Liberalism is a Mental Disorder (AKA Politics Suck)
A blog dedicated to holding our politicians accountable to We The People.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The price of withdrawal
Noone could have said it better:
From the California Patriot:
The legacy of Vietnam
Lessons of retreat
By Jessica Vu
Posted on 04/30/07
April 30, 1975 — the fall of Saigon. The day that Vietnam fell to Communism. On this morning, the streets of Saigon stood deathly still, subdued by a sense of impending doom. From the north, the Viet Cong were coming; their military tanks could be heard in the near distance.
Some of the men, like my grandfather, burned their uniforms and fled for their lives. Others, such as my father, too young to fight, stood and wept bitterly for the freedom that was now lost. The Americans had left long ago. Nothing could save them from the vengeance of their worst enemies, their own countrymen.
In the days that followed, a new era of totalitarian rule was unleashed upon the Vietnamese people. The world could only watch and cringe as the newly reinstated Socialist government began its systematic persecution of opposition political leaders and their followers. Thousands of innocents were tortured and executed in “work” camps, mere euphemisms for concentration death camps. In this society, where any deviation from the party line had severe consequences, few dared to protest.
For many Vietnamese, living the nightmare of Socialism and poverty, enough was enough. It’s commonly said that in a place where people have no political voice, they vote instead with their feet. Two million desperate Vietnamese fled to the high seas; only an estimated half of these refugees, among them my parents, were lucky enough to find haven in sympathetic neighboring and Western nations.
As we flash forward to the present, little has changed. Vietnam was ranked this year as one of the worst violators of human rights in the world by Freedom House. No freedom of religion, no freedom of political expression, and no freedom of the press — all thanks to a regime that efficiently imprisons and silences a population of 85 million.
That is the deep heartbreak of the Vietnamese people, as 32 years later we look upon this date today and mourn for a nation that is still not free.
This inevitably leads me to ask, What is the legacy of this day and the suffering of the Vietnamese people? As our nation questions whether Iraq has become this generation’s Vietnam, the disheartening tragedy that befell the Vietnamese after U.S. withdrawal should be a compelling lesson for us in Iraq.
Under the Paris Accords of 1973, the U.S. government had promised it would continue to provide financial support to the South Vietnamese even after withdrawing American troops from the country. In 1975, President Gerald Ford asked Congress to approve legislation granting financial assistance for the South. Yet Congress denied Ford’s request, and effectively cut off the final remaining lifeline for the Vietnamese dream of freedom, leaving the population at the mercy of the Viet Cong.
In March of this year, President George W. Bush called upon Congress to renew legislative funding for our troops in their efforts to keep Iraq secure for democracy. In response, Congress has demanded a clause mandating the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, perhaps as early as the end of this year. Already it appears that many in the House and the Senate are ready to turn their backs on Iraq as well.
Our country simply cannot betray the Iraqi people as it did the Vietnamese. Our troops must stay to keep the peace until it is certain that the peace is lasting. That much we owe to the Iraqi people.
The obligations we assume in securing stability and democracy abroad are ones that we must keep and ultimately fulfill. If we truly do not want another Vietnam to unfold in Iraq, then we cannot afford to break our promise there. Our nation must stay the course in Iraq.
History has shown us what unfolded in Vietnam after we departed. Let us not repeat that same mistake.
Join Jessica in the fight for freedom at firstname.lastname@example.org or respond at email@example.com
This is very interesting indeed
Breathalyzer tests in Tucson bars
Drunk Driving is a big problem in Southern Arizona.
Between Thanksgiving and New Year's this year, more than 500people were arrested for D-U-I, in the Tucson Metro area.
Some Tucson Bars are trying to be pro-active, giving out breathalyzer tests.
It's called the "Impair Aware Breath Alcohol Tester".
It will cost you a dollar to use the machine.
You take a straw from the machine, blow into it, and then your blood alcohol content will show up on the screen.
The machine is only in six bars and nightclubs throughout Tucson.
At the Old Father Inn, Customers like Steve Liwaj think the machine is a good idea.
Liwaj says, ""I think the machines are a really good idea because you never really know when you have a drink or two drinks, what your level is."
Old Father Inn Owner Brian Bouffard says, "We're seeing a lot of activity on it, mainly groups of people that are concerned about their friends and they want to make sure they're ok, and it they're not after they blow in the breathalyzer they determine a way to get them home."
Across town at the Hideout Bar and Grill, customers can also take advantage of the machine.
Hideout owner Bob Malone says, "Every once in a while we give people a dollar just to let them know, and we'll call them a cab if we have to."
In an effort to be balanced, we asked Tucson police about the breathalyzer machine.
T-P-D officials think it's a bad idea and say there's no scientific basis for it.
NEWS 4 contacted Jim Ferreira, the president of "Breath Alcohol Testers", the company that distributes the machine.
He says he calibrates the machines every two weeks and makes sure they're as accurate as possible.
The local distributor of the breathalyzer machine hopes to have 30 of these machines in bars and clubs throughout Tucson by the end of they year.
I think this is a great idea. As someone who has lost VERY good friends to drunk drivers I am all for 100% enforcement and prevention, and prevention is what this falls under.
I am curious as to why the Tucson PD thinks its a bad idea, and WHO at TPD said that. They must be frickin nuts.
Anything that lets people know that they are too imparied to drive is a good thing. Maybe Tucson PD doesnt like the idea that someone will actually take a cab home and they are missing out on revenue from a DUI arrest.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Support our troops
Labels: Support our troops
Saturday, April 12, 2008
One more example of why I can not support the death penalty
I must be an enigma amongst conservatives. I have posted in the the past about cases of injustice where innocent people were sentenced to prison or death and they were innocent. And it all centers around the corruptness of politicians and lawyers. Ugh, lawyers...this story highlights exactly why I have little to no respect for lawyers and pray that I will never need one:
From Yahoo News:
A 26-year-old secret could free inmate
By SHARON COHEN, AP National Writer Sat Apr 12, 2:01 PM ET
CHICAGO - For nearly 26 years, the affidavit was sealed in an envelope and stored in a locked box, tucked away with the lawyer's passport and will. Sometimes he stashed the box in his bedroom closet, other times under his bed.
It stayed there — year after year, decade after decade.
Then, about two years ago, Dale Coventry, the box's owner, got a call from his former colleague, W. Jamie Kunz. Both were once public defenders. They hadn't talked in a decade.
"We're both getting on in years," Kunz said. "We ought to do something with that affidavit to make sure it's not wasted in case we both leave this good Earth."
Coventry assured him it was in a safe place. He found it in the fireproof metal box, but didn't read it. He didn't need to. He was reminded of the case every time he heard that a wronged prisoner had been freed.
In January, Kunz called again. This time, he had news: A man both lawyers had represented long ago in the murder of two police officers, Andrew Wilson, had died in prison.
Kunz asked Coventry to get the affidavit.
"It's in a sealed envelope," Coventry said.
"Open it," Kunz said, impatiently.
And so, Coventry began reading aloud the five-line declaration the lawyers had written more than a quarter-century before:
An innocent man was behind bars. His name was Alton Logan. He did not kill a security guard in a McDonald's restaurant in January 1982.
"In fact," the document said, "another person was responsible."
They knew, because Andrew Wilson told them: He did it.
But that was the catch.
Lawyer-client privilege is not complete; most states allow attorneys to reveal confidences to prevent a death, serious bodily harm or criminal fraud. But this case didn't offer that kind of exception.
So when Andrew Wilson told his lawyers that he, and not Alton Logan, had killed the guard, they felt powerless — aware of information that could free a man they believed to be innocent, but unable to do anything with that knowledge. And for decades, they said nothing.
As they recall, Wilson — who was facing charges in the February 1982 murders of police officers William Fahey and Richard O'Brien — was even a bit gleeful about the McDonald's shooting. To Kunz, he seemed like a child who had been caught doing something naughty.
"I was surprised at how unabashed he was in telling us," he says. "There was no sense of unease or embarrassment. ... He smiled and kind of giggled. He hugged himself, and said, 'Yeah, it was me.'"
Alton Logan already had been charged with the McDonald's shooting that left one guard dead and another injured. Another man, Edgar Hope, also was arrested, and assigned a public defender, Marc Miller.
Miller says he was stunned when his client announced he didn't know Alton Logan and had never seen him before their arrests. According to Miller, Hope was persistent: "You need to tell his attorney he represents an innocent man."
Hope went a step further, Miller says: He told him Andrew Wilson was his right-hand man — "the guy who guards my back" — and urged the lawyer to confirm that with his street friends. He did.
Miller says he eventually did tell Logan's lawyer his client was innocent, but offered no details.
First, though, he approached Kunz, his fellow public defender and former partner.
"You think your life's difficult now?" Miller recalls telling Kunz. "My understanding is that your client Andrew Wilson is the shooter in the McDonald's murder."
Coventry and Kunz brought Wilson to the jail law library and this, they say, was when they confronted him and he made his unapologetic confession. They didn't press for details. "None of us had any doubt," Coventry says.
And, he adds, it wasn't just Wilson's word. Firearms tests, according to court records, linked a shotgun shell found at McDonald's with a weapon that police found at the beauty parlor where Andrew Wilson lived. The slain police officers' guns also were discovered there.
Now the lawyers had two big worries: Another killing might be tied to their client, and "an innocent man had been charged with his murder and was very likely ... to get the death penalty," Kunz says.
But bound by legal ethics, they kept quiet.
Instead, they wrote down what they'd been told. If the situation ever arose where they could help Logan, there would be a record — no one could say they had just made it up. They say they didn't name Wilson, fearing someone would hear about the document and subpoena it. They didn't even make a copy.
But on March 17, 1982, Kunz, Coventry and Miller signed the notarized affidavit: "I have obtained information through privileged sources that a man named Alton Logan ... who was charged with the fatal shooting of Lloyd Wickliffe ... is in fact not responsible for that shooting ... "
Knowing the affidavit had to be secret, Wilson's lawyers looked for ways to help Logan without hurting their client. They consulted with legal scholars, ethics commissions, the bar association.
Kunz says he mentioned the case dozens of times over the years to lawyers, never divulging names but explaining that he knew a guy serving a life sentence for a crime committed by one of his clients.
There's nothing you can do, he was told.
Coventry had another idea. He figured Wilson probably would be executed for the police killings, so he visited him in prison and posed a question: Can I reveal what you told me, the lawyer asked, after your death?
"I managed to say it without being obnoxious," Coventry says. "He wasn't stupid. He understood exactly what I was asking. He knew he was going to get the death penalty and he agreed."
Coventry says he asked Wilson the same question years later — and got the same answer.
But ultimately, Wilson was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
His death penalty was reversed after he claimed Chicago police had electrically shocked, beaten and burned him with a radiator to secure his confession. (Decades later, a special prosecutor's report concluded police had tortured dozens of suspects over two decades.)
Logan's case was working its way through the courts, too. During the first of two trials in which he was convicted, Coventry walked in to hear part of the death penalty phase. "It's pretty creepy watching people deciding if they're going to kill an innocent man," he says.
The lawyers had a plan if it came to that: They would appeal to the governor to stop the execution. But with a life sentence, they remained silent.
Still, there were whispers. When Logan changed lawyers before his second trial, Miller says the new lawyer approached him. He had heard that Miller knew something more.
Please, he asked, can you help?
Miller says he told him he could do nothing for him. But he says he repeated the words he had uttered to Logan's first lawyer, more than a decade earlier:
"You represent an innocent man."
In prison, Alton Logan heard the news: First, Andrew Wilson had died. Second, there was an affidavit in his case.
"I said finally, somebody has come (forward) and told the truth," Logan says. "I've been saying this for the past 26 years: It WASN'T me."
In January, the two lawyers, with a judge's permission, revealed their secret in court.
Two months later, Marc Miller testified about his client's declaration of Logan's innocence.
But an affidavit and sworn testimony do not guarantee freedom — or prove innocence.
And Alton Logan knows that. After spending almost half his 54 years as an inmate, this slight man with a fringe of gray beard, stooped shoulders and weary eyes seems resigned to the reality that his fate is beyond his control.
"I have to accept whatever comes down," he says, sitting in a visitor's room at the Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet.
He insists he's not angry with Edgar Hope — the man who first said he was innocent — or even Andrew Wilson. He says he once approached Wilson in prison and asked him to "come clean. Tell the truth." Wilson just smiled and kept walking.
Nor is Logan angry with the lawyers who kept the secret. But he wonders if there wasn't some way they could have done more.
"What I can't understand is you know the truth, you held the truth and you know the consequences of that not coming forward?" he says of the lawyers. "Is (a) job more important than an individual's life?"
The lawyers say it was about their client — Wilson — not about their jobs, and they maintain that the prosecutors and police are at fault.
Kunz says he knows some people might find his actions outrageous. His obligation, though, was to Andrew Wilson.
"If I had ratted him out ... then I could feel guilty, then I could not live with myself," he says. "I'm anguished and always have been over the sad injustice of Alton Logan's conviction. Should I do the right thing by Alton Logan and put my client's neck in the noose or not? It's clear where my responsibility lies and my responsibility lies with my client."
On April 18, Logan will be in court as his lawyer, Harold Winston, pushes for a new trial. Along with the affidavit, Winston has accumulated new evidence, including an eyewitness who says Logan wasn't at McDonald's and a letter from an inmate who claims Wilson signed a statement while in prison implicating himself in the murder — and clearing Logan.
But obstacles remain.
Logan can't depend on Edgar Hope. According to his attorney, Hope probably will exercise his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
And he'll have to deal with eyewitnesses. His lawyer says one person changed her story in the two trials, but a second, the security guard injured in the shooting, did not. (A third, who has since died, had acknowledged that Wilson and Logan looked alike.)
Logan prefers not to look too far ahead or think too far back. He refuses to dwell on missed opportunities — marriage, children, job. "You cannot live with the situation I'm in and say, 'What if?'"
He says if he is released, he'll move to Oregon to be with his brother. "After spending 26 years in this hellhole, I want to get as far away from here as I possibly can," he says.
Last month, the Chicago Sun-Times, in an editorial, urged the attorney general or governor to release Logan, noting his claims of innocence "ring achingly true." (The state has declined comment on the case.)
Logan keeps a copy of the 26-year-old affidavit in his cell. Every now and then, he reads the single paragraph, trying to divine what the lawyers were thinking and if this piece of paper will help unlock the prison doors.
He's not banking on it.
"I'm not sold on it," he says. "The only time I'll be sold is when they tell me I can go."
For now, though, Alton Logan waits. The heavy prison doors clank behind him as he walks down the corridor to his cell. He does not look back.
The lawyer had loyalties to his client, yes, but where does loyalty rise above doing the right thing?
An innocent man is in prison ... and this lawyer and his buddies have kept that secret for 26 years
Think about that for a minute
2 and a half decades
This man has sat in prison, innocent
I shake my head at the lawyers comments about loyalty
Don't we ALL owe loyalty to truth and the right thing?
Or am I off base?
Cases like this is where I do not support the death penalty. Way too many innocent people have been killed based on lies.
On the other hand, where there is NO DOUBT of guilt, such as the case was with Tookie Williams, then I say make it swift and sure.
Can anyone help me out here?
Friday, April 11, 2008
Monday, April 07, 2008
New site now tops my favorites
Sorry FreedomFolks...love ya guys
While perusing over at StoptheACLU, I found a post pointing me to a new blog called peacethugs In it you will find all sorts of fun stuff exposing groups such as Code Pink, Moveon.org and other silly leftist "peace" organisations.
Ever wonder why we laugh at calling themselves "Peace" organisations?
Read the blog and watch the vids.
Seriously, this kind of stuff just writes itself.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Why is This a Crime?
OK, please help me understand this: Desecrating the American flag anywhere in the world is seen by the majority of the public (media and lawyers) to be free speech and no one is ever prosecuted for a crime, BUT taking down a Mexican flag hung on public property within the United States and tearing it in half is considered a crime?
Check this out!
Charlton Heston passes and the left celebrates
So much for tolerance and being the side of compassion!
From Stop The ACLU
I guess we shouldn’t expect any sense of decorum from Kossacks, but it is pretty lame that they had to unleash their hatred only minutes after the announcement of the passing of famed American actor Charlton Heston. A Daily Kos “diarist” named doriangz started out calling Heston a “gun-nut” and ending with his life and causes being considered “political nutdouchebaggery,” and the incivility just flowed like the opening of a damn from Kos posters’ keyboards after that. Not much respect for a man who’s film career spanned many decades, who marched with Martin Luther King, and fought to uphold our Constitution.
One poster said that Heston tore into the “victims of Columbine,” one Marcus Tullius said he laughed when Jerry Falwell died and that Heston’s death made the world a better place. And Fairy Tale echoed that with a post that said, “Things are already getting better in America” now that Heston was dead. RandySF said that he was sorry but that he “can’t think of anything nice” to say about Heston. Aqualad08 seemed to think that if there were “no guns in heaven” that would make it “hell” for Heston.
And they were just getting warmed up.
Then, we always have to have the “he’s a crappy actor” types like poster jazzmaniac and the ones that have no respect, like ohcanada who said, “As we sow.. I didn’t respect him in life..and I won’t in death.” Then FischFry jumped in to say that he assumed that mention of the Heston film “A Touch of Evil” was really a description of Heston himself.
And, predictably, there is the foul mouthed type that we have all come to associate so specifically with uncivil leftists, too. PerfectStormer posted a loving “So long, motherf***er” when he heard the news of Heston’s death.
But remember, these are the same sort of people who claim that it is they that are the more “compassionate,” more “caring,”, and more “civilized” in our society. Well, if the compassion they displayed for Charlton Heston is any indication, we are in more trouble than we thought… either that or the left has no real compassion at all.
I favor the later, don’t you?
Still, there were several posters that were chagrined by the hate and uncivil postings by their fellow lefties. So, at least some of the Kos posters were sorry to hear of Heston’s passing and upset at the ignorance of the other posters.
But, all the vitriol is sadly to be expected from the more “loving” left, unfortunately. I can only imagine how the media will treat him over the next few days. Who can doubt that their compassion will quickly fade to be replaced by sniping and attacks of this iconic and quintessentially American personality?
My prayers are with Charlton Hestons family and friends.
He was a good actor. May he rest in Peace
This is worth reposting
I posted this a while back. I wanted to repost it.
It speaks for itself
Spread the word, let someone know about Christ
Labels: God is great
Friday, April 04, 2008
Whoa! Pregnant MAN??
By now you have probably heard the news about the 'pregnant man'. He (and I use the term lightly) is a transgender- once a female and now legally male. Apparently, when you get transgender surgery, you don't have to give up your reproductive organs, so you are essentially, both sexes. I read an interview with Thomas Beatie and submitted a letter, which you can read below. I don't know if it will get published. Let me know what you think about this whole thing. Some people simply believe it is a hoax. We'll see in a few months, I guess.
The original link I was going to use for the article apparently works only sometimes. They're probably overloaded, so I have linked here to the magazine's main site. It is a gay magazine, so don't be surprised by some of the ads.
If you can't or don't want to go directly to The Advocate, then try this link for the Times Online in the UK.
Here's the letter I submitted. It may not have gone through. Their web site seems to be having problems.
I honestly don't know what to think about this. Since I am anti-abortion, I would never advocate killing the baby and it is obvious she will grow up in a loving family, but since this whole affair has become so public, what effects will it have on this child?
Everyone will know she was not born in the normally accepted fashion. With Thomas keeping his "reproductive rights" after his transgender surgery, he presents himself as nothing but selfish.
I understand the couple wanting a child, but wouldn't adoption have been the better alternative? The couple was thinking only of themselves and their desire to have a child and not about the child herself. It is highly likely she will have to endure extreme ridicule while growing up. I hope the family is ready to deal with the aftermath of their decision.
Tucson Unified Cowtows to immigrant groups...AGAIN
TUSD faces Pledge of Allegiance furor
By Josh Brodesky
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 04.04.2008
The Tucson Unified School District has found itself tangled in a web of online discontent, following outrage over the way a second-grade class recites the Pledge of Allegiance.
For years, Gale Elementary School teacher Anne Lee has had her students recite the pledge in three languages — English, Spanish and American Sign Language — as a learning exercise. The kids start with English.
When Lance Altherr learned last week that his son was reciting the pledge in Spanish, he was outraged. He spoke with Lee and then Principal Paula Godfrey, demanding they stop the practice. They wouldn't, and Altherr moved his son to a different class.
In the days before the Internet, that's where the drama would have stopped.
But Altherr, who is a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, took his case to the Internet, sending out mass e-mails and posting on message boards.
The result has been a swirling Internet controversy marked by crushing e-mails sent from across the country to Godfrey and the district.
"You are pledging your allegiance, and your honor and loyalty to your country," Altherr said in a phone interview Thursday. "And I find it ironic that anybody would want to do that in a foreign language."
TUSD officials have been chagrined by the e-mail barrage, essentially viewing it as an ugly outgrowth from the nation's roiling debate over immigration, citizenship and the English language.
"It's really not a story," said Chyrl Hill Lander, the district's spokeswoman. "They recite the pledge in English every morning, and they recite the pledge in Spanish. After they recite it in Spanish, then they sign the Pledge of Allegiance."
After Altherr raised his concerns about multilingual pledges of patriotism, Godfrey checked around on the practice. She checked with the district's legal department, and the state's Department of Education; both said it was fine. She even checked with the national office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars to ensure it wouldn't offend. The VFW gave her mixed signals on the matter.
A VFW official first said in an e-mail that it was "not disrespectful to say the Pledge of Allegiance in either" language "as long as it was stated as written."
But when the heat turned up, the VFW's national director sent the TUSD Governing Board an e-mail Thursday demanding a stop to the practice of Spanish-language pledges.
"To allow Spanish speaking adults the freedom to pledge their allegiance to our nation in their native language is completely respectful. However, to require English-speaking second-grade students to recite the Pledge in Spanish is another matter entirely," wrote Stephen Van Buskirk. "To the Veterans of Foreign Wars, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a sacred and meaningful exercise."
Van Buskirk also chastised Godfrey for not identifying herself as a school principal when she first inquired.
This isn't the first time the district has been at the heart of such ugly debates related to immigration. The district received national attention following a politically charged speech in 2006 by labor activist Dolores Huerta after she said that "Republicans hate Latinos" at Tucson High Magnet School.
It happened again in November when police called immigration officials to Catalina High Magnet School when a student was in custody for having marijuana, resulting in the deportation of the teen and his family. It led to a student protest march to Downtown.
This time, the district has plenty of outside support for its stance on saying the pledge in Spanish.
"I don't have any problem if they are doing that in English first," said Tom Horne, the state's superintendent of public instruction. "As long as they do the pledge first in English, I think it would be a good way for kids to learn."
Governing Board member Judy Burns offered similar sentiments, saying she viewed the whole controversy as a "spillover" from the immigration debate.
"If they were only saying it in Spanish, I could see where it might irritate somebody who believes you ought to speak English if you are a citizen of this country," she said. "But that's not what they are doing."
And Governing Board President Alex Rodriguez, who served in the military, said "it was clear … there was no patriotic disrespect intended."
But to Altherr, a 34-year-old landscaper, the disrespect has been made, and the e-mail campaign will continue.
"It's nothing against Spanish," he said. "I would be just as upset if they were making my son say the Pledge of Allegiance in German."
Mr Altherr has a darn good point...why recite the pledge in ANY language other than english when NONE of the students speaks anything else.
You want kids to learn spanish? GOOD!! Do it in language class, not during our pledge.
Besides, what ever happened to the proposition that Arizona voters OVERWHELMINGLY passed saying that english is the OFFICIAL language of Arizona?
Labels: School districts that suck