DeLay Rules Changes!

I know that the vote is over and that the Republican rules have already been changed, but, if I could have offered my advice to the Republicans in the House of Representatives it would have been to DELAY.

It is too self serving, looks and feels too much like the rules do not apply to Rep. DeLay to change the rules just before they may have an effect upon him.

As I see it, the rule is a good one, (so long as this prosecution is not being executed for the sole purpose of having this rule enforced) at least to force someone temporarily from a position of authority if indicted. At least until a conviction makes it permanent, or an acquittal reinstates the position.

I understand innocent until proven guilty. And I might even agree with the very same rule change just inacted IF it were not for the specific purpose of protecting a specific individual.

This is how I would have liked to see it play out:

First, the rule, as written last week, applies to Rep. DeLay. IF he is indicted, have him loose his position. If convicted, we do not need him in any position.

Assuming that he is acquitted, reinstate him to his previous position. THEN express your outrage that this politically motivated, frivolous prosecution cost the party a good leader for a period of time, and THEN suggest that the rules be changed so that no other leader has to go though such an ordeal.

We CANNOT change the rules for one person. Even if it is all political and he is completely innocent, the appearance is that Rep. DeLay is special and above the rules by changing them this way.

If you had DELAYED this as I outlined above, I could probably have been convinced agree with the rules change. Since you did not, I cannot.

Read more about it...


ABC News: House GOP Changes Rules to Protect DeLay

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Chris Mathews' Ethics?

On November 15, 2004 Chris Mathews asked a guest this question:

"Well, let me ask you about this. If this were the other side, and we were watching an enemy soldier --a rival, I mean they're not bad guys especially, just people who just disagree with us, they are in fact the insurgents, fighting us in their country-- if we saw one of them do what we saw our guy do to that guy, would we consider that worthy of a war crimes charge?"

Wow. Is any part of this true and accurate? Does Mr. Mathews have a grasp of the facts at all? Could a competent journalist make that many mistakes in one question if they tried?

Let's look at just this question.

First he talks of an "enemy soldier." A soldier wears a uniform. A soldier would not intentionally kill civilians in his own country to create a terrorist's atmosphere to drive out an opposing military. The term soldier DOES NOT APPLY. Chris Mathews appears to realize this as he is stating it and corrects himself . Immediately after the "enemy soldier" he changes to "a rival."

Next he states "...They're not bad guys especially..." I go back to intentionally killing civilians IN HIS OWN COUNTRY to create a terroristic atmosphere to convince his opponent to leave. Not to defeat the enemy, but to break the will OF HIS OWN PEOPLE to cause the enemy to quit. I do not know what Chris Mathews' definition of "BAD" "ESPECIALLY" is but I certainly consider that ESPECIALLY BAD!

He next states that "...they are in fact the insurgents, fighting us in their country..." While most of them are in "their country", Chris completely ignores the FACT that many of them are from other countries simply going to Iraq to spread TERRORISM and DEATH. Has Chris Mathews ever heard of al Zarkowi?

As for the incident, if Chris Mathews were to go to Iraq to help our soldiers with these poor insurgents "...who just disagree with us..." I can guarantee that if Chris saw a fly land on a potentially boobytrapped injured terrorist, he would be calling for air support to blow the entire building off the face of the earth.

Is Chris Mathews uniformed? Is he ignorant of the FACTS? Or does he know the truth and chooses to ignore it when it makes for a sensational story?

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Good News

I just voted. I stood in a line of 25 in the same poll which never caused me more than a two or three voter delay in the past.

THIS is what the founding fathers had in mind!

This awesome right and responsibility we have to vote should be exercised by all who are eligible! The blood of patriots paid for this right.

GO VOTE!

Also, this means that I have the right to complain. Therefore, I can continue blogging.

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!