The more badly both al-Qaeda and al-Qaedaqrats want us to lose this War, the more extreme and desperate they become.
impeach overturn the election of our president and our Troops' commander in chief right in the middle of the World War we're fighting for our very nation's survival.
US Democrats raise prospect of Bush's impeachment over Iraq
30 April 2007
WASHINGTON - A top US congressional Democrat
I.e., top surrenderrat.
...has raised the possibility of George W. Bush's impeachment in a bid to force the president to accept a compromise that would place conditions on continued US military involvement in Iraq.
Murtha Murdertha-troops, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Defence and is close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Nanno-cerebrumcy PeLoseri, made the comment Sunday in response to repeated threats by the president to veto legislation that calls for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of next March.
Impeach him for not promptly wetting himself and surrendering to terrorists like
an easily scared little girl a top US congressional al-Qaedaqrat.
Masterstroke of political strategy!
'There's three ways or four ways to influence a president,' Murdertha-troops said on CBS's 'Face the Nation' program. 'One is popular opinion, the election, third is impeachment and fourth is the purse.'
Gleefully, the World Socialist Web Site likes his first one's prospects too:
A new ABC-Washington Post poll ["conducted by telephone April 12-15, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,141
adults American'ts, including an oversample of African-American['t]s"] found that 66 percent of the American['t] public now believes that the war was not worth fighting and that 51 percent — for the first time a majority — believes that the US will ultimately lose the war.
Unfortunately for top al-Qaeda, World Socialist, and Dhimm al'Qrat leadersbirm
, this and Murdertha's election-way influencer are both out since President Bush isn't running from our enemies or for another term in office. So is the purse one while the Peloseri/Murdertha al-Qongress tries to make cutting off our Troops' funds to fight this War so they'll have no real chance of winning it, sound less suicidally stupid and outright treasonous than it is. Besides, giving our country's enemy exactly what he wants is so plain unmanly the al-Qaedaqrats would be very shy about bringing up anything that'll force numerous mentions of the word "purse."
Asked specifically if Democrats, who now control the US Congress, were seriously contemplating the impeachment option, the congress"man" responded: 'What I'm saying, there's four ways to influence a president ... And one of them's impeachment.'
So if our wartime president doesn't sign your proposed Articles of Unconditional Surrender to al-Qaeda, you'll impeach him.
Some of the fiercest critics of President Bush have long charged he has illegally manipulated intelligence to accuse the Iraqi government of late president Saddam Hussein of secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, thereby creating a pretext for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Remember, Murdertha-troops and Harry "Lost" Reid both voted in favor of invading and toppling Saddam's
dictatorship Kite Flying Happyland if his international-outlaw regime didn't immediately and fully obey over twelve years' worth of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding he immediately and fully eliminate all his weapons of mass destruction programs. Immediately and fully didn't mean "until Hans Blix's inspection team's members all die of old age with nothing to show for their efforts but an 'In Saddam We Trusted' line engraved on each of their tombstones."
No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the invasion
- Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 - The 500 munitions [i.e., a "stockpile"] discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.
|Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.|
|– Sen. Hillary Qlinton, D-NY,|
February 5, 2003,
also voted in favor of
invading Saddam's KFH
- Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin, Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S. military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve agent.
- Powell Says Kay Report Confirms Iraq Defied U.N. Res. 1441
What Kay Found
By Colin L. Powell
[October 7, 2003]
The interim findings of David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group make two things abundantly clear: Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in material breach of its United Nations obligations before the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 last November, and Iraq went further into breach after the resolution was passed.
Kay's interim findings offer detailed evidence of Hussein's efforts to defy the international community to the last. The report describes a host of activities related to weapons of mass destruction that "should have been declared to the U.N." It reaffirms that Iraq's forbidden programs spanned more than two decades, involving thousands of people and billions of dollars.
What the world knew last November about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs was enough to justify the threat of serious consequences under Resolution 1441. What we now know as a result of David Kay's efforts confirms that Hussein had every intention of continuing his work on banned weapons despite the U.N. inspectors, and that we and our coalition partners were right to eliminate the danger that his regime posed to the world.
So, no, there were not "no" WMDs found in Iraq since the invasion.
Moreover, a top counterterrorism specialist and highly decorated federal agent, Paul "Dave" Gaubatz, says much of those weapons are presently in Syria:
- 'The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south', says Mr Gaubatz. 'They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them if they didn't excavate these sites, others would'.
That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learned from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria....
The Republicans won't touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won't touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.
[Intelligence Summit organiser John] Loftus goes further. Saddam's nuclear research, scientists and equipment, he says, have all been relocated to Syria, where US satellite intelligence confirms that uranium centrifuges are now operating — in a country which is not supposed to have any nuclear programme. There is now a nuclear axis, he says, between Iran, Syria and North Korea — with Russia and China helping build an Islamic bomb against the west. And of course, with assistance from American negligence.
'Apparently Saddam had the last laugh and donated his secret stockpile to benefit Iran's nuclear weapons programme. With a little technical advice from Beijing, Syria is now enriching the uranium, Iran is making the missiles, North Korea is testing the warheads, and the White House is hiding its head in the sand.'
Of course we don't know whether any of this is true. But given Dave Gaubatz's testimony, shouldn't someone be trying to find out? Or will we still be intoning 'there were no WMD in Iraq' when the Islamic bomb goes off?
In the word
of a top US blogressional Puppyvore: Indeed.
...but the White House has strongly denied the intelligence manipulation charge.
- CIA chief defends prewar intelligence
PLA Daily 2004-02-06
WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 (Xinhuanet) -- Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief George Tenet on Thursday defended the agency's prewar intelligence on Iraq, saying that the intelligence was not manipulated and "No one told us what to say or how to say it."
The only things being manipulated here are the recollections of the American people by an extremely desperate al-Qaedaqrat leadership and its maintreason-stream media colleagues, and the hair-trigger surrender impulses of al-Qaedaqrats by an extremely desperate al-Qaeda leadership and its international terrorist partners. Both sets of manipulators are furiously working to create limits and conditions that can only increasingly undermine and kill our Troops on the battlefield.
The impeachment threat is being dangled as the White House and congressional Democrats face a new showdown over Iraq policy in coming weeks.
A 124-billion-dollar war funding bill passed by the House of Representatives Wednesday and the Senate on Thursday established a non-binding target of completing a US combat troop pullout from Iraq by March 31, 2008.
Top Dhimmiqrats are resorting to the highly extreme measure of impeaching our Troops' commander in chief so America's terrorist enemies can make acceptance speeches at the 2008 Winners of the Year® ceremonies. The only ones really surprised by this inevitable development are the terrorists themselves who can hardly believe the incredible break on top of those top Dhimmiqrats consistently give them day after day in this World War.
The measure is expected to land on the president's desk on Tuesday, the fourth anniversary of his now much ridiculed 'Mission Accomplished' speech, in which he, standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier off the coast of California, declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq.
Al-Qaedaqrats taking advantage of every opportunity to politicize our war efforts for their own extremely partisan purposes. No surprise there either. Except, of course, among our country's bloodthirsty enemies who're busily practicing those "Allahu Akbars" for their acceptance speeches next year.
As promised, Bush will wield his veto pen, and Democrats acknowledge they lack the votes to override his decision.
But they have made it clear that while the withdrawal deadline will most likely be dropped, they still would like to come up with a bill that would place limits and conditions on future US operations in Iraq.
Extremely unconstitutional limits and conditions, that is. Not even al-Qongress's powers extend to executing a World War. There's a whole separate — you guessed it — executive branch in which are exclusively vested such powers under the United States constitution. Top congressional al-Qaedaqrats' self-interested partisan scheming, notwithstanding.
One of the proposals, according to Murdertha-troops, calls for making the continued US military presence in Iraq contingent on the Iraqi government meeting specific political benchmarks designed to stem violence.
They include showing progress in reaching power-sharing arrangement that would bolster the role of Sunnis in the Iraqi government, an agreement to equitable distribution of oil wealth, and a crackdown on militias.
Top congressional al-Qaedaqrats planning the conditions of our Troops' movements is an extreme example of egregious usurpation of presidential powers. Too bad we can't impeach them. We'd have an infinitely more solid case there.
Murdertha-troops also suggested limiting the life of a revised war-funding bill from one year to just two months to allow for an earlier congressional review of the situation.
'I'd like to look at this again in two months,' he said.
And the "Allahu Akbars" grow even louder at the very idea of such perpetual political manipulations, usurpations, and bickering in time of war.
But the administration was quick to shoot down the idea of any restrictions on White House Iraq policy.
'To begin now to tie our own hands and to say 'We must do this if they don't do that' doesn't allow us the flexibility and creativity that we need to move this forward,' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on the same show.
Who are you to say? It's not like our constitution gives your branch of government the sole power to execute our wars. I'll fact-check it for you...
Oh, that's right. It does.
She warned that benchmarks written into US law 'might give incentives to the wrong people'.
Namely, al-Qaeda, al-Qaedaqrats, and our country's other extremely ruthless enemies. All of whom could only see a golden opportunity to advance their plans to defeat our Troops' wartime commander in chief given the very limitations those "benchmarks" would impose on his powers to execute this World War towards any successful conclusion.
Then more top Al-Qaeda leaders and congressional al-Qaedaqratsbirm will have ever more reason to say we've lost the war.
Then again, what else would you expect either to be doing?
A veteran of the US Marine Corps, Murdertha-troops touched off a firestorm in Washington in November 2005 when he called for redeployment of US troops from Iraq.
To such "over the
horizon rainbow" places as Okinawa.
Top-notch military strategizing!
Meanwhile our Troops are still waiting on the battlefield for top al-qongressional al-Qaedaqrats to finally pass the funding our Armed Forces require and need to proceed with winning this World War for all of us.
Such as they're doing here:
U.S. says scores of Taliban killed near Herat
Monday, April 30, 2007; 1:51 AM
KABUL (Reuters) - U.S.-led coalition troops have killed scores of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan over the past several days, the coalition said on Monday.
Backed by air support, the Taliban were killed in two separate battles in the western province of Herat, it said in a statement.
Funny how this major battlefield victory is getting little more than similarly passing mention in the treason-stream media. Sure the dwindling number of surviving terrorists are laughing about the dearth of long and in-depth coverage as well.
Herat, near the border with Iran, has been relatively safe until recently, compared to the south and east, where the Taliban are most active. Both battles were in the Zerkoh valley, south of Shindand district, where foreign troops have a large base.
Uh, that's had a large base.
A total of 87 Taliban fighters were killed during a 14-hour engagement with U.S.-led troops and Afghan forces on Sunday in the valley, the coalition said.
Another 49 Taliban members, along with two of their leaders, were killed two days earlier after a group of Taliban fired at a joint coalition and Afghan patrol in another part of the valley, it added.
More successes like these and Harry slow-Bleed will start crying we're losing the war in Afghanistan, too.
The statement did not identify the Taliban leaders.
It said one U.S. soldier was killed, but did not say if there were any casualties among the Afghan forces.
Dearest Lord, please comfort the family and loved ones of this Your Angel of Freedom. Thank You for blessing our country with such men of whom we shall never, other than by Your merciful grace, be worthy.
And thank You for granting us and our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Guardsmen, and Marines such growing number of Middle Eastern brothers in battle.
There were no injuries among civilians, the statement said.
Sorry, al-Qaedaqrats and other anti-America haters.
The Taliban could not be contacted immediately for comment.
Try sending a text message to their mobile phones in Hell.
And still our Troops await their much needed funding....
Labels: aided and comforted enemies, al-Qaedaqratic Party, dinosaur media, surrender monkeys, treason, Troop Victories
Our president would do well to veto this Undermining and Sabotaging America's Defense Efforts by Fecklessly Emboldening Al'Qaeda Terrorists act of aid, comfort, and surrender to our country's enemies.
ur constitution doesn't empower any "Congress critters in Chief" of our Armed Forces. It says
- The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called [by Congress] into the actual Service of the United States.
Once Congress authorizes the president's (not Congress's) use of military force, it is the constitutional duty of the president alone to determine when and how best he should use them to achieve the purposes of that authorization. The Peloseri/Lost
-Troops al-Qeada Aid Package
, with its conditions and deadlines which place shackles on him fashioned to obstruct his exercise of that duty, is an unconstitutional attempt by al-Qongress to usurp the sole power of our president to make those determinations.
It is within al-Qongress's power to order our nation's surrender to her enemies. It may do so by outright declaration, a refusal to fund our war efforts against them, or repealing the law* that authorizes our president's use of military force to win that war. Whichever it chooses for our nation's defeat, the outcome is the same: Our enemy wins.
Until the al-Qongress so orders our nation's surrender, President Bush has the unsharable, unabridgeable duty to use the entire might of our Military against the enemies of the United States, in whatever manner, at whichever times, and for however long he thinks proper to achieve our country's absolute victory in this World War.* Joint resolution of Congress, H.J. Res. 114, considered and passed the House (with approval of Slowbleed-Murdertha-Troops) and Senate (with approval of Harpy the Lost), and signed into law by our president on October 16, 2002, Public Law 107-243:
One Hundred Seventh Congress
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Labels: aided and comforted enemies, al-Qaedaqratic Party, surrender monkeys, treason
A whole day set aside to laugh at liberals as they worship yet another inanimate object. Appropriate, too, since this is also Lenin's birthday.
sn't every day an earth day? Another full twenty-four hours everyone should have the protected right to simply spend walking on the rich soil and breathing in the pure air of true individual freedom, all under the soothing shade produced by those thick branches growing ever longer and stronger on our well watered, deeply rooted Tree of Liberty that we the people have planted firmly in our land?
Oh, no, that's never what liberals mean any such day to be at all. These perennial attention seekers desire to have one of them made especially theirs so they can "raise awareness" — or, in normal humanese, "bleat" — more than usual about some other "crisis" or "catastrophe" that if, in response, we don't immediately enact laws, establish bureaucracies, and extremely raise everyone's taxes in order to permanently feed still another burdensome, intrusive "program" under which liberals in gummit, academia, and media are all granted more of the money and power they continually lust for as the means to further wrest from us absolute, plenary control over one or more vital aspects of our lives, then
the earth Mother Gaia™ soon will melt before our eyes while the polar bears weep.
But trying to use scare tactics to frighten people into giving them such absolute power is what liberals do every day anyway. Whether or not they're celebrating Leninists' earthday.
It's all just part of liberals' futile attempts to increase their own self-esteem by scamming us into handing over to them what they don't deserve so we'll at last somehow see them as something they'll never be: important and useful and as far better, wiser, even holier than most of us as they mistakenly feel they are.
|For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.|
|Romans 1:20-25 |
Labels: narcissist liberals (BIRM), Union of Soviet-style Socialist States of America
Hey, they guaranteed we'd get G'Liberal Warming®.
o where's mine? I've been freezing my rethuglican tax-cutting-for-the-rich racist blood-for-oily homophobic making-old-people-eat-dog-food warmongering multi-gun-cultural nazi bible-thumping sexist big-carbon-footprinting wingnuts off here the past couple of weeks. Yet the United Nations Intergummental Panel on Scary Things Happening If We Don't Impose A Global Tax Plus Universal Gun Ban Yesterday promised me "the debate's over" and I should've gotten my g'liberal warming by the time I set my clocks forward.
Well I've been waiting, and waiting, and freezing, and waiting, and freezing some more ever since.
I believe the UN gipped me.
It's time for a movement! Which, coincidentally, I'm starting right here.
|Send all your springtime heating bills to:|
|UN G'Liberal Warming Refund|
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Secretariat
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7bis, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Labels: g'liberal warming, Useless Nitwits
With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, not to mention all real victims.
f the ACLU's telephone number is the first one on your speed dial, you might be a victim.
If your name has ever been heard foaming past the lips of Je$$e Jack$on, al-$harpton, or anyone at CAIR, you might be a victim.
If you're not rich, white, tall, skinny, sober, big-bosomed, a straight-A student, out of jail, or a man, you might be a victim.
If your child has ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance, you might be a victim.
If Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry says you're among those who R Stuk Inn Irak, you might be a victim.
If you ever voted for Pat Buchanan but there's a faded Ralph Nader bumper sticker on either side of your Florida license plate, you might be a victim.
If someone's been monitoring every telephone conversation between you and Osama bin Laden, you might be a victim.
If you have a job interview in El Paso but the only way you can get there is to swim across a river clutching a forged Social Security card, you might be a victim.
If any man has opened a door for you, you might be a victim.
If you've ever listened to an al-Demoqrat and actually believed what he, she, or other said, you may very well be a victim.
Labels: humor, Victimhood Inc.
When he wrote that, Shakespeare probably had in mind the likes of Alan E. Korpady, King & Ballow Law Offices, 1100 Union Street Plaza, 315 Union Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37201, telephone: 615/259-3456, facsimile: 615/254-7907, www.kingballow.com, Direct Dial: (615) 726-5471, Direct Fax: (615) 726-5419, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org; La Jolla Office: La Jolla Eastgate, 9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340, La Jolla, California 92037-1355, telephone: 858/597-6000, facsimile: 858/597-6008.
he aforementioned "law" firm, in my opinion, to which I am entitled, gives the legal "profession" an even worse name. Which in itself is quite a massive accomplishment. How else would a reasonable person characterize a commercial operation that exists solely by virtue of the licensed privilege generously granted by the people of the State of Tennessee through their duly elected and appointed representatives and agents, to conduct business therein, but which unduly harasses, with wrongful demands and unethical threats of both legal and financial punishments, one of the people of that state who, as a humble, upright citizen thereof, is lawfully exercising her fundamental rights under the freedom of the press and freedom of speech guarantees of her own state and nation's constitutions? Especially when among its heads and associates are persons who, in their capacity as officers of one or more of our courts, together hold a most sacred position of public trust and honor not intended by the people of that or any other state to be occupied by practitioners of the following sort of legalistic bullyism (PDF page 1, page 2):
April 10, 2007
CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Katherine Coble
|Your Blog: "Just Another Pretty Farce"|
February 27, 2007 posting regarding JL Kirk Associates®
Dear Ms. Coble:
This firm represents JL Kirk Associates.
Now forever linked, as is your "law" firm, to "this story via Internet searches with the words 'scam,' 'fraud,' 'rip-off,' and 'con,'" Robed-Master-in-Training Korpady, Esq. All because you felt it would be a great boost to your already overlarge but fragile ego — the same, tiresome type so commonly found feverishly blistering those otherwise dank, empty, pointy skulls of practically everyone within your "profession" — to abuse even that megalomaniacal sense of power you mistakenly believe you possess over all us mere plebes, by delivering in the form of such certified/return-receipt tablet from on high Mount
Sinai King & Ballow your harsh commandment of Thou Shalt Not Speaketh The Real Trutheth Abouteth Mineth The Lordeth Thy Godeth's Clienteth Undereth Anyeth Circumstanceseths to one of our true Lord's children, threatening to crush her over the head with that tablet if she does not meekly obey, to the letter, this Word of A Lawyer God forthwith.
A client, moreover, previously the subject of other complaints of a much harsher nature at, appropriately enough, RipOffReport.com. In its "Corrupt Companies" category.
Not to not mention separate complaints as well as numerous unflattering newspaper articles about Kirk Leipzig of
Bernard Haldane JL Kirk Asshats-iates, to whom you sent a copy of your stone tablet. Or another JL Kirk Associates horror story, and another, along with a Nashville Channel 2 TV news story about your client (Puppy-Blending Hobo Exterminator).
You have a case against the RipOffReport.com complaints since, as the site itself opines, "the five reports filed are bogus and untrue." Your decision to instead shake up if not shake down the present object of your seemingly vindictive threats has only resulted in what people with computers and Internet access refer to as "backlash." An entirely predictable and avoidable backlash that, with its dredging up of not just any bogus complaints but the non-bogus ones too, in no way serves your client's best interests.
In the February 27, 2007, posting to your blog "Just Another Pretty Farce"
Links supplied via this Helpful Navigation Menu and Quasi Google Bombage®:
...you made the following false and defamatory statements about JL Kirk Associates:
Were ambulance chasers like yourself in possession of any real conscience, it might trouble a legitimate law firm's Entertainment Section associate to know: That the citizen he's been so vigorously threatening and viciously distressing with meritless lawsuits is actually telling the truth; That his firm has foolishly concented to represent an operation that resorts to such clearly unusual, highly unethical, if not blatantly unlawful business practices
as asking "the person seeking a job put $4420 on a credit card, a non-refundable
fee that allegedly puts all the efforts of the firm at the applicant's disposal," charging "a fee that sounds remarkably like what you just got on your tax return especially since, under the name Bernard Haldane, they built a reputation doing just that," insisting "that the spouse be brought along for the consultation in the hopes that one will be more scared than the other and they can play them against one another," and filing or threatening to file lawsuits against consumers who rightfully complain about those practices in a bald attempt to chill them from performing their civic duty to speak out as well as to silence their complaints; and That he himself is engaging in unethical practices of his own when he willfully misrepresents "the legal standard set out by Memphis Publishing Company v. Nichols" — a "case [that] was about a misleading newspaper article regarding a murder" — by, among other things, failing to "note the word 'misleading,'" and when he knows or should know that the "truth has always been a perfect legal defense in this nation, and always will be, despite the hackery of" himself.
|1.||JL Kirk Associates "...was formerly Bernald Haldane before it was purchased by Mr. Kirk Leipzig."|
That JL Kirk Associates personnel "use fear to motivate" potential clients to pay for services "without question and without the possibility of a refund."
That, during your interview with your husband, there were questions "designed to help [you] as the insecure wife put more economic pressure" on your husband.
That the amount you were asked to pay "neatly" coincided with your tax refund "which is a matter of public record."
- Francis, in his post "It's Not The Crime It's The Coverup" at The Shadow of the Olive Tree, ably responds:
Oddly a JK Kirk employ seems to directly contradict statement 1 in her response:
Mr. Kirk purchased the remaining assets of the BH organization here in Brentwood, changed the philosophy, company mission, replaced every BH employee, and put his name of the door!
I suppose there may be a technical difference between the statement made by the original blogger and the statement made by the employee but to a lay mind they sound remarkably similar. Statements 2 and 3 sound like opinion and while it is true they aren't hedged about with "it seems to me"s or "appears to" or other weasel words when you read them. Statement 4 is plain silly.
More important to his firm's reputation, if not his own career, it might behoove him to acquaint himself with and periodically review the facts: That The Internet Is Forever™; That nothing publicly published thereon becomes after just a day — much more so after the 42 it took you to respond with purposefully intimidating threats of dire consequences if your demands for outright censorship weren't promptly met — other than, in effect, an indelible record, electronically and digitally stored and transmitted worldwide on and between an unfathomable number and exceedingly diverse manner of devices, inextricably meshed with the many trillions of bytes of data coursing through it during any given microsecond; That even if his bullyism succeeds at coercing someone into meeting his demands for erasure of a particular copy of one infinitesimal portion of that universal, enduring, ever-propagating record, all his efforts will still prove ineffective no matter how many times he may double, triple, or more his workload afterwards trying to find and erase every present and future recopy of the same; That he would have to demand the impossible — namely, the full, immediate, and permanent shutdown of every electrical power plant on the planet — before he may truthfully inform his client he's confident he's done all he can to remove from the Internet a single consumer complaint about that client's shady business practices; and, most important,
- It's the good advice that you just didn't take...
What Kirk did that is stupid (besides their alleged high pressure sales technique) is to try to silence a complaint through threat of legal force. However, in the era of the internet that's like squeezing a water balloon. Squeeze the complaint off of Coble's site, and the story pops up somewhere else. Squeeze there, and it surfaces again, and again, and again. . . Squeeze too hard, the balloon bursts, and you're all wet.
Or, to put it more succinctly: Don't sue your customers.
That had he simply advised his client the comments of one blogger will, absent the extreme, unreasonable measure of attempting to gag a consumer and unduly pressure her into withdrawing her comparatively mild albeit valid complaints, remain relatively obscure, little more than an isolated incident or passing curiosity incapable of causing material and actionable damage to any business, especially one whose practices are not generally well known and thus considered by only a few to be shady, and will have no possibility of mushrooming into a renowned Blogospheric Event™
, replete with Instalaunches®
, massive linkings
, much deserved Fiskings, a new Internet Verb (© 2007 The 'Sphere)
, search-term shufflings
, and other global-reaching
blogstorms all coalenscing
into one enormous Big Stink
for said client.
Mix attempts to suspend, by law suit, the First Amendment and eviscerate the right of consumers to complain about any business, with the glaring arrogance of an egotistical lawyer who never once thought, before firing off his
letter stone tablet, to politely ask the consumer that she reconsider her complaints about his client or to offer in the alternative an invitation to address and resolve those complaints as a genuine gesture of good will on the latter's part, and you have the entire recipe for what you and your "law" firm are smelling now. It was completely unnecessary of you to resort to such bullying tactics in this matter.
The finale of this backlash would be even more justifiable and ironic when JL Kirk Associates turns around and sues you and your Mount Sinai Law Offices for legal malpractice.
In addition, a number of statements made in you posting convey a meaning that is clearly injurious to the reputation of JL Kirk Associates.
Item No. 1 in the Annotated Guide To Red Flags & Other BS To Watch Out For Anytime Lawyers' Lips Move
is: Whenever a lawyer argues something is "clearly" this or that, you can bet your house, boat, dog, Aunt Martha's brooch, and all the liters of empty space inside most every lawyer's head that it clearly isn't.
Under Tennessee law, any malicious publication expressed in writing intending to injure the character or diminish the reputation of a business is libel.
Whereas, the publication in this case is clearly
neither malicious nor intended to injure or diminish anything or anyone not already publicly tarnished
(Nashville for the 21st Century
, inter alios; cf., BBB Wisconcin report
). Posting on your own personal Web log your own personal accounts, experiences, observations, opinions, and conclusions which directly affect you and potentially others in a most personal way — whether that way be benign or profound, pleasant or disturbing — is materially the full intent and meaning of what the person you're threatening with further harassment wrote. Malicious, on the other hand, is what a reasonable person would view your untoward demands accompanied by threats of Dire Legal Consequences, all clearly
intended to intimidate, coerce, and distress any of your letters' recipients, to be. It's clearly
not what the writing you're clearly
intentionally mischaracterizing here is.
Moreover, even if statements are literally true, the publisher of those statements is subject to monetary damages where "the meaning reasonably conveyed by the published words is defamatory." Memphis Publishing Company v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1978)
Before the Big Stink, which is solely the result of your written demands and threats, there was no publication in any reasonable sense of the word. If I put up a sign in my yard that says "Mount Sinai Law Office's Entertainment Section Associates Are A Mean-Spirited Bunch of Bullies" I am expressing in writing my opinion to no one other than my neighbors and any random passers-by. I am not going around attaching that sign to every side of a building and telephone pole in my neighborhood, city, state, nation, or world. If a Mount Sinai Law Office Entertainment Section Associate happens to see or hear about that sign, goes into a tither, and has his lawyer write me an obnoxiously contentious letter demanding I take down that sign or else
, that lawyer will have no one but himself to blame when I become distressed and tell my neighbors about the trouble I'm experiencing, they become infuriated, copy my sign and put it up in their own yards, the driver of a passing TV-7 van sees them all and asks the station to get together a camera crew so they can film the spectacle for a report on the next six o'clock news, and thousands upon thousands see that report and become infuriated themselves, rinse, repeat.
Where once was a single sign posted by one homeowner in his own yard — a sign that's seen by just a relatively few — there's now a full-blown message ringing throughout the whole community.
Even absent all this exacerbation and escalation, the fundamental question remains. What law says I can't publicly complain about the practices of any business which I personally perceive had in any way took undue advantage of, upset, or otherwise injured me? Is it not among my most basic duties as a citizen and member of my community to do everything I believe I can to warn others about those practices so they won't have to experience, unawares, the same bad things? Or am I required to suck it up, keep quiet, cower in fear of Dreaded Lawsuits, stand idly by, and merely allow that business to inflict such things on the next poor sucker? I wouldn't be a very good citizen if I did the latter; nor would my government and its courts be very good servants of the people if they compelled me or anyone else to do that.
Thus your citation of Memphis is inapposite here since the statements regard not an individual's reputation but a public concern. Specifically, a business and its practices affecting members of the public who may seek its services.
As the "publisher" of your blog, you control, and are responsible for, the content appearing in it. References by persons posting to your blog to JL Kirk Associates as "crooks" and its services as a "scam" are equally false and defamatory as your own.
Leaving aside for now the fact that "crooks" and "scam" appear nowhere in the original "publication" by the person at whom you're targeting your demands and threats, you cannot pluck out a word here or phrase there from some textual matter and declare, based on that word or phrase alone, your client was defamed. You must base such declaration on the matter's content as a whole. Accordingly, if you're attempting to include non-parties' comments subsequently posted about and with that "publication," you first must clearly define exactly what content you're declaring "equally false and defamatory." Are you referring to that "publication" and its comments dated on or before April 10 of this year, found only on the Internet at the following Uniform Resource Identifiers?
| || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117264828992420618|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117264828992420618|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117266595910317267|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117266695495069629|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117266703524181180|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267110685506728|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267241367839003|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267434311354971|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267458665990510|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267472901575592|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267679221523563|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267691868961973|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267734112879238|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117267806247793220|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117268040530047623|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117268893573658048|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117270159945776382|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117270338967531989|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117270343499426578|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117270859739161952|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117272444315644297|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117276956844871211|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117277245221766181|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117277410298073041|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117281092678162862|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117303222280934504|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117307153116898975|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117373424462795366|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117406625138254294|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117406630128015040|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c117406634042341428|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c7199517920511662462|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c4095895917210257015|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c6961743804336514533|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c1741760870642845816|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c1158728026419332796|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c7224947705576758130|
| || || ||http://mycropht.blogspot.com/2007/02/jl-kirk-associates-my-story.html#c8036348399155477450|
(That is, before the entire Web log and its earlier posts and comments were respectively moved and copied to a new Web address on or around March 16.) Or to the copy of such "publication" and comments along with different comments, similarly dated, found only on the Internet at the URIs below?
| || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6060|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6061|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6062|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6063|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6064|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6066|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6067|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6068|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6069|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6070|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6071|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6072|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6073|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6075|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6076|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6079|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6081|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6082|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6086|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6088|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6101|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6103|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6105|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6111|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6131|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6133|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6203|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6259|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6260|
| || || ||http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/jl-kirk-associates-my-story/#comment-6261|
For those keeping score at home, the only correct answer is neither.
You cannot legally hold anyone accountable for the uncoerced, independent actions of another person. Doing so would be the worst injustice imaginable. Applying that maxim here, there's no justice in making the "publisher" liable for comments the submission of which are open to everyone, including your client and its representatives — a circumstance it clearly took full advantage of when someone claiming to be such representative submitted a comment at one of the above URIs, as did whoever anonymously submitted a separate comment in its defense, viz.,
The "publisher" cannot predict and therefore has no control over what her commenters submit in such open forum.
In addition to your liability for defamation, under Tennessee law, the defamatory statements made in your blog are, by your own admission, intended to "discourage anyone who stumbles across this entry from even going through the JL Kirk & (sic) Associates 'interview process'." As such, you may be subject to liability for monetary damages for tortuous interference with the business relationships of JL Kirk Associates. See Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company et al[.], 71 S. W. 3d 691, 701 (Tenn. 2002).
No, you see "public concern," supra.
Businesses, even in Tennessee, aren't free to strong-arm potential customers with impunity, scare or upset their spouses with shameful manipulations, do a bait-and-switch with some out-of-the-blue credit card "offer," or be less than totally up-front with what all they're getting themselves into if they turn who all knows what over to it. See Unsavory v. Entirely Forthcoming, 1 G.Y.P. 2 many (Anywhere 2007).
Claims that a person's exercise of his duty to warn as best he can his fellow citizens and other members of the public, either close by or at large, about any threats or dangers to their lives, liberties, property, or pursuits of happiness which he in good conscience believes exist, is in some way wrong have no legal standing. That person's intent is not to cause harm but to help prevent it from being inflicted on any otherwise unsuspecting person. In the case of a business he's seen firsthand engaging in a number of things that clearly smack of shady practices he has a clear duty to warn whoever else may be affected by them about those practices. For example,
- She was particularly concerned that JL Kirk was looking for nearly $5,000 in payment for their services. Those who have been on either side of a placement by a headhunter know that this is not industry standard. Customarily, at least in my decade-plus experience as a VP level hiring manager on Wall Street and CFO/CAO of a start-up oil services company, the company pays the headhunter's fee, even for entry level positions, and even for temporary help.
Consumer complaints such as these, which warn members of the public about a business' practices that could adversely affect any of them, are acts of good citizenship, not "tortuous interference" with its relationships. Indeed, your attempts to exact what amounts to legalistic retribution against any consumers who, in good faith, publicly complain about your client's business practices, should be deemed a tortuous interference with their lives, liberties, property, and pursuits of happiness.
Fortunately for the people they're still intended to serve and sworn to protect, our laws and courts brook no "law" firm's meritless attempts to exact these retributions against them.
We hereby demand that you take down the blog entry regarding JL Kirk Associates together with the entire thread of comments.
Does anyone at this point still wonder why there's so much public hatred of lawyers?
She's required to "take down" no such thing when she allows real opportunities for rebuttals and contrary opinions by anyone, including your client.
It's also, given the indelible nature of Internet records, impossible for her to really "take down" anything. That entry and every one of those comments are all permanently stored, each in their entirety, in search-engine caches such as Google's, which are even further beyond her control. (If you want to get laughed at by the best of them, try suing Google, which claims no responsibility for the content of its caches: "Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.") Seeking their "taking down" is akin to demanding that a newspaper physically destroy, in whole or part, all issued copies of any of its editions which allegedly contains defamatory content.
In short, your demand that anyone "take down" anything anywhere on the Internet will always be completely without merit.
We further demand that you cease and desist from any further attempts to injure and interfere with the business of JL Kirk Associates.
What is this "further" of which you speak?
So far, a consumer has faithfully exercised her duty as a citizen to warn the public about what she perceives are corrupt business practices that have personally and adversely affected her. A warning that was (Sir George): made upon a proper occasion (promptly following the infliction of those practices on her), from a proper motive (to warn others about those practices so they can avoid being inflicted by them as well), and based upon reasonable or probable cause (those practices as described and directly witnessed by her).
You, on the other hand, are here engaging in an abusive behavior that can only further discredit what generally is already an all but thoroughly discredited "profession."
It is regrettable that you decided not to engage the services of JL Kirk Associates.
Successfully escaped the full brunt of those "services" is more like it.
Who with a number of functioning brain cells greater than an average amoeba's could reasonably regret that?
That, however, does not entitle you to publish defamatory statements in an attempt to interfere with its business.
However, it does entitle her to publicly express her opinions and concerns about it. Which she has done immensely to her credit and, due to this onerous stone tablet carved by your "law" firm, with the gratitude of a much wider public.
If you do not comply with these demands on or before April 13, 2007, JL Kirk Associates intends to sue you for damages. Please direct any communications regarding this matter to the undersigned.
Alan E. Korpady
cc: Mr. Kirk Leipzig
Wonder if Shakespeare completely understood the course of action he had in mind would just wind up eternally consigning its condemned subjects to that lowest tier in Hell reserved solely for them.
Labels: consumer rights, robed masters in training