Halt Alt is a brand new opinion/speculation blog. Created on Jan 12, 2017, Halt Alt aims to offer a dissenting opinion in the propaganda war fueled by the alt-right and alt-left. Articles are listed in reverse chronological order.
What kind of a country would we live in if trials and civil proceedings were conducted in the same way as the FBI’s so-called “investigation” into the Kavanaugh allegations? Would we feel safe, knowing that those who stand accused of crimes merely have to say “I didn’t do it” to get off the hook?
Obviously, we have a strong tradition of the presumption of innocence in this country when it comes to criminal proceedings. This is vital to the American way of life. What the GOP seems to forget, however, is that the Kavanaugh nomination process is not a criminal case.
It is a job interview.
Now, dear readers, let me pose this question to you: if you were in a position to hire someone for your company, and one candidate for the job had been accused of sexual assault by multiple women, would you hire him? Let’s make it more interesting, and say that you decided to look into the allegations yourself. Would you want to talk to the women who accused him? Would you seek to uncover as much information as possible about the allegations?
If you answered no, then you might be a Republican!
This administration has proven itself beyond capable of silencing women who have grievances to air. In fact, the President himself has had sixteen (yes, you read that right) different women accuse him of sexual misconduct. His administration was very successful in limiting the scope of the FBI investigation, and his trends continue.
We are at a crossroads in American politics. No, let me correct that- we are at a crossroads in American civility, and we must choose between two very, very distinct paths.
One path is to make it clear to men that sexual assault is no small deal, and to make it clear to women that they should be comfortable coming forward and discussing their past traumas.
The other path is to give these women the colloquial “highway salute”, and pursue political victories at high speeds and at all costs.
If I had to guess which path it seems that we’ve started down- well, you know as well as I do where we’re headed. Yes, the #MeToo movement was and is a huge step towards ending this kind of sexual misconduct against both women and men.
However, it’s clear that Republicans simply do not care about the allegations against Kavanaugh, and I shudder to think what it would be like to be a woman in the current public climate. It seems that for every two steps forward, we must take a step back.
All of this aside, the question that has really been bugging me lately is this: if Kavanaugh truly has nothing to hide (as our infallible President, who is, “like, really smart” tells us), why would the Trump administration limit the scope of the FBI investigation so heavily? Any American with any more than six brain cells can clearly see that this is a coverup.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the Supreme Court will be tainted forever. We already have one sexual deviant on the bench (see: Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, 1991), and that is one too many. What does confirming another tell the women and girls of America?
It tells them that we do not care about them.
However, I am here to tell them something different. I am here to say that decent Americans everywhere support and believe you. Decent Americans everywhere are shocked by the events in Washington. Daughters of America, despair not. We will turn the tide in November. This abominable treatment of victims will not, and can not, continue. What can we do, you ask?
President Trump has continued to court controversy this week with his treatment of the families of four servicemen killed in an ambush in Niger two weeks ago.
The President was accused by Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-FL) of being highly insensitive in his treatment of the widow of Sergeant La David Johnson, who was one of four US soldiers killed by ISIS fighters in Niger. Representative Wilson said that the President told Sgt. Johnson’s widow, Myeshia Johnson, that “he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway”. Mrs. Johnson confirmed what the President said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC. Myeshia Johnson said the President’s comments made her cry, and that he struggled to remember Sgt. Johnson’s name.
The President’s words have sparked a national outcry, and reignited the conversation about his treatment of veterans in the past. During the 2016 election cycle, Donald Trump engaged in a feud with the parents of Captain Humayun Khan, an American soldier killed in Iraq in 2007. After Capt. Khan’s father said that Trump had sacrificed nothing, Trump made the claim that he has “made a lot of sacrifices”. In fact, Trump had five deferments from the Vietnam draft, including one for alleged bone spurs in his heels.
In yet another example of President Trump’s disdain for military veterans, stating “I like people who weren’t captured”, in reference to Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Senator McCain was held as POW in Vietnam for five years, tortured and beaten brutally. He is permanently disabled as a result.
The only thing left for the President to do is apologize immediately for the grief he caused to a Gold Star widow. It is clear that our President does not respect our military, our veterans, or our prisoners of war.
The controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt in 2015, has just been pardoned by President Trump.
So, what does this mean for Trump, his base, and the status of the law in our country today?
First, and perhaps most importantly, the President has proven to the American people that he has no regard for the rule of law in our country. Sheriff Arpaio was found guilty by a jury of peers for directly disobeying a court ruling. He regularly engaged in racial profiling and arguably violated the 8th amendment, including not allowing water for inmates kept outside in the Arizona desert. Arpaio should be in prison.
In regards to his base, Trump’s pardoning of the sadistic Arizona sheriff is simply another way to throw red meat to his base. The President understands that by openly supporting, condoning, and even pardoning government officials who vilify immigrants, he only galvanizes his most die-hard supporters.
Besides the potential support the President has gained from his supporters, many top Republicans have openly condemned his decision to pardon Arpaio. “The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions,” said John McCain, the senior Republican Senator from Arizona.
The junior Republican from Arizona, Jeff Flake, also criticized the President’s decision. What made the President’s decision even more disgusting, however, was the fact he apparently pardoned Arpaio during Hurricane Harvey in a bid to earn “far higher” ratings. He has shown time, and time, and time again that he is more concerned with ratings than anything else, and it is clear he cares more about his public perception than our laws and courts.
Several weeks ago, Jesse Bright, an Uber driver and criminal defense attorney, was pulled over by a Wilmington sheriff’s deputy. Mr Bright was completing a round trip for Uber, which he does occasionally to help pay off his law school loans. Immediately upon being pulled over, Mr Bright began recording his encounter with Sgt. Kenneth Becker. Sgt. Becker told him to turn off the phone. The following dialogue is the Washington Post transcript of Mr Bright’s video:
“Hey, bud, turn that off, okay?” Becker said.
“No, I’ll keep recording, thank you,” Bright responded. “It’s my right.”
“Don’t record me,” the police sergeant said. “You got me?”
“Look,” Bright said, “you’re a police officer on duty. I can record you.”
“Be careful because there is a new law,” Becker said. “Turn it off or I’ll take you to jail.”
“For recording you?” the video shows Bright asking Becker. “What is the law?”
Bright continued to record, saying, “I know my rights.”
“I hope so,” said Becker, the police sergeant. “I know what the law is.”
“I know the law,” Bright said. “I’m an attorney, so I would hope I know what the law is.”
While police officers often use intimidation tactics in order to get you to comply with their wishes, there are steps you can take to protect yourself from infringement of your constitutional rights. The most important thing you can do is to know just exactly what those rights are; do you really have to give a cop your identification if he asks for it? Can you film cops in public? I’ll do my best to give you a crash-course here.
Can I film police officers?
Mostly. Thirty eight states allow citizens to record police officers under all circumstances. However, twelve states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington) require the consent of both parties before recording a conversation. While there is officially a “two party” requirement for recording conversations, a 2015 1st Circuit case affirmed the right of citizens to record police as a fundamental constitutional right protected by the First Amendment. While filming police is almost always legal, be aware that cops may try to confiscate your camera or force you to turn it off. They may also charge you with a vague misdemeanor like obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. Be calm, be polite, and know the law in your own state.
What do I do if a police officer wants to search me/my car?
While a police officer might try to convince you or intimidate you into consenting to a search, you are under no legal obligation to do so. Police almost always ask “Do you mind if I take a look through your car?”, and they ask that for a reason. While it may seem like your own desires for privacy are trumped by the police, you do not have to consent to a search. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that if a police officer can see or smell contraband from outside the car, there is probable cause and the police can search your car without your consent.
Police officers almost never tell you that you have the right to say no, and that’s why so many people buckle under the stress of a police encounter. If they do not have probable cause or a warrant, do not consent to a search. Civil asset forfeiture is an ongoing issue with the American law enforcement community; if they believe you are carrying cash to purchase drugs, for example, they can take your cash without a trial. It is extremely difficult to retrieve stolen assets when police claim civil asset forfeiture.
Do I have to answer police officer’s questions?
While it would certainly make your day easier to cooperate fully with law enforcement, you have no legal obligation to do so. You legally have the right to remain silent. When an officer begins asking you probing questions, make it clear that you are invoking your right to remain silent and wish to speak to a lawyer.
One issue that many college students face is police cracking down on underage drinking. If you are walking (NOT driving), and are stopped and asked to take a breathalyzer test, you can refuse. However, it is important to note that the police at that point are legally allowed to bring you in, get a warrant, and perform a forced blood test. It is highly unlikely that they will do that for a charge as inconsequential as underage drinking, but it is possible.
It is important to remember that not cooperating with the police will most likely make your day a little bit harder. However, it is also important to remember that the primary tactic used by police is intimidation. If you keep that in mind, and know your rights, you and your property will be much safer from intimidating, and occasionally illegal, police tactics.
Trump’s administration doesn’t care about states rights, no matter what they’ve said in the past.
Recently, the Department of Justice and Department of Education instructed the Supreme Court to ignore Obama-era memos regarding the protections of transgender students in the public school system. President Trump’s new policy will prevent transgender students from using the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. According to the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, “Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue.”
Essentially, the Trump administration is making the case that this contentious and controversial issue is one best left up to the states. Considering the fact that Trump is indeed a Republican makes it understandable that he would adopt a pro-states’ rights platform. However, Trump and his administration have proven to be remarkably inconsistent when it comes to states’ rights, and it is clear that the current administration uses the façade of “states’ rights” to push through an intolerant agenda.
We can see the Trump administration’s hypocrisy through Sean Spicer’s recent implication that the federal law regarding recreational marijuana will be enforced more strictly under the Sessions Department of Justice. Sean Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, said we should expect “greater enforcement” of federal laws regarding marijuana use. According to Spicer, Trump sees “a big difference” between recreational pot and medicinal cannabis. It is clear that the Trump team is fully prepared to reject states’ rights when states make decisions that don’t fall in line with the President’s rollback of civil liberties.
Luckily, some members of Congress are fighting back. Four members of Congress, two Democrats and two Republicans, have formed the Congressional Cannabis Caucus in an effort to fight back against the suppression of the democratic will of those who voted to legalize marijuana in their home states (recreational marijuana use is currently legal in California, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Alaska, Nevada, and Maine). For those of us who live in states with legal recreational marijuana, we should write and call our representatives to make sure that our democratic choices are protected and respected. Similarly, we should contact our representatives to introduce legislation that protects the rights of transgender students.
As a Libertarian, it is none of my business which bathroom someone chooses to use- that, to me, seems like a civil liberty that the government has no right to restrict. The same logic applies to recreational marijuana; if you want to smoke a joint after a long day at work, who is that hurting?
With the recent immigration Executive Order issued by President Trump, the true nature of many of America’s GOP leaders is coming to light. Despite courting the Evangelical vote for decades, Republican lawmakers are showing callous disregard for the Bible as they defend President Trump’s draconian policies. The Holy Bible is very clear about how Christians are meant to treat foreigners and refugees:
“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” -Leviticus 19:34
“I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick in prison and you did not visit me.” -Matthew 25:43
There are many more verses in the Bible that are similar to the two verses above. Jesus teaches that the poor and vulnerable in society must be taken care of and welcomed with open arms. Despite claiming to be Christians, the GOP has shown it’s true character in defending the refugee ban currently in place. Only a handful of Republican lawmakers have fought it, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The following is from the Washington Post:
“Freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional principle. It’s a founding principle of this country,” Ryan told reporters following a closed-door morning meeting at the Republican National Committee in December 2015. “This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for. And more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”
Since President Trump has taken office, Paul Ryan has remained deafeningly silent regarding the ban. Luckily, a federal judge has temporarily halted the “Muslim Ban”, as many call it. Alt-right publications, including InfoWars, have suggested that the judge is committing treason by making use of the checks-and-balances system that is so integral to our republican form of government. Trump has gone on to attack the credibility of the judge who halted his EO on Twitter, and in doing so, has attacked the very foundation of American government.
A very hot-button issue these days is marijuana legalization. Specifically, legalization for recreational purposes. Many on both sides wave studies around and talk about health benefits or health risks associated with using cannabis. It is my opinion, however, that marijuana needs to be legal on a federal level, not just on the state level. I will state my reasoning below.
The first and primary reason marijuana should be legalized federally is the medicinal benefit it holds for terminally ill patients. Yes, marijuana is good for pain relief and stimulating appetite in users. However, the primary reason doctors need to start prescribing marijuana to terminally ill patients is the fact that there is a minimal risk of abuse associated with marijuana compared to opiates (which doctors are prescribing to patients in staggering quantities). The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has said that “fentanyl related deaths are rising at an alarming rate.” What is fentanyl you ask?
Fentanyl is a synthetic opiate manufactured under several different brand names, including Duragesic, Abstral, and Subys, to name a few. It is highly lethal (a lethal dose for the average size male is 3 milligrams), and heroin traffickers have been mixing fentanyl in with their product in an effort to increase profits. The pharmaceutical industry is fully aware of fentanyl’s potential for abuse; in fact, several top pharmaceutical executives were recently arrested for bribing doctors to prescribe fentanyl. The pharmaceutical industry profits massively from the current opioid crisis in the United States.
Big Pharma also knows that marijuana has been shown to be at least as effective as and less dangerous than opiates. Perhaps that is why Insys Therapeutics (a fentanyl manufacturer) spent $500,000 fighting legal marijuana in Arizona. Ladies and gentlemen, the pharmaceutical industry couldn’t care less about the health of their customers. As long as people keep overdosing and their money keeps rolling in, they’re happy.
The DEA still refuses to reschedule marijuana; currently, it is a Schedule 1 substance, and the DEA considers marijuana to be more dangerous than methamphetamine (AKA crystal meth or ice). The simple reason for this is that the DEA and federal government as a whole both know that marijuana use across the United States is rampant; if they continue going after the most popular illicit substance, their budget will remain the same, or perhaps even increased. If marijuana is legalized, a large portion of the DEA budget will be cut. The DEA is one of the most corrupt government agencies (similar to Big Pharma, their actions are based solely on how much money they can squeeze out of whatever situation they’re in); there is simply no scientific reason that marijuana would be considered as dangerous as heroin (also a Schedule 1 substance). In fact, the DEA recently classified CBD (a non-psychoactive cannabinoid; in layman’s terms, it doesn’t get you baked) as a Schedule 1 substance. CBD is used by doctors and terminally ill patients to treat chronic pain without “getting high”, so to speak. Again, the DEA is just after their budget, and is doing favors for Big Pharma by keeping life-saving medicine out of the market.
I urge you to write your Congressmen and Senators and implore them to draft legislation that would immediately legalize marijuana federally. Let’s end this evil now.