Bye, bye Blaggy...

The Illinois State Senate has just now voted to remove Gov. Rod Blagojevich from office by a vote of 59-0.

They have additionally voted to bar him from holding any future office in the State of Illinois.

Bye, bye Blaggy...we will see you at your trial. There you can have all that "due process" you have been crying about...not that it will keep you from jail!

We have just seen the first of the Blagojevich trilogy...
Part II - "Mr. Blagojevich Goes to Trial"
and finally...
Part III - "Mr. Blagojevich Goes to Jail"

Obama's Stimulus Plan

$800+ billion for Obama's new "stimulus plan"...???

Nobody really wants to spend the money except the Dems (and they deny it). I'm happy no Republicans voted for it...It is a massive waste.

Certainly nobody has showed it will be effective or efficiently done, or even remotely cost-efficient...and when government spends money...we all know "cost/benefit" factors go out the window!

As for the money committed for fighting STD's being stimulative...at least "spreading" STD's would be stimulative and create jobs...preventing them really doesn't.

Obama is now talking about "saving and creating" 3-4 million jobs because he knows the jobs being "saved" can't be measured. So they can get credit for them later on.

Maybe they could use the money to hire a couple million hookers...to meet the numbers promised...the STDs which are spread would create many additional jobs in the medical, public health and drug industries.

Nobody is "pro-abortion"...wrong!

I am constantly amazed when I hear people like Obama say the following:

In a January 24, 2008, interview with Christianity Today, Obama had this to say about abortion: "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise.

He knows them...and they do exist! There are well established, militant "abortion on demand" elements in the Democratic Party. There are also elements who do proclaim there should be more abortion. They do this in the guise of addressing the woes of poverty and over-crowding in parts of the world.

I'm not sure which element...the "abortion on demand" element, which sees there being no reasonable limits on abortions...or the people who think abortion as "birth control" and population control is proper. I have a difficult time considering them any better than the Nazi's.

Obama has now got the money flowing back to the 2nd element. I do believe there are doctors working for some of the international groups who do great things...but I can't support those groups for the other things they do. I don't want to subsize murder.

Why don't we just charge them and give them trials??

"Blake Wallace wrote:I have a novel concept! Let's charge them with a crime, then give them a trial!Damn, why didn't our founding fathers think of that!"

***************************************************
This comes from my previous thread "Where to put Gitmo Detainees"because it is a broad topic... (feel free to reply here or to that thread)***************************************************

My reply:

Our founding fathers never had to deal with the modern concept or practice of terrorism. Most law covers only "domestic" crime. There were no such things as "international crimes", "crimes against humanity"...or "international terrorism".

The few internationally accepted legal principles mostly involved what has been called "the Laws of the Sea". Since all European countries recognized legal differences between naval "warfare", "privateering", and "piracy".

Those few laws were of course never subject to a body such as "The World Court"...and the laws regarding the handling and punishment of "Piracy" which is their contemporary equivalent of modern "terrorism" was brutal, far more brutal than anything we have in the modern world.

Why don't we just "charge them with a crime, then give them a trial"? Simple...the conventional law doesn't generally apply. The closest things we have to internationally accepted legal standards..."The Geneva Conventions" don't particularly apply to terrorism either. The nations of the world, are arguing about whether the people who are not recognized by international law and standards as "armed combatants"...and since there is no unanimity on the subject...the current answer is NO...they do not meet the standard or are they entitled to the protections offered by the "Geneva Conventions". These are not soldiers...

Since they aren't covered by most nations "domestic" laws...and aren't recognized by international laws and conventions as "armed combatants"...they are subject to the treatment of the nation who holds them sees fit. If the world wants clarity, and an internationally acceptable way to deal with these people and their crimes...the practical thing to do, would be to convene, agree upon, then adopt a new "International Convention for the Treatment and Handling of Terrorists and Irregular-Combatants".

This is something that of course doesn't exist...but should...to finally fill the void.

"Change we can believe in"? Try "Change we can be disgusted by!"

headline: President Obama - Accessory to Murder (oops soon we all are)


On Friday, his 3rd full day as President (2nd since actually completing the Oath properly)...a day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade...the new President issued an executive order restoring funding to international organizations which provide information and abortion services around the world.

Is this supposed to be the sort of "change we can believe in"? I would say it is more like the sort of "change we can be disgusted by". Like it or not...with the sweep of his pen, Mr. Obama has enabled the use of our money to assist abortion providers around the world.

So for those who believe abortion is murder...a significant portion of the American public...this move means that he has decided, that they should be forced to subsidize murder. Perhaps the worst part of his decision, is that it is money which is going around the world. The American people have no say in the types or standards of abortion procedures which can be performed.

Americans in even larger majority are opposed to things like late-term and "partial-birth" abortions...but in his pandering to the left and the pro-abortion crowd...he has enabled even the most disgusting of abortion procedures to be subsized by us all.

The executive order reverses one in place since 2001 by President George W. Bush...which blocked the use of U.S. tax dollars to promote and provide abortions.

In a related move, Obama also said he would restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization.
Obama, said he looked forward to working with Congress to fulfill that promise: "By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."

"President" Obama...30 hours, and no powers!

It is almost kind of funny that over a million people froze their butts off and the world as a whole watched an historic moment...but one that that didn't actually occur. President Obama taking the Oath of Office.

By my reckoning we went roughly 30+ hours without a "President", as a result of the Presidential Oath of Office having been improperly administered by Chief Justice Roberts. Careful reviews show that one word was omitted.

Minor though it may seem...and in something of a conflict with the 20th Amendment to the Constitution...we had a titular President as of noon on Inauguration Day...but President Obama had none of the Constitutional powers and authority of the Presidency until sometime 30+ hours later when Chief Justice Roberts administered, and Obama took the oath properly.

This is at least the 3rd known time this has happened...and lest people think it is minor...consider this. The Oath has been re-administered at least 3 times out of recognition that the Constitution is clear. The President is President in name only until he takes the prescribed oath.

It isn't optional or trivial and if it was ever tested in the Supreme Court, would certainly be acknowledged.

Article. II. - The Executive Branch, Section 1 - The President

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I have heard numerous reports that they did it again "just to avoid any difficulties" and such - but the fact is, they did it again...as did the others on the previous occassions...because of a recognition that the Constitution is clear. The President is not vested with his Presidential powers until he has taken his Oath of Office.

I am pleased that the Republic survived the 30 or so hours without a Constitutionally empowered President...what I'm not pleased about, is that we had to! All that was needed to resolve the situation was for President Obama to take 20 seconds in an alcove to complete the Oath properly. Robert and many other Federal Judges were available. There was plenty of time to do so, quietly, within minutes of the error.

White Guilt

Did you notice in the benediction that whole Black won't be in the back, Yellow will be mellow, red will get ahead...WHITE WILL GET IT RIGHT? What kind of racist BS is that? I am insulted. Do we have to put up with this for the next 4 years??? I am doing all I can to cut BHO some slack and give him a chance, but for every step I take forward, something like that backs me up about three steps! Or did I not hear it right?

Ronnie Lee Twist (Nashville, TN) wrote12 hours ago

Ronnie,

It is just more of the double-standard...whites are expected to live with.
Whites aren't supposed to be sensitive or offended by clearly racial remarks, snubs or indignities directed at them. We have been the "oppressors"...so we are "required" to being overly-sensitive and take every effort to never offend minorities.

We are required to put up with it because we raped, murdered, stole from and enslaved the oppressed masses...

F@*K that! I haven't enslaved or oppressed anyone...I doubt any of us have!

Grow up folks! I'm tired of this BS...the era of White Guilt needs to end! Do you know who the biggest racists are? Minorities! The Jacksons and Jeremiah Wrights of the world who can practice reverse descrimination...and prosper from the sowing of hate and a sense of entitlement for the evils of the past!

If Obama couldn't find someone able to write a Benediction, who could find a word to rhyme with "White"...he should find some help! Or at least find someone who judges others by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin!

Help Michele Obama...please!

This may offend some people...but that has never bothered me too much. It certainly won't bother me this time.

Michele Obama has the most horrendous sense of style. I have been seeing and hearing people rave about her. I honestly wonder if they all have terrible taste themselves or are fairly blind.

Someone please take control! I can't bear to see the "First Lady" of the United States parading around in the clothes she has been for the next 4 years. I can live with BO. He has a solid sense of style...he is usually impeccably dressed.

His wife on the other hand...please, please, please!!! Someone fix her!

Today's Jackie "O" curtains or sofa material dress she was wearing for the Inaugural may well have been pulled out of the Kennedy's storage. She had the 60's frump look going for her...big time!

Oh well...at least it wasn't as bad as that monster of a dress she had on in Millenium Park on Election Night...the Black blob with the Red splotches...it made her look like a 200 pound Black Widow spider...

Someone...please don't let her go shopping on her own!

Lastly...
I wonder - Does fashion commentator, Philip Bloch (the world's gayest man)...really, truly believe, Michele Obama, is beautiful and has great taste...or is just a major league brown-noser and suck up???

...60 years ago?

Not really enough in this speech for "revisionists" to gild or rip apart.

"We have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly."

I was surprised after the planned leaks about the speech over the last few days...that those elements weren't as much a focus of the speech as was leaked. Those same few words have been an element of just about every Inaugural Address...so I was surprised to see it be such a minor element in BO's. Nowhere near as sweeping as Kennedy's call to service, or sacrifice and responsibilty in many other's Inaugurals.

I think the "60 years ago..." reference was also a poor one. The statement was actually true as recently as 40 years ago, and could of referenced Dr. King's efforts to change them. Especially in light of MLK day yesterday and his assassination 40 years ago (2 days after I was born).

I'm speaking of all this in historical terms, including the grades I'm giving, naturally. So after several runs through the address...my grade for him is a B-

Inauguration Speech C+ and B+

For such a dramatic and anticipated moment in American history...I would have expected at least one "ask not what your country, can do for you..." moment. I didn't find anything remarkable in the Address in terms of historical standards. It didn't even seem delivered with BO's usual level of passion. C+ for the writing...B+ for the delivery.

I think given his reputation for being a "great speaker", this Inaugural address has to be given very average marks. Personally I have always considered him over-hyped as a speaker, except when speaking from a prepared text. He is Obam"uh" when he isn't. But aside from that he is usually a fairly skilled orator.

On this occassion, I would of expected him to deliver one of the best of his life...so I am disappointed for his adoring fans...and personally not impressed.
He had the platform upon which to deliver an important message, and an uplifting address to the nation and the world...he failed! The eyes of the world were upon him and I think the best that could be said, is that people watched and didn't change the channel...but given the fact nothing else was on...it wouldn't of done any good.

I think he squandered a great chance to deliver a great and uplifting message.

C+ writing, B+ delivery...final grade = B- slightly better than average.

Burris denied Writ of Mandamus in Burris v. White

Illinois Sec. of State Jesse White has won, as I expected...his response to the Burris filing, seeking a Writ of Mandamus...the Burris motion for the writ has been denied by the Illinois Supreme Court...
http://www.state.il.us/COURT/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/January/107816.pdf

Burris now has to get the Senate to change or waive its rules or sue the Senate to be seated...or he can try to do something mentioned in the decision...

"While the Secretary of State has no duty under Illinois law to sign and affix the state seal to the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor, hedoes have a duty under section 5(4) of the Secretary of State Act (15ILCS 305/5(4) (West 2006))

“to give any person requiring the same paying the lawful fees therefor, a copy of any law, act, resolution, record or paper inhis office, and attach thereto his certificate, under the seal of the state.” The registration of the appointment of Mr. Burris made by the Secretary of State is a “record or paper” within the meaning of thisstatute. A copy of it is available from the Secretary of State to anyonewho requests it. For payment of the normal fee charged by theSecretary of State in accordance with this statute, Petitioners could obtain a certified copy bearing the state’s seal.

Burris can spend the $1 or $2 for a copy...and he may be all set!

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

-Benjamin Franklin

“There was a time when a fool and his money were soon parted, but now it happens to everybody.”

Adlai E. Stevenson

Jesse White may win against Burris

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White’s (Madigan’s) filing in response to the Burris petition for Mandamus was posted a little while ago. It is actually quite brilliant, with a number of solid arguements.
http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/specialmatters/burris_010709.pdf

The Illinois Court is fairly liberal…and may reach beyond a simple or strict reading and interpretation of the law…but if have they handle it straight…White may well win.

The most crucial element is that he is asserting, he has already completed ALL of the acts required of him under Illinois law, and since Burris has the Senate to provide remedy to his seating…Mandamus should not be granted.

The law requires him to “make a register of all appointments by the Governor” and he did that on Dec. 31 and nothing in the law tells him to do more. Just because the Rules of the Senate, require both the governor and secretary of state to certify the appointment, doesn’t mean he is legally required to under Illinois law.

If White wins…the Senate may be forced to change the rules to seat Mr. Burris. From the White response, I’d say White has about an 80% chance of getting the Writ of Mandamus refused.

That will put the Senate back on the hot seat…to change the Rules of the Senate, or be forced to seat him later by what would probably be the U.S. Supreme Court.

It really gets into a legal gray area…the SCOTUS would be forced to dance around the Senate’s right to make its own rules per Article I, based on the 17th Amendment.Article I (and the Rules of the Senate)and the 17th amendment come into conflict with each other, if Burris loses in his effort to get a Writ of Mandamus in Burris v. White so it will be interesting.

Burris needs a better attorney...

I was surprised listening to the little presser that Burris had this morning outside the Capitol...

His attorney...I would assume, some sort of legal hot-shot...cited Marbury v. Madison as legal precedent. Burris needs a new attorney, the case doesn't apply...and even worse for Mr. Burris, Marbury who sued the acting US Sec.of State to get the job he was appointed to...didn't win! So not exactly a good precedent...former State Attorney General Burris, should know it.

Mr. Burris needs a Writ of Mandamus to be issued by the Illinois Supreme Court, to force Secretary of State Jesse White to perform the duty of completing his Certificate of Appointment...until that is done, his credentials are not complete...he can't be seated without them.

Cong. Bobby Rush (D-IL) is a disgrace to the the people and State of Illinois and the Congress of the United States...

It is appalling that a mush-mouthed old Black Panther (a racist group) has the nerve to assert that the blocking of Roland Burris to the vacant Senate seat formerly held by Mr. Obama...is an act of racism!

Illinois has chosen 2 black Senators (not an act of racism)...numerous state-level black officials, etc. and a black man to be President.

So if the appointment of Mr. Burris by a disgraced governor, on the verge of impeachment, is opposed by the vast majority of the citizens of the State of Illinois, and his own party...to include the black man he is replacing...does that mean everyone incuding blacks are engaged in some sort of outrage and racism against a black man?

This is some sort of case of "the white man, keeping the black man down"???

Shame on you Mr. Rush!

When the black man (Jesse White) who has to certify and seal the Certificate of Appointment for Mr. Burris finally does so...which will eventually be ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court...you can scream racism if the Senate blocks him...

Until then, the Senate has acted entirely proper in blocking him for not having his credentials...

Bobby Rush owes the nation an apology!

Roland Burris today repeatedly announced that he is "a United States Senator".

Burris is not a Senator as he insists, and should know better (as a former Illinois Attorney General) than to say so...he can't be seated tommorow. He will have to sue Jesse White to do so.

Under the Rules of the Senate, a certificate for the appointment must be presented. The Secretary of State must sign it in addition to the governor of the state. The Illinois Secretary of State (Jesse White) has refused to do it...until a completed certification is presented to the Secretary of the Senate...Burris is not eligible to be sworn in and seated under the Rules of the Senate.

Contrary to many reports aired today...Burris can't be seated Tuesday, even if the Senate were to cave...because under their own rules...he doesn't have his credentials. Also, my reading of the law is such that Burris can't even sue the Senate first and use the decades old Powell decision in the Federal courts yet. He would have no legal standing as a petitioner. He is not going to be deprived his seat based on Senate actions...he is initially being deprived by the Illinois Sec. of State withholding his legal certification...so, look for the first legal move to be a suit regarding that...Burris v. White.