Part-Time Pundit

Rep. Murtha Proves Impeachment is About Criminalizing Conservatism

Listening to the far-left’s cries for impeachment one can seriously believe that the United States has become akin to fascist Germany. They seriously believe people are being rounded up in the middle of the night because they “spoke out”. Never mind not one single example can be mentioned.

Today the California Democratic Party passed a resolution calling for impeachment. This is significant because the California Democratic Party is no small organization.

The unfortunate thing is, many claims they make for Bush’s “crimes” are either not crimes or not true. While I’d prefer my elected leaders to not lie to me, there is nothing illegal about it. That, and whether or not he used false information, the fact that he was wrong does not prove he lied. In fact, if one actually reads the Downing Street Memo, they’d realize Bush genuinely believed the information he used. Being wrong is not a crime.

Further, “disclosing the name of an undercover CIA operative” is simply not true. First, undercover CIA operatives do not work at Langley… ever. However, more importantly, the facts have shown that it was Richard Armitage that leaked the name, not Bush.

Lastly, there is the issue of “signing statements” that are “used to ignore or circumvent portions of over 750 Congressional statutes.” Read the Constitution, the President is the chief law enforcer in the state and checks and balances allow him the leeway into how he applies the law. There is certainly on crime there.

While we can all find things we disagree with Bush about, impeachment is no small matter nor a political club to beat others with. When Clinton was impeached at least there was a crime involved (perjury), and at best all one could say was that it was a small crime that was “just about sex.” In this case, there are no real crimes involved at all.

Yesterday, Representative John Murtha had a rare moment of honest and told America what the impeachment drive is about. On CBS, Murtha said “What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a President. And one of them’s impeachment”.

The impeachment drive was never about the Geneva Conventions, the war, or any other supposed crime. It is about criminalizing conservatism, or more appropriate, criminalizing any idea not accepted by Democrats. Even a very flexible reading of the Constitution requires the President to be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. No where is it even remotely suggested that impeachment is even legal in the case of political disagreement or unpopular policies. In fact, likely such an impeachment, if it occurred, would be overturned in the courts on just those grounds.

The party of “hate crimes” and “speech codes” has always sought to bring the law to bear to provide outside pressure to the debate. Instead of engaging in debate, they engage in threats. It’d be far easier to just ride out the next year and a half and just elect one of their own to the office instead. That is the democratic way, after all.

Impeachment talk began roughly on inauguration day in 2001 and it hasn’t stopped then. While Bush has certainly given them plenty of PR fumbles for the left to beat him up with, they certainly don’t rise to the level of impeachment. Since gaining power in Congress, the Democrats have consistently engaged in actions that rape our constitution and enshrine their own power. At least John Murtha is honest about it.

Know Your Rights

Don’t get stressed out about dealing with criminal matters by yourself, make sure to find a labor law attorney who can take are of any issues that come up. There are many discrimination lawyers and trustworthy local attorneys who can take care of the job. Get your legal issues taken care of right!

April 30th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Congress, Impeachment, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | no comments

DI Guest Column Up: Rush to judgment only perpetuates VT tragedy

I have a guest column up at the Daily Illini on the Virginia Tech massacre on the insane push to “do something” in the wake of these tragedies. If we stopped at the “shock and sympathy phase” and just had candle-lit vigils, we could credit it to a good and healthy society… it’s the insanity that follows in the press and halls of policy-makers in the wake of these incidents that show an ugly and stupid side of our society.

I had a brief debate with the editor about “enculturate” vs “inculturate” and the editor of course wins those debates.

On Business Law Matters

Make sure to have legal issues judged properly and hir a corporate lawyer to handle any large business claims. Having a business lawyer on your side can be a huge advantage in legal proceedings. So find a commercial lawyer who works for your business.

April 30th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Chambana, Columns, DailyIllini | no comments

Some more Weekend Reading

I have two more articles up, the first is up again at Mercator on privacy issues and the ever-expanding Google empire: How Much Longer Will Google do no Evil?

The second article was for the SANS Institute on currency manipulation: Could Currency be Destabilized?.

Get An Online Education

Give students a great reading curriculum and teach them to love reading early on in
life. With online education you can accomplish anything and there are many great learning resources out there. So get involved in learning today so they can take that career
assessment tomorrow!

April 29th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Misc | no comments

Return to Blogging

Now that the election is over, I hope to blog and write more. I’ve done a little during the campaign, but mostly for pay. See Keeping Children Safe Online that I did a few months ago.

So long gone are the days of one month between posts.

April 27th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Politics | no comments

Supreme Court Rules Abortion Not Sacred

The partial birth abortion ban ruling is a watershed moment in the abortion debate. It isn’t because it “restricts a right for a woman to choose” or that “it is the beginning of the end of abortion”, it’s that it is a vindication for a common-sense understanding of the Constitution.

The foundational rights of this nation at the time of its creation were freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process. These ideas were supreme and everything else was built from there. Many laws were struck down simply because they conflicted, even tangently, with those rights. With Roe v Wade, something quietly but dramatic occurred.

The foundational right of the nation changed to be a “right to abortion”. Even if one were to argue that abortion was a constitutional right encapsulated in a right to privacy that simply does not translate into a “right of abortion” that overrides all others.

Want to express your free speech in protest? You can’t do it if it is too close to an abortion clinic because it might interfere with someone else’s “right of abortion”. Want to express your free association in forming a crisis pregnancy center to provide alternatives to abortion? You can’t do it without significant government oversight, regulation and outright suspicion because it might interfere with someone else’s “right of abortion”. Want to be a pharmacist and still hold true to your religion? You can’t due it because it might interfere with someone else’s “right of abortion”.

Skipping past the absurdity of applying the Bill of Rights to relations between people (as opposed to people and the government which it is supposed to do), the “right of abortion” became the foundational and formative governing principle of this country. If a right of abortion and free speech conflict, free speech must give way. If a right to religious expression and abortion conflict, religion must give way.

Not only in conflicts of rights, but also in the application of the law abortion has held pride of place. Children have no rights outside their parents consent, except in the sole case of abortion. Statutory rape laws and mandatory reporting laws apply universally, except when abortion is in the picture. Even normal medical regulations for clinic safety often go flouted by abortion clinics.

The partial birth abortion ban is nothing more than the government exercising regulatory oversight of medical practice. It does this every day. Procedures are restricted, drugs are restricted, medical providers are restricted. Yet, opponents argued that the partial birth abortion ban was unconstitutional because it supposedly conflicted with a “right of abortion”.

The ban was also called unconstitutional because it was supposedly born in a “religious” idea that life begins at conception versus the idea born in convenience that life starts when… well, whenever it’s convenient. The sweeping aside of ideas on church-state grounds simply because they may also be held by the religious is an absurd concoction of the First Amendment that very clearly requires institutional separation not state-mandated atheism.

The partial birth abortion ban ruling is a return to common-sense constitutional jurisprudence. While we continue to argue about the constitutional status of abortion, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion isn’t the formative governing principle it has become. Regulation is possible and the abortion-industrial complex simply cannot ignore the law anymore. The Court has finally moved back towards a more sane conception of rights and that is a tremendous victory.

Know Your Rights

When you have to deal with court matters you must make sure that you’ve found local attorneys who can do the job right. Whether you need a workers compensation lawyer or labor law representative there is sure to be a local attorney who’s right for the job.

April 27th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Politics, Pro-Life, Supreme Court | no comments