[$BlogMetaData$]

Green Dog dem

Monday, January 29, 2007

Politics of Charatcter assassination is it Destroying Government in the Lehigh Valley and across the state

The last month or so I've been personally trying, to recruit people, to run for local office i.e. supervisor, commissioner, and Council people, as Democrats. What I found after a month, of very frustrating discussions is people aren't running ,because they don't want, to put up with the abuse, or give up their personal time and wealth to for something they don't feel will change anything.


These are the common everyday folks that use to make up local government, that use to serve because they wanted to improve their community. These people have decided it's not worth their time, the personal attacks bordering on slander , and the lasting damage these attacks cause, to run. When they can be working or having family time. The simple fact is most of the personal attacks are aren't even based in fact but once they are out there they might as well be.


Why is this a problem well eventually no one willing to run for these positions, and we are starting to see this in places like Slatington boro where they can't even keep a full boro council. This is just the starting a number of counties in Pennsylvania have numerous boros councils,twp supervisor, and even Mayor's seat that have stayed open for at least one or more terms.

This is by no means it's not simply the democrats that can't field candidates it's also the republicans and the third parties. Pennsylvania really needs a strict truth in politics law, a law that false accusation in politics are slander and immediate action need to be forced when such falsehoods are leveled. Such as removal from the ballot or massive fines.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Just in.........

John Kerry will not be running for the Democratic Nomination for President in 2008


THANK GOD!

Monday, January 22, 2007

Something that Bush doesn't seem to get

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all",

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Bush's New Iraq Plan Heads they win tails we lose

Bush's own Generals are now saying that these additional troops have at best a 50-50 change of improving the situation in Iraq.

Meaning that there is a 50% change that Iraq will continue to spiral down further into a civil war with our troops in the middle of it. That we will end up in the same situation we did in Vietnam not knowing who we are fighting. Who is friend who is foe, where the Iraqi troops turn on our soldiers and shoot them in the back or al sadar's forces pretend to be Iraq troops and shoot the troops in the back.

or

We calm it down and Iranian's win because Iraq becomes a quassi-Iranian Vassal. The Shias are pro-Iran and so are the Kurds. Yes the Kurds are pro-Iranian the Kurds are an Iranian Ethnic group.


I would like to know where the "VICTORY" is?

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Governor Rendell Stop the insanity

I implore you to find a way to stop President Bush from using more, of the Pennsylvania National Guard as Cannon fodder, for his acts of insanity in Iraq. I know you have the power, to stop anymore deployments, of the Sons and Daughters of the Commonwealth, to this act of insanity. It was made clear last night, that President Bush cares little for the people. Who put themselves in harms way for the Citizens of the Commonwealth, of Pennsylvania who are already so over stretched mentally, emotionally, and economically. I ask you, implore you to stop his continued insane actions, in Iraq, at the expense of the People of the commonwealth, and with the lives of the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Tell President Bush you will authorize, no more Pennsylvania national Guard, to be sent to Iraq.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Just winning the County commissioner seats is not good enough

IN 2006 we "won" but we still only control 6 out of 14 state legislative seats, in the Lehigh valley and only 4 of 11 State legislative seats in Lehigh county. i.e. we only control 36 1/3 % of the state seats in Lehigh county and almost the same number of local seats 37% of the seats or 65 out of 174 elected positions (the best number i can get from the state website) on the Local level. It will be nothing to celebrate if we win a number of county commissioner seats in 2007 and do nothing about the low number of supervisor and council and other Elected municipal seats this will be no victory at all.


It is unacceptable for Democrats to make up more than 50% of the voters, but only make up 37% of elected officials, in Lehigh county. If no efforts are made to close this gap no one will deserve a pat, on their back for "winning" in '07. If all the attention
is given, to the County commissioners races, and none to the local ones(and i don't mean the city of Allentown), and we lose big like we did in 2005, on the local level. There will be hell to pay.

Monday, January 08, 2007

Repost of Lehigh county positions up for Election 2007

Seats currently Held by republicans needing challengers)

4 Lehigh County Commissioner seats
Lehigh County Controller
the newly created Clerk of Judicial Records
Lehigh county District atty

in addition

Alburtis boro will have election of two council seats

The city of Allentown will election one council member

CATASAUQUA BORO 4 council member

Coopersburg Boro 1 council member

Emmaus Boro 1 council member

HEIDELBERG TWP 1 Supervisor and chair of Auditors

Lower Macungie twp 1 sec of auditors

Lower Milford twp 1 Supervisor 1 Auditor

Lowhill twp 1 Supervisor

Lynn twp 1 auditor

Macunguie Boro 1 Council member

North Whitehall twp 1 Supervisor 1 Auditor

Salisbury Twp 1 commissioner

Slatington boro 3 council members

South Whitehall twp 3 commissioners

Upper mac twp 2 supervisor 1 Auditor

Upper Saucon twp 1 Supervisor 1 Auditor

Washington twp 1 Supervisor 1 Auditor

Weisenburg twp 1 supervisor 1 Auditor

Saturday, January 06, 2007

The real impeachable offense of George W Bush

I know a number of you would like to have President Bush impeached for misleading the American public into Iraq, but in all reality whether, this is true or not is not an impeachable offense.


What is an impeachable offense is attempting to set aside parts, of legislation he does not like through signing statements. No one in this country not even the president has the right to ignore the laws. The only authority the President has is to either sign it or veto it, not to alter them.

Prohibition of such was made clear in the Case of Clinton v City of Ny.The Court ruled that the line item veto act of 1995 allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations; it violated the Presentment clause of the Constitution, which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute. The Court construed the silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition" of such action by the Executive branch, agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure", and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety.

What Bush has been doing is using his signing statements as a quassi- line item veto process. Simply stating he will not enforce portions of bills; he does not wish to enforce and, which is in violation of this prohibition of such acts found in the 1998 Supreme Court ruling.


Signing statements have in the past been used by Presidents to clarify unclear laws but never as an attempt to avoid enforcing provisions of laws. Such examples of Bush using the Signing Statement as a quassi-line item veto are the Mc Cain torture ban in which Mr. Bush signed the law then choose to say he could use torture anyway, under his own discretion in the a signing statements; another more resent example of this is this is a signing statement more, or less choosing to ignore a law that said the executive branch can not open the US mail; lastly and probably most unconstitutional example was in the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act President Bush choose to write a signing he could choose what information was given to congress by the Fbi at his own discretion, indirect contradiction to the language of the Bill he had just signed,


These examples are clear violations of the separation of the powers set forth in the Constitution. It is made clear in the Constitution that congress writes legislation, President either approves or denies it, and the Judiciary determines its constitutionality. This was the intent of the framers of the Constitution and how the Us federal government is suppose to work are supposed to work.


I hear this constantly from Conservatives in reference to “Activist Judges” legislating from the bench, that this activity violates the strict construction of the Constitution. They fail to notice or mention, or realize that the same restriction, they are pointing out also apply to the Executive Branch; legislating from the White House is just as Prohibited by the Constitution, in fact probably even more so than on the Judiciary which is decider of what is and isn’t constitutional inside the bounds of the Constitution.


Therefore the action of the George W Bush of trying to make laws or reinterpret laws is very likely an impeachable offense. The constitution does not give the President the right or ability to alter legislation, at his or her own choosing such act has been seen by the courts as blantly unconstitutional and therefore is impeachable.


(Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category. In the face of instruction for the Supreme Court and from congress that this is the legislation that we have passed no president may alter such legislation.


Therefore this is a severe and intentional abuse of power and an impeachable offense. By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." the violation of this is also an impeachable offense by ignoring the constitution President Bush is also committing an impeachable offense.)


The claim that he didn’t know or was not responsible for his actions is not an excuse for this as is set forth in the argument below. The President in the end is responsible for the actions of himself and anyone that he has brought into the administration. The below would also infer other Impeachable offense committed by both the President and VP in their name with or without their knowledge.


“An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able.

It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs.The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision.
He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

President Bush has no Shame Ford Eulogy the Last Disrespect

I watched today as the current President Bush attempted to justify in a poorly covered unspoken analogy between Ford's Decision to pardon Nixon and his current insistence to stay in Iraq in spite of all advice to the contrary. I have never seen anything like this in my life. That somehow because Ford happened to be right in deciding in to Pardon Nixon in attempt to move the country on and contrary to the wishes of the public that he is right in continuing to dig us deeper in Iraq. The simple fact is in the end Ford was hurt no one but himself by doing this, and in the end it probably was best for the country. In comparison what Bush is doing effects hundreds of thousands of troops and America as a whole. Let not forget the other major difference is Ford did not make the mess he was only trying to fix what he was given. Bush takes no personal risk by doing what he is doing. Bush beyond this has no dishonored the memory of President Ford who stated he disagreed with this war and Bush truly has no shame and simply only cares about himself, not America and not the Fords. He seems to be willing to use any means to justify his actions, and not even the funeral in the memory of a fmr president will stop it. You could even see the disgust in Laura Bush's expression when he did it. This man as I stated simply has no shame, and I hope everyone can see that now.

Monday, January 01, 2007

Alternatives to De wesse

The Voters of Pennsylvania voted for Change not Bill De Wesse who is part of the problem in Harrisburg these are 5 Democrats who voted against the Pay raise and have close to as much experience as De Wesse and deserve to be Speaker more than he does, since they represent what the people voted for a real change not more of the same.

32 Anthony M. DeLuca (D, Allegheny)

39 David K. Levdansky (D, Allegheny)

36 Harry A. Readshaw (D, Allegheny)

72 Thomas F. Yewcic (D, Cambria)
76 Michael K. Hanna (D, Clinton)