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:
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.
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.
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.
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....