Are Republicans And Democrats United Against The Rule Of Law?

In California Democrat Loretta Sanzhez was born in American though she is of Hispanic decent. She is pro choice to murder your own children provided they are in your own womb. In California it is illegal to murder a unborn child over the age of 2 months or so from conception if they are not in your own womb. Location, age, and development are very important according to California Law.

Here Opponent is Tan Nguyen a survivor of America’s cowardly retreat from Vietnam and who also survived a long dangerous trip as a refuge. According to a survey with the California Pro Life Tan supports a child’s right to equal protection under the law and the right to life even if he or she is still in his or her mother’s womb.

The two also disagree on immigration policy with Tan a legalized citizen that obtained his own naturalized citizenship supporting a tough border solution and Loretta favoring the open border and amnesty for lawbreakers solution favored by President Bush and too many Senators. A victory for Tam would therefore be a defeat for the individuals of both parties who want to dispense with American’s right to rule themselves and control their own borders. It would also be a strike against the forces that support the ongoing genocide in the United States that kills 1.2 million or so people annually.

It seems a letter written in Spanish was sent our to 14,000 registered Democrats in District 47 of California where the race is taken place this letter made the statement that "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.". From what I understand the cry is this letter in that it could intimidate immigrants who are naturalized citizens of the United States. The defense is the letter is in Spanish so a translation error could well have occurred and the difference between the correct and incorrect wording is not that great and may be covered by the word “could”. We have not heard the letter writers defense for one reason or another.

What is happening is the Republican party is abandoning Tam which is not that surprising since he disagrees with Bush on border security and amnesty for those who break immigration laws and the GOP may not. Tam is also backing away from the letter stating that one of his campaign workers sent the message without his permission. This may be true as there is a split in the Republican campaign and the “misinterpretation” may well have been done intentionally just to cause a scandal. Since such potential bias exists the word of the County Republican chairman is worthless. I would like to say Tam should say the buck stops here but that same argument would make the President guilty for any crime committed by an America. If he knowingly committed or knew it was being committed and did not stop it then he should be held responsible. We will not know that until the ongoing investigation and any legal action is over and so in short Tam should have his day in court a point both Democrats and Republicans who respect the rule of law should be insisting on.

Source 1 is about the “scandal” involving Tam Nguyen.

Source 2 is about Tam’s early life.

Source 3 is about California Pro Life’s survey.

The Art Of Compromise When Voting In Ohio

In Ohio they have pro illegal immigrant anti choice to murder candidate Mike DeWine facing off against pro illegal immigrant pro choice to commit murder candidate Sherrod Brown with both having congressional records to show for them for what they are. The economy of Ohio seems to be at issue and this is a federal election. The voters have a poor choice between a soft on crime socialist and a individual who subjects our government to the rule global corporations. That is a terrible choice though I would probably vote for DeWine because of his position against genocide by abortion and hope to vote him out and get a better candidate during the next primary in 6 years.

Brown is strong on taking a position against free international trade but I can not say as I see other of his stances that impress me.

Economically Brown may help Ohio on the federal level since Dewine is more interested in making money for his corporate bosses but the cost of electing him in other ways is very high and Ohio may end up loosing more than they gain. I believe the People vote for Dewine and try to moderate the damage with their House selection. To improve their economy they need to look at their state and local elected representatives and try to find those who are willing to stand up against the federal government and the United Nations Non Governmental Organizations such as the ACLU, like Hazleton, PA; Escondito, CA; and other cities have.

Source 1 is about the race between Sherrod Brown and Mike Dewine.

Source 2 is Sherrod Brown on the Issues.

Source 3 is Mike Dewine on the Issues.

Don't Let Questionable Scandals Divert Your Attention This Season

The FBI seems to be busy this political season investigating Republicans for one reason or another. In most if not all cases there is perhaps a possibility of a crime having been committed. Jeanne Piro who is being investigated for wiretapping her own property. If she committed a crime then it a foolish law the forbid you from taping your own property. That is assuming she actually had her property bugged and didn’t just mention it as a possibility.

Then there is Curt Weldon who is accused of getting lucrative contracts for his lobbyist daughter, like there is not a reason why so many lobbyist are friends, associates, and family of the legislators and any smart business person wouldn’t find the best connected one to pay to lobby for them

Now there is Rep. Bob Beauprez who is running for the Colorado Governor and is accused of hacking in the federal criminal database. He says he heard the so called hacked information from an informant which is likely since there were people involved from the apprehension of an illegal alien through the governments failure to deport and him being picked up on suspicion of sexually assaulting a minor in California. I suspicion the leaker is probably someone in law enforcement that favors Bob Beauprez. The article did not say that such a person would have been breaking the law unless they used information from the criminal data base.

The Foley Scandal is different but has related issue as a mountain is created out of a molehill for political reasons. Foley resigned and should have been encouraged not to run for reelection earlier in the year. He was disciplined for the flirting that was known about and from all accounts that was less serious than the bombshell that was dropped at a convenient time politically. There is investigation in Congress over how the situation was handled. I believe holding anyone but Foley accountable for his actions at this time is foolish.

I urge people to vote on the issues and by the records of the candidates and not by the questionable scandals that are just meant to warp your judgment and vote before you count the cost. Most Democrats are worse or equal to their Republican opponents with a few exceptions such as Bob Casey, Jr. a pro lifer who is running for Senator in Pennsylvania though the immigration issue may change my mind. When they are equal I will vote Democrat so that the next time around the Republicans may give me a better candidate. Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island is one Republican I would vote against. Some favor Independent Senator Lieberman of Connecticut because of his pro Iraq war stance but that is an candidate I am undecided on as I do not want the cultural conservative idea to be minimized over the Iraq war situation. Still a major defeat for the far left may weaken them and possibly allow the cultural conservative ideology to gain some momentum in that state.

I do know this and that is that I want the pro life and strong on the border candidates in both the House and the Senate to stay in power while I want to weaken those who are opposed to those ideas. I would also support someone who supported one of those ideas over an opponent who supported neither.

My source is article about the Bob Beauprez scandal.

When Irration Anger Wins You Become Your Own Enemy

The “value” voters or cultural conservatives as I like to call them seem have disappeared according to reports. According to the article I read from Reuters they have found more important issues than stopping the genocide that occurs through abortion in the United States and deliberately and arbitrarily kills 1.2 million children annual according the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Some say the Iraq War is a larger concern and yet it has resulted in the death of mere 3000 brave American soldiers in 3 ½ years who laid down their lives so that others may get a chance to know what freedom is about. On the other hand those babies mutilated by abortion do not have any choice as they are executed in cold blood at the request of their own mothers; who’s duty it is to love them and secure their natural right to live, liberty, and pursuit of happiness among other rights. The medical staff and those mothers are more like the insurgents and those who supply them with aid and comfort because like them they are destructive of the natural human rights of other human beings without a noble cause.

I understand that these cultural conservatives and angry at the people in power but if they allow that anger to rule them then they will be manipulated by the very people they want to remove from office and they will end up removing the ones that that have remained loyal. The libertarian wing of the Republican party will in fact ally with liberal from the Democrat party to fight against cultural conservative values. I tend to believe it is better a liberal Democrat than a libertarian Republican since that may well encourage the Republican party to offer a better candidate next time. One the other hand getting rid of a cultural conservative Republican that for the most part agrees with my cultural values out of anger at their inability to break the liberal-libertarian alliance is insane. Victory is a slow process of winning over the hearts and minds of people and getting them to put cultural conservative people in power. The sad thing is I have heard to many wanting to give the House to the Democrats when the House is not the one being disloyal to the cultural conservative cause. The Senate is the one that we need to win and one way may well be to hand seats like Lincoln Chaffee’s to the Democrat party in hopes that the Republican party will put a conservative challenger in the race. The risk of course is that Bush and whoever is elected made seek a moderate candidates for the federal judiciary or even extreme left one to get by the Democrat Senators. From what I see we need a third populist/conservative alliance party in the blue states which is culturally conservative and yet appeals to the Democrat voters.

In Pennsylvania we have a populist candidate for Senator running against a conservative. That race is a tough decision but I would probably favor Democrat Bob Casey as that will hopefully encourage more pro life candidates in the Democrat party which would certainly be a plus for the cultural conservative cause. I do not know the immigration stance of the two contenders and knowing that may shift my opinion.

On the Foley matter from what I see the Republican establishment did bungle it but if we remove them from office for that bungle then we will invite the lion in to chase out the dog and will end up regretting it. At this time the rebuke they are receiving at the hands of their constituents should be enough. If the continue to be light on crime then sterner measures may well be needed at a later date. I believe that such measures should be handled only if we can replace them with another cultural conservative.

If we can keep mix our anger with reason and ask for God’s favor then there is a good chance, depending on God’s will, that we will win in the long run even if we loose a few fights along the way. The enemy just like the one in Iraq will continue to fight and will adjust their tactics so we can not choose to let them manipulate us because we choose to act irrationally.

Source 1 about value voters disapearing.

Why Isn't Treason Called Treason Anymore?

Lynne Stewart, who is falsely called a civil rights lawyer received 2 ½ years for aiding and abetting terrorism. In truth she is guilty of treason according to the definition of the U.S. Constitution since she has aided and abetted an enemy of the United States. That is not the charge to prosecutor chose to bring against her for their own reasons. The constitutional definition of treason is:

U.S. Constitution Article 3 Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Ms. Steward has defended other radicals and may well be an anarchist who is only out to destroy the government by any means as an anarchist will ally with anyone who they believe will destroy the current government. She has chosen to defend the “civil rights” of Black Panthers, Anti war radicals, and terrorist. This may be a legitimate legal enterprise as everyone deserves a fair trial but her conduct in aiding and abetting terrorist make me doubt her goal was to secure a fair trial for her clients and the type of client she prefers to serve makes me doubt she is particular to any one of their ideologies except the general anti American government aspect.

The anarchistic idea of civil rights extend the gambit from anything goes to the libertarian idea that you can do anything as long as you do not bring harm to a non consenting human being. On the other hand the idea of civil rights as adhered to by our Founders is that you had absolute freedom to do anything as long as it did not harm any living creature. They considered libertine behavior of any type to be harmful. They wrote this into the U.S. Declaration of Independence by stating it is a governments job to secure the natural rights of the people and if they become destructive of those rights then it is the right of the people to abolish the government. It also mentions that the People may chose to tolerate the governments violation of those rights. Either active or negligent violation of those rights is considered being destructive of them.

The 2 ½ year sentence is by far too light. The reason given is her age of 67 years old and the fact she was diagnosed with breast cancer and would most likely die in prison if she received the 30 years that the prosecutors asked for. The also insist that he action to not appear to have violence as it’s end. Those mitigating circumstances are mostly foolish since she was well aware of her age and should have been well aware her actions were criminal when she chose to purchase the sentence by committing what amounts to treason. The definition of treason certainly does not differentiate between an action leading to violence and one that does not and from all I know neither does the law the prosecutors held against her. Still since the general idea is the more serious the crime the greater the sentence she should not of received the maximum sentence but the 2 ½ years she received is ridiculous. The fact she has breast cancer is a sad event but should not be considered a mitigating circumstance as her bad luck doe not excuse her conduct. If the breast cancer kills or significantly maims her I might consider granting her parole under the idea that she has received divine justice and the justice of man is unneeded. That is something the judge could have considered in her sentence.

A large aggravated circumstance is that she is a lawyer and an officer of the court and so held to a higher standard. In addition she took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic which she chose to break. This of course makes her guilty of oath breaking which may be considered perjury which is a crime that could have given her the 2 ½ year sentence by itself.

The judge was appointed by Clinton and this point should be irrelevant but evidence shows that judges are prone to legislate from the bench. From District Judge John G. Koeltl words that Ms. Stewart has presented a great service to her country I would question his lack of bias in the case. The solution to this is to allow both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer to appeal the sentence. This will not eliminate politics but it will bring the opinions of more judges into play and hopefully eliminate the most extreme cases. This is justified by the U.S. Constitution since everyone whether they are the victim or the perpetrator is to be treated equally under the law and the prosecutor’s job is to represent the victim as well as the people his/her jurisdiction.

My source about Lynne Stewart’s sentence here.

A Bold Move To Secure Our Borders

Raj Bhakta pulled one over on the federal government when he took an elephant and a mariachi band to the Texas border and proceeded to cross unimpeded. His Stunt for some reason did not attract the Main Stream Media though it was on the O’Reilly Factor. He seemed to have angered the Border Patrol since they turned him into the Department of Agriculture for jeopardizing an animal.

I have to applaud the stunt as it did a good job of attracting attention to him and the Federal Government’s unwillingness to protect the American people. It is stunts like his which will keep as well as our vote against those willing to trade the security of the United States for one reason or another which can by grace of God win the issue for us.

I am not a strong supporter of Mr. Bhakta, but his courageous move gets my backing. It also seems to have angered liberals for one reason or another.

Many want to punish all Republicans for the action of some of them. That is a very bad idea that can be used against them because all but a few Democrats are willing to sell the U.S. out. If you want to punish a Republican then please make sure it is one like Lincoln Chaffee who is little different than a Democrat and is vulnerable if he can not get Democrats to vote for him.

Source 1 Is About Rac Bjakta’s political stunt.