Search This Blog

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Good versus Evil. What is really happening today in the USA


The great divide between Conservative and Liberal in this country is approaching the divide between the pre-Civil War North and South in its vehemence and vitriol.  I intend to look at the issues and the thinking behind the two sides as I go forward after my much-needed sabbatical.


The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.


Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

~

The ridiculour furor over the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys by the same party that sat and watched Bill Clinton fire all 93 in one fell swoop is an example of the hypocrisy and evil intentions of the Democrats in general and certainly the liberal wing in particular.  I've been silent and absorbed much of this evil for awhile and now it is time to begin pointing a few things out.

Liberals in particular are strong on the following points:

Politics

They think that Congress should be allowed to preempt powers that have been granted by the Constitution to the President simply because the President is a Republican.

They think that running away from and pandering to radical murderous wretches like the Islamofascists in Iran, Iraq, Syria and so on is in any way at all a solution.

Some of them believe that the attacks of 9/11 were a government conspiracy!  Bad enough when idiots like Rosie O'Donnell spout such nonsense...

They think that conversations between the President and his advisors should be snooped into by Congress.   Barack Obama, for one, showed his idiotic side by claiming to be a Constitutional scholar and then attacking the President for having "no respect for the Constitution" while, at the same time, joining Demwitch Nancy Pelosi and others in attempting to subvert Constitutionally given Presidential powers by taking away his post as Commander-in-Chief.

Socially

John Conyers has presented a bill that would make criticism of homosexuality a "hate crime.!"  Let's see, the First Amendment, does it still exist?  How many Democrats would be in prison if speaking against the President of the United States was made a "hate crime?"  How can any responsible politician even consider such a bill?  But then I supposed guys like Conyers are not in the least bit responsible.  

Scientifically


They think that Global Warming is manmade and is a terrible problem.  In fact, they are using the words of James Imhofe, a man well-qualified to speak on the subject, in a fund-raising scheme now, trying to scare the uninformed electorate with phony "science" and scare tactics that have no place outside of the Hollywood script vaults.  (See below)

They believe almost to a man in the hypothesis of Evolution.  I spent about a year debating on this subject but I can tell you right now you still cannot find one scientist who can confidently point to a way life could have formed from non-life and without that, the whole Evolution cart finds itself without a horse.

Why???


The foundation of the Progressive (liberal) philosophy is that there is no need for God and no responsibility to God for man.    Liberals run from the idea of right and wrong based upon absolutes.  Evolution is an attempt to take God out of the equation.  Abortion is an affront to sanctity of life, but to the Progressive life is simply a meaningless accident in a meaningless and random Universe.  As a believer in God, I see the philosophy of the Progressives as ungodly and therefore evil.

By the way, about Senator Imhofe:

"Climate Change Update
Senate Floor Statement by
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)

January 4, 2005

As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science." I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns.

For these groups, the issue of catastrophic global warming is not just a favored fundraising tool. In truth, it's more fundamental than that. Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith. Therefore contending that its central tenets are flawed is, to them, heresy of the most despicable kind. Furthermore, scientists who challenge its tenets are attacked, sometimes personally, for blindly ignoring the so-called "scientific consensus." But that's not all: because of their skeptical views, they are contemptuously dismissed for being "out of the mainstream." This is, it seems to me, highly ironic: aren't scientists supposed to be non-conforming and question consensus? Nevertheless, it's not hard to read between the lines: "skeptic" and "out of the mainstream" are thinly veiled code phrases, meaning anyone who doubts alarmist orthodoxy is, in short, a quack.

I have insisted all along that the climate change debate should be based on fundamental principles of science, not religion. Ultimately, I hope, it will be decided by hard facts and data-and by serious scientists committed to the principles of sound science. Instead of censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor, these scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure that they are heard."

More about these things later.  Consider this a mere shot across the bow....






10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have always said that liberals aren't merely wrong - they are evil.

Check out this one video that shows how they are lying about Global Warming. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it isn't being shown on American TV.

http://www.gorelied.notlong.com

loboinok said...

Welcome back Radar. Looks like you are feeling your oats!

Lava said...

They think that Congress should be allowed to preempt powers that have been granted by the Constitution to the President simply because the President is a Republican.

Please go on.

Barack Obama, for one, showed his idiotic side by claiming to be a Constitutional scholar and then attacking the President for having "no respect for the Constitution" while, at the same time, joining Demwitch Nancy Pelosi and others in attempting to subvert Constitutionally given Presidential powers by taking away his post as Commander-in-Chief

Please go on.


They believe almost to a man in the hypothesis of Evolution. I spent about a year debating on this subject but I can tell you right now you still cannot find one scientist who can confidently point to a way life could have formed from non-life and without that, the whole Evolution cart finds itself without a horse.


Does evolution preclude the existence of god? Not at all. Does evolution preclude a literal reading of some of the Bible? Yes.

Is evolution Ungodly and thus evil? Not at all. It goes against what evangelicals think, so of course they will call it ungodly, because, of course, they are right and everyone else on earth is wrong.

cranky old fart said...

Concerning the Gonzalez matter, you RW folks have got it all wrong. When will you learn?

It's not the firings, it's the fact that he lied about the sex, um, firings.

Anonymous said...

The article quoted here appears somewhat ill-informed (or can we just call it dishonest):

Clinton's firing of US Attorneys when he entered office was not unprecedented, as at least President Reagan did it before him. Not just that, but George W. Bush did it after him, too.

What is different right now is that Bush didn't fire these eight during a Presidential transition - which is fairly routine - but in the middle of his second term. And not just that, they were his own appointees.

Which of course he's entitled to do, though these niggling facts makes it inaccurate and dishonest to try to equate this situation with Clinton's firing of USA's at the beginning of his first term (just as Reagan did). This sure is one big dud of a talking point - which gives us a big clue how indefensible the situation is.

Has it escaped your attention that the Bush administration has not been able to present a clear, consistent reason why those eight were fired? Why did Gonzalez lie about not being involved in the decision? Why the lies about the firings being performance-related? Why can't they present a clear paper trail to back up their decision-making process? Why all the missing e-mails from the crucial period in question?

But noooo, it's Clinton who's evil... for doing something that Reagan and Bush did just the same. That's a good one, Radar!

chaos_engineer said...

Let's see, nobody's taken this one yet:

John Conyers has presented a bill that would make criticism of homosexuality a "hate crime.!" Let's see, the First Amendment, does it still exist?

Yes, it does, and such a law would be clearly unconstitutional. Everybody knows that!

That's so obvious that I got suspicious of the story, so I went to Google News and did a search on "Conyers 'hate crime'". The first useful link that came up was this one.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) have introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA), a measure that would expand existing federal hate crimes law to include classes such as sexual orientation and gender identity, and such a move has left conservatives with their knickers in a knot.

Other articles put a different spin on it but they're basically in agreement about the facts.

You might not be familiar with hate crimes laws. They don't criminalize speech; they increase the penalties for criminal acts when the motive is racial or religious hatred.

For example, suppose a bunch of kids got drunk one night and vandalized your house. That would be a crime, and they'd be punished for it.

But suppose a bunch of atheists decided that they didn't want any Christians living in their neighborhood, and they vandalized your house in order to terrorize you into leaving. That would be considered a hate crime, and they'd be punished more harshly.

The laws are a little bit controversial. Some people might argue, "Vandalism is vandalism! Who cares what the motive is?"

But other people would say, "No, the motive is important. The kids in the first example are only hurting you, but the atheists in the second example are implicitly threatening ever other Christian who lives in the community. Christians might become suspicious of all atheists, and that would do further damage to the community. Hate crime laws are a good way of showing that the community-as-a-whole rejects that sort of violent religious bigotry."

The courts have ruled that hate crimes laws are constitutional, and, indeed, that it's generally constitutional to have different penalties for crimes based on the criminal's motive. (Example: premediated murder vs. unpremediated murder vs. negligent manslaughter.)

Personally I think hate-crime laws are a good idea. Where do you stand?

Now, as to the specific bill that Representative Mark Kirk (R-Ill) has co-sponsored...from what I've heard, there are a lot more crimes involving gay-bashing than Christian-bashing. And it seems unfair for Christians to have special rights that gays aren't entitled to. So I think we should either pass this law, or repeal the existing hate-crimes laws. I'd prefer to pass this law.

Anyway, I hope we're all in agreement that the First Amendment isn't in any danger. I'm not sure who told you that Rep. Kirk (R-Ill) wanted to make it illegal to criticize people, but there are a lot of "news" sites out there that just tell the most outlandish lies so that they people will get all worked up and donate money. (And the Left is just as guilty as the Right here.) Whenever you see a story like this, it's always a good idea to do a Google news search and see what other people are saying. For "old" news, snopes.com is a great resource.

radar said...

"Concerning the Gonzalez matter, you RW folks have got it all wrong. When will you learn?

It's not the firings, it's the fact that he lied about the sex, um, firings."


and also...

"Has it escaped your attention that the Bush administration has not been able to present a clear, consistent reason why those eight were fired? Why did Gonzalez lie about not being involved in the decision? Why the lies about the firings being performance-related? Why can't they present a clear paper trail to back up their decision-making process? Why all the missing e-mails from the crucial period in question?"

No, the attorneys were at-will appointees. Questions about the firings should have been met with silence. Previous Presidents have fired attorneys with no kick-backs, why should now be any different. If I was either the President or the Attorney General, I would tell critics to go do their own jobs and leave me to mine. This generation of Democrats is at an all-time peak of hypocrisy and arrogance. For instance:

Sandy Berger is free as a bird while Scooter Libby is likely a jailbird. Berger stole and destroyed classified documents, hindering the 9/11 investigation. Libby just didn't remember what was said about a low-level CIA operative who was actually outed by a liberal State Department employee.

William Jefferson is still free after being filmed and taped taking a $100,000 bribe by the FBI and being caught with $90,000 of the bills wrapped in foil in his freezer. Meanwhile, Democrats hound AG Gonzalez for simply firing 8 at-will U.S. Attorneys!

Nancy Pelosi responded to all of this by deciding to place Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee.
I could go on...

Lava said...

Now, as to the specific bill that Representative Mark Kirk (R-Ill) has co-sponsored...from what I've heard, there are a lot more crimes involving gay-bashing than Christian-bashing. And it seems unfair for Christians to have special rights that gays aren't entitled to. So I think we should either pass this law, or repeal the existing hate-crimes laws. I'd prefer to pass this law.

But homosexuals choose to be homosexual, they shouldn't be. . . oh, wait. . . damn.


Great post Chaos Engineer. I thought something sounded fishy, but was too lazy to google it.

Radar, quick question. Did you know you were posting a half truth (I'll give it credit for being a half truth even though it may be like a tenth or sixteenth truth) when posting about the "hate crime" thing, or did you just read another conservative's blog and not really do any research into the issue?

radar said...

"Radar, quick question. Did you know you were posting a half truth (I'll give it credit for being a half truth even though it may be like a tenth or sixteenth truth) when posting about the "hate crime" thing, or did you just read another conservative's blog and not really do any research into the issue?"

Fair question. Answer? Similar measures enacted overseas have led to terrible consequences for normal free speech rights, as I will post today.....so I disagree and I will illustrate why today!

cranky old fart said...

Thanks for noting my comment, and then ignoring it.

Gonzalez said he had no involvement in the firings, but it turns out he was intimatley involved in the "Bushy" vetting of targeted AGs.

It's a little thing, but so was a BJ.