MADDOG10's Blog

“It will have blood, they say. Blood will have blood. Stones have been  known to move, and trees to speak. Augurs and understood relations have by  maggot pies and choughs and rooks brought forth the secret’st man of  blood.” (Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” Act 3, Scene 4)

When he was a state senator in the Illinois Legislature, Barack Obama opposed  a bill intended to assure that nascent children who managed to survive an  abortionist’s effort to murder them would be given the same care as other  children born alive into this world. As a result of his statements and actions  at that time, I and others have accurately noted that he countenanced  infanticide rather than concede one jot or tittle of his fanatical support for  so-called “abortion rights.” As  reported by factcheck.org (a site not notorious for its willingness to  clarify facts detrimental to Obama), “His stated reasons for opposing  ‘born-alive’ bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is  known to support and has never hidden.”

“Essentially, I think … the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this  legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending  physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that,  let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health … labor is being induced, that  that physician a) is going to make the wrong assessment, and b) if the physician  discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error,  or she made an error, and, in fact that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in  fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord,  would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would  be involved in saving that child. Now … if you think that there are  possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense.  … I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to  make sure that they’re looked after.”

Obama voiced this confidence despite the fact that he was among the  legislators who, in March of the previous year, heard first hand testimony from  Jill Stanek, a delivery ward RN in an Illinois hospital. Stanek’s description of  infants “allowed  to die without any attempt to provide medical treatment” even moved most of  Obama’s pro-abortion Democrat colleagues in the Illinois Legislature to support  legislation to protect the lives of every infant born alive in Illinois  hospitals. Unlike them, his commitment to the specious right to murder one’s  posterity is so fanatical that he would rather risk fully exposing the murderous  intent and nature of so-called “abortion rights” than to limit their scope in  any way.

More amazing, however, than Obama’s obdurate insistence upon the death  penalty for infants who survive the “medical care” of the doctor appointed to  assassinate them is his indifference to the gruesome realities being exposed, in  chilling detail, at the trial of abortionist “Dr.” Kermit Gosnell. The accounts  of casual child murders at Gosnell’s death house for nascent babies, complete  with nauseating humor, ought certainly to do what Jill Stanek’s moving testimony  could not, those many years ago. They ought to break Obama’s heart of stone.

Instead, his official spokesman persists in dismissing as “hypothetical” the  now evident fact that the practice of so-called “abortion rights” simply  means licensing physicians to murder helpless, innocent babies. This  practice contradicts and ultimately displaces the heart for healing that, once  upon a time, lived by the sacred maxim, Primum non nocere, “First, do  no harm.” True physicians were not permitted to be the instrument of  action that has no intent but willful, death dealing harm. Gosnell represents  what has become of medical professionals since that primordial discipline was  cast to the wind. This exposes Obama for what he is, (and along with him, all  those who promote the suppression of the unalienable right to life), a “most  secret man of blood.”

Thanks to Kermit Gosnell, the secret is out. In recent weeks, others have  written extensively about the elitist faction media’s conspiracy of silence  regarding the Gosnell trial. Nothing more emphatically proves the consciousness  of guilt that haunts and oppresses those who have conspired to impose the  culture of murderous death, so contrary to the founding premises of our society,  which include, first of all, respect for the unalienable, God-endowed right to  life. If they thought the homicidal atmosphere at Gosnell’s death house was  exceptional, the elitist media commissars would not feel compelled to shield the  facts from general public scrutiny. They apparently feel certain that the  facts of the Gosnell case are like roaches caught in the light, each one  representing so many more still hidden in places of darkness.

They know, and are part of, the noisome fog of murderous intent that pervades  the whole abortion industry. And tragically, through the fissure opened up by  the wicked notion that wholesale child murder is a rightful aspect of “medical  care,” this deadly fog of evil begins to pervade the entire medical profession.  At the beginning and the end of life, those who should only be healers are being  perverted into skilled assassins. Having licensed individuals to  procure the murder of their offspring, the elitists who now control government  power are fashioning “health care” institutions to give themselves license to  cull the human herd, without regard for any will or judgment but their own.

The facts being revealed at Gosnell’s trial are like the auguries, mentioned  in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth.” They cry out for judgment against the spilling of  innocent blood. You see, Shakespeare’s Macbeth was right. God’s first law of  human natural justice (Genesis, 9:6) means that blood will have blood. We  Americans may not wish to admit it, but somewhere in the midst of our grief and  dismay in the aftermath of an attack like the one that just now marred the  Boston Marathon, the still, small voice of conscience whispers: “The evil that  we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.” Such shadow-boxing is part  of the choreography of God’s due process. It is a self-defeating martial art, at  which Obama is presently the sensei-in-chief. He represents an elitist faction  skilled at producing blows they then purport to parry. As long as the American  people continue to suffer, in positions of power, such minions of elitist  factional ambition, we will fight in vain against the ruthless forces that are  gradually consuming our nation’s life in decent liberty.

Investigators cannot yet tell whether the bombings at the Boston Marathon,  which so far have killed three and wounded more than 170, are the product of  domestic or foreign terrorist(s).

But whether foreign or domestic, America’s enemies are colorblind.

Our enemies don’t care.

They don’t care that then-Sen. Barack Obama called the Iraq War a “dumb  war.”

They don’t care that the new Obama administration refused to use the term  “war on terror.”

They don’t care that former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright  said most of the international community thought the U.S. had “lost our minds”  because of Bush’s supposedly reckless foreign policy. Or that Albright asserted  that George W. Bush had made “a big mistake” for labeling Iran, Iraq and North  Korea the “axis of evil.”

They don’t care that Obama’s first interview as President was with Al  Arabiya, a pan-Arab channel, and that the new president promised “an extended  hand” to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, if only his country would  “unclench their fist.”

They don’t care that Obama doubled-crossed our allies Poland and the Czech  Republic by abandoning his predecessor’s promise to install a missile defense  shield as protection against attacks by Iran and North Korea. The motive? To  enlist Russia, which adamantly opposed the defense installations, to help us  deter Iran from acquiring the ability to build a nuclear bomb.

They don’t care that presidential candidate Obama said, “Nobody is suffering  more than the Palestinian people.” Or that the new president angered Israel by  publicly opposing the building of so-called settlements: “I think that  additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security. I think  it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it  embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.” Or  that Obama insulted the “intransigent” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  by leaving him standing in the West Wing for more than an hour when he abruptly  exited their meeting to have dinner with the first lady and his girls.

They don’t care that Obama calls waterboarding “torture” and promised to end  the practice (after Bush already promised to do so). Or that one of presidential  candidate Obama’s many “I’m-not-Bush” promises included a commitment to swiftly  close Guantanamo Bay.

They don’t care that Obama embarked on what some called an “apology tour,”  during which he said: “There have been times where America has shown arrogance  and been dismissive, even derisive,” or that in some cases “fear and anger”  after 9/11 “led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.”

They don’t care that then Massachusetts Sen. and current Secretary of State  John Kerry charged that President Bush “intentionally misled the country into  war,” or that Kerry said he regretted his vote for the Iraq War resolution  because he failed to realize how badly Bush would “f—” it up.

They don’t care that Obama literally bowed in greeting foreign leaders in an  attempt to show the world that America has a new, more humble foreign policy,  where, as Obama put it, in the past we too often “dictated” to other  nations.

Our enemies don’t care that President-elect Obama blamed Bush for failing to  improve our relationship with North Korea. On his president-elect transition  website, Obama said: “And if America is willing to come to the table, the world  will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges  like confronting terrorism and Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs.”

They don’t care that the American left hated Bush. Just before Obama’s  election in 2008, The New York Times editorialized: “The United States is  battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership.  He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a  government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its  citizens.”

They don’t care whether our commander in chief is a swaggering, ignorant  cowboy incapable of pronouncing the word “nuclear” – or whether he or she is an  articulate, urbane Ivy League-educated lawyer.

Obama’s former pastor and self-described “spiritual adviser” knows how our  enemies feel. The Sunday after 9/11, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said from the  pulpit: “We are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought  right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to  roost.” Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh couldn’t have put it better.

Today, in parts of the Muslim and Arab world, America’s favorability numbers  are even lower than under the “divisive” Bush. Iran still insists on pursuing  its nuclear program, with tension between the U.S. and North Korea worse than at  any time since the Korean War.

Americans may argue and scrap over issues like minority “underrepresentation”  and whether this justifies race-based preferences. But Boston reminds us:  America’s enemies are colorblind.

Some deaths are more politically useful than others.

Twenty years ago this week, the Clinton administration ordered a tank assault  on the Mount Carmel community, killing 39 racial minorities, 26 of them black.  The Clintons and the media suppressed the racial data so rigorously that I doubt  even Al Sharpton knows about the black dead at Waco.

What they did not know was Martin’s background. Sanford Police Department  (SPD) investigator Chris Serino, for instance, said publicly of Martin, “This  child has no criminal record whatsoever.” He called Martin “a good kid, a  mild-mannered kid.” The media almost universally sustained this tragically false  narrative.

Martin had the seeming good fortune of attending school in the Miami-Dade  School District, the fourth-largest district in the country and one of the few  with its own police department.

For a variety of reasons, none of them good, elements within the SPD and the  Miami-Dade School District Police Department, or M-DSPD, conspired to keep  Martin’s criminal history buried.

See Jack Cashill’s  stunning work, in “Deconstructing Obama,” “First Strike,” “Hoodwinked,”  “Officer’s Oath” and more.

As part of its mission the M-DSPD was allegedly trying to divert offending  students, especially black males, from the criminal justice system. As the  Martin death would prove, the M-DSPD diverted offending students to nothing  beyond its own statistical glory.

The exposure of M-DSPD practices began inadvertently on March 26, 2012, when  the Miami Herald, the one mainstream outlet to do real reporting on the case,  ran a story on Martin’s background.

The Herald’s headline, “Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of  Trayvon Martin,” should have caused the other media to seek the truth about the  very nearly sanctified Martin.

It did not. What it did do was to cause M-DSPD Police Chief Charles Hurley to  launch a major Internal Affairs (IA) investigation into the possible leak of  this information to the Herald.

At the end of the day, Hurley rather wished he had not. The detectives  questioned told the truth about Martin and about the policies that kept him out  of the justice system. Hurley would be demoted and forced out of the department  within a year.

We now know what the detectives revealed thanks to a recently fulfilled  Freedom of Information Act request filed by the dogged researchers at a blogging  collective known as The Conservative  Treehouse. The “Treepers” have literally done more good work on the Martin  case than all the newsrooms in America combined.

On Feb. 15, 2012, 11 days before Martin’s death, the Miami-Dade County Public  Schools put out a press release boasting of a 60 percent decline in school-based  arrests, the largest decline by far in the state.

“While our work is not completed, we are making tremendous progress in moving  toward a pure prevention model,” Hurley told the Tampa Bay Times, “with  enforcement as a last resort and an emphasis on education.”

Hurley’s detectives, all of them veterans with excellent records, told a  different story under oath when questioned by Internal Affairs. They knew the  shell game was about to be exposed upon first learning that Martin was one of  their students and outside agencies would be requesting his records.

“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking  at Martin’s data. He realized that Martin had been suspended twice already that  school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting  caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time  for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.

In each case, the case file on Martin was fudged to make the crime less  serious than it was. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out  of Martin’s school, Michael Krop Senior, had been “quite high,” and the  detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive  allegedly came from Hurley.

“Chief Hurley, for the past year, has been telling his command staff to lower  the arrest rates,” confirmed another high-ranking detective.

When asked by IA whether the M-DSPD was avoiding making arrests, that  detective replied, “What Chief Hurley said on the record is that he commends the  officer for using his discretion. What Chief Hurley really meant is that he’s  commended the officer for falsifying a police report.”

The IA interrogators seemed stunned by what they were hearing. They asked one  female detective incredulously if she were actually ordered to “falsify  reports.” She answered, “Pretty much, yes.”

Once the top brass understood that the Martin case had the potential to  expose the reason for the department’s stunning drop in crime, they told the  detectives “to make sure they start writing reports as is; don’t omit  anything.”

“Oh, now, the chief wants us to write reports as is,” said a Hispanic  detective sarcastically, “and not omit anything, as we have been advised in the  past?”

The IA investigation delved into the paranoid concern that the M-DSPD was  sharing information about Martin with other relevant police departments as it  routinely did in other multi-jurisdictional cases.

The one detective who sent information to the Sanford PD came under heavy  fire. He was appalled. “Currently, our department is functioning and operating  out of fear,” he told the IA. “It is tragic to see that I’ve been disciplined at  the direction of Chief Hurley.”

As it turned out, Hurley need not have worried about the SPD. As the  Conservative Treehouse reports, the information sent by the M-DSPD “disappeared  down the rabbit hole and was not included in the final victimology report filed  by Sanford Detective Serino.”

Serino was the Martin-friendly detective who had insisted that Martin “has no  criminal record whatsoever,” calling him, “a good kid, a mild-mannered kid.”

In Hurley’s defense, school districts across the country had been feeling  pressure from the nation’s race hustlers to think twice before disciplining  black students. Last year, the White House formalized the pressure with an  executive order warning school districts to avoid “methods that result in  disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

Jesse Jackson brought this nonsense home to Sanford during a large April 1,  2012, rally. He implied that Martin had been profiled by his high school for  being a black male and suspended for the same reason. “We must stop suspending  our children,” Jackson told the crowd.

In a way, Jackson was right. Martin should not have been suspended. He should  have been arrested on both occasions. Had he been, his parents and his teachers  would have known how desperately far he had gone astray.

Instead, Martin was “diverted” into nothing useful. Just days after his  non-arrest, he was allowed to wander the streets of Sanford high and alone  looking, in Zimmerman’s immortal words, “like he’s up to no good or he’s on  drugs or something.”

At the end of the day, Martin had avoided becoming an arrest statistic, only  to become a statistic of a much graver kind.

Dr. Ben Carson stepped into the national spotlight recently when, as a  speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast, to an audience that included President  Obama, he was openly critical of the president’s approach to health care and his  overall management of the nation’s economy.

Carson, who is director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital,  is a hero to many.  His life story, rising from a Detroit ghetto to a life of  accomplishment and distinction, is a story of American ideals on steroids.

The hard history of blacks in America has always made it a challenge for them  to accept this credo.  Many still carry a sense that those ideals may be true  for whites, but they never were true, and still aren’t true, for blacks.

So in this context, Ben Carson’s story is particularly important.  It’s  making liberals nervous, and the attacks on him are starting.

He’s now pulled out, under pressure, from giving the commencement address at  Johns Hopkins University because some are unhappy with how, in an interview on  Fox, he expressed his views regarding the importance of maintaining the  integrity of traditional marriage.

See all of Dr.  Carson’s books and find out why this man has captured a nation’s  attention.

Blacks have known about Carson for years.  I gave his book “Gifted  Hands” to my daughters to read when they were little girls.  A highly  acclaimed made-for-TV movie about his life aired in 2009, with Dr. Carson played  by Oscar-winning actor Cuba Gooding Jr.

But this story of personal responsibility, hard work and traditional values  is becoming a political story.   It is becoming political because Ben Carson’s  American dream story, according to the liberal script, is not supposed to work  for blacks.

Ben Carson is the biggest threat to liberals since Bill Cosby got out of line  at an NAACP banquet in Washington, D.C., in 2004. 

Cosby had the temerity to deliver tough, critical talk about what too many  blacks are doing with the freedom civil rights activists of the 1960s fought to  achieve. He contrasted the ’60s generation with the new generation of black  youth sitting in jail.  “… [T]hese are not political criminals.  These are  people going around stealing Coca Cola.  People getting shot in the back of the  head over a piece of pound cake.”

Cosby attributed the chaos to breakdown in values, family and personal  responsibility.  It’s the last thing the NAACP crowd wanted to hear that night,  and he paid a price.  Cosby was vilified and marginalized until he backed  off.

Liberals never take on what black conservatives actually say, because they  can’t.  So the attacks become personal.

Trillions of taxpayers’ dollars have been poured into black communities over  the last half-century, producing virtually no change in the incidence of black  poverty.

Yet, Ben Carson, through diligence and traditional values, achieved on his  own what those trillions of dollars of government programs were supposed to  deliver. 

Liberal black writer Ta-Nehisi Coates put the cards on the table in an  article about Cosby that appeared in 2008 in the The Atlantic magazine.  The  typical black conservative votes for Democrats, he notes, “not out of love for  abortion rights … but because he feels … that the modern-day GOP draws on  support of people who hate him.”

So stoking paranoia about racism has always been the strategy of liberals to  fend off the political threat of conservative values that so many churchgoing  blacks embrace.

Predictably, Coates has produced a New York Times column on Carson, reducing  this great man to the usual caricature of a black empty suit manipulated by  white conservatives.

Ben Carson is an accomplished and wealthy man.  Americans, certainly black  Americans, need him in public life more than he needs to be in public life.   Let’s hope the left wing and the haters of traditional morality don’t succeed in  making him conclude it’s not worth it.

– Harry Truman, in a speech opposing communism

Attorney General Eric Holder has again shown his true colors – his disdain  for America and her laws. Recently, he took action against the German Romeike  family, which is seeking asylum in the United States after being forced to flee  the country or risk losing their five children to the German government. Germany  was attempting to force the Romeikes to put their children in public school  against their religious beliefs in a terrifying repeat of history.

Holder said that asylum should not be granted to homeschoolers because,  according to him (not the law), homeschooling is not protected under religious  freedom.

Regarding education, let me set the record straight: The federal government  does not have the right to break the law by implementing any type of educational  curriculum. Parents are responsible for training their children in the way they  should go (Proverbs 22:6), not the federal government (Tenth Amendment to the  U.S. Constitution).

The fallout of federal education is stupefying. More than 700,000 students  who graduate high school each year cannot even read their own diplomas. Bill  Bennett, the secretary of education under Reagan, said, “The longer you stay in  school in America, the dumber you get.”

Eric Holder, whose position is as a public servant, doesn’t have a right to  break the law; his job is to ensure the rights of the people, not to strip them  away.

Holder, who is appointed to magnify the law against crime, has instead  repeatedly magnified crime against the law.

Wall Street:

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Eric Holder testified before the Senate  Judiciary Committee, implying that Wall Street tycoons are above the law, in  essence giving them a license to plunder the American people. Holder’s head of  the criminal division did not prosecute a single Wall Street executive for the  fraud that destroyed the economy.

Defense of Marriage:

Eric Holder has directed the DOJ not to enforce the federal Defense of  Marriage Act. In doing so, Holder has violated his oath of office and clearly  shows his violation of the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

Fast and Furious:

As we all know, Eric Holder is guilty of putting thousands of assault rifles  into the hands of Mexican drug lords in an attempt to blame the American people  for the crimes administration officials are guilty of contriving and committing.  As a result, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, along with hundreds of  Mexican civilians, including teens at a birthday party and a Mexican beauty  queen.

Black Panther Voter Scandal:

Soon after being sworn in as Obama’s attorney general, Holder ordered the  voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers during the 2008 presidential  election to be dropped.

Marc Rich Pardon:

During his tenure as Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Holder was involved  in the controversial pardon of Marc Rich, a major Democratic contributor and  fugitive for tax fraud. Holder advised Rich’s lawyer to bypass the normal pardon  request procedures and take their plea directly to the White House. Holder also  failed to inform prosecutors that a pardon was in process for Rich, denying them  the opportunity to intervene.

Boricua Popular Army Clemency:

The Canada Free Press reported that against the express wishes of the Federal  Bureau of Investigation, the federal prosecutor and the victims of the Boricua  Popular Army, at Holder’s recommendation, Clinton granted clemency to the 16  convicted terrorist group members.

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states the grounds for  impeachment: “… all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from  office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high  crimes and misdemeanors.”

Since 1797, the House of Representatives have impeached 16 federal  officials.

It is time to bind criminals such as Eric Holder down with the chains of the  Constitution. America is a government of the People, by the People,and for the  People. Therefore, it is OUR responsibility to uphold the laws of our republic  and hold our public servants to their oaths of office to uphold and defend the  Constitution of the United States.

If we fail to do so, our government will become “a source of terror to all  its citizens” and create “a country where everyone lives in fear.”

James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights into Congress, later said:  “The press has been the beneficent source to which the United States owes much  of the light which conducted us to the ranks of a free and independent nation”  (my book, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance,” Seven  Stories Press, 2004).

But now, with the continuous, instantly accessible flood of information on  the Web, in print, on blogs, in social media, et al., crucial developments  concerning our most basic personal rights and liberties are often covered  minutely, if at all.

The court’s judgment in Millbrook could start to end the immunity of many law  enforcement officials who permit the violations of citizens’ constitutional  rights. These violations may include assault and other harsh treatment of people  in the custody of government enforcement agents, such as prison guards.

Herewith are the brutal facts of Kim Lee Millbrook’s case as retold by John  W. Whitehead, who directs the Charlottesville, Va.-based Rutherford Institute.  Whitehead submitted an amicus brief supporting Millbrook before the Supreme  Court. (If President Madison were still with us, Whitehead would be receiving  the Medal of Freedom.)

Whitehead notes that while Millbrook was “serving a 31-year sentence,  reportedly for drug and gun-related charges along with witness intimidation,” he  was “transferred to a high-security federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa.”  (“Millbrook v. U.S.: Holding the Government Accountable for Misconduct by Law  Enforcement Officials,” John W. Whitehead, rutherford.org, April 1)

A few days after his arrival to Lewisburg, Millbrook got into a fight with  his cellmate, and they were both put in “a shower area.

“Then, according to Millbrook, three prison guards escorted him to the  basement holding-cell area, where one guard choked him until he almost lost  consciousness and a second guard made Millbrook perform oral sex on him, while a  third guard stood watch by the door. Conveniently, no video cameras were  monitoring the basement at the time of the alleged assault.”

Whitehead continues: “A non-lawyer relatively well-versed in navigating the  legal system, Millbrook turned to the courts for relief in January 2011, suing  the federal government for $1.5 million in damages for negligence, assault and  battery and requesting a transfer out of the Lewisburg facility.”

When his case came to federal district court and the 3rd Circuit Court of  Appeals, it was decidedly not received sympathetically. The courts decided that  the prison guards could not – as Millbrook claimed – “be held liable under a  provision of the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA), which allows individuals to sue  federal law enforcement officials for misconduct.”

Here we come to the core of this case and why the Supreme Court’s unanimous  decision for Millbrook should have been at the top of the news media around the  country. Whitehead cites WNYC reporter Ailsa Chang, who explains why the Supreme  Court stood up for Millbrook as an American citizen:

“Under the law, the government allows itself to be sued when a government  representative commits a tort. A tort is an act done negligently or  intentionally that results in injury to someone.

“However, if the tort was intentional, the law does not allow the lawsuit to  proceed – except in cases where the defendant is a law enforcement  official.”

What?

“And even in those cases,” she goes on, “the federal government can be liable  only if the officer was acting ‘within the scope of his office or employment’”  (“High Court Rules U.S. Government Can Be Sued Over Actions of Prison Guards,”  Ailsa Chang, npr.org, March 27).

When a prison guard forces a prisoner to commit oral sex on him, is that  within the scope of his employment? If not, what else can the guard do without  punishment?

The federal district court and the 3rd Circuit, explains Whitehead, dismissed  Millbrook’s case on the grounds that “although an egregious wrong may have been  committed by a government employee, they cannot be held liable for money damages  for their behavior.

“Specifically, the courts reasoned that the FTCA only applies to ‘police  officers’ while they are in the process of making an arrest or seizure, or  executing a search.”

Because those three prison guards were doing none of those things, Millbrook  was told, in effect, he had no case. But he disagreed. Adding to the uniqueness  of this case, Millbrook, Whitehead reports, “filed a handwritten petition, in  pencil no less, to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

And on March 27, the Supreme Court, remanding the case, made Millbrook a  citizen again, declaring that the law extends to “acts or omissions of law  enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless  of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement  activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence or making an arrest.”

It should be noted that Justice Thomas has a fair civil liberties record,  except when it comes to prisons; but he did a somersault in this case.

Whitehead summarizes: “Hopefully, the Supreme Court’s ruling … will send a  strong message to the government’s various law enforcement agencies that they  need to do a better job of policing their employees – whether they’re police  officers or prison guards” (“Victory: Unanimous Supreme Court Rules That  Citizens Can Hold Federal Government Liable for Abuse by Law Enforcement  Officers (Police, Prison Guards),” www.rutherford.org, March 28).

The media could help if they’d wake up and tell Americans what happened in  the case of citizen Millbrook.

Meanwhile, now that the Supreme Court has permitted Millbrook to resume his  case against the government for damages, I wish him well. Of course, it would  also help if former constitutional law professor Barack Obama spoke out about  this case.