<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=DaveSB</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=DaveSB"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DaveSB"/>
	<updated>2026-10-07T07:28:32Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Alberto_R._Gonzales&amp;diff=352839</id>
		<title>Talk:Alberto R. Gonzales</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Alberto_R._Gonzales&amp;diff=352839"/>
		<updated>2007-12-15T17:58:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DaveSB: /* serving at the pleasure of the president */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;wow, really nothing else here?  lol, anybody been watching the news AT ALL?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cleaned up the introduction to make it sound less like a high school yearbook article. --[[User:RWest]] 12:21 26 July 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a friendly warning: Any more attempts at racial smears/slanders will result in blocking. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:47, 25 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It makes no sense at all to call a person &amp;quot;intellectually rigorous&amp;quot;.  Well, it makes some sense, but it's certainly not within the usual usage of the phrase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, there are plenty of scandals more serious than the firing of the attorneys in which Gonzalez has been involved. Some mention of the NSA domestic surveillance scandal and allegations of perjury would be nice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the attorney incident, though I'm sure there are people who think the actions taken were illegal, the event can be scandalous without being illegal.  It is reasonable to object to the overpoliticization of government offices, and to deny that purely political firings are bad.  It is, however, pretty childish to complain about the &amp;quot;liberal media&amp;quot;, as if the desire of the public for its administrators not to fire public officials without explanation was totally manufactured by some monolithic liberal media monopoly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it really objective to use the phrase &amp;quot;...the liberally-biased media...&amp;quot;?  -- [[User:Fez]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I don't believe this site's purpose is to be 'objective' where it compromises the truth of the matter. On another note, can we update this page with the end of his term and create a page for the new AG, Mukasey? [[User:EddieBurke|EddieBurke]] 00:04, 13 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== serving at the pleasure of the president ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is true that U.S. Atty's serve &amp;quot;at the pleasure of the president&amp;quot;, and can therefore be fired for no reason, or for reasons for which other employees could not be fired. However, there are many reasons for which it would be illegal for the president to fire a US Atty. For example, if he did so in order to obstruct an investigation or prosecution, it would arguably be illegal; if a USAT was fired for refusing to take a religious oath, it would clearly violate the Establishment Clause and Article VI of the Constitution. if a USAT was fired for a criminal purpose (for example, to further a criminal conspiracy, etc.) this too would likely be illegal. I'm not saying this is what occurred in the USAT, but it the article is incorrect where it states that USAT's can be fired &amp;quot;for any reason.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
UPDATE: I removed the portion that said that USAT can be fired &amp;quot;for any reason&amp;quot;. Also removed the sentence &amp;quot;Even if an attorney was fired for being a Democrat...&amp;quot; To my knowledge, none of the fired USAT's was a Democrat, and none claim to have been fired for being one. - DaveSB&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DaveSB</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Alberto_R._Gonzales&amp;diff=352832</id>
		<title>Talk:Alberto R. Gonzales</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Alberto_R._Gonzales&amp;diff=352832"/>
		<updated>2007-12-15T17:46:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DaveSB: /* serving at the pleasure of the president */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;wow, really nothing else here?  lol, anybody been watching the news AT ALL?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cleaned up the introduction to make it sound less like a high school yearbook article. --[[User:RWest]] 12:21 26 July 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a friendly warning: Any more attempts at racial smears/slanders will result in blocking. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:47, 25 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It makes no sense at all to call a person &amp;quot;intellectually rigorous&amp;quot;.  Well, it makes some sense, but it's certainly not within the usual usage of the phrase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, there are plenty of scandals more serious than the firing of the attorneys in which Gonzalez has been involved. Some mention of the NSA domestic surveillance scandal and allegations of perjury would be nice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the attorney incident, though I'm sure there are people who think the actions taken were illegal, the event can be scandalous without being illegal.  It is reasonable to object to the overpoliticization of government offices, and to deny that purely political firings are bad.  It is, however, pretty childish to complain about the &amp;quot;liberal media&amp;quot;, as if the desire of the public for its administrators not to fire public officials without explanation was totally manufactured by some monolithic liberal media monopoly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it really objective to use the phrase &amp;quot;...the liberally-biased media...&amp;quot;?  -- [[User:Fez]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I don't believe this site's purpose is to be 'objective' where it compromises the truth of the matter. On another note, can we update this page with the end of his term and create a page for the new AG, Mukasey? [[User:EddieBurke|EddieBurke]] 00:04, 13 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== serving at the pleasure of the president ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is true that U.S. Atty's serve &amp;quot;at the pleasure of the president&amp;quot;, and can therefore be fired for no reason, or for reasons for which other employees could not be fired. However, there are many reasons for which it would be illegal for the president to fire a US Atty. For example, if he did so in order to obstruct an investigation or prosecution, it would arguably be illegal; if a USAT was fired for refusing to take a religious oath, it would clearly violate the Establishment Clause and Article VI of the Constitution. if a USAT was fired for a criminal purpose (for example, to further a criminal conspiracy, etc.) this too would likely be illegal. I'm not saying this is what occurred in the USAT, but it the article is incorrect where it states that USAT's can be fired &amp;quot;for any reason.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
UPDATE: I removed the portion that said that USAT can be fired &amp;quot;for any reason&amp;quot;. Also removed the sentence &amp;quot;Even if an attorney was fired for being a Democrat...&amp;quot; To my knowledge, none of the fired USAT's was a Democrat, and none claim to have been fired for being one.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DaveSB</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alberto_R._Gonzales&amp;diff=352831</id>
		<title>Alberto R. Gonzales</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alberto_R._Gonzales&amp;diff=352831"/>
		<updated>2007-12-15T17:44:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DaveSB: /* Controversy */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-left:5px&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|[[Image:480px-Alberto Gonzales - official DoJ photograph.jpg|225px|250px|Alberto R. Gonzales]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;color: white; height: 30px; background: Indigo no-repeat scroll top left;&amp;quot;|Alberto Gonzales&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;80th Attorney General of the United States&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Life&lt;br /&gt;
|August 4, 1955 - &amp;amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Term&lt;br /&gt;
|February 3, 2005 - September 17, 2007&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Alberto R. Gonzales''' (born August 4, 1955) was the 80th [[Attorney General]] of the United States, succeeding [[John Ashcroft]].  He is a graduate of [[Rice University]], and a former member of [[Lovett College]]. Gonzales was one of the best students in his graduating class, considered one of the school's brightest and most intellectually rigorous students. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early Life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alberto Gonzales was born in San Antonio, [[Texas]], and raised in Humble, near Houston. He was the second of eight children born to Pablo and Maria Gonzales. His father, who died in 1982, was a construction worker. An honors student at MacArthur High School, Gonzales enlisted in the [[United States Air Force]] in 1973, for a four year term of enlistment, serving two years at Fort Yukon, Alaska and two years as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. Prior to beginning his third year at the academy, which would have caused him to incur a further service obligation, he transferred to [[Rice University]] (Houston, Texas), where he was a member of Lovett College and earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1979. He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from [[Harvard]] Law School in 1982. He and his wife, Rebecca Turner Gonzales, have three sons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legal Career==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gonzales was an attorney in private practice from 1982 until 1994 with the Houston law firm Vinson and Elkins, where he became a partner. In 1994, he was named general counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, rising to become Secretary of State of Texas in 1997 and finally to be named to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, both appointments made by Governor Bush. During this time Gonzales was very involved in charities and community service. He was a board director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this same period. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. He was chosen as one of Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994. He was a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He received the Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. In 1999, he was named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association. On November 10, 2004, it was announced that he would be nominated to replace United States Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] for President Bush's second term. The nomination was approved with a 60-36 vote. He was sworn in on February 14, 2005.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Achievements ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Led Project Safe Neighborhoods to help eliminate violence in inner cities.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/May/06_ag_262.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Was instrumental in passing the [[Military Commissions Act]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Controversy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alberto Gonzales was the center of a controversy over the firings of 8 United States attorneys. Detractors insisted that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, instead of performance-based reasons (a claim that no one in the White House has ever made, though some Justice Department officials initially made this claim in Congressional testimony).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite the fact that United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the [[President of the United States]], the [[Liberal bias|liberally biased]] media insists on calling it a scandal. In fact, Alberto Gonzales &amp;quot;tempered the White House desire to replace U.S. Attorneys wholesale.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day24/archive/2007/03/23/alberto-gonzales-raw-deal.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trivia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Albert Gonzales was voted the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1992.&lt;br /&gt;
* His Secret Service nickname is &amp;quot;Elephant&amp;quot;, a reference to his uncanny ability to memorize obscure parts of United States law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html Alberto R. Gonzales] The White House.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gonzales, Alberto R.}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United States Government]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: United States Appointed Officials]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Attorneys]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DaveSB</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Alberto_R._Gonzales&amp;diff=352271</id>
		<title>Talk:Alberto R. Gonzales</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Alberto_R._Gonzales&amp;diff=352271"/>
		<updated>2007-12-14T18:06:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DaveSB: serving at the pleasure of the president&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;wow, really nothing else here?  lol, anybody been watching the news AT ALL?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cleaned up the introduction to make it sound less like a high school yearbook article. --[[User:RWest]] 12:21 26 July 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a friendly warning: Any more attempts at racial smears/slanders will result in blocking. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:47, 25 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It makes no sense at all to call a person &amp;quot;intellectually rigorous&amp;quot;.  Well, it makes some sense, but it's certainly not within the usual usage of the phrase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, there are plenty of scandals more serious than the firing of the attorneys in which Gonzalez has been involved. Some mention of the NSA domestic surveillance scandal and allegations of perjury would be nice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the attorney incident, though I'm sure there are people who think the actions taken were illegal, the event can be scandalous without being illegal.  It is reasonable to object to the overpoliticization of government offices, and to deny that purely political firings are bad.  It is, however, pretty childish to complain about the &amp;quot;liberal media&amp;quot;, as if the desire of the public for its administrators not to fire public officials without explanation was totally manufactured by some monolithic liberal media monopoly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it really objective to use the phrase &amp;quot;...the liberally-biased media...&amp;quot;?  -- [[User:Fez]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I don't believe this site's purpose is to be 'objective' where it compromises the truth of the matter. On another note, can we update this page with the end of his term and create a page for the new AG, Mukasey? [[User:EddieBurke|EddieBurke]] 00:04, 13 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== serving at the pleasure of the president ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is true that U.S. Atty's serve &amp;quot;at the pleasure of the president&amp;quot;, and can therefore be fired for no reason, or for reasons for which other employees could not be fired. However, there are many reasons for which it would be illegal for the president to fire a US Atty. For example, if he did so in order to obstruct an investigation or prosecution, it would arguably be illegal; if a USAT was fired for refusing to take a religious oath, it would clearly violate the Establishment Clause and Article VI of the Constitution. if a USAT was fired for a criminal purpose (for example, to further a criminal conspiracy, etc.) this too would likely be illegal. I'm not saying this is what occurred in the USAT, but it the article is incorrect where it states that USAT's can be fired &amp;quot;for any reason.&amp;quot;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DaveSB</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>