Prof Gates plays race card I hope that Professor Gates Black Studies classes are not required black political indoctrination at Harvard. From sad experience I know about the University of California “think a certain way” courses concerning sexuality and other issues. You have to take some courses to get that diploma.
At least when parents choose to mortgage their house in order to send their child to Harvard, they can tell their darling child, “I am not paying good money for you to take Black Studies courses by Gates. He is too full of himself — so pick another class.” And, per Mark Seyn’s article, which follows, Gates’ may have a Ph.D. in English and teach English at Harvard — and testify in court cases — but he does not know Robbie t Burns’ poetry from that of Shakespeare. But then again, who WAS Shakespeare? I dunno.
The article below is a hilarious comment on American society. In brief, how long will the racial card be used? Does the racial abyss have to go on forever? Answer: As long as there are people like Professor Gates around, puffing and puffing. And as long as there are Obama type people with knee jerk reactions.
Read and enjoy Mark Steyrn:
He Said/V.I.P. Said
A Prejudometer cranked up to eleven.
from National Review web site
By Mark Steyn
“By common consent, the most memorable moment of Barack Obama’s otherwise listless press conference on “health care†were his robust remarks on the “racist†incident involving Prof. Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge police. The latter “acted stupidly,†pronounced the chief of state. The president of the United States may be reluctant to condemn Ayatollah Khamenei or Hugo Chávez or that guy in Honduras without examining all the nuances and footnotes, but sometimes there are outrages so heinous that even the famously nuanced must step up to the plate and speak truth to power. And thank God the leader of the free world had the guts to stand up and speak truth to municipal police sergeant James Crowley.
“For everyone other than the president, what happened at Professor Gates’s house is not entirely clear. The Harvard prof returned home without his keys and, as Obama put it, “jimmied his way into the house.†Someone witnessing the “break-in†called the cops, and things, ah, escalated from there. Professor Gates is now saying that, if Sergeant Crowley publicly apologizes for his racism, the prof will graciously agree to “educate him about the history of racism in America.†Which is a helluva deal. I mean, Ivy League parents re-mortgage their homes to pay Gates for the privilege of lecturing their kids, and here he is offering to hector it away to some no-name lunkhead for free.
“As to the differences between the professor’s and the cops’ version of events, I confess I’ve been wary of taking Henry Louis Gates at his word ever since, almost two decades back, the literary scholar compared the lyrics of the rap group 2 Live Crew to those of the Bard of Avon. “It’s like Shakespeare’s ‘My love is like a red, red rose,’ †he declared, authoritatively, to a court in Fort Lauderdale.
As it happens, “My luv’s like a red, red rose†was written by Robbie Burns, a couple of centuries after Shakespeare. Oh, well. Sixteenth-century English playwright, 18th-century Scottish poet: What’s the diff? Evidently being within the same quarter-millennium and right general patch of the North-East Atlantic is close enough for a professor of English and Afro-American Studies appearing as an expert witness in a court case. Certainly no journalist reporting Gates’s testimony was boorish enough to point out the misattribution.
I hasten to add I have nothing against the great man. He’s always struck me as one of those faintly absurd figures in which the American academy appears to specialize, but relatively harmless by overall standards. And I certainly sympathize with the general proposition that not all encounters with the constabulary go as agreeably as one might wish. Last year I had a minor interaction with a Vermont state trooper and, 60 seconds into the conversation, he called me a “liar.†I considered my options:
Option a): I could get hot under the collar, yell at him, get tasered into submission, and possibly shot while “resisting arrestâ€;
Option b): I could politely tell the trooper I object to his characterization, and then write a letter to the commander of his barracks the following morning suggesting that such language is not appropriate to routine encounters with members of the public and betrays a profoundly defective understanding of the relationship between law-enforcement officials and the citizenry in civilized societies.
I chose the latter course, and received a letter back offering partial satisfaction and explaining that the trooper would be receiving “supervisory performance-related issue-counseling,†which, with any luck, is even more ghastly than it sounds and hopefully is still ongoing.
Professor Gates chose option a), which is just plain stupid. For one thing, these days they have dash-cams and two-way radios and a GPS gizmo in the sharp end of the billy club, so an awful lot of this stuff winds up being preserved on tape, and, if you’re the one a-hootin’ an’ a-hollerin’, it’s not going to help. In the Sixties, the great English satirist Peter Simple invented the Prejudometer, which simply by being pointed at any individual could calculate degrees of racism to the nearest prejudon, “the internationally recognized scientific unit of racial prejudice.†Professor Gates seems to go around with his Prejudometer permanently cranked up to eleven: When Sergeant Crowley announced through the glass-paneled front door that he was here to investigate a break-in, Gates opened it up and roared back: “Why? Because I’m a black man in America?â€
He then told him, “I’ll speak with your mama outside.†Outside, Sergeant Crowley’s mama failed to show. But among his colleagues were a black officer and a Hispanic officer. Which is an odd kind of posse for what the Rev. Al Sharpton calls, inevitably, “the highest example of racial profiling I have seen.†But what of our post-racial president? After noting that “‘Skip’ Gates is a friend†of his, President Obama said that “there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.†But, if they’re being “disproportionately†stopped by African-American and Latino cops, does that really fall under the category of systemic racism? Short of dispatching one of those Uighur Muslims from China recently liberated from Gitmo by Obama to frolic and gambol on the beaches of Bermuda, the assembled officers were a veritable rainbow coalition. The photograph of the arrest shows a bullet-headed black cop — Sgt. Leon Lashley, I believe — standing in front of the porch while behind him a handcuffed Gates yells accusations of racism. This is the pitiful state the Bull Connors of the 21st century are reduced to, forced to take along a squad recruited from the nearest Benetton ad when they go out to whup some uppity Negro boy.
As Professor Gates jeered at the officers, “You don’t know who you’re messin’ with.†Did Sergeant Crowley have to arrest him? Probably not. Did he allow himself to be provoked by an obnoxious buffoon? Maybe. I dunno. I wasn’t there. Neither was the president of the United States, or the governor of Massachusetts, or the mayor of Cambridge. All of whom have declared themselves firmly on the side of the Ivy League bigshot. And all of whom, as it happens, are African-American. A black president, a black governor, and a black mayor all agree with a black Harvard professor that he was racially profiled by a white-Latino-black police team, headed by a cop who teaches courses in how to avoid racial profiling. The boundless elasticity of such endemic racism suggests that the “post-racial America†will be living with blowhard grievance-mongers like Professor Gates unto the end of time.
In a fairly typical “he said/V.I.P. said†incident, the V.I.P. was the author of his own misfortune but, with characteristic arrogance, chose to ascribe it to systemic racism, Jim Crow, lynchings, the Klan, slavery, Jefferson impregnating Sally Hemmings, etc. And so it goes, now and forever. My advice to Professor Gates for future incidents would be to establish his authority early. Quote Shakespeare, from his early days with Hallmark:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Victims are black
Like 2 Live Crew.
Judge Soyomayor
written by Cameron Jackson cameronjacks@gmail.com
Wise people do not go around saying that they are wise. Judge Sotomayor has known for 10+ years that she might be considered for nomination to the Supreme Court. In her remarks she refers to herself as the “wise Latina” who she believes will make a better decision than a white male.
For Sotomayor to hold herself out as wise is not a wise decision. And to do so by connecting her wisdom to her racial background is dumb. That she made the “wise Latina” remarks in a number of speeches over a 4-5 year period is idiotic. It might even be viewed as a moronic decision considering that she knew she was on the list for possible nomination.
People we now call mentally retarded used to be called dumb, idiot or a moron. Those were commonly employed educational terms to describe students with low levels of functional intelligence.
For Judge Sotomayor to repeatedly say she is a “wise Latina” who will make better decisions because of her race/gender/rich experience shows a questionable level of functional intelligence. She may test smart on an IQ test – we have no information on that issue — but per her “wise Latina” remarks she can act in a dumb manner.
Getting a possibly dumb Latina on the bench may be exactly what President Obama wants. For Obama, it is all about leveling the playing field so everyone gets equality — except for Obama and close supporters.
After all, functionally dumb people should have an equal chance as a smart person to be on the Supreme Court. That is Obama’s thinking it appears. President Obama can just have Sotomayor over for social gatherings so that she learns how he wants her to vote on certain issues.
So how “dumb” is Obama? Not that dumb.
Asked questions during the nomination process about her “wise Latina” remarks, Sotomayor has tried to spin it differently. Do you think she succeeded? Or is her nose growing longer and longer?
“Pat Leahy opened the questioning of Judge Sonia Sotomayor by asking her some softball questions about her controversial speeches and decisions. In response, Sotomayor’s characterization of her “wise Latina” speech was strikingly disingenuous:
I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.
What — the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be what I just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.
That has to be what she meant, because judges disagree about legal outcomes all of the time — or I shouldn’t say all of the time, at least in close cases they do. Justices on the Supreme Court come to different conclusions. It can’t mean that one of them is unwise, despite the fact that some people think that.
So her literal words couldn’t have meant what they said. She had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and impartial.
Sotomayor employs a rhetorical dodge by focusing on how she interpreted Justice O’Connor’s famous statement that “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” She says that O’Connor couldn’t have meant that the the wise man and the wise woman will reach the same decision in every case, since judges often disagree. Rather, she interpreted O’Connor’s statement to mean that men and women have an equal capacity to reach wise judgments.
Of course that’s correct: O’Connor was saying that men and women shouldn’t reach different decisions because of their genders. But here is where Sotomayor hides the ball. Having created a diversion by talking about what O’Connor meant, she slipped in this key statement: “the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey.”
That statement is a falsehood. Sotomayor’s whole point in quoting Justice O’Connor was to disagree with, or at least express reservations about, O’Connor’s view that the judge’s gender shouldn’t affect the outcome of a case. Here is the passage from Sotomayor’s speech:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Thus, Sotomayor’s characterization of the context of her “wise Latina” remark is the opposite of the truth. She wasn’t “agreeing with the sentiment that Justice O’Connor was attempting to convey,” as she told Senator Leahy. Rather, she staked out a position in opposition to O’Connor’s. In her speech she expressly disagreed with O’Connor’s view, as Sotomayor put it, “that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.”
I’ve been on the fence as to whether Senators should vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, but this rather breathtaking dishonesty provides strong grounds to vote against her confirmation.
UPDATE: Later in the proceedings, Sotomayor couldn’t resist fudging the facts once again:
SOTOMAYOR: …I was talking about the value that life experiences have, in the words I used, to the process of judging. And that is the context in which I understood the speech to be doing.
The words I chose, taking the rhetorical flourish [i.e., “wise Latina”], it was a bad idea. I do understand that there are some who have read this differently, and I understand why they might have concern.
But I have repeated — more than once — and I will repeat throughout, if you look at my history on the bench, you will know that I do not believe that any ethnic, gender or race group has an advantage in sound judging. You noted that my speech actually said that.
And I also believe that every person, regardless of their background and life experiences, can be good and wise judges.
LEAHY: In fact, if I might…
KYL: Excuse me. Just for the record, I don’t think it was your speech that said that, but that’s what you said in response to Senator Sessions’ question this morning.
Indeed, Sotomayor said no such thing in her speech; she said the exact opposite
Let liberty ring!Let the freedom bell ring today, July 4th. Let people keep more money in their pocket book. Let them make their own decisions how to spend iit.
Tell your representative NO to taxing carbon dioxide. NO to spending trillions on a new health plan. NO to amnesty for millions just because they got in here somehow. Let in those who have skills and who follow the rules.
Your personal credit rating matters. So does credit rating of each state. California ties with Louisiana for the LOWEST credit rating of any state. Individual bad credit means you are not living within your means. State bad credit is no dfferent. California has got to live within its means. How? Privatiize the prisons. Encourage more charter schools and more diversity in education.
California has 1/2 of all cities in the U.S. that have unemployment in excess of 15%. The corporate tax rate is eighth in the nation. The state and local tax is 6th highest in the nation.
That’s why you hear about a “bad business climate” in California.
Step up to the plate Muslims worldwide! There must be some Muslim communities who can take in a handful of Chinese origin Gitmo detainees.
What does a released convict do when life in prison looks better than life outside? He/she commits another crime and goes back to prison. Simple. But what kind of criminal act? The usual one that got them to prison. It is easy to do familiar acts. For Gitmo detainees, terrorism is a familiar act.
That’s why these detainees no longer enemy combatants will need a very short leash. The best Big Brother is their own Muslim religious community. They need a loving Muslim religious community where justice rolls down from the hills. Where Muslims are required to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly with their God.
One hundred nations have refused to take any Gitmo detainee.
These 22 Ughurs refuse repatriation back to China. They refuse the few offers made: to Algeria, Tunisia, Syria and Uzbekistan.
Twenty-two Chinese Ulghurs detainees have been de-classified as enemy combatants, some as early as 2003. These are Chinese Muslims combatants picked up in Afghanistan.
Where have they gone? Four went to Bermuda which sits in the Atlantic east of North Carolina. Bermuda, a territory of England. Now Palau, a tiny South Pacific country, has offered.
The ones assigned to go to Palau refuse to go. Palau has no Muslim community. As they have to Palauan blood they cannot be a citizen. As Palau has not ratified the international refugee conventions they cannot get travel documents.
So where are some loving, structured Muslim communities that will step up to the plate? Who will take in these Men without a Country?
And if not Muslim, then any religion that teaches love, not war, peace not enmity, justice not injustice, rights for all persons,not just a few. But them those Muslims would have to convert from their radical brand of Muslim faith. Would they do that? Not likely.
Until some Muslim or other religious community offers refuge or some country is willing to take our dime to support them – they stay in Gitmo. Gitmo is a country club. A rather nice one.
What CRIME did the enemy combatants commit for which they should have the legal protections of our Miranda rights — to remain silent, to have an attorney, to be tried in an American court of law?
Persons have to be accused of a CRIME to have the protection of the Miranda rights.
Put the shoe on the other foot: what CRIME did American boys in uniform commit when they shot at Afghanistan citizens?
Islamic countries are known for swift justice for criminals: cut off hands for those who steal, cut off heads for those who murder. Is Obama in effect CONDONING the use of fast violence by Islamic countries by viewing WAR as CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?
Shall we decide what “crime” was committed by going to a “higher court” like the U.N. which supposedly should decide who should have nuclear war technology?
War has different “rules” than crime. President Obama has blurred the two activities. Deliberately.
CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of ‘Enhanced Interrogations’
By Paul Kane
“Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.
In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered “EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah.” EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.
The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.
In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi’s office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations.
“As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used,” said Brendan Daly, Pelosi’s spokesman.
Pelosi’s statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations.
In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding — which simulates drowning — and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder.
The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world.
In October 2005, CIA officials began briefing other congressional leaders with oversight of the intelligence community, including top appropriators who provided the agency its annual funding. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and an opponent of torture techniques, was also read into the program at that time even though he did not hold a special committee position overseeing the intelligence community.
A bipartisan collection of lawmakers have criticized the practice of limiting information to just the “Gang of Four”, who were expressly forbidden from talking about the information from other colleagues, including fellow members of the intelligence committees. Pelosi and others are considering reforms that would assure a more open process for all committee members.
By 44 Editor | May 7, 2009; 7:29 PM ET Dem. Leaders
Previous: New Deal: Specter Gets a Subcommittee Chairmanship |
CommentsPlease email us to report offensive comments.
Worthless lying B****.
RESIGN.
NOW!!!!!
Posted by: mdsinc | May 7, 2009 7:58 PM
As reported in ABC News, bunch of other Dems not in the Post article:
“On Feb. 4, 2003, a briefing on “enhanced interrogation techniques†for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., revealed that interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri were taped.
In addition, that briefing “described in considerable details†the techniques used, including “how the water board was used.â€
A similar briefing the following day included Goss and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who by that time had become the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, when Pelosi moved on to become minority leader.
The report is accompanied by a letter from CIA Director Leon Panetta to intelligence committee leaders that describes the way it was compiled: “This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents [memorandums for the record] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.â€
Posted by: nitewinde | May 7, 2009 8:12 PM
the only way to keep this issue silent is getting blood on everyone’s hands who were direct/indirectly involved.
Posted by: infoshop | May 7, 2009 8:14 PM
See the detailed Briefing list with Dem after Dem listed here:
Well, is anyone surprised that many members of the political class hold themselves above the law. As far as I’m concerned, they should all be held accountable.
Posted by: protagoras | May 7, 2009 8:47 PM
Is Madame Speaker really stupid enough to think she can call the CIA a bunch of liars without any retribution? They were here long before her, they will be here long after her and they will protect themselves against opportunist over-botoxed politicos.
Posted by: wave41 | May 7, 2009 8:50 PM
Frankly, although a Democrat, I found the party’s using this issue to bash Republicans morally repugnant from the beginning. Moreover, I was certain that, despite denials, some of them would have had to be briefed.
Let also us recall that the overwhelming majority of Dems signed off on the Iraq invasion, most of them without having read the relevant documents.
Neither of the two parties in the “two-party” system is looking good right now, haven’t looked good for a long, long time.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 7, 2009 8:51 PM
“It’s the Democrats’ fault, because they didn’t stop us!!”
Posted by: gkam | May 7, 2009 8:52 PM
Pelosi’s behavior over the last couple of years has been downright peculiar.
This article simply states the obvious:
That there was a reason for her peculiar behavior.
Claiming to be a Democrat, while espousing the corrupt values of any old Republican, and especially while single-handedly presuming that she had the authority to prevent the very impeachment for which impeachment itself was invented, all this made a very bad smell, which any human being with a functioning brain was aware of.
Why we had to wait until now to see this in the press is anybody’s guess.
My personal guess is that the same Republicans are behind today’s Congressional decisions as were behind them during the Bush maladministration, and Pelosi is as much on their payroll as Bush was.
Posted by: wardropper | May 7, 2009 8:52 PM
this is why the lying, backstabbing Obama has joined the rest of the war criminals in protecting the Bush gang agaisnt prosecution,i.e., we’d have to arrest the Dem leaders of Congress also.
Posted by: dochi1 | May 7, 2009 8:53 PM
There is no honor among thieves.
And, unfortunately, no honor among most politicians, especially those who make a career of it; ala Ms. Pelosi.
Posted by: LAWPOOL | May 7, 2009 8:53 PM
I don’t understand why you people are so surprised.
You just refuse to believe when you are been told about what your ‘representatives’ do and don’t do. You wait until it’s too late.
EACH AND EVERY SINGLE senator knew what was going on and APPROVED it. It’s common sense.
They are briefed. They are informed about things that we are supposedly not capable to know because we are children. Things they say must be kept secret for ‘security reasons’.
You citizens suck big time.
Posted by: sapitos44 | May 7, 2009 9:02 PM
Why don’t we post more articles for the enemy to view in our own newspapers . This captured terrorists are from no known country and wear no uniform and thus are not allowed Geneva rights .
Then ask yourselves ..”Where are all the US POWs?”. After Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003 , where are the US POWs ? The correct answer is , there are none, this sub human enemy takes no prisoners and thus why are we so worried about the rights of these fighters ?
It’s a real shame that the left and this newspaper along with the NY TIMES has become source material for our enemy . As a military family I am repulsed by your treachery and the folks who post here calling for the prosecution of people who have prevented further terrorists attacks.
Posted by: skunkdad7 | May 7, 2009 9:03 PM
Wardropper
Get a clue dude !
Posted by: skunkdad7 | May 7, 2009 9:05 PM
Well I guess ALL these Dems must have been in on it,the full briefing list has more:
Nancy Pelosi
Bob Graham
John Rockefeller
Jane Harman
Harry Reid
*Full Committee
John Murtha
Evan Bayh
Russ Feingold
Diane Feinstein
Carl Levin
Barbara Mikulski
And this is just the list being briefed prior to 11/16/06 **** They have known for a very long time well before the election and are ALL still lying.
Posted by: nitewinde | May 7, 2009 9:19 PM
Pelosi is a liar. So is Obama and the whole bunch.
thank you idiots for voting this bunch into office.
Biggest disaster ever
epic fail
Posted by: rdb2 | May 7, 2009 9:32 PM
LIAR!!! Time to step down Botox Pelosi.
Posted by: sprayadhesive | May 7, 2009 9:32 PM
I REALLY hope that the CIA finds a way to effectively deal with Pelosi — a way that will end her lying and arrogance once and for all . . . permanently.
Posted by: DocChuck08 | May 7, 2009 9:33 PM
So in other words… “Pelosi was actually FOR waterboarding before she was AGAINST waterboarding!” Typical flip-flopping, try to have it both ways, liberal. It’s one thing to change your mind… but to try to have it both ways then deny your previous position is just pathetic.
http://www.UpYoursObama.com/
Posted by: UpYoursObama | May 7, 2009 9:33 PM
Pelosi is a Democrat only as far as it is able to increase her power base.
People whine about Reid but it’s Pelosi who is the poison in the party.
She should have gone long ago.
Posted by: buzzsaw1 | May 7, 2009 9:34 PM
Well, she was there, but she wasn’t actually listening, because she was trying to talk instead.
Posted by: davidwc | May 7, 2009 9:39 PM
Pelosi according to Daly is like the lady who ‘only had sex the one time’ and accordingly ‘I’m still really a virgin’.
This TOQ ( tired old queen ) is one of the reasons a dark cloud of depression is descending on our great nation. She is not the only reason…. but her inner ugliness is disgusting.
What a role model for American women !!!
She is a disgrace to honesty and dignity.
Posted by: DeLyonGetty | May 7, 2009 9:39 PM
No surprize that a lying manipulative b**ch like Pelosi would eventually get caught. Probably she will claim she didn’t remember, like Clinton did with the Whitewater affair. She is toast, and should be removed from office.
Posted by: sniper609 | May 7, 2009 9:39 PM
HOORAY!!! OVER 10,000 Signatures!!!
Join us at: w w w * THANKYOUPRESIDENTGEORGEWBUSH * C O M
Posted by: typgwb | May 7, 2009 9:40 PM
OH GEE, SUDDENLY AS MORE AND MORE TOP DEMOCRATS BECOME EXPOSED AS ACCESSORIES AND ENABLERS (to what I don’t know, since there is no “crime” whatsoever for anyone – but whatever, we’ll play their silly game), THE MORE THE RAT PARTY SUDDENLY DECIDES ITS ALL A BAD IDEA AND WANTS TO DROP IT!
If the DemocRAT Party fire bombing hundreds of thousands of civilians, women, babies, monks and school kids to death,
if the DemocRAT Party nuking hundreds of thousands of women and children, wiping out hospitals, schools and children on outings, delivering DEMOCRAT TORTURE by Thermonuclear Immolation and Radiation to innocent civilians – on multiple occasions,
if the DemocrRAT war of atrocity, massacre and savagery in Vietnam,
if the DemocRAT rounding up tens of thousands of Asian-Americans and putting them in concentration camps,
if the DemocRAT attacking the sovereign nation of Pakistan without legal authority,
If DemocRAT atrocities against Native Americans,
If all these War Crimes, and more, that have been delivered to this earth by the hand of the Democrat Party are not “War Crimes” and “Crimes Against Humanity”…
…THEN neither are advanced interrogation techniques.
Its just that simple.
Fess up to your Democrat crimes or shut your pie holes you partisan pansies.
Repeat loud and repeat often. Right back in their puss filled faces.
Posted by: C0rrupt_0_Crats | May 7, 2009 9:43 PM
Pelosi is a horrendous, partisan, lying, manipulative witch.
Posted by: ac7880 | May 7, 2009 9:43 PM
I have no problems with water boarding terrorists. It is not torture. I have grave problems with lying, hypocrisy, defamation, and treason. Nasty Pelosi and the Democrat party leadership are guilty of those sins. We need Senate committee hearings on the conduct of Democrats over the last seven years. They did all they could to destroy our war effort.
Posted by: pokenhorn | May 7, 2009 9:46 PM
She’s about to say that it depends what you mean by “water” and “boarding”. She thought it was some So. Cal. surfer dude talk. Really. Ingratiate ourselves with AQ by showing them some gnarly waves. Show them how cool, peaceful and laid back we are.
My guess is that CIA did more than a little CYA. She’s lying. Code Pink knows how slippery she is.
Sigh…
Posted by: maxtel1910 | May 7, 2009 9:47 PM
How can you tell if Nancy Pelosi is lying? When her mouth is moving. She would sell this country down the river for fifty cents. But then again, so would 90% of the current Democrats in Congress. I’m hoping that someone in the 10% remaining will finally realize the country is in danger, and broadcast it widely.
Posted by: RightStuff | May 7, 2009 9:49 PM
Don’t you guys understand by now? This is an outrage, criminal, impeachable offense when a Republican does it. When it’s the “progressive” Dims, it’s someone else’s fault. You see, the corrupt biased mainstream media refuse to get out of bed with the Dims and hold them accountable. And they wonder why they are losing business rapidly.
Posted by: STomPayne | May 7, 2009 9:50 PM
Water boarding with doctor present to save countless lives or chop someones members off because they are fighting the great satan? Convert or die is their goal. Hmmm, are some here who post really young and haven’t experienced the real world? I got news for some of you, everyone in the world doesn’t share your ideals. Pelosi is a typical lying left wing nut. Surprise, surprise. Unbelievable how naive some of these post are. Letting liberal professors fill you with socialist/progressive view is great as long as you realize their eutopian world does not exist. Evil exist. Time to wake up.
Posted by: mugsy511 | May 7, 2009 9:57 PM
What a stupid, lying,..C##T!..Mean and clueless!!Bravo you old Ho!
Posted by: chips3 | May 7, 2009 9:58 PM
Pelosi should be held accountable for this blatant lie. The MSM would cover this for years if this were a Republican yet with a Democrat, crickets.
How this woman can be trusted in politics from this point on is beyond me.
Posted by: PupsMcCann | May 7, 2009 10:00 PM
does anyone think still Pelosi in NOT a bold faced LIAR?
Posted by: shotgunplanet | May 7, 2009 10:02 PM
HEY, Pelosi—STRETCH FACE!!
You FACE and YOUR MOUTH—FALSE, FALSE.
You vermin, louse.
RESIGN and GO AWAY. You and your face DISGUST ME!
BTW, I saw you in a low cut blouse. Couldn’t you afford to have your chest stretched? It looks like a map of the Mississippi Delta—with all those furrows and deep lines.
YOU DISGRACE ALL AMERICANS!!!
Posted by: igorhunan | May 7, 2009 10:03 PM
Pelosi Lied… Freedom died
Posted by: shotgunplanet | May 7, 2009 10:04 PM
Her name was McGill, she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her as Nancy. OOPs
Aloha,
Nancy Peeloucy sure practices her Joseph Goebbels technique, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it… and his second rule: “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and overâ€
nuff said
Mahalo
Posted by: Warrior07 | May 7, 2009 10:06 PM
Pelosi should be Baker Acted. But she will likely employ the Bill Clinton playbook tactic of “it depends on what ‘is’ is. Seriously, she must be forced to resign. Isn’t their any accountability in our government anymore. I mean, we even have a party that hires and now funds election thugs like ACORN. Obama and this adminstration are a disgrace. President Narcissist has not told the truth about anything. Not one thing. Campaign fund sources, earmarks, lobbyists, pork spending for political payback, 5 day vetting by the public on budget bills…..it is a bunch of lies. And the press looks the other way. Huffington Post has NOT even printed anything about the Pelosi disgrace. Just shows you what America is up against. A bunch of Fascists bankrupting our country for their own power, control and financial gain. As for Michelle, …for the first time in my life I am ashamed to be an American. Impeach Pelosi and Obama.
Posted by: aroleflin | May 7, 2009 10:06 PM
Well, the good part is that this particular witch hunt is over!
Posted by: scott3 | May 7, 2009 10:07 PM
HEY STRETCH PALEO-LOUSY:
Waterboarding a few muslim killers is NOT torture.
Having you as the Speaker of the House—THAT IS TORTURE!! Seeing your face, and your furrowed, ugly wrinkled chest— from FACELIFTS R US—THAT IS TORTURE!!
If we did not have Eric “THE RED” Holder as Atty General, you would be in stocks, and on your way to prison.
LIAR!
RESIGN!
Posted by: igorhunan | May 7, 2009 10:07 PM
PupsMcCann,”How this woman can be trusted in politics from this point on is beyond me.”
Who trusted her to begin with? Who trusted any of the Dems? Reid, Frank, Murtha, Dodd, Kennedy, Obama et al are liars. The progressives lie,cheat and steal their way into power to accomplish their agenda.
Posted by: mugsy511 | May 7, 2009 10:07 PM
Let me get this straight. Desperate Conservatives who applauded the Bush Gangs approval of these techniques, are condemning Nancy for knowing about them and not telling, even though she was forbidden by law to do so? Seems like your protests – like your principals – are a bit misguided.
Posted by: rhahn2 | May 7, 2009 10:08 PM
So, are all those worthless hags from Code Pink going to hold sit-ins at Damascus Nan’s office? Or will she get a free pass because she is a pro-abortion woman and that is all that really matters.
Posted by: kmne68 | May 7, 2009 10:10 PM
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi can claim that she did not know about the EITs because she has mastered Orwell’s 1984 art of doublethink, which is to hold two contradictory thoughts simultaneously in ones mind while believing both to be true.
Posted by: panhead101 | May 7, 2009 10:10 PM
One Big Ass Mistake America. Not only him but the vermin that goes with him
Posted by: OleGunny | May 7, 2009 10:13 PM
The problem is not that they had to keep this information secret at the time briefed.
The problem is that there is no reason to LIE now and the DEMS involved have made a conscious decision to LIE about wether they were ever briefed at all !
That is what makes a LIE a LIE, when you LIE and know your LYING is bad enough but to know your LYING and still LIE after getting caught is just crazy.
Posted by: nitewinde | May 7, 2009 10:13 PM
NO, NO, NO!!
Nancy, please don`t resign! We need you and Harry Reid to continue to help our beloved President Obama resurrect the Republican party. Besides, if you left, who would we laugh at every morning?
Posted by: CDNassif | May 7, 2009 10:13 PM
There MUST be a criminal investigation of this liar.
Posted by: EWGSHL | May 7, 2009 10:14 PM
My guess is this is Hussein using the CIA to pull on Pelosi dog leash to show her who is boss. Maybe the CIA will do something to save America like leak the marxist’s BC.
Posted by: Franc33432 | May 7, 2009 10:16 PM
The Democrats did the same thing with the Iraq War as this EIT deal – agree with Bush initially, and then turn on him and paint him as a monster/warmonger.
Watch Hilary on March 6, 2003 make the case for attacking Iraq based on pre-Bush intelligence from her husband Bill’s admin:
Then, Obama ran against Hilary, McCain and Bush largely on his superior judgment in being against the Iraq War- he was not in Congress or Senate; then once elected he appoints guess who to be point person in his administration on foreign policy!! Yes, your Sec of State, Hilary. whatever
The press was and is so in the tank for Obama and Democrats, they turn a blind eye to all the hypocrisy. BTW, they were so quiet in opposing the Iraq War for one reason, Democrats were taking them aside and telling them the intelligence on the WMD was really there and Bush was not making it up. They told the media it was old intelligence that pre-dated Bush and IT WAS!! Slam dunk George Tenet CIA director was a Clinton appointee. He wimped out too, turning on Bush.
This isn’t just politics either – we could have won that Iraq War years ago if we had been united. Real soldiers lives at stake.
Posted by: evanpastor | May 7, 2009 10:16 PM
rhahn2, I got news for you, the left wing is in full display now and are intoxicated with power. This is a great thing for America, because they are showing the lying, vicious scumbags they are. The majority is still conservative and you will see them take the country back soon. If Pelosi admitted to knowing and accepting to protect the country I would have more respect for her. But with her it’s about power and not the country.
Posted by: mugsy511 | May 7, 2009 10:17 PM
Pelosi should not resign.
She should “Hang herself” the way the DC Madam Deborah Palfrey & her callgirl Brandy Britton “Did.”
Ask Gary Condit how.
Posted by: rickahyatt | May 7, 2009 10:18 PM
Nancy, Dearest, its extremely difficult not to go with my base instincts and spew justifiable venom at you. Instead, I propose those poor fellows from Gitmo be released in San Francisco and invited to tea with you on Sundays.
Posted by: go_figure | May 7, 2009 10:19 PM
Botox must affect the memory. Californians, please, THINK when you go to polls.
Posted by: clayp72 | May 7, 2009 10:19 PM
Let me get this straight. Desperate Conservatives who applauded the Bush Gangs approval of these techniques, are condemning Nancy for knowing about them and not telling, even though she was forbidden by law to do so? Seems like your protests – like your principals – are a bit misguided.
Posted by: rhahn2 | May 7, 2009 10:08 PM
SHUT UP! Forbidden by law? Who has the misguided principals?
Posted by: gippers1 | May 7, 2009 10:20 PM
Pelosi is such a liar. And that is really saying something considering how much Democrats lie on a regular basis.
Posted by: bug45 | May 7, 2009 10:20 PM
Concerned citizens should demand that Pelosi be subjected to a water-based enhanced interrogation technique. My bet is that her memory of what she was told in those briefings would improve significantly. Meanwhile, she’s a pathetic waste of space, time and air.
Posted by: Finnzport | May 7, 2009 10:21 PM
Just like everything else Madam Pelosi is involved with, this has a certain stink. It’s really a shame members of congress enjoy the protection they do and avoid responsibility for their actions or inactions plus the lies they utter.
Posted by: kiethrich | May 7, 2009 10:22 PM
Does anyone Left, Right or Center really believe this Political Gargoyle. If you do stick with Loony-Tunes that’s about your speed.
Posted by: ALL-AMERICAN1 | May 7, 2009 10:22 PM
Some of you (like gkam–always a pleasure to see you here) attack the strawman view that Pelosi’s culpability is being used to excuse the Bush Administration’s conduct. Wrong. What she did or didn’t do about what she knew or didn’t know has no bearing on the culpability of the former administration. It might be relevant to her culpability, although I doubt she has any. It is definitely relevant to her ability to claim the moral high ground, which she now cannot do. She can just shut her mouth and let someone who was not briefed take up that cause. Sorry, Nan, you have to sit this one out.
Posted by: Compared2What | May 7, 2009 10:22 PM
Aloha rhahn2, Desperate Conservatives???
I think “Amused Conservatives” is a better description. We don’t hate like our Liberal Counterparts. We don’t practice charactor assassination like our Liberal counterparts.
We stand amazed at the number of Liberal Jerks who can’t let go of W or Dick C., and amused that they aren’t aware of the disaster the USA is headed for under the guise of “Change U can Believe.”
Conservatives will always survive, its in our genes. Liberals are like, lemmings always looking for a judas goat to lead them over the cliff, into victemhood…and we enjoy watching the debacle that always occurs under liberal, dare I say it, leadership(?).
Mahalo
Posted by: Warrior07 | May 7, 2009 10:24 PM
“Well lets take a long look at that Briefing list of Dems that were briefed and to this day keep lying about it:
Nancy Pelosi
Bob Graham
John Rockefeller
Jane Harman
Harry Reid
*Full Committee
John Murtha
Evan Bayh
Russ Feingold
Diane Feinstein
Carl Levin
Barbara Mikulski
And this is just the list being briefed prior to 11/16/06 **** They have known for a very long time well before the election.”
Nitepost.
Thats allot of Democrats who should be investigated on what they knew and when they knew it.
Posted by: PupsMcCann | May 7, 2009 10:25 PM
We should send Obama and all the left wingnuts to California and close the borders with Nevada, Arizona and Oregon. Let them live their and party in their own eutopia. That will keep the rest of us safe. lol
Posted by: mugsy511 | May 7, 2009 10:25 PM
If it is torture, and that word does not appear from journalism, is it torture? Is journalism hedging its bets?
Who is the final arbiter of the term, international law, our own law? What do our laws say, what does international law say?
Ought journalism not be reporting that?
Posted by: khmaio | May 7, 2009 10:39 PM
SURPRISE SURPRISE, PELOSI IS A LIAR! THIS IS A DUMMIE THAT CANNOT TELL TRUTH FROM HER FICTION SO LYING FOR HER IS PATHLOGICAL. SHE NEEDS TO BE WATERBOARDED DAILY TO REVEAL HER DECPTIONS, FRAUD AND CORRUPTION THAT IS HER NORMAL ACTION. SHE MAKES ALL DEMS LOOK BAD AND THE SPEAKER’S POSITION A JOKE. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK NANCY! JUST LIKE YOUR MAFIA PAPA!!!
Posted by: jblosage | May 7, 2009 10:40 PM
Nancy Pelosi is a lying sack of sh&tt. Yu know it, I know it, she knows it…get rid of this evil witch!!!!!!
It will all come back and bite Obama in the butt…he is cut from the same cloth. They will all get there’s and it won’t be pretty!
Posted by: anaf | May 7, 2009 10:44 PM
I don’t care what side of the aisle you fall on, playing political games on this subject like that is as reprehensible as it gets. Her flat out denials that we all now know to be outright lies speak for themselves. Look politics is a dirty business, and I can understand trying to play for political points on issues like healthcare or gun control. But this is our very safety and the safety of all our honorable men and women that put their lives on the line every day for us. Just despicable. And just for the record, Sarah Palin’s son is one of those brave men serving in our armed forces. I know The Left’s opinion of them is rather condescending (considering they brand them as potential “right wing extremists), and I know she’s a “joke”, but at least she’s got skin in the game. It’s incredibly hard for The Left to give her credit for anything but hopefully we can all at least acknowledge that.
go to myangryelphant dot com for more. www.myangryelephant.com
Posted by: myangryelephant | May 7, 2009 10:44 PM
The corrupt politician and career criminal, Nancy Pelosi, was elected to Congress from San Francisco with only 149,000 votes (2006 Election), not enough to get elected as Mayor of New York (754,000 votes in 2005). Nonetheless, this traitor is arguably the most powerful woman in the world. Meanwhile the US Main Sewer Media permits her to act as if she has been elected to represent the United States of America. No – I did not vote for her, nor did 122 MILLION (non-San Franciscan) voters that voted in the 2004 Presidential election, 62 MILLION of which voted for George W. Bush.
Posted by: Americanus | May 7, 2009 10:46 PM
The only difference between a democrat and a republican politician is the route to power. The desire to rule is the same.
If we allow these people who desire power at any cost to rule, we get what we deserve…
“Same as the old boss”
Posted by: NoRespect | May 7, 2009 10:46 PM
Wag your finger again, Nancy! Say it LOUDER, Nancy! “I did not sex with that waterboard …”
Posted by: WilliamJB | May 7, 2009 10:48 PM
Wouldn’t it be nice if the enemy waterboarded our soldiers and then we could trade our captives for their captives. Why is this crap crazy? Do we want Americans to be saints when the enemy does not take captives alive. How could we be so stupid and how can Obama have credibility when he is a liar and a traitor.
Posted by: rick1013 | May 7, 2009 10:48 PM
These Dems are all Liars and will say anything to get and keep power…
Now Wash Post tell the world that these same Dem Liars are the morons who ran the economy into the ground with their manipulation of the mortgage system (Fann/Freddie) and the banks with their social engineering scheme to give loans to illegals and those who could ill afford them. The dem Congress ran the budget for two years before the election and this is THEIR mess. This is a DEM ECONOMY.
The press should be shot for treason for it’s refusal to tell the people the truth about the economy and much else.
Let’s watch the MSM ignore this tonight.
Someone at the the Washington Post have awakened to realize what this koolade press is doing to the country, their 401K’s and future generations.
Posted by: Meme27 | May 7, 2009 10:52 PM
As a person who feels this whole approach to criminalize the Bush admin’s actions is greatly misguided, I am very happy that Pelosi was briefed and then lied about it. This witch hunt is now over.
Its especially sweet to see how even the most “profound” moral concerns of the Democrats will be quickly swept aside as one of the chosen ones is threatened.
This will be all the proof I need that concerns about torture were really just rancor against the Bush Admin.
Its just too bad that these people have seriously misled the American people. They used shabby sophistry to call into question the morality of those that protect this country and saved thousands of lives. The media is complicit in this libel.
Posted by: scott3 | May 7, 2009 10:53 PM
I know she is lying I saw her lips moving…… As long as she is running the House this type of leadership will continue!
Posted by: rgroce | May 7, 2009 10:55 PM
You’re surprised here?
2002: The Democrats voted for the war, because thats what the polls told them to do.
2006: The Democrats campaigned against the war, because thats what the polls told them to do.
Nancy was for waterboarding before she was against it.
Typical liberal hypocrite. She’ll do and say anything to get her and fellow Democrats elected and keep them there.
And the American people trusted Democrats with national security???
They’ll abandon the troops in the field if it gets them votes.
Posted by: RaiderDan | May 7, 2009 10:58 PM
It is clear that Pelosi knew what was going on and did not object. No matter what she now says, she is simply trying to appease her far left constituents by lying about what she knew. Obama and his cabal of DC leftists are putting this country in ever greater danger day by day. The so-called torture issue is small potatoes when it is compared to the massive budget cuts in our national defense budget. The real question is, “Do you feel safer now, or did you feel safer two years ago?” I felt a lot safer two years ago when I had a president who really cared about our national security and who made no apologies about it.
Posted by: PatrickCurry | May 7, 2009 10:58 PM
Is this the same Nancy Pelosi that constantly trashed George Bush calling him every slanderous name in the book. Is this the same Nancy Pelosi who is the democratic house speaker who has all the power in the world….she tell the president what to do…..but the Pope chewed out her liberal rearend. Is this the same Nancy Pelosi that has a lifetime supply of botox. If this is then she needs to catch a bus or rent a car and go back to the left coast
Posted by: drcusmc | May 7, 2009 10:58 PM
Republicans are very confused. I am a life long Democrat. I think I can speak for every other Democrat when I say that if Nancy Pelosi gave the OK for torture, she should go to jail. Repugnicans don’t get it. They are so loyal to their party, they want to give their “leaders” a free pass outside the law. Dems don’t think their leaders are Gods, and if they break laws, SEND ‘EM TO JAIL. Repugnocrats, on the other hand, seem to idolize their leaders, and, unlike Dems, if their leaders break laws, they don’t seek their dismissal and incarceration. Refusicans rearrange the American Experiment such that their leaders are not constrained by legal codes and laws, because what they do they do “from the heart.” Dems believe that corrupt pols, of any stripe, need to go to jail, hence the idea of releasing papers etc.
Posted by: owlk | May 7, 2009 11:00 PM
WHAT? Nancy was lying? Whoda thunk it?? I’ll have to listen to NPR and see if this really is true…
Posted by: fourechodog | May 7, 2009 11:01 PM
TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS!!!! Two terms then throw the bums OUT!!!!
This country did not vote for Ms Pelosi. She does not represent this country. She represents San Francisco.
THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!!!!!
Posted by: bobster01 | May 7, 2009 11:03 PM
OWLK,
Don’t hold your breath.
There may be a DEM that is held to task, but all the DEMS briefed that LIED on this won’t be held legally accountable.
Posted by: nitewinde | May 7, 2009 11:05 PM
Pelosi? Intelligence Committee? Mickey Mouse’s dog, Pluto, would have been a far better choice.
We are in the very best of hands.
It would be appropriate for the Speaker of the House to report San Fran Nan to the Ethics Committee for lying to Americans.
Oh, yeah, San Fran Nan IS the Speaker of the House. And the Ethics Committee is just for show, created and manipulated by San Fran Nan herself.
Plus, a politician who lies to Americans isn’t committing an “ethical” violation, anyway. Lying politicians are just SOP.
Indeed, Pelosi is likely up for a Whopper award, or at least some wall certificate, for her sustained lying under pressure.
Posted by: JRS2U | May 7, 2009 11:05 PM
This lady knows all about torture techniques–and your little dog, too.
Posted by: vlscpa | May 7, 2009 11:08 PM
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! We need to clean house in 2010. I’ll do my part by voting against Dodd (I voted for him when I live in CT and I’m moving back there later this year) but you people in MA (Franks) and CA (Pelosi) and PA (Murtha) and all over the country have to do your part too.
Posted by: daleinfl | May 7, 2009 11:09 PM
These days with all the gaping wounds in politics and the media I can’t help but ask ‘Who would want to be a politician anyway?’
Then I see the likes of Nancy Pelosi and realize we all need to be politicians and give her a year to get the hell out of Dodge!What an unabashed embarassment.
Posted by: rmoorejr30 | May 7, 2009 11:10 PM
suck it Dumb-o-rats.
Posted by: DrPearl | May 7, 2009 11:13 PM
If the Dems want to bring this stuff then the information that they had their hands in it every step of the way will also come out. They agreed with every decision Bush made from going to war to torture. There is no differance between them and Bush except Bush was more honest. You always knew where he stood on issues.
Posted by: jschmidt2 | May 7, 2009 11:13 PM
It should be no surprise to anyone with a brain, Pelosi is a liar and should resign. She makes me sick every time I see her ugly mug . She is a disgrace to this country.
Posted by: BC1358 | May 7, 2009 11:13 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com’s articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
You must be signed in to washingtonpost.com to comment. Please sign in.
Comments:
Ads by Google
CIA Careers
Earn an intelligence degree to help you prepare for a CIA career.
www.apus.edu
Waterboarding = Torture?
Did Bush Break the Law? Sign our petition to uncover the truth now!
BushTruthCommission.com
Rep. Jane Harman Caught?
Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC
www.cqpolitics.com
SEARCH:washingtonpost.comWeb| Search Archives
News | Politics | Opinions | Business | Local | Sports | Arts & Living | Going Out GuideJobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Classifieds
washingtonpost.com: Help | Contact Us | About Us | Advertisers | Site Index | Site Map | Make Us Your Home Page | mywashingtonpost.com | Work for Us | Mobile | RSS
The Washington Post: Subscribe | Subscriber Services | Advertisers | e-Replica | Online Photo Store |The Washington Post Store | National Weekly
The Washington Post Company: Information and Other Post Co. Websites
Require that the rulers/ respresentaitive disclose their views ahead of public meetings.
James Jackson, Esq.The current public meeting scenario goes something like this: The governing body, hereinafter rulers, assembles ensconced in their segregated area surrounded by staff. The public fidgets in their assigned area while first staff and then legal staff imparts data. Finally the public statements, limited in time, commence. Then the rulers deliver their ukase.
This is no better than an American version of Hyde Park Corner. Words delivered to the wind.
I propose that from now on all rulers must, 3 days before a hearing of public interest, post their tentative view of the issue along with their reasons for holding the view. Ideally they would also be required to post the contrary view and reasons. But that can wait another time.
Should a ruler not post her view, she is disqualified from voting on the issue. Should she miss 3 postings, she is recalled.
Now we can have a meeting where the public knows who stand where. Now the public can address pertinent issues rather than just orating with the hope that something will apply to some ruler’s hidden view. And this process will tell us something of the thought process,if any,of the particular ruler.
It is much more difficult to be a secret toady of a special interest if she must reason publicly.If she displays her opinion with reasons, it may be that she is just factually incorrect and this can be remedied. And argument, which just might be persuasive, can be brought to bear on a particular reason. But only if one knows the reason.
So let us have a much more involved public. Lets have a more open set of rulers.
James Jackson, Esq. jaj48@aol.com
With a few modifications, this is from the Santa Clara web site.
“Who decides if an adult is developmentally disabled (DD)?
“The Regional Center in your community (San Andreas Regional Center covers Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County, San Benito and Monterey County) will test the proposed conservatee to see if s/he is developmentally disabled.
“Generally, a person qualifies as developmentally disabled if s/he has an IQ less than 70 or is diagnosed with autism. There are five eligible conditions to qualify under at any age for Regional Center services. The dsability must have been present before the person became age eighteen.
“Other conditions can qualify too. If the Regional Center accepted the person as a consumer shortly after birth, then s/he automatically qualifies.
“But, if the person has never been tested or accepted as a regional center consumer, s/he must be tested.
“If the Regional Center feels the person does not qualify, and you disagree, you can appeal to the Area Board in your region. In Santa Clara County, the area board supervising the San Andreas Regional Center is Area Board VII.
“What kinds of decisions does a limited conservator make?
At the hearing, the judge will say exactly what rights the conservator has.
Because developmentally disabled people can usually do many things on their own, the judge will only give the limited conservator power to do things the conservatee cannot do without help.
The conservator may:
* Decide where the DD adult will live (but, NOT in a locked facility).
* Look at the DD’s adult confidential records and papers.
* Sign a contract for the DD adult.
* Give or withhold consent for most medical treatment (NOT sterilization and certain other procedures).
* Make decisions about the DD adult’s education and vocational training.
* Place the DD adult at a state hospital for the developmentally disabled (a locked facility, like Agnews Developmental Center).
* Give or withhold consent to the DD adult’s marriage.
* Control the DD adult’s social and sexual contacts and relationships.
* Manage the DD adult’s financial affairs.
“Any adult developmentally disabled person for whom guardianship or
conservatorship is sought pursuant to this article shall be informed
by a member or designee of the regional center and by the court of
the person’s right to counsel; and if the person does not have an
attorney for the proceedings the court shall immediately appoint the
public defender or other attorney to represent the person. The
person shall pay the cost for such legal service if able.
“If an affidavit or certificate has been filed, as provided in
Section 416.7, evidencing the inability of the alleged
developmentally disabled person to be present at the hearing, the
psychologist …. assisting in preparing the report and
who is required to visit each person as provided in Section 416.8 shall communicate such information to the person during the visit,
consult the person to determine the person’s opinion concerning the
appointment, and be prepared to testify as to the person’s opinion,
if any.
416.17. It is the intent of this article that the director when
acting as guardian or conservator of the person of a developmentally
disabled person through the regional center as provided in Section
416.19 of this article, shall maintain close contact with the
developmentally disabled person no matter where such person is living
in this state; shall act as a wise parent would act in caring for
his developmentally disabled child; and shall permit and encourage
maximum self-reliance on the part of the developmentally disabled
person under his protection.
The above is from the web site for Superior Court of Santa Clara County
24/7 hour federal presence required in Laredo, Texas to stop flow of guns south to Mexico.
guns flow southWe need a 24/7 federal and state presence checking outflow to Mexico. Until we do, GUNS flow south.
Take Laredo, Texas. There are 12 lanes IN to the USA and 6 lanes OUT to Mexico. Every person coming IN faces a federal agent. Every bus is emptied. Every bag checked by dog or X-ray. In contrast, there are only 2 local policemen to check all OUT bound 6 traffic lanes. Thus, virtually nobody and few vehicles are checked for weapons or other contraband. We turn a blind eye to who and what goes south.
Over the last four years, here was an average of only 183 weapon seizures for each year for ALL federal ports along the South-western border. The estimate is that less than 1 percent of the guns going south were seized.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napoliano plans to deply more license plate scanners, more temporary teams and more X-ray machines. The police in Laredo say only an around-the-clock presence will make a real difference.
What can/should border states do? Don’t hold your breath for Homeland Security to get its act together.
The above based on article in The Wall Street Journal, Friday, April 17, 2009 written by Cam Simpson
written by Cameorn Jackson www.freedomOK.net/wordpress
No Aptos, CA smart lawyer would do this!
Get this. A San Francisco attorney changed his vote while serving on a jury because:
1) his wife told him to do so;
2) he went out and looked at the scene of events and thus knew more;
3) to return to work.
Answer: Number three. The lawyer simply wanted to go back to work.
In a possibly unprecedented case, a San Francisco lawyer faces disbarment because he changed his vote to break the deadlock in order to return to work.
This is frm California Bar Journal, April 2009. And what do you think of that?? There is “stupid is” and “stupid does”. This is an example of “stupid does”. And maybe also is “stupid is”.
What CRIME did the enemy combatants commit for which they should have the legal protections of our Miranda rights — to remain silent, to have an attorney, to be tried in an American court of law?
