H. J. Rogers
A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the Harvard Law School 66.
HIM TO THE DRAW."
THESE WERE THE LAST WORDS MY FATHER SAID TO ME. THIS WAS SHORTLY AFTER THE TURN OF THE PAST CENTURY, NOT TOO LONG AFTER HE LEARNED THAT HE HAD LOU GEHRIG'S DISEASE. HE SHOWED UP AT MY OFFICE, TOLD ME THAT HE WANTED TO TALK TO ME AND WE WENT INTO ANOTHER ROOM. IT WAS AT THAT TABLE THAT HE TOLD ME HOW THE STORY OF HOW THE WAR ENDED FOR HIM.
BUT LET ME TELL YOU HOW THE WAR BEGAN FOR ME. ON THE MORNING OF 7 DECEMBER 1941, MY FATHER, MY SAINTED MOTHER, AND ME MOTORED FROM FT. BENNING, GEORGIA, TO ATLANTA. THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIP WAS TO BUY THEIR FIRST HOME, A SMALL TRAILER THAT MY MOTHER WOULD DRIVE BACK TO WEST VIRGINIA AFTER MY FATHER SHIPPED OUT TO NORTHERN IRELAND IN EARLY 1942. NO AMERICAN SAW MORE COMBAT THAN MY FATHER IN WW II. HE WAS PART OF THE INVASION OF NORTH AFRICA, SICILY, AND THEN UP THE BOOT OF ITALY [CHURCHILL CALLED THIS ''THE SOFT UNDERBELLY OF EUROPE''] ENDING AT THE PO VALLEY IN THE NORTH IN THE SPRING OF 1945.
THE WAR ENDED FOR MOM AND ME WHEN WE WENT TO ST. PAUL'S METHODIST CHURCH IN PINE GROVE [A SMALL TOWN IN THE OUTBACK OF WETZEL COUNTY] AND SANG ''THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC.'' THE WAR HAD BEEN SUCH A BIG THING IN OUR LIVES, I THOUGHT, AND NOW DADDY WAS COMING HOME. "WHY AREN'T THERE MORE PEOPLE HERE, MAMA'', I ASKED? SHE SAID SOMETHING LIKE "THEY HAD BETTER THINGS TO DO, HONEY.'' BUT WHAT COULD BE BETTER THAN GREETING A WAR HERO, I THOUGHT.
THINGS WOULD NEVER BE AS GOOD FOR ME AS THEY WERE FOR ME THERE ON SIMPSON HILL IN PINE GROVE. I WAS THE STAR ADORED AND WORSHIPED BY ALL. THE FIRST CHILD AND THE FIRST GRANDCHILD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FAMILY. WHEN I TOOK ''THE FIRST STEP'' OF 12 SOME 35 YEARS LATER, I SAW RATHER QUICKLY THAT IN AA AND NA THAT ONE RECEIVED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF ''GRANDMOTHER LOVE''.
MY MOTHER WAS YOUNG AND ATTRACTIVE AND HAD STOLEN MY FATHER FROM HER YOUNGER SISTER (SOMETHING THAT WAS TOLD TO ME BY A GREAT AUNT IN SO-CAL WHEN I HITCHHIKED OUT THERE AFTER MY SECOND YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL.) SHE WAS THE FAVORITE OF THE LOCAL DOCTOR WHO TOOK A SHINE ON ME AND WOULD LATER GIVE ME A DOCTOR'S HANDBAG (DOCTORS MADE HOUSE CALLS BACK THEN.) HE WAS ALWAYS THERE TO GIVE ME A ''BOOST'' AND ONCE WHEN I HAD SOME FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES IN LAW SCHOOL, HE MAILED ME A WAD OF CASH.
THE LEITMOTIF, THE BACKGROUND BUZZ AS IT WERE THAT FOLLOWED ME UP UNTIL I WAS 6 OR 7 WAS ''POOR LITTLE BOY. HE'S SO SWEET, TALKING ALL THEY TIME. SO FULL OF ENERGY. AND HE WILL PROBABLY NEVER SEE HIS FATHER.'' MY FATHER HAD BOUGHT INTO THAT MYTH. YEARS LATER HE WOULD TELL ME ''WHEN I SHIPPED OUT, I NEVER EXPECTED TO SOME BACK.'' AND THE STATISTICS BACKED HIM THIS. THE MORTALITY RATE OF A 2nd LIEUTENANT IN COMBAT IS NOT TOO MUCH MORE THAN THE DEW ON THE MORNING GRASS.
BUT LET'S GET BACK TO MY FATHER AND ME AT THE TABLE. HE TOLD ME THAT FOR THE LAST YEAR HE WAS A LIAISON BETWEEN THE AMERICAN ARMY AND THE ITALIAN PARTISANS. THEY WERE MOSTLY COMMUNISTS WHO HAD OPPOSED MUSSOLINI SINCE HE TOOK OVER AND THEY WAGED A BITTER, VERY PERSONAL GUERILLA AGAINST THE ITALIAN FASCISTS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AMBUSHED AND KILLED 13 SS MEN, HITLER PERSONALLY ORDERED A 10 FOR 1 REPRISAL. ''AND THAT WAS WHEN ITALY AND GERMANY WERE ALLIES'', MY FATHER TOLD ME.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE REPLICATION OF WHAT MY FATHER TOLD ME IN HIS WORDS SOME 10 OR 15 YEARS AGO:
I was coming back to the base and about halfway there I saw two soldiers hitchhiking and I picked them up. I said that I had to stop at Graves Registration but that I would take them to where they were going after I was done. Well, they stole my jeep and the Army in its wisdom took the cost of the Jeep out of my pay. Also, they docked me extra because an officer isn't supposed to be driving a Jeep. He's supposed to have a driver. Well, it's just a few days later--the War's almost over and the Jerries are surrendering in droves--and I see this big column of soldiers marching up the road, they're raising this big cloud of dust. As they got closer I could see that they were Germans and they were all carrying their weapons because the Italian partisans would have killed them if they could. There was a full Colonel leading them standing up driving the Jeep AND IT WAS MY JEEP. He didn't have a driver either!!! So the Colonel went for his gun, etc.
HE WENT ON AND TOLD ME HOW HIS LAWYER HAD SOLD HIM OUT. DIDN'T PLEAD HIS CASE WELL, ETC. FOR EXAMPLE, HE HAD HIM APPLY FOR A PURPLE HEART RETROACTIVELY. HE HAD GOT HIT WITH SOME SHRAPNEL A YEAR OF TWO EARLIER. SAID IT DIDN'T LOOK GOOD, LIKE HE WAS ASKING FOR MERCY. AT THE TIME I JUST WROTE THAT OFF AS TYPICAL WETZEL COUNTY HARD-HEADEDNESS. A LAWYER THERE CAN NEVER ''WIN'' A CRIMINAL CASE: IF THEY GUY GETS CONVICTED, HIS LAWYER LET HIM DOWN; IF HE GETS ACQUITTED, HE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND YOU SHOULD GIVE HIM HIS MONEY BACK.
I ONLY BROUGHT MY MOTHER TO TEARS ONCE, WHEN I WAS 12 OR 13. MOM WAS BERATING ME ABOUT WHAT A TERRIBLE CHILD I WAS (and rightfully so!) AND I INTERJECTED WITH ''SO LOOK AT YOU. YOU WERE GOING TO BE AN ARMY OFFICER'S WIFE, TRAVELING ALL OVER THE WORLD, WEREN'T YOU? WELL LOOK AT YOU, LOOK AT WHERE YOU ARE NOW? IT WAS AT SOME POINT AFTER SHE QUIT CRYING---MINUTES, HOURS, DAYS, WEEKS OR YEARS,I DON'T REMEMBER BUT NOW, RIGHT NOW I CAN HEAR HER SOFT VOICE SAYING Your Father got into a lot of trouble just as the War was ending. Don't ask him about it, it will only make him mad. Maybe someday he will tell you about it, maybe he won't. Just don't ask him anything about the War. Let him tell you. Let him tell you, Herbie.
IT WAS IN A CONVERSATION WITH A NEW MARTINSVILLE LAWYER (WALTER ''DIRT'' BALL) WELL OVER 60 YEARS LATER THAT MY FATHER ''SPOKE'' TO ME AGAIN. "DIRT'' LISTENED QUIETLY AS I TOLD HIM THE STORY AND WHEN I WAS FINISHED HE SAID QUICKLY AND WITHOUT ANY HESITATION HE KILLED HIM.''
''DIRT'' WENT ON TO TELL ME ABOUT HIS FATHER WHO WAS IN THE PO VALLEY AT THE SAME TIME. THE GERMANS HAD OVERRUN THEIR POSITION AND HIS FATHER WAS AWARDED A SILVER STAR, A BRONZE STAR AND A PURPLE HEART FOR HIS CONDUCT IN REPELLING THE ATTACK. HE WAS (LITERALLY) STABBED IN THE BACK. ''THOSE GUYS HAD BEEN IN COMBAT FOR OVER THREE YEARS'', HE SAID. ''THEY WEREN'T GOING TO PULL A GUN AND NOT USE IT.'' WHEN ''DIRT'' SAID THAT I THOUGHT ''THAT'S WHAT MY FATHER ALWAYS SAID TO HIS LITTLE GUN 'FREAK' SON: 'NEVER PULL A GUN UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO USE IT'." IN MY IGNORANCE, I THOUGHT THAT THIS MEANT READY TO USE. IN THE DAY [WHAT AN ODIOUS PHRASE, ALTHOUGH NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS ''WHATEVER''], I THOUGHT PULLING A GUN ON SOMEONE WAS JUST ONE WAY TO SETTLE AN ARGUMENT.
SO IT'S AS CLEAR AS I WANT IT TO BE THAT MY WAR HERO FATHER [NOTA BENE: I HAVE REMOVED THE ITALICS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ARTICLE] BY SAYING ''I BEAT HIM TO THE DRAW'' WAS SAYING SOMETHING THAT ANY KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON---OTHER THAN HIS ''WAR WIMP'' SON---WOULD UNDERSTAND. AND THE REASON THAT MY FATHER FELT HIS LAWYER LET HIM DOWN IS THAT HE BELIEVED IN HIS HEART OF HEARTS THAT HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. AFTER ALL, WHAT CAPTAIN WOULD DARE TO PULL A GUN ON A FULL COLONEL?
THIS IS NOT WHERE THE STORY ENDS THOUGH. THERE ARE LOTS OF LOOSE ENDS. HOW DID MY FATHER GET OUT OF DOING THE FULL 10 YEARS AT HARD LABOR IN THE FEDERAL PRISON AT LEAVENWORTH? WHEN DID HE GET HIS VETERAN'S BENEFITS RESTORED? THE PRISONERS WHO WERE FOLLOWING THE COLONEL WERE NOT ''REAL'' GERMANS BUT RUSSIANS WHO HAD BEEN CAPTURED ON THE EASTERN FRONT AND SENT TO ITALY IN GERMAN UNIFORMS. AT POTSDAM THE ALLIES HAD AGREED TO SEND THEM BACK TO JOSEF STALIN. WERE THESE ERSATZ GERMANS UNKNOWINGLY MARCHING TO THEIR DEATH? WHO WAS THE GOLEM OF TRIESTE? WHO WAS HUGH THOMPSON, JR. AND WHY DO I CONSIDER HIM THE GREATEST HERO OF OUR ADVENTURE IN VIET NAM? [HINT: HE WAS A HELICOPTER PILOT.] WHAT PART DO THESE ITEMS PLAY, IF ANY, IN MY FATHER'S STORY?
IF YOU SEE ME AND WANT ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE $20 CASH CONTRIBUTION TO MOI. IF YOU WANT A TELEPHONE REPLY, PLEASE CONTRIBUTE $100 TO HERBERT JOHN ROGERS, d/b/a, H. JOHN ROGERS CAMPAIGN FUND @ WesBanco. Account # 0074008476.
Routing # 043400036. If you want a personal appearance, call (304) 455-3200, wait 15 seconds after my message for the beep and pledge $5000 in small, unmarked bills upon arrival.
Editor's Note: Mr. Rogers in his hubris forgot to mention that he is THE FAVORITE SON (The Evangelist Jeremy Gilbert from Paden City said that Mr. Rogers is G-D'S FAVORITE SON) for President in the 2020 Democratic primary. Mr. Rogers in his political evolution has gone from Roosevelt Democrat to Libertarian and is currently a "DIXICRAT". He has sought and received the blessing of the members of the PIPELINERS PENTACOSTAL PALACE, the "new wine'' in the old bottle of the First Methodist Church in New Martinsville.
"HE WENT FOR HIS GUN AND I WENT FOR MY GUN AND I BEAT
Friday, November 15, 2019
The problem with federal judges!
The problem with
federal judges!
By Larry Klayman
The chief justice of the Supreme Court, the ever leftist-oriented John Roberts, many months ago strongly criticized President Trump for speaking plainly about the biases and political inclinations of federal judges. The president's criticism came in response to a ruling by the Honorable Jon Tigar, an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, perhaps the most openly leftist of all district courts in the United States – and that says a lot given the makeup of most lower federal courts, particularly in the District of Columbia. Judge Tigar, who is the son of far-left activist attorney Michael Tigar, who not coincidentally intervened in the 9th Circuit case involving my client Sheriff Joe Arpaio, arguing that the sheriff's pardon should be nullified, had just issued injunctive relief thwarting the administration's asylum policy to limit rampant illegal immigration. After Trump simply pointed out that another Obama judge had ruled against him, Chief Justice Roberts issued this pubic statement:
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for." [Adam Liptak, "Chief Justice Defends Judicial Independence After Trump Attacks 'Obama Judge,'" New York Times, Nov. 21, 2018.]
Roberts' ridiculous defense of the political and other biases inherent in the federal judiciary is dishonest, and it is why conservatives and many others have lost confidence in the chief justice, who might just as well be head of the Supreme Court on Pluto. Even the left and its Fake News Media know that federal court rulings in cases that involve or even touch on politics, or social issues like abortion, usually go along partisan lines. That is why the media of all political bents generally make reference to which president, Democrat or Republican, appointed a federal judge to the bench.
I have said many times, including in my autobiography, "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment!" that one can predict with great certainty how a federal judge is likely to rule based on the political party of the president who appointed him or her. There are exceptions, but not many, and when there is an exception, its usually for other reasons, such as a judge not wanting to rule in favor of a party that is controversial, such as with many of my clients. Here, a federal judge may not want to be seen siding with a party who has been smeared heavily by the media or elsewhere, lest he or she also then be smeared for ruling in that party's favor. Again, there are exceptions, but very few.
Yesterday, two rulings came down from the most politicized federal district court in the United States, short of Judge Jon Tigar's one in San Francisco, ruling against my clients Dr. Jerome Corsi and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The two rulings, dismissing their cases, were largely the result of these extra-judicial currents and forces.
The Corsi case was primarily against Special Counsel Robert Mueller for having illegally surveilled and threatened my client with indictment if he would not lie under oath and implicate President Trump in crimes as part of the Russian collusion grand jury investigation. On behalf of Dr. Corsi, I alleged constitutional violations under the Fourth and First Amendments. You can view our complaint at www.larryklayman.com. The first judge assigned to the case, as related to other cases I had brought that involved some of my clients, the Honorable Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, decided not to keep it on his docket, probably because the judge himself was likely under surveillance by the intel agencies, I had learned. The case was then was bucked over to a Clinton appointee, the Honorable Helen Segal Huvelle.
A few weeks ago, an oral argument was held before Judge Huvelle, which I wrote about, and it was clear then, as ultimately occurred Thursday with her dismissal, that she would conjure up politicized grounds to protect her fellow Washington elite comrade, Robert Mueller.
Sure enough, in a very contrived decision, Judge Huvelle dismissed the case, mostly claiming that we did not show in the complaint that Mueller had ordered the attempted suborning of perjury and illegal surveillance of Dr. Corsi. What made this ruling most dishonest was that my client need only have alleged these facts in the complaint. Absolute proof would have been obtained through later discovery in the form of document requests and oral deposition testimony.
In response to the dismissal, which is being appealed, I issued this statement, which was reported in various publications:
"Judge Huvelle's decision was largely politically influenced and sadly comes as no surprise. In today's world, the elite establishment club in Washington, D.C., are 'protected species,' who are above the law. The American people are beginning to understand, and it is a dangerous situation when the judiciary provides cover for the elite and powerful. We saw that same thing in the years leading up to July 4, 1776."
Interestingly and regrettably, another politically tinged decision came out of the federal court in the District of Columbia yesterday, this one issued by a judge I have generally a high regard for, the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who has made many good rulings in my clients' favor, particularly during the Clinton administration. Judge Lamberth, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, effectively ruled in dismissing a defamation complaint I had filed for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that while America's Toughest Sheriff was defamed by CNN, Rolling Stone and the Huffington Post, who falsely called him a "convicted felon," we had not pled actual malice with enough specificity to allow the case to go forward.
At the oral argument in the Arpaio case, I had told Judge Lamberth that I would amend the complaint if he wanted more specificity. But rather than asking me to amend, he dismissed the case with prejudice even though his decision admits that the sheriff was defamed.
Why did Judge Lamberth do this? In my view because the leftist media had made Arpaio so radioactive that even my favorite jurist got cold feet, preventing this case to go forward lest similar scorn come down on him as he faces the prospect of holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire in a FOIA case involving the destruction of her 33,000-plus emails.
I had seen this approach before with Judge Lamberth during my days at Judicial Watch, and while I do not agree with it, I have always been thankful that he did frequently stand up to the elite in the nation's capital. Given that we can easily be more specific as to the actual malice requirement for defamation against a public figure like the sheriff, I will now file a new complaint with more detail, have it assigned as related to Lamberth and hold the judge to his own words.
All of this underscores why federal judges should never have been given life tenure by our Founding Fathers, as they are not accountable to We the People. And, it also points out why state judges, who generally can be voted out of office, suffer from "less fun and games" on the bench.
If this nation is not to go the way of another revolution, we need to find a way to depoliticize and disinfect the federal judiciary. Otherwise, we will be right back to July 4, 1776.
federal judges!
By Larry Klayman
The chief justice of the Supreme Court, the ever leftist-oriented John Roberts, many months ago strongly criticized President Trump for speaking plainly about the biases and political inclinations of federal judges. The president's criticism came in response to a ruling by the Honorable Jon Tigar, an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, perhaps the most openly leftist of all district courts in the United States – and that says a lot given the makeup of most lower federal courts, particularly in the District of Columbia. Judge Tigar, who is the son of far-left activist attorney Michael Tigar, who not coincidentally intervened in the 9th Circuit case involving my client Sheriff Joe Arpaio, arguing that the sheriff's pardon should be nullified, had just issued injunctive relief thwarting the administration's asylum policy to limit rampant illegal immigration. After Trump simply pointed out that another Obama judge had ruled against him, Chief Justice Roberts issued this pubic statement:
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for." [Adam Liptak, "Chief Justice Defends Judicial Independence After Trump Attacks 'Obama Judge,'" New York Times, Nov. 21, 2018.]
Roberts' ridiculous defense of the political and other biases inherent in the federal judiciary is dishonest, and it is why conservatives and many others have lost confidence in the chief justice, who might just as well be head of the Supreme Court on Pluto. Even the left and its Fake News Media know that federal court rulings in cases that involve or even touch on politics, or social issues like abortion, usually go along partisan lines. That is why the media of all political bents generally make reference to which president, Democrat or Republican, appointed a federal judge to the bench.
I have said many times, including in my autobiography, "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment!" that one can predict with great certainty how a federal judge is likely to rule based on the political party of the president who appointed him or her. There are exceptions, but not many, and when there is an exception, its usually for other reasons, such as a judge not wanting to rule in favor of a party that is controversial, such as with many of my clients. Here, a federal judge may not want to be seen siding with a party who has been smeared heavily by the media or elsewhere, lest he or she also then be smeared for ruling in that party's favor. Again, there are exceptions, but very few.
Yesterday, two rulings came down from the most politicized federal district court in the United States, short of Judge Jon Tigar's one in San Francisco, ruling against my clients Dr. Jerome Corsi and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The two rulings, dismissing their cases, were largely the result of these extra-judicial currents and forces.
The Corsi case was primarily against Special Counsel Robert Mueller for having illegally surveilled and threatened my client with indictment if he would not lie under oath and implicate President Trump in crimes as part of the Russian collusion grand jury investigation. On behalf of Dr. Corsi, I alleged constitutional violations under the Fourth and First Amendments. You can view our complaint at www.larryklayman.com. The first judge assigned to the case, as related to other cases I had brought that involved some of my clients, the Honorable Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, decided not to keep it on his docket, probably because the judge himself was likely under surveillance by the intel agencies, I had learned. The case was then was bucked over to a Clinton appointee, the Honorable Helen Segal Huvelle.
A few weeks ago, an oral argument was held before Judge Huvelle, which I wrote about, and it was clear then, as ultimately occurred Thursday with her dismissal, that she would conjure up politicized grounds to protect her fellow Washington elite comrade, Robert Mueller.
Sure enough, in a very contrived decision, Judge Huvelle dismissed the case, mostly claiming that we did not show in the complaint that Mueller had ordered the attempted suborning of perjury and illegal surveillance of Dr. Corsi. What made this ruling most dishonest was that my client need only have alleged these facts in the complaint. Absolute proof would have been obtained through later discovery in the form of document requests and oral deposition testimony.
In response to the dismissal, which is being appealed, I issued this statement, which was reported in various publications:
"Judge Huvelle's decision was largely politically influenced and sadly comes as no surprise. In today's world, the elite establishment club in Washington, D.C., are 'protected species,' who are above the law. The American people are beginning to understand, and it is a dangerous situation when the judiciary provides cover for the elite and powerful. We saw that same thing in the years leading up to July 4, 1776."
Interestingly and regrettably, another politically tinged decision came out of the federal court in the District of Columbia yesterday, this one issued by a judge I have generally a high regard for, the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who has made many good rulings in my clients' favor, particularly during the Clinton administration. Judge Lamberth, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, effectively ruled in dismissing a defamation complaint I had filed for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that while America's Toughest Sheriff was defamed by CNN, Rolling Stone and the Huffington Post, who falsely called him a "convicted felon," we had not pled actual malice with enough specificity to allow the case to go forward.
At the oral argument in the Arpaio case, I had told Judge Lamberth that I would amend the complaint if he wanted more specificity. But rather than asking me to amend, he dismissed the case with prejudice even though his decision admits that the sheriff was defamed.
Why did Judge Lamberth do this? In my view because the leftist media had made Arpaio so radioactive that even my favorite jurist got cold feet, preventing this case to go forward lest similar scorn come down on him as he faces the prospect of holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire in a FOIA case involving the destruction of her 33,000-plus emails.
I had seen this approach before with Judge Lamberth during my days at Judicial Watch, and while I do not agree with it, I have always been thankful that he did frequently stand up to the elite in the nation's capital. Given that we can easily be more specific as to the actual malice requirement for defamation against a public figure like the sheriff, I will now file a new complaint with more detail, have it assigned as related to Lamberth and hold the judge to his own words.
All of this underscores why federal judges should never have been given life tenure by our Founding Fathers, as they are not accountable to We the People. And, it also points out why state judges, who generally can be voted out of office, suffer from "less fun and games" on the bench.
If this nation is not to go the way of another revolution, we need to find a way to depoliticize and disinfect the federal judiciary. Otherwise, we will be right back to July 4, 1776.
HAS ANYONE HEARD OF THE WORD TREASON?
By Joe Ingino b.a.
Editor/Publisher
“I live a dream in a nightmare world”
HAS ANYONE HEARD OF THE WORD
TREASON?
By defenition, TREASON is defined as: In law, treason is criminal disloyalty to the state. It is a crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign.
Now excuse me for asking a stupid question. Is the media not committing acts of treason every time they report false news? News companies like CNN. A place that takes a clear side on arguments and creates it’s own circle of so called experts in just about any topic. As long as they support the democratic agenda that CNN so closely favors.
First it was the Mueller report and the Russians. Now it is an attempt at impeachement on a conversation that took place between the U.S. and the Hungarian president.
I have a question. Is anything that the President does confidential? What next the democrats are going to expect to have TOP SECRET documents released to the general public?
Are those that serve under the president by law forced to maintain some sort of confidentiality and or loyalty to the office?
It appears that those so called whistle blowers are nothing but disgruntled employees. People that are clearly what is wrong with democracy. People that have proven to be careered ‘me, me, me’ types with no consideration for the betterment of the population at large.
Democracy does not mean just because you lost an election that you have the right to destroy a country. It does not mean that because you have the right to freedom of speech that you use it as a tool to push your selfish agenda.
Then they talk about that In the United States, the "deep state" is a conspiracy theory which suggests that collusion and cronyism exist within the US political system and constitute a hidden government within the legitimately elected government.
Conspiracy theorists believe that there is "a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process", or consider the deep state to encompass corruption prevalent among career politicians and civil servants.
The term was originally coined to refer to a relatively invisible state apparatus in Turkey "composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary, and organized crime" and similar alleged networks in other countries including Egypt, Ukraine, Spain, Colombia, Italy, Israel, and many others.
Once again... if this stands true. Are these not acts of treason by government officials. Are they not deemed acts of terrorism against the state?
I don’t understand why in North America we have grown to hate success. Could it be that there are so many failures that it is a given to have anyone successful? Trump may not be an angel from heaven. But he surely has proven himself to be an exceptionally good business personal and a leaders. I sometimes wonder how he keeps going on day after day? After all the scrutiny and all the harassment. Is it worth it. After all he is donating his pay to good causes.
What keeps him going? Love for nation. Call of duty. All I know is that in my opinion Trump has proven to be the best American President. He keeps his word and he keep on the path of what he deems greatness. What more can you ask? As for impeachement... it would be a great travesty for the American people to loose such an asset over he said, she said.
Saturday, November 2, 2019
ARE WE WORTHY OF REMEMBRANCE? By Joe Ingino
Logic
By Joe Ingino
Editor/Publisher
“I live a dream in a nightmare world”
ARE WE WORTHY OF
REMEMBRANCE?
In a society that is all about ‘ME, ME, ME’. In a society that carries on with apathetic attitudes towards humanity. Are we worthy of remembering those that have fallen before us. Men and women that have sacrificed for our freedoms, our civil and human rights? Men and women that have paid the ultimate price in the preservation of our culture, customs, traditions and way of life.
Are we anything but hypocrites to once a year stand out on a cold day to remember the efforts that we violate on a daily basis?
Look how we treat our veterans. We can pay 10 million dollars to a hockey player. Yet, a wounded veteran... or any veteran for that matter will never ever see anything close to a million. They in most cases are left at the mercy at the policy of the government of the day.
True condolence is not remembrance once a year in a show of false pretense. As a government. In oder to show true appreciation. Every veteran and or immediate family member to a veteran that has passed should receive a set amount of money as appreciation for their or their family members contribution to this great nation we all call home.
No, instead we fill our eyes with tears in a false and in my opinion demeaning act or remembrance. Is this what our forefathers fought for? Is this what our current troops are fighting for?
A pat on the back and a few words of encouragement. While the rest of the population lives their lives in many cases in violation of the principles that of those that are serving and risking life for?
Like really, lets call a spade a spade here.
In our modern society if you believe in Canada first you are labeled a Nationalist. If you express your point of view on the invading by foreign norms, traditions and customs you are labeled as suffering from a ‘PHOBIA’. Is this what those soldiers gave their lives for? Did they not die protecting the right to express our opinion without persecution? Did they not serve with fear and uncertainty in their hearts..knowingly that they where serving their beloved country, Canada? Are we to label these fallen as had suffered from a phobia? A bunch of Nationalists. We live in a confused society. Forced to comply or else. During remembrance day. We should not be remembering those that served. But reward them as they should. And if our hearts leads us so passionately to remember and our eyes need to fill with tears in the process. We must keep in our hearts the principles and convictions of those that have served. Canada first all enemy or opposing our great nation second. Right is right and wrong will be made right. Now whipe your eyes and take action. CANADA FIRST.
“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” Mark Twain
By Joe Ingino
Editor/Publisher
“I live a dream in a nightmare world”
ARE WE WORTHY OF
REMEMBRANCE?
In a society that is all about ‘ME, ME, ME’. In a society that carries on with apathetic attitudes towards humanity. Are we worthy of remembering those that have fallen before us. Men and women that have sacrificed for our freedoms, our civil and human rights? Men and women that have paid the ultimate price in the preservation of our culture, customs, traditions and way of life.
Are we anything but hypocrites to once a year stand out on a cold day to remember the efforts that we violate on a daily basis?
Look how we treat our veterans. We can pay 10 million dollars to a hockey player. Yet, a wounded veteran... or any veteran for that matter will never ever see anything close to a million. They in most cases are left at the mercy at the policy of the government of the day.
True condolence is not remembrance once a year in a show of false pretense. As a government. In oder to show true appreciation. Every veteran and or immediate family member to a veteran that has passed should receive a set amount of money as appreciation for their or their family members contribution to this great nation we all call home.
No, instead we fill our eyes with tears in a false and in my opinion demeaning act or remembrance. Is this what our forefathers fought for? Is this what our current troops are fighting for?
A pat on the back and a few words of encouragement. While the rest of the population lives their lives in many cases in violation of the principles that of those that are serving and risking life for?
Like really, lets call a spade a spade here.
In our modern society if you believe in Canada first you are labeled a Nationalist. If you express your point of view on the invading by foreign norms, traditions and customs you are labeled as suffering from a ‘PHOBIA’. Is this what those soldiers gave their lives for? Did they not die protecting the right to express our opinion without persecution? Did they not serve with fear and uncertainty in their hearts..knowingly that they where serving their beloved country, Canada? Are we to label these fallen as had suffered from a phobia? A bunch of Nationalists. We live in a confused society. Forced to comply or else. During remembrance day. We should not be remembering those that served. But reward them as they should. And if our hearts leads us so passionately to remember and our eyes need to fill with tears in the process. We must keep in our hearts the principles and convictions of those that have served. Canada first all enemy or opposing our great nation second. Right is right and wrong will be made right. Now whipe your eyes and take action. CANADA FIRST.
“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” Mark Twain
Remembrance Day, time for reflection...
Remembrance Day, time for reflection...
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East
November 11th is a day to stand in silent reflection of so many other days that have come before it. It is a day that remembers those brave Canadians who consolidated our nation.
At the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, more than a century ago when the guns of the Great War at last fell silent, the fury of conflict was replaced by a deafening silence.
After more than four years of this intense conflict of country against country, human being against human being, we were faced with all we had done, all we had lost and all we had sacrificed as a nation.
Despite detractors and those who would rewrite history today, in an attempt to minimize this important event for our nation, Canadians will stand strong in defending the sacrifices of their ancestors for a better, free and strong Canada for centuries to come.
We need to remember the wise words of Nobel peace prize laureate and a holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:
"Without memory, there is no culture. Without memory, there would be no civilization, no society, no future."
Remembrance Day isn't just about war and those we've lost, but about ideals and what we stand for. It's about respecting our past and looking hopefully forward, and more than anything, thanking those who have served.
From the trenches of the First World War, to the Second World War and the Korean War, to the deserts of Afghanistan, years have passed defending the beliefs and values that we as Canadians stand for.
One hundred and one years ago, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the armistice between Britain, France, and Germany went into effect, bringing an end to the First World War.
More than 625,000 Canadian men and women had served, 154,361 had been wounded and 61,082 had lost their lives-a full 10% of those who served our country, lost their lives for our freedom.
The year 1918 and the end of the First World War-the origin of Remembrance Day-seem so long ago in the context of many of our lives here today.
But at the same time, the reality of war is only as far away as a veteran, a family member, friend or neighbour who has been touched by that war or those that have followed. Similarly, much of who and what we are as a nation, was defined by war.
And so today, we take the time to reflect, remember and honour those who fought for our freedom in the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, Peacekeeping operations and the recent war in Afghanistan
We also remember those who stayed in Canada, and served on home soil.
On this day we remember the brave members of our Canadian Armed Forces who left behind what they loved and lived for to carry out their job with purpose and pride.
It's a feeling many of us will never have to experience.
As husbands and wives, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, and brothers and sisters, these brave citizens are certainly not faceless.
They are friends and neighbours. They have dreams and goals.
And they have plans for the future.
That's why it's important that Remembrance Day has become such a significant part of Canadian culture.
Over the course of November 11, communities across our great country will gather around cenotaphs and war memorials to honour our men and women in uniform and the sacrifices they have made and will continue to make
We are not celebrating war; we are celebrating freedom and nationhood thanks to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us and future generations of Canadians.
We pause to reflect on those who've, indeed, made the ultimate sacrifice. They put themselves on the line out of a sense of duty, to defend our freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Their unwavering bravery has made all Canadians proud.
That these brave citizens would put themselves on the line to defend freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law is most honourable. It's a debt of gratitude the rest of us can never repay.
The least we can do is what we're doing at this very moment in coming together for a moment of silence to think of them, the risks they took, and their sacrifices.
We'll forever remember, never forget.
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East
November 11th is a day to stand in silent reflection of so many other days that have come before it. It is a day that remembers those brave Canadians who consolidated our nation.
At the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, more than a century ago when the guns of the Great War at last fell silent, the fury of conflict was replaced by a deafening silence.
After more than four years of this intense conflict of country against country, human being against human being, we were faced with all we had done, all we had lost and all we had sacrificed as a nation.
Despite detractors and those who would rewrite history today, in an attempt to minimize this important event for our nation, Canadians will stand strong in defending the sacrifices of their ancestors for a better, free and strong Canada for centuries to come.
We need to remember the wise words of Nobel peace prize laureate and a holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:
"Without memory, there is no culture. Without memory, there would be no civilization, no society, no future."
Remembrance Day isn't just about war and those we've lost, but about ideals and what we stand for. It's about respecting our past and looking hopefully forward, and more than anything, thanking those who have served.
From the trenches of the First World War, to the Second World War and the Korean War, to the deserts of Afghanistan, years have passed defending the beliefs and values that we as Canadians stand for.
One hundred and one years ago, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the armistice between Britain, France, and Germany went into effect, bringing an end to the First World War.
More than 625,000 Canadian men and women had served, 154,361 had been wounded and 61,082 had lost their lives-a full 10% of those who served our country, lost their lives for our freedom.
The year 1918 and the end of the First World War-the origin of Remembrance Day-seem so long ago in the context of many of our lives here today.
But at the same time, the reality of war is only as far away as a veteran, a family member, friend or neighbour who has been touched by that war or those that have followed. Similarly, much of who and what we are as a nation, was defined by war.
And so today, we take the time to reflect, remember and honour those who fought for our freedom in the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, Peacekeeping operations and the recent war in Afghanistan
We also remember those who stayed in Canada, and served on home soil.
On this day we remember the brave members of our Canadian Armed Forces who left behind what they loved and lived for to carry out their job with purpose and pride.
It's a feeling many of us will never have to experience.
As husbands and wives, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, and brothers and sisters, these brave citizens are certainly not faceless.
They are friends and neighbours. They have dreams and goals.
And they have plans for the future.
That's why it's important that Remembrance Day has become such a significant part of Canadian culture.
Over the course of November 11, communities across our great country will gather around cenotaphs and war memorials to honour our men and women in uniform and the sacrifices they have made and will continue to make
We are not celebrating war; we are celebrating freedom and nationhood thanks to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us and future generations of Canadians.
We pause to reflect on those who've, indeed, made the ultimate sacrifice. They put themselves on the line out of a sense of duty, to defend our freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Their unwavering bravery has made all Canadians proud.
That these brave citizens would put themselves on the line to defend freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law is most honourable. It's a debt of gratitude the rest of us can never repay.
The least we can do is what we're doing at this very moment in coming together for a moment of silence to think of them, the risks they took, and their sacrifices.
We'll forever remember, never forget.
Halloween Should Scare Up a Big Boooo!
Halloween Should Scare Up a Big Boooo!
If you are looking for a holiday tradition that has lost any semblance of common sense, look no further than Halloween. Today, it has few redeeming qualities.
Let’s focus on only the health issues associated with children consuming ridiculous quantities of junk. Halloween candy comprises the lowest quality food on the market – cheap, sugary chocolate bars, chewy treats, hard candies, salty chips, soft drinks, and who knows what else – all questionably packaged, and gleefully handed out to unsuspecting youngsters as if it were the best thing on Earth. What a crock!
Mary Poppins sang that a “spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down”, but that should be a rare occasion. Today, I see children spooning far more than that into their mouths on a daily basis. Come Halloween, it is scary what children consume.
I don’t seek to be a spoilsport, depriving children of a holiday they most anticipate. But we must do better in safeguarding their health interests. The last thing we should be delightfully teaching our children is to mindlessly fill their pillowcases – yes, for many it is that much candy – with the stuff that will cripple their chances for a long and healthy life. To the contrary, we should be teaching them to despise the whole endeavour, and to be much more thoughtful about what they should demand when they knock on a door yelling “trick or treat”.
Here are my suggestions:
Parents: Talk with your children and help manage their expectations for Halloween’s after-dark exploits. Go door to door with you kids and don’t be random or rushed where you go. It’s quality social interactions with neighbours that should be celebrated, not the quantity of candy collected.
Grandparents: Reinforce the message that we should spend more time on having fun than hurting our health. Join your grandkids for the walkabout. It will be good for the kids. It will be great for your health to walk about too.
Kids: Do your research. You have the tools like never before. Know that there are 30 grams of sugar in 1.4 ounces of Skittles. That’s about 2.5 tablespoons of sugar per 3 tablespoons of Skittles, or the amount you put in one hand.
Teachers: Spend time discussing the issues with students. Don’t parade costumes around the gymnasium. Give children the education they need. Teach them about the consequences of obesity. Tell them how hard it will be for them to get a job when their teeth are missing, or how much it will cost to replace a tooth.
Doctors: Be role models. You carry great responsibility. Explain to children that they have autonomy over their own health, but that it requires hard work. Make sure they know that they must start young to develop the habits that will serve them well for a lifetime.
Companies: Be responsible. If you are producing products that you know are harmful, then get out of that business, or better, be a leader within it and sunset such products while building new healthier lines.
Retailers: Be creative with the spaces in your stores where you know parents and children are influenced. Imagine how you can direct purchasing power along new healthier avenues. Remove the candy from your checkout lanes and refill the space with thoughtful gift items that children could deliver to lonely residents in their communities. Work with parents to reshape the nature of Halloween.
Activists: Demand accountability and challenge those who profit by inducing Type II diabetes in our children. Devise usable, evidence-based decision-making toolkits and communication campaigns. Help families and communities craft alternative fun.
Determining the historical and cultural significance of Halloween is not for me. My job is to advise on matters of health, and I can say with confidence that this holiday needs an overhaul.
Online
docgiff.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)