Only the truth...

Veteran under attack for expressing pride in his service!

2012-02-04T09:04:00.001-08:00

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8wYgtlZb7A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The Marine veteran living in this condominium complex is under fire from a group of ignorant board members, one of which claimed complete ignorance that this action was even taken without his knowledge.

How can you be on the Board of Directors of an HOA and "not know" an action is being taken against a homeowner?

The journalism covering this story was spot on, if the Marine Corp stickers are to be considered "advertisements," then so is every sticker on every car in the parking lot.

As such, the HOA's actions in this matter are nothing short of hypocritical and anti-American in going after a veteran who served his country.

This isn't the only asinine action taken against a former service member in an asinine attempt to squash their 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech/expression of their pride in serving and the honor and sacrifice of that service. There is a plethora of news stories and videos of similar and worse anti-veteran actions taken by so-called Americans against veterans.

What a sad world we live in when things like this story happen...threatening to fine a veteran for displaying images of his unit and branch of service, as well as towing his car if those images are not removed.

Over sexualizing children and their mental confusion...

2011-10-29T12:57:00.001-07:00

Girl Scouts Undecided if Transgender Bobby Can Join:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/girl-scouts-waffle-transgender-bobby-montaya-join/story?id=14825506

US Culture over sexualizes children enough as it is. Children so young such as this young and confused 7 year old boy simply have not developed enough mentally to know whether or not who or what they are...

Child psychology has a long history behind it, and one of the foremost things children do when they admire someone or some behavior is to mimic that person or behavior. One has to wonder where and how Bobby ended up admiring the cultural upbringing norms of raising a little girl vs. that of a little boy.

Then there is this story:

Lesbian parents are giving their 11 year old son drugs to stop puberty so Tommy can become a Tammy.

http://www.news.com.au/world/well-stop-puberty-so-tommy-can-become-tammy/story-e6frfkyi-1226169281540

Be it 7 or 11 or any childhood age, children simply do not possess the mental faculties to appreciate let alone understand such serious life changing choices that they will more likely than not regret later on life (not to mention resent their parents).

Kids need to be kids and grow up as kids.

Once they become adults, then they can make adult decisions.

Texas Politicians Fight to Stop Confederate Flag License Plate

2011-10-23T12:50:00.000-07:00

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/23/texas-politicians-fight-to-stop-confederate-flag-license-plate/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1bdRZctmD

The politicians state that the flag is a "symbol of intimidation" based on its illegitimate use and association to racism where relations between whites and blacks are concerned.

Clearly these politicians do not understand the true and factual history behind the Confederate Flag.

History of the Confederate Battle Flag

Over the years the symbolism of the Confederate Flag has been misidentified with a lot of things, mostly racism because of the widely held but incorrect belief that the US Civil War was over slavery when it was factually and historically not the case.

The reaction to this issue is clearly one of an emotive ignorant response...and it flies in the face of the 1st Amendment. If a descendant of a Civil War veteran wants to have such a plate on their care expression their appreciation for not only their family but state history, they should have that right.

It is also the right of these politicians and others to "claim" it is a symbol of oppression, but they would be wrong in that subjective unsubstantiated opinion.

Maybe these politicians and others like minded should spend more time ensuring that true disgraces such as the Mexican flag being flown over the United States flag does not happen.

It took a real patriot to correct this injustice on US soil...a veteran!

Where are the politicians in cases such as these (i.e. there is more than once instance like this happening over the past several years in this country), righting wrongs ensuring the law is carried out when such an injustice and bold affront to the US takes place!?!

Murderer Death Sentence Overturned for NO LEGAL REASON!

2011-10-23T12:24:00.000-07:00

Gary Sampson Death Penalty Sentence Thrown Out By US District Judge

"Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Gary Sampson was denied his constitutional right to have his sentence decided by an impartial jury and that he is "entitled to a new trial to determine whether the death penalty is justified in his case."

An 'impartial jury'? There is no such thing because every person, to include this judge, has their personal biases that invariably creep into their decisions.

Lawyers on both sides purposely pick people who are either undereducated and easily duped (i.e. gullible) into buying into a planned argument either in prosecution or defense thereof a defendant.

While the law says a juror must remain impartial, the fact of human nature is that is never a reality.

"Wolf found that one of the jurors had intentionally and repeatedly answered questions dishonestly in an attempt to avoid talking about subjects that were painful to her. She never disclosed, for example, that her husband had a rifle and had threatened to shoot her, that she had ended her marriage because of her husband's substance abuse and that her daughter had served time in prison because of a drug problem.

Wolf said in his ruling that if the woman had disclosed those things during the jury selection process, the court would have found that there was a "high risk" that after listening to the evidence at Sampson's trial, her decision on whether to sentence Sampson to death could have been influenced by her life experiences. Wolf said the woman likely would have been excused from serving on the jury."

This is entirely subjective and without an objective foundation! What the judge or the attorneys who tried/defended this case may or may have not known about this woman's past and personal experiences is irrelevant so long as she declared she would remain impartial as a selected juror.

I've served on a jury before and when my education level, experience with police, etc. was disclosed the judge specifically asked if I would be able to remain impartial as a juror...I said "yes." Neither attorney moved to have me excused, so I remained a juror and was elected foreperson of the jury.

When asked and answered if a juror would be an impartial jury member and they say "yes," the judge and attorneys have to accept that at face value and assume the risk of liability should something like this case come to light after the fact.

Unless the judge can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by the preponderance of the evidence, that this woman was in fact NOT impartial in her decision as a part of the jury...he has no right to overturn the sentencing handed down in this case and order a retrial.

What this judge did is not unprecedented but is illegal, in my opinion, and it certainly makes a mockery of the criminal justice system; especially when the defendant confessed and was tried and convicted by an impartial jury of his peers.

Arizona police accused of racism in missing child case...

2011-10-23T11:52:00.000-07:00

Police Search for Missing Arizona Girl, Grandmother Accuses Police of Racism

"The grandmother of an Arizona girl missing for more than a week pleaded Thursday for more attention from police investigators and the national media, saying that the case of her granddaughter's disappearance hasn't been made a priority because she's black."

Hundreds of thousands of children go missing each year of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, and the police do everything they can to find the missing child because they know there is a critical time frame in which a child must be found.

The police can only do so much with what evidence they have, and when there are no leads, no evidence, no nothing...what do you expect them to do, hire a "psychic" to find the child?

Making allegations that the police (to include search and rescue and other citizens who volunteer to search for the child) are not doing anything or not enough merely because of the race of the child is on its face ridiculous; moreover, it only interferes with the investigation.

The statistical fact of the matter is when children go missing it is more often than not that that child is taken by someone they know, usually a family member or friend of the family.

"Jahessye's grandmother, Shirley Johnson, and about a dozen of her friends and neighbors went to the state capitol in Phoenix on Thursday to draw more attention to the case in hopes of finding the girl alive."

That was a lot of time and energy wasted that could have been used to conduct their own search efforts in assisting the police, rather than tossing verbal assault grenades at the police.

Even a citizen of the community who has assisted in the search of finding the little girl doesn't believe the police are being racist:

Glenn Johnson, who is of no relation to Shirley Johnson and didn't meet the family until after Jahessye disappeared, said that he's been searching the girl's neighborhood and passing out fliers for a few hours every day on his motorized scooter.

"I've got very little confidence in the police, mostly because they have no logical place to look," he said. "I don't see how she could be in this area and not be found at this point."

He said that he doesn't think the police department has been racially biased, adding that it conducted an "aggressive" search of the neighborhood.

"I don't think it makes a difference whether she's white, black or green. If there's no leads, there's no leads," he said. "Sometimes it's a dead end."

Again, countless children are abducted and exploited every day...every single one of them are a priority for police; but when there is little to no evidence or no leads to follow-up on...there simply is little the police can do other than post Amber Alerts and provide as much information to the public as possible in the hopes that someone will recognize her and call into the tip line.

Charging the police with racism with false accusations that they are not doing enough because the child is black is counterproductive and wholeheartedly disingenuous on the part of the grandmother (and anyone else likeminded).

People need to start giving the police and those who support them volunteering for their agency via Search and Rescue or other citizen volunteer groups need to be given more credit for their efforts, not labeled racists just because the family or others don't like the results of their investigation.

Racial Profiling vs. OFFENDER profiling...[BIG DIFFERENCE]!!!

2011-06-23T14:43:00.001-07:00

This is something I wrote back in 2006 during my Criminology Course Studies...and believe it still applies today because too often people use the misnomer "racial profiling" where NONE exists.

Since 9/11 especially, and as of late the issues of ILLEGAL immigrants and the new anti-illegal immigrant bills states are passing, the issue has ALWAYS been about OFFENDER profiling and "NOT" racial profiling.

The Criminological and Sociological Correlatives of Violent Crime

And

The Relevance of Race as a Characteristic of Offender Profiling

Violentcrime is committed by persons of all racial and/or ethnic backgrounds. It is anunfortunate aspect of human existence, but a part of it nonetheless. Certainlya plague upon civilized societies the world over, possessing neither aneffective treatment nor a cure; violent criminal activity will undoubtedly continueto infect humanity regardless of racial and/or ethnic influences. Despite itsperseverance, violent crimes continue to be documented and studied by manycriminologists and sociologists alike in an attempt to fathom exactly who,what, when, where and why it is even committed. In the United States (US), forexample, there is one sociological aspect of violent criminalism in particular thatstands out above the rest; and that is the clear and unmistakable dichotomybetween the different races and/or ethnic backgrounds involved in violentcrimes.

The most prevalent datumillustrating this divergence is the disproportionate numbers of black people,as either offender and/or victim, in relationship to their total number in thegeneral population; but also in relationship to other racial and/or ethnicbackgrounds involvement in similar violent crimes. As a result of these knownstatistics and based on real world experiences, law enforcement officials feltit prudent to include race as a relevant characteristic of offender profiling inthe interests of effective proactive law enforcement. However, due to political correctness,law enforcement officials have been heavily criticized for the obvious potentialand actual abuses of including race as a characteristic of offender profilingas being patently racist and undeserving of the duties entrusted upon them.

Notwithstanding,the real world criminological and sociological implications of reported violentcriminal activity paints a clear picture of reality that simply cannot bedismissed or ignored out of political correctness. Unfortunate as the truth maybe, it is still the truth; and that is the empirical fact that black people areinvolved in violent crimes, as either offender and/or victim, at adisproportionate rate compared to the percentage of their total population inthe US. Black people comprise approximately 13% of the total US population;yet, for example, they accounted for more than 50% of arrests for violentcrimes committed in 2002 (Bartol, 2005; Federal Bureau of InvestigationsUniform Crime Reports, 2002). That is a startling statistic of violent criminalactivity for just one group of people with such low numbers in the total USpopulation; especially when compared to other larger groups of people.

Inconsideration of the known criminological and sociological correlates ofviolent crime in the US; is it not logical to reason, based on that empiricaldata, that black people are in fact committing more violent crimes, forwhatever underlining reason, than any other race and/or ethnic background inthe US? On its face, the answer is clearly yes.However, due to political correctness repudiating race as a valid (i.e.supported by empirical research) characteristic of offender profiling, theanswer is a vehement no! Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that anoffender profile based on empirical datum of violent criminal activity must includerace as one of the identifying offender characteristics. The failure to includesuch an unmistakable factor that is clearly associated with the criminologicaland sociological correlations of violent crimes defies not only common sense;but it is also counterproductive to effective law enforcement, proactive orotherwise. Therefore, it is my position that the criminological and sociologicalcorrelates of violent criminal activity more than substantiates the inclusionof race as a relevant characteristic of offender profiling in furtheringproactive law enforcement efforts in the interest of public safety.

Politically correct rhetoric aside, what is any rational person expected to think let alonebelieve when confronted with undisputed violent crime statistics that show blackpeople constituting more than 40% of the prisoners found in local jails, morethan 50% in federal penitentiaries, more than 44% condemned to death row; andthe fact that 94% of all black homicide victims being murdered by other blackpeople (Bartol, 2005, p. 286)? Granted, most people cannot be expected to havefirst hand knowledge of all known criminological and sociological correlateddatum of violent criminality among the differing races and ethnic backgroundsof those living in the US; however, due to popular media (e.g. news outlets,television, and movies) it has become somewhat common knowledge, if notcommonplace, for many people to stereotype black people, especially young blackmales, as being associated with violent criminal activity despite the lack offirst hand knowledge.

Stereotypes can beeither positive or negative; nevertheless, they are an inevitable fact of humanexistence in a world where people simply do not possess complete academicand/or first hand experiences of their known (and unknown) surroundings andmust act on probabilities (D’Souza, 1995, p. 266). Despite such ignorance,stereotyping, or as D’Souza has renamed it, rationaldiscrimination, it is a real part of life and it is practiced by all races,to include black people (p. 245). Even Jesse Jackson, a prominent black leader, made it known that even hepractices rational discrimination himself when he made the following statement:

“There is nothing more painful for me than towalk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery, andthen see it’s somebody white and feel relieved” (p. 267).

When it comes to dealing with violentcriminal activity, law enforcement officials know first hand that black peopleare more likely to be involved in violent crimes (e.g. burglary, assault,homicide, etc.), as either the offender or victim, than other racial and/orethnic backgrounds. Thus, they instinctively practice a kind of rationaldiscrimination of their own in the interest of proactively law enforcement in protectingthe society they serve (p. 284).

Accordingto Schmalleger, PhD. (2005), arrest rates of black people were either equal toor exceeded those arrests for any other race or ethnic background in any givenyear. Moreover, the murder rate among black people is more than ten times thatof whites (p. 52); and again, 94% of those homicide victims were intraracial(Bartol, 2005, p. 286). Additionally, when various forms of violent crimes(e.g. assault, burglary, and robbery) are compared to other races, say forexample, whites; black people are involved in higher proportion (Schmalleger,2005, p. 52). Consider the following statistics reported by Walter Williams ofAnchorage News (1997), recounting a Department of Justice statistical analysis:

Blacks committed 54% of reported and recorded murders;
Blacks committed 42% of reported and recorded forcible rapes;
Blacks committed 59% of reported and recorded robberies; and
Blacks committed 38% of reported and aggravated assaults.

When one considers the sheerstatistics, does it not stand to reason that in known areas where certainviolent crimes are known to happen and by what type of offender profile (e.g.,black, male, age 18-25, etc.), that is perfectly reasonable to expect a lawenforcement official to stop more young black males than any other race orethnic background without being negatively stereotypical and/or racist(McWhorter, 2001). Realistically, in such known high crime areas lawenforcement officials more often than not would have little to no choice but tostop more black people than white (or other) people in order to furthereffective proactive law enforcement efforts (p. 17). For example, consider theresults of a poignant policing event that took place in 1989 at the PortAuthority Bus Terminal in New York City. In an effort to curb the increasedproblem of trafficking of narcotics, the New York Police Department (NYPD)conducted an anti-drug checkpoint at the terminal where a number of people werestopped and inspected before proceeding. Of those stopped, 65-75% were black orLatino while the remaining 25-35% were white. Despite conservative criticism thatstopping more minorities than whites was patently racist, the factual resultsof this checkpoint resulted in 99% of those blacks and Latinos stopped were infact carrying illegal controlled substances (208 out of 210 stopped); and mostof those not in possession were not black or Latino (p. 16). As politicallyincorrect that the stops may have been (i.e. alleged racism in practice), it simplydid not change the empirical fact that nearly all of the blacks and Latinosstopped were found in possession of controlled substances while nearly all theothers stopped were not. Therefore, however unfortunate the reality presentedby this example is, it is a fact that must be kept in mind when evaluating thenecessity of such a racial component of offender profiling where proactive lawenforcement efforts and the safety of society is concerned.

Whilemany politically correct activists, black or white, claim that racism is theunderlining cause of violent crimes afflicting black people, the breakdown inthe black community is not caused solely by racism but rather, as D’Souzacharacterized it:

“… by extremely high rates of criminalactivity, the normalization of illegitimacy, the predominance of single-parentfamilies, by high levels of addition to alcohol and drugs, by a parasiticreliance on government provisions, a hostility of academic achievement; and ascarcity of independent enterprises” (p. 477).

He categorized thischaracterization as “black cultural pathology,” the complete and total defianceof anything remotely considered as “acting white” while blaming white peoplefor the plight of black people and their communities in America. In support ofhis shared position, D’Souza quoted black American scholar, Milton Morris, as makingthe following statement regarding violent crimes committed by black people:

“When black people slaughter other blackpeople on the street, they all come back to: look what the white people made usdo” (p. 482).

This mentality of blaming whitepeople for all the problems of black people is, by definition, racial paranoia – the tendency of thosein the black community to blame white racism for any and all failures exhibitedby blacks rather than taking personal accountability for their own actionsand/or failures. In order to more fully illustrate this problem, Robins andPost (1997) recounted the following conspiracy theories that were highlyprominent throughout the 1990s:

AIDS was a virus developed by white people with the intent of murdering black people;
White people in the government conspired with others to flood the black communities with narcotics in order to oppress blacks;
Manufacturers of sports shoes popular among blacks use their profits to endorse apartheid in Africa;
A spree of murders of black children in Atlanta, GA in which Wayne Williams, a black man, was arrested, tried and convicted; was claimed to be perpetrated by the F.B.I. in order to perform tests on black genitalia;
Prominent fast food chains putting a substance in its fried chicken and soft drinks in an attempt to sterilize black men (p. 62).

Tiredof such ridiculous theories, politically correct rhetoric and the incessantaccusations of white racism as sole excuses for violent crimes perpetrated by blackpeople, Bill Cosby has recently spoken out against the black community for itsfailure to police their own; thereby allowing them to commit such heinouscrimes against not only society in general, but within the black community mostof all. A prominent black American in his own rights and achievements, he madethe following excerpted statements during a speech he gave at the 50^thAnniversary of the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education:

“In our own neighborhood, we have men inprison. I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing therein an orange suit. Where were you when he was 2, 8, 10 or 18 years old? Andwhere is his father, and why don’t you know where he is? We cannot blame whitepeople.”

“Fifty percent drop out rate, I’m tellingyou, and people in jail and women having children by five, six different men.They are all faking and they’re dragging men way down because the state, thecity and all these people have to pick up the tab on them because they don’twant to accept that they have to study and get an education.”

“Well, Brown v. Board of Education, whereare we today? It’s there. They paved the way. What did we do with it? Fiftypercept drop out rate and the rest of them in prison.”

Despite the fact that many in theaudience cheered and clapped during and after his speech, Cosby was immediatelylambasted by several black leaders and activists for his commentary thatbasically denounced the plight of his own people as being self-inflicted. Nevertheless,Cosby emphatically stood by what he said holding firm to his position to thisvery day.

Still,many prominent black leaders and activists (e.g. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton,Louis Farrakhan) vehemently oppose the inclusion of race (who imply, withoutsubstantiation, that it is the only factor considered) as a validcharacteristic of offender profiling continue their denial (i.e. confirmationbias) that the empirical datum clearly supports its inclusion. The opposition’sargument is that law and order depends on the commitment of the community to belaw abiding, not the inclusion of race in offender profiling; and any suchinclusion would directly hinder such compliance (Forman, 2002). However, raceis not the only determinate factor of offender profiling. Other factoredcharacteristics off offender profiling include but are not limited to: age,education level, occupational status, income level, and most of all, criminalhistory. To disallow any applicable use of race as a characteristic of offenderprofiling is not only a blatant dereliction of duty; it is also entirely counterproductiveto effective proactive law enforcement efforts combating violent crimes.

In summary, no amount of politically correct rhetoric will ever change theempirical fact that there is a discernible dichotomy between the differingraces and/or ethnic backgrounds of people living in the US where the commissionof violent crimes is concerned. Moreover, the inclusion of race as acharacteristic of offender profiling is fully supported by the documented andresearched criminological and sociological correlations of violent crimes committedwithin the US. Denying that black people, as either the offender or the victim,are involved in violent crime at a disproportionate rate compared to the percentageof their total population will not change that reality. Stereotyping blackpeople (or any other minority) is an unfortunate byproduct of this realitydespite the fact that not all black people are involved in crime. Nevertheless,the use of rational discrimination (e.g. the 1989 drug-checkpoint at the PortAuthority in New York City, Jesse Jackson’s statement about hearing footstepsbehind him on the street realizing it was a white person) cannot be seen aspatently racist when based on real life personal and/or vicarious experiencesinvolving the probabilities one might have to act upon if ever in such acircumstance warranting it. For some undisclosed reason, proponents give theimpression that denial is better than admitting the disproportionate numbers ofblacks involved in violent crime.

Moreover, concocting fallacious conspiracytheories (i.e. black cultural pathology) and irrationally blaming white racism asthe causal factor behind such documented and researched violent criminalitythat directly involves black people is not the solution to the relevance ofrace in offender profiling either. Fortunately, not everyone subscribes to suchunsupported theories and/or accusations of white racism as a valid explanationor excuse for violent crimes committed by black people. Dinesh D’Souza, BillCosby, John McWhorter, et al are prominent minority Americans who see throughthe politically correct rhetoric and have spoken out against such opposition. Bottomline, law and order is simply not predicated on political correctness butrather empirical datum of criminological and sociological research supplementedby real world law enforcement experiences. Therefore, the inclusion of race is notonly a necessary characteristic of offender profiling; but it is also part of anextremely legitimate tool (i.e. offender profiling) of effective proactive lawenforcement efforts in the interest of public safety.

References

Bartol, Curt A., & Anne M. (2005). Criminal Behavior:A Psychological Approach. (Seventh

    Edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Cosby, Bill. (2004). Speech given at the 50^thAnniversary Commemoration of the Brown vs.

   Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court Decision. Transcribed andprovided by Dr. Bill

    Cosby’spublic relations representatives. Available:

    http://www.eightciti...nscript_bc.htm.

D’Souza, Dinesh. (1995). The End of Racism. New York:The Free Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2002) Uniform CrimeReports. Available: http://www.fbi.gov.

McWhorter, John. (2001). Losing the Race: Self-Sabotagein Black America. New York: The

    Free Press.

Robins, Robert S., & Post, Jerrold, M. M.D. (1997). politicalparanoia: the psychopolitics of

    hatred.[1] Connecticut:Yale University Press.

Schmalleger, Frank, PhD. (2005). Criminal Justice Today:An Introductory Text for the 21^st

    Century. (Eighth Edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Williams, Walter E. (1997, October 13). Black Community MustRise Up Against Crime.

    Anchorage Daily News, Available:http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_anchdn-

    voice.htm.

[1] The title ofthe book was purposely type in small caps with no capitalization because thatis how the book is titled.

The Baby Storm Controversy: Raising genderless children in a society premised upon culturally established gender roles.

2011-06-11T17:42:00.000-07:00

http://palmer.patch.com/articles/baby-storm-starts-gender-identity-controversy-2

Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39, and their two boys, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, have welcomed a third addition to their family, Storm; who for all intent and purpose is going to be a genderless child. Both Witterick and Stocker want Storm to discover him or herself naturally without their individual influences, biases, and/or society’s conventional (e.g. social, cultural, etc.) influences as well.

Both Witterick and Stocker honestly believe that they are giving Storm, along with their two other boys, a level of unconstrained freedom of choice to be who they want to be without the pressure of social and cultural norms where societal ascribed male and female gender roles are concerned (Poisson).

What inspired this genderless parenting decision was when Witterick read a book entitled “X: A Fabulous Child’s Story,” which is about a child being raised genderless (Stampler, May 26 2011); and Stocker’s point of view is, “If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask them what’s between their legs.” Stocker commented further that, “What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children, it’s obnoxious,” (Poisson, May 21, 2011).

What Stocker fails to realize is that what is between someone’s legs has nothing to do with their gender role, the social and culturally appropriate characteristics associated with being either masculine or feminine; and everything to do with their biological sex, being physiologically a male or a female (Morash, 2006).

Whether or not Storm is raised genderless, the fact of having a gender role is going to be a shock to him or her when the time comes that he or she learns of it. Without proper guidance of acceptable gender role behaviors from his or her parents, Storm is going to experience what his older brother Jazz is already experiencing as a result of his fondness for long hair being worn in braids and wearing sparkling dresses.

As a result, he is being called a ‘girl’ and treated as such; the result of which is Jazz having to ask his mother to write the High Park Nature Centre to address the group leaders advising them that Jazz is a boy, not a girl, and he would like to be seen and treated as such (Poisson).

Gender roles in human society are not fixed and change over time with experience and self-reflection over time; however, the ideologies that go into gender roles are important since they establish what is considered appropriate and inappropriate behaviors for the respective gender roles, masculine and feminine (Morash).

From childhood into adulthood, how we as individuals express our masculinity and femininity (i.e. gender) is premised upon what we learn and experience over the years; the beginning of that education starting with the upbringing our parents provide (Henslin).

In the case of Witterick and Stoker, they are providing no instructional role from which Storm may base a foundation or framework to go out into the world and interact with his or her peers who, undoubtedly, will have a sense of what their gender role is and what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior as such.

As a result, as Jazz and likely Kio has if not will soon experience, Storm will without question be teased if not bullied in ways that will leave him or her questioning not only his or her gender identity and the role that goes with it; but also their self-worth and place in the world when they are not accepted for who and what they are outside the one place they are accepted, and unconditionally so, the one place they will always feel safe…home.

As parents Witterick and Stoker are making a grave mistake in raising their children without giving them any guidance or sense of what their gender roles are, which will cause them individual and interpersonal difficulties as they get older and begin interacting with their peers, the second source of gender role identity. Through their peers, Jazz, Kio and Storm will learn their appropriate and inappropriate gender roles through identifying with and modeling their peers, and the parents of their peers as well (Morash).

Thus if Storm’s parents fail to conform to traditional social and cultural gender roles and stereotypes, he or she, along with his brothers, will sooner or later model the acceptable behaviors of others with whom they will come across who do act appropriately; after all, traditional gender role behaviors is far more common than non traditional behavior (which is exactly what Witterick and Stoker are displaying in the manner in which they are choosing to raise Storm and their two boys, genderless).

In the end, all Witterick and Stoker will accomplish is a strong level of alienation between their children and their peers; and perhaps quite a bit of resentment between them and their sons and Storm for what they will experience as they grow older. Children today are a lot more unforgiving, spiteful, and down right vindictive towards those they find different from themselves and those they simply do not like.

One way or the other, Witterick and Stoker are only one of five means by which their children will learn of their identity. Peers, School, Television, and Religion (Crooks & Baur) are the other means by which we humans establish our gender roles and individual identity.

As of late bullying has been taken to an entirely new level with the use of the Internet and social networking websites. Even worse still, it’s not just children using today’s technology to reach out and ridicule and emotionally harass other children, the parents of children do it to the rivals of their own children too. Sadly, some children have taken their own lives as a result of the intensity of bullying either personally (i.e. at school or other social environments) or impersonally (i.e. on the internet via social networking websites, email, etc.).

In the end, Witterick and Stocker cannot erase more than two centuries of biological, psychological, sociological, psychological, societal, and cultural norms where gender roles of men and women in human society are concerned by raising three genderless children (though we know that two of them are boys, one of whom specifically looks, dresses and for all intent and purpose assumes a feminine gender role).

These children, especially Storm being the youngest of the three, will have adjustment difficulties, self-identity crises, self-esteem issues, interpersonal communication problems with others (especially their peers), and social adjustment issues as they struggle to correct on their own what they parents failed to help establish for them: their personal identity premised upon their gender role in human society.

In short, the parents are being selfish and careless in the raising of their three children. Whether or not they should keep them given the foreseeable consequences of their actions, that’s up to an official authority.

REFERENCES:

Stampler, Laura. ‘Genderless’ Baby Raises Storm of Controversy. ParentDish. May 26, 2011.

Accessed June 10, 2011. Available at: http://www.parentdish.com/2011/05/26/genderless-baby/#comments

Poisson, Jayme. Parents Keep Child’s Gender Secret.” Parent Central. May 21, 2011.

Accessed June 10, 2011. Available at: http://parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/babies/article/995112--parents-keep-child-gender-a-secret

Morash, Merry. Understanding Gender, Crime, and Justice. Sage Publications. (2006)

Crooks, Robert & Baur, Karla. Our Sexuality (7^th Ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing. (1999)

BAD RULING by the Oregon Supreme Court on Marijuana and Guns being OK!?!

2011-05-21T09:36:00.000-07:00

On May 19, 2011, the Oregon Supreme Court, in an unprecedented unanimous liberal decision, ruled that Oregon Sheriffs “shall” issue medical marijuana patients a concealed handgun license if they meet all the statutory requirements of ORS 166.291. Adding further, the justices stated that nothing within that statute “turns on the mere use of marijuana or other controlled substances,” unless they were convicted of an offense involving a controlled substance (ORS 166.291(1)(L)).

The justices then go on to state that Oregon’s CHL statute “does not purport to regulate the possession of firearms. Rather, the statute deals with a particular placement or use of a firearm – the carrying of a firearm concealed on one’s person or its concealment, within the possessor’s reach, in a vehicle.” While this may be prima facie true, the obvious inherent problem the justices failed to comprehend is that in order for one to be authorized under this statute to carry a firearm on their person or within their vehicle concealed, they must first possess the firearm.

As all sheriffs in Oregon know full well, federal law prohibits anyone using a controlled substance from possessing a firearm, which includes medical marijuana patients in Oregon. So why would any sheriff wantonly violate federal law by granting a de facto right to possess a firearm via issuance of a concealed handgun license implying a legal authorization upon the possessor of that license to possess a firearm in order to carry it concealed?

Deputy Attorney General of the United States David Ogden stated in a 2009 memorandum to select U.S. Attorneys in states that have passed medical marijuana laws, “no state can authorize violations of federal law,” and “clear and unambiguous compliance with state law…create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substance Act.”

Any reasonable person would deduce that a medical marijuana patient issued a concealed handgun license would falsely conclude that they have a legal right to possess a firearm since they were given a legal right to carry that firearm concealed on their person or in their vehicle. The Federal Gun Control Act and Controlled Substance Act make it perfectly clear that those who use, manufacture, and/or distribute a controlled substance are barred from possessing a firearm. Therefore, medical marijuana patients are not authorized by either federal to possess a firearm.

Since the registration of firearms is not required in Oregon, it is highly unlikely that a medical marijuana patient would utilize an issued concealed handgun license to “deceive” a gun dealer, as the sheriffs argued, to purchase a firearm; especially when it would be less cumbersome and easier to acquire a firearm on the streets from a private seller.

The justices noted that the Court of Appeals in the Willis case held that the concealed handgun statute “is not preempted by federal law, because it does not affirmatively authorize what the federal statute prohibits – i.e., possession of firearms by unlawful drug users – but, instead, merely exempts licensees from state criminal liability for the possession of a concealed handgun.”

While the referenced statute may not expressly address the possession of a firearm, it is implicitly implied given the obvious fact that in order for a medical marijuana patient to conceal a handgun on their person or in their vehicle, they must first possess a firearm in order to do so. This is not mere supposition but a statement of objective fact.

A person cannot conceal that which they do not possess; thus it is no great leap in logic to deduce that if a medical marijuana patient is applying for either a new or renewal of a concealed handgun license that they are in possession of a firearm.

Moreover, it has always been the sheriffs’ position in these cases have been that a concealed handgun license effectively gives a de facto authorization upon medical marijuana patients – “persons deemed by Congress to be unqualified to possess firearms” – to possess a firearm with the intent to carry it concealed either upon their person or in their vehicle.

Therefore, why would any Oregon Sheriff want to issue a concealed handgun license to a medical marijuana patient, thereby granting them the legal right to carry a (possessed) firearm concealed, when that sheriff knows that under federal law they are not qualified to be in possession of that firearm to begin with?

Even more amazing than this unanimous liberal ruling is the contradiction within it where on the one hand the justices are saying county sheriffs cannot enforce federal law by denying a medical marijuana patient a concealed handgun license under the guise of the state law governing the issuance of that license, but that they are in fact free to “enforce federal law as well as state law, and no state law prohibits the sheriffs from taking such enforcement actions” where the Federal Gun Control Act and Controlled Substances Act are concerned.

Medical marijuana patients are not going to open carry in Oregon, which is legal, because they know that would draw attention to themselves and open them up to federal gun possession charges under the Federal Gun Control Act.

What the Oregon Supreme Court did in this ruling was given medical marijuana patients a legal means to circumvent clearly established federal law; that which preempts the state law(s) governing possession and conceal and carry statutes.

Last but not least, the justices failed in one greater aspect in these cases when they ruled in favor of medical marijuana patients: common sense. Had any one of them performed a simple Google search for “shootings marijuana,” they would have been faced with a plethora of hits of one news story after another where guns and marijuana clearly do not mix.

The following are but a few examples found during a search conducted on May 20, 2011:

Man reports shooting; police find pot – Kansas.com

http://www.kansas.com/2011/05/18/1854195/wichita-police-discover-marijuana.html#storylink=omni_popular

Two Wounded in Steubenville Shooting (Pot Involved)– WTOV Steubenville

http://www.wtov9.com/news/27961933/detail.html

Fresno pot farmer imprisoned in shooting death – Fresnobee.com

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/05/16/2390259/fresno-pot-farmer-imprisoned-in.html

Oklahoma Mayor Sworn in Despite Arizona Felony Convictions for Drive-by Shooting and Slangin’ Weed – Phoenix News Times

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/05/oklahoma_mayor_sworn_in_despit.php

Woman accused of firing gun in dispute over marijuana deal in Burlington – Burlingtonfreepress.com

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110518/NEWS02/110517040/Woman-accused-firing-gun-dispute-over-marijuana-deal-Burlington?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp

Shooting Victim Leads Police to Large Pot Operation – KAKE

http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/Shooting_Suspect_Leads_Police_To_Large_Pot_Operation_122169079.html?ref=079

SA man handed 25 years in (shooting) slaying over marijuana – San Antonio Express

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/S-A-man-handed-25-years-in-slaying-over-marijuana-1385761.php

In short, the Oregon Supreme Court’s ruling served no purpose other than to make liberals favoring a vague medical marijuana statute happy (which is now under legislative review in HB 3664).

Even the US Attorney for Oregon was quoted calling it a “train wreck” (http://www.katu.com/news/local/120248459.html), because people claiming to have pain and nausea can get it; by those standards those conditions are experienced by anyone and everyone at some point and time in their life.

Is everyone in Oregon going to be issued a medical marijuana patient card the moment they feel a little pain or get nauseated? If so, then according to the recent ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court, let’s toss in a concealed handgun license and see how Oregon citizen’s get along with a joint in one hand, perhaps a drink in the other (statistically, those who smoke marijuana have a greater tendency to drink alcohol, and vise versa), along with a firearm on their hip concealed under the jacket. Let's then see what happens; maybe it will be the Wild West all over again just because liberals want pot smokers to have concealed handgun licenses.

Bottom line, there was no wisdom exhibited in this ruling, and it’s a shame that the Jackson and/or Washington County Sheriffs will not likely appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court due to economic conditions.

What’s going to happen when marijuana and gun crimes increase in Oregon, as it has all over the U.S.; especially in California and along the southern states due to the Mexican drug cartels bringing tons of marijuana across the border for sale in the US?