Injuryboard Commentary - politics

"F**k You!" - Schwarzenegger Veto Message to Legislator

Joe Crumley — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:47:04 GMT

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sent a clear - and profane - message to a California Legislator who heckled and criticized him recently.

The Guver-nator vetoed a bill sponsored by the legislator, San Francisco San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. Letters or "Veto Messages" are often attached to vetoes, but slightly hidden within this veto message was the infamous expletive F**k You (except fully spelled out). As you can see below, the first letter of each line in the message spell out the slam.

The SanFrancisco Chronicle noted:

... the veto message came after Ammiano called the governor a liar and shouted from the audience to "kiss my gay ass" when Schwarzenegger unexpectedly showed up at a Democratic Party dinner in San Francisco on Oct. 7.

Ammiano later called Schwarzenegger's attendance at the event a "cheap publicity stunt" that wasn't at all amusing, in light of the governor's cuts in social services, ordered furloughs of state workers and failure to act on some gay-rights issues.

The Star Tribune reported:

"My goodness. What a coincidence," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. "I suppose when you do so many vetoes, something like this is bound to happen."

Schwarzenegger's veto messages are sent to the lawmakers who authored the bills, and posted on the governor's Web site. McLear noted that the left-hand margin of past veto messages has spelled out words such as "poet" and "soap."

I'm not sure how such political commentary relates to InjuryBoard, but I'm disturbed.

Claiming coincidence is a joke or an out-and-out lie. The odds of such a clear message randomly appearing are astronomical. It is clear that the Governor or one of his staff sent this message.

This is reprehensible behavior. A governor leads, and sets an example for the citizens of the state. He's treating his office as a joke. What example is this for the schoolchildren of California? Being a crude foul-mouth .... is okay; you could be governor of California with that potty-mouth.

On the surface it may seem a clever way to respond to rudeness from a competing politician. But this is a major veto. In sending his little message, the governor vetoed a bill that was important to the Port of San Francisco. You can only hope that he intended the veto all along, and the message was an afterthought.

But if Ah-nuld thinks it's okay to veto a major bill just to make a joke or to slap down a politician, he needs to be impeached, because this is a major disgrace to his office. He earns this photo:

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Crumley

Why Do Anti-Government Politicians Hang On To Their Jobs So Dearly?

Mike Bryant — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:00:00 GMT

It was interesting when the anti-government group first started to get elected. Their mantra of term limits, new ways, and less government was very interesting to so many voters. The "Contract With America" was their blue print for success. But, what has happened to the group? Seems like so many of them just can't wait to cash their next government check. What happened to to the talk of term limits? I guess a couple more Democrat victories and we will hear about them again. But, with the way they raise money and fight for their jobs, they really don't want to get off the dole.

The recent health care debate got me thinking about this topic. It's been sad to see the issue so politicized. For a number of people, it really is just an attempt to weaken the President and to spout a very odd agenda. To somehow proclaim victory or a waterloo. This is just silly. Weren't they in power not that long ago? Why didn't they implement their ideas on health care?

The thing is that there are so many who only want to get elected. It isn't about any issue. It's about them. I guess it really should be a surprise to see not a single Republican really supporting heath care reform. They need to pander to health insurance companies, the HMO's, and big business. It's time to get over this anti consumer plan and start talking about change that will work for everyone. No one single election is really that important, or at least with their earlier statements, really shouldn't be.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Is Direct To Consumer Marketing by Big Pharma Backfiring?

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:00:00 GMT

I’ve covered direct marketing to patients by the pharmaceutical industry in a previous post. I was critical that other countries don’t allow marketing directly to patients and that by doing so it creates a market influenced by patients pressuring physicians for drugs they might otherwise never take. This post on DTC ran on December 22, 2008.

Pushing drugs with DTC – Where marketing trumps science in America.

Does big business view human life as a commodity that is bought, sold and disposed of?

“Human capital wears out.”

That was a statement made to me as a lawyer by an economist. I think it does envision human life as something like a machine that does work and is depreciated over time. Life is becoming depreciated or devalued; at death you've just fully depreciated. The more we allow large businesses to run our lives the less our lives are worth.

An old college buddy forwarded some links saying as a lawyer I might enjoy watching them. Well forget the lawyer part, as a parent, husband and grandfather I appreciate the message. I did watch them and then began to wonder what they say about society in general. Watch these videos and ask yourself if this makes sense to you and is there a groundswell or backlash occurring against the industry? I have to wonder if the American public isn’t wising up to how industry research is manipulated to filter out the adverse results, all for the sake of that billion dollar per year drug.

Making a Killing

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/making-a-killing-introduction

Prescription For Violence

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/prescription-for-violence

Where The Truth Lies

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/where-the-truth-lies

One has to wonder, is there a groundswell surging against prescription drugs being over prescribed through things like testing that is manipulated by dishonest doctors taking cash to act as Big Pharma’s cheerleaders?

You be the judge.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Tradition is Tradition and Palin Should Bite the Head off the Republicans Latest Red Herring

Steve Lombardi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:45:00 GMT

Well, she did it again. She’s avoided the library. It's reported that Sarah Palin was to speak at the Simi Valley Republican Women's event at the Reagan Library. The latest Palin-PR announcement is that she’s cancelled. Once again she's proven how to avoid ever being accused of visiting a library. Way to go Sarah, avoiding that label of being one of the over-educated Eastern establishment elitists.

See The Sarah Palin Blog – Or is it a Fog she writes?

Did you know she has a FaceBook page?

If the Republican Party could only get rid of extremists who are ruining the party, Republicans might once again be able to vote with the Party. Fiscally responsible and socially liberal, where is the Party at that party? Republicans don’t need to worry about debt, medical cost or any other forms of relief, when the Party gives us so much comic relief.

Now which is the real and which the comic relief? You be the judge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE2gE-VVjBI

Poor John McCain; he had a better chance with the Russians than with who they gave him as a VP candidate. This debacle demonstrates why Participation Trophies are so wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

I wonder if the Russians were ever nervous with Governor Palin being so close to Russia. She insinuated that they were. I have to admit though with Governor Palin in office, Putin never thought about “rearing his head”. He was probably laughing too much to find the front door.

The Bridge To Nowhere is a reminder to all Republicans they are in Party To Nowhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvqH6GnE3k0

Please, please, please put her away somewhere where she can’t talk to the media. Isn’t there room on the Northwestern? Come on Deadliest Catch save America by finding room at the rail for Sarah to crab fish. Palin should be good biting the head off of the herring, since she’s bit the head off the Republican Party so many times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JothYo2oN6I

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Iowa Board of Medicine Charges Surgeon Involving Consent to Perform a Tubal Ligation

Steve Lombardi — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:24:00 GMT

On July 8, 2009 an Iowa surgeon was charged by the Iowa Board of Medicine as follows:

Paragraph 12. The Board alleges that Respondent failed to conform to the minimum standard of acceptable and prevailing practice of medicine in Iowa when he performed a tubal ligation on a female patient without proper consent in Iowa Falls, Iowa in 2008. The information reviewed by the Board indicates that the patient affirmatively told Respondent that she did not want a tubal ligation, she did not sign a consent form for a tubal ligation and Respondent performed the procedure without proper patient consent.

I’ve read the Statement of Charges and all of the comments on the two major Iowa news sources that covered this story. See the Des Moines Register website and the KCCI website. A few of the comments are fair, but several of those commenting condemned the patient without any evidence whatsoever. I address this to you.

The Diseased Mind: Prejudice, hatred and ignorance

I have no bone to pick with the few of you who are fair minded and impartial. But to those who wrongly condemn the patient your bias is obviously brought on by terminal ignorance. For all you know the woman is your mother or sister or aunt or friend whose not told any of you these private details; and yet you publicly condemn her without knowing her or the facts of her life or this surgical event. You engage in this offending banter without regard to who she is or how she might feel after reading your insensitive and ignorant comments. For all you know she’s read them, is seething mad but is unable to defend herself publicly.

Have any of you even read the charges?

First, anyone can read the Statement of Charges, or the press release by the Iowa Board of Medicine. You simply need to go to the Iowa Board of Medicine website and look under Press Releases – 2009, July 16, 2009. The doctor has been charged by the Board and they set a hearing for September 9, 2009. The Board filed the Statement of Charges on July 8, 2009. The doctor has 20 days in which to answer. The doctor has been charged based upon the Board’s investigation.

Second, it should bring shame upon you that you don’t understand the American judicial process and why it is that in this country we have trial by jury and the right to present evidence. In this country we don’t prejudge, we present evidence, a jury or in this case a board, listens and then makes a decision. We don’t condemn someone because they aren’t wealthy. We don’t condemn a person because of their gender - in this case a woman. We were supposed to learn in junior high school that we are all treated equally in the eyes of the law. Did you miss that class? If you didn't, you missed the point of the lesson on the American court system.

THE FACTS

As a lawyer I’m constrained to enter into a discussion to which my client is involved, but some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. The woman is not on welfare and Blue Cross Blue Shield provided payment for surgery. I am not at liberty to say more so let’s talk some more about your blatant prejudices. To do so let us assume a patient is on welfare. In this country the type of insurance coverage does not determine the level of care a patient receives. We don’t punish the poor with substandard medical care nor do we take away their right to control their bodies and what surgery to which they consent. Consent isn’t just the right of the rich, the powerful, the privileged and the wealthy. You should know that by now. If you can read and write you should know this country is based on equality – not privilege. We don’t have a king or queen or privileged ruling class, we elect our leaders.

The occupations of the American Presidents previous to taking the highest office in America have been a peanut farmer, a Texan who destroyed everything he ever tried to run and even a poor Illinois Congressman whose mother was white and father black. They have been surveyors, schoolteachers, lawyers, writers, inventors, architects, soldiers, a postmaster, a sheriff, mayor, rancher, a dean, a newspaper editor, engineers, farmers, a haberdasher, a judge, a journalist, a movie actor, a corporate spokesperson, Governors, a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer and a constitutional law professor. What haven’t had are Kings and Queens.

You need to ask yourselves how you grew so intellectually insensitive and ignorant.

You should all visit a nursing home in this next week. After you look into the eyes of the poor elderly residents visit the bathroom and look in the mirror. Are you willing to agree you will receive substandard medical care and give up your right to consent to medical intervention if you end up elderly and poor like the residents that live there?

If you lose your job America doesn’t ship you off to a third rate hospital where you won’t be a burden on our tax base. And if your spouse divorces you and you end with the dependent children America doesn’t issue you a substandard medical insurance card, not just for you but also for your children. To think America should do so is shameful and shows a complete lack of a good civics education. In this case you all owe this patient an apology.

AND THEN, THEY CAME FOR ME…

Prejudices are the chains forged by ignorance to keep men apart.

Countess of Blessington

How many of you do not presently have health insurance? Does that mean you give up the right to say what medical care you will receive?

I have to wonder how many of you are males with no clue about what a woman goes through biologically and emotionally concerning the need to have children.

How many of you men are divorced, behind on your child support, aren’t visiting your children, aren’t providing medical insurance, aren’t providing life insurance coverage to your dependent children as ordered by the court to do so?

How many of you have outstanding traffic fines?

How many of you who haven't paid your own financial obligations still have money for cable TV, smoke cigarettes, have money to drink on Friday night, can afford tattoos and fashionable clothes along with Internet access?

Worse than welfare mothers ever could be are those with the means who ignore their own financial responsibilities and point the finger at those who are financially unable. I’d include those men and women who sit back and point the finger at the poor or those who immigrated into this country, all the while acting contrary to the standard they themselves publicly set. Ignorance is one reason why Anne Coulter is so popular at spreading hatred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME

One of you suggested the patient probably changed her mind in the middle of anesthesia. Are you serious? You don’t change your mind while under an anesthetic. You are out of it. The patient is not conscious. That's the point of anesthesia. If you’re going to change your mind it’s done before surgery not during. The way the process works is the surgeon sits down with the patient prior to the surgery and discusses the extent of the consent form. At least that’s what is supposed to occur.

THE DIAGNOSIS - PREJUDICE BROUGHT ABOUT ON BY TERMINAL IGNORANCE

It’s interesting that you would condemn the patient, excuse the doctor, claim a State Board of Medicine has falsely accused the surgeon and yet not one of you who is critical of the patient knows the facts.

Do you see anything wrong with that mindset? Would you care if it were applied to you?

Main Entry: Prejudice

1prej·u·dice

Pronunciation:

\'pre-j?-d?s\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment — more at judicial

Date: 13th century

1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights ; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims

2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion

2 a (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion

c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

synonyms see predilection

THE TREATMENT – READ, THINK AND LEARN ABOUT AMERICA

I’d suggest you visit a library and read a good book on why this country was founded. You should begin with the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. Read about trial by jury and evidence.

And here is your first assignment.

Who was Martin Niemoller?

What famous poem did he write?

Where was he when he wrote it?

Why does it remind me of you?

Original

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

Didn’t your mothers or Sunday school teachers teach you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Florida is still Gerrymandering- what does that mean to Florida's future? And isn't gerrymandering illegal?

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:25:27 GMT

Would it seem fair that election districts are not impartially drawn? Would it seem fair if some districts actually have some houses on a particular street, while other houses owned by people within another political party, are grouped into a different district? It's called "gerrymandering" and it means "apportionment of electoral districts in such a way as to give the political party in power an advantage in electing its representatives."

Gerrymandering is described as boundary delimitation- emphasis on the "de". It is adjustment by incumbents in order to achieve the ideal voter base for one’s platform. Adjustments have been proven to be made, based on a variety of factors including socio-economic status, race and land values, just to name a few. But the term "adjustments" is used to stack the deck to ensure a particular party, or in some instances a particular candidate, wins.

The two aims of gerrymandering are to maximize the effect of supporters’ votes and to minimize the effect of opponents' votes. One strategy, packing, is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts.

In Florida the gerrymander practice still runs rampant. It's no surprise that the Legislators that sit in office are charged with the redistricting, despite that it often means they are making decisions about districts where they stand for re-election. Does this seem equitable?

Elbridge Gerry is credited as the inventor of gerrymandering technique involving the bang-up job done with Massachusetts’ districts that were carved out to look like a dragon. Political redistricting has historically followed the U.S. Census- usually once every 10 years. Once, at the beginning of every decade each state government adjusts its voting districts to be "consistent" with increased or decreased population. That's the charge- nothing more. At least that’s how it’s supposed to be done. To eliminate or exclude a race or minority group would be prejudicial, but so is it to pack all voters of one party into a fraction of the districts. That's the way we do it in Florida these days, which is why although 46% of the voters are in one party, Democrats, only 1/3 of state and Congressional elected officials are from Florida's majority party. Fair voting districts can be drawn, like in Iowa, where the lines are very symmetrical and don't favor one party over another, giving the voters a chance to actually weigh in on who represents them.

More recently, redistricting happens at the whim of the majority party. Florida is just about as good of an example as any, having only three incumbent state legislators voted out of office since 2004. That’s out of 120 House members and 40 senators according to Ellen Freidin, campaign manager at Fair Districts Florida. Fair Districts Florida is a non-partisan committee looking to end political gerrymandering. She added that gerrymandering stifles competition for an area and that the problems go largely unnoticed once district lines are drawn. "Districts are designated and planned to be won by a party or an individual, so there usually aren't any meaningful challenges," she said.

In Florida, the act of redistricting has gotten out of control. By clicking on a random district found at the Florida elections website reveals the utter chaos involved in drawing up a voting district. An outsider to the greater St. Petersburg area would assume that one district would encompass this large but certainly not massive peninsula. They would be wrong. This particular gem stretches across the Bay and vertically for miles while laterally being no more than a few miles. State Senate District 27 starts in Palm Beach extends past the Everglades and into the far west counties of Naples Florida- a world apart.

This problem affects the federal level where U.S. Representatives’ district lines have completely gone awry. Rep. Robert Wexler’s district encompasses an hour and a half drive in one direction from West Palm Beach to Pompano Beach, completely different areas, I can assure you. Some elected officials aren't connected to their own counties, let alone counties adjacent to counties adjacent to the next counties. As an example, former House Rep. Lorrane Ausley who now running in the state senate seat, will have to meet constituents in ELEVEN counties considered in her "district". She will likely make the effort, but can the same be said of most?

Fair Districts Florida (www.fairdistrictsflorida.org) identifies the last three presidential elections and split senators as indicators of Florida’s political affiliation. One would assume that it is a divided state, but looking at the state legislature numbers, Republicans have been the majority party nearly 2-1 since 2002, not even close.

Competition is one of the main factors to a healthy democracy and even more important is the will of the people. In these redistricting scenarios, legislators choose their voters which is the opposite of how it’s suppose to be. Even worse is the controlling majority redistricting on such broad scales as the entire state. The future of Florida elections would fall nothing short of the recent Iranian elections if the voters are not measured by their support but rather their domicile in this hijacked version of democracy.

Fortunately, the rest of the United States is interested in reforming the gerrymandering practices of "back-door politics". Reform efforts are on both sides of the aisle, with both Sen. John McCain and President Barack Obama supporting such change. At home, Florida has drawn bi-partisan support for the idea and every newspaper in all of Florida has written editorials in favor of the change. So what's the hold up? Well, those people in office who don't like the idea of running a fair race, and like the stacking in their favor.

The mission statement of Fair Districts Florida is simple : Legislative/Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

Let's see who opposes that.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Living on the edge of reason; Promoting Hatred as a Cultural Norm

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:34:00 GMT

Ann Coulter: "Dr. Tiller Was Terminated In His 203rd Trimester"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woHB8qCDVv4&feature=related

I’m neither a liberal nor a conservative. I just want people to stop wasting my tax dollars. I don’t care if gays marry, adopt or get divorced. I just want people to stop wasting my tax dollars. I no longer fit in either party because all I want is for people to stop wasting my tax dollars and running up the deficit.

I do listen to both conservative and liberal talk shows to better understand how they think and reason. From listening to this self-proclaimed conservative I’ve learned what it takes to raise a child to be like her. See if you agree.

Communists in America – The rotting of the American Culture and Dream

1. Be extreme.

2. Be hateful.

3. Be rude and intellectually crass.

4. Be loud and offensive.

5. Be accusatory by innuendo. (Like using the word faggot when talking about John Edwards, then a Presidential candidate.)

6. Talk over people you disagree with. (See rule 1.)

7. Memorize labels for groups you hate and use them often. (Liberals vs. Conservatives.)

8. Categorize people into only those hated groups. (If you disagree with me you must be a Liberal. Remember it’s alright to hate liberals.)

9. Create, foster and promote hatred against groups of people.

10. State conclusions as if they were fact. (All Arabs are terrorists.)

11. Talk mainly about emotionally charged subjects.

12. Memorize talking points that are conclusions that will create emotional controversy.

13. All answers or statements should elevate emotions, not the discussion.

14. Never talk content talk emotions.

15. If the facts don’t fit a position you stand for, spin the facts and argue that there are flavors of the truth.

16. Always be ready to use the English language to trigger emotions.

17. Learn to spin statements that you attribute to your opponent’s.

18. Learn to lie with a straight face.

19. Learn to declare yourself and those in your group as having the only answers, viable positions and honorable ideas.

20. Provoke arguments don’t promote discussion.

21. Profess you are the only reliable person in the room.

22. Accuse your opponents of doing what you’re doing. (Learn to convey your ideas using hate-filled speech while claiming your opponents are hateful and un-American.)

23. Accuse your opponents of thinking as you are thinking.

24. Be willing to violate the law to get what you want. (The Bible tells us killing is wrong. Abortion is wrong because its murder, but murdering a physician that performs abortions is acceptable.)

25. Never admit to anything.

I can’t imagine how I would raise a child using these rules. Thank God abortion is still legal. I have to wonder if Ann Coulter has ever answered the question whether she has had an abortion. She's so extreme that she has to be hiding something.

A Conversation Between Ann Coulter & Al Franken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY

Here is an example of the reaction Ann Coulter is hoping for.

A Night with Ann Coulter: SuperNews!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmLJDrsaJmk

Perfected: The Ann Coulter Song - This woman should get a PhD in psychology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye_2a7Lrl80

She’s been called a syndicated communist and a fascist Barbie dolly but the only question is what organizations fraulein Coulter donates money.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Raising Children in a Country where Hatred and Intolerance is Sometimes Institutionalized

Steve Lombardi — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:11:00 GMT

No I’m not talking about Communist China, I’m talking about hatred and intolerance being taught in America.

I have to wonder how we expect to raise children to be part of a global economy with the idea it’s okay to be an American that hates people whose ideas are different.

Hitler was perhaps the most proficient world leader in promoting hatred for a group of people, the Jews. So successful was his program of hatred that he convinced an entire nation that institutionalized murder was acceptable governmental policy. Think about that for a minute. That’s an incredible feat. Persuading an entire nation of people to allow emotions to override rational thinking. How did Hitler persuade a nation to turn off their ability to reason in favor of allowing irrational emotions to march scores of men, women and children to human incinerators, when rational thinking should have stepped in and made them question what they were about to do.

Is it an answer that humans are no better than sheep being lead to slaughter?

And this brings me back to law schools that are under consideration for accredidation by the American Bar Association. I have to admit as a lawyer to being more than just concerned about that accredidation. Here are a few of my concerns.

1. Is the lawyer's oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution necessary to effectively practice law in the United States?

2. If all lawyers take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution should those who lie to uphold it also be licensed to practice law?

3. If a person disagrees so vehemently with a an act considered to be constitutional that they would tacitly sanction murder, is it a stretch to believe that same person would lie while taking an oath to support the U.S. Constitution?

4. Is the ABA’s Lawyer Oath to be taken seriously, if so why?

5. Should any institution that teaches subversion to the laws of the United States and the U.S. Constitution be accredited to teach students.

If a terrorist group, planning an attack on America’s government planned on gaining entrance to the Pentagon through training sleeper-cell students, you would have no problem saying that organization should not be an accredited American educational institution.

If a law school existed that taught its students subversion of the U.S. Constitution and court system you would have no problem agreeing that the ABA should not be sanctioning a law school for legal terrorists.

If student terrorists lied in taking an oath that allowed a license to operate within the American court system you’d have no problem with banning them from practicing law because they are lying under oath to support our country's government.

But what if those institutions are teaching religious doctrine that advocates terrorism; a doctrine that allows or tactily approves killing of Americans to advance it’s own regligious agenda.

Mind you I don’t care if law schools teach students about hating the idea of abortion; that is their right, I just don’t want the ABA sanctioning an insitution that teaches subversion to the laws of the United States of America. America was founded on the rule of law; that law by precedent is the foundation of the American way of life. It is the fabric by which the American Dream was created.

By sanctioning an institution that advocates lying under oath are we subverting the American dream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkY_2GNvR6Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttsoxMWtTYQ

Tomorrow let’s examine the woman who epitomizes hatred and intolerance in America. Meet me here tomorrow to examine the poster child for hatred and intolerance, a/k/a Hitler in drag, fraulein Coulter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

What would our Founding Father's do with Accreditting Liberty University School of Law

Steve Lombardi — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:00:00 GMT

On this day, the 4th of July, it is appropriate that I discuss those from whose teachings sprout the green shoots of home-grown terrorism in America.

Terrorism is defined as: S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear).

One could argue that Ann Coulter's choice of words could classify her as a terrorist. I'm not sure I'd go that far but others might have more time to analyze her speeches and adding them all up she might be classified as one who instills fear of violence to attain political or religious goals. Watch and listen to her and see if you agree or disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woHB8qCDVv4

In June 2009 I asked the question whether the Law of School at Liberty University would condemn the murder of the abortion doctor from Kansas. I heard not a peep although a law student did take me up on an assignment covering the following points:

1. Why Dean Staver at Liberty School of Law should publicly condemn the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

2. In the essay cover why it is important that law students condemn murder of even abortion doctors, in order to effectively take the lawyers oath or affirmation at the swearing in ceremony.

3. Also cover whether those who can not support the US Constitution and federal law, in opposition to Roe v. Wade, can not effectively and honestly swear to the Iowa Supreme Court they take the lawyers oath and affirmation to become a lawyer.

4. Cover whether the ABA should or can accredit a law school that teaches students not to support the enforcement of federal law and the United States Constitution.

5. Lastly, tell me what you're learning at Liberty School of Law concerning whether lawyers must follow the U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the US Constitution and federal and state laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a6AjeCAP-k

I've covered this subject in other posts.

Dean of Law at Liberty University: Are you planning on condemning the murder of Dr. Tiller? June 2, 2009.

That post followed Liberty University’s actions against the student Democrats over ideas students would hear from outside speakers with a message that ran counter to Liberty's fund raising efforts from alumni and financial supporters. Speakers who advocated for tolerance towards gays, gay marriage and the right of a woman to choose control over her pregnancy would not be well received by alumni who hate all of the above.

Student Democrats at Liberty U. are okay; so long As they think like a Republican. May 29, 2009.

I don't care what they teach at Liberty University, but I do care if they are teaching violent means to achieve a political end. I do care if law students are taking an oath to support the Constitution and lying. That I do care about. I wasn't shocked by the leader at Liberty not publicly condemning the murder. After all he's got to raise money from supporters that might agree with Doctor Tiller's murderer. But it occurred to me that the dean of a law school asking the ABA to accredit their program ought to at least give the impression of wanting to condemn lawlessness. Even a watered down condemnation would be better than saying nothing.

Who knows maybe I missed it. If I missed the University’s condemnation I’d be appreciative to any of the thousands of students at Liberty who can point me in the right direction.

This subject interests me because I’ve had several Liberty students inquire about working for my law firm. But I find myself at odds with how to hire a law student or lawyer whose personal values would be put ahead of the client’s interests. How other law firms are resolving this conflict is beyond me. Maybe they are just not asking the tough questions.

I’ve never sat in on a Con-Law class or read the curriculum at Liberty Law School, but knowing how the University approaches the subjects of abortion and same-sex marriage it’s not difficult to anticipate how the law school’s curriculum in the Con Law classes might have a problem with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. Of course a curriculum doesn't really state all that will be taught in the classroom so reading it would not be very enlightening. I'd like to sit in at a Liberty Law School Con-Law class that discusses the Roe v. Wade decision, but it's doubtful that invitation will ever be in the mail.

So I'm left wondering what exactly they are teaching law students. What would Doctor King teach? Would he teach tolerance of intolerance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZLvSnr6s50

When examining what other anti-abortionist's are teaching we see a mix of ideas. There are the groups that condemn this murderous act and then privately toast Dr. Tiller's death. There are those saying nothing publicly knowing that without a public condemnation of the murder of Dr. Tiller it appears as though there is at least tacit approval of using illegal and violent means to achieve an end to abortion. The gentleman in the YouTube clip seems to support that conclusion. Fear of violence seems to be a tool of choice to stop abortions and perhaps in their minds more effective than is legal argument.

Some of those against abortion do condemn the act of murder. Other’s used the situation to gather steam for careers that have been built on spewing hatred. Their tool of choice is hate-filled speech that clearly panders to those with mental health problems and who would likely act against people like the late Doctor Tiller.

Here is a video that exposes the private discussions of anti-abortionists. Start watching at 2:58 in the video and listen to the description of a published Christian Manifesto approving the use of violence to stop abortionists, to foster fear of violence against those who disagree and to create a climate that ends with changing the laws concerning abortion. The book advocates for the use of fear to get what domestic groups want. How far removed are these people from the same ideas that fueled the 9-11 terrorists? How far removed are they from the hate of Nazi Germany?

Are these Commentators Practicing Hate Speech Meant to Incite Criminal Behavior to Foster Fear - You be the judge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMmmrjAf_0

So on this 4th of July let's get back to American liberty and to what is being taught at the Liberty University School of Law. What are they teaching law students about how to take that lawyer's oath?

I ask myself what next? I have to wonder.

How can law school graduates that are not willing to publicly condemn outright lawlessness that ends with murder, not be lying when taking the lawyer’s oath saying they will support the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, state laws and the court system? I do recognize that disagreeing with a law or the interpretation of a law doesn’t make the thinker a subversive. But, I can not advocate for being intellectually dishonest with the court system to achieve a political end. Condoning murder to advance one’s ideas is as wrong as was Hitler’s way of advancing his own political ends. How do Liberty law school graduates square in their minds the taking of the legal oath to follow federal law when that law has created Roe vs. Wade? What are they being taught about the acceptable methods to advance anti-abortion laws?

Did I miss a condemnation of murder on the Liberty site? If I missed it by all means post a comment.

The ABA has to ask itself whether taking the lawyers’ oath has any meaning or not.

The general public has to ask whether the far right is as dangerous to America as is the far left.

Happy 4^th of July.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92AE5mEfg0A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klQtI_rVeTM

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Sarah Palin promised it would not be politics as usual, and delivered on ... "the politics of unusual"

Steve Lombardi — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:40:33 GMT

The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence."

Once again the Republican Party builds a bridge to nowhere. Can you imagine a worse time to announce a resignation; Independence Day weekend. God has the woman no shame or sense of timing. How can a politician think they are ready to run a country when they can’t even finish one term as Governor of Alaska? The Republican Party should rename the Gravina Island Bridge the Sarah Palin Pain-in-the-Arse Bridge, to honor the Peter Principle.

THE ALASKA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE IS RUNNING ON EMPTY

Just listen to her resignation speech as she says one thing and does just the opposite. She uses words and slogans of faith, family, service, trust, vision, right path, to secure Alaska to secure America, to contribute to America, responsibly, serve the State, it’s a humbling responsibility, promised, showing my independence, we are doing so well, we work tirelessly, we protect – her use of words and terms to instill and inspire confidence in her leadership is in complete contradiction to her quitting the job she was elected to do. She epitomizes the Participation Trophy Syndrome. Where is my trophy; after all I showed up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OyjXE7OhSk

AS A REPUBLICAN, IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO THINK?

Let me get this right; as Republicans you’re not supposed to vote Democratic because:

They will run up the deficit.

They will give away the Treasury.

They will make the world a less safe place for American.

They will just add pork to every budget.

They are spineless weenies who can’t fight the tough fight.

... And you can’t trust them.

And when does this Governor announce her resignation, of all the bloody weekends, on Independence Day weekend while the country is in a recession with rising unemployment, explaining it's to bolster confidence in her abilities. When she speaks it's similar to listening to a teenager explain why they missed curfew.

Alaska can’t be that difficult to run. If she is resigning from one of the least populated states with oil revenues being paid to resident citizen while the rest of the country gets a pink slip how can she think through the myriad of complex issues confronting the economy. If she can’t run Alaska she isn’t capable of running a 7-11 let alone the United States of America.

IT'S NO WONDER WHY COMEDIANS ARE WINNING CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

Here look at this interview and ask yourself if she’s a capable political opponent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQwAFobQxQ

Tina Fey would be a more serious candidate. Whenever Palin speaks I’m left wondering if anyone ever listened to her before putting her in the national spotlight as the VP candidate to McCain. All the major network correspondents who’ve interviewed Palin end up with their mouths dropped open in utter disbelief as to what she says. Her ideas are illogical. Her speech clipped, rambling and without coherence. As an example how can she on the one hand describe America in a crisis mode and then walk away from governing the State of Alaska. What kind of leadership does that demonstrate? She’s not running from the State of Alaska as much as she’s running to a state of delusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMypXCUWMw

The non-Christian-right who still call themselves Republicans, have to put up with one more Republican Party leader acting contrary to what the party stands for and that forces intelligent, sensible and fiscal conservative voters to question how they can vote Republican. Palin has been a disaster since the first interview. Every time she talks she appears dumber than the last time. This isn’t a beauty contest she’s in; it’s about doing the hard work to run a state without picking fights with everyone who might vote for a Democrat, including Republicans. She seems to strive not on accomplishment but on controversy. She’s like Pigpen, wherever she been is a cloud of dust and debris.

Here’s my idea about why she’s resigning. She’s stepping aside because … who cares she’s been nothing but a distraction, a disaster and an embarrassing one at that. She makes America appear comically idiotic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6iC-LjhUxo&feature=related

SOMETIMES TO ADD YOU HAVE TO SUBTRACT

She wants a participation trophy for showing up. Her decision is self centered and disregarding of the public she pledged to serve. Her decision is one more nail in her coffin. Only losers want a participation trophy; winners want to win one. She’s a disgrace to the party and to women in general. Like I said; good riddance. Maybe they can use her grinding bait on the Deadliest Catch.

Only losers want a participation trophy; winners want to win one.

FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT: Is the answer to frivolous Wall Street bonuses, The Participation Trophy Syndrome. April 21, 2009, InjuryBoard

Rubin Navarrette has it right - Don't rescue those looking for a participation trophy. Let litigation teach them a lesson. January 29, 2008, InjuryBoard

Let's face facts she promised it would not be politics as usual and she's delivering the politics of unusual. How fitting it is she would follow the bizarre death of Michael Jackson.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi