Determining If Accident Lawyers PG County Are Right for You

When in need accident lawyers PG County area can be of great immediate assistance when you've been injured in an accident. You will more than likely need the services of a lawyer if you have been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident, injured on private property, or injured while at work. They are trained to do their best work in providing you with a soundproof case that with the right details and background to hopefully get you some form of financial compensation.

* Whether you decide to use accident lawyers PG County area or not there will always be a need for details to win your case. When in a serious accident it is very important that you seek medical attention right away. At the hospital they will ask a series of questions to find out what was wrong and give you the medical attention necessary. While at the hospital the police will likely ask you to make an account for what happened at the time of the accident to determine who is at fault. Getting the details right is vital for your case no matter who will represent you so be sure to give accurate details as much as possible.
* Once you've had time to calm down and begin your recovery process from your accident you then need to determine whether or not accident lawyers PG County are what you need right now. You can begin calling around to local lawyers in your area just to get a feel for what type of case you have, if any, as well as over the phone estimates of how much their services might cost you. Learning this over the phone will determine if you should seek more advice or if you can go it alone.
* One option you have available to you is going with accident lawyers that have smaller sized firms. They typically have fewer clients and therefore have more time to work on your case efficiently. It is also common to find that the smaller firms will have lower fess than those with larger firm sizes.
* The last key to determining if you should choose to go with accident lawyers PG County area is to find out how much they will charge. Not all lawyers will chare the same amount as the price will be based on how in depth your case is, the services they offer you, and the success rate of the case. There are some law firms that do not charge their clients upfront until they have won their case. However, there are other firms that offer a wide array of payment arrangements that can accommodate your budget appropriately.

Should I Self Represent?

After gathering all of this information you are ready to make the determination as to whether or not you're better off representing yourself. If you find that you will pay more to your attorney than you're going to get rewarded chances are you should try to go it alone. If this is the route you wish to take you should consider all the details remembering to take photos of your vehicle, accident site, and personal injuries. You also want to keep a folder with all of your medical reports and time off from work. Having your ducks in a row will ensure that you get what you are entitled to.

Source : GoArticles.com © 2012, All Rights Reserved/Determining If Accident Lawyers PG County Are Right for You

Sound Currency, The Federal Reserve And A Libertarian’s Call To Action

The Libertarian Party, to which I must confess that I am a member, has never really taken on the constitution/composition of either the Republican or Democrat parties. In reality, the Libertarian Party is more an amalgam or synthesis of the two. It’s in that sense that many disaffected Republicans and Democrats seem to be filing into the Libertarian ranks over these past few years. Whereas the other parties force more conformity and singleness of message, Libertarians, in our laissez-faire stance to most things, allow broad opinions and vast beliefs even to the detriment of message.

Libertarians, for the most part, just want to be left the hell alone. However, among our ranks are environmentalists (which depending upon degree of ‘orthodoxy’ can remind me of rabid Statists), anarchists or rather anarcho-capitalists, Liberals/Democrats and Republicans with firm beliefs of social/civil rights, e.g. gay marriage, anti-war subset, and lastly there is the Ron Paul subset with a firm belief in the Constitution and rooted in Austrian Economics. This is by no means a complete list of all people who define themselves as ‘libertarian,’ but it does help to illuminate a general discordance within the party.

Considering the problems that our country is facing, and the dire consequences of inaction, I find it necessary for the Libertarian Party to find an issue which impacts everyone; in fact, it is a necessary prerequisite for our country to move out of the doldrums of an economic Depression and that is sound money. As a fan of Austrian Economics myself, we, as a party and individually, have not fought back hard enough in demanding that our government adhere to the Constitution and end this sham of a fiat/Federal Reserve inspired money system. Ron Paul, at least in Congress, has been the unsung hero of sound money since the late 1970s. Many considered him a quack who knew not about the complexities of the vast US economic system. In point of fact, it was the Republicans and Democrats who knew nothing of the system and kept feeding the paper beast.


By focusing on money and its proper management will allow most libertarians to rally behind a principle which many of us hold true; the principle is that all of us, both individually and collectively, need to be self sufficient. We, as a nation, cannot be self sufficient when we continue to pump money, i.e. inflation, into a bloviated monetary system. Furthermore, the very nature of our banking system is based on inflation and fraud via a Federal Reserve protected fractional-reserve banking system. For the only reason we can ‘afford’ our foreign interventions, massive welfare state, and environmentally suicidal system is by trillions of dollars in non-backed currency, currency which was truly created ‘out of thin air.’

It is only after we have a sound money system that we can truly take a look at what money we have coming in and the extent of our liabilities going out. I do have some hope for the future considering that Ron Paul was recently placed in charge of the Subcommittee which oversees the Federal Reserve and he recently introduced HR 459, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, aka Audit the Fed Bill. Additionally Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul, introduced the same bill in the Senate as S. 202.

For our nation to survive, we must support Ron and Rand Paul in auditing and then ultimately dismantling the Federal Reserve System. Let us, as a party, stand united around true fiscal discipline and self sufficiency. Central Banking and fiat currency has been the noose under which our Republic’s neck rests, fought against by our Founders, and then abdicated in 1913. As Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr. opined upon the Federal Reserve Act passage in 1913, “from now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Source: © 2005-2011 Article Dashboard/Sound Currency, The Federal Reserve And A Libertarian’s Call To Action

Richard Simon Of Chicago Shares Interesting Ideas On Chicago Politics

Richard Simon really loves Chicago politics. As a long term Chicagoan, he can admire the different type of nuttiness that is Chicago politics. He doesn’t even consider himself to be a political person but it’s tough to live in Chicago and not observe of the inanities, the personas, the scandals, the Daley Dynasty. “It is incredible, just how much influence the mafia had in Chicago politics in the early twentieth century,” Simon said. The truth is, in the 1920s many Chicago policemen were considered to bring in more cash from mob pay offs than off their policeman’s salary. 

“Chicago’s Democratic Machine has had a hold on the town for pretty much a hundred years,” Simon told us. “And within that machine, there were sharp ethnic lines drawn.” Local neighborhoods were governed by the ethnic groups that lived there - Irish, Polish, Italian and more. “The Daley family is to Chicago what the Kennedy family is to the United States,” Simon said. “The two lengthiest serving mayors of this city are Richard J. Daley and his son Richard M. Daley.” Richard M. Daley has been mayor of Chicago for 21 years and decided to not seek reelection in the recent mayoral race. He will be succeeded by former White House Chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel. “You will need to go back nearly a hundred years to find a mayor of Chicago who is not a Democrat, the machine runs the politics in this city,” Simon told us. 


Chicago is known as one of the biggest Democratic strongholds in the United States. There hasn’t been a Republican mayor since William Thompson was elected in 1927. “The Daley machine is basically thought to have been instrumental in getting John F. Kennedy elected to the presidency in 1960,” Simon told us. “Illinois’ electoral votes determined the presidency that year and the thing is, over half the state’s population is located in Cook County, home to the great city of Chicago, he said. “The Chicago Democratic Machine has dominated politics in this city since the 1930s, and I frankly don’t see it slowing down for them anytime soon.” 

“When you consider the influence the Chicago Machine has had on politics over the decades you start to think about how influential they were in electing our current president Barak Obama to the Presidency and diehard Chicagoan Rahm Emmanuel to the mayor’s office." “One thing is for sure, it’s never a dull time for politics in this city and this state,” Rick Simon said in closing.

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Source: © 2005-2011 Article Dashboard/Richard Simon Of Chicago Shares Interesting Ideas On Chicago Politics

President Obama - Channeling President Richard Nixon?

A recent New York Times article, which was written by Mark Landler and Helene Cooper, said something about President Obama that was eerily similar to words that were spoken by President Nixon four decades or so ago. The article was titled, "Obama Seeks A Course of Pragmatism In the Middle East." It discussed the difficult time and criticism the President has been under as a result of his administration's reactions and actions to the upheaval in the Middle East. The article concludes with the following words: "Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As an official put it: "No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao's (Chinese Premier) words in Tahrir Square. 

Seems the President might be getting a little irritated that others in this country and abroad somehow have a difference of opinion with his policies. Almost to the point that how dare anyone criticize his decisions. Compare this view of self pity with a famous Nixon quote: "Politics would be a helluva a good business if it weren't for the $#!*% people." Kind of sounds like the same problem: I am the President of the United States. I should be able to do what I want since I am that much smarter than the rest of you, you people are little more than irritants that make my life less enjoyable.


It is a shame that both Presidents think or thought this way. It is called a democracy, we are allowed to question our leaders' decisions even if it irritates them.

However, this channeling of Nixon does not end here if you do a little more research. Recently, President Obama has shown a very distressing tendency to ignore judicial protocol and decisions that he does not agree with. When a Federal judge deemed his Gulf oil drilling moratorium to be illegal, the administration merely revoked the original moratorium and replaced it with a virtually identical second moratorium, a charade that the judge promptly struck down with words admonishing the administration for its obvious disregard for his first ruling. 

More recently, the President deemed that the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, a responsibility of the Supreme Court, not Barack Obama. This law, no matter how one views it, has been on the books for about fifteen years and has not been severely tested or found wanting in any court. The President basically said he did not like it or find it Constitution and unilaterally decided not to enforce it.

Sounds an awful like a Nixon position and statement from long ago: "Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the manner in which the President personally exercises his assigned executive powers is not subject to questioning by another branch of government." Thus, I guess President Obama was just exercising this Nixon tenet: regardless of what Congress has passed or the courts have decided, the President is not subject to questioning by these other two branches of government, even though the Constitution is structured to allow such questioning and separation of powers.

Now we are just getting warmed up. Consider some words from President Obama regarding the need to respect each other and to get along even though we may have differences of opinion: "So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope – what they deserve – is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our politics."

Sounds good until you view it in the light of a Nixonism: "Let us move from an era of confrontation to the era of negotiation." In both instances, the words do not match the actions. Nixon had his famous "enemies list" of people who dared to confront him and his actions. President Obama has allowed his Democratic Party partners to lash out at anyone who dared to honestly and rightfully criticize or confront an Obama initiative with such disparaging words as un-American, racists, Neanderthal, and members of the Klan. Sounds all too familiar.

To quote many a TV ad, there's more! On March 8, 2011, the Washington Post reported that President Obama recently signed an executive order to "create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at Guantanamo, Cuba who continue to pose a significant threat to national security." Thus, with the stroke of a pen, the President has decided to deny a basic right of freedom to other human beings, the right to a fair and open trial so that the defendants can properly defend themselves and a just verdict reached after all of the facts and evidence have been put forth. Now, one man, the President, has decided to void that right, a right that is fundamental to the American justice system.

How can he dare do this? Maybe he is still channeling Nixon who once said: "When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." Phew, I thought we were voiding something important here, the right to a fair trial. Lucky thing that Nixon blazed that trail, placing more value on a President's sole judgment that centuries of proven and successful judicial processes.

One more seance example. Recently, Congressman Darrell Issa of California asked the administration for a ton of information, in various forms, as it applies to the backroom negotiations that went on during the formulation of Obama Care between the administration and the major drug companies and other health care field companies. Issa wants to be sure that no illegal or other hanky panky deals were made to get support for the passage of Obama Care as part of the Congressional committee he chairs. 

One would have thought that this opportunity was consistent with the President's pledge of a transparent government, a major campaign selling point of his. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The President responded by saying most, if not all, of the Issa request would not be granted since it would harm the separation of powers and that it might weaken the executive branch of the government. 

At this point in time no one knows if the President's claim is true and Issa is just on a vindictive witch hunt or the President does have something to hide and Issa is on a campaign for truth. The point is that Nixon has already been down this path when he stated: "If I were to make public these tapes, containing blunt and candid remarks on many different subjects, the confidentiality of the office of the President would always be suspect." If memory serves me right, these tapes were eventually ordered released by the Supreme Court so it should be interesting to see where the Issa/Obama dance ends up, given the Nixon precedent.

It does not say much if the President is actually looking to Richard Nixon for guidance in governance. The Nixon administration was infamous for its insecurity, its secrecy, its vindictiveness, and eventually, its ineffectiveness. By channeling the Nixon way of thinking and governing, the President sets himself up for failure. 

Until that point of failure, major issues do not get addressed and resolved and the cornerstones of our democracy, the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the respect for the responsibility of each government branch will deteriorate, dragging down our personal freedom and liberties in the process. Seems that we have not evolved our democracy very much if Nixon's words ring true today within the executive branch.

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Source : © 2005-2011 Article Dashboard/President Obama - Channeling President Richard Nixon?

A Guide Towards Understanding American Politics

America has only one political party with two wings, the Democratic wing and the Republican wing. Discussion: The Democrats campaign from the left and govern from the center; the Republicans campaign from the right, then govern from the center-right while pursuing a pro-business agenda that does little to elevate the quality of life of ordinary people in America. 

As a result, there is only a modest range of potential change in policy that occurs between the center and center-right positions, resulting in a frozen democracy and the continuance of the status quo desired by the politicians’ masters. The latter include influential members of the financial sector, the Republican and Democratic Party leaders, and owners of the media. Lewis Lapham and Walter Karp refer to this group as “the permanent government” in America. Congress and the Presidency constitute the provisional government, where the morality play of social and political issues unfolds; however, the real decisions are made by their masters. Congress is clearly the largest house of prostitution in the nation, with ordinary American’s experiencing the illusion, not the reality, of representative democracy. As one Republican Congresswoman was bold enough to say, “if you want access, you have to pay for it.” 
The five member conservative majority on the Supreme Court demonstrated its corruption in the Gore decision after the 2000 election by reversing their long-standing respect for states rights while indicating that this decision was an exception. It was a politically motivated act to aid the Republicans to whom they owed their appointment to the High Court. 


The Court declined to allow a recount in the State of Florida, where there were numerous flaws in the election process, including a system that fraudulently denied certification to eligible voters and police roadblocks in Volusia County designed to limit Black turnout in the election. Presidential Obama, like his predecessors, campaigned for change, but has largely promoted a continuance of government policies in many areas. Moreover, in the healthcare debate, he could have submitted an administration backed bill that included a comprehensive single-payer plan. 

Instead, he avoided a contentious debate where he could potentially lose political points, leaving it to the corrupt Congress to pass a watered-down version of health care that still excludes millions of persons from healthcare coverage to this day. On a personal level, it is not inspiring that he bought his house in Illinois at below market value from a man subsequently convicted of bribery and extortion. 
The American Electorate is divided into two groups. The first includes the majority of conservative White voters, along with a smaller percentage (10% of Blacks, 33% of Asians, and 33% of Latinos) of minorities. The second group is comprised of roughly 35% of progressive White voters, along with 90% of blacks, 67% of Latinos and 67% of Asians, and smaller populations. The Conservative White Majority constitutes the poison that permeates American society through its promotion of 19th-century rugged individualism, anti-intellectualism, and racism. 

The rugged individualism is cast in modern-day society as “personal responsibility”, the name the Republicans gave to the 1995 welfare Reform Act. Under their view, each individual is responsible for himself; it is a form of social Darwinism that rejects collective responsibility and mutual support. Although they fear socialism, they have no idea that government subsidies to oil, agriculture and other industries constitute socialism. 

Indeed, as the late economist John Kenneth Galbreath observed, America has long had socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. This is beyond their meager understanding. The anti-intellectualism is manifested with George Bush prancing around the stage and 2004 throwing out clichés such as “you can run, but you can hide.” and the success of Sarah Palin, despite her intellectual implosion on national television in her interview with Katie Couric. The racism is reflected not only in the placards from the tea party march in Washington depicting the President as a monkey, but in Sarah Palin’s vice presidential campaign when she said, in addressing a White audience, that “ it is good to be around real Americans”. How likely is it she would refer to a gathering of people of color by that term? 

The so called “American Dream” is a pathetic one of a job, house and a car, with no discussion those basics being simply a point of departure for enriching life through the arts, music, literature or other pursuits that enhance the human experience, rather than the basics serving as the end point. The dreams of the White majority are individual ones; mutual sharing and support are rejected. Under these conditions, is it a good idea to vote? One reason to vote for a different party is to deny legitimacy to the one party system of Democrats and Republicans. At the same time, a good reason to vote Democratic is, if one is not wealthy, to block the Republicans and their disregard for the quality of life of ordinary people. (Bill Honer is an author, independent world traveler, consultant, former government analyst, social worker and former host of the California cable television program “Social Issues.”)

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Source: © 2005-2011 Article Dashboard/A Guide Towards Understanding American Politics

Making Government And The Political Class Subservient To Freedom Again

The following is based on a email that has been zipping around the email word recently. The email laid out some interesting changes some Americans would like to see made to the broken political and governmental processes we currently have in this country.

Before getting into the detail's of the proposed changes, consider what can be done when ordinary people get passionate and involved in making a better world. According to the email, the 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only three months eight days to be ratified. This was before email, personal computers, smart phones, Twitter, Facebook, and other modern ways to communicate. Furthermore, according to the email, of the twenty seven amendments to the Constitution, seven took one year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.


So, let's call this movement the "Congressional Reform Act of 2011," an act that would include the following components:

1. Term Limits. This is consistent with the old adage: "If you are not part of the solution then you must be part of the problem." Many, many of our politicians have been around for decades. If they have not solved any of our major problems in that time, there is no reason to keep them around in the vain hope that they might eventually figure things out.

2. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present and future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. 

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do. Most Americans no longer have any chance of receiving a traditional pension. Politicians, whose pensions are paid by the very people who no longer can get a pension, should not be entitled to something most Americans can not receive.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3% but only if the voters agree that they are doing a good job. This approach requires that the political class actually be successful in their job before getting rewarded, much like the plight of most working Americans.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. No argument on this one.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people. No argument here either.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressional members are void effective 1/1/11. In agreement but there might be some legal issues here, i.e. can you renege on past agreements? If you can, then great. If not, then at least start with future generations of politicians.

9. Allow only individual Americans to contribute to election campaigns. No corporate donations, no PAC donations, no union donations, no fancy sounding front group donations, just individual Americans exercising their freedom of expression by sending directly to a politician's campaign fund.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressional members. They made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. 

Before closing, lets go back to term limits one more time. It is any easy concept to grasp but when you start thinking about what this would actually look like, the permutations can make you crazy. Thus, we would like you to vote on one of the four options when it comes to term limits:

- Option A - Senators get a maximum of twelve years via two six year terms and House members get a maximum of twelve years via six two year terms. Presidents get a maximum of eight years via two four year terms.

- Option B - Senators get a maximum one six year term and House members get a maximum of six years via three two year terms. Presidents get a maximum of eight years via two four year terms.

- Option C - Senators get a maximum of one five year term and House members get a maximum of three years via one three year term. The President gets a maximum of six years via one six year term.

- Option D - term limits are not a good idea, no changes.

It should be pointed out there is a huge benefit of Option C. It is my belief that much of the perversions of the political process occurs when incumbents sell their souls for votes and campaign donations, subjugating the best interest of the country for the best interests of their political careers. If a politician has no chance at re-election, a lot of this problem goes away and they are free to make the right decisions for the country and are not burdened with the need to raise re-election funds. Just a thought.

To vote, please drop a short email with your choice of option A, B, C, or D as your preferred approach along with your home state to the email address listed in the Author's box below.

The need to be subservient to the political class does not have to be. According to the original email, if each person reading this contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. I do not know if the math is right but the concept of reforming Congress is right. Maybe it is time...

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Source: © 2005-2011 Article Dashboard/Making Government And The Political Class Subservient To Freedom Again

4 Reasons Why You Need A Reckless Driving Lawyer

If you have been charged with reckless driving, or another criminal charge, it is more important than ever to get in touch with a criminal attorney in order to discuss your options. A criminal attorney can give you a fighting chance in today's increasingly complex legal system.

Furthermore, having a reckless driving lawyer or a DUI lawyer go to court for you can be very helpful if you have a busy home or work life. A DUI lawyer can show up for your first hearing and file for a continuance, as well as discuss options with the judge and the prosecuting attorney. This means that your case is being handled while you go on with the rest of your life. In the event that you need to physically be in court, your lawyer can guide you through the process of what is going on and what to expect.


Another advantage to hiring a reckless driving lawyer that they will often know the judges and prosecuting attorneys in the area and will know what defense arguments are more likely to be taken seriously in which courtrooms. This can be a lot of help when dealing with stricter judges who are less sympathetic to reckless driving and DUI charges. This is also something to consider if you have given thought to representing yourself in court. Unless you have prior legal experience in the area of your case, it would be wise to hire a lawyer.

Speaking of knowing the legal system, hiring an attorney can also be helpful in that they know and understand the legal system. Unfortunately, drama inside the court room is much more complicated than what we see on television shows. There are intricate complexities that a lawyer would be aware of that would assist in your defense. Hiring an attorney means you will be able to let them handle all of the hard work while your defense is sorted out.

Finally, a lawyer can help you to have your charges reduced in court. This could mean the difference between jail time and a fine. For example, an attorney may be able to have your charges reduced from reckless driving to improper driving, or even reduced to a simple speeding ticket. This can also mean less points being placed on your license, meaning lower insurance premiums.

As mentioned, if you have been charged with reckless driving, or another criminal charge, such as a DUI, hiring a lawyer will give you peace of mind, as well as legal protection. Having a lawyer on your side is a great asset when facing the complexities of the modern legal system.

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com/4 Reasons Why You Need A Reckless Driving Lawyer

© 2005-2011 Article Dashboard