Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Levin to JABBS: "You're Annoying Me! (Click)"

As part of JABBS' continuing coverage of the debate over President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, I called one of the better-known conservative legal minds in the country: radio host Mark Levin.

Once I identified myself to the call-screener as a "liberal," I was on the air within two minutes. Could Levin explain to me what I saw as an illogical stance by the Bush Administration?

I offered Levin my premise -- a variation of what I have been writing on JABBS:

The White House claimed it had "inherent authority" to conduct warrantless surveillance, but then supported legislation from Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) to "further codify" the surveillance program. It ultimately cut a deal with Senate Republicans to provide Congressional oversight for warrantless surveillance. Why?

Levin repeated his basic premise: the White House has "inherent authority" and doesn't need Congressional approval or oversight.

That didn't answer my question, though, so I tried a different tact, even though I was clearly irritating him by daring to ask a follow-up.

So I asked him: Why did the White House cut a deal he felt it didn't need to make? Why didn't President Bush get warrantless surveillance approved in the first Patriot Act, when "he had Congress at his disposal."

But that was too much for Levin, who quickly dismissed me, saying "You're annoying me!" before hanging up. To his listeners, he suggested I was just going around and around in circles, and would never understand his logic -- a point I'd agree with.

***

Conservatives apparently don't want to debate such details. As DeWine said, "We don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional."

Conservatives want the debate to be about homeland security. Are you for it or against it? Do you want to give President Bush the tools he needs, or not?

Some conservatives are quick to point to minutiae when the debate is over whether Bush lied when saying, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," because the flood waters "topped" the levees. When liberals say, "You're missing the big picture: the president and FEMA were caught unprepared in spite of clear warning," these conservatives argue that liberals "hate Bush."

But with the minutiae of warrantless surveillance -- the question of why the administration supported DeWine's legislation, and ultimately cut a deal, and the ramifications of those decisions -- these conservatives take the opposite stance. In this case, they argue that liberals don't see the big picture. When liberals say, "But what about the law?" these conservatives argue that liberals "hate Bush."

In both cases, I think these conservatives are wrong.

102 Comments:

Anonymous Montauk6 said...

Poster child/icon/mascot, whatever...
That horrid wench who debated Randi Rhodes on C-SPAN with her hands over her ears going LA-LA-LA-I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

11:04 AM  
Anonymous NewsGnome said...

blah, blah, blah, ooooppphhs....censor!

12:59 PM  
Anonymous John in Dublin said...

Yeah, anyone who tries to gather intelligence on this country's enemies to protect this country should be tried and jailed. This is such a crime that this man who stole the presidency should try to have his regime listen in on these enemies sworn to destroy this country. We are a bad country and we deserve it. Like Minister Farrakhan said, we should burn. We are such a terrible country. Hmmmmm.....

2:03 PM  
Anonymous MLF said...

David, you made a good call. But you must admit, you did become annoying! LOL!

http://marklevinfan.com/?p=947

2:32 PM  
Anonymous MLF said...

You can hear your call here:

http://marklevinfan.com/?p=947

2:36 PM  
Anonymous ABLE DANGER said...

Shocking: A successful radio talk show host got annoyed with a Liberal conspiracy freek. Underdog wins again. CLICK....

3:39 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

I'm glad you posted David's call, MLF. I was going to suggest you do that, so everyone who missed it, could give it a listen.

I agree that Mark was more than fair with David, and did his best to explain his position. As to David's question about why President Bush didn't just get warrantless surveillance approved in the first Patriot Act, Mark didn't dismiss you, David. He just pointed out that it wasn't all that easy to get agreement upon the Patriot Act as you might think. Russ Feingold even voted against it the first time.

It's also a fact that with people like Leaky Pat Leahy and Jabberjaw Jay Rockefeller around, notorious leakers both, the secret NSA surveillance program would not have remained secret very long. I don't think, given how the program's now been exposed, that is even a debatable point.

And David, did you really tell the call screener that you were only a "semi" liberal? ;)

3:44 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"Conservatives want the debate to be about homeland security. Are you for it or against it? Do you want to give President Bush the tools he needs, or not?"


Exactly right, David. Well? Are you for it or against it? Do you want to give the President the tools he needs, or not?

It's pretty clear that Russ Feingold does not, since he has never voted in favor of the Patriot Act, without which, our ability to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks is seriously hamstrung.

4:00 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I listened to the call.
The only ones who are annoying are these conservatives, like Levin, who pretend it is a settled issue among the court's that the President has authority over the FISA court and Congress in spying without a warrant.
That's the standard conservative interpretation in which many authoritative bipartisan sources would disagree.
Here's a second huge flaw.
Levin's argument may hold water if we are talking about matters of national security.
The problem is it has never been decided by anyone -- or investigated by anyone -- whether the warrantless spying at question here truely only involved matters of national security, or went beyond any reasonable bounds to conduct same.
Levin and other conservative idiots fail to see the larger constitutional issues here. They would be at home in Stalin's Russia.

4:04 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

I just listened to the call, and I think that Levin was saying that Patriot Act 2 had some roadblocks in the Senate.

But Patriot Act 1 was overwhelmingly passed, as David implied.

And Levin didn't really answer the question of why, which is what David was hoping for.

Overall, though, I agree Levin was pretty nice to "semi-lib" David ... :)

Gosh, I hope we don't get deluged by Mark Levin fans ...

4:10 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

I should say, the question of why the Bush Administration had to cut a deal with the Senate, rather than stand their ground on the "inherent authority" question.

4:11 PM  
Anonymous MLF said...

[Quote: "cutiepie" johnson: Gosh, I hope we don't get deluged by Mark Levin fans ...]

;-)

4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Levin did answer the question of why the Bush Administration didn't stand its' ground by implying it had reacted to an everyday political favor.
Conservative RNC Mantra: Whenever Anything Negative Surfaces About the Bush Administration or the Republican Party, Disregard Any Notion of Impropriety via Blaming it All on Politics.

4:33 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

So what some of you are saying is that, because you have what some might call an unreasonable fear that this president is spying on Americans just for the sheer hell of it, we should embark upon some long, drawnout, comprehensive investigation, without having any evidence whatsoever that he is doing anything wrong. I guess it's the seriousness of your allegations and suspicions that count here, no matter how baseless or paranoid they might be?

Why is it so difficult to believe that the man is just trying to ensure we do not get attacked again? I do believe that is what is on President Bush's mind, every minute of the day.

Sometimes a cigar is...just a cigar.

4:50 PM  
Anonymous windspike said...

Levin - Rinse, Wash, Repeat....Question our president and his administrations
policy maneuvers? Never! I love that you called this guy on it. Go
Jabbs, go. Blog on, all.

5:11 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

because you have what some might call an unreasonable fear that this president is spying on Americans just for the sheer hell of it>>

Now, now, Trinity. Let's not use hyperbole as argument, ok?

The question is whether the president followed the law. Liberals, as I see it, want the president to legally fight the war on terror, to legally use surveillance and other means to fight terrorists who may have plans here.

So if you ask the question, "are you in favor of fighting the war on terror or not?" the answer is yes.

If the question is "are you in favor of how the Bush Administration is fighting the war on terror, or not?" then I, like about half of the country, will say no.

Additionally -- referencing David's Monday post about Sen. Biden -- liberals would like to see some money spent on port, rail and airport security. And most Americans would like to see some more money thrown to border security.

IMHO, the problem, Trinity, is that the Bush Administration says the right things, but doesn't follow up with the right actions.

5:18 PM  
Anonymous the stuffed tiger said...

Shorter Levin: LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA

5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Bush, who was given failing grades for failing to enact the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission to prevent another attack, who launched an unprovoked war without thinking out the consequences, who demonstrated an inability to respond to a national emergency with Katrina, who dramatically cut funding for homeland security, who had green-lighted the Dubai port deal without even having looked at it, has pretty much destroyed any credibility he might have otherwise had that he thinks about little else but protecting Americans from another attack.

6:30 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Having just listened to the call (thanks for the link), some thoughts for Trinity and other Mark Levin fans:

-- Levin was curt but generally fair.

-- David asked reasonable questions. (On the Mark Levin fan site, one person unfairly called David a "dope.")

-- Levin didn't answer why Bush cut a deal with Congress.

Levin clearly agrees with the idea of Bush having "inherent authority," but I'm guessing he didn't want to rationalize why the administration supporting legislation gives the appearance of undercutting the premise of such authority.

This is a fine point, and maybe it's too much to ask of talk radio -- conservative or liberal. But rather than give David a lesson in constitutional law, Levin would have served his listeners better by trying to defend what liberals see as illogical.

6:44 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I would have loved to have heard Levin's response to the findings of the Congressional Research Service.(See link below).
Yes, the report was released Jan. 9. It is no more old news than Levin citing tired, irrelevant viewpoints on executive verses congressional powers.
The issue of the legality of warrantless spying is an open one.
The conclusions of the CRO completely dismantle Levin's constitutional arguments, at least in the context of the subject at hand, warrantless surveillance.
Levin handpicked a few court cases in support of his biases.
The CRO researched those cases, as well as the entire legal docket of all such relevant cases throughout history.
So who are you going to believe, a conservative hack or the U.S. lawmakers' most referenced bipartisan resource?

Among the CRO's conclusions:
1. "The Supreme Court has stated Congress does indeed have the power to regulate domestic surveillance," even in wartime.
2. The FISA law necessitating that the president obtain a warrant for any surveillance within the U.S. was designed to be effective even in war time.
3. Bush's legal justifications for warrantless domestic spying relied on flimsy legal arguments.
4. "Even assuming the president's role as commander in chief in the Armed Forces is implicated in the field of foreign intelligence, it should not be accepted as a foregone conclusion Congress has no role to play."
And the most telling comment:
5. "While the courts have generally accepted that a president has the power to conduct domestic surveillance within the U.S. inside of confines of Fourth Amendment, no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

8:25 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Specifically above, I meant to say the CRO findings dismantle Levin's "inherent authority" arguments in the context of warrantless spying.

8:38 PM  
Anonymous Bob the lib killer said...

If the libs were in charge of national security right now, we would all be saying allah akbar and our women would all be in berkahs. No thank you. You lib-tards can just stay outta power. You got nothing good for America. You got nothing good for the world. You have been on the wrong side of history each and every time.

9:28 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Bob, what an intelligent and thoughtful comment! And your articulation ... tremendous! You have added so much insight to this conversation!

Moron.

10:33 PM  
Blogger ThankMe said...

The truth hurts, doesn't it big Rob! Thank me!

10:52 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

The truth isn't a world of stereotypes and simpletons. For some people, ignorance is bliss.

Unfortunately, ignorance isn't going to make us any safer, or wealthier, or healthier. It's just going to keep some of you voting for conservatives who have no interest in looking out for your best interests.

You can keep on believing that the best course is to protect corporate America, agricultural empires, HMOs, massive energy companies, etc.

But when you can't afford health care coverage and your employer won't offer it to you, when you can't afford to pay $2.25/gallon for gas, when your income can't keep up with rising property taxes, college costs, etc., when its not safe to eat certain fish, like salmon, because of recent huge increases in mercury in the water, and on and on, you can rely on your ignorance.

Me, I just more and more angry.

I'm not asking for government handouts. I don't believe in increasing the welfare state. But I also don't believe in screwing over the neediest among us, so that some oil company CEO can get a $5 million bonus, or so some government contractor can rake in billions for Iraq or Katrina rebuilding, and then overcharge and underperform. It's wrong.

But hey, you keep living in your little bubble, where name-calling replaces debate, and where ignorance replaces knowledge. You keep telling yourself that liberals are the problem, and that conservatives will rule forever. Keep telling yourself that all those polls showing Bush's popularity at less than 40% are the result of liberal media bias, and that everything is just wonderful in the world.

Maybe someday you'll wake up.

12:07 AM  
Anonymous Bob the lib killer said...

Rob, stop being a terrorist and just go back to being a wimp lib.

In the meantime, check your grammar; it really sucks.

2:34 AM  
Blogger ThankMe said...

Big Rob, are you sure you're not a co-worker of mine? I have a Marxist co-worker that sounds just like you! Thank Me!

8:53 AM  
Anonymous 9/11 Firefighter said...

thewaronterrible said...
"I would have loved to have heard Levin's response to the findings of the Congressional Research Service."

Here's the problem with the CRS report. They continually refer to domestic surveillance. The intercepted communications did not originate in this country. Hence, it was not domestic surveillance.

Nice try.

Why do you libs have such a problem with the president protecting this country? Do you hate this country or is it that you just hate Bush?

10:05 AM  
Anonymous 9/11 Firefighter said...

Furthermore, the premise is also flawed in assuming that the persons under surveillance are american citizens. I have seen nothing that would support that assertion.

As for Congressional war powers...
---------------------------------
Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress, The War Power Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. The Congress shall have power * * * ;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.

To provide and maintain a Navy.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.
----------------------------------
I don't see anywhere that the Congress has any authority for regulating the surveillance of the enemy in time of war.

11:27 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Nice try. Your conservative spin of mincing words does not work here. Check the facts and turn off Limbaugh or Levin for a moment.
Even if your argument is correct, there's no proof that the intercepted communications originated only overseas. The only "proof" is statements from the White House, challenged by a substantial amount of convincing reported evidences.
You probably would have argued there was no substance to news reports of the hotel break-in that launched the Watergate scandal in 1972.
The evidence shows the wiretapping occurred on tens of thousands of private citizens WITHIN THE U.S. with no connection to terror whatsoever, churning up what the FBI has called a routine load of countless, nuisance worthless leads that are a waste of valuable time and resources better put to use for more effective means of fighting terror.
I believe the CRS findings pertain to all domestic communications in the U.S., and whether or not the communications originated overseas is irrelevant. Later when I get a chance, I will resarch this.

We don't hate Bush. We just hate presidents who play fast and loose with our constitutional and civil rights that our the foundation of our Democracy.
NSA and FISA laws against warrantless spying were put in place for a reason, you moron.
Once you allow a precedent to be established permitting authorities to violate these laws for questionable purposes and means, you might as well roll up that U.S. Constitution into a toilet paper dispenser.

11:37 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

To the 9-11 Firefighter above.
Please check the link to the CRS report in my post above.
You will find your statements fully addressed by an authoritative entity actually qualified to address your statements.

11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the conservative bloggers above attacking Rob as a "terrorist" or a "Marxist".
I just hope you or a loved one has never (a) received a student loan (b)collected a social security check (c) received unemployment comp benefits (d)received a decent living wage at a job (e) have eaten safe food and dranken clean water (f) have sent an email to a friend or wrote to a blog like this one expressing a political viewpoint.
All of the above benefits or abilities have resulted from "liberal" policies that frame our Democracy.
If you want to lambast people for standing up for the policies that you or your loved ones have benefitted, then you are the grandest sources of hypocrisy and ignorance.

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Bob the lib killer said...

To anonymous above....

COWARD. Put your name in. You got something to say then stand up and say it instead of hiding behind "anonymous." What are you; some kind of little girl?

I guess you don't want anyone to know who spews stupid comments like yours above.

Everything good and beneficial came from libs?!? Sounds like something communists and dictators say. Opps, sorry, your secret is out...

12:29 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

thewaronterrible said...

Nice try. Your conservative spin of mincing words does not work here.
NSA and FISA laws against warrantless spying were put in place for a reason, you moron.

Moron? Ok schmuck, since we are resorting to name calling now...

You say that you are so concerned about fidelity to the Constitution? What about the Congressional war powers that are part of it?

I rely on the Constitution to give me the answers to these issues. Not a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers in some congressional office.

Do you really trust someone like Harry Reid that boasts about killing the Patriot Act to protect us from terrorists?

Read the Constitution you jerk! Stop listening to Michael Moore!

12:36 PM  
Blogger ThankMe said...

Anonymous, your wonderful liberal policies will get us all killed, genius!

12:41 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

thewaronterrible said...

"Even if your argument is correct, there's no proof that the intercepted communications originated only overseas. The only "proof" is statements from the White House, challenged by a substantial amount of convincing reported evidences.
You probably would have argued there was no substance to news reports of the hotel break-in that launched the Watergate scandal in 1972."

YOUR SIDE is making the arguement that it was american citizens that were wiretapped. I mearly stated that it is you and your lib friends that cannot back this up.

My position is that all enemy comms should be intercepted and the intel should be used to protect this country. The Commander in Chief has the authority under the US Constitution to kill the enemy, but according to you he cannot tap his phones? That's ludicris!

And I'll bet that you believed that your hero BJ Clinton never had sexual relations with that skank until the blue stained dress showed up.

At least Nixon had the respect for the office and the country by resigning rather than dragging the country through an impeachment!

Your weak arguements are painfully transparent. You should support this country, our troops, and our commander in chief during this time of war.

Stop undermining the war effort!

1:29 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

To 9-11 Firefighter and other critics:

I don't listen to Michael Moore.
But I HAD IN FACT referenced the bipartisan CRO, as one of many other bipartisan sources and bodies I could name that have questioned the legality of the Bush warrantless spying program.

As for "Libs" making up arguments about domestic spying we cannot back up, perhaps you have closed your eyes and ears to the New York Times investigative reports on Bush's NSA spying program?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Attack the source, not the facts presented, from that "liberal rag".
Never mind the NY Times has historically taken up many conservative causes not limited to investigative reporting that advocated the reasons for invading Iraq, that encouraged an probe of the Clintons surrounding the White Water scandal, etc.).
FACTS BE DAMNED.

1:56 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

You mean the same New York Times that was making up the news a while ago? Jason Blair was his name I believe?

C'mon man. Get real!

2:01 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

If we're going to have a serious debate, rather than just a bunch of name-calling, let's get one thing straight:

LIBERALS BELIEVE IN HOMELAND SECURITY. LIBERALS BELIEVE IN PROTECTING THE US FROM TERRORISTS.

but

LIBERALS BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE LAW.

The question at hand, still, is why Bush didn't

a) add warrantless surveillance to the overwhelmingly passed Patriot Act 1, and

b) why the Bush Administration would undercut its "inherent authority" argument by cutting a deal with Senate Republicans to create legislation, which has been perceived by at least half the country as a way to legalize the program.

All the name-calling in the world from you Mark Levin fans hasn't brought us any closer to answering those two questions.

2:04 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

If we could rely solely on reading the Constitution ourselves for the answers, there would be no need for a legislative or judicial branch of government, or their reference resources like the CRO.
The conservatives would argue: why do we need a government anyway when we can have the Mark Levins and the Rush Limbaughs interpret the Constitution for us?
Pitiful.

2:05 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

And furthermore, from the document that YOU referenced as nonpartisan. I submit this to you.

Court cases evaluating the legality of warrantless wiretaps for foreign intelligence
purposes provide some support for the assertion that the President possesses inherent
authority to conduct such surveillance. The Court of Review, the only appellate court to
have addressed the issue since the passage of FISA, “took for granted” that the President has
inherent authority to conduct foreign intelligence electronic surveillance under his Article
II powers, stating that, “assuming that was so, FISA could not encroach on that authority.”140
However, much of the other lower courts’ discussions of inherent presidential authority
occurred prior to the enactment of FISA, and no court has ruled on the question of
Congress’s authority to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence information.
From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under
discussion, and it would likewise appear that, to the extent that those surveillances fall within
the definition of “electronic surveillance” within the meaning of FISA or any activity
regulated under Title III, Congress intended to cover the entire field with these statutes.


That really supports your arguement!

2:07 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Perhaps you can find something more substantial to support your arguement.

Might I suggest moveon.org or michaelmoore.com

2:21 PM  
Blogger ThankMe said...

Big Rob,

“LIBERALS BELIEVE IN HOMELAND SECURITY.” LOL! Really?

“LIBERALS BELIEVE IN PROTECTING THE US FROM TERRORISTS.” Give me a break!

“LIBERALS BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE LAW.” Since when?

Now put THAT in your pipe and smoke it! Thank Me!

2:31 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Rob, conservatives would predictably respond to your concerns that Bush had inherent authority, has never needed Congressional authority, and likely only gave in to a new law from Congress as a typical "give and take" political deal.
Levin clearly used the political deal argument to explain why Bush would impinge upon his own inherent authority, a listen to the debate with JABBS indicates.
For my two cents, I think the legality of the "inherent authority" argument is at the heart of the issue here.

2:35 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
If we're going to have a serious debate, rather than just a bunch of name-calling, let's get one thing straight:

LIBERALS BELIEVE IN HOMELAND SECURITY. LIBERALS BELIEVE IN PROTECTING THE US FROM TERRORISTS.

but

LIBERALS BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE LAW.


Yes, that's what I keep hearing! Must be the democrat talking points of the week.

The question at hand, still, is why Bush didn't

a) add warrantless surveillance to the overwhelmingly passed Patriot Act 1, and


He didn't need to, he has "inherent authority" given to the Commander in Chief within the US Constitution

b) why the Bush Administration would undercut its "inherent authority" argument by cutting a deal with Senate Republicans to create legislation, which has been perceived by at least half the country as a way to legalize the program.

Because Bush has this stupid policy of trying to get along with dopey liberals in his own party who have no balls! i.e. John McLame and Arlen Spincter

All the name-calling in the world from you Mark Levin fans hasn't brought us any closer to answering those two questions.

I came here and tried to have a civil debate. If you check back, you will see that I was the one who was called a moron. Just trying to follow your lead

2:40 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Ahh Schmuck, thewaronterrible, yes you.

The Constitution gives the Commander in Chief the authority to kill the enemy. (Yes, remember the Constitution?) But he needs a warrant to tap his phone?

What kind of stupid arguement is that?

2:49 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

To 9-11 Firefighter.
You've clearly attempted a section out of the CRO out of context.
If you take the findings of the report in total, just as I stated earlier, you will find it concludes that no court has ruled with any finality on the Constitutionality or legality of the warrantless spying, FISA laws or inherent authority of the executive branch. In the context of warrantless spying, it remains an open question.
I think most anyone who carefully reads the CRO report would come to the same conclusion.
I think that's what most annoys we so-called Libs the most.
Conservatives act like the issue has already been decided, facts be damned, and ridicule any attempt to find out the truth or investigate further, all the while blindly following Bush and his apologists with sheep-like precision.

2:54 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I apologize for the moron comment. It was meant as a summary comment for the collective bloggers who baselessly stated that "Liberals" want to stop Bush from protecting us from terrorists, etc.
The conservatives would rather allow our political leaders to guide us along by fear, than preserve our freedoms and liberties.
Rob is right. You want the liberal argument.
We must fight terrorists in a way that preserves our laws, our U.S. Constitution, and as a consequence our Democracy.

3:10 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

I will respond in a civil manner since you have changed your tone.

The summary of the document that you referenced was not taken out of context. Check the summary on the last page. But that is not important to me.

What is important is The U.S. Constitution. That's where this issue has been decided. You choose to disregard the Constitution when convenient to support your arguement.

The Commander in Chief has broad powers granted him during times of war.

Congress has powers too. But they have no authority to tell the Commander in Chief how to conduct the war.

Intelligence gathering has been an integral part of fighting and WINNING every war that our brave Armed Forces has ever fought.
There is documentation going back to 1864 when Lincoln tapped the telegraph lines during the Civil War.

Now, some liberals in the Congress want to take that ability away?

You guys are on the wrong side of this one.

When you have hard facts that show the Commander in Chief has committed acts of wrong doing, I'll listen. But don't bring baseless conjecture and innuendo because frankly, I'm tired of hearing it!

As the handle implies, I was at the WTC on 9/11. I lost 343 of my brothers there. I support Bush and his efforts to keep this country safe.

Unless you libs have hard evidence, stop undermining the war effort.

3:15 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

The facts are hardly "baseless conjecture and innuendo."
I refuse to again "go around in circles" as Levin would say.

Okay, let's accept that Bush is truely as he says only spying on terrorism groups or their associates overseas. He is only acting to protect us from terrorism.
As a result, it is determined that Bush can carry out warrantless surveillance with no checks and balances of the activity from Congress, a FISA court or anything else.
The executive branch is determined to be the sole watchdog of the executive branch for spying on Americans just as long as the president offers his assurances it is only for purposes of national security and not being abused for political or other illicit purposes.

Would you be willing to extend this ability to all future presidents? That is the exact precedent Bush would establish.
Would you be willing to entrust ALL future presidential administrations, whether Democratic, Republican or whatever, to spy on Americans without any system of checks and balances in place.
The executive branch would forever have authority to spy on Americans WHENEVER the president offers his assurance it is only for purposes of national security.

Until you are ready to respond to that question with a definitive "yes", do not be so quick to defend the Bush/Conservative position on warrantless spying.

3:43 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

How did you feel about Craig Livingstone? The Clinton White House Security guy that had 100's of FBI files on average american citizens?

And once again your premise is flawed, I'll ask again. What proof do you have that he is spying on americans?

And why do you disregard the Constitution and past precident concerning electronic intel gathering in a time of war?

3:49 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

The constitutionality of FISA has not been tested either!

As far as I'm concerned, if it infringes upon the Connander in Chief's Article 2, Section 2 powers, it's unconstitutional.

3:54 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Yhello!

I guess you went to watch the See-BS Evening Snews with Dan Blather.

Oh wait... Wasn't he taken off the air for making up stories too?

Oh well.

There's always Air Amerikka with the troll and the hooker.

(Are they still on the air?)

Bye for now my liberal adversaries!

4:24 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Like I said, if you want to have a serious debate, rather than resorting to name calling ...

What the Mark Levin fans fail to recognize is that there are many conservatives upset with the way this was handled. Norman Ornstein, Bruce Fein, George Will, etc.

But it's easier to stereotype and name call. It's easier to try to avoid the questions at hand and instead say nasty things about Dan Rather or Michael Moore.

Hey, Ann Coulter suggesting poisoining a Supreme Court judge. Pat Robertson advocated assassinating a foreign leader. Bill Frist ludicrously tried to diagnose a patient based on one doctor's opinion -- a doctor who had on multiple occasions failed to back up his testimony with actual evidence, and had been in-credible by multiple judges. James Watt, a member of Reagan's cabinet, once joked about having a black, two Jews and a cripple to assist him. Reagan went to a Nazi cemetery. Cheney just quoted a virulent racist Lebanese leader -- who cheered the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq -- while speaking to AIPAC last week.

Lots of people do lots of dumb things. I wouldn't stereotype all conservatives just because there are a few loons out there.

How about a little mutual respect, and the concept that we don't all have to agree in order to have a seat at the table? Or would you prefer a fascist state, where one opinion is official, and all dissenters be shot, jailed or deported?

4:44 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

I'm all for that. As soon as you libs stop calling my president Hitler and saying that he's worse than Osama Bin Laden, comparing the US armed forces to Nazi Brown Shirts and terrorists, and stop taking cheap shots at Levin and Limbaugh, I'll refrain as well.

And I could care less what George Will has to say. Who the hell are Norman Ornstein and Bruce Fein?

After you sir!

4:56 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

9/11 firefighter said...
"How did you feel about Craig Livingstone? The Clinton White House Security guy that had 100's of FBI files on average american citizens?"


Hello, 9/11 firefighter. I have to tell you that I'm afraid you might be wasting your time asking the liberal bloggers here to comment on any of the wrongdoing that occurred during the Clinton Administration. At least, anytime I've asked in the past, (and I believe I've already brought up Craig Livingstone's illegal acquisition of 800 or more Republican FBI files) nobody has ever cared to address my comments.

For instance, thewaronterrible drones on and on, asking you the same old question he kept asking me, whether or not we would...

"entrust ALL future presidential administrations, whether Democratic, Republican or whatever, to spy on Americans without any system of checks and balances in place."

...without ever acknowledging any of my relevant responses. I'll await with bated breath to see if he ever bothers to respond to what you asked him.

BTW, if you want to read one of my references to civil liberty abuses during the Clinton Administration, you can find it here:

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/01/fact-challenged-spin-filled-easily.html#comments

It's about half-way down the page in my 3:53 PM post. I addressed my remarks to David R. Mark, but at the same time it was responsive to thewaronterrible's perennial question about how other presidents may abuse their authority in the future. Well, what about the past?

It seems that libs have no problem whatsoever making references to abuses that Nixon was guilty of, but they seem blissfully unaware or unconcerned when it comes to abuses and violations of civil liberties that occurred under Clinton. Why is that, I wonder?

I've brought up the Carnivore and Echelon spying programs before as well, but I didn't get any bites. ;) It would be gratifying if some honest lib would take a stab at commenting on these things.

4:58 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Ornstein heads the American Enterprise Institute and is considered on of the most influential conservative/libertarian minds in the country. Fein is a former deputy attorney general for Reagan.

4:59 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Regarding your other comment, mainstream Democrats and liberals don't think Bush is Hitler or worse than Osama.

Only the most radical fringe of the left would compare our troops to Nazis and terrorists.

Again, if you want to deal with hyperbole as reality, then please start advocating the imprisonment of Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson as terrorist threats, after Coulter "joked" about poisoning a Supreme Court judge, and Robertson advocated assassinating Hugo Chavez.

But if you want to deal with reality -- which includes room for disagreements -- then continuing posting here.

5:01 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

As far as ending the namecalling, great! I'm all for civility. "Courtesy is contageous" is my motto. lol

Remember, it was JABBS calling Mark Levin a "clown" that got us over here in the first place. ;)

5:04 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Thank you rob. I had no idea who they were. I guess that I've been able to navigate through life with out their influence.

5:04 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Trinity.

So good to see you my dear!

That Cigar comment was priceless!

And yes, I've noticed the selective amnesia when it comes to presidential history! LOL!

5:05 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Regarding your other comment, mainstream Democrats and liberals don't think Bush is Hitler or worse than Osama.

Only the most radical fringe of the left would compare our troops to Nazis and terrorists.

Such as the present leadership in the Democrat Party.

Comments by Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Al Gore.

Yes, the whacko left indeed!

5:10 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

9/11 firefighter said...

"Trinity.

So good to see you my dear!"


And I'm always happy to see my favorite firefighter too! It's good to see you posting over here. :)

5:11 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

When I heard that you were over here, I couldn't resist! ;-)

5:13 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

rob you sound like a decent guy.

Nice chatting with you.

I sincerely mean that.

5:18 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

9/11 firefighter said... "
Such as the present leadership in the Democrat Party."


I've often stated on this blog how extreme the present Democratic leadership has become. The very fact that so many libs here would not agree with that characterization, seems to indicate that they believe they are quite mainstream, and I would have to disagree with that.

5:18 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

9/11 firefighter said...
"rob you sound like a decent guy."


I would second that notion! Rob is OK in my book. :)

5:21 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

I truly feel bad for the old school democrats. The democrat party actually stood for something long ago.

This bunch that's in there now are the extreme whacko left wing.

Look what they did to poor old Joe Lieberman! Threw him right under the bus!

5:22 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

If you look at the context of David's use of "radio clown," you'll see it started because David didn't find Mark Levin's humor particularly funny.

I don't think that's quite the same thing as stereotyping all liberals as anti-American hate-Bush, throw-the-troops-under-the-bus types.

5:22 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Durbin, Kerry, Gore ...

Durbin's comments have always been taken out of context. He wasn't talking about US troops, he was talking about the way the US was running Guantanamo.

Kerry's comments about the troops have been taken out of context. You look at the original statement, not the conservative interpretation of it, and you might agree with me.

As for Gore, he's angry. I don't agree with everything he's said and done, but I don't think he's wacko either -- although I know Levin does.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Durbin's comments have always been taken out of context. He wasn't talking about US troops, he was talking about the way the US was running Guantanamo.

And who is running Guantanamo?

Kerry's comments about the troops have been taken out of context. You look at the original statement, not the conservative interpretation of it, and you might agree with me.

Kerry has been undermining the american troops since he left Viet Nam.

Al Gore is a whacko!

5:29 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

And let us not forget The Swimmer, Teddy K! Saying that the gulags were now reopened under new management!

5:31 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

And you libs wonder why we think you don't support the military! You vote for people like this!

5:35 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Kerry was never good enough for conservatives, right? And I guess McCain wasn't either, based on how the Robert Perry -- the money behind the Swift Boat Vets -- torpedoed McCain before the 2000 South Carolina primary with leaflets about how he was a Manchurian candidate who had fathered a child with a black NYC prostitute.

Gore volunteered for Vietnam and served with honor. Kerry served with honor. McCain was a POW that served with honor.

What did Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc., do again?

As for Durbin, again we get back to the fascist state. If you can't accept criticism and dissent against the US government, you shouldn't be advocating democracy overseas. Durbin wasn't slamming US troops, he was slamming US policy. If you want to rip him for that, fine, but a lot of people are unhappy about how the US has run Guantanamo, as I'm sure you know.

5:36 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

A lot of people vote for a lot of candidates.

Do you want me to start listing all the stupid things Bill Frist has said and done? How about Rick Santorum? How about Ted Stevens? How about Tom DeLay?

Come on, we're straying off topic, and lowering our collective IQs with each passing comment.

5:37 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Ok. Here we go. So you're telling me that military service means someting to you?

Give me a break!

What did BJ Clinton do?

Bob Dole and George Buse were decorated military veterans! But I'll bet you voted for BJ anyway, didn't you. Your hypocrisy is showing!

C'mon.

And don't forget about the Keating Five for McLame by the way!

5:41 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

9-11 Firefighter:
You say "my premise is flawed."
No it is not. It is at the core of this debate.
Why don't you respond instead of avoiding the question via bringing up a baseless argument, "there is no proof Bush spied on Americans."
Yes there is, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You'd like to blame the "Liberals" for raising this entire debate over the NSA spying, while failing to acknowledge, like Rob has above, that prominent conservatives have expressed the same concerns.
There's plenty of documented available evidence if you care to conduct any research beyond right-wing blogs.

You say, "the constitutionality of the FISA court has not been tested."
That's precisely why more investigation into Bush's NSA program is warranted.
Trinity, your responses earlier to my "premise" above were irrelevant Like 9-11 Firefighter, you ran circles around the question.
I have responded to all other claims of 9-11 Firefighter.
I'm in fact getting dizzy running around in circles being asked to repeat my support for my argument.

5:43 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Answer this thewaronterrible

Where is your proof?

Stop undermining the war effort!

5:46 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Come on, we're straying off topic, and lowering our collective IQs with each passing comment."


Sad how that tends to happen when people who are passionate about their politics try to have a conversation, but it seems that the rift between liberals and conservatives has gotten that wide. We don't seem to agree on much these days.

5:48 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

I didn't say all republicans avoid military service. But among contemporary politicians, Kerry and Gore did more for their country during wartime than GW Bush and Cheney.

It's a minor point, though.

The issue, still, is why the Bush Administration felt it had to cut a deal for something in which it believed it has "inherent authority." Mark Levin didn't answer that, and apparantly, neither can its fan base.

5:50 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

You say, "the constitutionality of the FISA court has not been tested."
That's precisely why more investigation into Bush's NSA program is warranted.


Oh, well that's a good reason..

Trinity you're right. It's pointless! LOL!

5:51 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, the problem is some people subsitute hyperbole, stereotyping and name calling for debate.

These people often can't make a strong argument, so they resort to bullying techniques.

I'm not impressed.

5:51 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Trinity, your responses earlier to my "premise" above were irrelevant Like 9-11 Firefighter, you ran circles around the question."


Actually, twot, I was not responding to you at all. I was responding to Firefighter, and letting him know that people here never seem to care to comment on any of the civil liberty abuses that occurred under Clinton. Would you care to comment on them now? I provided an URL FYI.

5:54 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity said "I've often stated on this blog how extreme the present Democratic leadership has become. The very fact that so many libs here would not agree with that characterization, seems to indicate that they believe they are quite mainstream, and I would have to disagree with that."

Ever major poll shows the majority of Americans would prefer the Democrats in control of congress by a comfortable margin over Republicans and are fed up with the direction of the country, which can most be attributed to the Republicans in control of both the legislative and executive branches. Not to mention the polls show the majority of Americans have rejected Bush and his agenda.

And I refuse to respond to the Livingston-Clinton claims as irrelevant to the discussion.
Why is it that Republicans cannot defend their positions without resorting to baseless Clinton comparisons?

5:57 PM  
Anonymous 9/11 firefighter said...

Time for Levin.

take care rob.

See you later Trinity.

TWOT, bring me the proof!

BYE!

5:59 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Trinity, the problem is some people subsitute hyperbole, stereotyping and name calling for debate."


But rob, it seems that some people only recognize stuff like that when it's done by the other side, and not when those on their own side do it.

Also, I've seen several references on this blog rejecting the idea that MSM is, for the most part, quite left of center. When we cannot even agree on some simple basic truth as that, what with all the indisputable documentation that's out there to suppport that claim, I have to concede that there's not much hope for consensus on anything else. :)

And with that last thought, I'm going out to dinner. Later!

6:05 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

9-11 Firefighter repeatedly asked me to provide proof the warrantless spying occurred on U.S. soil and involved U.S. citizens.

Here is some of my proof. The links are below. Please check them out.
I sincerely hope you do not accuse the Washington Post or being "a liberal rag" or carrying reports of "dubious accuracy," or something to the sort like you had done above with the New York Times (i.e. attacking the source of the information rather than the information itself).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401373.html

And

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?ex=1295154000&en=f3247cd88fa84898&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberalism is a mental disease...and in many cases, it is treason.

7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"several references on this blog rejecting the idea that MSM is, for the most part, quite left of center. When we cannot even agree on some simple basic truth as that, what with all the indisputable documentation that's out there to suppport that claim, I have to concede that there's not much hope for consensus on anything else."

I can assure you there is just as "indisputable documentation" the MSM is quite right of center.
Don't even go there.

7:41 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

ANONYMOUS: "Liberalism is a mental disease...and in many cases, it is treason."

Perhaps the laziest statement. Unoriginal mimicking of Michael Savage. Yay.

If not for liberalism, Michael Savage would never be allowed to speak his mind. Without liberalism, we would live in a fascist state, where dissenters would be shot, jailed or deported.

The idea that liberalism is somehow treasonous is not only false, but laughable. And sadly, if enough people believe such hokum, it can be dangerous.

So, anonymous, go off into the night, living in your blissful ignorance, parroting any piece of garbage that Michael Savage imprints into your brain. You have shown off your lack of originality, your lack of original thought, and your complete misunderstanding of the freedoms granted by our constitution.

In short, you have made each of us worse off by your presence, and your stupidity should only sadden anyone who believes in a healthy democracy.

8:35 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

More evidences for the 9-11 firefighter that Bush's NSA electronic surveillance targeted Americans at home. Even the major U.S. phone companies were asked to participate.
I would suggest you review the entire NY Times series, but here is a good summary.
http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/3643

PS: Even Bush has acknowledged the program spied on Americans at home who at least have communicated with foreigners overseas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2006/02/03/LI2006020301869.html
Just don't feed me that bull there exists no proof the spying occurred has not occurred on Americans at home.
If you believe that, you are completely misinformed.
It is my position that an investigation is more than warranted to determine the extent of such documented abuses.
A federal judge completely agrees, having ordered the Bush Administration to release records of the NSA program in a pending lawsuit brought by several civil liberties groups. Please don't tell me you are unaware of that well-reported story too!?
That's what happens when you get your news only from one-sided radio entertainers acting as hack journalists, and from The Faux News.

11:20 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Please note: Be sure to combine the links in directly above post to links in my earlier post, four or so comments up.

11:24 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Why do so many Righties read the Bible with such exacting certitude while the Constitution is a fuzzy read?

Lefties have gotta remember that Righties have succumbed to the premise of the 'liberalism' as incorrectly defined by the Right's flapping pie-holes (the ultimate America haters/soap sellers/check cashers). Which everyone not subscribing to Rush O'Hannity's flavor of Koolaid knows is NOT the definition of 'liberalism'.

BushRove lies. It is a very unfortunate fact. Katrina and FISA for example. Blind loyalty goes hand in hand with blissful ignorance. This is not a mis-underestimation by the GOP as they use tax-payer funded think-tanks to develop strategy for maintaining their position of easy-fleecing. The guy that lied about fellatio? Remember when you could be ashamed of your president yet still proud of your country... aaaaaahhh, the good old days.

If Bush had the legal authority to spy on Americans under the Patriot Act why did he lie and say the exact opposite in a public forum? He said that warrants were required at the same time he was doing it w/o warrants. The Right does what it wants and says what it has to to mold public opinion.

The Right has held almost absolute power for years now yet it still sells itself as a "victim". They run the country and the country has never ever been in such a terrible position. But of course only the Left should be held accountable. (Your tax dollars are keeping an eye on those evil American pacifist groups... WTF war machine?)

Coulter can say Supreme Court Justices should be poisoned w/o
repurcussions. What would the Right do if Al Franken publically called for opium-soaked scalp of Rush?

I've concluded that these citizen Righties see themselves as a new-thinking, counter-culture clique that is part of a noble movement to change the world for the better. Guess what Righty folks... so did the hippies.

1:21 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ditto said...
"Why do so many Righties read the Bible with such exacting certitude while the Constitution is a fuzzy read?"


Well, speaking as a lapsed Roman Catholic, I wouldn't know too much about Bible reading.

Another point, it's quite amusing that you would, in your ignorance, accuse conservatives of fussying up the Constitution, when it's liberal justices like Ruth Bader Ginzburg and Steven Breyer, etc. who look to foreign law instead of our own Constitution to guide them in making their decisions, so please, spare me your lecture. :rolleyes:

And I have news for you, ditto, it's liberals, not conservatives, who have a history of going searching around among all those "penumbras" that are formed by all those "emanations, that give them the result-oriented outcomes that they are aiming for.

That's why conservatives are celebrating the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, two originalists who actually bother to make their decisions based upon what the Constitution actually says, as opposed to their own policy preferences. What a concept!

1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trinity, your arguments are like a tin foil sword against Ditto's iron clad shield.
You can find substantiation in every one of Ditto's claims. All you offer is some vague, biased rumblings about Ginzburg and Breyer.

2:46 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"Trinity, your arguments are like a tin foil sword against Ditto's iron clad shield."


lol If you say so, Anon. It sounded like your typical leftist rant to me, but whatever.

You do look cute in your cheerleader outfit though. ;)

5:39 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Trin sez: "...who look to foreign law instead of our own Constitution..."

The perception of the "look to" phrase may be askew - no doubt how Rush O'Hannity presented it. I've heard these Justices say they "refer" to international laws and treaties when deliberating. Not that they rely on it, or that it forms their decision.

Trinity would prefer our the US Supreme Court, the ultimate law authorties of our land, having jurisdiction over the greatest super power in the history of the planet, maintain an ignorance of international and foreign law?

Do you teach HS Science in Kansas?

My ignorance? A leftist rant? Truth is I registered as a Republican in 1982.

"...emanations, that give them the result-oriented outcomes that they are aiming for."

Sounds like the current GOP playbook. Emanations = WMD. Result-oriented outcome = W's Iraq War.

6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awww sooo sad. Levin's flocks of sheep swooped in here for a brief period, wildly attempting their fact-deprived arguments and usual baseless slurs at Liberals.
When confronted with the truth, they all went away.
Trinity remained standing but Ditto took him out.
Pretty quiet all of a sudden.

10:38 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ditto said...
"Trin sez: "...who look to foreign law instead of our own Constitution..."

The perception of the "look to" phrase may be askew - no doubt how Rush O'Hannity presented it. I've heard these Justices say they "refer" to international laws and treaties when deliberating. Not that they rely on it, or that it forms their decision.


Oh please, Ditto. Let's not parse words in the "finest" Clinton tradition. Either they look to foreign law (only the ones they agree with, of course) for guidance and input, or they do not. You can read for yourself that they are doing just that, which is why there is such a big debate going on about it. Denying it the way you are makes you look pretty closed-minded.

"We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it's trite but it's true – is growing together," Breyer said. "Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations."

"The current court is split between Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Scalia, who tend to hold the traditional constitutionalist approach to rulings, and the majority of O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, who tend to believe in the concept of a "living Constitution" subject to changes in public opinion and interpretation."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35367

Anonymous said...
"Trinity remained standing but Ditto took him out.
Pretty quiet all of a sudden."


Yes, as former JABBS blogger "Ash" used to say, I do have a life outside the internet, and it sometimes "interferes" with my cyberlife. ;)

And not that it matters, I guess, but trinity is a she, not a he.

10:55 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

And another......

"Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says not all rulings from America's highest court are correct, admitting judges don't have "some great special insight," and he defends the practice of studying courts in foreign countries to help decide cases in the United States.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45711

Ditto, you remind me of that old joke, "Denial isn't just a river in Egypt". Get your head out of.....the sand. :)

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John in Dublin your the man.

10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberals please do yoursevles a favor and knock off the foul view of our great country. This can be accomplished easily by ignoring the liberally infected "DRIVE BY" media.

Thanks Kindly,
Conservative

10:46 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares