Tag Archives: President Bush

The Lawyers’ Party

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer and so is his wife Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate.) Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office thirty-one years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democratic Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history like Gingrich.

The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And so we have seen the procession of official enemies in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all consuming. Some Americans become “adverse parties” of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class action suit. We are citizens of a republic which promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws, we are contorted by judicial decisions, we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to use, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America. Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_lawyers_party.html

Advertisements

Feinstein Kills Solar and Wind Farms

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, who chairs the Senate subcommittee that oversees the Interior Department, has killed plans to build 13 multi-million dollar solar plants and wind farms on a million acres in California’s Mojave Desert.

Feinstein’s move will severely complicate California’s impracticable effort to obtain a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

The desert land was bought for nearly $45 million in private funds and $18 million in federal funds by an environmental group, which then donated it to the federal government for the purpose of conservation. (You have to give them credit here. Instead of demanding that taxpayers buy the land, these Greenies raised the money privately and purchased the land. That is honorable.)

In 2005, President Bush (the anti-green President) ordered that renewal energy production be fast-tracked on all public lands including the Mojave, which is among the sunniest in the nation.

“This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Union officials who were joyfully contemplating the creation of thousands of “green” construction jobs aren’t too happy with Feinstein, either.

4

America Bordering On Communism

Investor extraordinaire Jim Rogers has harsh words for the government’s interventionist economic policy.

That policy, which he dates back to the Bush administration, verges on communism, he told Moneynews’s Dan Mangru in an interview.

“America now owns the car industry. America owns the mortgage industry. America owns a lot of the insurance industry,” Rogers said.

“Karl Marx must be somewhere standing up in his grave cheering.” And why is that? “America has become a socialist and maybe even communist nation in many ways,” Rogers said.

In Asia, by contrast, “they’re not doing that. In Asia, they’re getting rid of state and government ownership,” he said.

As for stimulus, Rogers said that President Bush approved two packages, President Obama one, and now there’s talk of a fourth.

“The first stimulus didn’t work. The second stimulus didn’t work. The third stimulus hasn’t worked,” he said.

“They’ve been doing the wrong thing for over two years. Nothing has worked. I don’t know why they think this is going to work. This is going to make things worse, too.”

Rogers said that Japan implemented a huge stimulus in the 1990s. “It didn’t work in Japan, and Japan was a creditor nation… It’s not going to work for us, either.”

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and White House economic adviser Larry Summers “used to say to the Japanese: ‘You’re doing it wrong. This approach isn’t going to work,’” Rogers said. “We’re doing exactly the same thing.”

Rogers isn’t too happy with the massive monetary easing the Fed has engineered under Chairman Ben Bernanke, either.

“Printing money has been tried many times throughout history in many countries,” he said. “It has never worked in the long term; it has never worked in the medium-term. Occasionally, it has worked in the short term.”

Still, he says, “Printing money is going to lead to serious problems down the road.”

The amounts involved are staggering, Rogers said. “They’ve already injected huge amounts of money into the system. The Fed has more than tripled its balance sheet in the past year or so.”

The federal government “has increased its own debt by four, five, six times,” he said.

“We don’t know much, because they took over Fannie Mae, AIG and the rest of them who had huge debts, which we are now responsible for,” he said.

Rogers scoffs at the conventional wisdom of diversification. “If you are a successful investor, and if you’ve made a lot of money, then maybe you’ll think about diversification,” he said. “But if you want to make money, if you want to build a fortune, you don’t diversify. You find the right horses, you back those horses, and you watch those horses very carefully.”

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/jim_rogers/2009/07/15/235777.html

Obama Budget Cuts Funding for Hydrogen Cars

Obama’s proposed 2010 budget calls for cutting funding for a program at the Department of Energy that carries out research on hydrogen technology for vehicles by roughly 60%, or $100 million.

Six years ago, President Bush called for new federal funding for research into how to produce and distribute hydrogen and then store it in tanks so it can be used in fuel-cell-powered cars.

”Our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen and pollution-free,” President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address.

Because hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and using it to power cars would be so clean, proponents have often described it as the Holy Grail of alternative fuels.

Patrick Serfass, a spokesman for the National Hydrogen Association in Washington, expressed disappointment with the administration’s request and said his group – which represents companies like Chevron Corp., General Motors Corp. and Honda Motor Co. – would appeal to Congress. “We think it’s a mistake,” said Mr. Serfass.

The Bush Administration Argues For Gun Control

My displeasure with the Bush administration has been continuously increasing. This is the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

On Friday, the Bush administration’s Justice Department entered into the fray over the District of Columbia’s 1976 handgun ban by filing a brief to the Supreme Court that effectively supports the ban.

If the Supreme Court accepts the Bush administration’s interpretation of our right to keep and bear arms, we will see the DC gun ban stay in existence–setting a precedent for numerous gun control laws to go forth all over the nation.

Alan Gura, the attorney who will be representing those challenging the ban before the Supreme Court, accused the Bush administration of “basically siding with the District of Columbia.”

The Los Angeles Times said Sunday, “gun-control advocates never expected to get a boost from the Bush administration.”

The Supreme Court can of course ignore the Bush administration’s advice, but the Justice Department brief does carry significant weight. But all is not lost.

President Bush has the power to fix this by ordering that the Justice Department brief be withdrawn or significantly amended.

It will take an uprising by voters to rein in the Justice Department. Let’s start that today.

Please send your comments to comments@whitehouse.gov.

Or write to: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500

Or phone: 1.202.456.1111

To read an article, by John Lott, click here: The Bush DOJ shoots at the Second Amendment

To read an article from the Washington Post, click here: Justice Dept. Critical Of Appellate Ruling On D.C. Handgun Ban