<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Her&#8221;story in the Making</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html</link>
	<description>Indiana Barrister is the source for local Indianapolis and Indiana news, politics and commentary.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:17:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: StatlernWaldorf</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13900</link>
		<dc:creator>StatlernWaldorf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13900</guid>
		<description>Really....you are FULL of it. Go back and get something else from the blogosphere.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really&#8230;.you are FULL of it. Go back and get something else from the blogosphere.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Really</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13879</link>
		<dc:creator>Really</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13879</guid>
		<description>You heard it here first.  ABBIE....so ponder this.  I political insider I know within the McCain camp told me the following regarding Palin and the discussion into his choice.  I will be paraphrasing our conversation.  First, McCain wanted a fresh maverick choice but he also wanted a pretty face with a family to offset Obama&#039;s race and family .  Second, McCain knew of her pregnant daughter and didn&#039;t blink an eye.  He saw her appointment as a media distraction for at least 2-3 weeks.  McCain claimed Obama was getting too much media coverage and that Palin would offset or at least equal the Obama media craze. Three (THIS IS THE KICKER).  She will only be VP for no more than 24-36 months months after McCain/Palin win the election.  A deal was struck between hardline conservatives in the GOP that Palin would be around for a short time and would resign prior to the end of the 4 year term.  The hardline conservations would then select a hardline conservative as VP after Palin resigns for family reasons. The short list to replace Palin include Romney, Brownback, Sununu and Coburn.  Supposedly, this was agreed upon and Palin was OK with the arrangement because she would be the first female VP.  Additionally, McCains handlers dictate her every move leading up to the election in fear of her screwing things up.  McCain has a nasty temper so his camp is on eggshells right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You heard it here first.  ABBIE&#8230;.so ponder this.  I political insider I know within the McCain camp told me the following regarding Palin and the discussion into his choice.  I will be paraphrasing our conversation.  First, McCain wanted a fresh maverick choice but he also wanted a pretty face with a family to offset Obama&#8217;s race and family .  Second, McCain knew of her pregnant daughter and didn&#8217;t blink an eye.  He saw her appointment as a media distraction for at least 2-3 weeks.  McCain claimed Obama was getting too much media coverage and that Palin would offset or at least equal the Obama media craze. Three (THIS IS THE KICKER).  She will only be VP for no more than 24-36 months months after McCain/Palin win the election.  A deal was struck between hardline conservatives in the GOP that Palin would be around for a short time and would resign prior to the end of the 4 year term.  The hardline conservations would then select a hardline conservative as VP after Palin resigns for family reasons. The short list to replace Palin include Romney, Brownback, Sununu and Coburn.  Supposedly, this was agreed upon and Palin was OK with the arrangement because she would be the first female VP.  Additionally, McCains handlers dictate her every move leading up to the election in fear of her screwing things up.  McCain has a nasty temper so his camp is on eggshells right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ash</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13798</link>
		<dc:creator>Ash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13798</guid>
		<description>(hand raised) Can I make a quick point?

Our intelligence-gathering in the Middle East for years has been horrible.  Jimmy Carter didn&#039;t believe in foreign surveillance of any kind at any level and cut accordingly.  All Reagan cared about was the Russians so he didn&#039;t bother reinstituting any of it either.  We&#039;re decades behind the curve on this one.  Our own intelligence used to justify the war was gathered under the Clinton administration, but the vast majority of our intel came from Mossad because the Israelis are better at it than anybody else in the world.  Go to a government class on terrorism, and it&#039;s taught or put together by an Israeli.  The truth that has been revealed for all to see that has also been released for any and everybody to read is that Hussein duped each and every one of his generals (even in regard to each other) because A) he was afraid of Iran, and B) he knew they were being paid well by agencies such as MI-6 and Mossad and figured bluffing about WMD would keep the world off his back. Truly, if the administration deliberately manipulated information to that extent, don&#039;t you think they would have planted WMDs, or even made an issue out of spent chemical ordnance that has been recovered?!

Should we have gone to war with Iraq?  No.  Read the 9/11 report.  Even saying Iraq had minimal involvement is an exaggeration.  Terrorists/insurgents/etc. aren&#039;t good for dictatorships.  It&#039;s certainly possible and some intelligence has suggested he allowed training in his country, but if that&#039;s the case we should have invaded Iran, Yemen, and even Saudi Arabia many times over by now.  Nevertheless, we&#039;re already there so arguing over whether or not we should have gone there in the first place is moot.

When we went to Iraq the first time, Bush Sr.&#039;s people told him if we stayed there we&#039;d have a lengthy insurgency to deal with.  For whatever reason Bush Jr. didn&#039;t follow that advice, and Congress/Senate were too lazy to call him out on the floor for it.  They&#039;re all at fault.

Be that as it may, the law of unintended consequences has helped us.  Al Qaida decided to make Iraq a new front, so suddenly Iraq HAS become a front on the war on terror.  McCain wasn&#039;t smart enough to realize we shouldn&#039;t have invaded Iraq, but Obama&#039;s not smart enough to realize how important a front on terror it&#039;s become.  I know this isn&#039;t exactly the congress/war thing, but when people want to call Bush/Cheney war criminals I find it usually arises from a misunderstanding of the facts.  Surely oil plays a role, it&#039;s not like we&#039;ve lifted a finger in regard to all the other rogue nations out there who are a much bigger threat.  Again, though, suddenly everybody realizes how much of a national safety issue oil can be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(hand raised) Can I make a quick point?</p>
<p>Our intelligence-gathering in the Middle East for years has been horrible.  Jimmy Carter didn&#8217;t believe in foreign surveillance of any kind at any level and cut accordingly.  All Reagan cared about was the Russians so he didn&#8217;t bother reinstituting any of it either.  We&#8217;re decades behind the curve on this one.  Our own intelligence used to justify the war was gathered under the Clinton administration, but the vast majority of our intel came from Mossad because the Israelis are better at it than anybody else in the world.  Go to a government class on terrorism, and it&#8217;s taught or put together by an Israeli.  The truth that has been revealed for all to see that has also been released for any and everybody to read is that Hussein duped each and every one of his generals (even in regard to each other) because A) he was afraid of Iran, and B) he knew they were being paid well by agencies such as MI-6 and Mossad and figured bluffing about WMD would keep the world off his back. Truly, if the administration deliberately manipulated information to that extent, don&#8217;t you think they would have planted WMDs, or even made an issue out of spent chemical ordnance that has been recovered?!</p>
<p>Should we have gone to war with Iraq?  No.  Read the 9/11 report.  Even saying Iraq had minimal involvement is an exaggeration.  Terrorists/insurgents/etc. aren&#8217;t good for dictatorships.  It&#8217;s certainly possible and some intelligence has suggested he allowed training in his country, but if that&#8217;s the case we should have invaded Iran, Yemen, and even Saudi Arabia many times over by now.  Nevertheless, we&#8217;re already there so arguing over whether or not we should have gone there in the first place is moot.</p>
<p>When we went to Iraq the first time, Bush Sr.&#8217;s people told him if we stayed there we&#8217;d have a lengthy insurgency to deal with.  For whatever reason Bush Jr. didn&#8217;t follow that advice, and Congress/Senate were too lazy to call him out on the floor for it.  They&#8217;re all at fault.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, the law of unintended consequences has helped us.  Al Qaida decided to make Iraq a new front, so suddenly Iraq HAS become a front on the war on terror.  McCain wasn&#8217;t smart enough to realize we shouldn&#8217;t have invaded Iraq, but Obama&#8217;s not smart enough to realize how important a front on terror it&#8217;s become.  I know this isn&#8217;t exactly the congress/war thing, but when people want to call Bush/Cheney war criminals I find it usually arises from a misunderstanding of the facts.  Surely oil plays a role, it&#8217;s not like we&#8217;ve lifted a finger in regard to all the other rogue nations out there who are a much bigger threat.  Again, though, suddenly everybody realizes how much of a national safety issue oil can be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Think Again</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13770</link>
		<dc:creator>Think Again</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13770</guid>
		<description>Then your point is fluid, 7th.  

Robert NW probably made everyone&#039;s point somewhere in that diatribe.  

So I&#039;m sure he made yours, too, somehow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Then your point is fluid, 7th.  </p>
<p>Robert NW probably made everyone&#8217;s point somewhere in that diatribe.  </p>
<p>So I&#8217;m sure he made yours, too, somehow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 7th District Voter</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13767</link>
		<dc:creator>7th District Voter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13767</guid>
		<description>Think Again

Exactly without writing a book, Robert NW did and he has made my point for me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think Again</p>
<p>Exactly without writing a book, Robert NW did and he has made my point for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert-NW SIde</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13763</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert-NW SIde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:41:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13763</guid>
		<description>TA is correct - Congress didn&#039;t declare war.
-
THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!
-
Congress has abdicated their authority since WWII.
-
Indeed, Chairman Henry Hyde called our Constitution &#039;anachronistic&#039;.  Here was a man who swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution; and he called it &#039;anachronistic&#039;.
-
Ron Paul warned Congress that they were -- ONCE AGAIN -- violating our Constitution.
-
Once again, Ron Paul was ignored.
-
From Wikipedia: In response to Rep. Ron Paul&#039;s resolution requesting a formal declaration of war, Hyde stated: &quot;There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. ... Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn&#039;t done anymore.&quot;
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde
-
Following is the amendment that Ron Paul provided during the Iraqi Resolution debate -- which was of course voted down:
-
&quot;That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.&quot;
-
Here is a link to the debates:
-
http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/MiscDocs/HouseIRTranscript10-03-02.pdf
-
Hyde&#039;s BS tirade begins on page 131 of the document:
-
It is fascinating to go back in history and see how our Constitution
was drafted and what it means. There are things in the Constitution
that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration
of war is one. Letters of mark and reprisal are others. There are
things no longer relevant to a modern society.
The problem with a declaration of war is that is a formal step
taken by a nation. And when you do that, you kick in other laws.
Enemy aliens—people suddenly become who are of German extraction
or Saudi extraction, depending on whom you are declaring war
against, suddenly become enemy aliens. Trading with the enemy, they are your enemy.
Most importantly and psychologically, if you declare war, if we
had declared war on Vietnam, China would have had to declare
war on us, and then the Soviet Union, not to be outdone fraternally,
would have had to declare war on us. And you start a chain
of events. That is the last thing you want to do. You want to isolate
these conflicts. You don’t want them to metastasize.
Declaration of war metastasizes conflict.
Insurance policies are invalidated in time of war. There are so
many consequences, criminal statutes. So there are laws affecting
military personnel in time of war and in time of peace.
Now, the Congress always has the last word in war and peace
because we control the purse strings. We could introduce a bill and
rush it through that would say no funds appropriated herein may
be used to pay for an expedition to France or to the Caribbean.
Congress always has the last word because we control the purse
strings. But now this resolution we are dealing with today does not
declare war. It does not approach war. War may never happen. If
we mean what we say and we say what we mean and we have a
reasonably tough posture, we may avoid war.
Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President,
use your judgment. We know you have tried to have inspections
work. We have tried the U.N., they have been made a fool of
for 11 years now. The League of Nations was muscular compared
to the U.N. That is the situation we are in now.
So to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to
death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not
called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore because
it has the effect of pyramiding when what you want to do is
to isolate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TA is correct &#8211; Congress didn&#8217;t declare war.<br />
-<br />
THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!<br />
-<br />
Congress has abdicated their authority since WWII.<br />
-<br />
Indeed, Chairman Henry Hyde called our Constitution &#8216;anachronistic&#8217;.  Here was a man who swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution; and he called it &#8216;anachronistic&#8217;.<br />
-<br />
Ron Paul warned Congress that they were &#8212; ONCE AGAIN &#8212; violating our Constitution.<br />
-<br />
Once again, Ron Paul was ignored.<br />
-<br />
From Wikipedia: In response to Rep. Ron Paul&#8217;s resolution requesting a formal declaration of war, Hyde stated: &#8220;There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. &#8230; Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn&#8217;t done anymore.&#8221;<br />
-<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde</a><br />
-<br />
Following is the amendment that Ron Paul provided during the Iraqi Resolution debate &#8212; which was of course voted down:<br />
-<br />
&#8220;That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.&#8221;<br />
-<br />
Here is a link to the debates:<br />
-<br />
<a href="http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/MiscDocs/HouseIRTranscript10-03-02.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/MiscDocs/HouseIRTranscript10-03-02.pdf</a><br />
-<br />
Hyde&#8217;s BS tirade begins on page 131 of the document:<br />
-<br />
It is fascinating to go back in history and see how our Constitution<br />
was drafted and what it means. There are things in the Constitution<br />
that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration<br />
of war is one. Letters of mark and reprisal are others. There are<br />
things no longer relevant to a modern society.<br />
The problem with a declaration of war is that is a formal step<br />
taken by a nation. And when you do that, you kick in other laws.<br />
Enemy aliens—people suddenly become who are of German extraction<br />
or Saudi extraction, depending on whom you are declaring war<br />
against, suddenly become enemy aliens. Trading with the enemy, they are your enemy.<br />
Most importantly and psychologically, if you declare war, if we<br />
had declared war on Vietnam, China would have had to declare<br />
war on us, and then the Soviet Union, not to be outdone fraternally,<br />
would have had to declare war on us. And you start a chain<br />
of events. That is the last thing you want to do. You want to isolate<br />
these conflicts. You don’t want them to metastasize.<br />
Declaration of war metastasizes conflict.<br />
Insurance policies are invalidated in time of war. There are so<br />
many consequences, criminal statutes. So there are laws affecting<br />
military personnel in time of war and in time of peace.<br />
Now, the Congress always has the last word in war and peace<br />
because we control the purse strings. We could introduce a bill and<br />
rush it through that would say no funds appropriated herein may<br />
be used to pay for an expedition to France or to the Caribbean.<br />
Congress always has the last word because we control the purse<br />
strings. But now this resolution we are dealing with today does not<br />
declare war. It does not approach war. War may never happen. If<br />
we mean what we say and we say what we mean and we have a<br />
reasonably tough posture, we may avoid war.<br />
Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President,<br />
use your judgment. We know you have tried to have inspections<br />
work. We have tried the U.N., they have been made a fool of<br />
for 11 years now. The League of Nations was muscular compared<br />
to the U.N. That is the situation we are in now.<br />
So to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to<br />
death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not<br />
called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore because<br />
it has the effect of pyramiding when what you want to do is<br />
to isolate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Think Again</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13760</link>
		<dc:creator>Think Again</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:03:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13760</guid>
		<description>7th District Voter, please re-read: Article I, Sec. VII, of the Constitution, regarding the Congress&#039;s sole power to declare war.

Then, read the Iraqi Resolution.

The Resolution was introduced at Bush&#039;s request, drafted by the White House, and sent to friendly MCs. The testosterone-driven Iraqi invasion was designed on grossly-inflated NIEs (National Intellegence Estimates) and at no time did it involve a threat to America or Americans.

Congress didn&#039;t have the guts to tel Bush what they should&#039;ve: if you bring trumped-up nonsense to us again, we may impeach you.

The information given to them isn&#039;t the problem, 7thDV--it&#039;s the action they took, which may have been many things, but it was not a Declaration of War.

You really oughta think before you type.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>7th District Voter, please re-read: Article I, Sec. VII, of the Constitution, regarding the Congress&#8217;s sole power to declare war.</p>
<p>Then, read the Iraqi Resolution.</p>
<p>The Resolution was introduced at Bush&#8217;s request, drafted by the White House, and sent to friendly MCs. The testosterone-driven Iraqi invasion was designed on grossly-inflated NIEs (National Intellegence Estimates) and at no time did it involve a threat to America or Americans.</p>
<p>Congress didn&#8217;t have the guts to tel Bush what they should&#8217;ve: if you bring trumped-up nonsense to us again, we may impeach you.</p>
<p>The information given to them isn&#8217;t the problem, 7thDV&#8211;it&#8217;s the action they took, which may have been many things, but it was not a Declaration of War.</p>
<p>You really oughta think before you type.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 7th District Voter</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13743</link>
		<dc:creator>7th District Voter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13743</guid>
		<description>Think Again

I know the contents of our Constitution.  Congress was advised and received the same report and information the President received from the CIA director and other officials. 

Are you trying to tell me our lazy Congress did not do their own homework before they voted with their power; 435 members of the House and 100 members in the Senate could not verify the informatiom with the military&#039;s Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, Secret Service, FBI or somebody? 

Wrong, after they voted, the Democrats used the Iraq War against President Bush and the Republican Party to win more congressional seats in 2006, purely political, and they assumed no responsibilty for their participation in the decision. To, date, they continue to do so for political gains. Didn&#039;t those dummies know in advance there would be casualties in war? Are was this a setup?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think Again</p>
<p>I know the contents of our Constitution.  Congress was advised and received the same report and information the President received from the CIA director and other officials. </p>
<p>Are you trying to tell me our lazy Congress did not do their own homework before they voted with their power; 435 members of the House and 100 members in the Senate could not verify the informatiom with the military&#8217;s Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, Secret Service, FBI or somebody? </p>
<p>Wrong, after they voted, the Democrats used the Iraq War against President Bush and the Republican Party to win more congressional seats in 2006, purely political, and they assumed no responsibilty for their participation in the decision. To, date, they continue to do so for political gains. Didn&#8217;t those dummies know in advance there would be casualties in war? Are was this a setup?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Think Again</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13731</link>
		<dc:creator>Think Again</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:47:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13731</guid>
		<description>7thDistrict: I have, extensively.  It also says only Congress can declare war.  Check the Iraqi resolutions: very carefully worded.

In the fevered rush to get int Iraq, and exact revenge for 9/11, Bush brainwashed an entire nation.  We were led to believe the WMD were placed in Iraq by the same folks who bombed the Pentagon and World Trace Center.  

Now, we know that was a lie.

So, in essence, Bush used misleading information, or was misled himself.

The Constitution is a tricky thing--if you&#039;re going to quote it, ya gotta know the whole document.  And something about the context and history of its authors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>7thDistrict: I have, extensively.  It also says only Congress can declare war.  Check the Iraqi resolutions: very carefully worded.</p>
<p>In the fevered rush to get int Iraq, and exact revenge for 9/11, Bush brainwashed an entire nation.  We were led to believe the WMD were placed in Iraq by the same folks who bombed the Pentagon and World Trace Center.  </p>
<p>Now, we know that was a lie.</p>
<p>So, in essence, Bush used misleading information, or was misled himself.</p>
<p>The Constitution is a tricky thing&#8211;if you&#8217;re going to quote it, ya gotta know the whole document.  And something about the context and history of its authors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 7th District Voter</title>
		<link>http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/08/herstory_in_the_making.html/comment-page-1#comment-13726</link>
		<dc:creator>7th District Voter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:27:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=1375#comment-13726</guid>
		<description>Think Again should study the U.S. Constitution Article I: Sections 7, 8. The Powers and Qualifications of the House and Senate Members. Article II: Powers and Qualifications of the President and Vice President, or maybe review a copy of the entire document, I have.

Democrats have failed repeatedly to acknowledge their role and  responsibility for the bills they have passed during the past two years under a majority control, and previous votes to declare war, also voted for the budget to fund the war in Iraq. 

Americans were warned by presidential candidate Ross Perot regarding the long term effects of NAFTA.  Yet, President Clinton signed the NAFTA Agreement into law near the end of his second term in office and jobs went south of the border and out of the country. Neither the Democrats nor labor unions continue to blame Clinton for the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, they blame President Bush. The full impact of NAFTA manifested under the Bush administration with a failing economy.

The President [Bush] can only sign into law bills passed by Congress or file his objections to bills and send bills back to the House and the Senate for revision. To over ride his veto, a 2/3 vote from Congress is required for the bill to pass, and then sent back to the President for his signature before it becomes law. Yet, the Dems would have Americans think President Bush acted alone.  

Only uneducated or illiterate citizens believe the propaganda circulated by the Democrats. Reasons President Bush was elected for a second term. Study the Constitution stupid and quit repeating the dumb stuff!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think Again should study the U.S. Constitution Article I: Sections 7, 8. The Powers and Qualifications of the House and Senate Members. Article II: Powers and Qualifications of the President and Vice President, or maybe review a copy of the entire document, I have.</p>
<p>Democrats have failed repeatedly to acknowledge their role and  responsibility for the bills they have passed during the past two years under a majority control, and previous votes to declare war, also voted for the budget to fund the war in Iraq. </p>
<p>Americans were warned by presidential candidate Ross Perot regarding the long term effects of NAFTA.  Yet, President Clinton signed the NAFTA Agreement into law near the end of his second term in office and jobs went south of the border and out of the country. Neither the Democrats nor labor unions continue to blame Clinton for the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, they blame President Bush. The full impact of NAFTA manifested under the Bush administration with a failing economy.</p>
<p>The President [Bush] can only sign into law bills passed by Congress or file his objections to bills and send bills back to the House and the Senate for revision. To over ride his veto, a 2/3 vote from Congress is required for the bill to pass, and then sent back to the President for his signature before it becomes law. Yet, the Dems would have Americans think President Bush acted alone.  </p>
<p>Only uneducated or illiterate citizens believe the propaganda circulated by the Democrats. Reasons President Bush was elected for a second term. Study the Constitution stupid and quit repeating the dumb stuff!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

