The Bader-Ginsburg's death implications

 

Thoughts by Ralph L Myers

The results of the death of Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and causation have many powerful and conflicting implications. In this white paper, I want to expound on what I view as powerful and inconsistent implications.

Implication One: (Cause and Effect) The political maelstrom: In a deeply divided America, 2020, anything that happens, especially if it has a political cause and resultant effect, seems only to act as something that further divides us. The death of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one such particularly significant event.

The correct action to take: Nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsberg.

Implication Two: (The US Constitution Applies, not political partisanship)

Since the death of Justice Ginsberg, several articles and the talking heads' waterfalls of opinions have flooded the media and internet.

On September 20, 2020, an article was written by Charles Creitz of Fox News appeared on its Web Site. Mr. Creitz, in his article, elaborated on the political free-for-all. America was confronted by this very same situation in 20016, that outgoing President Obama should replace Justice Scalia. Following his presidential right and prerogative, he nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia. However, the nomination went no further as the Senate (Republican Controlled) would not bring it to the floor for a vote of confirmation. At that time, Vice President Biden urged the Senate to move forward with the nomination by providing that House to defer to the President's constitutional duty and provide "advice and consent." Mr. Biden considered it an unprecedented act of obstruction that the Republican majority would not let it go any further than a nomination. Fast forward to 2020, Presidential Candidate Biden has made a 180-degree turn with the death of Justice Ginsberg, according to an article written by Joseph Curl of Daily Wire.com. Candidate Biden is quoted in his Twitter on Friday, September 18, 2020: "Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President and that President should elect a successor to Justice Ginsberg. Other than for strictly political partisanship, this demand is redundant. The voters have already selected a President, and he is Donald Trump. He has the right to act within the constitutional authority already granted him. He also has the power to nominate a new justice and does not or should not wait for the next President to select Justice Ginsburg's replacement. He would be neglecting his constitutional obligation. Finally, he is rightfully taking advantage of using the Senate Republican-controlled party to ratify his candidate to replace Justice Ginsberg.

The correct action to take: Nominate a candidate. Have that candidate approved by the Senate by vote and confirm that person to become the newest SCOTUS member.

Implication Three: Political expediency, today I believe this, but now I think that.

In 2016, a presidential election year before Obama's term of office expired, the Democrats believed and pushed for him to replace Justice Scalia.

Today, I believe this premise is correct. In February 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland a few weeks later to replace Justice Scalia. He is quoted in an article appearing in "Daily Torch," saying, "I have fulfilled my constitutional duty. Now it is time for the Senate to do theirs." At that time, Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning was quoted in the same article noted. "Just as it was Obama's constitutional role to nominate for Scalia. Similarly, the Senate should exercise its part as well by waiting until after the election, stating, President Obama has exercised his constitutional prerogative to nominate someone to the late Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court." Political partisanship, rather than the constitutional rule of law, is back in play due to the passing of Justice Ginsburg, as is the hypocrisy of the political players.

In a speech given in 2016 after the passing of Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, when asked by an attendee if the Constitution prevented the President from filling the seat? Justice Ginsburg's response was: "As you know, the President has the authority to name appointees to the Supreme Court, but he has to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President is elected for four years, not three years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four, and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be." The fact that she reportedly told her granddaughter Clara Spera, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed."

Justice Ginsburg, an overseer of the US Constitution, knew the correct constitutional process in replacing the Supreme Court's Justice. Sadly, near her time of death now wished the Constitution could be changed to allow a delay in replacing her seat on the court. Even if Justice Ginsburg had a codicil in her will stating her wish that her seat is not filled until a new President is installed, it is just that, a wish that has no legal standing in the US Constitution.

Now, let us look at current Presidential Candidate Joe Biden's thoughts in 2016 and now 2020, hypocrisy and political expediency epitomized. In a New York Times op-ed mentioned in the article written by Daily Wire correspondent Joseph Curl cites Mr. Biden’s argument against Senate Majority Leader McConnel that a replacement for Justice Scalia's should not be seated until after the presidential election. At the time, a Democrat was occupying the Whitehouse. President (Obama) declared that the President had a "constitutional duty to seat a justice on the high court when a vacancy arises. "The President has the Constitutional responsibility to nominate; the Senate has the Constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent.

At a speech given by Mr. Biden at Georgetown University, he said, "I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires. Now that Joe Biden is the Democratic Candidate for President, he no longer feels the way he did in 2016. In fact, he has made a 180-degree turn with the death of Justice Ginsburg, writing on Twitter recently: "Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg." The Constitution no longer fits his need. It hampers them.

The correct action to take: Follow the Constitution, nominate and confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement.

Implication Four: Threats of violence from the politically extreme left.

I think a vast majority of Americans, regardless of their political party leanings, are alarmed, angered, confused at the inaction their elected officials have taken, and tired of the tirades from extreme leftist activists. President Trump has been confronted with their outbursts even before he was elected in 2016. It would be redundant to list all the false accusations that were concocted, unproven, and finally leading to a failed impeachment. Of course, President Trump was impeached in the House of Representatives, strictly upon a party-line vote. However, he was acquitted in the Senate trial, and again the vote to impeach was nearly along party lines.

Let us examine calls for violence as being acceptable in combatting President Trump and his followers. In an article published on Blabber Buzz, here is are some notable quotes. Twitter users threatened arson and apparent violence to Republicans if Justice Ginsberg is replaced before the elections. "If they even try to replace RBG, we burn the entire f*****g thing down," author Reza Aslan, a far-left activist tweeted. Azlan later responded to Senator Mitch McConnell's vow to hold a vote on President Trump's nominee, "Over our dead bodies, literally," he threatened.

The darling of the leftist Democrats, Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, said RBG's death should inspire the left to radicalize.

A Canadian political science professor called for arson, prompting accusations he made a terroristic threat. "Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS, " Waterloo professor Emmett MacFarlane wrote on Twitter.

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld responded to the controversy by criticizing anyone who might make fun of people for worrying about political terrorism. Mr. Gutfeld said, "Leftists promise violence and "burn it all down" if they don't get what they want. Then their enablers in the media mock you worrying that there might be violence and "burning it all down" when the leftists don't get what they want."

I think Gutfeld's statement is sadly true when one looks back on what has been transpiring since June 2020. Enough is enough; dedicated Americans who value their freedom and liberty will not be intimidated and will fight back at the ballot box and in the streets if necessary.

The correct action: Follow the Constitution and replace Justice Ginsburg now.

Implication Five: The threat of Impeachment, 2.0

Speaker of the House, Pelosi has once again threatened President Trump's Impeachment if he does his constitutional duty of appointing a replacement for deceased Justice Ginsburg. While President Trump was impeached in January of 2020 by the House of Representatives. That Impeachment was based upon concocted and fraudulent charges that were strictly predicated upon the Democratic House leadership and were proven to be without merit. What confronts us now is that Impeach the President is a new attempt is nothing more than political gamesmanship and again decidedly without merit.

In an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner on September 19, 2020, Justice Department Reporter Jerry Dunleavy cited a recent poll. The poll was conducted by Marquette University that showed 67% of all adults believed the Senate should hold a hearing if a vacancy occurred during the current Presidential election, with only 32% in opposition. Similar substantial numbers across Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, who supported holding confirmation hearings was included in this poll. Those numbers were 68-31%, 63-37%, and 71-28% respectively. The Marquette University Poll was taken three days before Justice Ginsburg's death.

President Trump is not violating his oath of office by exercising his power to appoint a replacement for the seat made vacant by the death of Justice Ginsburg. Countless implications can, more than likely, be discussed and argued over the next few days. But to borrow a quote from former President Obama, "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day I won."

How true, Mr. Obama, and that is the case for President Trump now, the 2016 election indeed did have consequences, and he is within his constitutional right to exercise them.

This ladies and gentlemen are both implication and consequence!

The correct action: Nominate and confirm a replacement for Justice Ginsberg.

Governor Inslee's Death Penalty Moratorium

 Since 1993, when my son Tom was murdered, I have been a staunch advocate for Crime Victim's Rights. I have prepared this video to (hopefully) help those that thankfully have never lost a child or other loved one to murder, understand the grief, pain and trauma one experiences when they are notified that their son, daughter or loved one has been murdered.

Additionally, this article is directed to Washington State Governor Jay Inslee in opposition to his declaring or placing a moratorium on the implementation  of the death penalty. Governor Inslee has done this on the pretext (whether real or political expediency) that the only way Washington State could assure that an innocent person was not erroneously executed.

While that may be a possibility, the chances of this happening are very rare. And while I or any reasonable person would want someone to be wrongly executed, as a survivor of a murdered son and crime victim, when researching this, I feel that Governor Inslee has put his personal beliefs and convictions above all the courts and jurors, thereby nullifying their decisions that a particular criminal whom they have convicted and sentenced beyond a reasonable should receive the ultimate penalty- - death.    

I have not published any articles in this blog since 2016. However, I intend to start publishing articles again, or write my thoughts and opinions down. Hence the name of this blog, "Write Thoughts."

Tom's Dad- - Ralph

As you requested--areply to an Article on Trace.org

While on line today I came across an article posted by Business Insider about the NRA members and wanted to respond. First, I feel I am responding to an organization that is anti-gun and gun ownership. Much of the article places a stigma on those that believe in and are dedicated to what the NRA does, not only for its membership, but also for all gun owners in America, This being said, I doubt if my reply will ever be read and a reply sent. Why do I think this? Well just look at some of the other articles they published;

More from The Trace:

• A Missouri Student Imagines Life on an Armed Campus
• We’re Just Starting to Comprehend How Social Media Breeds Shootings
• I’m a Police Chaplain Who Had to Tell Virginia Tech Families Their Children Were Dead
• My Son Was Murdered in the Line of Duty by Right-Wing Extremists. Trump Should Focus on the Threat Posed by ‘Sovereign Citizens.’
• The False Promise That ‘Armed Citizenship’ Will Keep Women Safe
• Their minds have been made up, guns are bad, people that own them are nut-cases for wanting to be able to defend themselves in their homes or on their persons. Or they pose an intrinsic danger and threat to society. In the July 31, 2017 edition "The Trace" featured an article entitled "the NRA Annoyed Me into Quitting-But I Get Why Some Gun owners see It As a "Necessary Evil." The article was by Anshel Sag, as told to Kerry Shaw. The article was written July 21, 2017, and asked a rhetorical question, "One of the Most Consequential Questions in the Gun Debate boils down to this: do the policies promoted by the National Rifle Association-and the groups heated, divisive rhetoric-represent the real beliefs of its members?" Like any article, it cited a survey, or surveys, to support its opinion.I have been a member of the National Rifle Association 24 years, joining in 1993, shortly after the murder of my son by a violent felon who obtained his hand gun illegally. I want to respond to Mr.Sag's opinion piece, expressing my thoughts and experiences, based upon facts, not statistical anomalies used which are common-place in most surveys. Anyone can find a survey that will seemingly support their viewpoint or opinion they want to express.
  
  Mr. Sag has cited, ("a recent Pew Survey, and other sources,") but has not identified the particular survey, or other sources and/or polls he has relied upon to reinforce his opinions, and as I have already mentioned, I or anyone can find a poll, study or statistics that will support a particular argument they are trying to advance.
  In response to Mr. Sag, as an NRA member, I can Say unequivocally that their policies they promote, and what you have described as heated, divisive rhetoric, do in fact represent the belief of this member. Further, I find the NRA's, so-called divisive rhetoric not nearly as caustic as the opinions expressed by their antagonists. Just like having a Second Amendment Right to keep and  own a firearm for the purpose of self-defense, by many is considered dangerous and divisive, it is absolutely necessary and correct to take this perceived aggressive stance to protect those rights.
  
  
  This past April, I had the privilege and honor to be able to attend the NRA's Annual Meeting held in Atlanta, Georgia. More than 80,000 people, (NRA Members) were also in attendance, most if not all were gun owners and perhaps as Mr. Sag's Pew Research statistics, that he has relied upon, that shows support among gun owners (including Republicans) for universal background checks. For the four days I was in attendance at this annual meeting I neither found, or did not hear of any comments or support of or for what the Pew Research survey indicated. Quite the contrary, I heard and experienced the exact opposite, and just like the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump proved, the Pew Research, and most if not all other polls were wrong as well.
  Now, I want to express my thoughts as to why I disagree, and what this article has called the NRA's heated, divisive rhetoric (their belief or perception) which is in fact representative of my beliefs and the realities of life if anti-gun ownership, anti-Second Amendment Rights opponents prevail.
  As I mentioned earlier, my son was a victim of gun violence perpetrated on him by a criminal that did not care about or adhere to any gun control laws or restrictions on ownership of a firearm. In fact, this murder took place in California, a state that had, even in 1993, some of the most restrictive and severe gun-control laws already in place. While my son was not a member of any gang, he was, however, shot and killed by a gang member while attending a private party near our home. The person who shot him, and his gang banging buddies by chance found the party and crashed it.
  There were two handguns present and used, both obtained illegally, irrespective of the gun laws already on the books, when my son was killed.
  
  Some of those who were in attendance at the party and also friends of my son would later be called as witnesses in the trial of his murderer. Attempts at intimidating potential witnesses were conducted by gang member friends before the murder trial, as they followed them, and in some cases shot at them.
  
  
  
  Up until that time, my wife and I made the choice of not having firearms in our home when our kids were growing up. That was our choice, not one that was mandated by anti-gun advocates. Naturally, my wife and I became fearful that the gang members might try to intimidate us as well. We were advised by the rank-and-file members of the Los Angeles police department that they would be unable to give us round-the-clock protection, and suggested to us that our best means of self-defense would be to arm ourselves in our home.
  
  Following their advice, I purchased a handgun, (following all the then existing handgun laws, e.g. , waiting the required 15-day waiting period) before taking possession of it.) Also, I applied for a concealed carry permit through the necessary channels, giving as a reason for being allowed to legally carry a firearm my fear for the safety of my wife and I, based upon the advice given to us by members of the LAPD. My request for a concealed carry permit was denied, and the reason (s) given were very vague and strictly bureaucratic boilerplate gobbledygook.
  
  
  Being a U.S. Army veteran, and trained on the safe, and proper use of a firearm, I trained my wife and daughter how to properly and safely use the handgun we now owned.
  It is for these reasons, and many more experiences we had over the next few years in the criminal justice system of the United States who sole intent and purpose is to protect the rights of the criminal rather than their victims that I joined and have become a vocal advocate of the NRA, and it's legislative arm the NRA-ILA. I support 100% its effort to represent all gun owners, not just NRA members, aggressively the rights given us by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And as Mr. Sag's article describes "the heated, and perceived divisive rhetoric of the NRA, is just that, a perception, rather than a fact or acknowledgment that the organization is rightfully correct that we must use the "clenched fist of truth," method or approach in defending and preserving our right to bear arms.
  
  
  As the father of a murdered son, a veteran and a strong advocate of the Second Amendment. I will never voluntarily give up my rights to own and bear arms, and at age 75. I am ready to die, protecting those rights.
  
  
  There you have it Trace.org, the view of one loyal, dedicated and adamant member and supporter of the NRA.
  
  
  
  Ralph L Myers, Proud member of the National Rifle Association

Vote NO on California Prop 62 and YES on Prop 66

In 1998 I wrote the following Op Ed article for the Los Angeles Daily News concerning their request for opinions about the imposition of the death penalty. At the time of writing Texas was preparing to execute a young woman, Karla Faye Tucker who had brutally murdered two people. However, during the time she was incarcerated before her execution she became a "born again Christian" and was adopted by the anti-death penalty movement as their poster child.


As a survivor of a murdered son that was murdered in California I expressed and submitted my thoughts to the Los Angeles Daily News. Since that time, our son's murderer while being convicted of 1st Degree murder his crime didn't reach the criteria that would have made him eligible to receive a sentence of death and he has received two parole consideration hearings being eligible for parole.


On California's ballot for the November 8, 2016 general election there are two propositions, Prop 62 which would repeal the death penalty and Prop 66 that would not repeal it but would revise it to address some of the concerns expressed by those that are against the death penalty. As a survivor of a murdered son and a crime victim I strongly oppose Prop 62 but endorse Prop 66 and hope that the voters in California will vote against repealing the death penalty.


The following is a reprint of my letter to the editor;

February 6, 1998

Daily News
Public Forum

Re: Capital Punishment

Karla Faye Tucker, the confessed pickax murderer of Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Ruth, became a national poster child for the anti death penalty forces in this country, and throughout the international community. The exposure given to her in the media could not have been more effective than if she had hired a slick Madison Avenue Ad Agency to handle her campaign to avoid paying with her life, for the horrific murders she committed.  From the way she was portrayed as the repentant, born again Christian, one could easily become convinced that she in fact was the victim, rather than the two persons she brutally murdered.   A victim perhaps of the same right wing conspiracy we all have been hearing so much about in recent news broadcasts.  Although that seems less plausible considering that two of the so-called right wing conspiracy leaders, Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Rev. Pat Robertson were among those pleading for Karla Faye Tucker to be granted clemency.

 The Daily News Public Forum has asked for reader’s response to whether the death penalty is appropriate for certain crimes, does it serve as a deterrent, should procedures be changed to reduce judicial delays in carrying out executions, and should officials with authority to commute sentences be influenced by the prisoners conduct after they have been sentenced? Each one of those questions could be the subject of lengthy debate.  I want to answer each of them from my perspective as a surviving parent of a murder victim, opinions that are mine alone.

 First of all, the death penalty is most assuredly appropriate for any crime or criminal act that results in the willful, deliberate taking of another living human beings life.  Further, I believe that this should be the only “special circumstances" required for the imposition of the death penalty.  If the murder victim became a victim by accident, that is, due to the willful, deliberate act of a person or person’s intent on killing someone else, they are no less dead than if the intended person was killed. The defense of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter should not be considered or allowed.

 One area I am likely to agree upon with those opposed to capital punishment is that the death penalty probably does not serve as a deterrent.   But that is the extent of my agreement with them.  Instead, I look upon capital punishment as legal retribution permitted by a civilized society. Those that are opposed to it argue that a “civilized society” would not permit the execution of anyone, no matter how heinous the murder they committed was. Without capital punishment being the price paid for murder, there can be no justice.  “Justice” is defined in part in Webster’s New World Dictionary as “sound reason; rightfulness, reward or penalty as deserved, the use of authority to uphold what is right, just, or lawful, the administration of the law.

Whereas, punishment is a penalty imposed upon an offender for wrongdoing, harsh treatment, and revenge is defined as to inflict injury or punishment in return for an injury, insult, etc. a chance to retaliate.

 I believe, In order for true justice to be served, an element of vengeance is an inherent part of it. Not only because of human nature, but also when a person or persons receive all of the considerations they are entitled to under the constitution and the law, and they are convicted of the act for which they have been tried by a jury of their peers, then vengeance becomes a part of justice and punishment, when it is a part of the administration of the law.

 The death penalty is described by those opposed to it as “cruel and unusual punishment."  I consider the lengthy delays made possible by the appeals process to be equally a violation of the murder victim's survivor's rights of due process, and cruel and unusual punishment.

As a member of homicide victims survivors' grief support and various victim rights groups for the past five years, I have never met anyone that would want an innocent person to be executed for a murder they did not commit.  However, as an interested observer of court cases and the appeals process, most appeals are based upon legal technicalities. Serving as delaying tactics of postponing that justice be served with the execution of murderers that have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Karla Faye Tucker case serves as a prime example of those tactics. No such consideration was given to any murder victim by their murderers.

 Further review and reform of habeas corpus is in order to assure that the frivolous examples we witness in the various Appellate Courts are minimized or eliminated entirely.

 *For officials that have the authority to commute the sentences of condemned murderers, to do so on the basis of the prisoners conduct after they have been sentenced is not only egregious on their part, it also is an affront to the integrity of the American Justice System. Not to mention further victimization of the survivors, both family and friends, of the murder victim.  They have already suffered the greatest loss and indignity possible when their loved one was murdered.

 We have been bombarded with media provided images of a repentant, often times praying Karla Faye Tucker.  A convicted murderer who perhaps did truly change during the fourteen years she was imprisoned before her execution, and “found” Jesus as we heard many times over. I want to offer another viewpoint that I have not heard expressed by any one in the religious community as it pertains to forgiveness and whether Karla Faye Tucker should have been executed because she was perceived, perhaps correctly so, to have changed.  That viewpoint is the fact that a person that is sorry for a wrong, or in a religious term, a sin they have committed, does not mean they should not be held accountable for its commission.

For those of the Christian faith the story of Christ’s crucifixion is the cornerstone of their belief. In the gospel according to St. Luke the “King James Version” Chapter 23 describing the execution (crucifixion) of Jesus it also tells of two other malefactors (evil doers or criminals) that were crucified with him.  One of them “railed” on him for not saving himself since he was Christ. The other criminal  “rebuked “ the malefactor that chastised Jesus for not saving himself, by saying; “ Dost thou not fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?  And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds.”  He then asks Jesus the following.  “Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”  “And Jesus said unto him, "Verily, I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”  Jesus did not say it was wrong or through divine intervention, stop this repentant criminal's execution.

 Karla Faye Tucker perhaps did change, and is now perhaps in a better place, but like the criminals that were executed along with Christ; she received the due reward for her deeds. 

 Ralph L. Myers

West Hills, CA

Footnote: Since I wrote this opinion as I mentioned at the beginning of this blog piece I have gone through two parole consideration hearings conducted for my son's murderer. One of those hearings my wife who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer just weeks after the first hearing attended it. Sadly, she died from her cancer less than two months before the second hearing took place in November 2015. Prior to attending either of the two hearings we were made aware that California Governor Jerry Brown instructed the Board of Parole Commissioners (many of whom were appointed by him) that when conducting a parole eligibility hearing they were to mainly consider how the inmate has behaved while incarcerated not for the severity of the crime they committed. I alluded to this in my 1998 article without even knowing such consideration would be primary for the Board of Parole as they deliberated whether a prisoner would be granted parole. *For officials that have the authority to commute the sentences of condemned murderers, to do so on the basis of the prisoners conduct after they have been sentenced is not only egregious on their part, it also is an affront to the integrity of the American Justice System. Not to mention further victimization of the survivors, both family and friends, of the murder victim.  They have already suffered the greatest loss and indignity possible when their loved one was murdered 

          

 

 

Why I feel a vote for a Democrat candidate is a wrong vote-Part one

A vote for a Democratic Progressive incumbent or candidate is a wrong vote.

By Ralph L Myers

PART ONE

After living on this earth for 73 years I have experienced various events like we all have as such experiences are a part of life and often times will undoubtedly shape and can be catalysts in how we arrive at our beliefs and political philosophies. In this respect I feel I am no more different than the next person but some of my experiences are unique and thankfully not experienced by a majority of the American populace. With that thought in mind I want to elaborate on why I could never vote for a Democrat candidate. And I am going to break down my thoughts, opinions and perceptions under the following circumstances, parental upbringing and guidance, political experiences and perceptions, gun control and crime victimization as well as re-victimization caused by the politically correct progressive Democrat elected officials.

 

PARENTAL UPBRINGING and GUIDANCE

I grew up in the usually conservative State of Indiana whose motto is The Cross Roads of America. However, that is not to say that I wasn’t exposed to the Democratic philosophies and the concepts of big government, power of organized labor and other ideals one would normally attribute to the beliefs and platforms of the Democratic Party.  In fact my late father was a devoted member of the UAW (United Auto Workers Union and the AFL-CIO) as well as being a life-long registered Democrat. As I grew older into adulthood my Dad and I had many discussions about the pros and cons of political party affiliations some of our talks could become (let’s just say) animated. However, I loved my Dad and will always treasure his devotion to my mother, brother and me. Also, in looking back as I am now in my senior phase of life much of the values taught to me by my dad the loyal and faithful Democrat were in a large part the same as what I now believe in as a conservative and a Republican, values such as a strong work ethic, morality, responsibility and accountability for my actions. In those days I believe these characteristics were for the most part, the Democratic Party’s values as well.  

When my father was eulogized at his funeral I specifically wanted the minister to tell all those that were in attendance as a son that watched him struggle to provide for his family he always put my mother, brother and me at the top of his pursuits and achievements in life. Many times while growing up my dad was unemployed (sometimes weeks or even months at a time) due to recessions, labor strikes, illness and other such factors. Sometimes our choices of what we had available to eat were basic and while we never were deprived of having food on our table our diet was often limited to beans, bread, fried chicken on Sunday’s and an abundance of baked items as my mom was a great cook and could turn a meager meal into a tummy-filling event. And the reason for this was my dad’s work ethic. During the times he was out of work due to job cut-backs or as was more commonly referred to in those days as layoffs my dad would take any honest job he could. He would dig ditches at construction sites, work for my grandfather at the Indianapolis Farmers Market selling produce from the back of a pick-up truck, you name it and he would do it to provide for his family. My dad never received food stamps or received welfare nor did he rely on the government to give him anything, he simply did it the old fashioned way as the commercials used to say, he earned it.  As I see it, the Democratic Party has long since lost the ideals of work ethics, self-responsibilities and accountabilities as it consistently works at blaming everything on racial and social inequalities they preach that only minorities suffer. Those claims (to me) are nothing more than a socialistic entitlement mentality devoted organization driven by elements within the party that thrive upon the act of pitting one class against the other. They want Americans to depend and look upon them as the ultimate provider and that they know what is better for all of us than we do as individuals and when we don’t agree with them or their political or social beliefs we are ridiculed, harassed by governmental agencies and dictated to by presidential executive orders if they fail to get congressional approval or rubber stamping of programs or policies they deem best for all of us. No, the Democratic Party isn’t the party that my father was devoted to way back when, instead they are the party that gives credence to the quote attributed to former Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev when he said in 1959 “Your children’s children will live under communism. “You Americans are so gullible. “No, you won’t accept Communism outright: but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism.  “We won’t have to fight you: We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

 Political experiences and Perceptions

Please let me lay the ground work for this section of my essay by saying my business was in Los Angeles and like all of California it is probably one if not the most business unfriendly states where one could be in business. However, believing in the premise that in America it is possible for anyone to be successful and live the American dream at the age of 45 I left the security of a steady job and along with other co-workers started my own business. None of us were even remotely wealthy nor did we have a lot of capital to start a business. Instead we did what many entrepreneurs do we leveraged the equities in our homes and borrowed some seed money from the banks and depleted our savings accounts. We opened a moving and storage business starting it literally from scratch. In order to be affiliated with a major van line we had to lease a warehouse, buy trucks, storage vaults and other moving related equipment. The industry we chose for those of you that don’t know has an extraordinarily high overhead cost factor of equipment and warehousing costs and is of course labor intensive as well as a cut-throat competitive and highly regulated business. As such, the moving and storage business is a very low profit industry. But, since that was the industry I and my partners had been in with nearly one hundred years of combined experience we were aware of those facts but felt we could and more importantly would succeed in. Those were our perceptions.

Now let’s go from perceptions to not only political experiences but also political realities. In order to start a business anywhere in America and to run it according to government regulations as a legitimate commercially recognized and operational entity from the moment you first open your door until the time you sell it or are forced to close it you are fighting an uphill (and often times a losing) battle when dealing with the government and its various agencies. The current business and wealth adversarial mentality practiced by both State and Federal governments are in place more for the benefit of creating a welfare-based society than it is on innovative entrepreneurship, job creation and self-reliance rather than government dependency. If through hard work, financial risk and strategic business practices one may become not only successful but also wealthy they are soon looked upon with suspicion, jealousy and contempt by many in the American society that they don’t deserve the financial gains or rewards they have worked so hard and risked theirs and their families very financial survival on.

Perception

I have an idea for a business, a product to offer on the market or a service to render. I feel I will be successful in the chosen endeavor and feel the risk(s) involved are worth taking even though if it fails me, my partners and our families will ultimately be the parties that will be the most affected by the failure. So, with high hopes and expectations I embark upon that endeavor, raising the capital needed by leveraging our homes, borrowing money from dear old Aunt Matilda and maxing out credit cards. Finally, the day comes and I am just about ready to open the doors of my business when political realities set in.

Political Realities

Using the Moving and Storage business which was the industry I chose to compete in which is highly regulated and in order to fulfill governmental rules and regulations before we could even open the doors as a legally licensed business and earn the first dollar we had to comply with and obtain the following;

• A Permit to operate issued by the Public Utilities Commission allowing our moving vans to traverse and conduct a licensed transportation trucking business on the highways.
• A city business license.
• A Board of Equalization tax license.
• A Federal (IRS) tax identification number.
• Minimum levels of Insurance coverage for General Liability, Cargo Liability, Workers Compensation.
              
  While I agree with the need for insurance to cover workers if injured, in addition to the general public that could be harmed by one of our vehicles while travelling over state or federal highways and streets by following all of these rules and regulations as a legitimate business the minute you begin providing your services you are automatically placed in an uncompetitive environment as the playing field is not on a level basis.
  How could that be true one might ask?
  Given the required business regulations and in order to conduct your business to be in compliance with all mandatory regulations daily your company will have to absorb the high overhead costs attributed to being in business while at the same time you will be forced to compete with companies that don’t provide workers compensation insurance, pay employees cash under the table at rates that often times are less than minimum wages, or don’t comply with existing wage and labor laws. Also, they don’t contribute to the employee’s social security benefits thereby escaping payment of federal and state payroll taxes. Many times they operate out of their homes from the kitchen table and don’t even bother to get the necessary and required permits and they don’t carry adequate insurance or perhaps no insurance at all to protect the consumers they serve from loss or damage to their personal belongings or bodily injury and property damage.
  If what you’re saying is true the government will go after them won’t they?
  Again, that would be a normal assumption one would make but here’s a real bone of contention I have with the government and particularly the Democratic Party. If your business is a legitimately run company that has or lives up to all the rules and regulations required of them and are successful the Democrats will view it as a cash cow and fair game to pay heavy fines and penalties because your business has paid the required business costs and they are deemed to have the financial ability to pay them. A big red bull’s eye is placed on all legitimate businesses and owners by the government because you are running an enterprise that is law-abiding and it is easy for them to find, audit and fine you. Ethically run businesses fall much into the same category as law-abiding gun owners that have purchased their firearms legally and the government truly knows who they are but want to be able to restrict and punish them with the passage of more meaningless and constitutionally invasive gun control laws while at the same time ignoring those criminals that don’t abide by the already existing laws, just like businesses that don’t follow the required rules to be in business. In part two of this essay I will examine the other side of the Democrats bogus philosophies.
  Ralph L Myers
  October 22, 2014

The Trauma of Being Re-victimized as a Survivor of a Crime Victim

The Trauma of Being Re-victimized as a Survivor of a Crime Victim

Being Re-victimized by an Uncaring Justice system as a Victim

Each of us in life will experience trauma of some type. The trauma of emotional or physical abuse, a catastrophic or debilitating illness or injury, death of a close friend or relative, a marital break-up or like millions of Americans over the past few decade's survivors of a murdered friend or loved family member.

Sadly, many Americans have or will fall in all of the category's listed and thankfully for most of them are able to seek help in overcoming their trauma's, through the assistance of mental, and medical health professions, a variety of support groups dedicated to the unique type of trauma they have experienced, physical or mental therapy, there are numerous resources available.

For the survivors of a murdered loved one, (of which I am) I find it most difficult in trying to deal or cope with this particular trauma that has been cast upon me. Why, one might ask? To me, it all comes down to one word or experience, re-victimization. Please let me explain exactly why I feel the way I do.

First, of course in order to be categorized a victim one has to be victimized in some manner. To those of us that have lost a loved one to homicide the moment they were murdered and especially when we were made aware of it our lives were forever changed as we were forced to enter the world of murder victim survivors.

Then after the first few weeks, months or years of trying to understand and cope with our newly found places in life while our grief and sorrow became a little more tolerable it never goes away as many of us turn to trying to help other victims and society in general by advocating for certain causes to prevent what happened to us from happening to others. Or we strive to get help from our elected officials in passage of laws that are tough on crime and the criminals who have committed them. We are merely seeking justice on behalf of our lost loved ones since they are no longer able to do so for themselves, and sadly there are many survivors of victims that will never have the chance at justice as their loved ones murderers are unknown and remain at-large, their only comfort being there isn't a statute of limitations on murder and perhaps many years later they will receive justice.

As traumatic of what victim survivors are forced to go through as they travel down the road seeking justice there will be what sometimes seem as never ending challenges, roadblocks and detours as they try and find their way out of the maze called the American criminal justice system. When they are finally able to reach what should be the journey's end and the murderer(s) of their loved ones have been apprehended, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced the ugly head of re-victimization pops up.

No, I am not talking about re-victimization being done by those that have been tried and convicted harming them again; instead I am speaking of the criminal justice system re-victimizing them. Let me explain further.

My family and I were introduced to victimization while living in California in 1993 when my son was murdered. From the years 1993-1996 we went through the trial of our son's murderer starting in the juvenile court system, progressing through the adult court, conviction and sentencing ultimately ending at the appellate court level after prevailing successfully throughout this journey. After this journey seemed to be ended we had to look forward to revisiting losing our son and the criminal justice system's process which is weighted heavily in favor of the convicted murderer, some 19 years later as a result of a consideration for parole hearing conducted by a state parole board. As our son's advocate and survivor's we had the right to attend the parole hearing that was held at the prison where the murderer was incarcerated. By this time we no longer lived in California and we had to conform our schedule with that of the parole board's and travel more than a thousand miles to attend the hearing. As parents, we felt we owed it to our son and the public's safety to appear before the board along with the murderer to argue that he never should be allowed to be released back out into society as a free person. It is an understatement when I say being in the same room as the murderer, once more coming face to face with him is one of the most difficult things I will ever have to do. As a result of California's Prop 9 commonly referred to as Marsy's Law named after the daughter of a friend of ours who was murdered just a few years before our son we were successful in convincing the parole board with the expert testimony and help from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office not to allow parole of his murderer. In fact, the parole board also ruled that our son's murderer would not be eligible for another parole consideration hearing for an additional seven years as provided by Marsy's law.

Now, comes the trauma and re-victimization part of the equation of being a survivor of a murdered loved one. For the years since Marsy's law was approved by the voters of California and became a part of that state's constitution there has been an effort supported by persons and groups via lawsuits seeking to overturn that law by saying the provisions in it that allowed the parole board to have discretion to deny a parole consideration hearing for periods of three, five, seven and ten years after the initial one depending on the seriousness and nature of the crime committed. Recently what has happened is a U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton in his ruling has struck down key parts of Marsy's Law, most notably the one that gives the parole board discretion that allows them to restrict additional parole consideration hearings for longer than one year. Additionally, his ruling has also taken away the Governor's authority to review and reverse paroles in murder cases. What this means to victim survivors like my family and me is if we are interested in exercising our right to attend parole board hearings held on behalf of our son's murderer if Judge Karlton's ruling is upheld we will be forced to at great expense to us as senior citizens on fixed incomes to travel back to California annually if we want to again convince the parole board members not to release him. Also, due to advance age and worsening health conditions it may be physically impossible for us to attend hearings each year. If we don't or can't attend future hearings I have had enough experience as a victim's rights advocate to know that board members who are more sympathetic to the rights of criminals than they are of victims will make note of our absence and take it as a sign that we don't oppose our son's murderer's parole.

Another example of more concern being shown for the criminals than is for the victims really hit home hard for California victim survivors of murdered loved ones that were murdered by juveniles that were tried as adults and given a sentence of Life without the possibility of Parole or LWOP as it is commonly referred to when a law was passed and signed by Governor Brown in 2012. This law, SB109 (Senate Bill) overturned all the LWOP sentences handed down and mandated that these murderers, many whose crimes were so heinous goes beyond description as to the brutality they were, must receive a chance of being paroled via being allowed a parole consideration hearing. For many of the survivors of the juvenile murderers it has been at least a couple of decades since their loved ones murderers were sentenced and sent to an adult prison. To me, this is the ultimate example of a victim again being traumatized and re-victimized with a new travesty of justice being forced upon them.

As I have mentioned throughout this thesis far too many politicians, sociologists, social engineers and civil libertarians are dedicated to the proposition and is that society should treat murderers differently and with more empathy than they do their victims. To them it matters not how many times we can and are re-victimized and as a result suffer trauma once more.

As a survivor of a murder victim I hope that anyone reading my thoughts never is cast into a life as we have been forced into and must endure the ultimate indignity of being traumatized and re-victimized over and over again.

Ralph L. Myers

March 4, 2014

  

    

   

 

 

Why the Death Penalty should be permitted. Thoughts of a parent of a murdered son and victim’s rights advocate.

Judging from recent news articles and various governors of states like Connecticut and just this week, Washington State’s Jay Inslee placing a moratorium about the unfairness, inhumane, unusual and cruel punishment being inflicted upon those who have committed heinous and unspeakable murders and atrocities on their victims it is very difficult to accept the arguments put forth by those that are opposed to imposing the execution(s) of these murderers.(Please see my letter to Governor Inslee at the end of this blog.)

 As one who has lost a child to murder and has gone through the American criminal justice system as a victim survivor I want to address the arguments being expressed by the anti-death penalty proponents as being nothing more than yet another example of social engineering by liberal secularist’s caring for the right’s of criminals,(most notably murderers) over the rights of victims and their survivors of not wanting anyone being held accountable for their deeds or crimes committed in today’s society.

Thesis One:

 Opinion: The death penalty is not a deterrent to preventing murders and the United States of America should not be one of the few nations that still execute persons guilty of murder.

 Opposing Opinion: I agree 100% that the death penalty doesn’t serve as a deterrent in preventing murder but I disagree by the same percent that executing those convicted of murdering another person is immoral, wrong and a gross miscarriage of justice in fact sentencing for crimes committed (especially murder) is indeed a part of justice being served. The term or word justice is in part defined as “sound reason; rightfulness, reward or penalty (emphasis mine) as deserved, the use of authority to uphold what is right, just or lawful, the administration of law. Even in other societies that impose the death penalty murders are still committed but they don’t excuse the murderers because they are of a certain color, race or creed, if one takes another person’s life they should not be surprised (or excused) as their execution is of “sound reason (they were tried, convicted and sentenced to die for their crime), penalty as deserved and the use of authority to uphold what is right, just or lawful, which the imposition of the death penalty is.

The death penalty is the punishment inflicted upon murderers as that is the penalty our justice system hands down. Executing a convicted murderer is the punishment imposed on an offender for wrong doing once again, emphasis mine.  

Thesis Two:

Opinion: Executing a murderer is nothing more than an act of revenge, too expensive, cruel and inhumane.

Opposing Opinion: Again, I agree with the anti-death penalty movement that yes it is society’s act of vengeance or perhaps placates only the survivors of murdered loved ones like myself. Again, however, revenge is defined as “to inflict injury or punishment in return for an injury, insult, etc. a chance to retaliate. I as a victim survivor, no matter how badly I feel or am hurting because my loved one was murdered I don’t have the right to retaliate by killing the person that killed someone that I loved,  but the state through the constitutional and lawful application of the criminal justice system does. If the state’s right to impose the death penalty is taken away then I believe there will be a rise in vigilantism.

As far as the death penalty being an imposition of a cruel and unusual punishment against murderers who have committed heinous acts against their victims when they murdered them, I have no empathy or sympathy for them. To the anti-death penalty proponents as they worry the person being executed is in pain I want them to think about the victim and how they perhaps felt when they were being murdered as I have every day since that horrible night in July of 1993. In 2000, some seven years after my son was murdered I wrote a poem which in part reads; “Even after years of appeals and delay, irrefutable, corroborating evidence presented again and again yet for their murderous unspeakable acts the voices are many and wrong when accountability is dismissed as lawyers and organizations beg for yet another stay. Unheard, overlooked and ignored is the wails of the victim's mother, as she was deprived of saying a final good bye when the life of her child was brutally ended by another. “Or the horror of discovering the atrocity and violence done to her son or daughter, left in pain to die alone without benefit or comfort of spiritual advisor crying out in an unheard wail as they were murdered in a manner or by a means of a cruel act, and a commission of a slaughter. “No nothing can be compared or is there anything more horrible than the wail of a mother that through violence has lost a child to murder, nor do those opposed to the death penalty have any concern about the suffering, horror and pain inflicted upon the victim.”

 

Thesis Three:

 Opinion: What if the person being executed is innocent and didn’t commit the murder?

 Opposing Opinion: I have saved this opinion for the last of my thoughts to express because what I am going to say is not only controversial but also extreme in how I feel. While I agree whole heartedly that no one wants a person to be executed that is innocent of the crime for which they were tried, convicted and sentenced to die for I look at it in this manner. While this does and can happen the number of instances it does is very rare and when one compares that number with the actual murder count kept by the Department of Justice and the F.B.I the imposition of the death penalty is correct for the reasons I have already mentioned and many more I haven’t listed and should not be abolished.  From the years of 1960-2012 a total of 923,841 persons were murdered in the United States (data according to The Disaster Center’s UCR Crime Statistics) nearly one million victims one of which was my child. Almost one million innocent people as compared to 3108 inmates currently on death row in the U.S. as of April 1, 2013 (information provided by the Death Penalty Information Center on their web site) and yet it seems to me that those opposed to the death penalty are concerned far more about less than 1% of what constitutes the number of those on death row that could be executed than they do the truly innocents that were murdered since 1960.

 

When the U.S. Supreme Court re-instituted the Death Penalty as being constitutional in 1976 they did the correct thing in my opinion and the real miscarriage of justice and infliction of cruel and unusual punishment should not be shifted from the convicted murderers to the victims by revoking or declaring the Death Penalty as being unconstitutional.

Governor Jay Inslee
Office of the Governor
PO Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002

February 28, 2014

Dear Governor Inslee:

As a survivor of a murdered son, I think your decision to place a moratorium on imposition of the death penalty is a gross miscarriage of justice. As a victim’s rights advocate since 1993 when my son was murdered I have witnessed first- hand the concern the secular progressive left has for the rights of criminals while at the same time mocking justice for victims, even labeling victim advocates like myself as professional victims. I can assure you that isn’t the case.

Governor Inslee, if you don’t have the conviction to allow the execution of guilty murderers who for the most part have been on death row for more than a decade or two manipulating the system by appeal after appeal then you shouldn’t be the Governor of Washington.

I have added to this letter an article I have written that appears on my blog “Write Thoughts” expressing a differing opinion than yours or your progressive friends, I hope you will take the time to read and think about the plight of the victim as much as you do the murderers.

Respectfully yours,

Ralph L. Myers

Bellingham, WA