James Comey, the FBI Director, is a partisan, period.

He has been working for the Republican Party since he gave his “extreme carelessness” speech to Congress back in July 2016.

While he had nothing to go on criminally against Clinton, Comey made sure he gave his Republican allies political ammunitions and plenty to go on, on the campaign trail by using languages often unheard of from prosecutors unless they are charging and wanted the public to know what they think the crimes are, or what they intend to prove at trial.

Based on evidence, you are either able to charge or not.  It is always about the law and not about Comey’s personal opinions of what happens.  So, even the first time around, Comey should have talked about what evidence had and whether he could bring charges on what he had, rather than making political speech to Congress and giving the Republicans “Red Meat” and the Trump camp political weapons to use against Clinton on the trail.

But Comey knew what he was doing, he wanted to help the Republican party, and wanted to do so under the guise of performing his official duties. What a shame!  No doubt, Comey’s is a partisan and his words, and actions especially last week, are proof of his partisan intentions.

Federal law and policies simple don’t support what Comey is doing and he knows it. Maybe he believes he is above our laws too (?) It’s a pity that a reputable organization, the FBI, has been dragged through this mud, and Comey should pay for using the powers and privileges of his office to influence a federal presidential election – a violation of federal law.

You just don’t use your position to help one political party over another, and that’s what Comey has done here. So, let no one again describe this guy as “reputable” or “someone without reproach,” or someone without partisan intentions. Comey is compromised and it’s time he goes for the good of the FBI and the thankless job agents and staffers there do daily.

Comey must go now.

October 31, 2016


Posted in Politics | Leave a comment



I guess the NRA has determined that it is okay to have one or two gun deaths at our schools rather than 26! They seem to miss the point. First, News Flash NRA, most gun deaths in this country happen to involve one or two deaths at a time, and averaging about 34 gun deaths per day. So, the idea for GUN CONTROL is to prevent gun deaths in the first place, whether one, two or 26!

The solution offered by NRA is irresponsible unacceptable. Further, arming our schools “because the banks are armed,” is ridiculous. Just as some have suggested that we should arm our teachers and other school personnel as a way of avoiding discussing gun control as an option, the NRA wants us to placed armed personnel in our schools. Is the NRA going to vouch for the sanity of every gun trotting personnel assigned to our school? In this country, we have seen our share of work-place violence as well. So, what stops an argument between school personnel from turning deadly? After all, when gun is available, and some people often resorts to gun as a way of resolving their (domestic) disputes! We got about three of these this month alone.

Further, the NRA seems to suggest that we should not care about deranged gunmen showing up at our schools, so long as we have a policeman or an armed guard placed at the school to kill the gunman! Well, I guess that’s all good and dandy!! The gunman shows up at school, fired a couple of shot (maybe killed one or two students), then the hero – the armed guard or the police placed at the school killed the gunman. Yeah, we all feel safe now!!

Even if you have an armed guard or a police officer placed at the school, you would still have one or more deaths! This should still be unacceptable. First, whether at a bank or other places, criminals often target the person with the gun first, so it is questionable whether placing an officer at a school is as important as keeping guns out of the hands of the unstable. Secondly, any killing taking place at our schools should be unacceptable. Therefore, even if the armed guard at the school is successful at killing the gun man, the school would still have undergone a life-changing event – with psychosocial and psychological effects on the students, especially on young ones as the Newtown, CT students. Clearly, gun fights at schools that the NRA seems to be offering as a solution to epidemic of gun violence in America is not the answer.

So, whether we like to accept the fact or not, GUN IS THE ISSUE! Not mental health, Not God at schools, not arming our teachers, and not anything else. That is, let say we have two equally disturbed people who are both suicidal and wanting to kill others. However, one has a semi-automatic weapon capable of firing 100 rounds per minute, and the other has no gun at all. What do you think the result would be? Maybe the one without gun would have access to some other weapons (some have suggested bombs, knives and so on). Yet, a conclusion can easily be reached that the one without gun would have to work harder to achieve his killing goal!
And again, some gun lobbyists have gone on the television to compare guns to automobiles – “cars are also dangerous, but we don’t ban them”. This is actually a welcomed comparison, and despite the fact that it is absurd to compare a car (a necessity for most Americans who work and want to go places) and a gun, let’s place similar restrictions to gun ownerships and use as we do on our automobiles!

Should we start by establishing a federal agency, or require each state to establish an agency that will regulate the sale, ownership and transfer of guns and firearms. We could call it the Department of Gun Control (DGC)? Should we require all gun owners to register all guns in their possession (whether purchased or inherited), and inform DGC within 3-10 days of transfer of ownership of possession of the gun or firearms? Should we require all sales of guns and firearms to be reported to DGC by both seller and buyer with 10 days?

Then, all gun owner should be required to undertake a pre-licensing use, safety and/or competency test by demonstrating that each licensee has the ability to use their weapon properly and ensure that the weapon would not fall in the hand of an unlicensed individual. Each owner should be required to buy insurance covering things like accidental deaths and injuries! Also, why not give the licenses in classes (e.g. A, B, C)? After all, the risks posed by a handgun (6-8 rounds) are different from the one posed by Bushmaster AR15, or those with high capacity magazines. The Department of Gun Control should be able to levy fine, suspend and revoke licenses just as the DMV! You should not be able to have access to your guns after having more than two drinks in an hour, and of course, access to guns by minors should be regulated as well, just as it is done with cars! Thus, I think we should regulate guns just like we regulate our automobiles!

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

Florida “stand-your-ground law: Why it may still be a Good Law, but misapplied in the Trayvon Martin shooting case!

Florida’s “stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the “stand your ground” law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit.  “Stand Your Ground” … laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be. (Florida Statutes Title XLVI Chapter 776) …” [Emphasis added] [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law]


Based on this law, a person is protected when force is used in self-defense as “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony…” (Florida Statutes, Section 776.012). If this is the case, then it would be correct to argue that when a person is engaging in a constitutional protected activity – like walking on a public street (Freedom of Movement), and such a person is being followed/chased, a perception of threat to self is reasonable, and thus self-defense may be initiated as may be necessary to present such bodily injury or harm. Therefore, even if the story of Mr. Zimmerman “that Trayvon Martin attacked him” is correct, Trayvon should be entitled to the protection of Florida’s stand-your-ground law, but not Mr. Zimmerman. 


Based on what we know so far (from the 911 audio tape), Mr. Zimmerman admitted following (maybe chasing) Trayvon.  Trayvon has a legal righ to stand his ground, as thus protect himself from the actual or perceived threat posed by a stranger (Mr. Zimmerman)’s act of following Trayvon.  Thus, even if the attack is true, Mr. Zimmerman should still not be entitled to the protection of the stand-your-ground law, as Mr. Zimmerman remains the aggressor against whom Trayvon is entitled to protection under the Florida’s stand-your-ground law.  Let us imagine this: supposed it was Trayvon that had the gun, and he shot Mr. Zimmerman while he (a starnger) was chasing him! Would Trayvon have been entitled to a defense under the Florida’s “stand-your-ground law?  My answer to this question is YES!


Therefore, I do not believe that it is the law that is necessary bad.  But I do believe that the inversion of justice here, due to the bad application of the law in this case (to protect the aggressor Mr. Zimmerman, rather than the threatened (Trayvon Martin) is what is at issue.  Justice requires that Trayvon Martin, even without a gun, should still be able to protect himself from death or great bodily harm …, albeit through his arms, even if it is true that he attacked Mr. Zimmerman after he had been following/chasing Mr. Trayvon Martin. Mr. Martin should have been able to stand his ground, and should not have been killed for walking (Constitutionally protected Right of Movement – on a street (public place) for that matter), and for exercising his stand-your-ground right under the Florida most-cherished law!

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment