Tuesday, July 24, 2007

City officials in West Hollywood recently approved a measure calling for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. The Mayor and his merry band of lemmings said they were proud and hoped to one day look back and say they took a stand when the Constitution was threatened. I believe they also discussed what flavor Kool Aid they liked the most.

While reading the story, it donned on me that the Mayor has no idea what the Constitution is, and probably uses the word to describe what happens when he can’t poop. The reasons they are calling for Bush’s impeachment include: allowing the torture of military prisoners and implementing domestic wiretaps. Of course, he produced no evidence that Bush has allowed torture, and failed to mention that the Federal Courts recently ruled that there was NO evidence of the wiretap program infringing on the rights of others. Not even the ACLU could produce someone whose rights had been violated. But, hey, who needs evidence? We’re talking about people in a city and a state that wouldn’t bat an eye about converting to full blown Marxo-Socialism. And in that kind of society evidence of a crime is a mere technicality that can easily be overlooked, just ask OJ (he’s from around those parts, isn’t he?).

The city officials haven’t voted a measure condemning the Fairness Doctrine (currently being considered in Washington) or the Imminent Domain ruling from the Supreme Court. I guess the censoring of talk radio and the governmental seizure of private property for the betterment of society are two things allowed in the Constitution, or at least it seems so in the fantasy world that is West Hollywood. So when Bob from LA calls Osama Bin Laden, the government can’t listen in without violating his rights. But if he calls the Sean Hannity talk show, well then it’s OK.

Considering that women in Tehran are being arrested because their dresses show too much ankle, or are too tightly fitting on their contours, I shudder to think what would happen if such a law was implemented in West Hollywood. Obviously, the Mayor has never thought of that, nor has he thought of the possibility that Bush’s wiretap program is just one of many measures that are meant to ensure no Americans have to endure this kind of treatment. To the Mayor, that’s about as important as evidence of Bush’s “crimes”.

Luckily, the people of West Hollywood don’t call the shots in this country, nor do the people of Boulder, Colorado. If they ever did, well, it would be time to get out the Burkas and head scarves. They should remember that it’s hard to hold peace marches and candlelight vigils for the dying rainforests when you have to pray to Mecca five times a day. And you can’t stand up for your Constitutional rights after you’ve been beheaded. Indeed, when I think about how our glorious Left appeases and enables those who hate us, well, the whole thing makes me a bit constituted.

12 comments:

Robert M. said...

I heard about this actually. I think Bush is an idiot, but I'm not stupid enough to think he should be impeached. He hasn't committed an impeachable offensive. It's that simple.

Anonymous said...

SNAKE HUNTERS SEZ,

Another thing Robert, if we impeach
Bush/Cheney, the 3rd in line for
the Oval Office is...

>

>

>

NANCY PELOSI!

Just viuualize it! All of San Francisco's values switched to Washington DC! What a revolting development That Would Be! Even old
Sen. Harry Reid would pack his bag
and head for his hometown in Searchlight, Nevada for a stiff drink. And, he's a Mormon! reb

www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

The Loop Garoo KId said...

"Eminent domain" is the power of a nation or a sovereign state to take, to authorize the taking of private property.

"Imminent" means abaout to occur; impending.

Or than your use of the word "donned" when you meant "dawned", your rant was unworthy of comment.

Anonymous said...

Dear L.G. Kid,

Thank you for taking the time to point out my good friend's simple oversight and misuse of words.

Although, I am sure you are intellectually superior to all of us because you noticed such things; I do feel compelled to ask one question. If John's rant was unworthy of comment, why did you in fact comment?

Robert

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Dear Anon.

I'm glad Mr. Washburn is your good friend. I trust he knows who you are.

I neither know nor care whether I am intellectually superior to anyone.

Inter alia, I believe in good grammar and correct spelling. One cannot confuse "eminent domain" and "imminent" domain. This is not oversight. It is misuse and denotes ignorance of the legal concept that was the point of discussion. Anyone who holds themselves out as an author is obligated to use langauhge correctly if they want to be taken seriously.

I wrote: "Other than your use of the word 'donned' when youi meant 'dawned" your rant was unworthy of comment."

What part of that did you fail to understand?

Anonymous said...

Wow LG Kid. For someone who is a stickler for correct spelling, isn't it ironic that you spelled language wrong?

John Washburn said...

It appears my haste in typing and lack of proofreading is more of an issue for some people than the actual post. How pathetically simple minded! The Loop Garoo Kid has resorted to typical Left wing tactics of personally attacking the messenger while completely ignoring the message, could that be because he has no answer for the message?

The culture of the Left is one of vile and venom as is exemplified in the words of the "kid". They have difficulty with constructive debate and when they are unable to participate in such debate they resort to nastiness and petty insults. They are childish and pathetic in their attacks and have absolutely NO answers for the issues that confront us, as we have seen in his "plan" for Iraq and how to deal with the strengthening Al Qaeda. The Loop Garoo Kid personifies the Left's approach to America's problems.

The "Kid" has left many posts on this blog with very little substance, which leads me to ask: Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion? Or would you like to make fun of my grammatical oversights some more? It is, after all, quite amusing to me. If my grammar were the most pressing issue facing this nation, then the "kid" may have something in the vicinity of an actual point. As it stands, he falls very short. I am an author and that's why authors have editors.

My advice to you is to participate in political discussions in a respectful and coherent manner. If not, I'm sure the Daily Kos would love to have you. If you want to contribute with substance then give it a try, you may surprise yourself. If you want to attack, then go somewhere else. This is not the place for little people like yourself. In a word, you are WAY over your head.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Yes, we are becoming familiar with
LGK's insistance on proper grammar
and correct spelling. However, unless he chooses to have his own legal secretary on over-time to prepare his blogger comments, he often
does make similar typos on My Blog,
and He's a Practicing Attorney!
>>
With that fact in mind, he might have aided all, with his knowledge of jurisprudence, to enlighten those of us that may benefit from this very Necessary Law dealing with Sovereign Power or 'Eminent Domain'. So, having nothing better to do, I'll try:
>>
When necessary, the State may envoke Eminent Domain when it's "In the Public Interest".

Example:

If you own a few thousand acres of raw
land, and the State needs it to connect two growing cities, and you refuse to sell at fair market value, The People are gonna win!
That's the value of Eminent Domain.

However, in some recent cases, Real Estate Speculators have, on occasion, colluded with friendly politicians and crooked lawyers to use this Public Interest Law, as a Ploy to
Unethically Grab Land From Rightful Owners, For Private or Corporate Profit. Bad Boys!

Am I correct, Loop Garoo? reb

www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

reb,

The case was Kelo vs. the City of New London.

To say the issue of eminet domain is complex is an understatement. As I recall, at least one SC justice wrote that the state of Connecticut could have limited the statutory grant of power of eminent domain but did not. Eight states: AR, FL, IL, KY, ME, MT, SC, and WA have prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic purposes except to prevent blight.

I think your concern re economic speculators is valid in theory but such speculatio occurs less than you think. Two years after the decision, the City of New London has yet begin development on the project and presumably, the homeowners are still there.

The entities of which you need to beware are the ones who have super powers of eminent domain. They tend to be specially created statutory districts like power or water and sewer districts. By the time the property owner receives notice, it's a done deal.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Now, if Reid, Pelosi, & Chuck Schumer can just keep picking away
at Gonzalez, Libby, Carl Rove, and
any other G.O.P. luminaries for a
few more months, a few more long-winded, probitive investigations,
file a few more dozen boxes filled
with reams of photo-copies (that nobody reads) maybe the Republicans
will fail to Upgrade Our Electronic
Spy Network, cripple the C.I.A. in the Middle East, maybe we can then...

Prove Dubya Incompetence!

FISA? What's that? reb

www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Loop's Eminent Domain:

New London? No, not the case I was referring to; I recall the
California Doheny Absurdity, where
the land-owner refused to allow
Coast Highway Access to connect L.A. with San Francisco!

Imagine it! It would give miles of
business frontage to the old dame!

She fought it for years, through State & Federal Courts. The U.S. Supreme Court finally granted California a Road Easement!

Eminent Domain, In The Public Interest. reb

www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

The Loop Garoo Kid. said...

reb,

A brief look did not reveal the Doheny case which must have been some time ago. The most recent case was Kelo which aroused a lot of negative sentiment b/c the land wasn't being condemned for an obvious necessity such as a roasd easement but for redevelopment of an area that arguably was not "blighted." Another factor was the land was to be conveyed to an non profit organization that wouod develop the land as opposed to the city itself.