JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States who is accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing to the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News and CBS News to cover stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley has selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
For further information: Mr. Seth Tate – 202-994-0537
Mr. Turley, I’m a fan of yours and have enjoyed the mental aerobics you’ve displayed during testimony before Congress and elsewhere on TV. I’m happy to learn of your new WordPress.com blog and plan to follow your endeavor here. Welcome! May you shine here as well as you do elsewhere.
Prof. Turley,
There are a very few TV/radio commentators who, when they speak, I stop what I’m doing and listen. You are one of the best. Thanks for your input on politics and current affairs.
Stephen Mette
Dear Mr. Turley:
I never imagined I would ever get a chance to address you directly, but like bloggomio and Stephen Mette above I have been a fan and supporter of yours for many years now. Today, I enjoyed (as always) hearing you discuss the latest “high crimes and misdemeanors” on AirAmerica with Randi Rhodes, and was thrilled to hear about your blog. So, here I am. The following “note” is much longer than I intended, and I hope it does not overwhelm you! Please bear with me.
As depressing as it can be to be a patriot and constitutionalist in these trying times, it is good to know that there are a few men out there with the time, tools, talent, intellectual chops and courage to take on massively powerful corporate/government interests when they engage in unconstitutional (and un-American) behavior. Criminality and unconstitutionality seems to be the standard operating procedure these days. Perhaps it has always been thus…
I’ve followed your work for years, going all the way back to the Clinton era (seems like ancient history now). The Area 51 case was amazing. I consider myself fortunate to have seen you on a documentary about “America’s most secret base,” lest I might never have heard about the case otherwise. The story certainly wasn’t covered by the local news here in Los Angeles!
I imagine it took great chutzpah to “beard the lion” in his own court, if not in his own den, and it was highly surreal listening to you describe a court battle in which part of the government’s defense was that since the base didn’t exist there couldn’t be any violation of law. It must have been even more surreal to be there! In my opinion, knowing how powerful (and nefarious) the federal government is these days, I think it’s safe to say that those injured workers and their surviving family members were very lucky to have you. Well done sir!
In any event, I believe your words (both written and spoken) have had a profound effect on the criminal cabal running this country and have contributed mightily to the recent departures of several luminaries. I’m sure Gonzo and others like him get rather dyspeptic when they hear you enumerate the many ways in which they have violated the law, and would greatly prefer that you didn’t! More-so, your work keeps extremely important issues front and center for many people — including members of congress — who seem to need a “good swift kick” to even contemplate doing the right thing these days.
Thankfully, the Att’y General is stepping down. I believe you and Mr. Olbermann had a big hand in that. I can only hope that there will be real investigations and prosecutions (where warranted). Not that I’m holding my breath. Sadly, in the end, the President will most likely pardon all of his cronies so there’s little chance any of it will “stick.” The implications are dire for what’s left of the republic and it’s long-term survival. I am certainly not the first to point out that we have been sliding down the slippery slope towards total statism/fascism for a long time now, and I fear that we are reaching the bottom.
So, having said all this, I hope you will indulge me for a few more minutes. I have two questions for you. The first is rather long, but I think it will be of interest, and I look forward to your answers.
*** *** ***
1) At the risk of being immediately labeled a “conspiracy theorist” (or worse) for even raising the question, I’m wondering if you and your colleagues are aware of the fact that many (if not most) of our high-ranking officials, elected or otherwise, are Freemasons (and/or members of other Masonic secret societies, such as Skull and Bones, to which our President and his father belong)?
While you may not realize it, this is a profoundly important issue, perhaps even one of the most important (though largely unknown) issues in America today. Why? Because Freemasons and Bonesmen swear oaths of loyalty, secrecy and protection that supersede any others, including the oath of office!
I simply can’t emphasize how important this point is, and I think you of all people understand it’s implications. In my opinion, the behind-the-scenes influence of the Masonic brotherhood goes far towards explaining much of the unconstitutionality (and criminality) that is endemic today. FDR and Truman were at the very top of Freemasonry (32º and 33º respectively, 33º being the highest), and it’s been steadily downhill for this nation, insofar as observance of constitutional law goes since then. By the way, lest I be accused of partisanship as well as lunacy, I am not claiming this is purely a partisan problem. It is not. High level Freemasons infest (and I’m choosing words very carefully here) both of our major political parties. I simply mention Roosevelt and Truman because it was under their watch that the rise of the crypto-fascist national security state began.
For those without time or interest to investigate the role of secret societies but who wish to get a flavor for their influence on day-to-day events and “national security,” I recommend the recent films The Good Shepard (directed by Robert De Nero) or The Company (starring Michael Keaton). These works focus on the dangerous and unconstitutional activities of Bonesmen (rather than Freemasons, per se) in American intelligence and foreign policy. However, the message is clear.
If you wish to see a list of “important Freemasons,” I suggest going over to Wikipedia. For those who are not steeped in such material, it’s an eye-opener, I assure you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons
Our forefathers were certainly aware of how important the intertwined issues of divided loyalty and secret societies was, and it remains to this day. Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, Madison, Paine (among others) warned of the dangers to the republic inherent in secret societies (given that Washington was at one time an active Mason, his condemnations are particularly apt and telling).
John Quincy Adams, in his LETTERS ON THE MASONIC INSTITUTION said: “A more perfect agent for the devising and execution of conspiracies against the church or state could scarcely have been conceived.”
Following the murder of ex-Freemason William Morgan (by Masons) in 1826, the Anti-Masonic party came to the fore. In it’s day, it’s influence was such that Masonry (prior to the Civil War) nearly died out. Would that it had.
Masons (the so-called “blue lodge” or first three degrees) pledge to protect their brothers in all matters, excepting treason and murder. I should not have to point out that this still includes a high degree of latitude. But far more disturbing is that higher level Masons (which includes most of the officials in high office all over the land) swear to protect their fellow Masons in all cases, up to and including treason and murder!
I don’t know about you, but I think this is extremely alarming, to say the least.
“You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons…and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him…It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you’re keeping your obligations.” — Ronayne, HANDBOOK OF MASONRY
Please understand that I am not one who approaches this from a fundamentalist Christian and/or Biblical perspective. I’m not religious at all, and in fact, consider myself a deist like most of the Founders. But there are those who say Freemasons are Luciferians and/or Satanists and therefore inherently evil. To my mind, that whole line of thought is nothing but a straw man argument and, worse yet, a distraction from the real danger. No, my concern is purely a pragmatic one. To wit: how can we have honest, open government when many (if not most) high-ranking officials are sworn to cover up each other’s crimes? How can we trust anything they do or say when the oath of office means nothing to them?
Concern over this problem has gotten so acute in England that the government has enacted laws requiring secret society members (Masons in particular) to disclose their relationship to the brotherhood. It may not be much, but it at least it’s a start.
In my opinion, Masonic secrecy (and all that it entails) is one of the most important issues in the world today. Yet outside of very narrow circles it is not even known, much less discussed. Your thoughts?
*** *** ***
2) If you had to pick a few constitutional groups to support with your time and/or money, which ones would you choose?
*** *** ***
In closing, I thank you for your attention and I commend you on your great work! I believe you are truly an American hero, albeit largely unsung. Somewhere far away, the Framers are smiling knowing that a few staunch men of conviction remain. Above all else, keep up the good work, continue to fight the good fight and (we hope and pray) never falter — America needs you!
Sincerely Yours,
K. S. Knight
Dear Prof. Turley,
I deeply appreciate the intelligence and perspective you’ve brought to the Countdown broadcasts; like Stephen Mette, above, I drop my knitting and just listen when you (and John Dean) come on the show. I also learned of your blog from a reference Randi Rhodes made to it, and was very happy to learn of it. Thank you for joining us in the blogosphere, and may you always find it welcoming!
Best wishes,
Arabella
Arabella:
That alone was worth blogging. What a wonderful way to start the weekend. Thanks for the kind note.
Jonathan
Dear Professor Turley:
I am a loyal fan and always watch your commentary on Countdown. (I make sure to watch it again when it re-airs at midnight to make sure I get it all…) No one in this house is allowed to talk while your segment is airing.
Your words are a voice of reason in all of this Constitutional madness we have had to endure since this administration seized power. I also appreciate the way you explain Constitutional issues in layman’s terms for all of us non-lawyers.
Some people have religion, some people have the bible. For me the Constitution is my bible. I worship it and often get depressed about how it is being assaulted time and again. The Framers are rolling over in their collective graves.
I want to thank you for all that you do. You are a true American patriot and because of you, I have hope that we can get back to the country we once were. (Oh – and go on Randi Rhodes more – I love those segments too!)
I think you’d make a great Attorney General.
Warmest wishes and regards,
Diana
Loxahatchee, Florida
Attorney General! I thought you liked me. Recently, Republican candidate Ron Paul said that he would like to make me Attorney General if he is elected and I asked what I ever did to him.
Thanks for the kind words Diana. Such positive feedback means a lot to me.
Best,
Jonathan
Welcome to the blogosphere! I’ve linked to you before and will do so again and run a special Take A Peek on our site to get some of my modest readership to your new blog. Also, clearly you won’t be putting political blogs on our blogroll but I’m going to add you to OTHER VOICES on The Moderate Voice’s blogroll right now. I’ll check in and link to you frequently. Your site is already a great resource and you are someone who has enormous credibility…someone who calls the shots in a consistent manner.
Sorry (you have no email address so I have to leave this here but you can delete these comments if you wish). I see I added you already to Center Voices since you’d get more hits there.
Joe:
Thank you for adding me to the website and checking in. I originally set this site up for my students and colleagues. I have been surprised and gratified by the interest outside of the law school. As a baby blogger, I am still learning the ropes but it is a fun distraction.
All my best,
Jonathan
K.S.:
Thank you for your very kind comments. On the Masonic issue, I am aware of the long controversy. I do not like secret societies and I certainly do not like any oath that seems to place the organization above civic duties. Beyond that, I do not know enough about the Masons to comment. On the constitutonal groups, there is an array of options. No good entirely thrills me, but I tend to be a hard sell. The American Civil Liberties Union has done important work historically, but I do not agree with some of its more recent priorities. There seems to be a great deal of politics in the selection of its positions on some issues. Nevertheless, it is an organization with a proud history. I tend to have a fair dose of libertarian feelings so CATO has always held some interest for me. There are, however, a plethora of great groups that specialize on issues of church/state separation and privacy. I tend to be a mutt when it comes to my political views with some conservative, some libertarian, and some liberal elements.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts,
Jonathan
Dear Mr. Turley,
PLEASE help me!!
Knowing the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well as you do, would you say that Bush and/or Cheney have violated the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights enough to be impeached?
My congressman, Robert Wexler, says no. If he is mistaken, I would like to give him a list of impeachable offenses if I could. Please help me to compile such a list.
Respectfully,
JBR
In my view, President Bush clearly committed an impeachable offense in ordering the domestic surveillance program which is a federal crime. The Democrats, however, allowed the law to be extended in one of the most bizarre decisions in decades. The White House immediately claimed that the move established its legality. There are a variety of alleged violations of law but little serious effort in Congress to force disclosure of the information. Years ago, Democratic leadership promised not to allow impeachment investigations let alone proceedings.
Dear Mr. Turley,
Hi, my name is Kate and I attended NYLF Law last week. During my week at DC, I had the opportunity to attend your speech. It was extremely engaging. I was always afraid of admitting that I wanted to be a lawyer (I mean.. it does sound nerdy) and was often confused as to what being a lawyer actually meant. It just seemed like a fancy title that everyone wanted to have. However, after your speech, my dream of becoming a lawyer and helping people became more tangible. I’d like to thank you for such an amazing speech and I’ll never forget that night. Thank you very much.
Kate:
What a wonderful surprise to read your entry on the blog. I cannot tell you how much it means to an academic to receive such a response to a speech. I hope that you continue your plans for the law. We need good people in this profession!
All my best,
Jonathan
I think it appropriate on Thanksgiving to say “Thanks” to you.
You are a welcome reminder that the Constitution is so much more than
“just a piece of paper.”
Thanks so much, and happy thanksgiving to you too!
Prof. Turley,
I was very pleased to hear of your blog on the Randi Rhodes Show today. I enjoy your many appearances on TV and whtching the testimony you present to Congress.
Keep up the good work. No secerts or privelege here.
Thanks, Judy. You made my week.
You are very welcome Prof, Turley.
Dear Mr. Turley,
I, too, am attending the NYLF on Law program. Currently I’m sitting in one of the many hotel rooms on this floor enamored by the speech you gave to us during your brief visit here. You left many of us stunned and became the talk of the night. You truly put things into perspective about what it means to set yourself on an introspective journey. Indeed, it’s more important to be able to look at yourself in a mirror and know who you are, than to be the man who has a thousand riches and has lost himself. Thank you again for taking the time to come. It was definitely enlightening.
My regards,
Trevor
Trevor:
Your message was a wonderful surprise this morning and a great way to start the day. I am glad that you liked the speech and that you guys have continued to talk about it. Enjoy your time in Washington. I look forward to seeing you in a courtroom in the future!
Best,
Jonathan
Dear Prof. Turley,
Welcome to the tubes! I came across your blog after it was mentioned on Daily Kos. I’m a big fan even though I only ever see you in you interviews wit Keith Olbermann. I don’t think he could have picked a better man to help educate the American public about their constitution and the very real risks they face (I’m not American btw).
Thank you for your clear voice, and for using it.
Yours,
Clive,
Taiwan
Dear Professor Turley,
While I am always interested in your thoughts on constitutional law and appreciate the wisdom you bring to TV viewers, this is on a personal note. I was wondering if your ancestor was John Turley Gunnell, who was born in 1796 near Alexandria, VA. His wife was Elizabeth Redd Major. He died in Danvers, Il (McClean County) in 1867. If you are interested, I have some old documents in hand that I would be glad to share.
Regards,
Pat Gunnell Dean
San Anselmo, CA
I am indeed aware that there were Turleys in Virginia at the founding. I gave a speech at George Mason’s home a couple years ago and was struck by the fact that one of his neighbors was a Turley. I was told that Turleys first came over before the Revolution and began in New York/New Jersey. My grandfather’s name was Edmund Turley and lived in New Jersey. We were raised in Chicago, however.
Im actually blown away by this site……..great work Professor.
Thank you. While it is still new and evolving, it has been a fun distraction.
What I find remarkable is Professor Turley’s willingness to find the time, despite an overwhelmingly busy schedule I imagine, to reply to contributors to the discussions. Unfailingly kind, he reminds me of Emerson’s maxim:
The greater man, the greater courtesy.
Well actually its Tennyson I am told.
I am getting old and forgetful!
I read of your site on the dailykos and since I truly enjoy hearing you speak when you’re on Keith Olberman, I had to try to contact you.
The article that referenced your site, mentioned that there is a way to go forward with impeachment of the criminals in the white house without congress, since they are hell bent on not doing their job! What can we, as citizens, do when congress and the senate refuse to provide oversight or investigate the many illegal actions of the bush administration?
I truly fear for the future of this country when all branches of the government are complicit in such gross illegalities. When is torture not torture? When bush and his boys say so… We need help. Where do we go? Thank you in advance.
(I left this question on another blog – but this seems the better place to ask, so sorry for the repeat.)
Dear Professor Turley,
It is such a honor to run into your blog like this.
I used to watch CNN all the time(used to be a news junkie, not anymore though, news depresses me too much these days…) and very much enjoyed your commentaries. I am not going to pretend that I understand law but as a person who strongly believes that “knowledge is power” and more than anything who is always curious with the world and things around me, I feel so lucky to discover your blog today. I made a link to your blog and I know I will be a frequent visitor here and be your virtual student.
– Always Curious
You are very kind and you are welcome to our small circle. I like the idea of a virtual classroom as long as I do not have to hand out virtual grades. I am buried right now in grading my torts class, which is a labor of love but a labor none the less.
Dear Professor Turley,
But as much as I want to be your virtual student here, I don’t want to be graded either.
I have been enjoying out of school years for quite some time now.
You wouldn’t believe what a great honor it is to be able to address you directly this way. Thank you very much for the welcoming words. You really make me want to be your student.
Today while driving I caught your voice in some segment in NPR (I think it was “Talk of the Nation”, the subject being Castle Doctrine: In Defense of Self-Defense). Sadly I was able to catch the last few minutes of your commentary on the subject.😦 But it certainly was a pleasant surprise. I hope to see/hear you on TV or radio often.
But I am curious where you find all this time to do so many things, teaching/grading students, appearing on TV or Radio and blogging… I think I need to learn some time management skills from you.
Sincerely,
– Always Curious
I thoroughly enjoy your appearances when I see you on CNN. You bring light to areas I am unfamiliar with, such as constitutional law and its interpretation. I enjoy hearing your opinion and consider you one of the best commentators I have seen on TV.
Keep up the good work.
Rick
Always Curious:
It is not difficult to be a columnist, litigator, and law professor. My secret is that I discovered that you could do a huge number of things if you focus on keeping the quality of your work as low as possible. If you are not insistent on good quality work, you would be surprised how many things you can do!
Rick:
Thank you for the kind note. Feel free to periodically post such notes on a regular basis! Happy Holiday.
Mr. Turley, I enjoy you on Countdown and The Randi Rhodes Show and i’m amazed at how positive you are about our ability to restore the constitution. Just when it seems there’s no turning back from the power grabs by the Bush administration you reassure us that there are legal solutions. With great respect, thank you for serving our country.
Fireontop:
You are very kind. However, I cannot take the credit for the optimism. We have survived worse than the Bush Administration. The Constitution was designed by the Framers to be idiot proof and through the years we have certainly tested that concept.
Best,
Jonathan
Prof. Turley,
First off, let me just chime in with my appreciation of the work you do in the media along with your other duties. Taking complex, emotional (as well as more than a few DUH!) issues and breaking them down to their basic “is it legal or not?” facts is a huge benefit and a bright spot in a generally biased media. You help to show what the media can do, inform a busy populace of the facts of the matter. A basic service that is sadly all to lacking these days.
I hate to bug you, but i do have one question, I have recently gotten into a debate with a friend about the constitutionality of universal health care. His argument is that if a power is not specifically granted by the Constitution, then it is not within the scope of the Federal Government, and then falls upon the states. And that just because powers have been granted to the Fed in the past that weren’t within the intended scope, that doesnt mean that the practice should continue.
To quote him (because he makes his case far better than I)
“The reality is that the Constitution defines what the federal government CAN do. If it isn’t explicitly stated, the federal government has no jurisdiction.
For citizens, it works the other way. If there is nothing prohibiting something to the people, the people can do it unless the states have rules against it. The Bill of Rights may outline some of the rights we have, but one should not take it as an all-inclusive list.
The second mistake is that she’s attributing the statement of purpose (to provide for the common welfare) with an actual power. A good way to explain this is to break a similar statement down. Ex: “To provide for the national defense, the government may maintain a militia, navy, etc.” Should we then take that statement in the same fashion, claiming that the government’s purpose of providing for defense grants it unlimited power to do so by any means necessary? That’s what we’re stating when we use the welfare bit in that way, after all.
So, short version:
The Constitution limits federal government to those powers explicitly granted. If it is not in the Constitution, federal government should not be doing it.
The welfare “clause” is a statement of purpose. It tells us WHY the government is granted the powers listed in the Constitution… it does not grant additional powers.”
I was just wondering if he was correct, or if he was missing something?
The only legal case I can see that makes me question his assertion is mcCulloch V Maryland, however even that ruling states that the end result must be within the scope of the Constitution.
Of course, I’m no lawyer, so naturally, i have zero clue!
thanks so much, for giving us this forum, and for giving so much of your time to educating and shedding light on the laws that make our freedoms possible.
Aaron
Dear Prof. Turley,
I’ve seen your discussions with Keith Olbermann of COUNTDOWN many times, and have always enjoyed your discussions.
Your blog and various articles are excellent, and I always learn a great deal about the law and the criminal justice system by reading them. I’m sorry to impose, but I just would like to know where on your website the article “CRIMINALIZING INNOCENT BEHAVIOR AT AN ALARMING RATE” is posted. I would like to post this link at a forum I post on to point out how the criminal justice system is being used as a weapon against innocent people in a grossly abusive fashion by members of the law enforcement community.
If you could give me a “road map” in the form of a link to that article, it would be very helpful. I’ve looked through several of your pages, but I always seem to miss the correct page. Needless to say, I have put your site on my Favorite Places list for regular reference.
Thank you in advance.
Susan
Thanks Susan. You will find a bunch of entries on the over-criminalization of America by putting in criminalization in the search box. A column can be found at https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/the-criminalization-of-america/
Thanks again for your kind words and putting me in your favorite site!
JT and Susan
I was curious, too, so I Googled the phrase
“CRIMINALIZING INNOCENT BEHAVIOR AT AN ALARMING RATE”
and got an article you wrote for Jewish World Review 3/28/07
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/turley.php3
Dear Prof. Turley,
Thanks so much for your prompt response. I hope you don’t mind if I posted the link to this excellent, not to mention alarming, article at a Justice System forum. My feeling is, the more people who know about these abuses by law enforcement, the better.
I have noticed that everyone wants to believe the best of law enforcement at the city, state and federal levels, but it seems they’re too eager to bury their heads in the sand to avoid hearing the worst. The consequences of this ostrich imitation is that the worst (being falsely or wrongly charged with a criminal offense) could happen to them, or someone in their family. By then, of course, it is too late.
Again, thank you.
Hello ,
I hope you are fine and carrying on the great work you have been doing for the Internet surfers. I am Ghazala Khan from The Pakistani Spectator (TPS), We at TPS throw a candid look on everything happening in and for Pakistan in the world. We are trying to contribute our humble share in the webosphere. Our aim is to foster peace, progress and harmony with passion.
We at TPS are carrying out a new series of interviews with the notable passionate bloggers, writers, and webmasters. In that regard, we would like to interview you, if you don’t mind. Please send us your approval for your interview at my email address “ghazala.khi at gmail.com”, so that I could send you the Interview questions. We would be extremely grateful.
regards.
Ghazala Khan
The Pakistani Spectator
http://www.pakspectator.com
I read on another web site that you served as a Congressional page. I also served–in 1969. Just wondering what year(s) you served and your thoughts on the experience.
Thanks!
rog
That was back in the 1970s. Here are a couple of links https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/the-page-scandal-and-a-congress-that-simply-cant-resist/ and https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/the-page-protection-act-the-path-to-saving-a-historic-program/
It is good to hear from another page. I was in the House page service in 1997 and 1978. I loved it, though as these links indicate, I have been a critic of the structure and supervision of the page service since then.
Professor,
What is your opinion on the constitutionality of sex offender registration? I look forwoed to your reply.
BP
Professor,
What an impressive C.V.! I’m grateful you’ve found another medium to share your constitutional wisdom with all of us. Your reach is growing and providing many people like me with important info to help steer this country in the right direction.
Here’s proof: On an Octover 16 entry above, JBR asked about your opinion of impeachable offenses commited by the President. He wanted to convince Congressman Wexler of the need to uphold the Constitution. Have you seen wexlerwantshearings.com yet? Kudos to both you and JBR for playing a role.
I’ve contacted my congressman but have not gotten any response yet. I’ll keep trying, though, I’m becoming more pessimistic about him.
My question is since the teleco’s may receive retroactive immunity, does this negate the warrantless wiretapping as an impeachable offense? Also, is there any truth to the argument that if the teleco’s do not receive immunity, then other companies will not be able to support the Administration spying on Americans “to protect Americans?”
Thanks in advance for your response. And thanks also for joining the blogosphere…I’ve added your site to my Favorites!
Dear Jonathan Turley 02-15-08
I enjoy listening to your comments whenever you are on Keith Olbermann’s show. The other day was most interesting as it fits well with what I’ve experienced in most of my life while married. The following day, I ran a search looking for any website that followed your commentary but there was only one.
I left the following post and wanted to make sure you and Keith were able to read it…..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately there is much more to what is happening than what many already know. Many of us are horrified with what is happening, but there maybe another side that explains this than what we all currently see.
Sadly, sometime over the last many decades we’ve seemed to have replaced our two parties into two groups with one wanting our Constitution and the other NOT wanting the Constitution. There seems to be many other changes too and a glaring one is that our system of Law isn’t living up to what it should be. There is also a realization with everyone that “We the People” have been replaced with “The Corporations” and “Others” NOT wanting the Constitution.
Unknown to me at the time while married in a family back in the 70’s, they joined a group who actively doesn’t want the Constitution. I was in that family for more than 26 years and early on, their job with this group was to launder Drug and Gun Running money straight into property with big Banks using Mortgage Fraud to hide ownership. Please note that the Gun Running part has already been in the news with Drummond Corp and Chiquita Brand. However there is another huge part beyond these corporations that include many others that many don’t know about.
In the early 90’s the family graduated from laundering money into going into business with “Clyde O’Connor” with flying in huge amounts of Drugs into the US. This became part of a large group of other people, some families I can name. Recent investigations have surfaced that a fleet of 50 Planes are involved. Clyde O’Connor was caught in Mexico later last year with Ton’s of Cocaine on his plane but wasn’t ever prosecuted as he remains at large to this day. Clyde is my ex-sister-in-laws brother and her husband is Clyde’s money man. I know this because I stood next to Clyde and my ex-brother-in-law in the early 90’s while they discussed getting their new business venture started in Florida.
As per the family, the drug system is enormous. The Chicago part is a $100 Million Weekly shipment split with Florida and New York. That amounts to more than $5 Billion annually and we need to consider that there are many other weekly shipments going elsewhere within the US at the same time.
As explained by the family, the Drug system’s proceeds are being used to FUND “Black Op’s” here in the US in support of another “White House Coup”. The Coup has been “in process” for decades as they learned early on after the failed White House Coup in 1933 that a different approach was needed to succeed. The Coup is waiting for a day they call “The Change”. “The Change” is when our Government system finally changes over to be a Dictatorship. That is also when many other things are expected to happen as well. Needless to say, there was a lot of discussion back then knowing the earlier failure with worrying about another failure. Even though the family was concerned, they always said that they were told this time the Coup would be successful.
There is a lot to talk within the family about this issue. Please accept that I’m as concerned for everyone as you are. After hearing Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley last night, my thought today was to write them directly. I may still do that. Happily I ran across this article with an opportunity to reply.
I just hope and pray someone is listening!
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Usually posting challenges my ability to limit an explanation of this system to something smaller than a book. There is so much more about this that needs to be surfaced. I’ve been following the news for sometime and feel that soon something may break on many of these issues. That means that if not now, later we’ll be talking in a serious manner focused on what this is.
Sincerely,
Marty Didier
A Man and A Woman, what shall they be
An Artist and An Artist, all that responsibility
A poet, a philosopher , a diplomat, a muse
An actress, a musician, an inspiration, to truth
Dear nature come calling on God’s blessed Earth
Your children love dearly this place of their birth
A home eternal for creatures large and small
World spin the seasons winter, spring, summer and fall
A web has been built between present and past
It’s up to mankind to decide if mankind will last
The future holds promise for all cultures to see
The cosmos do beckon for the brave and the free
Democracy’s path protects freedom and rights
Woe to those who abuse it and challenge it’s light
Some pretend to believe for power and greed
Their fate is sealed, their faith failed their need
The material and the spiritual and all of God’s plan
This meeting has been building from before the fall of man
The journey’s been joined by our friends Time and Space
And of course the Almighty in his infinite grace
Now on with your hats and on with your boots
The good and the righteous are forgiven for the fruit
A Man and A Woman, what shall they be
To all on all virtues, we’re waiting to see
Where is William Boykin.
Mr Turley,
I appreciate your candor and have become a fan of your writing and TV appearances (while testifying and as an analyst). Always speak truth, sir.
Thank you!
I have added you to my BlogRoll so others may find their way here.
Mr. Turley,
Hopeless, I found, getting thorough and an insightful view on Texas Supreme Court Justice Medina and his spouse concerning duplicity in the arson of their Spring, Texas home, the destruction of another home, plus damage to a third residence. Seeking just a morsel of intimacy about the various players in their story; their defense attorney, the grand jurors- foreman/asst foreman, a county DA and his assistant, troubled Texas judges, that ole rule of law and sweetheart blind justice. I knew there must be a realm of credulity that was breeched. Nowhere that did not lack integrity did I find background exploring the tangled issues that strung the players together, nowhere did I find a writer or reporter whose pen pointed straight had planted their shovel into the fertile Texas landscape to do limited or otherwise investigative background on the principals themselves where the identity a myriad of sordid details may come to light; i.e., Medina’s financial plight, the spectrum of gay rights and its activism, political mud raking, judicial indiscretions’, and so on. I ignored the lackluster reports as I continued to search the web clicking through a number of “news articles” concerning the Harris County Indictments that had been handed down in January, and then ever so swift right on the heels of the indictment D.A. Rosenberg’s controversial motion to withdraw those indictments against Justice Medina and his spouse (with Judge Wallace ordering same) on different charges between the two… Except that I ran upon your blog about this Medina mess and more, which I read with interest, thank you for reasonably detailing this Medina affair. I can see how you have become interested in a well-rounded way, whether taken aback by the similarities, or lack thereof, concerning the Rocky Flats jury, or a more banal perspective you may be taking– that indeed disaster lies underfoot of the Harris County prosecutors’ actions, that impotence is laying in wait, that our judicial system is under stealth attack. Someone must be there to witness, be there to report at some level upon truth that does not lie. And it is you- you are that man, who I now recognize. I am but one lone interested reader, but I know there are more like me too, wanting to know, and to know even more without picking up a Texas Monthly.
CSRVICES
Austin, Texas
Mr Turley:
I appreciate your appearances on Countdown. Your comment last night (3 April 2008) about lawyers being responsible for sanctioning the lawbreaking in the Bush administration is something that needs to be said. At the same time — and I know you already know this — many lawyers have also shown themselves to be among the most courageous in defending those whose rights have been compromised by the administration. In particular, I’d single out the JAG Corps, especially Navy JAGs, who have been the most involved with Guantanamo. It’s extremely difficult to “go against the flow” when your career is determined by people who disagree with you, but many JAG officers have done so. I salute them.
Jim Wilson
Arlington VA
P.S. No, I’m not a lawyer, nor a member of the Armed Forces. But I’ve had the privilege of working with some JAG officers in the distant past. Their courage and independence in today’s politicized environment doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Somebody told me when I became what I could have been
Somebody lied to me tell me everything
Cuz it’s been hard you see to find myself again
Oh I’m an angry fool
All of the time I have spent
Trading loves for my innocence
Hey did I betray the truth
Cuz it would be a shiny sea
If I spent it all worthlessly
Oh I’ll be bankrupt from you
Cuz it’s been hard, hard but I’m livin
Trying to believe
I remember back in the day
We were young our dreams just came our way
But now one’s broken, one’s missing, one’s blue
Tell me cuz I just want to know
Did he call me his one man show
I’m all tangled up and bruised
Cuz it’s been hard, hard but I’m livin
Oh it’s been hard, hard but I’m living
Trying to believe
We’re all O.K.
Am I self destructing
Am I self destructing
Are we self destructing
Figure it out
Thanks for your courage and integrity, Jonathan Turley. I never thought I’d live to see torture institutionalized in America. Like Spencer Tracey pointed out in Judgement at Nuremberg, “Civilization is the defendant” if the Bush administration’s war crimes are ever brought to trial. Your unwavering voice pierces the cacophony, and I cannot thank you enough.
Dear Professor Turley,
I am an attorney and former adjunct law school professor.
I am writing to bring your attention to an urgent issue, and to get your take on it.
Specifically, as documented at the website http://www.constitutionally.blogspot.com (with links to source materials):
(1) The United States has been in a declared state of emergency continuously from 9/11 to the present;
(2) Continuity of Government (“COG”) measures were actually implemented on 9/11, and were maintained — at the very least — for 9 months;
(3) Congress did not know COG plans had been implemented;
(4) The implementation of COG plans supersedes the Constitutional form of government created by the founding fathers. For example, COG plans basically cut Congress out of the decision-making process;
(5) In the summer of 2007, the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress requested that the White House disclose to it the full documentation on the latest COG plans. Most or all of the members of the Homeland Security Committee have full security clearances to view all such documents. However, the White House refused to show the Committee the documents, citing “national security”;
(6) There is strong circumstantial evidence that the COG measures implemented on 9/11 were never rescinded, and are still – currently – in effect.
You have shown great insight and courage in speaking on other important Constitutional issues of the day. Thank you in advance for spending a couple of minutes looking into this meta-issue.
GW.
By the way, I did not intend to put a smiley face in my post (I typed close quotes and then close parenthesis).
Mr. Turley, thank you for your insights, I just found this blog after having seen you 10 times on Olbermann. I was curious if you were active at all in the things you talk about, ya know, trying to counteract or stop, but I guess I’ll read the blog first.
cheers!
jason in germany
http://www.prlog.org/10066765-congress-and-supreme-court-listen-to-what-dennis-quaid-has-to-say-about-big-pharma-abuses.html
U.S. Congress and Supreme Court: Listen to what Dennis Quaid has to say
about Big Pharma’s Abuses!
by Stephen Fox, Managing Editor Santa Fe Sun News
A nightmarish story of two week old twins of Dennis Quaid and Kimberley
Buffington, getting overdosed by a 1000 times overdose of blood thinner
Heparin* at LA Cedars Sinai Hospital (*already under scrutiny for Chinese
manufacturing contamination)
Dennis Quaid is here in Santa Fe to film Legion. We were horrified to learn
what happened to his twins, Thomas Boone and Zoe Grace, who were last
November accidentally given 1,000 times the common dosage of the blood
thinner, Heparin; this drug is already under scrutiny because of
contamination presumably in the manufacturing process in China. According to
an article and photos in the New York Times, this heparin manufacturing
process involves grinding up pig intestines in family kitchens/factories
that seem ordinary for China, but which would seem monstrously filthy in
most nations.
These Quaid twins were conceived with a surrogate mother and are wonderful
little blue-eyed bundles of joy already.
Cedars of Sinai Hospital officials denied that any of the victims suffered
any ill effects. Chief Medical Officer, Michael Langberg confirmed that
three patients received vials containing 10,000 units per milliliter of
heparin, instead of vials with a concentration of 10 units per milliliter.
The patients were receiving intravenous medications and the heparin was used
to flush the catheters to prevent clotting.
Once the hospital staff realized the error, they tested to measure the
patients’ blood clotting function. One test was normal, but the other two
were given another drug, protamine sulfate, that reverses the effects of
heparin. Further tests “indicated no adverse effects from the higher
concentration of heparin,” Langberg said. Heparin is used to treat and
prevent blood clots in the veins or arteries and comes in different
concentrations; too much can be deadly.
Last year, three premature infants at an Indiana hospital died after a
pharmacy technician mistakenly stocked the medicine cabinet with heparin
vials containing a dose 1,000 times stronger than what the babies were
supposed to receive. Three others also suffered overdoses but survived.
Quaid and his wife, Kimberley Buffington, are the biological parents of the
twins, who were born Nov. 8 to a surrogate mother.”God has definitely
blessed us,” the couple said in a statement announcing their birth. Quaid,
53, has a 15-year-old son, Jack Henry Quaid, from his marriage to Meg Ryan.
His credits include “Great Balls of Fire!” “Any Given Sunday” “The Big Easy”
and “Far From Heaven.”
This nightmarish story is of great concern to me, given my deep focus on
consumer protection, especially getting aspartame taken off the market by
getting its FDA and other regulatory approval rescinded.
Two week old children should not be administered such risky drugs in the
first place. Quaid and his wife are correct to be suing the manufacturer
because of the shoddy labeling on each vial, although the $50,000 they are
asking for seems like chump change for what sort of terror as parents they
had to have gone through; Quaid told me that he is very keen on getting them
to standardize their labeling all over the world, so this won’t happen
again. Baxter Health Care stated that: “this is not a product issue. The
issue here is about improper use of a product.”
In a prepared statement, the hospital said a pharmacy technician took the
heparin from the pharmacy’s supply without having a second technician verify
the drug’s concentration, as hospital policy requires. Then, when the
heparin was delivered to a satellite pharmacy that serves the pediatrics
unit, a different technician there did not verify the concentration, as
required.
Finally, the nurses who administered the heparin to the patients violated
policy by neglecting to verify that it was the correct medication and dose
beforehand, the hospital said. Quaid’s suit argues that the heparin
was “unreasonably dangerous” as it was packaged and sold because both the
small and large dosage vials had labels with blue backgrounds when the vials
should have been completely distinguishable (by) size and shape. He can wait
up to eight years to sue Cedars Sinai, which is warranted, given the
developmental damage that might have occurred with the heparin overdose,
which hopefully will not materialize during the next seven ½ years.
Quaid told me out of their concern for other potential vicitms of heparin,
especially children, that he and his wife Kimberley will be addressing a
Congressional hearing in the near future on this matter, and is even more
concerned that the United States Supreme Court does not extend its immunity
blanket to drug manufacturers in a decision expected this summer. “The
Supremes” have already given blanket immunity to medical device
manufacturers, and of course extending this to Big Pharma becomes an obscene
and brazen gift from the Bushie Neocons-doing-business-as-the-US Supreme
Court to some of the biggest corporate monsters in America.
Mike Adams of Newstarget.com, one of the sharpest and most astute
alternative health commentators in the USA, decried this situation in a
great column and recent post as no less than the veritable end of our nation
as we know it, if the Supremes hand the “get-out-of-being-sued” card to Big
Pharma. Let’s hope that Mr Quaid and his wife can add momentum and some
celebrity impact to this discussion when they appear before Congress, and
let’s hope that some of the venerable Supreme Court Justices might just
happen to be listening!
60627e92df38…
60627e92df384b17ca38…
Re: “Criminalization of America” related topics
Professor, I just wanted to thank you for continuing to “shine the searchlight,” for lack of a better expression, on the serious problem of lawmakers who make up ridiculous and abusive “crime” statutes, and the law enforcement officials who enforce them.
I post at another justice discussion forum, where concerned citizens who are very worried about these types of abuses by law enforcement can meet to share and exchange ideas for possible improvement. I know you are very busy with your own blog, and this is strictly an invitation only, but if you’re interested in receiving a link to this Justice System Discussion forum just to check it out, feel free to send me an email at: JUSTICE1st@aol.com. I don’t want to post the link to the forum on the blog, because that will attract the destructive flamers.
Again, my sincerest thanks.
Susan
Dear Professor:
You seem to key in a lot on injustice in Denver, ranging from its hooker trsfficking federal judge( Bush appointee, to its pesky grsnd juries , and leaks in criminal matters, but your silence is utterly deafing in the Stone civil csse.
Mr Jim Stone wss tehe civil plsintiff in the reputed big qui tsm worker csse.
Strangely, he did not testify in 1999 at the trial.
He wss hurt on all of that, even though he went to the FBI
The FBI guy did not testify in the civil csse sgainst against Rockwell, either.
You are strangely silent on the above.
Mitchell
Mr. Turley,
Heard you on Rhandi Rhodes program today. Keep up the good work.
Currently I am battling an overzealous and moronic code department at the City of Fort Lauderdale. I have already attended the hearing they set up with the special magistrate that is on their payroll. No jury trial. He did not hear a thing I said. Literally. (my microphone was cutting in and out)
I have been pondering going to battle (appeal / sue) over the following legal questions:
Whether quasi-judicial code hearings conducted in front of a special magistrate – whose salary ( $350 per hearing ) paid by the moving party ( the City) – is a conflict of interest. (Obviously if he ruled against the City very often they would not bring him back for any hearings)
Whether quasi-judicial hearings conducted in front of a special magistrate – instead of a jury trial – violates a resident’s right to a jury trial per Article 1, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and Amendment VII U.S. Constitution. ($150 / day fine being threatened)
SECTION 22. Trial by jury.–The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.
Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Whether an action by the City to take a resident’s property because he is fixing his car on his own property … violates Article 1, Section Two of the Florida Constitution, also see Amendment XIV, U.S. Constitution.
SECTION 2. Basic rights.–All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; … No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
Whether an action by the City to take resident’s property simply because he stores a few items in his fenced in back yard … violates Amendment XIV, U.S. Constitution. The City’s own code – section 47 – clearly gives Fort Lauderdale residents the right to store items in their back yard. (City’s response ? “section applies to commercial property”. Then why is the word residential used 12 times in this section of the code ?)
Whether FLL Code section 47-19.1.M – which states “ No private garage will be allowed in residential districts in which is conducted any business” – is overbroad and vague, and therefore unconstitutional.
Whether the City is negligent for failing to provide the accused resident with a proper working microphone at the special magistrate hearing.
Whether the City is negligent for conducting said hearing in front of a special magistrate who admitted he is hard of hearing.
Whether Judge Hull – by ordering the resident to allow the Code officer into the resident’s fenced back yard – is violating the resident’s fundamental right to privacy.
SECTION 23. Right of privacy.–Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.
SECTION 12. Searches and seizures.–The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution
Whether the City is guilty of selective enforcement when it ignores blatant code violations by one resident and over-pursues violations by another resident.
Whether the City’s overzealous prosecutions – advanced solely to fund their coffers – violates
Article 1, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution:
SECTION 17. Excessive punishments.–Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden
I think I have a fair chance if I can ever get these issues in front of a jury trial in the County Court system.
I spent almost 110 years in the Federal Justice (sic) system trying to obtain justtice against Eastern Air Lines for labor violations. All I got from that was BOHICA (bend over here it comes again) I will never waste my time in the Federdal system again ( I hope ).
What do you think my chances are ?
I have not had a chance to do any deep legal research on these matters yet. Been too busy trying to do everything that the code department expects me to do.
Thanks in advance,
Bruce Toski
Fort Lauderdale, FL
954 583-4191
Dear Prof. Turley,
My name is Alan Jasie and I am the Program Producer for News Talk Online at Paltalk.com. I would like to invite you on to our show to talk about what the next president should look for in selecting the next Supreme Court justices. We would also like to discuss the decision reached by the Supreme Court re Habeas Corpus and the prisoners at Guantanemo Bay.
News Talk Online is broadcast live Monday – Friday at 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM EST. We use a web cast audio/video format and our audience can ask questions to our guest and host via voice chat or text (our host would read the text questions). We are located in New York City but we can do the interview over the phone.
News Talk Online at Paltalk.com is hosted by Gary Baumgarten (former CNN Radio NY Bureau chief). Paltalk has over 4 million users. Our show is also broadcast over the CRN Radio network into 12 million households.
We have the following dates open: Friday June 20th and Monday June 23rd –Tuesday June 24th
Some of our recent guests:
News and Politics – Ed Koch, Gary Hart, Ollie North, Dr. Frank Newport (Gallup), Jon Soltz (VoteVets.org) and Bob Barr(Today)
Authors – Gregg Mitchell (So Wrong For So Long), Jonathan Cohn (Sick), Cliff Schecter (The Real McCain), Robert McElvaine (Grand Theft Jesus)
Entertainment – Gary David Goldberg (Sit Ubu Sit), Janine Turner
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and Best regards,
Alan Jasie
News Talk Online
Program Producer
212 564 9997 ext 242 (T)
646 236 1517 (C)
Paltalk “Communication Beyond Words”
Dear Jonathan,
I have been uplifted by your quest to show that the Democrats, especially my Congressional opponent, Pelosi, are now (or have been) collaborators with BushCo in their crimes.
As you may, or may not know, I have been an avid and outspoken advocate for impeachment for years now and I appreciate the renewed interest in the concept of impeaching GWB and DC.
I think it would be timely if you could come to San Franciso and speak on a panel with me and do some actions aimed at the Speaker.
Of course, Cindy for Congress would pay your travel and lodging expenses.
I don’t know if you read these responses…
Respectfully,
Cindy Sheehan
Cindy, go get a job.
bindo:
She tried but she had family problems. Maybe someone read you something about it –using flash cards I suspect. Only a cad would insult a mother who lost a son in a needless war. That family’s honor is intact, yours is shattered, if it ever existed.
mespo727272:
Cindy’s son volunteered as have two of my sons and millions of other’s sons & daughters.
In my opinion, it is wrong for her to be politicizing his sacrifice in an attempt to cause this country to lose a war that almost everybody that thinks agrees must be won while we only differ on the cost to the world of leaving the battlefield.
russ:
Like so many one dimensional thinkers, you missed the point. Her son did more than volunteer, he died fighting in a war we would have never fought if the facts were fairly presented to us. Forgive me for feeling bamboozled, but if I were fraudulently sold a lemon car, I would resent making the payments. You should know that your sons’ service is honored by everyone, it’s the cowboy yahoos we elected who deserve the scorn. I wonder what your sons would say to your trashing of a gold star mom? Why don’t you ask them or, for a better perspective, ask their mother?
mespo:
Nobody died in a war whose facts were not fairly presented to us; the world saw the danger Saddam was and our President acted. Now you choose to complain.
The OATH President Bush took is very clear and looked at from Bush’s viewpoint, he was doing only what his oath of office required. Of all the responsibilities imposed on a president, none exceeds the obligation to protect the American people. Indeed, any president found to have neglected or shortchanged that obligation would expose himself to impeachment — by popular demand. Bush did what he thought he had to do.
So please, you, Cindy, and the rest of the looney left, lay off my SON’S COMMANDER IN CHIEF! Your incessant whining is getting sickening.
The really SAD fact is if America had been attacked again after 9/11; the same childish lunatics here would be screaming for impeaching him for NOT protecting us.
russ:
Seems you disagree with the recent Senate Intelligence Committee Report that says we were “lied” into a war by Bush & Company. We’ll just ignore Richard Clark too. But hey I’ll take your word for it since you have mastered the fine art of cut and paste putting the same comment in two threads. Seem my reply elsewhere to this foolishness. By the way, on your second comment, I wouldn’t give up my day job. Being a swami doesn’t suit you. I can think of other acts in the circus that might though.
mespo: the only way you can agree that the recent Senate Intelligence Report says what you says it says is to be wililng to take the word of, lets say, someone as “distinguished a liar as Michael Moore…….
If you read the report you would see it doesn’t say anything anywhere near what you have been told it says.
Liberal TNR Editor:
Bush Never Lied to Us About Iraq
By Warner Todd Huston | June 16, 2008 – 13:39 ET
In an editorial in the L.A. Times on the 16th, Kirchick said that “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” and then went on to substantiate his claim in a style that runs contrary to the Media and nutroots meme that “Bush lied and people died.”
The left narrative, one the media is happy to parrot, has been that Bush lied us into war. Kirchick points out that “the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.”
But Kirchick then steps out into some of the most intellectually honest analysis I’ve seen from the left since before the 2000 election when BDS first began to infect the media.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation” –that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction –administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.
Kirchick goes on to chronicle some of the agencies and investigative bodies that have found absolutely no evidence that the Bush Administration manipulated Congress as it made the case for the war.
Kirchick also comes as close to calling John D. Rockefeller (D, W. Va.) a liar as you can without using those specific words when he notes that Rockefeller’s “highly partisan” Senate Intelligence Committee report does not support the wild eyed claims made in its summation.
Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
Kirchick also trenchantly notes that the latest partisan attack that is being presented as a “report” conveniently forgets to mention the words of the many dozens of highly placed Democrats who’s words were nearly identical to Bush’s in the run up to war.
In 2003, top Senate Democrats — not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others — sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month’s report, titled “Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information,” includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees — who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors — many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.
In the end, Kirchick finds no shred of proof that Bush “lied” about anything. In fact, he scolds every Democrat and partisan leftist for saying that he did and that the claim that Bush lied us into war is an “unsubstantiated allegation” that is “cowardly and dishonest.”
So, kudos to James Kirchick for an honest look at the record. Certainly we can agree to disagree right now, at this point, if the war was a good idea or not. But, it is beyond question that there were no lies disseminated by the Bush Administration and neither did the president “manipulate” any evidence to “mislead” the nation into war.
Go read Kirchick’s piece and marvel that it came from a lefty. He really nailed it. “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” is worth your time.
russ:
Unlike you, I did read much of the Report. Here are the verbatim conclusions of the Committee detailing the false, misleading, incompetent, and ill intentioned deeds of this Administration and the President, Vice-president and Secretary of Defense in particular:
“Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.”
If you would like the actual false statements, they are likewise stated in the Report. A fair minded person must conclude that our Government either was totally incompetent,or “lied us” into a needless war. Neither choice is very appealing, and given this Administration’s record of not leveling with the American public, I would have to say the chances are that we have been deceived.
[…] Posted by eagleclaw Bio JONATHAN TURLEY Maybe, this is from Jonathan Turley’s blog: At the risk of being immediately labeled a […]
Iraqi, U.S. Forces Take Over Al-Mahdi Stronghold Without Firing a Shot
Thursday , June 19, 2008
They came at dawn, thousands of Iraqi troops and U.S. special forces on a mission to reclaim a lawless city from the militias who ran it.
By the end of the day, al-Amarah was under Iraqi government control — without a shot being fired amid cheering Iraqi troops.
The city had been taken over by Muqtada al-Sadr’s al-Mahdi Army two years ago after British troops handed it to an ill-prepared Iraqi Army. On Thursday, the city’s streets were crawling with smiling yet forceful Iraqi security forces. Soldiers searched houses as police manned checkpoints and Soviet-era tanks guarded bridges over the Tigris River. Jubilant residents were seen motioning to Iraqi soldiers to search their homes as if saying “I am with you, I am Iraqi, come see.”
The flood of troops, who had moved into position outside the city a week ago, had encountered no resistance as they moved in. The leaders of the Shia militias that once ruled as crime bosses and warlords were either gone or in hiding. Even the police chief fled a week ago, fearing arrest for his affiliation to the al-Mahdi Army, while the mayor, a member of the Sadrist movement, was arrested.
Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia prime minister, has insisted that his large-scale operations in the south are not targeting the Sadrist movement, which has been increasingly weakened by internal divisions, its brutal reputation for murder and extortion and a hugely more confident Iraqi military.
Al-Sadr, the fundamentalist Shia cleric who heads the al-Mahdi Army and the Sadrist political movement, claimed he had ordered his men not to resist the government forces, and a senior member of his parliamentary block expressed grudging support for the Iraqi troops.
Locals said that militiamen had been spotted throwing their weapons into the Tigris or trying to hide them along the lush river banks. One man said that he saw women digging up stashes hidden by fighters and taking them into a weapons collection point manned by Iraqi soldiers to get them out of the hands of the fighters.
Hi! Just have to say I’m a fan of the U.S. Constitution and like what you say about it being “idiot-proof”. Gives a person hope to hear that….
I’ve been reading some of your stuff, today, and I’m wondering…. what person from history (i.e. founder, lawyer, scholar, philosopher ) would YOU most love to be able keep as a conversation buddy….?
Highly curious….Thanks!
MornenGleide
Mornegleide:
Yes, the US Constitution is idiot proof from our liberals. They can’t touch it. Liberals in America are the most intolerent group of people you will ever find when it comes to politics. They will shout you down, ruin speeches by screaming epithets, march in the streets intimidating those they disagree with by getting in their face, mock as neanderthals those they differ with.
But we are safe in our US Constitution. It calls for free speech and the liberals are not able to take that away no matter how much they scream, rant, swear at others, or push them around.
“Yes, the US Constitution is idiot proof from our liberals. They can’t touch it.”
I may not be a liberal, but I do know a duplicitous liar when I see one.
It’s amazing how you can feign loyalty to the constitution out of one side of your mouth, while cheering on an administration as it uses the constitution as a urinal puck, out of the other side of your mouth.
MornenGleide”
“They will shout you down, ruin speeches by screaming epithets, march in the streets intimidating those they disagree with by getting in their face, mock as neanderthals those they differ with.”
*********************
Yeah, yeah what russ said and plus they spy on you, intercept your phone calls, place you in “free speech zones” away from any political speaker, confinscate tape recorders from journalists when their Judges talk, eject people from speeches by public officials (even Presidents) because of the T-shirt you wear, and many other horrible things–oh wait, that was conservatives who did that to liberals. My bad!
MornenGleide:
No contest. James Madison. Though I would have to chide him over the electoral college.
JT:
Though a life-long admirer (I even went to his University)I think a table for three would have include his neighbor and friend Thos. Jefferson. Wouldn’t you agree?
Hi Mespo! I know you posed the question about including T. Jefferson in the group of three to JT, but may I say that I agree?
Bindo and Russ:
This page is a bio of someone who, when he talks, I listen.
Your points may be relevant, but please take them elsewhere.
Professor Turley:
Yes, when you talk on the tube I make sure I put down what I am doing and listen. Your analysis is clear and to the point and heck, nice tie!
I read this blog daily, which I consider to be a “Legal News of the Weird”. I wonder how some of these cases turn out.
Thanks for being a clear voice for the Constitution, a document that seems these days to be used more as an earplug than a legal statement of Ideals.
I agree with Alan, above, on both counts…😉
That tie really is “Off the Hook” – a Happy Father’s Day present?
You looked ‘mahvelous’ on KO 6/19.
Yours has to be the whitest shirt I have every seen – against that dark blue jacket! Nice combination for you. Surely, even Leslie approved.
p.s. How are Madison and the other cabinet members?
Mespo:
I am frankly uncertain about the dinner invite for T. Jefferson if only a third chair is available. I would probably first ask George Mason and, if I am allowed to go foreign, Edmund Burke. It is not that I am in total agreement, but I would expect that to be a very interesting evening out. TJ would certainly be in the top five from that period, however.
Alan Liechty:
I will assume that weird in “Legal News of the Weird” is not meant to be a reference back to the legal news rather than the blogger. Thanks for your kind note, much appreciated.
JT:
I thought about Mason too, but Jefferson could discuss a broader range of topics from horticulture to natural law to politics to inventions. If I could pick anyone from the period, I would take Meriwether Lewis. Assuming we could get him to talk (he was hopelessly shy) that would be a conversation for the ages including the mysterious circumstances of his death at Grinder’s Stand. Jefferson was a tad cantankerous and a bit haughty, but I personally would love to hear about that election in 1800. BTW your tie was quite the hit apparently.
Mornegleide & you liberals here, all three of you:
Yes, the US Constitution is idiot proof from our liberals. They can’t touch it. Liberals in America are the most intolerent group of people you will ever find when it comes to politics. They will shout you down, ruin speeches by screaming epithets, march in the streets intimidating those they disagree with by getting in their face, mock as neanderthals those they differ with.
But we are safe in our US Constitution. It calls for free speech and the liberals are not able to take that away no matter how much they scream, rant, swear at others, or push them around.
russ:
Personally, I think no liberal would ever shout you down or mock you. Why should they, by comparison they all sound like Winston Churchill or Cicero. Carry on brave defender of the faith.
Mornegleide & you liberals here, all three of you:
Yes, the US Constitution is idiot proof from our liberals. They can’t touch it. Liberals in America are the most intolerent group of people you will ever find when it comes to politics. They will shout you down, ruin speeches by screaming epithets, march in the streets intimidating those they disagree with by getting in their face, mock as neanderthals those they differ with.
But we are safe in our US Constitution. It calls for free speech and the liberals are not able to take that away no matter how much they scream, rant, swear at others, or push them around.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT LIBERALS ALWAYS FEEL THEY MUST GET THE LAST WORD IN……….
Mr. Turley,
I always look forward to your appearances on “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”. I wish you could have been my government teacher, way back in the 1970s when I was in high school. I may have chosen a different path in life.
I have sent a suggestion to Barack Obama’s website that he consider you for a seat on the Supreme Court, after he becomes President. I know you would use the Constitution as your basis for decisions, and not let any politicians influence you.
Thank you for your logical, factual and excellent discussions with Keith; and I do hope you will consider becoming a Supreme Court Judge, if the situation arises.
Sincerely,
Mary Leon
Mary Leon:
I can guarantee you Mr. turley is not qualified for a SC nomination. He is like Obama, all talk and no facts.
Shame you are so enamoured with a low life narcistic person like Mr. Olbermann. Most people have seen right through him which is why even Oreilly’s re-run ratings from two hours later beat Olbermann’s prime time show.
russ:
I was leaving a message for Mr. Turley, not you.
You’ve added your opinion, so thanks, but I can decide for myself who I like to watch on TV and I enjoy watching Keith Olbermann.
I would think that you would be too busy to post here, what with all the scandals and lies coming from your president Bush and his White House gang.
Every day I look forward to the newest exposed lies and corruption. And, yes, even though it may take time, your president Bush will be exposed for what he has done to destroy our country and our US Constitution and Especially the loss of our US troops and Innocent Iraqis; either in this world or the next.
I’m also looking forward to Election Day this November so I can cast my vote for Sen. Barack Obama.
Adios, russ,
Mary Leon
One more thing, russ:
You might be interested in “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC) agenda. It is a delusional Neo-Con dream of world dominance, starting in the Middle East. I’m sure you will find it a fascinating work of fiction. Some of the original signers of the agenda: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush. Very interesting that these men are or were so involved with this White House administration…
You’ll have to find it in Wikipedia, though (look under the PNAC archives). The main website is Closed, with a message to contact the accounts office. You would think that William Kristol–the main author of the PNAC agenda–would have more than enough money to keep the website going.
Anyway, enjoy the agenda. I do hope you’ll come back here soon and let us know how you are doing your best to dream this impossible dream of a One World Order led by the Neo-Cons.
Adios, russ,
Mary Leon
mary leon, the only thing at this web site are a handful of left wing lunatics that don’t have a clue…….like you.
Shock: Obama disagrees with Court’s decision in child rape caseposted at 6:35 pm on June 25, 2008
Actually, not so shocking.
Had the decision come four months ago in the heat of the primary and he responded this way, that would have been shocking.
As it is, consider this the legal equivalent of his many full-throated statements of support for Israel. Maybe he means it, maybe he doesn’t, but he can’t afford to be on the wrong side of it politically so his disciples will just have to console themselves with the possibility that it’s yet another lie concocted in the interests of getting elected.
The DUers & other left wing lunatics sound bummed. They’ll get over it. He is their only choice and even as he runs to the right of where Hillary was and governs even further to the right of that when elected; they will cheer him on anyway since he is THEIR GUY.
russ, percy and others,
Why are you bothering to come here and insult us serious people who want to talk about Mr. Turley and his work?
Why don’t you just go to a right-wing website or Fox News site?
Thanks,
Mary Leon
mary leon; seriously now, serious people don’t come here.
PERCY,
Obviously, you are quite mistaken, as in your case, one can deduce
the seemingly ‘seriously’ disturbed quite simply and inevitably show up
-every now and again.
Prof Turley,
I will be attending GWU Law next year and I hope to see you there! I found your blog a few weeks ago and the eclectic mix of law-related posts are great. I was just wondering, how do you get the time to keep it up!?
ubeube:
Congrats on getting into the GW! I speak to the incoming class each year so I will see you at orientation. Turley blog readers are given a standard grade inflation in my classes, so you are covered.
As for how I keep it up, the answer is simple. I have found that if I keep the quality of my work as a professor, litigator and columnist low, I can do much more in a given day.
Once again, my congratulations on your selection for GW.
Dear Professor Turley,
Today I discovered this website and your bio. As a member of the group fighting the bill of attainder contained in HR 4343, I am honored to have you on our side. I will continue the effort for veterans under VEVRAA and appreciate all that your efforts have accomplished. Thank you.
Chuck
Chuck:
Are you fighting the unjust baggage aspect or are you one of those that don’t think it wrong for the public to expect pilots not to drop dead of old age at 30,000 feet?
The price of gas is going through the roof, and Bush and Cheney are smiling at all the money they’re making every day in their offshore accounts from their oil dividends while we pay over $4 a gallon.
Something is wrong with this…
Greetings Professor Turley,
I have admired your comments on MSNBC for sometime now and I write to you this evening requesting a small favor. Could you glance at the complaint Jimbo’s v. USBC filed in Harrisburg District Court by clicking on the page at BowlParkLanes.com? I am in a David v Goliath situation with this as I am up against the powers that be in a $10 Billion per annum industry. The disposition of this case is important to the little guys in our industry as it refects a liftime’s work for many of us. Any suggestions, comments or help would be cherished. I thank you for your time.
jim
Mary Leon, our homes are worth 25% less, our 401k’s are tanking, we are paying $4 or more per gallon of gas. All this has happened in the 18 months Democrats have controlled congress.
Nancy Pelosi said she had an easy answer to the energy shortage in October of 2006; she never told us it was for us to pay $7 per gallon for gas.
You are childish and imature to blame Bush, who can do nothing, for the state of affairs we are in with our economy. For 30 YEARS the demcoratic party has fought against drilling, coal, and nuclear energy:
June 16, 2008
Who’s to Blame for High Gas Prices?
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
88% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
You and people like you have supported the do-nothing Democrats for 30 years. I know because I use to be an idiot just like you. Grow up and face the music: your Demcoratic party is the most corrupt bunch of weasels America has known. They accomplish nothing and while our young cannot afford homes and are going broke on food that is 25% more because of their ethanol fiasco here we sit.
Mary Leon: additionally, the left’s PRECIOUS JOE BIDEN went to Pakistan and interferred with their elections in his effort to have Mushareff removed from power. Joe was successful and we now have militants executing people. Do you THINK IDIOT JOE BIDEN HAD A CLUE TO THE DAMAGE HE WAS ABOUT TO DO: WHO WILL CHALLENGE the lunatic Biden about a US Senator going to a foreign country during an election with the stated goal of making sure Musharef is weakened because he doesn’t like him:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A gang of Pakistani militants executed two alleged U.S. spies in front of thousands of cheering supporters Friday as a top U.N. official expressed fears that Pakistani government peace deals with the gunmen were sparking a wave of human rights abuses.
Caution: Clown Congress at work
Percy:
Well, I have to admit, you’re a real Republican. How many years have you been a member of the PNAC agenda? Do you know what the PNAC agenda is? Hint: Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
If you are a loyal Republican then you must agree 100% with this agenda that William Kristol wrote about 10 years ago. He basically decided that the United States should rule the whole world–using our military and your “compassionate conservative” morals. This nightmare agenda was approved by, amongst others: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush.
The mistake that Bush made was that he thought that the Iraqis were living in the Dark Ages under Saddam Hussein’s rule, so Bush figured he could go invade Iraq; take out Saddam and steal the Iraqi’s oil, all while smiling and chewing gum at the same time because he wanted to run the US empire on earth. He failed to realize that Iraq is where civilization started and the Iraqis are smarter than he could ever be. He still thinks he can invade Iran before he leaves the White House, but I guess if he does you better go volunteer for his invasion.
Your president Bush opened up this can of worms, so whatever is happening now to our economy and our standing in the world is NOT the fault of the Democrats. They do NOT have a 2/3 majority in either the House or the Senate, so you can’t say that they are at fault.
Why don’t you ask Bush and Cheney how much money they’re making every day on their oil dividends while you, me and everyone else pays over $4 a gallon. Oh yeah, even if we drilled for oil off the coastline and in Alaska or the Arctic, we would never see a drop of it for at least 7 to 10 years from today. So how’s that supposed to help us?
When are we leaving Iraq, Percy?
Mr. Turley,
I want to apologize to you for my frank arguments with Percy and Russ. Sometimes I tend to go overboard with my disagreements about this White House administration.
I do this because I love this country, but I do not like what has happened to it these past 7 years. I want this country to be the way it was before Mr. Bush took over–for the People, NOT for the “haves” and the “have mores” and I cannot stay quiet while people like Percy and Russ defend this administration and their lies and crimes while our beloved troops and innocent Iraqis are dying for no reason.
Sincerely,
Mary Leon
Next time you’re filling your gas tank, staring at the pump and those little dials are spinning so fast you can’t even read the numbers, ask yourself: If Barack Obama is elected, will those numbers slow down?
If Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton get a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate, will gas prices fall?
These liberals, currently running Congress, have no problem with U.S. consumers sending $600-700 billion each year to Russia, Venezuela and the Middle East for oil while they stifle our nation’s ability to develop our own known vast energy resources.
That’s the choice we’re facing this coming fall.
mary leon: I bet you post over with the loons here also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com
You sound just like them.
God Bless our President Bush.
mary leon: I love it when the opposition wins my arguments for me.
Your post above shows just how little thinking goes through your head. God help you if you believe even 10% of what you write. You are truly a product of the American school system of the last 20 years.
Change: LOL!
Barack Obama has artfully crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric.
Faced with choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to stay consistent with his primary speeches and promises and make striking departures from customary politics.
Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes that will ensure his campaign a cash edge, minimize damaging blowback on several highly sensitive issues, and keep him away from open debates with his opposition.
Abandoning the far left rhetoric of the primaries, and those that supported him, Obama has now begun the move to the center where the votes are. The only thing left for Obama to abandon is his committment to a fast withdrawal from Iraq.
That may have already occurred yesterday at Unity Massachusetts where the candidate made note of the necessity for a slow careful withdrawal from Iraq; virtually indistinguisable from either the Bush or McCain plan for Iraq.
Unity Massachusetts?
With talking points so loud, who has time to think?
martha h:
Just so you recall oil was $27.39 a barrel when Clinton left office. It’s now $140.00. And I will give you the sage words of George W. when asked during the election about what he would do if oil hit $30.00 a barrel. Our resident mental midget said in 1999, “I’m an oil man, if it gets too high, I ‘ll just jawbone OPEC down. That’s what Bill Clinton should have done.” Keep talking oil man. Funny how Big Oil’s profits have soared under Bush/Cheney, both acknowledged “oil men.” I wouldn’t be so hard on Mary Leon. She remembers what you choose to forget. Finally unless McCain can start raising money soon or the price of oil drops, you’d better start getting used to saying “President Obama.” I know, I know you’ll move to Australia. Can I contribute to your moving expenses oh great intellectual product of our private schools? Why not spread your conservative tripe over there?
mespoop7272:
You have to be truly ignorant to think that pouting that oil was $30 per barrel when clinton left office but now it is $140 accomplishes anything. You have to be truly even more ignorant to think your argument about this being Bush’s fault holds water in America. Almost 80% of Americans know the problem is production and want to drill now. Your President Clinton locked up 100 years worth of coal and oil with executive orders blocking exploration. Now here we sit. World oil use has increased by 30% in those years while production has increased only 25% largely because of Clinton and this:
June 16, 2008
Who’s to Blame for High Gas Prices?
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
88% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
mary leon, this is directed especially at you since you are one of those that obviously thinks Obama walks on water:
Change: LOL!
Barack Obama has artfully crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric.
Faced with choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to stay consistent with his primary speeches and promises and make striking departures from customary politics.
Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes that will ensure his campaign a cash edge, minimize damaging blowback on several highly sensitive issues, and keep him away from open debates with his opposition.
Abandoning the far left rhetoric of the primaries, and those that supported him, Obama has now begun the move to the center where the votes are. The only thing left for Obama to abandon is his committment to a fast withdrawal from Iraq.
That may have already occurred yesterday at Unity Massachusetts where the candidate made note of the necessity for a slow careful withdrawal from Iraq; virtually indistinguisable from either the Bush or McCain plan for Iraq.
Ah the beauty of self-proclaimed statistics; almost makes ya look like you know what you’re talking about.
Almost.
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must ‘kiss my _ _ _’ for his support
By Tim Shipman in Washington and Philip Sherwell in New York
Last Updated: 9:07PM BST 28/06/2008
Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama’s victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.
AP
Bill Clinton is still very bitter that Barack Obama beat his wife Hillary. Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president’s future campaign role is a “sticking point” in peace talks with Mrs Clinton’s aides.
The Telegraph has learned that the former president’s rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.
A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could “kiss my _ _ _” in return for his support.
A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still knows Mr Obama cannot win the election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-%27kiss-my-ass%27-for-his-support.html
martha h:
Like most of your conservative brothers, numbers make you swoon. Demand for oil is down 8% domestically and oil production is at an all time high. The cost to get a barrel out of the ground is still around $30.00 but your oil pirating brethren in the neo-con party want their “ENRON loophole” speculation profits and Big Oil wants big money as it always does (40.6 billion dollars last year for ExxonMobile alone), so the cost still hovers around $140.00. While there is demand pressure from India and China, it does not account for the obscene increase in price and hence profits to your friends. W’s disastrous economic policy and his interminable war have reeked havoc on the dollar and hence our crisis. BTW does Bush screw up everything he sees or just the Texas Rangers, two oil companies, the State of Texas and now the Nation? You may fool some of the people some of the time, but it appears about 75% have caught on to our war criminal/robber baron/buffoon Chief Executive. He and his party– along with your dubious logic– appears poised to make an fast exit stage right, appropriately. Bon voyage. Say hello to the kukaburras for me!
And as an aside, you don’t need to publish someone else’s nonsense in toto and of course, without attribution (it’s the neo-con way). Unlike most of us on the left, it’s only the right that needs to learn from flash cards.
Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com
Thursday June 26, 2008 07:22 EDT
Keith Olbermann: Then and now
(updated below – Update II)
On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute “Special Comment,” the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to “retroactively immunize corporate criminals,” and said that telecom immnity is “an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush’s] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email.”
Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a “shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism — the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.”
Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:
There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.
Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections.
Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing — and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists — everything has changed.
Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama’s support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn’t a syllable uttered about “immunizing corporate criminals” or “textbook examples of Fascism” or the Third Reich. There wasn’t a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama’s bravery and strength — as evidenced by his “standing up to the left” in order to support FISA revisions that include telecom immunity.
Obama Undercuts His Brand
The Huffington Post
June 28, 2008 12:10 PM
Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” by party stalwarts.
The Times reports:
In recent weeks, he toughened his stance on Iran and backed an expansion of the government’s wiretapping powers. On Wednesday, he said states should be allowed to execute child rapists. When the Supreme Court the next day struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, he did not complain…
…”I’ve been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center,” said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute…
…And Obama endorsed a compromise wiretapping bill despite stiff opposition from liberal activists. MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, asked its members to flood Obama’s campaign office with phone calls and e-mails urging him to support a filibuster of the bill.
The changes carry some risk that Obama will erase the cultivated image he has as a new type of leader who will change how Washington conducts business.
McCain and other Republicans have used his recent policy statements to argue that Obama is a traditional politician, unwilling to take clear stands on tough issues and abandoning his principles when he finds it advantageous.
The Post reports that those who should be his strongest supporters are taking this as a wake-up call.
martha h:
While in Australia, please pass on my recommendation to the Sydney Morning Herald that you would make a fine newspaper boy spouting the words and thoughts of others after screaming “Extra,” “Extra.” Could you let me know when you get an original thought? I think I have enough time. I ‘m only 49 and expect to live another few decades.
Amen
I have an idea…
Instead of posting barbs on JT’s Bio, which seems inappropriate to me, perhaps, he would provide a Free-for-All ‘Chat’ section.
It could be fashioned ‘On the Hook’ – whaddaya say?
PattyC:
I agree with you 100%. I have already issued Mr. Turley an apology for my posting, which tends to get quite emotional at times. But I will NOT apologize for telling the Republicans that they are so wrong about what they’ve allowed to happen to our country.
What ever they write to me or about me doesn’t bother me in the least. Ever since Bush got ‘selected’ as president in 2001, I’ve been saying that he’s going to try to turn this country into the “haves”, the “have mores” and “the rest of us–their personal slaves”. I’ve been called everything from traitor, unpatriotic, a hater of our country, you name it, I’ve been called it. They don’t scare me at all; because my conscience is clear. But they are the ones who will have to live with themselves because they decided to follow Bush by approving and even cheering his invasion of Iraq and the Killings that have happened because of it.
I wonder if Percy, russ, and any other Republican have seen pictures of our young troops after they’ve been hit by a bomb. I have, and I will have those terrible photos of our dismembered troops in my mind until the day I die. I remember one young troop said that he thought he had seen everything in this war, when he had to go out after a bombing to pick up the pieces of his dead buddy off the street. But, then he looked down the street and saw a little boy, picking up the pieces of his dead father. How terribly tragic and sad…
June 28, 2008
Delahunt Bobs, Weaves, Lies
Mark Levin’s radio show caught up with disgraced Congressman Bill Delahunt to ask him about his expression of solidarity with al Qaeda against the Bush administration, which we wrote about here, here, here and here. Unfortunately, on Levin’s show Delahunt simply repeated the same incredible tale that he told shortly after his encounter with David Addington.
To see how ridiculous Delahunt’s excuse is, let’s reproduce his exchange with Addington:
DELAHUNT: Was waterboarding one of them?
ADDINGTON: That’s what I’m answering, because I know where you’re headed. As I indicated to the chairman at the beginning of this thing, I’m not in a position to talk about particular techniques, whether they are or aren’t used or could or couldn’t be used or their legal status.
And the reasons I would give for that, if you’ll look at, I think, Exhibit 9, the president’s speech of September 6, 2006, explains why he doesn’t talk about what particular techniques…
DELAHUNT: Oh, I can understand why he doesn’t talk about it.
ADDINGTON: But you’ve got to communicate with Al Qaeda. I can’t talk to you. Al Qaeda may watch “C-SPAN.”
DELAHUNT: Right. Well, I’m sure they are watching and I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. .
ADDINGTON: I’m sure you’re pleased.
DELAHUNT: Given your penchant for being unobtrusive.
Delahunt’s excuse on the radio is obviously a lie. He and Addington were talking about the fact that, because al Qaeda may be watching CSpan, Addington does not want to discuss specific interrogation techniques. Delahunt now claims that he meant to say, “Right. Well, I’m sure they [al Qaeda] are watching and I’m glad I finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington.” That sentence makes no sense. Obviously, the people who are “watching”–al Qaeda–are the people who Delahunt is “glad” to have a chance finally to see Addington.
If hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, the kind of transparent lying that Bill Delahunt is now engaged in is perhaps the tribute that crazed partisanship pays to the patriotism of the American people. It is sad that we have vicious haters like Bill Delahunt in Congress, but it is good that when the mask slips for a moment, and viewers can see how they really think, haters like Delahunt have no recourse but to lie.
martha h:
Did you even read what I just posted above?
Mary Leon:
To your credit your are here to dialog with others. The vexatious martha j is here to cut and paste talking points in the hopes that we read them. I suggest we treat her like all the other white noise around and just ignore her until she moves to the next blog.
mespo727272:
I wish martha, Percy, russ and the other Republicans would read the last paragraph I wrote above. War isn’t pretty and those photos I saw were terrible and sad. I know that the dead person is put in the coffins face-down before they are shipped back to our country, in case anyone but the mortician inadvertantely sees the body. This is due to the trauma caused by the bombs and other weapons. If martha, Percy, russ and anyone else cannot be affected by our beloved troops’ deaths and innocent Iraqi civilians’ deaths, all willingly caused by their president, then I guess I will just have to ignore them.
mary leon, hundred of thousands of soldiers and civilians caught up in war have had to pick up the pieces whether it was ww1, ww2, korean war, vietnam, or any of the other hundreds of conflicts in the world where good people are trying to free other people or oppose tyranny.
maybe you just need to stay safe in bed with your quilt over you, a flashlight, and a “save the seals” book…
Too bad those who love this war in Iraq won’t have the courage to volunteer and enlist. Then they can “free” the Iraqis…
mary leon,
i have two sons in the service, a us marine and a us air force officer. you have no clue who is defending this nation nor why do you.
martha h:
Your sons service is commendable. Your shrill defense undermines their service. Perhaps you haven’t noticed but 75% of the Country is against this needless, immoral war, and unless something happened last night with the Bush mob, public opinion still matters in a democracy. This election will turn on that war sentiment as all wartime elections do. I would prepare for your profound disappointment which ironically will lead to your kids coming home. When that happens, I trust you will being writing thank you notes to President Obama.
mespo727272:
I wonder if those who love Bush and what he’s done to our country are either making lots of money because of his policies or are blindly following him because they can’t think for themselves; they can’t go against what their friends, relatives and neighbors do. What kind of life is that for an adult?
It’s also too bad that these people don’t realize that Saddam Hussein could have been eliminated without our troops having to take one step into Iraq. Who ever said that Iraqis wanted Democracy? They have the right to choose the way they want to run their country, NOT have Democracy shoved down their throats with a barrel of a gun.
I feel so sorry for our troops–they had no say in being sent to Iraq. They have to follow the president and his policies, no matter how delusional. I wish everyone who supports this war would volunteer to go to Iraq and take the place of one of our troops–then they would find out how insane this war and this president really are. But those who won’t volunteer to go serve in Iraq are cowards and hypocrites–love the war but won’t fight in it.
mary leon & mespo.
i doubt if there were ever two sorrier examples of americans than you two.
Those who support this war and have sons and daughters serving in Iraq will have a different opinion, if, God forbid, their son or daughter comes home from Iraq in a body bag. Tragically, some people can only see the truth when they are personally affected by it.
mary leon, again i say the two of you are the sorriest example of americans there are. sons & daughters volunteer to fight in a war about freedom for others…….and you have the gall to come here and post that parents will change their minds about that fight when their sons or daughters are injured or killed in their quest to help others.
you have taught me and others here that there are no limits to the reaches of depravity of the left. god help you.
Who said Iraq wanted our help? Who said there were weapons of mass destruction aimed at our allies in the Middle East? If it was so dangerous, why didn’t Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Oman, etc… decide to invade Iraq together to stop Saddam Hussein? Why didn’t the United Nations believe that Bush needed to invade Iraq, and therefore would not commit troops to help him? Why does everyone hate the United States now? Why do millions believe Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil?
I believe in God. I have a clear conscience. I am Patriotic. I love this country and I hate what has happened to it over the past 7 years. But I am wise enough to understand why this invasion happened. I can understand the evil that comes from this White House administration. History will prove that I and others were right–Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil so he, Cheney and their oil friends could make tons of money in profits, plus Blackwater and KBR Halliburton (both Neo-Con corporations) have already made Billions from their no-bid contracts.
You are believing in a war of Choice, not a war of Necessity. This war is all about getting oil and making money. Bush could care less how many people die. All he cares about is the money, and you are ignorant enough to believe he invaded Iraq to spread freedom and democracy all over the Middle East.
I feel sorry for you, because you will find out the truth one day, and you will know that all these people died for your president’s love of the almighty dollar and that you supported Bush’s agenda and therefore you supported the deaths of innocent people.
martha h:
“i doubt if there were ever two sorrier examples of americans than you two.”
************
I consider this observation an honor almost as prestigious as being on Nixon’s hit list. Please continue in the knowledge that, like you (unless you take me up on my offer to aid you in your trip to Australia), I am not going anywhere. And by the way, using your kids service to support your preposterous position that this is a war about freeing Iraqis and not about oil may assuage your conscience, but it also places you squarely beneath contempt for the million or so Iraqis we have “freed” from life on this planet.
Mary Leon:
Forgive me for responding to the foolish comment before your sane one. In any event, you, like most thinking people, have it right. It took some citizens years to figure out that Bush was a con man without peer. But most people have the concept now. It was always about oil and defense spending with Saddam Hussein serving as the stooge to fool the incredibly stupid conservatives who supported this guy. Bush was always the company man– a sort of Manchurian candidate from Wall Street by way of the Pentagon. People like our own martha h are the sad ones who willing give their children to this war-machine-for profit on notions of patriotism. The ironic thing is that true patriots abhor this little man with his big war. I doubt you will see a conversion from martha h; she has too much invested in this fight to even consider she is wrong. I have always believed that blindness is the worst disability that could befall someone, even more so when the blinding is self inflicted by wishful or delusional thinking. By the way, have your received your “sorriest Americans” membership card yet? I am anxiously awaiting mine.
Hey Martha H.,
Can I get into the “sorriest American” club too?? It seems no matter which topic(s) you are writing about, the facts somehow do not seem to get in your way. Congrats on your factoid blindness. And one other thing Martha H., I, like Mary Leon, believe in God. And I didn’t have to drive drunk and snort cocaine before deciding to believe.
rafflaw:
“And I didn’t have to drive drunk and snort cocaine before deciding to believe.”
**********
I believe too, but I question why He didn’t give me the wit to say that first? I am still laughing as I type.
mespo and rafflaw:
No, I have never heard of the “sorriest American” club until today. I will happily be a member.
I would add that by believing in God, through His words is how I was able to recognize Bush and Cheney for what they really are–wolves in “designer” sheeps’ clothing.
Sure, they can be pro-life (yet they sure love that death penalty), frown on stem cell research, hate gays and lesbians and believe that they and ONLY they are the only ones going to Heaven. But I say that no matter how much they go to church and profess to be christians their actions speak louder than any words can.
Do they follow the teachings of Jesus? Love their enemies, do good to those who disagree and hate them? Try talking with others through diplomatic means before any blood is spilled? Share the wealth of this country, (the richest country that ever was on earth) with everyone they can–by way of feeding the hungry and making sure everyone can see a doctor when they need to? Do they follow the law of the land–the US Constitution–and abide by its fair and separate balance of powers? Do they do what is right for the people that live in the United States? Do they make sure there are good schools for educating our children? Do they believe in a fair tax system? Do they care about the “have nots”? Do they fairly treat prisoners–as in the Geneva Convention?
By watching and observing this White House administration, I can safely say that NO, they do not follow the teachings of Jesus. And no matter what happened with any other president in our country’s history, from scandals to assassinations, there has NEVER been a sitting president who deliberately and willingly invaded a country; and who deliberately and willingly tried to destroy our US Constitution–until NOW.
Mary Leon,
The Republicans and the Neo-Cons use religion as a shield and have no intention of living under those religous precepts. The only question you have to ask them is WWJT? Translated, Who Would Jesus Torture?
Mespo,
While we are on the topic of religion, the good Benedictine Nuns that I had in grade school were not as amused as you were with my wit! But thank anyways.
rafflaw:
I had the Sisters of Mercy. They were equally humorless.
Who said Iraq wanted our help?
Saddam’s people pleaded with the world, anyways those that escaped with their lives.
Who said there were weapons of mass destruction aimed at our allies in the Middle East?
Bill Clinton did, along with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and almost every leader of the free world.
If it was so dangerous, why didn’t Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Oman, etc… decide to invade Iraq together to stop Saddam Hussein?
Each of those countries were convinced Saddam had and would use his WMD if any of them attacked him, but your ignorance of the region astounds me. Syria was his ally, Jordan supported him out of fear, Iran had fought a 12 year war to a standstill wit him, and Saudi Arabia did not have the ability to wage war along a 1,000 mile front with him.
Why didn’t the United Nations believe that Bush needed to invade Iraq, and therefore would not commit troops to help him?
The UN has no militarily trained “troops”. They have a force of blue helmeted thugs that rape & demand payments for protection or they stand around as innocents get slaughtered like in rwanda, nigeria, etc. What on earth do you think the UN is? It is nothing but a bunch of political animals with a few ten thousand blue helmeted peace keepers that would have been killed on the spot by Saddam even if they cuold have been convinced to fight for something other than the woman, booze, and money they fight for now. The UN DID manage to pass 17 UN resolutions demanding Saddam comply. If you want a UN you better have someone behind it enforcing it or it is a waste of time.
Why does everyone hate the United States now?
I think the most haters of America in the world live right here in big houses with big cars big salaries, huge egos, and nothing to do but bitch.
Why do millions believe Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil?
Because lunatics like you have been saying it for 7 years, despite it being a bald face lie.
I believe in God.
So did Saddam Hussain & Adolf Hitler.
I have a clear conscience.
Most children nowadays have been brought up without one so that means nothing.
I am Patriotic.
Like hell you are; you are giving aid and comfort to those that are trying to kill our sons & daughters that are fighting for others freedom every day.
I love this country and I hate what has happened to it over the past 7 years.
Then leave. It would be better without children like you.
But I am wise enough to understand why this invasion happened. I can understand the evil that comes from this White House administration. History will prove that I and others were right.
Ya, sure, you betacha. I have some land to sell you in Florida also if you believe all that. What crock.
Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil so he, Cheney and their oil friends could make tons of money in profits, plus Blackwater and KBR Halliburton (both Neo-Con corporations) have already made Billions from their no-bid contracts.
Oh, now its the oil. Why didn’t we just take Kuwaits oil? We had 100,000 troops there and could have just taken it. Why didn’t we take Saudi Arabia’s oil? We also had 400,000 troops there in 1991 and didn’t take it did we?
You are believing in a war of Choice, not a war of Necessity.
Get a clue: ALL wars are choice.
This war is all about getting oil and making money. Bush could care less how many people die. All he cares about is the money, and you are ignorant enough to believe he invaded Iraq to spread freedom and democracy all over the Middle East.
You have so many screws loose I pity you.
I feel sorry for you, because you will find out the truth one day, and you will know that all these people died for your president’s love of the almighty dollar and that you supported Bush’s agenda and therefore you supported the deaths of innocent people.
What is it like to think you know everything? I realized when I was 15 that I didn’t know everything. I guess you must either be 14 yet or you never grew up.
Yet Another Obama 180, This Time on Iraq
Recent statements & acitons indicate that Senator Obama plans to aggressively move to the middle on Iraq in the coming months. This is a good political move for Obama, if only because he’s finally starting to recognize reality.
However, it’s no surprise that he will continue to try and have it both ways: moderating his withdrawal language without giving any credit to surge/Petraeus advocates.
Standing alongside Hillary (Friday in Unity, NH), Obama said:
“We can follow a policy that doesn’t change whether violence is up or violence is down, whether the Iraqi government takes responsibility or not; or we can decide that it’s time to begin a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq.”
GOT THAT? RESPONSIBLE GRADUAL WITHDRAWEL – BASICALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN MCCAIN OR BUSH IS IT?
….. Just months ago, Obama clamored for an “immediate” withdrawal, regardless of the situation on the ground; today, his withdrawal would be “gradual.” Maybe he was channeling Hillary Clinton, or maybe he finally realizes that very few people—except the MoveOn crowd—want an immediate withdrawal. His website, I should note, still touts an “immediate” withdrawal.
Regardless, within a month Obama will throw the left wingers under the buss on Iraq. He will say he was ill-informed and/or uninformed as to the situation and that new information means any withdrawel must be gradual. What the heck; who else are the lefties going to vote for in the Fall? Nader?????
Martha H.,
Thank you for calling me a child. It has been many, many years since I have been called a child. I am a bit confused with your postings, however. You seemed to have your facts screwed up. Since when is wanting peace unpatriotic? Only since the Bush Crime Family Administration was appointed into power. What is this crap about every war is a war of choice? We did have a choice in Iraq and your appointed President made the wrong choice. We had no choice in WWII because of Pearl Harbor.
Iraq has more oil reserves than Kuwait and Kuwait already does business with Daddy Bush. Have you ever heard of the Project for the New American Century? You may want to check them out. Before they closed down their website you could find their plan to invade Iraq if they had a big event to convince the American people. I wonder what that evernt was??? Could it be 9/11? Georgie didn’t listen to Germany, or France who knew better not to get involved in Iraw, even though they joined us in Afghanistan.
I guess it is just a coincidence that gasoline cost me $1.60 when Bush was appointed and I just paid $4.19 yesterday. I almost forget, I am a Patriot because I make sure my country is following its own laws and the world’s laws. George W. vilated FISA with his illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Prof. Turley and Mespo can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would be a felony. George W. ordered torture of detainees in our control which violated U.S. law and international accords. I could go on, but my Mom just told me that it is time for all children to be in bed. Peace.
Mary Leon wrote:
Do they follow the teachings of Jesus? Love their enemies, do good to those who disagree and hate them? Try talking with others through diplomatic means before any blood is spilled? Share the wealth of this country, (the richest country that ever was on earth) with everyone they can–by way of feeding the hungry and making sure everyone can see a doctor when they need to?
*****************
I haven’t noticed either Bush or Cheney following any of those particular teachings. They seem to have a huge problem with the idea of sharing the wealth, but have NO problems TAKING it though. Including starting wars to get it from other countries. Is that version of Christianity (the taking part) from the Old Testament or the New? I always get them mixed up.
rafflaw:
Save your typing. Martha H has drunk the kool-ade and will not be dissuaded. Some people never get it, and they always question everyone else’s patriotism. They are fools and they tend to stay that way. We’ll just soldier on allowing her to wallow in her hate. BTW violating our civil rights is a crime with sanctions varying depending on the injury sustained. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242. More pertinent Bush is likely guilty of war crimes with national and international sanctions available.
Mespo wrote:
rafflaw:
I had the Sisters of Mercy. They were equally humorless.
*************
I have to wonder if a formal study has ever been done on how many adults who are now either non-religious or no longer Catholic had to attend Catholic church and/or school as kids. I was stuck with both as a kid; rejected it all by the time I was 18.
martha h:
“OT THAT? RESPONSIBLE GRADUAL WITHDRAWEL – BASICALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN MCCAIN OR BUSH IS IT?
….. Just months ago, Obama clamored for an “immediate” withdrawal, regardless of the situation on the ground; today, his withdrawal would be “gradual.” Maybe he was channeling Hillary Clinton, or maybe he finally realizes that very few people—except the MoveOn crowd—want an immediate withdrawal. His website, I should note, still touts an “immediate” withdrawal.”
*************
One last post just to correct the falsehood you mouthed from the National Review website –god forbid you have an original thought in your own head. Let me start by quoting the exact passage from the website of Obama:
“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”
For those of you in conservative la-la land you may see an conflict between his statement in Unity, N.H. and the website. For the rest of us who can read and comprehend the langauge, we see that there is no conflict. Upon election Obama will immediately START the gradual withdrawal over 16 months which appears to most people to be a responsible timetable, and he will keep some troops there to oversee operations and protect installations. He never said “immediate withdrawal.” That is pure fiction by the National Review as mouthed by the apparatchik we know as martha h. (I’d call her a liar but that would imply intent to deceive, and as we have seen martha h has little intent to do anything save disagree with us grasping at the false talking points of her masters on the right) If you’re going to plagiarize at least get the name of the fool your mimicking for us so we can rebut the charges, or is that not sporting in the neo-con world you hail from.
Susan:
“I have to wonder if a formal study has ever been done on how many adults who are now either non-religious or no longer Catholic had to attend Catholic church and/or school as kids. I was stuck with both as a kid; rejected it all by the time I was 18.”
*************
Never heard of one but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there for your proposition. I bet that would be an interesting study, too.
Interestingly almost every pagan I know was raised either Catholic or extreme protestant fundamentalist. In the case of those who were Catholic I notice the ceremonies recreate the rites in great detail. There are high priest and priestess who run things and tell everyone else what to do. There are elaborate ceremonies which must be followed exactly. There are pieces of knowledge that only followers who’ve been appointed by the leadership are allowed to learn. It is a massive hierarchy with rigid rules of obedience. As far as I can tell, members have exactly recreated the church, just changing to gods and goddesses and they do allow women priests.
The Nuns didn’t scare religion out of me. I made the improper(in their eyes) habit of asking the wrong question in religion class. I still ask those questions, but I am still a believer. I just have a problem with some of the bishops and Cardinals and some of the Popes!
Well, what’s the news today? Surprise, Surprise!
Iraq is going to be making short-term contracts with Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum, Chevron, Shell, and a few other smaller oil companies who want to ‘help’ Iraq pump more oil every day.
Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and British Petroleum have been working in Iraq for ‘free’ the past 2 years and now wants to make sure they get compensated for the ‘free’ advice.
Saddam Hussein kept the big oil companies out of Iraq for over 36 years. Now, these oil companies are being allowed in for short-term drilling rights (how short is short-term anyway? The companies won’t disclose this info).
So, Mr. Bush, who is friends with all the CEOs of all of these big oil companies now says that the US will NOT get involved with helping Iraq deal with these companies.
*** I wonder how these oil companies were allowed to go into Iraq in the first place, so they could give their ‘free’ advice and how much it’s really going to cost Iraq for this ‘free’ advice?***
Let’s see, now, martha, What was the reason Bush invaded Iraq? It certainly WAS NOT for the oil, was it?
Case closed, my dear. RFLMAO
Mary Leon:
Daggone it, martha h with her private school education, TOLD (or most likely read) you that the war wasn’t about oil, and you keep presenting all these facts that the National Review never told her about and just upsetting her to no end. She even fled the blog. Now I hope you are happy with yourself because, because….we surely are!
Isn’t it great how current events always seem to come back to bite the neo-cons right on the butt. Would be funnier if we all weren’t paying the price for their rampant stupidity.
mespo:
You betcha I’m telling martha what the ‘real deal’ of the Iraq invasion is.
But there is a huge sadness to all of this–so many, many thousands of people that are dead that shouldn’t be dead. That is something I wish would have never happened–all the deaths of our troops and of innocent Iraqi citizens, just so Bush and his corporate friends could get richer from taking Iraq’s oil.
It’s people like martha who blindly follow whatever they hear, either from the ‘prosperity’ gospel preacher, or the republican party. She fell for the ‘us versus them’ trick–“let’s us ‘christians’ go over to the Middle East and teach them ‘heathen’ Iraqis how ‘conservative and compassionate’ we really are “and, “oh, yeah, while we’re there, let’s show these heathens, who live in the Dark Ages, how we are so ‘progressive’ at getting that oil. Of course, we’ll have to keep the oil profits, or them Iraqis will give the profits to ‘terrorists'”. I bet she even believes that now that Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP and Chevron have access to the Iraqi oil that the price of a gallon of gas is going to go down. Won’t she be surprised when it DOES NOT go down–rather, the oil companies will INCREASE the price, due to their whining that they have to bring in ‘new’ technology and pipelines to Iraq, so it’s going to cost them a ‘fortune’, and ‘unfortunately’ they have to pass the price increase for us to pay.
Well, I’m glad she’s gone. She’s probably over at either Foxnews.com or Bill O’Reilley’s website, crying her poor little heart out, about us ‘big mean’ liberals, and our ‘big mean’ way of speaking the TRUTH…
“I wonder how these oil companies were allowed to go into Iraq in the first place, so they could give their ‘free’ advice and how much it’s really going to cost Iraq for this ‘free’ advice?”
You may want to Google up “Executive Order 13303”
Bob, Esq.
Thank you for that interesting piece of information. I wonder what other “Executive Orders” are out there that Bush signed? Scary thought…
Martha is right. You people are insane. You are literally the one percenters of America all coagulating around a half dozen wacko blogs.
Funny how Obama moved even further to the right today, showing his disgust with you Moveon.org types and Weasely Clark fans.
Who knows, pretty soon Obama might announce he is a Blue Dog Democrat; you know, those Democrats that are so far to the right that they could be mistaken for moderate Republicans. The Democratic party found they had to run blue dog democrats or they could not win a single election in America. Rahm Emmanual came up with that idea, but now he has anothe problem; blue dog democrats gave the Democrats the majority but those same blue dog democrats don’t always follow the party line, do they, on abortion, national security, taxes. etc.
Mary,
If you’re looking for a solid patriotic foundation upon which to despise G.W. Bush, please note that E.O. 13301, issued 21 days after “Mission Accomplished,” legalized all crimes committed by private contractors and mercenaries.
Why is it patriotic to despise Bush over this? Well, ya see, back in July of 1776 13 Colonies set forth a Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions against their first and foremost enemy; TYRANNY.
Montesquieu held that Tyranny consists of oppression via gathering of too much power in too few hands; Locke, i.e. Jefferson’s role model, defined Tyranny as follows:
“AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr18.htm
Legalizing crime is the essence of tyranny.
Accordingly, everything you heard about Bush fighting tyranny in Iraq was a total lie; not just because tyranny is an inherently domestic enemy of the constitution, but for the simple fact that he established tyranny in the very country he claimed to liberate.
Regards,
Bob
“As usurpation is the exercise of power over which another has a right to; so TYRANNY is the exercise of power, beyond
PERCY,
I find your lack of fealty is disturbing.
It’s said that George Washington once crucified a man for desertion.
Ever wonder what George Washington would do to the likes of you if he were alive today?
http://www.76house.com/history_tavern.html
Being a mindless ditto-head can be hazardous to your health.
Mary Leon you really need to get your news straight before running her and posting BS. It makes you look so childish.
Tonight Iraq indicated that reports oil contracts would be limited to five western countries on a no bid basis were incorrect.
Bids will be accepted for 8 months from 36 oil companies world wide. The only oil companies locked out where those that had executed “back door” lucrative contracts with Saddam that were to have been effective after the UN ended sanctions on Saddam. Guess which countries….Russia & France.
No contract will be awarded until March of 2009 after the new Iraqi Government has reviewed all applications and bids.
Sorry Mary Leon. Once again your blind hatred of a fine man & President, our President Bush, caused you to make an uninformed ass out of yourself, but that is typical of the one percenters here.
oh oh. Two more under the Obama bus today:
Weasely Clark – THROWN UNDER THE BUS TODAY!
Moveon.org – THROWN UNDER THE BUS TODAY!
att: Mary Leon
You really need to get your news straight before running her and posting BS. It makes you look so childish.
Tonight Iraq indicated that reports oil contracts would be limited to five western countries on a no bid basis were incorrect.
Bids will be accepted for 8 months from 36 oil companies world wide. The only oil companies locked out where those that had executed “back door” lucrative contracts with Saddam that were to have been effective after the UN ended sanctions on Saddam. Guess which countries….Russia & France.
No contract will be awarded until March of 2009 after the new Iraqi Government has reviewed all applications and bids.
Sorry Mary Leon. Once again your blind hatred of a fine man & President, our President Bush, caused you to make an uninformed ass out of yourself, but that is typical of the one percenters here.
Percy:
I wouldn’t care how many companies were “qualified” to bid if I got to draw up the bid documents as the American companies did. Sounds like the little boys got caught with hands in the oil jar yesterday and had to back down for awhile ’til this blows over. Let’s wait and see before we condemn Mary Leon who is merely saying what the Arabs and most thinking people believe.
oh oh. Two more under the Obama bus today:
Weasely Clark – THROWN UNDER THE BUS TODAY!
Moveon.org – THROWN UNDER THE BUS TODAY!
att: Mary Leon
You really need to get your news straight before running her and posting BS. It makes you look so childish.
Tonight Iraq indicated that reports oil contracts would be limited to five western countries on a no bid basis were incorrect.
Bids will be accepted for 8 months from 36 oil companies world wide. The only oil companies locked out where those that had executed “back door” lucrative contracts with Saddam that were to have been effective after the UN ended sanctions on Saddam. Guess which countries….Russia & France.
No contract will be awarded until March of 2009 after the new Iraqi Government has reviewed all applications and bids.
Sorry Mary Leon. Once again your blind hatred of a fine man & President, our President Bush, caused you to make an uninformed ass out of yourself, but that is typical of the one percenters here.
Gee, I miss one day of posting messages here, and Percy acts like he got a wedgie over his head. LOL
Percy, why are you copying others’ words? Don’t you know you’re committing plagerism?
Oh, maybe you know the answer to this question–
Where was Bush when he went AWOL out of the National Guard in the 1960s for over a year? I bet if any other soldier did that, they would have been thrown in the brig for a year or two. Nice to have Daddy Bush’s money to pay off the National Guard so they will ‘conveniently’ lose Bush’s paperwork.
Oh, by the way, he’s YOUR president, NOT mine. He was ‘selected’ by the Supreme Court in early 2001, even though Al Gore won the popular vote in Florida. So, for the past 7 years, I’ve had no president to admire.
If you’re so enamored of Bush, why aren’t you over fighting for him in Iraq? I mean, unless you have an excuse why you can’t enlist in one of the military branches, what are you doing wasting my and others’ time here, ‘copying and pasting’?
Oh, yeah, one more thing Percy. I thought that the United Nations mandate says the US has to leave Iraq by the end of this year, but Bush announced that he’s sending MORE troops into Iraq next year. Did he make a deal with al-Maliki, an ‘agreement’ that we’ll be in Iraq for years? How come he won’t tell US the people who will end up paying for this?
Lots of crimes are being committed by Bush and Cheney. Those are two evil men; and you admire them. That says a lot about your character, Percy. Too bad you are on the LOSING side of History, by supporting the WORST president we’ve ever had.
I join the other posters who hold you in high regard!! I first heard you comment on Countdown. I, also, pay close attention when you or John Dean comment. I’ve seen the twinkle return to your eyes recently, as the DOJ scandal unfolded and bushco was called out for politicizing justice!! I am confident that you would point to lawbreakers in any political party, and am comforted by the thought of you teaching true bipartisanship to the up and coming law students.
And speaking of bipartisanship: I am really disappointed in the postings!! People, take your political party fights to another site. This site should be for people interested in law and reality.
suziq:
Yes, you are right about the political fighting. When I first posted here to Mr. Turley, I had told him that I submitted a suggestion to Barack Obama’s website that, should the need arise, that Mr. Turley would make a wonderful nomination to sit on the US Supreme Court.
The next thing I know, someone named russ started in on what I wrote, then came Percy, then martha h.
I would love to discuss when Mr. Turley appears on “Countdown” but I will not let someone tell lies about Bush and Cheney like it’s the truth; and I don’t like when someone posts something here, cutting and pasting from some other person’s writings to use as justification for their views.
I guess you can say I enjoy a good debate, but I will be the first to admit that I do NOT like any part of this White House administration, which in my opinion, is the Worst we’ve ever had in the history of our country. They have cheated, lied to us all and sent our military to fight in an invasion of a country that had Nothing to do with September 11, 2001.
I am praying that Barack Obama will be elected President this November and he will begin the investigation of war crimes and other illegal crimes against this administration.
The main reason I am doing this is because of all the Unnecessary deaths of our US troops and Innocent Iraqi citizens–all for a lie. This is inexcusable that this administration is allowing all this death and making us pay the bill, just so they can get hold of the oil in Iraq and Bush and Cheney, both oil men, can get good deals for their oil associates to make obscene profits.
Mary Leon:
“Where was Bush when he went AWOL out of the National Guard in the 1960s for over a year? I bet if any other soldier did that, they would have been thrown in the brig for a year or two. Nice to have Daddy Bush’s money to pay off the National Guard so they will ‘conveniently’ lose Bush’s paperwork.”
More Dan Blather garbage. No doubt you believe a word processing software program was spirited back in time to create those “letters” Dan Blather & his informer tried to produce as factual. By the way, Larry Flynt the Penthouse Magazine scum, offered a million dollars to anyboby that could bring him proof about Bush being absent from the National Guard. He is still offering it.
“Oh, by the way, he’s YOUR president, NOT mine. He was ’selected’ by the Supreme Court in early 2001, even though Al Gore won the popular vote in Florida. So, for the past 7 years, I’ve had no president to admire.”
All the Supreme Court did was rule you could not change election laws AFTER the election. I am not surprised you are not informed. You appear to be a very young naive uninformed product of the public school system.
“If you’re so enamored of Bush, why aren’t you over fighting for him in Iraq? I mean, unless you have an excuse why you can’t enlist in one of the military branches, what are you doing wasting my and others’ time here, ‘copying and pasting’?”
I am sure Percy has served this country in a number of ways, including military. I find it shameful you would resort to such a “Keith Olbermann” style attack. And you wonder why Olbermann’s ratings are 1/3 Bill Oreilly’s?
“Oh, yeah, one more thing Percy. I thought that the United Nations mandate says the US has to leave Iraq by the end of this year, but Bush announced that he’s sending MORE troops into Iraq next year. Did he make a deal with al-Maliki, an ‘agreement’ that we’ll be in Iraq for years? How come he won’t tell US the people who will end up paying for this?”
How many years have we had troops in Germany? In South Korea? In Bosnia? Personally, anybody that has a brain knows it would be a huge benefit to have a contingent of American troops right alongside the worst trouble maker in the region – Iran.
“Lots of crimes are being committed by Bush and Cheney.”
Prove a single crime or SHUT UP.
“Those are two evil men; and you admire them. That says a lot about your character, Percy. Too bad you are on the LOSING side of History, by supporting the WORST president we’ve ever had.”
Harry Truman had the worst rating in history when he left office; now he is considered a great President once the lunatics got tired of bitching, moaning, and lying about him. History will look very favorably on President Bush. Already, foreign opinion of him is bouncing back. Popularity comes & goes, but I know this is too much for an obviously little girl to understand.
Isn’t it time for you nap?
GOD BLESS PRESIDENT BUSH!
martha:
“GOD BLESS PRESIDENT BUSH!
**************
Well martha you got three out of four words correct.
martha, what are you doing here? I thought you left and went over to Fox news’ website or that you enlisted, so you could take the place of one of our troops, who then could come home from Iraq and be with his/her family.
FYI I’m 47 years old, and I’ve seen enough people like you to last me more than 100 lifetimes. Actually, you are quite funny, your blind loyalty to Bush is rather amusing. I wonder when was the last time you thought for yourself, instead of agreeing with whatever Bush says and does because he’s your president? There’s such a thing as ‘too much patriotism’.
Keep on writing bad thoughts about me–because I’m going to earn a lot of rewards in Heaven because of them. Yes, I believe in Heaven. And I believe that God sees and knows ALL, and he sees the “tree of bad fruit” that is the Bush administration, and “the bad fruit” which are Bush supporters, like you. You probably are a card-carrying member of the “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC)agenda.
Bush’s crimes? How about–Justice department choosing applicants based on their political views; Guantanamo Bay prison torture; illegally invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11; signing new legislation, then using the ‘signing statements’ so he can ignore the laws just passed; having people in his administration ignore subpoenas to testify, using that “executive priviledge” excuse; having KBR and Blackwater no-bid contractors sent to Iraq that are immune from any type of prosecution in Iraq; choosing people for departments in his Cabinet based on party loyalty, and not personal experience; and the first thing Bush did as president?–seal his daddy’s White House papers until 50 years after daddy dies, so none of us can find out what daddy did in the White House. Plus, the worst one–signing a Presidential Directive last May, 2007, giving himself Complete Control over all 3 branches of our government–you know, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches–giving him the power to cancel the 2008 presidential election and declare Martial Law–with ‘homeland’ Chertoff second in command, if there is a terrorist attack, or Suspicion of an attack. And etc, etc, etc… He must have signed Thousands of Presidential Directives, probably pardoning everyone he knows from any criminal prosecution (I don’t think he can get away with pardoning himself)to selling our country to the Highest bidder–right now, Saudi Arabia and China OWN almost half of our corporations. It will take Barack Obama a few years to even find out what else Bush has done to us…
ml writes: “Plus, the worst one–signing a Presidential Directive last May, 2007, giving himself Complete Control over all 3 branches of our government–you know, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches–giving him the power to cancel the 2008 presidential election and declare Martial Law–with ‘homeland’ Chertoff second in command, if there is a terrorist attack, or Suspicion of an attack.”
WARNING! WARNING ! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! WARNING! WARNING ! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! WARNING! WARNING ! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!
LOL. b-a-n-a-n-a-s
dundar:
I don’t know if you’re joking or not, but if you don’t believe me, look it up yourself.
mary leon: don’t you get tired of repeating that same old huffington post, daily kos garbage? do you even bother to entertain the idea that you are being lied to by leftists with an agenda. i am sorry, but if you are truly 47 years old, i don’t know how you made it this far in life with such idiotic thoughts, ravings, ideas, and imaginations.
here is a thought; your family has you on medications and you refuse to take them, right?
July 3, 2008
Buyer’s remorse? Part Two
Earlier today, John wondered how many Democrats who voted for Barack Obama on the theory that he was a staunch antiwar candidate are having second thoughts. It’s a legitimate question, and it extends beyond the Iraq war. In fact, it turns out that an “internet petition” has been launched to pressure Obama to flip back to opposing legislation that would immunize telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless intercept surveillance program.
The interesting question is not whether Obama will continue to tack towards the center as a candidate — that’s a virtual certainty. The interesting question is what he’ll do if elected president.
It’s almost certain Obama won’t satisfy his leftist supporters when it comes to foreign, defense, and security policy. That’s mostly because Obama is far too intelligent to embrace leftist indifference to obvious national security concerns.
Thus, for reasons of pragmatism, Obama will be quite keen, for example, to prevent a successful attack on the homeland. Indeed, I suspect that Obama’s current position with respect to surveillance of terrorists (including suits against companies that cooperate in that surveillance) is not just the product of strategic political thinking but also a reflection of what he’d like to be able to do as president. Let’s hope so. Odds are that McCain will win this election handily, but in the event Obama pulls out a long shot – don’t expect him to be swinging left on policy.
martha, I still have ‘free speech’ so I’ll wish you, Percy, dundar and everyone else here a Happy 4th of July.
PS. Don’t play with fire crackers!
Hi Mr. Turley…..Something has been nagging at me during all this FISA/telecom immunity crap, because it was missing, but I couldn’t figure out what it was. Till now. Given your status as a scholar of constitutional law, I’m curious as to your thoughts.
Specifically, what’s been missing is the fact that the congress is going to be passing an unconstitutional act of law.
And no one has been commenting on that fact, especially not Obama, the former law professor.
In Article I/Section 8 of the Constitution it quite clearly states that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
A law that grants immunity for crimes, after the fact of the crimes, is–by definition–an ex post facto law. Which same the congress is banned from passing.
Any ideas as to why everyone is acting as if the law-to-be is constitutional? You’d think that its blatantly unconstitutional status would be obvious to the meanest intelligence.
Cheers!
Rob
Rob,
This may answer your question, in that it explains how your excellent point is “gotten around” by the wording in the law.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35636leg20080612.html
Jill
rob, obviously, you don’t know what you are talking about.
arlington virginia real estate…
Now is the time to invest in US property, Don’t abandon it, invest in it….
I would like to know where I may email a personal note to Jonathan. I am an old family friend who knew him personally when we were both adolescents. I just read what I think was a recent reference to his mother’s driving and, while I don’t necessarily recall the out-of-body experience, I do remember the car–a Mercedes– I think dark, like dark green or black. As I recall, it was perhaps my first ride in a Mercedes, which may be why I remember it.
I hope your mother is well. Mine, as you may have heard, passed on about 10 years ago in Florida.
For that matter, I hope the whole family is well. I imagine the family has become a large extended family since I was in your family’s house back in the 70’s.
Anyway, I have seen Jonathan on television for several years now and always thought it would be nice to say, “hello.”
I am proud of your accomplishments. I remember you as a very funny kid who entertained my family during his visits.
Take it easy,
Kurt “K.C.” Moser
(formerly of Arlington Heights, IL now residing in Los Angeles (Van Nuys), CA)
kacemo@adelphia.net
Sorry 😦 I didn’t realize that would post directly to the blog. -KC
KC, Turley is still funny when he is on Countdown. A regular riot.
Welcome, Rob and K.C. Don’t mind martha h too much. She is a troll who probably is paid to come here and slime everyone. Too bad she’s part of the Neo-Con crowd–what a boring, power-hungry empty pathetic existence she must have.
The latest news out of Iraq:
Al-Maliki and the Iraqi government have been in talks with the US to draw up a Short Term agreement (can’t call it a TREATY, if Bush does that, then the treaty has to be approved by Congress, and he’s not about to let them have that power to deny it) because the UN mandate calls for all foreign Occupiers to be out of Iraq by this year, December 31, 2008. BUT now the Iraqis are TELLING Bush that they will NOT sign a Long Term agreement, AND they want the US to set a timetable for the troops to leave, after the Iraqi military gains control of the various districts.
Let’s see–as I recall Bush has said that when the Iraqis ask us to leave, we WILL leave. Now I read that Bush is against ANY type of US withdrawal, ANY kind of timetables. Well, Bush, YOU said that we would leave Iraq when the Iraqis want us to–so you have NO other option but to agree to their request. If you defy the Iraqi government on this point, not only will you get not get an ‘agreement’ but you will be showing your true colors of your delusional “Project for the New American Century” agenda of world domination by the US ‘Empire”.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for taking those intrusive and annoying pop-ups down! For what it’s worth, you have another loyal, guaranteed regular reader. And while I’m at it, thank you for standing up for our Constitution. Someone sure needs to…
Why do Congressional Democrats fear free speech?
posted at 6:30 pm on July 8, 2008
Efforts in both chambers of Congress have Republicans wondering why Democrats seem to fear free speech. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) has proposed limitations on how Representatives can post information to the Internet in a time when we should be demanding more transparency, not less. According to a source in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein has begun her own campaign to force Senators to seek permission before communicating over the Internet.
Soren Dayton at The Next Right has the story from the House:
In typical fashion, House Democrats are trying to pass rules that stifle debate and require regulation. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administraion Kevin Brady. The letter is a response to a debate about whether the House should allow members to use YouTube, first raised by Rep. Kevin McCarthy back in April. …
Well, Capuano’s proposal is a disaster. It creates a list of sites, maintained by the Committee on House Administration that members are allowed to post material. Except, those sites have a caveat:
To the maximum extent possible, official content should not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House’s content guidelines.
In the Senate, the problem gets even worse. Feinstein (D-CA) would have the Rules Committee act as a censor board, forcing members to get approval for the act of communicating on external websites. Further, it would appear that the Feinstein proposal would attempt to exercise editorial control over these sites, at least indirectly.
As my source put it, these are the key issues:
Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.
The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.
The Rules Committee would get to regulate communication through any site not ending in “senate.gov,” which would include sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Further, this could jeopardize guest posts at sites like RedState and Townhall.
The Rules Committee would require senators to moderate “any public commentary” which would likely mean regulating comments on guest posts and YouTube videos, among other things.
It also raises a number of questions:
Would this rule extend beyond comments to posts on the site?
Would it affect Slatecard & BlogAds?
How about something like The Ed Morrissey Show, which has a live chatroom? Would that have to be moderated?
The Rules Committee would get to act as the “Content KGB” since it can require the removal of content in violation of Senate Rules. And who determines what’s in violation? The Rules Committee.
There are no similar controls on any other form of communication with the public, such as publishing op-eds in newspapers or appearing on radio or television.
The sudden interest in silencing Congress goes right along with the brand-new 9% approval rating the Democratic leadership has earned Congress. Imagine how much worse it will get when they gag their members and force an end to communication through policy sites, blogs, and Internet media.
Want to ask Feinstein what she’s thinking? Be sure to e-mail her through her website or call the Senate Rules Committee at 202-224-6352 to express your support for free speech and transparency. Ask them what they have to hide that the 9% of Americans who still support them shouldn’t find out.
Update: And let’s not forget Feinstein’s other policy goal —
I have a question for JT.
Is there going to be a point in the future at which you ask MSNBC if there will ever be an opposing viewpoint to the far left chatter you and the other 5 steadies on the show blather about?????
Heck, if Bill Oreilly can immediately have someone on his show almost everynight to challenge him on his viewpoint; why can’t MSNBC?
Almost every night 10 minutes into Bill Oreilly’s show, after he speaks his opnion, he brings someone on with the opposing viewpoint to challenge him.
What is MSNBC, or more importantly, YOU JT, afraid to have opposing viewpoints? Can’t find one in your small liberal world?????
Obama answers McCain on deficit with a SHRUG!
posted at 8:31 pm on July 8, 2008
John McCain pledged yesterday to balance the budget by 2013. Barack Obama responded by claiming that it can’t be balanced, and he can’t be bothered to try:
Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.
“I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,” Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.
Democrats have complained for years about the Bush administration deficits. In fact, they routinely use that as one argument against the Iraq war, claiming that it has exploded the deficit. Now are the Democrats about to say that the deficit is of no consequence at all, and that spending shouldn’t rely on financing? They insisted on pay-go in 2007, although they broke their own rules in the 2008 budget.
There is a large difference between the McCain and Obama spending plans. Obama would add almost $300 billion in new spending each year, while McCain would add less than $20 billion, and McCain has at least outlined cuts to balance them. The difference becomes more significant with Obama’s stated indifference to the deficit, now and in the future.
This time, Obama won’t just execute a flip-flop for himself. He’s about to force the entire party to do a 180 on deficit spending. When do the backflips cease with Obama?
I knew your father in Chatham, New York and did a few favors for him: one day he ran out of gas on the way to the office and I took a can of gas to him on the road. It is good to know there are defenders of freedom and the constitution hard at work. Thanks!
Anyone else having fun scrolling thru martha’s posts?
Mr. Turley,
Thanks again for your non-partisan opinions. I was glad to hear you call out both parties on the FISA fiasco. The republicons may be the worst offenders in breaking the laws, but the democrats are enablers and culpable. I am very sad today.
I believe I shall report martha h for plagarizing other people’s spoken or written words. Come on, martha, use your own talking points, not others!
Obama Flip-Flops on FISA
Standing with his party’s hard-left wing through the primary season, Barack Obama consistently opposed granting immunity to telecoms who cooperated with the federal government’s foreign terrorist surveillance program in the years after September 11. Obama went even farther by vowing to oppose any cloture motion on the FISA reform bill as long as it included telecom immunity. Jake Tapper has assembled the quotes, including this one from Obama’s Senate office in December:
Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same….Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.
Like everything Barack Obama says, that pledge was operative only as long as it was in Obama’s political interest. Last month, he announced a change in position. He still favored the Dodd amendment to strip telecom immunity from the act, but said he would now vote in favor of cloture and in favor of final passage of the FISA reform bill.
Today, the FISA bill came up for a series of votes in the Senate. Consistent with the new position he announced last month, Obama voted for the Dodd amendment, to delete telecom immunity from the act. The Dodd amendment failed, 66-32. Later came the cloture vote, the one on which Obama had pledged to vote “No.” Obama voted “Yes.” He then voted with the 69-28 majority in favor of the act.
There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over Obama’s flip-flop on the Left. The Associated Press wailed and gnashed its teeth a bit over the bill’s passage, as well. This is how the AP began its story on the Senate vote:
Bowing to President Bush’s demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.
The Senate “bowed to President Bush’s demands” in a 69-28 vote? In a parallel universe, the AP might have begun its story, “The Senate voted today, enthusiastically and overwhelmingly, to continue President Bush’s program of keeping Americans safe by spying on terrorists overseas.” But that’s not a world any of us are likely to live long enough to see.
powerline blog.
Good News from Iraq:
Al-Maliki has announced that before the US makes any kind of agreement with Iraq that the US has to follow a timetable set by Iraq.
Bush says that we will leave when the US generals decide the conditions on the ground are good and he will not follow any timetable.
I say: let the Iraqis make their own decisions. After all, it’s THEIR country!
to russ, martha, Percy, etc…
powerline blog–whoopie, two lawyers write a right-wing blog and you copy their work. Why can’t any of you repubs write your OWN words?
Me, I write what I feel and what I believe. I don’t need to go to any other website or blog and write, word for word, what someone else has said or written.
Can’t you think for yourselves and write something original to support your warped views?
Wow, Senator Obama was sure quick to accept Jesse Jackson’s apology over threatening to cut a physical attribute of Senator Obama’s off if he didn’t stop “talking down black people”.
I wonder if a weak kneed PRESIDENT Obama will be so quick to run out and jump to accept an Achmadinejad’s “apology” after threatening to blow New York City off the face of the earth a couple years down the road.
We don’t need a WEAK man protecting a nation of 330 million people do we? Even Jesse Jackson’s SON was tougher on his father than Obama was; maybe the party nominated the wrong man for President, maybe it should have been a strong Jesse Jackson Junior, a man obviously not afraid of even his own father.
Ask a Republican a question, get a response about “weak kneed” and “talking down black people”.
Big Deal, russ. Jackson is just jealous of Barack because Jackson is getting to be an old fart and doesn’t hold sway on anyone anymore.
So, did you think up this about Barack all by yourself, or did you write this from a blog or website?
Oh, I know you won’t answer this question, but, russ–when are YOU going to Iraq to fight for your president?
Oh, one more thing: are you going to leave the United States when Barack Obama becomes President?
JT was on with the FAMOUS DAVID SHUSTER TONIGHT!
On September 24, 2007, Shuster interviewed Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn while filling in on Tucker Carlson’s show.[1] When Shuster asked about her response to the MoveOn.org ad campaign concerning General David Petraeus’s Iraq war testimony, he followed up by then asking her the name of the last soldier from her congressional district who had been killed in Iraq; she was not able to name the soldier. Shuster mentioned that it was 18-year-old Jeremy Bohannon, and asked Blackburn why she was not able to recall the name. However, Bohannon was not actually from Blackburn’s congressional district, but had grown up in the congressional district of Rep. John Tanner.
That interview was not the first time Shuster has sparked controversy.
Shuster has been criticized for inserting political commentary into his coverage of news stories. One incident occurred on May 8, 2006, when he cited attorneys familiar with the CIA leak investigation and proclaimed, “I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted”[2] in relation to the Plame affair. A month later, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who had always indicted grand jury figures referred to as “person A,” announced that Rove would not be indicted.
On February 7, 2008, while hosting an MSNBC program, Shuster discussed Chelsea Clinton’s campaigning for her mother Hillary Clinton, her efforts to influence superdelegates, and her refusal to answer any questions by the media. When his guest, Bill Press, pointed out that Bush’s daughters campaigned for their father, Shuster noted the different access rules in each case and responded:
“There’s just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea’s out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom … doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
The Clinton campaign demanded an apology and stated that Clinton might not participate in any further debates on MSNBC. Shuster was suspended from all NBC News and MSNBC appearances for his comments. Before the suspension Shuster had engaged in a heated e-mail exchange with a Clinton staffer in which he defended his remarks. Shuster’s long suspension from on-air duties ended on February 22, 2008.
On February 9, 2008, a blogger posted that Phil Griffin, senior vice president at the network, threatened to fire Shuster for not having apologized; Meet the Press host Tim Russert intervened with Griffin on Shuster’s behalf.
Mr. Turley,
On a recent “Countdown” you had commented about the protection for the telecoms and referred to the Founders and how they would be appalled by this attack on the Fourth Amendment. Every time I hear the Founders referenced as to what they would think or feel I am shocked- especially when stated by a lawyer and my understanding of “hear-say.” Admittedly not an expert, I would bet (if it were legal in California) there would be much of our present-day America the Founders would find contrary to their vision. Regardless, after reading your posted biography I applaud your involvement in defining our laws despite often views to the contrary.
Best of luck on the site.
Thank you.
russ:
I knew you wouldn’t answer my questions, but I didn’t know you’d start a “kill David Shuster” campaign.
I saw “Verdict” last night and I agree with Mr. Turley about the telecoms getting immunity and your president Bush getting away with more crimes.
I know that when Barack Obama is President he will have to go through all the various laws, by-laws, signing statements, etc… that Bush did and have his assistants find out what is and isn’t Legal. (My guess is that 99.999% of everything that Bush approved is ILLEGAL). This will take Months and Months of work to try and go back and correct all this Illegal activity.
I also know Barack Obama voted in favor of this sham of a FISA bill, but he has said that, since there is so little time left before Bush is given his walking papers out of the White House, that Barack will be starting on his long job of fixing our broken government. I’m sure this FISA bill will be one of the first things addressed, right after Barack agrees with Iraq to end this Illegal Bush Invasion.
Have a good weekend…
Mary Leon. You write FISA will be one of the first things addressed by Barack……LOL! Ya, I bet right up there with going back to his bank and asking them to INCREASE his loan rate!
You might be interested in this, I think it is the tip of the iceberg for Barack. He is as corrupt if not more than your average politician:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
Judicial Watch Files Senate, FEC Complaints against Barack Obama over Questionable Mortgage Loan
Northern Trust Allegedly Provided Obama Special Discounts on “Super Super Jumbo” Home Loan
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed separate complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below-market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer.
By the way Mary Leon, for every Jonathan Turley on MSNBC, long noted as a joke for any balance, there are a dozen others more versed in law that KNOW this Rove chase is a big fat JOKE!:::
In Defense of Karl Rove
July 11, 2008 – 5:11 pm
It seems the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is trying to obtain information from Mr. Rove concerning the firing of several U.S. Attorneys by the President. Now the President has the right to fire any U.S. attorney. (This isn’t the teachers union!) In fact, Bill Clinton fired I think the figure is 94, U.S. attorneys and Mr. Clinton’s staff was not subjected to any subpoenas. As they shouldn’t have been.
So, what does Mr. Rove know that the Committee Members want him to repeat under oath? Absolutely nothing. Do the House members think that Mr. Rove will assert that the President fired some of the U.S. attorneys because he does not agree with their political philosophy? No. Are they being barraged with phone calls and emails by their respective constituencies wondering what Mr. Rove knows? Of course not. If the President wants to fire 500 U.S. attorneys, it IS his right to do so. I will go so far as to say that if President Bush fired all of the U.S. attorneys because they disagree with his political philosophy, so what?
Let me remind the American public that WE voted for President Bush and WE respect the right of the President to make an executive decision. That’s his job. If the American public wants a new President, guess what? We have that opportunity every four years. It’s called America, not Russia.
Mr. Rove has offered to answer questions posed by the Committee to get to the bottom of whatever it is they want from Mr. Rove, but the Committee has rejected Mr. Rove’s offer. Why? Because an informal question and answer session will NOT embarrass the President. It is Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat that are pursuing Mr. Rove. Please, if either of these Democrats are YOUR representative, by all means, contact them, and ask them to concentrate on keeping their own jobs of working for the PEOPLE, and stop wasting your tax payer dollars on attempting to embarrass the President.
Newsweek Poll: Obama drops like a rockposted at 6:53 pm on July 11, 2008
Newsweek’s poll surprised many by showing a huge gap between Barack Obama and John McCain, with the Democratic nominee-apparent enjoying a 15-point lead over the Republican.
One month later, Obama has lost all of the momentum and has dropped into a virtual tie with McCain. The latest Newsweek poll shows Obama up 44-41, within the margin of error:
A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama’s glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month’s NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.
Obama’s rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience–an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who’d slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama’s reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since Obama’s outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June’s NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.
There is a definite momentum away from Obama, especially within the independents. June’s poll, taken only three weeks ago, had Obama ahead by 12 points, 48-36. Obama has lost a whopping 14 points among independents and now trails McCain, 34-41. “Undecided/Other” rose among independents from 16% in June to 25% in July, which likely shows flirtation with third-party candidates such as Ralph Nader and Bob Barr — but some went to McCain as well.
One last comment before the weekend:
russ:
As far as Barack Obama, we shall see what happens. We can only live one day at a time. I’m just hoping he’s elected President, Bush gets what he deserves–a prison sentence for war crimes, (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Gonzo, etc…) I have no more power to make these things happen than you do.
And why do you come here to post on Mr. Turley’s website if you don’t respect him or are interested in his views? Seems to me like you’re wasting our time here…
Dear Professor Turley,
You have captured us here in our home. I stop whatever I am doing when you are on, and have my children watch you later on Tivo. When you speak we learn so much about our Constitution, and how wonderful our rights are, and how evil it is for those who wish to restrict our rights. You are the truest Patriot – and we very much appreciate your sharing your knowledge in such a clear and approachable way – our family will follow you!
Respectfully,
Carla
Rumor had it that Barack Obama would release his June fundraising numbers yesterday.
John McCain released his two days ago and raised a huge amount.
So far today, no release of information has come across the wires or at Obama’s website.
Does Team Obama have bad news they want to bury far into a weekend cycle?
Maybe Obama is going to FLIP FLOP on campaign finance and decide to change his mind & take public financing after changing his mind & deciding to take private financing after telling America he would take public financing…..
A commander-in-chief who fears the military?
July 12, 2008
John McCain has accepted an invitation to appear at a nationally-televised town hall meeting next month organized by a coalition of support organizations. Despite pleas from the group, Barack Obama has refused to appear at the same event, underscoring his desire to avoid extemporaneous exchanges with John McCain, especially on military matters in which he has no experience at all.
The Fort Hood group has offered to change dates, but Obama remains obstinate.
Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, said she had suggested Aug. 11 and asked the campaign to suggest other dates if that was not convenient, but after several conversations she had not been able to work anything out. “I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”
On a number of occasions, Obama challenged McCain to debate foreign policy and the war, “anywhere, any time”. Hmmmm.
The U.S. is on the way toward transitioning away from over-reliance on fossil fuels, pursuing every source of energy out there –solar, nuclear, clean coal, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, shale. We need it all.
But we’ve built up an infrastructure over 100 years that must be relied upon as we make the change to renewable sources. Congress has to get out of the way and allow the U.S. to develop its resources for that infrastructure – or we’re headed towards economic catastrophe.
A number of Democratic officeholders have heard from their constituents, and they know they desperately need to vote to expand energy exploration. But their leadership is making sure they cannot.
You can feel the Democratic solidarity on this fragmenting. One of two scenarios is likely. Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development – in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale – or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall’s elections than most pundits now assume.
Hey, russ, what are your thoughts about the book that will be published next week that has the official Red Cross findings that the CIA, through Bush, HAS committed torture on prisoners?
I’ve even heard that if we don’t start Impeachment against Cheney and then Bush, the World Court might decide to bring charges of War Crimes against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc…
Our own Congress won’t do anything, because Pelosi and lots of others are also guilty of war crimes. The only person who has enough guts to say anything has always been Rep. Dennis Kucinich. God Love him.
In 2002, Bush signed some kind of act that would allow him and any of his administration to ignore any subpoena from the World Court. (way back then, Bush KNEW he was doing wrong, and he tried to ‘cover all his bases’). BUT I know that the majority in the world would welcome any kind of trial for this evil administration, so Big Deal about Bush trying to ignore any subpoena. He won’t be able to hide forever on his 100,000 acres in Paraguay. Cheney has a bigger spread, right down the road from Bush.
How are you going to feel, knowing that you support WAR CRIMINALS???
mary leon:
LOL! Ya try them in the famous WORLD COURT! What a rip roaring joke and now you 1 percenters really think it COULD happen.
Let’s see now; the WORLD COURT has not brought a single third world murderous dictator to justice but BY GOD the WORLD COURT is going to put a UNITED STATES PRESIDENT in JAIL for freeing countries from tyranny!
Ya, that will get you all a lot of votes in the next election. GO FER IT! LOL!
I can’t stop laughing..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! world COURT! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahhahahhhhhhhhhhhhahahaahahahahaahhah,,world court…lahahahahahaaahahahahahhaheeheeehahchahaeehhheeeeeeeeehhaww!
Say, I see Obama is TANKING EVERYWHERE! Even the Germans want Obama to stay out of Germany, the smart ones anyway.
According to the NYT, you two percenters are getting restless about Obama……..::
In the breathless weeks before the Oregon presidential primary in May, Martha Shade did what thousands of other people here did: she registered as a Democrat so she could vote for Senator Barack Obama.
Now, however, after critics have accused Mr. Obama of shifting positions on issues like the war in Iraq, the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants, gun control and the death penalty — all in what some view as a shameless play to a general election audience — Ms. Shade said she planned to switch back to the Green Party.
“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”
I see no transformational quality to either Obama or his candidacy. Obama said he was a new kind of politician. He sold an entire younger generation on the theory of change, a new kind of politics in Washington and he’s delivered the status quo. He’s shown us that on FISA, the death penalty, guns, religion, Iraq, Afghanistan and trade policy (so far) he’s all about preserving the status quo and not rocking the boat in his quest for votes. How much more “politics as usual” can you get? … How does anyone know what Obama really believes or, even more problematic, what beliefs he’ll decide are worth expending political capital on once he’s elected?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13liberal.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
russ:
You’re doing it again! You’re writing someone else’s comments; but at least you’re giving the source credit for it.
Oh, by the way, the current commander-and-thief is the one who is afraid of our military. After all, he’s the one who was AWOL for over a year from the National Guard during the Vietnam War. Put that together with his veep *5 defferments* Cheney, and you have your two chicken-hawks.
I wouldn’t laugh too much about the World Court not being able to get any leader guilty of war crimes just yet.
Bush WILL pay for what he’s done to us, either here or in the next life…
And YOU will pay for your supporting him, one way or another…
russ:
I ask you again:
Why do you post on Mr. Turley’s website if you don’t respect him or are interested in his views? Seems to me like you’re wasting our time here…
(Original Quote by ME)
mary leon: I told you long ago that your favorite progressive, Larry Flynt the porno king, has a reward for $1,000,000 to anybody that can prove President Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. The offer has been out there for 5 years now and nobody can claim it because he wasn’t AWOL.
russ:
Just answer this following question:
I ask you for the Third time:
Why do you post on Mr. Turley’s website if you don’t respect him or are interested in his views? Seems to me like you’re wasting our time here…
(Quote by ME)
Will Kurtz Slam the L.A. Times Web Site for the Commenters Who Reveled in Tony Snow’s Death?
Tomorrow there will be an online chat with Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post web site. You can leave questions or comments for him here. Here is the question I just left:
Mr. Kurtz:
When Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor, you made a special point of noting in your column that there were commenters at Michelle Malkin’s site “who were reveling in the news and, in one case, talked of celebrating.”
Over the weekend, Tony Snow died. At the L.A. Times web site — where comments must be approved before they appear — well over 2 dozen commenters reveled in the news. Some examples:
“CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM. HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL. NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK………………..”
“I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the first day of a Tony Snow-free world! Yay!!!!”
“I only wish his suffering were more prolonged.”
“I hope he suffered at the end. Just a terrible person.”
My question to you, Mr. Kurtz: is this worthy of mention in your column? Is it meaningful that one of the nation’s largest newspapers approved these comments for publication? Or are such comments relevant only when they appear on a conservative blogger’s site?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/13/will-kurtz-slam-the-la-times-web-site-for-the-commenters-who-reveled-in-tony-snows-death/
russ:
I ask you a simple question, three times already, and you Ignore it.
You won’t face reality. You, russ, are guilty of supporting an administration that will be facing War Crimes, whether here on earth or in another place and time (Yes, I’m talking about Heaven. I can be a pro-life Independent AND a Christian at the same time, you know). You DON’T want to face this fact, because if you do, then you know you will be guilty of sending our soldiers to Iraq, to die and be injured for Life, whether Physically or Mentally–all because of a LIE.
Haven’t you read the “Project for the New American Century”? Haven’t you read what the Neo-Con plans were? William Kristol is the author of this piece of evil, supported by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush, amongst others who signed their souls to the devil, as far as I’m concerned, to try to force everyone on earth to follow the “American Neo-Con Empire”; starting with the Middle East.
Sorry, russ, but I can’t help you when you finally face facts. You and millions of others will have to Live with what you’ve ALL done to us, to our soldiers and to the Innocent Iraqi civilians by following that warped man in the White House. There will be PLENTY of Democrats in Congress that will be facing facts along with you, for their silent approval of Bush’s crimes.
May the Lord keep you all from going crazy with guilt and grief…
Hello Professor Turley,
I am not a law student nor am I a college student. I am a junior in highschool and because of the speech you gave at the June 9 2008 NYLF Law I am 100% sure that I would like to pursue a career in law. I truly appreciate the way you presented the speech, it made the message one hundred percent more enjoyable. As soon as I was able to call my mom at the conclusion of the speech I was like “Mom this Professor is amazing.” Of course i had to tell her about how ministers can add the extra “D” to God and also about how when you know that the defendent is guilty and you have to have a bottle or two of wine and realize what your job is. Those two really made me laugh. Even the “If you eat sushi, raw fish, why can’t you try crime?” made me laugh until my stomach hurt. I would just like to say thank you so much because I was a little skeptical because of my shyness but you inspired me to step out of my box and its okay to be funny and have a fun character.
Once again thank you!
Sincerely,
Andrea C.
University apologizes to student after accusing him of … “openly reading” a bookposted at 7:33 pm on July 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Behold the ne plus ultra of campus tolerance, in which the act of reading scholarly material now constitutes an actionable offense. Our culprit? A student-janitor named Keith Sampson.
His weapon? “Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan.” The charge? Racial harassment, for thoughtlessly brandishing this anti-Klan book with an image of Klansmen on the cover where others might see it.
The AP story describes what happens next, but to get the full Orwellian flavor you need to read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s op-ed. Quote:
Mr. Sampson stood accused of “openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers.” The statement, signed by chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston, asserted that her office had completed its investigation of the charges brought by Ms. Nakea William, his co-worker – that Mr. Sampson had continued, despite complaints, to read a book on this “inflammatory topic.”…
Ludicrous harassment cases are not rare at our institutions of higher learning. But there was undeniably something special – something pure, and glorious – in the clarity of this picture. A university had brought a case against a student on grounds of a book he had been reading.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/15/university-apologizes-to-student-after-accusing-him-of-openly-reading-a-book/
JONATHAN,
SHOULDN’T THE NEW FISA BILL BE CONTESTED BY YOU BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, IT IS CLEARLY UNCONSITITUTIONAL?
THANK YOU,
DAN BERGSTROM…
SEATTLE, WA…
Turley:
Someone said they saw you were on Countdown again without anybody to debate your extreme positions.
Is it because you are buddies with Keith Olbermann that he permits you to come on the national tv without rebuttal?
I find it disturbing that you would be fearful of actually having someone debate you one on one.
MARTHA H,
I FIND IT VERY DISTURBING THAT YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO JONATHAN WANTING TO PROTECT AND PERSERVE OUR CONSTITUTION AGAINST AN ADMINISTRATION WHO HAS CLEARLY VIOLATED IT!
THANKS,
DAN BERGSTROM…
SEATTLE, WA…
dan b:
I find it very disturbing that you do not believe in the innocent until proven guilty aspect of our judicial system. I guess you have made up your mind that the administration has “clearly violated” our Constitution despite the absolute EVIDENCE that anything of that sort occurred; except in the minds of the dead enders that infest left wing blogs.
martha h:
The fact that the Administration won’t let the truth be proven should give even you some pause, martha h. Let me know when you evolve from apparatchik to citizen.
Welcome, Dan,
Just ignore martha h, russ, percy, and any Neo-Cons that post messages here. They have NO respect for Mr. Turley’s website; in fact I wonder why they bother to come here and post incredibly idiotic and hypocritical remarks.
Mr. Turley is a Professor of the US Constitution and knows the laws thoroughly. I have even sent a suggestion letter to Sen. Barack Obama’s website, stating that Mr. Turley should be considered a nominee for the US Supreme Court, if the opportunity ever arises. He is such a learned scholar and can make decisions based on LAW, NOT on Neo-Con baloney.
When the TRUTH comes out, then martha h, russ, percy and the rest of the Neo-Cons will owe us an apology. Everything Bush has done using the name of our country will be because of these people who voted for him and gave him their silent approval of Invading Iraq, and killing our US soldiers and Innocent Iraqis and changing our laws by shredding the US Constitution, Especially the first 10 ‘Bill of Rights’.
I’m glad you, me, mezpo and others agree with Mr. Turley. He knows the TRUTH and so do we.
I am starting to think mary leon, raf, mespo, etc are all JT alter ego’s meant to come here to stroke his own ego!
That wouldn’t surprise me a bit, no sirree, wouldn’t surprise me a bit.. Certainly when one insists on not having an opposing view for debate when you appear on a ridiculous low rated in-the-tank-for-Obama show such as countdown, that raises the suspicion bar.
martha h,
No, I’m a real person.
Why do you come here to post vile messages?
Why do you disrespect Mr. Turley so much?
Why don’t you go join Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly’s websites?
We don’t need you, russ, percy, or any other Neo-Con here; so get lost.
52 seconds on why Obama won’t win the November election:
3,000,000 hits so far.
In the video Obama pronounces a McGovernite credo like a catechism:
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…
…I will not weaponize space…
…I will slow development of future combat systems…
…I will institute a “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…
…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…
…I will not develop nuclear weapons…
…I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…
…I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…
NOT surprising Obama has not been asked about his statements by the media is it? This guy Obama is preparing to surrender America!
Iraqis Differ on Obama’s Plans
As Candidate’s Visit Nears, Residents Worry on Troop Pullout
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 19, 2008; Page A07
BAGHDAD, July 18 — As Sen. Barack Obama prepares for his first ever visit to Iraq, Iraqis are worried over his plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in 16 months should he be elected president.
“Iraq will be in hell, and we will find ourselves at the gates of civil war,” said Maied Rashed al-Nuaemi, a provincial council member in Mosul, a city in northern Iraq where Iraqi forces are battling the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq. “The American presence in Iraq is the safety valve to keep this country quiet. If they withdraw, that will lead to calamity.”
Perhaps more than any country in the world besides the United States, Iraq finds that its future is at stake in the presidential elections this November. And the single most important question Iraqis have for the next president is: How long will U.S. forces remain?
While most Iraqis are against what they see as the continuing U.S. occupation, many also view the U.S. military as a bulwark against militias and extremists, as well as the growing regional influence of Iran.
In polls, a majority of Iraqis say they want U.S. forces to leave, but only a tiny minority say they want the forces to leave immediately.
Some of the more than two dozen Iraqis interviewed for this article said Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is naive in wanting to withdraw U.S. combat troops by the summer of 2010.
“I think that Obama talks more than what he can accomplish, because reality differs from promises and dreams,” said Um Mohammed, 60, an engineer in Baghdad who declined to give her full name. “I think it is just a camouflage to reach the presidential chair.”
Mohammed Sulaiman, 56, a retired government employee in Baghdad, said: “The proposal of Obama to pull out the troops by summer 2010 is foolish. If the United States withdraws from Iraq, I think its credibility among the international countries would collapse.”
Most Iraqis interviewed appeared wary of setting a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, although Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and senior politicians have said they want such a commitment from the Bush administration.
“We need more training, as well as new and developed weapons and supplies. We also need modern and developed technology. The U.S. forces should withdraw gradually so our Iraqi forces can fill the gaps that the American forces will leave,” said Brig. Gen. Najim Abdullah, spokesman for the Iraqi National Police. “As to a timetable, I don’t think we should specify it now, because it is related to the logistical support and the ability of our Iraqi forces to handle their responsibility.”
Several Iraqi army commanders said the country’s security forces would not be ready to stand on their own for at least several years.
“Now we are only fighting the insurgency in our country, and we still need the support” of U.S.-led coalition forces, said Maj. Gen. Habeeb al-Husaini, commander of the Iraqi army’s 14th Division, whose forces control the cities of Amarah, Samawah and Nasiriyah in southern Iraq. “So how about if we want to defend the country from the external threats?”
The Left is crowing about the time line BUT the truth is:
Maliki: Obama’s 16-month timetable sounds goodposted at 12:15 pm on July 19, 2008
“Interpreted” by Reuters as tacit evidence of Liberal Jesus’s foreign-policy sagacity.
SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.
The unasked follow-up question: How about the 14-month timetable that Obama wanted to set in January 2007 to start pulling troops out before those positive developments could occur? How keen does that look in hindsight? To repeat a point made yesterday, the only reason a timetable or “time horizon” is arguably a responsible strategy now is because it was properly rejected as being irresponsible then. Maliki hints at that in another part of the interview:
So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we by good fortune & success now come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.
Exactly, which at least partly explains why Bush is more willing to compromise now on some sort of informal schedule. Compare Maliki’s justification for the timetable to Obama’s justification in his big Iraq speech. The pacification of the country is almost incidental, something to congratulate Petraeus on and then quickly move past. To the extent conditions in Iraq seem to affect his rationale at all, he offers this: “In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset – Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.” I.e. it didn’t work, so let’s get out.
Back to Maliki for a rebuttal:
SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?
Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.
One more quote from the interview which I dare say won’t be making it into the inevitable Team Barry press release. The fact that Maliki thinks the war was good for Iraqis doesn’t mean it was good for America, needless to say, but Obama fans eager to exploit the timetable bit may want to mull this before baptizing his judgments with Absolute Moral Authority:
SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, the war and its consequences have cost more than 100,000 lives and caused great suffering in your country. Saddam Hussein and his regime are now part of the past. Was all of this worth the price?
Maliki: The casualties have been and continue to be enormous. But anyone who was familiar with the dictator’s nature and his intentions knows what could have been in store for us instead of this war. Saddam waged wars against Iran and Kuwait, and against Iraqis in the north and south of his own country, wars in which hundreds of thousands died. And he was capable of instigating even more wars. Yes, the casualties are great, but I see our struggle as an enormous effort to avoid other such wars in the future.
For context, here’s Petraeus on MSNBC yesterday afternoon (before the Spiegel interview was published) responding to reports that Maliki wants a timetable. He fudges a bit with the “time horizon” terminology, but note well the point about domestic politics and assertions of sovereignty. Another “positive development.” Exit question: What do we do now with that NYT piece from the other day about Iraqis who love Obama for bringing Hope but pray that the U.S. security presence doesn’t Change?
Update: Spend some time with this AP story about U.S. troops — who would have been reduced to a small Baker/Hamilton token force by now if Obama had had his way last year — helping Iraqi villagers rebuild after purging Al Qaeda. Quote: “It reveals how drastically American troops have shifted their focus from combat to helping Iraqis build on a newfound peace.
In just 30 short years almost 20 MILLION children will be born free in Iraq thanks to GW Bush.
and you low lifes here complain bitch & moan while sitting fat on your couch watching sports.
martha h:
I thought you’d gone over to Hannity or O’Reilly’s website.
Your copy and pasting here is a waste of space.
Get Lost, Loser!
martha h:
“In just 30 short years almost 20 MILLION children will be born free in Iraq thanks to GW Bush.”
******************
Wonder what they would say to the 1.2 million or so Iraqis born alive but are now dead in just 5 short years because of GW Bush and his “mistaken” invasion? You may want to recheck with the Red Cross or Opinion Research Business in London, the figures are likely up by now. Maybe we and he should have stayed on the couch. Well he does have a problem with pretzels there doesn’t he:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.fainting/
mespo:
martha h is just so stubborn and ignorant when it comes to defending the clown in the White House.
I wonder how much the Repub party pays her for coming to this website and pasting and copying stuff from her right-wing bible…
Mary Leon:
I like to think she is a Democratic plant serving as an inert bacteria into the blog that forces us to rise up against feigned stupidity like white blood cells in the body against disease. It’s makes more sense than the other alternative which is that someone is really that dumb!
Instead of a gas-tax holiday, Congress considers gas-tax hike
John McCain couldn’t convince Congress to adopt his gas-tax holiday, but Congress does plan on making some changes to the rate. Unfortunately, the change will go in the opposite direction, if Democrats get their wish. With Americans driving less, the highway fund faces even more severe shortfalls than expected from lost gas-tax revenue — and so the Democrats plan to hike it up by ten cents a gallon:
Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.
Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel. …
Oberstar, D-Minn., said his committee is working on the next long-term highway bill. He estimated it will take between $450 billion and $500 billion over six years to address safety and congestion issues with highways, bridges and transit systems.
“We’ll put all things on the table,” Oberstar said, but the gas tax “is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of the higher user fee gas tax.”
The problem with the transportation bill isn’t a lack of funds, it’s a lack of fiscal discipline. Oberstar figures prominently in this, earmarking transportation funds for projects like bike and walking path, visitor centers, and other nonsense instead of focusing on the infrastructural needs he decries. Over twelve percent of the last transportation bill consisted of earmarks, with projects like a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum.
Pork is the cholesterol of infrastructure. Whenever Congress attempts to address legitimate infrastructure needs, it signals open season on the taxpayers. In that bill last year, over $8 billion got spent on earmarks — the same amount that Congress says will be the shortfall this year for transportation needs, and the deficit they need to erase by raising the gas tax.
When gas was inexpensive, Congress could get away with that. Now that fuel prices have shot through the roof, taxpayers want relief, not a greedy Congress looking to get a piece of the action. If Congress demands sacrifice, then let it start with Congress and eliminate their pet projects from future transportation bills. The gas-tax holiday may be a silly idea, but a gas-tax penalty at this point in time has to set a record for political stupidity.
hey, martha h:
Tell us all about the “Project for the New American Century” and stop cutting and pasting from your right-wing sites…
oh, yeah, another thing martha h:
How are you Repubs going to pay off the $10 TRILLION debt your president is leaving us???
I shouldn’t have to pay ONE DIME of the National Debt since I did NOT vote for that clown, and I did NOT approve of his Invasion of Iraq, nor any of his other Illegal decisions concerning ‘war on terror’, corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, everything for everyone who is a ‘have’ or ‘have more’, paid by us who don’t have much.
So, you Repubs who approved everything he’s said and done the past 7+ years should foot the bill for his choices…
Mary Leon:
re: 10 Trillion dollar debt: You must mean the medicare social security PONZI schemes the Democrats shove on America for VOTES. Seems to me it should be the Democrats that solve that fiasco and the people that sold their votes for MY tax money should be ashamed.
As far as your lunatic Bush Derangement Syndrome blather; History will show whether what we did in Iraq was good or bad for the region, but that History won’t be written for 50 years. I suggest you shut up and wait for that. Most in America know this was the right thing to do in Iraq, the only thing they are bothered about is why it took 5 years but of course since the Democrats were trying to LOSE the war for 3 years for Political gain, American will power was waining. Thank GOD we won in Iraq and GOD BLESS GW BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now move to Canada………PLEASE! Or are you in Iran sipping tea and posting more BS while pretending to be Americans?????
martha, martha, martha, LOL
No, my dear, I’m not moving to Canada.
Why won’t you answer me about the Project for the New American Century?
Don’t you even know what it is? If you do, do you think it’s okay for the US to take over the world?
You must have some stock in the oil wells, or else you are completely loony.
Can’t you think for yourself?
Don’t you know how much the rest of the world HATES us? Don’t you care?
Don’t you think that Bush has abused the ‘executive priveledge’? You do know it’s ONLY supposed to be used for National Security reasons, NOT to keep Congress from subpoenaing ANYONE to testify?
Rove, Miers and Bolton should have at least had the DECENCY to show up at their hearings, then plead the 5th. If you or I had a subpoena, we’d better darn well show up!
You may think your Repub party is the best thing since sliced bread–but YOU will have to answer to God why YOU and your kind allowed this ‘man’ to kill Innocent Iraqis, using WMDs, ‘democracy in the Middle East'(yeah, right) and any other excuse for his invasion of Iraq. WE ALL know it had to do with stealing Iraq’s oil. And it looks like al-Maliki won’t let Bush even do that.
I’m so happy that gasoline is so expensive now. Maybe you people in your fancy homes and fancy cars and SUVs will get off you ass and MOVE by your own two feet! Lazy bums!
oh, martha, I forgot something…
The Bible says we must forgive our enemies. Being that you ARE an enemy of our country, I do forgive you for being an ungrateful, hypocritical woman who doesn’t want to know the TRUTH.
Actually, I don’t really feel like forgiving Bush or Cheney for anything they’ve done. They are not human beings, you know, the regular people that have feelings for others–they are Money Machine psychopaths.
mespo:
Isn’t it ashame that our little martha h doesn’t realize she’s being put through the ‘spin’ cycle? She wouldn’t believe that Bushie would sell her out to the highest bidder if he could make a profit.
Things like Bush and Cheney have so much money, they don’t know what to do with it. All they do is strive to have ONE more Dollar than the man down the street from them.
What a life! Nothing to look forward to but counting money. But, having people like martha actually believe that Bush is doing great for us and our country is so idiotic, it’s almost too funny to imagine.
martha must have just fallen off the turnip truck before she started to come here and defend the clown in the White House. Won’t she be surprised when all his ‘dirty little secrets’ are finally bared to the whole world?
She will probably then say that she never supported the guy; that she never said for God to “bless” Bushie. I wonder what kind of kool aid they serve at the Repub parties? It must be pretty strong mind-control drugs in that liquid. But then, anyone who claims to be a Repub has already put their Eternal Life in danger by following the murderous clown in the White House…
GOD BLESS GW BUSH.
OBAMA FLUNKS HISTORY – AGAIN!
posted at 10:24 am on July 20, 2008
After receiving a hailstorm of criticism for considering Brandenburg Gate for a public speech, as well as official German dissuasion, Barack Obama moved the venue to the Siegessäule monument. Obama will speak about “historic” US-German relations, but once again, Obama’s own grasp of history has been proven deficient.
Not only does the site contain a monument to Prussian victories over other American allies in Europe, its placement was decided by Adolf Hitler — in order to impress crowds in his idealized version of Berlin called Germania:
Still, even as the issue of his speech’s location has now been settled, a number of politicians in Berlin are still dissatisfied with the site. The Siegessäule — or Victory Column — was erected in memory of Prussia’s victories over Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and France (1870/71). The column originally stood in front of the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, but was moved by Adolf Hitler to its current location in 1939 to make way for his planned transformation of Berlin into the Nazi capital “Germania.”
“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France,” the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”
Andreas Schockenhoff of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats said, “the Siegessäule in Berlin is dedicated to a victory over neighbors who are today our European friends and allies. It is a problematic symbol.”
Hitler didn’t just move the monument to its more central location. He had a taller column built for it as well, to emphasize its message of German military domination over Europe. He saw it as a message to Germans of their destiny — as well as to other Europeans as their destiny as well. It was never meant as a symbol of peaceful, multicultural co-existence.
Team Obama has outdone themselves on symbolism with this choice. They’ve managed to make their hosts uncomfortable for a second time with their choice of rallying point, and perhaps more so this time. If one wanted to talk peace, what worse location could one choose than Adolf Hitler’s favorite monument to militaristic domination? One has to wonder how France, Denmark, and Austria will feel about Obama rallying German masses under the Siegessäule. Deja vu?
Obama could be excused for his gaffe, except for two reasons. His team certainly understood the historical weight that the Brandenburg Gate would have lent his event, so why didn’t they bother to ask the Germans about the Siegessäule? Quite obviously, the Germans understand the meaning and subtext of the monument, and most of them wonder why Obama does not. Maybe this is a better example of clueless Americans traveling abroad than those who can only say Merci, beaucoup.
My bad!
On an earlier post I said that the World Court was going after the leader of Zimbabwe. I was wrong. They are going after the leader of Darfur. Hopefully, they will go after the leader of Zimbabwe next, then our ‘leader of the ‘free’ world’ Bush.
martha h = Cutting and pasting, cutting and pasting. Such a copy cat; can’t even think up her own words. Has to follow the Rush Limberger school of thought–the Repub mind control. I could care less if they pay that old fart Rush a Billion dollars. He sounds like he has a bunch of marbles in his mouth-he can’t even pronounce words correctly. What a waste of time to listen to his drug-induced crazy thoughts. But, most people don’t realize that the Media is owned by corporations; mainly right-wing conglomerates. Why people ever think that the Media is ‘liberal’ is sure strange.
We’ll always have people like martha. I can spot them coming from a mile away. They live their whole lives like children. All lock-step with each other. They stay with the same kind of people, the same kind of views, the same kind of talk–never daring to explore any other opinions. They think that Bush is the ‘big daddy’ president who knows best and who always tells them the truth.
Sorry, but I am a grown woman, able to decide things for myself. I have studied very carefully the 2 candidates. Obama may have his faults and limitations, but at least HE doesn’t want to keep our soldiers in the Middle East for 100 years, like McSame; and HE wants to stop the tax breaks for the rich and give us back our US Constitution. So, my vote will definitely go to Obama. As for McSame, he can go back to snoozing on his lazy boy recliner–another old fart like Limberger…
Martha!! Mary!!! Get a room!!!
suziq:
The more I criticize Bush, the more martha h cuts and pastes her right-wing babble–the latest ‘spin’ the Repubs are saying about Barack Obama. It’s so fascinating to see these ‘lock-step’ Repubs defend everything that Bush does–and bash Barack Obama with lies and smears. I have a feeling that martha h doesn’t like Barack Obama because he’s ‘different’ from her ‘kind of people’. Too bad, martha h. There are LOTS of different people in the world and you have to learn to live with them.
You’re right, suziq. I should post less here and let martha h burn out her computer with all the cutting and pasting she’s doing but I’m having so much fun pulling her chain! LOL
I agree with you, Mary. It is fun to bait the trolls – there is SO much bait! And Martha takes your bait everytime. You have to give her props for at least knowing how to read/cut/paste. Comprehension is another matter. But the give/take is predictable and I have gone to scrolling thru it all, even tho I agree with your comments and think you are well spoken.
I started coming to this site out of a great respect for Prof. Turley, but it seems no matter what site I visit the trolls spew the party line and have no opinion of their own. And they bring the site down to their level. But please continue your fun – martha will always respond to show us how in tune she is with the rest of the world. (NOT!)
suziq:
martha h doesn’t know this (she will now LOL) that I cut and paste HER stuff here and send it to some Liberal sites I belong to. None of us has to sign up anonymously with a Repub website and be a Troll there, all we do is go to different websites and gather up the Trolls’ ‘cut and paste’ Neo-Con delusions and we read what each other has found.
I can honestly say that Thousands of people are LOL when they read martha h’s ‘cut and paste’. She’s one of the easiest Trolls I ever targeted and I hope she keeps on ‘cutting and pasting’ here so I can share the fun with my Liberal buds!
I tell you, some Repub Trolls are SO DENSE, they don’t even know when they’re being ‘spinned’! LOL
Obama to Couric: You know, I’m not sure how many troops I’ll keep in Iraqposted at 8:28 pm on July 22, 2008
Consider this a complement to the “flexibility” word games I wrote about earlier. We know he’s shooting for 16 months; we also know he (properly) reserves the prerogative of strategic decisions to himself as president. Beyond that, we don’t know jack:
Couric: You talk about a residual force remaining in Iraq, but you’ve been hesitant to really give a number … to people. You haven’t been specific, though some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can’t you be more specific as to what you envision?
Obama: Now, keep in mind that when I talk about timetables, people say that’s too specific, with respect to residual force, maybe not specific enough. I think this is an example of a tactical issue. How do you execute a mission that requires commanders on the ground to make that decision? My job as commander-in-chief would be to indicate to them here’s our goal, here are the missions that we need to carry out. Now, you tell me what it is that we need in terms of boots on the ground, in terms of equipment, in terms of other capabilities that are gonna be required. The overarching strategy is not something that I can deflect to the general. That’s something that I have to make a decision at of, if I am president of the United States.
Couric: Having said that, if General Petraeus or the chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mullen, say to you, “Hey, President Obama …” Obama: Right. Couric: …if that comes to pass, “you cannot take out the final complement of combat troops. You need them in the theater,” you would say?
Obama: I will always listen to the commanders on the ground. And I will make an assessment based on the facts at that time.
If he considers troop levels to be a tactical rather than a strategic issue and therefore something to be guided by the advice of his generals rather than dictated from the top down as C-in-C, how is he able to set even an informal timetable? Petraeus, his would-be Centcom commander, is already telling him that a timetable unmoored to conditions is a bad idea. Is that a strategic or tactical judgment? Does it matter, since he’d have the final say anyway? He’s drawing an artificial distinction here in order to avoid having to commit to an estimate of the number of troops he hopes/plans to draw down. Which is fine by me, since it leaves him room to inch away from a total withdrawal later on, but presumably not so fine by the left for the same reason.
Imagine, for instance, he tells Odierno that manpower is desperately needed in Afghanistan and therefore he wants to try to free up 50,000 troops by accelerating the handover of provincial security to Iraqi forces. No dice, says Odierno; we can spare 20,000, but those other 30,000 will be needed as back-up for awhile since the Iraqis aren’t fully prepared yet for their lead role. 50,000 versus 20,000 is a big deal, sufficiently so to matter to voters, I’d think. We have no sense from his answer what he’d do.
Elsewhere in the interview, he reiterates his opposition to the surge:
Couric: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support [the surge] … so I’m just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision — to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Lots of “factors,” near-total flexibility — again, fine by me, not so fine for the left. Also, notwithstanding the political reality of both sides refusing to admit error in their Iraq judgments, I’m surprised that he’s as reluctant as he is to change his position on the surge in hindsight given (a) how much improvement there’s been, (b) what the likely consequences would have been if it hadn’t worked, and (c) the fact that he can still tout his initial judgment on the war to voters as evidence that he’s savvier than McCain. A “serious energy security plan” would be wonderful, but the alternate-history timeline in this scenario includes possible Srebrenicas.
When ABC’s Jake Tapper says Obama hasn’t learned anything, he isn’t kidding.
Do you have an opinion on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy of imprisoning families while they await disposition of their proper pleas for amnesty? T Don Hutto, in Taylor, Texas, is a former medium security prison “converted” as a family detention–at a tidy profit to CCA (private prison corporate giant) and much to the pain and degradation of the prisoners–many of them infants. Barbara Hines, UT Law Immigration Clinic and others (ACLU, included) sued and settled over some specific clients/issues, but the facility not only continues–the gov and CCA are in the process of building more.
A group of pained patriots are holding a forum on this in September; Prof. Hines will be a panelist. But I want to know if this is Constitutional. (These people have been charged with no crimes; many of them have crimes commited against them while in this facility, by the guards.) Additionally, because the facility is under Homeland Security jurisdiction, absolutely NO regulatory standards apply! ICE is free do as they chose, which means the corporation getting the gross profits pretty much does as it choses.
I’m happy to supply more info if this piques your curiosity and/or moral indignation.
Thanks!
Texas Liberal:
I agree with you. This does not seem to be Legal or Constitutional, but then, when has Bush let anything in the Constitution or the Law stop him from doing whatever he wants?
He doesn’t care about People–he only cares about those with Money. Everyone else can drop dead. If the CCA is making tons of money, then Bush is happy to let them do whatever they want, as long as he gets a bit of the profits.
Whoever thought of that “Homeland” Security slogan must have thought of Hitler and his “Fatherland” Germany of World War II. I mean, what the heck does “Homeland” really mean? It must be a code word for the Repubs or something; you know like “Compassionate Conservatism” (yeah, right, like anyone would ever believe that bunk).
PS. To martha h:
Thanks for supplying some more ‘spin’. I can’t wait to cut and paste it so my Liberal friends can have a laugh. You are TOO funny for words!
You, my dear, are SO being used, abused, and royally Screwed by the Repub party. You must either enjoy it or you are too afraid to think for yourself…
Oh, this stuff does ‘pique’ my curiousity, but I sure don’t feel any ‘moral’ indignation. I don’t claim to be part of the ‘moral majority’ party of hypocrite Repubs. Oh, yeah, I’ve heard that the number one tourist spot in Minneapolis-St Paul during the Repub convention will be the airport men’s room where Sen Larry Craig did his little toe tapping… The Party of Morals–what a crock!
I never miss you on Countdown and try to catch you whenever I hear you are on any show. I so wish I lived closer just so I could take a class that you teach. Keep on fighting the good fight of trying to protect the Constitution. One day maybe it will sink in with all the people in this country.
C. Lewis:
COUNTDOWN! You mean fat boy bowling ball Keith Olbermann? You and five others are watching Countdown. Bill Oreilly’s RERUNS beat Keith Olbermann’s ratings!
PS. Next time you are watching fat boy, make sure you pay attention to just how he hides his weight problem.
PS Again: There is a reason they call him bathtub boy.
EMAILS FROM AFGANISTAN:
I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama’s “fact finding” mission, when he passed through this base.
While I can’t name it, it’s one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined.
Problems are rare. Casualties are also rare. This base has a large hospital for evacuation—twenty plus beds. I have yet to see a casualty in one, though I am told there are about three evacuations a week through this region, of which two on average are things like sports injuries, vehicle accidents or duty related falls and such. You can tell from the news that the war is going well. The ghouls are now focusing on Afghanistan, since there is no blood to type with here.
When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a “ramp freeze.” This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don’t move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama’s flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right?
95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required.
Mister Obama’s motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day.
Now, there are close to 8000 troops on the base and its nearby satellites. No one came up from the Army side (except perhaps a few ranking officers). The airbase resumed operation, once he cleared the flightline, as if nothing had happened. The dining hall holds about 300 people and was not full. The troops did not want to meet him and the feeling was apparently mutual. In attendance, besides the Official Entourage, were the base’s senior officers, some support personnel, and a very few carefully vetted supporters who’d made special arrangements. No photos were allowed. No question and answer with the troops. No real acknowledgment that the troops existed.
Obama left around 1530, during the Muslim Call to Prayer. Within 48 hours he was in Afghanistan. It takes most troops longer than that to in-process and get cleared on safety, threats, policies and such. Yet he somehow made a strategic summary by not talking to anyone and not seeing anything.
Twenty-four hours after that, he was in Kuwait, back here, and then home, so fast we didn’t even know he arrived the second time at this base.
I can’t imagine any officer of the few he met told him anything other than what they tell the troops, and what their own leadership at the Pentagon tell them—we’re winning. Our troops are stomping the guts out of the insurgency. The surge worked and is working. If the insurgents have to divert to Afghanistan, it means they can’t fight in Iraq anymore. We should not change the rules and retreat with the enemy on the ropes as we did in Vietnam. We should finish kicking their teeth in. The Iraqi government now controls 10 of 18 provinces, with US assistance in the rest. Let us win the war. 90% of the troops I know, even those opposed to the war, say that is the way to win. Victory comes from winning, not from “change.” In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on record as opposing Obama’s strategic theory.
Since he obviously knew in advance that’s what they’d tell him, and since he didn’t care to talk to the troops (we’re told by the Left that the troops are horrified, shocked, forced to commit atrocities with tears in their eyes, distraught, burned out, fed up with losing, etc) and find out how they feel, and was barely in country long enough to need a shower and a change of clothes, we can only call this for what it is.
In comparison, I’ve seen four star generals and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this base. They each held an all ranks call, met with and briefed the personnel, and took questions on every subject from tour length to uniform design to rules of engagement to weapon choice to long term policy, from the newest airmen to the senior NCO with TEN 120-180 day tours since Sep 11. It’s very clear they want to know what the troops think, and to keep them informed of events. It’s equally clear mister Obama does not.
Obama clearly doesn’t care about the troops, doesn’t care about America, doesn’t care about anything except hearing his own voice and the chance to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…From where he’ll bring us the proven Democratic wartime leadership of Bosnia and the Balkans (US forces still there), Somalia (US forces prevailed despite being ill equipped by executive order, and taking heavy casualties), Haiti (what were we doing there again?), Desert One (oops?), Vietnam (where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), Korea (still there), WWI, and the fluke success of WWII won by such wonderful liberal notions as concentration camps for Japanese Americans, nukes, FBI investigations of waitresses who dated soldiers in case they were “morally corrupt” and the (valid) occupation of and continued presence in Italy, Japan and Germany for 60 years, which they are conveniently pretending won’t happen with Iraq.
That’s not “change.” That’s “failure we can do without.”
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to “The War Zone”. I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plan[sic] and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn’t say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American’s back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don’t understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
Why Obama snubbed the troops: no photo op allowed
posted at 7:21 am on July 25, 2008
The skinny on the abrupt cancellation of Barack Obama’s visit to Landstuhl and Ramstein yesterday. The campaign tried to excuse it by claiming that it wouldn’t be appropriate to visit while on a campaign-funded portion of his trip, but that wasn’t the real problem. When Obama found out he couldn’t use the visit as a photo op, he canceled:
One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”
The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.”
In fact, those same rules applied for the CODEL trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve to keep politicians from exploiting military facilities for political reasons, and to ensure that all visitors get treated fairly. Andrea Mitchell, also of NBC, complained of this very issue during the earlier visits with the troops when she told Chris Matthews that the media couldn’t get access to Obama when visiting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This makes the decision track very clear. Obama and his team set up the visits to military installations before going overseas. After seeing how the media got excluded in Iraq and Afghanistan, they decided it wasn’t worth traveling to Ramstein and Landstuhl to visit the severely wounded troops because they couldn’t bring the campaign and get the photo ops they wanted. Instead, Obama went shopping in Berlin.
That’s certainly a revealing set of priorities for a man who wants to lead these troops as Commander in Chief.
July 25, 2008
McCain Hits Hard
Before a military audience in Denver today, John McCain launched his strongest attack yet against Barack Obama. The attack was devastating because it is true. Here are some excerpts; McCain began by recalling the beginning of the surge:
Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama’s failed.
We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the “surge” was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops — which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn’t test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn’t matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.
Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn’t just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.
And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. …
Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn’t have been more wrong.
By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. “Not only have we not seen improvements,” he said, “but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”
If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the “Sunni Awakening” would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.
Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. …
Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.
Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. … In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.
Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.
That recitation of Obama’s conduct is entirely factual. In this case, the facts are nuclear.
There is one obvious neo-con, zionist, republican wackjob that feels she has to post on this blog and I have to waste time scrolling past her propaganda to read the views of intelligent people, but unfortunately that’s her right. But what does half of her nonsense have to do in this “Bio” section?
Any guesses as to whom I’m referring?
Dr. Turley, keep up the good work and I’m glad to see that you don’t ban people of her ilk like Fox bans intelligent people.
zakimer:
God Bless GW Bush and all he is doing…………
GOD BLESS GW BUSH.
Bushs is showing those that would kill us we won’t stand and wait for them. We will TAKE THE WAR TO THEM!
GOD BLESS GW BUSH!
right zaky old buddy bud budy????>>>>>>>>
zakimer:
Yep, martha is our resident kook.
She cuts and pastes her neo-con crap here and I cut and paste it and send it to a few liberals friends, who read what the right-wing is up to. She must be paid by the RNC or some group to troll here; but she is the one that is going to pay for her loyalty to the resident traitor in the White House by being guilty of supporting Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq and the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and Iraqi citizens. She and her kind will have to answer to God why they supported deliberate MURDER.
She wants God to bless Bush; but God is NOT going to bless Bush–rather God is going to allow Bush to use his free will until Everyone, even martha realizes that these past 7+ years Bush’s main goal was to turn our country into the country of “have and have mores” and the rest of us into their slaves. Bush HATES the US Constitution and the Balance of Powers and he’s done all he can (with the traitorous help of 99.9% of Republicans and a few chicken Democrats) to destroy our way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Bush thinks he’s won the Project for the New American Century Neo-Con agenda; but he has LOST the respect of most of the people in the US and the world. Does anyone think that McCain would not do the same stuff for the next 4 years? He’s just another “Bush” in disguise.
Thanks be to Keith Olbermann’s show and Mr. Turley’s appearances on it–giving us the FACTS about the US Constitution and the FACTS that Bush is committing crimes against us and against the people of Iraq…
Thanks Mary Leon for your insight, but I’m afraid I have to agree with both you and the whackjob whose name I can’t speak. I am truly sorry for the reprehensible thing that I have done, but read my following message and I hope everyone will understand – and forgive me.
From a previous posting of mine.
I’m really torn about whether to hate or love Bush Jr. On the one hand, he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis but on the other hand he has done more to end the reign of the American Empire than anybody including Reagan.
I’m also torn on Obama vs. McCain for the same reason as above. On the one hand, Obama like Clinton could turn the Republican deficit into a surplus and perhaps get a settlement for Palestine and Israel. On the other hand eight more years of Bush – I mean McCain and a war with Iran which is four times larger and has more than double the population of Iraq and has many more sophisticated weapons could very well be what bankrupts the US, demoralizes what is left of the armed forces and leaves them unable to dominate the world.
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to go with McCain because more Iraqis died under Clinton than under Bush. Clinton deprived Iraq of food and medicine with his sanctions and over 500 000 children died (see WHO, IRC) and when Albright was asked if the USA was justified in killing half a million children, she said “yes”.
For all of us non-American citizens, go to McCain’s website and donate money. When asked for a Zip Code, just pick almost any random five digit number – I went with 85050 (Phoenix, Arizona) but I’m sure 90210 would work just as well.
I feel sorry for all the Iranians and US soldiers who will die under McCain and I pray that God will take my explanation on Judgment Day, that I was doing it for the good of the world in the long term and I would encourage all those that donate to also donate to the International Red Crescent/Red Cross after the war to help the orphaned children and maybe some money for all the disabled soldiers that make it back alive. God Bless and please forgive me.
zakimer: God Forgives; America remembers……………..
zakimer: just in case you don’t get my post:
Eventually, GOD will forgive those that have attacked the United States of America which is his gift to the world of freedom and hope.
Personally I hope God is very slow to forgive those that have been trying to destroy it, but the God of Abraham is a forgiving GOD.
martha h:
You must be very special indeed to speak for– and presumptively with –your god. Tell me who’ll win the World Series this year?
zakimar:
Well, it is your decision to vote for whoever you want, but I know that there will be NO way I would ever vote for John McCain.
Have you ever heard of the “Project for the New American Century”? It is a Neo-Con agenda dedicated to the idea that the United States is the last ’empire’ on earth and therefore the rest of the world must follow the US ideas; whether it be military or spiritual. The main author of this agenda is William Kristol. Unfortunately his official website is closed–and there is a message to contact the Accounts office (he’s a millionaire but he can’t pay the bill for this website?)–but you can find the archives if you ‘google’ or ‘yahoo’ it.
This “Project” is nothing more than the US taking over all the world by way of military force. It was approved by (amongst other signers) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush (W’s brother). I’m sure that McCain is a card carrying member of this “Project” and will follow its agenda until he either bankrupts the US or he invades Iran and so many of our US soldiers are killed that we Demand he bring them back home.
It will be a ‘lose-lose’ situation if McCain gets elected.
If Obama gets elected we will have the chance to get out of Iraq and to go after the al-Quaida that are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will be a major undertaking, but THIS is where the killers of September 11th are based, they are NOT based in Iraq; but their members in Iraq sure have recruited enough people to follow their ways and kill our soldiers. The “surge” is a failure, too, because there is no way the US can stay in Iraq and force democracy on Iraq. We have to let Iraq decide what they want to do with their own country’s future; whether it is Democracy or tribal leadership. The reports that come out every six months from the generals on the ground are always going to say that Iraq is ‘improving’ but it will NEVER say that Iraq has successfully become a democracy, or that the US can ‘finally’ leave Iraq. This was W’s goal–stay in Iraq, get their oil, then invade Iran for their oil–no matter how many people have to die. His “Project” was to start the global domination by the US in the Middle East, but he has lost. He is so stubborn he will Never admit to this defeat, and he will never care about the US soldiers who have died for his “Project”, but he has others who are willing to keep his “Project” going–namely McCain.
If McCain was the only candidate, I would sit home and not vote on Election Day. But he’s not the only candidate, and I would rather vote for Obama any day of the week, than to vote for another 4 years of ‘Bush’ and his “Project for the New American Century”.
I know about a guy who wanted to start a Project that would last one thousand years too, but his Reich only lasted 12 years (1933 to 1945). If McCain wins, I think the New American Century will last 12 years as well – 2001 to 2013, RIP.
zakimar:
It may be true that McCain will keep this “Project for the New American Century” going for a few more years, but he cannot succeed either.
Unfortunately, the first thing McCain will do if he is elected president is invade Iran. Iran is at least 3 times larger than Iraq and has at least 3 times more people than Iraq.
How are we ever going to get the money to fight wars in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? Only Great Britain and a few other countries will even help us with the “war on terror” and if we elect McCain I know that we will lose more and more allies that would help us if we ever came under attack again. McCain = 4 more years of Bush!
How many more Thousands of people will have to die for a “Project”?
No, zakimar, I don’t believe you want to see this occur. If it does, then the United States of America will cease to be a country with a Constitution and balance of powers and will become a country of the small minority of the rich and super rich and the rest of us their low paid slaves. I pray to God we NEVER see that happen here in the United States of America!
The problem with Obama winning is that he may actually turn the US economy around and get the troops out of the Middle East just as Clinton did after Reagan’s senile spending spree almost bankrupted America. If not for Clinton, Bush Jr. wouldn’t have had the funds for this fiasco.
So unless Obama is followed by the likes of Edwards, Webb indefinitely, sooner or later another Bush or McCain will come around and threaten the world all over again. It is better to eliminate the threat permanently. The US will still be around, like Russia or Britain, but not able to set up puppet-dictator regimes/satellites/colonies respectively all over the world.
zakimer: you do realize you are posting back and forth with a couple of people on medication don’t you? mary leon & mespo come here to post when they have gone two days without their medications.
For anybody wanting to know what an insane asylum looks like, I invite them to the JT blog site. There are now 5 rock solid left wing lunatics posting here and one that seems to have lost his way.
July 27, 2008
Another day in Arafatistan
An Israeli operation in Hebron has resulted in the death of the terrorist mastermind of the suicide attack on Dimona earlier this year. Carl in Israel has posted a good round-up. The Jerusalem Post reports:
The IDF said that in a joint Border Police and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) operation the forces surrounded a house where 25-year-old Shihab Na’atsha, a Hamas explosives engineer, was hiding. The IDF said Na’atsha had assembled the bomb belt used in the Dimona attack on February 4 that killed 73-year-old Lubov Razdolskaya and wounded 40 other people….
Troops surrounded the house in Hebron early Sunday morning and exchanged fire with Na’atsha, calling on him to exit the building. Once he refused to surrender and after hours of gunfire, the IDF bulldozed the house. His body was later removed from the rubble.
The IDF added that during the heavy exchanges of fire, troops heard explosions from inside the house, presumably from bombs stored inside. Two additional terror suspects were apprehended during the operation.
Na’atsha and his ammo dump somehow went undetected by the “security forces” of the Palestinian Authority, only to be discovered by Israelis in an operation of the kind that Secretary Rice finds to visit indignity on Palestinian Arabs.
GO ISRAEL! GOD IS WITH YOU & AMERICA!
Did the same person that told you that Islam had a Prophet in 1300 AD tell you about the story above, and was Santa Claus driving the bulldozer?
You are obviously a Zionist Jew, and Zionism is Apartheid which is Racism and should be hated by all decent people. No person is better than any other and should be given special rights in this life or the next solely based on their race.
Unfortunately, some races, religions and groups believe in hate and Zionists belong to this group. I am not surprised that many Americans and the US Government sees nothing wrong with Zionism because many Americans have no regard for their own indigenous people (that’s Injins to those that don’t know what indigenous is), didn’t oppose Apartheid in South Africa and until a few months ago had Nelson Mandela on their terrorist list for decades.
Both the US and Israel were founded on the slaughter and oppression of the indigenous people and both had “founding fathers” that were racist. Most in the US even had slaves and some even raped their slaves. If your God blesses those sorts of people, his actual name is Satan.
The latest news from Iraq:
New bombings kill dozens.
Yep, that “surge” is working, NOT.
It seems as though every time John McCain opens his mouth and shouts that the “surge” is a Success that there is another bombing in Iraq.
I believe the two are connected. Maybe if McCain keeps quiet for a few days, there will be no bombings in Iraq? But, unfortunately, McCain is all mouth and no exit strategy…
Oh, wait, he does have an exit strategy. Every six months from now until the end of time he will say that the “surge” is working, Iraq is more safer, but we still can’t leave Iraq because of ‘conditions on the ground.’
Barack Obama’s solution: get out of Iraq and go after the real al-Quaida of September 11th in Afghanistan, and get Pakistan to force Osama bin Laden and his gang out of their caves.
John McCain’s solution: stay in Iraq until either the ‘conditions on the ground’ are absolutely safe (which they will never be, as long as we occupy Iraq) or until every last person in Iraq is DEAD.
Mary Leon; You are one of the few people on this blog that I sadly say seems to intelligent for most of the others who seem to be imbeciles. But if you don’t mind spending the time contributing, I’ll keep spending the time reading your stuff. Unlike some others (who will remain as nameless as they are soulless, I enjoy reading stuff that I may disagree with, as long as it’s factual and polite. Keep up the good work.
zakimar:
Thanks for the kind words.
I really do hope you change your mind about McCain and see that with Obama there is at least a Chance to get out of Iraq and not even get in Iran.
Remember the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for. You may just get it”. (My translation: McCain may seem to be the lesser of two evils, but I would much rather take my chances with Barack Obama than to keep the McCain war machine going; because all this war machine will bring is more death and destruction to Innocent people who have done nothing to us).
I always say a prayer every night, for our US troops and for the Innocent Iraqi citizens that have been killed, that they will rest in peace for eternity, and that we shall all be together one day in Heaven.
Hello Mary Leon; McCain is NOT the lesser of the two evils, as far as I’m concerned he is even more evil than Bush Jr. Bush Jr. is just a privileged coward that doesn’t know what war is, however McCain doesn’t have that excuse. In spite (or maybe because) of McCain’s “experience”, he still craves war and has voted against every bill to spend money on veterans. That is precisely why I wrote the following above:
I’m torn on Obama vs. McCain. On the one hand, Obama like Clinton could turn the Republican deficit into a surplus and perhaps get a settlement for Palestine and Israel. On the other hand eight more years of Bush – I mean McCain and a war with Iran which is four times larger than and has more than double the population of Iraq as well as possessing many more sophisticated weapons could very well be what bankrupts the US, demoralizes what is left of the armed forces and leaves them unable to dominate the world.
So I’m giving money to McCain because I feel he’ll be Rome’s Nero, France’s Louis XVI or the Third Reich’s Hitler and leave the US unable to make war in the future. Every president in recent history has attacked a Muslim country including Clinton (who did it to get the media focus away from Lewinsky) at least Bush Jr., who did it for oil and the big US corporations also managed to remove Hussein. I doubt that Obama will any different.
McCain will need the draft and between that and the huge US debt and the number of people that will be left without jobs or homes, there will either be another American Revolution (or at least thousands of riots all over the country) or the economy will collapse and the US will no longer be able to export billions of dollars and weapons to Israel and terror throughout the world. Obama will just delay the process as did Clinton. I’m just sorry good people will have to die in the short term and that you’ll be living there when all that happens. I would suggest to all decent Americans, if McCain wins, start applying for your travel/work Visas to Canada and the EU.
zakimar:
I don’t wish to leave my home country just yet.
I am supporting Obama because he can turn this country around. It’s true that Clinton left over a $200 Billion surplus for Bush to waste, but we are so much in debt now it’s going to take YEARS to even balance the budget, let alone have a spending surplus.
I know the National Debt is AT LEAST $5 TRILLION and that by the time Bush is out of office and after all the debts are added up for the Invasion of Iraq and the tax breaks for the rich and for the money we owe to Saudi Arabia and China on loans Bush took from them, then the National Debt will be OVER $10 TRILLION!
Obama will be busy enough trying to find out what Bush has done to us; by way of his presidential directives and his hundreds of signing statements. These past 7+ years of Bush signing away our rights and freedoms and selling the country out; there are literally thousands of papers to go thru and Millions of e-mails to go through (that is, if there are any left after Bush had papers shredded and e-mails permanently deleted).
The LAST thing on anyone’s list will be getting a budget surplus.
That’s why I hope you don’t donate one Penny to McCain’s campaign! His wife is worth over $100 Million, due to the fact that she is an heiress of a beer delivery dynasty, so he doesn’t need any more campaign contributions, as far as I’m concerned.
BUT, if McCain does win, then I’m going to Mexico. My husband was born there and I’ve been married to him almost 29 years. (This is another story for another day; but let me just say that since he is dark-skinned and speaks with a foreign accent he has been the victim of racial slurs by white people, who have accused him of being a member of al-Quaida and being a terrorist, and I have been accused of being married to an enemy of the US and I’m a traitor to this country, etc…) I have TONS of stories on how I and him have been treated, but I will say that the more my husband and I have been insulted, the more my husband and I stick together and Love each other!
mary leon:
Zakimar is just another one of JT’s most recent alter-egos trying to bait someone into making some “biased” statement here.
I can’t believe you are falling for it…….wait…..yes I can.
Mary Leon, you are quite the whiner yourself. I would rank your whining right up there with “Zakimer”, alias JT.
I would have responded sooner but I fainted when I read that martha h had something nice to say about any SANE person. I take being compared to Dr. Turley as a compliment.
Zakimar: Give it up. We know you are Turley and one of his alter egos he uses.
martha h:
How many times must you come here and think that we are not who we say we are? Mr. Turley must get quite a laugh when he reads your ‘cut and paste’ blather and your crazy ideas that he is the only person who is posting responses to you by using various aliases.
To put it bluntly–you must be a white woman who gets paid as a Troll for the Repub party, because you are acting like a Troll, and acting like a typical white person who thinks she is better than everyone else just because of her skin color. People like you disgust me because you have had all the ‘breaks’ and made all the rules, and yet you can’t stand the thought of someone else getting a piece of the American dream–especially someone who is not ‘lilywhite’ like you!
And as for me ‘whining’, yes I will ‘whine’ when either my husband or myself are called traitors, terrorists and unpatriotic, but I won’t back down or let anyone, especially the likes of YOU, step all over me.
But as far as you; you have NO excuse for coming here, cutting and pasting your right-wing tripe. I guess you DO like that I cut and paste your tripe and send it out to my liberal friends, or else why would you keep coming back here? Unless you like to ‘spin’???
Hello Mary; I can see how marta h confused me with the good Doctor. We are both articulate, educated, sane men who seem to feel that somehow EVERYONE is entitled to human rights and dignity even though Americans and Israelis are the only people deserving of God’s love on the planet. I’m sure Dr. Turley is also an excellent father to his wonderful and fortunate children and a great husband to his beautiful wife, as well as being quite handsome himself. The main difference between me and Dr. Turley is that he is more educated than I and I am less humble.
zakimar:
I can’t tell you how happy I get when I see Mr. Turley on “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann, and lately, a few times on “Verdict” with Dan Abrams. My husband also enjoys watching him. Mr. Turley is such a smart and learned scholar! Like I posted before–I have written a suggestion to Barack Obama’s campaign website that Mr. Turley should be considered as a nominee to the Supreme Court when Obama becomes President. I can’t think of anyone else who could do the job as well as Mr. Turley, and I do hope he IS chosen, should the situation arise.
And yes, martha, this is ME, Mary Leon (that’s my real name) so don’t accuse me of being an alter-ego of Mr. Turley. Also, if you can’t say anything nice about Mr. Turley at his own website, just don’t say anything at all! 😦
Get This Man A Teleprompter!
Barack Obama is a lot like Sean Penn or George Clooney. If you give him a script, he can deliver it pretty well. But if he tries to talk without a script that has been written for him by others, he quickly reveals that he is poorly-informed if not downright ignorant.
Today he delivered another classic, by claiming that if only we would all properly inflate our tires, we could save as much gasoline as “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.”
The stunned silence with which the crowd greets this howler suggests that most Americans have a more practical understanding of energy consumption than Obama.
Just for fun, I did the math. Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let’s be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that’s a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency.
Americans drive approximately 2,880 billion miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.
How does this stack up against “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling?”
ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels
So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.”
Obama is a curious case. He gives the impression of being an intelligent guy, but through his unscripted comments we have learned that he knows little about history, science or mathematics. He also seems rather shockingly short on common sense, as this most recent gaffe illustrates.
By conservative estimates it will be over five years before there is any oil from this new drilling. I know you probably have your grade six math, so 100% of 0 is 0. So if 1 gallon was saved, by the entire country, in the next five years, that would be more than all the oil that has been drilled. And since you’re such an educated fellow, perhaps you can find Czechoslovakia and the Iraq/Pakistan border on a map and show it to Senior McCain/Bush III.
zakimar: Much of the new oil would be available in 1 to 3 years, with some not coming online for 5 at most. The point is we know where it is and how to get it.
PS. Every barrel of oil we produce ourselves is $120 we don’t have to send to scum of the earth low lifes barely out of the stone age that are using it to kill civilians without a care in the world.
PS again, many believe Satan formed a religion over a lake of oil in that region to mess with God’s wonderful creation. What do you think?
PS again, many believe Satan formed a religion over a lake of oil in that region to mess with God’s wonderful creation. What do you think?
Pulease – talk about LUNAtics!
If the guardians of marta h and percy ever gave consent for these two to get “hitched”, they’d better get ready to apologize to Dr. Turley because they’ll need him to stop the State from sterilizing them so they can’t breed.
I guess I should give up my day job doing “satire” for the New Yorker.
That “religion” Satan formed is called Zionism.
Monday, July 31, 2008
JON VOIGHT: My concerns for America
OP-ED
We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.
Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.
The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.
The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.
Those same leaders who were in the streets in the ’60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.
Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we’ve almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.
If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there’s not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.
Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.
This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.
WELL SAID JON VOIGHT!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Voight couldn’t raise his own children properly – they aren’t even on speaking terms.
Yet another pillar of the Republican establishment and a McCain supporter has brought disgrace to his office (if that’s possible) Ted Stevens.
-Sen. McCain is best known for being captured while bombing civilians and being a POW.
-Sen. McCain wants another war after supporting the first illegal and unwinnable war.
-Sen. McCain has voted against EVERY effort to provide more money to veterans and veterans’ services.
-Sen. McCain supports torture even though he was supposedly tortured himself.
-Sen. McCain’s “experience” leads him to believe there are a Czechoslovakia and an Iraq/Pakistan border.
You are someone that supports racism, bigotry, murder, persecution and oppression (see Zionism and Israel).
Enough said.
zakimar, not even you can be that dumb as to believe 2% of the garbage you print here. Nice try Turley.
I know doin reserch is tuff, speshaly wen ur igornant & lazi, butt tri it. lernin can b fun.
Hi, zakimar:
I’m beginning to wonder if Percy, russ and martha h are all ONE person. After all, you and I are always being accused of being Mr. Turley’s alter-egos.
Before I ‘cut and paste’ the ridiculous drivel of the Trolls, I read it and I can’t believe how DUMB these people really are!
I don’t give a hoot about Jon Voight and his opinions, or about how we can only ‘save ourselves’ by drilling for oil offshore.
I notice that instead of pointing out facts, these Trolls only attack, attack, attack. They give out estimates of what MAY happen if we drill offshore for oil, or what some has-been actor is saying. Big deal.
What I would like an answer to is what occurred yesterday:
Federal US District Judge John Bates *WHO WAS APPOINTED BY W.BUSH* has concluded that there is NO legal basis why Miers and Bolton cannot testify before Congress and bring non-priviledged documentation about the US Attorney Firings!
Yep, there is NO legal reason why Miers and Bolton can IGNORE a Subpoena issued by Congress!
The White House said it probably will appeal the ruling, dragging the issue into January. But if the Democrats remain the majority party, then the subpoenas will be re-issued in January and Miers and Bolton, and probably Rove will HAVE to at least SHOW UP, then declare ‘executive priviledge’.
So, Percy, russ and martha h: A Federal US District Judge, appointed BY Bush, is disagreeing with him and telling him that he has NO legal reason to tell any of his staff that they can IGNORE a subpoena. What do you think about that???
His ilk tends to stick together and be of like “mind”.
I just read that WalMart has been having meetings with their management all over the country, reminding them that if a Democratic majority happens in Congress and in the Presidential Election, then there may be fears of employees trying to start unions and think about striking for better wages.
Sounds to me like WalMart is Telling people Not to vote for Barack Obama or any other Democrat in Congress.
Isn’t that ILLEGAL???
It’s only a crime if someone enforces the “law”. Republicans have no interest and Democrats are frightened. Hence, it’s not illegal. Please refer to Bush and Pelosi, McCain and Obama on FISA.
You are right, zakimar. Both Repubs and Democrats are not running to Impeach Cheney and Bush because they all have their little secrets and skeletons in their own closets.
I’ve heard that after the Presidential election then Pelosi and Reid might start more hearings and contempt of court citations once they know that McCain has lost and that they just Might put Impeachment on the table for Cheney and Bush right before Obama is inaugurated on January 20, 2009.
But Bush might pull out that presidential directive he signed last May in 2007, giving himself Total control of all 3 branches of the government, in case of terrorist threat or attack. He may even ‘coincidentally’ allow a ‘terrorist attack’ to make his followers afraid. Percy, russ and martha sure would start running to Bush to ‘save them’ from the terrorists if there would be such an attack. I wouldn’t doubt that Bush would try to hold onto his power as long as he can because he is one man that can’t take “NO” for an answer.
He can try to take over the government, but I know he won’t succeed.
Plus, I’ve heard that Cheney has a plan, starting this October, to have the US Navy Seals be dressed as Iranians and fire at one of the US warships in the Gulf, right across from Iran, and then blame the Iranians for the ‘unprovoked’ attack. A good way to start another ‘war’ by using this tactic, right?
August 1, 2008
Obama Caves On Drilling!
Barack Obama has seen which way the wind is blowing on gas prices, and today he changed his mind about offshore drilling:
“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post. “If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage—I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”
Obama left no doubt about the political calculation behind his flip-flop:
As I’ve said before, there is no philosophical or political principle that Obama cares much about, other than the desirability of his own ascension to the Presidency. So we can look forward to more such shifts between now and November.
OBAMA DOESN’T HAVE A PRINCIPLED BELIEF IN HIS WHOLE LOW LIFE BODY!
Mary Leon; Bush and Cheney already have what they want: they’ve made themselves rich; made their corporate donors like oil companies, Haliburton and Blackwater rich; and helped Israel by attacking Iraq. Attacking Iran would be a good bonus but the US doesn’t have the manpower left to do it, so they’re betting on McCain. Even that pillar of Republican values, Ted Steven donated money to McCain.
zakimar: You are just jealous that GOD protects Israel & the United States.
We NEED a law that sterilizes such “simple” folk before they become old enough to produce viable gametes and breed.
The first sane President to succeed McCain should create a Federal Eugenics Agency to weed out the sort that votes for the likes of Bush and McCain.
zakimar: glad you keep putting your thoughts in writing for the lunatics here to see what they are placating…….
Barack Obama has proven himself slippery on oil. In April, he accused his opponents of taking money from oil lobbies, when in fact Obama himself not only did the same thing but had oil executives as major bundlers to his campaign.
Now he’s reversed himself on off shore drilling, and he did it in a remarkable place — Florida. Of course, this comes shortly after Obama called off-shore drilling “the latest scheme”, telling his supporters that drilling wouldn’t solve anything. How shortly? 48 hours!
Barack Obama is NOT flip-flopping! He is trying to tolerate the Republickan side. At least he is willing to Listen to their arguments, for and against offshore drilling. He is to be commended for his approach to ALL sides of a problem.
He’s nothing like Bush, who, for the first 6 years of his presiduncy, had a solid Republickan majority in Congress, both House and Senate, who passed every bill, every act and everything Bush wanted to do. Talk about being in lock-step!
He MAY suggest offshore drilling, but once he is President, he can change his mind. But I do know one thing–he won’t be like McCain, who is just waiting to lead the charge into Iran.
We don’t have enough money, troops or allies left in the world; but when has that ever stopped a Republickan from declaring WAR???
Mary Leon; Either these people are liars spouting propaganda or they believe their own lies and are thus lunatics. Either way they are never going to respect the truth or an opposing opinion?
I think this is all a cover and if Obama wins or this election could somehow have been held 30 years ago, they’d simply be saying “nigger”. The likes of these people are shocked that this “boy doesn’t know his place”.
The hatred in these genetically misinformed people is obvious. They have used such terms to describe Sen. Obama as: downright ignorant, buffoon, charlatan, enemy of progress, doesn’t care about the troops or America, is preparing to surrender America and low life. The only thing they forgot to add is that they are being “fair and balanced” and that McCain is the Messiah.
This is coming from the same people that state that Islam had a “false Prophet in 1300 AD, and that God reserves his love for only 5% of the world’s population.
So please stop responding to these Zionists (racists), liars, and imbeciles’ vulgar comments, it only gives their puny minds satisfaction and encouragement. Their hero Goebbels would be having a good laugh at their attempts at “disseminating information”.
zakimar:
I know that ‘these people’ are just going around the edges, too afraid to say the word “BLACK” so they use every excuse to cut down Barack Obama–he’s not experienced, he’s a movie star elitist, he’s a flip-flopper, he’s too skinny (that one made me laugh so much!) LOL.
I just wish one of them would have the GUTS to just say: “I’m not voting for Barack Obama because he’s Black, and that’s the ONLY reason I’m not voting for him because he IS Black and I’m white, and only the white people know how to run the show.”
You know the worst thing, though, is that they think that God LOVES what they are doing–being racist pigs who only care about “their kind of people”, and the rest of us are heathens who will NEVER make it to Heaven. They think they speak for Jesus, but they are actually speaking for the Devil.
They are acting like Hitler was, taking over most of Europe, killing Millions of people, all so the ‘aryan’ race of blonde, blue-eyed people could rule the world. We all know how THAT ended.
I remember my late father telling me that when Jesse Owens was in Germany in the 1930s, on the United States’ track team for the Olympics, that Hitler was SO angry that a Black man could beat his precious ‘aryan’ race of runners, sprinters and high jumpers. I sure wish I could have been there to watch the German crowd when they defied Hitler and cheered for Jesse!
I am not responding to their vulgar comments as much as I’m gathering information for some websites I go to that need to know what ‘these people’ are up to and what they are thinking. This information is very useful and necessary to know as well as fun to read, because of their ‘holier than thou’ approach to life and their ‘delusions of grandeaur’ that they are doing the work of the Lord.
I must admit that Hitler would be proud of martha h and her ‘kind of people’ who think if they tell a lie so many times that people will actually believe it is the truth and that the white people are the only people that should have power to rule the world…
Mary Leon; I agree with what you say, but you got a few things wrong. Some of these people don’t think they speak FOR Jesus; they speak WITH Jesus, Bush Jr. included. Also, there were a lot of Americans in the primaries that did say I’m not voting for a “Black” or “Colored”.
Cindy McCain put $750 000 on her American express card in one month, the McCains spent $250 000 per year on servants, and the Obamas are the “elitists”. Also, when Jesse Owens came back to the good ol’ US of A after winning the gold, the same Americans that cheered him wouldn’t give him a job and he did stunts to get money. Thirty years later, Muhammad Ali, who was also cheered for winning the gold, was thrown out of a restaurant and told “we don’t serve niggers here”.
And finally, I think it dishonors Hitler when he is compared to the likes of these hateful imbeciles.
zakimar:
Yes, you are so right about dishonoring Hitler. Hitler killed people because he thought he was their ‘aryan’ superior and that he deserved to rule the world. These people like martha h are worse than him because they think they are doing the work of the Lord, and that the Lord will put them at the head of the line in Heaven when they get there. They are truly ‘wolves in sheeps’ clothing’ and are more dangerous, because they hide behind the cross of Jesus and justify that He would approve their words and actions.
I guess there are people who have admitted that they won’t vote for Obama because he’s Black, but I sure haven’t run into any of them.
I know that Jesse Owens had to work as a janitor because he couldn’t get any kind of high paying job after winning all those gold medals in Germany and that Ali refused to be drafted for the ‘white man’s war’ in Vietnam and was arrested and jailed for a while. How terribly they were treated because of the color of their skin…
*A personal note* My husband, who is older than I am and as I wrote before, was born in Mexico and came to live in the United States when he was a teenager, Volunteered to enlist in the US Army in 1965 (this was the same year I started Kindergarten in elementary school). He was stationed for a few months in the state of Georgia, and he and his buddies who were not white-skinned, were NOT allowed to eat at certain restaurants, off base, because they were brown-skinned. I just couldnt’ believe this when he told me, but I know that it’s true. Here he was, Volunteering and Serving in the US Army during the time of the Vietnam War and could have been sent there at any moment (luckily he was sent to Europe for 18 months, but he did lose a few of his friends in Vietnam) and yet he couldn’t get a bite of food in a restaurant because he was brown-skinned. Absolutely Unbelievable!!!
But what people like martha h say IS important to me because, not for what they say, but that some people BELIEVE what they say. This information is Priceless and very useful…
I am also on this and other sites because there are obvious liars out there that want to spread hate and I would like to educate those that may be ignorant, that not everything they hear is true (see Fox, CNN, Bush, Congress).
My dad told me something when I was young that I now tell my children. “An ignorant person who wants to learn is a student; an ignorant person that doesn’t want to learn is stupid”. He also told me that “stupid people think everyone is stupid like they are”. I think my audience is full of students, martha h and percy think their audience is stupid.
zakimer & mary leon:
I am glad you two nut balls keep putting your words in writing here so the other 2 percenter lunatics can see what ype of idiots they are placating.
LOL! Time to fess up.
Mary Leon, “Zakimar” is a buddy of ours yanking your chain.
It’s official: Obama runs from town-hall debates
posted at 10:00 am on August 3, 2008
Obama’s campaign made its distaste for free-style debates more or less official yesterday in their letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates. Obama only will agree to three debates and all of them in the standard moderated format.
He will not accept McCain’s challenge to meet him in a format where voters can ask the questions:
Obama’s campaign released a letter this afternoon from campaign manager David Plouffe to the Commission on Presidential Debates only agreeing to the traditional three sanctioned fall debates and single vice presidential forum.
The McCain campaign responded with a dose of sarcasm: “We understand it might be beneath a worldwide celebrity of Obama’s magnitude to appear at town hall meetings alongside John McCain and directly answer questions from the American people, but we hope he’ll reconsider.”
This news will surprise no one that has followed the number of gaffes Obama makes when speaking off the cuff. When the press finally got embarrassed by their fawning attitude and asked him tough questions in the Pennsylvania debate, Obama folded like a cheap suit against Hillary — and immediately stopped appearing in debates. He has provided an almost endless series of gaffes when speaking extemporaneously, and obviously wants no part of McCain in this format.
And don’t forget your other “facts” about Islam’s “false Prophet” in 1300 AD and that “Obama doesn’t care about America” and is “a low life”. And remember, it’s Professor zakimar to you.
Also, will the Easter Bunny be travelling with Santa this year because Obama raised the price of gasoline?
martha and percy:
Isn’t it time you two went to church and confessed your sins to the Lord?
Every time you post your tripe here you are adding another strike against you in the Book of Life…
Mary Leon:
Like I said, Zakimar is a friend of our yanking your chain.
Percy:
I don’t believe a word you say…
Mary Leon; I am shocked that you would even suggest that Percy would ever entertain telling an untruth. For verily, he and martha h are the Righteous and are Blessed by God.
Percy:
Do you ever watch C-SPAN? There was a good program on yesterday. Vincent Bugliosi (he was the prosecutor for the Charles Manson murders in the early 1970s in California) has written a book, calling for your presidunt Bush to be tried on murder charges after he leaves the White House in January 2009.
Won’t that be wonderful to watch Bush try to justify why he LIED to start the war in Iraq. He will have to face the families of the 4,000+ soldiers he deliberately sent to Iraq and who were killed there.
It doesn’t matter if Bush is tried here on earth or in Heaven; but he will one day have to face the fact that he is a Murderer of our soldiers and of all the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people that were killed because of his invasion.
I wonder how you people who support him can sleep at night. Don’t all the deaths of this sham of a war bother you? You voted for Bush, so you are guilty of aiding in his murders. I sure wouldn’t want to face the Final Judgment, knowing that I support the Mass Murderer-George W. Bush…
Mary Leon; You and I are unfortunately in the minority. The fact that Bush II even has a chance against Obama shows that most Americans sleep just fine, even if it’s under a bridge because Bush/McCain/Graham left them unemployed and homeless. If Obama doesn’t win by a landslide, it just proves that the 80% that don’t approve of the direction the country is headed would rather hold on to their racism than their homes or jobs.
And I hope EVERY person in the Military that votes for McCain gets four 18 month tours in Iran. And don’t worry, if they survive, Walter Reed hospital will fix em up reel good.
zakimar:
We really should ask Mr. Turley to ban martha h and percy from his website, because they use up so much precious space, with all their idiotic tripe they ‘cut and paste’; but since Mr. Turley believes in free speech, unlike their ‘master’ Bush, he will allow them to say whatever they wish.
I can just imagine martha and percy, living together under a bridge, telling everyone near the sound of their voices: “God bless George W. Bush!” over and over again, while the rich get richer and more poor join them under the bridge. Eventually those poor will kick out martha and percy out from under the bridge–after all, who wants to live next to mass-murder accomplices and Bush lovers?
And to think that percy says you are a friend of his, just ‘yanking’ my chain…
I’m actually glad that not only are percy and matha allowed, but mespo and others as well. As hard as it is to accept, there are many millions more of them out there. They are the people that reelected Bush and will vote for McCain. If not for them, I’d have to watch Fox, CNN, Bloomberg or Israeli television to get an idea of what the Zionists/racists, bigots, neocons and morons that make up nearly 50% of America think. We’ll see how many of them are out there by the percentage of votes received by McCain.
I’m hoping their ilk make up more than 50% of the population for the next 16 years and they elect more of the Bush/McCain types so that when it’s over, I’ll be able to move to the US and buy one of the millions of vacant houses (preferably in California) for under $250 000.
zakimar:
Unfortunately, people like martha and percy (who I believe are White Anglo Saxon Protestants) usually get a chance to have a good life, with good food, nice homes and cars. But they waste their lives by not living it freely; they spend their lives doing what others tell them to do. That’s why I don’t like Republickans, because they tend to ‘follow the leader’ and do what he says. What a waste of time, and money to follow a mass murderer and his PNAC agenda!
I’m not too sure about living in California. There was another earthquake there last week, and I just think it’s a matter of time that part of it will break away from the San Andreas Fault and indeed fall into the Pacific Ocean.
I’ve been reading a lot of different things about the year 2012; many ancient civilizations (Mayan, Incan, Aztec, Chinese, Greek) have the end of the world occurring on December 21, 2012, when a series of stars will line up together at the center of the Milky Way and change the North and South poles’ gravity and turn our planet around. If we’re alive, we’ll find out if it’s true, on 12/21/2012.
First of all, I’m sure most of us will still be here in 2013. Secondly, martha hatred for Arabs (Christians and Muslims) as well as Muslims in general, indicates that she is much more likely a Jew than a Protestant. The Christians that are the rabid Zionists aren’t usually the Protestants anyway.
It’ll have to be Northern California, because not only will earthquakes destroy a large part of Southern California, but if this whole global warming “myth” is true, the Southern States will become uninhabitable, and the old coastlines will be gone.
And don’t worry about the PNAC; once the Palestinians regain control of Palestine, they’ll disappear.
Obama’s energy policy: Turn out the lights and pray for wind
Perhaps the Barack Obama campaign needs the services of a mathematician, but it doesn’t take differential calculus to determine that his energy policy doesn’t add up. Politico reports on Obama’s speech in Lansing, which officially served as the re-launch of his efforts to defuse public anger over Congressional inaction on domestic energy production. Obama wants to both transfer American transportation from oil to electricity and then cut electrical production as well:
The three main components of Obama’s plan are:
— Get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.
— Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.
—Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.
Well, far be it from me to point out the obvious, but the more cars we have that use “plug-in hybrids”, the more demand for electricity will increase. Apparently, this didn’t catch the attention of the Harvard-educated candidate, but it should catch the attention of the voting public. Transferring the burden of transportation from gasoline to electricity will vastly increase the need for more generating stations.
Even without the transfer of cars from gas to electrical power, how exactly does Obama plan on cutting electrical demand in the US? As the economy and the population grow, the need for electricity will continue to expand as well, in order to just maintain the current standard of living, let alone improve it. Perhaps we will hear more about the electrical equivalent of inflating tires, and Obama does plan to spend billions of dollars weatherizing homes — which Americans do when their energy bills increase anyway.
What happens when the demand doesn’t decrease by 15%? Where will Obama get the energy needed to power the economy? He doesn’t answer that question.
And why worry about electrical demand if Obama believes that we will have emission-free mass-production sources on line in the next 10 years? Electricity in and of itself is completely neutral to the global-warming debate; it’s the source that matters. If we have solar energy perfected, as an example, why worry about electrical demand?
This sounds like a Luddite philosophy, an energy-hostile policy regardless of its source or its benefits. Obama wants America to live in a shortage economy, where we become ever more dependent on government to ration energy and in which our standard of living decreases year after year. Obama talks about Hope, but he’s really selling Despair … and it has started to lose whatever luster it ever had as his energy policies come more into focus.
Toby, alias ZAKIMAR, stop messing with Mary Leon! She is obviously unbalanced and it isn’t right nor fair to yank her chain anymore!
August 4, 2008
The Dishonesty of Barack Obama
Barack Obama gave a major speech on energy in Michigan today, in which he offered a number of new proposals to try to bring down the cost of gasoline. Over the next day or so, I intend to take a careful look at Obama’s new energy strategy. For now, though, a quick comment about Obama’s proposal to sell a portion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Obama said:
We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks.
This is, of course, another policy reversal on Obama’s part. Until now, he has opposed selling gasoline from the Reserve. His spokeswoman acknowledged as much:
Previously, Obama opposed tapping into the reserve, but campaign spokeswoman Heather Zichal said he reconsidered because “Americans are suffering.”
Now, I have no problem with a politician changing his mind when conditions change. Thus, I’d be delighted to see John McCain reverse himself on ANWR, on the ground that $4 gasoline demands measures that $2 gasoline doesn’t. This is the sort of rationale implied by Ms. Zichal.
But Obama’s opposition to selling petroleum from the Reserve is not some relic of the days of cheap oil. It was reiterated on July 7, in St. Louis:
I do not believe that we should use the strategic oil reserves at this point. I have said and, in fact, supported a congressional resolution that said that we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve, but the strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency. You have a situation, let’s say, where there was a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia that was destroyed as a consequence of terrorist acts, and you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken out of the world market, we wouldn’t just be seeing $4-a-gallon oil. We could see a situation where entire sectors of the country had no oil to function at all. And that’s what the strategic oil reserve has to be for.
On July 7, oil and gas prices were higher than they are today, not lower. So Obama’s explanation that he changed his mind because “Americans are suffering” is transparently false. What has really happened is that Obama has been reading the polls, as always: John McCain has caught up with him, and poll respondents now say that they trust McCain more on energy. Hence the new policies that Obama unveiled today.
More to come.
Al-Sadr Plans to Turn Militia Into Civic Organization
Monday, August 04, 2008
Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is planning to disarm the Mahdi Army by turning the militia into a civic and social service organization, a significant strategic shift, according to a report by the Associated Press.
In a brochure obtained by the paper and confirmed by Sheikh Salah al-Obeidi, Sadr’s chief spokesman, the Mahdi Army will now be guided by Shiite spirituality instead of anti-American militancy.
The move could further enhance the stability of Iraq. The brochure states the al-Mumahidoon will undergo an intellectual and scientific jihad focusing on education, religion and social justice.
“[The army] is not allowed to use arms at all,” the brochure reportedly says.
The al-Mumahidoon office will be separated into sections, including religion, education, social services and information. Posters bearing the indicating a new direction for the Mahdi Army have been put up in some areas of Baghdad.
“All the Mahdi Army must listen to this and follow this new office, which will have the name al-Mumahidoon,” Obeidi told the paper. ” We are also thinking that our work must focus on guiding and enlightening the people to serve Iraqi society.”
McCain is going to get $2 per gallon gasoline by signing an exclusive contract with Czechoslovakia for oil and he will make sure not a single US troop is ever killed because they’ll all be stationed at the Iraq/Pakistan border.
Toby, (alias ZAKIMAR), stop messing with Mary Leon! She is obviously unbalanced and it isn’t right to yank her chain anymore!
Percy, russ, martha and toby:
Van a comer sus cojones, culeros.
(An Old Spanish Saying)
August 8th, 2008 4:24 PM Eastern
What Is Obama Talking About?
By Betsy Newmark
Occasionally, Obama has indicated that he has a weak sense of American history. He didn’t seem to know that the Cold War was not a time when the world was standing as one. He didn’t know the history of presidential summits and seems to think that FDR and Truman met with our nation’s enemies. He didn’t know how the Nuremberg Trials worked. And I’m not even talking about his mistake that Americans liberated Auschwitz.
But I think his remark when the little girl asked him why he decided to run for president and he gave this response.
“America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.”
As you watch the video, it’s clear that he formed his words carefully and was thinking about how to answer the little girl.
I’m wondering when is the time that Obama thinks that we were what we could be. It couldn’t have been when we had slavery. So that takes us to 1865. It couldn’t be when we had states divided by terrible Jim Crow laws that segregated society and disenfranchised an entire race. So that takes us to the mid-1960s. It probably wasn’t when we were divided and torn apart by the Vietnam War and racial violence. So that takes us to the 1970s. I doubt that it was when we were suffering devastating stagflation and seeing our hostages being paraded in front of the cameras. So that takes us to 1980. We’re left with the Reagan-Bush years. Is Obama yearning for Morning in America? Many conservatives remember that period with nostalgia; does Obama share that feeling? No, certainly not the 1980s, that decade of greed.
Or is he talking about the Clinton years? Was that the time when we were what we could be? Why then run against Hillary Clinton? And that was a time when we were supposedly being divided by bitter partisanship. Is he yearning for the time when the Republicans controlled Congress? The days of impeachment? Or is he thinking about when we had our heads in the sand regarding the growing development of Al Qaeda terrorism? If that was the one period in our time when we were what we could be, then wouldn’t he have wanted to put that team back in the White House? And we know that he isn’t talking about the Bush years. So what was he talking about?
This matches up with some of the things his wife has said. His wife thinks that we are a “downright mean” country.
Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”
We can narrow down when that better time was as far as his wife is concerned. She says it’s gotten worse over her lifetime and she’s 44. I’m still trying to figure out when in the past 44 years she thinks that it was better. Ed Morrissey reminds us of some other remarks that Michelle Obama has said that indicated her dislike of this country. It now seems that her husband shares some of that disdain. Or does he? She’s also said that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud of America because America had the good sense to vote for her husband. So does she think that we’re now being what we could be? Or was her childhood during the 1960s and 70s that time when America was so good. It’s all very confusing.
As Jennifer Rubin says, this remark wasn’t a gaffe, but a theme.
But really, it is not just a matter of an off-the-cuff remark. (By the way can you imagine that if Joe Biden is selected as VP he might actually be the less gaffe-prone of the two?) That gloomy assessment and glum world outlook is essential to his message. Remember: if the country is not in dire straits then no ordinary, experienced politician will do. We have to throw away the playbook, take a leap of faith and elect the One Who Is Like No Other. So of course everything must be worse than before — why else would we need Him?
You know, this wasn’t a tough question. She was asking him why he wanted to be president. Ever since Roger Mudd flummoxed Teddy Kennedy, candidates have known how to answer that question. He could have talked about the challenges that our country faces and how he wanted to lead us to a better tomorrow. He was given an opening to talk about how much he loves this country and wants to serve it. If he had to return to his usual solipsism, he could have talked about how proud he is to be the first candidate of a mixed racial heritage to be nominated by a major political party and how far we have come from our grim racial history and how he is looking forward to leading the country as we continued our progress.
Many liberals supporting Obama’s campaign probably don’t see anything wrong with Obama’s reply. But those aren’t the people he needs to convince. If he’s worry about those bitter, clinging voters who voted for Hillary in the primaries, this sort of talk isn’t going to win them over.
And I hope that one day, some reporter, or maybe just another seven-year old child, will ask him. When exactly were those golden, halcyon days? What are all those qualities that he believes represent what we can be and what we once were? And when exactly was that period in American history when we satisfied all those criteria? I hope that those journalists or townhall participants at Obama events who will be trying to think of what questions to ask Obama if they get the opportunity will consider asking him when we were what we could be and if we were waiting for the change that we would be today back then? It all is very confusing, but I’m sure that he can deconstruct it for us.
Russians bomb Georgian city
posted at 11:40 am on August 9, 2008
Wouldn’t this constitute a war crime, if deliberate? The Russians dropped bombs on the city of Gori today, killing civilians, while announcing that they had taken the capital of South Ossetia back from Georgia. Meanwhile, the US struggles to find a response that will contain the aggression and hostilities, but Georgia has war on its mind:
Russian air attacks over northern Georgia intensified on Saturday morning, striking two apartment buildings in the city of Gori and clogging roads out of the area with fleeing refugees.
Russian authorities said their forces had retaken the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, from Georgian control during the morning hours. They reported that 15 Russian peacekeepers and 1,500 civilians have been killed in the conflict.
Georgian forces shot down 10 Russian combat planes over the last two days, according to Alexander Lomaya, secretary of the Georgian National Security Council.
Shota Utiashvili, an official at the Georgian Interior Ministry, called the attack on Gori a “major escalation,” and said he expected attacks to increase over the course of Saturday. He said some 16 Russian planes were in the air over Georgian territory at any given time on Saturday, four times the number of sorties seen Friday.
The US received howls of criticism for its targeted strikes on insurgents who deliberately hid among civilians in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Even Barack Obama criticized American tactics in the latter, saying that all we were doing was “air raiding villages and killing civilians”. Israel got the same criticism during its war with Hezbollah, which also hid among civilians.
So when will we hear criticism from Obama, MoveOn, and the rest of the critics over these tactics by Russia? Georgia is fielding a uniformed army, clearly identifiable and operating under command of the state. Why does Russia need to bomb civilian centers under these conditions?
The US, meanwhile, has tried talking with both sides, but unsurprisingly have not gotten far with either. Georgia claims that Russia started the war by supporting the separatist attacks and then escalated with their own attacks on Georgia proper; Russia claims that they are only fulfilling their role as peacekeepers and would stop if Georgia withdraws from South Ossetia. The Russians claim that the US got taken aback by Georgia’s actions, praising our efforts to defuse the crisis but noting that those efforts proved fruitless.
Update: Here’s the video of Obama ripping American tactics in Afghanistan
America will wait with bated breath his swift and merciless condemnation of Russian tactics.
To the Russians, the Georgians are terrorists. And if the Russian response of using war planes to bomb civilians in order to fight these terrorists is a war crime, then Israel has been committing these war crimes for decades. Bush is calling for an end to this violence, but gives $3 000 000 000 per year (plus weapons, plus “loans”) to Israel to continue its violent hegemony in the Middle East. This is hypocrisy at its finest.
GOD BLESS ISRAEL. Maybe some day Israel will make glass of the lands of their barbaric & backwards & lunatic neighbors.
So JT, who are you cheering for in this war?
“What is most striking about the crisis is how strongly it recalls the bad old days of the Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin has cast aside any pretense of having given up the reins of power, and is directing the Russian Army. Here is how Pravda is covering the conflict:
War between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from USA:
Russian officials believe that it was the USA that orchestrated the current conflict. The chairman of the State Duma Committee for Security, Vladimir Vasilyev, believes that the current conflict is South Ossetia is very reminiscent to the wars in Iraq and Kosovo.
Russia: Again Savior of Peace and Life:
The international community collectively held their breath waiting for the reaction of Russia after the savage, brutal, criminal attack by Georgia on South Ossetia. After having offered a cease fire in hostilities, the back stabbing Georgians immediately violated the cease fire, invading South Ossetia and causing massive destruction and death among innocent civilians, among peacekeepers and also destroying a hospital. …
Georgian troops attempted to storm the city [Tskhinval] much as Hitler‘s Panzer divisions blazed through Europe. Also noteworthy is the fact that Georgian tanks and infantry were being aided by Israeli advisors, a true indicator that this conflict was instigated by outside forces. …
Relating what has become common practice among war criminals, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reported: “A Russian humanitarian convoy has come under fire. Panic is growing among the local population, and the number of refugees is increasing. There are reports of ethnic cleansing in some villages… The situation is ripe for a humanitarian catastrophe.”
The two-faced, underhanded foreign policy of Georgia:
Ask anyone in the Caucasus region, and they will tell you never to trust a Georgian because they would shake your hand with a smile and then stab you in the back. On Friday morning, we saw a perfect example of this treachery, when hours after declaring a ceasefire, Georgian military units launched a savage attack on the civilians of South Ossetia.
Hours after Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili, the pro-western Washington-backed anti-democratic stooge (attacks on opposition policians in Georgia are rife) declared a unilateral ceasefire, the Georgian army lanched a savage attack on the capital of the province of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, with tanks and infantry, while the air force bombed a village and strafed a Russian humanitarian aid convoy.”
SO:
We appear to be witnessing the resurrection of the Brezhnev era. If so, the news is ominous indeed, for if Vladimir Putin looks like the second coming of Leonid Brezhnev, Barack Obama looks equally like the second coming of Jimmy Carter, whom Brezhnev treated as a lackey. Today the Obama and McCain campaigns both put out statements on the Russian invasion. Politico’s Ben Smith contrasts them:
While Obama offered a response largely in line with statements issued by democratically elected world leaders, including President Bush, first calling on both sides to negotiate, John McCain took a remarkably — and uniquely — more aggressive stance, siding clearly with Georgia’s pro-Western leaders and placing the blame for the conflict entirely on Russia.
In case that wasn’t clear, he adds: “McCain’s initial statement…put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bush’s first term.”
In another weird echo of the Brezhnev years, Obama adviser Mark Brzezinski– Zbigniew’s son–said, “It’s both sides’ fault — both have been somewhat provocative with each other.” Sure. Just like the Czechs provoked the Germans in 1938.
The Russians, needless to say, are not neutral as between McCain and Obama. Ben Smith recounts that their Washington public relations firm contacted reporters to remind them that McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann has lobbied for Georgia. Unbelievably, the Obama campaign aligned itself squarely with Vladimir Putin, putting out a statement that echoed the Russian PR firm’s:
“John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser lobbied for, and has a vested interest in, the Republic of Georgia and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government,’ said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan.
In the common sense-free world of Barack Obama, advocating for a fledgling democracy that is trying to align itself with the West and is threatened by the imperial aspirations of Russia constitutes a “conflict of interest.”
The McCain camp responded with this statement:
The Obama campaign’s attacks on Randy Scheunemann are disgraceful. Mr. Scheunemann proudly represented a small democracy that is one of our closest allies in a very dangerous region. Today, many are dead and Georgia is in crisis, yet the Obama campaign has offered nothing more than cheap and petty political attacks that are echoed only by the Kremlin. The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn’t merely raise questions about Senator Obama’s judgment–it answers them.
The American people once elected Jimmy Carter to defend their interests against Leonid Brezhnev. It will be interesting to see whether they are willing to do it again.
So martha or percy is back, I actually missed your humor. People like you are the reason debating was so easy for me in university.
“GOD BLESS ISRAEL. Maybe some day Israel will make glass of the lands of their barbaric & backwards & lunatic neighbors.”
is a fine way to rebut,
“To the Russians, the Georgians are terrorists. And if the Russian response of using war planes to bomb civilians in order to fight these terrorists is a war crime, then Israel has been committing these war crimes for decades. Bush is calling for an end to this violence, but gives $3 000 000 000 per year (plus weapons, plus “loans”) to Israel to continue its violent hegemony in the Middle East. This is hypocrisy at its finest.
BTW, if Bush had listened to Carter’s Zbigniew Brzezinski instead of Nixon’s Henry Kissinger, the US wouldn’t be in Iraq. And I just won another debate.
So Olbermann Expelled Milbank for “Distorting” Obama, when will Olbermann Expell Himself for Distorting the Truth?
August 10, 2008 – 03:23 ET
When Washington Post columnist and, until recently, regular Countdown guest Dana Milbank used an edited quote from Barack Obama that was arguably a distortion of the Illinois Senator’s words, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann suspended Milbank from appearing on his show insisting Milbank correct his transgression against the Democratic presidential candidate.
But if Olbermann’s MSNBC bosses held him to the same standard, the Countdown host himself would have been suspended numerous times during the past four years if he were required to correct either distortions of people’s words or his reporting of stories that turned out to be inaccurate. But while in Milbank’s case the Washington Post columnist’s infraction was against a liberal target in Obama, Olbermann has primarily targeted conservatives. Notably, while it is no secret that Olbermann is very pro-Obama as he conducts his show, on the June 26 show, Olbermann came closest to admitting he hopes Obama becomes President as he defended the Illinois Senator’s decision to vote for a FISA bill opposed by the left. Olbermann: “If you get as hot about the issue as I have, you would rather see a President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally, rather than a Senator Obama throwing away a vote to keep open the civil suits when most of the other Democrats already caved in.”
In October 2004, the MSNBC host used selectively edited clips of Vice President Cheney to make it appear Cheney had argued that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks as a justification for the Iraq invasion.
In 2005, Olbermann accused FNC’s John Gibson and talk radio host Janet Parshall of sounding like terrorists from “an al-Qaeda show” as Olbermann distorted Gibson’s remarks about the American tradition of majority religions tolerating minority religions.
On Jay Leno’s show in 2006, Olbermann accused FNC host Bill O’Reilly of defending the Nazis from World War II because of O’Reilly’s mixup of the events of the Malmedy massacre. Olbermann: “On the air in the last year, Bill O’Reilly has defended the Nazis from World War II on three separate occasions. … Yes, I wish I were making this up.” Further explanation can be found here.
This past July, Olbermann picked up on an incorrect account from a liberal blogger which claimed that O’Reilly accused Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of trying to evade the state income tax of Florida, with O’Reilly being embarrassed at being corrected by his own guest, conservative columnist John Fund. In reality, O’Reilly had not made this accusation at all, as the FNC host had actually pointed out that Florida has no state income tax, and that Wexler was using Florida as his address for tax purposes even though he lives in Maryland. The liberal blogger in question corrected her account of the exchange on her Web site, but Olbermann never corrected the error on his show.
Also in July, Olbermann used a sloppily worded statement about Islamic terrorism by an 83-year-old decorated veteran, retired Colonel Bud Day, a John McCain supporter, to paint McCain as agreeing with what the MSNBC host referred to as Day’s “racism and religious hatred.”
Olbermann slammed McCain: “And you heard him [Day]: John agrees with him. As of tonight, John’s campaign has refused to repudiate Day’s racism and religious hatred. Maybe John needs to get rid of this clown but fast. Bud ‘The Muslims are Going to Kill Us’ Day, today’s ‘Worst Person in the World.'”
Olbermann did not inform viewers that a McCain campaign spokesperson, as was reported that day by Fox News, “said Day intended to say ‘Islamic extremists’ — an important distinction as some Muslims feel inappropriately discriminated against since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”
In December 2006, the MSNBC host, likely picking up on a report by the liberal Media Matters for America, seized on a date mixup by O’Reilly to accuse the FNC host of lying about comments O’Reilly had made in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion from April 2003.
O’Reilly bragged that he had voiced the need for tough martial law early on to keep order in Iraq, but had misstated the date of his prediction as “the night that Saddam’s statue fell” when, in fact, it was a mere two nights later (April 11, 2003, instead of April 9). But instead of entertaining the possibility of a date mixup, Olbermann called O’Reilly a “holy-you-know-what-liar.”
Olbermann has also hinted that O’Reilly’s concerns about a “War on Christmas” by secularists are motivated by anti-Semitism, once joking about O’Reilly supporting a “war against Hanukkah.” In December 2006, while reporting on the controversial decision of the Seattle-Tacoma Airport to remove its Christmas trees from public view rather than display a Menorah, Olbermann joked: “Generalissimo O’Reilly remains upbeat. Look not on this as a defeat in the war on Christmas. This was a dramatic victory in Billow’s new war against Hanukkah.” Ironically, less than 20 minutes earlier on The O’Reilly Factor, the FNC host had spoken approvingly of displaying a Menorah at the airport as he interviewed the rabbi who had requested it.
In September 2006, Olbermann condemned President Bush for an awkwardly worded, off-the-cuff remark made by the President during a news conference that it is “unacceptable to think” the actions of America can be compared to those of terrorists. Not catching on to the President’s likely meaning that it is “ridiculous to claim” the actions of America are similar to those terrorists, Olbermann blew it out of proportion as if the comment were an attack on the right to think, and therefore a grave threat to democracy. Referring to a favorite topic of his, George Orwell’s 1984, he attacked Bush’s words as “chilling.” Olbermann: “‘It’s unacceptable to think.’ Sounds like something straight out of George Orwell’s 1984. Instead, it was something straight out of George Bush’s mouth. … And not only issuing those chilling words, ‘It’s unacceptable to think,’ but doing so in answer to the call to conscience from his own former Secretary of State, Colin Powell.”
In January 2006, after O’Reilly complained that the “network newscasts” had ignored the story of a Vermont judge who initially sentenced a child rapist to only 60 days in jail, Olbermann argued that because his Countdown show on MSNBC had covered the story, that O’Reilly’s statement was false, even though “network newscasts” would only included ABC, CBS and NBC newscasts, not cable news.
In November 2005, after Vice President Cheney gave a speech charging that the Associated Press had misrepresented an earlier speech in which he had attacked Democratic Senators who had accused President Bush of lying about pre-war intelligence, Olbermann characterized Cheney’s complaint as “vitriol” toward the media. The Countdown host proceeded to distort Cheney’s words himself, even editing the Vice President’s words in mid-sentence, to prove his contention that Cheney’s complaints about the AP were unfounded.
Time and again, Olbermann has demonstrated his unwillingness to let facts get in the way of a good hit job.
Yet Mr. Turley continues to go on his show! Why I must ask? How much does Olbermann pay his guests?
I suspect Mr. Turley shows up on Countdown for the same reason you show up on this blog, you’re ALLOWED. Where FOX doesn’t allow free thought, if you don’t speak in unison with President For Life Murdoch, you’ve got to go.
And welcome back and Happy Tisha B’Av.
Zakimar: you must be lost again.
Keith Olbermann on Countdown NEVER allows opposing viewpoints whereas Hannity, Oreilly, and every other Fox opinion show relishes in having opposing views on to debate.
Additionally, the word on MSNBC is that Mr. Turley will NOT appear on any news opinion show where he will be challenged in a debate style forum, so that is why he almost never appears on any TV show except for Countdown.
Keith Olbermann fears having a debate style show because it would show his opinions have zero credibility and his “facts” are lacking whereas the Fox news opinion shows, again as I said earlier, RELISH in have opposing views because they KNOW it raises ratings. Olbermann still does not even have as many prime time viewers as Orerilly’s late night RERUN!
I remember how Billo “relished” having the son of a 911 victim on his show; he’s truly a class act.
And Clan Rallies and WWE draw more people than Shakespeare in the Park and Aida. Popular doesn’t mean Good or Right.
martha:
“Additionally, the word on MSNBC is that Mr. Turley will NOT appear on any news opinion show where he will be challenged in a debate style forum, so that is why he almost never appears on any TV show except for Countdown.”
***************
Right again, martha h. As we all know most lawyers, especially law professors who do trial work, run from a good debate.
Do you read your comments before you hit “submit,” or do you at least have the night nurse read it to you before she ties own the restraints?
Mespo and Zakimar,
I really wish Mr. Turley would find out which Insane Asylum martha, russ, percy and toby are living at, so he can tell the doctors in charge to make sure that these people are being monitored for drug usage, because the tripe they find to post here must be coming from the mind of a user of LSD or Crystal Meth or Heroin(Bush’s choice of drug, as I recall).
I know that both McCain and Obama has their positive and negative aspects (I’ve seen McCain on “Saturday Night Live” reruns on YouTube, and I must admit he is a very funny comedic actor), (and Barack Obama knows how to give a speech and draw a crowd to listen to him, like no one else has since Bill Clinton was President).
But as far as Keith Olbermann’s show and Bill O’Lielly’s ‘show’ there is NO comparison. I would much rather spend my time watching Keith Olbermann tell the Truth about this clown in the White House, even if he gets very emotional at times; because what he is reporting IS True, not like O’Lielley’s racist and Neo-Con viewpoints. (O’Lielley should really go back to reporting rumors and half-truths on shows like “Current Affair” or at least admit to his audience that he is really a comedian–a la, “we report, you decide” tripe. Everyone knows that Fox is a Neo-Con Right Wing station that wouldn’t know the Truth if it came and bit everyone there on their asses.)
Martha, Percy, russ and toby:
“Hasta la vista”
(Another Old Spanish Saying)
Hi Mary Leon; I don’t know who toby is and I don’t bother responding to people who use profanity (another debate disqualifier), but I enjoy reading martha/russ. You can tell that some people like JMark and percy just ‘phone it in’, but that/those other person(s) make a point, albeit an erroneous one.
Obama’s 3 AM Breakfast: Waffles
posted at 10:25 am on August 10, 2008
Barack Obama has apparently reversed himself on what John McCain called a 3 AM moment, in reference to Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign ad. Originally, Obama had decided to castigate both Georgia and Russia over the outbreak of hostilities in South Ossetia, even while Russian bombs fell on Georgia itself. Today, Obama has changed his tune, following McCain’s lead in demanding that Russia cease its aggression:
Obama called for direct talks among all sides and said the United States, the U.N. Security Council and other parties should try to help bring about a peaceful resolution.
“I condemn Russia’s aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire,” Obama said in a statement.
“Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia.”
Here’s his original statement:
“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”
McCain responded sooner than Obama and with a great deal more accuracy:
Today news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally-recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave.
The government of Georgia has called for a cease-fire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The US should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course it has chosen. We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.
McCain obviously took time to determine first that Russia had indeed attacked Georgia before demanding restraint from the victim. It’s apparent that McCain has a better grasp of the situation and understood its ramifications as events unfolded. Obama issued a boilerplate statement that generically demanded that everyone start getting along, and had to modify his stance as his 300 foreign-policy advisers had a chance to tutor him on the conflict.
I’d rather vote for the man who gets it right and has spent years studying foreign affairs, warfare, and American strategic needs than the man who makes it up as he goes along. McCain is right; this was a 3 AM moment, and Obama proved himself unprepared and unsuited to answer the call.
martha:
Yawnnnnnnnnn….
GOD BLESS GW BUSH.
GOD BLESS JOHN MCCAIN.
Barack Obama is a piece of crap.
Fear and loathing … in the Democratic Party
posted at 12:00 pm on August 10, 2008
Barack Obama has twiced smeared John McCain and the Republican Party as racist and fearmongering — but perhaps that may be better explained as projection. The Atlantic plans to publish internal memos from the Hillary Clinton campaign in its September edition, and Politico reports that a campaign strategy of xenophobia didn’t come from the GOP. The Clinton campaign suggested painting Obama as un-American:
Mark Penn, the top campaign strategist for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, advised her to portray Barack Obama as having a “limited” connection “to basic American values and culture,” according to a forthcoming article in The Atlantic.
The magazine reports Penn suggested getting much rougher with Obama in a memo on March 30, after her crucial wins in Texas and Ohio: “Does anyone believe that it is possible to win the nomination without, over these next two months, raising all these issues on him? … Won’t a single tape of [the Reverend Jeremiah] Wright going off on America with Obama sitting there be a game ender?” …
Penn, the presidential campaign’s chief strategist, wrote in a memo to Clinton excerpted in the article: “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”
Hammering Obama on Jeremiah Wright? Looking for video of the Obamas nodding approvingly to Wright’s demagoguic tirades on race and America? It didn’t start with the Republicans at all; it started with the Clintonites. Furthermore, the Clintonites apparently agreed with Republicans in their assessment of Obama and his long-time association with anti-American radicals like Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn. They concluded that Obama is “not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”
Democrats came to that conclusion long before Republicans even worried about Obama. In March 2007, Penn warned Clinton’s team to focus on values-based voters, women, and working- to middle-class families. That strategy finally got adopted in February 2008, when it was just a little too late to help, but Penn saw Obama’s flaws very clearly even in the early stages of the race.
It will have one effect, and that’s to put the race card out of reach for Barack Obama. He can’t call McCain a racist and a fearmonger again without first pointing the finger publicly to the Clintons, who obviously went a lot farther than McCain would ever countenance along those lines. (McCain all but forbid the mention of Jeremiah Wright by his campaign or surrogates.)
This could also rip the veneer of inclusionism off of identity politics and expose it for the tribalism that it is. These memos and the Democratic infighting demonstrate the corrosiveness of identity politics and its eventual outcome — division, bitterness, and loss. That will help improve American politics in the long run as we focus on ideas and philosophy, and not the color of skin, internal plumbing, or ethnicity of our great-grandparents.
Mark Penn is a Zionist, like so many others in the Clinton Administration (I could list Several Dozens of names), who naturally feels that ALL Black people are inferior. But just because the Clintons are racists, doesn’t mean racism from McCain should thus be excused.
I honestly couldn’t say who I think would have a more Zionist/racist Administration, Bill Clinton or McCain, but Hillary Clinton would have won, hands down. The only reason to prefer McCain over Obama is that McCain is much more likely to demoralize the US Military and bankrupt the country and thus make the US a far less dangerous country in the future.
I hope you give McCain eight years to prove me right.
I wonder what you Republickans will say when Bush and Cheney are outed…Not that they’re gay, but they are outed as a pair of liars who started a war based on LIES…
They’ve been outed long ago. And the response was that it’s the fault of the “intelligence” and the Democrats. And to make sure it doesn’t happen again, give McCain a try.
BTW, a lot of them are closet queens (see Giuliani) and they are so upset with Clinton and Edwards because they were cheating on their wives with WOMEN.
zakimar:
Don’t forget Sen. Larry “the toetapper” Craig, and the “holier than thou NOT” Minister Ted Haggard. The both of those ‘conservative’ fellows have been outed, too. (I must admit that Giuliani does look better in drag. LOL)
I’m kind of nervous to see McCain get elected. I think the run of the Republickan agenda is nearing an end, so there won’t be much more of this “Project for the New American Century” of taking over the world. BUT McCain wants to invade Iran. I just know it. And if he is elected he will 100% certainly bomb Iran and help Israel attack Tehran. If this happens, then the United States will end up being a burned-out civilization. I don’t want that to happen in my lifetime, and neither do Millions of my fellow citizens.
I really believe that those who come here and bless Bush and all that are either too stubborn to admit Defeat, or have a couple of loose screws in their brains that need fixing NOW. They would rather God bless an evil man like Bush instead of praying for their fellow man/woman in the world, that we do not cause any more bloodshed based on LIES like Bush has done in Iraq.
I haven’t been in the US since early 2003, before the attack on Iraq, and I miss it a little. I remember how the average American treated me just fine UNTIL I mentioned my name – well over half stopped talking to me immediately and walked away. I still wouldn’t feel safe in the US under Obama, unless he also changed policy for the Government staff that enforces the laws. Some of my friends and business contacts think I’m joking when I first tell them about the behavior of most of the Americans I’ve met while in the States, and that I’m worried that some Zionist like Emerson, Kromberg etc. at the border will give me a one way ticket to Guantanamo.
I’ve been to over a dozen States and I especially loved California, Delaware (the 0% sales tax was a bonus) and Virginia. So maybe in the 5th year of an Obama Presidency, I’ll be back. Until then, it’ll have to talk to decent Americans such as you, via e-mail.
zakimar:
As far as I’m concerned, you or anyone else are welcome to come to the United States, to visit, to live, to raise your families, to bring your friends and loved ones. This is a country of Immigrants, and All are Welcome.
It’s idiots and racists, like martha, percy, russ and toby, who do not want to welcome anyone who isn’t a lilywhite, Neo-Con. Well, they know where they’re heading when this lifetime is over. They can stay in Hell with the other racist KKKs. Why they think that the United States belongs only to them and their kind is so idiotic, it’s beyond the knowledge of mortal man.
I’ve been to California, too, and I loved it. That’s where I’ve always wanted to live, but it’s too expensive there to even try and find a place to live, let alone find a job.
Right after September 11th, my husband was out for a walk, minding his own business, when a white man came over and pushed him into the street; almost making him get hit by a car. The man called my husband a “towel head” (a very nasty term used for people who wear turbans) and told him to go back to Africa (why he told him that, I’ll never know). My husband, as I’ve mentioned before, is from Mexico and is a beautiful man, with black hair (now with gray streaks), dark brown eyes and brown skin. Some of his friends who are also from Mexico, were treated very rudely right after September 11th, too. Now, no one really says anything to him. But he does get occasional dirty looks from those who think they are better than everyone else (people like martha, percy, russ and toby).
Most people I know are friendly, but there are a few in my family, and those who used to be my friends, until I married my husband and became “persona non grata”, who don’t like anyone who isn’t like them–white married to white. If I wanted that I would never have married my husband. But I figure I have One Life to Live and I’m going to choose to be happy with the man I love, and not conform to my family’s idea of a marriage. And so far, after 28 years of marriage, I’ve come out the Big Winner. And a few of my cousins who married the same, are now divorced. So, it all depends on Who you Love, not what he/she looks like or how they were brought up, or how they speak.
Unfortunately, it probably will take at least 5 years, maybe longer, for Barack Obama to find out all the mess that Bush has left for him to clean up. There are presidential directives and signing statements Bush issued in secret, that still have yet to see the light of day. If I am right, I believe that Bush has tried to sell us and our country to the highest bidder. Bush has done to us what Hitler tried to do to Germany–take over and make a political party of rich, and make the rest of us pay for all their adventures and mistakes. That’s why I still can’t figure out why Anyone would support John McCain or even ADMIT to being a Republickan. That is one mystery I’ll Never understand…
Barry Obama is unelectable.
Even the liberal media is sick of him and poking fun at him tonight having his Hawaii vacation strolling on the beaches as we have a world crisis.
Oh well, it could have been worse, you could have nominated John Edwards!!!!!!! Say, did you know Edwards is married?
I heard that when McCain was told that Georgia had been attacked, he asked if it was the Union Army or the Injins. When he was reminded what century he was now in, he called Chertoff to see if he could connect this second attack on the US to Iran. When told that this was not the US Georgia, he asked if it was near Czechoslovakia or the Iraq/Pakistan border. The SS (Secret Service) then confiscated his Lithium and Viagra, gave him some warm milk and told him Gran’ma would come by to tuck him in. FOUR MORE YEARS!
Mary Leon; Good for you for doing what you felt was right in spite of the racists. I was once given some great advice, “Fight words with words, fists with fists, guns with guns and bombs with bombs” and “Let people say what they want, but if they put a hand on your family, put them in the grave”. I’m a firm believer of those sayings, because my father is a wise man. To me, insults from the ignorant, Zionists, bigots and plain stupid are like a compliment from an intelligent friend. Since I am more ‘white’ then most of the inbred I used to meet in the States that treated me ‘reel good like’, until I mentioned my name, I often got to listen to what these people really thought and it wasn’t pretty (or intelligent for that matter). My oldest daughter has hair like the sun and eyes like the sky, so she’ll do well when/if she goes to the States for University, but I’m sure I’ll have to tell her NOT to mention her religion until after she graduates.
Maybe President Obama can change things a bit, but don’t hold your breath.
Today Senator Barry Obama as well as New Mexico Gov. Richardson called for the United Nations Security Council to vote to demand Russia stop its aggression against Georgia.
I guess Barry Obama forgot who the UN Security Council is comprised of:
The French Republic
The People’s Republic of China
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The United States of America
and of course,
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Unbelievably Barry Obama today was asking the RUSSIAN FEDERATION to vote to DEMAND the RUSSIAN FEDERATION cease it’s aggression against Georgia!
Unbelievable. Something so stupid I only thought Keith Olbermann would do it, but the Democratic nominee for the Office of President of the United States said it. Just goes to show you that between Barry Obama, John Edwards the sleazeball, and Hillary I never saw those files Clinton, the Democratic party has a tough time finding anyone with character.
No more stupid than trying to pass a Resolution that seeks to help the Palestinians or reign in Israel and which consistently gets almost unanimous approval but is ALWAYS VETOED by the USA.
Maybe, one day the country could do the right thing?
Also, how Britain, France and the US continue to be Permanent Members on the SC and Germany, Japan and India aren’t, I’ll never understand. No country should have veto power. Make it a requirement to get 75, 80, or even 90%, but to let one or two countries dictate to the World is archaic.
Obama Calls for UN to Pass Resolution Condemning Russia, Forgets Russia Has UNSC Veto
Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:55:12 pm PDT
An astoundingly bone-headed statement from Barack Obama today, as he calls for the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Georgia.
Memo to the Obama campaign: Russia has veto power in the United Nations Security Council.
lgf BLOG
ZAKIMAR: TO HELL WITH THE UNITED NATIONS.
YOU CAN HAUL THE WHOLE THING LOCK STOCK AND BARREL TO YOUR TWO BIT LITTLE COUNTRY AND LET THE CORRUPT UN “DIGNITARIES” WELCH OFF YOUR COUNTRY FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.
ENJOY.
martha h/percy:
The world is indeed a strange and mysterious place for you two, and your naiveté is breath-taking. Follow along now: The purpose of such a resolution is to force a vote and compel the offending party to veto it to save it’s rumpus. That tends to make the veto-er a pariah among the other members–something I suspect both of you know more than a little about.
The same tactic was used by the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis when then US UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson courageous said he would wait “until Hell freezes over” for a reply from USSR Ambassador Zorin concerning the photographic proof that the missiles did in fact exist. “The embarrassment of public indictment was instrumental in forcing the Soviets to remove the missiles.”
You too remind me of something else Adlai Stevenson said when attacked by another know-noting who opposed the UN. After being struck by a placard wielding Cretan in Dallas in 1963 barely a month before the Kennedy assassination, Stevenson said “I don’t want her to go to jail, I want her to go to school.”
Funny, I feel the same way!
The UN is only a tool much like Bush, McCain and many on this blog.
Much preferable to bombs however. Too bad Bush wasn’t dropped on Baghdad and Hussein on Washington. You’d have about 300 000 000 happy people and the UN could have called it a day.
As far as Russia provoking war with Georgia, that will have to be settled with either the UN Security Council threatening to kick out Russia, or the Russians and Georgians will have to split the disputed territory by either bloodshed or negotiations.
I don’t see Bush running to invade Georgia to help them kick out the Russians. I wonder why. Oh, I know. Georgia doesn’t have much to offer Bush in way of oil.
To the racists: percy martha, russ, toby:
Any time you make fun of me or condemn people that are ‘different’ from you, you are doing us a Great Favor, in that, when we get to Heaven we will have Extra rewards for being treated Rotten here on earth by people like you. Don’t think that Jesus approves of what you are doing. In fact, He is watching what you are doing and wondering why you are taking the side of Evil Republickans in the ways you are treating your brothers and sisters in this country and the world.
I may not like you kind of people, but I, too am a woman with blond hair and blue eyes, and I can’t believe what ‘you people’ first say to me when you think I’m ‘one of you’. Then the bomb drops when you see me with my husband. I’ve had ‘you people’ turn your backs on me and even deny me a right to own a home, once you’ve seen me and my sweetie; and I’ve even been called an ‘N***** Lover’, though why, I’ll never know. I may not like you, but I will always defend your right to live and be free.
Mary; I’m pretty sure all the people you mentioned are Jews or at least Zionists. If they are Jews, they couldn’t care less about what Jesus thinks or would say, because he is nothing more than a “self-hating” Jew to them and they’re still waiting for their Messiah. Keep in mind, Jews celebrate a Holiday in which they believe God MURDERED thousands of babies and children because one man was mean to them (I know people may think I’m making that up because it’s so blasphemous and ludicrous, but they call it Passover – look it up). If they are Christian Zionists (which I doubt), they believe Jesus would approve of the murder and oppression of millions of people in Palestine, because that is what’s required for Jesus to return.
So either ignore their mindless babble, or enjoy it as I do.
Video: Georgian president touts McCain’s solidarity in Tbilisi
posted at 7:00 pm on August 12, 2008
A nice moment, but much nicer still is who’s on stage with him here. Recognize the guy over his left shoulder? There are, I believe, five presidents of Russian satellite states on stage there — Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia — although Yushchenko’s the only one I know on sight.
McCain himself is calling out that endgame is near. Both sides have tentatively agreed to Sarkozy’s truce plan, but Georgia’s still objecting to some of the Russian demands. One of those demands, according to the Telegraph, is to make South Ossetia and Abkhazia a “buffer zone” from which all Georgian troops would be excluded, meaning the two areas would be de facto annexed by Moscow. Quote:
Observers believe Mr Saakashvili’s decision to move into South Ossetia last week followed about two weeks of provocation by Russian forces and their client militias. “Russia wanted to manoeuvre Saakashvili into a situation where he would be seen to be making the first move and then provide a pretext for Russian action,” said an observer.
WHAT WAS DISTURBING WERE THE NUMBERS OF LIBERALS THAT ARE NOW AGONIZING OVER THE RESPONSIBILITIES NATO MEMBERS HAVE IN THE EVENT MORE OF THESE SATELLITES DECIDE TO ASK TO JOIN NATO. THESE LIBERALS ARE FERVENTLY SAYING WE NEED TO CLOSE DOWN NATO MEMBERSHIP BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE TO TAKE ON RUSSIA IF THEY DECIDED ON EXPANDING THEIR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. SO IN THE LIBERAL WORLD, AS LONG AS LIBERALS ARE FREE, TO HELL WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD.
“Mary; I’m pretty sure all the people you mentioned are Jews or at least Zionists.”
Zak,
as far as I know neither percy, martha, russ, or toby are Jews and if they are frankly I’d want no part of them. However, you in your way are just as bigoted and wrong-headed as they are. While you’re casting anti-Jewish aspersions, how come Bandar Bush, is called that? Could it be that the whole Bush family is allied with the Saudi’s. Now if that is so, and it is, then are the Saudi’s secretly supporting Israel? If they’re not and I don’t think they are, why is it that you believe Bush and the Neo-Cons support Israel? Because some are Jewish. But then how is it that Jews are supporting Saudi’s. Perhaps this situation is a lot more complex than your pre-judgment filled mind can imagine. You, like many buy the propaganda, as Islamic people are financially and morally raped by their own leaders, while they chase an Israeli bogeyman.
While we’re talking about your last post and the First-born Egyptians being struck down, what were the Moors doing in Spain? How did the
Islam wind up in the Baltic, why did Charles Martel have to defeat them in Gaul? Was it because Islam was spread by the sword and by lust for imperialistic conquest. Doesn’t sound like such a gentle religion to me. Yes I know, you’re still angry about the myth of Jacob usurping Esau’s birthright. If you want to de-construct any religion you wind up in the same place. Islam is still split over who was the heir to the Prophet after 1,300 years.
It’s time for you to grow up, look beyond the propaganda and begin means people learning to resolve their differences and compromise to work for a better world. If you don’t you’ll just be the flip side of
percy, martha, russ, and toby.
The only thing that Israel and Saudi Arabia have in common is that both countries have dirty and corrupt governments that wouldn’t exist but for the meddling of the US.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world PERIOD. More people convert to Islam today – even in America, than any other religion. No one is forcing these people to become Muslim.
Most neocons are Jews and they couldn’t care less about the US, their main focus is ALWAYS Israel. Pelosi has discredited herself, her Party and Congress to protect Bush because he is helping Israel.
Okay, fellows, how about we just let this Israel/Islam thing take a rest?
One comment about this. As I recall in the Bible, after Abraham died, BOTH Isaac and Ishmael came together, as Brothers, to bury him. I know both Jews and Arabs, everyday people, and I and my family have been treated with respect by them…
As far as Georgia, McCain wants to help them overcome Russia. So now does that mean McCain wants to attack Russia? I hope not. How McCain can even think about that, what with his obsession with invading Iran, plus having the war in Afghanistan and Bush’s Invasion of Iraq; how the heck can he come up with all these US troops to fight all this? He’s an old man, who no longer can lead in battle, so he acts like he’s a brave man, but he will be sending our children, and maybe us, to wars, just because he wants to see the US in battle. I think he is so angry that the US lost in Vietnam and that he was left a POW for so long, that now he is wants to start wars, so maybe one may be a winner for our country. This man is the choice for the Republickans? Then let THEM go fight McCain’s wars!
Islam only grows by the threat of the sword.
If Islam was the true religion, GOD would not have cast it out from his bosom.
Repent Zakimar, you have been deceived by Satan. I pity your soul.
Former Muslim:
I rarely monitor or object to postings. However, your posting happened to catch my eye this evening. Frankly, I found your posting to Zakimar to be highly offensive and gratuitous. This site is dedicated to passionate but civil discourse. There are certainly many sites that allow and even welcome attacks on different religions. This is not one of them. We can have spirited debate over the actions and principles of different religions. We welcome debate regarding faith, politics, the law, and most every subject. However, attacking Islam or other religions in this way is unacceptable and I ask that you adopt a more productive and respectful approach to discourse on this blog.
JT
To: Johnathan Turley
Re: Illegal hiring of immigration judges.
There are still some very bad things going on. Can you take a moment to advise us?
My husband, John Holya, has been an immigration attorney with Dept. of Justice, now Homeland Security, for about thirty-two years. He applied for Immigration Judge and was then told he could not apply. He filed a lawsuit with EEO last year. He included testimony by Goodling and Gonzalez in his lawsuit. A few months ago, Administrative Judge Joel Kravitz at EEOC in Washington, DC ruled against him, despite overwhelming evidence.
John has worked in an extremely hostile environment since filing. He has pretty much been black-listed from any IJ jobs. John learned from the old school to practice law, not policy. Management does not appreciate that concept. After years of outstanding reviews he now gets poor reviews. He is currently on leave while a proposed suspension is being decided based on a medical problem.
The EEO Lawsuit:
John was a member of the Durnford Class action suit against the Agency and E.O.I.R several years ago
In Nov. 2005, John filed an application for IJ at Florence, AZ. In December, John’s application was returned to him with a letter from A.C.I.J. Owens that the E.O.I.R. only accepted applications for positions that were publicly announced. No announcement for an IJ vacancy at Florence was ever made public. About late June 2005 John learned of two IJ’s that were hired without any public announcements for political reasons, I J Nugent and IJ Nixon. Bruce Taylor was then hired as an IJ due to his political ties. Taylor had never practiced immigration law.
Pursuant to a Freedom of Information request John received an unsigned memo entitled “Immigration Judge Hiring Process.” The memo states that the hiring process ends with the Deputy Attorney General. It was also attached to a memo written by C.I.J. Creppy to his staff. It was attached after the Statement of Robert Owens who stated under oath he did not know how people were hired without an announcement.
All three witnesses interviewed by the E.E.O. investigator in April 2006, stated they did not know who the ultimate selecting official was. It strains credibility that the head of Human Resources, the Chief Immigration Judge’s special assistant and an A.C.I.J. would be unaware of this memo.
The E.E.O. investigator was told that James McNulty, Deputy Attorney General and Chief Immigration Judge Creppy had no part in the selection process. This is contrary to the memo dated February 3, 2005.
Solution request
John’s solution to this case was that he quickly be appointed to the Phoenix, AZ office as an immigration judge with back pay from the time Judge Taylor was hired and that another sum be distributed to him for compensation for lower retirement benefits.
Proposed Suspension:
On April 5th, John took a lunesta and while sleep-walking, attacked me. My son called the police. John has no recollection of the event. In our 34 years of marriage nothing like this has ever happened. I repeatedly told police there was no argument – it came from nowhere. Based on the arrest Pat Vroom, his boss – head of Phoenix ICE, wants him fired.
Prior Harassment:
John has worked in a hostile environment with Pat Vroom and Kimberly Shepard for several years. Their management style has resulted in a high turnover rate. They are especially hostile to older men. John’s co-worker, Art Resnick. retired rather than deal with the problems in the office. Naturally the stress from this situation caused undue stress to John and our family, including our health. People at work and in the private sector have told him to watch out because Vroom and Shepherd were after him. They emailed extremely derogatory and unprofessional emails to our home. Our son, who is a 1st Lieutenant in the Army, saw some of these emails and was shocked. Also, it does not help that it is well-known I worked on democratic campaigns in the past.
Over the last few years John has suffered numerous injuries from falling. He has been to countless doctors, including several neurologists. For several years the doctors only treated the symptoms with pain medicines. Last summer he became so crippled he could only walk a few steps without falling. Last year I went to his neurologist with him and with a written list of symptoms, including not sleeping well and 6-7 strange episodes of sleep-walking. He never remembered the sleep-walking incidences the next day. One time he got up at 2am, got dressed and was “going to the dentist.” Another time he dozed off and got up to go to work at 6pm.
Last fall 2007 they finally determined he suffered from “stenosis.” John put in for FMLA. It was difficult to get the doctors to write the forms – they kept passing it to another doctor. Pat Vroom became angry. She called us constantly and harassed us. She then sent three police cars to our home to check on him. I have a heart condition, was out gardening and when I saw them pull up, I thought something had happened to our youngest son. She used the excuse she was concerned, but a simple phone call to me would have sufficed. She then showed up at our home with an armed guard on the pretext of “helping him.” Rep Mitchell requested an investigation. It seems the office kept “losing the paperwork.” Finally they recommended John see EEO. It went nowhere as there are deadlines.
John started to see what we consider a better neurologist, Dr. Lauren. Then in the spring John hurt his shoulder when, yet again, he fell on the sidewalk at Ace. Along with the pain meds, they put him on a powerful steroid that caused him to gain weight. He also had been complaining about not sleeping for many months. John had many hours of sick time he could have used but Ms. Vroom made it so hostile for him that he feared the situation if he put in for FMLA again. The doctor set John up for sleep tests finally, but they would not take place until May. And of course the results would take a long time. I believe because of undue pressure he was forced to work when he needed to be healing. If Pat had not harassed him about FMLA he would have stayed home rather than go to work with barely enough sleep to keep him alive. He also stalled on the medical tests and doctor’s appointments because of her.
On the evening of April 5th, Saturday, I was watching Rome on HBO. John was also watching it in the master in his chair, the only one he could comfortably sit in in the house, due to injuries. He took a lunesta. Twenty minutes later he walked to where I was, the family room, with a strange gait and odd look on his face. He sat next to me and was babbling about the lack of a dowry. The scene about the girl’s dowry on Rome had just played. I was very concerned about his odd behavior. He then became violent. In 34 years of marriage he has never been violent before. It was incredulous.
I blame Pat fully. John is no more guilty of anything than if he had cancer. Many documents regarding lunesta, sleep-walking, and sleep apnea will prove this, along with statements from several doctors. He was since diagnosed with sleep apnea. Doctors have written prosecutors about his condition, sleep-walking and lunesta. However, his attorney and the prosecutor are finally going before a settlement judge, but not until sometime next month.
In the meantime he has been on paid leave. The union set up a conference call with Arthur E. Adams – Acting Director Field Legal Operations – West in Laguna Niguel, CA. last week. It sounded like Adams had not even read the paperwork. This man is going to decide whether John will be fired. If so we will quickly go bankrupt because we will probably not be able to maintain our mortgage while we try to sell our home. Our savings has gone to legal bills.
This last year has been a nightmare. We have a son going to Iraq in October to fight for a C student from Texas’ ego. He goes with the full knowledge his government has betrayed his father.
His EEO attorney has filed something to have it reviewed, but if they are Bush cronies like everyone else, we are doomed. My ancestor, Josiah Bartlett, first person to vote for the Declaration od Independence, is turning in his grave.
Sincerely
Judy Burke-Holya
Mr. Turley,
I totally agree with you about religions, and hope you will accept my apologies for some ‘spirited’ conversations I have had with some of the posters here.
I have sent a suggestion to Barack Obama’s website for you to be nominated for a position on the Supreme Court, if he becomes President. You know Everything from A to Z about the Constitution and you would be a fair and impartial decision maker for our country. I do hope you consider being a Supreme Court Judge, should the situation arise.
I enjoyed watching you tonight on “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann and always look forward to your comments and opinions!
Sincerely,
Mary Leon
Unlike some people including “Former Muslim” (and I think we all know who that is), Islam believes that God loves EVERYONE. And in his love, he has brought Prophets to ALL people. From Adam to Mohammed, there have been thousands of Prophets. Some of Gods children have chosen to ignore the Prophets and others accepted His messages.
I am thankful to have a father that taught me many religions in order that I may compare for myself. I am also thankful that as a Muslim, I am taught to accept Moses and Jesus as my Prophets as well. I would be a little worried, if on the Day of Judgment, I was asked why I ignored his Prophets and the best I could come up with was, “That’s what my parents told me”.
And thank you Dr. Turley for your comments on “Former Muslim”. I also thank you for not deleting that posting so that people have an opportunity to see how some people think. I gain a much greater appreciation for everything I have in life when I come across people that disagree with me.
zakimar:
I certainly agree with your inclusionary sentiments but take issue with one of your factual assertions. When you say that “Islam believes that God loves EVERYONE,” I must confess that is hard to square with much of the Qur’an or the Hadith. The following passages are just a couple (out of scores) of examples from each work showing a rather virulent dislike for non-believers and apostates:
“As for unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God’s judgment. They shall become fuel for the fire.”(Qur’an 3:12)
“Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, ‘Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.” (4:52:260 Hadith)
In fact all Sunni Muslim one major Shia Madh’hab agree that the punishment for apostasy is execution (“Murtadd”, Encyclopedia of Islam). This is not cherry picking and I can provide many more similar passages from the “unerring word of the Creator of the Universe” as those devoted to the Qur’an can attest. These rather barbaric notions stand in stark contrast to your beliefs, but I sincerely hope that your view might prevail despite considerable current evidence to the contrary.
I see you forgot to mention beliefs from your own religion. Since you seem to be a scholar of Scripture, perhaps you can recite some of what Jesus had to say about “the Hypocrites”.
The Koran is the word of God and is what a Muslim should follow. The Koran is full of numerous references to previous Prophets and the Bible. Just because other people, who claim to believe in God, chose to ignore His Word does not mean Muslims do the same.
To Jews, who believe in Moses, Jesus was a “false” Prophet as was Mohammed and to Christians, Mohammed was a “false” Prophet, Muslims believe in ALL three. I find perspective to be a good thing.
BTW, I have just begun to assume everything you say is untrue, but for people that might not want to bother to read the passage of the Koran to which you refer, it is, “Say to those who reject Faith (in God): Soon will ye be vanquished and gathered together to Hell, an evil bed indeed”! (Koran 3:12) I am not a religious scholar of mespos’s caliber, but the two verses are nothing alike, and I do recall that Jews and Christians also believe that those who reject God will end up in Hell.
I would advise all people to read the entire section, up to Surah 3:20, and see how God speaks of Believers being the ‘People of the Book’, which includes Jews and Christians.
Yet one more piece of propaganda or should I say “oversight” (to be polite) by mespo.
zakimar:
“I see you forgot to mention beliefs from your own religion. Since you seem to be a scholar of Scripture, perhaps you can recite some of what Jesus had to say about “the Hypocrites”.
*****************
I have no idea what you are referring to as anyone who has read my past comments knows, I have consistently criticized all religions and never expressed whether I am so inclined or not. I do acknowledge the utter foolishness and ruthlessness of some of the Christian Bible and I am sure there we would find substantial agreement. Unfortunately, some like you have a blinder for your own religion, and insist on wearing it on your sleeve as some badge of distinction. I have no trepidation calling you on your interpretations which contrasts sharply with your “sacred texts.” BTW my Qur’an edition does have the passage located at 3:12, but I am advised that other editions may have it either at that location or 3:10 or even 3:11.*
I am certain as you were researching my comment you conveniently missed my quotation adjacent to the one you cited, but I would expect nothing less from a “true believer.” I do note with interest your complete evasion of the central point which is that your contention that “Islam is love,” is decidedly contrary to the “unerring” text of both the Qur’an and the Hadith. On that point, “Former Muslim” and I agree though not his “over the top” commentary. I raise this with you because, given the standard punishment for apostasy, I would not want you anywhere near that line.
*Interested readers can find it for themselves in Chapter 3 at verse 11 at http://www3.alislam.org/index.jsp
Let us all remember the main two points of religion:
Believe in your God.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself (your neighbor is anyone–neighbor, stranger, the people down the street, the people on the other side of the planet, the good, the bad, the evil ones, the friend or enemy(those that deliberately do the work of the Devil).
This is the hardest thing to do–to love your enemy. I will admit I don’t like Bush and I especially don’t like Cheney, plus all of these people that post here who support the evil they have done in the world. But, we are supposed to do no harm to those who would want to harm us. An exception might be if someone would harm my husband or son, I would probably act out of reflex action and defend them both, instead of watching harm come to them. This is the most difficult thing to do, to try to love your enemy–but these people will one day have to face what they’ve done, and why they were allowed to do it, and face the people who died because of their deliberate decisions to do evil. The most I will ever do is to call them on it–to let them know they are hypocrites and doing the work of the Devil and that I hate what they have done and that innocent people have died because of their greed, selfishness and lust for power.
We’ll all find out this Truth when we meet one day in another place and time…
I am not surprised that two bigots would think alike. I am curious as to how many copies of the Koran you own, and which convenience store you picked them up. Maybe the version you found on the KKK site you frequent wasn’t entirely accurate.
AGAIN, what Islam dictates and what some people (like you) choose to believe are very different things. Last I checked, some Americans and Bush himself feel that your President is a GOOD Christian. I’m sure I don’t need your scholarly expertise to know that Jesus probably didn’t tell him to kill thousands of Muslims and hand their oil to US corporations.
Mary Leon:
I am now getting a clear read on zakimar’s calculus:
Religious skeptic = Bigot
Dispute Zakimar = Bigot or Zionist Jew
American = Zionist Jew
American Corporations = Zionist Front Organizations
Moderate Muslim w/ attitude = Good
Qur’an/Haddith = Divine word in some passages but not in others
I think with these definitions we can now proceed to discuss relevant topics with our Eastern friend. Why don’t you go first, and I’ll follow.
I agree on the point of loving thy neighbor, which both Christians and Muslims are supposed to believe, if not necessarily practice enough.
Unfortunately for some, the Truth will come way too late. I find ignorant people look for enemies and things to hate because they have nothing to love.
I, for one, do not wish to debate any further about religion, because not one religion being practiced today is perfect, since NONE of us are perfect.
Let’s just take a break, a long break about religions, and focus on what will be occurring in the coming weeks at the conventions in Denver and St. Paul. I’m looking forward to the Democratic convention and to hear Barack Obama give his acceptance speech and who he will choose as his Vice President; not too much the Republickan convention–but I do look forward to hearing John McCain speak and tell everyone how he plans on every country in the planet to be a Democracy–at the end of a gun if necessary; because he’s another ‘decider’ and ‘war is the only way to keep the peace’…
Who do you think are going to be the Senators’ picks for VP? I’m thinking Webb and Huckabee.
I believe that Barack Obama will choose either Webb, Biden, Hagel, or John Kerry for Vice President.
As far as John McCain, I believe he will choose either Romney, Huckabee, Liebermann, or Jeb Bush for his vice president.
zakimar:
“I find ignorant people look for enemies and things to hate because they have nothing to love.”
****************
Funny, I find “ignorant people” believe preposterous propositions on scant or nonexistent evidence and then bristle when others point that out. That’s why other people call them “ignorant”!
People who look for enemies are sociopathic or paranoid and generally despise classes of people rather than individuals on scant or nonexistent evidence like say for instance, Jewish people.
Must be a “lost in translation” type situation here.
Go in Peace my brother, you have no enemy here.
I’ve been reading reports on the Internet that Colin Powell may be endorsing Barack Obama as President instead of John McCain. Looks like some Republickans may be jumping ship and landing on the shores of success with Obama!
Hopefully, Powell will have enough courage to do so and speak at the Democrats’ Convention. I do applaud him for resigning even though he didn’t have the strength to stand up to Bush before that UN speech with his vial of corn starch.
Well, I made a mistake. Sorry about that.
Now it looks as though Colin Powell is NOT going to endorse Barack Obama; neither is he going to endorse John McCain. He now says he will wait until after both conventions to decide if he even wants to endorse anyone.
I still remember watching him when he was trying to push the UN to help invade Iraq. Powell didn’t even believe what was coming out of his own mouth. He knew after that UN speech that he was to be the ‘scapegoat’; the one to blame for the invasion of Iraq, and he was wise enough to leave the administration early.
I still hope he chooses to endorse Barack Obama. Obama is the only logical choice to bring the United States out of the ‘war business’ and start being a nation of ‘people’ again.
Has any US President in recent history made it through two terms without killing people? I hope Obama is different, but eight years with the Military Industrial Complex breathing down your neck is a long time.
I notice ever since Fox and CNN began to monopolize the news, I haven’t heard from Noam Chomsky, perhaps Dr. Turley can put in a good word next time he’s on MSNBC.
zakimar:
You are correct. Unfortunately, there isn’t any president in recent history who in some indirect or direct way hasn’t killed people.
The difference with Barack Obama and John McCain is that John McCain WANTS to keep the ‘war business’ going as long as possible.
Barack Obama knows he can’t shut off the ‘war business’ overnight, but he will not be basing his whole candidacy on ‘war’ like McCain.
I don’t understand why McCain is so gung-ho about seeing our young men and women killed, when he was a POW himself during Vietnam.
One reason McCain wants the ‘war business’ to keep on going is that he is somehow getting payback for being abandoned in Vietnam, and now HE will be the one to abandon US troops in Iraq, Iran, and who knows where. Another warped reason could be that McCain will be making a TON of money on the rebuilding contracts.
Either way, he’s so old he won’t be able to spend the money that his wife gets every month in interest; her being a beer distribution heiress, worth over $100 Million, let alone worry about spending kickbacks from Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater.
zakimar, quit throwing out your false maliciously intended “go in peace my brother, you have no enemy here” BS.
Cut the crap. You know it, we know it, everybody knows it. YOU are a religious indoctrinated NUTBALL.
I know that I shouldn’t take pleasure from it, but I’m glad that God willing, I’ll outlive both Bushes, both Clintons, McCain and Murdoch. I want to see how many people will have the courage to say how they really feel about those warmonger death merchants. A world free of all of them will make Satan almost as happy as most people on this planet.
Jesus advised that I turn my cheek, so that is what I’m doing. Once again, go in Peace my Brother.
TOBY (AKA zakimar) cut the crap. You got everybody really BELIEVING you are an islamic nutball! You really GOT to cut the play acting out or Mary Leon will be looking to date you!
Percy, russ, toby and martha:
So do you all follow Rush Limbaugh on the radio?
He said something so vile today that I hope you will call him on it, because it doesn’t belong with either Republic or Democratic ideas.
I won’t repeat it word for word, but basically Limbaugh said that John Edwards had an affair because his wife Elizabeth mainly could only nag with her mouth and do nothing else with it.
Very insulting to hear on the news that this Adulterer, Rush Limbaugh, would have the nerve to say something like this about Elizabeth Edwards, who has Incurable Cancer.
I would complain if someone said this about Hillary Clinton, Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama. It was very, very ugly and Rush should absolutely Apologize to Elizabeth Edwards, either in person, or in a hand-written letter with a sincere apology and a nice bouquet of flowers.
This kind of crude talk has NO Business in politics or being on public radio!
percy:
I am a Happily married woman and I don’t think I’ll ever love another man beside my husband. I’ve been married to him since I was 18 years old; I’m now 47 years old and am still in Love with him, maybe even more since the day we were married, because we’ve had to face many difficult situations caused by mean and evil people, and we’ve come through it all by sticking together.
If toby is faking being zakimar, that will be his burden to bear. But you sure do get emotional and all hyper about him posting. Are you sure YOU aren’t zakimar or toby? Not that it matters to me either.
I enjoy coming here to have serious debate, give an occasional yank on ‘the chain’ and to read other’s views. I don’t need to know who you all are or what your real names are.
I’m just glad that Mr. Turley allows us to have open discussions on his website.
But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. (Matthew 5:39)
…We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel: and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. (Koran 57:27)
As Jesus inspired both Muslims and Christians, I continue to follow his guidance. I have as many cheeks as you do hands, so go in Peace my brother.
Congratulations Mary; Hopefully your husband knows that next year is your PEARL anniversary.
zakimar: how deep is the sewage sludge in the street in your country? someday some american has to come over there and teach you about sewers and all that modern stuff.
zakimar: how deep is the sewage sludge in the street in your country? someday some american has to come over there and teach you about sewers and all that modern stuff.
Go in Peace my brother.
zakimar:
Yes, I know when my husband and I are married 30 years, the traditional gift is Pearls; the modern gift is Diamonds.
But guess what? I don’t need or want any of those gems or pearls. I only wear my wedding ring and some plain hoop earrings. That’s all I need. I don’t even know where my diamond engagement ring is anymore. I just don’t go for fancy jewelry, fancy cars or fancy clothes. I’ve always been like that. Just give me clean, comfortable clothes and a nice pair of shoes, and I’m happy. I HATE going to the malls to window shop. I only go to department stores when I have to buy something and I already know what it is. Why should I waste my time looking at stuff in malls that I know I’m not going to buy, nor can I afford to buy?
My son says I’m like a ‘dinosaur’ in that I don’t have to be wined and dined or have to have lots of clothes, shoes or jewelry to be happy, like his girlfriends all want. I’m a ‘homebody’ and only go out a few times per year to celebrate special occasions–birthdays and wedding anniversary. Since I rarely go out to dine, when I do, the event is especially happy, my son brings his digital camera to take photos and we all have a great time and the memories are always there to share.
One can only go out so many times for dinner and dancing, see movies, concerts or live stage. After that, you’re bound to get bored and tired of it; even if you have all the money in the world, it can’t buy you True Happiness.
I am a very different person than my family. I often wonder if I was dropped off at my parents’ doorstep when I was a baby. LOL
I’m the same way except for the cars. Since I bought my first German car, I can never go back to the North American stuff. I know it’s a “guy thing”, but with Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche and VW to choose from, I’m pretty sure your son will be coming home with one, preferably a stick (manual transmission).
Percy/peercy,
The sad thing is you actually think you’re witty with the sludge remark. If you knew anything about history you would know that Muslims were practicing sanitation, while Europeans were throwing excrement in the street. If you knew a little more history than that you’d know that in the Indian City of Mohenjo Daro circa 1,500 BCE, they had toilets, indoor plumbing and sewer systems that far surpassed anything in Europe or the US, until the 19th Century.
There is much Zak and I disagree on, but I dislike ignorant racism and jingoism directed at any culture. I take pride in being an American because of our constitution and aspects of our history. Because I am a good American though, I try to also understand the culture and history of other peoples, without wrapping myself in jingoistic nonsense that only exposes the ignorance of the people spouting it.
zakimar:
I don’t think my son will be bringing a stick shift (manual transmission) car home. He drove one of his friend’s stick shift car, came home, and said “Never again will I drive a stick shift!”
Right now, he doesn’t have a car, so he’s been taking the bus to meet with his friends and girlfriends. And most of Them are now leaving their cars at home and taking the bus. It’s a heck of a lot cheaper to go round-trip on a bus, than to spend $10 for a few gallons of gas in the car, and they can enjoy themselves, knowing there will be no need for a designated driver. They don’t get drunk, but they like to go out to dinner and have a few beers or mixed drinks, so I’m glad that no one is behind the wheel of a car, endangering others.
PS. My son is 28 years old, still lives at home and helps pay the bills. Funny thing was when I was 18 years old, back in 1978, everyone I knew, including me, was moving out on our own. But now, almost all of my son’s friends are his age and they too, still live with their parents. It’s much cheaper, they can take off whenever they want, and they don’t have to worry about room mates not cleaning up or sharing the expenses. It costs too much to live by yourself these days–you either have to have a room mate or stay with the folks, so I’m happy that I know where my son is (most of the time) and that he can take off for a few days without having to worry about his things being stolen, or a room mate taking off and leaving him with all the bills…
Driving a manual transmission is so easy a six year old can do it.
dundar:
If my son is paying for it, he can drive whatever he likes. I prefer automatic transmission myself; even though I learned on a manual transmission car, in the snow, in the dead of winter, with a foot of snow on the road. Give me an automatic transmission anytime–it drives just as well and you can always use D1 or D2 if you need to slow down so your tires don’t slide…
Mary; I wouldn’t bother addressing the likes of dundar; I’m guessing the only car he’s ever been in is a Police car. Automatic transmissions have become so sophisticated, that there are now little fuel savings for many manuals over their automatic counterparts. Even some sports cars come with auto. My wife drives the auto, and I drive the stick – most German cars now have available Tiptronic (auto and manual in one transmission). I only feel like I’m DRIVING when I’m in a stick, otherwise I feel like I’m just RIDING.
I moved out when I started university and bought my first house a few years after graduating. Unfortunately, thanks in large part to Bush, many TWO income families can no longer afford a house, let alone single people just starting out. Ironically, now is the time to buy in the States, but when people are worried about keping their jobs, the value of their current properties falling and interest rates climbing, not too many people can afford it (unless you’re Romney or Cindy McCain). If not for Bush and his occupation of Iraq, I would have purchased at least one property in the US by now. If mortgage rates are around 6% during a second Obama term, I’ll be buying that property.
Michael Spindal:
In direct opposition to your opinioni, Islams contributions to the world are much in doubt.
Islam contributed nothing directly to the advancement of humanity. Peoples who coincidentally were conquered by Muslims contributed art, science and literature which Islam then claimed credit for.
The only accomplishment of Islam is it helped the advance of culture in general because of its teaching of Arabic reading and writing. Arabic became a medium for the spreading of ideas, just as Latin was in European Chistendom and English is today.
All the positive effects of Islam in its golden age were side-effects, not the planned outcome of a positively Islamic strategy. As I indicated in my first paragraph, much of what the Islamic world contributed was done by the rediscovery, translation and circulation of documents and ideas by those they had conquered.
Russ,
Care to list some sources for that theory?
I mean if you’re going to something that contradicts what most people understand history to be you really should list a source.
After a couple quick checks of Wikipedia (I know, Wikipedia isn’t the best source in the world, but it’s good for a quick refresher) to make sure I was right I can give you this list of things that were developed by Muslims during the Islamic Golden Age: hospitals (versus temples where the ill were treated), diplomas (the oldest university to give diplomas is in Fez), the decimal point, algebra, and lot of other things I’m to lazy to list.
How many of the Roman Empire’s accomplishments were “side effects, not the planned outcome of a positively” Roman “strategy?” What does that even mean? Do you think that the Romans all sat down together and said “You know, it’d be nice if we created an Empire to spread our ideas about the rule of law. Oh we could also build roads all over the place. We’d SAY they were to speed up troop movement so we could better control our Empire, but REALLY they’d help aid trade and the spread of ideas.” I’m betting it probably went more like this “We can conquer those people, then we’ll have more people paying tribute to us, which means more wealth. Oh and we should build roads, not only will they help us control our Empire, but they’d make trade easier, and we could make more off of taxes that way.”
I don’t know if your ignorant or just a bigot, but why don’t you try to make a contribution to your own knowledge. Start by researching ANY of the following (and by research I mean, “re•search: NOUN: 1. a detailed study of a subject, especially in order to discover (new) information or reach a (new) understanding”).
Abul Hasan; Kutbi; Mir Fatehullah Khan; Ibn al-Hashem; Muhammad Musa; Abu Solet Umayya; Al-Masudi; Jabir Ibn Afiah; Razi(Rhazes); Ibn Sina(Avicenna); Abu Ali al-Hasan(Alhazen); AlJabar; Al-Khwarizmi; Omar Khayyam; Al-Battani…
In the time it took to write your nonsense, you could have typed, ‘Muslim contribution’ into Google and educated yourself BEFORE you made yourself look foolish. Since you were obviously a poor student in grade school I’m sure you have no concept of Algebra.
You’re welcome.
Zakimar: and your point is what? That Muslims have done a very good job of taking credit for the accomplishments of others that they viciously conquered. That is my point exactly. Muslims have done a VERY good job of hiding the fact they have taken credit wher none is due. They have done such a good job that it is extremely hard not to find “experts” in the world that will most vociferously agree with that idea.
Of course, when Publishers dare not print a book about Muhammed’s 6 year old bride for fear of vicous reprisals, is it any wonder few challenge this idea of Islamic contributions to society?????
I ges my words 2 u wer 2 hard. aks ur mommy 2 go 2 GOOGLE and press, the kees in this way: MUSLIM (space) CONTRIBUTION hav hur reed sum 2 u. then go bak 2 skool and finish grd 6. cum bak wen u no how 2 reeserch.
Poor little A’isha, child bride of a troubled old man.
I think you meant poor Abeer, and she never had a chance to get married. The troubled “old” men were three American Jews and three American Christians in their 20s. I can’t image the horror if any of these American soldiers were Muslims.
The 14 year old girl that was gang raped, burned and murdered by American soldiers (or are they all just called heroes now) was Abeer Qassim al-Janabi;
her 34 year old mother was named Fakhriyah;
her 45 year old father was named Qasim;
and her 7 year old sister Hadil.
The six United States of America soldiers that came to Iraq to bring this “poor little girl” ‘Freedom, Democracy, Horror, Rape and Death’ were Jesse SPIELMAN, Steven GREEN, Bryan HOWARD, James Barker, Paul Cortez, and Anthony Yribe.
Either way, your genuine sympathy for a Muslim, Arab girl is much appreciated.
Mr. Turley, isn’t time to delete this lunatic anti-american anti-jewish anti-anything-not-muslim clowns posts?
Or do you approve of the rantings of a mad man such as he?
Millions of Americans have sons & daughters in the armed forces that have freed hundreds of millions from tyranny.
zakimar obviously sides with those that are murdering civilians and America has called them out on it.
Mr. turley, delete this clowns posts.
We ALL know your one of the original three whiners, I’m guessing J Mark or Gyges. Ignorant calls for censorship don’t carry much weight when it comes from someone who supports child rapists and murders.
Hussa’n,
Prof. Turley believes in Zakimar’s right to express himself. I agree, no matter how much I disagree with his opinion on some subjects. I think one of the most American things that someone can do is say “I disagree” without saying “You can’t say that.”
Of course that’s just because I’m a big fan of that darn “Bill of Rights”
Russ,
So you apparently are the only one that knows better then the experts? How did you come by this information, years of painstaking textual research and archaeological digs? Because that’s how the “experts” came by their theory. I know archeology and history are hardly hard science, but they are generally regarded as sciences. Which means that in order to get your theory accepted by the wider community, you have to show some pretty convincing and verifiable proofs.
So anyway, you got proof of your theory?
I guess some bloggers need Stelazine, some Lithium and some obviously require both.
For those who don’t read their labels, schizophrenics and bipolars respectively.
I am deeply troubled by ALL the references to psychiatric conditions and medications made on this blog. If someone has a medical disorder this does not mean they are stupid, incapable of rational argument or have nothing of value to add to a conversation.
The inability to engage in a rational discussion exists in people who do and do not have medical conditons. These psychiatric references seem to be consistently used in place of sound arguments. They are ad hominim attacks unworthy of any person who is serious about a free exchange of ideas.
There are people on this site that support Zionism, child rape and murder! I would politely suggest that you get your priorities straight when it comes to things that cause you to be “deeply troubled”.
zakimar,
I find your hatred of Jews extremely troubling. My priorities are in good working order. You call people friends of rapists, evil Zionists, etc. That has no basis in fact. Your saying it does not make it so.
First of all, I couldn’t care less that you’re a Jew, but at least have the honesty to admit that you are also a Zionist. As I have mentioned to MS, and you also chose to ignore, I’ve spoken about a courageous and honorable Jew, Rachael Corrie (for whom I have nothing but love and respect and called a hero) and Muslim Jews with no positive comment from you and the EVIL that is Zionism with no negative comment from you.
I also note that you had no response to the following story, which I pointed out to gygyes/hussa’n who are, so “proud of their family and friends” in the military, that he like you also had nothing negative to say about their conduct.
The 14 year old girl that was gang raped, burned and murdered by six American soldiers was Abeer Qassim al-Janabi;
her 34 year old mother was named Fakhriyah;
her 45 year old father was named Qasim;
and her 7 year old sister Hadil.
The six “friends and family” of Gyges that came to Iraq to bring this little girl ‘Freedom, Democracy, Horror, Rape and Death’ were Jesse SPIELMAN, Steven GREEN, Bryan HOWARD, James Barker, Paul Cortez, Anthony Yribe.
I note that you have begun to automatically take a contrary view of whatever I say to the point of parroting my quotes with nothing to add. You post a negative comment to my suggestion that some people may require medication, and have no opinion on six American soldiers who rape and kill a 14 year old girl, her 7 year old sister and the rest of her family. So you see how I would find your statements above to be quite hypocritical. Just admit that you’re a Zionist so that we all know where you truly stand.
Zakimar,
Not letting ourselves be distracted by a obvious attempt at sidetracking the debate is hardly “supporting” rape. You’re trying to use a Red Herring style tactic, and getting mad that it’s not working. The in your anger you’re trying to use your Red Herring as a basis for a Ad Homenin attact. Further more You’re trying to use an inductive argument to do it, which is pretty much the first logical fallacy anyone learns (some rectangles are squares, therefor all rectangles are squares). I would be a lot more inclined to address your points if a)they had anything to do with the topic at hand and b) they weren’t such obvious logical fallacies.
zakimar, even the most far leftists here now understand how utterly clueless and hateful you are to everyone you disagree with, which is obviously 98% of America.
your “prophet” by his desire of and “marriage to” to a six year old child when he was a 53 year old man destroyed the lives of tens of millions of children born after he was dust in the soil. to this day throughout the world his selfish action has set the stage for another 2,000 years of children being abused by foolish old men believing GOD thinks it proper they marry children.
and in your mind what your “prophet” has done to the lives of TENS OF MILLIONS of children is to be ignored, perhaps even celebrated, while you profess outrage over the rape of a 14 year old Iraqi.
THE MAGNITUDE OF MUSLIM ATROCITIES – I
The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that �the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history�.
Islamic imperialism came with a different code – the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujãhids (holy warriors) and ghãzîs (kãfir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.
Hindus found it very hard to understand the sickness of this new invader. For the first time in their history, Hindus were witnessing a scene which was described by KãnhaDade Prabandha (1456 AD) in the following words: �The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people�s wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks.� That was written in remembrance of Alauddin Khalji�s invasion of Gujarat in the year 1298 AD. But the gruesome game had started three centuries earlier when Mahmud Ghaznavi had vowed to invade India every year in order to destroy idolatry, kill the kãfirs, capture prisoners of war, and plunder vast wealth for which India was well-known.
Yes Gyges/hassan/Zionist, we all know you hate Muslims and love America. Blah, blah, blah.
Hassan,
Zakimar is not the entirety of Islam. You shouldn’t ascribe every act committed in the name of his religion to him any more then he should ascribe ever act committed of your religion to you.
Every culture has black spots in its history. You can’t tell me that a conquering European empire has never sacked villages, looted bodies and sold the captured as slaves. How do you think the Roman Empire was created? Or for that matter the Spanish, Portuguese, or British Empire? The last three are far more recent then the Islamic Golden Age.
Schizophrenic?
“There are people on this site that support Zionism, child rape and murder! I would politely suggest that you get your priorities straight when it comes to things that cause you to be “deeply troubled”.”
Zakie,
Your constant mention of psychotropic drugs and referral to mental illnesses, might lead one to believe you have more than a casual experience with both. This is underlined with you obsessiveness and with the hatred you expound. Jill is right you need to either chill or get some help to make your life even more perfect than as you claim it is.
The only real problem you have with me is that I denounce Zionism for what it is, EVIL. You are a Zionist without the courage to try to justify your “philosophy” because you know that no decent person will support you and that racism.
UN Resolution 3379 (1975), “Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”, with a majority of world nations supporting the Resolution. It took Bush Sr. and US arm-twisting to have that Resolution revoked in 1991 without any change in the Palestinian condition. Bush Jr. had the phrase “Zionism is racism” omitted from the World Conference against Racism 2001 (ironically) in Durban, South Africa. The US left delegation left however, when Israel was equated with Apartheid.
So it took the esteemed Bush family and US arm-twisting to remove what the majority of countries felt was right. However, what made Zionism racism in 1947 and 1975 did not change in 1991 or 2001. Jimmy Carter knows a great deal more about the topic that either Bush, you or I and he recognized that Israel is an Apartheid State.
So if you’re a Zionist, you’re a racist, PERIOD.
zakimar, even the most far leftists here now understand how utterly clueless and hateful you are to everyone you disagree with, which is obviously 98% of America.
your “prophet” by his desire of and “marriage to” to a six year old child when he was a 53 year old man destroyed the lives of tens of millions of children born after he was dust in the soil. to this day throughout the world his selfish action has set the stage for another 2,000 years of children being abused by foolish old men believing GOD thinks it proper they marry children.
and in your mind what your “prophet” has done to the lives of TENS OF MILLIONS of children is to be ignored, perhaps even celebrated, while you profess outrage over the rape of a 14 year old Iraqi.
I thought you (Gyges) or J Mark promised to keep it shut. We know, Islam is bad, Zionism is good, God Bless A@#$%^&a, God Bless I*&^%$l. Blah, blah, blah.
What’s going on here?
I wish everyone would just drop all this talk about Jews/Zionists/Muslims already.
I did not get a chance to watch that discussion yesterday with both Barack Obama and John McCain talking to that minister.
Did anyone watch it, and what did you think? Did Obama or McCain make the best impression on the audience?
I’m curious, because I know that a lot of evangelicals vote Republican, but this minister is more ‘up to date’ and not such a hardliner as the older evangelicals who hate everything that has to do with Liberal thinking.
Hi Mary; I didn’t watch it and will probably just catch the highlights on MSNBC or YouTube. It’s gotten to the point where I don’t care who wins, which frees me up to do more important things.
The neocons are going to say McCain “won” and the normal people are going to say Obama “won” just like on this blog. Fox and CNN will have Murdoch’s lackeys Kristol and Krauthammer anal-yzing everything Obama said and giving a pass to McCain. Blah, blah, blah.
Senator John McCain was at a 10
Barry Obama was at a 1
If you don’t believe me, check with the journalists at CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, etc. Even those in bed with Obama are having a hard time defending his stupid statement about a decision on when life begins is “above his paygrade”. If he is unable to decide when life begins, he should not have been voting to encourage more abortions later in pregnancy his whole political life.
I encourage you to watch the whole two hours. You may find that your support for Obama is gone and you will discover new honor & respect for a great man – Senator John McCain.
Obama’s most visible problem was taking 5 minutes to answer each question so he could say down the road “that is not what I said”. As the media says today, all his answers were “nuanced”.
Senator Mccain answered so many questions so concisely and clearly that they were a full 15 minutes ahead of schedule and the host joked about having time to play a hand of poker.
zakimar:
I guess you’re right about that. I’ve never heard of Krauthammer, but I know Kristol is the (in)famous dork who wrote that now ‘unavailable’ Project for the New American Century. I wonder how many people have died because of this ‘Project’? Too bad we can’t make those people like Kristol donate all their money they’ve made on this ‘Project’ to the families of the Innocent Iraqis and US troops who have died for this ‘sham’ of a war.
Nothing would please me more than to see Bush and Cheney being sued by families from the US and Iraq. (Because we all know that the Congress will Never Impeach them, and that they will run away to Paraguay rather than face any kind of charges in the US or the World Court). The only sad part is, even if these families sue them in Civil Court, they will not get one penny from Bush or Cheney, BUT they will have the satisfaction of knowing that Bush and Cheney are legally Responsible for their loved ones’ deaths.
Too bad those people who support Bush and Cheney don’t feel guilt in their responsibility of electing Bush and allowing him and Cheney to start this Invasion of Iraq. They opened a can of worms that will make the past wars of this world pale by comparison…
hassan:
I don’t know who you are, but I definitely do NOT share your praises or enthusiasm of John McCain. Why I would NOT give ‘honor and respect for a great man’ is easy. McCain is a big fat hypocrite adulterer who left his first wife after she was disfigured in an accident so he didn’t have to be seen with her. McCain is an old ‘flip flopper’ who has changed his course since 2000 and will be another Bush, in that he wants to keep the Invasion of Iraq going forever and he wants to Invade Iran because he thinks (like Bush and Cheney do) that the people in the Middle East are dumb, backward, and living in the Dark Ages. This is such a big mistake that these Republickans don’t understand that this is where Civilization began, and that this region of the world is where Jerusalem was chosen to be the city of all nations.
I have NO respect for people who, with all the money they now have, still want more, more, more money and don’t care how many people have to die, just so they can have one dollar more than the fellow down the street. Who would ever respect anyone like that???
Zakimar, even Mary Leon, the most clueless & far leftist here, now understands how utterly hateful you are to everyone you disagree with.
Your own “prophet” by his desire and subsequent “marriage” to a 6 year old child when he was a 53 year old man destroyed the lives of tens of millions of children since then. The world fears that for the next 2,000 years children will continue being abused by foolish old men believing GOD thinks it proper they marry children.
To add insult to this, in your mind what your “prophet” has done to the lives of a hundred million children is to be ignored, perhaps even celebrated, while you profess outrage over the rape of a 14 year old Iraqi.
ura mofo:
I don’t understand why people are playing mind games.
This website belongs to Mr. Turley; not some crazy nutbags that come here spewing complete and utter hatred.
I may not like McCain, Bush or Cheney, but here they are on earth, and I have to accept that they have their supporters. I hate what Bush and Cheney have done to our country, but I know that if they don’t pay here they will ‘pay’ in eternity, and that the worst thing that could happen would be for McCain to be president. I don’t like them, but I would like to see them held responsible for what they have done.
I first posted here to give my regards to Mr. Turley, then this person named ‘russ’ gave me his opinion; that’s why I started to respond to those misguided and foolish Republickans.
All this other stuff about Jews/Muslims is getting too much. I don’t need to come here and read all this hate; I can watch the consequences of hate on the news or read about it in the papers. If you hate each other so much, you should go somewhere else and play your ‘hate’ games!
Hi Mary; 39 minutes after I posted, “The neocons are going to say McCain “won” and the normal people are going to say Obama “won” just like on this blog”, the resident neocon, Zionist Republikan, proved me correct with his babble. What does “at a 10” or “at a 1” mean anyway? If Americans don’t destroy PNAC, it will destroy their country. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the like will never answer for their crimes because by the time America is defeated, they’ll all be long dead. Stalin killed more people than Churchill, Hitler and Roosevelt combined but since Hitler lost the Battle, the other three War Criminals never answered for their crimes.
uram; I suspected that hassan was gyges, but Former Muslim is probably right. After Dr. Turley told FM to ‘shut it’ (not in those words of course) hassan sprung up with the same hate and intellect. Comparing hassan to animals is an insult to livestock. I think hassan was a bully at school and like all bullies he is a coward. He is also a Zionist and like all of them, he wants others, particularly Americans to fight for them so that no Israeli Jews will be killed. Israel with all of its nuclear weapons is afraid to attack Iran so they get neocon Jews like those in PNAC to press the US to do it for them. When the US is finally destroyed or goes bankrupt it will be because of Israel at which point the US Jews will begin to look for another host country. Germany and the Middle East are out of course, and China, Japan and Russia wouldn’t tolerate them, so I suspect it will be Argentina or elsewhere in Latin America.
And uram, I know that people like hassan use that kind of talk because they are bullies, but I don’t respond in kind, not because I’m above that sort of thing, but because of the decent people like Mary Leon who unlike hassan didn’t grow up with that sort of language from their parents. So I thank you for the choice words, obviously some people don’t listen to polite reason.
CNN is replaying the Saddleback Forum tonight. John McCain SMOKED Obama. Everybody with a bit of honesty freely confesses that McCain was in TOP FORM and Obama lacked his teleprompter…..
McCain’s people fed him the questions while McCain was outside the building in his “Cone of Silence”. I have to hand it to the Republicans, they are great at cheating.
zakimar, I pity those that surround you.
russ, I second that.
Now that Dr. Al-Arian has been granted bond by Judge Brinkema- has a bond motion been filed with ICE? I haven’t heard of an Immigration Judge ruling against bond- has this happened?
There are apparently ‘conflicts’ in releasing him – either way.
He is granted bond by Judge Brinkema, but to do so would allow him to leave the country which he should have been able to do in early April 2008 under a now, further, disputed agreement between the US and former Florida defense counsel from 2006 complicated by another DOJ conempt citation – thus the recent SCOTUS writ re previous, lower court, non-admitted, parol evidence.
ICE, by all appearances is aligned with Gordon Kromberg, with respect to holding Sami Al-Arian and is utilizing its power to do so for the full (disputable) ’90-day’ period prior to deportation- IF they can.
Trustfully, ‘someone’ WILL step in. There is no reason why Sami should still be incarcerated. He should be released to his family, locally, to
either await trial and/or, if it works out for him, to leave the country, ASAP, as planned
BOO!
In September 1987, the campaign ran into serious trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party.
Within days, it was also discovered that as a first-year law student at Syracuse Law School, Biden had plagiarized a law review article in a class paper he wrote. Biden said the act was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F.
Biden also released his undergraduate grades, which started off poorly and remained unexceptional. Further, when questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school Biden had claimed falsely to have graduated in the “top half” of his class, (when he actually graduated 76th in a class of 85) that he had attended on a full scholarship, and had received three degrees. In fact he had received two majors, History and Political Science, and a single B.A., as well as a half scholarship based on financial need.
Faced with these revelations, Biden withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by “the exaggerated shadow” of his “mistakes”.
Fox Reporter Assaulted By Anti-war Protestors In Denver
By Noel Sheppard
August 24, 2008 – 15:30 ET
The Democratic National Convention hasn’t even begun, and the protestors are out trying to Recreate 68.
For those unfamiliar, the group “was created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party,” and are gathering in Denver to “resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained.”
High profile activists such as Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney have already joined the festivities.
On Sunday, Fox News’s Griff Jenkins tried to speak to these folks as they marched in Denver, but was instead verbally assaulted vulgarity warning.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/08/24/fox-reporter-assaulted-anti-war-protestors-denver
Readers should be advised of some of the attendees:
The Re-create 68 Alliance also announced that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and Green Party Vice Presidential candidate Rosa Clemente will be joining their historic line-up of speakers who include Ida Audeh, Kathleen Cleaver, Ward Churchill, Mark Cohen, Chairman Fred Hampton Jr., Larry Hales, Larry Holmes, Ron Kovic, Glenn Spagnuolo, Pamela Africa, King Downing, Jenny Esquiveo, Mumia Abu Jamal – Current Political Prisoner (Recorded from Death Row for the DNC), Gloria Estela La Riva, Ricardo Romero, Natsu Saito, Ann Erika White Bird, and others.
Given the participation of Sheehan, McKinney, and Churchill, one has to wonder how much attention these protests will get from media looking to do everything within their power to make it look like Democrats are all unified behind Obama.
Stay tuned.
August 24, 2008
A strange singling out explained
Barack Obama’s recent comment about Justice Thomas — that he would not have nominated Thomas for the Supreme Court due to Thomas’ “inexperience” — coupled with Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running mate, provide a painful reminder of the judicial confirmation wars of the past 20 plus years. I wrote about Biden’s central (and disgraceful) role in these wars here. I wondered why Thomas is singled out for having been inexperienced at the time of his nomination here.
The latter post brought this response from a reader:
The answer is this: liberals like Mr. Obama simply cannot fathom how a black person could hold seriously thought-out views about jurisprudence like those of Clarence Thomas. And there is something too crass about attacking Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence on the merits, as well as too time-consuming.
Liberals deem it too crass because they like to pretend that their objections are unrelated to politics, perhaps out of a concern that conservatives will apply the same approach to liberal judicial nominees when the tables are turned. So they find other reasons: Bork is too smart and doesn’t understand the “common man;” and Thomas is too dumb. But the Thomas-as-too-dumb view is too crass also, so the easy thing to do is say he was “unqualified” or too inexperienced.
Substantive critiques of Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence are too time-consuming because people like Mr. Obama don’t want to read, much less engage, his opinions. Note that criticisms of Justice Thomas never cite any examples of actual opinions he’s written. Obama certainly failed to do so at the Saddleback forum.
Ultimately, the theme continues for liberals: “self-hating” minorities who deviate from liberal orthodoxy are attacked because liberals view them as turn-coats. For more recent examples, see the treatment Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown received when the president nominated them to the D.C. Circuit, while the white guy, John Rodgers, sailed through to confirmation. And, recall Justice Thomas’ words:
“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”
The “old order” is liberalism. Mr. Obama’s cheap shot against Justice Thomas, which would be applauded in Cambridge and Hyde Park, is the most recent example of the stereotypical left-wing effort to keep minorities on the plantation.
I have been SO busy this past week, with relatives visiting, that I just have time to say “Great choice in choosing Biden!” He is a well-seasoned member of Congress that will help Obama sucker-punch McCain and his ‘swift boaters’.
Oh, and I saw those two ‘women’ who are calling themselves ‘Clinton supporters for McCain’ standing outside of the convention center. How stupid can they be? They tell Chris Matthews that they have ‘proof’ that Obama was in a muslim school when he lived in Indonesia (how old was he then, about 10 years old or less? big deal, so he went to school when he was a kid) and that a ‘former Congressional investigator’ had a 17 page document of ‘proof’ that Obama is not qualified to be president.
When Chris Matthews asked who was the former Congressional investigator, one woman said, “I’m not going to tell you.” There’s the answer right there–these two women want to put thoughts in people’s minds without having the hardcopy proof of their accusations.
Oh, and I love the way McCain keeps on defending his decision to approve Bush’s Invasion of Iraq–like anyone is really happy about that now. Only the Republican base will vote for Republicans, so we all know who will be the next President of the United States–Sen. Barack Obama!
Obama continues tanking in the polls after selecting the plagiarist hair plug ego-maniacal racist Joe Biden as his VP.
PS: Earth to Obama – Biden voted FOR the Iraq war. Biden also made many speeches before & after the conflict started about the deadly danger there was in store for America if we allowed Saddam to stay in power.
How could Obama be so stupid?
Is Keith Olbermann Trying to Banish Tom Brokaw From MSNBC?
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
August 27, 2008 – 13:40 ET
It appears that Keith Olbermann might be vying for the title of Most Obnoxious Anchor On Television. First we had Olbermann dissing Joe Scarborough during a live broadcast on Monday from the Democrat convention. Then a day later, Olbermann managed to enrage Chris Matthews during another broadcast. And now it looks like Olbermann is going for broke in the insult department by pushing to have Tom Brokaw banned from appearing on MSNBC as reported in Page Six of today’s New York Post:
At a forum on Sunday, when Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell called MSNBC “the official network of the Obama campaign,” Brokaw said, “I think Keith has gone too far. I think Chris has gone too far.”
Insiders say Olbermann is pushing to have Brokaw banned from the network and is also refusing to have centrist Time magazine columnist Mike Murphy on his show.
This could be payback by Olbermann not only for what Tom Brokaw said at a forum on Sunday but also for Brokaw’s criticism of him back in June. Here is a partial transcript of the June 3 MSNBC Democrat primary interchange between Brokaw and Olbermann (emphasis mine):
TOM BROKAW: So all those experiences have formed him, and he does come from what I think is a kind of post-60s family background. His father came from Africa. His mother came from the Great Plains. He lived around the world. And as we get ready for the 21st century, those are very strong credentials. On the John McCain side, 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton, from a long, distinguished military family. His life has been about service to his country. He was a wild child, by his own admission, as well, and then got into the United States Senate, married Cindy, and six months ago, we were saying he had no shot at this nomination, and won, too. So we have two remarkable stories taking shape here tonight, it seems to me.
KEITH OLBERMANN: And a third one trying to shoe-horn her way into those, the coverage of the first two.
BROKAW: Well, I think that’s unfair, Keith. I don’t think she shoe-horned her way in. When you look at the states that she won and the popular vote that she piled up, and the number of delegates that she has on her side, she’s got real bargaining power in all of this. You’ll remember it was on that New Hampshire primary night when people were saying she can’t survive the next 24 hours after just Iowa, and here we are at the end of the calendar. And she looks very strong in one of these states tonight, and will have some real bargaining power, and has people, which I think we ought not to overlook, there are a lot of poeple who voted for her who might have been denied that if she’d dropped out — blue-collar workers and especially women, and it’s a delicate time for Barack Obama as he now deals with her because he does not want to disenfranchise them come the fall.
What’s amazing here is how many prominent people Olbermann thinks he can get away with insulting at NBC. Does Keith have some blackmail material on someone high up in the NBC organization that gives him the confidence that he won’t be fired for his hyperactive hubris?
Believe it or not, I’m mainly pro-life, but I prefer that women take contraceptives so they don’t get pregnant in the first place. When a woman is pregnant, then she chooses to do what she wants. I hate the idea of abortion, but it is a fact I must face that happens every day around the world.
I am against the death penalty, except for people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and people like them, who kill masses of their own citizens, and those they don’t like.
I don’t believe the death penalty works here in the United States, because there are too many minorities that are executed. And I KNOW and so do ALL OF YOU that there have been INNOCENT people EXECUTED by this government. I would rather be cautious and let the guilty party live the rest of his/her life in prison than to think that EVEN ONE PERSON who is Innocent is being Wrongly executed because of the rules of the death penalty!
Mary Leon, how do you sleep at night when you are pro life but you support the party totally responsible for the destruction of over 40 MILLION of God’s children since just 1970?
Martha:
Are you saying that NO Republickan has NEVER had an abortion? You, my dear, should look in your own family’s skeleton closet and the ‘clean, upright and moral’ members in your church; you might be surprised.
As far as me, I have two choices–either Republickan or Democrat. I will choose a Democrat every time. I know that Democrats want a woman to choose, and I wish that women and men would choose contraceptives so that no fetuses are aborted. But I will not commit violence to stop a woman from having an abortion. I would suggest to her to have the baby, then put him/her up for adoption.
BUT you Republickans stand by and watch YOUR president Invade Iraq and do NOTHING and say NOTHING while our US soldiers and Iraqi citizens are blown to bits. Your party is more in favor of killing AFTER a person is born. How can YOU sleep at night, know that YOUR party is responsible for ‘overkill’ death penalty that has certainly sent Innocent people in this country to their unjust Executions?
OH, by the way, I almost fell out of my chair laughing
when I heard who McCain picked to be his Veep. If he thinks he’s going to get supporters of Hillary and gullible young men to vote for him because he has that Alaskan governor piece of ‘eye candy’ on his ticket; he is sadly Mistaken. People are fed up and are saying “ENOUGH!”. McCain could have chosen anyone else and I would still say the same thing: “ENOUGH!” Enough of this Republickan party and their corporate welfare; Enough of the party of the ‘have’ and ‘have mores’; Enough of being hated around the world; Enough of having secret prisons and Gitmo; Enough of this “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” from McCain; Enough of this $10 Billion a month spent in Iraq so that Bush’s oil buddies could make contracts to legally Steal Iraq’s oil; Enough of this ‘old white anglo-saxon protestant’ Republickan party! The time for us everyday, regular people to finally get a break from this government that is supposed to SERVE us, NOT SCREW us!
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!
PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN! PALIN!
PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!
martha:
Your computer keyboard get stuck?
Sorry, martha, but McCain just handed Barack Obama the Presidency of the United States on a silver platter by picking this inexperienced, one-track mind, big-mouthed broad…
MARY LEON; OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE NOT BEEN WATCHING THE NEWS. I HEARD A RUMOR THERE WAS A ROCK FESTIVAL LAST NIGHT AT WHICH BARRY OBAMA ACCEPTED HIS NOMINATION. I AM NOT SURE, BECAUSE THE NEWS IS NOT COVERING IT TODAY! ALL THAT IS ON THE NEWS IS SARAH PALIN!
LOL!
CAN YOU SEE THE LOOK OF PANIC IN THE LIBERALS ON THE AIR! HERE YOU HAVE A WOMAN THAT CAN ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF HERSELF IN THIS WORLD! WHO HAS A WONDERFUL FAMILY AND HUSBAND, WHO FIGHTS CORRUPTION, AND ACTUALLY DECIDES TO GIVE BIRTH TO A BABY THAT SHE & HER HUSBAND KNEW MONTHS BEFORE THE BIRTH HAD DOWNS SYNDROME! THIS WONDERFUL WOMAN DOESN’T LIKE YOU AND YOUR THROW THE BABY’S AWAY SOCIETY.
I NOTICED YOU STUPID POST TO MARTHA. YOUR PARTY HAS MURDERED MORE BABIES THAN THE TOTAL POPULATION OF THE TWO COUNTRIES PRESIDENT BUSH HAS LIBERALTED – 40 MILLION! 40 MILLION BABIES DEAD BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATS! 40 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!
percy:
I NEVER even heard her name until today–Sarah Palin. Big deal, a governor of Alaska who kills animals for sport and whose husband works for the BP oil company. Typical Republickans.
As far as abortions go, you people with your ‘holier than thou’ and ‘compassionate conservatism’ have killed millions over the centuries, by thinking just because you’re white and you and your kind have all the money and the power, you can take away the American Indians rights, the Blacks rights and the Hispanics rights and if they get killed in the process, so what? they’re a bunch of heathens anyway. With your ‘big daddy’ Idi Amin attitude, it’s no wonder why the rest of the world hates you Republickans and your secret prisons and your ‘haves’ and ‘have mores’. You may not know this, but MOST of the people around the world want the Neo-Cons and their failed delusion of the Project for the New American Century gone from Washington DC.
I thought you were a Christian, percy. If you are, you sure are NOT doing the work of the Lord. Me, I’m just telling it like I see it. You Republickans are just a bunch of hypocrites who think that they are the ONLY ones who should have all the Money and all the Power, BUT Jesus chased out the MONEY changers from the Holy Temple and told the POWERFUL high priests the TRUTH–that they were hypocrites who hated their brothers and sisters who were poor or were ‘different’ from them and that they would NEVER be allowed in Heaven.
What ever happened to “Love Thy Neighbor”? Yes, I can Love you and martha and russ as fellow citizens of this world, but that doesn’t mean I have to sit by and read your tripe and be pushed into agreeing what you say or think…
So, at least have the guts to admit you’re a bunch of Hypocrites who say one thing but do another!
Where is everyone? Are you still being ‘thrilled’ by the pick of McPalin?
Boy, is she ever a doozy! I’ve been reading so many bad things about her that I just can’t wait to watch the convention, which now I’ve heard that Bush and Cheney are not going to go to and that the convention may be shortened because of Hurrican Gustav.
This is rich! Remember 3 years ago, when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? What was Bush doing? Eating birthday cake with McCain! Now Bush is so concerned about the hurricane that he doesn’t even want to go to his own party’s convention?
I wonder if McCain celebrated his birthday on the 29th, or did he, too, start thinking about the hurricane and forget to eat his cake?
Oh, yeah, I’ve been reading a lot of comments from supporters of Hillary. They said that McCain seems to think they’ll vote for him because he chose McPalin. They are saying that McCain must think they’re a bunch of ignorant idiots who will vote for him because of McPalin; but they’re not going to fall for it. They know what will happen if McCain wins–four more years of Neo-Con tripe! And they are ‘insulted’ (read that to Cindy ‘insulted’ McCain) that McCain thinks they are so dumb!
I’ve seen some pics of Ms. McPalin when she was supposedly 7 months pregnant. Her teenage daughter WAS pregnant, not her. So she’s already involved in a cover-up, by saying that her grandchild is her own child.
More to come out of the woodwork, I’m sure…
Well, I saw the famous Sarah McPalin give her speech last night. My husband watched a few minutes of it, then said “The same old Republickan talking points”, then he went to bed.
I thought that if this is all she’s got, then her and McCain are sunk. There was NO discussion of when our troops will be able to leave Iraq (remember, Iraq has a timeline now that even Bush is willing to accept) NO discussion about Abortion (how she wants to outlaw ALL abortion, except if the mother will die). Why she thinks that any of the Hillary supporters will vote because of her on the ticket is amazingly naive. There was NO discussion of how she and McCain are going to ever pay off the TRILLIONS of dollars of debt that Bush is leaving us, only “cut taxes, less government”.
I was kind of disappointed. I thought she was going to be exciting and new, but she IS the same old thing. I do admire her for being married for 20 years, though. Nowadays, if ANY couple can stay married over 10 years, that’s wonderful. And I do admire her for raising a family and having a special needs child. I guess the press came down hard on her about the little baby, but she cleared it up and *I’m willing to apologize that I thought she was covering up her daughter’s pregnancy*.
But I just can’t picture her a ‘heartbeat’ away from being president. No way, no how…
I’ve posted two similar messages, but they haven’t been added yet. Is there a problem with the system?
Third try:
Why isn’t Palin giving any interviews to the Media (Fox News not included) to answer questions, by herself, about her ideas, ‘so-called’ experience and plans for the future?
The Republickans only want us to know ‘just enough’ about her. If anyone asks more, they just say that she’s ‘not ready’ to be interviewed. What’s with all the Secrecy?
We, as the voters, have the RIGHT to know this information!!!
Dear Professor Turley,
I have an issue I would like to discuss with you at your convience. It is of a legal nature and also personal. It is concerning my son. I have watched you on Fox Cable and have read your Bio and know of no other way to turn.
You appear to have all the legal knowledge that is necesary. I raalize you are a very busy man but I pray you will have at least ten minutes of time for me. I am not a crack pot but a senior citizen that is 68 years old with all my facilities in tack. I thought I would share that so you do not think this is something toher than a serious issue.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely
Carol Davis
This forum might be a strange place to post a song, but I thought I would because part of the subject matter of the lyrics has to do with the Constitution.
I wrote this song for a specific purpose, to be included on a compilation CD based on the theme ‘Change’ to be distributed in the gift bags at the Democratic National Convention. Unfortunately , the project was cancelled due to noncompliance of the rules by the ‘approved vendor’ sponsor of the project, leaving some very frustrated songwriters.
Anyone have any contacts to get it more exposure, either as a performance or a slide show presentation on YouTube?
The lyrics are below. To hear the song, go to the following link, then go to Artist Songs, and click Play for “A Time For Change.”
http://www.taximusic.com/hosting/home.php?userid=me
A TIME FOR CHANGE
(Verse 1)
‘We the people of the United States,
In order to form a more perfect union;’
Our founding fathers inscribed these words,
The beginning of our Constitution.
(Verse 2)
Based on justice and the welfare of all,
It gave power to people to make their best call
On who would govern and how they should,
To make sure it was for the common good.
(Pre-chorus)
Some goals can get lost along the way,
But on the horizon there’s a brand new day……
(Chorus)
It’s A TIME FOR CHANGE, a change for the better.
It’s time to live up to the Constitution’s letter.
There’s work to do, a hill to climb,
But this is our moment, this is our time,
A TIME FOR CHANGE, a time to believe
In how much together we can achieve.
(Bridge)
Changes are needed in our nation
In energy and health and education,
And we need to show a bit more sense
In our approach to world events.
If out of many, we are one,
We can get these things done!
(Repeat Chorus 2X)
(Tag)
It’s A TIME FOR CHANGE;
It’s A TIME FOR CHANGE.
(A Time For Change. Music & Lyrics by Don Coyne. Copyright 2008.)
Sorry about that link to the song. Try this one:
http://www.taximusic.com/hosting/home.php?userid=1808
Don,
What a wonderful song! Have you let the Obama/Biden campaigns hear the song? I’m sure they would enjoy having their supporters hear it.
You remind me of my late father. He was a beautiful singer. He led the church choir over 40 years and he would only sing in church. He had a bass voice that would fill the whole church and he taught me and my sister how to sing harmony.
If he and my beloved mother were still alive, they would both be cheering on Obama as President and they would certainly be enjoying your song.
I hope to hear it on Obama’s website or on TV soon. You have a winner!
Sincerely,
Mary Leon
My mother’s grandmother was a Turley. She was an Irish immigrant, a Baptist (curiously), with very long never-cut hair, and my mother said she was “mean,” lol. Just strict with children, not very doting toward the grandkids, I think she meant. But then of course, Turley would have been her married name, so no reflection on the family!
I must say as others have, you are one of few commentators that I drop everything to listen to. Wonderful to find you here.
Welcome to cyberspace, Cousin! (Kidding you.)
Isn’t it strange that John McCain wants to delay the debate on Friday with Barack Obama, while, during the CIVIL WAR, the worst time our country was ever in, Abraham Lincoln DEBATED George McClellan! Lincoln didn’t cancel the debates or stay in Washington, because Lincoln knew that the debates would be the deciding factor of which person would be in charge of ending the Civil War!
Talk about running scared–McCain!
[…] experience of being surveiled as I read my magazine got me thinking about Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley’s funny speech at fff.org’s conference in […]
Mary,
Thanks for the kind words. It is very difficult to reach any people of influence within the campaign, BUT I have now produced the song as a music video. You can check it out at:
If you like it, please pass it on.
All the best,
Don Coyne
Don,
I listened to and watched your video. It is a great song. Good luck with it.
Unrelated to bio or anything currently on site:
What is your take, if any, on NY State Attorney General’s threat to recover funds from AIG that have gone to lavish junkets since the government’s loan?
And The Guardian is now reporting that “financial workers at Wall Street’s top banks are to receive pay deals worth more than $70bn.” Could Cuomo or others seek recovery of some portion of that?
Thanks for the blog.
I noticed that you made the top 500 lawyers again in Law Dragon. I voted for you. I have been a great fan of yours for almost 20 years of commentary back when you wrote for LA Times. Even though I am a Republican, you have always been fair and criticized both the Republicans and Democrats. I now am an equal fanatic about this site, which a friend told me about. This has become one of my morning and afternoon delights to check in.
I wish that both candidates would appoint you as their White House counsel. It would be a real test if they wanted to have someone who is a great lawyer and not someone who just wants to do their bidding in office.
Thanks again for what you do for our country!
Thank you Walter. However, I do expect to keep my current job. Tenure is a wonderful thing for the irredeemably unemployable.
todays headlines:
OBAMA SAYS TAKE ‘DAY OFF’ WORK FOR ELECTION…
Mississippi’s voter rolls stuffed with dead and absent registrants…
Judge rules Ohio homeless voters may list park benches as addresses…
Effigy of Palin hanging by noose creates uproar..
Obama Campaign Accepting Untraceable Donations…
Obama broke promise on campaign finance..spending over $600,000,000
ACORN investigated under RICO Act for Voter Fraud.
Biden lowers tax cut claim to under $150,000 a year…
Palestinian Hamas Call America for Obama…
LA TIMES suppreses video of Obama toasting terrorist…
Pelosi: Congress ‘will be more bipartisan’ with substantial Dem majorities…!
Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution; Courts Poised For Takeover By Judicial Left…
VIDEO: Gun Sales On Rise In FL On Fear Of Obama Presidency…
Jeez christ.
Mr. TURLEY WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE:
State employee says she was ordered to check out Joe the Plumber
Friday, October 31, 2008 10:21 PM
By Randy Ludlow
The Columbus Dispatch
Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.
Niekamp didn’t know she just had checked on “Joe the Plumber,” who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain’s example in a debate of an average American.
The senior manager would not learn about “Joe” for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.
The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are “thrust into the public spotlight,” amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance.
Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. “I’ve never done that before, I don’t know of anybody in my office who does that and I don’t remember anyone ever doing that,” she said today.
Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland and Jones-Kelley, both supporters of Democrat Barack Obama, have denied political motives in checking on Wurzelbacher. The Toledo-area resident later endorsed McCain. State officials say any information on “Joe” is confidential and was not released.
Today, Strickland press secretary Keith Dailey said neither the governor’s office nor Job and Family Services officials could comment due to an ongoing investigation by Ohio’s inspector general.
Republican legislators have called the checks suspicious and Jones-Kelley’s reason for them flimsy. They are demanding to know whether state computers were accessed in an attempt to dig up dirt on Wurzelbacher.
Jones-Kelley has revealed that her agency also checked to see if Wurzelbacher was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes. “Joe the Plumber” has said he is not involved in a child-support case.
About 3 p.m. on Oct. 16, Niekamp said Carrie Brown, assistant deputy director for child support, asked her to run Wurzelbacher through the computer. Citing privacy laws, Niekamp would not say what, if anything, was found on “Joe.”
On Oct. 23, Niekamp said Doug Thompson, deputy director for child support, told her she had checked on “Joe the Plumber.” Thompson “literally demanded” that she write an e-mail to the agency’s chief privacy officer stating she checked the case for child-support purposes, she said.
Thompson told her that Jones-Kelley said Wurzelbacher might buy a plumbing business and could owe support. Thompson said he replied that he “would check him out.”
Niekamp, 38, a senior child-support manager, said she never heard any discussion of politics amid what her supervisors told her about the checks on Wurzelbacher.
Worried about her $69,000-a-year job and potential criminal charges, the 15-year state employee said she went to Inspector General Thomas P. Charles on Oct. 24. She has seen employees fired, and dismissed one herself, for illegally accessing personal information in support cases. Niekamp, a registered Republican, said politics played no role in what she told investigators.
The e-mail that Niekamp said she wrote was not among records provided today to The Dispatch in response to a public-records request. Nor did the agency, as required by state law, say it withheld any records.
Strickland spokesman Dailey later said one e-mail was withheld from The Dispatch because its release is prohibited by federal or state laws that forbid the release of information on the state’s child-support system. Daily said he was neither confirming nor denying the existence of a case on Wurzelbacher.
“The use of electrical shock without any warning is a potential form of battery under tort and assault under criminal law. Any child could have innocently come into contact with the sign”
uhm, tell that to one of the many liberal judges that you’ve come across over the years. Trespassing (what the little shit did) is also against the law.
AP REVEALS: OBAMA AUNT LIVING IN U.S. ILLEGALLY…
Boston Housing Authority ‘flabbergastered’ Zeituni Onyango living in Southie…
Obama Aunt says made $260 donation to Obama subjecting her to immediate deportation if in America illegally…
Kenyan Government orders Obama’s family in Kenya to stop media interviews…
Obama’s brother STILL living in 9 by 9 hut on $12 per year…
ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama’s lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all…
THE BIG PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE…
Suicide jumper left ‘note for Obama’…
State employee says she was ordered to check out ‘Joe the Plumber’…ACLU ignores violations…
Saturday Night Live has Ben Afleck playing the part of overweight wacko lefty Keith Olbermann who just stopped living with his mother.
Rashid Khalid is playing the part of Jonathan Turley, Olbermann’s trusty sidekick and “Constitutional Law Expert” on Countdown.
SNL has Ben Afleck playing the part of overweight wacko lefty Keith Olbermann who just stopped living with his mother.
Rashid Khalid is playing the part of Jonathan Turley, Olbermann’s trusty sidekick and “Constitutional Law Expert” on Countdown.
I do hate that, drive the fish into the net feeling.
Dear Professor Turley,
Please share your perspective about the book, “The End of America” by Naomi Wolf. There is a film of the same title by Annie Sundberg and Ricki Stern. Here is the movie link: http://www.endofamericamovie.com/guerilla.php
Is Vincent Bugliosi accurate when he states that a U.S. Attorney could charge Messrs. Bush and Cheney? Before Martial law is declared
Thanks for what you do for our country!
What is the criminal penalty for knowingly accepting donations from foreigners for use in a United States election?
Does the Obama campaign know that simply disabling credit card security functions does NOT mean the donations over the internet are untraceable?
This blog Is very informative , I am really pleased to post my comment on this blog . It helped me with ocean of knowledge so I really belive you will do much better in the future . Good job web master .
I’ve loved listening to your commentary these past many years. If I were Barack Obama, you’d be on my short list for Supreme Court. What do you think?
CJ:
Thanks for the nomination, but I expect that President-elect Obama will have a rather long list for that particular position.
The Right-Wing, Republican, Palin/McCain/Rove xenophobes didn’t realize what they were doing. Because of them, now a large part of the American population feel that President Barack Hussein Obama is the first Muslim President in US history – how’s that for irony?
Joe Biden was wrong. The thugs of the world did not wait 6 months to test Barack Obama – they waited 6 hours. Today Russia announced they are moving missiles to the Poland Border. Additionally, Hamas launched more than 35 missiles at Israel.
It will be interesting to see what a President Obama does any different than President Bush, and I doubt it will be very little except to raise your & my taxes and tell us the country can’t afford the tax cut he promised during the election.
Interestingly, I haven’t seen any “Obama is not my President” screaming Republicans. I haven’t seen rants that the “election was stolen”, but I did see President Bush offer to make Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff HIS OWN CHIEF OF STAFF to facilitate the transition.
Tomorrow, Barack Obama will be a different person tomorrow, the day he reads his first “Presidential Daily Briefing” on the threats to this country. That person will either be one that says “we cannot prevail with these threats to us” or he will harden and understand that this great country will win over these threats. That will be the greatest test of his life.
Tonight Retired General Tommy Franks reminded us that the military of this country, including TWO SONS OF MINE, swear allegiance to the United States of America and to their Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, regardless of their political beliefs.
Parents of military are terrified but accepting of the fact our sons & daughters lives are entrusted with an untested inexperienced young man that has been elected President while you all still suffer from some form of irrational BDS based on what the media tells you the rest of the world thinks of us or Bush. I would guess in maybe no more than 6 months the media will be whining that Obama is the reincarnation of Bush. The election is behind Obama, now he was to govern and protect. The BS talk is over.
PS. Hours ago Iraq announced Obama had indicated to Iraqi leaders that there would be no change in policy towards Iraq that would lend to instability in Iraq, including troop withdrawals. Funny how the right decisions get repeated when the election is over and the rhetoric is behind us.
God Bless America. God Bless the US Marines. God Bless the US Air Force. God Bless President Elect Obama & President Bush!!!!
Most certainly, this election resoundly proved once again Republicans & conservatives are the party of civility.
If President Obama continues the blind support for the Apartheid regime in Israel as did Bush, Clinton, every other President, the Middle East will continue to deteriorate and more countries will try to get nuclear weapons and WMD. Bush, Clinton etc all “tried” to bring a peace settlement to Palestine/Israel, by giving Israel billions in weapons and over $15 000 annually to every Israeli and less than $100 to every Palestinian. Pres. Obama chastised Bush for waiting until the “waning days of his Presidency” to help secure a peace deal and stated he would make it a priority for him. Unfortunately, by making his first appointment a Zionist Jew like Rahm Emanuel, it looks like we’ll be getting Clinton’s third term.
In just two days Barack Obama has proven he isn’t up to the job.
After his first top secret Presidential Daily Briefing on threats we face in the world, Barack Obama emerged from the meeting visibly shaken and pale.
Wall Street has already seen right through Obama and we have suffered the worst two day loss since 1987 – the worst post election selloff in our history.
re: Obama
I think being 20 minutes late for your first Press Conference and then giving what amounted to a campaign speech was an extremely ridiculous start for Obama.
I think his approval rating, after just three days, has gone from 60% to 50%.
Three screw-ups in just three days:
Naming a man who lied about losing a finger defending Israel in the Israeli Defense Force when he lost it to a fast food machine, a man who sent a rotten fish in the mail to a detractor, and a man who was a Director of Freddie Mac for two years 2000 to 2001 and to date who voted to obstruct further regulation of them……yes I am talking about RAHM EMMANUAL, as your Chief of Staff is totally STUPID!
Not speaking up when Russia tested him on Wednesday by announcing they would be moving missiles to the Poland border.
Not renouncing immediately a letter from Achmadinajad asking Obama to eliminate the sanctions on his country.
I could go on, but hey, this is only his third day as President elect! I did notice he has his own “Office of the President Elect” seal already…..
Dear Professor,
What do you think about Bird Flu Attack in US?
Yours
David
Hey Prof. Turley,
I was doing some age discrimination research and I came across your blog while reading about the stripper… Pretty funny stuff! I have to say you’ve done an excellent job. You probably don’t remember me, but I was in your crim pro class in ’05. I hope that all is well with you.
Sincerely,
Dan Furlong
Welcome & Best Wishes to
President-Elect Obama & Our New Congress!
Barrack Obama says change comes from the people and I believe him. But it needs political leadership when the subject is THOUGHT READING TECHNOLOGY, and the people haven’t been told by their government that this technology even exists, let alone is in use by government agents on U.S. Citizens living in America .
I’ve been tortured for 15 years by government agents broadcasting (remotely) to me, reading my thoughts, threatening mock ‘heart attacks’, and dream manipulated without cause or warrant. 15 YEARS!
I watched in wonder as our nation debated FISA and warrantless wiretaps on calls between the U.S. and foreign nations, all the while knowing the pain of the intrusion of my government on my life. I watched our leaders start wars in the name of bring freedom to other countries while my freedoms are trampled on here at home.
Thanks to President-Elect Obama for promising that he will review the lawfulness of government activities in the first thirty days of his administration. Thank you to Vice President-Elect Joe Biden for promising that any unlawful activities discovered will be prosecuted.
And special thanks to Senator Russ Feingold for his willingness to share information with other members of Congress who have the proper security clearanc–information on this technology, and his hopeful comments that he believes information on thought reading technology will become public either by the new Executive Branch in January, or by leak, or by report of Congressional Oversight Officers. Senator Feingold – you give me hope every day that my ordeal will soon be ended.
We need to restore that we are governed by law and not by men. The crimes committed for fifteen years against me must be brought public, the perpetrators have no business working for the U.S. government; in fact they should be prosecuted when we have a new, reliable Attorney General. The DOJ must be restored to an entity that all Americans can believe in.
My name is Kathleen Teresa Heckman, I live at 2212 26th Street, #5 , Sacramento , CA 95818 . My phone is 916-712-3560 (I will shortly have a new Ph #). PLEASE DON’T FORGET ME.
The new star in our political canopy, Rahm Emanuel, is reported to have served in the Israeli Army while being a US citizen.
Did he violate any US laws???
Could you please clarify the legal scene in this regard?
Keep up the excellent work!
In just over two weeks Barack Obama has reversed almost every campaign promise he made and he hasn’t even taken office yet.
NYT columnist needs to read the Constitution
posted at 11:20 am on November 23, 2008
Do the editors of the New York Times’ opinion pages ever exercise editorial control over their content? I missed Gail Collins’ ignorant and obtuse entry yesterday while traveling, but it’s worth highlighting for its sheer stupidity. She wants George Bush to resign now so that Barack Obama can start running the country before the inauguration:
“Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning.
Seriously. We have an economy that’s crashing and a vacuum at the top. Bush — who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks — hasn’t got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world’s most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism.
Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.
As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all. On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good.”
Beyond her ignorance of the President’s schedule, Collins shows a remarkable ignorance of the Constitution and of American government.
Let’s focus first on the practical implications of her suggestion. The sudden resignation of the duly elected executive would bring government to a standstill. Obama hasn’t had enough time to transition between the Bush administration to his team, and Pelosi hasn’t even thought about it. What happens in the meantime? Congress hasn’t even received the nominations of the political appointees from Obama. The new White House staff hasn’t even been chosen.
And Pelosi will suddenly be able to run the executive branch? Uh, sure. Collins bases this on the fact that she has two X chromosomes and nothing else. In fact, while celebrating the idea of making a woman temporary President, she then says that Pelosi will simply do what another man will order her to do. That little bit of irony somehow escapes Collins, along with common sense and procedural issues.
More importantly, no one voted for Pelosi to be president. The succession act Collins references exists to ensure continuity in case of disaster, not on the whim of a constipated New York Times columnist whose need for instant gratification apparently outweighs the rest of her cerebral processes.
We have representative government with legal processes in place to protect against instability and abuse. Bush has the responsibility to fulfill the rest of his term and to assist Obama in transitioning smoothly between the two administrations in order to ensure the stability of the US government. Our constitutional form of government is strong enough to allow for this kind of transition, which it has for 220 years.
Obama will be President on January 20, 2009, and not before. If Gail Collins can’t wait for that date, then perhaps the New York Times should send her on an extended leave of absence so that she doesn’t further embarrass herself or her paper in the next two months.
Change? Who said Change?
Obama is starting to feel a bit of pressure from members of the far left of his own party who are beginning to raise their eyebrows over the fact that he hasn’t shown any desire to institute any “change” thus far with his staff.
Obama went so far as to address the situation today as MSNBC reported on its FirstRead blog.
Obama explains away his lack of “change” and his picking of a plethora of out-of-work Clintonites by saying that who he puts on his staff and cabinet don’t matter. It’s because he is the change we seek, you see? But, wait, you might ask. If the press were paying attention, they might remember that during his acceptance speech he said this whole thing wasn’t about him, it was about us? Wasn’t it that we were the change we were waiting for… right?
Is the stupid press going to let him get away with dropping that hoary rhetoric only to say now it’s suddenly all about him?
What would Professor Turley suggest I do about this problem? I had an individual profile page on facebook under my blogging name of SteadyCat. Facebook accused me of not being an individual but a business with more than one person and who is making money. In spite of the fact that I am just an individual whose friends call her Steadycat and who blogs – they refused to change their view. I was told that their decision is final. What would you advise me to do – other than just accept it and walk away? Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you.
you simple minded hate monger stinking miserable neo-lib….you lick overbites boots and rachel mandows boots that creepy guy on mslsd….how do you live with yourself…..bet you got beat up on the playground a lot! have you come out yet? you and your sick demented liberal comrades teaching our children make me sick….you hate the usa, you hate the military, you hate family values….the 58,000,000 of us that are good decent God loving, (sorry to mention God you soulless creature, I know how you neo-libs hate God) family values, usa loving, military loving citizens will take back the usa from you and your sick ilk….we fight for your free speech but we hate you cowards, you stinking rats…go to hell
Prof. Turley.
Thank you.
You are making a difference.
An important difference.
A huge difference.
Mr. Turley,,
Thanks for standing up for the law at a time when its under attack at the highest levels, with consequences too hard to think about. Peace to you and yours,,
fee-
Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship
Jake Tapper, ABC News
December 09, 2008 3:37 PM
“Obviously like the rest of the people of Illinois I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the US attorney’s office today,” said President-elect Obama this afternoon in Chicago, speaking of the criminal complaint against Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich for corruption. “But as this is a ongoing investigation involving the governor I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time.”
Asked what contact he’d had with the governor’s office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said “I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.”
But on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.
While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a “kingmaker,” Axelrod said, “I know he’s talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them.”
read more at blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/questions-arise.html
wish contact Jonathan Turley regarding a federal lawsuit against the government regarding free speech rights- I am a journalist
roger wiegand
511 1/2 Chamberlain St.
Flushing, Mi. 48433
810-659-6310 phone and fax
Jonathan,
I am as shocked an dismayed as you are at the lack of movement to investigate the possible war crimes committed by the administration.
So shocked, that I have made a film that details the torture policies of the Bush administration in a fun and engaging way that makes it exciting and accessible to the general populace.
It stars Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura – “Star trek”, NBC’s “Heroes”).
Is there any chance we could send you a copy?
WEBSITE: http://thetorturer.com
Best,
Graham
Jonathon
I hail from NZ and first saw a clip of you on Olberman. I can only echo all the good things said about your work.
Wish we had someone of your calibre here in NZ. When others cower and comply with the criminals, you speak truth with seeming ease with both your name and face for all to see. You are in a class of your own and I imagine are living at a higher spiritual level than most of us.
I just came across your blog and look forward to reading it regularly. I have enjoyed your numerous appearances on MSNBC and particularly appreciate your commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law at a time when both are under attack by our own government. Please keep up your efforts.
Thank you, Mike, much appreciated.
Please limit your appearances on such ridiculous shows as rachael maddow or keith olbermann.
Being on either of those two left wing wacked out stooges shows lowers what little credibility is left for attorneys in America.
You must have noticed their ratings are half their competitors.
If you insist on appearing on those shows please demand they have some balance on with you otherwise it is kind of like watching paint dry.
Mr. Turley, are you going to be leading the charge for Obama to reverse all those horrendous attacks on our Constitution that you have alleged President Bush committed?
When he ignores you, will you bad mouth him as you have bad mouthed our President for the last number of years?
Cable Ranker: Week of Dec. 15
For the 20th week out of the last 20, Fox News Channel ranked as one of the top 5 networks in all of cable last week in prime time (Live+SD).
FNC averaged 2,563,000 Total Viewers for 3th place, while CNN was #21 (1,002,000) and MSNBC was #24 (952,000).
In total day, FNC was #3 (1,455,000), CNN #20 (654,000) and MSNBC #26 (501,000).
I thank Turley for keeping me in law school. He showed me that it’s normal to be a good person and a lawyer and for that I will be forever thankful.
As U.S. Succeeds In Iraq, Network TV Pulls the Plug
By Rich Noyes | December 29, 2008 – 14:49
After reporters such as NBC’s Tom Brokaw derided President Bush’s troop surge as “a folly” and suggested the war itself was a “lost cause,” ABC, CBS and NBC have now all pulled their full time reporters from Iraq. According to correspondent Brian Stelter, the stellar lack of violence means the networks have lost interest in the Iraq story: “Representatives for the networks emphasized that they would continue to cover the war and said the staff adjustments reflected the evolution of the conflict in Iraq from a story primarily about violence to one about reconstruction and politics.”
Examples of earlier reporting:
■ “Like a folly.” Last Tuesday on NBC’s Today, anchor emeritus Tom Brokaw argued that the way Saddam Hussein was executed revealed Iraq as “a deeply divided country along tribal lines,” and that sending more troops would “seem to most people…like a folly.” Brokaw added: “I think a lot of people who are raising their hands to join the armed services are wondering, ‘I’m giving my life for that?’”
■ “Wrong Way Corrigan.” The next morning on Today, political analyst Chris Matthews declared the President’s plan dead on arrival: “I expect it will be treated the way Richard Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia was reacted to. The American people aren’t gonna like it.” Matthews insisted that the voters wanted to end, not mend, Bush’s Iraq policies and “for the President to go Wrong Way Corrigan on this thing and to increase the number of troops, take us deeper into Iraq, would be to reject the opinion of the American people.”
■ “Absolutely no difference.” This week, as more details of the President’s plan were revealed, the anti-surge drum-beat got louder. On CBS’s Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked Baghdad reporter Lara Logan if extra troops would make a difference. “The best thing we have is to look at what has happened already. When the U.S. brought in 12,000 more troops into Baghdad last summer, it made absolutely no difference,” Logan replied. “In fact, security here in Baghdad got even worse.”
■ “Lost Cause?” On Tuesday’s Today, NBC’s White House reporter David Gregory suggested even White House insiders have lost faith. “As the President prepares to start a new phase of the war in Iraq, the White House is fending off charges that key figures in the administration have concluded the war is lost.” NBC’s graphic headline read “Lost Cause? Can U.S. Win the War In Iraq?” Gregory also cited unnamed “critics” to suggest Bush’s motives were psychological: “U.S. commanders who opposed adding troops to Iraq have been replaced, prompting critics to charge the President’s resolve has become stubbornness.”
■ Roll call of critics. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer confronted White House aide Dan Bartlett: “I just want to run through a partial roll call of the number of people who have either opposed what the President is going to do, or expressed serious reservations.” As she read off names such as Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel, their names and faces scrolled over her right shoulder. “I could go on and on,” Sawyer told Bartlett. “What don’t they get? What don’t they understand?” Bartlett objected, saying some of the generals she listed as critics “helped devise this plan.”
■ “Breaking Point.” On yesterday’s Today, co-host Meredith Vieira doubted that the U.S. military could meet the challenge: “The cornerstone of his plan is sending around 20,000 additional U.S. troops into the war zone. But is the military stretched to the breaking point already?” Reporter Jim Miklaszewski suggested it was: “The pace of two wars has left two-thirds of the Army’s combat brigades rated ‘Not Ready to Fight.’”
Hi Jonathan your website is simply superb..Keep it Up.
Greetings Jonathan, I have enjoyed your legal blog very much. The best I have seen. Thank you for your excellent work!
Liberal Blogosphere Duped By 3-Year-Old ‘Gaza Bombing Video’
By Noel Sheppard | January 5, 2009 – 15:17
Just how badly do many liberal bloggers want to depict Israelis as heartless killers and Hamas as poor defenseless victims?
On Sunday, a more than three year old video of an accidental munitions truck explosion at a Palestinian rally in September 2005 was spread around the liberal blogosphere as footage of an Israeli attack on Gaza on January 3, 2009.
Two prominent leftwing websites — Raw Story and Democratic Underground — displayed this video for hours before a poster at Reddit exposed the hoax (h/t NBer Blazer).
Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs reported early Sunday:
A gruesome propaganda video uploaded to LiveLeak that purported to show the aftermath of an IDF attack on civilians in Gaza turned out to be a fraud—it actually shows the results of an accidental explosion of a truck full of Hamas rockets at a Palestinian rally.
This didn’t stop the video from reaching the top spot on reddit.com and gaining more than 2,000 up votes, because reddit.com is absolutely infested with antisemites and terror supporters: GRAPHIC Video of Israel Defense Force’s attack on Gaza civilian market — originally uploaded on & banned by YouTube (NSFW) : politics.
Raw Story issued a correction Sunday:
On Sunday, RAW STORY ran video of a bombing in Gaza purported to be recent footage leaked from an exiled Palestinian blogger. We removed the video from the site early Sunday and issued a correction but the original was deleted in a database without the actual html file being removed, so the original persisted through Monday morning without our notice.
The footage is the aftermath of a devastating bombing taking place in a market, said to have been taken on Saturday. According to Haitham Sabbah, it was taken “immediately after a terrorist Israeli air strike hit a busy market where kids with their mothers and fathers were searching for food to eat from one of the local markets early on Saturday 03, Jan 2009.”
Raw Story has removed its original article on this matter, but Question Everything still has the text:
As Israel’s IDF wages it’s [sic] own “media war” via Twitter and YouTube, uncensored footage from Palestine has been completely blacked out in the US.
Until now.
Saturday, before Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Gaza, a Palestinian with a camera witnessed a devastating bombing. His video shows the brutal, bloody results of an air strike on what appears to be a civilian area.
In the footage, scores of bodies – men, women and children – lay strewn about a Gaza market as abject chaos spirals around them. Some struggle to their feet, covered in concrete powder and blood, as others assess their injuries or join the effort to carry away wounded.
Within moments, men in camouflage holding automatic weapons and RPGs assert a growing number among the citizenry. The men, presumably affiliated with Hamas, appear to be helping with crowd control and medical response.
The source of this video was Haitham Sabbah, a self-proclaimed “Palestinian activist and blogger.”
Although he too has updated his blog to reflect his error, this is what he originally wrote concerning this video:
This video clip was taken with a mobile camera immediately after a terrorist Israeli air strike hit a busy market where kids with their mothers and fathers were searching for foot to eat from one of the local markets early on Saturday 03, Jan 2009, Gaza.
As you will see, there are no words to describe the terror of the Jewish state of Israhell. This is why Israel is continuously refusing to allow foreign correspondence and reporters from entering Gaza.
Please spread the video widely. Let the world see what their news TV channels won’t show about reality of Israel. (YouTube deleted the video minutes after it was uploaded, but it is worth trying again).
Get the code for the video to embed on your blog from: http://sabbah.blip.tv/#1642223.
I guess that’s all it takes to get anti-Israeli propaganda spread throughout the liberal blogosphere these days.
How sad.
Thank you for standing up for what is right! I’ve listened to you many times over the past several years (CSPAN, MSNBC) – but didn’t know about this website. I’d like to know if you have a student looking for a very interestnig project… if so, I have a really good one! (Regarding my son who has been in prison in South Carolina for 6.5 years; his appeal to SC Supreme Court was denied…they didn’t even bother to notify him!) In any case, I’d like to express my appreciation for your dedication to preserving the United States Constitution. You are just great!!!
Prof. Turley:
watched you on Rachel Maddox show last night and was really amazed that you wanted to prosecute GW for being a war criminal. Are you serious? What has he done that would rise to that level? The taliban were/are non-state actors, they wear civilian clothes by all rights they could have been shot on site with no trial as spies. So they get a trip to Gitmo, some good chow and a Koran(Quran) how is that violating their rights? Seems to me the US went overboard for them considering what they and their associates did to us.
I say bring that trial on, go right ahead and try Bush and Cheney for war crimes or crimes against humanity. I dont believe you have the vigor to do it. And dont be confused about Bush’s approval rating, my guess is that the vast majority of Americans dissaprove of Bush’s war stance because he did not fight hard enough, nor did he appear to want to win.
I say let the left try, maybe then we can get a little Jeffersonian dialogue going.
The fact that you want to try GW and DC is laughable, I am giggling it is so funny. I am roflmao. The left has lost what little mind they have left.
Is this what is left of the intellectual vigor the left had at the end of the 19th century? Plato, Marx, Hegel and Kant are laughing too and Aristotle is weeping.
Bron98:
Whether or not the Taliban were non-state actors has no bearing on the war crime of torture. The Bush Administration long insisted that it would not comply with the Geneva Conventions on this basis. It later withdrew from that argument and agreed that it would comply with the Geneva Conventions after even its closest allies objected. The war crime of torture applies to anyone. Otherwise, nations could torture civilians and claim to be exempt. If Bush ordered torture, it is a war crime. If it is a war crime, he is a war criminal.
Nevertheless, I am happy to see that we are in accord. Let us have the trial. After the court instruct the jury that as a legal matter waterboarding is torture, the jury will be asked if Bush ordered waterboarding. I am perfectly happy to leave that question up to a jury.
Prof. Turley,
I agree with you 100% about letting the torture crimes issues go to a court. However, I do want to clarify one point. The Taliban were and are state actors. They were the controlling government of Afghanistan when we invaded them. I contend that they are still state actors even though they are not officially in power(at least not in Kabul) because they are attempting to regain control. I thought you did a great job on Rachel Maddow’s show. The torture issue is one that just boggles my mind. If they can torture Padilla who was a citizen, Bush is actually claiming he can torture you and I and even Bron98, with impunity.
Rafflaw:
I have always viewed the Taliban as state actors. However, that argument is simply not relevant to the determination of a war crime for torture.
“If Bush ordered torture, it is a war crime. If it is a war crime, he is a war criminal.”
And what of Bugliosi’s case against Bush for the crime of murder?
I’m listening to your interview on NPR and I’m grateful for your advocacy of our leaders obeying the rule of law. The moral simplicity of that far too easily becomes whitewashed due to partisanship and fear of hypotheticals. Again, thank you for a well reasoned and clearly explained argument on this critical subject.
if our own troops undergo waterboarding how can it be torture? torture in my mind is something that does permanent physical or emotional harm.
I think the Geneva convention (as originaly signed) was about hooking wires up to privates, pulling fingernails off, beating the soles of ones feet, operating on people without benefit of being put under (as the Japanese did in China), that type of thing.
All in all I’d say Bush has done a pretty good job with keeping rights intact and providing for our safety. It amazes me that as a liberal you think it perfectly all right to make me wear a seatbelt, not smoke in public, not eat transfat, and to generally reduce my level of freedom through high taxes and regulations that cost me untold thousands of dollars so I am really no better off than a serf and you think you are protecting my liberty when you talk about trying GW for war crimes because he poured water over the head of some guy who is trying to kill me?
If you really are about protecting the rigths of individuals, which I dont believe you are because most liberals are about naked power and control over other people lives, you would be fighting to reduce the tax burden of every man and woman in this country that pays taxes. You may think you are protecting peoples rights but what you are actually doing is paving the way for a totalatarian state. Philosophies have consequences and Kantian ideas are not good.
the thing may speak for itself but i like “a res est quis est quod can exsisto nusquam alius” A=A and ask no man to live for you nor you for another. only that philosophy will lead to a world in which all men truly are brothers engaging in commerce and association not because they have to but because they want to.
AGO SOLVO
I sent the following to the Obama email addresses:
I am disappointed in the AG nominee — he has “amnesty” baggage.
It is critical that the new admin prosecute the Constitutional violations of Gonzalez/Bush if you want to correct past violations of law. Otherwise, the next administration can do the same violations with impunity.
Jonathan Turley, Prof Constitutional Law) at Geoge Washington Univ, would be ideal for the Dept of Justice. Please take the violations of the Constitution seriously.
I hope the Obama admin does the right thing to correct constitutional violations in a strong way.
Respectfully,
Arnold Vagts, PhD
I hope Prof Turley offers his services to bring law and order back into the Justice Dept.
lets try Bush and Cheney in Texas for crimes against humanity and have a death sentence if convicted! Hang em high and higher.
Jonathan,
Did you grow up on 12 Reservoir circle in Canton, Ma. I remember you, Donna and Sharon very well!!! we were at 8 Reservoir Circle… the Coyne’s
Let me know
I am watching the confirmation hearings for Eric Holder right now, and I believe that he should be confirmed. He has answered all questions, including the one about whether waterboarding is torture or not, thoughtfully and correctly, and has also taken responsibility for mistakes he made in the past. The only way to avoid making a mistake once in a while is to not do anything! I look forward to the Justice Department that he hopefully will head!
p.s. But I also agree that you, Jonathan Turley, would make an absolutely excellent Attorney General. Like many have stated above, I have listened to you on CSPAN and MSNBC, and immediately stop what I’m doing to ‘listen up’! I have a son in prison, and also many prisoners that I’ve come to know over the past 6 1/2 years since my son was sent to prison, so the issues that you speak about are always close to my heart!
Dear professor,
Found this typo, thought you might want to correct it:
‘..contempt defenses and it is one of the most *abuses* areas…” I presume you meant to use the word, ‘abused’?
You’re an inspiration to us all…thank you!
Frank
Prof Turley:
I’ve enjoyed your commentary on MSNBC concerning Constitutional Law issues and was wondering if you have considered authoring a book? You’ve awaken in me an interest in the law beyond what is usually portrayed on TV. I’ve checked several sources and was unable to find one (of course, if you point me towards one you HAVE written, I’ll feel the fool).
I think, especially after the last eight years and the promise of the next four, something on Constitutional Law written for us “Joe-the-Plumb…..”, (er, sorry….maybe something written at a slightly higher level) types. Maybe covering the basics of C. Law, sections on the more profound rulings by the Supreme Courts, the esoteric yet important rulings, the stranger or bizarre cases.
Again, I’ve enjoyed your comments.
Kind Regards,
Mike
Mr. Turley,
People like you who speak truth to power need to know that they have millions of supporters who do not necessarily have the knowledge, forum, or eloquence to join your chorus but are with you all the way none the less. Rest assured, we are out here and we greatly appreciate your courageous efforts. You are a true Patriot and I can think of no greater honor.
Rock on!
JB
Dr Turley,
I’ve seen you many times on TV and have become a fan of yours. I’d like to share with you a growing concern of mine and possibly get some insight from you.
I am of the opinion that the Bush regime has been one of the 3 most damaging administrations in our history with the main positive possibly being AIDs aid to Africa. In my opinion he has ignored and violated our laws, Constitution, and Congress. Worst of all, he initiated a preemptive war in Iraq for reasons that he lied about. In addition to 4,000 + Americans there have been an estimated 600k – 700k Iraqians killed and 2M displaced – a horrendous cost for a nation that had not harmed us.
In addition, we’re now hearing so many of our politicians and pundits debate the validity of preemptive war and torture. Obama has signaled that he does not want to investigate people for potential war crimes making it acceptable for some people to be outside of the law.
Civilization has slowly evolved to the point where we now have the concept of rule by law (including adherence to our constitution, laws, treaties). What disturbs me is that another legacy of Bush is that we are accepting a standard that is less than rule by law all justified in the name of fighting terrorism.
HEY TURLEY, WERE YOU THERE WHEN THE SON OF A FALN VICTIM SPOKE OUT AGAINST HOLDER? WHY ARE YOU SO SILENT?
Eric Holder illustrates the dangers of ambition married to weak character. His subservience to the interests of Bill Clinton in approving the corrupt pardon of Marc Rich and the indefensible pardons of the FALN terrorists was a disgrace. His role in these pardons should disqualify him for higher office.
Holder himself does not defend his role in the Rich pardon. He concedes it was a mistake. He claims somewhat paradoxically that he learned so much from his mistake that he will be a better Attorney General. Holder makes no such concession or claim in the case of the FALN terrorists.
Joseph Connor is the son of one of their victims. He testified against Holder in the confirmation hearing yesterday. In “Terrorists killed my father,” Connor writes:
At the time of the [FALN] pardons, Eric H. Holder Jr. was deputy attorney general. In considering his department’s recommendation on clemency, he met with supporters of the terrorists but ignored their victims. He pushed staff members to drop their strong opposition to a presidential pardon for the FALN members and alter a report they had prepared for the president recommending against clemency. Today, although two turned down their pardons because they were unwilling to renounce violence, many of the convicted FALN members walk free. And a man who was instrumental in their release may become the highest law enforcer in the land.
ping post this:
OBAMA GONNA TORTURE TOO!
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogations
Obama advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. …
For Obama, who repeatedly insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign and the transition period that “America doesn’t torture,” a classified loophole would allow him to follow through on his promise to end harsh interrogations while retaining a full range of presidential options in conducting the war against terrorism.
The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama’s flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.
OBAMA DOES A 180 ON “TORTURE” AND YA’LL ARE SILENT!
The left warned that GW would pardon those involved in torture activities, those involved in falsifying rationale for initiating the Iraq war, and/or to those involved in the secret wiretapping/spying program that circumvented FISA.
QUESTION: Assuming the left was/is correct, what would’ve prevented GW secretly issuing pardons to anyone involved in the BUSH administration despicable/illegal activities. Given GW’s and Cheney’s use of secrecy, don’t we have to assume that GW would’ve classified the pardons in such a way so as to prevent the general public from knowing about the existence of the pardons? Especially since names of those performing the activities being pardoned are/were also “classified”?
right and left can never get along. I suggest we split up the country into the 2 camps. We can have red states and blue states. We can flip for which coast we get. then the left can have their own country and so can the right. It has come down to this and it is time to stop the nonsense and get it over with.
Can we amend the constitution to do this?
right and left can never get along. I suggest we split up the country into the 2 camps. We can have red states and blue states. We can flip for which coast we get. then the left can have their own country and so can the right. It has come down to this and it is time to stop the nonsense and get it over with.
Can we amend the constitution to do this?
These are the people Obama wants to release from GITMO:
The American soldier Al Queda member Omar Khadr killed with a grenade when he was 15 was an ARMY MEDIC.
A MEDIC……………….a person who SAVES lives. A MEDIC.
An introduciton to the Khadr family:
“We are an Al Qaeda family.” So spoke one of the Khadrs, a Muslim Canadian household whose near single-minded devotion to Osama bin Laden contains important lessons for the West.
In 1985, in the course of working in Afghanistan, Khadr met bin Laden and became his close associate. Sometimes Khadr was described as the highest ranking of Al Qaeda’s 75 Canadian operatives.
In 1996, he and his wife set up an Islamic charity they named “Health and Education Project International.” When the Taliban took control in Afghanistan a few months later, the parents and their six children decamped there. As he worked closely with bin Laden, Khadr became known for his militant Islamic vitriol, leading one Frenchman in Afghanistan to observe about him,” I never met such hostility, someone so against the West.”
Like other Al Qaeda leaders, Khadr disappeared from view soon after 9/11. He spent two years on the lam, reappearing only in October 2003,when Pakistani forces unexpectedly found that the DNA of one unrecognizable corpse from a bloody shootout matched Khadr’s.
The terrorism-related activities of other Khadr family members — wife, one of two daughters, three of four sons — complement their patriarch’s record.
Wife Maha Elsamnah took her then 14-year-old son Omar from Canada to Pakistan in 2001 and enrolled him for Al Qaeda training.
Daughter Zaynab, 23, was engaged to one terrorist and married, with Osama bin Laden himself present at the nuptials, a Qaeda member in 1999. Zaynab endorses the 9/11 atrocities and hopes her infant daughter will die fighting Americans.
Son Abdullah, 22, is a Qaeda fugitive constantly on the move to elude capture. Canadian intelligence states he ran a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan during the Taliban period, something Abdullah denies.
Son Omar, 17, stands accused of hurling a grenade in July 2002, killing an American medic in Afghanistan. Omar lost sight in one eye in the fighting and is now a U.S. detainee in Guantánamo.
Son Abdul Karim, 14, half-paralyzed by wounds sustained in the October 2003 shoot-out that left his father dead, is presently prisoner in a Pakistani hospital.
Fortunately, there is also one positive story:
Son Abdurahman, 21, reluctantly trained with Al Qaeda, was captured by coalition forces in November 2001 and agreed to work for the Central Intelligence Agency in Kabul, Guantánamo, and Bosnia. He returned to Canada in October 2003, where he denounced both extremism (”I want to be a good, strong, civilized, peaceful Muslim” ) and his family’s terroristic ways.
Rachel:
you cast pearls before swine. these jackanapes will respond by requesting your head. Dont waste your time trying to explain the obvious to them. Namely Osama wants our collective heads.
What is your opinion of the employee Free Choice Act—the card check proposal for certifying union representation?
I know labor law may not be your specialty but I respect your opinion on a wide range of legal issues—and believe that unlike most lawyers, you’ll tell me if this isn’t your interest.
I always felt, as a former field examiner with the NLRB, that the NLRA could be improved by adding more punitive measures when employers flagrantly violate worker rights. I also felt that the secret ballot election was the best possible way to determine worker preferences but that employers had too many tools to delay the election and diminish the majority standing of the union. Issues brought up in hearings which took forever, might be issues to discuss after the election.
In other words, I believe a speedy election is essential for the unions to have a fair chance and a secret ballot election is essential to truly express the wishes of the employees without coercion. Can this be achieved without a card check law? Your thoughts, please.
Mary Ann
Commentary: Obama breaks his own rules already
By Campbell Brown
January 23, 2009
CNN
(CNN) — Just a couple of nights ago, we heaped praise on the new president for announcing what he called a new era of openness, where in his administration, transparency would rule the day.
And the lobbyists that he was so critical of during the campaign? Well, he told us they will now face even tougher new restrictions.
President Obama: “The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president.”
Well, anyway that’s what President Obama said two days ago. But as we first told you Thursday Obama already wants and will get an exception to his own new rule.
You see, what happened is, there is this former lobbyist for a big defense contractor called Raytheon. Obama wants him to be deputy defense secretary. So, he wants a waiver to his own rule – now.
That means Obama is saying he will put tough new restrictions on lobbyists, except when he won’t.
Really? Is this how it is going to be? Just three days into this administration?
Mr. Turley
I’m new at this. I wonder if anyone gets a chance for a discourse with you? If I post a question, is it possible you might respond?
Tom
Response (hope I’m doing this correctly):
Campbell Brown
Transparency?? How come there’s no hue & cry over sealed college records &, my goodness, no birth certificate to validate legitimacy for presidential stature? Mr. Turley was quoted in the St. Petersberg Times, expressing concern that Obama might not be seen as the “real” President because of a botched oath at swearing in. How ludicris is this concern in comparison to the blatant stonewalling by BO not opening up his records?? Have we heard Mr. Turley’s thought(s) on this matter?? Other than Phillip Berg, no one seems to have the stomach to express concern, when even Obamaites speak of being appalled at his lack of “transparency.
Mr. Turley, are you there?
TF
Hi Prof Turley,
I agree with all who voiced their appreciation for you and the riveting interest you compel during television appearances on PBS, (The Jim Lehrer News Hour, formerly MacNeil/Lehrer) and your recent debate on NPR with Harvard law professor Charles Fried. You are brilliant yet humble, powerful and persuasive, yet always a gentleman.
Prof Turley, if a judge alters a court transcript materially, by erasing and recording over portions of it, in order to cover-up the nature of his conduct, could this be considered a criminal act?
Filing formal complaints of judicial misconduct rarely result in any disciplinary action. Do you believe the means to address issues involving judicial corruption, even with the implementation of the Breyer recommendations, are sufficient?
Would you consider making your class lectures available on the internet? You could teach (reach) the law to thousands.
Keep up your astonishing work.
George
Prof Turley,
How nice to see you are as active now as you were when I had you for TORTs back in 1998 at GW Law. You have always been a wonderful professor and judicial leader thus I look forward to keeping tabs on your thoughts as relayed within the pages of this site.
While I took a different legal route (in-house counsel specializing in Technology and IP), your views on such diverse constitutional/tort issues still fascinates me.
Take care
Kevin Cromer, Esq.
Kevin:
It is wonderful to hear from a former student and to see you doing so well. Welcome to the site. I am afraid that I cannot offer any refund on prior classes, however. Yet, if you become a regular, you can go to any Starbucks and ask for a discount as a Turley blogger on a Latte. In fact, you can ask for a discount from any coffee shop.
JT
Kevin, I ask the state troopers to let me off because I post on the Turley blog.
There is no harm in asking.
Prof. Turley,
I asked several questions on an entry on 1/25. I see you do respond to school/praise messages. I hope you will offer an opinion on the issues I “raised”. I know no one in the media will address my concerns because, obviously, they are judged to be taboo. Are you governed by something (for want of a better word) that makes it off-limits? The OATH glitch was so benign as to cause no backlash for you, I would guess. I don’t see that the St. Pete’s article in which you were quoted would have offered any threat or offended anyone to your determent. I guess what I’m asking of you may NOT be comfortably answered. If so, please accept my apologies. It’s just such a monsterous affront to our Constitutional law that this issue has been ignored by our Courts, media, the DNC, our electoral college, Congress……and,especially the Supreme Court! I mean, who (or what) has the power to influence the Supreme Court? Maybe I’m being overly optimistic to expect these entities to protect/represent the citizens of this land?
tom fitchue, I certainly do not pretend to speak for Prof. Turley, but at the risk of appearing rude, I wish to point out that no one can answer your questions because they are incoherent, delusional and evidence of paranoid fantasies. No serious persons have questions about Pres. Obama’s birth certificate, school attendance or employment history. I would add that his immunization records appear to be in order as well. I suggest that you need some time off, maybe a nice vacation trip to Roswell, N.M.
Dear Mr. Appleton,
And, your credentials include expert evaluation of an on-line “certificate of birth” to acertain its originality? And your “power” to delve into the minds of everyone in this country that enables you to declare they are “serious people”? Just exactly who endowed you with these dubious (at best) powers? Could it have been something that came to you in a dream? I image there could well be drugs involved, butt, who am I to judge YOU of all people?? Who knows, your laser “WIT” might bring a bolt from the Heavens to strike me when I least expect it? I mean, someone with your powers might be able to do anything! And, I’m sure Prof. Turley appreciates you taking up the banner, so to speak. He must be so proud of you!!
TF
Tom, I usually leave this sort of exchange to mespo or Buddha, but I guess I got myself into it, so … My point is simply that the things you are concerned about have been investigated. Some of it has been litigated. For Pete’s sake, I haven’t seen the “original” of my own birth certificate. I also have not personally been on the moon, so cannot attest on the basis of personal knowledge that we have actually landed there. We daily rely on what others tell us about all sorts of things; we question veracity when we determine that we have been lied to or that the asserted truth does not square with our experience and common sense. Or, in some instances, when the speaker appears to have dishonorable motives, such as racial or ethnic hatreds. We judge another’s seriousness by the manner in which his or her thoughts are organized, whether the speaker engages in ad hominem attacks as a substitute for argument and whether he or she recognizes that disagreement is not evidence of bad faith. I have not seen or heard anything to lead me to suspect that anyone has played games with the president’s birth records. Moreover, Phillip Berg, the prime mover in this crusade, is a fruitcake. As a lawyer, he knew from the outset that he had no more standing to challenge the election than I have to ask the courts to enjoin the Iraq incursion as violative of the War Powers Act. For the rest of it, I did not attend GW and have never met Prof. Turley. I follow this site because the topics are interesting and the comments (with some exceptions)are thoughtful. I’m sorry if this response is not sufficient, but it is frankly the best I can do.
Mike Appleton:
Welcome to fun world troll thumping. You will learn to love the non-sequiturs, passionate stupidity, and utter contempt for reason or judgment. These trolls really do find themselves profound.
mespo:
Thanks, I guess.
This thread seems to be getting very full and hard to read. Can the webmaster start up a Bio II file?
Mike,
I appreciate your time writing your response. From the content, I can see your viewpoint and respect it. Your first writing was an attack that I responded to with hackles up. Not a great way to start a discourse, wouldn’t you agree? I don’t agree with some of your thoughts, but I can respect your right to have them. I believe the failure/refusal of Obama’ refusal to bring forth an original document flys in the face of “transparency”, which, as I recall, was a main talking point during the election. There were (ARE) many unsettled issues from the election that still rackle me, but, that’s my problem. I do have many friends & associates that strongly share my concerns, in response to your “serious” people. I guess we all have varied opinions – would be awfully boring if we didn’t.
Tom Fitchue
Mike,
I just belatedly found out that Obama had a closed door meeting two or three days prior to the Supreme Court’s scheduled meeting about whether or not to hear the lawsuit asking for proof of his origin. This meeting was attended by 8 of the 9 sitting judges of the Supreme Court. I don’t know your legal background, but it’s somewhat inappropriate for this clandestine meeting to have occured, given that opposing counsel wasn’t invited. Does this have any meaning to you? If it had been John McCain, what might have been your response, and, perhaps all the other “serious people” previously mentioned? Can you search yourself honestly and without bias and answer this question? Perhaps you might appreciate my concern in other matters. There really has to be other “powers” involved for this type of activity not being disclosed to the public. And, the gall to do something as blatantly this illegal has to prove that something’s badly wrong.
Your opinion here will be greatly appreciated.
Tom Fitchue
Mr. Turley,
I’ve always enjoyed political commentary, and, as a liberal, I’ve always appreciated your articulate defense of our positions in the public arena. On a completely different topic, I was recently researching my family ancestry, which traces back to Cianciana, Sicily, and came across the wonderful article that you wrote about the passing of your grandmother. It certainly made me appreciate my own Sicilian grandmother, who I promptly called after finishing the article.
I was curious as to whether you have written anything based on the interviews with your grandmother regarding the Ciancianese and/or Italian immigrant life in the Ohio Valley in the early-1900’s. My family emigrated to that area, living in Yorkville and Bridgeport until the 1940’s.
Anyway, I’ve noticed that you monitor this board, so maybe you can drop me a line sometime and let me know if you’ve ever written anything to that effect… I would certainly enjoy reading it.
Thanks!
Gary:
What a surprise. Indeed, my Italian side hails from Cianciana, Sicily, where both my grandfather and grandmother came from. One of the still remaining tasks is to write the book about my grandmother. The fact that they lived in Yorkville would seem to guarantee that they knew my grandparents, I would think. Please give my very best to your grandmother. Cent’ Anni!
JT:
“Indeed, my Italian side hails from Cianciana, Sicily”
********************
I am kicking myself for not putting it together. Your mom at age 82 drives alone from Chicago to see her grandkids; you’re a doting parent; a wine lover; a compassionate advocate for the downtrodden; possess a Roman’s feel for politics and law. I bought into that Irish heritage of your Dad’s side, and totally missed the gumba in you. Damn, damn, damn. I knew I liked you for a reason. I should have got it a lot sooner! Sono spiacente!
Tom, I know nothing about any such meeting. What is your source? To answer your question, it is always improper for a judge to meet privately with a party to a lawsuit, or with an attorney for a party, without the presence of opposing counsel. Indeed, I believe it is improper for sitting judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court, to maintain any social relationships with those whose actions may become the subject of judicial review. That is why, for example, I found it unprofessional and improper for Justice Scalia to go duck hunting with Vice President Cheney. But I would need more information to respond to your comments.
Mike,
Great response. I feel that, once we got by that first salvo we fired, that you might give me insight (and, perhaps, I to you) about concern for our nation and our rights as citizens, from two “opposing” sides. I spend a great deal of time worrying about the end of a way of life that’s coming at an unbelieveable pace. I am, predictably, an advocate for bearing guns, freedom of speech (Limbaugh, although I don’t listen to talk-radio or watch TV news, or believe the newspapers), media honesty (major issues here), honest politicians (an oxymoron if there ever was), Israel’s safety, etc. So, I’m a flaming Conservative, to say the least. I keep hoping for an awakening from the Liberal side about the erosion to these Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Without them, and other similarly endowed “rights” vanquished, will you want to live (and raise children) in what will be left of this great country. I’m 73 years old, and have always taken these things for granted. We are now “LED” by a man (and whom/what ever’s behind him) in a direction that promises the end of our way of life.
My source is: WORLD NET DAILY News, writer Bob Unruh, in a post dated 1/27. I’d send you the article, along with others from the same day, but I think that blogs aren’t a good place to share contact info. Probably, rightfully, not allowable. I AM new at this.
I really, truly would appreciate your opinion(s) on this meeting and how there’s been NO media acknowledgement of it’s occurence.
Tom
Prof Turley,
I stumbled upon your site when I saw an article that covered an assault case my office handled a little over a year ago against Rep. Bob Filner at Dulles Airport.
In my position, which is an odd combination of politics and law enforcement, you learn quickly that there is always more to what is reported by the papers than what is actual in fact. This case was no exception.
Proudly, I can tell you that you helped carve me into the attorney I am today as I was a student of yours back in the early 90’s (Torts, Crim Pro).
I suspect that we’re on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I always appreciated your classes more than any other, because you helped me think diffently and examine cases from multiple perspectives. This has been a great asset in my profession.
Let me know if you find your way to Loudoun County, Virginia. Maybe I’ll arrange a tour of the Airport for you!
Jim Plowman
Commonwealth’s Attorney
Loudoun County
GWU Law School (Natl. Law Center)
Class of 1996 (night school)
Jim:
It is terrific to hear from you and to see that you have become the Commonwealth Attorney for Loudoun. That is quite a job and does the whole school proud. It is even more impressive when you were deprived a valid education in not one but two areas. You are very kind in your comments and I will indeed take you up on the airport tour. I insist on being able to ride and shoot one of those de-icers (a personal dream).
Best,
Jonathan
Thanks for the response, Mr. Turley. I would love to read your grandfather’s story, so I hope you do write that book someday. You were correct in your short article about your grandmother that the stories of that generation are disappearing. It was actually my great-grandmother who would have been a contemporary of your grandmother. She was also forced into marriage at age 14 and bearing children by 15. Unfortunately, she passed away in the 1950’s, so I never knew anyone from that generation of immigrants (I was born in the 1970’s). I know very little of their personal stories, other than names, dates, and a few little anecdotes (my grandmother was born in the 1930’s, so she was only 10 when they moved away from the Ohio Valley). I’ll certainly keep my fingers crossed about that book…
Thanks!
B”H
Professor Turley, you rock! You have done more to restore my faith in this country — and that perhaps we are not on our way to third world status — than anyone else!
Tom, 73 years of living should provide you with a great deal of perspective. I am 62. My father served overseas during World War II with what was then known as the Army Air Corps. He spent a great deal of that time in Iran and came out with a pronounced disdain for Arabs (he recognized no distinction between Arabs and Persians). As a Democrat by family tradition, he liked Adlai Stevenson, but thought that he spoke over people’s heads. So he did what many veterans did, vote for the war hero. After two terms of Eisenhower, he told me-and this was one of those moments where one recalls the exact words, “I wouldn’t vote for another G..d d..n Republican if they managed to prop up Abe Lincoln.” He had plenty of prejudices, but recognized them for what they were, and demanded that his kids not share them. That is, he wanted us to be more educated, more compassionate, more understanding and more tolerant than he was.
I mentioned that story simply to illustrate my belief that societies as well as individuals need to mature. Maturity to me is nothing more than the gradual elimination of irrational fears, which in turn opens us up to the consideration of other points of view. I expressed my support for the Obama candidacy to anyone who cared to listen during the campaign. Several people whom I care about a great deal ackowledged to me in private that they could not bring themselves to vote for a black man. They couldn’t really articulate the reasons, but they didn’t need to because all of the reasons can be found in the history of this country. They were simply afraid.
You have expressed concern that the new president will take us “in a direction that promises the end of our way of life.” I’m not sure what you mean, but I do recall that the last time I heard a comparable statement, the candidate was John F. Kennedy and the joke was that if he lost the election he would have to send a telegram to the pope telling him to unpack.
Pres. Obama is just a man like you and me, except that he is smarter than I. He received an outstanding education. He has a wife and kids and wants the same things for them that you and I want for our own wives and children. He is not going to eliminate the First Amendment or any of the others, including the Second. He doesn’t appear to be a great dancer, contrary to a certain popular myth about black people. He has the ability to laugh at himself. He is secure enough that he doesn’t feel the need to surround himself with sycophants; he is willing to listen to opposing views. Whether his presidency will be successful will depend on the same sorts of things which have determined the success of other presidencies: good will, careful planning, decisiveness and a great deal of luck. I don’t agree with all of his views, but I’ve yet to encounter another human being as reasonable and well-balanced as I (LOL).
His election is another opportunity for America to mature. I am confident that when his term of office concludes (or two terms, as the case may be), he will have solved some problems and not solved others. Some problems will have simply solved themselves, only to be replaced by new ones. The Republic will still be standing.
Narrowness produces fear because constant exposure to only one line of thought becomes obsessive. One of the ways I try to avoid becoming too narrowly focused in my views is to expose myself to other ideas. I’ve never yet found a reason to be afraid of another’s thoughts. I read a variety of materials, including some very conservative and some very radical stuff. Contrary to what you might think, I’ve even listened to Rush Limbaugh on occasion, although I do not regard him as a thinker. He is actually a commercial polemicist, but there are plenty of intelligent conservative journals out there. I do not waste time listening to persons who view the world as though life were a series of conspiracies. I do not find any topic (including myself) immune from satire or humor. I lived in 11 states growing up. I met some wonderful peole every place I’ve ever lived. I’ve met some bitter, unhappy people every place I’ve ever lived.
In sum, I do not know what concerns you about the new president, so I don’t know how to allay those concerns other than to suggest that you take a look back at all of those things you may have once feared, and at what became of them.
Mike,
Again, I thank you for taking the time to tell me about your history, especially about your father’s reaction to Ike. I can tell by the depth of feeling that you express that you’re probably much more versed and introspective than I am. I would have also guessed your age around forty, don’t ask me why, tho.
My concern is the enormous lack of tranparency (again, an Obama talking point with little evidence on display) and, the ability to be chambered with 8 sitting Supreme Court Judges who, only a few days later, declined to hear a Constitionally based lawsuit that probably over half the nation wanted opened to prove once and for all, Obama’s right to be President. You did not comment on the private session incident. Most diehard Obama followers will NOT debate the birth issue, stating that it doesn’t exist nor matter.
Stonewalling at its best. It makes no sense to me that, were he capable of producing conclusive proof, why he chooses not do so. Transparency is a great word to sell, but it takes honor and true dedication to walk the walk. An honorable man, wanting to bring the nation together, might have strived to remove this cloud and helped bring the people to rally around him. Arrogance (Supreme Court, the statement “I won”, the fact that Republicans are being berated for sticking together while the Democrats are equally unified in their postitions , with very little criticism) is in full swing. But, that IS politics as usual, especially when one side holds a winning majority.
I don’t know how long you’ll stay in this exchange of views, but I will look forward to its continuation. It’d be interesting were we living closely enough, to meet you and talk to you personally. And, really interesting if Prof. Turley would join in.
Tom Fitchue
Tom, when I last responded to you, I had not had an opportunity to check into the meeting you inquired about. I had asked you for a source, but you only provided worldnet. I am familiar with that site; it is almost a classic example of what I warned about earlier, a small group of people who see a conspiracy around every corner. It is not a source of factual information, and should not be regarded in that manner. In any event, I did a search, including the Supreme Court site. The meeting you mentioned was a ceremonial visit to the Supreme Court at the invitation of Chief Justice Roberts (whose appointment, you may recall, was opposed by then Sen. Obama). The vice president was also present. The same sort of visit occurred following the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992. The Chief Justice is attempting to establish the visit as a traditional event for each incoming administration (sort of like the Prime Minister of England calling upon the Archbishop of Canterbury). There was certainly nothing nefarious about it. And to correct an error in your post, the Supreme Court did not rule on anything relating to the president “a few days after the meeting.” The last case the court refused to hear was thrown out on December 15th.
I also did some other research. The worldnet sniping is fueled in large part by a California dentist named Orly Taitz. She attended dental school in Israel. Several years ago she graduated from an unaccredited law school in California and has been attempting to litigate the citizenship issue, one of at least a dozen cases filed to date. She has no credentials as a legal scholar, let alone a Constitutional lawyer.
Finally, I suggest that your perception that half of the population is concerned about the president’s birthplace is substantially off the mark. This goes back to the problem I discussed earlier. If I restrict my sources of information to admitted propagandists, such as the folks at worldnet, or believe nothing other than what I read in the Daily Worker, I will soon develop a rather skewed view of reality. Each generation has its extremists. You are old enough to remember the John Birch Society or “None Dare Call It Treason,” a book which attempted to pick up the gauntlet of anti-communism following the public humiliation of Sen. McCarthy. I have in my possession a book published this past year in Florida and delivered gratis to my home. Its thesis is that the Jesuits are pursuing a long-term strategy to assume complete political power in this country. I have kept the book as an example of some of the most virulent anti-Catholicism I have ever encountered. You get the picture.
The digging I did you can certainly do well enough yourself. When people feel they are unfairly attacked on this blog, it is usually because they appear to be simply parroting views they have picked up from someplace, rather than rationally discussing their own ideas. If you take the time to verify what you read (particularly on a site that has a pronounced agenda) before you repeat it, you will likely find that you have less to say, but that what you do offer is more interesting and cogent.
Mike,
Thanks again for your time and insight. I’m not very skilled on researching for information. I earlier tried to find access to the Supreme Court activities, with no success. I even mailed letters to all nine Judges, asking them to hear the birthright verification issue. I’m reluctant to randomly open sites for fear of taking out my computer, even though I have “protection”. This does limit my searches.
I believe the that Supreme Court Judges were to have met privately to review the validity of another suit filed to petition Obama’s records. There was no decision proffered by the Court publicly, as had been the case in an earlier petition. Will you give me the name of the site where you found your information? Wonder if either Bush attended such a meeting with the Judges? Seems like a big jump from Reagan to Clinton.
I appreciate the time you’ve spent responding to my issues.
Tom
In November 2007 Barack Obama told his supporters in a speech just played on MSNBC that he would employ “ZERO” lobbyists in his White House.
He now has 8 lobbyists employed in his White House – and this report is courtesy of non other than MSNBC – the network fast getting tired of Barack Obama ruining its market share.
Mr. Turley, just WHEN are you going to start challenging these mistakes Mr. Obama is making almost daily? Or is the pittance you get for appearing on Olbermann and Maddow’s show worth corrupting the values virtually all parents wish to instill in their children – by chance maybe even you.
Dear MSNBC,
I’m a new-to-blogging person trying to become accustomed to the process. I started off initialy trying to draw Prof. Turley into a discourse on how the Media buffers Obama from serious issues of concern. One of the other posters has given feedback to my questions/comments/concerns that I have found quite enlighting. It seems that some (if not all) of my issues were drawn from information from sources considered slanted in their content. I have/had become quite disenchanted with the junk we’ve been fed by all the media that have actually (in some isolated instances) acknowledged they were mandated to NOT raise issues that were deemed taboo (muslim terrorists is now off-limits, as an example) because they might offend some faction. Issues of birthright are ignored as being “already documented WITHOUT A DOUBT”. The lack of response to this issue without media acknowledgement only proves, in my eyes, the depth of how far the “TRUTH” has fallen from standards in place since this country was founded. Never in my lifetime have I felt the corruption in our courts and government to be so predominate.
I’m sure to draw some fire over this “blog”, but I doubt it will come from Prof. Turley.
Tom Fitchue
Mr. Fitchue:
I would not waste my time you are dealing with a good many mental incompetents on this web site. They think taxes are good and putting your money in your pocket bad. they think that water boarding is more immoral than Lt. Calley killing those civilians in Vietnam. They think that they are all about protecting the constitution at the same time calling for more regulations that make us less free. the mind of a liberal is a scary place enter if you dare.
Mespo:
Sorry for the delay but indeed I am half Italian. My mother’s family was named Piazza. My grandmother’s family was named Moscato and LaCort. I agree with your view of Italians who desire both good wine and good justice, but what explains that paisan Giuliani?
JT:
“…but what explains that paisan Giuliani?”
*****************
Genetic anomaly or cardiac resection.
JT:
This blog must really have the troll population worried. I noticed when I Googled the site a warning comes up that it “might harm your computer.” You may want to discuss that with Google to get your name off the list “no surf” list.
Mespo,
I too got the google “bad site” message when I tried to google Prof. Turley’s site. those nasty trolls are getting upset over people actually pointing out the error in their ways.
There is something bogus at Google. It does cough up that warning message.
But if the MSN brower, Live Search, is used, there is no warning message.
And on both Google and MSN, the McAfee SiteAdvisr says:
“We’ve tested this site and found it to be safe.”
It is probably a technical glitch. I doubt if the trolls are smart enough to do this.
As a troll I am not worried about this site. I wish more of my kind would come here. I actually have learned quite a bit. There is nothing to fear from another point of view unless you are staring up the barrel of a gun while being talked to.
Come on trolls, take it to the bozone.
Glitch seens to be gone.
One million without power freezing and Obama sets the Oval Office thermostat to a toasty tropical setting that you could grow Orchids in, according to David Axlerod, senior advisor. Axlerod’s response, “He is from Hawaii.”!
Obama has told America the days of setting our thermostats to 72 degress are over. We can’t do it, but he can, while millions freeze without power.
Dear Bron98 & Global Warming….,
It does seem the heat has been turned up in here, despite BO’s admonishment to the common folk that it’s necessary to “keep the heat turned down”. I found this blog because I wanted to get Prof. Turley’s opinion about the media’s disregard for misdeeds that are afoot in Gomorah (D.C, if you would). Courts failing to administer their sworn duties to the people they serve, politicians who ignore the wishes of the people who elected them, who sell their votes to line their pockets, media hacks who ignore issues because their audiences will be offended (or their management mandates are contrary to the facts because of political conflict) as was well evidenced in our last election. For instance, just imagine John McCain had won the election but refused to prove his legitimacy to hold the office of the President. Wonder how our left-wing liberals
might react? You think, perhaps, they might demand evidence be provided to prove the Constitutional right to be seated?? How do you think the courts might respond to their demands?? Since our courts have demonstrated their unwillingness to hear Conservatives’ demands, one might be led to believe they’d be on McCain in a Chicago minute. Obama’s attack on talk show narrators (which does seem, to many, to be an attack on our Constitutional rights for freedom of speech) is very likely to undermine his credibility in the eyes of the citizenry. His lobbist cabinet members are a direct contradiction to his promise to exclude them from the White House. His choices of two tax-evading, caught red-handed, minions are certainly no break from old, long-standing Washington practices that he promised to keep out of his “administration”.
Many of us wonder why he is not held to task on these issues that openly conflict with all his promises to his followers that there would be “CHANGE”. Maybe these followers weren’t subconsciously expecting better, so they see nothing wrong with all this. Or, it could be the Kool-aid.
Tom Fitchue (a.k.a. troll?)
500,000 people without power in the east, dozens of deaths, people freezing in unheated homes.
Obama turns the Oval Office heat up to 77 degrees and spends the day at the Superball hoisting $25 drinks paid for by taxpayers.
Shameful and I see the world and Americans are noticing.
February 1, 2009Obama: “Let Them Eat Steak”
Is Barack Obama an insensitive lout who serves $100 per pound steaks to his elite guests and turns up the heat in the White House high enough to grow orchids while a million of his countrymen are without power and dozens are freezing to death?
Many on the web–but no one in the mainstream media–have commented on the fact that Obama has not even pretended to do anything about the massive ice storm that has disabled much of Kentucky and neighboring states. It took days for FEMA to swing into action. Why is that not a scandal? Days went by before Kentucky’s governor called out the National Guard. Why did no one blame Obama for failing to call out the Guard sooner? Probably because he lacks the constitutional power to do so; but the Constitution hasn’t changed since 2005.
What Katrina taught the media was that they could hurt Bush by lying. What 2008 taught them was that they could help Obama by not reporting at all. What will 2009 teach them? I shudder to think.
A basic reality of our time is that our mass media are monolithic, and what they choose to report (or not report) depends on what fits the narrative they are pushing on the public. If our reporters and editors wanted to portray Obama as clueless and out of touch with ordinary Americans, he has given them ample opportunity to do so. But because they are Democrats and he is a Democrat, they have no desire to tell that story. So “let them eat steak” is not a theme you’ll be seeing on the evening news.
Sorry, kent, but Comrade Kramer spoke out of turn and will have to be silenced by the proletariat. Our master plan was not to be revealed until we had completed the nationalization of the banks and their bourgeois lackeys on Wall Street. The people of Kentucky refused to support the revolution. Now let them look to Mitch McConnell for succor.
Mike,
Or plan on secession from the Obamanation, along with Texas. But, this information is not for publication, so, hopefully, we can rely on you to keep our secret safe,
Tom
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
I have real difficulty with the Obama administration’s obvious desire to support and expand Bush’s faith-based initiative.
During the Bush administration, I worked for Dare Mighty Things, the federal contractor that provided technical support for the faith-based initiative known as the Compassion Capital Fund. Much was made about the Bush Administration’s innovativeness in providing public dollars to support the work of faith-based organizations. This was inaccurate. Government support through a network of grants and contracts has been provided to religious organizations for non-sectarian social services for the past 50 years.
What was new was allowing federal funds to be used to support religious and quasi-religious activities under the guise of social services. This happened with a wink and a nod through the Capital Compassion Fund and related faith-based initiatives. This cannot be allowed to continue in the Obama Administration.
Additionally, I witnessed first hand, technical assistance training on how CCF grantees could legally discriminate against people they didn’t want to hire based on religious predilections. As an American, I was and continue to be offended that taxpayer dollars would be used to exclude any group of people. This, as well, cannot be allowed to continue.
Yet, beyond these challenges, there is the wider, Constitutional issue of the separation of church and state. The previous administration – certainly not the most respectful of the Constitution in general – somehow believed that the separation clause was up for grabs. It is not.
We are all diminished when government can use its substantial weight to assault the Constitution by funding the peculiarities of religious entities. Let’s hope that President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, will safeguard these vital protections by curtailing the errors of the past faith-based initiative.
You can read more about this and other matter at my blog: http://www.501cweb.com.
Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for #2 at Justice
February 3, 2009
CHICAGO – President Obama has made a major mistake and put America’s families at risk by selecting David Ogden to become Deputy Attorney General, says Fidelis, a pro-family organization.
“David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and ACLU. He can’t run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children. The United States Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden’s full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination” said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis.
“Ogden’s record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos. He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children.”
“David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine – at taxpayer expense, of course,” said Burch.
As a lawyer in private practice, Ogden has argued for an unlimited abortion license, gays in the military, and has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.
“A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor’s abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries,” continued Burch. “Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America’s families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation’s laws. “
Thud
There are two kinds of people in the United States:
1. People who remember how horrible the Jimmy Carter years were.
2. People who are about to find out.
To be fair to Carter, though, he got off to a better start.
By Charles Krauthammer
Updated: Friday, February 06, 2009
“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.”
— President Obama, Feb. 4.
Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared “we have chosen hope over fear.” Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.
And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn’t understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.
The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn’t what’s illegal, but what’s legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.
He’d been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he’s not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don’t get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.
At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal’s private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he’d come to Washington to upend.
And yet more damaging to Obama’s image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama’s name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.
It’s not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It’s not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.
It’s the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus — and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress’s own budget office says won’t be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.
Not just to abolish but to create something new — a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the “fierce urgency of now” includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.
The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting “planted” for “ready to market” would mean a windfall garnered from a new “bonus depreciation” incentive.
After Obama’s miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell — and that this president told better than anyone.
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
Mr.Krauthammer,
Undoubtly the best message of truth on this site. I’m in awe! Perhaps the kool-aid is wearing off, or, maybe, BO left something out of the recipe? Maybe, sometime, there will be a more wide-spread calling to delve into the birth certificate issue. Won’t be fun, but may be the fastest way to remove this blight from our lives.
Registered Democrat.
Tom Fitchue
Panetta goon manhandles reporter
Don’t recall any incident in which a Bush administration official had a bodyguard manhandle a reporter, at the CIA or anywhere else.
Can you imagine the media reaction if this had happened a year ago?
Following Leon Panetta’s confirmation hearing Thursday, several reporters approached the CIA director-designate in the hallway outside room G-50 in the Dirksen Building.
There, CongressDaily reporter Chris Strohm — upon asking a question — was physically – and painfully – restrained by a man who accompanied Panetta at hearings both days.
Strohm, when reached by phone Friday, said he was unsure of the man’s role. “I felt this hand grab my right arm and push me aside,” Strohm said.
By his account, Strohm told the man, “Please don’t touch me” more than once.
CQ’s Tim Starks objected when it happened, and later told Politico’s Michael Calderon that he’d never seen any journalist pushed around like that before.
Imagine how this would have been covered in the Bush administration.
We would have heard about it on every broadcast channel.
Keith Olbermann would have complained about Nazi tactics in silencing reporters. Media organizations would have called for Congressional investigation.
Now? This is the president the left & the media elected and the Hope and Change they wanted. The silence is deafening.
Takili,
This seems to be a day of enlightment on this site, but, the general population doesn’t seem to have much to say. ‘Course, this all WAS predictable, considering the tactics used before and during the election. I mean, could any one have expected the quality the characters involved to have magically become honest and forthright?
Their pasts are so tainted, that to expect better of “them” is naive, to say the least. It does seem the noise on the street appears to be full of disatisfaction and “if I had only known”.
I wonder what it will take to get us out of this mess? Maybe there’ll come a way short of bearing arms, after all. I certainly hope. I’m way too old for “hand-to-hand”.
Registered Democrat who voted for BO over Billiary in the so-called Florida primary. I’m still trying to re-think that one.
Tom Fitchue
WIKILEAKS PUBLISHES ALL 6780 CRS REPORTS
A press release indicated that the Wikileaks site
has published 6780 Congressional Research Service CRS reports on its
website, supposedly the entire electronic output made available to all the
Congressional Offices. There are additional reports and briefings prepared
for specific offices that are not included in that electronic output.
Details are available at this page:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Change_you_can_download:_a_billion_in_secret_C
ongressional_reports
Wikileaks says that there are are 2500 reports that had not been available
through OpenCRS in any form; a substantial amount of material. Some 4500 of
the reports are the updated versions of older reports already online.
ABCNEWS: CATERPILLAR CEO contradicts Obama: ‘We’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again’…
test
Mespo, welcome back.
Dream on Al.
We the People are coming for your boys.
Jonathan,
Just wanted to point you to the Bush Project site. Thanks for all you do.
Steve
Democrat Senior Senator Byrd says Obama trying to impower Presidency beyond Constitutional limits:
In a scathing letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change.
Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”…
“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”
The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday demanded Obama “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the president will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the administration will be transparent and open to the American public.”
Our media tell us of all the wonderous things Obama is going to do. Where he got the power to make all these crazy assertions, I can’t imagine. It’s like he’s going to wave his wand and sprinkle Kool-Aid over all the land, and all his loyal subjects will sing his praises on high, and we’ll all kneel at his feet, saying, Oh blessed one, we’re in your hands. Do with us as you will!!! And, his Dem side-kicks (disciples?) will raise their hands as one, and empower him to have his way with all who kneel before him. And no one can stand before him or his mighty sword will strike him down and be vanquished for ever-more.
Makes my blood boil!!! Makes me sick at my stomach!! Wakes me in the middle of the night, furious and frustrated because no where is there any sign of rebellion or challenges from the media!!!
God, what have we done to deserve this charlatan/usurper/liar having been granted the position to stand in front of us, and yet be the most reviled (if you doubt this, go on the streets and listen) incarnation imagineable?? And for there to be so many who support him and sing his praises as the Messiah who will delivery us to………! What has happened to this country to lead us to the brink of destruction without an up-rising, without a storming of Washington demanding a stop to this debacle?? I’ll bet we could top a million man march by a long ways. It’s likely there’d even be more people than there was at the crowning!!
Yes, Virginia, we now have a President Doofus:
‘Fuzzy Math’ on War Funding.
Obama Begs Moscow “We will scrap missile-defense for help with Iran”.
Dow drops another 300 points; off 2,500 just since Obama inaugeration, 3,500 since Obama election, and 6,500 since Obama nomination – investor message – WE DON’T TRUST or BELIEVE IN Obama’s fruitcake answer to our problems.
Mespo you CLUELESS DOLLARLESS MORON, read what the smart people are saying about your hero Obama the Market Crasher:
REVIEW & OUTLOOK MARCH 3, 2009 The Obama Economy
As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.
As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama’s policies have become part of the economy’s problem.
Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it’s become clear that Mr. Obama’s policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence — and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.
The Democrats who now run Washington don’t want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it’s also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length — and average job loss — of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up — unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.
And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year’s easing will eventually stir economic activity.
Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.
So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year’s fourth quarter.
What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama’s agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital — financial and political — to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his “stimulus” spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama’s ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.
AIG yesterday received its fourth “rescue,” including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup’s restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury “stress tests” will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.
The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they’re no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.
Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress — unrebuked by Mr. Obama — are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.
Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn’t help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.
Perhaps they’re reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that’s right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.
It’s great to read articles herein that speak openly about the debacle being foisted on this country by Obama and his Congressional minions (who have had control of the national decision-making for over two years). No one seems to recognize that Bush was not without opposition his last two years. As I recall from a past that’s getting clouded with age, that the country’s finances weren’t in too bad a shape in 2006. No one seems to remember all the Democratic support/chest thumping about going to “war” in Iraq. All of this does appear to be child’s play compared to the carnage being created (perhaps delibertly) by Obama. I’ve thought, since his past was made public, that he was being protected in a manner that was so far spread that it couldn’t be just a fluke. For the courts to protect him from scrutiny, for us to stand by while Acorn worked it’s magic unchallenged, for State’s and Universities to block access to his records, to watch him lie (and, it’s easy to watch him and KNOW when he’s really “reaching for words” to mask or avoid telling the truth when asked a direct question, that, if truthfully answered, would bring him DOWN). NO rational person, not on the Kool-Aid, could NOT know that he IS indeed, our worst enemy.
If only the national media could shake their leftist mandates, focus on the reality of what they’ve helped create, and un-do this mess before it gets any worse.
I’m a Registered Democrat who voted for Obama in the Florida primary, because I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Clinton!
At that time all I knew was that he had voted “present” a lot.
Hey Tom,
Here’s the enemy, sport.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all
To think otherwise is just not thinking.
Did I mention this as well?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342
Yeah, Bush is soooo great.
Get a clue.
Dear Bubba,
I didn’t set out to defend Bush. Sorry you misconstrewed, but, is this your weigh of changing the subject?? If sew, you’ve had a good teacher for the last few months.
Do you ever actually express yourself with the written word? It does make it tough for us to understand your intentions, us – your audience who hang on your every word. Who look to you for our enlightenment. Being the prophet that you are. Worshipped around the world. We’re in awe of your omnipotence.
Tom
Oh, so yet another cogent posting. You’re a genius.
Buddha:
“I didn’t set out to defend Bush. Sorry you misconstrewed, but, is this your weigh of changing the subject?? If sew, you’ve had a good teacher for the last few months.
Do you ever actually express yourself with the written word? It does make it tough for us to understand your intentions, us – your audience who hang on your every word. Who look to you for our enlightenment. Being the prophet that you are. Worshipped around the world. We’re in awe of your omnipotence”
******************
Not one to quibble about grammar in the rush job that is blog commentary, but can you contain your laughter at the irony of this guy criticizing you for being unable to “express yourself with the written word,” in the face of his syntax?
Buddha/Mespo:
If I may be so bold, the object of your derision is in his late 70’s based on reading posts a month or so ago. I dont know if that has anything to do with it and I am certainly not trying to engage in octanagerianism.
And certainly if he is going to play he has to pay, I am just suggesting a handicap of say 20 strokes (no pun intended)
Wasn’t aware of his senior status, but the Glass House Rule applies to those over 50 too.
Dear Bubba, Mespo, and Bron98,
Gosh! That a hole bunch of you. To explain about my sintax, I used short sentences for Bubba, because, judging (although, far be it for me to judge anyone) from Bubba’s two messages to me, you’ll notice he uses short sentences, and only two at a time. Not having dealt with him before, I thought it best to start off slowly. Obviously, you others must be used to taking up the banner, so to speak, in his behalf. An admiral undertaking, no doubt. Being in my dotage, and likely unable to defend myself
from the barrage of your wittisms, I’ll just apologize to Bubba, so you all won’t have to worry anymore. Hopefully, that will give you more time for other, more critical issues.
I’m sure the world awaits.
Tom
Mr. Turley,
I saw you on Countdown tonight.
Please stop shaking your head as if you are nodding that you are in agreement with yourself after most every statement you make.
Not only does it make you look ridiculous, your jowels bounce!
Also, you look like you need some sleep – pardon me – a lot of sleep.
Ugo,
Are you related to HugoC who has posted the same nonsense in the regular threads? I will say it here again that to make the claim that Obama is working on everything but the economy is an purposeful misreading of the facts. You are forgetting that this recession started in December of 2007 and over 4 million jobs were lost before Obama took office. You must be forgetting that the stimulus bill that the Republicans refused to cooperate with is designed to create and save jobs. You may be able to point to the stimulus in a year or two and say it hasn’t saved or created any jobs, but 2 months into the Presidency and less than a month into the stimulus plan is not intellectually honest.
Dear Mr. Turley:
First, you could appear on Countdown every night and draw an incredible number of viewers for Mr. Olberman – you are articulate, direct, and free of “legalise” – in other words, we can all understand you!
My son continually tells me that the Constitution is based solely on individual rights and not societal rights. I need a good argument from a scholar – and that’s you. He feels that taking money from the wealthy to assist those less fortunate is a violation of our Constitution. I won’t even bore you with my lame counter-arguments. Help!
Dear Dr. Turley,
This is a first-time blog for me. But I want to THANK YOU for your courage and straight speaking about the necessity of keeping to the rule of law in this country, and of not committing torture. Noone is above the law, and we must prosecute those who have broken it no matter who they are. You give me some hope that the America we all love and cherish might be able to regain some of it’s lost self respect. Hopefully President Obama, himself a former constitutional law professor, will come to see that upholding the constitution is crucial to our national self-esteem and identity, and to keeping us honest. We, as a nation have audaciously thought ourselves to be above other countries in humanitarian and legal rights, fairness, free speech, open government, and in embracing diversity. I fear we are at great risk of losing all that makes us unique and wonderful, and that frightens me. However, your clear thinking and straight speaking cheers me. Thank you.
Dear JAaA,
I’m unsure what your credentials are, but I’ll bet they don’t include A’s in diction. If you have some empowerment that allows you to judge other people’s intelligence, would you please, for the sake of “transparency” (don’t you enjoy using this word, although it’s intent HAS been drug through the mud recently), share its source with us. This will help decide whether, or not, to pay heed to your missive(s).
Mr. Turley what can Constitutionally be done about re-instituting and re-establishing the Constitution to our nation, I mean does it have to come to an all out revolution? John F.Kennedy WARNED everyone about corrupt government and secret society assemblies. There has got to be a way for the American people to be heard. Millions of Americans simply do not trust the government any longer on any level. What has happened to our own Supreme Court, lobbying our rights away. I read where that terrorist could be set free within our borders, yet, Eric Holder is trying to disarm the American people. Then I hear about the State of Missouri getting what was ‘supposed to be secret’ document that anyone that has a patriotic symbol, bumper sticker, anything constitutional will be pulled over and harrassed…It’s called the MIAC. Labeling any American a terrorist from the age of 2 to 102. So, explain to me what can be done to be heard. Talk to our congressman??? Our states DO NOT have representation, but manipulation. I fully understand if you don not reply, but I am concerned that the American people may be faced with a stand off. Am I Democrat? Am I Republican? No, I am neither…I am an American…I don’t have time to be Democrat or Republican. This Nation under God has been divided long enough.
I hope to hear from you,
A.V. Worley
To: AngryAmerican,
If the Missouri part is real, one would wonder just WHICH bumper stickers, etc. would be targeted. And, just who would issue such an edict? I wish you were on my “mailing list”. This country needs all the voices that speak of returning our government back to where our values are represented by our ELECTED “officals”. Funny how easily the word “offical” can be changed to “offal” by removing “I see”, isn’t it?
Tom Fitchue
Yeah Tom…my buttons don’t play with me right sometimes and I do miss letters…lol. No, I have really been working on my own investigations for the ast five years, just to debunk many conspiricies, and some I have but many that can’t be debunked, but anyway…thanks for your reply. Just check out MIAC and you’ll see what I was refering to.
Shoot…I feel like a microbe…Tom I read what you said and thought you were refering to a mispelled word I wrote..lol. And yes, I am very ready for our country to reunite back together as a nation…NOT TWO SEPARATE PARTIES, but as Americans…God fearing Americans.
Monica Foran:
Your son is a genius.
Dont you dare ruin that boy’s mind.
Hello Jonathan:
Until I heard you on the Rachel Maddox show this evening (Monday March 23, 2009) I was ambivalent about pursuing war crimes against the Bush Administration including Dick Cheney (even though I have marched in the peace marches since 2001 and been a lifelong Democrat). All of your arugments are reasonable, logical and sound and I now am a firm believer President Obama should get out of the way (stop being an obstructionist) and allow the legal process to take place. Absolutely. Thank you for the education and insight in to this critical issue.
Dr. Jerri Curry
jerricurry5@yahoo.com
Mr Turley, I am not a legal or political analyst. I am just a person who is concerned about our nation and how it is perceived in the world. I just want to say that I appreciate your insight and clear interpretations of the actions of our politicians and other individuals who seem to be compromising the integrity of the United States and deceiving our citizens. Aside from my run on sentences I am short on words. I will follow your blog and keep an eye out for you on the air. Thanks again for helping us see where to look. Dan
Daniel or anyone else who can direct me to the text/Utube, etc that is referenced in Daniel’s message. I’ve wanted to get a feel for Prof. Turley’s take on what’s happening NOW in Washington. Hopefully, there’s enlightenment for me therein. I did, earlier, try to engage Prof. Turley over election issues, but had no luck.
Saw you on Maddow re Cheney/Obama torture issue. I was 20 when JFK died. Since then, partly thru the writing of John Perkins (Econ Hit Man, etc.) I’ve become convinced that the well-armed, mostly secret, military & intelligence services of the US Govt took out the President because he probably wasn’t going to do VietNam the way they wanted, and had already disappointed on the Cuban Missile thing (& Bay of Pigs). They had to also do Bobby later because he would have outed them, had he become President.
The Army has taught torture to thousands of students at School of the Americas for decades. Torture is not new to us; what is new is our open discussion of it.
Obama must be very careful with these people in order to stay alive. I believe he fully understands his situation.
please expose how the world trade center buildings were imploded by our own officials !!
Toni, Our “Officials” failed to protect our nation when they needed to be vigilant. Had they not been too busy disregarding the constitution and corrupting the civil rights of US citizens who disagreed with them perhaps the Trade centers would not have fallen. Then to compensate for their failure they initiated a war based on lies and deceit and as a result over 4000 American soldiers have lost their lives and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. Our Officials failed to protect our nation from an attack and failed in their response to it…I can list more failures if you like….
Whatever your name is Troll,
The reason why Cheney and Bush are already guilty of war crimes is because they admitted in public on more than one occasion to the their authorization of waterboarding. Waterboarding is a crime under US law and International law. The facts are so troublesome for the Troll community.
The troll family continues to have problems with the facts.
To: Pathetic Apologist formally known as dsljdaoejew0p970d7v0x7v0987v09: Hmm…indeed, a prosecutor should be appointed and an ongoing investigation should be pursued and all of the tape and video comments that implicate members of the Bush Administration with the violation of national and international laws should be reviewed and submitted as evidence of their implication. And, upon their conviction perhaps they can be extraordinarily renditioned to someplace where they can serve a suitable punishment. As for the bigger monstrosity I would submit that the needless killing of 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians including women and children and the needless loss and maiming of thousands of US soldiers as “repayment” for the 9/11 tragedy to be a suitable measure of the larger abomination. Perhaps you should think before you comment lest you look like a fool….
DanielC,
Good work!
Mr. Cautrell,
In following the last few (recent) comments, and, being something of an “innocent” participant, I read through your entry, and, in so doing, noticed the multiple use of the word “SHOULD”. Having been tutored by several friends ( I doubt I would have ever figured it out by myself) to recognize words that have an irrational purpose, using them is a method of projecting your wishes on to others. It’s something of an indicator of a controlling personality. I’ll bet there are others frequenting this site who’ve learned to realize when they themselves use such a word, or, perhaps more often, have someone else attempt to “use” it on them. It’s like skating or swimming, once learned…. This knowledge can be very useful when interacting with others. Most people who don’t choose to be controlled will likely be non-receptive to your wishes.
Tom, Thanks for the psychological profile. However, I reject your inference that I am a controlling individual. I use the word “should” because I am “suggesting” these actions. Based on my limited real knowledge of what the Obama Administration is going to do I, as a US citizen and not a legal scholar, would suggest that these legal actions should be considered. And, I as a citizen have that right. However, if my suggestion is offered as a form of control forcing President Obama to abide by my decree then so be it. He is my employee and works for me so he should be doing what I say shouldn’t he?….
Daniel,
Two more “should’s”, but, you’ve probably picked up on the “suggestion” that I made. As far as your employment of Obama, when does he get his first evaluation? Hopefully, he’s still in the “trial period” (just a little light-hearted play-on-words) and, you can terminate his employment at will. I envy you the power!
So, Tom, you look at the actions of the Obama Administration to date and feel that he is destroying our nation? And, were you silent for the eight years watching or ignoring the actions of the Bush Administration? Did you approve of them? It is inconceivable that someone would determine that the Bush Administration was anything less than the worst Presidency in the History of the Nation and has created more enemies of our nation than it had destroyed. But, of course, I’m no expert. Quite frankly, the Bush Administration has disfigured the face of America for ever. It will never look the same or have the same world status that it once had. It has been poisoned the effects of which cannot be counteracted with a couple Obama aspirin. But I do think that the days of right wing apologists who spout out half truths and out right lies without being called on it are over. Oh, and I really do appreciate the suggestion about the word “should”. I will in fact be conscience of it’s use from now on. Thanks for that.
Daniel,
You’re welcome. First, I’ll guess that you’ve read some of my earlier entrys here, and, according to one writer – very old. I am a Democrat by history & registration, but not by heart at this time. Once I learned & SAW some of Obama’s background – Ayers, Wright, ACORN, dependance on teleprompters (without which Obama was nothing but a bumbler), stolen speechs -(JUST WORDS?) etc., I never would have believed that the voters of this country would elect someone with such a tainted past. No credentials that display worthiness – PATRIOTISM!, LEGITIMACY, etc., but many that DID display his liberalism to the ultimate degree. His Islamic ties, the words he spoke pre-Election were so far to the Left that, it seemed, we might as well have cloned Hitler. His proposed projects are as UN-AMERICAN (let’s try having mandatory servitude for our youth – the latest disclosure I’m aware of) and bounce that off Hitler, for instance. Let’s somehow control the media so no one knows the “issues”, so that there’s no line of communication to the people to call out the incroachments of the Constitution – a HITLER method for sure, worthiness to “hold” the office of the Presidency, that deserved/s to be ‘vetted (by the DNC, if no one else, before & now – inexcusable), the First & Second Amendment violations, some flagrant, and of course he “took” the oath of office to up-hold the integrity of it….. What a farce! I predicted & still do, that he’ll sell out Israel – watch that happen. He has breached protacol with some of our strongest allies, who have helped make this country what it used to be. You’re right when you state that we’ll never see things return to their past glory. I don’t feel Bush is responsible for the deterioration of our diminishing place of respect by the rest of the World. I see that as a result of the chaos being brought forth in the last two months, that is destroying a respect 230 years in the making.
I don’t feel that any candidate in the last Election was worthy to lead the country, especially under the conditions Bush left it, but we had to elect someone. If only the “someone” was a person the entire Nation could rally behind, not the untested charlatan with a damaged, clouded past that has divided this country far more than Bush – in just two months – and, is “pushing us over the cliff”, likely delibertly. I can’t find any other reason that explains what’s happening.
Tom…..I am sorry to say that you have lost all credebility with me. You can not be serious….your asinine comments seem to be so ridiculous that I can not take you seriously. You seem like an intelligent person, well spoken, but you observations are so out of line that I can’t imagine that they are your own. Your assertions about Obama’s association with Ayers and ACORN have been explained and dispelled by research. Unless, you want to distort the facts with false embellishment of these situations. I have sat in on community meetings with perceived racists across the table who indeed live in my community. So, you would associate me with racism? There were a few unscrupulous ACORN members who broke registration rules and so you would poison the entire orgaization? The organization was doing a community service to get under served citizens to vote. Do you suggest that that was not a worthy cause? I am not black but I recognize the history of the black population in the US….and it is a travesty….but, you consider a black priest who chooses to voice his disgust of this treatment to be anti American…I would call that racism on your part. Furthermore, how dare you even comment of the use of telepromters by politicians. That is simply a disrespecting my intelligence. And, to suggest that because he is more worldly and is more aware of other cultures and religions you consider this to be unacceptable? I personally want a president who knows something of the Muslim religion. By the way, I associate with the Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists in my community. Would you consider that to be UnAmerican? Based on your interpretation of associations I would say yes you do.
Mandatory servitude? Do you mean giving young Americans the opportunity to do community service to work for the benefit of their communities or work for international peace in exchange for money for college as opposed to military service? You don’t consider that to be a worthy use of our youth? I think that your opinion is un American. To continue, your assert that Obama has disregarded constitutional laws? You have got to be kidding. Legal Scholars has determined that the Bush Administration has been the most corrupt unconstitutional presidency in history. And, yes, the Bush Administration IS responsible for America’s diminished integrity in the world. It has not just happened in the last two months. That statement doesn’t deserve a response and to have you state that it Bush was not responsible is again disrespecting my intelligence. In the case of Israel I assume that the US will continue to support their nation but will not support the murder and starvation of the Palestinian people. Hmm…the more I consider your comments the more I am thinking that perhaps you are some Jonathan Turley stooge perpetuation my comments…So, with that I will finish by response. However, you will notice that I did not use the word “should” at all. I found it to be quite liberating..
I’m just a visitor to this blog. But I can’t help but laugh when I read the very first blog comments by Professor Turley referring to civility, and then the last 20 or so, as the discourse races downward like an avalanche. Some folks on this blog might want to take a deep breath before they hit the ‘send’ button.
It didn’t take long to recognize that this is a left-leaning blog, but it shouldn’t shock liberal readers to find that some right-leaning people might also read it, and might offer a different opinion. It doesn’t make them somehow less patriotic or worthy of your courtesy.
Sans,
Perhaps this is not the best thread to judge what this site has to offer. If you read the articles that appear on the blog itself you might find that the opinion range and level of discourse is more to your liking. Originally, this Bio section was there for well wishers on the new venture at its’ inception in 2007. It then became invaded by trolls more interested in invective rather than discourse, who figured that by besmirching JT’s Bio they were inflicting harm. The exchanges then got hot and heavy with invective.
Many of our best contributors are conservative in outlook. In fact this blog to me has always been more about civil liberties, legal matters and the Constitution, than about ideology or partisanship. Different opinions from all over the political spectrum are most welcome. However, the liberals and conservatives who frequent this site are pretty sharp people, so do try to provide more cogent arguments than you find on Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly.
Dear Sans Serif, I going to respond to you since I appear to be the last response in the long list of left wing responses that you refer to. First, I will mention that the days of conservative right wing individuals who spout ridiculous comments with out having to face up to them is over. We have had eight years of such nonsense. Now, I assume you read the comment by Tom, who incidentally was my first friend on this blog. Anyway, Anyone, who dares to relate Barack Obama or the Democratic party to Nazism, Facism, Communism is quite worthy of question. I do not deprive anyone from expounding on their beliefs or opinions but you better be ready for some feedback from others who do not support or agree with you. Of course, that has been the Bush Doctrine for his entire presidency. Also, are you suggesting that I was not civil in my response? I am going to assume that you agree with Tom. That the Obama Administration is pursuing policies similar to the Nazi’s. I am going to also assume that you resent Obama’s knowledge and understanding of the Muslim Faith and consider him to be less of an American or a Patriot. And, I must continue to assume that you think Obama has dstroyed the credibility of the United States in the last two months and that the Bush Administration actually raised our status in the world today. In that case, indeed, you are free to hold those opinions and I am free to denounce them.
Mike, I am going to have to agree with you…I am new to this blog and joined it because I appreciated Turley’s contributions on the Countdown and Maddow shows. Of course as you can see I got caught up in other matters not really related to JT at all. So, with that I am going to end this thread and move on. I think my comments would be better served on some right wing neo con blog. Or, I will check in from time to time and perhaps making comments on some of the other more focused articles….
Jonathon,
I heard you on Countdown tonight and have read your comments about Obama and this wire tapping. My question, is this, what is an average citizen supposed to do? Does calling the White House or our Senators do anything?
Thanks,
Tom
Mr. Turley:
First, let me say that I am a fan. I admire your stand on “Countdown” against incursions of our Constitution. However, having said that, I must also say this:
PISS OR STEP AWAY FROM THE POT!
If violations of our Constitution are as flagrant as you present, THEN WHY DON’T YOU FILE A LAWSUIT? You know more about the Constitution and the courts than probably 99% of the population of this country (including me). If you’re so upset about what is happening, please DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
While I can’t agree with the way Edwin put the idea forward, I do think no one is better equipped to do something about this mess. Why not ‘pass the hat’, so to speak to raise what ever money is needed, and sue the parties…you have my support!
Prof. J Turley: As so many of the previous posts have so gratefully and quite graciously declared, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You! It’s voices such as yours (Keith’s and other F.O.C.)that have been missing; although some would say A.W.O.L, I would prefer drowned out by ‘the Best Government Propaganda Machine that Money Could Buy’!! PLEASE: for the Good of the Country, do NOT shirk this sacred duty to aid, assist and protect not only this country (our primary duty) but, as well, humanity in the ongoing struggle ‘for that more perfect Union’. to be the standard that humanity needs and deserves.
Dear Spy,
To quote the Everly Brother’s classic – “THAT’LL BE THE DAY”
Tom Fitchue
Obama Embarrasses Himself, and Us, Again
Posted from a blog:
I thought Barack Obama couldn’t sink lower than he did in his apology tour of Europe. I was wrong.
Now it’s Latin America, where Obama is attending the Summit of the Americas. While he doesn’t seem to have actually bowed to anyone in Trinidad, he has adopted a submissive posture at every opportunity, telling Latin America’s leaders that he “has a lot to learn.” I’m afraid that’s truer than Obama knows.
One can only speculate as to what was running through Hugo Chavez’s mind when Obama humiliated himself by posing with Chavez.
We know, though, how Chavez responded to Obama’s plaintive confession that he “has a lot to learn”–he contributed to Obama’s education by pressing upon him, before the cameras, a book by a Uruguyan leftist named Eduardo Galeano:
The book’s title translates as The Open Veins of Latin America; the subtitle is Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. Here is how Wikipedia describes it:
In this book, he analyzes the history of Latin America as a whole from the time period of European contact with the New World to contemporary Latin America arguing against what he views as European and later U.S. economic exploitation and political dominance over the region. … It is a classic among the left of Latin America.
You can get a sense of Galeano’s mindless anti-Americanism in this interview.
So, how did Obama react to Chavez’s insult–an insult, we should note, both to Obama himself and to the nation of which he is, for better or worse, President? With his usual cluelessness:
When a reporter asked Obama what he thought of the book, the president replied: “I thought it was one of Chavez’s books. I was going to give him one of mine.” White House advisers said they didn’t know if Obama would read it or not. [Ed.: Not likely, since it’s in Spanish.]
When asked what he thought of Obama, Chavez replied:
“I think it was a good moment,” Chavez said about their initial encounter. “I think President Obama is an intelligent man, compared to the previous U.S. president.”
Obama soaks up this kind of back-handed “compliment,” which is intended as an insult to the United States and is understood as such by everyone other than, apparently, our President, like a sponge.
The next Latin American lefty to treat our President like a hey-boy was Danny Ortega. After receiving Obama’s homage, Ortega:
…delivered a blistering 50-minute speech that denounced capitalism and U.S. imperialism as the root of much hemispheric mischief. The address even recalled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, though Ortega said the new U.S. president could not be held to account for that.
Once again, Obama assumed the position:
“I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders.
Yes, like trying–albeit not hard enough–to liberate Cuba from Communist dictatorship. Does Obama really not understand that hostile foreign leaders are making a fool of him and of the country he purports to lead? Apparently not. I don’t think Barack Obama is a stupid man, but he is in so far over his head that every time he ventures onto the international stage he not only embarrasses himself–and us–he damages, if ever so slightly, our national security.
PAUL adds: President Obama should feel quite comfortable with the writings of Eduardo Galeano and the ranting of Danny Ortega. He heard this sort of anti-American rubbish from his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. It didn’t bother him then and it doesn’t seem to bother him now..
Obama on Chavez’s gift of an anti-American book: “I think it was a nice gesture”
No, it wasn’t a “nice gesture,” as The One very well knows.
It was a cheap stunt designed to put him on the spot so that Chavez can crow when he gets home about having confronted los Yanquis with evidence of their imperialist crimes.
Obama can’t call him out, though, lest our precious nascent “dialogue” with Venezuela be jeopardized, so he’s forced to swallow hard and play the stooge.
Good work, Barry. Note too the vague, politic rhetoric to describe Chavez’s long history of evil clownishness. If you’re not sure what he means by “interference” that’s a “source of concern,” let me spell it out: He’s talking about funding Marxist terrorists who’ve held Americans hostage for years on end. Mentioning that might spoil the dialogue, too.
As for his point that talking to Venezuela doesn’t hurt American strategic interests, we’ll have to see how the detente plays in South America, which will be poorly.
It’s not a question of jeopardizing national security, it’s a question of conferring legitimacy upon a cretin who, in a just world, would be radioactively illegitimate. If Obama’s going to do that, the least he can do is not play dumb about it!
Ok…korn and cresent….as stated in one of my previous posts any right wing crap spouting will not go unchallenged. Seriously, if you don’t know your history about the United States and how and where your government has been involved with dictators and leaders of dubious character you should keep you mouth shut lest you sound like a fool…The Reagan and Bush administrations were actively courting brutal dictatorships in South American, Daniel Ortega, until he was just too horrible to hide and in the Middle East, The Shaw of Iran, Saddam Hussien, Musharuf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt all of whom oppress their own people with United States support. I could go on with other repressive regimes who should have been denounced by the United States but, instead, enjoyed our support because we had something to gain. So, for you to make an issue of Obama speaking to those who may be perceived as “enemies” of the United States is laughable if it weren’t so pathetic. It is a fact that the United States has abused it’s power in Central and South America for decades. Hundreds of US companies set up shop in these countries and abuse workers and laws to created product for our consumption. Again, pull your head out of your ass and learn the history of our involvement in Central and South America before you make accusations of how Obama is being too apologetic when he goes abroad. He knows the history…..it is he that does not want to look like a goddamn fool and pretend like everything is cool when he visits these places…Furthermore, it is customary to meet and introduce oneself and begin a dialog before immediately complaining and making demands on someone. We had that with the last Bush Administration which is why the US reputation was a complete disaster and we were demeaned and derided all over the world. As for Cuba, it may very well have been that Cuba would be democratized now if we had opened the doors to cooperation years ago…So, from now on when you post more of your complaints about how Obama is interacting with the world read the facts about where and how the United States has performed in the world otherwise shut up…
fusion:
Almost childlike, these trolls think we may ignore those with whom we disagree. It is “ostrich thinking” to the extreme. Maybe they will develop and realize that adults handle differences by trying to work them out with compromise and negotiation, not by calling out the marines and settling things at the point of bayonets wielded by some poor souls’ child. All this hate over some silly cross-equatorial insults directed at a leader of ours who probably richly deserved them. Cheney’s corrosive influence was a cancer on the body politic.
CMoon,
fusionink & Mespo have already dealt with historical content and your simplistic reasoning. I thought I’d just give you a list of worse dictators than Chavez that Bush/Cheney held hands with and whose behinds they licked so that you might contemplate the falsity of:
“it’s a question of conferring legitimacy upon a cretin who, in a just world, would be radioactively illegitimate.”
Saudi Arabia: Is owned by them and they are Father’s business
partner.
Egypt: Fully Supports Mubarek Government.
Russia: Looked Putin in the eye and saw a good man.
China: Went to Olympics
Libya: Recognized Qaddafi
Brazil: Police Death Squads to kill homeless children.
The list goes on and on. The Neocon brain views any country’s leader who is not subservient to US direction and business interests as a monster. The right wing has dealt with dictators and worse since the “Cold War” because they somehow believe its prudent foreign policy. What it really is Right wingers looking after their corporate masters business interests, while at the same time these companies register in the Cayman Islands and declare themselves to be international in scope. Too bad you get your foreign policy perspective from people who’ve been failures for more than five decades.
I still fail to comprehend the purpose of posting to this page.
What in the world?
I just dropped back in to see what the good professor was writing these days, and have to say I am pretty shocked by some of the writing. It’s like every war criminal apologist has found a new home. As the good professor is clearly not an apologist for crimes against humanity, I just wonder what’s the point? As for the whole name calling, you know, the ‘Nazi/Fascist’ nonsense, I just have to say, I don’t get that either? I mean, either people know what those terms mean, or they can go to any number of well respected references which would explain it. So why bother trying to change the definitions to label someone? What is the point? Are those who are doing that assuming people who read people like JT would not notice?
Bob and thatmtnman,
To answer both your points simultaneously. JT has gained some mass media recognition for his views on constitutional law and the war waged against it by Bush/Cheney. This brings out the trolls both paid and true believers. They write on the Bio spot in the hope that people will come here for first looks and get turned off. Hence the venom and its concomitant stupidity.
Dear “THAT…”,
Did you actually find something relevant writen by JT? Seems like he’s mostly MIA, especially when called upon to share an opinion.
As far as “labeling” goes, it doesn’t seem like much of a reach
if you’re not in “lock-step”. Guess it depends on one’s point of view. As this site is slanted so far to the left, I keep expecting in to fall off into…..? And, one would hope, there’s room for everyone to voice an opinion on here. I mean, if NOT, what does that say for the contributors? For some of us
who observe the activities of our government through Conservative (right-wing extremests’s) eyes, there are “things” (for want of an expletive) working in Congress that everyone who values their freedom to choose, might want to be aware of. Like the latest efforts afoot by five Democrat Senators to initiate legislature to give Obama control of the Internet!! Try that one on. Everyone who thinks he SHOULD BE IN CONTROL of ALL our means of communication needs to wear a sign around their necks so the ones who object to this control can recognize them, because they do not honor the laws of the land, i.e. THE CONSTITUTION. ‘Course, there’s a good chance that no one who reads this will feel that way. If there is anybody who agrees with my position, how about voicing your thoughts? There’ll be myriads of detractors, I imagine.
Tom Fitchue
Registered and concerned Democrat
Mtnman, I am a bit suspicious of some of the postings because of the level of absurdity. Either they are in high school or they are shills for JT posting inflammatory comments to incite comment. Either way, their incitement works…See Meso and Spindell…and yourself. Well done all of you.
Bob,Esq….the point is to blather on a about our points of view and smack down any troll that dares to post here. By the way, who is JT…..???
Hi Mike,
Thank you for the info. I guess I am so unschooled on these things that I don’t even know what a ‘troll’ is…but I assume it’s not a good thing-perhaps some sort of ‘agent provocateur’ I suppose.
Still it is surprising, I would have expected that the discussion would have been more high minded, more technical. I wish JT would join in more often. Though why would someone at his level even bother to address some of the things written here. Maybe he needs to start a new ‘members’ only blog for those with a sincere interest in the issues.
Anyway-thank you Mike!
Cheers!
Dear fusionink,
Thank you for the reply. Not sure if you were suggesting I fell into some sort of ploy, but I hope not!
I was just hoping to find a place where people at ‘what’s his name’s’ level-‘JT’ would be discussing the issue. Although, it is kind of an interesting question as to what the motivations might be of some of the more, ummm…’unorthodox’ writers? All in all, it seems a lost opportunity to have an informed and elevated discussion in the presence of one of the country’s great minds.
cheers!
Mike,
Can you cite the Constitutional “law” that gives OBAMA the power to mandate the removal of a “sitting” CEO? I mean, since you bring up the subject. There’s lots of others regarding the First Amendment and how it’s rape is shaping up. Do YOU NOT CARE about this? If not, fire up for all of us to read. Maybe there’s something we’re missing. I mean, it can’t be (can it) that BO & his minions are afraid of open criticism? What do they have to hide that makes them fear the masses voicing their concern(s)? I guess you lib’s maybe can’t abide other opinions to the point of abjectly trying to degrade a nay-sayer. Let’s see who crawls out the woodwork on this. I suspect I can name a few, but, that would take away all the fun!
Tom Fitchue
Registered and disgusted Democrat
“the removal of a “sitting” CEO?”
Tom,
We just kept the guys company afloat after he put it in jeopardy for years with bad decisions. Since you asked me a question though let me ask you one. Where in the Constitution does the term corporation even get mentioned? Corporations are legal fictions functioning by the permission of the government.
“I guess you lib’s maybe can’t abide other opinions to the point of abjectly trying to degrade a nay-sayer.”
“Registered and disgusted Democrat.”
Perhaps you see the inherent contradiction in these last two quotes Tom, more likely not since their both from you? You really have to improve your game if you’re writing here. I suggest a few courses on logic and many on American History.
Dear Mr.Fitchue,
Thank you for your information. I don’t know how one would answer your question regarding JT’s silence. I suppose one answer might be that for him, there would be no point in engaging in many of the discussions as they are so, ummm…’divergent'(?) from most agreed upon facts. Just a guess of course.
May I add, that when I was thinking of ‘out there’ writing, I was thinking of comments such as ‘the president is trying to ‘control’ the internet’. I suppose anything is possible, but it seems a bit of an ‘extraordinary’ thing to say. Even were it so,and of course speaking only for myself, such an issue seems far away from the area of expertise of JT that is to say, the issue of crimes against humanity. So what would be the point of going so off topic? Again-I may be wrong, likely I am wrong, which is good evidence why I should not be writing here!
yours kindly
cheers!
That,
You said, “the ‘Nazi/Fascist’ nonsense, I just have to say, I don’t get that either? I mean, either people know what those terms mean, or they can go to any number of well respected references which would explain it. So why bother trying to change the definitions to label someone? What is the point? Are those who are doing that assuming people who read people like JT would not notice?”
But since you obviously know the definitions, I ask you this:
Have you noticed the rights misuse (here and in the MSM) of the term fascism, especially in connection to the “teabaggers”?
It is a key tactic in propaganda when faced with an insurmountable roadblock, e.g. pointing out that the actions of the Bush administration are the very definition of fascism (authoritarian, anti-liberal, militaristic, aggressive expansionists, corporatists), to attempt to change the definitions and/or other underpinnings of the assertion of wrongdoing in order to attempt to distort the argument.
So to answer your question, the actual definition of fascism does not matter to apologists, obfuscators and enemies of the Constitution beyond their attempt to avoid being properly labeled as such.
thatmtnman,
A troll is someone who does act like an “agent provocateur”
with the object being to disrupt or annoy. I do believe that more than a few are paid to do it. JT writes the articles or provides the links we respond to. He does a lot more communicating than one might think at first glance.
As to the trolls mostly I ignore them, but sometimes when in a puckish mood I’ll take them on. The problem is that the quality of their production is uniformly poor and many just take their talking points from the usual sources. What does exist here, in plenitude, are a lot of bright people who represent the entire political spectrum. It is not a site where we all agree, or adhere to some party line. I’m not into insulting people I disagree with, as long as they can defend their points with wit and logic and don’t insult me. Then it becomes fun because it tests my own abilities and forces me to reexamine my own suppositions.
My own personal mantra has become: When I began to realize that I don’t know everything, I then began to realize I might have a shot at being wise.
Mike,
Was I just “fill-a bustered”? Seems something of a “liberal” trait when asked some question they don’t want to (or can’t) answer without exposing “off the wall” policies.
Does a president have the power to remove a corporate CEO, subject to the law of the Constitution? Which one gives this power? Our elected “officials” swear an oath to up-hold the Constitution. I don’t believe they have any power outside that. I don’t think – but am open to discussion – that the government has any power but the laws of the Constitution. Are there any specific industries where the Constitution endows ANYONE the right to remove any officer anywhere? Straight answer, please.
Tom
Dear Buddha Is Laughing,
What a great screen name btw! I am jealous!
Yes, I did notice all of those things you mentioned. As anyone would who had as much as one poly sci course in the history of the time. Or political philosophy. Or anyone of a dozen other introductory courses on the topic.
But my question wasn’t as you suggest. My question was, ‘why here’? I could see the tactic being used by an O’Reilly or Hannity or Beck type.
But this is forum I would have predicted would have people who already knew the difference. So what would a propagandist gain in a place like this? It would be like the flat earth society going to the space program to argue their case. What would they expect to gain?
Anyway-it *is* an interesting place. So perhaps the more outlandish make it an interesting read?
yours
Hi Mike,
Thank you for the info! Interesting! Very very interesting. So for some ‘trolls’ argument is a hobby, and for some it is paid vocation? LOL! Who in the world pays for that?? I want a job!!! LOL!!
Well-I think people have too much time on their hands! LOL! Or at least, more than I! LOL! I must change that!
Enjoy the combat Mike! My head would be spinning! LOL!
cheers
Tom,
The answer is yes because Obama did not remove him, he asked him to resign, which the man did. Don’t you think the President has the right to ask someone to resign, especially after keeping his company afloat?
“I don’t think – but am open to discussion – that the government has any power but the laws of the Constitution.”
The constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write laws and many they have written covering a multitude of things. The Executive must sign the laws, or veto them, which the legislative can then override. The Judicial Branch may find that some laws approved by the Executive and legislative Branches are not constitutional and they can and do void them.
If you don’t understand the simplest explanation of how our government works and what are the rules (statutes) that guide it, then your teachers were remiss.
Back to your first point though, your question was based on a false premise which was that the President fired the man, when all he did was ask him to resign. If he hadn’t resigned
then perhaps the GM Board of Directors may have fired him, or the DOJ may have sued to remove him. If you can’t get your facts straight and don’t know how our government works, then how can we have a viable discussion?
Tom,
By the way when did you stop beating your wife, or girlfriend as the case may be?
That,
Ahh, thank you for the compliment and clarification. I’ll refer you to Mike Spindell’s answer for the “why here” component. It is true our beloved host has achieved national if not international recognition and acclaim as a voice of reason and proponent of civil rights.
I think it speaks well of his effectiveness that trolls attack. But I think it speaks equally well that he’s attracted a merry band of followers who kill trolls with great flourish and abandon. It’s why I keep coming back – reinforcement that I am not alone in respecting the Constitution and at being in awe of the wisdom, truth and power of Jefferson’s words:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Dear Laughing!
Thank you for the comment, and as I wrote earlier, good hunting with the ‘trolls’. Not that anyone asked, but, were I in their business, I would prefer to be called, ‘agents provocateur’. At least it is sexier. Wouldn’t it look great on a business card? LOL!
I did have one serious but amateurish question for the good professor, if he does read or answer us.
I recall reading somewhere that populations universally condemn crimes against humanity and as a result those crimes are almost always committed by the political class. It would seem then that laws about such things are targeted at that class, and there must be some sort of understanding right from the start, that enforcement of such laws are more political than the rest of a criminal code. I am just wondering, are those statements correct? If they are correct, is there anything in law that off sets the political nature of prosecuting the crimes?
I ask because I was watching O’Reilly the other evening as he worked at undermining investigations into war crimes. I thought to myself, ‘why isn’t such conduct illegal?’. We have in our recent past prosecuted the propagandists for regimes engaged in war crimes, not with standing the obvious free speech consideration.
yours
Mike,
Good answer, but still I find I have a problem with your “HE” kept them afloat”. An Obama-ism if ever was. Did “HE” (the holey one) provide GM the float-money? Or did WE, the taxpayers, provide monies that most people I know, felt was NOT justified, and NOT ‘vetted by the people Obama promised would have the opportunity to read and critique any policies up for vote BEFORE the voting took place? Why would Obama be vested enough in GM to meddle where HE HAD NO EMPOWERMENT? This meddling, obviously, must have NO BOUNDERIES. If there ARE boundries, since we now have precedent, where do they STOP? Do you not see the problem with this? This is a threat to the entire workings of this country.
Tom
And, you were doing ok until the “beating” thing. Must have been hard to restrain yourself long enough to write your sorta rational response. Beats fill-a-bustering!
Tom,
I answered your question and you admitted it was a good answer. Now if you want to discuss, rather than interrogate by moving from point to point, answer mine
“Don’t you think the President has the right to ask someone to resign, especially after keeping his company afloat?”
And please stop playing baby debating games like “did he keep them afloat.” My meaning was clear enough, but since I disposed of your main question you move on to parsing. I know you’re trying to keep up but that is a little too obvious. Yes too, I am aware of your throwing in little jabs as you “ever so innocently attempt the Socratic method,” but one thing at a time. I answered your question, and answered it well, answer mine, or we must assume that you still beat your wife, girlfriend or significant other as the case may be.
Mike,
My answer is “NO”. And, apparently, you’re unable/unwilling to adequately answer my broader question(s). Did you learn that, by avoidance,
you can side-step issues that are not in your favor? Seems something of a common practice these day of on-going “enlightment”. It does get you through a lot of unpleasant spots, it seems. So, I’ll GIVE UP trying to get an answer about the implications of a politican meddling in private industry to the sanctity of the Constitution. Doubt many on this blog disagree with you.
Have a good day!
Tom
Mr. Fitchue:
I do not believe that the Federal government has a right to interject itself in the day to day affairs of corporations. Unfortunately GM took money from the government and it is only logical that they should/would want a say in how things were run. the board of GM and other companies made a truly terrible mistake by taking government hand outs. If the king is paying for the tune he can listen to whatever he wants.
The entire TARP bailout is a black mark against W and his administration.
By saying no, then your point is that the President does not have the right to make a request of a CEO to resign. By the way this government is run by the people and their representatives, not by corporations. You seem to have the peculiar view that corporations should be autonomous to government control. This is how we got into this mess in the first place by outlandish and mythical ideas of a supposed free market. American history, statutes and jurisprudence have historically rejected this outlandish theory. It was only when a mediocre actor, supported by GE, entered the White house that the corporations rammed through legislation allowing them to freely cheat people with fraudulent financial mechanisms and ever decreasing safety oversights.
“So, I’ll GIVE UP trying to get an answer about the implications of a politican meddling in private industry to the sanctity of the Constitution.”
Tom, where are private industry and corporations mentioned in the constitution? They aren’t. Look it up. Read the document. Capitalism also isn’t mentioned in the constitution. I’m sorry that you had poor or no American History/Civics teachers, but it’s never to late to learn. Don’t feel bad though: Rush, Sean, Bill, Glenn and all the other shills also had bad history teachers, or else they didn’t pay attention in class. But hey, run along and good luck, you’ll live to troll another day.
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
The issuing issuance of the currency power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Yeah, our smartest Founding Father sure had a high opinion of banks and corporations, Tom. That’s why they weren’t given powers by the Constitution EXPLICITLY.
Mike first, then Boodah,
First things first. Mike, I believe your second sentence is missing an important comma, or else it’s kinda sketchy. Your last paragraph smacks of… You know the truth, (what am I saying??) I really don’t think it says anything of relevence. I suspect your piers on this site probably wish someone else had “gotten hold of me”, because you really make no sense with your rambling about “capitalism” and “corporations” being (not)mentioned in the Constitution. I’d say this is likely viewed by others on this blog as lame blather. Butt, with YOUR education, I’m certain that you aren’t putting forth your best effort in dealing with someone like myself, who is obviously over-matched.
Buddha,
Your observation in the last paragraph of your missive seems to be an extension of Mike’s last paragraph. I’m sure your peers aren’t overwhelmed with it’s reticence, either. Neither you nor Mike seem to have an answer for where presidental power comes from to mess around with the “private sector”. Seems ANY business, no matter how large or small, is fair game according to your renderings. I’m not a student of the Constitution, and my college education was in the field of engineering (a long time ago, I might add), but I do believe our elected officals have NO power that is not given them by the Constitution, which, I believe they swear to uphold when they take office. Stepping outside the laws might have been labeled treason, as I remember it.
Tom
PS: I know I said I was through, but, daggone, you left me no choice.
It’s simple, Tom.
A corporation is a legal fiction.
As a legal fiction, it is subject to governmental restriction whether they like it or not.
This is true despite the last 10 years of lobbyist and fascist supporting scumbags working their graft magic on Congress to have as little supervision as possible.
You like corporate rule so much? The illegal wars. The torture. The wrecked economy?
Just have the balls to admit you’re a fascist then or don’t waste my time, old man.
Buddah,
I will admit to being a “right wing extremest”. Is that good enough for you?
Corporate rule? What IS that. Compared to GM, that is?
Illegal wars – would you like to see Pelosi’s & Hillary’s takes on going to war? There’s a bunch more on a rather interesting UTUBE, but I’m sure that wouldn’t interest you.
Corporations torture? Those devils!! That’s certainly a new slant.
Lobbists & Fascists? Affecting a Democrat-run Congress?? For three “down” years? Surely, you jest? ‘Course, I am old, so who am I to querry someone of your standing?
The wrecked economy? How could that happen under the rule of a Democrat-controlled Congress? I mean, things weren’t too bad in 2005, but, it’s been downhill ever since. I believe the Dow was over 14,000 around the end of 2005. Wonder what happened in 2006 to change things so drasticly? Any thoughts here, anyone?
So, more weird blather, that still seems to lack substance, but that is a trademark patented by leftists, as is name-calling and aggressive attacks to cover the mess they are perpetuating.
Tom
Guess it’s time to take my Geritol and hobble off to bed.
Well Tom, I’ll start with the obvious fact you’ve never read any of my other posts or you’d know I don’t give a damn about either party or partisan hackery. Just like banks and corporations, no where does the Constitution give GOP or DNC any rights or powers. I think both parties suck, but the Republicans are outright criminals. The word “any” in a negated context too much for your little brain, Tom? My loyalty is simple. The Constitution. And weird blather? I suppose after that display of fine frontier gibberish you just gave (and always give when cornered I might add) that simple short sentences in English must sound like weird blather to those with “mental gifts” such as yourself. But since you’re an admitted right wing extremist, I’ll just give you the finger and call it a night, Enemy of the Constitution.
CONGRESS MUST ACT!! :: OBAMA CAN’T!!
OBVIOUSLY HE’S BEEN THREATENED!!!
The only thing that makes any sense here is that Obama has been threatened with his life. It’s nothing for The Company to kill people outright, blow people’s heads off ( JFK, RFK, MLK, etc),and blame it on yet another lone crazed gunman. Then the party line is picked up once more “It’s best for the country to move on,” forget the conspiracy nuts.
SOMEONE HAS TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY!!!!
I was there during your “stint” at Tulane. I can speak for many of us as we’ve watched your rise to national prominence with pride, even though you’ve probably forgotten most of us. You spent a lot of minutes outside your office chatting with us about the issues of the day, and what our motivations were for even being there.
You are really the shining light out there. I spent many hours in the hot Florida sun working for the Obama campaign, and now, I’m like HUH? Keep ’em honest man and congrats on the success.
Christian Unruh
Attorney at Law
Miami Beach, Florida
“because you really make no sense with your rambling about “capitalism” and “corporations” being (not)mentioned in the Constitution.”
Tom,
The trouble with “right wing extremest(s)” is that they substitute learned mythology for logic. You were the one who challenged me to find President Obama’s “right to fire” a CEO in the constitution. I explained to you that asking for the man’s resignation was not firing him. You completely ignored responding to that in all the rest of your comments. However, due to that fact your initial point was a non-starter.
When I answered your point:
“I don’t think – but am open to discussion – that the government has any power but the laws of the Constitution.”
by giving you a basic structure of our government and laws thereby showing your statement incorrect, you ignored responding to that point. Now that you explain that you’re a Right Wing Extremist your avoidance becomes clear. You have beliefs about America and the constitution that are not based on reality, but are unfounded myths that you hold to be true. Since these myths control your point of view you are not able to deal with facts contradicting them.
This makes you incapable of discussion except with those who you already agree with. It frustrates you and angers you that your beliefs aren’t held by more than a small percentage of the citizens. Your problem is that because your views hold no substance, since they are only propaganda,
you have no means of bringing the majority of people over to your viewpoint.
Now I’ve been pretty fairly respectful to you in answering your comments. Perhaps you failed to understand the “When did you stop beating…..” point because I’m an older fart than you and it hasn’t been talked of for awhile. A question like that in discussion is a false one because if you answer never, or give a date you are caught either way in the assumption that the person is a wife-beater. Your question to me about the President firing the CEO is the same type of question and that’s why i made the reference and not to disparage any relationships yo may have.
Still you never replied to my assertion that the President did not fire the CEO. Why is that? To return to your quote at the top of this comment the fact that capitalism, business firms and corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution means that Our Founding Fathers had never decreed that we should be a capitalist country, or gave businesses inherent rights. Your argument is that they are constitutionally protected and I guess you would extend that to the belief that we are inherently a capitalist country. Despite whatever anyone’s told you, or what you’ve read, that is not true. Through the Constitution Congress has the right to make laws, the President can approve them or not through the veto process and the courts can rule on their
constitutionality. That is what is written in the Constitution.
I have really given you more time than I expected to, but that is because I’m treating your views with respect and not ridicule. I would hope that you might think about the points I’ve made and look beyond your own rigid set of beliefs. I’m
not trying to make you Left wing, but I am trying to get you to understand that I love this country every bit as much as you do. Patriotism is not owned by the Extreme Right wing, if fact in their anger they represent the greatest threat to the United States. That’s why the governor of Texas could talk about secession and be cheered.
good morning Mike,
I read your very thoughtful comment this morning. I think you have hit on something. I had not thought of it until your note, but you know, you are dead on, the extreme right is operating from the mythos of America. America can’t make mistakes, have faults and so on, because the right wings version of myth doesn’t accommodate it. America is not seeking a more perfect union so to speak, it has arrived and nothing is allowed to change that.
Take this whole torture issue. The other night O’Reilly, who had up until the release of the Red Cross document and the torture memo’s denied America had ever done anything like that. He called any such discussion anti American, by people out to ‘hurt America’. Faced with evidence from the administration he was shilling for, he began to redefine torture. He ignored everything else surrounding the issue as if those things didn’t exist.
I was wondering about how he could do that. Even setting aside any personal sense of integrity or professionalism, for a person in his position to deny a fact set would one would presume, undermine his credibility. On the contrary, it seems.
I think you answered the ‘how’. He and those he speaks to operate from the myth. If the myth doesn’t support the facts, the the facts don’t exist or they will be redefined until the facts fit the myth. It’s classic delusional thinking. That patten of thinking also explains the hate for solutions and or new approaches coming from the new administration. If those approaches don’t fit the extreme right wings myth, they they just redefine them.
Interestingly enough, this also explains why outcomes don’t seem to matter. A solution which does not fit their version of the myth, is invalided for the reasons above and using the methods discussed.
Which is btw, why rational discussion can’t work. Like any psychotic when you challenge the myth, a violent but irrational response is expected. In the end, all discussions become not about a search for truth, but a search for a way to support the myth at any cost.
Very, very, good point Mike.
cheers!
MikeS:
I guess I missed something in civics, I certainly thought this was a capitalist country and was founded by merchants, craftsmen and farmers so they could ply their trades without interference from the King. The declaration pretty much lays it out in “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“The declaration pretty much lays it out in “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Bron,
If that intent was there than the Declaration would have added something like “the inviolability of property rights.” It didn’t, but anyway the Declaration is not the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines this as a Capitalist Country, or shows a predilection for business and/or commerce. Corporations are nowhere mentioned and most of the Founding Fathers would have thought corporations suspicious entities because of their experience with things like the Dutch East India Company, et. al. A big impetus for the revolution came from colonists dislike for English corporate control of trade. That we are now a capitalist country is indisputable, but the Constitution did not make it so, which was the point I was making to Tom that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Don’t have a cow but it is constitutional for us to be a socialist country if we so decide. I wouldn’t recommend that, but I think you need to better understand what socialism is, it is definitely not National Health Care.
thatmtnman,
Thank you for your very kind words. We are of like mind. Some day, someone not me, will write a definitive book on the political influences of various mythology’s upon the US. Some learned professor about fifteen years back did a trilogy on the effect of the Cowboy Myth on American policies. They were fascinating but unfortunately this old fart has forgotten his name. The power of myth in the world is much greater than people imagine and it allows believers to behave most irrationally. If you are really interested I refer you to the works of Joseph Campbell, Fraser’s “Golden Bowl,” and Robert Graves “White goddess.” This is fascinating stuff to me and has helped me a lot in trying to understand the world around me.
Mr Turley:
I’m so glad to see how many viewers value your contribution to Countdown. It’s been said many times on this thread and it increases my optimism to see that I’m not alone.
The idea of United States officials being charged with war crimes is horrifying, not not nearly as scary as it will be if, given the evidence, there is not a thorough and objective investigation that is permitted to go where the evidence leads.
Thanks for your work.
Prof. Turley,
My husband and I watch you nearly every night on Rachel or Keith. And I visit your website every day. I completely agree with your position on the war crimes of the Bush administration and, as a lawyer, believe that we all have a duty to take up this torch. Thank you for being a voice for the constitution and people.
A question that has occurred to me is that, if any government employee or US citizen is protected from prosecution for war crimes by the memos from the Office of Legal Counsel, on the basis that the memos said the actions were legal, could in fact anyone, anywhere in the world, cite the same defense for the same acts? Have the memos officially been reversed going forward? Do they protect only people who read them? The logic becomes tortured. I appreciate your voice on Rachel and Keith.
Prof. Turley:
I was truly disappointed by Chris Matthews on Hardball today. Normally Chris seems to have a decent handle on right and wrong–apparently torture is an exception. I found it especially disturbing that he never seemed willing to let you finish a sentence.
It seems to me that most people who argue the torture issue ignore one of the most salient points: That NOT prosecuting torture by the United States puts torture back on the table to be used AGAINST the United States without fear of prosecution. It reminds me of when Bush was carping about Russia invading the “sovereign nation” of Georgia.
Doesn’t the unpunished use of torture by the U.S., the self-described beacon of freedom on Earth, mean that torture is now effectively LEGAL during war?
Mr. Turley, you seem to be the only voice who is concerned about the rule of law. I too feel it is the most important thing that the USA follow the law. We tortured people in our name. Have you or can you speak to Eric Holder and advise him or remind him of the law?? Good job on Chris Matthews. I wish they would not have interupted you so much.
Yawn – another left wing law professor
Shouldn’t a learned man such as yourself be more worried about what Obama is doing to our country than what Bush did while keeping us safe?
Doesn’t the firing of the GM CEO by the President of the United States fly in the face of our Constitution?
Shouldn’t he accept money from those banks that can pay it back?
Why is he involved is rescuing corporations? Let them go bankrupt or out of business completely. Remember there is no Studabaker, Checker Cab, Thom McCan, Westinghouse, Crazy Eddie, or Two Guys.
You know if GM goes out of business, someone else will make cars, or buy their machines, or lease their buildings. Let the market work.
Lastly, Oberman is an idiot.
Paul,
Or, what’s even worse, and this will create a stir herein, is that “our learned Mr. Turley might even concern himself about
Obama’s eligibility not meeting the standards set out in the CONSTITUTION to be president. He hasn’t seemed visibly interested in that, as most liberals don’t. Defensive anger is the normal response. Watch.
Tom Fitchue
Tom:
“Defensive anger is the normal response. Watch.”
************
Is that a zoological observation or a plea? If the latter, your ilk has already shown its animalistic tendencies in those corporately staged tea parties. I do enjoy the zoo!
Mr. Fitchue, I am surprised that you are still fighting the citizenship battle. You may recall that we had a rather lengthy exchange on the subject a number of months ago. Do you not realize by now that the people and organizations that continue to push that line reside in a no-man’s land lying between reality and fantasy? Can you honestly recall another instance in your lifetime in which the same issue was raised in connection with another candidate? Do you know that the prime mover behind this controversy is herself an immigrant with a degree from an unaccredited law school and little understanding of the Constitution and American legal history? Do you truly believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has somehow joined in a conspiracy to ensure the ascendancy of a black person to the presidency? You are not much older than I as I recall, and we both came of age during a time in which hostility toward the efforts of blacks to achieve equal rights and equal protection was widespread. Have you examined your own motives and sincerely concluded that racial attitudes have not affected your opinion of the evidence? When a concern becomes an obsession, it is time to stop, take a deep breath, and rationally evaluate the situation. I can assure you that fidelity to the Constitution is the chief interest of those who frequent this site.
Mike,
First thing. I don’t feel any racial tendencies in my concern regarding Obama. My issue on eligibility is the failure of Obama to PROVE his creditials. It is a Constitutional requirement, not to be overlooked by ANY candidate. There has been too much legal interference for me to NOT be concerned, too much denial by people who say that he HAS proven he is street-legal, too much refusal by the courts – especially our SUPREME COURT – whose primary purpose (correct me if I’m wrong here) – is to enforce and protect the laws set forth in the Constitution. The smell of this is what drives me to challenge Obama’s right to run this country. His past associations taint his image in my eyes. Being of MIXED parentage is NOT an issue. I only wish he would open (read transparency) his records for the world to see. If he IS legitimate, I can then just deal with my other issues of where he’s taking this country. I do appreciate the tone of your response. It is an old issue between us, granted, but one that has two sides. As for the main theme of this blog, I have not seen it to be Constitutional driven. There is certainly a strong element of cronyism engrained in it. Participants who jump in with blustering to “protect” one of their fellow-believers at all costs. Slurs and inuendo’s are used to badger anyone who doesn’t “fit in” with the clique. I DO have a tendency to respond in kind, to such demeanor. Not necessarily a good trait, but one I seem to carry with me.
Tom Fitchue
“Defensive anger is the normal response. Watch.”
Actually, defensive anger is the province of the minority. Your sentiments about Obama’s birth are more likely to elicit concern for your emotional stability.
Tom:
“My issue on eligibility is the failure of Obama to PROVE his creditials.”
***************
“Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat” (He who asserts the claim, not he who denies it, must prove). Obama has already made prima facie ( I would say conclusive but let’s give you the benefit of the doubt that you deny to your opponent) proof of his bona fides. It is up to your and your gang of roving, agenda- driven skeptics to disprove the point. Have at it, since even the conservatives’ dream-team SCOTUS thinks you nuts.
Jonathan,
One small correction-it’s not Tom’s emotional state we should worry about, it’s his perception of reality and hence his mental state. A nuance I would agree. (sorry Tom😉
cheers!
I just realized that by posting under my name (Jonathan) it might be misleading, given the forum. I will use “Jonathan P” going forward.
Good Morning Mike,
Read your comment with interest. I am/was a ‘newbie’ to posting just a week or two ago (man I feel old! LOL!). I was quite surprised/frustrated with some of the more outlandish comments made in the forum. I asked ‘why’, and another Mike introduced me to some of the, shall we say, ‘darker’ aspects of the blogging world, specifically the notion of ‘trolls’.
And so to respond to your comment. There are people ‘out there’ (here) who are just writing not for information, not for legitimate solutions, but just to bait the community. I myself read a post accusing the president of trying to ‘take over’ the internet. How does one respond to that? Should one respond that? If someone suggest the president were from Mars, why should this be considered a serious contribution? I think you might agree those kinds of comments are hardly from serious people.
Two days or so after I read that post, there was a segment on the news about a Republican pac, promoting this notion of the president ‘taking control of the internet’, and offering to write a letter to your congressman for a fee of a few hundred dollars. And so it became obvious that the person writing here about the internet being taken over, probably worked for that pac, and was just trying to bait the community.
I suppose its overly simple to just ask why the former president, vp, justice dept management, and torturers aren’t all just being investigated for crimes against humanity, and prosecuted where facts support such prosecutions. I know that was the question on my mind when I joined Jonathan’s blog. If you are interested in answers to such questions, you will only become distracted by the ‘trolls’. My advice would be to just ignore those kinds of posts. You just reward them when you respond.
cheers!
Mike,
Second thing, after stating that I CAN spell “credentials”.
As far as never having questioned the “credentials” of any other presidential candidate, when has there been one that didn’t have a traceable history, except our earliest founding fathers? I can’t speak on their ‘vetting, but, with the many issues evident in Obama’s past, it does seem important to prove to the people (those of us that ARE concerned, and NOT ENTHRALLED by the liberalism he represents) that he IS, indeed, worthy of the Presidency of this great country. Given this validation, then ISSUES with his agenda(s) could be reconciled on their merits,
and not suspicions of purpose. I do not support the government acquiring “interests” in private business. Companies have failed in the past, large ones, who have not been bailed out with the wanton spending of taxpayer’s monies. The large number
of non-taxpaying Americans, with nothing to risk, of course side with the spending of taxes paid by the people who actually work. Why not? The government will support them and their growing numbers, enhanced by illegal immigrants, who are bleeding our coffers more every day. Obama promises all this to the masses, so, maybe, this is what keeps the “wall” up on his nationality issues, and makes his defenders blind to the issue of “what’s he hiding?” and “why is he hiding his past?” NO GOOD REASON COMES TO MIND.
Tom Fitchue
A comment about those legal opinion letters:
A few years back I was researching for a script I had in mind. Part of that research had me reading about the legal system in Nazi Germany. As the argument developed on the Fox network, it all seemed a bit familiar to me, and finally last night, I remembered the research and looked up my notes.
I had a few dozen pages of notes in that research. I was surprised how relevant it all was to the Bush administration. The idea of an administration corrupting a justice system to get ‘legal cover’ for otherwise illegal acts, has actually be a well researched academic and I suppose legal topic. Need I say, the universal conclusion was the such efforts, and any results from such efforts are themselves illegal and are considered evidence of a mind knowingly planning wrong doing. I was also surprised to read about how the Nazi’s used corporate law and corporations (Haliburtion??) to achieve their ends.
The parallels are remarkable. Here are a few quotes:
“…among other things, the decree authorized wired taps, and opening of mail, and sanctioned search and indefinite detention without warrants” (The Third Reich A New History” Burliegh, Micheal)
“…the identity of law giver and government…guaranteed every act of the leaders was expressed in the form of a law…” ( Gessellshaft und DemoKratie in Deutshcland) Rolf, Dahrendorf)
“…as early as March 1933, Hitler told the Reichstag “Not the individual but the the nation must be the focus of legal concern”…and “…demanded the elasticity of judicial findings for the purpose of safeguarding society…”(ibid 361)
“…conservative lawyers paved the way by writing expert opinions and cooperating with Hitlers view” (ibid pg 363)
“…the second great opening was the increasing frequent exemption of government and police actions from court review…” (ibid pg 364)
“…the theory developed by Werner Best (?) the Gestapo top legal expert, which established legal norms under which no longer were expected to apply to the means used…”(ibid page 359)
“…police power became political power, it’s protective role transformed into a positive legal claim to make policy beyond legitimate state power and no longer act in accordance with its legal principals (?)…” (the German Dictatorship: Dietrich Bracher)
and so on, and so on…food for thought, I thought.
cheers!
thatmtnman, those are indeed chilling parallels. Thanks for the notes.
here is some interesting info you will not find in the main stream media:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3790
and also this from another website:
Here’s what one web site said on Feb. 16, 2006:
“Last week, U.S. President George W. Bush revealed in a public speech that U.S. authorities, working in concert with foreign intelligence and security agencies, had disrupted an al Qaeda plot in
2002 involving an aircraft attack against a skyscraper in Los Angeles. The attack originally had been planned to take place in October 2001, one month after the 9/11 attacks, but was repeatedly delayed for numerous reasons.
“As outlined by the president, the attack would have unfolded along now-familiar lines: Four al Qaeda operatives were supposed to hijack an airliner, seize the controls and ram the aircraft into the tallest building on the West Coast–the U.S. Bank Tower, formerly known as the Library Tower. The weapons used were to have been explosives the operatives concealed in their shoes, which supposedly would have aided them in blowing off the cockpit doors.”
The attack was foiled because of information given by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, under interrogation at Gitmo. Whatever “torture” they applied to him saved thousands of lives.”
Enhanced,
I wonder if you’ll get any detractors on this?
To add, I’ll mention that PELOSI and various other “elected’s” were in on the methods of interrogation discussions/’vetting to be used on the prisoners to obtain this and other information to protect US from further attacks. Do WE forget the perils that faced our Nation, and believe the denials now being passed around by Pelosi and others that “they had no knowledge”? Blame it on George. How convenient. How deceitful. Obama’s “story” of giving in to pressure, after stating he opposed pursuing, certainly shows he’s either lying or can’t overcome the “forces” he supposedly controls. I wonder which it is?
Tom Fitchue
Dear mysterious unknown entity,
Seems you can’t stand the “far side” comments, huh? Typical pinko liberal posture. What a joke! I wonder how the rest of the contributors would feel about this? Probably stand up and cheer! Another troll bites the dust!
And, of course, my last post wasn’t a duplicate. Coward!
Tom Fitchue
Now you’ve done it! I certainly have to apologize to all concerned. I got a “refusal to post” after trying to submit my next-to-last post. I figured I was being monitored by someone and blocked from submittal. And, I figured you would block my last entry. Never thought it would show up. So, to ANYONE OFFENDED, please accept my apology.
Tom Fitchue
I have to say Tom, that I never thought I would find myself agreeing with you about anything. But on this one narrow comment I just might. Perhaps the president does not want to be seen as the mover behind an investigation and if the facts support it, a prosecution. My guess is he wants, as they say in the movies, plausible deniability on any prosecutions. Which is why all of the stuff is coming out the way it is coming out. Of course, it’s politics, so why should anyone be surprised that a master politician would be political. Still, I do wish that he would just be straight forward, let the proper investigations take place, and be a man about it.
cheers
Mr. EnhancedInterogationWorks…
Well…not really. Setting aside the legal and moral questions for a moment. You see the problem with that reference to information about the information garnered about the alleged attack, is that the times lines don’t match up. KSM was not in our custody. Of course, no mere mortal could have known that bit of information at the time the previous president made those statements. So you are to be forgiven for being duped like the rest of us.
cheers!
Tom,
Lightening strikes twice. I can’t believe it. If someone refused to post your comments Tom, I have to say, I think that is wrong. Please ‘unknown entity’, post what ever our resident right winger had to say. No fun if we sanitize things!
cheers
That & Enhanced,
I don’t know how my “first” post was shown to be REFUSED because, it stated, I had “SAID IT BEFORE”. That was the message shown. I believe that it’s possible to be screened & denied participation on blogs, and this be done by “senior” members at their descretion. I have ruffled the feathers of some of the long(old?)timers herein upon occasion. Having the status of “resident right winger” is quite a compliment. Thanks, “THAT”!
Enhanced,
Did the 2001 discussions about what interrogation methods could be used, take place BEFORE those to be questioned were captured?
Is this where the time-line is wrong?
Tom Fitchue
CHEERS, as you both offer.
Tom,
Is your ‘offending message’ now up? If it is, which one is it, or can you copy it into your next response? If it is not, let me once again plead your case with the ‘unknown entity’ to please allow the post.
As for being a compliment on the moniker of right winger, gee…I don’t know what to say! LOL!
Was your question on the time lines directed to me, or someone else?
cheers
Lighten up, folks. The message “said that before” seems to be automatically generated when “submit” is punched.
There appear to be no “senior member” out to get you.
Of course, there may be others . . .
That,
My supposedly deleted message DID post.
Having been given “resident” status was a compliment. Am I the only right-winger recognized on this blog? There is the possibility that not all posters on here would endorse that status for me, though. Am I the only right-winger “recognized” on this blog? What does that say?
The “time line” question was meant for “Enhanced” – great moniker, huh?
Tom Fitchue
As they say – CHEERS!
ahh…ok…didn’t seem offensive to me, actually. Might have been a system glitch? I do hope no one would suppress commentary here, especially from your end of the spectrum. Otherwise we are all just talking to ourselves. Besides which, you right wingers are soooooooo much fun!
yeah…great name…if you are a propagandist for war crimes…
cheers!
Dear Torturers/Sadists,
I regret to inform you that Jack Bauer is not real and that
LA did not suffer a nuclear attack two years ago. I know this may come as a shock, but “24’s” ticking time bomb scenarios have no basis in fact. Actually, the previous administration received ample warning of 9/11, but ignored it. Primarilly because they were on vacation. I really think that like GW Bush and Cheney, this is more of a predilection for sexual gratification on your part and that sadism turns you on. Given this you must know from your innermost thoughts that all good sadists also are masochists. My advice to you instead of wasting your time writing, a skill which like logic you are deficient in, you go posthaste to your local Dominatrix and have her paddle you while calling you a naughty boy. It would
be ever so much more fulfilling than discoursing on topics you are ill equipped to handle.
By the way Tom there are many people on this site with conservative, or middle of the road views, it’s just that they are capable of logical and interesting discussion, where as you and enhanced are merely goose stepping to the orders of your masters Rush and Karl. The Dominatrix will serve you better and allow you to get off at the same time.
This will also remove what I assume to be a burden from your significant others, who are getting bored with your need for role play.
thatmtnman,
Sometimes when a comment takes a long time to post and one clicks submit again to be answered by a message that it was already posted. Tom, in his conspiracy minded outlook seeing what he incorrectly believes is “liberal prejudice” reacted to quickly and assumed that this site deletes non-conforming posts. It’s a reasonable assumption if one visits right wing bloggers, or tries to call into people like Rush, because they do screen out dissent, a process which doesn’t happen here.
The fact that so many people seem to consider whether or not torture “works” to be central to the “should we or shouldn’t we” discussion–including mainstream media people like Chris Matthews–is outrageous and indefensible. We shouldn’t torture because it’s immoral, and because legitimizing torture (not to mention pleading our case by expounding upon its effectiveness) pretty much ensures that American soldiers will be tortured without fear of legal retribution.
My primary sentiment throughout the entire torture ordeal has been this: I cannot believe we are even having this conversation in my country. I’m ashamed and embarrassed.
hey Mike!
Welcome back! I was wondering where you got off to! Since I last lamented that all of this blogging stuff was beyond me, I think I have become addicted and now need a 12 step program! LOL!
This is all too much like fun! LOL!
cheers!
Mike,
Thanks! Only proves my theory about attempts at demeaning anyone who has issues which, you and others “prominent” on
this blog, use to respond to subjects that could have “wrong” answers to a liberal. I’m sure others on here will find your “style – or, lack of it” meaningful.
Thanks again,
Tom
Jonathan P,
I could not agree with you more. It is utterly bizarre to be even have such a discussion. Even more bizarre if possible, is that there is a discussion going on about how to justify and cover up these crimes. It’s the freaking US of A for gods sakes. We are the good guys. We are the global leader on the moral way. When we check out of that leadership, everyone is lost.
Gawd…such dolts….
man o man,
Between the ‘pinko liberal’ (hey what ever happened to ‘pinko commie’, anyway?? LOL!) reference, and the Dominatrix references, this blog has been way more entertaining than I could have ever imagined!!!
cheers!
That..
Enjoy!
By the way, what’s a “dominatrix”? Can’t even find this one in my dictionary. I wonder if it’s French? I guess Mike may have to give me a definition, if he’d be so kind. If he does, then maybe I can use it in like manner, somewhere else. Of course, you’d think he wouldn’t EVEN bother to read my rambling(s), given his responses. You might even think it beneath someone of his stature.
Tom
ahhh Tom, my clever right winger friend, I know nothing. I see nothing, I hear nothing. Perhaps one of us should look it up on the internet and report back?😉
You guys are wayyyy too much fun! There must be something wrong with me…LOL!!!
cheers!
actually Mike, I just had that experiance with the system trying to make the comment below. It said ‘it looks like you have already said that’. This must be a vast left wing conspiracy😉
“ahhh Tom, my clever right winger friend, I know nothing. I see nothing, I hear nothing. Perhaps one of us should look it up on the internet and report back?😉
You guys are wayyyy too much fun! There must be something wrong with me…LOL!!!”
cheers!
Professor Turley, be careful what you ask for. A special prosecutor (as a guest said on “Countdown” last week) on torture crimes would be a sure way for the Obama Administration to essentially cover up the investigation; similar to the Libby case. We would be better off with a full-blown Congressional investigation.
“Thanks! Only proves my theory about attempts at demeaning anyone who has issues which, you and others “prominent” on
this blog, use to respond to subjects that could have “wrong” answers to a liberal.”
Tom,
People who support torture in any shape, manner or fashion don’t deserve any respect whatsoever. Torture is a horrendous crime and people who really love this country and what it stands for can’t abide it. The people like you and enhanced who favor torture, or wrongly believe it is effective, have no knowledge of history, or of the values that make America great. You are traitors to this country, just as is the Administration that you so slavishly supported and as such I have nothing but contempt for you. I think that makes my position clear. There is no rational argument in favor of torture just as there is none for cold-blooded murder, so discussing it with someone with as sadistic mind as yours and enhanced is a waste of time. By the way this is not a liberal/conservative argument because there are just as many great conservatives who feel as I do.
The real argument is between decent human beings and monsters
who lack any sense of empathy.
As to what is a Dominatrix, I assume you can google, look it up. Hint, having one would be the answer to your deepest sexual longings.
thatmtnman:
there is an entire “other” Turley blog. scroll up and hit blog next to bio. Get out of the cave and come into the light.
hey Mike (and Tom),
I just read your response to Tom. I agree with your feelings Mike on this point, and without reservation.
However, and with the greatest of respect, I do think your comments were a bit harsh. I do understand the emotion though. I really do.
I think we all should allow for the possibility that there are people out there who are, ummm…confused, or misinformed, or mislead, or brainwashed or anything but necessarily evil ‘wanna be’ torturers. Right wing media like Bill O’Reilly is promoting torture every day. I’m not suggesting that you are wrong about Tom, he may in fact be like that, but perhaps we might want to give him a chance to deny it. We could ask (if we haven’t already), ‘do you support torture, and what if any limits would you place on coheresion?’ kind of question. I agree the ‘why’ is beside the point.
Now having said that, I think Tom, (cause I know you hang on to my every word here, LOL!) that you should understand that there are few crimes in the same category as torture. Few crimes earn the moniker ‘crime against humanity’. I do believe there is even a global kind of standing warrant for those accused of the act (I stand to be corrected on this point). The global nature of tortures condemnation is partially because America spoke on the issue and wanted it that way.
Now all of that may or may not move anyone to a different place, but I do think that a person who aligns themselves with ‘crimes against humanity’, really should take pause to consider what it is they are associating themselves with. At least speaking for myself, that is what I would do. Not that that matters one whit.
Looking forward to this next round. Seat belts fastened. Omg…
cheers!
Mr. Bron98,
Thank you! I was wondering if there might be something else somewhere else.
cheers!
thatmtnman,
Normally I’m the guy who counsels moderation, but all of Tom’s comments have shown him to be irredeemable.
Something happened sometime in the last 30 years, that caused a great number of Americans to attempt to redefine what our country stands for. In the 40’s, 50’s, or 60’s, we would not have found so many people who are so eager to defend torture. What was it? The rise of the Neocon? How can those who are unswervingly sure of our supremacy–the modern-day manifest-destiny crowd–discard the very things that have made the USA “different” from our adversaries?
Here’s a story I think you might want to cover.
http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/04/fiction-and-nonfiction-books-about-gay.html
i am quite certain we met …when we were young.
I appreciate your voice, your calm,your intellect.
i know Rachel, Keith do!
There are so many “pundits” out there…….
not many with intellect, (sorry).
know u r a welcome breath of truth and intellect.
paece to you
Hmmm….well…..certainly we can all agree that torture is indefensible right? Why must we continue to debate it? Indeed, anyone who would even suggest that it is a legitimate form of persuasion is being un-American…that is without question…isn’t it?…Now I ain’t as smart as all of you but I do know what is right and wrong…..Of course I am one who would conclude that anyone who would have supported the Bush Administration in any way is guilty by proxy of the crimes of the Bush Administration….many of which are punishable by death. So, submitting to your eventual execution would be the patriotic thing to do…
Re torture and all aspects of rule of law.
I am very appreciative of your appearance on various shows like hardball, Rachel Maddow, etc. talking to the importance of observing our laws let alone our traditions. I am very discouraged at how many politicians and pundits are arguing that violating our laws is justified under extreme conditions.
My guess is that this is another result of accepting the Bush doctrine that a preemptive war is justified. This nation was singularly acquiescent about invading Iraq even though what we heard for justifications were as hollow as an Easter chocolate bunny. We jumped onto the slippery slope.
Now our task is to regain solid ground and I think this must begin with adhering to our laws and prosecuting violators.
Jonathan, I appreciate your constitutional insight. Could you/would you address the issue of Natural Born Citizen? Is not Obama a dual citizen through his father, an African under British rule? Additionally, is he not a dual citizen through his adoption by Lolo Soetoro, and Indonesian? Since Obama has spent lots of money to keep his vault copy of his birth certificate secrete, along with passport, college applications, etc from the public.
Al,
Pardon the interruption, but you’ll find a wealth of discussion and analysis on these eligibility cases, both by lawyers and other interested people, here on PolitiJab:
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=6
Alvin Enns,
I agree with what you state.It puts me to mind though that what happened after 9/11 was a process of scaring the hell out of Americans and convincing them of the stock phrase “Now Everything Has Changed.” This was touted by supposedly serious commentators and by politicians. The presumption was that the US should in effect act as if “no more Mr. Nice guy” was in operative mode. This was interpreted that as because of 9/11 any behavior was justified on our part. By using 9/11 to induce fear in people and by continuing to hype the fear level the then Administration was able to justify an unjustifiable war and treat people as if America was going through an episode of “24.”
In truth nothing had changed. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and values.
Al Ulmer,
Nice work, under the initial guise of rasonability you throw in your red herring of whether our President is a legal citizen.
In truth this is a phony controversy. It is put forth by people who really only believe elections matter when their candidate wins. It is a strain of political thought that not only is Anti-American, but shows a disrepect for American citizens. What people should realize is that running a country and governance, are not the same thing as rooting for their local team. I wonder where your thinking was when GW Bush stole the 2000 election with the help of his brother, or when he stole the 2004 election with the help of Ken Blackwell. My guess is you would have no problem with his legitimacy because your team won.
Alvin Enns,
I agree with what you state.It puts me to mind though that what happened after 9/11 was a process of scaring the hell out of Americans and convincing them of the stock phrase “Now Everything Has Changed.” This was touted by supposedly serious commentators and by politicians. The presumption was that the US should in effect act as if “no more Mr. Nice guy” was in operative mode. This was interpreted that as because of 9/11 any behavior was justified on our part. By using 9/11 to induce fear in people and by continuing to hype the fear level the then Administration was able to justify an unjustifiable war and treat people as if America was going through an episode of “24.”
In truth nothing had changed. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and values.
Al Ulmer,
Nice work, under the initial guise of reasonability you throw in your red herring of whether our President is a legal citizen.
In truth this is a phony controversy. It is put forth by people who really only believe elections matter when their candidate wins. It is a strain of political thought that not only is Anti-American, but shows a disrepect for American citizens. What people should realize is that running a country and governance, are not the same thing as rooting for their local team. I wonder where your thinking was when GW Bush stole the 2000 election with the help of his brother, or when he stole the 2004 election with the help of Ken Blackwell. My guess is you would have no problem with his legitimacy because your team won.
Al,
You might want to go back into entries on this blog and take a look at “interactions” between Mike & myself. It’ll give you some expectations about the “mentality” that you’re dealing with. I got on here with the SAME question(s) about eligibility, thinking that there would be un-biased opinions offered on this subject. Constitutional law being what it is.
You have opened up Pandora’s box, because there’s no way anyone I’ve seen herein, will really & honestly address this. Turley is non-existant on such (if not all issues) things that mean’s he has to respond to an unpopular issue – possibly because he know’s of the firestorm that arises from broaching this. And, WHY would he, anyhow? He seems to pick his “fights” very carefully.
You will learn that there ARE some on here that are rational. Indentifing them will be easier if you go back to earlier posts.
There’s even some that have a sense of humor, and enjoy our exchanges. You’ll also note some very obvious meltdowns. Then, you’ll probably be more aware of what you “hear” & what to expect from those that respond to you. Develop a thick skin & you’ll be fine
Tom Fitchue
Good “trolling”! You’ll hear that a lot, too.
Hi Jon,
I think Buchanan got one thing right on Chris Matthews’ show yesterday evening, referring to you as “Chief Justice Jonathan Turley.” I, as well as many, many others believe you would be a great replacement for the outgoing Justice David Souter. There would be none better than you, sir. Keep up the great work, Jon!!! Tim
“thinking that there would be un-biased opinions offered on this subject.”
The problem with people of a certain mentality is that they have spent so many years listening to Bush/Cheney, their apologists and Rush & Company, that they believe no matter what crackpot topic some right wingers bring up, there are two sides to the debate. In their world people can say that the sun revolves around the Earth and that God created the Universe about 6,000 years ago. They foolishly expect that by expressing their crackpot viewpoints people should engage them in honest discussion. This was done after 1992 with Bill Clinton on whether he was an Arkansas drug dealer and the drumbeat of the fascist and the feeble-minded was taken up after the public overwhelmingly rejected their politics, in the 1996 election and now the 2008 election.
President Obama was fairly elected and has proved to be a refreshing change from the stupid, draft dodging traitors who preceded him and tried to wreck our country. These birth certificate arguments have been refuted time and again but their proponents refuse to admit the truth. They are behaving like traitors to our Country and to our way of government. To dignify their dumb arguments by continuing to refute them is a waste of time, because at the bottom of this isn’t President Obama’s birth certificate, it is an inability on the part of some people to accept our American way of life. If they were capable of speaking Russian, I think Vladimir Putin would be the type of leader they should be following and Russia is the place where they should go.
“The problem with people of a certain mentality is that they have spent so many years listening to Bush/Cheney, their apologists and Rush & Company, that they believe no matter what crackpot topic some right wingers bring up, there are two sides to the debate.”
And Mike, this affliction has fully taken route with the media, even the mainstream media, which now go out of their way to appear “unbiased” even when presented with the absurd.
Tom Fitchue: As a newbie here who HAS read through the previous posts, your attempt in your last post to portray yourself as a voice of reason made me throw up in my mouth a little.
With the greatest respect, Professor Turley, what do any of these recent discussions have to do with your Bio and what do those other comments under your Latest Column section have to do with your latest column? Nothing, that I can discern.
Does this mean that these 2 sections are where I can best post off-topic subjects I am interested in because I too might like to do so.
Respectfully submitted
Jonathan P,
Excellent point and good catch re: the media.
JT & FFLEO,
FFLEO’s point is well taken, perhaps you should delete all comments on both sites. The only problem I see is that we’ve found some good new people here and so this may serve as a lure. On the down side I mainly post here to annoy the trolls, who would mis-characterize what you’re doing and put it here with the expectation that new visitors would first check out your bio. Also have you both noticed that some trolls seem stuck to the bio section? Is that internet unfamiliarity, or the logarithms of a troll attack program. Due to it I’m loath to tell the interesting posters that a wider world awaits.
Mike Spindell,
I understand and recognize your comments and the efforts that you expended that could be lost. I just think any Curriculum Vitae is denigrated my off-topic ‘trollisms’ and gives them an ‘unregulated’ voice of recognition.
hey everyone…what is a LEO? Just a ‘nome d’plume’ or is it something else?
cheers
*AN* not *a* LEO is the king of the jungle…and master of none…
FFLEO,
It was funny to read your note ‘whats the point?’ of the postings here….I myself discovered this blog oh, about…2 weeks ago or so, and asked the same question! LOL! I have since discovered that its quiet addictive and enjoyable to read what is going on, and to throw in your own two cents. I think you will find the debates can be ‘lively’ (to say the least!), interesting and even on occasion relevant
cheers
LEO is (typically) Law Enforcement Officer
Hey MtnMan,
Fire away, I aint the proprietor here (oh, and that is king of the Blackboard jungle…and I am a former ‘cause I am washed-up and irrelevant.
And stop askin’ questions ‘cause you are getting me to fall into the trap of posting under this Bio and appearing a hypocrite!
Hey Tom,
Welcome back.
I’d be happy to offer my services as modest as they are, on taking up the debate on the birth issue. But first, I just have to ask ‘why?’. You’re obviously one of the brightest and frankly I just don’t believe that you believe he is an alien. And while I appreciate you may have an interest in ‘poking the bear’ so to speak, there are so, so many issues a good ‘right winger’ could debate about the new administration without sounding like a member of the flat earth society. I am pretty sure you have list!😉
cheers
FFLEO…
LOL!! We like you already!
re: how far I have come,
Was a time, when I thought Pat Buchanan was a ‘crazy man’. Now considering the present right wing camp Pat is sounding like the voice of reason. OMG! Am I alone in that or do others find Pat a more reasonable voice these days?
On that topic, I was thinking to myself, how much I missed Bill Buckley…an unrelenting, arch conservative. I didn’t agree with him all that often, but he always made me work to consider his positions. (and lord I loved his elocution!) I think the country needs him, or those like him, to be a healthier place. I just wonder if there are any out there or is all that is left of (forgive my pun here) the right, the crazies?
cheers!
JP,
Thank you!
cheers!
Jonathan P,
Now you’ve done it! I imagine, from now on, everyone will think
of a mouthful of vomit when we see your name. I hope you have a good mouthwash.
I mean, since you’ve chosen to weigh on, so to speak>
Tom Fitchue
And, as That says – CHEERS!
Tom, forgive me – I didn’t initially recognize your place as community spokesperson.
Jonathan,
Nor I you.
Tom Fitchue
Per THAT – Cheers!
I’ve never written on a blog before, but I surely hope that President Obama will appoint Jonathan Turly to the Supreme Court to replace outgoing Justice David Souter.
amy,
Approximately what age group are you?
To have a constitutional scholar of Professor Turley’s caliber on the SCOTUS would be an exceptionally good and wise choice.
MtnMan. This post *is* relevant to the Prof. Turley’s Bio/ Curriculum Vitae
I thoroughly enjoyed your jousting with Pat Buchanan on the issue of torture on Hard Ball.
I’ve been following you through your appearances on the Rachel Maddow Show, too.
You are the voice of reason, intelligence and constitutional expertise.
Thank you.
I don’t know why MSNBC utilizes Pat Buchanan so regularly.
He makes no sense
Hi FF LEO,
I am in my mud 50’s and I am also a former LEO. I would really miss seeing Jonathan on MSNBC, but I feel he would serve our Nation like very few could on the SCOTUS. I believe that President Obama is a wise and thoughtful person. I think his wisdom would be well recognized if he appointed Jonathan for this opening. We’ll see.
Thank you, Amy. Would you still prefer Professor Turley’s selection instead of any woman justice?
FFLeo et al,
re: SCOTUS, yeah, sure it would be amazing to see Prof. Turley’s name on any short list for a nomination, but the reason there are so many women who have been mentioned is that there was an expectation that Justice Ginsburg would be retiring some time soon. No one predicted that Justice Souter would retire until he failed to interview new clerks for the coming year, as ora arguments are ending soon. I believe that President Obama was thinking of restoring a female presence on the bench after the retirement of Justice O’Connor.
re: President Obama and his birth certificate. It’s over kids. He’s in the White House. He took the oath of office and the conspiracy theorists will either be consumed with this hobby or will have to move on to another. It’s kind of hilarious when you think about secret birth certificates and phony passports. And at the end of the day, don’t we have more important things to take up our time?
re: Torture
Prof Turley, you have it right. Torture is a crime and what disappointed me about the recent press conference where the President referred to torture as a “mistake” and nearly as a mistake of expediency was colossally offensive to me. Torture is a crime and the President needs to (IMHO) say so publicly and let happen what happens.
I am old enough to remember when Adolf Eichmann was captured in Argentina and tried and executed in Israel for crimes against humanity. His actions led to the death,by torture of 95% of my family. Only my mother and grandmother walked out of those ashes and I grew up in a very wounded world. I think that President Obama is young, perhaps, too young to realize that while the Nuremburg Trials were distasteful to many they were necessary. The notion that soldiers would not be held responsible because they were ordered to commit these crimes was unacceptable then as it is today. As it must be today.
Oh and just in case that isn’t enough…. I was in Cambodia a few years ago and visited the Tuol Sleng prison, a former middle school that Pol Pot turned into his headquarters in Phnom Penh. I saw the pictures of every Cambodian that he tortured and his very own water board. I also visited Hanoi and the infamous Hanoi Hilton where Senator McCain was imprisoned for five years and I had trouble walking through the place for an hour.
Humankind has a dark history of this sort of behavior and if we are to be enlightened at all we ought to do what is right, even if it not popular.
thanks for all the posts. this is an interesting group and Prof Turley… I truly enjoyed meeting you during the trial of “B.B. Wolf”
It was like meeting Elvis or Jerry Garcia or John Marshall.
GWLawSchoolMom,
So well done! I too have family members who have those scars.
cheers!
GWLawSchoolMom,
Yours was an informative post. I can hardly wait for a qualified woman president, I liked Justice O’Conner, and I certainly want to see another woman Supreme Court jurist. Pres. Obama is going to have at least 2 opportunities anyway. Most likely—whomever he selects—the person is going to be a centrist, which is perfect.
FFLEO and GWLAWSCHOOLMOM,
I really enjoy your posts. I believe there are MANY women that are infinitely qualified for the SCOTUS post. I favor Jonathan because of his positions on many of the issues of today, most notably, his position on the question of torture. He is absolutely correct when he says it must be investigated and prosecuted. We cannot afford to be seen by the world, or our grandchildren, as a nation (or government) of ham fisted thugs!! As far as Jonathan vs. a female candidate, let’s let the resume be the deciding factor. This post is too important at such a critical time in our Nation’s history, to reduce filling it just so this President can say he appointed the first Asian American Female, or Hispanic American Female, or African American Female to the SCOTUS. I just want the most qualified person to be selected for this opening, and I hope that she or he will be young enough to serve in this position for a very long time. GWLawSchoolMom, thanks so much for your post. I am very sad to hear that the Holocaust had such a devastating impact on your family. My family has never suffered a history such as that, but I share your views regarding torture, and the way history regards it.
Universal Healthcare: Are We Missing The Real Debate?
Elaina F. George, MD
The debate in Washington between those who believe universal healthcare equals socialized medicine and the end of the world vs. those who believe that single payer, government mandated health insurance is the only way to stop the selfish evil insurance companies has begun and is gaining steam.
I believe that single payer universal healthcare is a worthy goal, since I fundamentally believe that good health should be a right and not a privilege. Unfortunately, implementation of it will likely prove to be hard when the reality of the power of the healthcare and pharmaceutical lobbies in Washington are taken into account. They have spent a lot of money and have the ear of key members of congress. I am concerned that there is no appetite for real change, and that fear will instead lead to a doubling down on the status quo.
I have hope that President Obama will walk the walk. However, his actions say otherwise. His willingness to take single payer off the table with out vigorous debate, and his choice of Tom Daschle as HHS secretary and Sanjay Gupta as the surgeon general both speak to his willingness to pay lip service to change while putting in folks who are friendly to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries respectively. Furthermore, his health advisory team consists of people like Ezekiel Emmanuel who has ties to Humana. I am concerned that health insurance overhaul will mean a further power grab by the insurance companies. If nothing fundamentally changes about how health insurance is delivered, what will stop them from continuing their same practices? They will simply benefit from having more patients to pay premiums. History tells us this is a recipe for disaster for both patients and physicians and a pay day for the insurance companies under the guise of healthcare for all.
I believe the first step should involve a government based public option. This is the only real way to gain the necessary leverage to make the changes needed to improve our health care system. Republicans argue that free market pressure will help patients obtain lower premiums if they are allowed to shop for cheaper health insurance in another state. They neglect to take into account the fact that Blue Cross in Georgia is the same as Blue Cross in Nevada – it is Blue Cross and the company will still shift the cost to the patient in deductibles and rationing of care. Moreover, the insurance companies all operate the same way. I submit that dealing with Aetna or United Healthcare or Blue Cross is the same. They are for profit corporations and their goal is to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. In order to do that they must collect more premiums and pay out as little as possible. There is nothing altruistic about these behemoths.
There is so much wrong with the current system that it needs to be overhauled in order to make it viable. At the current rate we are not training enough primary care physicians, the best and the brightest are choosing not to go into medicine and those who have gone into it because they wanted to care for their patients are leaving the profession because they lack the autonomy to be true advocates for their patient’s health and/or they can’t afford the cost of doing business.
I am an ear, nose and throat physician in solo private practice. Like physicians practicing today, I have been on the front line and have seen the quality of medicine drop, the cost of medicine increase, and the doctor patient relationship erode. It makes no sense to me that Americans pay more for health care than any other industrial country, but live shorter less healthy lives.
I have come to the conclusion that this down hill slide began to occur in the 90’s with the Clinton health care reform fiasco. With Hillary Clinton’s acquiescence to the health insurance companies and under the guidance of Ted Kennedy the power of health insurance companies increased. They initiated the model of rationed healthcare under the name ‘HMO’ now known as managed care. As a physician and particularly as a specialist, that was manifested as a ‘gate keeper’ model that restricted the patient’s access to specialty care. I found that patients were kept in the primary care system longer than necessary before referral. For example, they were managed with antibiotics for 6 months before a CT scan was performed when it was obvious that the antibiotics were not working since the symptoms had not resolved. It may have cost the insurance company less in the cost of the antibiotics, but what was the cost to the patient in lost productivity and pain?
When it was obvious that the managed care model was creating a growing number of unhappy patients because of difficulty with timely access to physicians, patient dissatisfaction with the subsequent care, and lack of cost savings because of the need to pay to treat more advanced disease, the model changed to capitation.
Under this arrangement a physician or group was given a certain amount of money per number of patients (covered lives) seen by that the practice. If the cost of caring for those patients was below the amount given by the insurance company then the practice made money. It did not take into account the rising cost of doing business – i.e., supplies, malpractice insurance premiums, salaries for employees or health insurance for employees). This ended because of the untenable pressure on the physician between practicing ethical medicine and bankruptcy.
Now we have evolved to our present situation. The insurance companies have been relentless in shifting the cost of medicine to the patient and the physician. Over the past 10 years I have seen my reimbursements drop every year. Insurance companies have instituted clever ways of cutting reimbursements by instituting: 1) Global days. i.e., the physician cannot charge a patient for up to 90 days after a surgical procedure even though the post operative care may be complete in as little as 10 days. 2) Multiple procedure discounts. In surgical procedures that have more than one step, like an endoscopic sinus surgery, the surgeon will be paid 100% of the discounted amount for the 1st step in the procedure, 50% for the second, 25% for the 3-5 and then nothing after that. In essence this works out to an 80-90% discount; and 3) denial of payment after pre-authorization has been obtained. This means that an in network physician will not get paid for the procedure even though it was pre-authorized. Because of the contract, if the physician losses the appeal the patient cannot be billed because the insurance company has the last say. The patient and employer have also seen a steady increase in premiums and out of pocket deductibles along with less covered services.
It seems obvious that the cost of medicine is driven by the insurance companies. Currently, 30% of the healthcare dollar goes directly to the maintenance of the insurance company. After all it takes money to – hire physicians to deny care, auditors to recoup ‘overpayments’ to physicians, to purchase new software to edit the medical codes in a way that produce more denials and increases the time that it takes physicians to get paid, and to pay for the feel good commercials that make patients believe that the insurance company is on their side.
The only way to break this cycle is to offer real competition. A non profit government based system will be able to up the ante. Unless the insurance companies compete by both decreasing their premiums and offering more services they will lose patients. This in addition to an emphasis on prevention and wellness is the only REAL way to change our healthcare system to one that is more affordable and of higher quality.
whoa-off topic or what…on topic-I add my voice to those suggesting JT should sit on the court! Smart, and brave!
cheers!
I would like to add my vote for Professor Turley as our next Supreme Court Justice.
Thanks thatmtnman!! I agree with Elaina George on the health care topic. However, unless I am mistaken, the HMO fiasco began with the Nixon Administration. Either way, it is a disaster. I believe that Americans should have the same health care options that Brits and Canadians have. Americans are living very unhealthy lives, high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, childhood diabetes, pulmonary disorders, etc. the hits just keep on coming. They just can’t afford to go to the Dr.
On my original thought……Jonathan, if I email President Obama that I hope (and pray) that you are his choice for the SCOTUS position, will you PLEASE accept and do your Nation a very great service? In the meantime, will you please appear more often on Countdown and Rachel Maddow’s shows? By the way, I LOVED your discourse with Pat Bucannan on Hardball. Pat’s a nice guy, but what a schmuck!!
Dr. George,
It’s very informative to see the healthcare issue through the eyes of a practicing physician. It would seem to be very difficult to come up with a good, sound, workable solution to the country’s enormous problem of how to provide quality care for everyone. It certainly is true that few of our elected “officials” place the interests of their constituents above their desire to line their own pockets. In many cases, they hardly bother to give even lip-service to understanding our wishes. They really don’t have much to fear from voter backlash because there’s no voice that can be raised that offers enough of a threat to their entrenchment in the halls of our government.
The likelyhood of ever getting the needed changes passed through Congressis certainly slim.
This roadblock exists on every front, and does weaken us at the very time that we most need honesty and bipartisanship throughout our government. There are so many problems to be dealt with, and there is a “pushing” from the top to rush to methods that are not seen favorably, when patience and practicality and level heads are needed to present the troubling issues to the citizens, who, hopefully, pull together to support plausible solutions. There are too many political agendas being foisted upon us. I believe, until we are given transparency and the opportunity to hold our officials accountable for their actions, nothing good will be achieved.
I wonder what might happen if our politicans were made to get their own family’s medical coverage from the same source that everyone else uses, if that might change things? Probably create a lot of squalling, I’d guess.
Tom Fitzhugh
Registered Democrat
Tom,
You might notice, if you cared, that I didn’t imply that I was speaking for anyone other than myself, while your use of “we” did make that implication. But that’s neither here nor there; your role is here is trolling, and can have the rest of this particular pissing match to yourself.
With regard to Jonathan Turley as a candidate to replace Souter, I think it’d be fantastic. But I think that everything Obama has been saying about his desire to “look forward” instead of backwards means that Turley’s outspoken position in favor of torture prosecutions probably keeps him off “the list.” I don’t see the remaining Republicans in the congress letting it come to a vote.
I do understand that Obama is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to torture investigation. If charges were to be filed against Bush administration officials based on the war crime of torture, it’d make the Clinton impeachment look like a tea party. Because of this, I believe Obama’s best course of action, all along, should have been to defer to the justice department instead of going along with the notion that he should be a party to the decision.
Tom,
That is one great idea! Lets have every politician and their family’s have to deal with the health care system like regular people! We’d learn how fast those old guys can say ‘yes’ to a fix!
Very well done!
cheers!
Jonathan P,
I agree with you on your point about the political fall out if JT were to be nominated or if Obama were to appear open to justice.
On the other hand if for example, the general population were to have their conscience shocked by, say, memos, and photos, and congress were to act, then its not his fault. I can here it now…’I would have preferred to look forward, but the people have insisted’. I wouldn’t be surprised at all, if that is what those memo and photo releases may be all about.
What do you think?
cheers!
Ami,
I totally agree with you on the health care issue. We ranked 37th in the world about 10 years ago, behind such places as Oman, or Cyprus, or Columbia and that is just wrong. And we spend a ton more money than any of them. It literally has become our money or our lives, and sometimes it is just our money and our lives. Just with less pain. Personally, I am ready for a change.
cheers!
thatmtnman,
The idea you float is intriguing; I’d like to think that the larger American populus would share those concerns. But the arguments I’ve seen thus far, in the media and in my one-on-one experience, have left me pessimistic about the national will.
The focus, it seems to me, has been on whether or not torture “works,” as opposed to whether it’s the right thing to do. I have shared my opinion with friends who are ambivalent, making comments like “maybe we should look at what has happened in the past in situations like this.” Well, in the past we prosecuted people for “situations like this.”
Earlier in this thread, someone commented on the idea that 9/11 “changed everything.” Well, if we as a nation really feel that the rules only apply while hostilities are carried out on foreign soil, then we’re not quite worthy of the credit we’ve been giving ourselves for all these years.
Ultimately though, I hope you’re right, that images of our indiscretions will shock the American conscience. Otherwise, we’ll be facing this question again in the not-so-distant future.
Regards,
Jonathan P
Jonathan P:
“Well, if we as a nation really feel that the rules only apply while hostilities are carried out on foreign soil, then we’re not quite worthy of the credit we’ve been giving ourselves for all these years.”
*************
I wouldn’t be quite so hard on our Countrymen,and women. Fear does change everything, that’s why a nation is measure by the quality and quantity of its citizens who, while still experiencing fear, but possess the courage to remind the others of why we are here in the first place. You might recall Churchill’s immortal words for a free people:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Most of what we see is fear being exploited by a gang of ruthless power mongers for their own design. The American people remain good but, like most, they rely on their leaders to lead. When a vacuum in that leadership occurs the ship of state seems rudderless. It isn’t. It merely lacks the strong hand at the till to guide the public’s sentiments. Every great nation has its Churchills. Sadly it has its Chamberlains, and more apt here, its Stanley Baldwins, too.
“To forget one’s purpose is the commonest form of stupidity.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche
What I simply cannot get through my thick skull is why Republicans are fighting the health care issue so vehemently. Are they SO addicted to the contributions made by the insurance and pharmacutical companies that they can’t even look for what’s in their own FAMILIES best interest? And what about Democrats fighting this issue. I will tell you…..in New Hampshire, we take our politicians to task for betrayal in the voting process. My Reps inboxes are full of correspondences from me and my ilk, and they will continue to be. We are a small enough state that our Reps take us seriously. I (and many others like me) can actually physically get to EVERY poll in the state on election day and really raise a rucus, and they don’t want that!
I am still pulling for JT to get on the SCOTUS. I just worry that if he does, it will be the end of the push for accountability on the torture issue. I don’t like that idea. But I still think we need him on the court.
amy:
Since the dawn of the Republic the economic resources of the few dwarfed the voting strength, and short memories, of the many. New Hampshire may be different, but here, money still talks,and its malodorous counterpart still walks.
Amy
Republicans fight health care because they can. Because it is a galvanizing issue that they tie to “fiscal responsibility” and immigration reform. Because they can use it to whip fear in the hearts and minds of their shrinking and somewhat pathetic base. They tie it to socialism/communism/fascism.
They don’t seem to mind that the present situation is hugely expensive, unwieldy, and has few provisions for decent public health policy that can be applied fairly. The largest and most vulnerable populations to go without comprehensive health care are seniors and children who make up the majority of Americans living in gut-wrenching, bak breaking poverty like India poverty. Too many seniors have to bargain with themselves over food/home heating-cooling/medication and what was the latest report? 1 in 10 children is homeless? that is a disgrace when we spend so much on the military on an unwanted and unnecessary war that has caused a huge power vacuum in central Asia and is now spreading to Pakistan.
Health care is a device for the right, one that they use effectively as a way to raise money. And it is one thing that can be easily remedied by better thinking and planning as well as better funding. We can throw money at the banking industry, which clearly owns the Senate now much to my dismay, or we can throw money at health care and education, two programs that are easily repaired with better funding.
Where are we now with infant mortality? 35th? Something like that. Shouldn’t we be trying to find ways to keep children alive,healthy and then educate them? All of them?
Sadly I live in a community that fears immigration more than any other real or perceived threat to social stability and the anti-immigration forces here would choose to round ’em up, ship ’em out and short of that refuse to educate or medically treat the children of the people who mow their lawns,clean their homes and care for their swimming pools. If that isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.
Thanks for your sentiments on my family history. It was what it was and I don’t carry it around in any special way, but because our experiences and our histories inform who we become I am glad for mine because it has made me someone who thinks about what is the most humane solution, the most compassionate path. And I am so not a touchy-feely person.
Happily, the American public does not have a vote in who is nominated for the bench. While I appreciate the views of Prof. Turley’s fans and agree that his ideas and opinions are brilliant and accessible and simply make sense, at least to me, whether or not he considers himself more useful where he is today or might be as a jurist is kind of up to him as well as the folks who take notice of law profs as candidates for the bench.
Prof. Jeffrey Rosen (also at GW) will probably be appearing more often on MSNBC as the vettings and hearings unfold and he is another unique voice that I am sure the folks here will dig as much as I do.
Pick up his book on the Supreme Court for a real look into how the bench came into its own under John Marshall and how he regards the importance of judicial temperament.
Qualifications for the bench depend on so much and should not rest alone with a “first” Asian or Gay/Lesbian or Hispanic not that there aren’t qualified folks who belong to one minority group or another.
The amusing part of all of this is watching the right wing gearing up for a fight that does not yet exist and one that they will surely lose. Even with a majority in both houses, the White House and SCOTUS they failed in 8 years to solidify a single one of the social issues. They failed at every social objective. Abortion is still the law of the land. School prayer? nope. Porn? uh-uh. Gay marriage? they’ve done really badly there. So they still have the guns but even that issue is beginning to soften.
And you know what? I kind of feel sorry for them. To get why, watch Alexandra Pelosi’s recent documentary, America Right: Feeling Wronged. It’s all there.
be well.
to GWLawSchoolMom and mespo727272 you folks are right on target. We really MUST turn America around. The past eight years have set us on such a REALLY bad track. Not just here at home, but globally. It’s critical that we hold our elected representatives accountable for EVERY SINGLE VOTE. We have to stop watching the weather channel and get FOCUSED on what is happening to OUR COUNTRY!!!. We have to reign it in and get it right!! I am very angry and ashamed of what our country has become in the last eight years. We CANNOT AND MUST NOT allow this legacy to become a part of our history without being corrected. Everyone makes mistakes, and that includes FREEDOM LOVING NATIONS, but the last eight years is a mistake we MUST acknowledge and correct. First, I think we need to prosecute the torturers, and then, we need to correct the health care issue. I am currently dealing with a knee injury that I pray won’t keep me from reporting to work on Monday, but I surely can’t afford to go to the Dr. for it!!! That’s a sad commentary on our society, no matter WHAT side you’re on.
thank you for fighting against torture. how will common sense win out over the apologist of torture?
There have been so many thoughtful posts deserving attention that it’s hard to know where to begin. So perhaps for those of you not regulars here I would suggest you click on blog and see the many topics there that will expand your ability to discuss, teach and learn.
“Since the dawn of the Republic the economic resources of the few dwarfed the voting strength, and short memories, of the many.”
Mespo, one of the treasures of this blog, cuts to the chase with his usual perception. This to me also is the chief culprit in keeping this from being a country run by its’ people. There is a tension in the US between those who believe that a blessed “elite” should be in charge to rule the unruly mob and those who believe that the Government should be of, by and for the people. Those “elitists” with the money, controlling the media, have managed to mostly keep us a society governed by the needs of the wealthy, by using other issues (like xenophobia, racism, religion, etc.)
to distract the many from their pockets being picked.
Amy & GWLSM,
This is why many of our activist efforts get thwarted. The public, living in a society where supporting ones’ family and ones’ self has become so difficult, where real wages have shrunk, where the tax burden is squarely on the shoulders of the middle classes, has what little time left for contemplation distracted by a news barrage meant to make us fearful in all aspects of our lives. The supposedly wise commentators after 9/11 who on every network kept saying” now everything has changed,” were short-sighted fools who gave tacit permission and cover to the Bush/Cheney Mob’s forays into unconstitutional government and war for profit.
The people were cowed by rampant headlines telling them to be very afraid and thus exploited and pushed to vote against their own interests. This is also why unfortunately Professor Turley, though perhaps more qualified than anyone, will not even get on the SCOTUS appointment shortlist. He has proven to possess the independence of mind, the fearless constitutional perspective and the ethical dedication that would scare the hell out of the elites, from both sides of the political spectrum. The clamor against him would be deafening.
Elaina George, thatmtnman, Jonathan P.,Amy,GWLSM, and Tom,
All of you offer excellent comments that help put the puzzle of our country’s failed health care system together. Dr. George, as someone afflicted for years with a serious medical condition and thus familiar with the quality of care, please let me compliment you on being a physician who is “in the business” of really trying to help people. Through my more than 30 year battle with heart disease I have met more than a few with your dedication to the excellence of care, but all too many who saw the profession as a way to get rich. This then is one part of the problem. I do believe that physicians, giving the rigorous training, years and expense it takes to get there, should be handsomely rewarded for their efforts. Too many though care more for the money than for their patients and due to that often overlook symptoms, in their rush to minimize the doctor/patient time and see as many as they can in a workday. This is not to say that the system is the cause this to a large degree.
Dr. George, I believe your analysis is correct to note a decline in care since the Clinton’s failed health care initiative. Hilary, brought to the table representatives of the major hospital and insurance conglomerates. The failure resulted in the HMO model becoming predominant and when quality of care, is measured against percentage of profit, quality takes a back seat.
The issues raised as to why Republican oppose universal health care are in a sense perplexing. We can understand why from a philosophical perspective they oppose government’s involvement in anything, but on the other hand a national health care system would make our industries and businesses more competitive in the world, by drastically reducing their employee costs. One would think the Party of Business would see this. However, Republican’s (at least nowadays) and some Democrats dance to the tune of whoever gives them the most campaign contributions and the health insurance companies, drug makers and hospital conglomerates have great lobbyists. All these sharers of the health care buck want at least the status quo. Then too it is only of late that the AMA has stopped working in concert with these industries, as doctor’s realize they are also being screwed by the system.
So lastly we get down to how do we change things in this country. As GWLSM has suggested activism works, but only to a certain degree. In truth the greatest reform needed in the country is figuring out how to remove the money from elective politics and how to get the real news to the public, unfiltered by a mass media, both incompetent and run in the interests of corporatists. The Internet has provided much of the latter and we must all fight to keep it free. The former is more difficult, but the solution lies somewhere in the realm of limiting the time of electioneering like Great Britain, providing free air time to candidates and perhaps have something like a National Elections Week with candidates all you see on TV and voting times increased from on mere working Tuesday.
Please forgive the length of this post but all of your comments were so thoughtful, that it made me want to join in.
hey mespo727272,
What a fantastic quote from Churchill!!
cheers!
hey Mike,
I was myself, just composing a note themed with ‘money is the root of all evil’ idea, and it seemed to me, the one constant affecting all of our issues these days. You did a better job than I, as usual!
I think the ultimate way we solve all of our problems is by simply going to a public funded electoral system. But if you think the hue and cry over public health care is loud, just wait until you try to take lobbyists, and fund raising out of the electoral system. I think we’d all be lined up at dawn and shot! LOL!
I guess having written that thought, I just realized that on a practical note, we are all screwed😦 Things will never get better. I also just realized that right wingers would benefit as much as left wingers were we to get a publicly funded system for elections.
I wonder if you Mike, and any of our resident right wingers might agree with me, that the biggest problem isn’t the ideologically gap between regular persons of the right and the left, but rather between regular persons of any stripe and the moneyed special interests who manage to frustrate and screw us all?
cheers!
thatmtman:
“hey mespo727272,
What a fantastic quote from Churchill!!”
*********
I can take no credit because when it comes to WSC, there are few bad ones!
Mike and Amy
Activism is not only a right, it is a responsibility. I spend a few minutes every week poking my very sharp stick at my Rep. to Congress, who is by and large an empty suit who seems fixated on money for state highways and little else and refused Stim $$ because it contained a provision for honeybee research. I’m not sure if it did or not, but here in CA we depend on agriculture and agriculture depends on honeybees, who are dying and no one knows why. The hilarious part of this is that with my weekly email to my congressman I get a phone call from the aide whose job it is to read his email. Yes. a 23 year old pisher is vetting email for my congreeman. The other day I wrote asking how my rep felt about the Employee Free Choice Act and got a phone call from The Kid who tried to compare his talking points with the decades that I have stomped the terra to prove me wrong. Yet I continue to email. I’d work to find another candidate but the DCCC doesn’t come to my district with any support for democrats and I have not yet been able to get their attention for a seat they I think might finally be vulnerable.
I tried to email Michelle Bachmann when she got her U.S.History 101 lesson wrong — dig: Hoot Smalley, she said was enacted after FDR took office. If the president is bad for the comedy business at least we have Michelle. Anyway, you can’t send her email unless you live in her district. You can’t send email to Virginia Foxx R-NC either. She’s the dried up old trout, we say Farbissiner in my family, who called the lynching of Matthew Shepard a hoax, in front of his mother on the floor of congress when it voted on the Hate Bill amendment, which btw, my rep. voted against (no big surprise) because all crimes are equal in his eyes according to the kid who reads his email and then calle me. BUT you can call their offices and even if you do wind up talking to kids with talking points in front of them, they learn that Americans will use their access to the system.
I recommend going to Washington when Congress is in session. YOu can visit any of the folks whose work you admire and those whose work you don’t and sometimes get to a senior aide. They do pay attention even if it doesn’t change things, these aides are the politicians of the future and you get to help shape their experience of public service for the better, I think.
I’m glad I found this place. YOu all seem like thoughtful and reasonable people and while I may not have time to respond to all, everyday, you don’t have to feel disenfranchised. Once a congressperson or senator is elected from their state or district they work for us all, so don’t be shy about calling the offices of those whose work you like and those whose ideas cause you shame and embarrassment.
GWLSM,
You got it right!!! We need to be vocal, and we need to be LOUD!!! On to Washington!!! MAKE them listen!!!
amy:
In my experience, no one responds well to shouts. A more reasoned and persistent approach treating your adversary as one to be convinced rather than bullied works best for me. One recalls the wisdom of the fable of the Sun and the North Wind trying to coax a man out of his coat:
“It was easy,” said the Sun, “I lit the day. Through gentleness I got my way.”
–Aesop
If you thundered hard at me, my coat would remain wrapped ever so tightly.
Amy
I have to say I do admire your enthusiasm for activism, and really I dont take the typing in all caps to be shouting or offensive in this situation as it can be on other blogs/message boards/email
I think that one should consider the context.
That said, you can find your representative to congress and your state senators on the House and Senate websites, respectively. They usually have websites with information on recent votes, bill that they may have sponsored or co-sponsored and their committee assignments as well as personal bios, locations of offices in their home districts/states and in D.C.
LIke I said before, chances are if you choose to call or email them the most you can expect is a conversation with a low-level aide, someone who is a recent college grad who envisions a career in politics but they do keep track of the issues and how you feel and want them to vote.
Remember, these people all work for you. Congress is re-elected every two years and the Senators serve 6 year terms so that roughly 1/3 is up for re-election every two years. Not only do they work for you, so does their staff as they are paid by your tax dollars. and it’s okay to remind them that they have temp jobs, at that.
be well.
GWLSM you are an inspiration. I stay on top of my reps votes, and call and email them often. I am sure to be a burr under their saddles, or a bee in their bonnets, but I don’t care. You are exactly right when you say that we need to remind them who pays their salaries. I do so often, and they know that I’m the pain in the neck that shows up at the polls every time there’s an issue to vote on. I refuse to just turn my country over to whomever wants to run it. I have three GrandChildren that I love very much, and I want them to inherit a Nation that they can be proud of and love as much as I do.
“I wonder if you Mike, and any of our resident right wingers might agree with me, that the biggest problem isn’t the ideologically gap between regular persons of the right and the left, but rather between regular persons of any stripe and the moneyed special interests who manage to frustrate and screw us all?”
thatmtnman,
Extremely well put. The struggle, which has been ongoing for thousands of years is between those who would rule over most people and their followers who yearn for rulers; And the rest of us who want to live as free human beings. Back in the middle ages it was nobility vs. bourgeois, landowner vs. serf, etc. Today it is the many of the super wealthy, who seek to not only control everything, but also want status symbols to differentiate between them and the masses.
A few towns down from where I live people drive around in Rolls Royces, Bentley’s and Ferraris and Lamborghini’s. This is not about quality since a top of the line Mercedes, BMW or Lexus represents just as much quality and luxury. This is more of a statement that the owner can overpay for a car and doesn’t care, thus is a member of the elite. I use this as an example. In Medieval days you could be put to death for wearing the same type of shoes as the nobility.
The American Revolution and our Constitution was led by people who for the most part believed in equality of all (slavery a sad exception)and it was opposed by Americans who still believed in following royalty. The labels have changed but the essence of the conflict is as you state it. I know from your post that you consider it possibly hopeless, so I would urge you to take heart and put this battle into a historical context. It’s a slow process but I think the good people are winning.
GWLSM,
i agree activism is our duty. Besides writing on this blog frequently there are a plethora of phone calls, e mails and letters to my congressional representatives and to the White House. We all have a duty to be involved.
Mike
the groups and individuals who flaunt economic elitism are just one feature of the special interests who seek to exert control over the direction of this nation.
The white “country club” republican is one example of this on the right, but the most insidious group to exert power in this country has come from the far right, the christian ultra-conservatives whose agenda is by and large social and not an economic with its use of fear-based advertising as its main strategy in building its membership.
While the traditional power base of the Republican party is still in that country club demographic, the ultra-conservative christian groups have only managed to marginalize the right into a regional and quite quirky party, who in 12 years of congressional domination never managed to cement even one of their social agenda items into law or manage a reversal of present law.
Olympia Snowe wrote last week with the news that Arlen Spector crossed the aisle, “There is no plausible scenario under which the Republican party can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideologican confines and continuing to retreat into a regional party.”
I am not buying that Republicans are the party of the people and Democrats the party of monarchy ( Mitt Romney and it isnt like he is not hugely wealthy ) which was something I read today that came out of the Virginia town hall meeting held by the Republican’s desperate attempt to grab onto something that can spur mobilization in 2010. It might have just as easily been argued 4 years ago that the Bush family was building a political Dynasty who had a republican house, senate and conservative courts, the son of a former president, the brother of a governor of a large state and scion of a family whose political prospects in the coming generations seemed to be assured for many decades to come.
GWBush lost the party when he forgot every promise he made to his base: abortion, gay marriage, fiscal responsibility and instead opted to continue his reputation as an aging frat boy who just wrecked his daddy’s new car. he is the epitome of an elitist who was ladled from one vat of privilege to the next, giving new meaning to the words “assisted living” failing at every business his contacts and family gave him, I mean, he traded Sammy Sosa. How stupid was that? Anyway, the expectation that someone of this ilk could lead the nation effectively and comprehensively was an illusion.
As for shoes and royalty, anyone with $500 can buy a pair of Manolos, heck you can buy a gently used pair on EBay for around $75.
The Revolution and the Constitution are not the same thing. The revolution was about establishing a national identity apart from monarchy and the constitution is an elitist document that served to protect the wealthy landowners. It provided almost no opportunity to vote for elected representatives or the president and only if you met the qualificiations at the time. the franchise was not extended to all white males until Andrew Jackson. It was not even amended to popular election of senators until the 20th century.
Equality meant equality among the ruling class. It did not include women, it did not include the poor, it did not include african americans. Populism was feared and was to be avoided at all costs.
Souter is right up there with the worst Supreme Court Judge the United States has ever had.
He lied to President George H. Bush about his political beliefs and that any he had would not impact his decisions.
He also has the knowledge that he could have stopped the murder of 25,000,000 infants to abortion and did nothing.
I really hope he sits in his little cabin and contemplates the damage he has done in his miserable life.
Former
Wow. You sure do have some strongly held opinions. Did you happen to see any of Justice Souter’s — he is an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States and not a judge. I am kind of a stickler for accuracy — confirmation hearings? What exactly did he lie about? Could you be specific? I don’t want to challenge your beliefs, far be it for me — I’d just like to know.
Whether you like it or not, abortion, access to family planning, a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive destiny is the law of the land. It is a private decision made between a woman and her physician. In other words, what she may decide is not your business or mine and Justices to the bench do not take their jobs and decisions lightly.
I suppose because Justices Alito and Scalia have not been shy about their willingness to overturn Roe that you opposed anything that came up in their confirmation hearings, did you?
Did you happen to watch them? Did you happen to watch Chief Justice Roberts’s hearings when he refused to comment on abortion?
Litmus test hearings have become huge wedge issues that divide us more than they unite us.
Oh and no one is ever forced to terminate any pregnancy that they wish to carry to term. Don’t want an abortion? fine. don’t have one.
Hey Everyone!
I was just wondering to myself, other than JT (still my first choice!)who might be considered a potential ‘liberal lion’ for a SCOTUS appointment? A liberal activist jurist whose would change the court, who would make landmark decisions and so on? Is there even such a person these days?
cheers!
City Council votes to deny public speaker
Steve McQueen, one of the organizers of the Quincy Tea Party effort, requested to speak on the recently approved budget and water and sewer rate increases.
When it came time to vote to open the floor to allow the speaker a roll call vote ensued.
Seven Democrats denied McQueen’s opportunity to speak while six Republicans voted to allow him to speak.
Long time residents said they had never seen anyone denied the right to speak and called the vote “outrageous.”
HEY TURLEY, HERE IS ONE FOR YOU; HOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHAT THESE DEMOCRAT CLOWNS DID AT THIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING?
I DOUBT IF YOU CARE SINCE IT WAS DEMOCRATS DENYING A RIGHT TO SPEAK TO WHAT WAS APPARENTLY A PERSON FED UP WITH HIGH TAXES. AM I RIGHT? AM I RIGHT? AM I RIGHT?
SILLY ME, I THOUGHT US SUPREME COURT MEMBERS WERE SUPPOSE TO UPHOLD THE US CONSTITUTION, NOT USE THE SUPREME COURT TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT CONGRESS WAS UNABLE TO.
FORMER DEM,
Have you noticed that you’re having an argument with yourself?
Jonathan P,
ROFL!!!!
too funny!
cheers!
Former Dem, please get some help before you hurt someone, or yourself. Your hatred is becoming increasingly incoherent and generalized. You might consider laughing at yourself occasionally. After all, you surely don’t believe that you are any less ridiculous than the rest of the earth’s inhabitants, do you?
Former Dem:
You’ve just received an “evaluation” by the resident Head Critiquer & lay-psychologist. And, it didn’t cost you anything! Can’t beat that!
Tom Fitchue
.
.
Al-Marri’s sweetheart deal
May 5, 2009 Posted by Scott at 7:08 AM
Al-Marri, the terrorist sent to the United States by al-Qaeda to carry out a second wave of mass-murder attacks, was permitted by the Justice Department to plead guilty to a single count of material support to terrorism, maximum sentence 15 years’ imprisonment with the possibility that al-Marri may simply be given credit for time served and released.
The Obama administration has already outright released, with no trial, Binyam Mohammed, an al-Qaeda operative who, like al-Marri, was assigned by KSM to carry out mass-murder attacks in the United States after 9/11. Now, al-Marri has been given a plea agreement that grossly undersells the grave seriousness of his war crimes.
If Holder’s objective was to demonstrate that George W. Bush was wrong to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant and that the criminal-justice system “works,” this sweetheart deal suggests the opposite.
Jihadists were not impressed by our strategy of fighting them in the courtroom through the 1990s.
Wonder what they’re thinking now.
.
.
.
.
Just heard on the news that after 12 billion dollars in taxpayer money, another 25 billion that financial firms are being forced to write off and after all that the Union being given 55% ownership of Chrysler; the Union just announced they are going to SELL THEIR 55% and put the proceeds into a Union Trust Fund!
What a con JOB! What a rip off of the American Taxpayer! What a rip off of the creditors that funded Chrysler!
Unbelievable!
.
.
.
.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey said he was “very dubious” about the chances of success in the region and wants a “fish or cut bait” assessment in a year’s time that will determine how long the U.S. continues on this path. “It gives the president one year to demonstrate what he can do.” said the Wisconsin Democrat.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22083.html
NOTHING LIKE TELLING THE ENEMY IN AFGANISTAN THAT DEMOCRATS AREN’T EVEN BEHIND THIS PRESIDENT IN STRIVING FOR VICTORY, EH GARY???!!!!!!
LIBERALS IN CONGRESS WILL DO ANYTHING TO MAKE US LOSE A WAR IF THEY THINK IT GAINS THEM POLITICALLY NO MATTER HOW MANY LIVES IT COSTS.
.
.
.
.
PHANTOM AIR FARCE PICTURES
By JEREMY OLSHAN
AP
May 5, 2009
The $328,835 snapshots of an Air Force One backup plane buzzing lower Manhattan last week will not be shown to the public, the White House said yesterday.
“We have no plans to release them,” an aide to President Obama told The Post, refusing to comment further.
The sole purpose of the secret photo-op, which sent thousands of New Yorkers running for cover, was to take new publicity shots of the presidential jet over the city.
“The photos . . . are classified — that’s ridiculous,” Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., said.
New Yorkers said they could not understand how a president who shares intimate snapshots from the White House could justify classifying these.
“So we’re not gonna see the fruits of this cruel joke?” said Frank Antonelli, 39, one of the Wall Street traders spooked by last week’s flyover.
.
.
.
.
The CIA’s war against President Bush was motivated by ass covering, or by political partisanship. But with President Obama, it’s personal.
Many are furious about Obama’s disclosure of explicit details of the interrogation methods used on some al Qaida bigwigs, and his waffling on whether or not those who employed them will be subject to prosecution.
Others are incensed by his decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and to let some of those incarcerated there loose in the United States.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held two hush hush meetings with CIA Director Leon Panetta and Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee last week.
“Her fear and frustration have apparently given way to panic after word reached her of the CIA’s reaction to the damage she, President Obama and other Democrats have done to the spy agency in the last three months, wrote Jed Babbin, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, in Human Events May 1. “Pelosi learned that her actions and those of President Obama have so damaged CIA morale that the agency’s ability to function could be in danger.”
The upshot of the meetings was an unprecedented letter from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex) to Mr. Panetta, making a quasi-apology. Rep. Reyes asked the CIA director to “disseminate it to the CIA workforce as soon as possible.”
But the CYA nature of the letter, and Mr. Reyes’ pledge of more oversight are unlikely to mollify many at Langley. Other Western intelligence services regard the Obama administration with contempt and rising concern as an officer of the DGSE, France’s military intelligence agency, informed the CIA last week.
“All of us in our little community are worried — us, our friends in Berlin, London, Tel Aviv,” the DGSE officer said. “It is not like the barbarians at the gates. It is every barbarian horde in the world being told there are no gates.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/05/the_cias_fight_with_obama_96333.html
FORMER DEM,
I read your long post, which seems to be excerpts of other blogs or news items. Forgive me, and I am not being sarcastic but I am missing your point of all of those items. Would you please explain?
cheers!
thatmtnman,
That is a troll. His job is to cut and paste. Disruption by volume and non-sequitor. Any explanation you get is going to be either copy/pasted talking points or sometimes snark or an attempt to garner sympathy for the Neocons. This particular type of troll is best ignored. Just a hint from your friendly neighborhood Buddha.
ahhh! Thank you Buddha-I remain the student!
Thank you for the heads up!
cheers!
Hi prof,
Usually like your stuff but am getting so tired by the hoopla over “torture.” You and others are lost in the trees and missing the forest: forget waterboarding as a war crime (KSM didn’t appear any the worse for wear); what about invading a country? Wasn’t that what we were referring to at Nurenburg by the charge of Waging Aggressive War?
Frankly I’d like to move on before we put at risk the big issues we need to fix – like healthcare!
PS – I’m a lifelong Dem.
BF
What good is the health of a nation if it’s soul is poisoned…That’s why the torture issue is important to reconcile.
fusionink,
try telling folks w/o healthcare that the issue isn’t primary.
I just have this sense the rest of the world is laughing at us: this is what the americans’ call torture?
well, I’m sure we’ll keep fretting about it and lose the the importance stuff we finally have a chance to fix. No organization is better at doing nothing than the congress, even under the best of circumstances. Just watch – they’ll get sidetracted and the Rs will have the last laugh.
If we do not prosecute any potential Bush/Cheney war crimes then as a nation we are cowards and hypocrites. Worse, we are complicit.
OldMike,
It is sad, isn’t it? I feel, well…I feel ‘defeated’ in some way I can’t put my finger on. And on top of that, I hear today that the president will not be releasing the photos of the alleged torture. So, injustice wins, the former vp wins, our reputation, our future and our moral leadership are gone. gawd, it’s really terrible.
cheers!
Dear That…
Please, get a grip on yourself. There’s too much craziness happening NOW that requires our attention – and action – that this is a distraction that draws our foci away from what’s in-the-now. The torture issues can be addressed later, when we’ve resolved the failings of our way of life.
Tom Fitchue
Tom,
You’re probably right-thanks…
cheers!
Dear thatmtnman, It is true, the face of America has been permanently scarred by the the Bush Administration and virtually every facet of their policies and activities. It is a disfigurement that will never be hidden. Although, those like Tom and others would rather not get into the absolute evil that any sort of torture of another human being represents. Even now, as we speak of torture techniques which in my mind would seem passive when compared to some methods that are beyond description…And, do you think anyone wants to know what we actually did to the renditioned prisoners who were moved to the “black sites”? God, it would be beyond the pale and the American people would have to hide their nationalism in shame…Now, they claim that it is best for our nation to move forward and not look back while they themselves do in fact look back while trying to re write history within the consciousness of the American people hoping to erase the horrible truth…Their freedom to speak will not be challenged but their attempt to obscure reality shall be.
Fusionink,
You’re really worked up over this, aren’t you? How many folks outside the US have you talked with who see us as “disfigured”? None that I’ve talked with.
The “shame” we have is being the only industralized country where folks go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. That’s the kind of issue I care about (although as a senior,I’m not impacted personally); Not reveling in additional details about how some folks who have spent generations blaming the West for their ineptitude got shoved around a bit. Frankly, we’ve kept them in the cooler too long — we should have hanged the key ones a few years ago and be done with it.
fusionink,
this whole debate about if we will, or will not investigate the allegations is like living in a Castaneda novel. I never, never, ever, ever thought that America would be associated with something like this. Of course I always knew that there was the possibility that there might be bad actors in the future. I was so supremely confident in our sense of American justice that I just ‘knew in my heart’ that we would not allow that to stand. And, pity me, I actually believed Obama when he said that if there were crimes, there would be investigations. I can’t help wonder what Holder is going to do? Is he wholly owned or does he act independently. I known that there is the notion of independence between the two, but in the real world, maybe not. Isn’t that what we learned from the last 8 years?
I too wonder, if Holder will have any concern for his historical position as the first person from a persecuted minority, to lie down for a persecutor?
That….
I believe Obama FIRST said he “wanted to look forward”, and there’d be no investigation(s), then, when it became necessary for a “distraction”, that he badly needs, all of a sudden he got “pressured” to release classified info, albeit just a few, and very selective ones. Even Pelosi (who has her own reasons NOT to), along with others in his vaunted admin., advised him not to, but he “yielded to pressure”. Then, when the backlash occured, he decides that, maybe, there wouldn’t be an investigation, after all, because of the “danger” it represented to our troops”. One might wonder why this all happened this way. Some think it was grandstanding to appease the most left side of the Dem’s, who think he’s reneging on his campaign promises to them. What a way to “run/ruin a country!
Tom Fitchue
Tom,
My recollection is different. I recall that he said two things in connection to the torture issue one that as you say, he wanted to look forward, and two, that if there was activity that merited investigations, he would allow any such investigations to go forward.
And of course, he has moved off that second position now that he has office.
And btw, before I get labeled a ‘democrat’ on this issue seeking some sort of bizarre ‘revenge’ on the previous admin, let me say that I don’t care who was involved with torture, they all should be investigated, right down to the people in the room. If there was a crime they should all be prosecuted, republican, democrat or martian. A criminal is a criminal and criminality has no party. Call me naive. It is up to a judge and jury to determine if there was guilt or not. All equal before, and accountable to the law of the land, what ever the law of the land was at the time.
I have to say to, that I am mystified by the republican position on the idea of an investigation of the possibility of a crime. I can’t imagine anyone, democrat, republican or martian, seeking a what they think might be bank being robbed, and thinking it was wrong of the police to look into it. So, intellectually I just don’t get the republican strategy to prevent such an investigation. I would have thought the strong position would be to say something along the lines of ‘not on our watch, not in our name’ and to be the most aggressive in cleaning up the party reputation. I guess that is why I am not and could never be a political operative.
I just see this whole issue as very simple, very black and white, and not controversial beyond the titles of the people involved. I really don’t see how politics should be, or could be relevant. Crime is crime, the law is the law, and party affiliation seems so totally, totally besides the point.
I voted for justice and restoration of the rule of law. I might have vote for McCain had he taken that position. Oh, and had he had anyone but Palin for a running mate. And, lest you ‘go there’, I have nothing but admiration for her. She’s not ready for prime time yet in my opinion, but perhaps one day she will be. It was a fatal mistake for McCain, a man I greatly admire and trust. Had he chosen someone with better credentials (given Johns age) and took a strong restorative justice position, I might have voted for him.
One thing Tom I think we could both agree on, if there is a single politician in the world who has earned the right to lead his country, it has to be John McCain.
Cheers!
I think McCain’s behavior during the campaign made it seem that he was not to be trusted with running the USA. McCain, though I respect him (though not nearly as much as I used to) proved himself entirely reactionary and impulsive, which may be fine for Senator, but is not acceptable for a man with the proverbial finger on the button.
Regarding torture and politics: Although the Bush years and the Republican Congress’s refusal to provide any checks & balances made me more partisan, torture is not a partisan issue. Do Republicans really think that the public will “back off” if someone like Pelosi is implicated in illegal activity? Quite the contrary, I’d say. Lets have an investigation and let the chips (of both parties) fall where they may. The idea that torture investigations are a “partisan witch hunt” is insulting and absurd.
Further: In all the discussion about torture and whether it works or not, and whether it provided important intelligence or not, to me the most important point is missed: If we tortured (which I think we did) and do not investigate and prosecute, then torture will effectively be rendered LEGAL in all military conflicts (including use against Americans). That’s not an outcome I’m willing to live with. What shocks me most in the current environment is that I have never heard this point discussed by the talking heads, even once.
Jonathan P,
I have heard the more legit commentators debate this issue of torture being used against our own troops. If memory serves me Mathews and Buchanan discussed this several times.
cheers!
“One thing Tom I think we could both agree on, if there is a single politician in the world who has earned the right to lead his country, it has to be John McCain.”
thatmtnman,
Perhaps you and Tom would agree on that point but I would strongly disagree. Yes McCain did prove himself to be a survivor of years of torture, but other than that none of his success has been due to his own abilities, except perhaps in bed.
He was the wastrel son and grandson of Admirals and though a lousy pilot (four crashes) was allowed thru flight school. Got shot down in Viet Nam and immediately told the Viet Cong that his father was the Commander of the Pacific Fleet. Broke under torture and made damaging statements against the US which must have mortified his father. Yes he did refuse to go home early, but that was under orders of the senior captured officer. A man who incidentally kept trying to organize escapes and was the real hero.
Then McCain came back to the country. Let his wife, then ailing from her own traffic accident injuries, help nurse him back to life. Through his Father’s pull he got a Commandant job his experience and performance didn’t entitle him to. While there met a young Arizona Beer Heiress, who he bedded and then left his wife for. Quit the service and moved to Arizona to work for his rich Father-In-Law, who happened to be influential in Republican politics and so began his political career. Escaped the Keating five prosecution, not because of lack of guilt, but because of his phony hero status.
Real military heroes rarely use their heroism to justify their sense of entitlement. That’s what makes them heroes and makes McCain just another egotist, born on third base thinking he hit a triple, with a sense of entitlement.
Cheerios.
hey Mike,
I didn’t know that! yikes…I’ll have to think that over…thank you for the info-I feel like a ‘padawan learner’! LOL!!
cheers!
Dear Mr Turley
I do not know If I have made A big Mistake or not But I sent this e-mile to the Justus Department Witch I do believe That I am right in my assertion that the Republicans are Black milking Pelosi in hope to derail any possible investigation into the Torture issues . This is exactly what I have sent to them I would very much like you advice if they will start an investigation into this Should I need a lawyer or not. Below is what I sent .
I am curious If the Department Of Justus is putting a blind eye to the public black mail of the Speaker Of the House by the opposition party In the House Of Representatives and the Senate To possibly derailed any investigation into the subject Of torture .By The congress Or the Senate . I will be happy to press charges of black mail in no one else will .For the conspiracy to commit black mail Of the Democratic Party to halt any investigation into the possible practice Of torture
By the Last administration .
Ronald Holst
8014 Viking trail
San Antonio, TX. 78250
Gallup: More Americans Pro-life Than ‘Pro-choice’ for First Time since polling began
May 15, 2009 – 09:36 ET
What a difference a radical, in your face, abortion-promoting president makes.
For the first since it began surveying the question, a clear minority of Americans who are still euphemistically “pro-choice” on the question of abortion, just 42%. Pro-life has leaped to 51%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
Ronald,
I’m certainly not, in way shape or form, capable of speaking on the threat of retribution by any branch of the government regarding your Email to the DOJ. I would hope the First Amendment would be all the “protection” you’ll need.
As far as The Repub’s black-mailing the Dems or Pelosi, that seems like an unlikely scenario, at best. It could only work if they WERE “black mail able”.
Addressing Pelosi’s duplicity, she has accused the CIA of lying
to her and Congress. I can’t even imagine the magnitude of the “fall out” over that little jem. It’s highly improbable that “being lied to” happened.
In the grilling episode by the press, she obviously needed a teleprompter badly. If fumbling and bumbling IS any indication of a liar, it’s a wonder her pants didn’t go up in flames.
She is a detriment to our party, and needs to go away.
Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat who voted for Obama once, but won’t again.
tom, I may be inclined to agree with you on “mumbling and bumbling” being a “indicator” for liars. There is never been a more blatant liar than George W. Bush and I would regard him is the best, or worst, mumbler and bumbler, on record for a US President.
Fusion,
M’ing & B’ing are good indicators, for sure!! Have you seen the video’s where Obama’s teleprompt(s) go down?? Hillarious!! Tops ’em all, even P & B.
Tom Fitchue
Tom,
Whenever you think you hear mumbling and bumbling, you can console yourself with this quote from the former President Bush:
“A peeance, freeance secure Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have enormous historical impact.”
Kelly,
Your interesting poll link is mostly overshadowed by your absurd reference to Obama as “abortion-promoting.”
Victor,
Did anyone ever have a clue what he meant? Where did the two “spellings” come from? I would guess these were spoken “words”, and not printed. Wonder who made the interpretations? I didn’t even try to keep track of Bush. I, personally, didn’t feel as “threatened” then as I do now. Seems like things feel more critical now that we’re bankrupt, and sinking into the sand deeper every day ($65 billion/day!!) Guess I’m more concerned about the kind of future we and our kids and grandkids have to “look forward to”. I didn’t worry about that before.
Now, there’s on-goings breaches of the laws set forth in our Constitution, which, I thought, early on, was what this blog was about. There seems to be a lot of agendas here-in, and some willingness to over-look these breaches, out of “who it serves”. Probably always been like that, and I’m just wakening to it now, in my dotage. Sad.
Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat
“Have you seen the video’s where Obama’s teleprompt(s) go down?? Hillarious!! Tops ‘em all, even P & B.”
Yeah, totally Tom! I mean, some people seem to think that Obama is a good communicator, but guys like you and me are not fooled.
JP,
You, too, huh? Yeah, there are several CLASSIC examples of O trying to continue a speech that he started off with having a functional teleprompter that went down and left him with nothing to say except “wait a minute now”, “what I’m trying to say is, I mean….”, “Let me say this – er”, What I meant to say is…um”.
Serious embarrassment, but funny as hell. He also has a difficult time finding words when he’s lying in an open forum when asked a question he doesn’t want to/can’t give a straight answer to. Once about his “Muslim faith”, another about the plagerizing of the “Just Words” speech, where he overlooked giving credit to the real speaker; another when he was asked about his statement that he’d campaigned “in all 57 states”.
Of course, O’s the only one of this bunch schooled by Hollywood to make speechs & utilize a teleprompter, and he has used that training well. He’s even adopted some of Reverend Wright’s mannerisms and sermonly gestures- curved pointed finger stabbing away to punctuate a point, for one. Years of training to get ready for….?
I doubt this would have helped Bush, and probably wouldn’t have helped Pelosi – she’s too much of a mess.
Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat
Who voted for Obama once, but certainly won’t again.
Tom Fitchue 1, May 17, 2009 at 11:03 am
“Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat”
Would this be before or after you’re a self-proclaimed right wing extremist?
Tom Fitchue 1, April 20, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“Buddah,
I will admit to being a “right wing extremest”. Is that good enough for you?”
Riiiiiiight.
You can’t even keep your lies straight in the same thread, can you Tom? You do know that the two are mutually exclusive, right? You do realize when you get busted like that it exposes you as the propagandist and fascist apologist you really are?
Rhetorical.
Keep on showing us why people who support Bush Co. need to be disappointed and their boys need to go to prison for a very long time. If you’re lucky, maybe you can get a conjugal with Dick. You deranged old fascist you. BTW, asshat, playing nice as per JT’s request doesn’t mean suffering visible liars who back evil men. You don’t like it? Then quit being such a lying self-contradictory tool e.g. Neocon Republican. Actions have consequences. Acting like a Constitution hating douche bag has the consequence of being called out on it.
Bubba,
Funny thing, I was a Democrat, voted for Obama (truth) & then found out I was a “right wing Extremist” as defined by our DHS.
Very confusing & unsettling – trying to lead a dual-life. Butt, I am dealing with it as best I can. I have serious problems with watching the demise of this country – EXAMPLE: our “government is spending $65 BILLION dollars a day on the whim of an unproven “community organizer”, (whom, I thought, would be a better choice than McCain). Who now over-seize GM and Chrylers, banks, unions, you name it. You Kool-Aid’ers go on and insult and try to intimidate anyone who dares object to the debacle. You, indeed, are what’s wrong with society today, and, I’m sure, will continue on, sadly enough, into what’s “left” of our future(s).
Tom Fitchue
Registered Democrat (that kills you, right)? That a Democrat would DARE fall under the definition of “RWE”! Seems democracy allows that, last time I looked. Even though you allude to my “hating the Constitution”, and having various other abnormalities, I doubt your thought, given your mind bent, means a great deal. {Assuming you are educated in this field – Constitutional Law, – you probably do qualify as a “liberalist” on the Supreme Court. You’re NOT in the running, are you?}
Well gee Tom, you are even more self-loathing than I thought.
You’re about as much a democrat (not in the party sense, but the term of art) as Mussolini. You think I’m what’s wrong with society? Well first, that assumes (again) I’d care what a self-identified right wing extremist would think. Second, it assumes you understand the nature of the battle and if you were a Democrat (as in the party), then you’ve demonstrated that either you don’t AND/OR you’re complicit with the Neocon enemies within. Third, you just hate it when people point out how completely full of sh*t you are, don’t you Tommy? THEN YOU SHOULDN’T LIE IN THE SAME PLACE YOU PONTIFICATE ABOUT HOW CORRECT YOU ARE. That’s just stupid. And that’s why your side will ultimately lose – evil is stupid.
Once again, you are exposed as a Gobbels wannabe.
Come back and foam at the mouth some more, sport. I do so get a kick out your contortionist act.
Bubba,
I hardly know where to start. “How correct I am”? Where, herein, have I alluded to correctness? “Mussolini”? Can you POSSIBLY tie this one to anything that makes sense? As far as “caring what a RWE thinks”, it appears that you DO display a great deal of agitation when trying to conjure up a “retort/retard”. If you don’t “care”, why bother? I mean, someone as Judge “Mental” ass yourself, must have bitter things to do. Ass far as “pointing out”, I consider the source. You seem to feel you are the “voice” of the Democrats (well, there ARE a few others) and must take on all “nay-sayers”, possibily to the chargrin of the sane, rational majority. Your legend will go down in infamy, along with Hitler (Ha!).
Tom Fitchue
Tom,
Thanks for proving further what a right wing tool you are. I’m not a Democrat either, sport. I’ve said it time and again. I’m a partisan’s worst nightmare: a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist. I no sooner speak for the DNC than I would for the blatant criminals in the RNC. I think BOTH party’s should be dissolved. But you go ahead and keep playing your amateur night partisan hackery. I and the others will make sure to keep coming to this thread to make you look like a fool. And I truly don’t care what you think. I do care, however, what others who might be influenced one way or the other thinks about torture, treason and violating the Constitution, not out of principle but for profit, and that it is a prison worthy offense. Bush Co. committed multiple felonies under current law no matter what your apologist wishful thinking may be. And I’ve said this before too: If Bush had been DNC, I’d still want his criminal head on a stick.
AGAIN. NOT. ABOUT. PARTY.
You mistake something as being about you when it isn’t. But that’s just like a Neocon. All ego resting atop a malformed id while the super ego, the rational conscience part of the mind, goes on holiday. Everyone knows that ego worship is just the most base form of evil.
So please continue to be our negative example.
Bubba,
That’s more like it, actually rational & not expletive loaded, which isn’t polite. I don’t think I’m apologist. I can’t remember anything I written (almost literally), but I don’t know where your opinion comes from. In your earier message, you mentioned “my correctness”. I’ve been accused of a lot of things, but certainly not correctness. I’ve been puzzling over that one since I read it. I am NOT a “Bushie”. He was an embarrassment to our Country. I did not like Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney, (maybe Ron Paul?, etc. We’ve offered up terrible choices for President(s)since Clinton, who wasn’t a bad Prez, just a sleaze. One wonders if there’ll ever be another Presidental prospect who really cares about our Country? Politics have always been about power & money, in my opinion. Unless there’s a miracle coming from somewhere, it’s probably all moot, anyhow. The likelyhood of our surviving the mess/debacle we’re in seems to be doubtful, at best.
Now, isn’t this better?
Tom Fitchue
You already know how I’m registered
Thata…
I know. I’ve been “P T B” again. I should know better, right?
To quote the words of the immortal George C. Scott (who was quoting someone named Patton, as I recall) “God forgive me, but I DO love it so”.
Tom Fitchue
I do object to being cursed at, and (I think?) falsely accused.
Although of what I’m not too sure.
What’s that smell?
Oh, it’s just Tom!
You should really check your Depends more often, fascist apologist. They’re full again.
Of that, I’m sure.
Bubba,
Golly! Your “rational side” didn’t last long. You haven’t been sucking on the Kool-Aid again, have you?
Tom Fitchue
Tommy,
Why waste rationality on a self-proclaimed right wing extremist who apparently has no concept of what the Constitution says, much less how to uphold it? Let alone one too stupid to not contradict himself on a single thread in hopes a site full of lawyers won’t notice?
The only difference between you and a troll are 1) they get paid and 2) you are more persistent because your ignorance is organic. People often ask, how did the Nazis get so many Germans to join? By preying upon people like you, Tom. That’s why you just don’t get no respect.
Bubba,
Daggone! Another meaningless, undefined message that probably is boring all the other readers to death. Talk about beating an invisible horse (least I think it’s a horse). And, it put me to sleep.
Good night.
Tom Fitchue
Tom, Just to be clear. You do realize that Obama did not create the debacle we are in now? He is simply trying to fix what cannot be fixed. And, one could imagine that he is hesitant to take advise from those who presided over causes of the said debacle. Certainly, you didn’t sit quietly by for the last eight years watching while our country was going underwater? Or, maybe you were benefiting from it so you did not care and felt quite comfortable with it. Is that the case?
Tom,
My apologies if you thought I was serious in my post about Obama as a communicator.
For people like me, it’s very difficult to understand the rage against Obama, because he is not at all responsible for the predicament we’re in. On another forum recently, I asked someone what Obama had done that was so awful. The response astounded me: This individual’s rage was because Obama had “bowed to the Saudi King” as well as apparently not handled the meeting of the Queen according to protocol and, most remarkably, because he had shaken hands with a military person instead of saluting.
That last example strikes me as a no-win situation for Obama, because he would have been mocked by that same crowd had he saluted (since he “did not serve”).
For me, and others like me, Obama is a refreshing change from George W. Bush. We view him as intelligent, thoughtful, and rational. We like the idea of the USA showing respect to other countries. And we like the idea of a progressive tax which forces the VERY wealthy to pay higher taxes for the programs that we, as a nation, approved in the voting booth by electing Obama.
This leaves me (and again, people like me, as I’m hardly the first one to say this) more than a little confused as to where the overwhelming anti-Obama sentiments are coming from on the right. The obvious answer is racism. It’s the only phenomenon I can think of that would explain such anger against a president who has not had the chance to do much, yet, beyond disappointing people on the left who wanted to see immediate torture investigations, the discontinuation of warrantless wiretaps, the restoration of Habeas Corpus, and the end of military tribunals. Other than “the stim,” Obama has been much farther to the right than his campaign portrayed him to be.
So, is it the Stimulus? If it is, then I guess we will all have to see how that pans out. I agree that spending a bunch of borrowed money in a time of economic distress seems counterintuitive. But, many economists and historians have indicated that this is what’s needed, and that the more intuitive approach of tightening the screws on spending has historically deepened economic downturns. Admittedly, some people like me are giving Obama, his economic advisers, and other like Nobel laureate Paul Krugman the benefit of the doubt. Unless you have some level of economic expertise that the average person doesn’t, I don’t understand why you cannot look back on the Bush years and realize that it’s time for something very, very different.
Finally, I was driving in Los Angeles yesterday and saw some “tea party” people on the corner of Hawthorne Blvd and Sepulveda Blvd. One of them had a sign that said “T E A” (taxed enough already). The chances that these people have suffered a tax increase under Obama is very slim, because few people making $250K+ stand around with signs outside malls. All I can think of when I see people like that, and hear people complaining about Obama’s spending plans, is “where the hell were you for the last 8 years?” Funny how the right has convinced so many people who have just had there taxes cut that Obama is taxing them too much.
I cannot believe I just wrote “there” instead of “their.” Can I blame it on the earthquake about 90 minutes ago? About a 5.0, and about 5 miles from here. It sounded like a car had smashed into the house.
Ronald Hoage,
I am not a lawyer but I have written a couple of e-mail letters to the Department Of Justice (DOJ hereafter) lately myself. The letters I wrote were answered with a semi-form letter email that gave the impression that someone actually read what I wrote. I was surprised by that because I email (and have called) various Legislative and Executive offices and officials and generally receive no reply.
If the DOJ is interested in a case they proceed on their own, they bring the case through their own prosecutors and lawyers, they don’t take a case ‘for’ someone else. They are the governments prosecutors and lawyers and their interest (when it’s working properly) is seeing that Federal laws (not prosecuted by other Federal agencies with jurisdiction) that are violated are prosecuted.
A citizen that has relevant information can be called as a witness but is not the moving party in the case. If you were interested in getting a lawyer to proceed to or through the DOJ then the answer is ‘no’, you don’t need one. If you think you need a lawyer because you might be a witness or there could be some reprisal due to your letter the answer is still ‘no’; we’re like little flies, we aren’t big enough to swat and we probably don’t have anything material to tell them.
Also, the ‘blackmail’ you observe is real it’s also politics as usual but not often played out in public. Of course it’s a form of blackmail but it’s also a political tactic when done a certain way and doesn’t rise to the level of criminal activity. Your instinct is good and your desire to remove this Pelosi distraction from the larger debate on torture is commendable. Whenever I write an Executive office- White House, DOJ, Environmental Protection Agency etc., I always write my Senators or Representatives about the same matter. I’d encourage you to write Pelosi and tell her not to cave in and maybe your own Representatives to tell them to move forward on investigating torture anyway. Here is the link to the House Website; I’m sure you probably have it but I’ll post it just in case because I don’t know if you wrote a paper letter or e-mail:
http://www.house.gov/Welcome.shtml
If I may give you one piece of advice; be careful about posting your real name and address on websites- you don’t want trolls mailing notes or looking you up in a phone book.
Hey Johnathan ,
I hope your doing well.
This is Eric Romero. You wrote a story about me going to jail for teaching dance lessons (contempt of court).
I just wanted to let yo know that since my jail sentence I have been struggleing to find a job. It has been almost 1.5 years since I went to court over this noncompete and I have had so many problems. I can’t teach in the surrounding area because most studios are afraid of the owners of Arthur Murray Dance Studio owners (Todd Knoche and Claudia Marshal) They wont say it but its true….. I currently have applied for foodstamps and welfare and I had to call several churches to donate food to me. I have had to sell personal property and my vehicle to make ends meet because I cant find a job. The last 7 years have been dedicated to dance and really how does that apply to corporate america today? I have been serverly devestated by this lawsuit. I am on the verge of losing my apartment that I have had for a while now. Its been crazy sad….
Its unforntunate what this noncompete has done to me. I dont know what to do? I am waiting til the Decemember 30th deadline to get myself to start teaching again…and get my business up and running again…
Dont know what to do anymore….
Eric
214 9235434
Eric,
Out of curiosity, what kind of dance lessons were you teaching and to whom, that you would end up in jail? Was this in America or Iran or?
cheers!
hey Jonathan P,
I was rereading your note where in you mentioned the Presidents lack of salute and had a curious question. Would you or someone else on the forum know if as commander in chief a president is supposed to be saluted, in military protocol, does that not mean he is required to, or expected to or given grant to, return the salute? Secondly, and I am really curious about this, is ‘commander in chief’ a military rank? I know its a political rank, and the president is head of the military, but I am curious if it is a ‘rank’, or perhaps the ultimate rank? As well, if someone knows, if a president and a military officer are together, who gets saluted first or does it make a difference?
Thanks for your patience!
cheers!
Jonathan you are an absolutely ASSHOLE and dirty jerk and you know KARMA is coming to get you in a ass VERY SOON for accusing innocent people like miss O. Grishuk. God was watching you and you WILL be punished for your DIRTY nasty accusation. You are fucking Dipressed ASSHOLE.
Jonathan you are SICK retired and ASSHOLE who is brainless peace of meat absolutely dipressed in your life and know nothing but making up LIES and accusing innocent honest people. KARMA is after you and GOD WILL PUNISH you VERY SOON>
Turley look in the mirrow you brainless peace of meat with nothing but LIES and dirt in your soul. That dirt will stay there forever for all those damages you have done to innocent honest people. YOU ARE ASSHOLE JERK peace of shit.
your enemy forever.
JTisA:
“…who is brainless peace of meat absolutely dipressed in your life and know nothing but making up LIES and accusing innocent honest people. KARMA is after you and GOD WILL PUNISH you VERY SOON.”
*****************
I find it fascinating that a grown man has nothing better to do than stay up to the wee hours insulting his betters from the safety of his anonymity and still has the moxie to misspell or misuse about 50% of the words in his commentary. Couple that with his insight into the will of the Almighty and you have the perfect neo-con troll condemned to spewing his hate around the trailer park among the other beer guzzling Cretans who are committed to absolutely nothing (their kin included) and hate absolutely everything. Quite a life? Are you franchising?
This is why Professor Turley needs just one, trusted, honest moderator to help him delete such nonsense. First Amendment rights are fine, but JTA’s junk has nothing to do with a bio nor anything else worthwhile.
Former Federal LEO and mespo727272,
I say ‘amen brothers’. What the heck is that person on?
cheers!
Fusionink.
Sorry to be so slow to respond. I like your statement about “trying to fix what he cannot”. My issue is mostly “stimulus” based. I also hold his “promise of transparency” in contempt. The stim was force-fed through Congress, and passed un-read. IT was a “dire emergency”, but wasn’t endorsed by Obama until he got back from a trip, as I recall, to Chicago. I doubt if many of our Congresspeople know what they “passed” (to be interpreted as you see fit). Obama, during his “run” said something like “nothing will be signed until a bill had been posted for five days”, yet there was minimal resistance from either party (although the Pub’s didn’t seem to have much say). And, as I understand it, a large ($300 billion, maybe) won’t be spent for years, or when the Chinese can lend us more money, whichever comes first.
I have further issues with Obama. and have been asked several times by people questioning my reasons for my “ardor”. In NO WAY is race an issue. Hell, I voted for him because I couldn’t abide the other choices. I do feel that some of the “other choices” wouldn’t have lead us to where we are in world credibility.
As for me profitting from Bush’s 8 years, very laughable.
Tom Fitchue
A RWE Democrat
Jonathan P,
It seems I responded to some of your message in the posting to Fusionink. Your message does require an introspective answer. I’ve already said race isn’t an issue, but, your reference to that being the OBVIOUS ANSWER is, in itself, racist in my opinion. The old “race card”, so to speak. Doesn’t work for me, but I do know that is being used heavily as a reason why he is so vilified by some. Probably, it IS the reason for many, but I don’t hear much reference to RACE on the streets. It seems most complaints I hear are directed toward eratic, un’vetted decisions, poor choices in his selecting of staff, waffling on his spoken word – campaign promises, etc., abortion, Amendments 1 & 2 issues (which most of his supporters
say is non-existant, and I, personally, believe are VERY real). His voting record doesn’t offer much reason to doubt how he feels on A 2, and his actions and appointments leave not much room for doubt on A 1.
He has exhibited no recognizable feelings, again MY opinion, for the hereitage of the Nation, and appears to have been that way all his life. I don’t remember, in my life, ever feeling our President didn’t care about Holidays, Veterans, the place religion HAD in our Government (that ought to get me in trouble), the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and their creation of the Constitution which has lead us for over two hundred years, but now appears to have only token acknowledgment.
I hear it said that we’re in the NEW century, and the Constitution is passe, no longer relevant. Those that express such words find the Constitution inconvient. This Country would be well-served to find these detractors and determine their reasons. Could be very interesting, but I don’t know of many challenges been voiced.
Likely, some will want to jump back to Bush here, but, that’s not good enough if we’re talking about Obama himself. If we do go back to “those thrilling days of yesteryear” and use that as justification for Obama’s actions, that is escapism at it’s best.
Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts. It’s a courtesy not always offered.
Tom Fitchue
Obama’s speech was dishonest came when he assured us that detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay has undermined our security:
Guantanamo became a symbol that helped Al Qaida recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo, likely, created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained. So the record is clear. Rather than keeping us safer, the president at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.
The “record is clear”? As the slob Keith Oblermann would say, WTF?
The record is that there were no successful attacks after 9/11. What “record” can Obama be talking about? And what evidence is there that Guantanamo “created…terrorists around the world”?
It is absurd to think that anyone will join an organization that chops off people’s heads and gouges out their eyes with spoons because he is outraged that at Guantanamo Bay–what? A female interrogator sat on a detainee’s lap?
One thing we know about extremist organizations is that it is success, not failure, that brings adherents to their banners. After 9/11, al Qaeda has been dogged by failure, defeat and the loss of most of its key operatives through death or capture.
Obama made up his purportedly empirical claim that Guantanamo Bay made the U.S. less secure. It is another example of his conviction that he can slip any sort of howler past the American people and I am F-g sick of it.
Gordon,
Maybe the solution is to contribute to the “BILLBOARD” campaign.
Tom Fitchue
hey Tom,
Not sure what the Billboard campaign is, but I think after this week of politics, I am waving the surrender flag. At this moment, and it will no doubt change, I am just feeling the the new president is a as bad as the old. I am tired of putting my back into these campaigns only to have the old switcherooo played on me. Republican or Democrat, I would just once, like to vote for someone who actually did what they said they were going to do. I am so tired of the rope a dope game. I’m in my 60’s, have voted all of my life, and after this week of nonsense, I do think that I will never vote again for anyone. Thank you president Obama for the audacity to lie to us all that you were different.
That…,
It surprises me that you’re the only response I’ve gotten. Maybe everyone else thinks I’m a neocon, rwe, miscreant, wife-beating, Fasist, scumbag, to name a few of the tags I’ve been given herein.
No matter what party, no matter what reason, if you feel something is wrong, why not go after it as vocally as possible? If we don’t sound off, the perps will feel they’re home free. Actually, they probably already do, because there’s no evidence of a “HUE & CRY” being raised. Thus, they’ll keep pushing, probing to see where they can create another breach in our Country’s walls, that have been solid (except for the Civil War) for well over two hundred years. We are in great danger of having our live’s altered beyond repair. I don’t understand (old age, probably) how this has happened, how there’s enough support for our demise….. I have witnessed the change in National “regard/awareness” in our last few generations. Since it took the “youth” of this country to get us where we are governmentally, we must understand their reasons for wanting a “CHANGE”. I doubt they know, (or care), about what’s coming into their lives and futures like a runaway freight train.
I didn’t think I’d live long enough to see this mess, and I hear that same expression from a lot of other “old farts”.
Tom Fitchue
hi Tom,
I have never agreed with the name calling approach to things. The way I figure it everyone should be respected, even if we hate their ideas. As difficult as sometimes. America’s great in part because we can have radical differences of opinion and not let things get too ‘South America’, so to speak.
I am not sure what the threats are that you write about. You didn’t enumerate any, or at least I didn’t see any, so I am a loss as to how to respond.
On the other hand I might in my present mood agree with your general premise. At least as long as my left wing friends give me a ‘get out of jail free for consorting with the enemy’ card. Otherwise, no way! LOL! Shhhhhh…this conversation never happened!
I would go so far as to say that if any population can be duped by officials into electing them, a country is in trouble. While I seldom agreed with the previous administration, I had to accept they won, and those were the rules of the game. They got to move the ball where they wanted, as terrible as some of those moves were in my view. The larger issue of winner gets that privilege trumped the smaller issues of what they were doing. Some of my right wing friends (yes, I have them, I just never introduce them in ‘polite company’, LOL!) were not so happy with that admin either, feeling they too, didn’t get what they voted to get. I suppose both left and right suffer similarly on this point.
So here we sit, left and right both feeling cheated. I hate that,I really do. And I hate to say it, but it seems that Obama has lied to those of us on the left who worked to give him his chance to right the wrongs of the past. I for one, will not be there for him next time around. No parsing, no mealy mouthed, temped excuses will get him out from under interfering with investigations of war crimes, on gitmo, on don’t ask don’t tell. I fear now that health care reform will look more like what big pharma wants, and less what the nation needs.
I am betting right now, that the next election cycle will see Republicans make substantial gains. Not because they have better ideas or the ideology of the left is lacking, but because the home team is disheartened. I frankly think it is a stupid thing for him to have done.
Anyway, lets all enjoy the long weekend, and be grateful for what we had in this country, when we could call ourselves a nation of laws, not men. Lets praise those warriors who stand on those walls and keep us safe. Oh, and have a beer or three! Have fun all, and be safe.
cheers!
Mr. Turley,
I am writing today to express my thanks to you for representing my views so often and so beautifully. When I am just about ready to pull my hair out, your steady and reasonable responses to the many difficult situations we face today renews my hope. A little sanity, hooray! I look forward to reading your blog and wish you a fond aloha. If you are ever Maui bound, I would love to be a resource for you and your family, don’t hesitate to call on me! Keep up the good fight. Jeanie Vance
Hi Jonathan,
Love watching you on countdown. Keep letting people know the truth!
I just finished a video called “Mind Of Cheney” that I thought you would find interesting. You can find it at:
If you need any more info just let me know.
Best;
Proton :-}
I am the first to admit I am no lawyer I will even admit that I am a high school drop out I Did earn A GED while I was in the Army in 1970 .
But The One thing That I do not think that you need a good education for is to know the difference between right and wrong.
I new when I was in the army that torture was wrong no one had to tell me that any more than any one would have to tell me that putting a cat in a bag and throwing it into a river would be careful and wrong.
I am willing to bet as a veteran that no solder in any of the past wars that this nation fought ever thought they should join the fight to torture any one To me that would be insane.
Fear Is the tool that terrorist use So can anyone explain to this uneducated vet why our Government would use the tool of fear agents it own peoples to fight a just war . I mean If we were attacked by a foreign country There would be no need to try to scare any one to defend our nation Because It would be self defence .
Some place we as a nation we decided to use self defence excuse to attack another country to possibly keep it from attacking us in the future . If that Is the case We could legally attack Europe as a whole or China Korea Mexico .Canada because it is possible that some time in the future any or all of these countries do us harm . That takes it out of the realm of self defence and puts in the category of an aggressive nation sort of like Iraq in its neighborhood but we are a super power so the entire word is our neighborhood.
According to Some that Spain wold fit into that category because it is looking into war crimes perpetrated by our government. To try to tell our government that it broke laws that we feel is beyond the world law dose not make sense to this high school drop out.
So Tell me one thing should we hold Bin Laden to account for any crimes against us or any other nation I am sure that His organization Dose not believe it broke any laws at least none that they would recognize .
so I Guess My question is What Make Us Different If any one could explain this to me I would greatly appreciate it.
Just one very confused old Vet.
Ronald Holst,
You have nothing to be ashamed about in the brains category because you were a high school dropout. As I’ve said here before, my Dad dropped out of school in the 9th Grade and to me he is still one of the smartest and well-read men I’ve ever known. Despite the fact that they may help you earn more, but in these times who knows, college and graduate schools and what they teach don’t make you intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to look at the world with a critical eye and to make up your own mind about what you see, not just go by someone elses’ opinions. If I’m right about that, then I’m also right about your comments being highly intelligent and the question you ask as also showing your intelligence.
As far as your question goes in my opinion we do have to hold Bin Laden to account for his crimes, or it will just encourage others to take the same path. At the same time, as you have suggested we need to re-evaluate how we deal with the rest of the world to try to understand why there are people that hate us so much. You were a soldier and so I think you know that those who talk the toughest, as do many of our so-called “foreign policy experts,” usually are weak and covering up for that weakness by acting tough. I’ve know quite a few really tough people in my life and they never showed it, they didn’t have to, they had the confidence. The other problem with acting tough is that no matter how strong and quick you are, there is always someone stronger and quicker, so people who lead with their ego’s get themselves hurt.
In the same way the US has for the last eight years become one of the bully’s of the world, rather than leading it by example. When FDR took office he said to the people that they had nothing to fear but fear itself and made people feel we could handle anything. When 9/11 happened GW Bush and Dick Cheney used fear to get the people to go along with a purposeless war, that was being done for the oil in Iraq.
As American’s we need to see through those who would use fear to control us and find our own sense of what is right.
You show that you are one of those who won’t be led by your nose, but uses your mind to determine what is right and what is wrong.
PS I put to much faith into spell check too. what I meant to say is it would be cruel and wrong to put a cat in a beg and throw it into a river .
Just to throw in my two rubles worth….Bin Laden will never be found. His multi billionaire industrialist father ,I assume, is protecting him with a fortress made of money….
Mike Spindel
Thank you for your kind words I was not fishing for any compliments I was just tyring to get my opinion out and see what came back. I find it flattering that you said what you did .
But My purpose was to get people thinking about what our nation has does in plain language. The kind people you average person would understand most people are not lawyers much less constitutional lawyers As It should be clear to all I am not .
And To try to figure out why people buy into the lies and half truths the only reason I can see Is because they are scared. Are Cheney is still trying to use his fear card I think It was yesterday ON one of the talk shows or talk news or what ever they call it now where he stated the Obama is making this nation unsafe he went on to say something like because he was closing
Guantanamo he did state that imagine 19 terrorist rooming in our city’s not with plane tickets but with nukes.
I almost Feel Sorry for Him this man Is really Scared, And Like being angry people do not like to be scared alone or angry .
I said almost became he was in a position for 8 years to do so much damage to this nation because of his fear not just for this country but I will go out on a limb hear and say scared for his own scalp . That would explain why no one could tell you where he was, he would not give a daily schedule out to the press He was scared he would be targeted then and now he is scared that every one will find out that he was not innocent on the charges of possible war crimes.but It is understandable when you are griped with fear that you will make bad choices It dose not erase any the fact of culpability in those choices.
And Yes I too am up set with the Fact that Obama says he wants to look forward and not backward.You would think that being a constitutional lawyer him self would realize that he to may not be looked so kindly upon by history if he blocks any investigation in the past administration. I mean would that not give him culpability too in this . I guess I just need a place to vent some of my frustrations. Where It could be read by people that agree as well as disagree I do not mind if people can dis agree as long as they are civil about it.
Ronald Holst:
“My father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age; and he grew up, litterally [sic] without education. He removed from Kentucky to what is now Spencer County, Indiana, in my eighth year. We reached our new home about the time the State came into the Union. It was a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals, still in the woods. There I grew up. There were some schools, so called; but no qualification was ever required of a teacher beyond “readin, writin, and cipherin” to the Rule of Three. If a straggler supposed to understand latin happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizzard [sic]. There was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education. Of course when I came of age I did not know much. Still somehow, I could read, write, and cipher to the Rule of Three; but that was all. I have not been to school since. The little advance I now have upon this store of education, I have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity.”
–Abraham Lincoln (Autobiography, 12/20/1859)
I think you’ve “picked up” pretty well.
Proton: ‘Mind of Cheney’ video
I had to look it up on the youtube site, your embed wouldn’t play for me here; I think the thread is too long and it slows things up. The video is quite good and worth looking up though. The pacing is excellent and the music builds a lot of tension. ‘Reject fear’ is a great message- keep putting it out there.
When have we changed the constitution to allow women to run for national political office? Which amendment allows for this? Under the Articles no founder wrote that women should run for office let alone vote. We changed the vote but what about political office?
This is an old and totally invalid argument. It has been argued and refuted on this site already.
https://jonathanturley.org/2008/04/09/presidential-pronouns-is-hillary-barred-from-taking-office-as-a-female/
Professor Turley has a search window on this site, and the discussion can be accessed by keyword search.
Incidentally, women were NEVER barred from office by the Constitution. They were just denied the vote by the state. Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to the House of Representatives, and was elected in 1916, four years before the 20th Amendment giving women the right to vote was ratified in 1920! She was elected in Montana, which had granted women the vote.
The use of the he or her pronoun never excluded women from the protections of the Constitution, such as the Fifth Amendment’s ban on anyone being a “witness against himself.”
I hope this news is not too shocking to you.
Using the “himself” in the 5th amendment is not the same as “he” in the Presidential oath. Anyone who would conclude that to be the same from the founders opinion would not be a constituional scholar.
I would also like for someone to explain how through the constitution the Federal government should be mandating education. This issue is clearly one for the states. I believe we should get rid of the department of education and turn this system completely back over to the states. States who can’t afford it, too bad! Hasn’t anyone awakened themself to reality and seen that all these social programs which by the way were never intended by the founders, have bankrupted our country. We here in Texas are only one of three states to be financially o.k. We are a conservative state by the way and have a great educational system.
Well, here is the text of the Presidential oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
There is no pronoun, either he or she, in it. So it is no barrier to a woman.
The qualifications have already been discussed: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Again, it applies to persons, who must be citizens and residents. No he or she. It does say that “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation,” but the pronoun “he” here includes both male and female, just as it does throughout the Constitution, with no exceptions..
As another example, the Sixth Amendment speedy trial includes the right to confrontation of witnesses “against him,” to call witness in “his” favor, and counsel for “his” defense. No constitutional scholar has EVER argued that these and other rights under the Bill of Rights applied only to men. Ever. There is no authority for a different meaning of the pronoun in Article II.
Does the fact that women can hold office really bother you that much?
Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores (502).
Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%).
Texas is #33 in the nation in teacher salaries. Teacher salaries in Texas are not keeping pace with the national average. The gains realized from the last state-funded across-the-board pay raise authorized in 1999, which moved the ranking from 33 to as high as 26th in the nation, have disappeared over the last five years.
Texas was the only state in the nation to cut average per pupil expenditures in fiscal year 2005, resulting in a ranking of #40 nationally; down from #25 in fiscal year 1999.
Texas is #6 in the nation in student growth. The general student population in Texas public schools grew by 11.1% between school years 1999 and 2005, with the largest percent of growth seen among low income and minority children.
Between school years 1999 and 2005, the number of central administrators employed by Texas public schools grew by 32.5%, overall staffing in public schools grew by 15.6%, while the number of teachers grew only 13.3%.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. More at:
http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/
Res ipsa loquitor
You said it applies to persons. Well then, I guess the founders believed slaves should be elected officials because that is how they referred to them when debating the 3/5 compromise. You surely wouldn’t agree with that. And, tell me specifically which founder believed women should hold public office. I would like to research their writings.
As far as Texas goes, WE are NOT Bankrupt. What good does it do to have the best statistics and be on a sinking ship?
Mr. Boyle,
I’m not versed/educated on constitutional law, as many on this site seem to be. I “run into” resistance when asking similiar questions, like, taking over the auto companies, the banks, and mortgage companies, to name a few. When I suggested Obama forced the sitting CEO of GM to step down, the answers herein were that “he DID NOT use force but, just suggested”.
I am an active Realtor, of long standing (some WILL call me old). I’m aware of contract law, to some minor degree, and I know forcing lenders to modify existing mortgages is unlawful. Suggesting that foreclosure judges be given the “power” to change contract terms is unlawful, as is shaming lenders to “voluntarily” change agreed-upon contractual clauses is a horrendous use of governmental power that can’t, in my mind, be justified anywhere in the Constitution.
No amount of the taxpayers’ money “thrown” at the housing situation will make any difference EXCEPT to the taxpayer whose money is badly wasted. This is popular and political ONLY, and will assist very few families. No one in DC is mentioning that there’s another monster “storm” bearing down on our economy in the form of massive foreclosures/failings in the commercial real estate world, probably as serious as the residential melt-down. This won’t be pretty, and it WON’T be fixable, even if there’s any money left to “burn”. Of course none of our money is of any value, anyhow.
Tom Fitchue
I have no problem with women in pubic office. What I do have a probelm with is taking our constitution and trashing it. If we don’t like what it says, then change it according to article 5. It’s like Separation of church and state. Those words are not in the U.S. Constitution. In Fact, they are not even implied. The founders simply didn’t want a state run church that forced everybody into one religion. How we got from that to not even allowing a prayer at a graduation is beyond me. Now the mention of Jesus is threatening to many but mentioning Allah is acceptable. Give me a break! I mean come on. If the founders really believed in women holding NATIONAL office then why didn’t they give them the right to vote? Answer that?
Tom,
I couldn’t agree more. Suggesting from Obama is a code word for mandate. The only way out of this mess is for government to get out of the way and allow people who made bad decisions to own up to the consequences. I often think of Noah and the ark. Imagine how many children perished because their dads and moms didn’t believe Noah. God gave many chances but stayed true to his word. Obama “feels” too much instead of “thinks” too much. People by their very nature are self-centered. The cure for this is to allow consequences when we mess up so that we learn not to repeat the same mistakes. Government was not created to take from group of society and give it to another group in society. This is however what is going on now and we will reap the harvest from this sowing.
As lawyers like to say, if there are no facts or law to go on, pound the table. The founders thought a lot of things, but we can only go on what they put in words. The Constitution of 1789 did not address the right to vote and left it to the states. The Amendments later addressed color, age, sex and poll tax. There is nothing in the Constitution barring women from office. If you find any words, other than pronouns, to that effect, let us know.
The founders failures on the issue of slavery were total, complete, and inexcusable, but are no support for you position. Slaves were described as persons held to service or labor, in three clauses (three-fifths, importation, and fugitive slave), but there were no other mentions of slavery whatsoever.
If you had any respect for the Constitution, you would start with the words “We the People of the United States” and work from there, instead of looking for bizarre theories to exclude people from its reach.
To repeat, women are eligible for all offices under the Constitution. You cannot point to any language excluding them. It was hard for them to get elected when most of the individual states did not let them vote, but one of them got elected anyway. These are the facts, that he studiously ignores. The Constitution has to be read as amended, and his has been amended to guarantee equal protection for all.
The rest of your questions would be answered if you took Professor Turley’s course in constitutional law.
The rest of the ideas posted by Tom and James are just tired old right wing hack stuff that they repeat to each other until they cannot think anymore. Noah’s Ark!
Boyle started by trying to keep women out of office. He has not cited or quoted even one word from a founder or the constitution itself. He just assumes he knows what they thought. If he did the research, he would find that they never considered many of these issues.
Mr Boyle
Sir may I ask You a question Sir From What I have read, you believe that if a person is not a God fearing Christian that they have no place in this country or in political office Or am I wrong On my interpretation of what you have been writing .
and If so could you please explain it In more of a simple way .
I do not have a college degree or even a high school diploma.
Ronald,
Everybody has a place in this country as long as they come here legally. I am a God-fearing Chrisitian and use many Biblical examples to make my points. As a Christian the Bible clearly says that a NATION whose God is the Lord will be blessed. I want God’s blessing and not his curse. However, I would never suggest to anyone that they have to follow my beliefs. As far as political office, anyone can hold office as long as the Constitution allows it. At the same time, living a God-fearing life would be an added benefit to that office.
Vince,
Name one founder who held the belief that a woman should be president or for that matter vote. We the people… in the preamble explains what we as a people need to do in order to have a perfect Union and then the Articles attempt to clarify the specifics of that. If you spoke Madison, Jay, Hamilton, or even Mason, do you think any of them would have actively been out campaigning for the women’s right to vote. If not, then why would they have wanted them to hold NATIONAL political office? I am saying that we addressed the vote in the 19th amendment but nver addressed the office part. Also, Judge Taney in the Dred Scott case was only upholding the 3/5 compromise as discussed at the Convention in 1787. Slaves were called persons at the time and associated with “property.” As a result, My original question was never answered. Did the founders truly want slaves voting or holding political office since they were called persons?
VINCE
You missed this in the constitution!!!
Here is a direct quote from Article 1 sec 9
Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such PERSONS as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed
on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
I did not miss it. Read my post. I referred to the three-fifths, importation, and fugitive slave clauses.
You read that clause yourself. It does not does it say that women are excluded from office.
The Presidential oath can be taken by a man or a woman. It has no pronoun of he or she.
You have found nothing that states women are excluded.
You have not posted a single word by a founder to that effect.
“The only way out of this mess is for government to get out of the way and allow people who made bad decisions to own up to the consequences. I often think of Noah and the ark. Imagine how many children perished because their dads and moms didn’t believe Noah. God gave many chances but stayed true to his word. Obama “feels” too much instead of “thinks” too much. People by their very nature are self-centered. The cure for this is to allow consequences when we mess up so that we learn not to repeat the same mistakes. Government was not created to take from group of society and give it to another group in society. This is however what is going on now and we will reap the harvest from this sowing.”
James E. Boyle,
While you call yourself a Christian, your religious belief self described is a “self centered” one. This is directly contrary to Jesus “Golden Rule” and the biblical concept of being our brother’s keeper. However, I’m sure you can rationalize yourself around all that and still think you are a good Christian. This is because for you, based on your statements, money comes before your religion.
“We here in Texas are only one of three states to be financially o.k. We are a conservative state by the way and have a great educational system.”
In truth as Vince showed the only thing good about your State educationally is that you produce some good College Football Teams. You didn’t have the honesty or integrity to respond to his points, which I thought were also supposed to be Christian values. I guess with you honesty and integrity also along with your religion takes second place to money.
Sadly though when you talk about Texas being a financially sound State you also don’t bother to deal with the facts. Last year Texas was number one in the requesting of FEMA grants, these requests coming from your Governor In The Closet Rick. Texas also receives about 1 & 1/2 more funds from the Federal Government than it pays in taxes. It’s very easy to be fiscally sound when your getting all that pork from the Feds. In short some conservative Texans like to talk about personal responsibility as long as the State keeps raking it in.
Now for your constitutional questions, they are so stupid, that Vince actually has shown you a kindness by bothering to answer them seriously. A kindness you felt no need to reciprocate. I on the other hand can not forget that Texans were among the group that committed treason against our great country by seceding. Now again their Governor has called for the consideration of such a treason. No doubt this is a man you support and have voted for. How dare you,
given the recklessness of your State’s actions and having its’ large mouth fastened firmly around the teat of the Federal government, talk about the soundness of your financial situation. Have you no shame? I guess though that is the case and more sadly I presume that you are proud of it. Your argumentation is basically silly and you have shown yourself not to be honorable in your posting, you’re simply not worth further bother.
Ronald Holst,
It’s my nature to say what I feel and so I was responding to the whole of your thoughts and not trying to “butter you up.”
You have a good and inquiring mind and that is something I respect. Why not hang out here a bit by clicking on the Blog tab at the top of the page. It is good to have thinking people around and we have plenty of them, coming from all political positions. With your insight you would be a good fit.
Boyle is completely missing the point. The argument that women cannot hold office under the Constitution is frivolous. There are some cranks who support it, but no scholars.
Boyle started by claiming that women cannot hold office under the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that excludes women from office. He, in fact, cannot point to a word that excludes them, other than the sex-neutral pronouns he and him. He cannot even quote a single founder to that effect. He keeps raising the founders. Can he point to any statement by any of them that women cannot hold office? No. The question never came up. The founders never addressed this point.
As I have explained, the right to vote was left to the states. In Article I, the electors for Congress have to have the qualifications of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. The 20th Amendment forced the states to grant that vote to women.
Now, what the founders thought to themselves or assumed is not binding on us. We are only bound by what they put in the words of the Constitution. Some of their writings are helpful in interpretation. But the Constitution prevails.
Boyle thinks the founders assumed women and slaves could never hold public office. Maybe so. But they should have put it into the Constitution if they thought so. The fact that the founders tolerated slavery, and even owned slaves, and referred to them as “persons” in the text of the Constitution is irrelevant. They did not put in a clause saying that only men could hold office. If they had wanted to excluded women and slaves, they should have said so. They knew how to exclude people, and showed it when they excluded foreign-born citizens from the Presidency.
So Boyle can go on with this fantasy. There is a guy named Irving Schiff who is convinced that the income tax is unconstitutional, and has advised others not to pay it. He is in jail at age 90.
If women cannot hold office under the Constitution, go ahead and institute a lawsuit to unseat the Senator from Texas. Send her letters telling her to resign. Good luck.
Boyle’s logic is wrong. He reasons that slaves were described as persons, but the founders did not let them hold office. Therefore, he argues, even if women were described as persons, they could not hold office either. He argues that the 20th Amendment gave women the right to vote, but no amendment gave them the right t to hold office. But, by his own logic, he has to hold that, although the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 15th Amendment barred denial of the vote on the basis of race, nevertheless no amendment has yet granted the right to hold office to the people freed by those amendments. So Boyle would require an amendment to allow African-Americans to hold office.
At any rate, these arguments have already been refuted at the Turley website.
In addition, Chief Justice Taney was a racist who believed that black people were inherently inferior to whites. He let his own personal prejudices caused him to twist and distort the Constitution. Nothing in the two-thirds clause or any other provision justified his holding that black people could not be citizens of the United States. Source: Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case.
Irwin Schiff, not Irving.
Tom Fitchue, since you are a realtor, you certainly have experience with contracts for sale and purchase. I write in response to your comments about the constitutionality of judges changing contract terms. You have been misinformed. Bankruptcy courts around the country daily do all sorts of things to contracts, including terminating them completely. Indeed, the primary purpose of reorganization law is to restructure debt. Leases are cancelled, credit agreements reworked, pension plans eliminated and legitimate debts completely discharged. Secured creditors generally fare best. Unsecured creditors who provide goods and services on a credit basis, relying upon honor rather than collateral, routinely are left with nothing.
Corporate enterprises have used the provisions of the law to their advantage for many years, which is precisely what GM is doing even as we speak. This is not some form of socialist plot invented by Pres. Obama. What conservatives have complained about is not the ability of corporations to change the terms of their obligations through bankruptcy proceedings, but the suggestion that individual homeowners should be permitted to do the same. It is a simple philosophical difference. ABC Corporation can freely walk away from those unfunded retirement promises it made to you over the past thirty years, but don’t you dare propose that courts be authorized to restructure the mortgage on your house. Conservatives approve of ABC Corporation’s actions because it’s about “business.” They oppose the homeowners’ proposal because it promotes “personal irresponsibility.” If you or any other conservatives are prepared to explain to me why more “responsibility” is demanded of an individual than of a company (i.e., a group of individuals acting in concert), I’d love to hear your comments.
James E. Boyle, all taxation involves taking money from one group and giving it to another. Some taxes are intended for general revenue purposes (e.g., income taxes). Some taxes are intended for specific purposes (e.g., property taxes for schools). Some tax policies are implemented to promote behavior deemed to be socially desirable (e.g., deductions for charitable contributions) or to discourage certain behavior deemed socially undesirable (e.g., taxes on alcohol and tobacco). Tax policy is determined by elected representatives in the House and Senate. To argue that one is opposed to the redistribution of wealth is absurd because even the most rabid among us is not opposed to paying taxes for police and fire protection. Thus your complaint is properly about tax policy. Democrats generally tend to favor “redistribution” to the middle and working classes. Republicans generally tend to favor “redistribution” to the investor class. So if you don’t like tax policy, elect someone who more clearly agrees with your list of preferred beneficiaries of redistribution. Beyond this, all of the arguments are meaningless bluster.
Mike Appleton, very well stated. Boyle and Fitchue also should be reminded that there is a Bankruptcy Clause in the Constitution that authorizes the modification of contracts.
And that tax measures must originate in the House of Representatives, the people’s branch, so that taxes are assessed democratically.
Thanks, Vince.
Dose any one else believe that Chaney Is staring A done hill slide I mean On one hand he will swear That They never used fear in the run up to the war with Iraq then he turned around just the other day and made a statement that went something like this I do not this I could not say this is an exact quote But close . What would you you say or feel about 19 terrorists running around loose in your city not with plane tickets But nukes , And Today Or was it yesterday he said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. His contradictions just keep coming
I Bet at this rate he will be in the hospital because He has a total break down from the pressure of coming to grips with his own culpability On the misinformation that went out to the public to the run up to the war and .I just heard that He has now back off his statement that the water boarding got us good intelligence and now states that the entire program got good actionable intelligence. I have One question Which Is it the first thing he says Or the second thing That come out of his mouth.That Is the truth . Frankley He is proving to me That nothing he says can be equated to the truth.
Vince,
There is no mention in the constitution of separation of church and state. Though I disagree with the court’s interpretation, I must accept their assertion. I guess you don’t because you are a strict constructionist only believing word for word. What the founders may have thought is irrelevant with you.
Mike,
As for Texas ,we are not bankrupt. Again, I would rather have problems on a floating ship than be on a sinking ship.
Vince,
Here are your words:
Now, what the founders thought to themselves or assumed is not binding on us. We are only bound by what they put in the words of the Constitution. Some of their writings are helpful in interpretation. But the Constitution prevails.
You don’t believe in separation of church and state!
PS: The constitution says “he” and “him” not her and she.
“We are only bound by what they put in the words of the Constitution.”
To Mike A. RE: Tom Fitchue, since….
I doubt if I have a good argument in response to your well written explanation on bankrupcy policy. I certainly don’t understand the workings of this procedure (obviously). I guess what bothers me is more on a fairness level. I see measures being taken to help individuals salvage the possible loss of a home. This loss may come about from differing circumstances. What bothers me is that people who DIDN’T get caught up in the frenzy of “over-buying” a home they could never afford (or people re-financing their home to attain money to spend on things they might well had never been able to afford), and are struggling to meet their expenses, are NOT likely to find relief
in the workings of the “stimulus” OR the courts, which they may well stay out of. If the bankrupcy courts would recognize the cases that are based on greed, and refuse to reward it with lowering payments to allow un-deserving people to stay in homes they’ll almost certainly loose anyhow, that would be different. I just see this as unfair to those that have practiced frugality and a willingness to “stay within their means”. You know, the “old American way”.
Where do we “draw the line” of who to help, when there are old, fixed income home owners or single parents, that are unable to live a decent life because of loss of savings, pensions, of escalating health costs, food costs, utility and gasoline costs? Who’ll get their payments lowered?
An old fart from another age.
Tom Fitchue
I am sure that the NEW “American way” considers this passe.
Tom,
The problem we have either through a stimulus or bankruptcy is government should have never been in the business of giving to people money. They are to “promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense” which they have dropped the ball on each. If we really truly want to survive as a nation we must go back the what made us great. People helping people not government doing it. We are to love our neighbor as ourself. Because of all this lucrative spending of tax dollars that don’t exist, within 2-3 years we will no longer recognize this great country. All one has to do is study Roman History to see the road we are currently on. History has always repeated itself and is doing it once again. One easy example: Only people who can afford a house deserve one. If you need government assistance then you don’t deserve one.
Boyle, whenever the constitution uses the words he or his, the words include women as well as men. A woman as well as man has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Those words are binding.
Maybe this will clarify it. The word his’n includes her’n, and the word hisseff includes herseff. Get it now?
I have not said anything so far about church and state, so I don’t know why you are asking me. But since you asked, you are wrong again. “Separation of church and state,” like the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” does not appear in the constitution, and I never said it did. I never said that. I am sure you and your friends have been saying this to each other for years, so often that it is an ingrained belief.
The Constitution does ban a “law respecting an establishment of religion,” as well as a law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Those are the words that are binding. Please read them over. The Constitution does not mention separation of powers, checks and balances, or federalism but everyone uses those terms accurately to describe the structure of our government.
It does not say, as you claim, merely that the government cannot establish a state controlled religion, although it does prohibit that and more. I think the constitution is violated if the government writes a prayer and requires student to recite it in a class which all children are legally required to attend. That establishes a religion, and bars the students’ free exercise. You probably disagree, and support school prayer. But don’t twist the truth. The same clause prohibits students from being required to pray to Allah.
So give this separation argument a rest.
Moderators, this “bio” thread is really full, nearly 1000 entries, and hard to access.
Can you close it off and start at new thread for Son of Bio, bio redux, “bios,” “bioses,” or the Revenge of the Bio?
It probably should be noted that the former Governor of Texas spent so many tax dollars that did not exist that the national debt increased from four trillion to ten trillion from 2001 to 2009.
Tom, I agree with you on the question of fairness. Having represented creditors in bankruptcy proceedings a number of times over the years, I have encountered situations in which a debtor, whether an individual or business entity, has taken advantage of creditors. But there are procedures in the bankruptcy code to prevent abuse. For example, debtors who run up bills right before they file bankruptcy can still be stuck with having to pay those bills. Company insiders who take monies from the business before filing bankruptcy can be forced to repay those monies to the bankruptcy trustee for the benefit of creditors. That abuses still occur does not mean that the system is inherently unfair. It is simply a reflection of the fact that decisions are made by human beings.
With respect to bailouts of the banking and auto industries, there is no doubt that greed, irresponsibility and stupidity each played a large role in the crisis, and I respect the arguments of those who believe that any business should be permitted to fail. However, I also understand the argument that some businesses are so large that their failure will cause harm to thousands of innocent individuals and small businesses. I don’t know if the government’s efforts will succeed. You will recall some years ago that Lee Iacocca came to Congress for a bailout of Chrysler Corporation. Congress responded and Iacocca engineered a very successful recovery for that company. Whether that success can be repeated for GM and Chrysler is anybody’s guess. I have to have a certain amount of confidence that people who are a lot more knowledgable than I have thought this through and have workable plans. We will see.
Vince,
Again you didn’t look at your own words so let me put them here again:
“Now, what the founders thought to themselves or assumed is not binding on us. We are only bound by what they put in the words of the Constitution. Some of their writings are helpful in interpretation. But the Constitution prevails.”
As I said before you are adhereing to the strict constructionist view with those words. Try this on the for size.
When John wrote the book of Revelation he never uses the words nuclear bomb yet we know that is probably what is being referred to. Why? Two thousand years ago they didn’t know the word nuclear. Just like the founders never envisioned having women the right to vote or hold a national political office. (Key word national) This is why we need amendments. I have at no time said women should not be allowed into office, I am only saying that there needs to be an amendment.
By the way, the governor can only spend money the legislature permits. Also, it is the Lt. Governor in Texas who has most all of the power but I am sure you didn’t know that!
Boyle, to repeat once again, there does not need to be an amendment, because the Constitution already permits women to hold office. No one but you and a few cranks believe that an Amendment is necessary.
You still have not pointed to a single word that bars women from office. If you argue that the use of pronouns serves to exclude women, then you have to exclude all women from many of the protections of the Bill of Rights, and that is an absurd position that has never prevailed. In the entire history of the Constitution, women have NEVER been denied the protections of the Bill of Rights, even those accorded to “him.”
As for holding office, I have told you that a woman served in the House of Representatives before the 20th Amendment was ratified, and that was completely constitutional. You are completely wrong, so get over it.
But if you really believe you are right, do something about it. Write to Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison ands tell her to introduced a constitutional amendment granting women the right to serve in the Senate.
[Insert graphic image of horse laughing].
PS, I was talking about Bush as President.
Vince,
According to your own words (read above) then slaves could vote and hold national office because they were referred to as “persons.” Remember Article 1 sec. 9 clearly says this and they are the exact words not the founders’ beliefs.
The Bill of rights do not use pronouns, they use “people’ and “persons” so Vince’s assertion to the Bill of rights not inlcuding women using my viewpoint is ludicrous.
Vince,
According to your own words (read above) then slaves could vote and hold national office because they were referred to as “persons.” Remember Article 1 sec. 9 clearly says this and they are the exact words not the founders’ beliefs.
So what? The section only preserved importation for 20 years. That is all it said. You are drawing implications and reading words into it. When you can’t respond to an argument, you change the subject. Your twisted interpretation would have required an amendment to make the bill of rights apply to freed slaves. That reading is absurd.
Where are women excluded?
Nowhere.
The Bill does use pronouns. Can’t you read? The Sixth Amendment guarantees Assistance of Counsel for HIS defense, for just one example.
No importation of slaves could be addressed before 20 years. It does not say it ends in 20 years. Read it again. No the Bill of rights did apply to freed slaves. Whether it was properly enforced is another question.
Yes the 6th amendment mentions him. However, it is an amendment that was introduced by the congress and ratified by the states. It was not written by the founders as the Articles were.
Where did I say it ends in 20 years? Nowhere. Do not falsify my words, because they are posted for all to read. I said it preserved importation for 20 years, and it did.
Where does the 6th Amendment say that women have the right to Counsel, if the word “his” in “for his defense” does not included women as well as men? Answer, the word his does include women.
President Bush, the former Governor of Texas, ran the national debt from 4 trillion to 10 trillion during his term from 2001 to 2009. And he had a Republican Congress until 2007.
I don’t think Bush was a conservative. But wait and see what the debt will be after Obama. He has already spent more in his first 4 months than Bush did in the last 4 years. Also, Bush had democratically controlled congress from 2007-2008.
You can’t spend your way out of debt.
In Bush’s defense, he had to deal with 911. I still however don’t agree with his spending.
“Yes the 6th amendment mentions him. However, it is an amendment that was introduced by the congress and ratified by the states. It was not written by the founders as the Articles were.”
That argument is pathetic.
Everyone, look at Art IV, sec 2., cl. 2, on extradition, in the Constitution itself, not the Bill of Rights. A fugitive can be delivered to the State “from which HE fled.” So in your interpretation, women fugitives were immune from extradition.
That is ridiculous. Women could be extradited, despite the pronoun “he.” Women could hold office.
Please post a copy of your letter to Sen. Hutchison.
O.K. Vince,
One question with a yes or no.
Did the founders believe a woman should be president? yes or no?
I do not believe the founders thought the same about fugitives as they did the presidency. I am sure Vince does. I am certain except for a few cooks that most constitutional scholars would believe as I do on this point.
I do not have to give you a yes or no answer to anything. No one, including you, knows what was in the minds of the founders. If you find any of their writings or testimony on this subject, feel free to share it. You have made a lot of assumptions about them without any evidence.
I do know from the evidence that the terms Constitution that the founders drafted did not exclude women from national office.
If you can find any language in it that does exclude them, let us know.
“I do not believe the founders thought the same about fugitives as they did the presidency. I am sure Vince does. I am certain except for a few cooks that most constitutional scholars would believe as I do on this point.”
I know you do not “believe” it, but is there any evidence? If so, show us.
Name one constitutional scholar who agrees with you. I would like to read his or her views.
The evidence is simple. In the founders lifetime did they nominate or vote for any female president? If not, then one’s actions can show what they believe. Yes, I make assumptions. Those assumptions however are based on the times in which the founders lived and their actions. This along with the exact words of the constitution is what makes a good supreme court judge. They are to interpret the meaning thereof based on study of the intent of our founders in conjunction with the exact words as written in the constitution. Anything short of that would be an injstice to our current society.
“Mike,
As for Texas ,we are not bankrupt. Again, I would rather have problems on a floating ship than be on a sinking ship.”
Mr. Boyle,
Again, as seems to be your habit, you pick and choose only what you want to respond to and ignore those points that don’t agree with your pre-conceptions and refute your logic. This is not honest discussion and/or debate. I could show you why, but it would be to no avail. You are most probably one of those faux Christian conservatives, that takes delight in what you think is baiting us Godless Liberals. The trouble is that you don’t get the fact that all you are doing is making yourself seem ridiculous and really wasting all of our time.
You wrap yourself in God and yet you espouse teachings that would have horrified Jesus, according to his teachings in the Gospels. You quote the Pentateuch when it advances your own prejudices, but ignore anything that runs counter to your personal philosophy of greed and lack of sympathy for those less fortunate than you.
You are not a true conservative, you are a faux conservative and a NeoCon. True conservatives work to try to preserve our Nation and its institutions. You on the other hand support an illegal war and the theft of wealth from the majority of Americans. GW Bush put the US one trillion dollars in debt, along with your Republican Congress, in his initial tax measure which gave pennies to the middle and lower economic classes, while giving million$ to the wealthiest elite and to corporations that don’t pay their fair share of taxes. To you no doubt, this was a good thing because it is the richest Americans who you identify with. Now you phony conservatives bemoan Bush’s spending, which for six years your Republican Congress abetted.
As GW Bush said:”Some call you the haves and have mores….I
call you my base.” somehow in your compartmentalized mind you equate Jesus teachings and the Pentateuch’s teachings with this greed. You are in fact a worshiper of Mammon, rather than a God-fearing man. Sadly for you, given your ability to rationalize, you are unaware of the difference between Mammon and Jesus. I pity you when it comes time to meet your maker, which I hope for you is long in coming, because I suspect you will be quite surprised at your judgment.
I will not respond to you further, not because I can’t beat you in debate, but because you debate and discuss without integrity and with dishonesty. I’ve heard the phrase that
“Texans mean what they say and say what they mean,” in your case this is apparently not true.
James E. Boyle
That is not evidence. It is an inference based on an assumption. No judges in the history of the United States have ever barred women from holding constitutional office, because such a holding would violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. The people of the several states ratified the language of the Constitution, not the assumed beliefs of its drafters.
So the drafters never voted for a woman. So what? Their practices and prejudices are not what are binding on us. It is the words they drafted that are binding. You better be careful when signing a legal document, because you are bound by the words you sign, not by your beliefs or intentions or assumptions.
In short, nothing, repeat nothing, bars women from federal office. It is constitutional for women to hold office, including the Presidency. That is what the founders wrote, and they and all later judges were right and you are wrong.
Still waiting for the name of that scholar.
First I never have stated my opinion as fact. I am simply making valid points about our founders which you are as well.
MIKE
You either are lacking in knowledge or are just plain dumb. I am not saying the facts about Texas are wrong. I agree with you. But would you rather have those facts and be debt free or have good facts and be bankrupt?
The Bible says if you don’t work you don’t eat. The government rewards those who don’t work. You can’t disagree with this. Christ never advocated government to help the people. He advocated people to help people. Greed is wrong!! But there is nothing wrong with investing. Remember the parable where 3 men were given talents and Christ scolded the one who buried his in the sand and rewarded those who invested.
You just stated you are a “Godless Liberal” I would think you would need to worry about the judgement. Paul clearly taught salvation is based on faith not works because works would give us the glory. So get of your high.
Remember Biden th Godless Liberal’s hero. He said it is our patriotic duty to pay taxes. Unfortunately he forgot to mention the 40-50% of Americans who pay not income taxes at all. At least God requires everybody to give 10% and doesn’t discriminate against anybody.
Mr. Boyle, I must say that I have been following your exchanges with Mike S. and Vince Treacy with some amusement. From what I can tell, you have a quasi-originalist theory of constitutional interpretation which you have somehow managed to combine with an 18th century Calvinist theology of justification, early Congregationalist views of church-state relations and adherence to biblical inerrancy (preferably the King James Version). The product is a view of law and society that is immutable and consequently recognizes only concession rather than debate. Under the circumstances, I will save you the effort and will concede to whatever points you may wish to make.
Mike,
It is not about winning or losing. I believe if people sit down and have a clear informed discussion we can realize that differences of opinion is what makes America great. To be honest with you, my biggest main line issue has and will always be taxes. As stated earlier, God only asks that all give 10% and yet our government has different rates for different people and still can’t function with what they receive. I will never understand our current government philosophy. Think about it, the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection but how is our tax code equal? See the hypocricy.
Awww, Mike! Come on! The work of Sisyphus may be thankless but it can be very entertaining.
Vince,
You said “So the drafters never voted for a woman. So what? Their practices and prejudices are not what are binding on us. It is the words they drafted that are binding.”
Their words came from their practices and prejudices!!!
Boyle said “Their words came from their practices and prejudices!!!”
No, you are wrong on that, and I am not going to let you get away with it.
The words of the framers of the Constitution, in many instances, came from their ideals and aspirations for themselves and their country. Aware of the limitations and prejudices of their day, they set forth words that were often ideal and unrealistic at the present time, but reflected hopes for the future.
I will repeat. The Constitution is a legal document and we are bound by its legal terms, not by your unsupported assumptions about what they might have meant. Again, read the document and show a single word, other than an optional or ambiguous inference from a pronoun, that bars women from office. Name a single constitutional scholar. Find a single statement by a framer that women could NOT hold office. You have not come up with anything yet.
BIL, uphill all the way! [insert graphic smile]
Vince,
You said “The words of the framers of the Constitution, in many instances, came from their ideals and aspirations for themselves”
That means their practices and their prejudices. Are you saying that slavery wasn’t a prejudice or a practice. I am not going to let you get away with that!!!
Boyle:
I have pointed out that the Constitution permitted the states to continue the practice of slavery, as recognized in three specific clauses. Many founders opposed slavery, but conceded these terms to secure the Union. They hoped the states would abolish it in the future.
You make the illogical leap from slavery to women holding office.
Show a single word, cite even one court case, name a single constitutional scholar, find a single statement by a framer, supporting your position that women are barred from federal office.
You have showed nothing.
There is nothing in the Constitution that expressly or implicitly bars women from national office.
And I AM getting away with this, because you have not put up a single relevant argument.
Vince Treacy,
I also appreciate your tenacity; however, when Mr. J. E. Boyles’ principal scholarship is the B-i-b-l-e (Yes! that’s the book for he), then you are in a one-sided debate. I do enjoy your posits and I will read on, to the extent that you have the patience (of Job, for J.E.B’s perusal)
However, be mindful of the potential reactive gravitational force of that Sisyphean boulder…
Thanks a lot, Buddha! Just practicing law these days is becoming increasingly Sisyphean.
Thanks, Mike, LEO and BIL, but I need a respite, so I am going to see the new Star Trek. Live long and prosper, and may the force be with you.
Mr. Boyle, tithing and taxation are different concepts. We can talk about one or the other, but there is no relationship between them that has any relevance to government or tax policy. Plus the 14th Amendment does not guarantee equal protection in the sense that you seem to think.
Vince,
I have agreed that that there may be no specific reference to not allowing women to hold the presidency by our founders. But you, can’t honestly say that the founders believed in their heart a woman should be president. I come to that conclusion based on the mere fact that they never allowed women the right to vote.
Mike,
My point on tithing is that God can get along with 10% and it is equal for everybody but our government can’t get along with 30, 35 or even 40% in an unequal tax system.
Boyle, you say that you “come to that conclusion based on the mere fact that they never allowed women the right to vote.” You just don’t know the constitution. The founders never addressed the right to vote, for women or for men who were not property owners or anyone else. They left it to the states as part of the federal system. They never barred the states from letting women vote. They never barred women from office.
I have already posted words from Article I that eligibility for voting in federal elections was based on eligibility to vote in STATE elections. They did nothing to stop states from granting the vote to women. They left it to the states. They said nothing about whether men or women were eligible to vote. I do not care what you personally think may have been in their hearts, and no constitutional court has ever cared. It is what they wrote that counts.
If they did not want a woman President, and wanted to prevent it, then they should have limited eligibility to men. They did not do so. They left the door open to Montana to let women vote, and Montana elected a woman to the House. It is simply one of the issues that they did not address in a document establishing a limited federal government. They did not rule one way or the other.
So just get over it. Your position has no support at all. There is absolutely no bar to women President in the Constitution. You think you know what was in their “hearts,” but you have no way of knowing that, and present no evidence. All you can do is draw an unsupported inference.
Maybe they never wanted a woman President, but, then again, maybe they thought the idea was so impossible that there was no need to ban it. Well, they were wrong about that. If they had wanted all male Presidents, they should have put it in writing, just as they did when they banned naturalized citizens from the Presidency. But the didn’t, and so women are not barred.
An unwritten understanding by the founders ain’t worth the paper it ain’t written on.
Boy, the new Star Trek movie was great! It is the best ST drama ever in my opinion. It just roars along at warp speed. It is the best SF fun since the first Star Wars opened in the 70s.
Best line: “Spock, are you out of your Vulcan mind?”
Vince,
Why did we not give women the right to vote before former male slaves (15th)? The reason was it was a state issue as you say.
Therefore, the national government wasn’t ready to make that bold step for women’s suffrage. That is probably due in part that the founders were not either.
As I stated separation of church of state is not written in the Constitution but has been interpreted as a founder belief so interpretation does matter.
As the United States of America takes its place among the pantheon of ’empires’ that have ‘entered’ triumphant and left vanquished ‘the Graveyard of Empires’, save but a very few … its citizens will forever be clueless as to the connection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/opinion/l04afghan.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
America: Land of the Free … Home of the Brave?
Free to do any unGodly thing they want & Brave enough to ignore the consequences!!
Vince,
Glad you liked Trek. People laughed and applauded that line in the theater I was in. The consensus among the group I went with was that Urban’s was probably the strongest individual performance although all performed admirably.
Boyle: “As I stated separation of church of state is not written in the Constitution but has been interpreted as a founder belief so interpretation does matter.
You are still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat this canard to yourself and your friends. The doctrine of separation of church and state IS written into the Constitution in the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. Free exercise means that you are entitled to your own beliefs, but the establishment clause stops you from having the government cram them down other peoples’ throats.
Why don’t you tell your friends that the words separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and states rights are not written in the Constitution? You might not be as popular with them then.
I agree Vince, but again I am making the point that the exact words of separation of church and state are not written but are interpreted so founder’s interpretation does matter which you seem to think it doesn’t. All of your comments are posted to prove this claim.
Boyle: Why did we not give women the right to vote before former male slaves (15th)? The reason was it was a state issue as you say.
Therefore, the national government wasn’t ready to make that bold step for women’s suffrage. That is probably due in part that the founders were not either.
“Boyle said : Why did we not give women the right to vote before former male slaves (15th)?”
If you cant figure this out for yourself, try reading a history book. You can wonder all you want about the 15th and 20th Amendments, but it does not change a single fact. The Constitution NEVER barred women from the Presidency or any other federal office, and does NOT have to be amended, as you so falsely charge. You still have not found a single word in the Constitution or the writings of the founders to support your charges. You just wonder.
What is your problem? Suffrage and office holding are distinct issues. You have been told, TWICE, that women held office before the 20th amendment guaranteed their vote. So we will tell you for a THIRD time. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or the writings of the founders barring women from national office.
You really are amazing. Most scholars have to rely on what the founders did and wrote, but not you. You can read their minds, even the minds of people who have been dead for 200 years. While you are at it, find out the truth about Tom Jefferson and Sally. In the meantime, almost everyone but you can see that the founders neither DID nor WROTE anything to prohibit women from holding office under the Constitution, whatever their secret innermost thoughts may have been.
Vince you keep saying the 20th amendment when it is the 19th amendment.
BIL, Been watching SF flicks since I first saw Destination Moon and The Day the Earth Stood Still on the big screen at Saturday matinees in 1950. This was one of the most exhilarating. The action never stops. It is a great example of the New Space Opera Renaissance that is rolling through the science fiction universe these days.
The movie has great production values and hit all the right notes. The green woman from the TV series popped up in the first reel. Everybody was back in their 1960s Trek uniforms. “I’m a doctor, not a physicist!” Scotty kinaa git anae mae powae frim the engins. Ahead warp factor five, Mr. Sulu!
Thanks, Boyle. Sorry about that.
VINCE,
Are you saying one’s actions can’t tell us about what they may be thinking? I don’t have to live in the 1700s to understand people thought in the 1700s. It is no different than my kids being in college and knowing what I would do if I were there with them. You keep contradicting yourself because on one hand you say only follow the words of the constitution but then use the free exercise thereof to come up with the words separation of church and state. I am only saying that separation of church and state is interpreted as what the founders meant so interpretation plays a role and you just need to accept that.
Boyle, I reread your posts. You started out by saying “There is no mention in the constitution of separation of church and state.”
Well, you now seem to finally recognize that statement was false. You now say you are making the point that the “exact words” of separation of church and state are not written.” Good. That is progress. There is mention of separation because that concept and doctrine is in the First Amendment. Fine.
Vince,
What I have never figured out is how a valedictorian using the name “Jesus” in a speech is somehow unacceptable to many and they claim it has to do with separation of church and state. The Valedictorian is a private citizen giving a speech based on perosnal achievement. The government is not establishing anything in that speech. What are your thoughts?
The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” so having the 10 commandements posted is not a violation of any right as long as the government doesn’t pass a law requiring they be posted. Unfortunately, many on the left don’t interpret it this way but this is exactly what it says. When the left take the position they are illegal they have no constitutional grounds when no congress makes no law.
Great reasoning for a “male” only president:
In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution appears to establish only three ironclad qualifications for president. The president must (1) be at least 35 years old, (2) have lived in the United States at least 14 years, and (3) be a natural-born citizen. Yet, Article II, Section 1 declares that the President will be a man 16 times. Further, as noted by J.A. Corry, principal of Queen’s University in London, and Henry J. Abraham, Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, in their political science text book, Elements of Democratic Government (©1964; Oxford University Press) that in addition to the “written” qualifications for the office, there are also several “unwritten” qualifications and customary requirements that precedent has added to the qualifications for the office of President of the United States. Corry and Abraham insist these prerequisites must be viewed in the light of the entire composite. Being male is necessarily one of them.
Moreover, the Founding Fathers specifically wrote into the Constitution a male-gendered office called President. Article II, Section 1 begins: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows…” You really do not have to read further to realize the role of President of the United States is gender-specific. Note the qualifications for the office of Congressman found in Article I, Section 1:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States…No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years, and been 7 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen…” There is no gender specification in the description of a Congressman. Nor is there any in the qualifications for Senator found in Article I, Section 2: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the legislature thereof…No person shall be a Senator who shall have attained the age of 30 years, and been 9 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” Only one time, in one sentence, in Article I are the members of the House and/or Senate collectively referred to in male gender, and that is in Section 6, paragraph 2. In that instance, the usage is basically generic since there is no individual gender specific reference made for an individual person. In this single instance, the Constitution is clarifying that Congressmen and Senators may not serve a dual role in the Executive Branch of government.
Four times in Article I, Section 7 the President is referred to specifically as a man. Again, this was not an accident. The President is referred to, by gender, a total of 20 times in the Constitution. Most constitutional scholars agree that the Founding Fathers intended to establish a male gender national leader. In doing so, they explicitly barred women from ever becoming the President of the United States without first enacting a constitutional amendment that would allow them to accept the office if elected (since there appears to be nothing that bars them from seeking the office—only serving it if elected)
Very interesting. Sorry you did not write it yourself. Readers can find it at all http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon218.htm where it was originally written by By Jon Christian Ryter, (a pseudonym for someone at the Washington Times, website http://www.jonchristianryter.com ) February 16, 2008,NewsWithViews.com. Most of us here at the Turley site try to attribute our sources.
“Ryder” is not very convincing. He says women may be members of Congress but not President, because in “Only one time, in one sentence, in Article I are the members of the House and/or Senate collectively referred to in male gender, and that is in Section 6, paragraph 2.” Really? Only one time? He does not seem to notice another instance, in the very language he quotes, where both a Senator and a representative must be an inhabitant of that State in which “he” shall be chosen.”
He says that in Section 6, paragraph 2, “the usage is basically generic since there is no individual gender specific reference made for an individual person.”
As I have made abundantly clear above, the Constitution makes no sense at all unless the pronoun “he” and “she” are treated consistently throughout the original document and its amendments, and that those pronouns are not gender specific, but refer to men and women alike.
“The work of Sisyphus may be thankless but it can be very entertaining.”
Buddha,
I’m not a Sisyphus kind of guy. I like Alexander and cutting the Gordian Knot. Vince has displayed the patience of a saint in trying to educate Mr. Boyle, who is un-educatable. My take is that he’s some upper middle-class Texas guy, who is totally greedy and has rationalized it to the point that he doesn’t have a clue as to what Jesus was talking about. This is how he manages to be both totally selfish, while ostensibly promoting a selfless religion. He’s one of those Republican types that see empathy as a dirty word and fails to understand that at least from Jesus’ perspective the whole point of Christianity is empathy.
I refuse to further engage with him because he selectively responds to Vince’s and my points, using their well-known tactic to ask another question to draw your attention away from the fact that their arguments have been demolished. He is a silly man through all of this as he plays his imaginary game of bait the liberals, while evincing no understanding of what they or true conservatives stand for. He is not a stupid man, or dumb as he’s called me, but just an ignorant one who doesn’t realize the shallowness of his own views, nor his own lack of morality inherent in the views he espouses.
Mike S,
Oh absolutely, I’m more of an Alexander type myself and agree with your assessment. I do appreciate Vince’s patience as much as his skill though. While he may never penetrate the over-dense skull of his current direct audience, he educates passive readers nonetheless.
Mike,
You couldn’t possibly understand who Jesus is. Here are 2 reasons why:
1. In the parable of the talents Jesus scolded the one who buried his in the sand (no empathy) but rewarded those who invested.
2. In the parable of the 10 virgins, the 5 who didnt have oil for their lamps missed the return of Christ because they had to go and buy some. The 5 who had oil didn’t share and were not condemned for not sharing.
Furthermore, to have empathy as you state, I would have to feel the experiences of all. Crist said he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly and I am to agree with him.
Christ in last paragraph.
James,
Thanks, that was the best laugh I’ve had all day (not necessarily at what you said, but at the who you said it to).
Mke, You said earlier that Bush gave lots of money to the rich and none to the poor. How is letting you keep what you earn “giving?” You have a minute understanding of tax fairness. If you disagree, then give all you have to the poor and follow Christ. You would sure be empathetic then.
James,
Stop it, you’ve cost me a quarter of a cup of coffee that I spit up on the keyboard.
I don’t know why I find this so funny, but I do. I promise though, I’m not laughing at you, no insult is intended. From now on: if you mention being more like Jesus to Mike, just assume I’m laughing.
Boyle, plagiarism is to use the words of another and then to present of them as one’s own writing. As you have taken the words of Ryter without attribution and presented them as your own, plagiarist, it ill behooves you to cast your religious aspersions on Mike or any other poster at this site.
Mike, and BIL, sincerely I thank you for your comments. Live long and prosper. Here at the site VOTED THE #1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL ™© all rights reserved I try not to call anyone stupid, but stick to law, facts and logic and try to learn something myself.
Mr. Boyle, although this is not a site devoted to theology, I cannot resist responding to your comments to Mike S. Your view of the parables in question is consistent with what I call evangelical materialism, the belief prevalent among fundamentalist Christians that the New Testament was actually intended as a sort of handbook for investors who spoke Aramaic. Thus the equally prevalent belief that financial wealth is proof of God’s grace. These stories are called parables for a reason. They have nothing to do with the stock market, or not sharing or reading Ayn Rand. You have surely noted that there is no mention in the bible of any of the disciples driving a Lamborghini or even a pimped out camel. The parable of the talents refers to what each of us does with his or her abilities for the benefit of the master (God). The parable of the virgins (maidens to us older folks) relates to spirituality, the storing up of grace through prayer (and yes, good works as well)in preparation for the end of this life, which can come at any time. Those are the traditional interpretations, which predate modern fundamentalism by hundreds of years. Finally, your position that empathy has no place in Christianity is absurd; it is an adjunct to charity, the greatest of the commandments.
Vince,
I never said they were my words. I said great reasoning!!!!!
“…a pimped out camel”
_______
I just knew that if I kept returning to J.E.Bs ‘Crist’ thread that I would eventually be rewarded with an period-piece laugh. Thanks Mike A.
FFLEO,
God doesn’t just want us to have an excellent stock portfolio and a tricked out camel. He wants us to have a very good laugh. For this reason he created Mike A.! That was rather fabulous!!!
No!
Mike is wrong. There is nothing wrong with being accounable. The 5 virgins asked for oil and were told no. The poor would ask Mike but he won’t give. He hasn’t said he would sell all he has and follow Christ. Also, Christ never commanded us to be poor. The rich young ruler had a problem with money and that was his test. Mike has a probelm with empathy so that is his test.
Also, he is wrong about the talents. Remember the one who didn’t invest was told at least he could have tried to increase what he had.
If you think the disciples were poor, you don’t know anything. There is nothing wrong with wealth as long as it is not your master.
Finally, a government that rewards those who do not work is a government that will collapse. We are collapsing!!!
Boyle, the words were posted under your name without quotations or attribution of any kind. That is plagiarism, whether you understand it or not
I am not responding to any more of your posts. You can go on as long as you want having the last word to your heart’s content.
Mike,
When God said he would pour out his blessing and thre would not be room to contain it in relation to tithing, you probably think he meant welfare checks that barely put food on the table.
Mr. Boyle, I’m not going to engage in a theological debate with you because it would be interminable. I just wish that you had had an opportunity to speak with Mother Teresa years ago so that she wouldn’t have wasted all her time on those welfare wastrels.
Mike A:
Ever try to argue Proust with a child? I haven’t. Let me know how it turns out with the pious Mr. Boyle.
All those works by Mother Teresa are for nothing if she didn’t accept Christ. Christ said that you must be born again and that there is no other way to the father except through him. Paul said for by grace we are saved through FAITH, not Works.
Mike and Vince,
I wonder if you guys would allow Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama to take over your bank accounts and if so, how much do you think you would have in one year?
James Boyle:
“All those works by Mother Teresa are for nothing if she didn’t accept Christ.”
***************
“Where is my faith? Even deep down … there is nothing but emptiness and darkness … If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul … How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, … What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”
–Mother Theresa
Following your formula then, all her works were for nothing. Wonder if the people she helped feel that way? Or maybe her works did accomplish something (albeit motivated by a delusion at times) and thus your premise is wrong. Guess not since that would challenge your arrogant notion that you and your ilk know the world and everything in it because some First Century book tells you so.
The problem with works is the focus is on you and not Christ and yes if Mother Teresa had no faith then she didn’t and will not make it to heaven. There is no way Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection mean nothing. But, that is what you are saying if the focus is on works because again the focus of workd is yourself.
“Your view of the parables in question is consistent with what I call evangelical materialism, the belief prevalent among fundamentalist Christians that the New Testament was actually intended as a sort of handbook for investors who spoke Aramaic. Thus the equally prevalent belief that financial wealth is proof of God’s grace.”
Mike A.,
As usual dead on target. This is exactly where Mr.Boyle is coming from. Now as you know, I am not a Christian, but have read extensively on Christianity and the Gospels. I find it just astounding that Mr. Boyle and his ilk have managed to read into their bible (whichever version they use), that which is clearly not there. The technique of course is to pick and choose that which reinforces their prejudice, while downplaying those parts that demolish those same prejudices.
(i.e. Golden Rule, Rich man…eye of camel,etc.). As usual your elegance of style and eloquence demolishes his views succinctly as opposed to my own garrulous wordiness (not fishing for return complement, I’m happy with my writing, but yet can admire really good stuff, please take that in).
In the end though this is not about Mr. Boyle’s religious views. He’s just one of these fundamentalist conservative types that think they are having a grand old time tweaking Liberal sensibilities. His problem of course is that he has only the most superficial understanding of what liberal, conservative, moderate, etc. means. Coming from Texas, a State whose only understanding of civil liberty is the right to make money, his understanding of the fact that the system has been rigged in favor of the wealthy since its’ inception is as limited as his knowledge of history or politics.
Sadly, he is not a stupid man, but he is so limited by his varied prejudices, that he lives in a state (State) of ignorance. You notice how in his latest posts there are plaintively pathetic attempts to re-engage Vince and I in dialogue. By not responding to him directly we are spoiling his “fun.” My initial reaction upon seeing this latest spate of posts and those refuting him by the mature people on this site, like yourself, was to really excoriate him. However, that feeling passed quickly as I realized what a total waste of effort that would be and imagined him chortling as he drafted his next inane reply. In the end he’s just another fundamentalist troll without the sensibility to understand the difference between a Civil Liberties site and a Liberal site. This is the unfortunate blow back from blowhards in the age of Limbaugh, Falwell and Robertson
Mike and Vince,
I wonder if you guys would allow Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama to take over your bank accounts and if so, how much do you think you would have in one year?
Repeat on different topic
Constitutional; question:
Doesn’t the 10th amendment allow states to be totally in charge of education?
James/J.E.B.
I do not think any reasonable person will continue to respond to you.
In addition, the problem with the Bio and Latest Column sections is that they allow *anyone* to start a new thread topic and it dilutes the good professor’s curriculum vitae and well-written columns. You are Exhibit A, for sure and for certain.
I called ’em likes I a saws ’em.
Hello all,
I just spent 11 days in Oahu and Maui with an iPhone, but no PC, and was able to follow this expansive thread with fascination (but not post to it). Vince has admirably tried to reason with the unreasonable, and Mike A and Mike S did an excellent job of summing up the Boils (spelling intended, i.e. a pustule on God’s ass) of the world. Kudos, you have handled it much better than I could have.
To KS and Turley on Secret Societies. Wanna stop it, find someone to champion the following legislation http://www.iviewit.tv/senatecultbill.htm
Hello Mr. Turley,
Just a quick note to tell you that I’ve recently completed a small mosaic portrait of you entitled “Voice of Reason”. It’s the most recent in an ongoing series of folks I admire.
Here’s a link if you’re interested in checking it out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gilamosaics/sets/72157618737196097/detail/
Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
Gila Rayberg
Gila,
Professor Turley’s mosaic is extremely well done and your post is most relevant to this Bio thread.
‘The Voice of Reason’, indeed!
Jonathan P.
You should have stayed in Hawaii Your comments are of an uneducated individual who quite obviuosly needs to find God.
Really, Boyle? Where did you learn to spell “obviously”? Some institute of higher learning, I’m sure.
Gila:
I am very very flattered by the mosaic, which is a beautiful piece of art (even discounting my infatuation with the subject. As someone who loves art but never found such talent, I am incredibly honored by interest. I also particularly loved your piece on my late friend, Tim Russert.
Thanks so much,
Jonathan
J.P.
I am glad to see that you admit to the need to find God. Also, your “quacky” friends have proved nothing other than stating an opinion. I asked the question to which neither of your friends wanted to answer. Would allow Nance Pelosi or Barak Obama spend your bank account? In addition, I am no fan of Bush either when it comes to spending money so don’t use his administration in a rebuttal.
Sorry Boyle, I’m not going to be lured into an argument you’ve already lost. If there IS a God, he laughs at people like you.
Jonathan P
Trust me dear friend, there IS a GOD and HE is VERY displeased with people like Boyle & co. HE does know what HE has done and what HE has said and Boyle & co are NOT examples of what HE has said!!
Dr. Turley,
A few people have commented that the site is getting a bit awkward to navigate. I work with Word Press a bit and would like to offer my services free and without any attribution, should you ever feel a need to update, archive and so on.
Thanks and cheers!
SPY
Write one thing that I have said that is not true. Make sure to back up with scripture to disprove anything that seems to be wrong. Also, nowhere in scripture can you find that government should be the source for helping people.
James Boyle:
“Also, nowhere in scripture can you find that government should be the source for helping people.”
*************
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good.”
–Romans 12:1-4
Jim, do you ever read the sources you quote?
BTW most of what you say is neither true nor false it’s just opinion–uninformed opinion, but opinion none the less.
thatmtnman:
I would certainly be interested in any thoughts that you might have. I am interested in knowing how the site might be approved and why it is “a bit awkward to navigate.”
Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan P.: I have been meaning to say thanks for the kind words above.
I am sorry your message to me and the Mikes provoked that outburst from jeb, but it’s typical: for crying out loud, he even trashed Mother Teresa!
thatmtnman:
If JT takes you up on your kind offer, put me down for a preview box, spell checker, archive by date function, and word processor function so I can either bold face or italicize the fonts.
SPY
Subjecting yourself to government authority is not the same as government being the source for one’s finances. If government requires me to pay taxes, I pay taxes. That however doesn’t mean that God expects for people to live off the government. Adam was commanded to be fruitful and multiply. He wasn’t told that government would take care of him. Also, Christ didn’t ever say we are to live off the government.
God wants us to live well. I don’t think she cares if we “live off the government” or we don’t “live off the government”.
Vince,
I did not trash Mother Teresa. I simply stated that her works can’t get her to heaven because one’s works would bring all glory to one’s self. We work because of our faith in Christ. Mother Teresa was quoted as not having or at least questioning her faith. So, again, if she didn’t put her trust in Christ, then she did not make heaven otherwise Christ would be a liar for saying that we must be born again and that he is the only way to the father. Remember Paul scolded the Jews for being tied to the law because we are saved through grace.
James E. Boyle:
“Also, Christ didn’t ever say we are to live off the government.”
************
Wow Jim you really do have trouble with this Book don’t you. Try reading it sometime instead of just saying what you were told it says. Now conclusively proven that the Scriptures do call for government to do good unto others you morph your ignorance to say that Scriptures do not say that government should financially support those in need. Well Jesus said that all of us should support the poor, and since we are the government in this Country unless you theocrats get your way, don’t we have a Biblical charge to support the poor? Let me know if you need the multitude (about 300 I am told) of citations in the Good Book requiring us to support the poor. Here’s an appetizer:
” If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.” Deut. 15:7.
James E. Boyle:
“So, again, if she didn’t put her trust in Christ, then she did not make heaven otherwise Christ would be a liar for saying that we must be born again and that he is the only way to the father.”
************
Wonder what happened to all those pious Jews who died before Jesus’ birth? How about the children who die at birth now, or the ones who grow up Muslim or Buddhist? All going to hell for things they had no control over? I love the confidence of your position in the face of all the proof that points to its nonsense. Let’s call it faith, or more accurately believing in things for which there are no good reasons to do so.
MESPO,
I am asked to help the people in need. The government doing it for me and helping people who refuse to work is not what God intended. We pay tithe to our church so there will be meat in God’s house. In other words, the church should be helping the poor, not the government.
MESPO
Ever hear of Noah’s ark. All the children died not on the ark. They had no control. Also, people who have not reached the age of accountability go to heaven. People who died before Christ were under the law, not grace.
“The government doing it for me and helping people who refuse to work is not what God intended. ”
************
Tell me James, what else does God intend? I haven’t spoken to him nor has anyone I know claimed to have done so either. Tell us with the full confidence of your conviction exactly what the creator of the universe told you about his intent, and then explain to me why, of all the life forms in the cosmos, he picked you? Then we can get into why he told Mohammed something different.
James E. Boyle:
“Ever hear of Noah’s ark. All the children died not on the ark”
******************
I am more interested to know why a loving, all-powerful, omniscient Being saw fit to kill every man, woman and child on earth save only Noah’s clan and a few animals to prove a point.
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was god. I have the Bible. Mohammed was a thief. He also was the leader of a sect who worshipped the moon called Allah. Now you know why there is a 1/2 crescent moon on top of mosques. By the way Mohammed is still in the grave but Jesus is alive.
Mespo, You can see why we had to cease engaging that guy, since it can only provoke him. He says that the exact words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the Constitution. I have since read that, although a lot of people think that justification is by “faith alone,” it turns out that they cannot find those “exact words” in the Bible, and have to fall back on interpretations and inferences from the actual writings. Tough luck.
God hates sin. That is why.
Ephesians 2:8-9. Faith is mentioned.
Does not say “faith alone.”
Saved through faith.
Vince:
“You can see why we had to cease engaging that guy, since it can only provoke him.”
***********
It’s just fun to argue with an ideologue when you know his holy books better than he does. For example, most educated folks know that Muslims have the deluded belief that Mohammed ascended into heaven on a white, winged, horse-like animal, thus no grave. Sort of like, well Jesus’ ascension which he accomplished sans the horse.
Does not say “faith alone.”
James Boyle:
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
James 2: 21-24
So which is it? Are we justified by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 4:2) or through our works? Just another direct contradiction in the inerrant word of the creator of the universe. I await James Boyle’s interpretation!
Dear Jonathan,
As I thought about your site, and what little I know of you, I think there would be several options and or strategies for you to consider. Since we haven’t had an opportunity to discuss what your needs are, and how you want to develop this internet presence I would be merely guessing at this point. Having said that, allow me to put a few thoughts down for you. At some point we would be wanting to be having our discussions less in the open.
You have an enthusiastic group of followers. One approach is that you might want to ask them what kinds of features they would like to see. As you have most likely read, there was already one request. Should incorporating your community’s feedback be an avenue you wish to explore, there are a couple of ways to do that. We could come up with some ideas acceptable to you, then put it to your community and implement what results come out of that process. Or we could ask the community for a list of things that are important to them.
Secondly, I notice that you appear regularly on TV. You might want to consider organizing the site by medium. So for example, you might want to have a section for ‘Latest television appearances’. Perhaps even you might want to divide that section further into say, Rachel Maddow’s show, and others. There are some convenient cross branding opportunities in those kinds of scenarios. Alternatively, you might organize your site around your latest written work, or a ‘topic of the day’ or in any number of ways reflecting your diverse work-be that TV appearances, or a column, or academic or all three.
You definitely should archive posts in some fashion, as just getting to the latest post can take quiet some time, especially if a user is accessing your site from a mobile phone. Given the enthusiastic debates you might also consider some sort of ‘Socratic corner’, where you put out a topic and your community interacts. There are also some standard things you would want to include, such as an ‘About’ page, which I note you already have. But to that you could add a section for your published works, perhaps upcoming appearances and so on.
The separation of your site into various sections, how ever you might do it, would in and of itself create a navigation structure and would help organize things. It really is up to you. Ultimately, we can create a mock up, refine it to your liking, and do an update.
I hope this helps or at the very least gives you some food for thought. Finally, like everyone else allow me to thank you for that great voice of reason.
cheers!
thatmtnman:
Thanks so much for those thoughts. I have created thread today to talk about possible changes with the regulars to see what ideas might be offered. It is an effort to poll the pack.
Jonathan
mespo727272 1, June 4, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Mike A:
Ever try to argue Proust with a child? I haven’t. Let me know how it turns out with the pious Mr. Boyle.
—
Mespo, lol!
Speaking of ‘Boils’ how were those Maryland Blues, yesterday? I’m envious, a smidge. We find tasty crab here, but it’s usually already picked. I make a baked crab dip that’s a staple
fav for sit-downs and your basic chilled salad – always perfect on toasted rolls.
Last night was much needed and long overdue fun. My ‘other worldy’ flambe was ripe, spiced, pear halves softened and warmed in brown sugar, melted butter, over coals and flamed with dark rum and served gingerly over ginger ice cream.
Dramatic and delicious, it was! How about Cherries or Peach Melba, for you guys?
http://www.diynetwork.com/diy/lc_desserts/article/0,2041,DIY_14000_2273503,00.html
Patty C:
Crabs were great. Now it’s time to make crabcakes with the leftover backfin meat. We went with the pineapple upside down cake for dessert. Big hit as well!
I gave you my crabcake recipe with the key lime aioli
– I know I did. Forget the diet… ;o
Bon Appetite!
Europe falls far to the right as voters choose EU Parliaments
By MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN and ROBERT WIELAARD
June 7, 2009
Associated Press
2 hrs 9 mins ago
BRUSSELS – Europe fell far to the right Sunday as tens of millions of people voted in European Parliament elections, with conservative parties favored in most countries.
Election results & polls are showing Conservative wins over their opposition in Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Britain, Spain and some smaller countries.
This amid theories these elections are a referendum on the United States election of a liberal President.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_re_eu/european_elections/print
Conservatism all the way!!!!!!!!
MESPO
No Abraham was justified by his faith. Faith without works is dead. Abraham showed his faith with his works of obedience. You see too many people want to work their way into heaven but have no faith. Take the thief on the cross. He had no works but his belief in Christ caused Christ to say “you shall be with me in paradise.” Faith is a pre-requisite to works. Works without faith gets you nowhere with God but may get you somewhere with man. God looks at the heart and knows our motivation. This is why we are not to judge. Do you really believe that Obama wants to help people or is he looking for votes? We may not truly know this answer but I believe through his actions we shall be able to find out.
PS: Mohammed didn’t ascend into heaven He ascended to the moon where the moon god allah is. Christ ascended to God the father who made the moon.
‘This Document is Toilet Paper For the Americans If They Want It’
THE Obama Administration now confirms that at least 74 former Guantanamo detainees have resumed terror ist activities after claiming they weren’t terrorists.
These dangerous prisoners should never have been cleared for release. Why did interrogators fail to find the cracks in their stories and alibis?
Why wasn’t more intelligence gathered to predict they’d rejoin al Qaeda or the Taliban? In a word, politics. Gitmo interrogations have been emasculated to placate critics of waterboarding and other “torture,” say senior administration officials.
Even known terrorists are spared high-pressure techniques — tactics that have worked before in squeezing out information.
For that matter, Gitmo doesn’t even do “interrogations” anymore. They’re now called interviews, and they’re voluntary.
Many recidivists used the interviews as an opportunity to argue for release, spinning familiar excuses for why they were in Afghanistan after 9/11. They were freed after interrogators, many of them inexperienced, for the most part bought their sob stories and review boards judged them least likely to return to jihad.
“We have on numerous occasions gotten literally straight-from-the-schoolhouse interrogators who are being stuck in with these hardened jihadists,” a top security official at Gitmo told me. “And they essentially look at them and laugh.”
He says many are 19-year-olds who lack battlefield skills and don’t understand the first thing about jihad and militant Islam.
“They get played by detainees, who end up getting released because the interrogators believe them when they say they don’t know anything and just want to go home and be a goat herder,” he says.
As a condition of their release, the Gitmo detainees signed pledges to renounce violence and enroll in “reintegration programs” in countries that agreed to repatriate them.
Terrorist Said Ali al-Shihri went through the resort-like Saudi program after his release in 2007.
Afterward, he helped plan last year’s deadly attack on the US Embassy in Yemen as al Qaeda’s operations chief there.
Another Gitmo recidivist, Slimane Hadj Abderahmane, laughed at the anti-violence agreement he signed. Once free, he re-engaged in terror and said, “This document is toilet paper for the Americans if they want it.”
Jew
Great reporting!
If we become weasels towards captured terrorists, it will only be a matter of time before we get hit again. Then, Dick Cheney will be asked to once again report for duty. He may not be liked today but our country is safer today than it was in 2001.
Can Al Gore be legally liable for damages for sending his two journalists to North Korea? Al Gore is worth over 150 million dollars. These two journalists could have been shot on the spot in North Korea. Al Gore needs to answer some questions.
CAN I GET AN ANSWER PLEASE OR DO I HAVE TO GO TO A BLOG WHERE THERE ARE REAL ATTORNEYS POSTING INSTEAD OF YOU PHONIES?
Markk, guess you’ll have to go to a blog where there are real attorneys. Good luck with that.
PHILADELPHIA, June 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Operation Rescue said today that it is appalled to learn that Philadelphia Women’s Center gave away free abortions on Tuesday as a means of “honoring” slain late-term abortionist George Tiller. “There seems to be no comprehension of the value of human life with these people. Killing babies for free to honor someone who was murdered can only be described as sick,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. The abortion facility told the media that an unspecified number of abortions were done free of charge in memory of Dr. Tiller.
can we be truthful here? Tiller did about 60,000 abortions at an estimated $2,000 each. That is $120,000,000! Tiller died a very rich man aborting babies that were capable of living on their outside the womb…that is sick.
Mr. Yitzak has declined to address the subject matter of any of the threads, which would entail some independent thought, preferring instead to create a twisted path of hate-filled rubble through all of the threads, much like a tornado,lacking any purpose identifiable by reason or logic, but grimly determined to cause as much mayhem and destruction as possible in the course of his mindless excursion.
Mr. Boyle, if you are the least bit familiar with your history, you know that Mr. Cheney refused to report for duty with the rest of us in the ’60s. Like Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Hannity and other bellicose conservative talking heads, the only green he has ever been interested in lines his wallet. You need to look elsewhere for your examples of patriotic courage.
Mike,
Duty as in charge of defense and authority of giving advice on what to do with terrorists. No one said anything about the military.
Also, abortions given because a female simply doesn’t want the burden or gets headaches, is no reason for killing a human being. No one deserves to be murdered. I completely disagree with Tiller’s practices but am deeply saddened by his death. What we need is a dialogue on protesting peacefully and what we should do about abortions in today’s society. If we really want to get to some real change, we will talk about sex outside the confines of marriage. This alone will greatly reduce the # of abortions in this country and set us back on to the path of moral character which we deeply need.
“If we really want to get to some real change, we will talk about sex outside the confines of marriage. This alone will greatly reduce the # of abortions in this country and set us back on to the path of moral character which we deeply need.”
Mr. Boyle,
Thank you for finally getting to the heart of the abortion opposition. This has never been about babies per se. What it really is all about is punishing women for having sex outside of marriage. Your version of your religion interests itself predominantly in sex, focused specifically on a fear of women’s sexuality. By interpreting Jesus message this way you can ignore the true sins of the world and at the same time attempt to retain male dominance.
I happen to believe that sex outside of marriage is healthy and normal. People need to take test drives and that is why the divorce rate in the “Bible Belt” is much higher than it is in the “blue states.” It is also why the “Abstinence” initiative has been a failure and it is found that it even encourages pregnancies.
My religion, incidentally believes that life begins when God blows the first breath into a newborns lungs. To my religious sensibilities your version of Christianity has it all wrong. How can this be resolved? Easily. The people who believe as you do shouldn’t get abortions and you should leave the rest of us alone. This will allow us all to follow our faiths in peace, instead of in murderous rampages like the one that killed Dr. Tiller.
Whenever people of a particular religious belief try to impose their belief on others death and mayhem occurs. The other part of that is it allows demagogues to use people’s religious beliefs to put themselves into positions of power. What I find so inconsistent about your particular viewpoint is that while you are willing to regulate a most personal aspect of a woman’s life, you shudder at government taxes and regulation of businesses. To me this is the dichotomy of some Christian fundamentalists and I do believe that it is a viewpoint motivated by personal greed and a misunderstanding
of true religious values. You are aware of Hillel, but you are impervious to his teachings.
The Other Mike
Mike,
You missed the point. Sex before marriage is wrong. Your angle is saying that people don’t marry for love but rather lust. This wrong. People simply don’t want commitment anymore. Just because divorce is high in the Bible Belt, doesn’t give moral right to have sex before marriage. There are consequences to these actions. Unfortnately, BOTH women and men want to play but not pay. If they are not held accountable by our country then God will hold the country responsible and yes they will be judged when their time on earth expires. “Blessed is the nation whose lord is God”
“You missed the point. Sex before marriage is wrong.”
Mr.Boyle,
I had lots of sex prior to my almost 3 decade marriage, where I’ve never been unfaithful or even flirted with another woman and nobody ever became pregnant. My parents, whose marriage you extol, saw nothing wrong with non-marital sex as long as their sons behaved responsibly. I agree with them and I reject your belief, but defend your right to have it. I do believe though that if you could you would impose your belief on the rest of us and to me this is not only wrong, but it is curiously anti-God. This is because in the teachings you follow people have to make choices in order to be judged. If you take away their choice, then how can they be judged?
You would of course answer that Jesus knows what is in everyone’s heart and I would respond by saying your view of the world is like that of a puppet show, with God pulling the strings. This to me would be blasphemy in the sense that the creator of the Universe would be way beyond creating a planet and humanity to watch a puppet show.
There is also a dichotomy when you state:
“There are consequences to these actions. Unfortnately, BOTH women and men want to play but not pay. If they are not held accountable by our country then God will hold the country responsible and yes they will be judged when their time on earth expires. “Blessed is the nation whose lord is God”
Didn’t you say in posts way above this one that the determinant of entry into heaven is faith, not acts. If this is so then a true believer in Jesus, no matter how they’ve acted will be admitted to heaven. This doesn’t make sense and to me trivializes God.
“Didn’t you say in posts way above this one that the determinant of entry into heaven is faith, not acts. If this is so then a true believer in Jesus, no matter how
they’ve acted will be admitted to heaven.”
Thank you for beating me to this. I dated a “Christian” woman for years, and she believed (as does Boyle, I assume) that the only criterion for salvation is faith. In other words, you can do ANYTHING, either before or while believing in Christ as our savior, and still be saved. In my opinion, buying into that deal (whether it turns out to be true or not) is immoral.
To take my last comment one step further, doesn’t faith obviate sin? What is the punishment for a faithful sinner?
“All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”
Rom: 3:23
A christian will be judged by what he has done because of his faith in Christ. An unbeliever will be judged by what they did but they are not nder grace. NO! You can’t dowhat you want and expect to God to forgive. God forgives a repentant heart. I ahve always been consistent in my message.
Mike, Your parents may not have had a problem with your forniation but I can assure you God does. This is peopl’es biggest problem. They sin frely because they don’t believe there to be a consequence. It should also be noted that when we sin, we can ask forgiveness. We however can’t lve in sin. To live in sin with no uneasy feeling is a great sign of being lost for eternity.
Mr. Boyle:
Forniation is sin? What is “forniation” so I dont do it without knowing? If I did forniate and did not know what it was would I be a sinner?
Please I don’t want to be a forniator without foreknowledge.
With all due respect, Mr Boyle, the God that you describe sounds like a larger, most heinous abomination than any human has ever been. We did not ask to be born nor did we select the conditions in which we were born. I believe we are all like kites flying in the breeze. If some of us get caught in a tree, either by chance or by choice, I would not expect God to sentence us to damnation. When I die, if there is a God, I am going to have lots of questions and I will be sure to bring up your name….
Fusion:
There is a God and I pray that you find him through his son Jesus Christ. God said “If my people who are called by name will hunble themselves and pray and seek my face and TURN from their wicked ways, then they will hear from heaven and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
Indentured servant:
FORNICATION
“An unbeliever will be judged by what they did but they are not nder grace. NO! You can’t dowhat you want and expect to God to forgive.”
Mr. Boyle,
As a Jew I do not believe in heaven or hell. I believe, as do most Jews, that humanity’s mission is to make THIS world into a paradise. We do not believe that this world is evil since it is infused by God. The two great missions for humanity according to the Jewish Religion are to “Heal the World” and to do works of charity(Tikkun Olam & Tzedakah).
How someone behaves under these two guiding principles is how God judges them, despite the religious beliefs, or lack of same.
Now approaching my mid 60’s I have spent a lifetime trying to live up to these principles. I believe I have done so faithfully. However, the other Jewish impetus is the seeking of knowledge and that I have also done. I have studied various religions, including Christianity and my outlook on God is deistic and comfortable with the knowledge that good people of any belief are loved by God. No one religion, though most profess to, can completely explain the Deity. That is because we lack the stature as human beings to understand God’s meaning or purpose. I choose to live my life as a Jew, because Judaism resonates with me. I won’t impose my beliefs on you, if you don’t try to impose yours on me, or my country.
“Mike, Your parents may not have had a problem with your forniation but I can assure you God does.”
Au Contraire, Mr. Boyle, I can assure you that God does not!
Part of the reason for my confidence is that I have actually done a lot of reading on how Christianity came to be. Most of the principles of what you call Christianity today were set down by a Pagan Roman Emperor at the Council of Nicaea 320CE. Constantine needed the Christians to solidify his power and so hi-jacked it and molded it into a religion that was more familiar to Roman sensibility. Even December 25th was a birthday of the God Mithra, also born of a virgin and
before Mithraism (the predominant religion of the Roman Legions)also marked the celebration of the ancient winter solstice holiday of Saturnalia. This holiday traditionally was celebrated with sexual orgies.
Now as far as sex and Christianity went there were Christian Bishops, like Iraneus who was misogynist and there were the large part of the Gnostics, who believe sex was dirty. The Gnostics were eliminated, but their beliefs stayed. Misogyny
fit in well with the roman outlook and so stayed also. None of this had much to do with Jesus and/or Jewish teachings.
If there is a heaven, despite my “fornication,” I’ll be there. I wonder though how many of your fellow parishioners will be there too?
Tsk tsk tsk . . . that pesky Council of Nicea rears its ugly head again. Oh when will history quit disrupting delusion that God Himself wrote the Bible! Oh when will the sheep fully have their own wool pulled over their eyes!😀
The Bible was inspired by God. I know people that have been diagnosed with cancer. We prayed upon the authority of God’s word which can’t lie. They went back to their doctor and he could find no evdence of having cancer. I have a wonderful friend who stopped for gas only to find he had no cash. He prayed for $10 and suddenly a $10 bill floated from the sky to his hand. The same God who performed these miracles through his son Jesus also inspired Paul to talk directly against fornication and adultery. Paul also explained very clearly why God has blinded the eyes of the Jew in Romans 10-11—Unbelief. America has ben blessed because of our efforts to spread Christianity around the world. We now are following the path of the old Roman empire and saddly what happened to them is happening to us. It won’t be long brfore we are a third world nation drowned in debt and anti-God. I won’t see it because the rapture of the church will have taken place and I will be in heaven. But it is coming and if people can’t watch the signs then they are in the category of being blind. Social Security, Medicare, Headstart, welfare have all bankrupted our nation. Now the goverment wants to have national healthcare. This is like putting gas on a fire hoping to put it out.
PS: Social Security is a supplement to retirement. It is too bad that most Americans use it as their only source of income. What did government do? They sided with the people who made bad decisions and now they are doing it again. Taking from one group to give to another never works!!!!
“Paul also explained very clearly why God has blinded the eyes of the Jew in Romans 10-11—Unbelief.”
Mr. Boyle,
Paul was mad because James (Jesus Brother), Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem Church didn’t follow his teachings. They felt, quite rightly, that they were chosen as Jesus disciples, rather than Paul. He was someone who persecuted Jesus followers and the felt off his horse with heat stroke on his way to Damascus. Since he was annoying to them they sent him off to proselytize the gentiles. Jews had no reason to follow Paul and to be frank with you I see no reason to follow him either. I am quite satisfied with my religion. As for the rapture coming I don’t agree. Revelations was written perhaps 200 years after Jesus and never should have been put into the Christian Canon. The irony of it is that most biblical historians believe that revelations was written about the roman persecution of Christians and then a few years later the Romans took over Christianity and placed its’ predictions far into the future. This is what I believe.
As I’ve also written I don’t believe that any religion offers more than an approximation of God and so all people who are cognizant of the Golden Rule will be in heaven, if there is one. This discussion pains me though because I have no desire to question anyone’s deeply held faith, as long as they offer me the same courtesy. As you can see throughout our dialogue I’ve treated you with respect.
I fear though, that in your earnestness you are beginning to disrespect me. In truth you are showing a side of yourself that you have heretofore hidden. You are here on this site to proselytize. In your proselytizing you are being disrespectful, because none here are seeking it and most who post here have their own rather informed view of their faith, or lack of it. I have indeed studied Christianity so there is nothing you can tell me about it. I have my beliefs and you are welcome to yours. However, please do not try to impose your beliefs upon me, or upon my country.
It is in this respect that some Christians have shown disrespect for others. In America our founding fathers were adamantly opposed to blending church and state. In fact their ancestors came to America to escape religious persecution. A vocal minority of Christians in the US today are trying to erase the church/state boundaries and make their teachings the law of the land. We see the same phenomena in some Islamic lands, though with a different faith. The end result is the same: Bigotry and Religious Intolerance. Please do not assist in making our country like some in the Middle East, except ruled by the religious laws that you agree with. This would mean disaster for us and for our children.
In writing this I understand that you are anticipating that “The Rapture” and therefore care little for this planet, your progeny and the possible future. I urge you to believe as you will, but in the small (from your perspective) possibility that you are wrong about dates and for the sake of our progeny, please treat this world and you fellow human beings with the respect I’ve accorded you.
Mr Boyle, Actually, taking from the rich, who may or may not be deserving of the riches, and giving to the poor who may or may not be responsible for their condition, is a good thing. I heard that from Jesus. Actually, the rich should give of their riches to help the poor in all circumstances is what Jesus actually said. But, that never works…
Jesus never said to give to the poor and keep givivng and kep giving and so on. He only stated once to the rich young ruler to give all he had because that man had a greater love for money than he did for God. Taking from one to give to another is theft whether legal or not.
Paul and Silas were in jail and an angel rexcued them. Paul was not upset with the teachings of Peter but rather his hypocrisy. Peter had eyes opened from Cornelius-a Gentile then kept going back to the laws of the Jews. Works takes away from the free gift of salvation that is why it is by faith.
Finally, our founders never intended their to be a separation of church and state but rather both hand in hand. Ben Franklin began prayer in our congres which still exists today. The ten commandments are posted in the Supreme Court. The llaw only states that Congress shall make no LAW establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise there of. George Washington was a man of prayer. Don’t try to refute this by showing their imperfections because we are all imperfect people.
Hi, Professor Turley!
Just wanted to let you know that I enjoy listening to you when you’re on Rachel’s show — oh, and your hair always looks PERFECTLY coiffed! Well done! :o)
Boyle writes
Mike,
You missed the point. Sex before marriage is wrong. Your angle is saying that people don’t marry for love but rather lust. This wrong. People simply don’t want commitment anymore. Just because divorce is high in the Bible Belt, doesn’t give moral right to have sex before marriage. There are consequences to these actions. Unfortnately, BOTH women and men want to play but not pay. If they are not held accountable by our country then God will hold the country responsible and yes they will be judged when their time on earth expires. “Blessed is the nation whose lord is God”
me: see, this is how it works in the real, adult world: you get to be in charge of your life. I get to be in charge of my life. this means that neither you or your religious leaders get to tell me, my sister, my nieces, my daughter or any other females what to do with our bodies. sex is only wrong when someone does not want to copulate but is forced to out of duty or religious belief or as a result of rape.
sex is fun. it feels good.
morality is an individual thing. we all get to sign up for the morals and standards that suit us best.
abortion is not only a remedy to single women who do not choose to carry a pregnancy to term. it is also a remedy for married women who decide with their doctors on a private and legal medical procedure. It’s no one’s business but hers.
don’t like it? too bad.
Mike S writes: f there is a heaven, despite my “fornication,” I’ll be there. I wonder though how many of your fellow parishioners will be there too?
me: seems that there are two new members of the christian right to join this club…. senator ensign (r-tx) and governor sanford (r-sc)
and all they have to do to be forgiven is to stand up at some RNC lunch, cry a little after going on tv to disclose and confess and get a round of applause and return to work. one wonders what the applause is for, being a successful fornicator or crying at their confession.
at least when I fornicate i do so unabashedly and with no fear of losing my job, my family, friends or self-respect.
and when I’m dead, I’ll be dead and that will be it… just another woman who lived life on her own terms whenever possible.
GWLawSchoolMom,
I love the way you write! you’re funny, clear and to the point! “have at ’em’ I say!
cheers!
thatmtnman writes: I love the way you write! you’re funny, clear and to the point! “have at ’em’ I say!
cheers!
me: thanks, doll
It seems to me that modern-date Christianity is all about forgiveness… of Christian sinners. Behavior that would be relentlessly disparaged when done by a non-believer becomes almost a Christian cause celebre when done by a Christian who then asks for forgiveness.
Palin’s pregnant kid, for example, somehow became a paragon of responsible decision-making. If Barack Obama had been running for president with a pregnant-out-of-wedlock teen, he would have been eviscerated by the Christian right (who also would have absurdly denied that there were ANY racial undertones to their criticism).
Dear Prof. Turley,
Do you have a public email? I have a question, actually, John Legend asked it on Twitter, “Any lawyers out there know if MJ’s family/estate can sue doctors/nurses who violate confidentiality after his death?”
I tried looking it up, but couldn’t find anything conclusive. Does the confidentiality clause end once a patient is deceased? Is this law determined state by state?
I realize this isn’t the right place for asking this & I apologize. I looked for your email, but couldn’t find it anywhere on your site.
I hope you can provide an answer.
Thank you
Hello Mr. Turley:
Just a note to let you know that I enjoy listening to you when you are on Countdown. As a young voter, I am fairly disgusted with the current course taken concerning the alleged crimes commited by the previous administration. I believe this is the atmosphere that is responsible for a lack of younger voters casting votes. We see this lack of desire to persue these allegations based purely on politics. Had I commited these alleged crimes, I would be persued vigorously. Why do the laws not apply across the board to ALL Americans? Including those in office.
Sincerely,
John Schrader
young john, Sorry to say that those of wealth, privilege and power do not have to obey the laws that you and I have to. Because they are privileged they feel themselves entitled. Because they are powerful they feel themselves immune. Because they are wealthy they feel themselves superior. So, now go forth with this knowledge and see for yourself if you think this applies..good luck.
Yo prof! Are you going to provide some much-needed commentary and analysis on this Wells Fargo vs Wells Fargo farrago?
Sir:
I enjoy your comments on MSNBC. Also on your Blog which I just re-discovered.
I do have one question: In regard to the Republicans not wanting to investigate the CIA abuses/torture, I was trying to remember if the Republicans raised any objections to the Watergate Hearings and how similar the CIA abuses are to Watergate re: Abuse of Power?
Thank you for any reply you would care to make.
Mr. Turley:
Regarding your item on Bush, Cheney et al in 2002. That which you fear did not take place.
Have you written or sounded off on any of the insanity that is going on in Washington that began shortly after 12 noon on January 20th, 2009?
Are you so idealogically twisted that you do not see the threat to all of our freedoms that are brewing in our nation’s seat of power right now?
I used to think you were an intelligent man; now I fear you are one of the enemy.
VOR,
When those whom you consider to be the enemy are the elected majority, you are merely a subversive, anti-American.
Dear Jonathan,
I enjoy your TV interviews; you slap them crooks around so elegantly. Why do I see you as “John the Giant Killer?” Because I see you maybe as the man who could really make a difference.
I want to bring the Congress to task over the mandatory use of Chemotherapy. In fact a fun thing might be an assault on the entire medical system, it could be an enlightening project for your law students.
I can prove to anyone who will listen, how to cure and prevent cancer for most all kinds, for most all people. I have deemed myself “the worlds leading cancer survival expert” because I have survived three different kinds of documented terminal cancer since 1995 and I know absolutely why and how! And I say; it is the treatment that is killing us and not the cancer!!”
But I can’t legally say “-hit!” When I look up I don’t see folks eager to learn the secret, I see a gigantic steam roller, puffing steam, and shaking the ground around me. I want to scream the truth, but the corrupted deceit has drowned the message of “anyone” opposing the gargantuan medical monopoly.
Let us say it out plain and clear;”because of the policies and the laws imposed by our congress, Human Beings or suffering immensely and dying because of the use of Chemo!” “Information is being withheld with criminal intent to perpetuate and protect a high dollar and well guarded secret, at the expense of the lives of “many Human Beings!”
Will you be my attorney? I will simply speak the truth. At least let me speak to you? Write back? I will explain in a very few words why and how we must revive our immune system “the root core of our life!” Chemtherapy is the practice of injecting poison into our bloodstream; and the immune system is the first thing to die.
Our immune system is the only thing that can do any healing; it has constructed this wonderful masterpiece, cell by cell since conception, 99.9% to a perfect blueprint with over Three Billion parts that all work together real-time with a God given positive inbred drive to survive.
Why do we think that poison can improve this show?
Thanks for all the great work on Countdown.
There is a reason George W. Bush trampled the Constitution. No, he is not a lawyer. But he wanted to be one. Bush applied to the law school at The University of Texas at Austin. He was rejected by Dean Keeton.
Dear Professor Turley;
This morning I heard part of an interview you gave on one of the cable networks about the rights of protesters to carry firearms near the President. I believe I heard you say that there really was nothing that could be done to prevent these people from expressing their Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment by carrying a gun.
I would counter your position by pointing out that both major political parties have no problem truncating the First Amendment “freedom of speech” rights of protesters by forcing dissenting opinions to be expressed at distances of up to a mile away in so-called “free speech zones”, as to avoid possibly offending the sensibilities of said public officials and office holders. As obviously unconstitutional as this censoring of dissent is, there is no similar hue and cry in the corporate media to end this practice. I would hope that at some point you might point up this bit of hypocrisy in one of your regular appearances as a legal expert.
Thanks for your attention.
Amtrak owns the First Amendment?
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/firstamendment/
Judge Orders Westlaw/Lexis To Remove Opinions In Klein v. Amtrak.
Amtrak agreed to a confidential settlement with two PA teens who suffered massive burns in 2002 after they climbed aboard a parked railcar and stepped too close to a live wire. Part of the settlement calls for the trial judge to vacate prior rulings in the case, and have them erased from Lexis and Westlaw.
The August 10 order to vacate, issued by US District Judge Lawrence Stengel, stated that “by separate written communication . . . the Court shall direct LexisNexis and Westlaw to remove the Decisions and Orders listed below from their respective legal research services/databases.”
How could such an order be enforced against an entity that wasn’t party to the suit, not to mention the First Amendment defenses that would save them in a contempt proceeding?
A Westlaw rep told The Legal Intelligencer [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202433145853&thepage=1] that the company automatically clears vacated opinions from the database – but that can’t be right since I’ve got a pile of vacated Westlaw cases sitting on my desk. Nevertheless, the Klein docs have been removed, so it appears they took the easy road in deciding to comply with the judge’s . . . order, request, direction . . . or whatever you call it.
As of yesterday, the opinions were still available on the Internet. Volokh links to some of them at this post, saying they should be preserved for future litigators and scholars. I’m not so altruistic. I just think the order, if anything more than a non-binding suggestion, is an absurd breach of the First Amendment. So I’ll link to them below, via the hard-drive PDFs I created yesterday, at the off chance they start disappearing from the web.
Hi, I’m so glad to have found this way to contact you! I’m a retired FBI agent who, before retiring, spoke out a few times after 9-11 when things were covered-up and then went insane. I think you might have even written something about that back then. Since retiring, I’ve become a peace and social justice-civil liberties activist in the Twin Cities and have gotten involved in trying to expose the involvement of a St. Thomas Law School professor Robert Delahunty, i.e. “Calling Out the Torture Enablers at St. Thomas Law School” at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/calling-out-the-torture-e_b_269240.html and http://www.mncampaignreport.com/diary/3827/homework-assignment-for-st-thomas-law-school-on-torture . I have discovered that “Distinguished Chair” Michael Stokes Paulsen recruited Delahunty to come to Minnesota and used his weight to get Delahunty the teaching job. Without disclosing anything about his connection to Delahunty, at least as far as I can see, St. Thomas Law Professor Paulsen testified on May 13, 2009, about “The Lawfulness of the Interrogation Memos” to the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
I was hoping you could take a look at Professor Paulsen’s defense of the torture enablers: http://www.stthomas.edu/law/academics/curriculum/PaulsenSenateTestimony.pdf and see if you’d be interested in coming here to debate him or possibly them (Delahunty, although Delahunty has refused prior offers to debate).
Crackas Gone Crazy…
All of a sudden it’s a problem if a president wants to talk to school kids. People if you don’t see the hatred and hidden agendas of these people, make a fist and punch yourself in the face. It wasn’t enough just to vote for the President, we have to be a voice in the process. Active participants. Where are we now after the election. Virtually invisible while “Crackers gone wild” plays out everywhere throughout the political landscape. Healthcare reform is for us, about us. It is the one singular thing the president can do for us without being overtly racial. How many of us avoid doctors visits because of lack of insurance? Are we even paying attention anymore. “Crackas gone wild” showing up at town hall meetings with loaded guns, shouting down a woman confined to wheel chair and the vilest of hall, continuing to refer to the president as Hitler. Some crazy cracka just smacked a woman’s two year old at the mall because the baby was crying repeatedly. bLouis Farrakhan finally admitted that while he was not directly involved in the assination of Malcom X, he contributed to the climate that lead to Malcom’s death. The very same thing is happening right now before our eyes and we are silent. Where are all the gun toting thugs, the load mouth baby mammas, the black cops that’ll shoot an unarmed black man in the back before they’ll speak out in support of the president. Well I can’t sit by the sidelines any longer. Crackas can go wild if they want to but if something bad happens it’s gonna be a whole lot of slow singing and flower bringing.
Professor:
Why are you not on the short list of prospective Supreme Court nominees? I have watched you on Rachel’s and Keith’s shows, listened to your cogent explanations of things legal and arcane — to me, a mere journalism major — and believe you would bring much-needed sanity and (dare I say it) empathy to the Supreme Court.
Is there any way I, a common citizen of these United States, may place your name in the nomination pool?
…Cindy Perry of Alpine, Texas
(See, not EVERY Texan is a tea-party-lovin’ Rushite! I adored Ann Richards and weep every time I think about her loss to The Shrub. Boy, I miss Ann!)
Prof. Turley,
Would you please review the upcoming case Citizen’s United vs FEC? It seems that the Court has decided to extend it’s reach.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/74965.html
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090906_it_could_be_the_end_of_our_democracy_as_we_know_it/
Keith Olberman has canckles.
Dear Mr. Turley,
I searched your site, but didn’t find a reference to this astonishing news. Can you weigh in on the matter?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/opinion/08tue1.html?_r=2&hp
“The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections. If the floodgates open, money from big business could overwhelm the electoral process, as well as the making of laws on issues like tax policy and bank regulation…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/opinion/08tue1.html?_r=2&hp
Thank you,
Wendy Johnson
PRof Turley:
Consider an article about the House bill (Senate amendment) against ACORN funding as bills of attainder.
Thanks
Dear Professor Turley:
RE: YOUR BLOG “MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER CHARGED WITH SEX ASSAULT” (MAY 2008)
I am a lawyer and I am writing to inform you that the charges laid against Mr. Bijan Anjomi by the City of Toronto police were withdrawn by the Crown Attorney’s Office in September 2008. Your blog refers to the laying of the charges but fails to recognize or report the withdrawal of them some 12 months ago. Here is the telephone number of the Crown Attorney’s Office in the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario for your ease of reference: 416.327.5990 or 416.327.5917
Please remove your report of and all records from your index and archive pertaining to charges laid against Mr. Anjomi as this is misleading at best and somewhat libelous.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Yours sincerely,
Jeunesse L. Hosein, B.A., LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
Prof. Turley,
May I suggest you include numbering of the comments following each article.
Thanks,
J Puma
Dear Jonathan Turley:
When the opening came up in the Supreme Court, I wondered why they did not immediately vote you in! What better person to uphold the Constitution on that Court???
Thanks to Keith Olbermann for bringing us all these interesting people on his show, so we can get to know the really great people on this planet!
Hooray for you!!
For your consideration:
“The Threat to Your Liberties Is Here”
http://original.antiwar.com/roberts/2009/10/04/the-threat-to-your-liberties-is-here/
FYI:
Orly Taitz’s Motion To Recuse Judge Clay Land (10/2/09)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/10/orly-taitzs-motion-to-recuse-judge-clay-land-10209.php?page=1
Summary article:
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/birther-leader-judge-collusion/
There are only a few people I respect and even fewer I admire.
You’re one.
Liberty & Justice,
sj
Love your “take” on much of what is going on Professor Turley. Am also a Constitutional scholar, and ex-paralegal for one of the foremost corporate lawyers in the country, John Tate, who was fundamentally responsible for the rise and success of Wal-Mart (until the British bankers took over and the Boards of Directors for that company and out of the family owned hands at its roots).
I also use the “intent” of the founders for my renderings of the Constitution in the provisions, and also the manner in which it was to be ratified (per the power of the 9th which precedes even the 10th with respect to any further “lawful” amendments to it).
I write for a blog also, http://www.backupamerica.org. Hope you will read some of what I have written also on the violations which continue to place this country and its law now under British interpretation, rather than our Constitution – and do blame the law schools also for their negligence in challenging some of the decision which have been reached by rogue courts and judges that have resulted in the fact that the courts are now just as political as the other two branches and clearly operating outside their lawful jurisdiction and duties and powers of office, many times using their own court rules to violate it.
Great reading. And keep up the good work since those judges also need to be held to the fire for their continued treason.
hey johnatan i am related to you
Many many years ago I was lucky enough to attend a lecture of late/great Carl Sagan. It was perhaps 50 minutes of the clearest and most enthusiastic thinking I have ever been exposed to, and I was completely transfixed.
Returning to my supportive group of (then) current lecturers and tutors was extremely difficult. They seemed so boring! (They were extremely supportive and they delivered us through successfully).
As a legal student, having access to Prof Turley must be like my Carl Sagan experience. Everything else is dull!
Impressive bio. Wonderful blog, very informative enjoyed it greatly. Tweeted a few of your articles. The Halloween post was a big hit on Twitter. Your right about the ACLU they have a long history and the surface of what they are doing is great, but when they let politics trickle in noone benefits. I hope that they return to their original values and plans and that our nation does also.
Cynthia Yildirim
Dear Jonathan,
I’m spanish jounalist. I would like to make you and interview about Nevada toxic verter. How could I contact to by email. Please write me to davidbeol@yahoo.es.
Thanks in advance.
DB
[…] Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense lawyer. He’ll be online to chat with readers about this piece on Monday […]
Dear Professor Turley,
As a GW grad of almost 30 years ago, I missed your insightfulness as a professor and the way you bring to life many legal issues before our courts. Your authoritativeness is much needed in today’s entertainment news environment.
I also wanted to bring to your attention a Petition for Writ I filed on behalf of Dr. Ariel King before the US Supreme Court (Docket 09-613) that asks the court to look at the due process and equal protection being denied mothers and children in some of our family court systems. It also raises issues of rights of children under the US constitution and international law. These have been areas that the Supreme Court has not recently addressed, and we hope they will take it up.
I would be happy to forward a copy upon request.
Thank you,
Roy Morris, Esq.
Dear Profssor Turley:
I was wondering if you will have any speaking engagements in New York City in 2010 where we could come to hear you? My friend is a huge fan of yours and enjoy it when you are a guest on Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow’s shows on MSNBC.
Thank you,
AM
Thank you for your article on the Feres doctrine.
I am a former Canadian infantry soldier who was beaten up during a hazing in Afghanistan by my new section. I was a few years older and didn’t think it was a good idea to get drunk hours before going on to man the observation post that protected the camp. There had already been rockets on timers set up pointed at our camp found there days earlier. I reported it and rather than having anything done, my chain of command refused to do anything about it I was threatened and called names by my superiors. The whole camp recieved information that “I” was the reason that there would no longer be unchecked drinking. There were threats on my life and that of my family. They kept me there for an additional 3 months while the guys who beat me up were allowed to take their vacation.
When I returned home, I went out for a drink at a local bar where I was blindsided and beaten unconscious by at least six people. Then the bar security (who were all moonlighting soldiers)Smashed my head hard enough against the door of the establishment and threw me into the middle of a well travelled street. This was because I was stupid enough to report the first attack.
I have tried to seek justice in the courts but am being prevented from getting to trial. In this country the laws are similar in the way that the Crown Liability and proceedings act combined with the pension act make it impossible to seek damages if a pension is awarded. Pensions are for loss of enjoyment of life and are non taxable awards. The Government of Canada uses pensions to illegally compensate victims. Its like setting aside a chunk of money for each soldier so that they can be used as a human lab rat. (It actually happened in WW2).
I’m tired of being a second class citizen. If our Prime minister were to be locked in the house of Commons for 3 months with a gang of angry New Democrats, who beat him up (I would have said Liberals but they don’t have the gumption to actually do anything, something their track record in government has proven).
There would be hell to pay. But not for a soldier. Even though as a human and a Canadian I am legally entitled to be afforded the same rights and freedoms as everyone else, because” I signed a blank check to the people of Canada for an amount up to and including my life” the things that were done to me, on purpose were okay. In fact they were to be expected as they are being considered part of my military service by the crown and by the courts.
I was unaware of these laws before it was too late to protect myself from them. I was a little naive to believe that this country was actually going to hold up its end of the bargain and try and fix this. My letters to government are ignored.
I will continue my fight in court as I have not exhausted all of my legal options yet.
Just wanted to let you know that yours is not the only country that has laws giving it the power to torture its own soldiers.
Have a Great Day
Glenn Brownhall
If you would like further details and facts regarding your article, “Father Loses Job, Seeks Reduction in Child Support So Florida Judge Increases Payments By $300 and Then Recuses Herself for a Conflict” please contact me and I’ll forward you John’s contact information. Thank you for picking this story up, I hope it will help promote change in a clearly flawed system.
Hello Professor Turley,
I am a retired anesthesiologist who used Sodium Pentothal frequently until it was replaced by Propofol.Pentothal provides a rapid induction of general anesthesia.I am not familiar with its use in massive doses to kill murderers but that should provide murderers with a pleasant sensation before they expire (if there is such a thing).The use of one drug to replace three (cocktail) will probably reduce errors made by state executioners which lead to legal hassles.
Stephen H.Libien,M.D.(retired)
[…] Jonathan Turley, who holds the “prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law” at George Washington University, puts forth the argument that the Obama administration has totally trashed the precedents that were set during the Nuremberg trials. In an interview last Wednesday on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, Mr. Turley plainly stated, “If John Yoo cannot be sued for an alleged war crime, what possibly could a Justice official be sued for?” […]
This website contains interesting (mostly criminal) news:
http://www.obscurestore.com/
Dear Sir:
Would it be possible for you to invite Bill Press to your house for breakfast, kinda like a Kitchen Cabinet? It would be really nice if the two of you could discuss removing corporate influence from our election process. The reason I ask this is because the two of you guys are the smartest folks in the media at the moment. (My opinion) Either video or audio recorded. I know there is no way that the humanism for corporations may be changed, but could it be possible? What would it take, politically (Bill) and legally, (you) to accomplish this. Please run with the “Kitchen Cabinet” idea and I expect no renumeration for passing this on. I just think the idea of a Kitchen Cabinet being brought back with a modern twist would be enlightening for those folks out here that would like to hear and watch a debate without the shouting and rude interruptions. Thank you for your time and I look forward, hopefully, that you might consider a “Kitchen Cabinet.” (without Jackson, of course)
Have a happy
Peace,
spn
Dear Prof Turley,
Any comments on John Yoo’s interview on Daily Show last night? Any chance of you challenging him for a debate on live tv?
Dear Jonathan,
Surely you don’t read all of these entries but just in case; I think maybe I know whats wrong. Maybe Momma and Daddy didn’t tell us everything? We need to do something big real soon! We really need for some body big like you to speak out the truth before it is too late! If we look at the world of young people who just want to love each other and realize that there is only a handful of people who want us to kill each other. We have to ask why do these people want us to go against God? I don’t believe that God would ever want us to kill ourselves or one another after all the effort He has spent on this magnificent body.
Each of us has our own individual views of everything but yet we have many of the same basic Human needs; we all want to live, to love and be loved and respected, and we all want to provide and protect and do something good for our own. No matter where we live we all feel these same about basic Human needs.
What if we all decided that it was not fair to lie and cheat and deceive and steal from those who trust you just because you can? What if we raised the bar to the most honest instead of the biggest cheater and liar wins? For the past 60 years the only thing that wins is money!! And you best not get in its way!
People are preying on our good will and our patriotic hearts and it is obviously not for the best for the people or the future of the world. We need to expose the real trouble makers. Follow the money. Maybe to the oil fields around the world? Why would our own government promote an illegal monopoly like OPEC against the people of the free world and against the future of our planet?
I Don’t Know
Dear Johnathon,
My name is Barbara O’ Brien and my blogging at The Mahablog, Crooks and Liars, AlterNet, and elsewhere on the progressive political and health blogophere has earned me the notoriety of being a panelist at the Yearly Kos Convention and a featured guest blogger at the Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC.
I’m contacting you because I found your site in a prominent political and health blog search and want to tell you about my newest blogging platform —the public concern of health care. Our shared concerns include health reform, public health, safe workplaces, and asbestos contamination.
To increase awareness on these important issues, my goal is to get a resource link on your site or even allow me to provide a guest posting. Please contact me back, I hope to hear from you soon. In the meantime, take a look at the MAA Center blog.
Sincerely,
Barbara O’ Brien
barbaraobrien@maacenter.org
writ of mandamus – an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for the official’s discretion; used only when all other judicial remedies fail
mandamus
judicial writ, writ – (law) a legal document issued by a court or judicial officer
law, jurisprudence – the collection of rules imposed by authority; “civilization presupposes respect for the law”; “the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order”
How about using writ of mandamus with Roosevelt’s law that is still on the books that giving money to a corporation is a crime???????? Can we start their?
Great web site, Professor Turley, almost as good as jitterbuggingforjesus.com. Nothing beats that one but I’m a little biased. Keep up the great work you do.
Get two friends. choose wisely.
(amend to 20:28.)
Dear J. Turley,
Since you are the legal scholar of many issues.. I have a simple request to look at http://www.peacepink.ning.com .. Ms Sol invited me to stage a protest as any human can see something is not acceptable.. Just use your sound judgment.. look for my full name and you may have to make a dummy page.. but I promise anyone who understands Res ipsa loquiter can grasp foul play.
Respectfully
Jenny
Turley, still hanging around the losers at MSNBC I see!
Please direct me somehwere that can answer the following question….
Why did we pass a constitutional amendment to abolish and then legalize alcohol? We did no such thing with marijuana. Why didn’t they just pass a law to make alcohol illegal? Or why didn’t we pass an amendment to make marijuana illegal? What is the distinction? What has changed? Why was one way right for one and not for another? Any information would be appreciated.
Doew the term “emenmy combatinant” exist anywhere in US law? Is it spelled out who qualifies? Who can declare someone an “enemy combatinant”? What due process applies? How such a person is different from an ordinary criminal or a POW? Is this actual law or made-up tripe?
Gainesville, Fla. He was 71.
Mr. Kornblum, a former New York City police officer and F.B.I. agent, was recruited by the Justice Department to write new procedures that would provide the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the first time, with a clear set of rules to govern its domestic surveillance and counterintelligence work that respected the Fourth Amendment rights of private citizens and would, in theory, prevent the kind of abuses that had tarnished the agency’s image in recent years.
He went on to write key provisions in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, specifically the procedures for minimization — the separation of potentially valuable intelligence data from private data of no concern to the government.
Dear Professor Turley,
I am a retired airline pilot who has been asked to sign on to an effort to bring litigation against the FAA and Congress for age discrimination resulting from a federal law mandating retirement at age 60. As I write, my 70th birthday is not far away. I remain Pilot-In-Command qualified and active as a Boeing 777 captain doing ferry flights outside the regulatory scope of FAR 121.
The FAA has recently increased the mandatory retirement age of USA airline pilots to 65. This seems to be another discriminatory limit. Can you expand upon the point of law that might allow successful litigation in the case of mandatory retirement at age 60 while retaining the new mandatory retirement age of 65. It would seem that the rationalization or validation of either limit would be the challenge here and thus a hurdle of monumental proportions.
Thanks
Hey Jon… Have been following you and appreciate yor work. I am a PI and am working pretty heavy stuff in La ref public/police corruption, child molestation and failure of officials to report and prosecute molestation cases. Take a look at my sites for info. You may be interested in results. Regards, Mark
Professor, does an individual have standing to sue the US Senate? I wrote an email to friends and now they want me to follow thru. I am not an attorney and admit I don’t know if its even possible.
Below is my email and logic about filing a suit.
<>
I see part of my post got dropped, here is the concept;
The rules of the Senate (Rule XXII) say it takes three-fifths of the Senate to end debate (60 votes). The rule was adopted to ensure adequate debate, not to block legislation. Now that Republicans claim a super majority is “normally” required to pass anything, they are acting outside of the US Constitution which only requires a simple majority.
In the case of United States v. Ballin, the Supreme Court held that; “The constitutions of this state and the United States declare that a majority shall be a quorum to do business, but a majority of that quorum are sufficient to decide the most important question.”
The Court’s ruling held that if only 67 Senators are present on the floor of the Senate, that number constitutes a quorum for business, and only a majority of those present are required to pass a bill. So if 67 Senators are present, and 34 vote in favor of a bill and 33 against, the bill passes.
And they also held that; The Senate “Can Not create Rules that go above and beyond the restraints of the Constitution.”
How would one initiate legal action that would make sure that the Senate doesn’t violate the Constitution?
Anyone out there with thoughts on this can email me at jea@artergroup.com
Hey turley how are the flunkies on MSNBC treating you?
You have an awesome blog. I plan to read it every day, now that I know about it.
Dear Mr. Turley
I thought this might be of interest:
It seems that two attorneys – Mr. Ferreth and Mr. Jobs – have hung out their shingle together in a law partnership. They have chosen quite an eye-catching URL
http://www.ferrethandjobs.com/
I enjoy your blog immensely!
Best,
J A Walsh
Jonathan,
Came across some info (your elder) that led me here. ‘Q’ was a long time ago, and I’m glad you reached, and caught your star.
Sure could use your help or advice, ever think about VA delays in process? MD examiner’s in obvious error, and denial of claims, lost records, the whole shebang.
Found something worse than knee to the head. Proud of ya. Ed
Johnathan Turley for US Supreme Court. You most certainly would make a great contribution to our justice system in such a position. Remember, contemplation is the seed to reality.
Yes Jonathan,
You are “The Man” for the supreme court Sir! How do we do it?? What needs to be done and said to who to get you on the seat??
“Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Turley” we need you!
Teddy
Professor Jonathan Turley for Supreme Court Nominee!
Mr Turley, hello. I enjoy your writing but I have a question.
Are personal attacks permitted in your blog? Because I read several comments of yours where it seemed to indicate personal attacks were not tolerated, which is why I decided to try this blog.
This individual just started attacking and insulting me a few minutes ago for no apparent reason. Here are his remarks.
**************************************
Former Federal LEO 1, April 15, 2010 at 12:22 am
Gv-n-K
I cringed when I read the praise that people above—some of whom I respect—gave you. The fact that you took the time to retrieve those ‘praises’, illustrates all I need to know about you.
In my book, you project an abject psychiatrically disordered persona very similar to a previous poster who frequently changed his screen name upon exiting and reentering this blawg repeatedly.
Why any intelligent person would continue to ‘argue’ with you is another conundrum.
*********************************************************
Is this sort of random hit and run attack permissible? Keep in mind I said nothing to this person nor do I know him. He just started freaking out on me. I felt sort of threatened by his tone particularly given the title he is presenting.
Anyway I won’t be sticking around to see how it turns out, I just wanted to let you know about this disturbing comment from what seems like it might be an unbalanced person. Normal people don’t start attacking someone for no reason like that so I thought I should at least point out to you that this guy is harassing people, or at least me. Anyway I’ll find somewhere else to blog, but thought you ought to be made aware of this.
Regards and thanks for the learning experience, some of it was fun. Robert R.
You are my choice for Supreme Court Justice.
I second all the kind words of others — even the part about
Attorney General.
I have a question. If Congress calls in one of their favorite miscreants and covers him/her with immunity “for their testimony”, does that immunity carry over to criminal court?
Thanks
Dan
Could someone PLEASE put Professor Turley up for the Supreme Court ? He knows more about law & the constitution than any one I have heard in the last few years.
as a us citzen am I required by law to carry personal id while in the us?
Hello Professor Turley,
I was watching Larry King Live and the guest host, Jesse Ventura asked Ron Paul, who would he nominate to the SCOTUS and
Ron Paul said he would either choose Jonathan Turley or Janet Napolitano. Ron Paul says it at 3:35 in the video link below.
I love the way you thoroughly explain constitutional matters on Countdown. I always feel a lot better hearing an explanation of constitutional matters from an expert like yourself. Thank you so much for what you do.
Sincerely,
Amir Mian
Pause at 3:35
Mr. Turley
There is a group of us in Sacramento who have been working the legislature to give us a hearing on life to term inmates. We were fortunate to get that but they gave us little time to gather our stats.
Do you have anything on the medical costs of inmates in different age groups.
We are desperate to get this answer ASAP
Thank you
gigi pack
I heard you on Rachel Maddow today.You used a term “From your mouth to G-d’s ears”. That is a common jewish term. Are you jewish?
No. My wife is Jewish, but I most likely heard the expression first while growing up in a Jewish area of Chicago.
Mr Turley-
Having heard several times recently that the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons” on American soil…and therefore would apply to even non-citizens. I just had to get your opinion on this. Does the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply only to American citizens or to all people on American soil? I really enjoy your appearances on Countdown & pay close attention to what you say when you are on.
Thank you very much!!
How do you live with yourself? A supposed Constitutional expert that doesn’t know what a Natural Born Citizen is? I would say that you probably do. You know, and are obfuscating the fact that Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, NO Matter if born in the White House, in JFK’s lap. Obama Sr. was not a citizen when Obama 2 was born. You and Obama both know that makes him ineligible. Destroying the Constitution for the benefit of your Leftist agenda. Fraud!!!
What do you think about PRO SE rights? Do you think that the First Amendment limits restrictions on PRO SE speech?
One of our (my husband and I) five issues currently on appeal.
Also, do you have anything to add about strict scrutiny analysis?
I used the search function in the S.C. library and I went back about 40 years and the term “Strict Scrutiny Analysis” was used only in the context of The First Amendment.
Do you know of a chart comparing the features of De Novo Analysis and Strict Scrutiny Analysis?
So if you have a First Amendment issue, in my case having to do with DOJ imprisonment for the stated purpose of intervening in a 3rd party civil lawsuit, then you have a procedural due process right to a Strict Scrutiny analysis.
Am I missing anything important?
This is our addendum: 1st Amendment (the heart of our case), 4th,5th,6th Amendments, 5 USC § 552, 5 USC § 552a. Records maintained on individuals, 18 USC § 1512.
Tampering with a witness,victim, or an informant, 18 USC § 4001 Limitation on detention; control of prisons, 28
USC § 516 Conduct of litigation reserved to Department of Justice, 28 USC § 566 United States Marshals Service
Powers and duties,28 USC § 1654 Appearance personally or by counsel,28 USC § 1693 Place of Arrest in Civil Action, 28 USC § 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe,42 USC § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights,42 USC § 14616 National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact,28 CFR Subpart T United States Marshals Service § 0.111 General functions,28 CFR § 16.22 General prohibition of production or disclosure in Federal
and State proceedings in which the United States is not a party, 28 CFR § 16.101 Exemption of U.S. Marshals Service Systems—limited access, as indicated Prisoner Processing and Population Management System, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 28 CFR § 16.101 Exemption of U.S. Marshals Service Systems—limited access, as indicated. Warrant
Information System, 28 CFR 50.2 – Release of information by personnel of the Department of Justice relating to criminal and civil proceedings, Rule 4.1. Service of Other Process, Rule 24. Intervention, Rule 56. Summary Judgment,Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders,Rule 41. Search and Seizure, Rule 301. Presumptions in General Civil Actions and Proceedings, Rule 401. Definition of “Relevant Evidence”, Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible, Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes, Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness.
If lying in court is illegal because it leads jurors to make faulty decisions, why isn’t lying on the campaign trail illegal because it leads voters to make faulty decisions? Are the decisions made by the electorate less important or impactful than the decisions made by jurors?
Here is a posting by GW Law Prof Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy:
QUOTE
Ultimate Legal Blog Comment?
Orin Kerr • August 31, 2010 12:06 am
I found this gem in a comment thread at the blog of my collegue Jonathan Turley by commenter “Mick” at 4:42 am, May 22, 2010:
How do you live with yourself? A supposed Constitutional expert that doesn’t know what a Natural Born Citizen is? I would say that you probably do. You know, and are obfuscating the fact that Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, NO Matter if born in the White House, in JFK’s lap. Obama Sr. was not a citizen when Obama 2 was born. You and Obama both know that makes him ineligible. Destroying the Constitution for the benefit of your Leftist agenda. Fraud!!!
Awesome.
Categories: Metablogging
134 Comments
UNQUOTE
The Birther Virago has calmed down here at the Turley blog, but it is raging right now at Volokh…
Of course, virtually everything has been discussed here, first.
Here is the link to Prof Kerr’s posting.
http://volokh.com/2010/08/31/the-ultimate-legal-blog-comment/
Maybe Mick who cried “Fraud!!!” can join in there.
Vince,
I read most of that thread over at volokh and I think Yogi Berra said it best. “It’s deja vu all over again!”
This is pretty amazing. A single post on the Turley blog has spawned three separate threads and nearly a thousand post on the Volokh site.
“Mick” himself has led the posters, and is long on insults and abuse and short on legal reasoning and coherence.
The Volokh Conspiracy owes a tip of the hat to the blog “VOTED THE #1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL IN 2008.”
Professor Turley,
Your blog about the West Texas judge and Bobby Stovall’s unreasonable sentence in a DWI case was interesting to me. I would like to know if there is a limit to incarceration without benefit of trial in West Texas, specifically Lubbock, Texas. My nephew has been incarcerated there since February, 2008, indited and awaiting trial since his arrest. He has an court appointed lawyer who has seen his client, my nephew, only a few times in the 2 3/4 years. He was given an offer of a plea deal and chose not to accept it because he believes that a jury will be less harsh in a sentence. He has a background of mental illness. This is his first and only offense. His crime: murder. His plea: Innocent by Reason of Temporary Insanity.” What to do? Texas is a bad place to be incarcerated.
Professor Turley,
Can the Dove World Outreach Church be successfully sued to remove their 501(c) non-profit status if they go ahead with the burning of the Koran?
From their own statements the burning would seem like a political statement on their part and out of bounds for a true non-profit.
From a personal standpoint, I’ll have to hold my nose and agree with their right to burn the Koran for whatever reasons they see fit. I do believe however, at minimum, it is in poor taste and at its worst life-threatening for American’s overseas.
But having the ‘right’ to do something doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be or won’t be consequences. And those consequences should be a serious challenge the non-profit status of the Dove World Outreach Church.
Thoughts?
Jeff Beard
Prof Turley,
Greetings and kudos for your highly instructive MSNBC appearances and blog.
I have a query related to a local news item here in central Florida:
Mulberry Mayor Is Accused of Sex With 17-Year-Old Boy
The 17 yr old misrepresented himself as being 19, met the mayor in a bar and had consensual sex with him once. The 17 yr old blabbed about the encounter and now the mayor is being charged with having sex with a minor.
Florida law makes it such that a person can be charged with a 2nd degree felony (max 15 yrs) for having sex with a minor (in this case consensual) even if he or she does not know the partner is a minor.
Why does not knowing the person is underage because they misrepresented themselves not matter? What happened to the concept of intent?
Thanks…and yes you should be SCOTUS member.
Professor Turley,
Take a look at this article about how outrageous patent suits are being filed — you should comment on your blog:
http://www.renzullilaw.com/component/content/article/74-jfr/205-sellers-beware-new-breed-of-aggressive-plaintiffs-hunt-expired-patent-numbers-on-products-and-product-literature-demand-billions
Dear Prof Turley,
My dad died of liver and pancreatic cancer after working on the Stealth at area51 from the 70 through the 80s. He also had a mysterious rash we never understood. My father, who took the “oath” of course would never discuss a damn thng about area 51 but I’ve often wondered why he all of the sudden got cancer and died very quickly. I was looking up area 51 and radiation exposure from past nuclear testing there and then come about a few articles about other environmental problems at the ranch. Can you tell me where the Area 51 lawsuit is at now? Thank you.
Janet Not my real name just in case. LOL
Dear Professor Turley:
Thanks for your work in several areas including the military gay ban.
I’m a former Air Force officer and US Academy grad who suffered a witchhunt in Spokane in 1990/91 and was forced to resign. This was before Clinton created “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”.
Ironically, you look like you are related to the unit operations officer at the time, who had the same surname, and I think was from Chicago. He was amazing, non-judgmental, and wrote me an excellent letter of recommendation to my “board”, who thankfully gave me an Honorable Discharge.
Regardless of whether you are related (you guys even look like brothers, or at least cousins lol), thanks for what you have done in speaking about this issue as well as others impacting military families.
JA
[…] Brown’s with violating polygamy laws — and TMZ reports that the Brown family has hired famed constitutional law expert and law professor, Jonathan Turley to help save them from […]
Mr. Turley:
You have probably received this question many times; why does your tag line define res ipsa loquitur as “The thing itself speaks” when it is universally taught as “the thing speaks for itself”. Are all the law schools teaching the phrase wrong or are you just translating in the order of the words for the American public to understand in the syntax of the English language? If it is the latter, I believe this distorts the eloquence of the latin phrase.
Please comment.
Thank you.
Stephen Lustig
Justice Holder – Start with Ed Ruzikowski(sic) and his network of spies in Gainesville, Fla. Every file of every person they have spied on Their sustainers in Washington.
oh and every poisoner.
You could write an interesting article about Valerie Plame’s unsuccessful Privacy Act Lawsuit now that “Fair Game” the movie about her experiences is coming out. One thing I don’t understand is what she and her lawyers expected when they sued under 5 USC 552a even though CIA records are so easy to exclude from the liability provisions of the Act by publication in the Federal Register. If I worked for the CIA and then sued under The Privacy Act, I would have been “roasted” with all sorts of comments about frivolous lawsuits and defending the courts from the potential hoards of pro se litigants.
oh and Stephen Levitt and Oliver North plus their spy network poisoners within the United States.
(amend to 10/16.)
oh and thecoward Stephen Levitt and Oliver North plus their spy network poisoners within the United States.
(amend to 10/16.)
Is judicial relief from First Amendment Retaliation non discretionary?
Jonathan Turley on The End of Privacy. TTC Transfer Please. | INDEX // mb
Trackback on 1, October 13, 2008 at 4:05 am
Page not found
Professor Turley: Saw you today, loved your insight, as always.
I used to visit this site a lot, but have become increasingly busy.
I was wondering why you decided to drop Tumblr, say you were going to use Fried Eggs, and ended up on Twitter, when Fried Eggs would put you on Facebook and Twitter.
I’ve been going to Bloggers Unite, was invited to Blog Catalog, and Fried Eggs, as well as a few other projects, are an extension of this effort. I was just wondering why. Too much exposure? You never seemed to be the shy type.
Imagine the military sitting in Maryland with xray technicians, computer analysts, network junkies in a 3D environment after putting in for the positions for the FBI and military via Dice, etc., to sit and observe your thoughts and actions via the “neural network” as they claim “national security” for some false reason.
Targeting victims of corrupt government as they do to keep from being exposed for lawsuits and iniquity or outrageous government conduct from violating individuals Constitutional Rights all of their lives as they’ve done to me before leaking their technology and threatening me to work for them with all of this.
It’s all yours for the taking. http://neuralnetwork.comuv.com
US Patents don’t lie. They use it with the eye in the sky from Homeland Security too.
You could write on this:
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/files/ProSeLitigants.pdf
The result of this 8th Circuit order that PRO SE ECF filings must be as scanned documents only is that the courts can’t use search commands to read pro se ECF filings and they can’t cut and paste from them. Another significant disadvantage to PRO SE litigants. Most PRO SE litigants these days are computer savvy and can save their word documents as a PDF and upload them so that the court can use the electronic search and copy commands exactly as if a lawyer had written them.
I went to the 8th Circuit to look for results of my complaints that several judges ruled I couldn’t represent myself but couldn’t find them. I do have the stamped copies returned in SASE but no other confirmation that I filed them and it has been weeks. The 8th circuit does not allow pro ses to make oral argument either. That way they can be sue that the PRO SES will always lose like the other 23,000 PRO SE litigants who attempt to use the federal courts each year but with the result that 99.9999% get no relief at all.
I filed two complaints w the 7th Circuit and they gave numbers to them and ruled on them but they didn’t post them with the decisions on other complaints. One of the ones that they didn’t post was that I complained I was standing in line in the clerk’s office and two lawyers asked for a private appointment with the magistrate to discuss magistrate business. Justice Easterbrook ruled that the magistrate clerk is supposed to advise lawyers on how to write documents. I immediately filed a motion in the same court to have the magistrate clerk meet with me to advise me on writing but that was denied. The second complaint had to do with Magistrate Crocker holding a hearing supposedly in the name of the U.S. government in which the government didn’t appear or file any documents. At that hearing which the Marshals forced me to attend he didn’t say what my rights were nor what kind of hearing it was supposed to be; he just threatened to have me arrested for filing papers in other federal courts. Criminal witness intimidation ala 18 USC section 1512 as far as I am concerned.
All these no PRO SE court acts benefit the insurance companies that are behind the scenes. Probably the insurance companies are paying off the judges directly or maybe funding the bench and bar golf outings.
sorry you should have a typo correction — should say
That way they can be sure that all pro se litigants will lose like the other 23000 who unsuccessfully attempt to use the federal courts each year. They should just pass a law saying that only people who hire lawyers can use the federal courts so that everyone will know where they stand.
I wish I hadn’t been such a coward as to think I could solve my problems in court. I would have been better off if I had brought myself to kill my neighbor instead of suing him. I don’t know why I have this hang up about using words instead of guns because words don’t work in court, you have to have money and connections also.
I complained that I was criminally prosecuted without a written statement of probable cause or a signature by a cop. The police report correlating with the criminal charge shows that I complained my neighbor the city council president was violating the constitution by building extra buildings that violated the zoning in order to put in a bring your horse nightly rental in a low density residential neighborhood. I had got the idea from Euclid v. Ambler 272 U.S. 365 (1926) that the 14th Amendment was behind zoning. I complained in the 8th Circuit that Faegre & Benson advised the Steamboat Pilot newspaper to broadcast articles on the Internet that I was to be tried for that even though the charge was dismissed and the d.a. objected to providing a statement of probable cause and that the articles incompletely or inaccurately described the buildings and the local statutes. Faegre’s former partner successfully requested that former judge Nottingham imprison me or my husband if I pursued a defamation or false light claim. As far as I am concerned that was also felony witness intimidation. My suit was based on 42 USC section 1985(2) which applies to federal civil cases. It was dismissed on the basis that I am not allowed to represent myself. I appealed that to the 8th Circuit, paying $455, and I filed a brief. Faegre filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that I am not allowed to represent myself and the 8th Circuit panel granted that in 2 hours and denied my motion for reconsideration. No one even filed a motion to impeach my testimony. There is no intrinsic evidence of fraud on my part. This all started w former judge Nottingham who I am totally convinced was paid off.
Mr. Turley,
You are by far my favorite expert talk-show guest (and I’m a news junkie going back decades). You are calm, dignified, focused, and use laser-like precision in espousing your just-the-facts statements. The tone of political discourse could be much improved if we had more like you and less of the paid-spinners and demagogues.
Jeff:
Feel free to leave such messages as many times as you wish. Nice way to start a weekend.
Thanks.
Professor, where do you stand with regard to the lack of judicial immunity for judges who violate the Americans with Disabilitites law (e.g., violation of due process) and also time limits for litigation against disabled litigants, primarily those with hidden disabilities?
Does the new Equal Access to Justice law allow those of us discriminated against due to our disability symptoms have the right to go back and reopen our cases from the date of discrimination because were were too harmed by the act itself to deal with it as it happened?
Do you believe in the validity of Legal Abuse syndrome as a valid disability (www.lvaallc.com)? Do we not have the right to sue albeit we will be in another court before another judge (seems futile, really).
I do not see these issues debated and am hoping you find it of interest.
This is an interesting article I think
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=172345&catid=339#comments
Dear Professor
Thanks for letting me blog
This is interesting too and very strange
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/nyregion/27forfeiture.html?_r=1
re J Allen Stanford
Case 4:09-cr-00342 Document 116-4 Filed in TXSD on 09/14/09 Page 1 of 3
these are emails about Stanford’s insurance policies, lloyds etc.
Lloyd’s D&O and Company Indemnity Policy
Lloyd’s Financial Institutions Crime and Professional Indemnity Policy
Lloyd’s Excess Blended ‘Wrap” Policy
These policies have numbers but none of them see to be NAIC numbers.
http://search.naic.org/search?
Doesn’t that violate the McCarran Ferguson Act?
Dear Professor Turley,
First let me join the many others in expressing my thanks and appreciation for the many times I’ve enjoyed and learned from the clear insight, sound judgment and analysis I have enjoyed so many times when watching your TV appearances.
But I’m writing to point you to this:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/05/the-family-judge-who-flipped-out/
I thought you would enjoy it.
Thanks again,
David Merrill
I’ve never seen this argument made for the constitutionality of the Health Care Law… realize that there is probably for very good reason why I haven’t. However, I’ve made a fool of myself enough times in public, that doing so in private, even to someone with your pedigree, ain’t that big a deal, so here goes
The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that Social Security is constitutional.
Medicare is part of Social Security and constitutional.
There is no constitutional prohibition from lowering the effective age of Social Security to 60, or 50, or 20… or birth, including coverage under Medicare.
Therefore, having the government mandate coverage and “contributions” for health care would also be constitutional.
If it just went this far, this line of reasoning would allow for a single payor plan but I think I can take it a step farther…
I have never heard anyone, and certainly no conservative, doubt the constitutionality of Bush’s plan to “privatize” Social Security and allow individuals to make direct contributions to investment institutions on their own.
Certainly, the government could set up reasonable criteria that the investment portfolio would have to meet.
If the government could allow this for traditional Social Security, then it seems the government could specify that, instead of contributing for health care to the government, the individual/company can choose its own health care plan and establish reasonable criteria that the insurance plan must meet.
Greetings from yesteryear. I write not to contribute to the blog-pong that belongs to the community of diametrically opposed opinionators aggregated on this site. In fact, I write not to offer my opinion on a slither of this site’s content. I write to simply say hi to the professor I had at Tulane Law School in 1990 during my first year property class. It was the year of POPS. It was the year when New Orleans saw a teeny bit of snow that rocked the city senseless. It was the year when Professor Turley anted up and donned a funny Mardi Gras costume.
Congratulations on everything. You were a lot of fun and were/are one of the greats.
Jonathan Turley:
I’ve been aware of your efforts with members of the Rocky Flats Grand Jury to get access to the documents sealed in the Denver Federal Courthouse as part of the out-of-court settlement of the case brought against Rockwell Internatl. after the 1989 FBI raid on the Rocky Flats plant. Some of us are considering approaching the U.S. Attorney for Colo. as a cross section of delegates from varied interests to seek release of the documents to the public, or, as an alternative, access to them by this group, with the understanding that we could reveal what we learn from examining the documents. If possible I’d like to discuss this possibility with you when I’ll be in Washington with the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability April 4-6. If you can’t meet with me and a colleague during this period perhaps you could say whether you think this approach might succeed. Another alternative is to bring a lawsuit to seek release of the documents. I’d be interested in your evaluation of this possibility as well.
I am perhaps the most knowledgeable and persistent critic of the inadequate cleanup at Rocky Flats, including of course the fact that the cleanup was designed and certified by government personnel who made no effort to review the sealed documents to see if they contained information pertinent to the cleanup. If you look at the web site listed above you can see learn about the ambitious I and others are engaged in to implement Nuclear Guardianship at the Rocky Flats site.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
Professor Turley,
Will you be commenting on the Irvine 11?
Juli Star-Alexander raises an interesting question. I would like to see these issues addressed by someone who has the power to make a difference. Include in disabilities illiteracy. No child born and raised in the US, with normal intelligence, should be illiterate–if he or she has good teachers.
I read a criminal appeal that haunts me. A man who was illiterate when he entered federal prison on drug charges filed an appeal because he learned that SCOTUS over-turned other cases in which a defendant was charged with using a weapon when the weapon was not involved in the sale of drugs. This applied to him.
When he filed the appeal, it was dismissed as time-barred. Sure he was late. He included as an exhibit a statement from the teacher in prison who made him literate enough to file his own appeal. The esteemed judges did not care.
Last night I saw an old but timely movie, “Lean On Me.” It was about a principal who turned around a failing high school in Paterson, NJ. Later, I saw Charlie Rose which featured a woman who heads “Teach America,” an organization that emphasizes fantastic leaders and teachers who are strongly motivated and creative and inspiring. And recently on “Need to Know” a large part of the program dealt with innovative techniques used in various schools to turn failure into success.
I have always believed that children want to learn to read. If they do not learn, it is the fault of the teacher. I was a teacher. And when I became a social worker I was assigned a group of problem grade schoolers. I found learning problems, not behavior problems. But frustration with learning results in behavior problems.
Poor teachers create disabled students who, lacking the skills for employment, turn to crime.
Professor Turley,
Great blog.
A few questions that have come to me that I’m wondering if you could address:
A. By what authority does a Governor, such as Governor Walker in Wisconsin, derive the power to use state police to attempt to search for lawmakers who do not appear at the state legislature? Let’s say they find one of the missing legislators – could they force them to attend a legislative session? If the legislator refused, could they be arrested?
B. Why isn’t the issue of collective bargaining a contractual issue? If state employees negotiated a contract with their employer (through their unions), by what authority could such contractually agreed upon terms be altered without mutual consent? To me, it’s simple – state workers decided to forgo certain benefits (for example, demanding higher salaries) in exchange for other benefits (such as retirement payments). How can those decisions, negotiated in good faith for consideration, be altered after the fact?
Thanks,
A GW Law Grad (’97)
Dear Professor Turley,
I just read your article about Clarence Thomas. His conflict of interest, his failure to recuse himself in the Citizen’s United case, and his failure to disclose his wife’s income from the Heritage Foundation are clear ethical violations at the very least. My question is, are these violations grounds for impeachment?
Thank you!
FYI Story of the year: The State of Maine v.Vladek Filler
Please listen to this video of the police recording of Ligia Filler before she made the rape accusation against Vladek Filler. The recording is very disturbing:
If you choose to investigate this case, it will not disappoint you that the full details are increasingly shocking, such as Ligia Filler’s child abuse, husband abuse, psychological issues and Assistant District Attorney Mary Kellett’s persistence to “vigorously prosecute all cases” and suppress evidence. This has not been sufficiently reported in the media and is a groundbreaking story filled with shocking details that could easily fill a one hour special.
http://www.fillerfund.com/
http://www.saveservices.org/2011/03/maine-prosecutor-coddles-known-child-abuser-in-pursuit-of-false-rape-claim/
This sounds like a good case to me, (a married woman, a feminist, a MIT graduate), a case of procedural due process. What is the requirement to instigate a criminal prosecution? It doesn’t seem like it would be that difficult to establish standards.
Kay S. asked the requirement to instigate criminal prosecution. If you read attorney Harvey Silverglates’ “Three Felonies a Day” you will see that the only requirement is a prosecutor’s discretion.
And if he or she falsely charges someone, there is no penalty, no accountability. By contrast, prosecutors sometimes get a bonus or a promotion when they please those in power.
Rarely does a judge overturn a conviction because the judge recognizes the falsity of the prosecution. I’ve been collecting a few of these because I need a basis to continue believing our judicial system does meter out justice sometimes. Unfortunately, it wholly depends on the judge who decides not to be a pawn of prosecutors.
Dear Gloria
In 2004, Congress passed an amendment to The Justice For All Act numbered 18 USC section 3771. This allows the victim of a federal crime to file for mandamus in a federal court to get a few rights including recognition, protection, and an interview with a U.S. Attorney. A victim is defined as anyone injured by a federal crime and includes emotional and financial damages in the definition of injured. Title 18 defines a crime of violence as including any crime with a probability or threat of force.
In 2005, the Attorney General issued a long memorandum about the law that said that they only recognize a right to mandamus when there is an active criminal prosecution. However the current DOJ website in the victim’s rights pages repeat the right to mandamus even when there is no on-going criminal prosecution.
I think 18 USC section 242 includes the rights to due process in a criminal proceeding — that it should be exactly as defined in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Punishment under that act ranges from a fine of $1 to death.
Dear Mr. Turley,
I can’t believe I am the first–and in these times, the only person to ask this question. I addressed it to a very senior army officer whose service included assignment as Chief of Staff to a major Desert Storm hero without a very clear answer.
I am a retired Naval officer, and as a requisite to our commissioning, we are required to swear an oath to “…protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic…”
As I look around, there is the governor of Michigan appointing a special manager to Benton Harbor, and for all intents and purposes, doing the same thing King George did to the colonies–taxation without representation. There is in my state, legislation which would demand a picture identification to vote–without making the identification free–an unconstitutional poll tax. These are but two examples of which there are myriad at the Federal and state levels.
Where legislation known to run contrary to the Constitution is proposesd, would these rise to a level where the Constitution is endangered or threatened? Is there a procedure to identify an “enemy” of the Constitution? How is the Constitution to be “protected?”
Or was the oath all commissioned officers swear just idle chatter, and empty rhetoric?
(I’d considered asking my two “red state” senators, but figured that would be an exercise in futility.)
Is there any chance you will attend the Project on Government Oversight 30th Anniversary Celebration on 5/12/2011 in DC at the House of Sweden? It is chaired by Lewis Black, Patricia Derian, H Hodding Carter III and Conrad Black, moderated by Dan Froomkin and has panelists Donna Edwards, David Eirhorn, The Honorable Christopher Shays, and Matt Taibbi and the discussion is “”Wikileaks, Wall Street and Whistleblowers: The Role of Government Oversight”
https://secure3.convio.net/pogo/site/Donation2?df_id=1700&1700.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr004=ispf009ge7.app333b
Would love to have you report on it.
Dear Prof. Turley,
I hope you get to read my comment posted today, May 13,2011, regarding the striking French police. My daughter and I were
mistreated so badly by the police, it’s almost hard to believe. My sister told me she had seen something about the French police wanted to strike over there inability to consume alcohol and was outraged and did a search where I came upon your blog. They accused us of being drunk! We did nothing but try and search for a metro pass. I have been in touch with Congressman Frank Pallone’s office in NJ where I live and a lawyer from France, but still unsure what to do and have some unanswered questions. I hope you can provide some insight into this. My regards, Sir.
Doriana
I am working on a complaint against our federal government based on inadequate arrest booking systems per 5 USC section 552a subsection e (9). I have the 2004 and 2009 manuals for the Joint Automated Booking System and also the manual for the Prisoner Tracking System. None of these manuals require verification that there is an actual pending criminal prosecution. The computer systems allow the listing of emails of interested parties but don’t require that the interested parties be actual authorized government prosecutors.
Since 9/11 the feds have spent a lot of money on finger print, eye ball, and tattoo identification but the computer specifications don’t include any mechanism to determine that the prisoner is actually legally a prisoner due to an allegation that they committed a federal offense and/or that there was a hearing in which it was determined that there was an actual criminal charge.
Personally, I was held by USMS 3 times for 5 months total without a criminal charge. I don’t have a criminal record. I was accused of petitioning the U.S. federal courts without permission.
I am really worried that there will be a new organized system of citizen arrests without formal written procedure or criminal prosecutions in the U.S.A. Past genocides were quickly implemented. New computer technology enable mass arrests to be implemented quickly. Prior to WWII some people warned of the risks of genocide but they were ignored. I hope I am wrong. I want to be wrong. I have the DOJ manuals showing that DOJ computer systems are not set up to protect us, only to identify and track us, although the computer systems could protect our rights if so configured.
I was accused of accusing a convicted drug dealer of violating the zoning.
Jonathon,
I am wondering if you have or will read Annie Jacobsen’s book?
Dear Mr. Turley,
Can you briefly give me your opinion on the significance of Natural Law in today’s jurisprudence? I have not studied Law but was fascinated to read Ellis Washington’s “Reply To Judge Richard A. Posner on The Inseparability of Law and Morality.
Thank you
Johnathan
Thomas Jefferson invented the Autopen.
Ron Patterson
AREA 51?
Burning?
Jet Fuel?
CESIUM?
That Fateful Meeting-
http://edtheradarman.com/Book_Excerpts.html
“Eventually a basic part of our cross section reduction methods”
http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp?doc_no=0001458639&no_pages=0025&showPage=0001
[…] Senate this year. He is a frequent witness before Congress. His biography can be found at https://jonathanturley.org/about/.Professor Turley is being assisted in this case by a team including Jodie Cheng, David Fox, Kyle […]
Prof. Turley,
You might be inter4ested to know that ther3e is an update to the subject of your post : Florida Prosecutors Charge Leading Atheist Advocate With Unauthorized Practice of Law Due To The Use of Esquire (https://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/01/florida-prosecutors-charge-leading-atheist-advocate-with-unauthorized-practice-of-law-due-to-the-use-of-esquire/) :
Activist Atheist to Sheriff: Leave Me Alone ( http://www.theledger.com/article/20110624/NEWS/110629694/0/APS )
She has filed a lawsuit against the sheriff, et al
To: Jonathan Turley, Esq.
Out of a several year curiosity, I wonder if perhaps you are related to Jack Turley, Architect, who was Partner at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, in Chicago?
As a young freshly minted architect (Washington University, STL)in the 70s
I worked in Jack Turley’s studio. He came to mind on the 4th of July as we
worked through that holiday one summer. It was fun, BTW.
I have enjoyed your appearances on MSNBC and your calm measured thoughtful commentary. Thanks for a measured voice in what is all too
often a debate in cacophony.
Sincerely,
Frank M. Hammerstrom
Jonathan,
Thanks for turning me on to your blog. I’ve spent some time reading it this morning and you were right. It’s quite an intriguing Internet destination. Many of your posters are very interesting and intelligent people (although I’m still trying to get a grip on who constitutes “the regulars” as they call themselves). The quality of the conversations on any given thread is quite high, even when they digress. It’s truly a tribute to you that you’ve attracted such a following. What you have to say about the Constitution, governance and even general topics of the day really seems to resonate with people.
Kudos on a blog well done.
Gene
Jonathan,,Is there a way to file a class law suit on Nancy Grace for her libel against Casey but just as importanly, against her constant abuse of free speach? Her words are offensive at best and downright evil – surely she can be sopped legaly? For example – how can she call casey a murderer when not only has she been found not guilty – but a murder was never proved. And yet, she can insite hatred by words and misrepresent the truth – and we can do nothing?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7849.ZO.html
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (91-7849), 509 U.S. 259 (1993). “Comments to the media have no functional tie to thejudicial process just because they are made by a prosecutor.”
JoanWalshsalon.com
Jonathon,
Were you born in Manhattan, KS? I remember a Jon Turley as a child that lived across the street. Jon’s Dad was in the military and both he and Jon’s Mom were friends with my Mom and Dad. My sisters used to baby sit Jon Turley. Anyway I was just wondering.
You might be interesed in the following BOOK.”State Power and Democracy:Before and During the Presidency of G.W. Bush”. The book examines the historical formation of an American Police state.
I have been researching DOJ’s computer systems. I found out that the Warrant Information Network, according to OIG, has inadequate controls over who can log in and inadequate records as to who does log in. Once someone gets a USMS log in ID they can skip the WIN system and go directly to the NCIC and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. There they can post a notice that they want someone arrested and that can be implemented without a verification that there is a legitimate warrant and without creating an executed warrant. Then a person, such as myself, can be held indefinitely without a bail hearing, a criminal charge, a notice of rights, an arraignment, or a recognized right to an attorney. I don’t have a criminal record at all but I was held by USMS for 5 months without a bail hearing, an arraignment, or notice of charges. I was told in court before being imprisoned that I didn’t have a right to an attorney or to discovery or to witnesses on my behalf. I was told that I would only be allowed to make a short presentation and I was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses against me, who were not sworn.
My perception of my various blogs and other public notices is that what I am doing is akin to the warnings people wrote on walls before the WWII exterminations. Beware– our rights are gone!
Mr. Turley,
I am an American citizen who is the victim of our government’s torture program. I am in the process of writing down what has been happening to me. You can read what I’ve written at http://bit.ly/oM8HsU. If you do read my blog, please read it from the beginning. Of particular interest may be this article: http://bit.ly/psfAjB
If you decide it is worth your time to help me, you can contact me on Twitter: @BlithelyIdiot
Sincerely,
Mark Murata
I read and appreciated your article on Obama and his poor civil liberties record.
I was wondering if you knew anyone (or if you have yourself) created a chronological list of Bush and Obama actions against civil liberties. I would find this useful, and I think others probably would also, to see the recent history of civil liberties ingringements.
Thank you.
David Ward
Seattle
Mr. Ward
Do you mean the president or the president’s men?
Do you believe that there is a “right” not to have rights ignored, such as a right not to be prosecuted without probable cause, a right not to face perjury in court, etc.
I just read a court order dismissing Ralph M. Pentzall v Dollar Tree Stores U.S. Court Eastern PA 10-4270. Pentzall complained that his former employer’s agents spread lies about him to prevent him from getting employment. The Court dismissed because Pentzall didn’t claim that he suffered physical damage to his body or his property (house? car?) and therefore didn’t have a cognizable loss. And of course, three years of unemployment must have damaged his health and caused him to sell or abandon his property. I just don’t see how a court could decide that.
So do you think there is a right not to be defamed?
Re: Kay’s reference to Rentzell v. Dollar Tree. Unfortunately, you spelled the plaintiff’s name wrong and it was a headache to locate the ruling. The case was not completely dismissed, only part of it. As to your statement that the plaintiff must have incurred financial, possibly property damages and possibly physical (health) due to stress from the defamation–his lawyer did not include any mention of this in his very brief pleadings.
In this case I think you cannot blame the judge. In my experience, unless a judge is given every fact and shown every available evidence, and everything is explained clearly, the judge may not know anything about that area of law. And these days, due to the economy, they have less help and far greater case loads.
Please note I am not an automatic admirer of judges. Too many are political appointees who do not subscribe to the oath they have taken. In this case, however, I believe the judge did not have an alternative. My sense is the plaintiff is paying little for representation, which is why the complaint is ten pages and the opposition to the motion to dismiss is seven pages.
Dear Ms. Wolk
Thank you for your correction. I did look up the complaint on PACER after reading what you wrote and it said that the plaintiff suffered “mental anxiety, anguish, distress, humiliation and sleeplessness” but did not mention other damages from prolonged unemployment.
You’re right that the law firm advertises itself as “affordable”.
I’ve heard of you too. And I checked “become a fan” seeing an article you wrote about someone convicted of a non existent crime.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/authorspage.php?sid=51491&entry=&o=y
How often do you think that happens?
Mr. Turley,
I’ve tried to find a presence for you on Facebook but have come up empty-handed. There’s no question that a Facebook presence would amplify your voice, which I think the country needs, and I urge you to stake a claim there.
wow, popular guy. Prof. Turley, heard you on NPR (of all places) on the way home from the doctor. Wanted to thank you for having the courage to speak up for the truth visa vi Obama and civil liberties. I never actually supported Obama, me being a libertarian and admirer of Ron Paul, but I did have some hopes for him with respect to civil liberties and the rule of law and felt that , certainly, he had to be an improvement over Dubya. Boy was I ever wrong. The sad truth is, neither the left nor the right give a crap about civil liberties when it comes down to it. I suspect that no one who defines themselves by the left/right paradigm in this country counts civil liberties among their important concerns. My best, doug carkuff
I like reading your stories…very cool!, But I am getting too many emails to read! So I would appreciate you taking me off your list of people to send email updates to. Thank you and I will come here to read your stories when I can. So please remove me from your email lists.
my email= mac@sti.net, my name is Mackadoo Maynard Jr. ( or mac). my phone number is 559-692-2939
34125 Hwy 41, Coarsegold, Ca. 93614
Thank you very much and I may re-subscribe later when I hope to have moore time.
Anguilla Spa…
[…]Bio « JONATHAN TURLEY[…]…
The crackpot Judge, David Gamble, in Minden, NV has only gotten worse since his last ridiculous sentence, however now his dubious court orders have put many children in danger. None of Dave Gamble’s children will have anythng to do with him do to his contentious, controlling behavior. Instead of taking responsibility for his poor parenting, he has blamed his ex-wife, and every other woman that walks into his court room unsuspectingly. He has placed numerous children in abusive paternal homes without any regard for the law governing these cases, which states that there must be a change of circumstances to change custody. Gamble believes he is above the law and simply relocates children as far away from their mothers as possible. The children have been sexually, verbally, emotionally and physically abused and Gamble refuses to look at the CPS records. One child has died. How many more have to suffer because of his ego?
Probably most people have some personality “issues”. I don’t think it is practical to monitor judges’ personalities. It doesn’t work to fire teachers on the basis of personalities and it won’t work with judges either. If you were a judge you would also react negatively to the idea that judges should be fired for having bad personalities.
What I am really interested in is regulating the format of judgments. I have until Christmas to resubmit a S.C. mandamus petition based on the S.C. having jurisdiction because a writ of certiorari isn’t available because former judge Edward Nottingham didn’t write an opinion in my civil lawsuit D of Colorado 02-cv-1950 and I don’t have access to the 10th Circuit either because they ordered the clerks to return my documents.
I found some good citations about the form of judgments in American Jurisprudence and would appreciate any others from anyone. I know that some people think that A.J. is too accessible but I think it is great. I found:
“It is a fundamental rule that a judgment should be complete and certain in itself and its form should be such as to indicate with reasonable clearness the decision which the Court has rendered so that the parties may be able to ascertain the extent to which their rights are fixed.” American Jurisprudence section 444 p 89.
How can I sell that to the S.C.? Help! What legal authorities will they recognize on the form of judgments? What is the legal significance of the U.S. Judicial Canons? Is the form of judgment part of the privileges and immunities clause? There must be something in some old law books…..
Here is William Blackstone: Of Judgment. The S.C. would recognize this right as underlying the privileges and immunities clause because it predates the Constitution and was influential right?
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-324.htm
P.S. If the Rules of Evidence apply to all legal proceedings then judge’s character evidence is not admissible.
Connecting Blackstone on Judgment to the Founders of the Constitution must be like finding the Intent of Congress when a statute is open to more than one interpretation. We would look to speeches and writings by the Founders and to the plain definitions of the words commonly accepted at the time. I typed “Blackstone” “Jefferson” and “judgments” into Google advanced search find these words and a bunch of references came up. For instance:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/blackstone.htm
There is an interesting blog entry at the National Football Post, where it is claimed that the NFL commissioner can fine owners of Green Bay Packer stock $5,000 for betting on NFL games. Can you comment on the legality of this?
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Packers-shareholders-can-be-fined-5000-for-betting-on-NFL.html
Mr. Turley,
With all this praise your hat size must have grown 4 inches.
That you would “chide” Madison is appalling arrogance.
Those who’ve been kissing up to Turley, especially the women–did you know that Turley has vowed he will stop at nothing to assure that American females are never, ever going to be included in the nation’s contract with its people, the US Constitution? That though males or male pronouns are listed there 39 times, females are never listed there–and you know what it means if you are not named in a contract!
By the way, Mr Turley, I have read your news quotes on how haughtily you mock the efforts of those work endlessly to block sex discrimination against BOTH genders by passing the Equal Rights Amendment which barely missed passing by THREE states and IS declared “viable and contemporaneous”.
For this alone, you should yourself be impeached for professing to be an icon for the US Constitution.
That you would be willing to sling such sleaze around to keep females, girls and males from anything like guaranteed democratic rights is incredible. We 300 000 ask you to take off your “superman” costume and dump it in the garbage. Start over as a genuine person.
How you have hoodwinked these sincere folks (above) is criminal. Folks, go ask Turley what he will do to stop passage of the Equal Rights Amendment:
“Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”/gender.
Does not matter to him how anyone else feels nor how he ducks accountability for keeping American women second-class, in the company of Jordan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Lesotho possibly backed by his Mormon past.
Always ask for more evidence when worshipping idols.
Hmmmm……Jonathan, I see that somebody appears to be off their meds.
money laundering uk…
[…]Bio « JONATHAN TURLEY[…]…
Prof. Turley,
I appreciated your comments on C-SPAN but invocations of George Orwell are a convenient but maybe not ultimately helpful way to understand the Jones case. I’m at a loss to understand the difference between a tracking device (not ok) versus traditional (and far more extensive) surveillance.
Mr. Turley———do you think polygamy should be legal?? Do you think we should have legalized gay marriage 100 years ago?? Why is President Obama and Hillary and Al Gore and John Kerry against gay marriage?? Maybe because they fear God. Do we have too many law schools in our blessed country?? I for one think we should just keep society simple and have faith, prayer, fasting, pay tithing, community support, strong families, traditional marriage and be honest with ourselves and say it is breaking God’s commandments that breaks down the family and that in turn breaks down society. (Bible is more important than law school and constitution) It is that simple. It is not complex. It is not legal theory. Sin is sin—–Paul and Peter said so; all are free to agree or disagree—-but nobody can change the commandments and the need for prophets both anciently and today (yes I’m Mormon)—- to say what we read in 1 Corinthians (chapters 1-3) that the wisdom of this world is foolishness—the wisdom in law school is foolishness. Being moral and honest and of faith in sacred texts —works!!!!!! And if one has faith, there is never a need to worry about free speech—-God will protect us—-if you have no faith—you are on your own in life. Intellectuals run around saying “Be afraid of this” “Be afraid of that”——people will take this away from you—-or that——-no, God is in control and you can not force me to live by fear. Book of Mormon is near 150 million printings and you are fighting an uphill battle against simple faith, prayer and keeping God’s commandments. You are kicking against the pricks as Paul was told in Acts.
In theory are here loopholes in the Constitution that will allow a President to circumvent Congress to utilize his excutive order powers to constitutionally protect and stimulate the economy?
Mr Turley, I watched a wonderful interview you did on privacy and the erosion of same, including the erosion/amendments to the constitution, and arrest and confinement at the will/whim of the government without due process .
I don’t know a-lot about the American voting system other than when it comes to Americans on the day of voting they have options of A or B, as you say Blue or Red. Perhaps a end result is voting for the one you least despise.
Would it not be possible especially in today’s climate of such (largely ignored) civil dissatisfaction and unrest that a motion be promoted that instead of voting A or B that the people write through the middle of the vote NEITHER OF THE ABOVE, actively vote for NEITHER OF THE ABOVE!
Surly it would have some impact if only in letting the American people see that they do have a choice by actively voting against. It may help dissipate some of the downtrodden lethargy and helplessness experienced by many or most of America today!
I am new to the blog and enjoy reading the articles. I spent 38 years practicing law and a lot of my best time was for civil rights clients. I have found here something that centers on my civil liberties interests. When I chime in with comments it may be jocularly. But this is serious stuff.
When Gingrich came out with the call to arms to arrest activist judges on the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere with the Capitol Police (sp) and the U.S. Marshals, he stepped over the line into war crimes. It would be appropriate in this blog to discuss the Judges Trial at Nuremberg prosecuted by the United States alone right after the International Tribunials. Folks can Google Josef Alstoetter and find the articles. Here is a description from wikipedia:
The Judges’ Trial (or the Justice Trial, or, officially, The United States of America vs. Josef Altstötter, et al.) was the third of the 12 trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany in Nuremberg after the end of World War II. These twelve trials were all held before U.S. military courts, not before the International Military Tribunal, but took place in the same rooms at the Palace of Justice. The twelve U.S. trials are collectively known as the “Subsequent Nuremberg Trials” or, more formally, as the “Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals” (NMT).
The defendants in this case were 16 German jurists and lawyers. Nine had been officials of the Reich Ministry of Justice, the others were prosecutors and judges of the Special Courts and People’s Courts of Nazi Germany. They were — amongst other charges — held responsible for implementing and furthering the Nazi “racial purity” program through the eugenic and racial laws.
Any body home? My Comment is still awaiting moderation?
Just wondering whether some later comments on the gigantic thread
” Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of 2011
Published 1, January 2, 201″
were lost, dropped out or intentionally removed? Some are definitely gone.
Don’t want to get conspiratorial here. Yet.
Law DeSchilde/DonS,
If your posts have more than two links, WordPress automatically sends them to moderation. Neither the Professor nor any of the Guest Bloggers clear the moderation queue and it is effectively limbo. No conspiracy required.
Gene H.
Thank you for that. seems they have removed the post and me from the thread.
Not surprised. Real law is not friendly to the crooks.
If anyone wants to know the truth, google lawful detroit and see why i say.
[…] Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote a troubling op-ed article, 10 reasons the […]
Dear Professor Turley
I have recently published a novel, Luke2, which hypothesizes how a Christian fundamentalist might alter the face of U.S. politics. I think you’d like it. May I mail you a copy or send you the Kindle file?
I thought Professor Turley would like to comment on this astounding action by a judge who skipped class when the Fifth Amendment was covered. It’s mind boggling and horrifying. And bravo to the rookie defense attorney.
I thought Professor Turley would like to comment on this astounding action by a judge who skipped class when the Fifth Amendment was covered. It’s mind boggling and horrifying. And bravo to the rookie defense attorney.
http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/ottawa_county/Contempt-of-court-judge-vs-attorney
[…] Jonathan Turley Professor, George Washington U., (Complete Bio) […]
Your list of ten reasons why we may no longer be a free nation should be committed to memory and we should be tested on them periodically..
[…] artículo, publicado recientemente en The Washington Post y escrito por el jurista estadounidense Jonathan Turley. El texto incide en una idea ya expresada en este blog desde sus inicios, a saber, que constituye […]
[…] artículo, publicado recientemente en The Washington Post y escrito por el jurista estadounidense Jonathan Turley. El texto incide en una idea ya expresada en este blog desde sus inicios, a saber, que constituye […]
Dear Mr Turley, I’m a homeless person living in LA. I offended some people back min 1998 with connections to the fire dept, fed ex and the Bergen county sheriifs office. A smear campaign was initiated against me. I was illegally injected with microchips during a consumer product study in July 2004 in Fairfield, NJ. For the past 12 years I’ve been systematically stalked like an animal by large groups of people. I’ve been ignored by virtually anyone who can make a difference. Personally gave a letter to Chris Christie in Dec 2008 at Bergen Community college, had filed a complaint with his office in 2003. Being ignored by all people in LA who can do something. I feel like I’m the enemy and I’m just a civilian. So I walk around with foreign objects in my body so people at the police/fire dept. can get their jollies. Our country is in far worse shape than anyone previously thought. If no cares that I don’t have civil rights anymore, who’s next? and why will anyone care? Can you tell me where I can go for surgery. I’m getting the perpetual runaround here.
According to a Justice Department Memo, Anwar Al-Awlaki was “directing” the activities of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “Underwear Bomber”:
“As far back as 2009, investigators had linked Abdulmutallab with Awlaki, but the memo describes how the Yemeni American tested the Nigerian’s commitment to jihad, arranged for him to meet a bomb-maker, and told him to get on a U.S. airliner and detonate his explosives over the United States.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/al-awlaki-directed-christmas-underwear-bomber-plot-justice-department-memo-says/2012/02/10/gIQArDOt4Q_story.html
This will probably settle the matter in the minds of a lot of Americans, but how will we know if it is true?
Chris, do you have a relative Bill from Michigan area?
I Am pretty sure Turley will not answer your post. He has an agenda that is not apparent to the other followers on this thread. He does not cover the elite or the remedies for the people, he only broadcasts the problems mostly. A sophisticated shillian is all he is, that does not accept challenges from the less important if you know what I mean.
Dear Professor Turley,
I am such a huge fan of yours. Every time you appear on Rachel Maddow, The Ed Show, or Countdown, I always make sure that my wife and I dispense with conversation in order to listen to your wise words. I am a history and government teacher from a very small town in western Montana and my students and I would be honored if you could briefly tell me your position on the Citizen’s United Supreme Court decision as we are discussing the pros and cons of corporate person-hood?
Gerald Magliocca of Concurring Opinions recently dedicated an entry to his favorite U.S. Supreme Court opinion, the 1970 admiralty law case Moragne v. States Marine Lines. Inspired by this, New York Law School’s blog writer contacted a few of our professors to find out which Supreme Court opinion was on top of their personal Hall of Fame. Please take a look:
http://www.lasisblog.com/2012/02/22/playing-favorites/
If you enjoy this piece, leave a comment or “like” us on Facebook!
As you are working in D.C., Professor Turley, you should come represent at the Reason Rally on Saturday, March 24th! Come lend your support and share your voice!
http://www.reasonrally.org/
Mr.Turley: I find your opinions helpful and thought-provoking. Are you related to the New York Yankee pitcher from the 1950’s?
Professor Turley
I enjoy reading your blog and recently added it to my list of subscriptions. How would one go about arranging a radio interview with you?
Hello,
I reviewed your site and it seems we could complement your current content. First Impression Interactive has a team of house writers that can provide you with unique custom written content covering the following topics: applying for food stamps, who qualifies for food stamps, Medicaid, and more. I’m certain we could provide some valuable unique articles that would engage your users and expand your site. This is provided completely and entirely free of charge to our partners.
We also have some small food assistance program finder widgets that publishers are running. This widget allows users to search for government assistance for free. For placing these we would be able compensate you for placing the widgets on your site.
Thank you,
Mike Gordon
Manager, Partnerships
FoodStamps
A First Impression Interactive Site
877-764-3477
Mr Turley, will you intervene on my behalf if I distill a vodka named “Five Squaws” with a label that depicts five university of utah cheerleaders lifting up their skirts?
Dear Professor Turley,
I have a question which may be a naive one:
If Corporations are now seen as “people” by way of Citizens United, can this be used in some way as a foundational argument to make individual Bankers, those in charge of their institutions, pay for the crimes of the institution. I would think that for instance, a Bank can’t have it both ways. If you are being classified as an individual, then you should be treated as an individual in all realms of the law.
Thank you for reviewing my question.
Faithful reader, occasional commenter, big fan.
Thought you might be interested in this bit of intellectual property bullying by the US Olympic Committee:
http://exchangingfire.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/2-million-knitters-with-pointy-sticks-are-angry-at-the-us-olympic-committee/
Hello Mr. Turley, I thought you might have interest in the recent perversion of the Citizen Protection Act (anti-SLAPP) legislation in IL. I would be happy to discuss it with you. Here is a short report from the Chicago Sun TImes: http://www.suntimes.com/news/13285466-418/judge-throws-out-profs-defamation-suit-against-northeastern-illinois-u.html Feel free to contact me for more information. I hope that this decision will be of interest. Loretta
Hi, how are you?
I need contact you Sr. Jonathan Turley,
you can contact me editor@voxlatin.com
thanks
Carlos H.
[…] Greg Scandlen on June 28, 2012 Tweet Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley noted today that Chief Justice John Roberts’ tax idea in the Obamacare decision contains no […]
http://www.spreaker.com/user/angelclark/kay_sieverding_on_with_angel_clark
I blogged here a lot and you wrote a column on me a few years ago. This is my radio interview from today.
Professor Turley
I have read with some interest about your experience with Area 51 litigation. My dad, Raymond Walquist, worked at Area 51 for fifteen to twenty years – he was a civilian – stayed out there most nights of the week. Most important, he passed away about ten years ago. His Death Certificate lists severe respiratory issues as the cause of death. I never followed up – should I have?
Ron Walquist
Law in 2007 the same as in 2012?
How and why law changes might be considered an important topic to American law since it often goes in a declining direction as legislators appear to benefit more with lax laws than with strict ones. But few Constitutional or ethics laws begin with lax or contorted laws; most are precise and therefore have the integrity upon which to base future law.
Sadly, both ethics laws and Constitutional laws are subject to erosion by compounded bad law made for current convenience, and that may be the source of the Kelo decision and its attack upon the 5th Amendment right of Eminent Domain that now threatens to be used by government in California to provide private purpose and privilege, not public purpose.
As much could be said for Massachusetts (or any state’s) Ethics codes which reinterpret public service not to include Representatives and Senators so that no cooling off period is required (as in other Ethics laws) to provide the loophole through which legislators may go from their “State official” elected job to their private lobbyist job without a break.
The implications of that laxity, however, in their not being “public officials” may undermine their obligations and the attitudes with which they service in such offices, and within that erosion of premise, may be found the erosion of the legitimacy of public office. No public office means no public obligation, one would presume, but plenty of privilege under the title of “State Official.”
There is some precedent that legislators be confined to the interpretation of words as they existed and were interpreted at the time of adoption of Constitutions so that legislatures are not allowed to make their own definitions but must be bound to those ones that were considered formal and legitimate before reinterpretation by special interest groups, at any time. That policy reinforces the necessity of having English as the official language of any U.S. government, regardless of what language its citizens or residents speak.
Thank you for all of your work for truth. How can we email you?
Stop The Electoral College
If the electoral college were to be scrapped and we went to a straight popular vote, would it be possible to have a real popular vote. My concern is that the large populace states (mostly democratic) would over power every one else and there would never really be a real contest again.
http://www.twincities.com/ci_21751530/court-law-firm-cant-work-state-against-3m
Please contact me back via email when you can–just have a quick question!
B
Dear Professor Turley,
I watched with great interest your “Electoral College’ program on C-Span and I am in total agreement with your position.
I wonder if you could shed some light on the the application of the two English systems: That of parliamentary democracy 1189-1638 interruption civil war, 1660-present, and the one initiated by Oliver Cromwell which lasted in England for six years 1654 1660. The latter being the one seemingly endorsed by by the founding fathers in 1787 Cromwell/President, Comander in Chief of military, two party system.
Thank you
John Hullican
Will you please just write your legal opinion that even though the best option is to have a good lawyer, when people need to appear in Federal Court and can’t afford or find a good lawyer, that they have a right to represent themselves and get the same written rules of procedure as anyone else? Your legal bloggers agree that that is the case. Please just write it without sticking in any comments about my character or myself.
Trial, noun. A formal inquiry designed to prove and put upon record the blameless characters of judges, advocates and jurors. In order to effect this purpose it is necessary to supply a contrast in the person of one who is called the defendant, the prisoner, or the accused. If the contrast is made sufficiently clear this person is made to undergo such an affliction as will give the virtuous gentlemen a comfortable sense of their immunity, added to that of their worth. In our day the accused is usually a human being, or a socialist, but in mediaeval times, animals, fishes, reptiles and insects were brought to trial. A beast that had taken human life, or practiced sorcery, was duly arrested, tried and, if condemned, put to death by the public executioner. Insects ravaging grain fields, orchards or vineyards were cited to appeal by counsel before a civil tribunal, and after testimony, argument and condemnation, if they continued in contumaciam the matter was taken to a high ecclesiastical court, where they were solemnly excommunicated and anathematized. In a street of Toledo, some pigs that had wickedly run between the viceroy’s legs, upsetting him, were arrested on a warrant, tried and punished. In Naples and ass was condemned to be burned at the stake, but the sentence appears not to have been executed. D’Addosio relates from the court records many trials of pigs, bulls, horses, cocks, dogs, goats, etc., greatly, it is believed, to the betterment of their conduct and morals. In 1451 a suit was brought against the leeches infesting some ponds about Berne, and the Bishop of Lausanne, instructed by the faculty of Heidelberg University, directed that some of “the aquatic worms” be brought before the local magistracy. This was done and the leeches, both present and absent, were ordered to leave the places that they had infested within three days on pain of incurring “the malediction of God.” In the voluminous records of this cause celebre nothing is found to show whether the offenders braved the punishment, or departed forthwith out of that inhospitable jurisdiction.
I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here.
The sketch is tasteful, your authored subject matter
stylish. nonetheless, you command get got an nervousness
over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come
further formerly again as exactly the same nearly very often inside case you shield this increase.
Dear George Washington University Law School Professor Turley,
Of course as many Americans, I have heard some of your commentary on major media, yet today, I found your blog entry on Father James Manship of East New Haven. Sharing the same name, I had the pleasure of meeting the Father on New Year’s Day 2008. I posted on your blog a bit about that meeting.
I see you practice “Public Interest Law”, and as a “Journalist for Justice”, and “Minister for Justice”, I try to help Citizens and thus advance the Public Interest. On 16 September 2011, on behalf of 8 children, as “Next Friend”, I filed in Alexandria Federal Court against Arlington County, copying the pleading of a successful case in Massachusetts. A week later five children were returned to their parents (“victory” at least in part), but my case was dismissed because I am not a lawyer, so could not “represent” the children.
On 6 December 2011, at the JDR Courtroom, during a recess, I was eye-witness to the oldest of the 8, Ashlie Mae O’Brien, then age 12, become the victim of an unprovoked, bloody assault by Arlington Deputy Neptuno Mendez-Ventura. I asked Theo Stamos, the local prosecutor, to bring charges against Ventura, and she snapped at me, “You must be delusional if you think I am going to prosecute a deputy.” I tried to make a presentment before the Arlington Grand Jury for them to investigate and indict, but Chief Judge Newman blocked my access to the Grand Jury.
I asked for the Courthouse videos, and was denied. After earlier in the day being threatened four times by retired judge Kendrick with Contempt of Court, on my third written request to the Sheriff, on 20 June 2012, with about ten Arlington Citizens in the Sheriff Office reception area, I again asked for the videos, that were “prepared” later that same day.
I received the videos from the Arlington Sheriff on a “thumb drive” on 2 July 2012, and with an MIT engineer, “opened” the videos. We discovered some of the videos had been “video compressed” to reduce their quality, and all of them had been “cut”, to remove the scene where the deputy bloody assaulted Ashlie O’Brien, or evidence tampering; but there still was MUCH valuable video.
Ashlie’s wrote a letter in August 2011 to Judge Varoutsos to replace Guardian Ad Litem, Karen Grane, who is not representing Ashlie’s interests. When questioned in court about Ashlie’s letter, judge Varoutsos mocked Ashlie’s letter saying, “I’ve seen her scrambles.”
As a former Navy Crypto Inspector General staff officer, I saw GAL Grane’s expense vouchers, and perceived “padding” or fraud. I helped the Maryland Court Ordered Guardian, Grandmother, prepare a Petition for Writ of Mandamus for the clerk to make a copy of those expense vouchers. Instead Judge Varoutsos in an Order specifically “sealed” the Grane Expense Vouchers, but months later, a whistleblower in the clerk’s office made a copy that I now have. Two vouchers’ totals have been lined out and reduced by $1000, or $2000 total, the amount I read on this blog that Judge Porteous allegedly received from a lawyer in his impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate.
The sad saga continues, but I share this hoping that either you or some lawyer you may recommend might be able to represent Ashlie, who after she saw another older foster girl run away from the foster home in Mount Vernon, Ashlie ran away in April 2012 to her grandmother in Montgomery County, MD, and I went to do a “Video Deposition” of her that I have posted on Vimeo.
Within a week or so, Ashlie was “captured”, after Fairfax Police gave a false report to the local TV stations (that after I contacted the Police investigator, they changed, but the correct story only got a small “correction” in the Washington Post), and Ashlie has now been sent to a “juvenile jail” near Richmond, that is known for “drug therapy”, in an abuse of Medicare funding.
The Attorney General of Virginia has recently sent a letter, 5 November 2012, saying it will not get involved because it is a “private facility”. There was a hearing in Arlington on Friday, where the judge denied the Grandmother’s Motion for Default Judgment because the government did not file a reply within the required 60 days on her Habeas Petition.
My name is James Manship. One email is StatesManship@me.com, and my phone is 703-672-1776. I hope to hear from you, Sir.
hello admin nice forum . i am a new user and i will be actively participating ..😎
Permission to quicklink to OpEdNews. I don’t know where to ask. Thanks,.
zrants@gmail.com
Prof Turley – Please read my blog for such stories about the rampant corruption of judges in Cook County Illinois and help spread the word. If you can help to encourage pro bono attorneys and celebrities to take up our cause against corruption in Cook County Courts please contact me. http://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com
[…] was written by Jonathan Turley, describing the legal arguments for the legalization of polygamy. Turley is a law professor at George Washington University and lead counsel for Kody Brown and his family […]
[…] John Cusack, il docente della George Washington Law School Jonathan Turley e il cofondatore di Community Partnerships Kevin McCabe dialogano sull’Huffington Post […]
I recently made a video of how the CIA created Al Qaeda and used it to attack Egypt. Here it is, in case you are interested: http://vimeo.com/55980866
Professor Turley a perennial favorite of mine.A Constitutional Scholar that probably could answer a good question,”Is subcutanious rfid implants on an individuals person,beyond thier knowledge Constitutional?”
Quite a few excellent ideas on this page and really didnt have a clue
regarding almost any of this before so with thanks for your
information
Dear Professor Turley; Do you know of any discussion that relates the 2nd Amendment to the events of the Civil War: 1) States in armed rebellion against the Federal Government and, 2) Individuals (freed slaves) in armed rebellion against oppressive State governments. Thanks
[…] Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at The George Washington University, will look at what today’s epic […]
[…] Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at The George Washington University, will look at what today’s epic […]
[…] Studies and Associate Professor of English at Lehigh University, will also provide analysis. Then, Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at The George Washington University, will look at what today’s epic […]
Professor Turley,
As much as I enjoy “your” articles, I only enjoy them when “you” write them.
I am neither a writer nor a journalist but when I compare the article below (released March 17, 2013) to your article headlined: Holder Tells Senator That Obama Does Have Authority To Kill Citizens With Drones On U.S. Soil Without Criminal Charge or Conviction I’m left wondering who wrote the article? Am I mistaken or confused about the similarities? If not, then did someone forget to source and link attribute?
This really concerns me because I feel that any semblance of the truth I got from the alternative news is fading away.
One person can damage the credibility of an entire organization but I’m sure you are aware of that. Maybe I’m overeating. Could you please shed some light on this situation? Thank you for your input.
A dedicated follower of “YOUR” blog,
Stacey
Holder Confirms Obama Can Murder US Citizens By Drone Attack in America
Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 6, 2013
Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter to Senator Rand Paul that states: “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
Holder explained to Paul that it is legal for US citizens to be murdered in a drone strike on American soil.
To answer Paul’s question of whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial”; Holder went on to assert that Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
Holder went on to say: “[The Obama administration] reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.”
However, Holder does acknowledge that “it is possible, I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
Holder postulated that “the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack. Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority.”
A leaked document from the Department of Justice (DoJ) revealed guidelines of the Obama administration’s legal reasoning for conducting targeted assassinations. The document asserts that the government may lawfully kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” decides that the target is a high-ranking Qaeda figure or affiliate who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and that capturing him is not feasible.
Without the definitive threat of attack that could be construed as inevitable, the power of executive order is all that is needed to have a targeted assassination initiated.
The white paper includes redefinitions and expansions of self-defense and imminent attack with the ideology of a “broader concept of imminence” without the necessity of actual intelligence to support those assumptions. If the American is thought to be a threat to the US, they could become eligible of these targeted assassinations.
The document also states that Congress would be circumvented while Congressional committee’s intelligence could be considered classified legal advice which would justify the killing.
The Obama administration, through the DoJ, are attempting to create a legal explanation for their targeted assassinations of US citizens without proof of terroristic activities. Now they have it.
Armed with a secret kill-list and several US citizens already murdered by the US government.
According to anonymous sources, Obama has drawn up a guidebook that sets forth the circumstances by which targeted assassinations using drones can be carried out. This document seeks to justify the use of unmanned aircraft for the use of a CIA-operated targeted-killing program which is still officially classified.
The Obama administration is deciding whether or not drone killings should be the first response to terroristic suspicions in order to “help allied governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from controlling territories.”
Thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 6 national drone test sites were established to coincide with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement that by 2015 at least 30,000 drones will be in American skies surveying US citizens in the name of safety, according to Janet Napolitano.
DHS is requiring that Predator B drones be equip with surveillance capabilities that can determine if a human target is armed or not.
Through a solicitation posted in 2005, DHS initiated the process of obtaining drones to be specially equipped to become encompassing surveillance tools to use against the American people.
These specific drones are used to monitor US southern and northern borders; yet are now being utilizes by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the Secret Service (SS), the Texas Rangers, and local law enforcement to identify citizens carrying firearms and tracking them through cell phone use.
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GAAS) explain that DHS specified that these drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not”; including “signals interception” technology that can syphon communications in frequency ranges used by cell phones, as well as “direction finding” technology that can pin-point the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.
GAAS provide “tactical reconnaissance radars, and surveillance systems” to the US government. Their CLAW and LYNX technology collaborate “multi-mode radar” and “sensor payload control and image analysis software “to enhance surveillance and intelligence gathering that can be downloaded into “ultra-wideband data links for government applications.”
These drones are “capable of intercepting electronic communications . . . [and] the capacity to recognize and identify a person on the ground.”
Posted by Susanne Posel on March 6, 2013. Filed under Police State. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
Noticed “Res ipsa loquitur” Interesting, I had a prof who used to write
Hi Jonathan,
Carol Decker gave a donation in memory of Molly. We are sorry to hear of the accident. We typically send a card to the person who had a donation made in their (or their dog) name. If you would like to provide a land mail address, I will send that to you.
The generous gift will be used to help us spay/neuter dogs here at our all breed dog/cat rescue in Columbus Ohio. We have a mobile clinic that travels throughout the state doing low cost spay/neuter surgeries.
Our heart is heavy for your loss.
Kind Regards,
Kellie DiFrischia
ColumbusDogConnection.com
kdifrischia@gmail.com
Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google,
and found that it is really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels.
I will appreciate if you continue this in future.
A lot of people will be benefited from your
writing. Cheers!
Hi Jonathan,
I am proud to count myself among those who have followed you for many years. You do incredible work, critically important work, and the people of this country owe you a great debt of gratitude whether they know it or not. Thank you for all you have done, and continue to do with eloquence, humanity, and humor.
I am writing because I found myself in an extraordinary situation in my business, and I wonder if it falls into the area of a violated civil liberty.
I am the President of a mid-sized service company that annually sells about $15 million of frozen food packaging to major supermarket chains and large institutional food packers all across North America.
All of this packaging is printed at one of four large printing houses in the US, so I do millions of dollars of business with each of them. With one of these large printers I have had ongoing problems for years, but remain their customer because they offer high quality films and distribution services that the others do not.
Recently, however, the problems got to me, and I expressed my frustration in an email to a couple of the printer’s mid-level managers. I received a phone call response from one of them, but the call was in fact a set-up. Unknown to me, the caller’s VP supervisor was listening in. The caller was also instructed to do all he could to provoke me to anger, and after this had gone on for a few minutes, the VP supervisor cut into the call, dismissed the original caller, and proceeded to launch into what I can only describe as verbal abuse.
Fortunately, the situation backfired on the VP supervisor. He received a stinging reprimand from the company owner for unethical behavior, and my relationship with that printer has somewhat improved.
My question is: does the VP supervisor’s behavior cross the line from simply abusive and unethical into an invasion of privacy or illegal monitoring or some violated civil liberty? Again, this was not a case of monitoring a call for quality assurance. Rather, this was a deliberate plot to entrap and berate me.
Sincere thanks,
Josh G.
Jonathan,
I found your blog while doing a search for Judge Patrick Murphy from Cook County, IL. I feel compelled to tell you about a custody case that just completed today where Judge Murphy’s ruling was unusual and somewhat shocking.
A woman, who lives in Cook County, IL and has primary, residential custody of her 9 year old, met and married a man from another city within Illinois, approximately 150 miles away. The child’s dad contested the move and attempted to prove that the move would be detrimental to the child, based on the child’s “ties to the community.”
Judge Murphy talked to the child in closed chambers where the child told the judge he wanted to live with his dad, but that he also would be very sad if he didn’t live with his mom. The mother’s attorney brought in the child’s counselor, who testified that he believed the child was pressured by his dad to say certain things. The mother’s attorney also introduced the Tender Years Doctrine, an older but still valid doctrine that states a child should remain with the primary caregiving parent until a certain age, normally around 12 years old.
The trial was quick with the mother being the only witness being called by the child’s father’s attorney. Judge Murphy ruled that custody be changed to the child’s father with generous visitation for the mother.
This seems to be highly unusual. Why would the Judge change custody from a loving mother to the father just because the mother is moving? The revised JPA which was submitted by the mother’s attorney allowed for more visitation for the father over the course of a year. It is also interesting to note the father recently lost his job under suspicious circumstance.
The mother is devastated. What grounds did Judge Murphy have to make a custodial change?
Jonathan Turley is the only lawyer I’ve ever listened to who can bring tears to your eyes, when he explains and defends our Constitution.
Mr. Turley,
The Louisville Metro Police Department continues to serve and protect their own rather than the community. I am an eye witness and writer who has one heck of a story that the world needs to hear. A victim left to die in her apartment by a LMPD officer. After filing a complaint, the officer retired before any prosecution could begin. The attacker and the officer walks free. Pictures from the day in question of the victim are beyond alarming.
If you are open, I would welcome commentary, advice, and/or support with this case. We have connections and are working to put those in motion.
Thank you in advance.
Bridget Renee Kendall
brigitterene@icloud.com
Mr. Turley- This is not technically a comment- I am trying to contact you to gain your premission to republish your article “Miranda– Confirmed, but Barely Alive” originally in the Washington Post June 27, 2000. The Washington Post has informed me that you are the copyright holder.
Please respond to me via email at maryelizabeth.williams@qbslearning.com and I can provide you with all the details. It is a commercial textbook so we can reimburse you for republication.
Thank you,
Mary Elizabeth Williams
Text Researcher
Q2A Bill Smith
Dear Mr. Turley,
I am contacting you today in the hopes that you will share your unique perspective on my own personal dilemma given your representation of Ali Al-Timimi. In 2002, I was a 15-year veteran Verizon Telecom employee working in the Washington, DC area. During that period, the company assigned me a seat next to Hammad Abdur-Raheem from December 2002 until May 2003. On 6/25/2003 Mr. Abdur-Raheem was arrested and later convicted in connection with the Virginia Jihad Network case. My inquiry is in regards to that period of time and subsequent FBI FOIA appeal denials for both my wife and me.
I know Viktor Bout’s best friend, the so-called Merchant of Death. If you want me to hook you up as a referral, send me an email. This guy got royally swindled – set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Kerry’s CIA. He sure could use a good lawyer if you’re in the mood.
It might help what little credibility you have on this issue to at least get the guy’s name right: it’s Dodson, not Dobson. Just stick to things you know like defending terrorists and traitors who cloak themselves as “whistleblowers” in a lame attempt to justify their treasonous acts.
Mr. Turley,
In light of the government shutdown and looming credit default I was wondering whether or not those in congress who advocate positions that have voted for those options are guilty of impeachable offenses. I was looking at “impeachment” at Wikipedia and it referred to “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”; “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are defined as follows by Wikipedia:
“The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.”
I find myself also wondering whether or not elected officials who espouse religious beliefs above their constitutional obligations (e.g.: Michelle Bachman) might also be impeachable under the “perjury of oath” clause in the above reference Wikipedia quotation.
Dear Professor Turley, Hi. What is your position in regards to Twitter and others who use data mining for inside marketing and sharing via executives who sit on multiple boards and committees with other like companies in say Menlo Park and San Francisco, California–those same tech groups have direct insider information pertaining to their companies which are arguably shared with Venture Capital funders and their groups also in the vicinity? Is it fair and or legal for an executive who has privileged information, about his own company, (fiduciary implications) to share with others in in the pre-sale of say a Initial Public Offering? The industry term is “Selling Group” and is part of say Goldman Sach’s language referring to pre-selling a stock to create a market during the Red Herring phase–prospectus dog and pony shows–that kind of thing. My comment is really a statement that High Tech companies are building a pyramid scheme using each other to create a false market for those who “go public”. An executive at Twitter is not supposed to talk about his company’s inner goings on, to any other company let alone others directly who share committee and or board seats. This is the essence of Insider Trading and I just wonder what you thoughts are on this matter that is building another Tech bubble which will inevitably cost individual investors million or billions in losses when their capitalization efforts run dry–various stages of venture finance. Should there be another Glass Steagle like invisible wall for High tech companies sharing insider information with venture capital firms with ties to Congress for instance?
Dear Jonathan Turley,
In November I am filing civil rights violations charges against Justice Scalia under;
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245, Federally Protected Activities 1.) b.) e.)
If you are interested, please send me an email address that I can attach the description of charges that I made up for the FBI and the DOJ.
I think you will find this interesting.
David Darell Galbraith
In countries where growing magic mushrooms, there are numerous kits available in the garden shops, both online and acute opiate withdrawal timeline offline.
If for nothing else, the following six amazing everyday foods can help you live longer.
Hi Professor Turley–ET here from Area 51–want another case? Take a listen to this–and ask yourself, “were those mass shooters delusional or were they really hearing radio talking to them?” I can explain how this is done, but for reference, we have been targeted since 2007, by some very disturbed people in our government and academic circles playing with things and people using life for their lab experiments. Just thought you might appreciate this. Turn up your computer speakers and tell me what you hear.
These background radio based transmissions have occurred in our homes, through three different states and every day and night since 2007. 7-years at 365 days per year, I’d say is now 2555 counts and indictments of at least 6-known individuals who are using us as experimental guinea pigs. Their ties are drug dealers on the CIA payroll since several are La Familia members in the Texas biker group with ties to Governor Rick Perry and ex-military members who are also in our neighborhood. This has followed us from Missouri to New Jersey to Texas. My concern is not my own well being, as I can explain how this is easily done, but rather was this done to Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter, the Colorado movie theater shooter and most recently the ex-Navy vet, who shot up the Naval Base in Virginia. If the CIA and NSA are accessing medical records looking for candidates who exhibit psychological metal or emotional issues, then the CIA and anyone else who took part, should be brought to justice and the families compensated. I believe this is the CIA and NSA or both and I believe that they are purposely using drug cartels typically for slush funding black ops, to perform intentional radio torture in the act of driving some, crazy so they become out of their minds. The lady that rammed the D.C barricade was in fact hearing what she thought was radio via Obama talking to her. I believe she was targeted by CIA/NSA illegally accessing her medical files. We have years of video, audio and picture files showing how this is done via a remote computer redirect to a site that loads a Python Programming side by side operating system onto people’s computers, allowing a group of users to access the computer, re-partition the hard drive and modify chip sets, driver and registries allowing the computer to become a weapon used in sonic torture and remote CRT video and built in microphone reconfigurations. There is only one outfit researching this and it is the U.S Navy in San Diego and Whidbey Island, Washington. We have their files and I can explain how they are doing this as I have seen the operating system and read their redirects. We are ready to prosecute and make our case publicly–want a crack at it?
prisonpath.com applauds all efforts to raise the public eye to our massive incarceration issues. The USA is No. 1 in inmates, prisons, and etc. for many reasons including private prison profiteering to insane long term sentencing.
I watched your testimony before the House committee today and was moved by your passion well articulated. I usually find amusement in Issa and Gowdy in their questioning, but I found myself wanting to hear more of your ideas instead.
I found this site today and look forward to reading your thoughts.
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at GW, and he has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at GW, and he has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.” Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
What i don’t understood is if truth be told how you’re now not really much more neatly-preferred than you may be now.
You are very intelligent. You realize therefore
considerably in the case of this subject, made
me for my part imagine it from a lot of numerous angles.
Its like men and women aren’t interested unless it’s one thing to
accomplish with Lady gaga! Your personal stuffs excellent.
At all times care for it up!
[…] the The George Washington University Law School, Alba had taken a class while there from Professor Jonathan Turley. When he found out that Turley was representing the Brown’s in this case, he volunteered to […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] […]
[…] […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
I hope that I’m not overstating your value in terms of Americans, America and the Constitution that you are quite simply – a saint.
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.” Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He […]
[…] […]
[…] […]
[…] […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. […]
[…] — Todd M. Hinnen, former acting assistant U.S. attorney general for national security, and Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor — have become friendly combatants in a […]
[…] case took my breath away,” said Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. “If officers are not fired […]
[…] case took my breath away,” said Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. “If officers are not fired […]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-winfield-burns/attack-of-the-femmes-fata_b_4738485.html?utm_hp_ref=college&ir=College
Hi. We’d like to respond to the attack of the femmes fatales recently in Butler Library.
Professor Turley,
I saw you on Fox tonight and I share your concern for Executive abuse of power. But there has been a constitutional matter that has been bothering me lately that perhaps you could help me with. The 3 branches of government are co-equal in theory. Assuming this is the case, why doesn’t the judicial branch take a more active role in serving as a check and balance against Executive and Legislative power. Can the U.S. Supreme Court file a law suit against the President to check his power? If the U.S. Supreme Court can file a suit, will you please give me a brief explanation of how that can legally and constitutionally done? Thank You Very Much.
Justin L. Petaccio
Justin, the courts have been engaging in a consistent effort to use standing and avoidance principles to dismiss cases. While they justify this approach as trying to stay out of “political questions” and allowing the two branches to work things out, it allows courts to avoid difficult cases. The result in my view has been quite dysfunctional and destabilizing for the system.
I appreciate your comment about the courts avoidance of making decisions in difficult cases. However, you also avoided answering Justin’s question.
Justin & Robert,
I am not a lawyer, but have spent the past forty years hanging out in courthouses. I never heard of a court filing a lawsuit. For one thing, if the Court filed a lawsuit. who would hear and rule on it? The SCOTUS accepts cases to hear, and rules. That’s it. The problem comes when they (and lower courts) shirk their duty to make a clear, well-reasoned, definitive ruling. The term “weasel” comes to mind when reading some decisions.
Mr. Stanley, thank you very much for your reply. I agree when you say “who would hear and rule on it?” But what I would like to learn is, as a co-equal branch of government, does the U.S. Supreme Court have the right to file a law suit against another branch of government to fulfill its constitutional mandate as a check and balance against another branch’s abuse of power. At most a purely intellectual exercise, but indulge me.
Thanks again,
Justin L. Petaccio
Thank you very much, Professor Turley, for taking the time to reply. I feel very honored to have you reply personally. I have greatly admired and learned much from your comments on the news programs throughout the years. In fact, I believe that you were one of the persons who inspired me to become the political junkie I am today. It was good to see you again testifying at the congressional hearing.
Justin,
A court can do all kinds of things sua sponte, but filing a lawsuit would create an unsolvable conundrum.
An individual judge can file a lawsuit just as you can. Anyone with a filing fee can file a lawsuit. However, that judge must file as an individual and not as a judge. Obviously, a judge could not preside over a lawsuit he or she filed.
Professor Turley, I have seen you many times on the O’reilly show. Each time I see you I wonder if you may be related to any of the Turley Family I knew in the Columbus Ohio Area? The lady I knew was named Shirley.
I agree with you each time I hear you and am astonished at the lack of outrage about the power grab that is systematically taking place in Washington. It seems to me that so many people have just gotten their fill of all the empty promises and eloquent rhetoric followed by no action. The mere mention of the usurping of the Constitution is met with a request to “change the subject”. It seems that a great many of the people have lost faith in Congress and feel it is useless and too frustrating to even address any of the situations that our self appointed King creates.
I am outraged that so many are willing to sit back and allow our congress and Constitution to be slowly nullified while our President takes it upon himself to illegally make changes to laws already passed by Congress. Such actions not curtailed by Congress renders both House and Senate null and void. Seems that our Senators and Representatives have taken the same attitude as the people. They complain but do nothing or cave to the demands put upon them by the Presidency. Is there anything we can do about all the laws being rewritten by this President? Seems that he only enforces the part of the law he likes and changes the parts he doesn’t like. Must we have to wait until election time to take over the Senate and Presidency to clean out the cesspool that we call Washington and turn the government back into the kind of government our forefathers intended it to be? At present, it looks as if all three branches of the Government are corrupt and no longer represent the people. The emphasis is making this a Nanny state thus making the people dependent on Uncle Sam. Intended result: keeping the present party in power. The People pay their salaries but sadly have no representation!
Dear Mr. Turley,
It seems very curious to me that of all the various constitutional attorneys only a very few, besides you, have challenged the president on over-stepping his bounds and bending constitutional law. You have suggested that the federal courts take on this case, wouldn’t a lawyer, such as yourself, have to introduce the case before the courts first? Or, do the courts have the privilege of stepping in to correct this obstruction of constitutional law justice?
As I dig deeper and deeper into this matter it becomes obvious that while the 3 branches of government are co-equal in theory, in all actuality/practicality they are not co-equal at all and that is deeply troubling. It exposes a fundamental flaw in the constitution. And the President, as a constitutional lawyer/teacher is well-aware of this fact and has exploited it much to his advantage with little to no opposition at all to his continual unabated, egregious abuse of power.
Saw you professor Turley for the first time on the Kelly File on Fox news a day or so ago. You hit the nail on the head with your analysis of what is presently going on in Washington today. People are at the point of total frustration and are becoming more apathetic daily. We need to turn this around. Keep up the good fight.
[…] Turley is a Constitutional scholar of the first order. He has testified in front of Congress, specifically on the usurpation of authority within the […]
Mr. Stanley,
Thank you for addressing Justin’s concerns. I am not a lawyer either and Constitutional Law is well above my head. But surely there is a way to curb this kind of abuse by the POTUS. In my opinion, our laws seem to have become whatever this one individual says they are at any given time. In elementary school I was taught about things like The Code Of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta. The purpose of these documents was to have a written record which would be understood by everyone and be independent of any one person’s abuse of power.
As we the people stare at the spectacle unfolding before us, awake, wondering at some of the incredible statements of the president, his hand gestures, his eyes flashing from one point to another, smiling and at at times stammering for words (“some boneheaded decisions…” in responding to accusations of corruption regarding the IRS) one wonders is he the puppet or the puppeteer. I tend to believe he is a caricature of an SDS era brain trust, plucked by the Chicago machine, the perfect political “ringer.” To be sure, an historic accomplishment with horrible and potentially dangerous results, he seems surrounded by ideological social engineers.
Daniel Ellsberg called him the first “monarch president” was quickly quashed by democrats as “nonsense.” However, the era of Nixon has with it strange generational ironies with today; Bernard Nussbaum and Hillary Rodham scripting Article 2 of Richard Nixon’s Impeachment reads eerily of the current occupant of the White House.
As we slowly slip deeper into the abyss, we come to find just how brilliant The Founders were in understanding human nature, the core element of man’s falling from grace, an ignoble pride to do whatever one wants without question or judgement or respect for higher authority.
We are witnessing a kind of president who resembles more the character Commodus. The co-equal “orbits” of power were created to intentionally cause “friction” whereby the requisite abilities of our elected representatives required them to engage in debate, negotiation and agreement within our framework, Commodus has no interest in soiling his hands with any of it, would rather operate in the dark. The original healthcare law as it was being reviewed by Judge Roberts was effectively being rewritten in secret by Kathleen Sebellius in the subsequent scripting of 10,000 pages of regulations. Does not the court have anything to say about that? Is that not a fraud on the court? That their ruling was on a piece of legislation that was entirely fluid?
The president stared at us through the television, making declarative statements, asserting to everyone a “bright shining lie” not once, but 27 separate times on national television.
Churchill was correct. However our political system and its underpinnings can be nullified if the press is derelict. Where Nixon was taken to task for abuses of power by an active press, fomenting public support for the Watergate Hearings, the first African American president is in fact insulated by the press in this modern era.
If the president does not “take care to faithfully execute the law,” regardless of what color he or she may be, we the people have no recourse if the fourth estate remains derelict, because impeachment is a political process. The court has gone silent, congress is vilified, the general election is three years away, we have now entered a new and dangerous era. Nixon once said to John Mitchell, “if the president does it, it is not illegal.”
God help us all.
Dear Mr. Turley,
God Bless you, as you stand boldly protecting our greatest rights for all of all human kind, while openly protecting our one and only Constitution! We are not a united people anymore, we are a commodity, some are sold on the NYSE, a country with the highest rates of unemployment, exceeding that of the1929 stock-market crash, and last but not least, a country where our people have been labeled a terrorist. This is not our government either, it’s a place of madness, insanity, and one where no one can win. The people of the United States have been dummed down, lied to, Congress has hidden from, and to top it off, we have all been brainwashed. This is why you see,there is no public action, we live in fear of retaliation. Our countrymen have been poisoned, by chem-trails, medicines, radioactivity, and our children given shots of who knows what. The only citizens that still believe in our country, are all in their 50’s and 60’s, and pretty much unable to protect themselves, let alone fight for their rights again. They are not dumb and blind, just lost and overwhelmed, by a tyrannical system. I am deeply saddened to see, the America I grew up with as a child, lay dead and dying. Tell me how does one fight back, how do we take our country back, and trust anyone who will love it, nurture it, and put God first with all his laws reinstituted, and not lie to our countrymen? Tell me where does one sign up for this, and become a hero or many hero’s, because then I will come and millions more will too, to see America the Beautiful rise to glory again. I believe this, that you are trying to do just that Mr. Turley, and I like what I hear and read about you. I certainly hope you are that Hero!
May our Lord protect you sir, Sincerely Lyn Bryant
Professor Turley,
Great segment on FOX. I don’t know if it’s my TV or what, but you seem to look and sound a whole lot better on FOX than on those other news programs. I hope to see and hear more from you. America needs your voice during this difficult period. Thanks.
Good Morning, Everyone. If you will permit me, I would like to posit a question here for discussion in light of the current political turmoil:
What, if any, pro-active recourse does the judicial branch of the federal government have, to serve as a check and balance against the 2 other branches of government, in order to guard against an abuse of power?
Professor Turley,
I just watched your interview (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/114922-liberal-law-prof-criticizes-obamas-power/) on Fox, and before then I knew nothing about you. I haven’t poked around much yet on your website, but I’ll take your word and the URL that you’re a liberal, but clearly you have a respect for the Constitution. It seems to me that there are several important areas in which our courts are failing us, regardless of where you stand on the issues themselves:
(1) Gun control: if we as a society want to get rid of the right to bear arms, wouldn’t it be better to modify the Constitution than to try to get courts to say what it doesn’t say?
(2) Abortion: ibid. There is no constitutional right to abortion, obviously. It’s a faction. If we as a society want it, then let it be done in the proper way.
(3) Etc., etc., etc., etc…..
James
Prof. Turley, I am by no means qualified to question you about the legality of the happenings in Washington, Having attended college but majoring in a completely different subject with little legal training and being self taught through many years of interest in our government I have a couple of questions. One concerning our Judicial arm of the Government and the other being how to stop the bypassing of our congress.
However, at this point I want to thank you for answering Justin. I am delighted to be able to follow a blog that seems to be concerned with the very things that have haunted me about this so arrogant President who once said, “I’m the one you have been waiting for” (a quote from one of his so eloquent speeches he made when everyone was so enthralled with and were swooning over him after his election.
Seems we have problems that need to be addressed, Two of which should be addressed very soon. That is where you come in. Many of us, the citizens, need to know what the rights of the people are and what actions can be taken to alleviate these problems.
1. Since our Judges refuse to properly address the problem of a President who seems to be above the law, it appears that we should consider fixing the problem by limiting the term the judges are duly appointed to serve. Thus, they would not be so comfortable in neglecting their duty and might possibly stop passing the buck. What course of action would the people have to pursue to (properly, legally and constitutionally) the task of attempting to limit the terms of the Judges? Surely lifetime positions has given our judges the freedom to sit back and avoid being a responsible party in curtailing the Political power grab which our elite President has undertaken. Until we get all branches of the government working together (curtailing the President’s power grab, relieving the Senate from “King Harry’s reign, and getting the Judges back in the game, we are treading water. Judges being appointed for life has proven, in the last decade, to render them completely safe to judge according to their beliefs rather than what is best for the Country.
2. Please advise us how to legally curtail the President’s perpetual use of his “Pen and Phone” in bypassing congress. In the past such action was generally used for dire emergencies. Even though Clinton’s hands were tied, he wrote many pardons, and made some changes by bypassing congress he never attempted to rewrite laws. And, none were drastic enough to put millions of lives in danger as this President is doing. Even though Bush had the right to declare war on the Taliban after 9/11, he went to congress and got their approval. So, what gives this arrogant President the right to totally disregard the people’s choices to represent them by blatantly breaking the law and bypassing the elected Congress?
If there is a way to stop this power hungry dictator, then would some of you lawyers who are proficient in constitutional law please make the attempt to stop his unconstitutional actions and let the citizens know what recourse they have to make a difference short of waiting out the next 3 years. Surely you, Prof Turley are not the only one qualified to oppose his actions, there must be more like you that could stand up for our country and help prevent the disastrous decline that it seems to be spiraling toward. Admittedly, congress needs the help of a few legal eagles proficient in Constitutional law who could educate its leaderless congress as to what it can do to stop Mr. Obama’s push for a signature law (Obama Care) to be carried out in spite of the astronomical cost, the loss of jobs, loss of lives, doctors and medical care. His legacy seems the only thing that matters to him.
With the help of the press, we forced Nixon out, and God forgive me I voted for him. And, for the record, Nixon was truly wrong when he said, ” If the President does it, It is not illegal”. It is no secret how his power grab and micro managing fared as President. The people recognized a whopper then and no matter how a lie is presented, a lie is still a lie. we just have more uneducated who occupy the voting booth today. To change the course of the country and curtail the actions of an overzealous president is a little more difficult and takes true leadership, of which we sorely lack in Washington……………………………..Thank God we have a few people like you Prof Turley . Not only does Congress need leadership, the Citizens need to be more knowledgeable as to what actions they can take. .
PS (Did you ever live in or around Columbus, Ohio?
Good Morning, Myra. Thank you for your pointed comments. It felt nice to wake up and read them.
I just wanted to comment on Professor Turley’s appearance this week on Fox News. If I understood the good professor correctly, he said, (and I’m paraphrasing here), that it wasn’t WHAT Barack Obama was trying to do, but rather HOW he was trying to do it that the professor disagreed with the President. I agree with Professor Turley. I have supported universal healthcare since 1985. Universal healthcare is a right, not a privilege. (I will speak more on this later) I support a living wage. I’m working class; strictly meat and potatoes and proud of it. $7.25, or even $8.25 an hour is a national disgrace and embarrassment and a slap in the face of good, decent, hardworking Americans. But we are a nation of laws, and any society that considers itself to be civil must of necessity respect those laws. And no one is under a greater obligated to respect and enforce those laws more than the President of the United States.
Thank you for your reply. It is nice to know there are a few who are willing to speak out and call a duck a duck and discuss that which is considered major problems in Washington. Far too many are afraid to speak up and take action. I am tired of hearing the race card being played. Lame excuse! We are a nation of laws and no one is above them and congress makes the laws and the House is supposed to control the purse. There is a working system in place, it is not broken, just being controlled by the President and the Senate Leader. The system has worked for many, many years and the only reason it is not working at present is that the people are not being listened to or given the right to have their messages heard. The Senate is refusing to bring to the floor bills that were passed by the House and an impatient wannabe dictator is making all the decisions by bypassing congress. It is the Senate, not the House that is holding up progress. So what if Obama threatens to veto a Bill! he doesn’t like! ,Congress has the right to override his veto and that is not happening these days, No attempt is being made to do so. King Harry will not let there be an up or down vote. Thus we have a self appointed King that is calling the shots with a Senate leader who is his hatchet man , stopping all Bills that they do not like. There should be at least an up or down vote. if no sensible action is taken relatively soon we all lose.
Anybody wondering where the President of the United States has been these past 3 days? Wonder no more:
Associated Press: RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. — With two visits in less than a year to the sprawling Sunnylands estate in Southern California, President Barack Obama is helping to fulfill the dream of the late philanthropists Walter and Leonore Annenberg, who hoped the desert property they used as a winter home would become the “Camp David of the West.”
Obama has spent two long weekends at Sunnylands since June, mixing diplomatic duties with the pursuit of a favorite pastime: golf.
While Rome burns, the Emperor plays golf for the past 3 days.
No surprise here. Don’t all kings take holidays, this one just takes more than most.
Dr. Turley, I just wanted to express my appreciation for your principled, immaculately posed opinions. Although admittedly I am a right-libertarian economically, and a bit of a social ‘commie’ liberal, above all I am an engineer, and have a deep appreciation for logical arguments. I don’t always agree with your views, but my god do I appreciate your arguments.
If I were president (will the horrors never cease!!), I’d put you on the Supreme Court for your impartiality and intelligence and constitutional insights and ability to view the impact upon all sides. Even if you pissed me off until the day I died, I’d not regret a day..
Kudos, Dr, Turley!! And keep your feedback coming to the non-political, non-media, non-legal class. We desperately need you!!
– Respects from an ordinary, worried citizen ….. Tom
Sorry, tired (overly-lengthy MCAT study session) period. I particularly appreciate your principled attacking abuses of both the right *and* left, despite whatever personal biases you might hold. That in particular resonates with me, given the sickening and dispiriting frequency for which the alternative is expressed..
Godspeed!!
– Tom
If Obama can use executive orders to give different groups waivers from the ObamaCare mandates, why couldn’t a different President
offer the same kind of waivers from enforcement of the Federal Income Tax or order the IRS not to enforce portions of the tax code?
I think this may be a whole in Obama’s stratagey. Please give me your opinion.
William M. Clayton: You make an excellent point. Obama is setting a dangerous precedent because it undermines the very foundations of our system of government. That’s why it is critical for the Legislative and Judicial branches of government to attack the Executive constitutionally and legally.
In reply to M Clayton, We have a Constitution and we should honor it. What should be done is to put a stop to the President who abuses his powers. Just because “O” chooses to run ram-shod over the constitution, we must prevent it from happening again. We need a president that respects our country, its laws, its Constitution and the people. Otherwise we no longer have a democracy. it becomes a downhill spiral.
Myra: couldn’t agree with you more.
Prof. Turley, I watched you on ‘Hannity’ tonight and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I want to thank you for stepping up and speaking to the people to let them know what the country is facing.
Too many are oblivious of the danger this President, Congress and Judicial body has placed our country in. We have a lot to lose if the parties don’t wake up and realize how fragile our governing system is at the moment. The polarization between the parties must be stopped. We need more people of your constitutional knowledge who are from both political parties to come forward with the message that each division of government has a particular duty and the divisions (House, Senate, and President) are equal. Our forefathers did not set up the system for one division to bypass the other.
Today, it seems to be one party calling the other party liars and if more people from your political persuasion do not speak out, I fear we may never get enough people to listen to the message you conveyed tonight to Mr. Hannity. It seems that many have lost the ability to tell the truth from a lie and tonight you put the onus of this polarization squarely where it belongs. Once again, I thank you for speaking out.
Good Morning, myra. Again, it was nice to wake up and read your comments. Keep writing.
I would like to acknowledge Professor Turley’s candid appraisal of our President’s executive performance. I am sure that Professor Turley and I would disagree on many political issues, but he is sending a valuable message to all of America when he warns of runaway executive power and the lack of critical personal responsibility. He, like I, enjoys his freedom to decide, debate, and defend his own opinion.
Can the liberal mind imagine a “conservative” president ignoring the enforcement of state protection of Planned Parenthood facilities, or the failure to prosecute legislation requiring background checks for gun buyers. How about returning to enforcement of old laws still on the books by default….laws against sodomy, sedition, dissent, public speaking, assembly, and access to the polls, etc.
When the price of comfort and security is freedom, especially when yielded to a tyrannical governor, it is foolish to believe that the trade will provide for the citizen. Professor Turley knows the effect of ‘precedent’ on future government. It is the highest form of “custom,” the original source of law. The ‘slippery slope’ is a real thing, always viewed by the politician as a pro and a con. The US Constitution was written for the specific purpose of providing the citizen the chance to govern himself through equal voice and majority rule. It explicitly forbids the notion of the “divine right to rule” better known now as the ‘divine right of kings.’
All else left for others to say, I would like to thank you Professor. Your voice has been a clear and potent reminder for American citizens everywhere.
David
I only listened to a small part of the NPR interview concerning the aggregation of power in the Executive branch. But being a Californian, and given the ultimate history of Prop 8, it, at least, gives me some sense of comfort that a responsible person such as yourself shares some of my concerns. To me, it is frightening that a Governor and state Attorney General can disregard what really was the will of the people. Simply because they disagreed with the outcome they chose to ignore it. And maybe more frightening is that the courts felt that no one else had standing to defend the law. Who speaks for the people? I would think that in a situation where elected officials choose to ignore laws passed by the voters any voter should have standing. Otherwise tyranny by any other name…………………….
Why is everyone so afraid to check the president’s power? Has Chicago style politics (and tactics) permeated our government so thoroughly so as to eliminate all virtue? Has this administration taken Nixonian tactics to an exponential level so as to have an FBI file on every member of congress, critic and political adversary in the country, to be used to black ball or intimidate into submission anyone and everyone who crosses this administration?
Why is William Wilkins from Chicago overseeing the IRS, the president’s political appointee? Signaling his minions he states “there is not a smidgen of corruption” regarding the IRS, but why then would Lois Lerner invoke the 5th and demand immunity before being recalled. Our republic is unraveling and there is no man willing to stand with any courage or conviction to fight for The Constitution lest he is afraid, threatened or intimidated.
Archibald Cox would have none of Nixon’s intimidation.
[…] case took my breath away,” said Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and professor at the George Washington University Law […]
[…] case took my breath away,” said Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and professor at the George Washington University Law […]
[…] case took my breath away,” said Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and professor at the George Washington University Law […]
[…] case took my breath away,” said Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and professor at the George Washington University Law […]
This entry notes that “In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge.”
Well, Rep. Farenthold (R-TX) has introduced a new “Bill of Attainder” in Congress. According to the Washington Post, “A group of House Republicans led by Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold has proposed a bill that would withhold the pay of federal officials and employees who are held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/04/21/the-contempt-act-who-would-it-would-affect-in-the-obama-administration/
This proposal by Farenthold and others to withhold the pay of federal officials is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional because, as a Bill of Attainder, it is prohibited by the Constitution in Article I, section 9. (This prohibition applies to both state and federal governments).
A bill of attainder has been defined by the Supreme Court many times. One definition is (1) a legislative act that (2) inflicts punishment without judicial process (3) on a named individual, or a group of individuals who are identified with legislative particularity.
If enacted, the bill would be legislation (a law) that would inflict punishment (denial of salary) on a named or identified individual (Holder) with no trial, witnesses, assistance of counsel, or judgment before any court. In cases like this, the courts look for punitive intent by the legislature. Here, there is abundant evidence of their desire to punish Holder without judicial process. The sponsor expressly targeted Attorney General Holder by name: “my bill will at least prevent current and future federal employees, like Attorney General Holder, from continuing to collect their taxpayer-paid salaries while held in contempt of Congress.”
The bill does not name Holder, Lerner or others, but it describes them with particularity so that they are readily identifiable. It imposes punishment, since the federal courts have always identified denial of salary as legislative punishment. It is unfair, since inflicts punishment before trial and punishment. Punishment would attach even before any adjudication by a court that the officer had in fact complied with the congressonal inquiry, or had lawfully invoked any constitutional privilege.
The bill is a malicious and pernicious bill of attainder. It would allow Congress to impose contempt merely by adopting a Resolution stating that “the individual has failed to appear, testify, produce information, or answer pertinent questions when summoned by Congress or a committee of Congress.” There is no allowance for a witness who lawfully complies with a relevant request, or who asserts a constitutional privilege to refuse to testify, based on the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The witness is still in contempt.
Under the terms of the bill, contempt begins when the House or the Senate adopts a resolution of contempt. Contempt ends “on the date on which a statement withdrawing such statement of contempt is filed with the House or Senate….” It is not clear whether a resolution ending contempt is required. The bill provides for no relief whatsoever if the Supreme Court were to hold that a witness was deprived of her constitutional rights to refuse to testify. If the House or the Senate refused to file a statement withdrawing the statement of contempt, then the withholding of pay would continue indefinitely (although the Court of Federal Claims may be able to award monetary damages).
The bill would therefore deny salary long before the courts had ruled that Congress imposed contempt illegally. (This would also be a denial of fundamental due process by inflicting punishment before adjudication). The law would immediately be thrown out by the courts under the literal language of the Constitution and over 200 years of clear precedent. Joe McCarthy would have loved a law like this.
The Congressmen may be ignorant, but each could request legal opinions from their State’s law school faculties, from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), or from Professor Jonathan Turley at this leading legal blog . Without such opinions, the sponsoring Representatives are acting in reckless disregard of the facial unconstitutionality of their proposed bill.
Or they may be aware that it is unconstitutional, but do not care, since it allows them to engage is a cheap political stunt, pandering to his ignorant tea-bagger fringe supporters.
They will probably not even feign remorse. They can say that they will let the courts decide. But they have violated their oaths to support the US Constitution by introducing a clearly unconstitutional law. It is the duty of all elected official, legislative, executive and judicial, to judge the constitutionality of their acts in the first instance, even if the Supreme Court has the final say.
It is total hypocrisy for these so-called defenders of the Constitution to support a blatant violation of the express language and the “Original Intent” of the Constitution, as affirmed uniformly by the courts since the Constitution was adopted.
What’s your take on Bright v. Gallia County – http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0116p-06.pdf ? I’d love to read it.
Why visitors still make usse of to read news papers when in this technological world the whole thing is accessible on net?
Mr Turley,
For you to go on a show like Hannity who you well now is a partisan hack you lose all your credibility. It a shame because I really respected you…. But I don’t anymore….
Mr. Turley,
I am a Florida high schooler who is apart of a program called S.W.A.T.( students working against tobacco) I read your ‘ A Nasty Drag in Niceville’ post. At the end of your post your said “E-cigarettes heat liquid nicotine rather than using tobacco and are billed as healthier alternatives for smokers.” I would just like to inform you that they are not. E-cigs are far more dangerous as your post showed. E-cigs can explode in your mouth, they are easier to get no-smokers addicted, and it is proven that using e-cigs produces a worse second hand smoke for the people around you.
– sincerely
Logan
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about chilling.
Regards
Hold fast Prof. Turley, let nothing move you.
Uber vs. Ubermensch
My New Oxford American Dictionary has the following definitions for the above:
Uber:
Denoting an outstanding or supreme example of a particular kind of person
Ubermensch:
The ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883-85)
It seems to me that Ubermensch is far better word to apply to the case of President Obama rather than the somewhat neutral Uber.
Regards,
Charles Kindel
cekindel@aol.com
You can definitely see your enthusiasm in the article you write.
The world hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe.
All the time follow your heart.
[…] case took my breath away,” said Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and professor at the George Washington University Law […]
Dr. Turley, I have a constitutional question: Let’s say the Senate is tied 50-50. Because of Biden, Harry Reid continues as Majority Leader, and committee chairs are all Dems.
But what if Biden died? Suddenly, there’s no Majority Leader. Who runs the show? Who chairs committees? Especially since the Senate will have to confirm the new VP, how would it function?
Intriguing question that’s never come up in US history before….
Prof Turley,
The question in you blog is very intriguing and as a citizen who follows your blog periodically I am quite interested in what the legal actions would be to a situation that is described below: It seems to me that the Minority leader would pick up the lead until another was voted on to replace the Majority Leader, or would there be a different scenario here? Please e-mail me an answer. I am not the brightest student of political law but I definitely am one of the most inquisitive. Thank you for your time. Nelson Dr. Turley, I have a constitutional question: Let’s say the Senate is tied 50-50. Because of Biden, Harry Reid continues as Majority Leader, and committee chairs are all Dems. But what if Biden died? Suddenly, there’s no Majority Leader. Who runs the show? Who chairs committees? Especially since the Senate will have to confirm the new VP, how would it function? Intriguing question that’s never come up in US history before….
Dr Turley:
If Eric Holder can announce he is resigning effective the day his replacement is sworn in, that means the senate will be holding hearings etc and voting on his successor WHILE HE IS STILL HOLDING THE OFFICE HE WILL RESIGN FROM. Ie., he didn’t RESIGN, he simply said he WOULD when conditions were right.
Libs want Ruth Ginsburg to pack it in now so BO can have a Dem senate vote on her successor now because there’s a good chance the senate will be Republican in January.
So…what’s stopping Ruth from announcing tomorrow that she is resigning at the end of term in June 2015 and Obama nominating her successor (Eric Holder) tomorrow and the Dem senate approving in Dec 2014. Time? Holder’s successor COULD take that long to get confirmed and no one seems to be objecting.
Remember the Paddington?
[…] https://jonathanturley.org/about/ […]
Hello Jonathan, I have just recently started following some of your cases and your writing when I realized we must be cousins. I am sure we are connected through my grandfather Theodore Turley. Would love to know your take on that. We may have some connection through our relationship through Clarence Darrow who is a cousin of ours. keep up the good work!
Ray C. Parrish
[…] don’t believe me? Jonathan Turley, a real Constitutional scholar and Professor – and a Liberal – has stated this will lead to a […]
May 19, 2012
David Elliot Chipps
Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Senator Patrick Leahy
United States Senate
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Leahy,
Recently it has come to my attention that Federal District Court District Judge Malachy Mannion has been nominated by President Barack Obama for the position of Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
This letter concerns that nomination and I would ask you to consider this information as affadavitized testimony in that regard.
I include herein two copyrighted publications concerning Mannion that have been in circulation among 3,400 media and third parties for almost two years. Both publications state clearly, emphatically, that Federal District Court District Judge Mannion is and has been involved in the use of stark and blatant criminal official oppression and provides some evidentiary basis for this fact. These exact same factual statements are also found in federal District Court Briefs that are on file in the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia [ Supplemental Brief of the Appellant, Third Circuit, No. 98-7456, filed in April, 2000 ].
To be quite explicit about it since 1987 – almost the entire length of Mannions career – I have been publishing that Mannion has been involved in criminal actions that amount to ‘criminal’ official oppression; ‘criminal conspiracy’; ‘criminal obstruction of justice’; and, the ‘criminal’ violation of federal court precedent established to protect the legal and civil rights of individuals. In fact Mannion’s entire federal career would be more perfectly described as the “epitomy of ultra vire”.
If the United States Senate Judiciary Committee affirms Mannion’s nomination for the position of Federal District Court Judge you will be, in essence, affirming Mannion’s practice of criminal activity and continuing in the ultra vire court that operates in the Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, and, in the panels of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
The sole reason that Mannion exists in ultra vire in this federal court system is due to the fact that this government – to include the Attorney General and this very Senate Judiciary Committee – has, in the past, deliberately failed to indict Mannion, and, has been covering-up his criminal activity for political reasons.
Let me be more specific.
Almost one year after I first began publishing information about the criminal actions of Mannion and in the federal Middle District Court, in 1987, the Times Leader newspaper published this account of my efforts:
[ Dec. 11, 1988 ] ‘What other options are left for David Chipps?
Well, for one, in addition to his still-pending appeals to the Supreme Court, a review
by the Senate Judiciary Committee is a possibility.
“It’s gotten to the point now where I’m accusing federal judges of clearly acting
unconstitutionally,” Chipps says. “If I were a member of the Senate Committee
and heard that, I’d want to launch an inquiry.” ‘
And, in fact, I had indeed formally requested that the Senate Judiciary Committee conduct an inquiry into this very matter. Not long after, in January, 1989, United States Senator Joseph Biden – then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee – informed me that the Judiciary Committee would not conduct any inquiry into this matter. That failure to act – and, in my opinion, Biden was covering-up criminal activity in this matter – allowed Mannion and this ultra vire court to continue this criminal activity and official oppression to the present day…almost 23 years now. As well my approaching the US Senate Judiciary Committee was prefectly appropriate in that the Judiciary Committee was and is the only legal entity with the legal authority to remove federal jurists acting in ultra vire.
In 1986 Mannion and Federal District Court Judge William Nealon were acting concurrently in exercising criminal obstruction. Mannion would repeat this criminal obstruction ten years later, in 1998, with Federal District Court Judge Robert Cindrich even more blatantly. All toll I count 14 federal jurists in the Middle And Western Districts of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who are hiding behind judicial immunity while either committing criminal acts or sustaining them in ultra vire (to include Federal District Court Judges William Nealon, Robert Cindrich and Yvette Kane and Third Circuit Court Judges Dolores K. Sloviter, Collins J. Seitz and Carol Los Mansmann), and, a cloak of immunity that I am certain Mannion is looking forward to hiding behind to absolve him of criminal actions in the future.
Let there be no doubt that I have no illusions about what the filth in this government is capable of, however, this is how I will view the affirmation of Mannion to the federal bench.
Mannions affirmation to me would mean the opportuniy to publish even more information about his criminal activity and those government officials who are aware of this activity and directly responsible for it (to include the present members of the Judiciary Committee). Mannions affirmation would mean the immediate release of some very sensitive information. It seems that at some point in time a juror, or jurors, are going to have the opportunity to refuse to serve on a jury in a courtroom in which Mannion presides because of his criminal activity. I will, among other things, also provide both plaintiffs and defendants with substantive information about Manions criminal conduct, and, provide substantive material testimony of this same conduct in legal actions over which Mannion presides and in which the government is defendant.
My whole point is that Mannions affirmation will provide me with perfect opportunities to continue to initiate sustained, substantial direct action on an even higher level. I assure that I will avail myself of those opportunities.
Finally, in 1987, after having made a public appeal to the Senate Judiciary Committee to take action, I continued to provide information to the Judiciary Committee and its members of the criminal activity ongoing in the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Biden was not the only Judiciary Committee member whom I continued to provide a wealth of published information to about this matter. US Senator Orrin Hatch, currently still serving on the Judiciary Committee, was also on my mailing list. For almost ten years after my initial appeal both Biden and Hatch routinely received the published documents in this matter. And, despite the fact that neither Biden or Hatch had anything further to say in those ten years about the criminal activity I was describing it was in fact Hatch who, in 1997, contacted the FBI about the “Nealon letter” that led to my arrest. “Allegedly” Hatch was concerned that the rhetoric in the Nealon letter contained a “threat”, although, in my opinion, Hatch was merely a front man in a black bag scheme by this government to retaliate and attack my credibility because of what I had been publishing.
I today regard both Biden and Hatch to be perfect examples of the duplicitous filth in this government who are either covering-up this criminal official oppression, or, who are involved in it while publicly mimicking their committment to law and order.
_______________________________________
David E. Chipps
CC: “The Perfect Choice”
the “Mannion” pr
the Times Leader article
Judiciary Committee members
Washington Post
Washington Times
The Boston Globe
The New York Times
media
Hello, I had a similar incident happen to me at Stanford Children’s hospital.
However, when she had open heart surgery, She passed away from a clot in her drainage tube.
Karl Eastman
(502)403-6035
[…] traduit du Whashington Post par Novopress. Date de publication originale : 8 janvier 2015. Auteur : Jonathan Turley, professeur de droit à l’Université George Washington. Avertissement aux lecteurs : cet […]
[…] Lynch, George Washington University Law School professor and nationally recognized legal scholar Jonathan Turley, scathingly rebuked actions taken by President Obama and current Attorney General Eric Holder, […]
[…] Lynch, George Washington University Law School professor and nationally recognized legal scholar Jonathan Turley, scathingly rebuked actions taken by President Obama and current Attorney General Eric Holder, […]
[…] Lynch, George Washington University Law School professor and nationally recognized legal scholar Jonathan Turley, scathingly rebuked actions taken by President Obama and current Attorney General Eric Holder, […]
[…] Article Title: Bio | jonathan turley Source: jonathanturley.org » Visit Link « […]
Mr. Turley,
I would like to bring to your attention the plight of DOE Federal Agents .
First I would like to introduce our mission to you. We are Nuclear Material
Couriers (series 0084) we are tasked with the safe and secure transport of
thermonuclear weapons and special nuclear materials via tractor trailers
across the lower 48 states. We operate hundreds of missions each year from
Oak Ridge, TN. The Agents of this command are highly trained and extremely
loyal to the United States of America. One of the processes that insure such
loyalty is human reliability program (HRP). The HRP process is very intense
due to the nature of the cargo carried in the public sector. HRP’s purpose
is to insure that the Agents that are in custody of trucks filled with
thermonuclear weapons won’t give them to terrorist nor tell them the routes
we use to ship the same. However this process is being used as a weapon
against the Agents of this agency. The Psychologists are being told to “dig”
for reasons to not certify individuals into the HRP program. The order that
HRP uses is the 10 CFR 710 Energy. As an example I would like to submit my
personal situation.
On the 7 of December 2013 I was a passenger in a car that was stopped for
suspected DUI by TN State Troopers. I was arrested for Public Intoxication.
Prior to the trial I was instructed to meet with PSD (personal security
division) and by not complying would result in forfeiture of pay. This was a
recorded interview with an investigator. This is a violation of DOE 10 CFR
710.4(a), (b);10 CFR 710.7(a), (b) not to mention the Constitution of the
United States. On the 7 April 2014 the charge was dismissed and later
expunged. During this time I have been paid at the GS-11 step 8 pay grade
($70,000) Senior Agent to sit at home on the tax payers dime. During the
past 10 years of service as a Nuclear Materials Courier the Department of
Energy has over $500,000 in my training and clearance. Along with 5 years of
service in the United States Marine Corps it would cost over $2,000,000 to
bring an agent to my level by the federal government.
I am but one; there are 4 more Agents that are currently in similar
situation at the Eastern Command alone. There are about the same number of
Federal Agents at the Western and Central commands who are in the, “HRP
process.” With no time constraints or deadlines this process will continue
to be used as a weapon. Most of us have been out for OVER A YEAR ( 16 months
in my case). With an annual salary of over $300,000 (for Eastern command
alone) being paid for persons who have NOT been convicted of anything we are
in what is known as the “Black Hole of HRP.” As a result, this agency has
had several large judgments awarded to individuals for gross misconduct, EEO
violations, ect. I have been in contact with the Office of Special Counsel and have a contact there with a case number assigned. I have contacted DOE IG and was told my case will help and be added to their investigation on HRP. Every Congressional and Senators office that have anything to do with nuclear programs. Sen Corker and Congressmen Duncan are currently applying for a foia. I am one of the few black agents (3) that are employed at AOEC, I am not getting a fair shake. The other Agents that were arrested for PI were back to work far under the 17 months that I’ve been out. Some even had felonious arrest. I’ve had multiple meetings with PSD/HRP Psychologist, Neuropsychologist, and investigators with each meeting a new set of issues. As I disputed them and prove their accusations are unfounded more are added. I know that you have had success in the defense of Couriers in the past and plead for your help again.
We are Veterans, Fathers and Patriots that continue to answer the call to duty to insure that America is the safest place on earth to live. Please help us by telling the Department of Energy that the Constitution of the United States of America applies to those who support and defend. Please feel free to contact me and I can give you more details. Innocent until proven guilty, innocent after proven not guilty.
Thank you for your time in this matter
Frederic Brown “Rick”
Re the Waco bikers.
170 have been arrested with bail set at $1MM each.
This situation makes the “Speedy Trial Rule” perfect for the defense – there is no way that the prosecution can develop a compelling case in 5 weeks.
How will the prosecution handle the STR demands?
For a complete list of fat burning foods check out getasixpackabs.
Vitamin C is a strong antioxidant, which helps protect the
body from being damaged by ree radicals. Amino acids are used to repair and transform fats
into muscles.
[…] entire discussion between Cusack and Turley, a professor and constitutional law expert, is intriguing and I highly recommend giving it a […]
[…] entire discussion between Cusack and Turley, a professor and constitutional law expert, is intriguing and I highly recommend giving it a […]
[…] entire discussion between Cusack and Turley, a professor and constitutional law expert, is intriguing and I highly recommend giving it a […]
Prof. Turley;
Love your work. If/when you have a chance, please consider sharing your opinion on this case:
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/06/09/the-war-on-free-speech-u-s-department-of-justice-subpoenas-reason-com-over-comment-section/
Thanks!
Read the article about the family that was attacked in their car while in the wrong neighborhood. If my memory is correct isn’t a hate crime classified as a violation against someone for their race, religion, creed and gender? Well I have a story about another such incident if you would like to hear it sometime concerning myself.
Webmaster,
My posts always misformat upon final posting. Can you correct that? I write, then correct. When I click “post,” the paragraphs are structured randomly and incoherently. I have tried copying and pasting and cutting and pasting. Nothing causes correct formatting after initial writing then amending/correcting.
Thank you.
forgotwhoiam
I don’t know how the paragraph was structured to begin with so I can only offer you a speculation.
I believe what might be happening is that the system stores the text in such a way that it attempts to left-justify what is written and compress it to save on whitespace. (whitespace is simply defined as spaces and tabs) For instance, if you have typed five spaces between words, the system will concatenate it to just one space and convert tabs into spaces.
It might be possible for you to use a non breaking space character, such as typing (be sure to include the “;” on the end) for each space between words. I haven’t tried this but it is a suggestion. Hope this helps.
Darren Smith,
Thank you. It affected not one but many paragraphs or postings.
I am not doing anything unusual, atypical or extraordinary. I simply draft, modify, proof, correct and post. On many but not all occasions, after I post, the format is entirely changed, different and erroneous.
Presumably, if one readies a text for posting by correcting and rearranging, it should post precisely without modification. Is there a flaw in the website that can be corrected by the site IT technicians?
Forgotwhoiam
The WordPress software converts text that is placed into the comment entry box (where you type in your comments), if necessary, into UTF-8 (allowing simple HTML tags to be rendered). If you are using software that places text into this box that is something other than UTF-8 when the system will attempt to convert this as best it can so that it can be stored into the server’s database as a source to build the webpages that you see here. So if you are using a different character set (other than plain UTF-8) such as by using Microsoft Word and then cutting and pasting into the WordPress text box, the formatting will be lost, as well as what I mentioned before with the pagination and whitespace.
So if you are using an editor that makes say text larger or different colors, it might not necessarily conform to what WordPress uses and as a result when it is parsed to encode into the datatabase it will strip out the unrecognized formatting and leave only the plain text but if it cannot do this correctly, based on its parsing algorithm, sometimes it gets garbled up when rendered as a webpage.
This is however the design of the WordPress software and not likely to change at an architecture level. WordPress has a massive data base system and if it allowed too many text formats and other bells and whistles it causes orders of magnitude more storage requirements. The other consideration is that making it more complicated for the user, it can tend to put the many users off as they will find it confusing and be dissuaded to further participate in the system.
There is not unfortunately for your case much that I can do to help you with preserving the formatting tool that might you might be using. One way that you can try to see what the format likely will be is to take what you have used to type in your comment’s text and (if using windows) copy it and paste it into a “Notepad” window. ([Start button] {All Programs} {Accessories} {Notepad}) then take this and copy and paste it from notepad to the wordpress comment entry window. By doing this it will take the text from what you originally typed in within that editor, strip out formatting, and enable it to be copied into the wordpress text box. (technically notepad uses, in the English version of Windows, ISO-8859-1 as its default character set. It will translate almost character to character to UTF-8)
Sorry if this is overly technical but this is the best way to explain things. If you tell me what device / computer operating system, that you are using and how you go about getting text into the comment text box it might give me a little more information to help.
“Overly technical,” oh heck no. But I just made an appointment with my psychoanalyst.
Seriously, my system is quite usual, a 2013 Dell Inspiron, All In One Desktop, using Microsoft 8.1.
I type in the website box and click post. On some posts I cut and paste a quotation from another website. Before I post I draft, modify, rearrange, proof and correct.
It might be simpler if you told me which of the steps I’m taking is causing the misformatting or reformatting after posting.
It may just be a random, uncorrectable IT problem.
Thanks again.
I think the cutting and pasting from the other website is the issue. You might try pasting what you cut into Notepad first, highlighting and copying it again while in notepad and then paste it into the WordPress comment text box. That should strip out most of the formatting and provide a more predictable outcome after you post your comment.
Darren Smith,
Excellent. Above and beyond.
Thank you very much.
Darren Smith,
A few days later –
The format of many of my posts on the Turley Blog is still random and erroneous. I’m becoming paranoid. All other posts do not appear to suffer this same phenomenon. I have tried notepad, cutting, copying, etc.
I draft, modify, proof, correct and post after I construct the paragraphs as perfectly as I can.
It would seem that the Turley website should publish paragraphs as they are finally configured and posted.
The sentences that result on the Turley site are definitely not the sentences and paragraphs that I write, configure and post.
This happens to my system on the Turley Blog. Perhaps it is a flaw in one of my components.
(Dell Inspiron 2013 All-In-One Desktop – Windows 8.1 – Verizon FIOS)
This does not happen on other websites.
What I post is good. What the site publishes is bad. It is randomly misformated.
Please have that corrected by the site IT technicians if possible.
Thank you very much.
DS,
P.S. Perhaps cutting and pasting from some specific websites causes the problem. Can you name any?
Forgotwhoiam,
Unfortunately, we cannot control what the WordPress software parses and spits out. That is server side coding that we do not have access to. The only thing I can suggest at this point would be to write your comments directly into the wordpress comment window, then copy and paste it into a wordprocessor of some kind–to look for spelling and grammar errors–then manually change any mistakes that the word processor finds and click the [post] button.
One thing that is coming to mind now is that the word press comment text box is set to a different font than that which you are seeing in the final rendition on the resulting webpage. I think I know why this could be happening in one respect. The text box for entering the comment uses fixed-width characters but the resulting webpage rendition will use a font that will compact it. Over the course of many words the difference will be noticeable. Here is an example:
XXXXXXXXXX
iiiiiiiiii
When I typed these series of characters, in the entry text box, the x’ and the i’ are the same length. But when I post the comment they will be different lengths. This is because compressed, the i’ are narrower than the x’. In a fixed pitch system they will be the same, as is the case with the text entry. But they aren’t in the final website. Over the course of a paragraph the difference will be markedly greater. That might be something that is a factor in what you are seeing. Unfortunately what you are seeing, is a design issue of the webpage’s template.
I thought about it a while and I think I might have an additional way to address this.
When you cut and past from another website that line breaks are probably getting transferred over in what you past into your editor or wordpress’ text box. In doing this there could be paragraphs mangled into it. Editing these can be tricky especially when the paragraph is long. In an ideal situation when you past text into wordpress it will be one solid stream of characters with a paragraph break at the very end. Unfortunately it doesn’t always work that way. If it did wordpress would take the raw, unbroken text and then will only act at the paragraph break.
In the wordpress text box this can be tricky to remove. The only way I know of to easily restore the paragraph to originality would be to manually go into the text box and see where the errant line break happens, that is you will see a lot of whitespace between some seemingly random words, resulting in a lot of blank space and the continuance of the sentence on a new line.
To correct this you will place the cursor one space after the last letter of the last word before the whitespace then hit the back button one or two times (usually two). It will the draw the text back to form a complete sentence on the same line. Note you might have to do this for each errant line break. If the errant line break occurs to the very right side of the text box it can be difficult to see this. Unfortunately in the comment element of submissions there is no way for the user to go back and correct the text once it is sent. Those of us having editor permissions can revise the text but we do not have the time to customize every comment submitted by each user. Doing the aforementioned steps can be tedious but might be necessary when cutting and pasting content from other websites. If you type the text here directly it should not have the formatting issues because in typing directly here you create a stream of text that the system can easily parse.
Another suggestion, don’t hit the [enter] button until you have fully completed typing a paragraph. That might result in line breaks that you did not intend.
Hope this helps, but this probably is the extent of what I can offer for suggestions.
OK. Thank you.
Do any other posters have a similar problem? The blog looks good in general. I wonder why it is only my system, which I described above.
Thanks again.
forgotwhoiam,
We see this behavior sometimes when we are making articles in the editor, it happens sometimes with copy and past from MSWord or other documents, especially when converting from .PDFs
Note date:
Peltier Art
John
1, November 28, 2015 at 2:11 pm
Darren Smith, is there an explanation for missing posts on your new Peltier art blog?
Darren Smith,
Is the fact that posts are censored on weekend blogs explicable?
To wit,
12/6/15
“We’re talking drugs, when the FBI Director is quashing the recommendation for indictment against Hillary, understanding that there was no hesitation in the case of Petraeus. Priorities, Mr. Smith.”
[…] Bio | JONATHAN TURLEY – JONATHAN TURLEY BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION. Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging … […]
RE;\: Cato’s Letter
Please provide a reference on the influence of Newton on Madison
Regards
Mike George
Enjoyed your article about Tom Horne and although it was some time ago most Arizonians are well aware the corrupt system hasn’t changed much. Just a different head on the snake, thanks for your dedication. Pearyb@yahoo.com
Dear Dr. Turley,
I would like to make a request,
I am looking for a good treatise on the militia,
there is a lot of talk and discussion about militias,
coverage from the media on militias typically paints these groups as white extremists groups,
Dr. Turley,
for those of us who consider ourselves patriotic Constitutionalists,
would you please consider giving your readers a small treatise on the subject of militias,
and give us your opinion on what the Constitution says about militia, what the parameters are,
when is it appropriate and legal, and what are some of the ideas and practises of militia today that you consider clearly without any Constitutional foundation,
for those of us who are looking for clarity on this issue-
Thank you very much
sunaj
Image of the Beast: A GLOBAL NAVIGATING COMPUTER-BASED
SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATION, INFORMATION AND SURVEILLANCE
(CELLULAR/PAGING/MESSAGING/ON-LINE) NETWORKING EMPIRE!
(having Seven Heads and Ten Horns)
One World (Humanity) vs. One God (Christ): Israel’s Fierce King!
DREADFUL AND TERRIBLE, EXCEEDINGLY STRONG, DEVOURING THE WHOLE EARTH (Daniel 07:19-28)
The Commonwealth of Israel
Post Office Box 144
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54305
Johnathan Turley,
I have been following you for some time now. I am not very knowledgeable with computers or writing. You can see from my blog that I have been raped by my local Government officials. I do not know how to go about getting more exposure to my story. I know that the attack on me was brutal. I know the attack on me is a conspiracy of serious criminal offenses. I do not know how to file a formal complaint which is what I have been told I need to do by several agencies. I have contacted more attorneys than I can remember, all have declined my case due to the complexity and amount of time that would be needed to represent this case. I would like to proceed pro se. I have no clue as to the formal process of doing so.
sincerely,
Melody Boatner
Keokuk, Ia
[…] Bio | JONATHAN TURLEY – JONATHAN TURLEY BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION. Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from … […]
[…] Professor Jonathan Turley, The George Washington University Law School, a nationally recognized legal scholar and commentator who has often testified in Congress on constitutional and statutory areas, will serve as our keynote speaker. He has represented members of all three branches from congressional members to federal judges to Justice and intelligence officials. […]
[…] Bio | JONATHAN TURLEY – JONATHAN TURLEY BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION. Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from … […]