even much blood to be seen on the floor. The scene certainly was not what you'd have seen had there been a "firefight" in the enclosed space. I mean, if bullets had been fired at the American room invaders, there would either have been wounded men or damaged walls or windows. There was neither.
We have to then assume that the goal here was target termination. And then we are left to wonder why? As I noted earlier, Bin Laden was the central figure in Al Qaeda. Even if he wasn't the actual planner of terrorist actions himself, he was the paymaster and fundraiser for the group. Without question, had he been bundled up in an orange jumpsuit, or in diapers with a plug up his butt, and carted away to Bagram Air Base or Guantanamo or one of the many CIA black sites and subjected to the "permissible" forms of "enhanced interrogation" allowed by Presidential executive order, he would likely have revealed a wealth of invaluable information that could have been used to destroy the organization.
So why was he not captured alive?
According to the latest White House line--this time from CIA Director and soon-to-be Secretary of Defense (sic) Leon Panetta--the reason Bin Laden was executed was that he made "some threatening moves" that "clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that's the reason they fired."
Hmm. "Our guys" in this case were the most dangerous bunch of trained killers in the US military, armed to the teeth and extensively trained in lethal martial arts. And we're asked to believe they felt mortally threatened by an unarmed man known to have been sickly and never particularly good at martial skills. So what kind of "threatening move" could he have made? Did he shake his fist at them? Give them the finger? Try to throw a punch?" It hardly matters. If these American supermen had wanted to capture him, or if they had been ordered to capture him, they had the manpower in the room to do it, even if he did bite and kick and insult them.
My guess is that a living, breathing, walking, talking captive Osama Bin Laden was the last thing President Obama wanted.
Hell, he didn't even want a dead Osama Bin Laden around. Hence the quick "burial" at sea.
When all the hoopla and jingoism dies down, this whole affair will be seen as one of the most outrageous acts of duplicity and propaganda in the long history of American militarism

My feelings about people

I'm told that my opinion that humanity is evil is obvious from my posts. Let's take a look at that. I do not think individuals are evil. I know a great many people who have nothing but the best intentions and wouldn't dream of committing an act of bad let alone evil. But sometimes evil isn't in the intentions. Our leader the great Obama, think of the great Oz a little man behind the curtain fooling everyone with an amplified voice into believing he was more than he was, may have the best intentions in the world and wouldn't dream of doing evil himself, doesn't in fact that he's capable of it. No more that George the Second, or George the First, or any of the others think they're committing an evil act, but they are, and by endorsing, or even by not rejecting, them we've become complicit in their evil and become equally responsible for the evil they've committed. 
I'm not going to discuss fate, or karma, or illusion, let's assume that these acts of murder committed by our leaders through their willing and unwilling accomplices are real and have real consequences ending innocent, and not so innocent lives some of whom would murder us for no better a reason, forever. Doesn't that make humanity evil?

Lee Murray

Are Our "Leaders" Evil? Just Ignorant Murderers? Or Both?

First let me say, pertaining to the title, I'm not limiting myself to the great Obama, or George the Second, or any other American, per se. I mean all leaders of all nations throughout all of our, humanity's, known and probably unknown, history.
I wrote a comment on a friends blog and the last sentence I wrote started me thinking.  I said: "If you people want to do something productive, why not stop worrying so much about the symbol that's on a memorial or grave of people killed in a war, and instead worry about how to stop the war and killing? More of us would thank you, I think..."
Stopping all wars, forever. A great though radical idea I admit. It'll probably never happen, because it seems to be the first resort of all "leaders" throughout history. Have a problem, declare war. It's all they know, kill, kill, kill.  Unfortunately, the murderous leaders like Obama, both Bushes, and all the rest, go on and on. They murder millions of others, both soldiers and civilians, but they live and go on, serial murderers to the end, making Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy seem like pikers.
Granted, our murderous leaders love for war, and other killing, is a reflection of that same love in humanity itself. With the exception that most people don't have the opportunity of indulging it to the same extreme. If I, or any other normal human ordered, or caused the death of one, let alone millions, it would result in being hauled up on murder charges, and possibly the death sentence, or life in prision, which is worse in my opinion.  In the case of Obama, Bush, and thousands of others throughout history, they get away with it by saying it's necessary.  Ordering other willing, and unwilling, accomplices to do the acual evil.  But that doesn't absolve their own evil at all, if anything it makes it worse using their power to force others to become complicit in their own evil.
Do they try to resolve the problem by talking? Well there is diplomacy, for all the good it does, or has done.  Usually the diplomats are more effective at ending the war, after many millions have been murdered in the name of someones national, "homeland," security.
I've said before, if our leaders insist on war, lets put the two leaders, presidents, kings, emporers, dictators, whatever, in a ring, or closed room, give each a sword, knife, or gun. Whoever walks out wins the war.  I guarantee that if it was done this way, war would end, well maybe not, but it would result in no serious or important deaths. 
Off the point, I've never understood the absolute reverence that most people have for a man that's elected for a four year term. Not a king, not an emporer, although many see themselves that way. I see them as really no different than the CEO of a large corporation, although few, if any, would have the ability to run even a mom and pop grocery store, let alone a large corporation.
They mostly seem to be trained liars. Lawyers and professional politicians or both, fitted, by training, experience, and natural ability or talent, for lying. Telling us what they think, or are told, we want to hear, not caring at all what really happens to anyone else, just themselves.
Some people say that war, like disease, and natural disaster, is just a means of population control. I'll grant you, it does seem to function as a method of population control. Would the world be even more overpopulated without war? Wouldn't nature have compensated for not having it? Science if we can believe them, is working on hundreds and thousands of cures for disease, they've even found one or two. But the biggest disease of them all, killing each other at the smallest, or even no, excuse is ignored.
This country has existed for more than two hundred years, in all that time, there has been almost never a time without war, of some kind. Acknowledged civilization has existed for around 6000 years or so, and in all that time there has never been a time without war of some kind or other.  If you take it back through the mists of time thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of years to when humanity began, when we were maybe swinging in trees, living in caves, or whatever is our accepted beginning, humans were killing humans. Nothing has changed it seems except the ever larger numbers.

Lee Murray

Man's Inhumanity to Man

Watching Rambo, a movie made in 2008, a continuation of the saga started years ago in First Blood. On the surface John Rambo is a killer pure and simple.  Deeper he's more, a philosopher, a man that hates killing and the necessity of killing. Like all movies and most books, there is truth here, but you have to look beyond, or behind the drama to find it.  As I said he hates the killing, but believes that it's the only way to resolve a problem and for that reason always returns to killing.  In the end the other path, not killing, finding another way, is too difficult and so he kills. Which isn't to say the challenges, the evils, the bad guys don't deserve to be killed. In this movie one scene is the Thai military, destroying a village killing or capturing everyone in sight, including American missionaries. Later scenes have them raping, beating, and killing the captives. It would be easy to say, yeah but it's a movie, it's not real. The truth unfortunately is that bad as these scenes are, inhumane as they are, evil as they are, they're nothing to the reality of what goes on somewhere in the world every minute of every day of every year, since humanity began.
The evil that is depicted exists in all of us, to a greater or lesser degree. It doesn't matter how tame or milquetoast you appear, under the right circumstances you're capable of the evil of inhumanity. Some would say yes, but Rambo is saving those being preyed on by the bad guys, he's a good guy.  Well, maybe the bad guys don't think so. It's kind of like we all think our military are the good guys, going all over the world killing the bad guys. But clearly millions throughout the world see them, and us, as the evil, seeking to dominate the world and force our way of life on them. Evil or good depends purely on context.
I know I can relate, because as a kid I had the same feelings that drove Rambo to become a killer, and as I grew older I, like him, realized how wrong it is and unlike him, I didn't just try to turn my back on, or sublimate those feelings, but began a search that's still going on for a way to elevate myself above them. The truth is that I, like most, if not all of us, fight every day not to fall back. I know that if I ever found the expletive deleated that stole my truck, and all my things, or if someone ever hurt someone I love, my first impulse would be to take a knife and... Well you get the idea, to paraphrase a character in another movie, I'd keep him alive for two weeks, if I had to give him blood transfusions.  I like to think I'm better than that, but I'm not and under the right circumstances, any one of you would do the same.
Based on what I've learned all life is vibratory, from mineral which we assume has the lowest vibrations, on to man which we assume has the highest, in this world. As we evolve, our vibratory rate increases until we no longer can remain in this world or level and we start over in the next.  The difference between say someone like Mother Theresa or Ghandi, near saints and someone like Rambo, is that their vibrations are higher than his and they're more evolved. The difference between Rambo, and the bad guys are that he, like us, has started to evolve realizing that something is wrong, not necessarily knowing what, and he's started to seek the answer. The problem is that at the slightest excuse he returns to the old, known, reactions.
Inhumanity whether to man or anything else, is something that is part of us as humans. Why? I don't have a clue. You'd think that our first reaction would be to help, not to hurt. Which is true with some of us, but with too many it's not. This is shown by the wars, and crimes that go on, and have gone on from time immemorial.  As long as there've been people there's been murder, torture, and other forms of inhumanity.

Lee Murray

It's Not For Me To Judge - I'm Just Doing My Job -

Watching CSI Crime Scene Investigation, a new one with Lawrence FIshburne. Now he's a cop, but he was one of the street punk muggers that got Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) started again as a vigilante in Death Wish II.  I haven't watched CSI much, since they let Grissom (William Peterson) get away.  When he was there it was a little special, now it's just another cop show. Another quick aside before I get started on the real point, do CSI's in real life act like detectives getting out kicking in doors, questioning suspects, making arrests, blah, blah, or do they work in the lab and on the crime scene getting evidence and letting the real detectives do the police work?  I get so sick of seeing what I believe is an error in reality perpetrated to generate interest from viewers because the reality is probably so boring. At least when Grissom was there CSI was a little bit more real, than the others, now all three are the same with interchangable characters.

Government Murderers assemble at Ruby Ridge

Now to the point... Watching the show and Fishburne's character, (what is his name anyway?), says to a suspect as she's led away "It's not for me to judge."  We hear that, or "I'm only (or just) doing my job," or "if I don't somebody will," or "I need the money, it's only a job." There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of ways of saying the same thing, i.e. "I'm a good German, just following orders, doing what I'm told, etc.
We're becoming a nation of "Good Germans."  If you asked anyone working for the TSA in the airports, they'd probably say that these people were going to destroy our country, so anything we had to do was just self-defense, or  I live in a civilized, democratic country, certainly the most civilized and democratic that has ever been, and my country wouldn't do evil things, or people in positions of high authority convinced me that whatever they were doing was for the best.
Good Germans all, not sending people to the ovens, true, just subjecting them, babies, old people, normal average people, their neighbors and friends, even themselves, to pornographic body scans and physical, sexual assault it the form of pat downs, where TSA goons, the new Brown Shirts of Bush/Obama and the government, reach under their clothes and grab your balls and penis, or shove their hands into your wife or daughters, or mothers, or grandmothers crotch fingering their vagina or ass.

Kent State 1970 aftermath

Ask people if it's right and many are outraged, some say they'll never fly again, but others, many others, are convinced by the perverts and facists in their government that it's needed to ensure safety, a mythological safety.
Saying something like I live in a civilized, democratic country, certainly the most civilized and democratic that has ever been, and my country wouldn't do evil things, (yeah, right) doesn't make it true.  Too many people say It's not for me to judge. They said it when slaves were bought and sold, they said it when brother was killing brother in the Civil War, (the Rebellion, or the War for the Southern Confederacy depending on your point of view),  they said it when Negros were lynched, and the KKK (nation wide not just in the South) acted up, they said it when a few Germans were locked up in WW I (Article on German Intenment WW I and WW II), they said it when US citizens of Japanese heritage, WHO WERE BORN HERE, were locked up in CONCENTRATION CAMPS during WW II, (Article on Japanese Internment WW II), they said it when US soldiers committed murder and attempted murder by killing and wounding STUDENTS when firing live rounds into a crowd at Kent State in 1970 (Article on Kent State Murders and Attempted Murders),  they said it when the US Government in the persons of FBI agents and others murdered innocents and framed others at Ruby Ridge and Waco (Article on the Weavers and the Ruby Ridge Massacre), (Article on the Government Murder of Branch Davidian Women and Children at Waco), now they say it as Government Brown Shirts molest, and degrade honest US citizens whose only crime is the desire to board an airliner and fly somewhere.



Government Attact on the Branch Davidians in Waco



Lee Murray

Thou Shalt Not Kill - How?

Well, I talked pretty good awhile back about how humans ignore God's 6th commandment and kill, kill, kill. Let's look a little deeper. I think I called it a rabid dog murderous nature of 99.9% of human beings, recently. As you can probably tell, that's a pet peeve of mine. Truthfully I didn't always feel that way, and even today, insects, flies and moths in particular that get in the house, or in my way, aren't safe around me. So let's face it, all human beings, with the alleged rare exception, are killers, murderers, even if it's something as small and insignificant as a fly.

Is there a way for humanity to live without killing? I honestly don't have a clue. We all, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. accept the idea of thou shalt not murder, in theory. But in practice, in real life, it's an accepted and easy way to solve problems, personal problems, and national or diplomatic problems. It may be a fight in a bar, gang wars, a world war or a police action, or "The State," meaning all of us killing a killer, how is that for hypocrisy? 

In church, mosque, or temple, we all say Thou Shalt Not Kill, or words to that effect. Since all of our religions are built on previous civilizations going who knows how far in the past, this is not a new thought, but what do you find looking back, murder, assassination, war, and it's been going on as long as there have been people, apparently.  Buddhists are anti-killing, perhaps more than any of the rest of us, but being human even most Buddhists will kill too, if no more than stepping on an ant, or swatting a fly. The Buddha himself was reputed to be against killing even an ant. I will say that a friend mentioned, and I agree so far as I know Buddhism is the only religion that has never been responsible for, declared, or started a war. But again, they are human, which means with an inborn prediliction for killing, so I could be wrong.

I just watched a short on TMC that was about a couple that immigrated to the US from Poland in the 1850's, they became citizens, became small farmers, had children, and when the Civil War came along he enlisted in the North to fight for his country. It said that he'd said he'd give his good right arm, for his country, and he did. Then it jumps to the Spanish American war and this man told his sons that they must enlist and fight for their country, they did and some didn't come home, then WW1 and WW2 same thing, this family proudly sending it's sons, and daughters, to work,  fight and die for their country.  In my family too, and in most, if not all, of those I know, it's the same story.  We fight for our country, some because we want to, some because we have to, some because we think we should.  Our parents, relatives, political leaders, priests and pastors, girlfriends and wives, everybody it seems, encourage us to do it. It's patriotic or protecting our family, or just the thing to do. At the same time ask any one of that myriad of people if killing is wrong, they'll say yes. Hypocrisy raises its ugly head.  Ask them if they believe in the 10 Commandments, they'll say of course, some, not many, would say  yes killing is wrong, period, yet others would say but in this case, or that case, it's necessary. Too many though have never given it a thought and see no need to, killing another person is like swatting a fly, easy.

Gandhi who in my opinion was a modern saint,  is the only leader that comes to mind who truely abhorred killing, which didn't prevent the Hindus and Moslems from killing each other. But he never accepted it, he came close to death several times starving himself in protest.  Well I've talked long enough for now.

Lee Murray