After being sentenced to 30 months in jail and $250,000, many have speculated on whether President Bush will pardon Libby for his alleged leak. A few have called for the pardon, however most maintain that a pardon would be a bad thing to do. In fact, public opinion seems to suggest that many would be angered about the pardon.

Why? Would they be angered because somebody had been pardoned and didn’t have to face the jail sentence (and/or the appeals process)? I can see why people would angered because of the use of the pardon; I’m not even sure where I stand on the pardon issue. Is it really fair for government officials to pardon people who have committed (been accused) of committing crimes?

Or would be people be angry because a Bush official had been pardoned? I think that it is far more likely people would be angered by the latter rather than the former because, Americans seem to hate everything that is associated with President Bush. They really want somebody to pay for the political decisions made during Bush’s presidential term, and they don’t really care who it is. The trial of United States v. Libby really was really about more than whether Libby leaked classified names and then lied about it; it was about people “getting even” with the current administration.

Could Libby have really received a fair trial with all of the media coverage? The most troubling thing about the entire thing is the fact that with all of the coverage, how exactly was it possible to find jurors that were completely untainted by the opinions of talk show hosts, liberal media outlets, and websites. It is a new tactic used by the biased media (whether left or right) to “try” somebody before their trial. They just get rid of the innocent until proven guilty part and say somebody did something so that the jury pool will be completely opinionated by the trial date.

Now don’t get me wrong, I really haven’t formed by own opinion either way on this case. I’m not supporting Libby but I’m not condemning him either; I just want him to receive a fair trial.

It is well know that the US intelligence agencies knew about 9/11 long before it happened. The reason that 9/11 was not stopped was the hefty layers of Government that surround the entire operation.

To stop the next attack we need to focus on not giving the government more power, but getting the government to use the power it already has to stop the next terrorist attack. Just adding more money and more people isn’t going to solve the problem. If we had the Department of Homeland Security back in 2001, the attack probably still would have occurred.

I think the best way to solve the problem is to cut the funds going to the Intelligence services. Cutting the funds will force them to layoff the extra people that are on the job. Less people, less problems. We need to have a plan for where we want the intelligence to go. Perhaps Homeland Security can act as a center for the whole operation. Foreign intelligence can go to the CIA, while domestic intelligence would be routed to the FBI. As far as I am concerned, the NSA can be picked apart and the appropriate pieces can be reassigned to the CIA and the FBI (perhaps Homeland Security, if we are using that as a hub).

Overall, there has to be less people involved. Government bureaucrats just make the situation worse. Perhaps the military should play a larger role in Intelligence management.

I realize that much of what I have just described is already happening (layout wise) however, they still have a surplus of people and that is dangerous as far as I am concerned.

Approving a Line-Item Veto would make cutting through the crap in spending budgets a million times easier for the President. So many bills get filled up with earmark projects that spend money on things that don’t even fall under what the budget is supposed to be financing. This kind of stuff wastes our money. The sad fact is, the President is usually forced to approve these budgets.

Now, senators and congressmen are, rightly, worried that approving the Line-Item Veto would give the President too much power. Give him the power to cut out important parts of bills that would be too hard to get passed separate from the rest of the bill, in other words discourage comprises between the Capitol and the White House. I understand this, and this is a very important issue.

The way the Line-Item Veto is purposed to work is that the President can veto parts of the bill that he doesn’t agree with. Then, the fractured bill (that wasn’t approved) gets sent back to the Senate and must be revote on the parts with a 2/3 majority like usual. The rest of the bill becomes law (with the other parts joining it later on, if they are approved).

In fact, most Governors hold this power. Only seven states do not give this power to their Governors. The Line-Item Veto was even passed in 1996 by Republicans (supported by President Clinton). However this specific veto power was ruled to be unconstitutional. However, the Line-Item veto allows Congress to re-approve the parts that the President has vetoed. So this power isn’t unconstitutional and is a reasonable solution to a spending crisis.

Congress still fails to get behind this veto power. I say that in order to get them on deck that we should limit the power to only spending bills. In this way they can have the same power that they have always had on everything else. If you are up to it, I would recommend that you write to your elected officials.

In the wake of the VA Tech tragedy; we have seen how easy it was for the shooter to buy his mass-murder weapon. It hurts us that somebody so mentally disturbed can even touch a gun not to mention use it. Perhaps, if guns weren’t legal then we could easily avoid such a tragedy in the future. Right?

Wrong. It is as simple as the say ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. This simple phrase sums it up nicely: The gun doesn’t actually kill anyone, it just enables people to kill in a different way. People killed long before guns and people would still kill after they are (if they ever) taken away. Nut-job killers will just have to find a new way to kill people.

Now for a history lesson. The framers intended for us to have guns; they even say so in the second amendment. Why? Well, our country wouldn’t have ever started if it wasn’t for the fact that Americans had guns to fight the British with. We would still be British if it wasn’t for those guns. Furthermore, our founders believed that it was our right to abolish governments that stood in the way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They say so in the Declaration of Independence: “…that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” It becomes very clear that they want us to have guns for our own good; to over throw our government when it begins to oppress.

Let’s consider this for a second. We outlaw guns right now… no citizens have them, however our military and police forces do. Right now, we can consider these forces friendly but what happens in 150 years when the government begins to oppress Americans. Perhaps they even harm us. We have no way to overthrow the government as the founders wanted and we have no way to protect ourselves from our government. Sounds like a terrible situation to me.

If we outlaw guns, will criminals (law breakers) stop using them? NO, of course not: they are law breakers and WILL break the law. They just will have to get their guns from Mexico or other sources which presents two big problems for America. One, we won’t have any record of these guns. When a criminal uses them in a murder, we won’t be able to identify the gun killed the victim and the person who actually committed the crime. And two, criminals will still have guns however law abiding Americans won’t have the right to have a gun for protection. What I mean to say is that currently, criminals have to play it safe not know if the person they are about to rob has a handgun in her jacket or a gun in his shoe. They have to guess and hope; they don’t have the guarantee of safety. Make them certain of what they are doing and they will be almost unstoppable.

What happens to all the guns currently in possession? Lots of professional and amateur hunters spend quite a lot of money on guns. Are we just to force these people to throw away items that they paid quite a bit of money for? What about those people who have guns passed down as family heirlooms? Are we to expect them to throw away something that has been in their family possession for ages?

What happens to the deer population? It is already exploding, I’d hate to see what would happen if we took away all the hunters that are keeping them in check. Our society would experience more car crashes with deer meaning higher costs (insurance) and more fatal accidents.

What would we do with the people that we put of a job? Many, many people make a living off of things relating to the gun industry. Are we really willing to allow these people to lose their jobs?

After examining the issue (and hopefully covering everything), I think that it is pretty safe to say that completely removing guns from our society would be a harmful thing. It would be expensive, it would be economically harming, it would have a small effect on crime, and it would put in a bad place if we ever need to have a change of regime right here in our own country.

That is right. We need you to make some changes, give us a little more power (you lose a little freedom) but hey, we’ll keep you safe. Maybe I’ll tap your phone, maybe I’ll read your mail, I don’t know we’ll mix it up a little! Anyone think that this line of thought is ridiculous?

To be honest, I don’t care if the Government is going to tap my phone or read my mail (electronic or otherwise). I know that to keep the country safe, somethings have to be done. What I don’t like is how it is done – and I think that one can find this will be the case regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in office. Instead of taking the appropriate steps to obtaining the legal rights to tap ones phone or to read mail or whatever else is going on, the government simply just does it.

This sort of practice of course goes right against one of the very core values of America: Nobody is above the law. Well the new logic appears to be nobody is against the law except for the government.

But what happens next really scares me (beware, I am going to make a jump). Congress begins voluntarily give power; the balance of power is now disrupted.

What got me thinking about this is this new ‘Real ID’. It is a new set of laws mandating that states begin producing ID’s that follow a set of National guidelines. Like this will hinder terrorists.

If you don’t have one of these new ‘Real ID’s’ (by 2009 of course), you can be stopped from boarding a plane or you can be stopped from getting a job. Ridiculous? Too much.

The real ironic part is that the Social Security Administration wields this power through ‘United States Code Title 42 Section 666′. Talk about evil.