?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

T.B. or not T.B.

***
CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL AT ALL TIME LOWS AND THEY FINALLY BOLT INTO ACTION

I read with amusement and bemusement that Congressional committees are investigating how U.S. citizen "TB" Andy Speaker managed to enter the country "illegally".

Does anyone see the irony of this? Would there be such a hue and cry if he had been an illegal alien?

Which reminds me. In light of the upcoming presidential election, I know only natural-born U.S. citizens are allowed to run for president (Article II, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution). Does this apply to illegal aliens as well? If it does ... is that fair?

Thankfully, the illegal immigration amnesty bill may now be derailed for now, even after Harry Reid tried to ram it through before Memorial Day without anyone knowing the details, and today tried to cut off debate on the issues involved. Yesterday, the Senate voted against an amendment that would have excluded convicted felons, child molesters, gang members from the amnesty bill, a bad sign, but the AMERICAN PEOPLE, those who cared, finally had enough and raised their voices, sent their e-mails, called their congress-persons, sending a message even these out-of-touch elites couldn't help hearing.

In true liberal fashion, Reid Thursday called the failing bill "Bush's" bill. How pathetic! While many Bush backers opposed the president on this one, I hope people like Reid don't think we haven't heard the rantings of key architects of the bill like Ted Kennedy who has insulted our intelligence one time too many. Maybe there is hope for this country after all.

EDIT - Paris Hilton has been sent home for medical "reasons". A hunger strike perhaps? An adverse reaction to prison food (assuming she touched it)? Party withdrawals? Did the sheriff fear a possible suit? Anyone wanna bet she won't be able to complete here sentence at home? What about good behavior? *lol*

As of tonight, the judge who sentenced Ms. Hilton has ordered her back to court Friday to determine if she should return to jail. Why am I suddenly envisioning a slow Bronco-type chase on television tomorrow?

***

The celebrated Mr. K
performs his feats on Saturday at Bishopsgate
The Hendersons will dance and sing
as Mr. Kite flies through the ring, don't be late
Messers K. and H. assure the public
their production will be second to none
And of course Henry the Horse dances the waltz


***

Tags:

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
tniassaint
Jun. 8th, 2007 03:02 am (UTC)
"Does this apply to illegal aliens as well? If it does ... is that fair?"

Not sure I understand what you are

asking / implying... lack of sleep on my part...?


As for Hilton - I am so sick of her drama.

I think filming her 45 days in the slammer would make a GREAT reality TV show - for a change.
metaphorsbwithu
Jun. 8th, 2007 03:10 am (UTC)
I see a book in the works ... probably a best seller.

Three Days in Hell

Chapter One - The toilet (like yuck!)

Chapter Two - My Imaginary Cellmate

Chapter Three - Can you believe this linen?

... and so forth *Hee hee hee*

The illegal alien for president thing was supposed to be sarcasm. *lol*

Going to bed. Had an absolutely horrible night last night.

Cheers!

tniassaint
Jun. 8th, 2007 03:45 am (UTC)
Ed... since when is the request for a simple yes or no answer "cowardly". Politicians will babble around the image and use all sorts of methods to avoid simple questions. I hear a LOT of that going on. Anyone with HALF a brain could read into what Rudy was saying. He did not think the judgment was fair. He would either Pardon him in defense of what he thinks is right OR he would be allow pressures to influence him to NOT pardon. I don’t think the question was out of line. I also do not know that I agree that a crime was not committed. I have not cared enough to make the investment of time; BUT - I also respect the court decision. He will appeal, and we will have to wait and see. I DO believe it was politically motivated, but I also respect the NON partisan nature of the bench AND that a jury is not made of party affiliations. To say that he was convicted of a NON crime implies that the jury made a politically motivated decision OR the jury is a bunch of mindless sheep.

Both men essentially said they WOULD pardon, but both men dodged the issue entirely. They WOULD overturn the jury. They just do not have the courage to stand up and say YES I WOULD.

I wish I had time to pull transcripts and post my own bit of joy… the questions about the policy of gays in the military brought some interesting answers.

My issue with Libby's conviction... I do not doubt for one minute that the leak was politically motivated, BUT the ones that were REALLY truly responsible will never be charged with the conspiracy to do so. As for the question of whether or not THAT was a crime... well... it's moot. The point is that people lied to investigators. Their bosses then threw them to the wolves. That said... I think Libby DID in fact get a raw deal...

And Paris got to go home... what a pansy.
metaphorsbwithu
Jun. 8th, 2007 04:06 pm (UTC)
Mike ... In 99 % of cases, no one will ever give a simple yes or no answer anyway except for a laugh. In this case, the question was meant to influence potential voters who only know what the media has told them about the case. What Rudy did was explain the essence of this witch hunt, that the prosecutor already knew the source of the "leak", and that he knew there was really nothing to prosecute. He went on a fishing expedition because of media/liberal pressure to have a prosecutor "get Bush". No one can answer a complicated hypothetical like that anyway without knowing all the details involved.

I didn't say that "if" Libby lied it was a non-crime. I said the supposed "leak" was a non-crime because Valerie Plame Wilson was no longer "covert" by definition, and there was no intent to leak (according to the testimony by Robert Novak who did not identify her as covert) her identity. Victoria Toensing, who helped write the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime for a government official to disclose information about an undercover CIA officer in certain circumstances, argued before Congress that Valerie Wilson was not a "covert agent" under the terms of Act.

The defense was not allowed by the judge to reveal any of these facts to the jury who, instead, were bombarded with accusations and suggestions that there was a nefarious plot to hurt Joe Wilson by the executive branch. He was allowed to do so without any evidence to support those claims. So, yes ... the jury, as juries do, made a decision based on political motivations and selected evidence. Interviews after the trial indicated they thought a "crime" was covered up and that they should go after the bigger fish. People STILL get confused when I point this out so it's no wonder the jury was confused too. If there were a crime, they would have gone after Richard Armitage and Bob Novak!

Judges and executives commonly overturn juries, sometimes softening sentences, sometimes freeing convicts. Remember Bill Clinton's list of seedy characters on his last day in office? Joe Wilson lied so much to Congress he was tossed from the Kerry campaign committee in the last election. Numerous people and email evidence suggest Valerie Plame Wilson was lying when she said she did not get her husband the trip to Niger. In light of the fallout from Novak reporting that, should there be a special prosecutor set up to find out if they committed a crime? Or anyone who aided and abeted them?

Yes, debates are nothing but political mini-speeches and sound bites, meant to charm and cloud minds rather than get at the essence of things. The fact that the republicans would subject themselves to the likes of Chris Matthews, loaded internet audience foolishness, and "raise your hand" questions still, I think, speaks more highly of them than democrat candidates who refuse to appear on Fox News debates where they might be asked a tough question or two. Like, "Do you think illegal aliens who are convicted felons, child molesters, and gang members should be granted legal status and be eligible for health, education, and social security benefits? Yes or no?

Hope your weekend is a nice one.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2014
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com