Free Republic

Like the rest of us whose love ones had died in war, this makes people in the press like me really angry. Aside from writing down this editorial I can do no more that could end up regrettable than as a matter of free speech say rightfully to anyone of them … what a jerk! Shame on you!

We cannot think like how Skinheads think, and act like what Supremacists do, putting this country to shame. They killed Joseph Ileto, a postal immigrant worker who supported his family in the hard struggle to one day realize their American Dream, to serve notice to the world that immigrants should stop coming to this country and “steal” their jobs.

Their legal ding-a-ling is that those accused of committing “war crimes” must be persecuted – I mean prosecuted and if found guilty must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Since “war crimes” are high crimes punishable by death, the ultimate punishment is usually hanging by the neck until dead.

It is a macabre way of putting a hangman’s noose around their neck.

They have committed “war crimes” according to Obama’s legal hatchet men. The main target was former president George W. Bush. But based on the legal criterion they are using to identify what a war criminal is, the hunt goes beyond Bush.

To A.A.C.

If you studied Literature which include poetry and prose among other things as well as editorial writing in Development Journalism -- all offerings of knowledge in the academe -- you will find the answers to your questions.

The first thing you will know is that writing style is like a fingerprint that only identifies a particular writer.

The second thing you will know is that Shakespeare is a famous violators of the rules of grammar.

By the way, in the school of literary discipline where I have taught writers to become journalists, you will learn which rules of grammar can be at play. The grammar you have learned in school, may be identifiable from others. For instance, if you can apply the rules of grammar used in creating/writing the greatest literature in the world -- the Holy Bible -- you will know that the language and syntax are stilted and unwieldy in structure, lacking in clarity ... your own words. Boris Pasternak, one of Russia's great litterateurs has this identifiable style.

If you are a writer, I bit you have your own fingerprint in writing. The Holy Bible can only be written with such a peculiar style. You do not read the Bible and understand it, like the way you do a news report in The Washington Post. I have my own style too. Different styles in editorial writings, more so in Development Journalism, can win you awards, like I have received in more than 45 years of writings. It depends on how unique it is when it drives home a point from out of the thoughts you wish to convey. If like Shakespeare you have to violate conventional grammar in doing it, don't hesitate to do it before you lost that thought in lingual niceties. If you can move your readers that way, then you have a great potential.

Cheers!

Would the editorial staff please answer this question?

When Obama’s legal hatchet men and the Pelosi leadership in Congress want to investigate former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, it is more perceived as a political vendetta rather than a real probe of alleged “crimes” committed against humanity. There is this legal maxim that any violation of law must be prosecuted, which makes a good excuse for running after them. But in the disquieted mind of majority of Americans, it is a political witch hunt that is not only counterproductive but dangerous. Since our homeland security and intelligence officers not to speak of the entire U.S. Armed Forces willfully participated in committing those alleged “war crimes” under their Commander-In-Chief, they too must be investigated and if found guilty hanged by the neck until dead, for in the mind of the Obama cult, it is the law that must applied. Does this make sense?

Thanks for this nice frame of our outgoing president who secured us from terror. His legacy -- he saw to it that you and I are not six feet below the ground as of today -- is proof of the defeat of Al Qaeda since 9/11.

But from today up to the next four years now that Bush is no longer there to protect Americans from terror, let us pray. May there will be no dirty bombs that come our way and if there are, may the force from above be with you, and keep you from harm's way.

History should be kinder to President George W. Bush. But to his enemies he is not real. He is a caricature of the imagination … a wisp of a dream about to evaporate from a very unpopular presidency and be free of his own political demon.

From season_bug to dirtboy:

You said: Please show where a president, during your career, even filed a libel suit. I say to you: No way if you cannot show a "threshold" you said you have in a Supreme Court decision where a president of the United States was defamed but the case was dismissed because the S.CT had decided as you claimed that the libelous statements did not pass the standard or "threshold" that you knew exists.. Besides, where did you get the idea that a U.S. president has filed a case of defamation against a revolutionary leftist writer and a radical publication that published with malice those false derogatory statements against the private person of the president? It is not in the editorial I wrote to which you directed your comment. I don’t know where did this come from!

You said: I'm up against a legend in his own mind. THAT is clear. [underscored]. I say to you: If you only know ... you are indeed against a legend, period. For, what if this “legend” you messed up with appears in the Internet to countless audiences; had rubbed elbows with the world's dignitaries and royalties [Kings and Princes, if you may]; had debated with the best minds representing different countries in the international forums, aside from writing a truckload of published dissertations in the academe, a consistent recipient of excellence awards in journalism, etc. ... would that not disabuse your mind of cynicism and jolt you to reality as to who you are dealing with? Websites competed to publish this “legend”. I will give you just one sample so as not to tire you down out of curiosity – please go to http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com and scroll down to “Columnists” and meet him there. There are still more than a dozen of these websites in the Internet.

You need to know if you must, who you are jousting with. As of now, I expect a two-way learning process. Unfortunately, it only flows one way to you. I appreciate the fact that at this point even though it is late you began to know the “legendary figure” [to borrow your cynical cliché] you are parlaying with [modesty aside when to blow a horn is absolutely necessary] and that thank heavens this is now "clear" to you.

You said: Instead of claiming, why don't you show precedent where you can have standing to file a libel suit on behalf of a third party without their consent. I say to you: This is the craziest thing a layman or those pretending to be lawyers, would indulge themselves in. It was not only the private person of the one who was elected president that was injured -- do I have to repeat this to you over and over again? His wife was injured, and his children, grandchildren, relatives and friends were also damaged. Look and please listen carefully, when a lawyer files a case or cases for those who were defamed with malice, do you suppose that that lawyer can file or will file those cases without his client's/clients’consent? If you have gone to law school, that would be preposterous, don’t you think? No lawyer on earth will do that because the BAR won’t allow him/her to pass. I have already forewarned you what imprudence and little knowledge would make people think of you if you ignore this flawed thinking. But in a “class suit”, a lawyer does not go to a community of individuals to seek "consent" before going to court. This is just to enlighten you what "standing" in court means with regards to “consent” in litigation that you brought up. If you are a lawyer, do I need to explain this to you? If you are not, you are excused and I need to explain it to you because it is important that you should know.

You said: You keep asking me to prove negatives. You need to prove a positive. I say to you: You are now forgetting how this discussion started. I wrote an editorial piece, and against it you presented "negatives". This is how it begun when you started it, did you forget? Since you negated what I wrote, I asked you first to support your negative assertions against what I wrote. If you cannot support it, the honest thing to do is to refrain from negatively harping on what you cannot support. Let me give you an example as a reminder: You negatively asserted that the libelous statements of a leftist author that I have identified to you directed against the president’s persona that injured his private person, his wife, children and grandchildren, relatives, etc. cannot pass the THRESHOLD that you said you know, for libel. Where is that "threshold" that you claim to know? You got me interested in it and I am still waiting up to now. While waiting, you cannot ask anything further from me if in fact you cannot first support your NEGATIVE assertion against what I have written that was read by millions. It is unfair to anyone to give anything to a windblower for nothing. You started it, and you are obligated by decency to either support your negative assertions against my article and finish it or drop your intervention because you cannot support it. You have not been invited to give a negative assertion at all that cannot be supported. Only negative assertions that can be supported are invited. I do not need to explain to you the doctrine in journalism involving the right to criticize under our constitutional freedom of expression. You have invited yourself to a mess that the intervention you cannot support has created.

This is the longest response because this is the last explanation I can give to you. Sometimes there are those who have gotten used to live in their shady domain of knowledge for so long that they resent the light that intrudes into their darkest corner. You can say whatever you want to say after this either with grace or disgrace, but to me it is irrelevant, has no more meaning and no longer valid. We have made our points clear and there is nothing more to add.

Before I leave, please accept my apology if I have offended you in whatever way you think I did. It was not meant to be. I hope we can end those exchanges this way and remain as friends rather than as “enemies” that we have no cogent reason to justify we should be.

Cheers!

season_bug

To dirtboy: Yours: Once again, please show a successful libel suit by a sitting president. Mine: No way if you cannot show a "threshold" you said you have in a Supreme Court decision where a president of the United States was defamed in a case but was dismissed because it was found as you said that it did not go beyond the "threshold" you are talking about. You must listen carefully to what you are reading in this conversation. Don't continue anymore if you do not understand what you need to show to me to back up your claim. You are wasting my time.

Yours: Second, you have no idea whether AC pulled the article because of your threat of legal action.

Mine: I know ... do you? I sent them an ultimatum, and you read a caption of it. They backed out! How about you, did you know why they backed out after receiving a "warning"? If you think you know better than I do why the libelous lines were removed after they received a warning, show me. They "truncated" the article to escape a libel suit. You didn't read it well first before you made your original tall claim against what I have written and read by millions of readers.

Yours: If Third, you have no standing to file a libel suit in behalf of a third party without their consent. Mine: Wrong. You don't understand what you are against. Read the background one more time. You might know better and understand before you make this comment. And just to call attention to your rush judgment ... how did you know that "consent" was not given?

Yours: And fourth, as a poster noted in NY Times v. Sullivan, there is a higher threshhold for public figures. And fifth, political speech typically has a high level of legal protection. Mine: Did you know what the case NY Times v. Sullivan is all about? Ouch ...! Never mind. Just go back to the "threshold" that you claim you have which I have just described for you in the first paragraph so that you can understand it well and then show it to me. Then read again the dicta of the Sullivan case and tell me if there is even a shade of comparison with the "threshold" above-described that you are supposed to show to me, otherwise this legalistic discussion you brought up is just becoming more and more pretentious and itis wasting my time.

season_bug P.S. The spelling of "threshold" has just been corrected accordingly. Now show it to me as above-described.

To dirtboy from season_bug:

Yours: Still waiting for you to show where someone successfully torted a libel suit against a sitting president during your 35-year legal career.

Mine: You can't have it if you don't have a "threshhold" to show me which you claim you have. Repeat: If you are just imagining it, you will just be wasting my time.

season_bug

To dirtboy from season_bug: You must show first to me the "threshhod" handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court which you said was not crossed when you falsely accused the president in public of having a syphilis. You must support your contention first against my warning AC that drastic actions/measures may be taken if that libelous statement is not removed. AC understood it well, and it was removed. I don't think the left-leaning editorial staff has a poor IQ in heeding the warning and complied.

But you bravely claim that the defamation in question does not cross the "threshhold" for libel. What "threshhold"?

If you are just imagining this "threshhold" you are saying, then you will just be wasting my time.

So again, I return you to my previous posting:

To dirtboy from season_bug: Falsely accusing the president in public that he has syphilis is not crossing that threshhold? Do you know that it goes beyond his person and crossed the boundary line down to his family ... his wife, children and grandchildren, that they two were infected of syphilis that the president have. You mentioned "threshhold" not once but twice. What threshhod are you talking about? Show me a Supreme Court declared "threshhold" in defamation jurisprudence that you alone seem to know, and then show me a defamation case launched by an out of control radical offender that the president has a syphilis which you said does not cross that threshhold ... then I will thank you in advance for enriching my legal research and court files.

season_bug

To dirtboy from season_bug: You re-stated what I said, then posted a question, viz: Mine: You don't need to reply to this. Just be careful and discreet next time -- you may be treading on unfamiliar grounds!

Yours: Are you implying a threat with this statement? My response to you: Pls. calm down. I used to say this to my students who rushed themselves to diving into an empty swimming pool ... just switching on the light of knowledge.

With your exclamatory statement[?],I do not feel the way you do as if you are ready to punch in with a declaration of war! Threatening anyone is not within my vocabulary, although those with ill-will may interpret what I have just said as a prelude to World War III.

I would like to learn from you, but if you think this is war, then this is the last time you will hear from me. I have already gone too far in the academe, and I could no longer go back to or go down to this level. Thank you.

Yours truly,

season_bug

To pabianice from season_bug: "Pomegrantes" is an excellent piece. Thanks for posting it in support of the alarm I have posted "Popgun Leftist Revolutionaries On The Loose!" I recommend that the public should read this enlightening editorial.

season_bug

To dirtboy from season_bug: Falsely accusing the president in public that he has syphilis is not crossing that threshhold? Do you know that it goes beyond his person and crossed the boundary line down to his family ... his wife, children and grandchildren, that they two were infected of syphilis that the president have.

You mentioned "threshhold" not once but twice. What threshhod are you talking about? Show me a Supreme Court declared "threshhold" in defamation jurisprudence that you alone seem to know, and then show me a defamation case launched by an out of control radical offender that the president has a syphilis which you said does not cross that threshhold ... then I will thank you in advance for enriching my legal research and court files.

season_bug

To WilliamofCarmichae from season_bug: Let's help switch on the light so that those in the dark can see. You are absolutely right ... revolutionary radicals like Bill Ayers, his murderous wife and their copycats do not only murder the truth when they promote their ideology but also mass murder, destroy buildings ... in short, bomb us all to kingdom come! They would wipe out any government standing and kill the president if they can ... and what's so dangerously foolish about it is their upside down ideology which dictates that their right not only to defame the private person of the president of the United States and that of his family but also to injure them in anyway they can if they cannot kill them, is their God-given ABSOLUTE [!] right to do it because they believe the President is a public figure or an elected official ... a game in their ideological hunt for trophy! They do not only murder truth but also reality! See dirtboy's comment. As if his comment implies that he is Bill Ayers'lawyer who got this mass murderer off the hook ... as if to harm any public official's person and their family is all right because the right to do so is without any limitation! This mentality lives in the dark side of the great divide. We need to switch on the light, buddy ...

season_bug

To dirtboy from season_bug: Dirtboy,you want to know which is proof that you do not know. You ask me: Do you have any understanding of libel law as it pertains to public figures, and especially national politicians? My answer to you: Yes, I have two cases of defamation of this nature in 45 years of law practice. The right to criticize public official is not without limit. IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE [!] as what you seem to imply. If you are a lawyer worth your salt, you know this. Obviously, you are not [unless of course I do not know what kind of "lawyering" you are practicing -- specializing on "street revolutionary cases?]. You don't need to reply to this. Just be careful and discreet next time -- you may be treading on unfamiliar grounds!

season_bug

Radical Media is hyped about global warming. The Left murders the truth as usual and publications ran by leftists bury the truth they killed, and celebrate.

For instance, the lie being promoted is that global warming is not caused by Nature but man-made, arguing that population explosion will lead to the demise of this planet. They celebrate by asking funds from the government they hate, and more contributions from the public to finance their “crusade” to “save” the environment! They cry out loud: Too much carbon dioxide from human emissions and excretions!

There are only about six billion humans on the planet but there are over ten quintillion insects belonging to the phylum Arthropoda classified in that category by Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus and since 1735 have been crowding the planet. In a euphemistic way of putting it, this largest class of earth inhabitants in the animal world outnumbering all other animals, multiplies at such horrendous speed say, at 100 mph on the highway that in comparison the human birth rate is just like a car pulling out of the garage!

Like humans, this environmental menace “has an elaborate social structures too in which the various forms of activity necessary for the feeding, shelter, and reproduction of the colony are divided among individuals especially adapted for the various activities.” It has its peculiar way of devastating farms, tearing down homes and destroying the planet. And yet, is the Left complaining of “overcrowding”?

Their silence is a vulgar way of murdering the truth and the leftist Media enjoys in burying it! The Left went hammer and tong murdering Gov. Sarah Palin’s reputation when she ran for VP in the last election. The radical Media made a hell out of it.

A “nuisance Republican” candidate for president attacked Bush and the Republican administration in the last election… that 9/11 was not the fault of terrorists but of the American people for meddling in the Middle East. How can the Media made a feeding frenzy out of this Left’s outrageous badmouthing amounting to treason that the American people are “little Eichmanns” [Eichmann was Hitler’s gas chamber’s mass murderer in Holocaust], is mind-boggling! This infamy was exposed by a freelance journalist who was known to be politically neutral, and leftist supporters swarmed on him like insects tearing him down with unprintable names.

The leftist attacks on the persons of Pres. Bush and VP Cheney were brutal causing incalculable damage to their reputations and that of their respective families.

Leftist members of AC’s editorial staff were warned to remove personal attacks on Pres. Bush and VP Cheney that were utterly false, or else drastic measures would be taken against them. AC complied. http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/400/2/

Leftist radicals self-styling themselves as "liberal revolutionaries" want the Federal Reserve abolished because they think it is run by "thieves" -- bankers stealing the people's money! Those bucket kickers who learned their "economics" from the street hardly know the functions of central banks in the economy! Such stupid ignorance is calling for a revolution to change America and the government they hated deep down the marrow of their bones! The Republican Administration was seen as "the government" representing America that the radical Left condemned to the point of calling for a bloody revolution for a change. It helped socialist presidential candidate Barack Obama won the last election. Obviously, they want to send us back to the cave! They probably think Americans can live a simpler life similar to that of Robinson Crusoe. I think drastic re-education is critically needed to save this country. I contribute my share towards this required national endeavor by switching on the light of knowledge from the academe. Read full editorial at http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-Page.htm?InfoNo=042077