Welcome To 2011

Every new year is usually filled with expectation and hope. If you are watching or involved with government, you will no doubt notice some new laws and regulations which they tell us will make life better for the people.

This year, the state of California begins the annum novo with 725 new laws going into effect. It is already one of the most regulated and legislated states in the union. But that's okay, they obviously needed some more.

Here are but just a few from the short list provided in the link:

SB 782 prevents landlords from evicting tenants who are victims of domestic or sexual abuse or stalking.

So...the landlords must eat the costs of no rent from these people for how long? I am not sure it says, but I am not sure it matters to the authors. It's just another infringement on property rights, if you ask me.

AB 537 will make food stamps an acceptable form of payment at farmers markets through an EBT process.

Another business unfriendly measure designed to discourage people from starting a small produce market. Like many of these free enterprise hating measures, most of their ideas end up hurting small businesses more than the large corporations.

Forcing these businesses to use food stamps will cause a greater cost to the owners when it comes time to redeem them....and who says they will be able to? At the rate the government is going now, how long will they have any value at all?

SB 1317 allows the state to slap parents with a $2,000 fine if their K-8 child misses more than 10 percent of the school year without a valid excuse. It also allows the state to punish parents with up to a year in prison for the misdemeanor.

Not a bad law on the surface, we all know that parents need to be more accountable for their children's actions or inactions. For all of the food stamp/government check receiving parents, who sit at home on their asses, this may be applicable. But how will they penalize them? Will they take it out of their government checks?

And what if the parent is a hard working parent who shuns public assistance and must work hard every day to make ends meet? Every day they must go to work or face disciplinary issues and even termination at work. How will they be penalized? Will the state fine them incessantly for a kid who will just not go? Will they do it to the point where the parent ends back on public assistance?

AB 715 makes a change to the California Green Building Standards code. The change will require new California buildings to be energy efficient.

More business killing legislation to prevent global warming...er, I mean, climate change. And they wonder why the corporate tax base in the Golden State is shrinking. If I owned a business in California that wasn't dependent on Californians, I'd be getting out as fast as I could.

AB 12 allows foster youth to acquire state services until the age of 21.

Adding more debt to the state that is already broke...at the taxpayer's expense. At 18, they can join the military. Why does the state need to provide services to California's foster children, when they could get a job?

Oh...I forgot. There are no jobs because there is a shrinking corporate taxe base, because businesses are fleeing....and we need people to learn how to stay dependent on government. How silly of me.

SB 1399 allows California to medically parole state prison inmates with physical incapacitating conditions and ultimately shifts some of the cost of care to the federal government.

Putting killers back on the street so that the federal government can pick up the tab? People in other states are soon going to be bailing California out, one way or another. If not by a huge money payout, they'll do it by incremental shifts in burdens like this. A little here, a little there, pretty soon you'll wish you just wrote them a check and could be done with it.

AB 97 bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities.

More freedom lost.

Maybe if they try hard enough, they can follow the lead of the warped nanny-city of San Fransicko and ban Happy Meals statewide.

Look.... there are needs for laws, we all know that.

If humans weren't so self-serving and dishonest, there would be no need for a lot of them. But I cannot help wondering if we need to enforce the good laws we already have and implement punishments to fit the crimes, before we start tacking on things that infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizens and those who are working to keep this economy moving. 

We certainly do not need to make laws to appease the false prophets like the social justice lamebrains, the Global Warming ministry, and the race-baiting racists just to shut them up. They do not produce anything...except idiocy.

So once again, welcome to MMXI. Leave your sense of humor at the door. Because if the newly elected Congress doesn't start a corrective process and path,  you may find yourself crying a lot this year.

As The Cookie Crumbles

Nothing like a good soap opera to piss off the masses. And as in most soaps, there are instances in real life when people just cannot leave people alone, when they can't get their way.

One such instance is the flap going on about a vendor's refusal to take a special order from a gay activist group for rainbow colored cookies, for "National Coming Out Day". The vendor's name is Just Cookies and they lease a space in the municipally owned facility called the City Market.

What actually transpired is a little unclear to this author. One story said the order was for rainbow colored cupcakes. Other media outlets reported the order was for cookies. It does make a little difference when you think about the name of the store, in question. The very name says "just cookies" and only an idiot would think that cupcakes would be on the menu.

But now the stakes have been raised higher and the story gets better.

Now that the thing has been blown out of proportion by the militant wing of the local gay community, the order has become irrelevant. It has become an issue on whether the store has the right to refuse a special order based on what the order represents or is bound by city ordinance to produce anything that a protected special interest group demands, when they demand it.

In Indianapolis, the city ordinance is clear that gays are a protected group. But the co-sponsors of that ordinance have supported the bakery's rights by clarifying that the ordinance protects against discrimination in matters of housing, education, and employment. Nowhere in the wording is there any implication that a business must sell special ordered cookies with rainbows on them.  Nowhere in the wording does it imply a business must be compelled to support any political cause that is against their personal belief system.

So according to the militants who want to use this as a political issue by using government to do their bullying for them, the bakery should lose its lease. These people are no different than other opportunists who want to create a crisis, when one does not exist.

There was no reason the organizer who tried to place the order couldn't have ordered the cookies and decorated them anyway they wanted. If the owner had then refused, there may have been more ground to stand on in their complaint. Or, they could have just said "thank you" and called another bakery. But instead, they wanted to take a page out of the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson playbooks and seek media attention so they could advance their cause free of charge.

Imagine a world where any business owner would be forced to produce whatever a potential buyer wants, for fear of being labeled a bigot, a racist, or a hater of any kind.  We are getting close to that world now. What has started out as a noble quest for equality, fairness, and justice for people who have been historically wrongly discriminated against has now become a quest for empowerment. Instead of seeking out real instances of wrong treatment, they are more than content to manufacture and exaggerate them.

Doing this only diminishes any cause's credibility and risks missing a real instance that needs to be addressed and corrected. Maybe the old children's fable of "the boy who cried wolf" should be retaught and reviewed at the upper levels of education, instead of the crap they are putting out now.

Female Terror Suspect Caught

One by one they fall. It may take much time, energy, and patience. But they fall.

If you have been sleeping off a hangover, you may have missed the latest news of a high value target being captured.

One of the more elusive and mysterious figures linked to Al Qaeda -- a Pakistani mother of three who studied biology at MIT and who authorities say spent years in the United States as a sleeper agent -- was flown to New York on Monday night to face charges of attempting to kill U.S. military and FBI personnel in Afghanistan.

She is due in court in New York today.

An MIT-educated Pakistani woman with suspected links to al Qaeda was to appear in court in New York Tuesday on charges of shooting at American officers while in Afghan custody last month.

But, the story doesn't end there.

Pakistan has demanded consular access to a Pakistani woman with suspected links to al Qaeda who is due to be arraigned in New York on Tuesday on charges of attempting to murder U.S. troops and FBI agents in Afghanistan.

Now we have months (maybe even years) of legal wrangling to go through, nationally and internationally. We will have attorneys and apologists with conspiracy theories about how we really caught this woman.

Pakistan and the world community will condemn the US for something in this situation, just you wait and see. They will cry foul all along the way, seek every injunction, object to every proceeding, and will use the media to make its case at every opportune moment.

During this time, it is highly likely Amnesty International and its like-minded fans will complain about prison conditions despite the fact she will get three squares a day according to her dietary customs, color TV, recreation, and any other perk they can think of along the way.

This is what we get when we allow these people into our civilian court system.

Media Survivalists: The Marketing Of Words And Personality

If you haven't had an opportunity to read Ramesh Ponnuru's essay in Time Magazine, centered on the media's love affair with Barack Obama, I recommend doing so and soon. He makes some interesting points worthy of some serious consideration, on the reasons the media is so biased.

But I want to break it down a bit further, if I might. We'll start with this snippet:

Why are the media so smitten with Obama? Journalists have an affinity for the Democratic nominee in part because he is a wordsmith and they make a living manipulating words and symbols, so they have a special appreciation for his gifts.

Maybe it's because attorneys love words. Attorneys seem to gravitate towards the Democratic party for a host reasons, not the least of them (like the author says), Democrats love words.

Words are part of our life, we use them to communicate. We use them to persuade and to convince. The attorney's main objective is to win an argument, usually and presumably with some good evidence. And when there is little or no evidence, they must use words to make compelling cases. If they win their cases, they get paid.

The media uses words to support their claims too. This similarity certainly stands out like a NASCAR fan in a European coffee house, but there is one stark difference that I would point out in the context of this argument: Attorneys, for the most part, make their cases to judges and juries. Unless they are in a high profile case that some hotshot wants to try his case in the media beforehand (for advertising purposes), the arguments are confined to courts and conference rooms used for depositions.

By contrast, the media takes its cases directly to the people. They make their money by selling periodicals and in the case of electronic media, high ratings. The more magazines and newspapers being sold, the more people watching news commentary shows, the more money the media makes.

Enter teachers and professors, the backbone of the education community. They make their living using words too. They must come up with persuasive words using innovation and creativity to teach kids and adults. They, too, are attracted by the Democratic party. They, too, have an affinity for the media when it reflects their ideological positions. These are positions that are usually in direct conflict with the conservatives' philosophical belief systems. Naturally, they will gravitate to those that share their views.

Teachers may not make more money, but professors do. They sell their books and many command some hefty speaking fees when able to effectively articulate their ideas unchallenged in a contradictory forum.

All three of these professions are highly dependent on words. All three are better explained and can be found, in this piece at the website of The Heritage Foundation.

But let's move on, shall we. There is one other reason Ponnuru has pointed out here, one that most people are already aware of:

But another part of the reason is, yes, plain old liberal bias. McCain was a press darling when he was a maverick dissenting from the Republican Party from points left. Obama has become one by succeeding as a down-the-line liberal. When McCain decided this time around to court conservative Republican voters as much as liberal reporters, the coverage of him became more critical. Notice a pattern?

I do notice a pattern here. I also notice another pattern.

Media sales of companies that show an open liberal bias are down. Let's look at Time-Warner as an example. TW stocks were $19.25 a share in September, of last year. In March of this year, they were as low as $13.91. Today they closed at up a little, at $14.40. March is right about the time Time realized the path was leading to self-destruction and began to do a better job of fair coverage. They still have their liberal pundits, but they are printing more articles like the one I am citing for this post. As a result, sales are up somewhat but certainly nothing to write home about.

In November of last year, Newsweek's parent company The Washington Post Company stock was at $857.92 a share. By June of this year, it was down to $559. Today, it closed at $607. WaPo has been hurt by declining circulation and it's subsidiary Newsweek has remained stagnant, which in economic terms can be considered a decrease when you factor in the growth of the rest of the economy.

Some of the circulation woes can be attributed to the shift from print media to the internet, but that doesn't take into account the drop in ad revenues. This is what fuels the stock prices and with stocks down, it's hard to give much too much credence to this switch in mediums.

But there's one last reason Ramesh highlights as a partial plausible explanation for this massive public perception of media bias:

Obama is on more magazine covers in part, they note, because those issues sell better than McCain covers. McCain is a familiar figure who has been involved in presidential politics for nearly a decade, while Obama's rapid rise--from state senator to presidential nominee in four years--is part of what makes him a compelling story.

Part of this is BS and the other part is true. There has to be an impact with such a rising personality coming out of seemingly nowhere only to wrest the nomination from a Clinton machine that at one time was as close to Obama status, as anyone else has ever been before. People are bound to buy more periodicals that feature this shooting star, whom they do not know. But much of this is fueled by the periodicals, themselves.

Let's consider who is buying. I would be interested to know how the demographics break down in regard to sales. Obama has a younger following than McCain. His supporters appear to be based in the academic scene, made up mostly of students. They have more expendable income, so they could be the ones that are keeping the news weeklies from crashing. In other words, they have a target audience that is fanatical about Obama that translates into a cash cow.

In the end, there's not much any of us can do, except watch how we spend our dollars. We can only hope that thinking people will carefully consider giving some quality thought to what I am saying here and ask themselves - who would they rather trust to minimize the damage caused by government? I say this because neither of these people are what I think we need. Clearly, one of them is certainly better suited to lead this nation than the other. But, I have no delusions that either of them is a panacea for what ails us. Only the people that must bear the brunt of the load can pull us out of it, by demanding better leaders at all levels.

More importantly, I hope that thinking people do not allow themselves to get caught up into the desperate sales campaign that is going on, while the real campaign gets overlooked.

The State Of Education And The ICLU's Newest Protected Class

Many times schools do not meet standards and need some corrective action. One of those actions can include adding school days to the calendar to catch students up in areas where they are deficient. John Marshall High School and three others are in this category, locally.

Last Monday was the first day of the new school year. It is estimated that 800 kids will be in attendance this year, but as of Monday only 400 were enrolled and only 300 actually showed up.

Enter Lawrence Township Trustee Mike Hobbs and his solution to the problem:

Parents of truant John Marshall High School students will find it difficult to collect financial aid from the Lawrence Township trustee's office if their kids don't get to class.

Trustee Mike Hobbs said he would stall poor relief payments to guardians of children who are supposed to be attending John Marshall's early-start school year, but aren't.

By Wednesday morning, he had put holds on two such cases.

With no magical solution to this problem, one man decided he would try something drastic. Amazingly, there has been some improvement in attendance by the week's end.

But this is not where the story ends. According to a local radio talk show host that usually gets good information out on the reporting trail, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union has threatened legal action against Hobbs if he makes good on his promise.

We already have protected classes galore, in this country. But now, we have Indiana's version of the ACLU calling the poor a protected class. But somehow in all of this, I just cannot help but think the ICLU has missed the point here.

If we are ever to have any hope for children to get out of that sense of hopelessness/despair that our liberal friends say causes so many problems (to include crime), getting their asses into the classroom has to be the beginning of such an undertaking.

This alone will not be the only component to solving this problem, but it has to start somewhere. And while many of the schools are on the wrong path to educating our children, attendance is not the responsibility of the schools. It is the responsibility of the parents to make sure their kids are where they are supposed to be, when they are supposed to be there. And if parents disagree with the way schools are educating their kids, one must ask: How many school board meetings they have attended and what kind of school board members have they voted for in the past?

In the end, No Child Left Behind may turn out to be a dismal failure. From what I have seen so far, it hasn't been overly successful so far. But this isn't too surprising when you consider, nothing that comes from the federal government has ever been shown to be very effective. Certainly, this program is no different. If we want to trace the current set of problems in the schools today, just go back to the creation of the Department of Education and work your way forward. Do the math and you will see.

Still, this is no excuse for not attending. True, there may be little hope for Johnny getting a quality education and getting out of the cycle of poverty, as it stands now. But that hope index drops to zero if he is at home, sleeping in until noon, playing video games and watching Jerry Springer on TV.

League Of Women Voters Files Lawsuit Against Indiana Voter ID Law

From the Evansville Courier-Press comes this gem of a story:

The League of Women Voters of Indiana filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the state’s voter ID law as a violation of the state constitution.

The new challenge comes less than two months after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Indiana law and found that states may require photo identification at the polls.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled, this law is constitutional. Yet, for some unknown reason, these people seem to want to re-invent the wheel at every possible turn. Instead of accepting the SCOTUS decision, they want to place more burden on the taxpayers of Indiana by filing another frivolous lawsuit from another angle.

The league’s challenge, naming Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita as defendant, is based on a section of the state constitution requiring changes in voting eligibility to be enacted only by amending the constitution, said the group’s president, Joanne Evers.

“The law hinders and discourages Indiana voters from participating in our representative government of checks and balances,” she said.

What a crock. Ms. Evers should get a real job somewhere, as she obviously has very little meaning or purpose in her life right now. The fact that she is using this same tired old argument of disenfranchising voters, tells me she has trouble accepting decisions, in which she cannot claim victory. Instead of accepting the fact that none of the many claims by opponents of this law have been upheld or otherwise validated, they press onward with an idiotic agenda.

Welcome to Indiana's version of "Ground Hog's Day".

The Racism Hoax

A noose in Jena Louisiana leads to a brutal beating of a teen. The rest of the story is now well-known, it culminates with massive protests sparked by race baiting activists. Ask the activists why the beating took place, it is blamed on the noose.

Another noose is found at a Columbia University black professor's office door. Again, there is an outcry and protests ensue.

At Ball State University in Indiana, an African-American basketball coach finds a racist hate note, slipped under the door of his office. Didn't hear about it? Here is a search that gives plenty of reaction to that one. The outcome? The coach resigns. But if we read a follow-up, there's more than meets the eye, in this one.

More recently, a swastika was found painted on a door at George Washington University dorm room door. But, the culprit was the student that filed the complaint.

So, now we have to ask ourselves some questions about the nooses in Jena and Columbia, as well as the racial hate note at BSU. Could it be possible that they were planted to incite protests and possibly riots? Has there been any proof that these things weren't hoaxes as well?

Clarence Page has an op-ed piece that you won't want to miss. I recommend reading it before buying into the madness and the frenzy that usually follows something like hanging a noose, at least until you know the entire story.

Racism is big business, at least it is for the likes of Jackson and Sharpton. Something to think about, before jumping on some outrage bandwagon.

Emotionalism vs. Rational Thinking (And The Rule Of Law)

My generation is regressing. Instead of being the savory sages that dole out words of wisdom to the younger generation, some of us are exacerbating the youthful impetuousness of our younger generations.

Today, war protesters desperately try to make the comparison of this war, with the Vietnam War. Although there are some similarities in some areas, to include the guerrilla tactics of the enemy, it really isn't a re-creation of that conflict (as much as some would like to have us all believe). The fact is, it's a war and like all wars, they are not good. But it's a unique conflict unto itself and must be treated as such.

Follow that up with the fact that civil rights leaders are desperately trying to compare the case of six boys that brutally attacked another, with Rosa Parks not wanting to give up her seat on the bus. In my wildest imaginations, I cannot figure out where anyone with an ounce of sense could even imply such a thing. These are two entirely different situations, in two entirely different times.

But before we go any further with this, let's focus on something here, if only for a moment.

There is a desire on the part of some to re-create their youthful experiences. For many, it was a safer time in their lives. They had less responsibility then, now they have aging parents that require attention and at the same time, they have older kids that need launched into the world. Many feel sandwiched in. Maybe it's a lack of feeling a certain sense of accomplishment or as in the case of Cindy Sheehan, who suffered a serious trauma with the loss of her son. I don't know for sure, what everyone's case is. But one thing rings true, many are looking backward and trying to re-live something that cannot be fully re-lived. As a result, they are getting it wrong.

As I look back to my youth, I remember a lot of emotions, impulsive behaviors, and lack of real understanding of the world. This was not because I was stupid or dumb, I just didn't know any better. I just didn't have the experiences necessary to properly analyze things enough, in order to form adequate judgments on things. I didn't have the impulse control that I have now.

But today, I see people that should be wiser and more prudent, leaving an angry legacy to the next generation. Much of this is because of this regression that I have described.

In some cases they are fueling the fire of anger that naturally occurs with youthful inexperience, exploiting younger people's passionate feelings for their own purpose. In other words, they are using emotionalism as opposed to sound judgment and reason, to advance their causes. Anytime you can create a cause based on a feeling, you can create a certain mob reaction. When emotions take over a person or a cause, rational thinking can fall prey to them quite easily; and as we saw from the Duke case, it can lead to so much hysteria that common sense is cast aside, in favor of the impassioned moment.

One of the biggest things that will invoke inflamed emotions is a racial issue, real or imagined. But sometimes, after the emotion has subsided, if we stop and look at the situation in a reasonable manner, we might just see things from a different perspective.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have manufactured many injustices, for the sole purpose of justifying their own existences. They have used a number of overblown incidents to incite emotionally charged reactions. It comes as no surprise to me, when they beat their drums for the cameras. They love the limelight.

But beyond all of this, I want to be clear about something here.

I know and understand, there have been countless well-documented instances of injustices done to blacks, throughout the course of history. From the days of slavery to the Jim Crow era, there have been some bad things done. There is no denying this, whatsoever. Still today, there are instances of true discrimination and acts of real racism that occur. But even so, it's important to note that there are injustices done to people of all colors, nationalities, and religions, for a variety of reasons, from time to time. Injustice, as an entity itself, knows no boundaries.

Now, we have all heard the complaints from Jesse, Al, and many others in the Jena 6 case; they have been well-documented through media reports and have received more than their rightful share of exposure. But how many people have tried to see this through the eyes of the prosecutor of these six kids? How many can honestly say, they would feel the same way if the roles were reversed? And, how many can say they know and understand the laws that the law enforcers have to work with, in this situation?

If you have yet to consider these things, maybe you should read something from the perspective of the prosecutor in this case. Maybe you should look at this from the eyes of someone that has to uphold the existing laws and make sure that the law is fairly applied to all. But more importantly, you have to see the bottom line here: A crime was committed. The man, the people elected to prosecute that crime and others, has a story and it deserves to be heard.

After all, isn't that the reasonable and rational way to judge an argument?

Waiting For Murtha

The title should read Waiting For Godot, because that's what waiting for an apology from Rep. John Murtha is like. Let's take a look at a short video and see how the Congressman from Pennsylvania tap dances his way out, when confronted:




(Hat Tip: Greg)

Note how when he is pressed, Murtha gets angry and asks the young reporter if he had been in the service; then he invokes his own military service as some justification for making himself judge, jury, and executioner, when this case first came to light. Well Mr. Murtha, I have been in the service. I, too, served my country honorably. Will you take the same question from me?

What Murtha and many others had hoped in the case was for this to become, Iraq's My Lai. But one by one, charges are being dropped. So, it appears there is less of a "there" there, certainly less than when they came into the airwaves last year accusing young men assigned an incredibly difficult task, of horrendous crimes.

It wasn't that they asked for the investigation, that's perfectly within their rights. But, they made it sound like it had been established as fact, before any of the judicial proceeding or investigation results were even known. They presumed guilt before innocence and in my view, violated these men's constitutional rights, before God, man, and the media.

Note this performance:




There are two lines of investigation going on here, the alleged crime itself and the alleged cover-up. You can read a brief review of the latest charges to be dropped in this case, here in the AFP.

No folks, these people like Murtha sing a good song for the cameras, when they want to play politics. But they cannot even bring themselves to issue an apology, when they are wrong. And these are the people that are serving us in such a vital capacity. These are the people that represent us.

All he has to do is apologize, I'll You Tube it right here, and we'll move on.

So, come on Congressman. What's the song going to be? Silence Is Golden? Or I'm Sorry?

The Costs Of Impeachment

You know, there was a time I thought the GOP was mean-spirited and seething with anger and hostility - all over the fact that their candidates didn't win an election. I argued with many Republicans at that time, over the way they went after Clinton. Whether someone liked him or not, I still felt there was no reason to impeach him, especially because there was not enough votes to remove him. And even though the charge was perjury, taking it forward just for show was not a valid reason to tie up the nation's business in a meaningless action. But more importantly, I thought his sex-life was something that was not important enough to make an issue of, to begin with. In short, it simply was not wise to blow $12 million and waste months on the people's nickel, on what turned out to be consensual sex.

With that said, let's fast forward to today.

We now know, we can count Sen. Barbara Boxer along with joining the irrational Bush haters and calling for the impeachment process to begin. And so, once and again, we may see millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, blown away, in order to (ab)use a process, for nothing more than partisan political reasons. And the reason for my thinking this way is simple. They know they do not have a true case for anything that is impeachable.

The infamous sentence commutation?

Where did the President break the law? History already bears out the use of the pardon as a reward. No crime committed, long story short, problem solved. Next.

Starting a war?

How quickly some of us forget who advocated for it, supported it, and voted for it. The resolution that was passed, was passed for the specific purpose of authorizing the President to use force. He was given permission to do it, by Congress. Congress said he could. No crime.

Lying to start a war?

Where's the proof? Where's the crime, even if he did. He wasn't under oath. No perjury, no crime, absent solid proof. Many Democrats believed that the guy had WMDs, they had been making speeches and even bombed them for effect, when it was necessary to divert attention. It was very much believed widely, by many officials on both sides of the aisle, for the entire time Clinton and Gore was in office. What? Now they want take-backs? Do overs?

Taking civil rights away?

Listening to phone calls of those suspected of being involved with terrorist organizations would have been done, had FDR been president. He suspended his share of civil rights along the way during WWII, namely those of Japanese-Americans. His administration certainly restricted the press, and generally did many things that normally would not have been done had there not been people that were trying to harm the nation in some way. In fact, you'd have a hard time persuading me to believe that HST, JFK, and LBJ would not have done the same thing, as well. Nope, precedent has been set for this long ago. Nothing there. Not a crime.

For outing Valerie Plame?

Earth to moon, earth to moon. Bush didn't do leak her name. Someone under him did it. Bush can't be legally charged with something, he didn't actively do. There's a whole list of names that were embroiled in this whole stinking mess, to choose from. Libby was charged and convicted, but to date no one else has been tried. And if you think there is enough legal evidence to prove that Bush or Cheney gave the order, you'd have to think again. There just isn't. Even if either did give the order, it cannot be proven unless you go after the ones that actually did it and cut them deals to testify against the President. So far, that hasn't happened.

So meanwhile, it's now July and Congress hasn't passed much of anything to benefit the American people. In short, they haven't done a damned thing to earn their salaries this year. But rest assured, they sure have been fixated on bringing down another President, for payback purposes.

Think about this for a moment. One can make the ethical argument, one can make the moral argument. And they can do it (all day long) in their little sound bites, their posturing moments, and their campaign speeches. But that is not enough to legally bring any charges against Mr. Bush. With things as they are at present, there just is no good sensible or reasonable case that can be made, to tie up the legislative process for the period of the upcoming campaign.

After you have thought about that, then, let's take a trip down memory lane and remember some things.

In my lifetime I have seen impeachment hearings against two Presidents. The Democrats drew first blood.

In the case of Nixon, one can argue there was good cause or reason to set a standard. And while I think the only reason he got caught was the fact that he made too many enemies along the way, he was to blame for much of his trouble, for covering it up.

Still freshly empowered (to the point of delusion) over that victory, the Dems had hoped to perform this again with Reagan, in the Iran-Contra affair. It didn't lead to impeachment, but it was looked at as a possibility, if (and only if) North or Poindexter would have implicated the President for a deal. Do not think for one moment that it wasn't looked at and hoped for, despite the fact it didn't happen.

Then, it was the GOP's turn with Clinton. (SEE: Opening Paragraph)

Now it's time for payback on the payback? It's very much sounding like it is.

Where will it all end? Is this what we really deserve? I know we always say we get the government we deserve, but why do we insist on letting these clowns keep wasting taxpayer money so they can spend the entirety of their terms getting something on someone, just because someone does not like or agree with him/her? Why do we still keep voting for them?

At this rate, we won't need to worry about the Jihadists. We have an entity that has taken on the form of an out-of-control beast, which is also self-serving, corrupt, and guilty of the same hypocrisy, as those they try to smear. We seem to have the ability to destroy ourselves slowly and painfully.

So, you know what? When I see all of this happening day after day, week after week, I often think of something:

When some future civilization's archeologists' dig up the rubble and ruins of Washington DC, I highly suspect they will all be astonished at what they are likely to find. There will be many skeletons found in their natural state and they will all be found, pointing their fingers.

Democratic Backlash At Libby Sentence Commutation

Yesterday, President Bush exercised his broad and unreviewable power, granted to him in Article II of the U.S. Constitution to pardon and commute sentences, to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby. Today, if you make the rounds of left-wing blogs you will see that anger is abound.

It starts something like this.

Then, after a person has stewed on it long enough, it advances to something like this.

Tomorrow, who knows?

But in all of the Left's rage and anger, they are forgetting something. There is a list, somewhere, that is not part of the rational debate process.

I had it somewhere.

Oh yes.

Here it is:

Pardons Granted By President Clinton (1993-2001)

So, Bush commutes one sentence (doesn't pardon, mind you) and he's labeled, Satan. Clinton does it on a wide and massive scale, and there's a deafening silence.

Can anyone truly see why I think the majority of the Democratic Party is mired in hypocrisy? The Democratically-led Congress's poll numbers are the worst in poll history right now. There's a reason for this and part of it stems from their blatant hypocrisy. The other part stems from their broken promises.

I do not know how I feel about Libby's commutation. On one hand, I am not sure I like it. But when you look at the fact that others that are less than innocent in the entire affair are walking free, it doesn't seem so unreasonable. It's damn sure more reasonable than pardoning members of a terrorist organization and cocaine dealers. But that's just my opinion.

What Are Your Pants Worth?

Here's a real gem for your daily outrage moment.

Meet Roy Pearson. He is suing a dry cleaner for $65 million, all because his pants were lost.

A customer got so steamed when a dry cleaner lost his trousers that he sued for $65 million. Two years later, he is still pressing his suit.

The case has demoralized the South Korean immigrant owners of the mom-and-pop business and brought demands that the customer -- an administrative law judge in Washington -- be disbarred and removed from office for pursuing a frivolous and abusive claim.

Never mind the pants were later found, never mind that the dry cleaners have offered to settle for outrageous, unjust, and highly undeserved amounts just to make this go away. No, this jerk is still using the legal system to harass hard-working people. But the clincher is, this man's job is to render legal judgments and no doubt has had to toss out some frivolous complaints, during his tenure.

Apparently he has a history of frivolity, as can be seen here in his appeal of his divorce decree. (Hat Tip: Overlawyered)

From the court document:

Roy L. Pearson, Jr. (husband) appeals from a final decree of divorce awarded to Rhonda S.
VanLowe (wife) on the ground that the parties lived separate and apart without cohabitation for one
year pursuant to Code  20-91(A)(9)(a).  Husband contends that the trial court erroneously:
1) granted the divorce based on a separation date of October 15, 1999, or October 21, 2001;
2) denied his request for sanctions pursuant to Code .01-271.1; 3) denied his request for spousal
support; 4) failed to grant him a reservation of future spousal support; and 5) awarded wife
attorney's fees.  He also requests recusal of the trial judge on remand.  For the reasons that follow,
we affirm the trial court on all issues except husband's request for a reservation of future support.

An attorney wanted spousal support, how ridiculous is that?

But now as the story grows some legs, the call from most decent people is for Mr. Pearson to be removed from his position, so he can pursue his dream of abusing the legal system, in private practice.

In my mind, he should not only be removed, but he should be disbarred, made to pay the dry cleaners' legal expenses, and given a prominent place in the Mike Nifong Memorial Hall of Fame for arrogant jerks that once had a law license.