Top 10 Alberto Gonzalez Quotes

Alberto Gonzalez has been taking his lashings in Congress and on national news due to his ability, or inability as it may be, to testify honestly. To honor Mr. Gonzalez's terrific service to his country, here are ten of his best quotes.


10) "We're talking about the lawyers for the United States of America. And I think it's very, very important that the lawyers be comfortable being very candid and open about their views on very sensitive issues affecting the United States."

9) "I want to be clear. No company is too big to be prosecuted, ... We have zero tolerance for corporate fraud, but we also recognize the importance of avoiding collateral consequences whenever possible."

8) "We're...looking very closely at the issue of fraudulent charities. We're looking at price gouging. I've asked the lawyers in the Department to be as aggressive and to be as creative within the bounds of the law to ensure that people do not take advantage of the situation in this tragic circumstance."

7) "Some in this country mistakenly believed it could not happen here, ... Today we have chilling evidence that it is possible."

6) "Justice must serve offenders and victims as well as the economy and the general public,"

5) "To preserve the integrity of our free market economy, individuals who defraud American businesses and consumers by participating in international price-fixing conspiracies will be prosecuted and sent to prison no matter where they live or where they commit the crime."

4) "I don't think you should be disqualified from being considered for an important position simply because you have a relationship with the person making the decision on who to nominate. You have to look first at a person's qualifications."

3) "I'm primarily worried about what does the president think,"

2) "There is no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution"

1) "I do not recall."

Is Congress Paid Too Much?

In a capitalist society, money is an important part of almost every aspect of our lives. In America, we don't do too bad, despite the increasing gap between rich and poor.

The median income for Americans over the age of 25 is about $32,000. Of course, those numbers increase with higher levels of education. The median income for full-time employees with a Bachelor's degree or higher is $56,000. This is more than enough money for a single to live off of, but still congress gets paid much more.

In 1815, Congress began getting paid an annual salary of $1,500. Before that they were paid $6 per session. To complicate things Congress went back to the per session pay in 1817, but this time it was $8 per session. In 1855, Congress went back to getting paid an annual salary, this time at $3,000 (about $65,000 in today's money). Since then they have been getting paid more than then average educated US citizen is paid currently, each year. The question I put forth is, do they really deserve to be paid as much as they are?






This year (2007), each normal Congress member will be paid $168,000. The median income for persons over the age of 25 is about $32,000. People over the age of 25 that work full-time and have at least a Bachelor's degree earn a median income of $56,000. Even the highest paid group of full-time workers, those with professional degrees, only earn a median income of $100,000. So does it still seem fair that they earn as much as they do?

There are 251 business days in a normal year (accounting for federal holidays). Assuming Congress members worked each of those days, which they don't due to their lucrative vacation package, they are making $669 a day in salary alone. At the same time, educated Americans are earning $223 a day. Should educated Americans make only 33% of what Congress does?

I am not saying being a member of Congress is easy. I probably wouldn't be very good representative myself. It takes quite a bit of hard work to get to that level of politics. But being a member of Congress should never be about the money, it should be about serving one's country. They should be willing to work for a comfortable pay, but not an excessive one. The ultimate question is should Congress get paid as though they are representing us, or as though they are representing an elite pay grade of society.


Sources: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

No Man is Above the Law

"No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it."
-Theodore Roosevelt

Do we adhere to this simple doctrine in our society? No. President Bush is a perfect example of this. For some reason our politicians and many Americans seem to think it is okay that a president be above the law.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
-Article II, Section 4; United States Constitution

President Bush has clearly ignored or incompetently misinterpreted many laws throughout his presidency. You can find books and material all over the Internet that lay out the case for impeachment on Mr. Bush, so I won't bother repeating them here. My main point is that nobody, including the president, should be above the law.

I understand the idea that impeaching our president may hurt the country. Gerald Ford thought this, and pardoned Nixon so we could just move on (or at least that was part of his reason). But we need to understand that holding our public officals under the fire of the law makes our country stronger. Thomas Jefferson once said that if the government fears the people, there will be liberty.

If government officals know that we are willing to impeach them for their breaches in the law, perhaps they will think twice before unlawfully destroying haebus corpus, or spying on law-abiding Americans. For once I would like to see some integrity in the people we elect into congress to do their job.

In the end, it is our duty to make sure our elected officals are following the Constitution and the law. If you believe your president is breaking the law, insist our lawmakers in congress to begin impeachment proceedings (I already know there is a bill gaining cosonpors in the house as I type this). If your congressperson is not willing to impeach those who break the highest laws of our country, than look into their record. Find out if your congressperson has been breaking the law and perhaps impeach them as well.

No person should ever be above the law, including those who make the laws and enforce them.

If the United States Were A Free Country...

If the United States were a free country, its citizens’ mail, phone calls and electronic communications never would be subject to warrantless government snooping . . .

Read more here.

We're Already Paying for Universal Health Care

According to the World Health Organization, France is ranked number one in health care. At the same time the United States is all the way down at 37. So should we change our system to mirror the French system since it seems to outshine us so well? Well, that would drown us in horrible new taxes wouldn't it? Nope. In fact, you may be already paying for universal health care, but not receiving it.

To figure this all out, we're going to have to know how much the French actually pay for their health care system. According to BBC, France spends about 9% of their GDP on their system. The French GDP is estimated to be $1.9 trillion in 2006. 9% of 1.9 trillion is about 170 billion. France's population is about 64 million. That means that the per capita cost of health care in France is about $2,700. Multiply that by America's estimated population of 301 million, and you get a cost of about $813 billion. That is definitely a lot of money, but we may be already spending it on socialized health care in America. It is estimated that Americans spent about $2 trillion on health care in 2005.

Medicare and Medicaid are government run health care programs. The House Ways and Means Committee stated that in 2002, Medicare expenditures for the government were about $257 billion. At the same time, premiums paid by Medicare subscribers were about $231 billion. Medicaid on the other hand had a budget of $295 billion in 2004. So, the total costs of Medicare and Medicaid in America is about $783 billion, just $30 billion short of equaling the relative cost of the French system.

Government spending on health care does not even stop at Medicare and Medicaid. According the the Journal of the American Medical Association, the government subsidizes about 45% of US medical care costs, covering Medicare, Medicaid, workers' compensation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, public hospitals, and government public health activities. It is estimated that in 2005, Americans spent about $2 trillion on health care. If the government is paying 45% of this, they are actually spending about $900 billion on our health care system, more than enough to pay for a French health care system in America.

So, now we have to ask ourselves if we're up to the task of matching the French health care system in America. I say we can do even better. No system is perfect, including in France, but for $2 trillion we should be blowing the competition out of the water.


UPDATE: The two Wikipedia links were fixed.

The Better of Two Evils

Often, when I ask people why they voted one way or another, they tell me it was the better of the two evils. Most of the time it is said jokingly, but there's always at least some hint of truth in their words. And it's true, we are often forced between two choices we do not like. This seems especially true when it comes to presidential candidates. But why can't we have the lesser of two goods to choose from?

The problem with the system is not necessarily the evils within it. There will always be people and candidates you probably won't like. The problem primarily lies with the fact that we have narrowed ourselves down to a two party system. There is nothing in the Constitution that states we must limit our votes to certain parties, or even a party at all.

There are lots of reasons why we have a two party system, such as the fact that the debates are controlled by an organization that is owned by the Democratic and Republican parties. But that's just part of the whole mentality that not voting for one of the two major parties is throwing your vote away, which has been shoved down are throats for longer than we can remember.

I hear people say, "Well I like this candidate, but they doesn't have a chance to win so I'm not voting for them. The proper way to look at it is, "This person supports most of my views better than anyone else. I'm going to vote for them and trying to support them as best I can." If everyone took more of an optimistic view towards elections, then maybe that candidate that you like could actually become president of these fine United States.

So go out and change the system so that you are voting for the better of many goods, rather than just limiting yourself to two evils.

Throwing Money Away - Presidential Elections

Officially, candidates for the 2008 Presidential Election have raised over $150 million, although that number is probably closer to $200 - 250 million by now. In 2004, the total contributions ran up around $880 million. The 2000 election drew in about $540 million. So, in less than a decade of presidential elections, about $2 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) has been spent on bids for the White House. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. If you factor in all the money spent on elections for congress as well as the presidency, it's nuts. But let's focus on that 2 billion.

So what could you actually spend $2 billion on that wouldn't be a a complete waste? Well,

• a loaf of bread costs on average $2, so a billion loaves of bread could be bought with all of those greenbacks.
• About 4 million cheap $500 laptops could be bought for schools.
• Over 16,000 full-ride scholarships to Harvard could be given out.
• About 250 water treatment plants could be built in poor nations with bad water supplies.
• 4,000 $500,000 homes could be given to the less fortunate
• 0.023% of the nation's debt could be paid off
• Over 1 million high-quality body armor vests could be purchased for soldiers in our armed forces
• So much more...

So do you think all this money is going towards a worthy cause?

Ron Paul, Not Just Another Canidate

Ron Paul has been an Internet sensation since the first GOP presidential debate, but recently he has garnered more attention from his statements in the second debate. Although most of the attention Paul had been getting was from the Internet underground, but recently that has spilled over into the main stream media. But is Ron Paul really a serious candidate for president of the United States of America?

The simple answer is yes. This is the guy people should be looking towards if they are conservative. Paul is really the only candidate with the spine to show true conservatism instead of the stale taste of neo-Republicanism. It's hard to respect most Republicans in politics today because they do not follow the simple beliefs of conservatism that the party originally held.

Dr. Paul takes a position and stays on the position while talking straight to people about it. While I do not agree with all of his beliefs, he is the only Republican candidate who has shown any sign of integrity. Is what he said at the second debate, about America's foreign policy, inflammatory? No. You'd have to be a completely arrogant lying politican who wants a neo-fascist police state in America to not see that our previous Middle Eastern foreign policies have attributed to what happened on 9/11. Was Paul giving Osama bin Laden and other terrorists refuge because we are partly to blame for why they want to attack us? No, of course not. He was stating something that seems to be a taboo in politics these day, dissenting against the current government.

According to the latest FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, Guilliani's numbers have dropped significantly in the last month. At the same time the other candidates have not really gained any more support, which moves a lot of people into the unsure category. In fact, people are equally supportive of Guilliani as they are unsure, both coming topping out at 24%. This is a good sign that people disagreed with Guilliani's message during the second debate, and candidates such as Ron Paul have a chance at gaining a chunk of that unsure category. With his ability to differentiate himself from the crowd with actual conservative views, the next month of watching the presidential race should be a bit more interesting.


Source: Polling Reports