Let’s Assume For a Moment…
So lets presume – without assumption – that the Berryhill’s (one of whom is “just a dumb farmer” – his words, not mine) are telling the truth about not being in collusion in the 2008 scheme to move $40,000 from Tom to Bill’s campaign via the local Central Committee. If that were the case, surely somebody would have thought to themselves that this could certainly appear to be unsavory at best, and illegal at worst, and they would want to take extra precautions and have clear guidelines and notes and minutes detailing the deliberations, discussion and decisions made to fulfill the “hope” that this money would be “wisely” used, right?
It would seem that in the event that the Berryhills are being truthful it would be a simple thing to have the Central Committee produce those notes, minutes and possibly even recordings to show that these potential appearances of wrongdoing were understood, discussed and through careful and deliberate application of the law, properly addressed n such manner as to insure that the money clearly met the appropriate criteria.
Would not the producing of such documentation clearly show that the Central Committee had a full understanding of the law(s) and had gone the extra mile to show that they had followed it? Would those documents not also show us who had this idea and specifically who (a) recommended it, (b) discussed it (c) voted for it or against it and (d) signed off on it? It seems to me that if the Stanislaus GOP can produce such documentation, which I would have to presume exists, this would be a non-issue.
At what point does any given society remain completely financially responsible for a person or persons bad choices? In THIS CASE, a British couple with nine children already and 100% dependent on the dole are again pregnant with twins. I am not arguing their choice to use or not use birth control, but why does society have to support their lifestyle? Doesn’t the freedom to procreate and live on the taxpayers dime end where the taxpayer has to pay for them to procreate and live on the taxpayers dime (sorry, shilling)?
The Harry Reid has the attention of most conservatives, including the GOP leadership who called him “corrupt” this week. The problem is, of course, that he always has been. So why are people only now just noticing? Is it “East Coast bias,” or something else? Even just that now that he has achieved all he can achieve rank wise, he just doesn’t THINK THAT ANYBODY ACTUALLY CARES about what he does?
To me, the real story about the “13 Worst Predictions” from the first Earth Day isn’t that THEY WERE WRONG. Anybody with the brains the Deity gave cabbage knew even then that they were wrong. The problem is, much like today, the predictions ignored the resiliency of mankind and his ability to adapt and change to meet the conditions and challenges. It’s always struck me as odd that the people who loudly demand that I accept evolution are the least willing to accept evolutions consequences.
It seems to me that the Governments ARGUMENT FOR RESTRICTING e-CIG’S comes down to “they look like the real ones.” Isn’t that the same argument for banning certain guns? That they “look” like military guns?