Many, if not most, of you have probably heard about the Wisconsin tyrant that wants to end any collective bargaining in his state. He has admitted to wanting to change the course of history by destroying unions and their abilities to protect wages and jobs. But have you heard about a far worse man? One who wants to increase the deficit by taking money from seniors and giving it to corporations?


Gov. Snyder of Michigan is a very bad human being. He is an even worse American. He had his fingers crossed when he took the governors pledge to protect his citizens and uphold national and state laws.


Step one in his "budget" bill is to end tax breaks and benefits for low income and elderly people. He feels this could save approximately 1.7 billion dollars. He then intends to place this money directly into the tax breaks for businesses and corporations that will cost the state 1.8 billion dollars. Yes, you read that right. He is planning to increase the deficit in his state by forcing elderly and low income people to go hungry and lose what little they have to live on so that he can give unnecessary tax breaks to businesses. http://www.hollandsentinel.com/news/x1992210546/Gov-Snyder-asking-this-morning-for-1-2-billion-in-spending-cuts


Step two is to cut funding for schools. No real surprise there, republicans have come to despise schooling because it seems to make people less likely to be willing slaves to the two things they care about: religion and blind obedience.


Step three is to cut public employees, cut union membership and function, and to remove most businesses from even paying taxes.


The worst action, and the most unamerican, is a bill that passed allowing the governor or his staff to declare emergency management powers over cities and regions. What does it take to be considered in need of an emergency manager? Anything that the governor decides of course. I imagine that any township, city, or district that doesn't give full support to Snyder and his cronies will find themselves "managed."


What does this management consist of? Summarily dismissing or dissolving any contract or obligation of the area managed, dissolving school districts and/or incorporating them with others, and dissolving local governments and firing any elected official they choose and appointing someone to replace them. The state is expected to have quite a few issues with local insolvency, more so because he intends to cut taxes to those who need it least while increasing taxes on those who need money most. Now all of those pesky democrats and independents across the state can lose their jobs and positions and be replaced by good, loyal, republicans.http://www.freep.com/article/20110309/NEWS15/110309030/0/SPORTS05/Senate-votes-give-emergency-financial-managers-more-power?odyssey=nav|head




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
Watch the second segment from march 8, clip title Gop strategy: disaster capitalism.

All too often in this nation, when the terms Supreme Court and DNA come together, the story is about testing someones DNA against their will. DNA has become property of the state in many places, prosecutors being allowed to use it when and where they want while defendants are often blocked from using it in their own defense. This is incredibly bad for both liberty and justice. The prosecuting attorney should be fighting to place GUILTY people behind bars at all costs, not just someone convenient per crime.

Are most people that the law goes after guilty? Yes they generally are. Does this mean that we can assume a general burden of proof lies with the defense or that the state should receive special treatment? No we can't. At any point in a serious, especially death penalty, case, the prosecution should be vigourously pursuing ALL available resources to not only "seal the deal" on a defendant but to make damn sure that the defendant is the actual perpetrator. 

In this case, Henry skinner was on death row and was within an hour of death when the Supreme court stepped in to hear the case. I have very little doubt as to his guilt, as do most of the people that worked hard to solve the crime. Yet he was almost executed without the prosecution ever doing a DNA test on the evidence. Whether or not this man killed someone, how can the state not want to put this to rest?

Granted, it is in Texas and very little can get in the way of that states love affair with murdering inmates, but this is a serious issue of misconduct. Any prosecuting team or state legal department should have a first priority of fully processing evidence and ensuring that every available avenue of investigation has been explored. For a state to refuse to examine evidence, note that this isn't about "re-examining" because they never bothered even once, is tantamount to murder in capital cases. At the very least, I think that any prosecutor or states attorney that blocks a review of evidence or refuses to conduct methods of investigation like DNA should be brought up on charges of willful indifference to death should the person be executed. Perhaps then they might be a little more stringent during the course of their work and, most especially, when a persons life is on the line.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/07/us.scotus.death.penalty/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn