FEMA Strikes Again!

That's a lost cause. Your current government (BOTH parties) is pushing electronic voting without accountability. Hack in and elect whomever you want!!

 

Move to Chicago.. I have my dead aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, dogs, cats, my old rum bottles and my hampster voting.

*casts my 512th vote for mayor*

yo

 

Thanks for the invite. I have visited Chicago and thoroughly enjoyed it (your museums are fantastic). But it's just too bloody cold there for me to move..... I am of the philosophy that you shouldn't be where the temperature goes below your age! )

 

The remarks were made by Bush at a campaign stop in Farmington, NM in 2004. It wasn't in written text, but was covered by media back then.

 

Oh, really?  "Ben", do you think that the DA, the judge, and grand jury don't understand Expost Facto?

We need a few more prosecutions down Texas way.  What with Dubyah's No.1 campaign contributor in his first term still on the loose (Ken Lay, former CEO, Enron)

Hey, those two kinda rhyme.  Lay, Delay.  That's what Bush's intentions probably were, come to think of it.  Delay, until the Statute of Limitations on fraud protected his chum-bud.

His daddy taught him about that one.  Its too late to look at the Harken Energy divestiture.  Bet Bill Frist wishes he could stir that one back up.

73,

Lee
W6EM

 

In other words, somebody said sombody heard somebody say something...

 

Ronnie Earle IS the DA. There is no judge in a Grand Jury proceeding. Earle has a habit of hand-picking grand jury members, then feeding them "evidence" that could never see light in a court room.

Ronnnie Earle knows that indictment won't stand up, and his ploy has failed. That's why he hurried to empanel another grand jury and told them to issue a TOTALLY DIFFERENT indictment on the FIRST day they were in session? (Normally, a grand jury hears evidence, subpoenas witnesses, and conducts an investigation. NONE of that happened in this case.)

Your head is so far up that you cannot see facts. Ronnie Earle is a grandstanding crook who pretends to fight corruption -- while ignoring rampant corruption in which he is up to his ears.

I repeat: Hang the crooks. ALL of the crooks.

 

Funny, but I seem to recall national media showing Delay's attorney having petitioned a judge to have the indictment thrown out since Earle was "picking on" Delay. And, the judge said no.  I'm sure Delay's high-priced counsel checked the expost facto angle.  But, you might want to give him a call with your theory just in case, since Delay, the "Concierge of the House" rewards favors.

Oh, I enjoy seeing facts, not hearing reactionary opinions and attacks spouted.

On the second grand jury, I don't know why that was done, unless the first jury's term was nearing an end.

I did hear, though, that the reason for the rush on the second indictment was because some sort of waiver of the Statute of Limitations for the particular offence was withdrawn at the last moment by Delay's counsel.  We'd call that a Delay tactic, now, wouldn't we?  So, like any good attorney who's faced with a hard deadline, he had to proceed and got the indictment on the last possible day, without Delay.

Indictments aren't convictions.  And, apparently, judges can and do rule on their validity.  At least in Texas.  And, if that judge refused to dismiss the first one didn't learn about expost facto in his high school government class, or law school, boy, we just might have yet another fully qualified Supreme Court nominee......

I didn't hear about Earle being corrupt.  Give us some facts, dates, names, and not just your shouting, that I can verify elsewhere.  I did hear that he once indicted a rather famous Texas Democrat.  So, apparently, when the ethical chips are down, he prosecutes objectively.

Something about him not liking malevolent politicians, and being willing to forego his retirement a while.  Kinda makes him stand out as a man of priniciple.

 

Funny, but I seem to recall national media showing Delay's attorney having petitioned a judge to have the indictment thrown out since Earle was "picking on" Delay. And, the judge said no. I'm sure Delay's high-priced counsel checked the expost facto angle. But, you might want to give him a call with your theory just in case, since Delay, the "Concierge of the House" rewards favors.

Oh, I enjoy seeing facts, not hearing reactionary opinions and attacks spouted.

On the second grand jury, I don't know why that was done, unless the first jury's term was nearing an end.

I did hear, though, that the reason for the rush on the second indictment was because some sort of waiver of the Statute of Limitations for the particular offence was withdrawn at the last moment by Delay's counsel. We'd call that a Delay tactic, now, wouldn't we? So, like any good attorney who's faced with a hard deadline, he had to proceed and got the indictment on the last possible day, without Delay.

Indictments aren't convictions. And, apparently, judges can and do rule on their validity. At least in Texas. And, if that judge refused to dismiss the first one didn't learn about expost facto in his high school government class, or law school, boy, we just might have yet another fully qualified Supreme Court nominee......

I didn't hear about Earle being corrupt. Give us some facts, dates, names, and not just your shouting, that I can verify elsewhere. I did hear that he once indicted a rather famous Texas Democrat. So, apparently, when the ethical chips are down, he prosecutes objectively.

Something about him not liking malevolent politicians, and being willing to forego his retirement a while. Kinda makes him stand out as a man of priniciple.[/QUOTE]
If you want facts, look at Earle's record. He has NEVER won one of these witch hunts. He can't get a conviction on flimsy and manufactured evidence -- not even in Travis County.

He has deliberately lost big-time cases on some of his friends who were guilty as sin -- and thus they avoided further prosecution.

Everyone knows about "judge shopping". You can always find a "friendly" judge to rule in the way you want, and the DA (or civil plaintiff) gets to choose the judge. That's how ridiculous rulings like the Pledge of Allegiance being unconstitutional come about. Of course, they don't stand up on appeal, but they make headlines.

That is why we desperately need to get rid of activist judges with personal agendas that have nothing to do with the law.

 

FEMA is going to rename the EAS, to better reflect what it's used for:

Office of
Homeland
Security
Hazardous
Incident
Terminolgy and
Rapid
Uniform
Notification



P.S. It's a joke...

 

Less subtle this way........

 

I would just like the opportunity to vote AGAINST someone. Maybe all of them

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

 

When questioning the sanity of FEMA, or any other Gov. agency, recall that Gov. gave us the IRS, USPS, and Amtrak, bottomless money pits all. Recall also that it takes far more in your mental portfolio to be a school teacher than to be a senator. Government, by its very nature does not innovate, it reacts. The result usually mirrors the result of peeing against the wind.

 

That is why we need to return the selection of candidates to the grass roots, LIMIT TERMS, and mandate possession of a government issued PHOTO identification to vote. We could stop some of the Chicago/St. Louis -- and other "machine" ballot box stuffing.

Until we DEMAND better, we will get what we will accept.

I would love to have two or three qualified candidates who treat each other as gentlemen and/or ladies and talk about how they plan to fix things. One Republican, one Democrat, and one "other" would be nice, but one of each major party that I could actually vote for would be a start!

Thomas Dewey forbade his staff from using something that would have virtually guaranteed his election, and was defeated by Truman. He chose integrity over politics. There are a few of those people still out there, but the machines keep them out of contention -- especially on the Democratic side. Those are the people we need, but we don't get a chance to vote for them.

Give me a Harry Truman-like Democrat and a Collin Powell or Condie Rice Republican, and the country CANNOT lose. If we have far-left (Hillary comes to mind) versus far right (several come to mind), the country cannot win.

 

That is the first time I have ever seen "sanity" and "government" in the same sentence!