Politics In America - Political Viewpoints
Politics in America features political viewpoints and opinions regarding national, state and local politics throughout the United States Of America.
- Last build:
- Language:
- en-US
- Feed URL:
- http://politics.californiapersonalinjuryattorneys.us/rss.php
RSS FEED IDEMS: Politics In America - Political Viewpoints
- The Louse That Roared
After watching the interview by Chris Wallace of former president Clinton the thing that struck me most was not his self-righteous anger but that people are still buying his act. Those on the left of the political spectrum here in the U.S. are indeed fools. If they are not fools then they are traitors. Either way they should be kept from high office. By high office I mean they should not ascend higher than say, plan review in a local building department. That is as long as they're not structural plans.
By Clinton's own admission he tried and failed to capture or kill bin Laden. If only bin Laden were an obscure Christian sect living in Texas (Waco) or a small child from Cuba (Elian Gonzales) maybe then the full weight of the Federal Government could have been brought to bear on bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
No, all bin Laden did was orchestrate a few terrorist attacks against U.S. Troops: the U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers and launch simultaneous attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa. These offenses were not serious enough to warrant Clinton getting creative with the law (as he is wont to do) and get rounds downrange to kill bin Laden.
I needn't get into the first attack on the World Trade Center. I won't even bring up the fact that September 11 was planned years in advance of its execution, nor will I mention Able Danger or Jamie Gorelick's memo putting up a wall between our intelligence agencies or the incident in Somalia now known as "Black Hawk Down" in which we lost 19 Army Rangers. Following this debacle the military was forced to withdraw by the new president.
As Commander in Chief he was sorely lacking. As soon as he took office Clinton implemented his homosexual advocacy program known as "don't ask don't tell." What possible good came from that is a mystery to me. Before you start whining about discrimination I will remind you that it is an honor to serve in the U.S. Military not a right.
One of Clinton's motives for this could have been his open contempt of the armed services and those that serve therein. Incidentally, Clinton was good enough to put that in writing to a colonel on a draft board during the Vietnam War. While pleading his case to stay out of the military Clinton wrote, "so many fine people find themselves loathing the military". Perhaps he was repaying a debt to far left campaign contributors. Either way it seems a strange way to start your tenure as Commander in Chief. Compounded with the fact that Clinton did not win the popular vote and was elected with a very slim majority of electoral votes he certainly made no attempt to govern from the center. Nor did he win the popular vote in his second term. Do the words, " No clear mandate" ring a bell?
Very credible rumors abound of Hillary Clinton berating Marines and demanding they not wear their uniforms in her presence. She is not fit to carry their water let alone have them serve her. The fact that she is a senator from New York does not escape me. It does astound me however. A very timely pardon of some Puerto Rican terrorists by Bill may have played a role in Hillary's election. The Clinton model for handling terrorists leaves much to be desired.
With very credible allegations of rape (notice it is plural) and Clintons horrendous treatment of and taste in women you see where the title The Louse That Roared" comes from.
If only Clinton could have worked up that much rage over the Chinese stealing nuclear secrets (or was that buying nuclear secrets?) my children could be safe from Chinese nuclear missiles for another 20 years or so. Clinton signed many a waiver for Loral Space to sell very sensitive guidance systems to the Chinese. This technology moved Chinas I.C.B.M. program from 30 years behind ours to as close as 3.
Save your bluster Bill. Hillary will not win. Feigned outrage may work to jinn up some more cash but the folks that were going to donate to you and yours would do it without the sideshow.
By: Dan Doherty
Dan Doherty is the creator, editor and author of http://www.strikebackusa.com. He is a former Recon Marine. Dan served as a squad leader in an infantry company in the first gulf war. After rotating back to the U.S. and recieving an Honorable Discharge from the Marine Corps Dan attended UMass Boston. At UMass he studied political science, psychology, international relations and philosophy as an undergrad. Dan is a journeyman Ironworker out of Local 7 Boston. He is also a lieutenant on a metropolitan Boston fire department. He is also a hazardous materials technician. In the year 2000 Dan was awarded the Medal Of Valor by Governor Cellucci for saving the lives of three people in a fatal fire. This award was given in conjunction with the Firefighter of the Year Award.
Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:54:06 GMT - Crazies to the LEFT of me, Wimps to the RIGHT
The number one New York Times bestselling author Bernard Goldberg is back with more hard-hitting observations and no-nonsense advice for saving America from the lunatics on the Left and the sellouts on the Right.
In Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right, Goldberg speaks for the millions of Americans who are saying: Enough!
Enough of lunatics like Rosie O'Donnell who think "Radical Christianity"--whatever that means--is "as big a threat to America as Radical Islam." Enough of the hyperbolic liberal rhetoric comparing Bush to Hitler and Abu Ghraib to a Saddam Hussein torture chamber. Enough of the liberal media, in particular the New York Times, which Goldberg claims doesn't publish "all the news that's fit to print" so much as "all the news that fits our ideology." And please, enough of the military-hating crazies who run San Francisco! ("Just what this country needs," Goldberg writes, "a city with Rice-A-Roni and a foreign policy.")
But Goldberg doesn't stop with the crazies on the Left. Speaking for fed-up conservatives, he also goes after the wimps on the Right--the gutless wonders in Washington who sold out their principles for power.
He's had it with hypocritical Republicans who say they're for small government but then spend our hard-earned tax money like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store. He's also had it with the weak and timid Republicans who won't stand up and fight against racial preferences, too afraid that the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world will call them bigots. In plain English, he's had it with Republicans who are afraid to be conservative!
By: J Camerlin
Get your copy of Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve and decide for yourself.
I am an engineer who is looking at all sides of the party to establish which one is best to serve our country.
Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:52:13 GMT - Understanding the Iraq Surge
"We finally got the troops there. Americans have got to understand, it takes a while to mobilize additional troops and move them from the United States to Iraq. We got them there, and now we're beginning to move."-President George W. Bush, Speech at the Naval War College, June 28, 2007.
With these words President Bush reminded the nation that the new security plan for Iraq, the so-called "surge," was only now really getting underway. Unfortunately, when the discussion concerns Iraq, many Americans tune the President out, his words no longer carrying the weight they once did. But perhaps the words of the senior counterinsurgency adviser in Iraq could prove insightful, or even useful, for those longing for an understanding of what's really going on in and around Baghdad. I'm not talking about General David Petraeus, the man charged with executing the current strategy. No, the guy I'm referring to is David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer and one of the world's foremost theorists on counterinsurgency strategy.
In a posting last month on the Small Wars Journal Blog, Mr. Kilcullen laid out for readers what he called a "basic understanding" of what's transpiring on the ground right now, from the perspective of the top guy advising Petraeus on counterinsurgency operations:
"This post is not about whether current ops are working,'-for us here on the ground, time will tell, though some observers elsewhere seem to have already made up their minds (on the basis of what evidence, I'm not really sure). But for professional counterinsurgency operators...the thing to understand at this point is the intention and concept behind current ops in Iraq: if you grasp this, you can tell for yourself how the operations are going, without relying on armchair pundits. So in the interests of self-education...here is a field perspective on current operations."
Addressing those who are already calling the "surge" a failure, Kilcullen says:
"Ten days ago, speaking with Austin Bay, I made the following comment: I know some people in the media are already starting to sort of write off the surge' and say Hey, hang on: we've been going since January, we haven't seen a massive turnaround; it mustn't be working'. What we've been doing to date is putting forces into position. We haven't actually started what I would call the surge' yet. All we've been doing is building up forces and trying to secure the population. And what I would say to people who say that it's already failed is watch this space'. Because you're going to see, in fairly short order, some changes in the way we're operating that will make what's been happening over the past few months look like what it is-just a preliminary build up."
Shortly after that comment, on June 15th, U.S.-led forces began a series of offensive operations in Baghdad and the surrounding areas, the true beginning of the President's "surge." Kilcullen then describes in detail in the post how the new strategy will work:
"These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we're doing in Baghdad and what's happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don't plan to leave these areas once they're secured. These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have gone quiet' as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action."
Currently, the counterinsurgency efforts Kilcullen describes are taking place not just in Baghdad, but throughout Iraq. Ongoing operations across the country continue to net insurgents, terrorists, and weapons that are perpetuating the ongoing violence and the offensives are producing an environment conducive to winning the support of the population. As Kilcullen says, "The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain...."
And keeping with classical counterinsurgency theory, Kilcullen makes it clear that the Iraqi population is the true target of the "surge":
"Therefore-and this is the major change in our strategy this year-protecting and controlling the population is do-able, but destroying the enemy is not. We can drive him off from the population, then introduce local security forces, population control, and economic and political development, and thereby hard-wire' the enemy out of the environment, preventing his return. But chasing enemy cells around the countryside is not only a waste of time, it is precisely the sort of action he wants to provoke us into. That's why AQ cells leaving an area are not the main game-they are a distraction. We played the enemy's game for too long: not any more. Now it is time for him to play our game."
While I'm all for forcing the enemy to react to us for a change, I fear that Mr. Kilcullen is placing too much stock in Iraqi security forces that have thus far shown little willingness to put national well-being ahead of tribal or sectarian loyalties. But then he has far more expertise in counterinsurgency operations than I do, and I for one am willing to defer to his knowledge, experience and on-the-ground sense of what's really happening in Iraq.
Kilcullen also gives readers a sense of what's expected of the Iraqi government, and a realistic outlook for what lies ahead:
"It will be a long, hard summer, with much pain and loss to come, and things could still go either way. But the population-centric approach is the beginning of a process that aims to put the overall campaign onto a sustainable long-term footing. The politics of the matter then can be decisive, provided the Iraqis use the time we have bought for them to reach the essential accommodation. The Embassy and MNF-I continue to work on these issues at the highest levels but fundamentally, this is something that only Iraqis can resolve: our role is to provide an environment in which it becomes possible."
While I don't think there's any doubt about the ability of American troops to give Iraqis some breathing space, there are serious doubts about the ability of al-Maliki's government to do what is necessary to capitalize on our investment of additional American lives. Will the Iraqis, after more than four years of brutal fighting, finally put aside their differences and work together for a greater Iraq? I don't know, and so far the signs have not been encouraging.
But that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands in the air and walk away from the mess that has been created. The consequences of such an action are too severe, and too frightening, for us and for the rest of the world. Instead, we should stop the pointless partisan bickering and listen to experts like David Kilcullen. We have some very intelligent people in place in Iraq, and they know their business. Now is the time to let them do what they do best.
By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a Senior Writer for The New Media Journal and a Featured Author for The Veterans' Voice. He also regularly contributes to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free.
Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.
Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.
For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.
Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:57:23 GMT - Earmarking Our Way To Oblivion
James Madison once remarked, "with respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." In writing that letter to James Robertson, he reiterated the sentiments he shared with the nation in Federalist 41 where he denounced objections by the anti-Federalists to the term "general Welfare" being included in the Constitution because of it's presumption of an unlimited and open ended scope as without "color".
The fear of federally elected politicians being able to curry favor with their constituents by bringing home the bacon in the sense of tax dollars was why under the Constitution our government was given only limited powers to tax and spend. The founders knew that what have become known as "earmarks" would not serve this nation well and would corrupt the intent of limited government.
Why did Madison and the vast majority of Federalists say that the "general Welfare" clause was limited to the set conditions that followed? So that leaders of our government couldn't buy votes!
Over the years since however we have basically amended the Constitution through court orders and legislation (neither of which are means by which such action can be achieved mind you) to say to heck with all that nonsense! And we see where it is now getting us. "General Welfare" has come to mean anything and everything some politico in Washington can dream up.
What do we have today? We have Republican Congressmen from Alaska like Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young that are kings of pork barrel spending and who year after year take money home to their state for pet projects such as the affectionately called "bridge to nowhere" among many, many others.
We have people like Rep. Sam Farr, Democrat, CA who pushed for $25 million to benefit spinach growers to be added to an "emergency" supplemental spending bill. Must be some spinach "emergency" we are not aware of!
Then there is House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, Democrat, Minnesota who continues to send taxpayer dollars each year to mega-farms and giving 50% of the money for unconstitutional subsidies to just 4% of America's farmers.
Perhaps we should ask Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota under what authority of Article I, Section 8 he sought fit to secure over two million dollars in federal loans for the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad because they weren't making enough money on their own to pay for improvements and expansions?
Oh, but let's not forget Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who, if the truth be known, has more than his share of buildings in the state of West Virginia named after him because of all the money he has brought back to help build them. Not to mention that he has secured money for such unconstitutional projects like the "the Wood Education and Resource Center". $2.7 million of our tax dollars went to that to teach you and I about wood.
Thank God for government! I do not know how I would have learned anything about wood without this great organization! Honestly, the average American probably knows more about wood than anyone at that ridiculous place though. And those that have taken this money are no doubt busy studying the contents of Mr. Byrd's head apparently; a perfect specimen of wood.
And while we're in West Virginia, let's not forget about Byrd's partner in crime, Representative Allan Mollohan, who funneled $250 million dollars to non-profits which he himself set up. Conflict of interest? Or what about John Murtha? Ah yes, good old John ... the man has more money going to his district, which includes Johnstown, PA for "defense" projects that it is amazing there aren't aircraft carriers sitting in Laurel Ridge State Park!
And all the while, the people who these Congressmen represent as well as those of countless others with their hands in the proverbial "cookie jar" cheer. "What great things they are doing for our region!" they cry as they fawn over the money. And they empower our elected officials to continue to push for these monies year after year. And year after year we spend more and more on these earmarks at huge cost to the tax payers.
But that's ok right? Because the evil "rich" pay those taxes. And we know they are not paying their "fair share" right? And then we wonder why we are paying so much more for the goods and services we buy as these costs are passed on to us.
Meanwhile? These politicians are laughing all the way to the bank. Because they know you will keep voting for them as long as they bring home the pork and train you to salivate on cue. Yes, they've got us right where they want us.
By: J.J. Jackson
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts and Evil Conservative T-shirts.
Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.
Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.
For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.
Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:54:05 GMT - Is Ward Chruchill Too Dumb To Teach Our Kids?
This week Ward Churchill was fired by the University of Colorado. The university apparently decided that they should finally look into the man that they have allowed to run rampant around their campus and found that this was a man who stole the work of others (plagiarized), concocted events which he later passed off as "history", and committed other dubious acts of while within the world of academia.
Aside from what you think of his off the wall theories about how those that died in the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, were nothing more than "little Eichmans", there is a more important question that needs to be asked. That question is, is Ward Churchill too stupid to being teaching our children?
It's one thing to have ideas. It's one thing to postulate and form thoughts. But it is another to just be so disjointed from reality that you turn reality on its head. As an example of this, Ward Churchill's attorney (who is also probably too stupid to be practicing law as well) rushed to the microphones after the verdict by the and decried the firing as a violation of Mr. Churchill's "first amendment" rights. He ignored his client's actions, some of which are actual crimes, and scurried off to the courts to file suit.
Now I know that as a college professor Ward Churchill is probably not very rooted in reality and he has apparently found good company in his lawyer. It takes a person truly so far out in left field that they are sitting in the last row of bleachers to even come up with such a cockamamie idea. It's not like the first amendment is that hard to understand after all and I wonder if Mr. Churchill and his lawyer have been consulting Noam Chomsky on how to twist words.
Seriously, if one cannot understand the first amendment should they be anywhere near the minds of our children, teaching them and being paid for it?
The first amendment says, with regards to the freedom of speech, that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". The Constitution further prohibits the states from doing this as well through the 14th amendment which says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Ok, so since the "freedom of speech" is a privilege granted in the Constitution that means the states cannot a law infringing on it either.
The University of Colorado is certainly an arm of the state. It is state funded. So the question must be asked; did the university infringed on Mr. Churchill's "free speech" rights by firing him?
Hmm. Well it doesn't appear that they are preventing him from speaking. I do not see anything in their firing that "abridges" his "freedom of speech". Mr. Churchill can still speak. He hasn't been whisked away to a gulag. He just will no longer be allowed to "speak" on the taxpayer's dime.
Teachers are supposed to be mentors. They are supposed to impart wisdom. They are supposed to know more than their students. But it appears that Ward Churchill cannot even read. Now, considering the sorry state of our public education system in America these days, the fact that he seems to not have even a second grade knowledge of the English language might actually mean that he is more educated than many of his students.
The first amendment does not say that the government must pay you for your opinion. It does not say that it must supply you with a job in order to impart that opinion to others. It does not even say that they must provide you with a platform at the expense of other taxpayers to tell people what your opinion is. All it says is that the government cannot prevent you from speaking you opinion. So if you are not smart enough to understand this how is it that you are smart enough to be influencing young skulls full of oatmeal?
And while we are on the subject of "rights" wouldn't Ward Churchill's argument, which basically boils down to that that the state must provide him with a platform from which to speak, violate the right of the people to associate freely? If the people in charge of the University decide that they don't want Ward Churchill around, at what is supposed to be an institute of higher learning, shouldn't they be allowed that right? Or is it Mr. Churchill's contention that rights exist only for him and not others?
Beyond the farce that someone has trampled on Mr. Churchill's "free speech" rights, we still have to remember that just because you are "free" to speak your mind does not mean you are "free" from the consequences of your actions. There are long standing examples of this. Even the Constitution makes a notable exception to "free speech" when it says that the government can punish you for what you say if it provides "aid and comfort" to the enemy. It's called "treason". Look it up. Sure you can say it. But you might not like the results.
And then there are the legal exceptions based on long standing precedent and libertarian values that if what you say does real and measurable harm you can also be held accountable by the law. Oh, you can still say them, but you might not like the consequences. Examples of this are slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and lying under oath in a court of law.
The important thing to remember is that your "right" to your "freedom of speech" doesn't give you the right to be free from the repercussions of what you say. If people want to shun you and not pay you because they find your opinions repugnant then that is their right as well.
And if you believe otherwise I fully expect that you will begin to immediately petitioning the government to provide me with a federally funded position and stipend to help spread the words I write and would love to speak before many more people. About a million dollars should do it I think. Please put the check in the mail tomorrow.
By: J.J. Jackson
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Daily - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts and Evil Conservative T-shirts.
Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.
Take a break, have some laughs, visit our Lawyer Jokes pages.
For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.
Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:46:07 GMT - Democratic Vote Encourages Continued Theft of Union Dues
For decades corrupt union bosses, have violated the rights of union members. The number of convictions is shocking.
In those same decades, Democrats have joined right in with this scandalous behavior; fawning and bowing to every union demand in order to keep millions of dollars in donations rolling in, ignoring the corruption of those guilty and the harm to the workers whose dues have been misused.
In recent years, the Office of Labor Management Standards was created. Its role was to protect the dues and rights of union members.
Unions have very light filing requirements. This is amazing considering that as of 2005 they had $22 billion in assets. They only have to file once a year and are able to do so with a free software program. These easy requirements have very little expense and also draw very few audits.
Presumably unions have been so powerful and protected by the Democratic Party, that they have kept themselves relatively free of reporting requirements, despite massive corruption.
Corporations, on the other hand, must file every quarter, must follow standard accounting methods and get a certified independent audit.
Rules on corporations, since Enron, have become so stiff, that major corporations are taking their business to London, which is now predicted to pass the U.S. as the financial capitol of the world, largely as a result of over-regulation.
To Protect Union Dues The Labor Department Creates The OLMS
In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues.
So the actual job of the OLMS is to provide information to union members for what is happening to their money and to punish those who abuse the handling of union dues, either by embezzling or engaging in other schemes, i.e. engaging in any form of abusing the public trust.
Guess what!!! Democrats voted to cut money from the program that does this very modest oversight to protect workers.
This is the party that endlessly and shamelessly throws out the suggestion that they look act in behalf of the working man and working families.
It would be nice if once in a while Democrats backed up those words with actions. Sadly, millions of Americans buy into the hocus pocus of class warfare.
AFTER DECADES DEMOCRATS FIND A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THEY WANT TO CUT
In the upcoming budget, Democrats are already seeking $23 billion dollars more than President Bush requested. A huge amount of it is for pork/earmarks, after Democrats promised in no uncertain terms to radically change the Washington culture regarding earmarks. They have failed miserably, not only with earmarks; with practically all promises.
This week the ridiculous became the sublime.
One million dollars was allocated for something called the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure.
In a discussion on the House Floor, the Appropriations leader for the Democrats, who guides such bills, was asked if such a group even existed. He did not know. Unfazed, and with a mere one million dollars at stake, he allowed the vote to proceed.
Democrats passed the earmark by a wide margin.
Turns out it was for one of congresss famous pork kings, John Murtha of Pennsylvania. Worse, the group receiving the $1 million has given more than $7000 to Murtha over the last 7 years.
So while Democrats are on their usual spending and pork spree and have probably never cut a spending program which goes to their constituents; lo and behold they have now voted to cut one program.
They want to muzzle the one agency that tries to keep unions honest.
The whole matter begs the question:
Whose corruption is most detestable, unions or the Democratic Party?
Below are the number of Unfair Labor Practices filed against just four well known unions from 1998 to 2004.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) - 6,909
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - 3,910
United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) - 2,161
United Steel Workers of America (USWA) - 1,912.
Every voter should be aware of the following site.
Center For Union Facts
By: Mick McNesby
Mick McNesby is a former tax advisor, consultant and negotiator. He was a frequent guest on political talk shows in Atlantic City, N.J., discussing the benefits of the lower cost of government. He can be visited at http://conservative-politics-infofind.com.
Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.
Take a break, have some laughs, visit our attorney Jokes pages.
For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.
Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:19:53 GMT - President George W. Bush Speaks in Cleveland.
What an exciting day it was on Tuesday July 10th, 2007! This was the fourth time I had the opportunity to see President Bush speak and by far the most intimate setting with about 400 in attendance. It was held at the Intercontinental Hotel adjacent to the Cleveland Clinic. For all the problems Cleveland faces and being labeled the poorest large city in America its good to see the attention the city garnered during the Presidents visit. Cleveland is very important politically.
The hotel and surrounding area was buzzing with activity, from the secret service, FBI, police, the media and all the volunteers who help organize the event. It is amazing the amount of work that goes into preparation for a presidential visit. The media rooms were a spectacle to see. All the monitors, the maze of wires, computers, lights, cameras, its very impressive and hard to adequately describe, its really something that needs to be seen in person.
As for the Presidents speech he was warmly received and the tone was of a preelection rally. He was touting his objectives and goals on a wide array of topics, ranging from health care, immigration, oil and alternative fuels, faith based programs, space exploration, Iraq and a few other topics that he jumped around on from one to another.
There was three areas he spent some time on. Concerning Iraq President Bush reiterated his stance on why we should be there and that reason is establishing democracy is the key to peace in the middle east. He talked on reducing our dependence on oil, alternative fuels, our immediate goals and future solutions. He mentioned how ethanol production has increased and the benefits and problems associated with it. In the not to distant future hydrogen fuel cells, coal and finally wind technology could play a big role in reducing our dependence on oil. His immigration plan was explained. In short summary he is not for amnesty, illegals should be sent back and made to go through the proper channel's to apply for citizenship.
Someone had mentioned that President Bush is not the best speaker and stuttered quite a bit. I differ completely on that opinion. There is more than eloquence in delivering a speech.
President Bush comes across as a very likable person, down to earth, someone you could go have coffee with. He admits his shortcomings like when he was talking about the importance of faith based programs which helped him, in reference to his past. Though he may stumble and ponder for the word he is looking for, the facts and answers come easy. He is very believable in his deliverance. He also makes you feel at ease with his sense of humor which is important in this hectic world we live.
As I mentioned this is the fourth opportunity I have had to see President Bush speak and each time I walked away uplifted. This time was no different as I left feeling that there is a future for America and not a bleak one. That's what a good speaker should do, uplift and motivate a person. And that's what a good leader should do, instill confidence and hope in tomorrow.
By: Carey Masci
Mom would get so mad and reprimand me as a child when I would talk back to her. She would say.... you have all the answers. My reply.. of course I do otherwise you wouldn't ask. This has carried on in my adult life as I have an opinion about everything. At times I tend to miss the mark in trying to relay my thoughts verbally but in writing, which is a passion, I seldom miss the mark of what I am trying to convey.
I write frequently for the Lake Gop, lakegop.blogspot.com I am also in the process of adding a blog to my website, http://www.gogobus.cc which showcases my travels. I have contributed small articles to The Lake County News Herald. People have asked if I would write bio's for their on line sites. I have folders filled with short stories I have written that someday will be edited into book form.
Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.
Take a break, have some laughs, visit our attorney Jokes pages.
For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.
Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.
Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:31:33 GMT - Throwing Stones From Crony Filled, Glass Houses.
I wish I could go just one day without a prominent liberal throwing a stone from their own glass house. When Hillary Clinton said of the commutation of Scooter Libbys sentence by President Bush, What we saw today was elevating cronyism over the rule of law. And what we saw today was further evidence that this administration has no regard whatsoever for what needs to be held sacred, I had to laugh.
Does the name Billy Dale happen to ring any bells Senatorette Clinton? Remember the man that you and your husband trumped up embezzlement charges on just so you could get him out of the White House Travel Office, a position he held for three decades? And why? To give the position to Harry Thomason; Clinton crony.
Sure, maybe you can claim that you had nothing to do with that. And sure, maybe those fawning over you at your campaign stops might believe that. But the truth is different. When notes by David Watkins were subpoenaed in the case, they read that there were, periodic reports from Vince Foster that [the] First Lady had inquired about [the] Travel Office and why wasn't action being taken and that, they should be fired immediately and out of here by the end of the day.
Of course that wasnt the only case during the eight years of the Clinton presidency, but it illustrates the point pretty clearly. Especially considering that Billy Dale was found not guilty in a matter of hours and even eventually reimbursed by Congress for his costs that were accumulated in his defense against of Clinton cronyism.
The Bill Clinton pardon list also contains several instances of people that were pardoned for obstruction of justice and perjury. So much for things that need to be held sacred huh?
I hate to revisit the whole Scooter Libby affair but how can one let this sort of insanity go unanswered especially as Hillary holds hands and shares the stage with former President Clinton? History has got to account for something.
To boot I am still waiting for the justice that Scooter Libby obstructed and perjured himself in the pursuit of hiding to be prosecuted. Im still waiting for the known leaker, one Richard Armitage, to be hauled up on charges. I am still wondering how, if Armitage was known to be the leaker Libby could have obstructed anything.
If there was a crime here why did Fitzgerald not pursue Armitage? For that matter, why arent Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all the other demagogues on the left not out there demanding that Armitage be tried?
The answer? Because there was no crime. No crime means no obstruction of justice. No crime also means that the whole charade was nothing more than a perjury trap to get a conviction as close to President Bush as possible.
I hear liberals whine about the rule of law. But what does the law say? The law says that the President has the right to reprieve and pardon those convicted of crimes. Its right there in Article II of the Constitution which, I realize, is something most people have never really read. I realize that liberals only want the laws they like enforced and that those change on a day to day, if not an hour by hour basis, but come on.
The power of the pardon is certainly overused and abused by Presidents. Lists of pardons longer than my arm are granted by many presidents and mostly for political reasons and gain. But to say that the rule of law was not obeyed when they are granted is ignorant. The Constitution itself sets itself as the Supreme Law of the land.
But every now and again, presidential pardon powers are justified. Like when a man is accused and convicted of a crime in the non-cover-up of a non-crime while the man that actually non-committed the non-crime is never even charged because there was no crime.
Thats when it is justified.
And lets not forget that thus far all President Bush has done is give Scooter Libby a reprieve from his jail sentence after the judge ordered him to jail while he pushed forward his right to appeal. The conviction, as of right now, still stands pending appeal.
In the end, Libby will serve just as many days in prison as President William Jefferson Clinton did for willful perjury, suborning the perjury of others, obstructing justice, attempting to deny an American citizen her constitutionally guaranteed day in court as well as crimes associated with those acts; none.
By J.J. Jackson
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative and the owner and Lead Editor of the American Conservative Daily Blog The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly articles can be read at Liberty Reborn.
Featured by California Personal Injury Attorneys, a directory containing over 2000 links and listings for California personal injury attorneys.
Take a break, have some laughs, visit our attorney Jokes pages.
For articles, editorials and posts about California law see: California Law - Legal Information, a resource blog regarding various aspects of California law, written by attorneys and other professionals.
Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.
Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:58:35 GMT
