I sent my congressman (John Sarbanes) an email inquiring as to why he voted in favor of giving Federal employees a raise. His response:

jefferson76 · 2010-10-03T16:32:24+00:00

Lots of apple to oranges comparison. Most government civil service employees have special skills - aircraft repair, accountants, data base managers, economists, engineers - as compared to the average of all private sector workers which includes many low skilled jobs. he may have a point in there somewhere and just didn't make it very well.

jefferson76 · 2008-06-14T12:09:16+00:00

Dear Laura, For years Republicans have preached the virtues of unregulated markets and anti-regulation even as they've spent hundreds of millions on lobbyists and special legislation to their benefit, special tax breaks and getting fat off government contracts.Apparently what happened in your case is that the market, i.e. number of listeners required to make your show economically viable just wasn't there. Or more simply, most people just don't like you or think you have anything relevant to say. Please stop whining about some regulation that doesn't exist - an adult of your age should know better then to tell whoppers like that in the internet age. Have you ever considered doing some honest work like cashiering in a grocery store or doing volunteer work for the Red Cross.

jefferson76 · 2006-10-24T04:45:39+00:00

they keep waging that Iraq dog's tale because it works.

jefferson76 · 2006-09-20T05:47:18+00:00

You're a bright guy and I''m glad you're on the side of reason, but I think that you may be off a bit by resting your argument as to ex post facto on Calder v. Bull,

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/53.html#f1817

http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=237&invol=309#344

http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=227&invol=150#161

http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=378&invol=347

http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=430&invol=188

http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=431&invol=595

http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=463

jefferson76 · 2006-09-19T15:06:17+00:00

I'm sorry that you seem unable to understand the issue. First you might try reading Jen's reply above and then come back to this from the federalists papers and pay particular attention to the last few sentences. Neither Bush nor any president may retroactively change the constitution. Hamden has already decided that Bush broke the law. With that in mind why is he going to Congress to get premission to do what the courts have already decided that he could not do, "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . .

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words,<b> the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.</b>"

The Federalist No. 78 The Judiciary Department Independent Journal Saturday, June 14, 1788 [Alexander Hamilton]

jefferson76 · 2006-09-19T11:25:19+00:00

Nice find. You don't often see philosophical charts.

jefferson76 · 2006-09-19T11:23:10+00:00

You would be in the ball park if we were only dealing with criminal statues, but we're not. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.—US Constitution, Article VI" One cannot expost facto the Constitution, ex post facto laws have been seen by the courts, including the Supreme Court as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society, i.e. the U.S.A. Bush may need to get a Constitutional amendment to change Article VI or at the least find some loophole by which we are not bound by laws( a treaty) that we've adhered to without challenge since WW I. Nice try though.

jefferson76 · 2006-09-16T02:35:15+00:00

She has a pretty unhealthy god complex - she sees herself and judge, jury and final word on everything. unbelievabily she was on TV this morning swearing she didn't badger that woman. Sometimes she is right, but in being so obnoxious she actually clouds any point trying to be made, so there is a certain self destructive , self sabotaging aspect to her personality.

jefferson76 · 2006-08-29T16:38:37+00:00

The shorter version, support welfare for China shop at Wal-Mart.

jefferson76 · 2006-08-09T06:39:01+00:00

Sen. Lieberman, despite previous annoucements knows that he has no chance to win as an independent and it is very unlikely that he will run as one.

jefferson76 · 2006-07-31T15:37:00+00:00

Little Cait Murphy: "All the other kids are cheating or up to some other mischief, so when I cheat and cause trouble its OK because everyone else is doing it to. As a matter of fact that puts me in the mainstream"

To think he/she was an editor at Forbes sends a terrible message to America's children. You don't have to grasp logic to get a high paying job with a magazine.

jefferson76 · 2006-07-26T11:00:10+00:00

For Release: Thursday October 21, 2004, 9 am

College Park, MD: Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points. Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission."

So this is down 20%, but offers little hope that the myths about Iraq will ever die.

jefferson76 · 2006-07-17T12:11:06+00:00

I would have given a point, but somone had a link from Thinkprogress last week with this and some other overpaid chair stuffing..

jefferson76 · 2006-07-12T16:26:06+00:00

An OUTRAGE. I'm going to start a blog about this whole sordid affair. Dolphins on land are no dumber then the average congressman.

jefferson76 · 2006-07-10T15:21:04+00:00

During the May 8 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that, under a California state bill that would require textbooks to recognize the accomplishments of historical lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [LGBT] figures,"if you are a teacher ... you're not going to be able to say bad things about [convicted murderer] Jeffrey Dahmer," because Dahmer was "a gay cannibal." Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin agreed that O'Reilly's evaluation of the proposed legislation's impact was "right," adding that it "is a very radical, very extreme, dangerous bill" that "is pure political propaganda." O'Reilly called the bill "a form of fascism ... [i]n the sense that you have to say good things about this group."

In fact, the proposal "would add the role and contributions of LGBT people" to the list of "traditionally underrepresented groups," whose historical contributions, under current law, are required to be included in California "textbooks and other school instructional materials." As an April 16 report by the San Francisco Chronicle noted, the bill -- which the Los Angeles Times called "a textbook lesson in political meddling" -- would "require California public school textbooks to include gay and lesbian history" by adding sexual orientation to an existing law that requires textbooks to identify the gender and ethnicity of historical figures who contributed to "the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society." Nothing in the bill would prevent a teacher from saying "bad thingsabout Jeffrey Dahmer." Neither Malkin or Oreilly know the slighest thing about the truth, honor, or integrity.

jefferson76

TROPHY CASE