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. In 2020, the federal court found that there merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was 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. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. 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. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with this fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
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 and writes regularly for the Washington Post. 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, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. 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 was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. 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
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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
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:
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
Martha!! Mary!!! Get a room!!!
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…
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.
GOD BLESS GW BUSH.
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…
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.
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!
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?????
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…
hey, martha h:
Tell us all about the “Project for the New American Century” and stop cutting and pasting from your right-wing sites…
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.
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!