Hope you don't have a retirement account,
http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

"RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts —
including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the
Social Security Administration."

Or want to own any firearms,
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

*Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal
the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law
enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police
officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and
fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense
measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while
keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have
them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this
country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault
Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields
and not on our streets"

* Lower People's Interest Payments by Creating a New Mortgage Interest
Tax Credit: Many middle class Americans do not receive the existing
mortgage interest tax deduction because they do not itemize their taxes.
Obama and Biden will ensure that middle-class Americans get the
financial assistance they need to purchase or keep their own home by
creating a 10 percent universal mortgage credit that gives tax relief to
10 million Americans who have a home mortgage.

* Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing throughout Metropolitan
Regions: Communities prosper when all families have access to affordable
housing. Barack Obama and Joe Biden supported efforts to create an
Affordable Housing Trust Fund to create thousands of new units of
affordable housing every year. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also
restore cuts to public housing operating subsidies, and ensure that all
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs are restored
to their original purpose.

* Increase the Minimum Wage: As president, Obama will raise the minimum
wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and index it to inflation so full-time
workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families
and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing –
things so many people take for granted.


--
Steve W.


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I think the reason for the Republicans failure at the polls was their
inability to distinguish between their, there and they 're.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:21:56 -0500, the infamous "Steve W."
scrawled the following:

Hope you don't have a retirement account,
http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

"RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts —
including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the
Social Security Administration."

Scary.


Or want to own any firearms,
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

'Not Found' now, and judging by the old content (below), I can see
why. He doesn't want his agenda showing before he's inaugurated.


*Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal
the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law
enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police
officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and
fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense
measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while
keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have
them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this
country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault
Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields
and not on our streets"

* Lower People's Interest Payments by Creating a New Mortgage Interest
Tax Credit: Many middle class Americans do not receive the existing
mortgage interest tax deduction because they do not itemize their taxes.
Obama and Biden will ensure that middle-class Americans get the
financial assistance they need to purchase or keep their own home by
creating a 10 percent universal mortgage credit that gives tax relief to
10 million Americans who have a home mortgage.

* Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing throughout Metropolitan
Regions: Communities prosper when all families have access to affordable
housing. Barack Obama and Joe Biden supported efforts to create an
Affordable Housing Trust Fund to create thousands of new units of
affordable housing every year. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also
restore cuts to public housing operating subsidies, and ensure that all
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs are restored
to their original purpose.

* Increase the Minimum Wage: As president, Obama will raise the minimum
wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and index it to inflation so full-time
workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families
and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing –
things so many people take for granted.

--
Never lose sight of this important truth, that no one can be truly
great until he has gained a knowledge of himself, a knowledge which
can only be acquired by occasional retirement.
-- Johann Georg von Zimmermann

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:21:56 -0500, the infamous "Steve W."
scrawled the following:

Hope you don't have a retirement account,
http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

"RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts -
including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts managed by the
Social Security Administration."

Scary.


Or want to own any firearms,
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

'Not Found' now, and judging by the old content (below), I can see
why. He doesn't want his agenda showing before he's inaugurated.

Why not? What difference would it make, before or after? The election is
over. They aren't going to *not* inaugurate him because the NRA is angry.

I think it's more likely that someone quickly realized that now is not the
time to start a war with the NRA. The Dems need all of that goodwill and
support that showed itself in the election, and someone over there pointed
out that they'd just stepped on the third rail. Of all the foolish things
they could do, invoking a gun war now would near the top of the list.

Just guessing, but I don't think we'll see it reappear for a long time. And
by then, things may have changed.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 06:15:31 GMT, "Why_is_everyone_so_cruel"
wrote:

I think the reason for the Republicans failure at the polls was their
inability to distinguish between their, there and they 're.

Like what the meaning of "is" is?

Laugh laugh laugh


Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

That's probably right, Democrats would vote for Adolph Hitler as long as he
sounded smarter than a moral opponent. Democrats prefer a person that spent
their life in college over a person that has spent their life serving their
country. Democrats aren't concerned with the content of your character,
they are concerned with how well you give a speech. A Democratic candidate
can say they are a traitor to the country and want to destroy the country
and they will get votes if they say it correctly and look intelligent saying
it.

RogerN


"Why_is_everyone_so_cruel" wrote in message
...
I think the reason for the Republicans failure at the polls was their
inability to distinguish between their, there and they 're.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 15:45:31 -0600, "RogerN" wrote:

That's probably right, Democrats would vote for Adolph Hitler as long as he
sounded smarter than a moral opponent. Democrats prefer a person that spent
their life in college over a person that has spent their life serving their
country. Democrats aren't concerned with the content of your character,
they are concerned with how well you give a speech. A Democratic candidate
can say they are a traitor to the country and want to destroy the country
and they will get votes if they say it correctly and look intelligent saying
it.

RogerN


Democrats always pick the most charismatic...they LOVE personality
cult figures.

Hitler was very charismatic. They would have voted for him in a
landslide.

Gunner



"Why_is_everyone_so_cruel" wrote in message
...
I think the reason for the Republicans failure at the polls was their
inability to distinguish between their, there and they 're.



Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 09:07:47 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:21:56 -0500, the infamous "Steve W."
scrawled the following:

Hope you don't have a retirement account,
http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

"RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts -
including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts managed by the
Social Security Administration."

Scary.


Or want to own any firearms,
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

'Not Found' now, and judging by the old content (below), I can see
why. He doesn't want his agenda showing before he's inaugurated.

Why not? What difference would it make, before or after? The election is
over. They aren't going to *not* inaugurate him because the NRA is angry.

Heh heh heh. True. But he couldn't answer with the backing of the
Presidency until he has that little inaug tucked in behind him.


I think it's more likely that someone quickly realized that now is not the
time to start a war with the NRA. The Dems need all of that goodwill and
support that showed itself in the election, and someone over there pointed
out that they'd just stepped on the third rail. Of all the foolish things
they could do, invoking a gun war now would near the top of the list.

I hope that's what happened.


Just guessing, but I don't think we'll see it reappear for a long time. And
by then, things may have changed.

Let's hope so!


P.S: Where'd _Ricochet_ disappear to, anyway?

--
Never lose sight of this important truth, that no one can be truly
great until he has gained a knowledge of himself, a knowledge which
can only be acquired by occasional retirement.
-- Johann Georg von Zimmermann

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 15:45:31 -0600, "RogerN" wrote:

That's probably right, Democrats would vote for Adolph Hitler as long as
he
sounded smarter than a moral opponent. Democrats prefer a person that
spent
their life in college over a person that has spent their life serving
their
country. Democrats aren't concerned with the content of your character,
they are concerned with how well you give a speech. A Democratic
candidate
can say they are a traitor to the country and want to destroy the country
and they will get votes if they say it correctly and look intelligent
saying
it.

RogerN


Democrats always pick the most charismatic...they LOVE personality
cult figures.

Hitler was very charismatic. They would have voted for him in a
landslide.

Gunner




You guys are just saying that because it's true!
Clinton leaps to mind immediately




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Steve W." wrote in message ...
Hope you don't have a ...

Don't you think that we all have had enough politics to last us for a while?

Have you got anything to say about metal?

Vaughn

'Not Found' now, and judging by the old content (below), I can see
why. He doesn't want his agenda showing before he's inaugurated.

Why not? What difference would it make, before or after? The election is
over. They aren't going to *not* inaugurate him because the NRA is angry.

I think it's more likely that someone quickly realized that now is not the
time to start a war with the NRA. The Dems need all of that goodwill and
support that showed itself in the election, and someone over there pointed
out that they'd just stepped on the third rail. Of all the foolish things
they could do, invoking a gun war now would near the top of the list.

Just guessing, but I don't think we'll see it reappear for a long time.
And
by then, things may have changed.

--
Ed Huntress


Most Democrats have learned their lesson on the gun issue. After Gore lost
the election to Bush and many people credited it to the Democrats' anti gun
position they changed policy. If you noticed in the last two elections the
gun issue was hardly even discussed. That's because the regular Democrats
saw that being too anti gun cost them too many votes. Since then they have
pretty much let the issue drop and only the far, far, left anti gun zealots
still are talking about guns. Guns are no longer the hot issue they once
were.

Hawke

"Mark Dunning" wrote in message
...

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 15:45:31 -0600, "RogerN" wrote:

That's probably right, Democrats would vote for Adolph Hitler as long as
he
sounded smarter than a moral opponent. Democrats prefer a person that
spent
their life in college over a person that has spent their life serving
their
country. Democrats aren't concerned with the content of your character,
they are concerned with how well you give a speech. A Democratic
candidate
can say they are a traitor to the country and want to destroy the
country
and they will get votes if they say it correctly and look intelligent
saying
it.

RogerN


Democrats always pick the most charismatic...they LOVE personality
cult figures.

Hitler was very charismatic. They would have voted for him in a
landslide.

Gunner




You guys are just saying that because it's true!
Clinton leaps to mind immediately


Yeah, well here's what you guys vote for; Reagan, Bush I, Bob Dole, John
McCain. All washed up, over the hill, has been, old white men. None of them
could have done or did a decent job in office buy you guys can't vote for
anyone else. The younger Bush was the only exception to the old white man
rule and look what a loser he is. So I'd say you have no credibility when it
comes to choosing presidents. Talk about voting for Hitler, you guys would
do that in a heart beat as long as he was really old.

Hawke

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 21:31:22 -0500, "Mark Dunning"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 15:45:31 -0600, "RogerN" wrote:

That's probably right, Democrats would vote for Adolph Hitler as long as
he
sounded smarter than a moral opponent. Democrats prefer a person that
spent
their life in college over a person that has spent their life serving
their
country. Democrats aren't concerned with the content of your character,
they are concerned with how well you give a speech. A Democratic
candidate
can say they are a traitor to the country and want to destroy the country
and they will get votes if they say it correctly and look intelligent
saying
it.

RogerN


Democrats always pick the most charismatic...they LOVE personality
cult figures.

Hitler was very charismatic. They would have voted for him in a
landslide.

Gunner




You guys are just saying that because it's true!
Clinton leaps to mind immediately

And Paris Hilton....lol

Gunner





----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Why_is_everyone_so_cruel wrote:
I think the reason for the Republicans failure at the polls was their
inability to distinguish between their, there and they 're.

It's a national epidemic.
That and overuse of the word "literally".

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:39:26 -0600, RB wrote:
Why_is_everyone_so_cruel wrote:
I think the reason for the Republicans failure at the polls was their
inability to distinguish between their, there and they 're.

It's a national epidemic.
That and overuse of the word "literally".

My pet peeve is people who substitute "een" for "ing".

Thanks,
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:39:26 -0600, RB wrote:
Why_is_everyone_so_cruel wrote:
I think the reason for the Republicans failure at the polls was their
inability to distinguish between their, there and they 're.
It's a national epidemic.
That and overuse of the word "literally".

My pet peeve is people who substitute "een" for "ing".

Perhaps it's a speech impediment.
Deformed palate, perhaps, preventing the formation of the hard 'g' sound

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:45:34 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:39:26 -0600, RB wrote:
Why_is_everyone_so_cruel wrote:
I think the reason for the Republicans failure at the polls was their
inability to distinguish between their, there and they 're.

It's a national epidemic.
That and overuse of the word "literally".

My pet peeve is people who substitute "een" for "ing".

How about the excessive use of pronouns with obscured or improper
referents? I recall a Senate committee hearing where Sen. Kennedy
used "we" to repeatedly and indiscriminately refer to one or more
of the following (it was hard to be certain which):

- The Committee
- The Committee and the witnesses
- The Senate
- Massachusetts residents (voters, anyway)
- All (right-thinking) Americans

I'm not a fanatic about grammar, but this kind of vague and
sloppy use of words makes it hard to understand what someone is
_saying_, let alone figure out whether they're right or wrong.

Oh, and I'd like, just once, to hear a speech from a politician
that made _no_ use of the phrase "the American People".

(No, I'm not holding my breath. grin?)

--
Recessions are the market's way of teaching Americans Economics.
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:21:56 -0500, the infamous "Steve W."
scrawled the following:

I think it's more likely that someone quickly realized that now is
not the time to start a war with the NRA. The Dems need all of that
goodwill and support that showed itself in the election, and someone
over there pointed out that they'd just stepped on the third rail. Of
all the foolish things they could do, invoking a gun war now would
near the top of the list.

Just guessing, but I don't think we'll see it reappear for a long
time. And by then, things may have changed.

Bigger

Fish

Frying

Obama's plans for probing Bush torture
President Bush could pardon officials involved in brutal interrogations --
but he may also face a sweeping investigation under the new president.
By Mark Benjamin

Nov. 13, 2008 |

With growing talk in Washington that President Bush may be considering an
unprecedented "blanket pardon" for people involved in his administration's
brutal interrogation policies, advisors to Barack Obama are pressing ahead
with plans for a nonpartisan commission to investigate alleged abuses under
Bush.



The Obama plan, first revealed by Salon in August, would emphasize
fact-finding investigation over prosecution. It is gaining currency in
Washington as Obama advisors begin to coordinate with Democrats in Congress
on the proposal. The plan would not rule out future prosecutions, but would
delay a decision on that matter until all essential facts can be unearthed.
Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting
array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on
prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term,
should there be one.



The proposed commission -- similar in thrust to a Democratic investigation
proposal first uncovered by Salon in July -- would examine a broad scope of
activities, including detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, the
practice of snatching suspected terrorists off the street and whisking them
off to a third country for abusive interrogations. The commission might also
pry into the claims by the White House -- widely rejected by experienced
interrogators -- that abusive interrogations are an effective and necessary
intelligence tool.



A common view among those involved with the talks is that any early effort
to prosecute Bush administration officials would likely devolve quickly into
ugly and fruitless partisan warfare. Second is that even if Obama decided he
had the appetite for it, prosecutions in this arena are problematic at best:
A series of memos from the Bush Justice Department approved the harsh
tactics, and Congress changed the War Crimes Act in 2006, making
prosecutions of individuals involved in interrogations more difficult.



Instead, a commission empowered by Congress would have the authority to
compel witnesses to testify and even to grant immunity in exchange for
information. Should a particularly ugly picture emerge, the option of
prosecutions would still theoretically be on the table later, however
unlikely.



In Obama's camp, there is a sense among some that such a commission would
essentially mean letting Bush get away with crimes. "People have called for
criminal investigations," one person familiar with the talks told me this
summer as plans got under way. On Wednesday, a person participating in the
talks confirmed that some people involved in the planning felt strongly that
the commission would amount to "bull****" and that Bush officials should be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law.



But few think prosecutions are realistic, given the formidable legal hurdles
and the huge policy problems competing for Obama's attention. Among them is
the complicated task of closing down the military prison at Guantánamo Bay,
which Obama advisors say is a priority. Some observers outside the Obama
camp are also questioning how much Democrats really want exposed with regard
to interrogation, since top Democrats in Congress were briefed in secret on
some of the harshest tactics used by the CIA and appear to have done little,
or perhaps nothing, to stop them.



Further complicating the Obama team's planning is uncertainty about what
President Bush might do. On the one hand, a blanket pardon for anyone
involved in the interrogations could be viewed by the public as a tacit
admission of colossal wrongdoing -- after years of public denial -- which
would do nothing to help Bush's tarnished legacy. Yet, if the administration
fears an investigation will follow Bush out the door in January, they may
not want to leave officials exposed to potentially revealing criminal
proceedings. Bush might seek to frame a blanket pardon as a preemptive
strike against wrongheaded, partisan retribution.



Constitutional scholars say a pardon of this kind would be an unprecedented
move -- the prospective pardon of not just individuals but entire categories
of people, perhaps numbering in the thousands, for carrying out the
president's orders , which the White House has argued all along were legal.



Those scholars agree, however, that Article II of the Constitution gives
Bush much latitude: There is no authority that can stop the president from
doing so if he wishes, and there is no outside check or balance to revisit
such a decision, however controversial it may be. "The president can do with
pardoning power whatever he wants," explained University of Wisconsin Law
School professor Stanley Kutler. "It is complete and plenary unto itself."



A blanket pardon from Bush could cover, for example, anyone who participated
in, had knowledge of, or received information about Bush's interrogation
program during the so-called war on terror. Not only are there potentially
too many people to name without risking missing somebody, but some of the
names are presumably classified.



"The classic pardon is an identifiable individual; here you are talking
about potentially thousands of people involved in illegal activities,"
explained Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School. A
blanket pardon of this variety, Turley said, "would allow a president to
engage in massive illegality and generally pardon the world for any
involvement in unlawful activity."



There are, in fact, some constitutional scholars who believe a pardon might
actually facilitate more complete participation in a fact-finding
commission, by removing the threat of looming liability. "Holding people
accountable is certainly nice, but in terms of healing the country and
moving forward, so is actually getting a clear picture of what happened and
letting the public make an informed decision," said Kermit Roosevelt at the
University of Pennsylvania Law School. "If we had a pardon followed by
something like a truth and reconciliation commission, that might not be such
a bad outcome." (Roosevelt represents a detainee held at Guantánamo.)



The politics of it would be fraught with danger, however, and could so
blemish Bush's legacy that some doubt he would go so far. "A pardon is an
admission of guilt," noted Donald Kettl, a political science professor at
the University of Pennsylvania. Bush has argued for years that his
interrogation program was perfectly legal. With a pardon, Kettl said, Bush
is essentially saying, "Gee, maybe we did not do the right thing."



It is not entirely unprecedented for a president to grant a pardon based on
a category of behavior, rather than pardoning an individual by name. The day
after his inauguration, President Carter pardoned all those who avoided the
Vietnam draft by failing to register or by fleeing to Canada. George
Washington pardoned participants in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion. Andrew
Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers in 1865.



But these were pardons designed to foster reconciliation, handed out to
categories of individuals who acted on their own conscience, rather than the
president's own allegedly illegal orders. "This would be a different deal
completely," explained Kettl. "It would be anticipating that people thought
the official policy of the administration was wrong."



-- By Mark Benjamin


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...re_commission/

--

Dick

Frnak McKenney wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:45:34 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:39:26 -0600, RB wrote:
Why_is_everyone_so_cruel wrote:
I think the reason for the Republicans failure at the polls was their
inability to distinguish between their, there and they 're.
It's a national epidemic.
That and overuse of the word "literally".
My pet peeve is people who substitute "een" for "ing".

How about the excessive use of pronouns with obscured or improper
referents? I recall a Senate committee hearing where Sen. Kennedy
used "we" to repeatedly and indiscriminately refer to one or more
of the following (it was hard to be certain which):

- The Committee
- The Committee and the witnesses
- The Senate
- Massachusetts residents (voters, anyway)
- All (right-thinking) Americans

I'm not a fanatic about grammar, but this kind of vague and
sloppy use of words makes it hard to understand what someone is
_saying_, let alone figure out whether they're right or wrong.

In Kennedy's case, he's probably being deliberately ambiguous so he
can't be held to what he says. Or maybe he was just drunk.

Oh, and I'd like, just once, to hear a speech from a politician
that made _no_ use of the phrase "the American People".

I agree with that. Like we're all one big anomalous lump

Dick 'Tater wrote:

Obama's plans for probing Bush torture
President Bush could pardon officials involved in brutal interrogations --
but he may also face a sweeping investigation under the new president.
By Mark Benjamin

Nov. 13, 2008 |

With growing talk in Washington that President Bush may be considering an
unprecedented "blanket pardon" for people involved in his administration's
brutal interrogation policies, advisors to Barack Obama are pressing ahead
with plans for a nonpartisan commission to investigate alleged abuses under
Bush.

Non-partisan my ass! The Democratic leadership has no idea what it
means to be non-partisan or even bi-partisan. When they reach across the
aisle, the hand holds a dagger.

Why not just officially call it The Inquisition, after the witch hunt it
would be. I bet Pelosi's ancestors lived in Salem MA

I hope Bush does do a blanket pardon. God knows Obama will have a long
list of pardons, when he finally goes away. Either of them won't come
close to Clinton's excesses though.