Web Osi Speaks!

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

The Trouble With The World.

i am convinced that as humans our biggest problem in this our world is that some of us do not believe in God and therefore act unGodly, and many of us who do and profess to be Christians, do not act Christlike, but instead belief that our sins have been paid for, as if that means we can sin more, and some believe that no matter what our sins shall be forgiven!

think about it, analyze the situation, and try to convince yourself that i am wrong!!

trending #evil, #racism, and other #isms, #bigotry, #mansinhumanitytoman, #donaldsterling and others.



Tuesday, April 29, 2014

NBA Commissioner, Adam Silver, Suspends Los Angeles Clippers Owner, Donald Sterling, For Racist Rant. Watch.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

what did he say? listen:

Labels: ,

Donald Sterling.

Monday, April 28, 2014



Sunday, April 27, 2014



Saturday, April 26, 2014

I'm SMH!


Friday, April 25, 2014



Thursday, April 24, 2014

Set Asides.


Wednesday, April 23, 2014

U. S. Supreme Court Limits Restitution To Victims By Child Porn Users.

Justices limit restitution to victims by child porn users 

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that people who peddle in child pornography must help pay for their victims' pain and suffering – within reason.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices struck a compromise in the case of "Amy," whose images — taken by her uncle when she was 8 and 9 years old — have become some of the most popular on the Internet for traffickers in child pornography.

Rather than holding one man liable for up to $3.4 million in restitution, as the woman's lawyers urged, the court said trial judges should determine the fair amount. Three justices dissented and said the defendant can't be liable at all; a fourth said he should be liable for the full amount.

In the compromise ruling, the ultimate penalty for each purveyor of porn "would not be severe, but it would not be token," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in announcing the decision from the bench.

The case stems from Congress' passage of the Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children Act, which established penalties and restitution for sexual assault, domestic violence and child pornography. The law called for full restitution — but it did not specify who should pay what.

Amy, whose real name is not used in court papers, was raped and filmed at ages 8 and 9. It wasn't until she was 17 that she learned the sex acts had gone viral on the Internet. As a result, her lawyers argued, she could not finish college, has had trouble holding a job and will require weekly psychotherapy for the rest of her life.

Those problems carry what courts have estimated is a $3.4 million price tag for psychotherapy, lost wages and other costs. Since her images were discovered, federal authorities have identified more then 3,200 cases in which they were downloaded. They have won court orders for restitution totaling more than $1.7 million in 182 cases.

The case before the court involved Doyle Randall Paroline, who possessed just two images and was sentenced in 2009 to two years in prison. Lawyers for the victim argued that under the law Congress passed in 1994, every trafficker should be held liable for the maximum amount he can pay until the full $3.4 million has been paid. Government lawyers argued for a lesser "fair share" approach.

During oral arguments in January, the justices agreed that Amy deserved the money, but they didn't agree that Paroline should be asked to pay it all. "Some limiting principle has to come into play," Justice Stephen Breyer said.

In the end, Kennedy and Breyer were joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan in devising what Kennedy called a "common sense" approach.

"Restitution is therefore proper ... only to the extent the defendant's offense proximately caused a victim's losses," Kennedy said in a 26-page opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said Paroline should pay nothing because it's impossible to approximate his share of the crime.

"The statute as written allows no recovery," Roberts said. "We ought to say so, and give Congress a chance to fix it."

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented for the opposite reason, saying that Amy should be able to collect the full amount from any defendant.

Picking up where she left off on Tuesday in a verbal tiff with Roberts over affirmative action, Sotomayor said his dissenting opinion "would result in no restitution in cases like this for the perverse reason that a child has been victimized by too many."

Labels: , ,

Climate Change!


Tuesday, April 22, 2014

U. S. Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Ban On Use Of Affirmative Action In College Admissions Approved By Voters.

Michigan's ban on affirmative action upheld by Supreme Court
Source: CNN
Key argument in opinion concludes that lower court didn't have authority to set aside Michigan law
Michigan law bars publicly funded colleges from granting preferential treatment on the basis of race
The debate centers on whether affirmative action programs would be phased out in the future
It's now possible that other states could seek to act on affirmative action

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, a key decision in an unfolding legal and political battle nationally over affirmative action.

The justices found 6-2 that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters.
It bars publicly funded colleges from granting "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's first Latina, reacted sharply to the decision.
"For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government," Sotomayor wrote.

But three justices in the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. concluded that the lower court did not have the authority to set aside the law.
"This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," Kennedy wrote.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas voted in the majority as part of concurring opinions.
Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, and Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the case.
The decision was the latest step in a legal and political battle over whether state colleges can use race and gender as a factor in choosing what students to admit.

The debate in recent years has centered around whether and when affirmative action programs -- while constitutionally permissible now -- would eventually have to be phased out as the goal of obtaining diversity is met.

Last year, the court affirmed the use of race at the University of Texas, but made it harder for institutions to justify such policies to achieve diversity.
In that dispute, a white student said the college's existing affirmative action policy violated her "equal protection" rights. Civil rights supporters of such programs claim Michigan's ban also has the same effect, and a federal appeals court agreed.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that while state universities could use race as a factor in choosing which students to admit, they could not make race the determining factor in deciding whether applicants are accepted.
Michigan has said minority enrollment at its flagship university, the University of Michigan, has not gone down since the measure was passed.
Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science.

The Michigan ban also prohibits the state from considering race and gender in public hiring and public contracting decisions. But the current high court case dealt only with the college admissions portion.

Efforts over decades to create a diverse classroom have been controversial.
The Brown v. Board of Education high court ruling in 1954 ended segregation of public schools, but sparked nationwide protests and disobedience by states that initially refused to integrate.

In the 1978 Bakke case, the justices ruled universities have a compelling state interest in promoting diversity, and that allows for the use of affirmative action. That issue involved a discrimination claim by a white man denied admission to law school.

The referendum issue has been around at least since 1996, when California voters endorsed Proposition 209, which bans use of race, sex, or ethnic background by state agencies in areas of education, and government hiring and contracts.

Six other states now have similar laws, and others may follow suit.
Roberts has made the issue a key part of the court's docket in recent years and it could serve as a major legacy of the current conservative majority.

Editor's note: you can read the opinion here.

Labels: , ,

This Cartoon Is Funny!


Happy Earth Day. Respect Mother Nature.


Monday, April 21, 2014

Words To Live By, Words Of Wisdom, And Words To Ponder.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

-- The Bible, KJV, John 11:25

Labels: , ,

Climate Change: A Hoax! LOL.


Sunday, April 20, 2014

Happy Easter To Everyone Who's A TRUE Believer. He Has Risen, And Rebuilt The Temper, And He Shall Come Again, As He Promised. ALLELUIA!


Saturday, April 19, 2014



Thursday, April 17, 2014



Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Love Hurts!


Tuesday, April 15, 2014

We Are Into You!


Monday, April 14, 2014

Checks And Balances!


Sunday, April 13, 2014

Joel Pett Strikes!


Saturday, April 12, 2014

Kentucky Legislature Should Open Some Juvenile Court Hearings, Say Judges.

Judges: Legislature should act to open more juvenile proceedings

When legislators return to Frankfort Monday there is some important unfinished business that the House should address.

In the interest of Kentucky's children, it should pass Senate Bill 157, sponsored by Sen. David Givens to provide greater transparency in juvenile cases.

SB 157 creates a limited, measured pilot project to test whether Kentucky should presumptively open the juvenile courts of the state. The bill would establish a four-year pilot project to open certain juvenile court hearings in three to seven diverse judicial districts or circuits. In the participating courts some juvenile and family court proceedings would be presumed to be open, rather than confidential, as they are now.

Proceedings to be presumptively open would include some child abuse and neglect hearings and felony proceedings involving juveniles 14 or older.

The chief justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court would select the pilot sites and set guidelines for public attendance and limiting identifying information about the parties. The presiding judge could close a particular case according to specific guidelines, considering such factors as the nature of the case, age of the child and benefit to the public and all parties.

Some juvenile and family court cases should be open, because in these courts both children and caregivers are held accountable. In these courts children are protected from abuse and neglect and efforts are made to preserve or reunify families.

In these courts children are prosecuted for crimes. Society should ensure that every child and every family in need of court oversight has access to fair, effective and timely justice. We must ensure that the agencies involved are doing their jobs and are adequately staffed and funded.

By closing the doors to these courts, we hide problems from the public. Closed courts contribute to a perception that our system is failing our children or hiding important information from the public. Closed courts diminish the accountability of those working in the system and those passing through it.

The public has a legitimate interest in the work of juvenile courts. Closure precludes a vital opportunity to increase public awareness about the critical problems faced by the child welfare system and courts and to focus community attention on issues of child abuse and neglect and juvenile crime.

The public needs to know if state agencies, judges and prosecutors are doing their jobs and if not, why not? Openness and transparency will help to answer these questions.

The passage of SB 157, creating a pilot project to open some hearings, would be a small but important step to move Kentucky in a direction that most other states have already taken. It is time for Kentucky to move toward openness and transparency by passing SB 157.

Patricia Walker FitzGerald is chief judge of Jefferson County Family Court. This column was also signed by seven other family court judges.

Read more here:


Security Breach. Funny.


Friday, April 11, 2014



Thursday, April 10, 2014

Bowling Green Jury Acquits Man In Self Defense "Stand Your Ground" Stabbing Death.

Jury acquits Thomas in slaying
He fatally stabbed man in 2012, said it was self-defense

A Warren Circuit Court jury cleared Stephan Thomas of criminal wrongdoing Wednesday in the stabbing death of Tyrese Huffman, determining that Thomas acted in self-defense.
Thomas, 26, of Bowling Green, was found not guilty of murder and tampering with physical evidence after the panel of six men and six women deliberated for five hours.

Thomas and his attorney, John Stewart of Adams, Tenn., shared a long hug after Judge Steve Wilson read the verdicts, and Thomas’ family wept softly behind him.
Stewart argued that Thomas’ actions June 9, 2012, when he stabbed Huffman, 21, of Bowling Green, with a steak knife outside an apartment at 2055 Stonehenge Drive, Apt. D, were protected by the state’s self-defense law.

Stewart referred to the law as the “stand-your-ground” law, which in Kentucky allows a person to use deadly force against someone if he believes such force is necessary to protect against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, forcible sexual intercourse or a felony involving the use of force.
“It’s been a tough life for this young man these last two years,” Stewart said after his client’s trial.

“He should never have been indicted, but the prosecutor used his discretion and I respect that. I just hate that (Thomas) had to go through two years of incarceration ... all because the prosecution did not want to apply the stand your ground law.”

Huffman’s relatives, some of whom wore shirts memorializing him, filed silently out of the courtroom after the trial’s conclusion.
“I just don’t think justice was served,” said Huffman’s mother, Elaine Skiles. “My son died for nothing ... it does not feel right to me.”

Self-defense laws have entered the national consciousness largely through the trial last year in Florida of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted by a jury in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in a case fraught with controversy.
Zimmerman asserted he acted in self-defense in that case, though it emerged that Martin was unarmed at the time of his death.

“We put on every witness we were able to find who had knowledge in regards to the events of June 9, 2012, and we put on all the evidence of proof we had,” Warren County Commonwealth’s Attorney Chris Cohron said after court adjourned. “The jury has spoken, and we respect their verdict.”
Thomas’ mother, Ethel Thomas, declined to comment after the trial.

The circumstances

Huffman’s death was the by-product of a feud that had festered between Thomas and Dewayne Graves Jr.
Graves had been involved in a relationship with Shadee Hodges, who has a child in common with Thomas.

According to trial testimony, Thomas was in Hodges’ apartment when Graves threw a brick through a kitchen window after a series of phone calls.
Thomas and Graves were involved in a confrontation outside the apartment about three weeks before the stabbing, with Thomas testifying that Graves, who was with three other people at the time, had pulled a box-cutter on him.

A few hours before the homicide, Thomas and Graves confronted each other again outside the apartment. The meeting ended with Thomas chasing Graves with a straight razor until Graves jumped a fence at the edge of the apartment complex, according to testimony.
Hodges was hosting a party on the night of the stabbing, and Thomas was standing on the balcony of her apartment when he said he saw Huffman in the parking lot below, yelling at him to come outside.

Thomas said he grabbed a steak knife from the kitchen on the way outside and met Huffman, who had arrived at the complex with Graves, Darren Chamlee and Joe Huffman, Tyrese’s brother.
The men gave conflicting accounts to Bowling Green police investigators of the final confrontation, but it emerged at trial that Chamlee had shown a gun at some point and that Thomas was hit in the chest with either a brick or a rock.

Thomas testified that he felt he had been shot when he was struck in the chest, and that he feared for his life during the final confrontation.
He left the scene with a friend, Ralph Jennings, and went to his mother’s house. From there, Thomas was picked up by several friends, who testified that they saw him pack a duffel bag into the car and heard Thomas talking about having to “do something with these clothes.”
The group went to a wooded area behind Regency Park Apartments, where Thomas and D.J. Woodson took the bag and emerged without the bag several minutes later.

Police recovered the gun four days after the incident in a wooded area near Russell Sims Aquatic Center, and a rock that police recovered from the crime scene tested negative for blood.
A T-shirt and a pair of boxer shorts were also found nearly two weeks after the stabbing in the same area, and police suspected Thomas of burning the clothes in an effort to hinder the police investigation.

Lawyers’ closing arguments

Cohron focused in his closing argument on the fact that Huffman was unarmed at the time and that no one testified about Huffman hitting or otherwise laying a hand on Thomas before being stabbed.

Cohron wove prior witness testimony into his closing argument to present a scenario that had Thomas pursuing Huffman as the group migrated slowly away from the apartment, with Graves across the street with Hodges and Joe Huffman and Chamlee not on the scene at the time of the stabbing.
“Stephan Thomas had a lot of reasons for what he did, but did he have justification? I would say the answer is no,” Cohron said.

Cohron argued that Thomas was motivated to confront Huffman because he was angry about what had happened earlier in the day with Graves and because he did not want to involve authorities because there were drugs in Thomas’ apartment.

“You don’t get to run towards a street fight and get the right to self-protection,” Cohron said. “Tyrese
Huffman bore the brunt of Stephan Thomas’ rage ... someone who has no respect for the rule of law doesn’t get to use it as a shield.”

Stewart’s closing argument laid the blame for the incident on Graves, asserting that Graves set in motion the chain of events that led Thomas to arm himself with a knife to protect himself from harm.

“All of these jokers got together as a result of D.J. Graves setting the table,” Stewart said about the group that accompanied Graves to the final confrontation. Graves “selected each one of these participants to go after” Thomas.

Stewart argued that the contradictions in the police interviews and trial testimony from Chamlee, Graves and Joe Huffman, who was held in contempt of court for yelling and swearing at Thomas, showed that they lacked credibility as witnesses.
Because of what had happened previously with Graves, Thomas feared for his life, which prompted him to grab the knife before going outside to confront Huffman, Stewart said.

Stewart also pointed out that Huffman, who was 6 feet, 4 inches and weighed more than 400 pounds when he died, presented a physically imposing figure that intimidated Thomas.
“(Thomas) had to make a split-second decision based on everything that happened,” Stewart said. “Even if you discount the rock or the gun, Tyrese Huffman himself was a dangerous instrument and he inflicted fear on my client.”

While Thomas has been cleared in the homicide case, three unrelated felony cases against him remain.
Thomas is charged with trafficking in a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, second-degree possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia based on a 2011 traffic stop outside a Brownslock Road apartment.

Thomas also faces charges of tampering with physical evidence, third-degree criminal mischief, possession of marijuana and public intoxication based on a 2011 traffic stop on Broadway Avenue.

Finally, a first-degree assault case against Thomas is pending in Warren District Court based on an accusation that Thomas last year assaulted fellow Warren County Regional Jail inmate John Shobe, a suspect in an unrelated murder case.
Cohron and Stewart both said that those cases will be addressed during a court date in the near future.




Wednesday, April 09, 2014



Tuesday, April 08, 2014

Congrats To University Of Connecticut Women For Winning NCAA Basketball Championship -- Their 9th!


We Congratulate The University Of Connecticut Huskies: 2014 NCAA Mens' Basketball Champions. Honorable Mention Goes To Kentucky Wildcats For An Impressive Season.

way to go guys.


V. Putin And B. Obama In High Stakes Game.


Monday, April 07, 2014

U. S. Supreme Court Lets Stand A Finding Of Bias Where Photographer Refused To Take Pictures Of Gay Couple At Their "Wedding"!

Supreme Court rejects appeal over gay bias case

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from a studio that refused to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony, letting stand a New Mexico high court ruling that helped spur a national debate over gay rights and religious freedom.

The justices left in place a unanimous state Supreme Court ruling last year that said Elane Photography violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the same-sex ceremony "in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."

Elane Photography co-owner Elaine Huguenin said taking the photos for Vanessa Willock and her partner would violate her religious beliefs. She said she also has a right of artistic expression under the First Amendment that allows her to choose what pictures to take, or refrain from taking. She was ordered to pay more than $7,000 in attorneys' fees, which Willock waived.

The case has been cited as lawmakers in other states have proposed legislation exempting people from such lawsuits if doing business with same-sex couples violates their religious beliefs.

Arizona passed such a law this year, but Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it under pressure and blistering criticism from major corporations and political leaders from both parties.

Similar religious-protection legislation has also been introduced around the country. And eight states, Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia, had asked the high court to hear the case so lawmakers would have guidance in considering such measures.

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said "at issue is the fundamental question of whether the state can pretend to be a god over the conscience."

The American Civil Liberties Union countered that regardless of personal beliefs, "every business has to play by the same rules to protect customers from discrimination in the marketplace."

An Arizona-based group, Alliance Defending Freedom, represented the Albuquerque studio.

"Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe," said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. "The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system."

The group said it is also defending cases like those of a Washington state florist and a Colorado cake artist who refused to do work for same-sex couples and a Kentucky T-shirt printer who declined to make shirts promoting a gay pride festival.

Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing the couple, said "no court in the United States has ever found that a business selling commercial services to the general public has a First Amendment right to turn away customers on a discriminatory basis.

"The New Mexico Supreme Court applied settled law when it rejected the company's argument in this case, and the Supreme Court of the United States was correct to deny certiorari review. The time had come for this case to be over, and we are very happy with the result."


Ok, This Cartoon Is Funny. Wink.


Sunday, April 06, 2014

The U. S. Secret Service.


Saturday, April 05, 2014

Chris Christie Commissions A Report Which Exonerates Him In Bridgegate.


Friday, April 04, 2014

Friday Bonus Cartoon: Bill(onaires') Of Rights!


I Never Do!


Thursday, April 03, 2014

U. S. Supreme Court Sanctions Money Bundling In Elections.


Wednesday, April 02, 2014

How Joel Pett Saw Ronald Rumsfeld's "Trained Ape" Comment.


Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Happy April Fools' Day.