Simple Man Politics

Well I was going to write some about the Republican Party effort to reinvent themselves and their intention to appeal to more independent, conservative democrat, and moderate Republican voters. However in recent hours leading up to the drafting of this blog post there has been an important piece of news out of the US Supreme Court. It appears that US Supreme Court Justice David Souter is due to retire from the bench in June after completing the courts business for the summer.

The information about Souter’s retirement has come to the public by means of a source inside the Supreme Court who asked to remain anonymous because the source was not authorized to speak for Justice Souter. As of yesterday evening Justice Souter had not released any statements either confirming or denying his potential retirement. It should be known though that for sometime Justice Souter has longed to return to New Hampshire and a life outside of Washington D.C.


There were many people who actually thought that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg would be the first to go especially after her fight with pancreatic cancer and the chemo that she undergoes regularly. However she has consistently stated that she plans to serve on the bench in the US Supreme Court until well into her 80’s. Justice Souter however is just 69 years of age with 19 years on the bench.

While this will be Obamas first Supreme Court appointment if Justice Souter does indeed retire it will not give the Obama administration any distinct advantage in the high court either politically or ideologically since Justice Souter is known to be one of three liberal justices that currently sit on the Supreme Court. What this means is that Obama would be replacing a sitting liberal justice with a justice of like mind.

Obamas advantage in getting his Supreme Court justice nominee confirmed is his party’s absolute power in the lower house of congress and his near filibuster proof majority in the upper house of the Senate. However there are still enough of Obamas detractors on the hill to make this potential appointment both painful and time consuming before there is a confirmed justice appointment to the Supreme Court. So what ever the outcome the status quo will remain unchanged at least for now.

That is all I have for you guys today but I will be back again next week. I hope you all have a superb weekend and CIAO4NOW!!!!!

Finally someone is going to get to see “Hillary: The Movie”, but unfortunately it is not because it has been released for public viewing, it is because it is at the center of a Supreme Court case regarding the governmental regulation of a political film as a campaign ad. The decision in this case might well determine how people can make movies and educate the people about them.

David Bossie who is a former congressional aide produced the Clinton movie as well as another film titled “Obama: The Hype Effect”. David Bossie ran into legal problems regarding both of these films because he wanted to release them during Hillary’s run for the White House and in Obama’s case during his general election campaign against John McCain. Bossie says that both of these films are about important moments in American politics, but do not tell people not to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

“Hillary: The Movie” was originally shown in eight theaters, and Bossie’s group also wanted to run ads on television and as well as show the movie on cable TV’s video-on-demand in key election states at the height of the primary season. Unfortunately federal courts cited the McCain Feingold law saying that Bossie’s ads would violate that law.

The judges went on to say that the movie was a 90 minute attack ad ruling that if the ads appeared on TV Citizens United would have to identify its financial backers and if the movie appeared on cable television not only would Citizens United have to name it’s financial backers, but they would also have to pay the costs to air the film.

This of course prompted Citizens United to appeal to the SCOTUS arguing that their film is not a political ad, but rather a documentary style film comparable to those shown by “Frontline”, “Nova”, and “60 Minutes.” Theodore Olson who represents Citizens United stated that while “Hillary” does present a critical assessment of Clinton’s political background it does not convert the movie into an appeal to vote against Senator Clinton.

Michael Moore the filmmaker who was responsible for the controversial film “Fahrenheit 9/11” also ran into problems when he tried to air his film criticizing President Bush during the run up to the Presidential election in 2004. The people responsible for throwing up the road block that stopped Moore from airing the film was none other than Citizens United. David Bossie went on to say that Moore’s recognition of the power of documentary film is what inspired him to make this film.

Forget for the moment that this movie is nothing more than political entertainment. From what I have been able to gather it also hits the viewer very hard with the truth about Hillary Clinton and one of those truths is that she is a very dangerous, ruthless, and evil political player. She is also a politically motivated creature that just like her husband Bill Clinton craves the power that comes along with being President.

She has lied over and over to the American people on everything from Whitewater to the White House travel issue. She will say whatever she has to at the moment and hope we will forget that she said it later, and that is the truth. She is certainly one of the most liberal figures in the Democratic Party and next to Obama and almost as much a socialist as well. She is the perfect political chameleon, because you never know who she is going to turn into next.

Today is the day that the SCOTUS hears the case and I really hope that the Supreme Court treads lightly when considering this case from both sides. Not only is the infringement of free speech at risk here, but so is freedom of the press and our own right to pursue certain forms of entertainment as our pursuit of happiness all of which are guaranteed us by the Constitution.

With other films currently out there like “W”, “Fahrenheit 9/11”, “Frost Nixon”, and “An American Carol” Who has the right to say this is not politically motivated entertainment or to censor it for that matter. Is there anyone out there who knows better than you what forms of entertainment you enjoy, whether it is books, music, magazines, or movies? I don’t think so, because I know exactly what I like to watch, read, or listen to better than anyone else does.

I hope you all have enjoyed this post and the video I am including with it. Remember silencing David Bossie’s voice is the prelude to the government silencing all of us especially those of us who disagree with them. Have a terrific Tuesday, CIAO4NOW!!!!!

Citizens United: http://www.citizensunited.org

Hillary: The Movie: http://www.hillarythemovie.com

Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov

I’m back and ready to jump right in today, how about you? Today’s subject is going to be about Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and its infamous guests. I have had some feedback from people who want me to discuss this topic, so I picked today for it. So let’s not waste anymore time and jump right in…we're burning daylight.

First, a little history on the naval base at Guantanamo because some of it applies to the topic we are going to discuss. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is the oldest military base outside of the United States and inside a country where we have no diplomatic relationship with the host country. The lease was set up in the wake of the 1898 Spanish-American war, established in the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, and its terms were modified in the 1934 Treaty of Relations. The current Cuban government considers the US presence there to be illegal, although the current government did cash one of the rent checks from the US after they came to power. The rest of the checks remain in a drawer in Fidel Castro’s office. The US government considers this a validation of the lease which also states that the lease can only be broken by mutual agreement of both governments.

Since 2002 there has been a military prison at the naval base (Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp). There were four detention camps here known as Camp Delta, Camp Echo, Camp Iguana, and the now closed Camp X-Ray. It is here that the enemy combatants (detainees) that have been captured in our war on terror are being held. They are being held here because it is not on US soil, but Cuban soil, and would not result in having to accord them the same rights as US citizens, or to give them the Geneva Convention rights accorded to legal combatants (uniformed soldiers of a recognized government), since they are illegal enemy combatants of a terrorist organization, and to guarantee the safety of American citizens by keeping them out of the United States. This was to be the location where any useful intelligence could be extracted from these individuals to be used in the war on terror. This ability has since been severely damaged by the US Supreme Court in its decision. (BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL)

Both of our Presidential Candidates have very different points of view on the Supreme Courts' decision, although they both agree that the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camps should be closed. For more on their views there is a side by side comparison that you can read to see where they stand on Gitmo, and the detainees.

Now personally I side with the Bush administration on this one. If you’re an Al Qaeda, or Taliban bad guy you don’t deserve the same rights given to US citizens, as well as any of the rights under the Geneva Convention given to uniformed soldiers of a recognized government. As for water boarding, or what ever other method they chose to extract information from these and other members of these terrorist organizations I could care less because their sworn mission in life is to kill as many of us as possible before they meet Allah and get their seventy virgins, and for the record I realize these scumbags don’t speak for the vast majority of Muslims who practice the faith, and have condemned these animals actions. As for the US Supreme Court they should be ashamed for the decision they made and it is evident to me that the next appointee to the US Supreme Court is extremely important so that we don’t suffer any more injustice at their hands. That appointee should be a strict constitutionalist, as well as a conservative.

That is all I have to say for now, and I hope you all have found this very informative, regardless of how you feel about my personal views on this subject. Like I always say, all I can do is give you the facts, but you still have to decide for yourself. That’s just good simple politics for me. Have a great day, and I will see you all on Wednesday, CIAO4NOW!!!!!