Jump to content

FastNed

Member
  • Posts

    314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FastNed

  1. Please note that the grounds for discharge of members of the Armed Forces of the USA are established by Law, by the US Congress and the military must follow the Law. Under President Clinton the "Don't ask, don't tell" doctrine was devised and passed into Law by Act of Congress and the discharge of homosexuals is required by the provisions of that Law. Unless and until the Congress takes action to amend that Law, such discharges are mandated. The military is unable to waive the provisions of the Law. Note the best case scenario is a General or Medical discharge which are not the same as an Honorable Discharge.
  2. This issue, the seperation of church and state, is highly devisive in America today. Often throughout our history issues such as this have grown to the point that they become a defining issue for Americans. We are approaching such a point today, in the opinion of many conservatives like myself. Many believe that in our quest to protect that minority who are not believers, we have run rough-shod over the majority who have a faith. A little history is necessary: those who took part in the colonial revolution were people of faith who knew that many of their ancestors had fled to America to escape religious persecution - mainly from the "Church of England". That church was an arm of the state, of the king and those who founded America knew the history of religious persecution in England. They were also well aware of the fact that Catholicism was the State religion in most (if not all) Countries of Europe. It was their intent in their design for America to prevent what they believed to be the abuse which followed the establishment of a "State" religion. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, religion was one of the most important freedoms and that principle was stated in the first amendment of that Bill of Rights. Note: The underline added by this writer.I have been watching quite closely and I have not seen the underlined section mentioned or printed in the liberal media in any discussion of the issue of seperation of church and state. Neither, to my knowledge, has the underlined section been the subject of interpretation by the US Supreme Court as to its meaning. Many believe the original intent of the framers of the Constitution was to prevent the adoption of a "State" religion and confirm the right of inhabitants to the free exercise of any faith. There has been a great deal of emphasis over these last twenty years or so to ban or forbid any convergence between a religious activity and any activity of the State; posting of the Ten Commandments or display of a Nativity scene on property of the State, down to the lowest city or town level, has been banned on the theory that such actions are a violation of the establishment clause. It has reached a point that recently, a California higher Court held that the words "under God" were improperly part of the Pledge of Allegiance. This decision created a firestorm across America and the US Congress (both the House of Representatives and the Senate) swiftly issued a joint statement reaffirming that "under God" was properly and appropriately part of the Pledge. While such a statement had no legal effect upon the Court decision, it was a clear statement that the Court had gone too far and the Court wisely recalled the case and reversed its prior opinion on procedural grounds overlooked in its first decision. The self-proclaimed atheist who filed the Pledge case recently filed a case to prohibit President Bush from giving the Presidential Oath upon a bible. The case was filed too late, in the ordinary course of events, to be scheduled for a hearing prior to the inauguration. Note that there are references in the Constitution to being under "Oath or Affirmation" so it would appear that the case has little merit. This issue of funds to faith based charities is but one battle in a religious war being fought within America and the above is provided to increase understanding of this contentious issue. In his first campaign for President one of the issues raised by then candidate Bush was that a great deal of money was being allocated to programs which duplicated the actions of faith based charities and when these government programs were evaluated for effectiveness, they were in no way as successful as those of the faith based groups. He pledged to create a process where funds were to be allocated to such faith based groups who had proved to have a successful program. In the current matter, this is a Federal Grant program where applicants must provide proof that they have an effective program plus who they are, etc. and their expending of the funds is subject to standard federal rules for grant funds plus federal audit procedures. They are unable to use these funds to proselitize for their religion of for any use except that specified in their grant. As Black Dog suggested, these groups are screened by their grant applications and it's not a matter of payoff for political support but rather an acknowledgement that they get more bang for the buck in such programs.
  3. Exactly how do you think these State Court Judges are going to establish jurisdiction over these defendants?
  4. This is not a place to post fantasy. Provide a source, name the Court or cease and desist with such stupidity! The Constitution provides the only legal method to remove a President from office.
  5. As long as Arafat and his gunmen control the Palestinians there can be no road map to anywhere. If, as and when he is removed (one way or another) a possibility exists for progress. What ever the merits of their cause, they are negated by terrorist acts and until these cease, there can be no rewards, no peace, no settlements. Rabid dogs are put down, not petted!
  6. Hello, Tool, welcome to the Forum. You pose a very thought provoking question! I believe the answer to your question is America and the reason for my belief is "Freedom". Individual freedom, I believe is the key to this question. No other system to date has provided individuals with the personal freedom to be the best they can - to make of themselves and their talents whatever they can achieve and to keep the most of that achievement for themselves and family. Individual success can make a country great and I believe that is America's secret!
  7. To claim that this was a "democratically elected Government" is absurd. Both the Carter Center and the OAS alleged massive fraud in the last election. Everyone turned off International Aid as they were unwilling to fund this government which became no better than those which preceded it. US aid funds were sequestered; i.e., while authorized, they were withheld for appropriate cause. With the departure of Aristede (?) some funds were released by the US and other Nations will or have followed suit. Years ago, Clinton listened to the Democratic Black Caucus and put Aristede back in power by force with results quite obvious - note that Rangle (D-NY) wanted Bush to do the same thing. What would you have America do? Stand by and watch this turn into another Liberia - althou it wasn't too far from that situation! US Marines have been sent in to keep a lid on things until Canada and other UN participants can pull it all together and take over as peacekeepers. Do you object to that? Again, what would you have America do - if we do nothing (see Liberia) you damn us and when we try to hold things together until the UN or someone else arrives, you also damn us. Heads we loose, tails you win!
  8. Hello, D4DEV - may I ask that you repost on this topic and make your points with a few quotes from the article. This is an important topic and needs discussion. What should the US do about Pakistan? How far has "Johnny Appleseed" Khan spread nuclear knowledge? Should the US bring down the President and gamble that the fanatics of the ISI will not take power? Should Pakistan and India be forced to surrender their nuclear weapons? It appears that the US has knowledge of all "known" Pakistan Nukes and has forced adoption of Command and Control measures to insure that they can not be used without release from the Presidents Office. Is this sufficient or should these weapons be seized under threat of nuclear attack? The Pakistan situation illustrates the danger of Islamic Nuclear weaponry; can Iran and others be allowed to progress this far? Some hard choices must be made - what are your thoughts?
  9. Hello, NDP NEWBIE, exactly what is your point and how does it relate to the topic under discussion? Each of the United States sets qualifications for Voter enfranchisement. In a number of States, conviction of a Felony results in disenfranchisement - your right to vote is rescinded. The Federal Government has nothing to do with these qualifications - this is not a matter of equal rights or discrimination based upon race, creed, etc.. I presume that the Provinces of Canada have something similar but please correct me if I am mistaken. Your 'beef', if I may call it that, appears to be with Statutes governing Marijuana usage and while that is a legitimate topic for discussion, it has no relevance on the topic of "Is Bush Finished".
  10. Issuance of a Marriage License is strictly a "State" function. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction in this area. The Mayor of San Francisco is acting against clear California Law and is, no doubt, guilty of Misprison of Office but any prosecution is the primary responsibility of the State of California. Note that as the issuance is 'illegal', any subsequent "marriage" may well be judged as 'invalid' (depending upon Cali Law) and at a minimum, will be used as a basis for denial of "Full Faith and Credit" in other jurisdictions should attempts be made to claim a legal relationship exists.
  11. I get amused when I read a variety of opinions on George Bush - usually from non-Americans or from the 'Left' side of the political spectrum. Ignoring the politically motivated hatred (remember the Rabid Republican 'Impeach Clinton' movement) it seems that the opinions expressed have much to do with the simple fact that George Bush is not a "TV Personality", is not a public speaker, a Snake Oil Salesman or 'Slick Willie' ! For the last fifty years, with the coming of the TV Age, the Media has insisted that a 'Politician' must be photogenic and it is doubtful that an "Abe Lincoln" (not a pretty boy) would make it far in a photogenic contest. Fortunately, the Public has not always agreed with this Media opinion. We will never know how George Bush would have been judged as a President absent 9.11; perhaps he would have been a one-termer remembered as one unable to get anything thru a divided Congress. Or perhaps not but we will never know. With 9.11, a challenge was made of him and his response, based upon his individual strengths has been exceptional. I suggest you consider the following: 1) President Bush does not believe he is the smartest one in the White House or in America. With this lack of an oversized ego, he has been free to seek the best advice which can be found, at home and abroad, and chart a course based upon this advice consistent with his view on an appropriate direction for America in the World today, as he sees it. Political expediency has not been allowed to be a factor in the defense of America no matter how stupidly (Steel Tariffs) it has been exercised domestically. 2) His "Born Again Christianity" has imbued him with a world view and morality which can be simply expressed as a belief in "God, Home and Country". Despite the sneers of the Media and the Elite, the vast majority of Americans respond to this belief. 3) His "Focus" is strong and unlike his predecessor who could see six sides to every problem, he remembers his purpose is to drain the swamp of Islamic hatred. All in all, George Bush is no Carter or Clinton - thank God. Both were so intelligent and so involved in seeing every option, they were ineffectual when it came to tough decisions on National Security. Both were too smart for their own good or for the good of America. Give me a man with the courage of his convictions (convictions with which I agree) and the ability to make hard decisions consistent with his beliefs. George Bush is such a man and he continues to be misunderestimated by a great many people.
  12. I could care less about with whom someone else elects to sleep or live - the only sexuality I control is my own and that is as it should be. I am not a homophobe, I just don't care what anyone else does. While the State is involved (for historical reasons), marriage is a religious matter (for most) and has been defined for some six thousand years as the union of a man and a woman. This is not simply a matter of custom but is basic dogma for many churches. No one is going to use the State to force a change in our dogma or theology. If it is legal status they wish, a Civil Union seems appropriate, just leave our religions alone!
  13. Another Press source (which escapes me, at the moment) has identified the two who spoke to Novak as members of Vice President Cheney's staff. This entire matter has the substance of a political mud fight and it's highly unlikely that criminal charges could or will be brought against anyone. (1) For charges to be brought, it must be proven that those who made the disclosure knew of her undercover status, i.e., (2) People who work openly at the CIA do not normally have "covert" status. It seems clear that at one time, Ms. Palme did have covert status but after delivery of her child and a DX of Post Partum Depression, she was given an inside assignment. Which raises the question, should she have continued to be classified as "Covert" or was there an administrative error which left her in this status? All in all, this appears to be a very large mountain from a very small anthill. Given the nature of the accusations made, the White House had little choice but to treat this as a potential serious intelligence breach. They are well aware of the "Nixon" Rule - it's a cover up that kills you!
  14. If Vice President Cheney bows out, I believe President Bush has the character and the courage to select Condi Rice as his VP. She has not (to my knowledge) ever indicated if she would consider the position. She would pay a heavy price were she to do so as the Black political establishment is wedded to the Democratic 'spoils' system and she would be attacked (as was Judge Thomas) to prevent any movement of Black people to the Republican Party.
  15. Well, TP, instead of throwing around some rather serious allegations, why don't you identify the "citizens" of whom you speak? Two come to mind that fit that category but please identify those you have in mind. First, I remember one, captured abroad as a combatant (Saudi, I believe) who revealed he had been born in America but left as an infant. The other who comes to mind is Padilla, taken into custody upon landing in Chicago on an International flight. If these are the types of people to whom you refer and upon which you base your allegations, I think you are far off base. Your statements presume that "Terrorists" and "Armed Combatants" are Criminals entitled to be prosecuted under the American Criminal Justice System. I respectfully disagree. "Acts of War" differ from "Criminal Acts". In fact and in law. To further complicate the legal situation, Mr. Padilla was taken into custody at Immigration. It is settled Law (but little known) that until you pass Immigration and are "Admitted" in the U.S., you are in a legal "Limbo" and are not "in" the U.S.; the Bill of Rights does not apply, you can be strip searched, forced to submit to intrusive medical procedures and, in brief, subjected to a variety of treatment which would be clearly "Unconstitutional" were it to occur "in" America. This is a gray area in Constitutional Law and legal experts have debated these issues for many years. There are few hard and fast answers and the latest precedents date from WW II - some fifty years ago. I'm proud to be an American "Eagle" (which some define as a Hawk who carries a gun) and I suggest that while it is appropriate to be vigilant of our constitutional freedoms, it is a vast leap to presume that terrorists and terrorism are a "Criminal" matter which must be handled until our Criminal Justice System.
  16. Out of sight, out of mind may sound a bit trite but its a factor here. The Media is 100 percent focused on the Democratic Primaries and candidates and is having a field day repeating every attack upon President Bush. All the negative press has to have an effect and you see it in the Polls. In a month or two, when there is a Democratic candidate (and perhaps a Dean splinter party), President Bush will begin to respond and the Media will have to report it and you will again see a major swing in Poll results. It's early on, the debate has not been joined and the contest has not begun; take no comfort from the polls now nor should you conclude they have any meaning other than what is this weeks favorite flavor!
  17. First, Maplesyrup, you are mistaken in your view of how Nader is viewed among Democrats and of his ability to 'change' party policies. In fact, he is viewed as the reason Al Gore lost the election and is considered as a "spoiler" and one who did so deliberately! The American political system both at the State and Federal levels is weighed against splinter parties. It is next to impossible for one to become a significant political force althou a Nader can torpedo a Gore as a Perot did to a Bush. We may well witness what an unrepentant Dean does to a Kerry or Edwards! Dean has played to the ultra left wing of the Democratic Party and forced other candidates to pander to this faction to survive the primaries. What will be interesting will be to watch the survivors/Democratic Candidate do a two-step to the middle in an attempt to convince the electorate that he is serious about National Security and can be trusted to defend America. And that does not mean kissing butt at the UN! The attacks against Pres. Bush based upon supposed avoidance of service in Vietnam are an attempt to denigrate his character. No matter how the liberal media plays this, it will fail. I have read enough to have it clear that when his F-102 training was complete, the F-102 was being phased out of Vietnam. When they ceased to use that plane, it ended any chance that those Guard pilots would be sent to 'Nam. I believe much of the decline in the polling is simply a matter of exposure. The Media is full of the Democratic Primary race and Pres. Bush and the Republican Party are mainly silent as this spectacle occurs. Until the Democrats narrow the field down to one or two, it would be unseemly for a sitting President to respond to all this rhetoric. Forget most of the "issues" in the Media today, these will not survive the next few months. What may well be critical is something which isn't even on our radar screen today - your guess is as good as mine, it's just that it's early on in the campaign to determine what could be a true issue. One sleeper which could well damage him is the "Immigration" issue as this one could have Republicans sitting out the election. If 5% of the Republican base remain at home and do not vote because of his position on immigration, he is history unless the Democratic base is also fractured by a Nader/Dean third Party candidacy. I believe that Cheney is history - it will, of course, be because of his heart condition and not Haliburton or the Palme affair (which seems to track back to his office). Problem is Pres. Bush's legendary loyalty to those who work with him. Cheney himself will have to conclude he is a problem and remove himself from the re-election contest.
  18. But udawg, what would Canadians sell to a bunch of sheep? Ireland might be a nice choice - you would have Belfast as a neighbor and could worry if those idiots were going to export their religious war North!
  19. Hello Vadis, welcome to the forum. Gandhi is not a candidate and despite all the anti-war posturing by the current field, they are non-starters pandering to the extreme Left and their positions are not viable with a vast majority of Americans. The pundits would have it that the successful Democratic nominee will move on to the center with more moderate positions after the Primaries but I suggest that excepting Liberman (who has no chance), they have poisoned the well with those Americans who refuse to forget 9.11. Poll after Poll shows that a majority of Americans refuse to forgive and forget 9.11 and they are not about to vote for a candidate who holds that position; neither will they vote for a clown like Clark who makes absurd claims that 9.11 would not have happened on 'his' watch. The Church Commission castrated American Intelligence agencies and it would take a decade (if not a generation) to create a Humint based system which might provide details on actions such as 9.11. I would suggest that no-one hold their breath awaiting such a development in this P.C. era - spies are not nice people notwithstanding the treatment of fictional authors like Clancy and others, in fact, many of them are scum and the dregs of any society. Which of these candidates, so busy castigating President Bush over "Intelligence Failures" has the courage and the realism to state that we will have to deal with the scum of the Earth to obtain intelligence sources which could prevent another 9.11? Which 'nice guy' around Bin Laden should we have solicited for advance warning on 9.11?
  20. Yet another attempt to impose a multinational "Tobin Tax". I'll let someone with a broader knowledge of economics fisk this. Another example of a politician faced with a problem whose first instinct is to find a new source to tax for a 'good' cause. Presidente Lula, why should we be forced to pay to feed your poor?
  21. Hello, Morgan, you state that a Democrat could win if: Under Point One, how do you expect anyone to find, capture and deport some 8 to 10 million people? At a minimum, you would have to suspend the entire Bill of Rights and resurrect the Gestapo and the KGB and even then, you would have to bring our Military home to 'man' this enforcement effort. I doubt we have sufficient cattle cars or rail connections to Mexico but perhaps we could build 'holding' Camps. Perhaps we could call on our good Allies, the Germans for some advice on how to do this? Contentious -you bettcha it is. President Bush very pragmatically has drawn America's attention to the very large elephant in our backyard which too many have ignored for too long! We can not continue to ignore it and he has placed it on the front burner and forced a debate on the matter. We can not have homeland security and this many illegals - what he has done is to force the American People to focus on the problem and decide upon the solution. His proposals are talking points for a National debate which must be held. I believe the outcome will reinforce his image as an American President willing to identify tough problems and act to resolve them.
  22. Hello, Hohen, welcome to the Forum. You ask, in effect, why America is acting like an Imperial Power and state: There is a simple, uncomplicated answer: 9.11 , a second Day of Infamy. A sneak attack upon our homeland which killed our women and children and yes, our men as well. Forget the political B.S. (of any ideology) and remember one simply fact. At our core, the vast majority of us are truly "American Cowboys"! No one kills our women and children - no one! The sick deluded fools who planned and executed this terrorist and genocidal act did the one thing that would unite us around our contentious differences. They snuck into our home and killed our women and children. We Americans are the most deadly members of our species and we will pay the Ferryman's Fee for our dead in whatever coinage we believe necessary. We are at war to the knife with radical elements of Islam and Iraq is a mere battle and beachhead to our enemy. Iraq was D-Day and a placing of our forces in the lands of our enemy.
  23. Hello, True, welcome to the Forum. While you fail to mention the Office, I presume your comments are directed at President Bush. Executive Branch office holders, in State and Federal jurisdictions, make policy pronouncements. They do not issue 'work permits'! When one of them signs a "Law" which allows 'Illegals' to obtain a State Drivers License, he does not commit an illegal act. The Law may be stupid, foolish or perhaps even unconstitutional but as it has been passed by the Legislative Branch and forwarded to the Executive for signature, on its face, it is a new "Law" and can not be 'illegal'! The necessity for homeland security should be driving this debate - we can not have, let us say, ten million 'illegals' in our midst and expect any homeland security to exist. I believe President Bush is being quite pragmatic and forcing us to see the elephant in our backyard which so many have for so long refused to see. Like everything else coming from Washington, there is a political element to it all and it is unfortunate that this is an election year because many will attempt to make this an election issue rather than treat it as an important security matter.
  24. Hello Vic, welcome to the Forum. Say, Maplesyrup, why do you believe that Republicans will be upset that Dean is back in the running (If that is the case)? Do you really believe that he could be elected? How do you think he can convince Middle America - Jacksonian Americans - to vote for him?
  25. The immediate question these two figures (4620. v. 2450) raise in my mind is what is the quality delivered at each expense level? Without information on the quality of service delivered, the figures are meaningless to me. Due to a change in employment, most of last year I was among the statistics for uninsured Americans - not a very nice place to be. As luck would have it, after years of good health, I have spent much of the last three months in and out of hospitals - my timing has always been superb! In no respect was my medical treatment different than that received by those with the most comprehensive insurance coverage. While the Hospital Front Office was aware that I was uninsured, nothing in my medical charts reflected this status and none of the Staff were aware of this and in response to my questions indicated that payment for services was a "Front Office" matter and had nothing to do with delivery of medical care. I dislike posting personal information but I thought an entry on the reality of the American system might add to the discussion - the lack of insurance coverage made no difference in the quality of medical care delivered. Yes, unlike someone in the Canadian system, I now have many thousands of dollars in medical bills but I have discovered the "Front Office" to be more than cooperative in searching for assistance in payment. Between existing Federal and State programs plus the fact I am a "Disabled Vet", it appears than between 75 and 85 percent of these bills will be covered and while what remains is much larger than a yearly Medical Insurance premium, I am unconvinced that I would have been better off under the Canadian system. With the difference in our income tax rates, I would have paid far far more in taxes over these last years than I will now pay for what remains of these medical expenses.
×
×
  • Create New...