Monday, July 02, 2007

Spending someone else's money

2007 Legislature proves itself to be a friend of the arts
Whatever you want to say about the 2007 Legislature, it is a good friend of Oregon arts and culture, and it did the right thing.

Although it seemed like a squeaker -- some funding turned up in odd places and at odd times -- what came out was close to the $10.6 million Gov. Ted Kulongoski recommended for several programs advocates tied together as the CHAMP -- which stands for culture, heritage, arts, movies, preservation -- Reinvestment Package.

I don't know how much of a "friend" you are when all that was going on was the legislature giving away our money. How we have half a million dollars to "train artists" while we have a backlog at the state police crime lab is beyond me.

Maybe we could say that the legislature proved to be a "friend" of criminals whose DNA will not be proccessed.


Anonymous said...

how long could a jail be run with this money?The responsibilty of goverment is not to keep us in art!!

Robin said...

and don't forget about all those cities around Oregon who are cutting the "safety funds" because of the recent loss of federal funding.

OregonGuy said...

Oregon's First Lady, Mary Oberst, was running around Oregon attending art receptions while spending a week on food stamps.

She suffered. Lord, how she suffered.

It's hard to eat surplus cheese when feting at the public trough.

Anthony DeLucca said...

The State wastes my tax money to the tune of half a million schemolians, and then they have the balls to charge me three bucks to use a State Park?

Anonymous said...

The Associated Press: President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case ...

I look forward with breathless anticipation to the explosion of moral indignation from Daniel "rule of law" Miglavs.

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for Sandy Berger to start his prison term for what he did.

Jack Van Nostrand

Anonymous said...

Can't find a Cop then hire a flute player.

Oh yes, Scooter Libby went free because the little bugger wouldn't survive long in the joint.

To many Hemp Head Liberals in there that would want to have their way with him.

BEAR said...

Lefties, please read the U.S. Constitution, and stop blathering....sheesh.

Anonymous said...

Daniel Miglavs doesn't give a flying fuck about the rule of law. His selectivity in applying "rule of law" reveals him as a racist. No one needs to prove it. He proves it. Period.

Chris said...

Scooter lies to a special prosecutor and gets 2 1/2 years... Clinton lies to a special prosecutor and gets... NOTHING!

Rule of Law. Here we go again. He still pays $250,000 and 2 years probation. Child rapists in Vermont get off with less.

Anonymous said...

Libby's lies paved the way for an illegal war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. A $250,000 fine (which will probably be paid for by a check from Halliburton) and probation? Give me a fucking break.

Being impeached by the U.S. House is "nothing"? Give me another fucking break.

Anthony DeLucca said...

There is nothing Illegal about the President of the United States commuting a prison sentence. Presidents have done it throughout history. Pardons and Commutations are not illegal.

Stop bitching.

Anthony DeLucca said...

Here we go again with this "Illegal War" nonsense.

I've asked before, and nobody seems to have the nut-sack to answer the question:

How is the Iraq War Illegal? State your source.

Under whose law is the Iraq War Illegal? State your Source.

Is the United States subject to said law? State your source.

I'm still waiting.

Anonymous said...

Jose and Carlos

are panhandling at the freeway offramp.

Jose drives a Mercedes, lives in a mortgage-free house and has a lot of money to spend.

Carlos only brings in 2 to 3 dollars a day.

Carlos asks Jose how he can bring home a suitcase full of $10 bills every day.

Jose says, "Look at your sign, it reads: 'I have no work, a wife & 6 kids to support.'"

Carlos looks at Jose's sign.

Jose's sign reads: "I only need another $10 to move back to Mexico"

Anonymous said...

anon 9:22 your attempt at calling an outstand citizen like Daniel who is only trying to better life for CITIZENS, a racist only reveals the fact that your here only to talk shit and not bring any type of constructive comments or opinons. Please refrain from exposing your shortcomings in public. I mean unless what your going for it to make people believe your an ass.

Scott said...

Talkingoutmyass 3:14 PM

Where is your out rage about this.

Joseph A. Yasak N. D. Ill. 1988 Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a Grand Jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623

Jack L. Williams D. Dist. Col. 1998 Making false statements to federal agents (two counts), 18 U.S.C. § 1001

Jack Kenneth Watson D. Oregon 1985 Making false statements of material facts to the United States Forest Service, 18 U.S.C. § 1001

John Fife Symington, III D. Ariz. 1996 indictment; 1997 superseding indictment False statements to federally insured financial institutions, wire fraud, attempted extortion, and false statements in bankruptcy proceeding, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 1343, 1951, 152, 2(a) and 2(b)

Gerald Glen Rust E. D. Tex. 1991 False declarations before grand jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623

Jerri Ann Rust E. D. Tex. 1991 False declarations before grand jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623

Robert William Palmer E. D. Ark. 1995 Conspiracy to make false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 371

Verla Jean Allen W. D. Ark. 1990 False statements to agency of United States, 15 U.S.C. § 714m(a)

I'll give you one guess who Pardoned this batch of Liars

Anonymous said...


Fife Symington was. indeed, pardoned by Bill Clinton, but he was the REPUBLICAN Governor of Arizona.

dchamil said...

11:35 pm anonymous, I appreciate the humor since I'm an immigration restrictionist, but I haven't seen any Latinos begging at the freeway offramp, only Anglos.

Anonymous said...

From the Department of Justice rules for pardons and commutations:

Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.

Let's see, Libby hadn't begun serving his sentence, and is still appealing his conviction.

So much for the rule of law.

Anthony DeLucca said...

"Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding."

These are not laws you ding-bat, they are stipulations and rules that describe requests for commutations. Did Libby request a commutation? I don't know...and neither do you.

Anonymous said...

I'll respond to these:

How is the Iraq War Illegal? State your source.

Unprovoked wars of aggression are a violation of international law, which the U.S. has played a major role in crafting since WWII. It's a principle that dates back to the Nuremberg trials. The prosecutor who made the argument was an American.

Under whose law is the Iraq War Illegal? State your Source.

The same laws cited by the first George Bush when he argued that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an unprovoked war of aggresson.

Is the United States subject to said law? State your source.


Chris said...

The war in Iraq is not illegal... Saddam violated the first gulf war cease-fire agreement 17 times, so we had every right to go to war to remove him.

Anonymous said...

Nuremberg's chief prosecutor disagrees with you.

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial,
Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

OneWorld, August 25, 2006

A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars - Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.

Anthony DeLucca said...

a bunch of ranting, but no real source. All that you cited was "International Law".

Which international law? Is there a section and sub-section?

You stated that they are the "Same laws cited by the first George Bush when he argued that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an unprovoked war of aggresson."

THere is absolutely NO SIMILARITY between the two invasions. Just because a guy who was a prosecutor in Nuremburg 60 years ago disagrees, doesn't make it so. If I came up with a Nuremburg Chief Prosecutor that agrees with Bush's decision to invade, you'd blast him out of the water I'm sure. There were a bunch of "Chief Prosecutors" at Nuremberg. One guy's opinion isn't an argument or validation.

If this war was so illegal, and violated any sort of U.N. law governing international war crimes, don't you think that the obviously biased, and anti-Bush New York Times or MSNBC, or some other liberal rag would have it splashed accross the front page above the fold with the "Law" written out verbatim?

Again, do some research, and get back to me Skippy. I'm still not convinced. Not one iota.

BEAR said...

hey, anthony delucca.......SKIPPY! L.O.L.!!!

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to briefly send you a quick message to let you know about a rally we are planning in downtown Portland on the 4th of July. We will be meeting at 3PM at Pioneer Courthouse Square to protest Illegal Immigration and the governments refusal to do anything about it. I wanted to let you know so that if at all possible it can be mentioned to readers of your site, or sent out to anyone who might be interested. We don't really have a lot of money or a good way to get this information out to a large group of Americans, so anything will help us to get a solid group of supporters would be appreciated. Please let me know if you need any other information. We appreciate what you are doing and hope that it continues. You are an amazing American and you make us all very proud. Thanks again for you extremely hard work and dedication to preservation of our country. God Bless and Happy 4th of July!!!

Anonymous said...

Daniel Miglavs, an outstand(ing) citizen?

Daniel is not an "outstanding citizen". He is a felon drug dealer and gang-banger. His involvement with the 18th Street Gang in Salem, drug possession charges and felony gun possession is not anything to be hailed. But if you are a right-winger, hate the "brown" people, and were squeezed out yo mamas crack in a back alley toilet, you might think Daniel is such a "citizen".

BEAR said...

hey, anon 8:40, unlike you and kaelri, Mr. Daniel knows who his Father is.

bullshit police said...

Just because a guy who was a prosecutor in Nuremburg 60 years ago disagrees, doesn't make it so ...

Mr. DeLucca, I don't know you or what your background is, or what professional and academic credentials you have, but I think one can reasonably assume that Benjamin Ferenccz is more knowledgable on the subject of international law and war crimes than you are.

Skeptical in Dallas. said...

Iformation for "THE CRAZYORGONIAN"
the Organization For Immigration Reform (OFIR) and The minutemen organizations of both Washington and Oregon would probably be glad to help you out if more time was available.All three organizations have web sites and are deeply involved in immigration process and have lines of communications all ready established

Anonymous said...

So where was he when Daniel was dealing drugs to little kids and gangbanging? Yeah, yeah we know, probably giving $1 rimjobs down at the corner market.

Anonymous said...

I like how Bear just breezes over the Daniel's mama part heading right for his daddy. Is Bear Daniel's daddy?

Bear Hunter said...

Gee I hope "Bear" is Daniels Daddy so we can finally get some answers why they screwed up raising a racist, criminal deviant.

time to put up or shut up said...

Still no word from Daniel Miglavs on how "rule of law" applies (or whether it applies at all) to Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby.

Anthony DeLucca said...

Bullshit Police:

Benjamin Ferenccz was certainly an expert regarding international rules of engagement and aggression in the forties, and possibly into the fifties that's for sure. However (like I said before.....a dozen times or so) I still have no facts indicating that the war in Iraq violates international law. Yet I continually hear people spout off about the "Illegal" and "Immoral" war in Iraq.

The question is really really simple:

BY WHICH LAW IS IT ILLEGAL? All I am looking for is an answer, backed up with sources. That's all. I'm getting tired of hearing the same old tired responses. I'm done asking. It's like beating my head against the same rock every day.

The ball's in your court Junior.

R Huse said...

So some Nuremberg prosecutor has an issue with the Iraq war.

Wow, that's thrilling. The problem is Iraq is not Nuremberg so the relevance is a little shaky.

A former Nuremberg prosecutor thinking this or that doesn't make it so. If he actually was a prosecutor he would probably be the first to tell you that prosecutors do not render final judgment. Judges and juries do.

Unfortunately there is always that pesky judgment of the UN that Iraq was in material breech of its surrender, which does tend to undermine the whole "sovereign country" thing and the whole basis for claiming the war is illegal. Oh well.

So for Mr. BSPolice -

Please tell me in what case this prosecutor brought the Iraq war issue to trial and a verdict was rendered stating the war was illegal?

Failing that, please tell me what court, with any prosecutor, that has jurisdiction has rendered this guilty verdict, which would be necessary to claim the illegality of the Iraq war on any fact based basis?

Until then, opinions of former prosecutors are just that, opinions. Big whoop.

So much for the bullshit, and so much for "the bullshit police's" knowledge of policing.

R Huse said...

Scooter Libby - Gets sentence commuted for lying about not remembering mentioning the name of a person who is an irrelevancy. Wow, what a threat to our country. Im calling the National Guard, Bush is shredding the constitution. Oh Lawsie Me.

If you are on here yammering about how Libby should have gone to jail when you said nothing about Sandy Burger or William Jefferson, well, good luck to you. You have absolutely zero credibility and you probably know it. I mean come on, admit when you are being totally ridiculous, at least to yourselves, if you cant do so publicly.

Libby's crime was pretty much on par with showing up to school without a sharpened pencil. When the prosecutor knew Armitage had been the leaker, yet didn't tell anyone for months, and pursued the investigation, it became a fishing expedition. The Valerie Plame covert agent stuff? Get over it, she wasnt covert, just kind of foxy with a whiney ass husband. Thats it. Hard to see how this was much more than a Nifong like case of being overzealous.

Bobkatt said...

Prosecutors can just be wrong sometimes. I offer Michael Nifong (Duke athletes), Johnny Sutton (prosecuting border guards for doing their job), and Vincent Bugliosi (1600 pages explaining how Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK).

the bullshit police said...

Article VI of the Constitution states that treaties, which the United States has signed and ratified, are the "supreme law of the land." The UN Charter is one such a treaty, created in large part because of this country’s efforts in the aftermath of World War II.

The UN Security Council was not willing to grant authority to invade Iraq while the UN inspection team was handling weapons inspections peacefully. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq anyway, in contravention of the UN Security Council and the UN Charter. Without Security Council authorization, the invasion was illegal and therefore qualifies as a war of aggression.

I recommend reading the Nuremberg charter, the Geneva Convention, (particularly Protocol 1 Additional, adopted in 1977), the Charter of the United Nations (particularly Articles 2, 33, 39 and 51) and UN General Assembly Resolutions 3314, 2131 and 2141.

A final word on the credibility and authority of Mr. Ferenccz and his unambiguous statement that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a war crime.

Your argument, which basically boils down to, ‘that was a long time ago, so what does he know?’ is specious at best. It suggests a fundamental lack of respect for a former law enforcement official (whose word ought to carry some weight with self-proclaimed 'rule of law' advocates who frequent this blog) who was responsible for prosecuting nearly two dozen Nazi war criminals.

Mr. Ferenccz was not transported to the 21st century by virtue of stepping into a time machine in 1945, and thus blissfully unaware of everything that has transpired since. He was not commenting on Nazi Germany; his remarks were directed at the United States and its invasion of Iraq, which would seem to suggest that, his age notwithstanding, he’s been paying attention. His credibility is further enhanced by the fact that he expresses similar sentiments about Saddam Hussein, who was alive at the time he said it. In other words, he’s consistent.

I'll leave you with the words of Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was the chief U.S. prosecutor at the first Nuremberg trial. He calls the waging of aggressive war "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

For those who genuinely care about the rule of law, those are powerful words.

BEAR said...

I have an easy suggestion for the libs, and other bush-haters.....take your "ironclad evidence," plus an anti-American aclu shyster, walk into the White House, and arrest somebody. If you can't (or won't) do that, just shove it. Your pal clinton broke the law, got impeached, and forced Senator Byrd (on national television) to say, "Of course he's guilty, but we won't vote that way." Take your "rule of law" demands and shove them, too.....the stench of lefty hipocrisy follows your every word.

R Huse said...

Hey - Is that violins I hear playing for those who genuinely care about the rule of law? Why it is. Oh its so sweet and syrupy.

Give me a break. Clinton didn't get any UN authorization in Kosovo and you guys weren't yammering on about all this illegal war crap.

Look, its real simple, you guys don't care about the rule of law or anything of the sort. You are simply wild eyed partisans using this rule of law judgment at Nuremberg crap to try and sound all principled. Get over it, Foot stomping by left wing wackos does not a war criminal make. How you guys can drone on and think anyone believes you are at all principled after you said nothing when Clinton launched half our cruise missiles every time Monica testified is beyond me.

You don't care about the rule of law

You care about your party winning.

Get off your high horse, its just ridiculous when you have reached this level of absurd inconsistency.

bullshit police said...

I am not a member or supporter of the Republican or Democratic parties, I did not vote for Clinton (or Nader, for that matter) and he was not my pal, so take that flimsy-dick argument and shove it up your ass.

BEAR said...

Hey!! Lefty idiots!! I bet you can't WAIT to jump on the son-of-algore-busted-AGAIN-for-drugs (while drunk and speeding) bandwagon.....can we hear "rule of law?? You fools have a golden opportunity, here. Not holding my breath, 'cause I'm too busy laughing at you fools. You remember algore, don't you? Mr. "no controlling legal authority?" Where was your outrage, then?.....sheesh.

Anonymous said...

I'm too busy laughing ...

... like a raving lunatic. That much is obvious. You ought to take some time out from your "busy" schedule of laughing and try thinking for a change.

laughing lefty idiot said...

Mr. Bear, you seem to be saying that driving while intoxicated and speeding is worthy of outrage. Fair enough. I agree.

A question for you: Is a war that's resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, including several thousand Americans, also worthy of your outrage?

Either it is, or it isn't. God knows you've had enough time to think about it. So: Yes or no, please. In fact, I'll make it even easier for you:

A) Yes

B) No

I await your answer. Humor me and give me a straight one. Anything other than the selection of "A" or "B" will be taken as a "No."

BEAR said...

even though your facts are wrong, your philosophy anti-American, and your hipocrisy on display, the answer is "B." Your selective outrage in favor of islamo-putzes, and against non-muslims is not intellectually honest. I'm done with you fools. We're on our way to celebrate our nation's birthday, and give thanks to those willing to fight for our freedoms. Wish you could be there.

Anonymous said...

Whose selective outrage ... ?

Anthony DeLucca said...

Bullshit Police,

Thank you. Finally someone with the guts to do a little research. While I don't agree with your argument that since the UN Secretary General did not sanction the invasion, it is therefore illegal, I will give you kudos for at least doing a little research and having the guts to explain your point of view.

Having said that, I'm still not convinced. The specifics simply were not there. This was not a war of agression as outlined and defined by UN Charter. This was simply a cecasion of a previous cease fire, the terms of which were violated by Iraq no less than 17 times over a 13 year period. Since the US DID have UN Authorization for the original conflict in 1990, there was no need to seek additional approval in pursuing the engagement to a conclusion given the obvious and blatant disregard for the cease-fire conditions by Iraq.

Nice try though. (Bear in mind that although I am not a fan of how the Iraq situation is being handled by the current administration, I do believe that the right to invade was soley ours for the asking)

R Huse said...

The idea that Bullshit Police doesn't vote straight party line for the Democrats is just a little too hard to swallow. Talk about ridiculous.

Put it to you this way pal - you'd have a way better time not coming off as just a total partisan hack if you didn't constantly turn everything into an "I hate Bush" droning chant.

"WAAAAA, I didn't vote for Clinton or Nader" ....Dude, talk about weak, you are definitely slipping.

the bullshit police said...

Mr. DeLucca, we obviously disagree about the Iraq war, but I think something that you said needs to be highlighted: You said: "I do believe that the right to invade was soley ours for the asking."

Does this just apply to the United States, or to any country that "believes" that the the "right" to invade another country is theirs "for the asking"? If that's a principle you support, how would you reconcile that with Iran making the same claim on Israel?

Anthony DeLucca said...

Bullshit Police:

Read the entire text of my post.

My point was , that we were still at war with Iraq from 1990 until the second invasion in 2003. We were merely at a cease fire. We had the right to re-invade since the cease fire agreement had been violated over a thirteen year period.

Why must I always repeat myself and re-post the same shit simply because either you:

A) Aren't smart enough to read thouroughly what I post.


B) You are simply too far gone in your way of thinking (which seems to be that you're right and any other point of view is wrong that disagrees with you) to objectively look at another argument and simply see it as a differing opinion rather than a "wrong" opinion.

Trying to make a point with you idiots is like trying to nail jello to a tree......just ain't gonna possible.

I'm done debating's pointless attempting to have a logical discussion with an obvious mental patient.

bullshit police said...

Mr. DeLucca

As I was driving home a few minutes ago, I was thinking to myself that it was nice to have a civil conversation, for once, with someone on Daniel Miglavs' board.

So much for that.

You thanked me for doing research in responding to your question, so I think I am entitled to a direct and honest answer to one final question: Did you actually read any of the documents I called your attention to?

Anthony DeLucca said...

Bullshit Police,

Here's your problem in a nutshell:

You think that you're entitled to an answer.

R Huse said...

Nah - BS police just has a weak argument as there is simply no getting around the fact that Iraq did not live up to the terms of its surrender. Therefore they got re-invaded.

Unfortunately for Mr. BS, there is no argument to counter that and thus the endless throwing up of weird documents and Nuremberg experts as a diversion from that simple fact.

Iraq initiated a war. Iraq got its ass kicked in that war. Iraq surrendered and then promptly violated the terms of that surrender. The UN would not enforce punishment for those violations, we did. Iraq got its ass kicked again. We were idiots to ever turn it over to the UN in the first place as by its actions in this affair the UN is clearly ineffective. End of story.

the bullshit police said...

Mr. DeLucca: We are left with two possibilities:

1) Presenting yourself as genuinely curious and interested in having a serious conversation, you asked someone for information about what is certainly one of the most vital issues facing the American population ... and then, when presented with an abundance of information in good faith, you ignored it.

If this is the case, it means that you're a fraud, a hypocrite, disrespectful and a fool who has no business participating in a serious political discussion with anyone. (Conversations with Miglavs, Rhuse and Bear, of course, would not fall into this category.)

Also, the fact that you were unwilling to say whether you read the material suggests that you're also a coward.

2) You did read it and:

a) Still believe that the American invasion of Iraq is not a war of aggression, and,

b) Assume that I am unaware of the U.S.-Iraq war of 1990, of everything that has transpired since, and that the question I posed to you at 6:20 could and should not possibly be asked by someone who was aware of it.

If this is the case, Mr. Delucca, then you are not simply an idiot; you're a fucking idiot.