« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
March 31, 2005
A Sandy Berger Traitorous Surprise!
News here
Now, I'm not surprised that he's pleading guilty or any of that. It was obvious he got caught red-handed, if if you believe that he "lost" some docs. (Why he was allowed far enough to lose documents in the first place is a good question).
But apparently stealing classified information is a misdemeanor!!!
If you curse at a cop it's a felony but stealing national secrets is only a misdemeanor? I'm just absolutely baffled at this.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Profs Gone Wild
Can you find the references to the University of Illinois favorite terrorists?
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Terri Schiavo has Passed
Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. Amen.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 30, 2005
Retaliation Against Bloggers
Things like this and this disgust me. Don't like what someone has to say? Threaten them or call their place of employment. The left has long run out of ideas, but they never tire of intimidation. The Democratic Party, terrorizing the American people since 1792.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 22, 2005
The Republic Dies with Terri Schiavo
It's an alarmist statement to be sure. However, I think it is one more final nail in the coffin of any sense of democracy we have in this country.
The bad rulings that have no basis in law are being defended under "separation of powers" statements. The courts have ruled and the executive and legislature have no right to intervene. Let's talk about that for a second.
The separation of powers doctrine in our constitution goes along with another similar statement, checks and balances. Separation of powers is not enough to ensure a responsive and democratic republic. There must be oversight by other branches of government. The Senate reviews presidential appointments including those to the judiciary. The President can veto any law by Congress. Congress can limit juristiction of the courts and the President can pardon anyone convicted in the court system.
But here comes the "right to die" crowd trying to put Terri to death saying that no legislature or executive agency can do anything that might even stall the court for one minute because that would violate "separation of powers". The court has given the big "f*ck you" to all other government branches saying "we've made our decision, this woman dies and there is nothing you can do about it".
Well kids, it strikes me that the courts no longer recognize checks and balances as any restriction on what they can do, even in putting someone to death. Can we honestly say that this is a Republic? Where is the democracy of one man in a robe ordering someone to death and allowing no other branches of government, much less a jury of peers, have any say in the matter?
When and if Terri dies, the Republic is buried with her. We're in a juristocracy then.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 14, 2005
Open Letter to the Illinois Republican Party
For the past few years I've watched the Illinois Republican Party fall into complete disarray. First, there was the defeat of Jim Ryan. A Chicago Democrat ran on the platform to clean up Springfield and the voters bought it. That should have rang with earth shattering result in the IL GOP, but it didn't. Then came along with the 2004 race with the Jack Ryan / Alan Keyes fiasco. Going into the 2006 election with a very defeatable incumbent governor, the IL GOP seems to be rudderless and unable to rally any direction to beat him. The only thing keeping Democrats from running someone else against Rod is the fact that could be the only possible chance Republican have to take the office at this point.
I was hoping with a new chairman there would be a change. There hasn't been. How am I, a voter, supposed to know what the IL GOP stands for and what they think on issues? A look at the website doesn't show their solutions, it complains about "Rod Fee Increases", has a section on "Dem Watch", and otherwise just picks a part Democrats. Sure, there are things to criticize but without a direction and a platform what is the point. What is the IL GOP going to change or do differently? You can talk about getting special interest money out of politics, but it is the party of "Licenses for Bribes". There is simply nothing I can find on the website that indicated what the Republican ideas are to fix the problems of this state.
Does the IL GOP support school vouchers? We have a first-world nation with an educational system that rivals the third world. It's about time we break the back of the public school monarchy of mediocrity. Even Mayor Daley of Chicago sees that need. Will the IL GOP start cutting and closing ineffective, duplicative, or useless state agencies? Which ones? There are two ways to deal with a budget problem, get more income or cut spending. Can we, for once, talk about cutting spending? And I don't mean cutting services that do have some use, how about we just cut the pork instead.
Cities and the state have faced a continued budget crisis. Instead of cutting the fat, there just seems to be more cuts to services that actually do provide some benefit to the state. Even in my home town here, they complain of not having enough money. They don't cut the pork spending, they just stop plowing the streets. Can we have a serious discussion how to resolve these problems and stop wasting all our time calling a Chicago Democrat corrupt? Of course he's corrupt, he's a Chicago Democrat.
Getting special interest money out of politics is a step, but a small step. The only real way to curb political corruption is to end the lifetime tenure of politicians in office throughout the state. In 2008, there is a golden opportunity to have a Constitutional Convention. Can we have a serious discussion on term limits (the only real way to slow the flow of special interest money)? The desire to serve the public is commendable, but power corrupts and everyone knows the incumbency advantage.
Instead of relying on Springfield lawmakers to do what's right, can we add the ability to put binding citizen referendum on the ballots? If we can be trusted enough to put you in office in the first place, we should be trusted enough to vote on big enough issues that are covered by citizen referenda in such a way as that they are truly democratic and out of the hands of politicians who sometimes aren't acting in the best interests of the voters.
Can we have some more accountability of public officials? The state does have a Freedom of Information Act but provides no penalty for when officials violate it. An officer can simply refuse to release information requiring the individual to go to court for an order. This can tie up that individual's money and time for months if not years and when the judge finally tells the official to pony up he is never truly held accountable. It is time penalties were added to the FOIA law.
Speaking of accountability, it is about time the citizens have the ability to recall public officials. This worked with incredible success in California. A corrupt and ineffective governor was thrown out of office by the citizens as they realized he was no longer acting in their best interests. The best defense against a corrupt government is more accountability and the ability of the voters to throw the bums out.
One way or the other, I'd like to see a Constitutional Convention. I would hope the party of conservatism and limited government would be behind this. If the Republicans in this state want any chance for a state-wide office they need to provide the voters with a clear vision. Conservative voters are craving for something for the state party. Give us something. Give us a reason to go out to the polls and put you people into office.
Sincerely,
John Bambenek
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 2, 2005
Pro-Life Pharmacist Should Face Reprimand
Pro-Life Pharmacist Should Face Reprimand Over Abortion Drug, Judge Says
A prolife pharmacist refused to dispense an abortion pill to a college student because it violated his religious beliefs. So a judge says he shouldn't be a pharmacist anymore (well suspended for 2 years).
The latest in the imposition against people of religion by social engineers on what is or is not acceptable behavior. Oh you can still be religious, as long as it doesn't inconvenience or otherwise bother anyone else. The parable was lock yourself in your room so no one else knows what you are doing, now it is lock yourself in your room or the state will do it for you.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
