Trans-Pacific Partnership The Obamatrade Trojan Horse

There is a wave of public discourse surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership[TPP] that cries for President Obama not to sell the American worker out to a handful of corporations. In reality more than just a handful. If approved would create a whole new set of rules regulating the economies of 13 countries or 40% of the world. These countries span four different continents bordering the Pacific Ocean. These rules cover everything from pharmaceuticals to Digital Copyright law. This deal has the potential to change the way you and I and the World interacts with the Global economy.  With a trade deal as large as the TPP and based on President Obama"s campaign pledge for transparency, you would think his administration would be keeping us up to date as much as possible. However, the exact opposite has been the reality. The United States has negotiated the TPP almost entirely in secret. About 600 private corporations[Corporate Lobby] has assisted in keeping this deal behind closed doors. Most what we know about the TPP come from leaked documents. These reports paint a gruesome picture of the American worker. [See Leaked Documents Here]

The Wikileaks document proves what many expert economists expected that the TPP wasn't a free trade deal, but a  Corporate Handout Disguised As A Trade Deal.

 This deal would allow foreign private corporations to sue countries over regulations those companies don't like.  It would allow them to expand the monopoly powers of  pharmaceutical patients. It[TPP] would also allow corporations the go ahead to start blocking websites for violating copy write law. In addition,  showed the Obama Administration on behalf of the United States has been pushing some of the TPP harshest intellectual property laws. To the point, the TPP would sacrifice national sovereignty, public health, and internet freedom. 

All this, in the name of helping corporate CEO's wallets stay fat and their shareholders happy. For this reason, the TPP is more dangerous than ordinary trade deals like NFTA. The TPP rewards companies that send jobs overseas and gut environmental regulations to keep big businesses in check. The TPP gives the corporation almost total control how you and I and the world interact with them. It totally restricts  how countries can fight back against these said corporations. 

Julian Assange

If instituted, the TPP[Intellectual Property] regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you're ill or one day might be sick, the TPP has you in it's cross-hairs. [See Source] 

Let's put that statement into context. What Assange is saying here is that the TPP put the rights of profit-driven businesses over We The People and the rules and regulations WE The People have put in place to protect ourselves. What our research has found is that the Obama Administration doesn't want Congress to take a closer look at the deal and expects We The People just to take his word that this is a proper deal for our country. The president is trying to use his unique leverage to promote a legislative gimmick called " Fast-Tracking" which would keep Congress from making any amendments to the deal. Instead, this treaty would go right to the floor where it would have to only past a simple majority vote. 

Not So Fast Mr. President!

A growing number of bi-partisan lawmakers including people as far away from each other on the political spectrum as one can imagine have expressed opposition to this deal. They have pleaded with President Obama to hold out fast-tracking this legislation. As of the rendition of this article, they have failed in that plea. 

There Is A Deeper Story Here.

The Wikileaks reports were critical  cause in pulled back the cloak and veil of secrecy surrounding this trade deal. What has resulted to the present is a strong populist backlash and grassroots activist forming strong bi-partisan coalitions to fight this deal from ever becoming a reality. Once people got a peek at what TPP is all about anger ensued and the fact the negotiations have been done behind closed doors only heighten the will to bring this trade deal from the dark to the light. This agreement has been so secretive that even people working on it had to sign a classified non-disclosure contract. What is problematic in this writer's mind why would a president that ran with the idea of being the people's president want to keep this so quiet. This deal will put people out of jobs and does nothing to help the people who got him elected. 

Why Obamatrade?

President Obama

What the TPP all comes down to is the fact and we saw the same thing with President Clinton who was surrounded by the " Robert Ruben Types," and the " Wall Street Types," it's payback time for the corporate lobby money and to tow the Democratic hierarchy line. The mainstream media has ignored the fact and the Democrats as well that Obama came up much the same way. There is no stronger supporter of President Obama than the House of Public Discourse, but this political posturing by Obama is not the " change," he ran on in 2008 but, the continuation of the status -quo politics governed by influence peddling from the Corporate Lobby who has both political parties in their hip-pockets. 

If anyone thinks President Obama did not make promises to these factions while running for office is in Disneyland, and the TPP is payback for those promise made on the campaign trail plain and simple.  Politicians get all this money, and they don't give it out not wanting  special favors in return. So, the TPP constitutes payback time. What is discouraging Obama knew this was counter to the American worker and for that reason alone has tried his dead level  best to keep it entirely secret?  There is no other way to soft shell the facts President Obama has intentionally tried to keep the public and press from knowing the details of this trade deal. 

One of the most interesting aspects of the TPP trade agreement is that the United States is the one pushing the hardest for it. We can see the hand of Microsoft, Disney, and Sony just to name a few hands all in this trade deal. What has happened  Exxon, DuPont, Dow Chemicals, all the big companies have had a field day gaming the system and taking away sovereignty by way of NAFTA. The TPP is NAFTA on steroids. The TPP trumps NAFTA in that NAFTA can't contest sovereign law the TPP does. We have already seen oil companies sue people in Canada who disallows them to drill for oil on their land. [See Another Example] We are already seeing bought and paid for judges throwing We The People regulations to the side in favor of big oil companies. This activity is happening across the board in many industries. The TPP is a license for a complete takeover of what We The People hold dear the right for us to govern ourselves. What the TPP says  we don't have to honor OSHA, we are not going to accept regulations, we don't have to pay a minimum wage we are not going to allow Unions. 

When you take regulations away, and you allow corporations to get involved in interfering with sovereign regulations and laws it never works to the benefit of We The People. For all Democrats who proclaim that we tow the party line and just blindly accept this deal cause Obama says so this is the " Gotcha Moment."  President Obama knows this deal is a direct contradiction to the promise of "Change" It's the old " Washington 

Two-Step." Just like every politician no matter the party Obama is owned by Wall Street and the Corporate Lobby on this trade deal.  It is not easy  for this writer to report this I find no pleasure in doing so but the House of Public Discourse is a House dealing with facts, not hyperbole or hypothetical's.  The bigger  picture here is  a " tell of the tale," how influence peddling in our governance is an all out assault on the everyday American's liberty. 

In Closing, one of the real positives for We The People has been the Wikileaks report. It has slowed down the Fast-Track legislation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and exposed the TPP for what it is an Obama Administration's " Trojan Horse."

TPP threatens good American jobs / Economy, Trade, Labor

The American Experiment Is Under Crisis!

Is the American experiment under crisis? Today you can ask five people their interpretation of any given constitutional  question, and chances are you will get five different viewpoints. Our founding fathers gathered  themselves in a small room in Philadelphia to hash out what at the time was nothing more than a governmental experiment, to form a new type of government for a new country they would call the United States of America. Not only were there no assurances that it would work but history at the time told them it wouldn't.  In their day, nations were ruled by rulers, not rules.  Kings told everyone else what to do. A government run by the people themselves was an old idea;  however,  it had never worked. People fight with each other. It's human nature. People are messy,  they have their interests, and they disagree. Rulers knew it took armies to keep people under control. These men [Founding Fathers] believed it took a constitution. They felt they could create institutions that would let conflict occur, then deal with it and that people would accept the outcome. That is, in fact, what they believed. In the Spring of 1787 it was time to deliver. There was much indecision as to whether they could. The Constitution was written in a time of crisis. Our founding fathers at that moment knew if they failed,  their country would fail. They responded by starting a nation in a small room with just a handful of ideas.[See Sources]

Many of the images and ideas we have of our founding fathers comes from 19th-Century historians. These historians advocated GOD himself handed down the Constitution. 

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father. Jefferson wrote the " Declaration of Independence." Jefferson called the men who wrote the Constitution demagogues. So what did this make Thomas Jefferson? Our founding fathers are the equivalent to " Greek Gods" in America. We The People have transformed these men into larger than life figures.  We have written untold books about them and have cast them in bronze. We have made educational films about them with many of those films' facts being entirely unsubstantiated. The average school child in America has been taught to speak of these men in a hushed whisper. These men were going to be whisked straight to heaven. These were real men that faced real challenges, but they were not gods. Our research here at the House of Public Discourse has found several who did not believe in God period. These men knew they were not gods. In fact, they were in fear of any man who would march himself a god. King George II ring a bell? Our research found these men would be disgusted at the reverence "We The People,"  pay these men. Some of them would for sure. We should admire these men by all means but to give them GOD status is over-the-top. We should find solace in that these men were not " Supermen. " They were just ordinary men involved in an extraordinary ordeal of forming and shaping a new country, a new nation that the world had never experienced before:  the'' American Experiment."

For the record, Ben Franklin felt the Constitution would last about ten years. 

The Articles of Confederation were a disaster and  the primary reason for much of the conflict. So history tells us that the first Constitution of America was a failure. The Articles of Confederation did not bind the new states together into one nation. This document functioned as a " league of friendship." We must remember the populists of that time still had the memories of being ruled and lorded over. The population was wary of any identity that would somehow become too dominant. And as back then as is the order of the day today, people were Virginians, North Carolinian's, Pennsylvanians, and New Yorkers. Sectionalism  was rampant. Just like in these modern times these citizens clamored for states' rights. These states saw themselves as sovereign nations.  In practice, they kind of, sorta, made an agreement to work together with other states. These arrangements fell apart so quickly that it boggles the mind. One of the biggest problems was there was no power of taxation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States government was flat broke. The US could not afford to protect ships on the Atlantic from pirates. They could not protect citizens on the western borders either. Each state printed its money. For example, the state of New York was charging Connecticut and New Jersey an " arm and a leg" for everything coming into its port.  So, in turn, these states planned a military attack on New York. The real breaking point was Shay's Rebellion. 

WHAT WAS SHAY'S REBELLION?

In closing, Part 1 of this series of articles,  do you the reader see where we here at the House of Public Discourse are going? This writer believes that history, in fact, does repeat itself. Sectionalism is on the rise in America. The Articles of Confederation  were a complete failure falling prey to sectionalism. Is our great "American Experiment." the Constitution of the United States, destined to go the way of the Articles of Confederation? Today, there is much talk of secession. Sectionalism has risen its ugly face more and more by the day. We are seeing shades of the Shay's Rebellion rearing its head through hate groups, radicalized religious zealots, political corruption, and domestic terrorism just to name a few. " The American Experiment Is Under Crisis," and in part 2 of this series we will investigate the question, "Is Secession  Inevitable?"  Back in 1987, a woman in the presence of Ben Franklin asked him the question. " Mr. Franklin fine sir, did the Constitution establish a Republic or Monarchy, Franklin replied:

Johnny Hill is a freelance writer who has extensive experience in writing for sales, marketing and advertising.   He has a background in radio broadcasting which is showcased in the music mixes he creates for his FB page, "One Nation Under the Groove."  Johnny  has been an avid  and life long student of politics . He is the founder of the House of Public Discourse Political Organization, which he created as a platform for his progressive liberal ideology.  You can follow Johnny on Twitter, @hillj60.

The Ferguson Fail, A Process Run Amuck

What is prosecutorial misconduct? Is the prosecutor in the Michael Brown Ferguson, MO, police shooting case guilty of it? There are many elements that can constitute prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor in this case, Bob McCulloch, according to many renowned legal minds has crossed the line with the Michael Brown Grand Jury. Is the Grand Jury process at fault in this case and other cases across our nation? In a nutshell, recent decisions by courts and juries have left many people in America pondering the answer to these questions.

The Process Is The Issue In Ferguson!

As a rule of thumb, we pride ourselves here at the House of Public Discourse in researching our points for accuracy and with an open-mind. Our research over the last several days has concluded the Grand Jury process in Ferguson as problematic and may have come to the level of misconduct by the prosecutor overseeing this case. Much of this dysfunction stems from witness accounts of the incident. The misconduct in the case primarily revolves around the handling of these eye-witness accounts. For example, we have found stories of so-called anonymous witnesses for the officer in this case who remain anonymous for fear of reprisals from the local community. Many well-respected legal minds some who identify themselves as political right thinkers claim this case was a miscarriage of justice.

Officer Darren Wilson

Another problem surrounding this issue is a low bar we have placed on the taking of a human life by a police officer. The judicial process by  court precedent has given police officers a wide latitude in situations like in Ferguson. However, " death by cop," is on the rise in our nation to the point of being an epidemic. Moreover, a large portion of these killings involves " white cop," shooting a " black male." 

As in any situation there are truisms and realities. The justice system in America is adverse. Most of the time,  a cop and a prosecutor are on the same side in this adversarial system. The reality? It is harder to convict a police officer of a crime than a civilian. In most police shooting cases, a police officer will claim his life felt threatened. Unfortunately for the victim's families, proving otherwise has been a high bar to meet. Both the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings attest to this reality. 

More importantly where do the solutions lie? First, cameras on cops make a ton of sense. Second, we need to reform our criminal justice system. Our research on many levels and for many reasons conclude "We The People," need to put a better mechanism in place to ' police the police.' 

Does Our Legal System Sanitize The Behavior Of Police Officers?    

There is one sure thing that has materialized  in the case of Michael Brown. This case has brought an awareness of the need to reform the Grand Jury process. There is no arguing the national media attention in this case created a unique set of challenges for the prosecutor.

But law professors and legal experts had sharply varying views on whether the presentation of the non-indictment and legal procedures were followed appropriately, adequately or fairly. [See Source]

Judge Scalia

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to inquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880).

The Specifics 

In our legal system, a suspect under a grand jury investigation has never been thought to have the right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.[See Source] In this case, the prosecutor McCulloch allowed officer Wilson to give evidence for hours and including every morsel of exculpatory evidence he could muster.  Knowing the basic of exculpatory evidence is vital to understanding the malfunction and misconduct that this case has presented.

The Prosecutors Instructions To The Grand Jury.  

Bob McCulloch

"And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in the evidence." [See Article]

By allowing officer Williams to testify for hours and allowing exculpatory evidence to be presented in support of these above-mentioned " complete defenses," this prosecutor has ignored how grand juries have functioned historically. There were several eye-witness accounts in this matter that suggest officer Wilson did not act in self-defense. This prosecutor could have but did not present these testimonies. Many critics of McCulloch allege he should have and if he would have done so an indictment would have come with a quickness. We here at the House of Public Discourse ask the question Why? What were  McCulloch's motivations for not allowing this testimony. We are not for a second buying the notions that these citizens were not credible. Our gut feelings tell us there are  more deviate motivations behind McCulloch's action or non-action in this grand jury process.

" Lock Them up, and Throw Away The Key," Nancy Grace has a problem with this case.

What happened with this Ferguson grand jury is rare. With all the leaks coming forth from this grand jury, it was reasonable to conclude there was not going to be an indictment in this case. Missouri is known as the " show-me-state." When the National Guard was sent in days before the verdict by that state's governor, it showed this writer all I needed to know or see. Grand Juries in this country almost always indict.

Or at least they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.

In 2010, a study was conducted. In 162,000 federal cases brought before a grand jury, only 11 failed to indict.[Federal Bureau Statistics] In the Wilson case this matter was heard in state courts. In Missouri, like most states, the prosecutor has the option to bring a suspect before a judge as opposed to a grand jury. The fact is many routine cases never go before a grand jury. However, with that said, it is common knowledge that it is very rare for a prosecutor not to get an indictment from a grand jury. Cases involving police shootings is are exception to this factoid. First of all, there is no real good data on police involved shootings. But researching  many newspaper articles on the subject, grand juries more often than not, by an extensive margin decline to indict law-enforcement officials.   

Police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004[See Source] 

Our research has led us to some reasons for this. One of the biggest barriers in procuring a conviction of a police officer is juror bias. No matter the evidence, jurors tend to trust the cops and seem to side with the police in their use of violence in police-related cases. There is also a prosecutorial bias. Whether their actions are conscious or unconscious, prosecutors who depend on cops in their work in criminal cases tend to present less compelling cases against police officers. Another reason is prosecutors only bring cases to the grand jury they feel they can win. There was no way the prosecutor in the Michael Brown case was going to drop the charges in this highly publicized case. There was no way this prosecutor could do that because of the many eye-witness accounts of the incident. However, as we have noted, he could change the process and tailor a sheepish grand jury to his privy. In short, there was too much evidence against the officer Wilson to not bring charges.

Beyond Ferguson, We The People Must Answer The Question, Why Are Grand Juries So Reluctant To Indict Police Officers? 

Voices From The House!

"Yes rioting is an extreme expression of anger and frustration. However, the actual issue being ignored is racism. If Michael Brown did everything he's accused of then he was wrong. However, racism is the issue being protested and is the elephant in the middle of the room. It is an issue that has never gone away.

Yes, some of the rioting is about opportunity and group mentality. Yes, I have studied it. The larger issue rears its ugly historical head as opportunity for the corporate rulers. Racism within the ruling class wants us to fight about the details.

There is an old saying that "the devil is in the details." It absolutely applies in terms of the mass media presentation of facts and or commentary. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book." [House Mentor: Diana M Buettner]

Racism Is The Calling Card Behind The Ferguson, MO, Unrest.

Persons of color are the majority in Ferguson, MO. With one black city council member and three black cops in this town it begs the question, Why? [See:Has Liberty Given Way To Gerrymandering?] Then when a white police officer guns down an unarmed black teen who is a suspect in a shoplifting case by putting six rounds in him, one in the head while on the ground, and there are riots in the streets, people have the audacity to ask, Why? Granted, violence and destruction of property is unproductive. But a peaceful gathering of concerned citizens to protest a perceived injustice is the American way in this writer's view. Moreover, the community reaction [outrage]  to this killing of an unarmed youth regardless of the color of his skin is a predictable outcome. Furthermore, with an ever increasing aggressive police force being fashioned from ex-military personnel all across America are, "We The People," being protected or are we seen as  game for the predatory police officer with an ax to grind?

There has been study after study that has shown inexperienced cops fearful of minorities have resorted to use of force. Often, these confrontations are between white police officers and a minority. There is a growing culture of confrontation between police and communities of color, and the problem is only getting worse.

Many experts argue that police forces that represent the community makeup can ease tensions. But the more systemic problem is the political infrastructure that creates and maintains disproportionately composed  police departments. This historical tension is most evident in towns like Ferguson, MO. When you have a population comprised of 67% blacks who have become non-factors in choosing their elected officials, what you get is Ferguson. 

There are innumerable ways a community can become so disproportionately misrepresented.

Ferguson's Mayor is white. Five of the six city councilmen are white. These members are tasked with recruiting, training, and setting parameters as to how the police functions. This white City Hall produced a 95% white police force. This disparity does not equal discrimination or prejudicial policing, but it does create an atmosphere where white elected officials seem insensitive to police brutality in these minority communities. Whatever the reasons for this dysfunction, gerrymandering, voter apathy, etc  its designers have circumvented the political process that would give people in the community the right to have a say in how that community functions. Ferguson, like many small cities, towns, and communities across this country, appear to be in an apartheid state where a small but influential group of people maintain dominion by discouraging electoral participation and creating a police state environment.

With radical-right wing courts allowing unfettered influence peddling in the form of Citizens United and  liberty being replaced by gerrymandering and U.S. Supreme Court regression of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, these factions have recreated a Jim Crow aura around this country. Ferguson is a case study of just what those policies reap. Moving forward, all Americans left or right should seek to ensure the electorate- no matter its makeup - has full participation, and the elected officials are a mirror of the community. If not, it's the view of the House of Public Discourse, "The Ferguson Fail, A Process Run Amuck," will be more and more commonplace.

Fiasco In Ferguson, Makes Ya Wanna Hollar!

As an old disc-jockey of mostly classic rock and funky ole soul, I have a tendency to relate current news events with music. As I sit here looking at the live feed [see above] of the unfolding events of the Fiasco In Ferguson, I, m reminded of the Marvin Gaye classic, Makes Me Wanna Hollar! What is ever so shocking is how fore-sighted our musical artist can be.

Violence Is Not The Answer, Make Ya Want To Hollar!!!

Voices From The House

 My heart is bleeding for those business owners who have lost their businesses, and for those who now will have no jobs.  They did nothing to earn this burden.  It was no choice they made, yet the price they have to pay is far higher than most others.

My heart bleeds for those who sincerely wish to silently protest the injustice they feel, without committing a violent act, because the acts of stupidity and vandalism are overshadowing them and their message.My heart bleeds for a town that is being set back when it could have been catapulted forward into a world of understanding, compassion and mutual respect.

And yes, my heart is bleeding for our nation, so caught up in teaching and learning hatred, bigotry and judgment that we can't see the world through the eyes of another.

My heart bleeds for a people that have still not learned that what we really need in this world is, quite simply, love.[HOPD Staff Writer & Editor Bev Cowling] 

 

Children Of The Ghetto, Keep Your Heads To The Stars!

Can We Imagine Peace??

What If Michael Brown Was Your Child??

Voices From The House!

Today my heart breaks for the Brown family and friends. My heart breaks for all the business owners who will have to start over. Its Thanksgiving but as for us we will be so thankful for the little we have that others don't have. How I wish I could just save the world. I'm saddened by the racism, hate and greed in this Country, saddened by the children and adults dying by the hands of those who are supposed to protect us. Our police are out of control, and it saddens me that today in this day and time that we must fear the police as if we were back in the 50's and 60's again. This country is not moving forward, but it is moving backwards. We must stand hand in hand together united to beat this system and work as one. We all bleed red, have the same bodies and hearts. I'm begging for equal justice for all color and origins. Its time for a change, time to fight back and use our minds without violence. I am sad today; I hurt for all who have lost their lives at the hands of haters and racist, ignorant people who have no souls. May God comfort your hearts Mr. and Mrs. Brown and people of Ferguson ......We will never forget Mike Browns life mattered!!! [Susan Collins: Friend of the House]

Be A Ribbon In The Sky

What Does The Law Say In The Matters of Police Shootings, and Moreover Should It Be Revisited By The Courts?

Current law gives police wide latitude to use deadly force.

Here is the Heart of the Matter from a legal standpoint.

Justice Bryon White

“It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape,” wrote Justice Byron White for the majority. “Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. …A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead.”

But the court added that police could use deadly force if the suspect had threatened the life of a police officer.

“If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given,” said Justice White.

Voices From The House.

The ignorance of reality runs deeply throughout this country. Just as far as the massive corporate owned government and media will allow. Wouldn't it be something if the people actually had a voice that was recognized? You know like the voice of reason.It's called racism.

When our institutions use profiling based on skin color it creates fear on the part of the officers. They act from a place of fear rather than a desire to protect. Thereby supporting the premise that blacks commit more crimes. The poor and the oppressed populations are in fact more likely to steal, but the reasons aren't greed driven like those of the corporate owned government.
 Racism is an absolute reality in the present situation regardless of whether or not the officer Darren Wilson is charged. The idea that one incident has created this situation is in itself ridiculous. This country has work to do. I wish to state proudly that I would like to be a part of the solution and not a problem. One People One LOVE![Mentor of the House: Diana Buettner]

Voices From The House!
Omg!!!! Protest in Greenville* can I go get my groceries & shopping done* I am against racism!! The jury was Not a jury of peers- was NOT equal* I do BELIEVE in fairness & I don't believe in violent riots* I do believe in protest in& rallies & standing up for your beliefs if it can be done in a non- violent fashion* WE ALL DESERVE TO BE TREATED WITH KINDNESS & EQUALITY!!! POLICE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE-THEY GET AWAY WITH TOO MUCH SHIT!!
[Lisa Peacock: House Political Administrator & Social Worker]

Voices From The House.

CAN YOU SAY 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' AND 'PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT'????

If this is true then this matter MUST be investigated by the National Bar Association, the State of Missouri Bar Association, and the Department of Justice, and other related government agencies!!!!!
In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fund-raise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers." [ See Source Sharon McGowan Willicome: Friend of the House]

People Do Make This World Go Round.

Final Voice From The House!

Something that has been bothering me lately about the grand jury report, and the statements that have been made from officer Wilson, and various reports made about this shooting. When the shooting first occurred, they did an autopsy, and released the animated drawings with the autopsy report done by Dr. Michael M. Baden, Forensic Examiner for New York State Police. Nothing in the grand jury report, or any media coverage lately, has even mentioned, or shown how the autopsy completely shreds officer Wilsons accounting of the shooting. On the pictures of the autopsy, they show two bullets entering his wrist from his palm side, with an upward trajectory. He would of had his arm raised somewhat to have the bullets travel in that manner. From the autopsy report, they give officer Wilsons height as 6' and Michael Browns height as 6'5. The two bullets that entered his abdomen were in a downward trajectory. The only way those bullets could of entered in that manner, would be if Wilson was above Brown, which would mean that Brown had to be at least falling, and fairly close to Wilson when those bullets entered his body. The two bullets to his head, went in at the very top of his head, and went almost straight down, which again from the trajectory, would mean that Wilson would of had to be practically standing right over him. This wasn't just the report from Dr. Baden, but also Dr. Cyril Wecht, world reknown forensic Pathologist, who also reviewed the autopsy. Why hasn't this been brought up? Furthermore,

 The Civil Rights Federal Investigation will gather all their investigative reports and the findings and actions that were taken, as well as the information from the grand jury. It will be interesting to say the least, what comes of it. After all is said and done, I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, and that should prove to be interesting as well. There are a few people that aren't happy about the questions that I have raised, and think that I am defending what ever Michael Brown did. I'm not defending what ever he may have done, or the way he did it. I just think from what all the evidence and the autopsy report shows, it isn't matching up at all with what the different reports that officer Wilson has said, or the grand jury, and I don't think that what Michael Brown did, warranted lethal action. Especially the way the autopsy shows it. [House Contributor: Edythe Redmann]

Will The Real Rand Paul Please Stand Up!




Rand Paul

" Libertarian" Rand Paul supports a federal bill that would arrest marijuana users. Typically this type of statement from a right-wing Republican would not be newsworthy. However, in the case of known flip-flopper ' any which way the wind blows' politician Rand Paul this is a complete about-face from previous statements made by the senator from Kentucky.



Seems this self-proclaimed Libertarian Republican politician who has positioned himself  as the champion of the anti-government crowd has no problem with big government [Federal Government] from intruding the rights of states to regulate marijuana use.  Matter of fact, he's all for it. Very quietly, as in the " hush of the night," senator Paul supported the Republican-controlled House of Representative's measure called ' Enforce The Law Act." This bill would allow Congress to sue the president for not faithfully enforcing laws. In this case Federal law. The type of rules these so-called Libertarians loathe.

“We write laws and he is just deciding willy-nilly if he likes it he enforces it, if he doesn’t, he won’t enforce it, and we really think he needs to be chastened, rebuked, and told that he needs to obey the constitution,” Paul said. 

This position  is a complete departure from previous comments from Rand Paul where he indicated support for the states to set their terms regarding marijuana use. On March 24, 2013, he[Paul] told Fox News,

“The main thing I’ve said is not to legalize them [marijuana and synthetic recreational drugs] but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time.” [See Source]



Rep.Bob Goodlatte (R-Va)

Our staff here at the House of Public Discourse are well aware of Rand Paul's knack for playing of words. His base made up mostly of uneducated poor white people, and anti-government and white-supremacist groups don't catch these contradictory statements, or they don't care.

Paul, cannot claim ignorance for this flip-flop. One of the senators that introduced the bill Bob Goodlatte (R-Va) submitted a committee report citing President Barack Obama failure to enforce federal marijuana laws as an example of his federal overreach. 



Back in 2013, the Justice Dept.,[ See Source] proclaimed it would not contest states marijuana laws. According to multiple sources many in Congress, support the president's action or inaction regarding this subject matter.



 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)

“It doesn't seem right to me to continue to waste our limited resources punishing people for doing something when it's legal under state law, the majority of Americans want it to be legal, and much more dangerous drugs like heroin are making a comeback,”

This bill passed the House with 228 Republican votes. 181 Democrats voted against the bill. At first, it was doubtful that Rand Paul would have a chance to vote on this with a Democratic majority in the legislature. However, with the results from the 2014 election giving the majority to the Republicans and impeachment of Barack Obama swirling around this bill could and very likely will be revisited. If the bill does come before the senate,  it will be one of those moments that beg the question, " Will The Real Rand Paul Please Stand Up!"