The National Security Advisor, General Jones, is stepping down. But it is incredibly surprising as to who has been appointed by Obama to be his successor.
An old friend of Obama's, a Mr. Donilon, has been appointed. What is surprising about this is the fact that Donilon is not even a military person - he spent his entire adult life as a political advisor and lawyer.
Most people cannot see any connection to qualifications as National Security Advisor. I know this does nothing to make me feel more secure!
It seems that in this administration, friendship trumps national security.
/
Friday, October 8, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
To Pledge Or Not To Pledge
A southern judge held a southern lawyer in jail for contempt of court because the lawyer refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance when court convened. The lawyer claims he has a legal right to remain silent.
But here is a point the lawyer seems to be missing. In American courts, the law of the land is the Constitution. All "friends of the court", i.e. attorneys, prosecutors etc. are required to pledge allegiance to the flag because it represents the nation, and its laws. By refusing to pledge, a judge can assume you have no allegiance to America, and therefore no allegiance to its laws. If you have no allegiance to America or its laws, you have no right to be practicing law in American courts.
And while the attorney certainly does have a right to remain silent, the judge also has the right to deem that to be contempt of court.
/
But here is a point the lawyer seems to be missing. In American courts, the law of the land is the Constitution. All "friends of the court", i.e. attorneys, prosecutors etc. are required to pledge allegiance to the flag because it represents the nation, and its laws. By refusing to pledge, a judge can assume you have no allegiance to America, and therefore no allegiance to its laws. If you have no allegiance to America or its laws, you have no right to be practicing law in American courts.
And while the attorney certainly does have a right to remain silent, the judge also has the right to deem that to be contempt of court.
/
How Liberals Think
In reference to the Meg Whitman vs Gloria Allred fiasco concerning Whitman's former maid, who turned out to be illegal, the far-left newspaper, the L.A. Times ran a poll among its liberal readers (yes, most of their readers are indeed liberal). The poll question was, "What should Whitman Have Done When She Learned Diaz Was Here Illegally?"
Only 11.3% said she should have notified Immigration. But a whopping 44.64% said she should have hired an immigration attorney to help Diaz stay in the country!
That is amazing, for several reasons. The first is that it is not Whitman's obligation to spend thousands of her own to help someone stay in the country who had duped her. Another reason - as an illegal alien, not even an immigration attorney could have helped Diaz. Diaz admits to perjury, identity theft and fraud, all felonies. There is no way she would legally be permitted to stay.
But the liberal mindset is pretty much automatic in its responses - that the "underdog" is automatically a victim of some sort and everyone should bend over backwards to serve them. It matters not that felonies were committed, nor that Diaz had duped Whitman for 9 years, or that Whitman had been paying her $23 per hour. All that matters to the liberal is that every tack should be taken to push forward the "no borders" agenda.
That is their choice, of course. But I prefer making my choices based on thought, facts and logic.
As a side note, some folks are taking odds whether ICE will actually do anything about Diaz. In spite of the fact she has confessed to committing several felonies, odds-makers believe ICE will do nothing, as it would harm the administration's agenda of not "recognizing" illegals unless they murder someone. Currently the odds are 7-2 that ICE will look the other way.
/
Only 11.3% said she should have notified Immigration. But a whopping 44.64% said she should have hired an immigration attorney to help Diaz stay in the country!
That is amazing, for several reasons. The first is that it is not Whitman's obligation to spend thousands of her own to help someone stay in the country who had duped her. Another reason - as an illegal alien, not even an immigration attorney could have helped Diaz. Diaz admits to perjury, identity theft and fraud, all felonies. There is no way she would legally be permitted to stay.
But the liberal mindset is pretty much automatic in its responses - that the "underdog" is automatically a victim of some sort and everyone should bend over backwards to serve them. It matters not that felonies were committed, nor that Diaz had duped Whitman for 9 years, or that Whitman had been paying her $23 per hour. All that matters to the liberal is that every tack should be taken to push forward the "no borders" agenda.
That is their choice, of course. But I prefer making my choices based on thought, facts and logic.
As a side note, some folks are taking odds whether ICE will actually do anything about Diaz. In spite of the fact she has confessed to committing several felonies, odds-makers believe ICE will do nothing, as it would harm the administration's agenda of not "recognizing" illegals unless they murder someone. Currently the odds are 7-2 that ICE will look the other way.
/
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Were Critics of Civilian Trials Correct?
Many people have been opposed to holding civilian trials for terrorists, claiming that the stricter legal rules and loopholes that are non-existent in military tribunals would make it much more difficult to get a conviction.
Well, it appears they may have been right and the more liberal DOJ was wrong. Today, the trial of the terrorist who bombed two embassies was supposed to go on trial in a civilian court. The trial has been postponed because the judge has BANNED the prosecution's key witness.
And this is only the first day of just one such case.
Folks should understand - on the battlefield, the soldiers cannot and should not be reading Miranda rights to those they capture. In civilian trials, that, alone can get the entire case tossed out.
My question goes deeper - WHY would Eric Holder and his DOJ want to make it more difficult to stop our enemies? What is THEIR agenda.
I feel safer with the terrorists, since I at least know what their agenda is. Not so sure about the DOJ.
After all, they dropped the charges against the New Black Panthers on charges of voter intimidation even after they were found guilty. And Holder wanted to try the Sheik who was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in a civilian court in NYC. And Holder sues a state for trying to protect itself. And now this.
And to add insult to injury, (11) countries in Central and South America have decided to gang up on Arizona, and asked the liberal 9th Circuit to permit them to speak against the Arizona illegal immigration law. When Eric Holder's Department of (in)Justice was asked if they will stand with Americans or with the other countries, they stated that they stand with the other countries. That is as wrong and as unAmerican as it gets, folks - the administration wants to replace our Constitution with "international law", and they see this as an opportunity to push that agenda forward.
Yes, at least we know which side the terrorists are on. The sooner we rid ourselves of the corrupt, unAmerican progressives in our government, the better.
/
Well, it appears they may have been right and the more liberal DOJ was wrong. Today, the trial of the terrorist who bombed two embassies was supposed to go on trial in a civilian court. The trial has been postponed because the judge has BANNED the prosecution's key witness.
And this is only the first day of just one such case.
Folks should understand - on the battlefield, the soldiers cannot and should not be reading Miranda rights to those they capture. In civilian trials, that, alone can get the entire case tossed out.
My question goes deeper - WHY would Eric Holder and his DOJ want to make it more difficult to stop our enemies? What is THEIR agenda.
I feel safer with the terrorists, since I at least know what their agenda is. Not so sure about the DOJ.
After all, they dropped the charges against the New Black Panthers on charges of voter intimidation even after they were found guilty. And Holder wanted to try the Sheik who was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in a civilian court in NYC. And Holder sues a state for trying to protect itself. And now this.
And to add insult to injury, (11) countries in Central and South America have decided to gang up on Arizona, and asked the liberal 9th Circuit to permit them to speak against the Arizona illegal immigration law. When Eric Holder's Department of (in)Justice was asked if they will stand with Americans or with the other countries, they stated that they stand with the other countries. That is as wrong and as unAmerican as it gets, folks - the administration wants to replace our Constitution with "international law", and they see this as an opportunity to push that agenda forward.
Yes, at least we know which side the terrorists are on. The sooner we rid ourselves of the corrupt, unAmerican progressives in our government, the better.
/
Sunday, October 3, 2010
We Can Make Election Campaigns More Honest
Every election season it is the same old crap - politicians often resorting to smears and personal attacks instead of standing on his or her record and on policies - a PLATFORM.
And it can get nasty - and very dishonest.
None of us like that sort of campaign mudslinging, and more often than not it serves no purpose other than to divide us even further, which is something we as a nation certainly do not need. So, what to do?
That's easy - we, the people have it within our power to put a stop to the dishonest, unsavory antics of the Graysons' and Browns' simply by refusing to vote for any candidate that reduces the mentality of their campaign to personal attacks and smears. If we stop voting for them, they will have to stop using such tactics. Stand up to YOUR representatives and tell them flat out - if they use smears or personal attacks in their campaigns, you will vote for the opponent. Period. And then follow through.
If enough people do this, it will be quite clear to all remaining politicians that we simply are not going to tolerate the BS anymore. Be civil, be honest, tell us what you stand for, or get lost - we do not need you.
That simple.
/
And it can get nasty - and very dishonest.
None of us like that sort of campaign mudslinging, and more often than not it serves no purpose other than to divide us even further, which is something we as a nation certainly do not need. So, what to do?
That's easy - we, the people have it within our power to put a stop to the dishonest, unsavory antics of the Graysons' and Browns' simply by refusing to vote for any candidate that reduces the mentality of their campaign to personal attacks and smears. If we stop voting for them, they will have to stop using such tactics. Stand up to YOUR representatives and tell them flat out - if they use smears or personal attacks in their campaigns, you will vote for the opponent. Period. And then follow through.
If enough people do this, it will be quite clear to all remaining politicians that we simply are not going to tolerate the BS anymore. Be civil, be honest, tell us what you stand for, or get lost - we do not need you.
That simple.
/
Friday, October 1, 2010
DOW vs Gold
As many of you know, I got into gold in late 1999. I said at that time that wise investors would follow suit.
Below are the 10 year charts for both gold and the DOW. As you can clearly see, the DOW has LOST about 1% of its value after 10 years. But gold has risen about 500%, and still rising.
While I would not sell the farm to buy gold today, since the price is so high, I would still strongly recommend investors put at least 10% of their portfolio in gold. Just my opinion...again...
/
Below are the 10 year charts for both gold and the DOW. As you can clearly see, the DOW has LOST about 1% of its value after 10 years. But gold has risen about 500%, and still rising.
While I would not sell the farm to buy gold today, since the price is so high, I would still strongly recommend investors put at least 10% of their portfolio in gold. Just my opinion...again...
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)