Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘Romney’ Category

>Why Are People Calling Obama Evil?

>Yes, they are–they’re looking at his mindset and how he makes decisions and are coming up flat. they don’t understand how such a nice appearing family man with two wonderful kids and a smart wife can he, himself, be such a jerk.
   I’m speaking from the vantage point of a conservative. To progressives he may seem as normal as apple pie and baseball in America. but he’s not.
   Today Rush Limbaugh told his listeners why this man is so liberal in everything. He studied at Harvard University not just law, but “Critical Law Studies.” What bothers most of us is how Obama has hidden so many documents and so much information about himself. Finally, he has released his long form birth certificate — just two years after he began as president when the law states you can’t run for this high office unless and until you reveal this document. Who did he buy off in the U.S. Elections Commission? If I were in Congress I would want to investigate this group, bring them before Congress and ask them some questions, at a minimum. Perhaps some of them need to be fired. They are’n’t doing their jobs. 
   We do need to know what kinds of grades Obama got when he attended Columbia and Harvard Universities–and Oxidental. Limbaugh said today there is credible evidence that he got poor grades at the latter school. If so, how did he get into Harvard? Politics, I suspect. Someone in government swung a deal with the school to let this “foreign” student get in. Foreign student? Yes, he won a Ford or Fullbright scholarship coming in from where he was living in Indonesia and was known as Barry Sartoro. Queer, wouldn’t you say, at least. He’s an american-born president, at least by today’s birth certificate, but he’s living abroad and coming in as a foreign student.
   What is Critical legal Studies? Is it so different from our own Constitutional law that it causes people to become upset with it and with the students who graduate at the schools offering CLS.
The following from Wikipedia will explain it all to you, my readers.

Critical legal studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critical legal studies is a movement in legal thought that applied methods similar to those of
critical theory (the Frankfurt School) to law. The abbreviations “CLS” and “Crit” are
sometimes used to refer to the movement and its adherents.




Although the intellectual origins of the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) can be generally 
traced to American Legal Realism, as a distinct scholarly movement CLS fully emerged 
only in the late 1970s. Many first-wave American CLS scholars entered legal education,
having been profoundly influenced by the experiences of the civil rights movement,
women’s rights movement, and the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s. What
started off as a critical stance towards American domestic politics eventually translated
into a critical stance towards the dominant legal ideology of modern Western society.
Drawing on both domestic theory and the work of European social theorists, the “crits”
sought to demystify the numerous myths at the heart of mainstream legal thought
and practice.
The British critical legal studies movement started roughly at a similar time as its
American counterpart. However, it centered around a number of conferences held
annually, particularly the Critical Legal Conference and the National Critical Lawyers 
Group. There remain a number of fault lines in the community, between theory and
practice, between those who look to Marxism and those who worked on
Deconstruction, between those who look to explicitly political engagements and
those who work in aesthetics and ethics.


Although the CLS (like most schools and movements) has not produced a single,
monolithic body of thought, several common themes can be generally traced
in its adherents’ works. These include:
  • A first theme is that contrary to the common perception, legal materials 
  • (such as statutes and case law) do not completely determine the outcome 
  • of legal disputes, or, to put it differently, the law may well impose many 
  • significant constraints on the adjudicators in the form of substantive rules, 
  • but, in the final analysis, this may often not be enough to bind them to 
  • come to a particular decision in a given particular case. Quite predictably, 
  • once made, this claim has triggered many lively debates among jurists and 
  • legal philosophers, some of which continue to this day (see further 
  • indeterminacy debate in legal theory).
  • Secondly, there is the idea that all “law is politics.” This means that 
  • legal decisions are a form of political decision, but not that it is 
  • impossible to tell judicial and legislative acts apart. Rather, CLS have 
  • argued that while the form may differ, both are based around the 
  • construction and maintenance of a form of social space. The argument 
  • takes aim at the positivist idea that law and politics can be entirely 
  • separated from one another. A more nuanced view has emerged 
  • more recently. This rejects the reductivism of ‘all law is politics’ and 
  • instead asserts that the two disciplines are mutually interspersed. 
  • There is no ‘pure’ law or politics, but rather the two forms work together 
  • and constantly shift between the two linguistic registers.
  • A third strand of the traditional CLS school is that far more often 
  • than is usually suspected the law tends to serve the interests of the 
  • wealthy and the powerful by protecting them against the demands 
  • of the poor and the subaltern(women, ethnic minorities, the working 
  • class, indigenous peoples, the disabled, homosexuals etc.) for 
  • greater justice. This claim is often coupled with the legal realist 
  • argument that what the law says it does and what it actually tends 
  • to do are two different things. Many laws claim to have the aim of 
  • protecting the interests of the poor and the subaltern. In reality, they 
  • often serve the interests of the power elites. This, however, does not 
  • have to be the case, claim the CLS scholars. There is nothing intrinsic 
  • to the idea of law that should make it into a vehicle of social injustice.
  •  It is just that the scale of the reform that needs to be undertaken to
  • realize this objective is significantly greater than the mainstream 
  • legal discourse is ready to acknowledge.
  • Furthermore, CLS at times claims that legal materials are inherently
  •  contradictory, i.e. the structure of the positive legal order is based 
  • on a series of binary oppositions such as, for instance, the opposition 
  • between individualism and altruism or formal realizability (i.e. preference 
  • for strict rules) and equitable flexibility (i.e. preference for broad standards).
  • Finally, CLS questions law’s central assumptions, one of which is the 
  • Kantian notion of the autonomous individual. The law often treats 
  • individual petitioners as having full agency vis-a-vis their opponents. 
  • They are able to make decisions based on reason that is detached 
  • from political, social, or economic constraints. CLS holds that individuals 
  • are tied to their communities, socio-economic class, gender, race, 
  • and other conditions of life such that they cease to be autonomous 
  • actors in the Kantian mode. Rather, their circumstances determine 
  • and therefore limit the choices presented to them. People are not 
  • “free”; they are instead determined in large part by social and 
  • political structures that surround them.
Increasingly, however, the traditional themes are being superseded by
broader and more radical critical insights. Interventions in intellectual 
property lawhuman rightsjurisprudencecriminal lawproperty law,
international law etc, have proved crucial to the development of
those discourses. Equally, CLS has introduced new frameworks to the
legal field such as postmodernismqueer theory; literary approaches
to law; psychoanalysis; law and aesthetics and post-colonialism.


Many conservative and liberal scholars were highly critical of the 
critical legal studies movement. The idea that the law was utterly
indeterminate was contested in a famous debate in the late 1980s.
More conservative critics argued that the radical nature of the
movement was inconsistent with the mission of professional
legal education.

[edit]Continued influence

CLS continues as a diverse collection of schools of thought and social 
movements. The CLS community is an extremely broad group with
clusters of critical theorists at law schools such as Harvard Law 
SchoolGeorgetown University Law CenterNortheastern University,
University at BuffaloBirkbeck College LondonUniversity of 
MelbourneUniversity of KentKeele University, the University 
of Glasgow, the University of East London among others.
In the American legal academy its influence and prominence seems to
have waned in recent years. However, offshoots of CLS, including

critical race theory continue to grow in popularity. Associated
schools of thought, such as contemporary feminist theory and
ecofeminism and critical race theory now play a major role in
contemporary legal scholarship. An impressive stream of CLS-
style writings has also emerged in the last two decades in the
areas of international and comparative law.

In addition, CLS has had a practical effect on legal education, 
as it was the inspiration and focus of Georgetown University Law 
Center’s alternative first year curriculum, (Termed “Curriculum B”,
known as “Section 3” within the school). In the UK both Kent and
Birkbeck Law Schools have sought to draw critical legal insights
into the legal curriculum, including a critical legal theory based LLM
at Birkbeck. Various research centers and institutions offer CLS-
based taught and research courses in a variety of legal fields
including human rights, jurisprudence, constitutional theory
and criminal justice.
In New Zealand, the University of Otago Legal Issues Centre was
established at the University’s law faculty in 2007. Professor Kim
Economides, Director of the University of Otago Legal Issues
Centre, was a founder member of the UK Critical Legal Conference
in the 1980s. He has taught critical legal studies at Otago and legal
ethics at Victoria University of Wellington. Both his teaching and
research currently explore critical, ethical and empirical perspectives
on the operation of the legal system and lawyers’ work, particularly
within the context of New Zealand.
Law & Critique is one of the few UK journals that specifically
identifies itself with critical legal theory. In America, The Crit is
the only journal that continues to explicitly position itself as a
platform for critical legal studies. However, other journals such
as Law, Culture and the Humanities, Unbound: The Harvard
Journal of the Legal Left, The National Lawyers Guild Review,
Social and Legal Studies and the Australian Feminist Law Journal
all published avowedly critical legal research.

[edit]See also

[edit]Further reading

  • Mark KelmanA Guide to Critical Legal Studies, Harvard 
  • University Press, 1987
  • Costas Douzinas & Adam GeareyCritical Jurisprudence: 
  • The Political Philosophy of Justice, Hart Publishing, 2005
  • Roberto Mangabeira UngerThe Critical Legal Studies 
  • Movement, Harvard University Press, 1983
  • Janet E. Halley (ed.), Wendy Brown (ed.), Left Legalism/Left 
  • Critique-P, Duke University Press 2003
  • Janet E. Halley “Revised version entitled “Like-Race Arguments”” 
  • in What’s Left of Theory?, Routledge, 2001.
  • Richard W. BaumanCritical legal studies : a guide to the 
  • literature, Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press, 1996
  • Richard W. BaumanIdeology and community in the first 
  • wave of critical legal studies, Toronto [u.a.] : University of 
  • Toronto Press, 2002
  • Duncan KennedyLegal Education and the Reproduction of 
  • Hierarchy: A Polemic Against the System: A Critical Edition
  • New York University Press 2004
  • Duncan Kennedy, A Critique of Adjudication [fin de siecle], 
  • Harvard University Press, 1997.
  • David W. Kennedy and William Fisher, eds. The Canon of American 
  • Legal Thought, Princeton University Press (2006)
  • Andrew AltmanCritical Legal Studies: A Liberal Critique
  • Princeton University Press 1990
  • John Finnis, “On the Critical Legal Studies Movement” 30 
  • American Journal of Jurisprudence 1985
  • Scott Fruehwald, “Postmodern Legal Thought and Cognitive 
  • Science,” 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 375 (2006).
  • Le Roux and Van Marle, “Critical Legal Studies” in Roeder (ed) 
  • (2004) Jurisprudence

[edit]External links

>FEC Is Investigating Obama’s 2008 Election Fund Raising

>by Don White

Conservatives have wondered for a long time why the Federal Election Commission didn’t investigate Barak Obama’s fund raising for the 2008 presidential election. Since he didn’t take any federal money, his campaign funds weren’t, as a matter of course, investigated. But now FEC investigators are looking into possible fraud on the part of Obama and his campaign operatives.

By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions of $750 million came from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.

Newsmax  did its own investigation. A canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows what the online magazine calls “worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.”

For example, they say Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit  Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.

And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

According to the Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, “potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.”

Read more on FEC Investigators Digging Into Obama’s 2008 Campaign
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

What A Great Day – With Glenn Beck At The Helm We Shall Not Fail!

>Romney Could Save This Country


Say what you want, who would you like as president during this terrible economic time – a complete novice like Obama or an economic genius like Mitt Romney. Hands down, everyone knows only a guy like Mitt can get us out of this mess–along with a very conservative Congress that is willing to change the dumb things Obama and his fellow libs like Pelosi and Reid have done. Shame on them. Don White

That’s right, there was a health care mandate in Massachusetts, before Mitt Romney became governor.

Think about it. Before Mitt Romney passed the Massachusetts Health Care bill, just HOW do you suppose the voluntarily uninsured freeloaders received health care and WHO do you think paid for it?
Well, back in 1986, President Ronald Reagan and the GOP passed a national health care bill that provided free emergency room care for everybody in every state , citizen or not, insured or not.
Now we know the HOW. Walk into any emergency room in any state and you receive free treatment.
Now we get to the WHO had been paying for this? I’m sure most already know the answer, YOU and I! Higher taxes and higher hospital costs resulted in the cost of higher insurance premiums. Try asking the tax man and your insurance company to subtract the monies that go towards covering freeloaders from your tax and insurance bills. Tell them you’d rather not pay for that. See what happens. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a response to your liking.
When Mitt Romney became Governor, he saw this, like most tax payers saw this, as unfair and unjust.
So you see, the MA Health Care mandate replaced one that was very unfair and unjust. The pre-MA Health Care mandate forced responsible tax payers to pay for the treatment of the voluntarily uninsuredfreeloaders. the MA Health Care mandate ended that practice.
The current Massachusetts Health Care mandateONLY AFFECTS THE FREELOADERS. It doesn’t affect responsible tax payers who willingly purchase insurance for themselves and their families.
Guess what? The way I figure it, most of the other states are living under the OLD mandate because of the bill passed during Reagan’s administration. We responsible tax payers in Massachusetts, aren’t affected by any health care mandates any more.
Yes sir, that MA Health Care mandate is one of the few things left in PatrickCare that I still like.
(H/T Illinois Guy from RIGHT SPEAK and ROS)

708 views Email This Post Email This Post View Printer-Friendly Version View Printer-Friendly Version

Other Recent Posts:

  1. Republicans’ Top Ten Pundits, FOX News’ Coverage of Potential GOP 2012 Candidates
  2. New Mitt Romney Op-Ed: Stop START
  3. VIDEO: Mitt Romney on the The Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno
  4. Happy Hanukkah 2010! from Mitt Romney Central
  1. James Taylor
    December 3rd, 2010 at 11:22 | #1
    VERY well written! This argument is much easier to present in a 10 second sound-clip than any other argument I’ve seen so far.
  2. December 3rd, 2010 at 11:48 | #2
    BOSMAN! E X A C T L Y!! Actually, every state has a manadate: the mandate is: I, Taxpayer, am required to pay income taxes, and other taxes to pay for heathcare for those who can afford insurance, but chose not to get it, aka FREERIDERS.