Kerry Accepts the Nomination!

For about a week before the convention almost every media outlet proclaimed that John Kerry had asked for the convention not to be Bush bashing. For the first few days of the convention this was accomplished by bashing the “administration” or the “other party” and simply not using Bush’s name. That way it is not “Bush” bashing. Then to claim it not to be bashing they simply made their remarks with a smile. Then on Thursday, John Kerry, the man who asked for the other speakers to be nice, must have thought his rules don’t apply to John Kerry. The Washington Post article titled “Kerry: ‘America Can Do Better’” reads “Although Kerry had said he would avoid a negative tone, the crowd at FleetCenter was thrilled with each departure from the stated plan.” So much for the new tone.

As for some of the substance of the speech (I’ll not bore you with a line by line but a few things really stood out):

ON THE WAR ON TERROR Senator Kerry stated, "As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower." Nice sound byte, but does even Senator Kerry know what he meant? He says “smarter” and “more effective”, very subjective terms. Then he says “…every tool in our arsenal.” Then he goes on to list these “tools”: economic might, things like offering aid to North Korea to stop their nuclear program. The next “tool” is military might, things like taking out Saddam. The next “tool” mentioned is “our principles” you know when I was in elementary school our principal was famous for his paddlings, I am sure that even al Qeada would fear him. Could you imagine an elite fighting force of principals, paddles in one hand, detention slips in the other, I am shaking in my shoes just thinking about it. The only problem I have with the Washington Post is that they misspelled principals. The word they used is principles, like saying “Al Qeada, we are better than you, so stop attacking us.” OR “Al Qeada, we believe in democracy, or a free market economy, so leave us alone, or else!” Like that is going to strike fear into them like the school principals (I suggest elementary school principals, because they are the scariest.) that Senator Kerry was obviously talking about. Then the list goes on to include firepower, this I redundant because firepower is implemented by the already mentioned military.

Allow me to sum up this statement. I will be smarter and more effective than my opponent. Does this need to be said? Is this not the reason for running for office? If you thought that your opponent would do a smarter and more efficient job than you would you not concede? ANYONE could have figured out that John Kerry thought he could do a smarter, more efficient job. We need to know what he means. We are in a war on terror NOW. If a senator with about 20 years of experience has a smarter, more efficient way to win this war should he not go to his Commander in Chief and tell him so that our soldiers lives can be saved NOW! If he really has such good plans, but he is simply using them as a “tool” to be elected, how many servicemen and women will die between now and his inauguration just so that John Kerry can keep an ace up his sleeve to win an election?

ON IMPROVING OUR MILITARY. He said that he wanted to increase military spending and add "40,000 active-duty troops," not to help in Iraq (where I thought Senator Kerry had lamented we needed more troops), "but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure." Increase military spending? Kerry voted AGAINST increasing military spending by $80 some Billion to provide body armor for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now he wants to increase military spending? And by the way, is Senator Kerry running on the Republican ticket? When was the last time a Democrat running for president wanted to increase military spending? As for the 40,000 troops, with our all volunteer military, how does Senator Kerry plan on implementing this? Is he planning a draft? Or is he planning to lower the standards for acceptance into the military? I suppose if you allow new recruits who cannot read, you can get them to sign anything.

He stated “We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives — and win the battle.” Senator Kerry, do you remember the $80 some odd billion dollars earmarked for things like body armor for our troops? How did you vote on that? I suppose if it had been earmarked for weapons instead of body armor he would have voted for it. Let’s go into some of the “weapons and technology” Senator Kerry has already had the opportunity to “provide” for our troops as a senator. I don’t have room here, but look up his voting record on MX Missiles, Trident Submarines, S.D.I., B-1 Bombers, B-2 Bombers, Patriot Missiles, Tomahawk Missiles, Apache Helicopters, etc., etc. These are some pretty serious “weapons and technology” that John Kerry in some way voted against, either never to produce them, to stop producing them, or to cut funding for them. Senator Kerry has been given about 20 years worth of opportunities to “provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives — and win the battle.” and you do not hear him bragging about all of the weapons and technology he has “provided.”

ON VIETNAM John Kerry stated “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President.” After Senator Kerry spent his four months in Vietnam he came back and protested against the war. He told all who would listen, including Congress, that it was an unjust war, that we should not be fighting it, that he and other servicemen had committed war crimes while there. So now the self admitted war criminal who for years denounced the war in Vietnam considers his fighting (and perhaps his war crimes) as defending “this country”. Senator Kerry had better watch what he says, Jane Fonda may not vote for him.

Read the entire transcript of the speech…

FOXNews.com - You Decide 2004 - Transcript: John Kerry

Then...

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

What's In YOUR Pants?

In the Associated Press article by John Solomon, "Clinton Aide Investigated on Terror Memos"

Sandy Berger, former national security advisor to Bill Clinton is quoted as saying, "... I inadvertently took a few (HIGHER THAN TOP SECRET!) documents from the Archives..." Then, "When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded,"

Wow! How does one “inadvertently“ place documents into one's pants? Did he take these top secret documents into the bathroom with him? How does one “inadvertently“ place top secret documents into one's sox? If he thought that what he was doing was legitimate why would he hide them in his pants and sox? Please, e-mail me if you can think of ANY legitimate reason to place any document in your pants. Don't you have to wear gloves or something when handling these documents? If your fingers could damage them, what damage could be done by crumbling them up in your pants?

I can see no way to “inadvertently“ place douments into my pants. But, even if you are naive enough to buy that the top secret documents “fell“ into his pants, when he was informed by the Archives that documents were missing he stated he returned everything he had. If you inadvertently stole top secret documents from the National Archive when they informed you that some were missing would you not first have to look to see if you had these items which you did not know you had? He stated “When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had...“ Does this not indicate that even if he did not intentionally take them, by the time the Archives called him he knew he had them, but appearently had not contacted the Archives to return them.

As for the “acidentally“ discarded top secret documents, say you are the former National Security Advisor, do you “discard“ ANYTHING without looking it over to make sure you are not throwing away government secrets? Are there spys looking through his trash everyday? If they were not last week are they now? At least one of the “missing“ documents contained a detailed list of U. S. vulnerabilities to terror. If these are the kinds of things that Mr. Berger “accidentally“ discards, I expect that al-Qaida will be going through Mr. Berger's trash from now on.

David Gergen, another former Clinton aid said, "I think it's more innocent than it looks." and, "I have known Sandy Berger for a long time. He would never do anything to compromise the security of the United States." He thinks that "it is suspicious" that this would leak just before the Sept. 11 commission report is to be relaesed.

I would like to know when Mr. Gergen would have thought the timing not “suspicious?“ I assume that Mr. Gergen is implying that the Bush administration was behind the leak, and the timing. This may be, but what would the Bush administration have to gain by this? We do not know the content of the 9-11 report. If the report relies heavily on Mr. Berger's testimony to make the Bush administration look bad, then I suppose they have that to gain, a little. And Mr. Berger has been advising John Kerry on national security issues. This could show poor decision making on the part of Kerry to take advise from a theif. But, let's be objective. This leak would have been better timed later, when, perhaps Kerry anounces that Mr. Berger will play a prominent role in the Kerry administration. I don't see the Bush administration getting that much out of this.

We do not know who leaked the information, or their motivation for having done so. The only thing we do know is that there would have been no information to leak had Mr. Berger broken the law by stuffing top secret documents into his pants and inadvertently removing (stealing?) them from the National Archive. Then he either threw away or destroyed documents which showed the action, or inaction of both Mr. Berger and his boss President Clinton in fighting terrorism.

How much do you think the person who leaked the information had to gain by doing so? Do you think that Mr. Berger had anything to gain by “loosing“ certain documents? Did Mr Berger risk our lives by allowing lists of our national terrorism vulnerabilities to end up in a land fill somewhere?

Read more about it and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

What Should be done with "Faulty" Intelligence?

First read about how not all of the prewar intelligence was wrong from the Associated Press...

Yahoo! News - Iraq Uranium Claim Gets Some Support

We have only found about 20 WMD devices in post war Iraq. There is much debate as to whether Saddam used the year or so that we screwed around trying to get the UN to act to destroy the WMD, sell the WMD, bury it in the dessert, or perhaps he did not have any to begin with. Everyone is talking about this controversy and forgetting the real question which NEEDS to be asked, and ANSWERED.

First, let's get some PREwar facts strait. Russian intelligence believed that Saddam had large quantities of WMD. French intelligence did as well. German intelligence believed it too. And these three had every reason to WANT Iraq NOT to have WMD since they did not want the coalition to move against Saddam. If ANY of these three had ANY reason to doubt that Saddam had WMD, is there anyone naive enough to believe that they would not have announced this evidence against Saddam's WMD to the UN, the press, and anyone who would listen to try to stop the pending war?

Continuing... British intelligence believed that Saddam had them. U. S. intelligence believed that Saddam was a WMD superpower.

Now the Congressional 9-11 committee, set up mostly to discredit Bush, has stated that the evidence indicates that Saddam really was trying to buy uranium from Niger. The British committee, set up mostly to discredit Blair, agrees that there is convincing evidence that Saddam was trying, not succeeding, but trying to buy uranium from Africa. Even the aforementioned French, who would LOVE to discredit Bush and Blair, agree that Saddam was trying to attain uranium. By the way are the people who complained about the “16 words” in Bush's state of the union address going to apologize for their LIE that Bush lied? You and I both know that most of them are not “stand up” enough to do that.

Continuing... The UN security counsel past resolution, after resolution for Saddam to destroy his WMD. Something COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY if he had NONE.

In short ALL major intelligence agencies around the world agreed that Saddam had some bad stuff. ALL!

NOW THE QUESTION: Assuming that ALL intelligence agencies in the world were WRONG, but they ALL agreed that Saddam had WMD, and, obviously, Bush had NOTHING but these intelligence reports to go by when making a decision on what to do about Iraq, what should he have done?

Hindsight may be 20/20. (Given the political spin put on things since the war began, I do not believe it to be 20/20, but it probably is better than at that time.) It is easy to Monday morning quarterback. But FORGET EVERYTHING that we have learned since the Iraq war began, FORGET EVERYTHING that our troops have learned since placing “boots” on the ground in Iraq, and make the decision. A decision which John Kerry agreed with when he voted for the resolution which sent our forces there. One which the majority of congress agreed with when that passed.

Some, say that ALL of the world's intelligence agencies were wrong, that Saddam had no WMD. Let's play “what if.” What if the President had stated that he did not believe the consensus opinion of the world's intelligence agencies. He belived that Saddam did not have WMD, and we left Saddam alone. Then, a few months later Saddam sold mustard gas to al Zarqawi, an al Qaeda leader, who was in Iraq prior to the war, and it was used to kill thousands of Americans. Would these VERY SAME people who today are complaining that Bush should not have gone into Iraq, be complaining that he should have, because “One would have to be STUPID to disbelieve ALL of the intelligence agencies in the world, right?”

Read up on this issue and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Does Near Billionare Senator Kerry Understand Black America?

"My friends, I will be a president who meets with the leadership of the Civil Rights Congress, who meets with the NAACP," John Kerry told a predominantly black audience in Boston this week. Senator Kerry is SO in touch with black America that his campaign had to correct this statement. He meant Leadership Conference on Civil Rights rather than the Civil Rights Congress. It sounds to me as though this issue is in the forefront of the senators thoughts, right? Familiarity with the names of all the associations from whom you want endorsements is always a good idea. Or was he simply making up something that he thought sounded good at the time?

Later in the Reuters article “Kerry Seeks Gain from Bush Rift with Rights Group”
Mon 12 Jul, 2004
By David Morgan

Kerry is reported to have talked about...

1 “...inequities faced by blacks in criminal justice...”
2 “...inequities faced by blacks in ... education...”
3 “... accusing the Bush administration of pursuing tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of working families.”
4 “... I saw a separate and unequal school system in America...”
5 “... more African Americans in jail than ... in college.”

(Out of curiosity, if someone commits a crime, regardless of the color of their skin, who's fault does Senator Kerry think it is if they end up in jail?)

And then, after all of these DIVISIVE statements mentioned by Kerry, without mentioning the the TOTAL hypocrisy, the writer, David Morgan, quotes Mr Kerry as saying “... the job of the presidency is not to look for the lowest common denominator of American politics by which you can DIVIDE...”(as Mr. Kerry is reported to have done all throughout this article)”... it's to find the highest common denominator of American politics and unite...” I have read, and reread this article, and I can find no examples of Senator Kerry making any statements uniting anyone. Yet President Bush has appointed Condoleezza Rice, a black woman as national security adviser, and Colin Powell, a black man as Secretary of State. How many black men and women have Democratic presidents appointed to cabinet level positions? Does this mean anything?

FACT FAULT: Mr. Morgan states that “Black voter support could be crucial in the Nov. 2 election, which analysts believe may be as close as the 2000 race, decided in Bush's favor by the U.S. Supreme Court.” I realize that the democratic party wants you to believe that th Supreme Court decided the last election, you know the mantra “selected not elected”, and it would appear that Mr. Morgan has either bought that lie or is attempting to convince his readers of such. The FACT is that the Supreme Court simply decided that after SEVERAL recounts, ALL showing Bush the winner, that the democratic party could not continue recounting until the results were to their liking. Then, after that decision, a group of journalists, I believe using the “freedom of information act” got ballots for the state of Florida, and counted them AGAIN. Obviously the biggest headline from their results would have been had their recount declared Gore to have won the state. At first the reporters refused to even release their re-recount results. I find it ironic that the press used the “freedom of information act” to get the data, but, initially refused to “freely” release the “information” they had when the results were not what they wanted. Can we trust the press to release other information they may have which is not in keeping with their desires? Eventually, since everyone knew they had these results, they broke down and their recount showed again that Bush, in FACT, did win the state, little was made of this, even then. Mr. Morgan, I know that it was not front page news, but, dig a little and I am sure that you can find it. Here, let me help you. The associated press reported on November 12, 2001 in an article titled “Florida recount tallies released”:

“The new data, compiled by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations, also suggested that Gore followed a legal strategy after Election Day that would have led to defeat even if it had not been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

So, was the election decided by the Supreme Court? Would our country have been better off had there been more recounts until inauguration day, with Bush still winning? I hate it when reporters, with all of the resources at their fingertips get such simple facts wrong. I have access to a minuscule amount of information compared to a big time Reuters reporter like Mr. Morgan, but even I found this in about two minutes on GOOGLE.

Read more about it and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Murder: Killing a Human Life

If Senator Kerry were in a position to save the life of another human being about to be murdered, and he let that person be murdered, then he may as well have murdered that person himself. It is understandable that, in a circumstance, which could cost the senator his own life, he has to think of his family, etc., should he be killed trying to defend this defenseless person.

However, when the only potential risk to saving the lives of thousands, even millions of innocent children is only loosing reelection to the Senate, how could he (or anyone) be so selfish?

Now, those of you on the “choice” side of the issue, don’t complain to me about the “innocent children” phrase in the previous sentence, blame Kerry, he is the one who said, “I believe life does begin at conception.” If this is the case, then that “growth” which abortionists suck out through a tube and flush down the drain is a CHILD. Senator Kerry believes it to be a child, but he does not believe it has any right to be protected from murder. I wonder, is murdering a one year old, in Senator Kerry’s mind, less of a crime than murdering an 80 year old? It would appear that a young child does not have the right to live as much as an older child, and I am just curious if Senator Kerry’s “life protection scale” continued up the age range, as ANY legitimate “rule” would, or if this convenient exception to Senator Kerry’s moral code, is simply an attempt to be on both sides of yet another issue.

Senator Kerry went on to say "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist…” Wow, is the senator against all legislation having to do with morality? I wonder what the senator’s position is on all kinds of other issues relating to morality. Why is prostitution illegal? Why is doctor-assisted suicide illegal? What about our drug laws? What about cruelty to animal laws?

Think about this… Take “faith”, and “beliefs” out of the picture, and then read those last questions in the preceding paragraph. If we removed all laws based on “faith”, “beliefs” and morals, our country would be in chaos. I know that Senator Kerry does not want that, but the twisted arguments he makes for getting out of one situation, if he uses them consistently, would result in just that. And, failing to use your arguments consistently is hypocrisy.

When someone makes an argument that does not apply to every situation, then one needs to alter the logic used so as to maintain intellectual honesty.

Without “faith”, “beliefs” and morals to guide our leaders, what is left to guide them? Without a compass, does one not get lost easily?

Read up on this issue…

http://www.theunionleader.com/
articles_showa.html?article=40304

Then…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Save Our Planet

I could get on board with some of the “save the earth” stuff if you guys would just tell me the truth. After all, we have only one earth, and even though we probably are not capable of destroying the earth, we can certainly make it inhospitable to some species of animals, including humans. Perhaps even causing our own extinction. THIS IS NOT GOOD!

THE PROBLEM, as I see it, is the lies on BOTH sides of the issues. The only way that I see to begin to repair the ecological problems, i.e. global warming, dwindling rain forests, disappearing coral reefs, extinction of species, etc., is for BOTH sides to admit to their lies, half truths, exaggerations, and then reach some reasonable compromises.

The most radical of environmentalists see the salvation of the earth as nothing short of ceasing all use of fossil fuels, dumping of any waste, cutting of any tree, use of any waterway by boat, etc., TOMORROW. In short, they want the removal of all humans from the planet. (While they preach this, maybe two or three actually practice all of this.) The most radical on the other side want to dump any sort of toxic waste anywhere they can reach by dump truck, pipeline, barge, etc., without regard for the ecological consequences.

If either of these most radical groups gets its way, we are all soon DEAD! I do not think dead is a good idea regardless of how we get there. I know I am not the only reasonable person on the planet. Am I?

SOME EXAMPLES OF THE LIES

When the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” was recently released, NASA told its scientists not to comment publicly on the potential for global warming bringing us to an ice age in three days. Most experts on the subject, including those at NASA, know that the film is NOT a realistic portrayal of what may happen on earth. However, they were told not to comment on the film because, by not debunking it, some people might go to the movie and then be moved to do something about global warming. I am not making this up. I do not have a word for word transcription, but this does represent what they said. Translation: If a lie can get some people to act as we want them to act, then, by all means DO NOT confuse the issue with the truth.

Rush Limbaugh, for some time now, has been saying that we insignificant humans are not capable of changing the global ecology. He says things like, we could not completely remove the ozone layer if we tried to do so. The sun creates new ozone every day. If the President decided to put all of our nation’s resources into totally destroying the ozone, we could not. These are true statements. But, no reasonable person can argue that we are not capable of modifying the world around us, maybe even the ozone layer. We may not be able to completely eliminate it, but we could make enough of a change to it to cause problems. Perhaps, and I do not know because of all of the exaggerations on the part of environmentalists, we could make the planet incapable of supporting human life. Rush is right, there will still be ozone, but I don’t care whether or not there is ozone if the human race is extinct.

Don’t get me wrong, NASA seems to have been well intentioned, and Rush, I am sure, would not advocate a position which he KNOWS to be one which will destroy all human life, including his own. But, can we not agree that neither of these positions is going to improve anything in the long run? The conveyance of false information, whether we know it to be false or not, does not help in any serious discussion.

So, what can you do? First, regardless of the benefits you may think lying about the truth may provide you, refrain from doing so. If you are a proven liar, even when you tell the truth you will not be believed. Give the facts, and only the facts. Second, be more open-minded. Whatever your beliefs, try to look at the facts that do NOT support your position and see if your position needs modification. The other side probably has some points that you can see some value in exploring. Third, and perhaps the most important, get others to be more open-minded and less likely to create lies to support their position. Regardless of which views you tend to hold, the odds are your friends and associates hold similar views. They will be much more open to change when suggested by one of their own than suggestions from the other side. We cannot point fingers at the other side and ask them to change first. We must be willing to change our side, and rationally discuss this to our planet’s benefit.

The light of truth almost always illuminates the correct answer.

Read more about it and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Celebrate Independence Day?

I am an American. I have done little traveling abroad. However, I could see celebrating Christmas in a nation other than my United States. The New Year may be fun in some other nation. But, really these are the only two holidays celebrated internationally on the same day.

There are a couple of holidays not celebrated with much more than a few grilled burgers, which are truly international. Armistice Day and VJ (victory over Japan) which all of the allied countries celebrate with a little less exuberance each year.

If one wanted to celebrate Thanksgiving, for example, in Canada, you would have to do so on a different date than our Thanksgiving, and in reality our Thanksgiving is based on an event which occurred in what is now the United States.

Most other holidays which we celebrate are unique to America, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, President's Day, etc. But the one MOST unique to America, the one I cannot imagine wishing to celebrate in any other country on earth, is Independence Day, July 4th, the birthday of our nation.

There are thousands of Americans living abroad. These Americans celebrate Independence Day in their own ways. Most who do not have a distain for America, would want to celebrate our birthday in the U. S. if it were practical to do so.

So, where do you think that the millionaire, (possibly billionaire) United States Senator John Kerry spent, at least a portion of his Fourth of July? What would you say to, Berlin Germany? With Mr. Kerry's money, he could choose to spend his holiday almost anywhere in the world. Now, it is entirely possible that Mr. Kerry has an itinerary that includes getting back to the U. S. in time to get his picture taken at an American Fourth celebration. But, does this tell us anything about where his heart is?

I am not saying that those patriotic Americans wishing to celebrate, but unable to come home to the States, don't deserve a visit, even on the Fourth. But, is Mr. Kerry there to help Americans in Germany celebrate their country on this holiday? Does he feel that these poor Americans deserve a visit from an American hero on the Fourth of July?

What kind of political adviser would suggest to a presidential candidate that he spend the MOST American of holidays in Germany? What kind of presidential candidate would not tell said adviser to reschedule that trip when it does not fall on our nation's birthday?

As far as some of the substance of the article, how many people were there? The Reuters article reads “dozens” of American and German supporters. How many are dozens? If there were 200 people then it would be hundreds, so clearly, less than 200. I suspect that had there been over 100 that it probably would have read “over 100”. I would go further to suspect that had the number been in the nineties it probably would have read “almost 100”. On the low end, in order to be dozens (plural) you need at least two dozen. So, I think that it is safe to say that there were at least 24. So, the odds are from 24 to 89 American and German supporters were there for Kerry. Now, as for the German supporters, so what? Senator Kerry could have the support of the entire German population and not one can vote for him. Since they mention both American and German supporters, then the American “supporters” must be fewer than the total. Therefore, If the number of total supporters was 24, the absolute MOST American votes he could have been playing for is 23, assuming that all who attended are registered voters. Does this sound like a wise use of Senator Kerry’s campaign funds? I could see driving the campaign bus to a rural American town for 23 votes but, flying to a foreign country to campaign for the presidency of the United States on our nation’s birthday?

Read more about it on Reuters web sight...



and other sources, then...

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

What Do You Mean, Bush's War?

In the Reuters story "Justices Order Hearing on Guantanamo Bay Case" dated 6-30-2004, linked below:

Yahoo! News - Justices Order Hearing on Guantanamo Bay Case

The writer writes that the court in California is to consider if a case involving a prisoner held at the base "…as part of President Bush's war on terrorism…" is in the appropriate court.

FACT FAULT: The writer inappropriately calls this "…President Bush's war…". This would be understandable if, for example, the President was single handedly fighting the insurgency. ...or perhaps if Congress did not give their blessing, as they did. ...or perhaps if the hijackers of 9-11 had targeted only the President, and not thousands of innocent people at work trying to make a living. The terrorists declared war on the United States, and all free societies. Al qaeda has vowed not to stop until the whole WORLD is under Islamic law. Translation: When bin laden rules the world. Regardless of whether you are going to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry, we can all agree that we do not want a president bin laden, can’t we? So, can we not agree that this is OUR war on terrorism?

What legitimate reason would one have to call it Bush's war? Assuming that the writer is an American, is it that they do not want to admit that the Senator(s) and/or Representative in Congress who represents them may have voted for the action? Could there be a political reason? Could the writer want the President to look bad? ...as if he were out there all alone, and no one supported him?

Now, as for the case itself, if you were a prisoner on Cuba, off the EAST coast, would you file suit on the WEST coast? Is it that the lawyer in the case is from California and was too lazy to travel? Is it possible that it is because it was filed in what is traditionally a liberal court, which frequently rules in a way which would be beneficial to the plaintiff? Have you ever heard a single member of the press ask why it was filed there? Are they not curious? I am.

Read up on it all and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!