Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
How many courts need to rule on this ?????
Killing Terri Schiavo: Part II
Thomas Sowell
March 25, 2005
Liberals have repeatedly used the talking point of how many judges have heard the case of Terri Schiavo. But that is as misleading as most of the rest of what they and the mainstream media have been saying.
When a case goes up to a higher court on appeal, the issue before the appellate court is not whether they agree with the merits of the decision of the lower court. In a criminal case, for example, the issue before the appellate court is not whether the defendant was guilty or innocent, but whether the trial was conducted properly.
In other words, the defendant is not supposed to be tried again at the appellate level. So, no matter how many appellate judges rule one way or the other, that tells you absolutely nothing about the fundamental question of guilt or innocence.
Similar principles apply in a civil case, such as that of Terri Schiavo. Liberals can count all the judges they want, but that does not mean that all these judges agreed with the merits of the original court's decision. It means that they found no basis for saying that the original court's decision was illegal.
What the law just passed by Congress did was authorize a federal court to go back to square one and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch -- "de novo" as the legislation says in legal terminology.
That is precisely what the federal courts have refused to do. There is no way that federal District Judge James Whittemore could have examined this complex case, with its contending legal arguments and conflicting experts, from scratch in a couple of days, even if he had worked around the clock without eating or sleeping.
Judge Whittemore ignored the clear meaning of the law passed by Congress and rubberstamped the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
Nor could the judges on the Court of Appeals have gone through all of this material "de novo" in a couple of days after Judge Whittemore's decision. They have added to the number of judges that liberals can count but they have not followed the law -- which is what really counts.
The federal judges have rushed to judgment -- in a case where there was no rush legally, despite a medical urgency. Terri Schiavo was not dying from anything other than a lack of food and water. These federal judges could have ordered the feeding tube restored while they gave this issue the thorough examination authorized -- and indeed prescribed -- by the recent Congressional legislation.
As dissenting Judge Charles Wilson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the "entire purpose of the statute" is to let federal courts look at the case "with a fresh pair of eyes." But, by the Circuit Court's decision, "we virtually guarantee" that the merits of the case "will never be litigated in a federal court" because Terri Schiavo will be dead. Never -- regardless of how many judges are counted as talking points.
The liberal line, both in politics and in the media, is that Congress somehow behaved unconstitutionally. All federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress. The Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define or restrict the jurisdictions of federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Is the Constitution unconstitutional?
The lessons of this tragic episode are as momentous as they are painful, if only because we should never want to see such a miscarriage of justice again. The issue is not only whether Terri Schiavo should live or die, important as that is.
Another important issue is whether self-government in this country will live or die. Judges who ignore the laws passed by elected representatives are slowly but surely replacing democracy with judicial rule. Meanwhile, the media treat judges as sacrosanct and any criticism of them as almost blasphemy.
All this adds more urgency to the need to put judges on the courts who will follow the written law, not their own notions. We can only hope that the Senate Republicans have the guts to do that.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050325.shtml
tis
Evening Ergo...
I can always count on you my friend :)
I must ask though...if a person commits to being coffee shop worker for the rest of their lives...what amount of SS would they receive...very little...no?
I must ask from you another time to respond more...nite is late here...
till then...
Best to you and yours...
tis
Bookmarked them both...(edit)
I shall look into the articles within when time permits...
Seems to be alot of conversation concerning Terri Schiavo...
I came across this on the Michael Savage website (linked from http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/22/235813.shtml )
Second, Third Nurse Accuse Michael Schiavo
Two additional nurses have filed affidavits in the Terri Schiavo case that corroborate bombshell allegations by nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, who went public on Tuesday with claims that Michael Schiavo had deliberately withheld treatment from his disabled wife.
Heidi Law was a certified nursing assistant at the Palm Garden Convalescent Center in Largo, Fla., where she treated Mrs. Schiavo in 1997.
Story Continues Below
In an affidavit filed with the court in August 2003, Ms. Law maintained:
"I know that Terri did not receive routine physical therapy or any other kind of therapy. I was personally aware of orders for rehabilitation that were not being carried out. Even though they were ordered, Michael would stop them."
Law continued:
"Michael ordered that Terri receive no rehabilitation or range of motion therapy. I and [another CNA] would give Terri range of motion anyway, but we knew we were endangering our jobs by doing so.
"We usually did this behind closed doors," Law said, because "we were so fearful of being caught ... we were always looking out for Michael, because we knew that, not only would Michael take his anger out on us, but he would take it out more on Terri. We spoke of this many times."
"At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened.
"On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely. I did not do it more often only because I was so afraid of being caught by Michael."
Like nurse Iyer, Law suspected that Michael was mistreating Terri, noting in her sworn statement:
"Several times when Michael visited Terri during my shift, he went into her room alone and closed the door. This worried me because I didn’t trust Michael.
"When he left, Terri was very agitated, was extremely tense with tightened fists and sometimes had a cold sweat. She was much less responsive than usual and would just stare out the window, her eyes kind of glassy. ...
"We were convinced that he was abusing her, and probably saying cruel, terrible things to her because she would be so upset when he left."
"The Palm Gardens staff, myself included, were just amazed that a 'Do Not Resuscitate' order had been put on Terri’s chart, considering her age and her obvious cognitive awareness of her surroundings."
Carolyn Johnson, a certified nursing assistant who worked at the Sabal Palms nursing home in Largo, said Terri's mistreatment went back to at least 1993.
"During this assignment I took care of Terri Schiavo several times," Johnson said in her own August 2003 affidavit.
"I learned, as part of my training, that there was a family dispute and that the husband, as guardian, wanted no rehabilitation for Terri. This surprised me, as I did not think a guardian could go against a doctor's orders like that, but I was assured that a guardian could and that this guardian had gone against Terri's doctor's orders."
Johnson recalled: "No one was allowed to just go in and see Terri. Michael had a visitors list. We all knew that we would lose our jobs if we did not do exactly what Michael said to do."
Johnson continued:
"I remember seeing Michael Schiavo only once the entire time I worked at Sabal Palms, but we were all aware that Terri was not to be given any kind of rehabilitative help, per his instructions.
"Once, I wanted to put a cloth in Terri's hand to keep her hand from closing in on itself, but I was not permitted to do this," Johnson said, "as Michael Schiavo considered that to be a form of rehabilitation."
Now...I cannot state this as true or untrue...I am not/have never been near the Schiavo's...so it is merely another speculation in print in my views...
I do not agree with the political agenda that is apparent in this...on both sides...
But...I view the wishes of the parents in more regard then I do that of Michael...true love is a tremendous thing...many people would not endure what this family has endured...fifteen years they have been there...fifteen years is a long time to be "selfish" (as some would put it)...
If they see hope...then so do I...
Peace to you and yours...
tis
Forgot the Savage link...
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
Evening 4godnwv...
Hopefully you will enjoy the following...
The first...though not long...I still wish to only provide the link...therefore the author of the interesting article is known...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/sp20050322.shtml
The second is a link also...a longer article concerning the UN...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006456
These also are links provided from: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
I enjoy reading Neal...don't agree with him on all issue's...but his thoughts gives the mind some things to ponder...
As always...tis the writers/authors opinion...
Till later...
tis
I imagine this one...
will fair as well (if not better)...
Mona Charen's no-holds-barred guide to liberal know-it-alls: the real worst enemies of those they claim to be fighting for
Do-Gooders
by Charen, Mona
Here is a fearless and scathingly revealing guide to the smug Leftist meddlers in politics, the media establishment, and Hollywood who think they know what's best for the poor and other needy Americans - and are willing to cause societal havoc to put their witless theories into practice. From Marian Wright Edelman to John Kerry, from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Rob Reiner, Mona Charen skewers them and their cockamamie ideas in Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (And the Rest of Us).
Charen, the popular syndicated columnist and author of the bestseller Useful Idiots, reveals in this book exactly why liberal "thinkers" like Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Dan Rather, Rosie O'Donnell and others -- less famous but with even more influence on American society -- are dead wrong. She shows how their proposals hurt the very people they claim to be fighting for, as well as the country as a whole. Charen uses the do-gooders' own outrageous words and actions to prove that their schemes to remake society have caused our nation immense harm -- and will continue to do so until these charlatans and fools are exposed for what they are.
That's why Do-Gooders is much more than just a tour through the follies of Hillary, Kerry, and Co.: it contains indispensable ammunition for conservatives as they gear up for post-election policy battles.
Charen shows you liberal do-gooders at their absolute worst:
* How Jesse Jackson and other prominent foes of school vouchers send their children to the best private schools money can buy -- and other outrages from the annals of liberal hypocrisy
* Why do-gooders defend racial preferences at all costs -- while ignoring the enormous problems they have created for African Americans
* Caught: how do-gooders loudly proclaimed in the 1990s that welfare reform would hurt the poor -- and still refuse to admit how much it actually helped them
* How liberals set up children to fail by steadfastly resisting rigor and standards in education
* The astonishing reasons why liberal child welfare experts decided that child abuse was not evidence of a moral or character flaw in the abusing parent
* How liberals spread the falsehood that 2000 voting irregularities in Florida disproportionately targeted blacks -- a fiction that is still widely believed
* Lies, damned lies, and statistics: Dan Rather and the media establishment's blisteringly dishonest campaign against welfare reform in the 1990s
* Divorce: how it has been proven again and again to be devastatingly harmful for children -- but liberal do-gooders still refuse to end their assaults on the traditional family
* How Bill Clinton and other liberal leaders created a fictional epidemic of church burnings in order to tar conservative policies as "racist"
* The sorry case of Joyce Brown: how liberals at the New York Civil Liberties Union successfully argued that a severely insane woman who screamed obscenities at passersby was exercising her "right" to reject treatment
* How throwing money at schools does not improve educational performance -- and how liberals steadfastly refuse to consider any other criterion for improving education
* The shocking effects of the liberal abandonment of discipline and standards in schools -- which are increasingly filthy, dangerous places
* Al Sharpton: why it's so appalling that this race-baiter and liar is now a respected Democratic presidential candidate
* How liberal activists have forcibly turned mentally ill people out onto the streets -- making us all that much more unsafe
* Proven false: the emotionally charged liberal accusation that schools attended by minority students receive less funding than others schools
* How bilingual education advocates cravenly dismiss mountains of evidence that English-only education improves the performances of all students
* Marion Wright Edelman: originator of the idea that the welfare state could be made palatable to skeptics by claiming that it was all for "the children" (a theme that liberal demagogues including Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton have taken up with gusto)
* The 1966 Congressional act that started America's schools down the path to chaos
* How do-gooders have consistently interfered with efforts to improve policing in dangerous neighborhoods
* The misguided act of Congress that enshrined faddish liberal thinking about families into law, rather than encourage adoption for children whose parents abused or neglected them
* One thousand killings by untreated psychotic people each year -- and yet liberals still haven't budged on the "rights" of the "homeless" to stay out of institutions
* How the education establishment twists American history and libels the Founding Fathers and other heroes of our nation
* Why prominent liberal Democrats go out of their way to make American blacks feel targeted and despised -- in the face of all evidence to the contrary
* The shameless character assassination to which Democrats now resort in order to torpedo pro-life judiciary nominees such as Charles Pickering -- with eager help from the liberal media
* Why now is the best time in decades for Republicans to challenge Democrats successfully for black votes
* How skyrocketing divorce rates have led directly to skyrocketing rates of child sexual abuse
* Four things you can do that will virtually guarantee that you will not be poor in America -- and how feminists are in full flight from this reality
* Why the safest place for a child is with his married mother and father -- a fact that liberal groups consistently avoid mentioning, although it has been established in study after study
* One insidious and rabidly partisan reason why liberals were so reluctant to see the mentally ill given proper care in institutions
* The Department of Education: how it has foisted upon local schools throughout the nation the empty-headed fads and enthusiasms of liberal educrats
5 star Debora Becker
Very well researched and informative- I highly recommend it. Not Rated Gerald McCray
In 1982, my caucasion english professor told my class about the "dumbing down" conspiracy. This same immoral indifference which allows for lowering standards and eliminating personal responsibility is the hallmark of the skewed liberal ideology. 5 big stars for the guts to write this book. I have made these same types of arguments, unpopularly so, in Black Baptist settings for years to my dismay. I haven't backed off my stand though. My people are too important to accept the status quo. I plan on dealing with the core of these issues in my own writing. Outstanding endeavor Ms Charen!
http://www.thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6580#continue
Thomas Sowell wrote an article pertaining to the book...
Cynicism exposed
Thomas Sowell (archive)
March 15, 2005
Back in the 1980s a White House staffer told about a revealing incident on Capitol Hill. The staffer was walking down the corridors of one of the buildings on the Hill when a Senator motioned to him to step inside his office.
"I'm going to make a speech next week, denouncing the effect of the President's policies on my constituents," the Senator said. He added: "Pay it no mind."
My own experience with political cynicism in Washington came a few years earlier, back in 1976, when I was nominated to the Federal Trade Commission by President Ford. At a private meeting with a Democratic Congressional staffer for the Senate committee in charge of confirming my nomination, the staffer gave me the word.
"We have gone over your record with a fine-toothed comb," he said frankly, "and, since we could find nothing to object to, we are just not going to hold hearings at all."
He explained that, since this was an election year and they expected their candidate -- Jimmy Carter -- to win, they would just sit on my nomination until Carter became President, so that he could then appoint his own man to the FTC. Which he did.
Anyone who does not understand the utter cynicism of politics does not understand politics. An education on that subject can be found in Mona Charen's incisive new book, "Do-Gooders."
Ms. Charen's book is about the enormous damage done by liberal social policies from the 1960s on, but it is also about the shameless demagoguery unleashed against those who have dared to oppose the liberal agenda or reveal its failures. Examples range from cynical lies about judicial nominees to the biggest big lie of our time, the claim that black voters were "disenfranchised" by Republicans in Florida during the 2000 elections.
Depicting judicial nominees as being against civil rights -- and therefore implicitly racist -- is a political tactic that has been used cynically and successfully, even against judges with a history of being in favor of civil rights and who have even had the endorsements of civil rights leaders like Thurgood Marshall and Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers.
The most famous example was the use of the anti-civil rights charge against Judge Robert Bork during his confirmation hearings as a nominee for the Supreme Court in 1987. It is a matter of public record that, before he became a judge, Robert Bork had filed briefs on the side of the NAACP in a number of civil rights cases.
Even though Judge Bork was endorsed by the most famous civil rights attorney in history -- Thurgood Marshall -- that meant absolutely nothing politically. His opponents couldn't care less about his civil rights record, except as something to twist in order to deny him a place on the Supreme Court.
The same game was played, years later, when Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering was nominated to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and rejected by the Democrats who controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002.
Back in the days of the civil rights struggle in Mississippi in the 1960s, Charles Pickering not only risked his political career by speaking out for civil rights, he risked his life. When Judge Pickering's nomination came under political attack in Washington, decades later, local black leaders in Mississippi came to his defense. One said: "I can't believe the man they're describing in Washington is the same one I've known for years."
Pickering's actual civil rights record, which had been praised by Mississippi civil rights leader Charles Evers, had nothing to do with the opposition to him. Liberals were afraid that someone with Judge Pickering's judicial philosophy might not rule in favor of abortion -- their real litmus test -- and if depicting him as someone opposed to civil rights would stop him, so be it.
The most successful political demagoguery of our time has been the claim that black voters were "disenfranchised" in Florida during the 2000 elections. Mona Charen's book examines that claim in detail. The Civil Rights Commission issued a report repeating that claim -- after hearings in which not a single black voter testified to being personally denied the vote.
"Do-Gooders" shows not only the destructive consequences of liberal policies on crime, education and welfare, it shows the corrupting cynicism used to try to keep the liberal agenda afloat.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050315.shtml
As with any writer/author...is their opinion...
tis
You may wish...
To check first before wishing such doom upon us...
It may be we (America) may be generous in the providing your country with funds (money)...
But h@ll...your not first that has wished to kick dirt in our faces...from a distance...
tis
Great read...
Providing the link only...too long to post
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=583538&page=1
Linked from brootz: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
tis
Evening Gary...
I do agree...
Hope all is well with yours my friend :)
tis
Appears Hezbollah was out done...
Rally rages against Syria
By Mitchell Prothero
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
BEIRUT -- Hundreds of thousands of people swarmed the streets yesterday chanting "freedom, sovereignty, independence" in by far the largest of a half-dozen demonstrations held in the past month.
Published estimates put the size of the anti-Syrian crowd at between 800,000 and 1 million -- roughly twice the size of a pro-Syrian rally organized a week ago by the radical movement Hezbollah, which the United States considers a terrorist group.
Waving Lebanese flags and signs that read, "No to half-measures," the marchers held Syria accountable for the death of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a mysterious bomb blast one month ago.
They also demanded that Syrian troops end a three-decade-long occupation of Lebanon as required by a U.N. Security Council resolution passed this fall.
Syria has already repatriated about 4,000 of the 14,000 troops who were in Lebanon at the time of Mr. Hariri's death and has begun moving the remainder into the Bekaa Valley near its border.
Terje Roed-Larsen, an envoy of the United Nations, said over the weekend that Syrian President Bashar Assad had promised to withdraw all the remaining troops and intelligence agents, meeting the provisions of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559.
Syrian officials have hinted that the pullback will be completed before Lebanese elections in May -- as demanded by the United States -- but Mr. Assad has not confirmed that and the intelligence agents are still in Beirut, where they have long manipulated government policy.
Yesterday's rally was the latest and largest in a series of protests by a coalition of Christians, Druze and Sunni Muslims sparked by Mr. Hariri's death. Hezbollah -- the largest Shi'ite Muslim party -- and Syria have countered with three huge pro-Syrian demonstrations.
The protesters two weeks ago forced the resignation of pro-Syrian Prime Minister Omar Karami, only to see him re-appointed last week by President Emile Lahoud after a huge Hezbollah-led rally. Both sides appear to be positioning themselves ahead of parliamentary elections expected in May.
After a week in which the pro-Syrian forces had seized the momentum, yesterday's massive turnout seems to have re-energized the opposition movement.
"The Hezbollah rally and reappointment of Karami were a slap in our faces," said one protest organizer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
"But we needed to show the government and the world that we can put as many people on the street to demand freedom and independence as they can to defend the status quo of corruption, occupation and humiliation," he said.
The entire crowd -- which numbered in the low hundreds of thousands in the early afternoon and grew throughout the day -- fell silent at 12:55 p.m. to mark the death of Mr. Hariri exactly one month earlier.
The former prime minister, who resigned last year to protest heavy-handed Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs, is the man most often credited with converting the ruins of post-war Beirut into a glittering playground for the Arab world's well-heeled.
The anti-Syrian demonstrations have been organized by a quartet of one-time rivals -- the Christian Lebanese Forces, the Christian-led Free Patriotic Movement, the major Druze socialist party led by warlord-turned-statesman Walid Jumblatt, and Sunnis activated by the Hariri family political machine.
Mr. Hariri's sister and four sons have broad political influence and access to a fortune of about $4 billion.
One marcher, Khalid, a Sunni from a wealthy family, tried to explain the dynamic behind the increasingly large demonstrations and counterdemonstrations.
"When we were protesting before, we sent our young people and university students against the government," he said.
"When Hezbollah does a protest, everyone is ordered to go, given rides, and brings the whole family," he said. "So today ... we brought our families.
"My pregnant wife marched. My old mother marched, and now you see who has the biggest demonstration."
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050315-120756-1022r.htm
linked from: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
tis
Something to read...
Whether it is true or not...one can only guess...
Report: Israel Plans Strike on Iran Nuke Plant
NewsMax.com
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Israel has secret plans for an air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear program, according to a report in the United Kingdom paper, The Times.
According to the report, the inner cabinet of prime minister Ariel Sharon has already given "initial authorization" for an attack - at a guarded meeting on his ranch in the Negev desert last month.
Story Continues Below
U.S. officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become stalled at the United Nations.
Reportedly, the Israeli plans have been mulled over with U.S. officials, who are said to have indicated that they would not stand in Israel's way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.
Vice-president Dick Cheney noted on Friday that Iran would face "stronger action" if it failed to respond.
Yesterday, Iran rejected an initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organization and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates.
Meanwhile, fearing the worst-case-senario, Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practice leveling it, says the Times report,
Reportedly, tactics on the drawing boards include raids by Israel's elite "Kingfisher" commando unit and air strikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to blast into underground facilities.
Tehran has persistently claimed that its program is designed for peaceful purposes. However, both Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials are convinced after consulting that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons.
On the diplomatic front, Israel has responded guardedly to an announcement by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its program.
However, Iran does not seem ready to bite.
"No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," said an Iranian spokesman recently.
European countries have promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement.
Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, while saying he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue, warned: "The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/12/221246.shtml
linked from brootz
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
May have been posted before...
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2421&sequence=0
Since "gov" is within the link...do not take the information as fact...lol
tis
Nor do I...
CC companies will not benefit from this bill...unless the wording of the bill removes them from unsecured status...or...they are able to start flowing some money to the Trustee as they do our politicians...
tis
Evening Sara...
I have not read the bill...but have heard some of the factors in it...
From what I understand (from the tid bits)...the bill wishes to place more people into chapter 13 instead of chapter 7...
Chapter 13 allows the bankruptcy court to set up a monthly payment that allows the individual to keep (all/some) of his/her property...
Chapter 7 an individual pretty much relinquishes everything...unless of course they live in a state that allows certain property to be kept (home)...
You as well as everyone here probably knows this information...but I state it to make my point...
In both cases...the unsecured creditor normally gets screwed...CC companies are unsecured creditors (unless the bill has made changes in that)...
My understanding is the CC companies are insured for the money they lose due to non payment (this may be incorrect)...so if they are able to get pennies on the dollars from someone in chapter 13...they are still way ahead of the game...
Please understand...I am not taking up for the bill or the bill's sponsors...
As I said...I have only heard bits of information on it...maybe someone can correct any misinformation that I may have posted...
Hope you have a great weekend :)
tis
Are you...
referring to me...or the author of the article (Amir Taheri/Arab News)...
[bold]PHOBIC[/bold]...when will the far left find a new vocabulary...the same words get so old...
Listen carefully...
I personally think Clinton and his wife are/is some of the lowest people to walk the face of this earth...
I personally don't give a ch*t about Bush/administration either...but it was either he...or a person who had committed treason (yes...I said treason)
Your party blew it...you can talk of how the Pres election was stolen (again)...but then what about the "Daschle's"...they lost also...
But...those such as you will assume that the rest of America is stupid...but not you...your the way the world should be...
I bet you roll your window up/turn the other way when a homeless person is looking for a handout in your own neighborhood...oops...I forgot...your world is perfect...and if it isn't...you make a law to move it out of your perimeter...but you rock on the international scene!!!
Hey...fair is fair...you made judgement of me...thus I extend the same...
I shall save the rest of your thoughts and answer those when/if time permits...please don't hold your breath though...I feel stupidity is contagious if one is surrounded by it...thus my seldom reading/posting on this board...
Peace...
tis
Interesting read...
Who Should Apologize to Whom?
Amir Taheri
Where is the country that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home?
Before you answer, here is the condition that such a country must fulfill: It must hold several consecutive elections that produce 70 percent majorities for “liberals and progressives.”
Well, if you thought of one of the Scandinavian countries or, perhaps, New Zealand or Canada, you are wrong.
Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, just a few weeks ago: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”
And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:
“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”
So, while millions of Iranians, especially the young, look to the United States as a mode of progress and democracy, a former president of the US looks to the Islamic Republic as his ideological homeland.
But who are “the guys” Clinton identifies with?
There is, of course, President Muhammad Khatami who, speaking at a conference of provincial governors last week, called for the whole world to convert to Islam.
“Human beings understand different affairs within the global framework that they live in,” he said. “But when we say that Islam belongs to all times and places, it is implied that the very essence of Islam is such that despite changes (in time and place) it is always valid.”
There is also Khatami’s brother, Muhammad-Reza, the man who, in 1979, led the “students” who seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. There is Massumeh Ebtekar, a poor man’s pasionaria who was spokesperson for the hostage-holders in Tehran. There is also the late Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, known to Iranians as “Judge Blood”.
Not surprisingly, Clinton’s utterances have been seized upon by the state-controlled media in Tehran as a means of countering President George W. Bush’s claim that the Islamic Republic is a tyranny that oppresses the Iranians and threatens the stability of the region.
Clinton’s declaration of love for the mullas shows how ill informed even a US president could be.
Didn’t anyone tell Clinton, when he was in the White House, that elections in the Islamic Republic were as meaningless as those held in the Soviet Union? Did he not know that all candidates had to be approved by the “Supreme Guide”, and that no one from opposition is allowed to stand? Did he not know that all parties are banned in the Islamic Republic, and that such terms as “progressive” and “liberal” are used by the mullas as synonyms for “apostate”, a charge that carries a death sentence?
More importantly, does he not know that while there is no democracy without elections there can be elections without democracy?
Clinton told his audience in Davos, as well as Charlie Rose, that during his presidency he had “formally apologized on behalf of the United States” for what he termed “American crimes against Iran.”
But what were those “crimes”? Clinton summed them thus: “It’s a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. We got rid of the parliamentary democracy {there} back in the ‘50s; at least, that is my belief.”
Duped by a myth spread by the Blame-America-First coalition, Clinton appears to have done little homework on Iran. The truth is that Iran in the 1950s was not a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed, and dismissed, the prime minister. Mossadegh was named prime minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed. In what way that meant that the US “got rid of parliamentary democracy” that did not exist is not clear.
There are at least two things that Clinton does not know about Iran and Iranians.
The first is that the claim that the US changed the course of Iranian history on a whim would be seen by most Iranians, a proud people, as an insult from an arrogant politician who exaggerates the powers of his nation more than half a century ago. The second thing that Clinton does not know is that in the Islamic Republic that he so admires, Mossadegh, far from being regarded as a national hero, is an object of intense vilification. One of the first acts of the mullas after seizing power in 1979 was to take the name of Mossadegh off a street in Tehran. They then sealed off the village where Mossadegh is buried to prevent his supporters from gathering at his tomb. History textbooks written by the mullas present Mossadegh as the “son of a feudal family of exploiters who worked for the cursed Shah, and betrayed Islam.”
Apologizing to the mullas for a wrong supposedly done to Mossadegh is like begging Josef Stalin’s pardon for a discourtesy toward Alexander Kerensky.
Clinton does not know that it was President Harry S. Truman’s energetic intervention in 1946 that forced Stalin to withdraw his armies from northwestern Iran thus foiling a Communist attempt to dismember the Iranian state.
Clinton does not know that if anyone has to apologize it is the mullas who should apologize to both the Iranian and the American peoples. He does not appear to remember images of American diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras, blindfolded, and threatened with summary execution every day — images that did lasting damage to the good name of Iran as a civilized nation.
Speaking of apologies, Clinton also ignores the fact that Iranian agents in Lebanon, led by the “ liberal progressive” Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Mohtashami, organized and carried out a string of terrorist attacks in the 1980s that cost the lives of over 300 US citizens, including 240 Marines.
And does Clinton remember the dozens of American citizens who were held hostage by the mullas’ agents in Lebanon, sometimes for more than five years?
Clinton forgets that anti-Americanism, and hatred of the West in general, is the ideological backbone of Khomeinism; that that the devise of the mullas’ regime is “Death to America”, and that the American flag is burned or trampled under foot in thousands of official buildings throughout Iran every day?
Clinton claims that the mullas “still kind of like the West in general, and America in particular.” That must be as much news to the mullas as to anyone else.
The former president endorses another claim of the mullas that Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi dictator, invaded Iran on behalf of the United States.
Clinton says: “Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government.”
Don’t be surprised if Clinton’s next apology is addressed to Saddam Hussein, another victim of American Imperialism!
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=59952&d=5&m=3&y=2005
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
tis
Evening Sara...
Thanks for posting that article...was a interesting to read...
Special interest groups have a far reach...many think of the oil, drugs, insurance (etc.) when SIG is mentioned...
However...some SIG's have reached into our childrens schools...
SIG's have one thing in mind...change things to their liking/teaching/mindset...
Take care...best to you and your family :)
tis
I agree...
Sad part is...those like her educate our children...
tis
lol Bull...
Being its free...one can afford the fries! :)
tis
Bull...
did you catch the reading on this...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=5&u=/ap/unc_foundation
Hey Bull...
No diesel as far as vehicle...but the equipment we run is all diesel...
There are conversion kits for diesels that will allow them to run off the oil that eating establishments have used...
tis
Evening Bull...
Hearing from some of the farmers here that soybean/deisel is catching on...
Looking forward to it myself...
tis
Thanks Trisha...
Amen to your comment concerning the Middle Class and the hollywood undertainers...
tis
Evening Bull...
101.1 is a great station...
Wonder if Dell will request the proceeds from the sale?
tis
You live here?
tis
Apparently...
You find this country rather superior to others...you are still here ...no?
Must agree with you on the elected officials part though...they have managed to get us to the screwed up point to which we are...
Run for office OFC...I imagine the voting public will find your "ideas" of this country as silly as I/Others do...
tis
Evening Trisha...
Hollywood stars amaze me...
How many of them didn't use a limo...better yet...of those that did...how many car pooled...
tis
Amazing...
The one reason I was against the Federal Tax cuts...knew the state would suck it up...
tis
Evening Bull...
Been looking at the new tax rates Easley is asking for...concerning the budget...
D@mnnn those politicians....
Hope all is well :)
tis
Evening Bull...
Thanks for the info...
tis
Evening Bull...
I understood it as sales/local tax (state/city/county taxes)...
But still...a major purchase would be in order to offset into taking that deduction...
Hope all is well with you and yours...
tis
Something to consider...
IRAQI CHILDREN NEED SHOES
Belinda pulled this note from a soldier in Iraq out of the email. Here's a little thing you can do to make a difference.
Dear Mr. Boortz,
My name is Sgt. Lamar Price I am currently with the 278th. Regemental Combat Team at Camp Caldwell Iraq. I am writting to ask you for help with a project I am trying to start here. A few weeks ago the 278th. opened a school in the area near here. I became aware that a lot of the children did not have shoes and were going to school barefoot in 50 degree weather. I am asking people to mail one pair of children's shoes to my address in Iraq. They can be any size boys or girls. They do not have to be new just servicable. I will then collect them and give to our patrols and convoys to pass out. My address is Sgt. Lamar Price RHHT278RCT PLT7 Camp Caldwell Iraq APO AEO 09374 As you know the United States does more good for the people of Iraq than ever gets reported in the media. Mr. Boortz, any advice or help you can give to get the word out will be deeply appreciated.
Thank you
Sgt. Lamar Price
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Hope everyone is doing well...
tis
Xcelent read Vex...
Thanks for sharing it...
Tis
Bull...
Are you aware of the state/local sales tax deduction versus the income tax deduction (state) on the federal...
tis
We got ice...
the only sledding I did was the occasional "busting the @ss"
tia
Bull...
Are you getting the snow/sleet/ or ice...
tis
Evening Nova...
Hope this finds you well :)
Give everyone my best!
tis
Bull...
I heard today that our fine state has added an additional two cent per gallon tax to the price of gas...
What are we up to now .26 a gallon now?
tis
chit such as this amazes me...
California professor flunks Kuwaiti's pro-U.S. essay
By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A 17-year-old Kuwaiti student whose uncles were kidnapped and tortured by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's invaders more than a decade ago said his California college political science professor failed him for praising the United States in a final-exam essay last month.
Ahmad Al-Qloushi, a foreign student at Foothill College near San Jose, Calif., said he was told by professor Joseph A. Woolcock to get psychological treatment because of the pro-American views expressed in his essay.
"Apparently, if you are an Arab Muslim who loves America, you must be deranged," said Mr. Al-Qloushi, who feared the failing grade could cost him his student visa.
"I didn't want to be deported for having written a pro-American essay, so as soon as I left his office, I made an appointment with the school psychologist," he said.
Mr. Woolcock did not respond to telephone and e-mail inquiries. College officials declined to comment, saying it is a confidential matter because Mr. Al-Qloushi and Mr. Woolcock have filed complaints.
For their final exam, Mr. Woolcock had students write an essay on one of several topics that he circulated.
The topic chosen by Mr. Al-Qloushi stated that some scholars "contend that the Constitution of the United States was not 'ordained and established' by 'the people' as we have often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the U.S. Constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interests."
In his essay, Mr. Al-Qloushi said, "I completely disagree. ... The American Constitution worried monarchs in Europe. The right for men to choose their own representatives was unheard-of in the rest of the world. ... The United States Constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed, and America, like every nation in the world, progressed ...
"Because of America, the world is free. ... America freed Kuwait and is now currently in a fight to free Iraq and its 25 million residents and vanquish the tyranny and monstrosity of Saddam Hussein."
Mr. Al-Qloushi said Mr. Woolcock "told me to come to his office the next morning." In the meeting, "he verbally attacked me and my essay."
"He told me, 'Your views are irrational. He called me naive for believing in the greatness of this country and told me, 'America is not God's gift to the world. ... You need regular psychotherapy.' "
Keith Pratt, an English professor at the school, said he was "pretty appalled" when Mr. Al-Qloushi told him about the incident. "I told him, 'You should talk to the dean and go through channels,' " he said.
"This is a very sincere action on his part," the professor said. "There was never one hint that he had any axe to grind. I know this guy and I have had many conversations with him about the atmosphere in the classroom, but he never engaged in any character assassination."
http://washtimes.com/national/20050115-115940-9997r.htm
Interesting read...
Tuesday, December 7, 2004
THE AARP DECLARES WAR ON YOUNGER AMERICANS
It is a cause of dismay, if not outright sadness. Young people, by and large, just can't seem to get worked up about matters political. That's too bad, because they might be interested in knowing that one of America's largest and most effective lobbying organizations has just declared war on them. The AARP has now decided that it's going to fight any effort by President Bush to privatize, even partially, that debacle known as Social Security. If younger Americans had any idea what was happening to them here they would demanding change. If young Americans truly had a handle on the future, and on the fact that they will one day reach that magic age when they stop working and live on their retirement income, they would be marching on DC and occupying congressional offices until change was made. Sadly, these young Americans who are getting so royally screwed by Social Security and the AARP are far more concerned with sports, pop culture and who they're going to 'hook up" with this weekend.
The time will come, though, when these people who today are preoccupied with the grossly unimportant will suddenly realize that they've been robbed blind. For their entire working lives they had 14% of their earnings ripped off as a Social Security "contribution." In time they will find out that if they are actually lucky enough to get any of this money back when they reach the age of about 70 or so, they will have realized a return of less than 2% on their "investment.'
Social Security is running out of money. Depending on who you listen to, in about 15 to 18 years Social Security taxes will not be sufficient to pay the Social Security benefits to the people then receiving them. At this point the government will have only a few options. Here are the choices:
1. Extend the retirement age in hopes that many more Americans will actually do the government the favor of dying before they can collect any or all of their benefits.
2. Deny Social Security benefits to those who worked hard and made good financial decisions in their lives, thereby insuring themselves a sufficient retirement income outside of Social Security. No ... their "contributions" will not be refunded.
3. Extend the wage base for taxes so that achievement-oriented Americans can poor even more money into this financial sewer; more money that they will never, ever get back.
You do know, don't you, that there is absolutely no legal guarantee that you will receive one single penny of the money that is taken from you. No guarantee at all. The congress can vote tomorrow to end the system and keep every dollar that has been paid in Social Security taxes. There would be nothing you could do about it. Nothing except, that is, to vote against the jerk who stole your money. All your local politician would have to do is come up with a little pork for the district or state and everything would be forgiven.
And just which group of Americans is hurt the most by Social Security? Black males. If you're a black male this is the ultimate "disrespect." You're being ripped off big time.
Explanation: Divide the people who have been paying Social Security taxes for the past 40 years into four basic groups. White Males, black males, white females, black females. Statistics will show that of these four demographic groups white females have the longest life expectancy; black males the shortest. In 2002 the life expectancy for a newborn white female was 79.9 years. The life expectancy of a newborn black male was 68.8 years. If you were born after 1960 your Social Security full retirement age is 67. This means that a black male can expect to get Social Security benefits for about two years, while a white female can expect to receive those benefits for almost 13 years. You do the math. even if you went to a government school you can figure out that the average white female will receive Social Security benefits 11 years longer than the average black male. It has been estimated that during his lifetime the average black male will lose about $10,000 in income that will be forcibly transferred to a white woman.
The solution? Privatization! If you own your own account it can't be taken from you or your family and given to some stranger living in a retirement community in Palm Desert, California. If you have the misfortune to die before the law allows you to start withdrawing retirement benefits from your account the money goes to your family. Isn't that the way you would want it? Wouldn't you want that money to be spent to make your spouse or children rather than someone you didn't know and who might not have even given you the time of day if you had known them during life?
This is absurd, folks. We're supposed to be living in free country that recognizes property rights. You own you, not the government. You work for you, not for some stranger. In a free country your government should not seize your money by force and put it into a phony "retirement" fund that earns you a sub-par rate of return and to which you have no legal right beyond what politicians are willing to grant. When you die the money you earned during life shouldn't be seized by government to be transferred to another individual you don't know while your family scrambles about looking for a way to keep their home and pay for your funeral, but that's exactly what the AARP is fighting for.
You do know what happened in Chile, don't you? Chile, for God's sake! They got it right!
Chile used to have a Social Security system that was a virtual copy of ours. Chile, however, didn't have an AARP. What Chile did have was politicians who realized that their system was doomed to collapse, and who did something about it. Chile privatized every individual's retirement benefits. The former Chilean secretary of labor says that Chile first "ended the illusion that both the employer and the worker contribute to retirement." That's a huge step. The dumb masses in America still actually believe that their employers actually "contribute" a matching amount to their Social Security "account." It's those government schools again.
Americans even believe that there's actually a Social Security trust fund. Yesterday's USA Today story about the AARP's opposition to privatization contained this line: "Excess payroll taxes are held in a trust fund for future benefit payments." That's just flat-out wrong. USA Today reporter Jim Drinkard either knows it's wrong, and lied intentionally, or he's not bright enough to be writing for a national newspaper. There is no Social Security money being held anywhere. It's all spent. Every single penny. What the politicians don't have to spend on current Social Security benefits they seize and spend on their various spend-and-elect schemes.
Today in Chile workers pay 10% of their pretax earnings into their own retirement plans. They can elect to pay an additional 10% in pretax earnings if they wish. The companies who manage these funds are prohibited by law from engaging in any other type of business. The sole business purpose of these companies is to take these privately owned retirement accounts and grow them. If they die before the retirement age the money goes to their families. If Chileans live to retirement age they have three options:
1. Purchase a family annuity from a life insurance company.
2. Leave their funds in a personal account and make monthly withdrawals adjusted to match their life expectancy.
3. Any combination of 1 and 2.
The government steps in to guarantee a "minimum pension" for people who have worked at least 20 years and who's benefits don't meet the minimum monthly amount required by the Chilean law.
In Chile 95% of workers participate in the private plan. In America 100% of workers don't have that option, and the AARP is doing everything it can to make sure they never do.
Thanks, AARP. If younger Americans ever figure out what an enemy to their financial future you truly are things may change and you may lose that grip you have on government.
http://boortz.com/nuze/200412/12072004.html
Hope everyone is doing well :)
Peace...
tis
Merry X-mas Everyone :)
tis