Skip to main content

Fri Dec 05, 2014 at 11:40 AM PST

May God Lift the Soul of Eric Garner

by Major Tom

I'll get right to the point, folks.

Selling a couple of cigarettes on a New York street - that was all that Eric Garner might have done on his very last day on this Earth.

In New York City, selling cigarettes on the streets certainly was contrary to law. However, for the life of me, I will never believe the politicians who passed this particular law meant that it would be applied to selling one or two cigarettes on the city streets. So logically, I presume they were attempting to prevent the sale of cartons or packs of cigarettes on the street when they enacted the subject city ordinance.

In any case, under the existing New York City law, selling a few cigarettes was "malum prohibitum." However, at most it constituted a simple misdemeanor (actually, it was a civil infraction like receiving a parking ticket). Furthermore, and very importantly, under New York law there likely was NO legal right whatsoever to arrest Eric Garner because that alleged misdemeanor was not personally witnessed (in their physical presence) by the arresting police.  

So this indeed was an UNLAWFUL ARREST of Eric Garner - which unquestionably amounts to a very strong Assault and Battery case against the police (when they put their hands on him and violently took him down), not to mention a strong case against the police for False Imprisonment. Also, because that deadly chokehold was used, that Assault and Battery case against the police constituted a jailable FELONY.

There is something else: When someone commits a misdemeanor with death resulting, a case of MANSLAUGHTER (at minimum) is properly raised.

Additionally, in some jurisdictions in America when an instance of False Imprisonment occurs under conditions which are considered "inherently dangerous," then a case of Felony-Murder is properly made out.

Many folks do not know this: the good-hearted Eric Garner had just broken up a street fight (without violence) minutes before the police unjustly and illegally accosted him. However, let's assume for the moment that in breaking up that fight that Eric Garner had put that same type of chokehold on one of the fight participants, and that participant subsequently died. Well, Eric Garner today would probably be alive in jail, awaiting his trial for murder or manslaughter.

So the question necessarily arises, why aren't these felonious cops in jail awaiting their own trials for assault and battery (with the use of deadly weapons, to wit: the deadly chokehold), false imprisonment - and most importantly: murder or manslaughter? Yes, where is the equal justice? Also, where is the transparency?

Folks, I'll bet my bottom dollar that none of the above potential police crimes were ever mentioned to the Grand Jury, which was artfully steered by the prosecutor, to simply look at the issue of "police justification;" and that's exactly why the Grand Jury system in America has always been flawed. Indeed, through a grand jury, a prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich." However, that same prosecutor can "fix it," so that a murderer can walk away "scott free."  It's long past time that we change the system, and particularly with regard to cases involving police crimes.  

There is something else: Did you hear Eric Garner plaintively say to the police (and I paraphrase): "Leave me alone. This harassment has to end today."  

You know, when one reads more about Eric Garner and the New York City Police, an unmistakable and tragic picture arises. Simply stated: It truly appears that he was a police "whooping boy." Indeed, this was not the first instance when the New York City Police engaged in the relentless bullying of Eric Garner. So sadly, it seems that this was all about police "fun and games, (gangland style)" in which a poor soul was violently deprived of his life. Note how nothing happened on the street until the entire fun and games team arrived onto the scene. And make no mistake about it, the fact that Eric Garner was a Black American, whom these particular police officers only had an utter disrespect for, and a perception of Eric being completely worthless as a human being, had EVERYTHING to do with it.

Folks, this police lawlessness directed against race has to stop - and now!!! And that includes "race profiling."

Of course, the overwhelming majority of police officers in America could never be guilty of something like this. Indeed, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of police officers reach retirement never having had to fire their guns. However, until these kinds of "cancerous and malignant cops" are completely resected and excised from the police community and removed forever from the streets nationwide, there can never be true justice in America.        

May Almighty God lift up the worthy soul of Eric Garner.  


For those who would deny that we are currently living in a police state, read the following and weep.

The Patriot Act in a Nutshell

Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks:

Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

Freedom of information: The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public-records requests. "Sensitive" information has been removed from government Web sites.

Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. "Enemy combatants" have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.


(Emphasis and Italics Added)

And there's the following:  
But critics of the administration's anti-terrorism tactics assert such use of the law is evidence the administration has sold the American public a false bill of goods, using terrorism as a guise to pursue a broader law-enforcement agenda.

"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, told The Associated Press earlier this month. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."


The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied. (Emphasis Added)

Please refer to:

One must wonder: In terms of depriving individuals of their "Basic Fundamental Rights," did the Soviet Union ever have laws as strict as these? As can clearly be seen, the Patriot Act can simply abolish the Bill of Rights.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: What happens, if and when Homeland Security labels the National Occupy Movement as a potential "Domestic Terrorism Organization?"

Well Folks, perhaps it already has.  


Are We Currently Living in a Police State?

94%52 votes
5%3 votes

| 55 votes | Vote | Results


Folks, please read the following leading U.S. Supreme Court case and then tell me how in the world can the City of New York prevent the protestors from marching and picketing on the sidewalks in front of the New York Stock Exchange itself, so long as they do not block ingress and egress. Well, you just won't be able to do that.  

The case is: JUDY MADSEN, ET AL. v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, INC., ET AL., and it was decided in 1994; yet it remains valid law today.

The case is here:

Furthermore, I would be using this case in defense of anyone who has been arrested while trying to picket on Wall Street. I would also use it in a future U.S.C.A. 1983 Action against the police for violations of individual civil rights (Remember the cop who couldn't wait to use his billy bat that night?)

By the way, isn't it ironic how much in favor Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas are concerning picketing rights? Gee, I wonder why?

Also, passing out handbills should get the picketers very, very close to the NYSE. So start preparing handbills for that time.

Anyway, I'll let the case speak for itself.


Here's the news story:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nervous that Social Security seems under siege from all sides, congressional liberals on Wednesday proposed raising the payroll tax that funds the program, but only for people earning more than $250,000 a year (emphasis added).

The legislation is designed to keep the pension program solvent for the next 75 years, which is the standard used by government actuaries, by putting an additional $6.5 trillion into the Social Security trust fund over that period. The plan also is intended to head off other efforts to overhaul the program or trim benefits, or to use its funds to help pay for debt reduction.

"No more discussion about raising the retirement age, no more discussion about cutting benefits, no more discussion about privatization," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., one of the sponsors.



Simply stated, are you for this plan or not?

84%37 votes
15%7 votes

| 44 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading
The age of Obama has fallen tragically short of fulfilling King’s prophetic legacy. Instead of articulating a radical democratic vision and fighting for homeowners, workers and poor people in the form of mortgage relief, jobs and investment in education, infrastructure and housing, the administration gave us bailouts for banks, record profits for Wall Street and giant budget cuts on the backs of the vulnerable.
Professor Cornel West's full NYT's Editorial can be read here:



Do You Agree with Professor Cornel West?

67%122 votes
32%58 votes

| 180 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 08:48 AM PDT

Obama Needs Eisenhower's Courage

by Major Tom

I'll make this short and to the point.

The Eisenhower administration knew what to do in 1953, when the Treasury Department ran out of debt authorization, because the US Congress did not raise the debt ceiling then.

Sound familiar?  Yep, we've been down this road before.

Please check out this article, folks:

There is more below the fold.


Should Obama Demand a Clean Debt Ceiling Bill and Stand His Ground?

93%44 votes
6%3 votes

| 47 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

I still say that if President Obama does not pay existing debts as they become due, then he would in fact be violating the law - and hundreds of them at least. Indeed, the situation would surely constitute a "conflict of laws and authority" under innumerable statutes and Articles of the Constitution. Yet, in conflict of law situations, specific statutes take precedence over general ones (including resolutions such as the Debt Ceiling Resolution)

Remember, all these expenditures are called for, and are in fact required, under existing law. Also, non-passage of the Debt Ceiling Rule or Resolution (it is not a statute) does not change that. Furthermore, it is a specific duty of the President to see that the existing laws are executed and carried out.  In fact, not to do so might make him guilty of constructive impoundment, insofar as the "President does not have the inherent power to refuse to spend" sums authorized by existing statutes.  (Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975).)  


Should the President Question the Constitutionality of the Debt Ceiling Resolution?

95%38 votes
5%2 votes

| 40 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 08:28 AM PDT

A New Obama Insult

by Major Tom

I simply cannot believe that Obama would have the "audacity" to try to foist the "Gang of Six" solution upon the poor, the middle class, and the elderly in America.

Here we are: we need and want the multi-millionaires and billionaires to shoulder a greater load of the tax burden in America. Friends, the current polls support this quite clearly. That's right, a substantial majority (including Republicans) want this as well; of course, in addition to reasonable spending cuts. Check out the polls yourselves. They speak loudly and clearly on the subject.  

Well, did you know: Right now, multi-millionaires and billionaires currently pay the lowest tax rates in over sixty years? Yep, this is true despite the fact that there have been no positive trickle down benefits to most Americans. That's right, we've actually lost net jobs while the Bush tax cuts have been in effect since 2002.  So that Republican experiment has clearly been a catastrophic failure; because over that time, the Bush tax cuts alone have increased our national debt by 5 Trillion Dollars.    


Should We Support Obama's Gang of Six Solution?

16%15 votes
83%78 votes

| 93 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Friends, I don’t know about you, but I reached a saturation point concerning the Birthers a long time ago.  At first, I thought they would simply go away after a short period of spouting off this bit of vicious neo-con propaganda. However, the opposite has been true.  Now almost half of the Republican Party agrees with the Birther claim that President Obama is not an American citizen by birth; and, therefore, not our legitimate President.  Enter Donald (the Tramp) Trump – the King of Bankruptcies – and now the Birther Movement has been given a new burst of malevolent energy.

Folks, it’s not that the Birther claim cannot be debunked; because it can, and it has been over and over again during the last few years. Indeed, there have been thousands and thousands of certified Obama birth certificates which have been requested from the Hawaiian Department of Vital Statistics over the last few years and subsequently widely dispersed around the country. In fact, there have been so many birth certificate requests over that time period that the State of Hawaii has had to add new employees just to service the high demand for Obama birth certificates. Understandably, they have also significantly raised the fee for an Obama birth certificate.  


Simply, Are Most Birthers Rabid Racists?

89%58 votes
9%6 votes

| 65 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

The following is an analysis of the Deficit Commission's Report Draft with commentary. In advance, I must tell you that it is a bit lengthy, but I do hope it is nevertheless worthy of your perusal, folks.  

Basically, here is the Deficit Commission’s Preamble:

Throughout our history, Americans have always been willing to sacrifice to make our nation stronger over the long haul. That’s the promise of America: to give our children and grandchildren a better life.

American families have spent the past 2 years making tough choices in their own lives. They expect us to do the same. The American people are counting on us to put politics aside, pull together not pull apart, and agree on a plan to live within our means and make America strong for the long haul. A sensible, real plan requires shared sacrifice –and Washington should lead the way and tighten its belt.


The Deficit Commission's Propoals are:

0%0 votes
5%1 votes
75%15 votes
10%2 votes
10%2 votes

| 20 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Unquestionably, Evan Bayh is your consummate Democratic Rustbelt Sell-out. So bye, bye, Evan Bayh.

Folks, please help me here, I just don't understand something. Ever since Ronald Reagan co-opted the so-called "Reagan Democrats," who helped elect an army of Republican politicians in each of the election cycles during and following his administration, who then went about OUTSOURCING millions and millions of good paying American jobs from the Rustbelt at light speed, didn't the hardworking, middle class voters in the Rustbelt even notice what was happening to them, and by whom? Apparently, they didn't. Indeed, to a large degree, that's exactly how the Rustbelt became the Rustbelt.

Incredibly, the Rustbelt voters in states like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania, etc. readily rewarded this ECONOMIC TREACHERY by sending these very same traitor politicians right back to Congress to go about doing the very same thing to them - selling them out en masse. Gosh, why are these voters such suckers for perpetual punishment? I just don't know. Perhaps, "stupid is as stupid does" is really a valid truism. Sorry for the harshness of words; however, that's all I can conclude right now.

Please follow me after the fold.


Have You Had Enough Outsourcing Yet?

86%60 votes
2%2 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
2%2 votes
0%0 votes
1%1 votes
4%3 votes
1%1 votes

| 69 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 04:54 PM PDT

The Undemocratic Filibuster Rule

by Major Tom

The Republicans really appreciate the political significance of the Filibuster Rule; and they are constantly laughing to themselves about it (and many of them laugh all the way to the bank and back). However, the hoodwinked Democratic leadership has not figured it out yet; or if they have, they are content to use it as a legislative fiction in which to hide behind, when their personal interests and their personal desires are directly at stake. Remember, almost every current U.S Senator is a millionaire or multi-millionaire. Therefore, when we currently refer to "Government of the people, by the people and for the people," we are potentially talking about government exclusively by rich people for rich people, aren't we?  


Is It Finally Time to Get Rid of the Senate Filibuster?

72%44 votes
21%13 votes
6%4 votes

| 61 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site