The Sickness in America.

America the land of opportunity. If you work hard you will prosper and be successful. Or you can walk away unharmed from an potentially fatal accident with little or no injuries and sue. If you are lucky enough to be like these passengers there is the potential to make big bucks. It will however be the &#$%*^&% lawyers who will come out the ultimate winners in this story. The greed and ungratefulness of some Americans is unbelievable. It will be interesting to see how many sue and what they ask for.
Any lawyer out there want to represent me so I can sue the lawyers for giving me heartburn and a headache?

US Airways passengers get $5,000 each; is it enough?

By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY

Many US Airways (LCC) passengers who endured a crash landing in the Hudson River 12 days ago say they appreciate the $5,000 that the airline has offered — but some say it's not enough.
Joe Hart, a salesman from Charlotte who suffered a bloody nose and bruises, says he "would like to be made whole for the incident."
It's too soon after the accident to determine what emotional distress he has suffered, he says.
He's one of 150 passengers who were dramatically rescued Jan. 15, when the Charlotte-bound Airbus A320 jet safely ditched into the frigid river off Midtown Manhattan. A pilot on the plane told air-traffic controllers that birds struck the plane before both engines failed after takeoff from New York's LaGuardia Airport.
After the crash, US Airways sent passengers a letter of apology, a $5,000 check to assist "with immediate needs" and reimbursement for the ticket.
Exactly how much compensation is appropriate is a question after crashes.
The National Air Disaster Alliance & Foundation, a safety advocacy group, says $5,000 is not enough.
"We're grateful everyone survived, and the captain on the plane was so marvelous," says Gail Dunham, the group's executive director. "But passengers lost luggage, briefcases, cellphones, BlackBerrys and business documents, and went through a terrific ordeal."
Like many, Hart says he left a lot of items behind and doesn't know which ones may be lost.

Obamania

From my reading the past couple of days, I have to think I am the only person in this country not ready to kiss the feet of the new messiah. The way the news media is writing it, every single person in America and I should also say the world is ready to serve the new king. If we are to believe the stories being written, there is not a person in America that isn't ready to pee their pants in excitement.
There are only two possibilities for this occurrence. One is that I am the only sane person in America, possibly the world. Second is that the press in America is completely delusional and are writing fantasy stories instead of real news. Instead of being the watchdogs of the government, they have become the cheerleaders for Obama. They have prostituted themselves to a man at the expense of truth, and it is the American public that will be the ones that potentially suffer because of their zeal for one candidate. When I read this I nearly fell out of my chair, "Obama, whom some have called the greatest orator of his generation." I'm thinking what the hell is this person talking about. Have you heard him speak when there is no teleprompter in front of him? There are so many "uhhs" he makes me believe that I'm a great public speaker.
Our Founders believed the Press would the guardians of truth, ready to expose it, so that the public would know what was happening in their government. We the citizens can no longer count on the press to do this. "Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light."- T. Jefferson. It should be clear to anyone that looks at what happened in this election that the press can no longer be trusted. We no longer have true journalists that can put aside their own personal views to inform the public. The editorial page has taken over the whole paper. Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with a paper endorsing a candidate, but when they do so at the expense of the truth, it is wrong.
What should make this election historic is not because a black man was elected to office, but because a man was elected to office with the collusion of much of the press in this country. Not that this is the only reason. Republicans put forth a pathetic candidate. How he managed to make it through the primary is baffling. Then of course, the six hundred million pound elephant, or jackass, was a tremendous obstacle to overcome even if the Republicans had put forth a viable candidate. We all know elections can be bought, and those that have the most money usually end up winning. Our whole election process has become a joke in so many ways. Anyway, I am straying from my original reason for writing this.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes before people start to realize that Obama is not a miracle worker and that he can't walk on water, and that he is not going to pave the streets of America with gold.
I would also like to point out that the symbolism of him using Lincoln's bible is rather striking. While I know all you Republicans out there love Lincoln, he was a tyrant and the biggest Constitutional violator we have ever had as a President. The myth of the man that freed no slaves is bigger than the actual person he was, much like Obama. Unfortunately, with Obama, the myth has been grown and pushed along by the press while the man is still alive and yet to have accomplishment that has been a benefit to anyone but himself.
However, I for one do not expect much from a man that believes a child born from a botched abortion should be left to die. I am sure there are other bright points of light out there in the current darkness that don't believe the hype and have not been deluded into believing that Christ has returned.

Folded Under Pressure

Once again we see when the Elected Officials declare the Constitution is dead and what the courts say goes. For one brief moment the Democrats in the Senate had my support. Like all politicians they have caved in and failed to follow through on what they said they would do and more importantly had the power and Constitutional authority to do.
Should it surprise me when Congress failed to stand up to a measly judge in the Terri Schiavo? No I guess not, maybe I just keep naively expecting politicians to keep their word when it comes to things that really matter.

Simonaire-head

Simonaire isn't open minded, he's empty headed. I'm sure he'll study the issue, maybe write a thousand page report, stick his finger in the air and see what's best for getting re-elected. I fail to see how a supposedly staunch conservative would be having second thoughts. Of course, he went through the same process on the gun issue in a previous session. What on earth is there to improve on in the actual process itself? Does he want screening for collapsed veins? Maybe a required tetanus shot before getting an ejection. Does it even matter if the needle is sterilized when you're putting someone to death?
Maybe he should stand on why people voted him into office instead of trying to make himself relevant in a place where people want to ignore him.

As for all these religious denominations coming together, how come they don't when it comes to the killing of the unborn? The death penalty is perfectly Biblical as those willing to murder have forfeited their right to live in our society. If our legislators think lethal injection is cruel and unusual, let's go back to hanging. We know our Founders hung people all the time so they did not consider that cruel or unusual. If the death penalty isn't a deterrent, it is because of all the obstacles we have put into place to keep someone from actually getting put to death. We need to speed up the appeals process and keep the Federal Courts out of it as it is a State issue unless there is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution which in most cases there won't be one.

Faith leaders urge state to repeal death penalty
Published January 14, 2009
TOWSON (AP) - Leaders of many faiths urged Maryland lawmakers yesterday to repeal the death penalty in the upcoming state legislative session, saying they share a common belief in the sanctity of life.
A Catholic bishop, a rabbi, an imam and several Protestant ministers were among those who signed a letter to Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley stating "it has been proven that the death penalty is not applied justly, is cruel in its application, and is not an effective deterrent." …
Sen. Bryan Simonaire, R-Anne Arundel County, has previously supported the death penalty but said he is open-minded.
"I'm trying to determine if there is enough problem in the process that warrants a complete repeal or whether we can actually improve the process," Mr. Simonaire said.

Should We Expect Anything Different.

How pathetic that Bush declares a state of emergency in DC to use it to pay an outrageous sum for an inauguration. At a time when individual Americans are in financial trouble, the coronation of the Chosen One is deemed so important that something that is supposed to be used for disaster relief is invoked. Of course, maybe it is the warning bell for the coming disaster. The disaster is not because Obama is about to become President, it is because the United States is in decline because of who We the People have elected into office at all levels of government. It is also not to be placed on the shoulders of those recently in power, but a decline that has been going on for some a good number of years.
Bush's action with declaring a state of emergency just go to point out that no one in office has the slightest clue to what our founders considered the proper spending of government to be. In wasting these huge sums of money on unconstitutional spending, they are draining the finances of the taxpayer. We are burdened with paying for the government employees who feed from the trough of stolen money the taxpayer many of them making more than the average taxpayer. Abraham Lincoln called wages the property of those that are earned it. We see our "property" taken through coercion and intimidation, only to be used for things that are outside the bounds of the proper role of our government. While I voted for Bush twice, I believe he has failed in his duty as President on so many levels. This highly dubious action on his part now fittingly points to his supreme failure, the wasting of trillions of dollars of Property taken through the threat of force. Will we the people ever stand up and begin to say no? It is hard to say, somehow I doubt it. Maybe one day a majority of people will find the courage and stand up to the thieves and the liars.

Harry Reid v. The Stupidity of the WSJ.

Harry Reid and the Senate have every right to not seat Burris, no matter what the Supreme Court said in 1969. The Court was wrong, and Congress is not obligated to follow a court opinion that is contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution gives them the sole right to refuse to seat anyone they judge should not be in the Senate. The Supreme Court has no say in this matter, and that's perfectly clear by Article 1 section 5. "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,"

The Justices of the Supreme Court cannot intervene as it would be a usurpation of power and unconstitutional. What the Court did in Powell v. McCormack was wrong and their reasoning in that opinion is idiotic. If the Senate has the sole Constitutional power to judge elections, returns and qualifications, it is illogical that they would have to admit someone into the Senate, just to vote to get them out. The Court made up something never contemplated by the Framers. They took two separate and distinct powers of the Senate and combined them into a rule that did not exist until they pulled it out of their infamous Constitutional penumbra. If looked at with just a once of common sense one would see right through the stupidity and arrogance of the Court in Powell. If someone is unqualified or unfit to be in the Senate, why would the Senate have to seat them, just so they could kick them out with a two-thirds vote? It makes absolutely no sense at all and that clearly was not the intent of the Framers. When the Senate kicked out Albert Gallatin in 1794, they did not use the two thirds vote the Court has set in Powell, because it had nothing to do with disorderly behavior, but with his qualifications. A two-thirds vote is not needed to keep Burris from permanently holding the Senate seat as this is not about his behavior. This a problem with his appointment, which would fall squarely into Election, Returns and Qualification to be a US Senator.

"It is obvious, that a power must be lodged somewhere to judge of the elections,
returns, and qualifications of the members of each house composing the
legislature; for otherwise there could be no certainty, as to who were
legitimately chosen members, and any intruder, or usurper, might claim a seat,
and thus trample upon the rights, and privileges, and liberties of the people.
Indeed, elections would become, under such circumstances, a mere mockery; and
legislation the exercise of sovereignty by any self-constituted body. The only
possible question on such a subject is, as to the body, in which such a power
shall be lodged. If lodged in any other, than the legislative body itself, its
independence, its purity, and even its existence and action may be destroyed, or
put into imminent danger. No other body, but itself, can have the same motives
to preserve and perpetuate these attributes; no other body can be so perpetually
watchful to guard its own rights and privileges from infringement, to purify and
vindicate its own character, and to preserve the rights, and sustain the free
choice of its constituents. Accordingly, the power has always been lodged in the
legislative body by the uniform practice of England and America." - J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution § 831.

Just as a reminder to everyone that seems to have forgotten. We have three branches of Government. They are coequal, which means one branch can't order the other to do something that is contrary to the Constitution, which they all took an oath to uphold and defend.

After the Civil War, large numbers of Southern elected members of Congress were refused their seats without the absurd method created by the Supreme Court. If sixty can be refused in one Congress alone without having to seat them first, then expel, one person can be refused a seat now. It is perfectly constitutional for the Senate to refuse him a seat regardless of what the Supreme Court in 1968 said, or what the current Court might have to say. The Supreme Court has no business sticking its nose in a duty that is the sole privilege of the Senate. Any method of seating Mr. Burris in the Senate against the permission of the Senate, is unconstitutional.

Never thought I would ever say this in my life, but "Go Harry Reid and all you Democrat up in the Senate."

Harry Reid v. the Constitution
If Roland Burris isn't fit for the Senate, how is Chris Dodd?

An Illinois court will eventually decide if Governor Rod Blagojevich is guilty of corruption. But on at least one issue he is more law-abiding than Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats: the seating of Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Blagojevich appointed Mr. Burris to represent Illinois on Tuesday, ahead of the official start of the 111th Congress next week. This was certainly an act of brash defiance given that nearly everyone had warned the Governor not to do so after he was heard on tape contemplating the sale of the seat for personal gain. But under Illinois law, Mr. Blagojevich had every legal right to do so.
As the Governor said in his announcement, the Illinois public also deserves its full measure of representation in Washington. Mr. Burris is a former state attorney general who is untainted by the charges against Mr. Blagojevich. After the Blagojevich tapes were made public, Democrats who run the state legislature said they'd pass a law to require a special election for the Senate. But their passion for that option ebbed when it became clear that a Republican could win, especially amid this Democratic fiasco. When the legislature failed to act, Mr. Blagojevich saw his opening to name Mr. Burris.
Meanwhile, Mr. Reid and Washington Democrats are refusing to seat Mr. Burris, never mind their lack of authority to do so. As an initial matter, they're hiding behind the Illinois secretary of state, who is refusing to certify the appointment. But Mr. Burris has asked a court to order the secretary of state to carry out what under state law would typically be a nondiscretionary duty. In any event, Beltway Democrats can't inject themselves into what is clearly a matter of Illinois law.
The legal precedent here is the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in Powell v. McCormack in 1969. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell had been accused of corruption but was nonetheless re-elected in 1966. House Democrats declined to seat him, Powell sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in denying him his seat. Congress could have expelled Powell with a two-thirds vote, as stipulated in the Constitution, but it couldn't deny him the seat in the first instance.
While the Constitution says the Senate can determine its own membership, the Court in Powell interpreted Article I, Section 5 to say that "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution." Nowhere in the Constitution is there a "qualification" saying that a Senator must not have been appointed by an embarrassing Illinois Governor.
Mr. Reid is also attempting the dodge of referring the matter to the Senate Rules Committee, which is run by Democrats, but the Powell precedent ought to be clear even to political lawyers. If Mr. Reid wants to banish Mr. Burris, he must first seat him and then persuade two-thirds of the Senate to expel him. Needless to say, the last thing Mr. Reid wants to do is create turmoil in his party by expelling an African-American Democrat whose only offense has been to accept an appointment to serve. But if Mr. Reid does go that route, we'd suggest worthier expulsion possibilities, such as Connecticut's Chris Dodd, who received sweetheart mortgages from Countrywide Financial while sitting on the Banking Committee.
Republicans want Illinois to hold a special election for the vacant seat, and we recommended that ourselves (as did Mr. Obama) when the Blagojevich tapes first became public. But now that Mr. Burris has been appointed, Mr. Reid can't legally deny him his seat. If this is the way Democrats are going to use their new monopoly on Beltway power even against a member of their own party, we're in for an ugly couple of years.