There were quite a few great lines in the movie Forrest Gump, including the one above. Our President proved the one above earlier this week, when during a press conference, when asked about the arrest of a Harvard Professor, he said the following:
" Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. So far, so good, right? . . . They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is [presumably from only talking with the professor], at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." See transcript published at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/obama_july_22_2009_press_confe.html
Now, the President says that he's biased as a friend of the Professor. He also says, not once, but twice that he doesn't know the facts. And then he says one of the parties, the police (whom he notably did not call his friends) "acted stupidly". Yes, there was "stupid" [using the President's choice of words] behavior in connection with this incident, and it happened during the press conference with this response to a question about a local to Cambridge incident that the President had no business addressing.
Any person with a modicum of decent legal training would never say out loud, in a press conference no less, something along the lines of "I don't have all the facts, but I proclaim party A behaved stupidly." Especially when the person making the statement really should be an impartial party. After all, the President does not represent the professor. Instead, he should be doing his best to promote racial harmony in this country.
In fact, this President is in a unique position to work to bring the races together in this country, but he forewent the opportunity during the campaign, and he forewent the opportunity during the press conference this week. Instead, he just stirred up racial disharmony at the end of the press conference.
Notably, this sort of thing [aka foot in mouth disease] seems to show up most when the President is not reading off the teleprompter, but is answering questions off the cuff. Perhaps that's why, when a teleprompter blew over at the Air Force Academy graduation Vice President Biden quipped "what am I going to tell the President when I tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/27/biden_jokes_about_breaking_obamas_teleprompter_.html
While the President, first refused to apologize for his words, now he seems to be trying to back away from them (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar ), unfortunately damage has been done. An out and out public apology is required. And, a word to the wise - even if the President learns all the facts, please stay out of a local Cambridge matter.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Memo to Bill O'Reilly: MYOB
Sad news this week: Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara, who gave birth to twin boys at the age of 66 has passed away. The boys are in the care of Maria's brother, their uncle, the last I heard, and they will be doing fine.
Unfortunately, men who seem to have a need to control women, and/or misogynists, have taken this story to use to push their own agendas. Last night, Bill O'Reilly went on a tirade, saying among other things that menopause is nature's way of telling women that they can no longer have children. He also said that to have children after menopause was "unnatural", and that there should be a law that makes it illegal for a woman to have children after she has entered menopause.
There are so many things wrong with Bill's rant, it's difficult to know where to start. Let's start with the law, shall we? Thanks to Roe v. Wade, the government, if not Bill O'Reilly, acknowledges a right to privacy, and a right for a woman to have control over her own body. So, if a woman has a right to choose to kill the baby growing inside of her, why doesn't she have a right to decide to conceive a baby? One would think Bill would be all for this proposition.
Who will be in charge of enforcing Bill's law? Will there be menopause police? If so, Bill, I can tell you that if you or any of your menopause police come by my home to "certify" my uterus as menopausal, you and the boys will be leaving without two or three of your accoutrements that you hold most near and dear.
Just because a woman is young is no guarantee she will be around to raise her children. A 28 year old mom of four can get hit by a bus, be severely beaten or killed by her boyfriend or husband (just look into the headlines every year), die in a car accidents, or, as what happened to a woman I know, contract breast cancer. Just because a woman is young and is capable of giving birth does not mean that she will be around to raise her kids or that she will be a good mother either. Bill's law would also prevent those cases in close, loving families where the grandmother is able to carry her grandchild(ren) for the parents who can't.
Where was all this outrage, Bill, when Tony Randall was fathering children (he was 75 years old when he married a 25 year old) when he was 77 and 78? Tony died when his children were only about 5 and 6. Where was all this outrage, Bill, when James Doohan (Scotty of the Star Trek series) fathered a child at age 80, who, when her father died at 85, was only 4-5 years old? Where was Bill's outrage about elderly fathers leaving children fatherless? Why is it OK, in O'Reilly's book, for geriatric men to father children and die without raising them? Is it because they have much younger wives to raise the child? Women don't have the luxury of being able to marry much younger women; the woman in question, though, does have a family with whom she could and did entrust the care of her children.
Finally, Bill, if you think menopause is nature's way of telling women something, then why isn't Erectile Dysfunction nature's way of telling men to put "it" into mothballs and to retire "it"? Applying your own words to ED, isn't it unnatural for men to be taking Levit ra (purposeful misspellings - I don't want ads for these products to show up on this webpage) Vi agra and Cia lis? So, let's legislate that men going through ED cannot take any medicines to help them "stand and salute" because it's nature's way of telling them their time is done. And, think of how much money it would save the health care system - it's ironic that ED meds are covered for men, but birth control pills for women are, more often than not, not covered by insurance .
My condolences to the family of Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara. Take excellent care of those little boys. And ignore the fools who wish to make Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara's decision into political hay. What she chose to do was her choice and it was a private decision.
Women should be very concerned about men who want to try to legislate about their reproductive rights, whether you agree with the age issue or not. It's a slippery slope.
Unfortunately, men who seem to have a need to control women, and/or misogynists, have taken this story to use to push their own agendas. Last night, Bill O'Reilly went on a tirade, saying among other things that menopause is nature's way of telling women that they can no longer have children. He also said that to have children after menopause was "unnatural", and that there should be a law that makes it illegal for a woman to have children after she has entered menopause.
There are so many things wrong with Bill's rant, it's difficult to know where to start. Let's start with the law, shall we? Thanks to Roe v. Wade, the government, if not Bill O'Reilly, acknowledges a right to privacy, and a right for a woman to have control over her own body. So, if a woman has a right to choose to kill the baby growing inside of her, why doesn't she have a right to decide to conceive a baby? One would think Bill would be all for this proposition.
Who will be in charge of enforcing Bill's law? Will there be menopause police? If so, Bill, I can tell you that if you or any of your menopause police come by my home to "certify" my uterus as menopausal, you and the boys will be leaving without two or three of your accoutrements that you hold most near and dear.
Just because a woman is young is no guarantee she will be around to raise her children. A 28 year old mom of four can get hit by a bus, be severely beaten or killed by her boyfriend or husband (just look into the headlines every year), die in a car accidents, or, as what happened to a woman I know, contract breast cancer. Just because a woman is young and is capable of giving birth does not mean that she will be around to raise her kids or that she will be a good mother either. Bill's law would also prevent those cases in close, loving families where the grandmother is able to carry her grandchild(ren) for the parents who can't.
Where was all this outrage, Bill, when Tony Randall was fathering children (he was 75 years old when he married a 25 year old) when he was 77 and 78? Tony died when his children were only about 5 and 6. Where was all this outrage, Bill, when James Doohan (Scotty of the Star Trek series) fathered a child at age 80, who, when her father died at 85, was only 4-5 years old? Where was Bill's outrage about elderly fathers leaving children fatherless? Why is it OK, in O'Reilly's book, for geriatric men to father children and die without raising them? Is it because they have much younger wives to raise the child? Women don't have the luxury of being able to marry much younger women; the woman in question, though, does have a family with whom she could and did entrust the care of her children.
Finally, Bill, if you think menopause is nature's way of telling women something, then why isn't Erectile Dysfunction nature's way of telling men to put "it" into mothballs and to retire "it"? Applying your own words to ED, isn't it unnatural for men to be taking Levit ra (purposeful misspellings - I don't want ads for these products to show up on this webpage) Vi agra and Cia lis? So, let's legislate that men going through ED cannot take any medicines to help them "stand and salute" because it's nature's way of telling them their time is done. And, think of how much money it would save the health care system - it's ironic that ED meds are covered for men, but birth control pills for women are, more often than not, not covered by insurance .
My condolences to the family of Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara. Take excellent care of those little boys. And ignore the fools who wish to make Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara's decision into political hay. What she chose to do was her choice and it was a private decision.
Women should be very concerned about men who want to try to legislate about their reproductive rights, whether you agree with the age issue or not. It's a slippery slope.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Personal Responsibility
Where has this country's sense of personal responsibility gone? A recent New York Daily New opinion headline recently spoke volumes about the missing sense of personal responsibility: "Immigration laws are breaking families apart, deporting too many parents with US-born children", a piece by Albor Ruiz.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/09/2009-07-09_immigration_laws_are_breaking_families_apart
_deporting_too_many_parents_with_usb.html
In this "opinion piece" Mr. Ruiz weaves a bit of a fantasy - that evil U.S. immigration laws are the only reason his protagonist is being separated from his children. But U.S. immigration laws have nothing to do with why the father is being separated from his children (note, he has a child in Jamaica from whom he is separated while living in the United States). The reason this man is being deported has to do with a series of poor decisions he made, starting with the decision to come to the United States illegally, continuing with his decision to violate drug laws (for which he was convicted) and the decision to father four children in the U.S.without obtaining legal U.S. residency. It is these decisions that the deportee made of his own free will that is resulting in his deportation, not U.S. laws.
If we were to buy Mr. Ruiz's argument that the U.S. should not deport this man, or enforce our immigration laws because to do so would separate a father from his children, then why should we enforce other laws against parents as to do so would separate them from their U.S. children? For example, if a parent were convicted of bank robbery, extortion, theft or murder, under Mr. Ruiz's argument, if would be heartless and cruel to send those parents to prison, since to do so would separate them from their children. Such a result would not only be ridiculous, but unfair. For example, laws would then be applied more harshly against those who never had children than against those who did.
The deportee made his choices all by himself and now he must deal with the consequences. He needs to explain to his children about his wrong and foolish decisions - decisions he made to violate more than a few U.S. laws - the U.S. government and the legal citizens of the United States do not.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/09/2009-07-09_immigration_laws_are_breaking_families_apart
_deporting_too_many_parents_with_usb.html
In this "opinion piece" Mr. Ruiz weaves a bit of a fantasy - that evil U.S. immigration laws are the only reason his protagonist is being separated from his children. But U.S. immigration laws have nothing to do with why the father is being separated from his children (note, he has a child in Jamaica from whom he is separated while living in the United States). The reason this man is being deported has to do with a series of poor decisions he made, starting with the decision to come to the United States illegally, continuing with his decision to violate drug laws (for which he was convicted) and the decision to father four children in the U.S.without obtaining legal U.S. residency. It is these decisions that the deportee made of his own free will that is resulting in his deportation, not U.S. laws.
If we were to buy Mr. Ruiz's argument that the U.S. should not deport this man, or enforce our immigration laws because to do so would separate a father from his children, then why should we enforce other laws against parents as to do so would separate them from their U.S. children? For example, if a parent were convicted of bank robbery, extortion, theft or murder, under Mr. Ruiz's argument, if would be heartless and cruel to send those parents to prison, since to do so would separate them from their children. Such a result would not only be ridiculous, but unfair. For example, laws would then be applied more harshly against those who never had children than against those who did.
The deportee made his choices all by himself and now he must deal with the consequences. He needs to explain to his children about his wrong and foolish decisions - decisions he made to violate more than a few U.S. laws - the U.S. government and the legal citizens of the United States do not.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Truth or a shell game?
Well, I couldn't believe my eyes and ears the other night when I saw a press conference given by NY Senator Charles Schumer during which he used the following words: "People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally." http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=314990 Wow! Someone is finally grasping the concept that the United States of America is a country of laws.
Personally, I always, as the granddaughter of legal emigrants to the United States, have been offended by the tendency of our elected officials and the media to refer to people here illegally as "undocumented workers" or "immigrants". Immigrants come to this country legally, learn our customs, follow our laws and wish to add value to our nation. Illegal aliens do none of the above, and, in fact, show the quality of their character by making their first act in our country one that is in violation of our laws.
After reading Senator Schumer's press release and comments (link above), I applaud what he had to say, for the most part. I do however, take umbrage at one of his seven principals: " All illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States Government—and submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenship—or face imminent deportation." I have no problem with the requirement that illegal aliens register; I do however, have a problem with any attempt to "reward" illegals by allowing them to "buy" their way to citizenship with taxes and fines or to jump ahead of those who are trying to come to the United States legally.
I urge everyone to read what the Senator said, but to take it with a grain of salt. The cynic in me questions whether the Senator is saying what he thinks Americans want to hear so that we will be less vigilant at Congress' next attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform". We need to remain vigilant and to watch Congress' every step on this matter, or we will have a repeat of 1986's mass amnesty (aka the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) , regardless of press releases that say what we would like to hear.
Personally, I always, as the granddaughter of legal emigrants to the United States, have been offended by the tendency of our elected officials and the media to refer to people here illegally as "undocumented workers" or "immigrants". Immigrants come to this country legally, learn our customs, follow our laws and wish to add value to our nation. Illegal aliens do none of the above, and, in fact, show the quality of their character by making their first act in our country one that is in violation of our laws.
After reading Senator Schumer's press release and comments (link above), I applaud what he had to say, for the most part. I do however, take umbrage at one of his seven principals: " All illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States Government—and submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenship—or face imminent deportation." I have no problem with the requirement that illegal aliens register; I do however, have a problem with any attempt to "reward" illegals by allowing them to "buy" their way to citizenship with taxes and fines or to jump ahead of those who are trying to come to the United States legally.
I urge everyone to read what the Senator said, but to take it with a grain of salt. The cynic in me questions whether the Senator is saying what he thinks Americans want to hear so that we will be less vigilant at Congress' next attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform". We need to remain vigilant and to watch Congress' every step on this matter, or we will have a repeat of 1986's mass amnesty (aka the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) , regardless of press releases that say what we would like to hear.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy July 4!
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Thank you to all those brave souls who made and continue to make this day possible for us.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Thank you to all those brave souls who made and continue to make this day possible for us.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
To paraphrase Ricky Ricardo. . .
South Carolina, you got some 'splaining to do!
I am generally considered a fairly bright person, however, I am just not understanding this whole scenario. S.C. Governor Mark Sanford goes to South America last year as part of a tax-payer funded trip (why? What possible business does a Governor have globe trotting on the taxpayer's dime? But, I digress. For the purposes of this post, we'll presume the trip itself was valid.). Governor Sanford, once he is caught with his hand in the proverbial Argentinian cookie jar, confesses to an affair, and pays back $3,330 to the state treasurer to pay for the cost previously charged to taxpayers for his rendezvous. http://www.thesunnews.com/news/breaking_news/story/962319.html
The State Law Enforcement Division "(SLED") then claims to conduct an investigation into the improper use of taxpayer money by Governor Sanford, when he used the money to visit his mistress. Today, SLED states there were no improprieties. http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/politics/article/south_carolina_investigators_say_governor_did_not_break_law_to_visit_mistre/40425/
I just don't get it. Either it's alright for Governors to use taxpayer dollars to visit their mistresses, in which case Governor Sanford didn't have to pay back the $3,300 to the state; or there was an impropriety. Somebody from SLED really needs to explain to me how this scenario is any different from a bank robber who is caught and who promises to pay back the money stolen. Why do we prosecute the bank robber, but we say an elected official did nothing wrong in using a taxpayer funded trip to see his mistress?
As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property. " And, I would add, act accordingly.
I am generally considered a fairly bright person, however, I am just not understanding this whole scenario. S.C. Governor Mark Sanford goes to South America last year as part of a tax-payer funded trip (why? What possible business does a Governor have globe trotting on the taxpayer's dime? But, I digress. For the purposes of this post, we'll presume the trip itself was valid.). Governor Sanford, once he is caught with his hand in the proverbial Argentinian cookie jar, confesses to an affair, and pays back $3,330 to the state treasurer to pay for the cost previously charged to taxpayers for his rendezvous. http://www.thesunnews.com/news/breaking_news/story/962319.html
The State Law Enforcement Division "(SLED") then claims to conduct an investigation into the improper use of taxpayer money by Governor Sanford, when he used the money to visit his mistress. Today, SLED states there were no improprieties. http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/politics/article/south_carolina_investigators_say_governor_did_not_break_law_to_visit_mistre/40425/
I just don't get it. Either it's alright for Governors to use taxpayer dollars to visit their mistresses, in which case Governor Sanford didn't have to pay back the $3,300 to the state; or there was an impropriety. Somebody from SLED really needs to explain to me how this scenario is any different from a bank robber who is caught and who promises to pay back the money stolen. Why do we prosecute the bank robber, but we say an elected official did nothing wrong in using a taxpayer funded trip to see his mistress?
As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property. " And, I would add, act accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)