MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Idaho Sen. Larry Craig has lost his latest attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in a Minneapolis airport men's room sex sting.
A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected the Republican's bid to toss out his disorderly conduct conviction.
Craig was arrested in June 2007 in a Minneapolis airport bathroom stall by an undercover officer who said the senator solicited sex.
He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor and paid a fine, but changed his mind after word of his arrest became public. Craig insisted he was innocent, but the case effectively ended his political career.
Craig's attorney argued before the appeals court this September that there was insufficient evidence for any judge to find him guilty. Prosecutors said his guilty plea should stand.
I think Larry Craig has the weird butt..he even has a wide stance! nm
x
NSA went to phone companies. Phone
companies told to route domestic calls outside U.S., and then reroute calls to the US, and then they spied on Americans' phone calls. Oh yes, let's spread freedom all over the world, but where's ours?!
I would like to see the transcript too...
I read on the AMW site that the illegal is suing the government..it did not specifically say for what reason, though it is a civil case and there is no telling...probably, as you say, for his injuries. He should have no legal standing to bring a civil suit...that is outrageous. But, again, the AMW site is the only place I read that the guy was bringing a suit against the US. There is also something on the AMW site about a couple of the jurors signing affadavits afterward about being given wrong instructions about the reaching a verdict...but again, only on the AMW site did I read this. More investigation would be in order, and yes...it would be interesting to be party to the same evidence the jury saw. But, bottom line...the President does have the power to pardon, and if Bush thinks that they do not deserve a pardon, I would like to be privvy to the same information he is...because I would have to be convinced that they don't deserve one, so the President and I would be on opposite sides of this one. See, I don't think he is right on EVERYthing... ;-)
Transcript of SB1093
This is the transcript from the Illinois government website, not from a right wing source or left wing, so everyone can read for themselves what was actually said. I think that will help people who feel like this is an attack on him. I'm sorry I don't mean to push this issue but its just so heartbreaking to me! I mean if a child comes out of the womb, and is breathing, the child has been BORN right????
Again I just wanted to post this so we wouldn't have any arguments of right or leftness. Like I said, this is a HUMANITY issue. What's next? "If the elderly can't care for themselves and no one will care for them, we kill them?" Sounds like a creepy book we read in school once....
If you can't see our menu, your pop-up blocker is enabled. Click here to see the site directory.
Saturday, Oct 01, 2005
Quotes And Statements
Statement By Bill Bennett, Sep. 30, 2005 From the Desk of William J. Bennett September 30, 2005
On Wednesday, a caller to my radio show proposed the idea that one good argument for the pro-life position would be that if we didn't have abortions, Social Security would be solvent. I stated my doubts about such a thesis, as well as my opposition to such a form of argument (the audio of the call is available at my Website: bennettmornings.com).
I then stated that such extrapolations of this argument can cut both ways, and cited the current bestseller, Freakonomics, which discusses the authors' thesis that abortion reduces crime.
Then, putting my philosophy professor's hat on, I went on to reveal the limitations of such arguments by showing the absurdity in another such argument, along the same lines. I entertained what law school professors call 'the Socratic method' and what I would hope good social science professors still use in their seminars. In so doing, I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was 'impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,' just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation.
The issues of crime and race have been on many people's minds, and tongues, for the past month or so--in light of the situation in New Orleans; and the issues of race, crime, and abortion are well aired and ventilated in articles, the academy, the think tank community, and public policy. Indeed the whole issue of crime and race is not new in social science, nor popular literature. One of the authors of Freakonomics, himself, had an extended exchange on the discussion of these issues on the Internet some years back--which was also much debated in the think tank community in Washington.
A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.
In sum, let me reiterate what I had hoped my long career had already established: that I renounce all forms of bigotry--and that my record in trying to provide opportunities for, as well as save the lives of, minorities in this country stands up just fine.
Bill Bennett Interview on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes Regarding Race, Crime, Etc. Courtesy of Fox News Channel/9-29-2005
First, our top story tonight is the controversy surrounding radio talk show host Bill Bennett. Yesterday on his radio show, Mr. Bennett -- Dr. Bennett was quoted as saying. I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you cold abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down...that would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
The comments have drawn criticism today from Senate minority leader Harry Reid who said he was appalled. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy who called them racist and from House minority leader Nancy Pelosi who said they were shameful. Bill Bennett joins us now in an exclusive interview to talk about these comments.
Dr. Bennett, we appreciate you coming on tonight.
DR. BILL BENNETT, MORNING IN AMERICA HOST: Thank you.
COLMES: Might give you an opportune to put them in context and explain.
BENNETT: Sure. Well, the context was a radio show that I was doing yesterday, and the topic was abortion and we were talking about bad arguments in regard to abortion. A caller suggested he was opposed to abortion because he said if there were more babies there would be, eventually, more tax payers and a larger GNP, a smaller deficit. I said you want to be careful with that kind of argument because someone could postulate a situation where child's not likely to be a productive taxpayer. I said, arguments in which you take something that's far out, like the GNP and try to connect it up with abortion are tricky. I said make the case of abortion on the basis of life and protecting life. I said abortion is invoked in another way; you could make an argument that if you wanted to lower the crime rate, you saw the quote; you could practice abortion in very large numbers. You could do it in the black community; you could do it in other places. This is, by the way, the subject of a book for economics by a professor at Yale.
I said, however, if you were to practice that, widespread abortion in the black community or any other community, it would be ridiculous, impossible, and I appreciate you putting it on the screen, morally reprehensible. So I think morally reprehensible, when that is included in the quote makes it perfectly clear what my position is. A number of the people whom you have cited as condemning me have not made the inclusion of that remark, and so they make it seem, Alan, as if I am supporting such a monstrous idea, which of course I don't.
COLMES: Here's my concern. The root cause of crime, one would debate, it seems to be poverty. And from your remarks, I wonder if people might interpret it as saying the root cause of crime is race. And that debate about is it race is it poverty? What really is the root cause? And race affects people of all races and creeds and I think that's why...
BENNETT: Poverty. Poverty affects people of all races. Let me tell you what bothers me first, because I'm always candid with you. What bothers me is that last night on your radio show, you were all over me, Alan. And, you know, I was really surprised. You know me, you've known me for a long time and the fact that you would give credence to the notion that I would believe such a thing is very disturbing. I've had 1,000 opportunities when people have said to me what about that Alan Colmes, isn't he a jerk or a liberal this -- I've always said he's always a gentleman, he's nice to me. I run a radio show in which we don't yell at people, we don't make fun of them. We have liberals and conservatives and we deal with sensitive and important public policies issues and we do it in a responsible way. But people need to follow the argument and the argument I was making here is entirely plausible. The causes of crime are very complicated. But there is a very big literature, as you know, about single parenthood in crime, about race in crime, and about poverty in crime. And we've been talking about all these things lately in the context of New Orleans and other things.
COMES: Let me talk to you...
BENNETT: There are real things in the real world, and there are people who believe we should take such monstrous steps.
COLMES: Let me talk about what I said on my radio show.
BENNETT: I do not.
COLMES: Dr. Bennett -- Bill, because you know, I do consider you someone -- we've been good to each other. I like you. I think you respect me.
BENNETT: Yes sir.
COLMES: I was really shocked.
BENNETT: Have been.
COLMES: And I plaid what you said and the whole context of what you said. Frankly, I was just shocked by it. I don't believe you're a racist. I don't think that you believe those things. I was just shocked by what I heard and I -- basically there was a lot of callers calling up and commenting on it after I played your comments. And a lot of other people were shocked that you would have -- in the context you said it, say the things you said.
BENNETT: Well, you know, to put forward a hypothesis, a morally impossible hypothesis to show why it is morally impossible and reprehensible seems to me is a standard way of talking about public policy and a standard way of teaching. You know, I've taught philosophy for years and one argues in the hypothetical all the time. People have said such outrageous things, Alan, about race and this is not unknown to our history. It's certainly not unknown to our history -- to the history of Europe, recently. It's not unknown to the history of Islam. And what we have -- you've got to be able to make an argument and say look, you may be thinking you're going to achieve some good end, but you can't use a monstrous means to do it. You know, this is like a Swift's modest proposal for people who remember their literature. You put things up in order to examine them. I put it up, examined it, and said that is ridiculous and impossible no matter who advances that idea.
COLMES: All right, we got -- Sean will be with you in the next segment. There are some statistics, you know, that talk about how African- Americans are treated disparagingly in the criminal justice and, you know, we could debate whether or not there really is a greater prejudice against African-Americans and whether they are incarcerated disproportionately.
BENNETT: Yeah.
COLMES: But look we got to take a break and we'll continue with you...
BENNETT: Those are big complicated questions...
COLMES: And later, there more political fallout on Capitol Hill today over the indictment of Congressman Tom Delay. We'll take you behind closed doors to one of the most powerful members in the House.
And then Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, says the suffering of hurricane Katrina has actually brought black Americans together. Is he using the crisis for his own political gain? You don't want to miss this.
And FEMA made a hasty deal in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and it's costing taxpayers $236 million. We'll get to the bottom of this shocking story coming up on HANNITY COLMES, tonight.
(NEWSBREAK) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: And this is a FOX News Alert. You are looking live at the hills of southern California where wildfires are blazing out of control and are threatening to destroy private residences. We have 3,000 firefighters working at this hour to control the blaze, but as you can see from these live pictures, they're still burning pretty hot. We're gong to keep you updated throughout the hour. We'll bring you new pictures as we get them and let you know as this developes. We hope they can put that out. I was out in southern California in Hope Ranch when this happened. It is devastating.
Also coming up tonight, now that Tom Delay is out House majority leader, at least temporarily, will issue like immigration reforms, spending on the federal level will suffer. We're going to ask one of the men who is stepping into part of his leadership position.
And there is some late-breaking information tonight about the man who is prosecuting come to Tom Delay. Is it a publicity stunt for a movie being made about him? We'll tell you about this tonight.
First, we continue with the host of Morning in America. Bill Bennett is back with us.
Bill, first of all, I have known for you many, many years. I know your faith, I know your character, I know who you are. You're a former secretary of education, former drug czar. This notion that Bill Bennett as is being alleged by prominent democrats has any racist bone in his body is appalling to me.
BENNETT: Yeah.
HANNITY: And I'm glad to hear you say what you said here. I want you to respond to those democrats that are grandstanding, the same ones that had Robert Bird, the former Klansman as their leader. The ones that didn't speak out about Congressman Wrangle's Bull Connor remark.
BENNETT: Yeah. Yeah. Well, let's see, you got Kennedy. I will -- I'll not take instruction from Teddy Kennedy. A young woman likely drowned because of his negligence. I'll take no moral instruction with him. That's much worse than legal gambling what Teddy Kennedy did. He should make no judgments at all about people. He shouldn't be in the Senate. As far as racist and all this other stuff, I'll put my record up with Howard Dean, with Harry Reid.
When I was drug czar, you bet, we were working on the issue of black crime, Alan and Sean, because there was a lot of crime in the black community. And you know who most of the victims are? Their black people. Yeah, black violence -- black-on-black violence is very serious. I went to about 120 inner city communities. That's where the senate wanted me to go, that's where the Senate wanted me to go, that's where I wanted to go. We went after public housing and we went after the bad guys. And you know what? We got the bad guys. And drug use went down. And we raised the price and lowered the purity of cocaine. And we arrested four of the most powerful drug dealers in the world. And got a lot of these guys off the street. And I am very proud of that. Because when we went into the inner city black community, the people said to me, Mr. Czar, or Czar, or Mr. Benet, you get those people off the street and protect us. And we did our best to do it.
Before that, when I was secretary of education, I took on what I think is one of the great civil rights issues of our time, which is educational opportunity and educational choice. The stupid ghettoized curriculum we have, the fact that these black kids go to lousy schools and aren't allowed to choose the schools of their choice because they don't have the money and don't have the opportunity.
I've been at this for 25 years and I have been called everything in the book, but I will stay at what I do because I believe it.
Let me just tell you, when it comes to abortion, my wife's program, best friends, has kept more young women from having abortions because they don't get pregnant because they take her good counsel...
HANNITY: Let me...
BENNETT: Than the entire black caucus. She has done more for inner city black girls than the entire black caucus. So I will not bow my head to any of these people. I will not give up the ground of compassion and sympathy. But I'll tell you, we have real issues and we have got to talk about them candidly. And if you don't think there are people who are making draconian proposals about abortion and this and that and the other thing, you know, you don't know the nature...
HANNITY: Let me ask you this. I want to ask you about the nature of debate in this society.
BENNETT: Sure.
HANNITY: I go back to the Bill Maher issue. I don't like -- I don't even like Bill Maher. We disagree on just about everything. But Bill Maher said one statement and his entire history of support in the military was cast aside and people focused on one thing. I said wait a minute, that's wrong. Here's Bill Bennett, here's Trent Lott. One statement, there's no room to apologize, explain, put into context, revise or extend one's remarks because people want to hop on it. We now see the democrats trying to do right now with you and trying to put you in a position of characterizing you, or categorizing you as something you are not. What does that tell you about debate and free speech in the country today?
BENNETT: It's bad. You know, if you could do an analysis -- it would be interesting to do an analysis. All day I've been reading reports and statements by people about me, Sean, and it's interesting, some use the whole quote and are fair, some don't. And that tells you something. But the problem, I think, on the liberal side, the democratic side is they attitudinize, they condemn but they don't have a program.
You know, the president -- I hope the president pays for this program in New Orleans, but he's got a program, and it's some interesting ideas about enterprise zones and school choice, and giving people opportunities, you know, with the loans and the green lining and they ought to be tried. Because these are ideas that might actually help the poor as opposed to maintaining the welfare state, which does not help poor people at all. It's destroyed a lot of families and it has created circumstances in which more poor people and more black people have had to suffer. What's lifted, the economic life and reduced crime in the black community has been hope and opportunity and education and enterprise.
HANNITY: Let me ask you one last question.
BENNETT: And that I think is much more, I have to tell you on this side of the aisle, I want to politicize this because there are good people on both sides.
HANNITY: Explain. I want you to explain, though, for people that see that one quote, that read that one quote, what do you say to them?
BENNETT: What I say to them, Sean, is if they were given the impression that I, you know, am in favor of such a horrible idea as, you know, my critics are suggesting, they need to look at the whole quote. I don't believe that. And I'm sorry that people have misrepresented my views so much that that has given folks that impression. You're right about a person's life. I've got a life, you know, take me in the totality of my actions and I'll tell you, I will stand with my record.
One must be very careful one gets into these arguments and we try to do it. But, you know, we try on this show to do serious and controversial issues. And it's a big country and it's a free country. We don't put liberals down. We don't put people down with whom we disagree. We talk about serious things in a serious way. And if you're not allowed to talk about these subjects, then it's not the country it's supposed to be.
You've got to be able to condemn these horrible ideas as I did.
HANNITY: Bill Bennett, appreciate you being on the program.
BENNETT: Thank you. Thank you guys.
HANNITY: Thank you very much.
And come upping next, Tom Delay will be fighting charges in court. So, you will be fighting for the GOP (SIC) in Congress. We'll talk to one republican leader next.
And who was the man going after the House majority leader, Tom Delay? We have late-breaking information tonight that he is allowing film makers to make a movie about him. Is this all part of a script? We'll give you the details. Much more to come.
Good morning. This is Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Majority Leader.
Over the past several months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have negotiated a bipartisan extension of the highly successful childrens health insurance program known as CHIP - a program enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, with strong Democratic support, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
CHIP provides health insurance coverage for over six and one-half million American children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.
However, millions of other children who are currently eligible for this health insurance are not enrolled due to the programs limited resources.
To address this, our bipartisan legislation provides funding for approximately four million more children - ensuring that at least 10 million low-income children in our nation receive the health care coverage they need and deserve. Thats good for them and for our country.
This legislation does not change current eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIPs financing, covers more low-income children, and improves the quality of care they receive.
Sadly, on Wednesday, President Bush - in the face of bipartisan majorities in Congress, and contrary to the will of the American people - vetoed our bipartisan bill.
The President claims - wrongly - that this bill is fiscally irresponsible.
The truth is, this legislation is fully paid for. It does not add one nickel to the deficit or to the debt.
Furthermore, under the Presidents proposal more than 800,000 children who now receive coverage under CHIP would lose that coverage.
The President claims that this legislation would lead to a government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong.
The truth is, Americas largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill - as do Americas doctors, nurses, childrens advocates, 43 governors, and, most importantly, 72 percent of Americans.
The claims made against this bill are simply wrong.
As Senator Pat Roberts, a senior Republican from Kansas, recently said: I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the Administrations concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, Senator Roberts added: Bluntly put, they are not.
Most puzzling of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Presidents veto violates his own campaign promise.
In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the President promised (and I quote): In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.
But he has done just that.
But the Congress has done exactly what the President said he was going to do, if re-elected.
Yet today, the only thing standing between millions of American children and the health insurance they need and deserve is one person. The President is saying no to these children he promised to help.
This is a defining moment for this Congress.
In the words of Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, weve got to do what we can to try to override the Presidents veto.
In the days ahead, we will work to persuade many of our Republican colleagues, who insist on standing with the President, to instead join the bipartisan majorities in Congress - and Americas children - in overriding this veto.
I urge all of you: Contact your Member of Congress.
Ask them to support our children.
Ask them to do what the President promised to do when he sought re-election.
Ask them to vote to override the Presidents veto and ensure health care for our kids and for their future.
Thank you for listening. This is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
By any chance, you catch Larry King?
To begin with, I was a pregnant teen and most definitively will be voting for Obama. The other unwed mother poster is voting for Obama too in case you hadn't noticed. Bully, fear and threat tactics are not effective.
His candidacy is alive and well and has nothing to do with this issue and how it is going to play out. Tonight, Larry King's panel were talking this subject up one side and down the other. Every single issue that was raised today in these posts on this board were touched upon....every single one. SP is in the political arena now. Unfortunately, she has put her daughter there too. The issues surrounding this will be politicized. You can't stop this train.
Who watched Larry King last night?
They were talking about the idea of implementing a stimulus package for (in particular) the auto industry. Well, turns out that they have already been trying to pass a stimulus package and I'll give you one guess as to who's blocking that. In the meantime if the auto industry goes down that's another 2-3 million jobs. Nice going Bush!
Video at: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/07/bush-lay/
Transcript:
KING: The death of Ken Lay.
G. BUSH: Yes, yes.
KING: I know he was your friend. How do you feel? Were you shocked?
G. BUSH: I was. I was very surprised. You know, just — my hope is that his heart was right with the Lord, and I feel real sorry for his wife. She’s had a rough go, and she’s now here on earth to bear the burdens of losing her husband, a man she loved.
KING: Was that whole thing, the whole Enron story shocking to you?
G. BUSH: Yes, yes.
KING: Because, I mean, you knew him pretty well from Texas, right?
G. BUSH: Pretty well, pretty well. I knew him. I got to know him. This — people don’t believe this, but he actually supported Ann Richards in the ‘94 campaign.
KING: She told me that.
G. BUSH: She did?
KING: She liked him a lot.
G. BUSH: Yes, he’s a good guy. And so what I did — then did was we had a business council, and I kept him on as the chairman of the business council. And, you know, got to know him and got to see him in action.
One of the things I respected him for was he was such a contributor to Houston’s civil society. He was a generous person. I’m disappointed that there was this — he betrayed the trust of shareholders, but…
KING: Did you know him well, Mrs. Bush?
L. BUSH: I knew him. Not really well, but I did know him.
KING: Did you know his wife?
L. BUSH: And I know Linda and I’m sorry for her.
KING: Did you contact her?
L. BUSH: I haven’t.
G. BUSH: I haven’t yet. I’m going to write her a letter at some point in time.
Caught him on Larry King one night last week.
He's a very funny and intelligent man....
I saw part pf Larry King Monday night.
He was trashing Palin and laughing at Stephanie Miller's really nasty jokes. The media have intruded into where they should have never gone. They have laughed and acted better than women from small town, kind of like Obama calling us bitter and clinging to our guns and God.She has been given the Bork and Clarence Thomas treatment. It is a very sad day for all women. They did this to Hillary, just not to the extreme in such a short time. The media really really want Obama to win.
If you missed Craig T Nelson (Coach)
on Glenn Beck a couple of days ago, use the links below to see part of the video or read the transcript. It concerned a tax revolt and whether or not anyone would be willing to stop paying taxes and go to jail. Besides being a very funny man, Nelson was inspiring when he said he never voted to be part owner of GM or for any of the other nonsense going on today. He does not want to stick his children, grandchildren and the great grandchild on the way with the tab for all of this irresponsible spending.
Yet she conveniently overlooks Obama's gay affair with Larry Sinclair.
xx
Have you read Attack the Messenger by Craig Crawford...sm
He was on Fox and Friends today talking about the press and politics and I'm wondering if this is a good book?
Paul Craig Roberts: "Gullible Americans." sm
Dr. Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. In this, his latest article, he takes on the propaganda and lies that surround the Liquid Terror plot.
Caught in gratuitous and illegal spying on American citizens, the Bush administration has defended its illegal activity and set the Justice (sic) Department on the trail of the person or persons who informed the New York Times of Bush's violation of law. Note the astounding paradox: The Bush administration is caught red-handed in blatant illegality and responds by trying to arrest the patriot who exposed the administration's illegal behavior.
Bush has actually declared it treasonous to reveal his illegal behavior! His propagandists, who masquerade as news organizations, have taken up the line: To reveal wrong-doing by the Bush administration is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration's lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler's claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law.
Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence.
The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court. Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12/28/05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.
Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?
There are two possible reasons.
One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.
The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.
What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?
Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?
These possible reasons for bypassing the law and the court need to be fully investigated and debated. No administration in my lifetime has given so many strong reasons to oppose and condemn it as has the Bush administration. Nixon was driven from office because of a minor burglary of no consequence in itself. Clinton was impeached because he did not want the embarrassment of publicly acknowledging that he engaged in adulterous sex acts in the Oval Office. In contrast, Bush has deceived the public and Congress in order to invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans, illegally tortured detainees, and illegally spied on Americans. Bush has upheld neither the Constitution nor the law of the land. A majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done; yet, the Democratic Party remains a muted spectator.
Why is the Justice (sic) Department investigating the leak of Bush's illegal activity instead of the illegal activity committed by Bush? Is the purpose to stonewall Congress' investigation of Bush's illegal spying? By announcing a Justice (sic) Department investigation, the Bush administration positions itself to decline to respond to Congress on the grounds that it would compromise its own investigation into national security matters.
What will the federal courts do? When Hitler challenged the German judicial system, it collapsed and accepted that Hitler was the law. Hitler's claims were based on nothing but his claims, just as the claim for extra-legal power for Bush is based on nothing but memos written by his political appointees.
The Bush administration, backed by the neoconservative Federalist Society, has brought the separation of powers, the foundation of our political system, to crisis. The Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers, favors more energy in the executive. Distrustful of Congress and the American people, the Federalist Society never fails to support rulings that concentrate power in the executive branch of government. It is a paradox that conservative foundations and individuals have poured money for 23 years into an organization that is inimical to the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.
September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler's hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush's claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?
_____
Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
and who wants to tell a stranger on the phone
who they are voting for anyway?? I have had several calls and I do not tell anyone who i am voting for. This is still America, right? isn't my vote my business and no one else's??? That amazes me - that people will tell a perfect stranger who just happens to have their phone number who they will vote for.
You must not have heard the phone ad yet they are
Hang on to your hat. Thing is, the only phone call I got from the O camp was Michelle asking me if I would consider supporting her husband. When I told her yes, she said "that's great" and that was that. The incoming call was clearly identified, giving me the option to answer or not.
You will catch the gist of the new ad on this evening's news. I will be willing to bet my 401K those calls wil arrive under the caler-ID radar. The content is as I have described in the previous post and in my way of thinking, WAY, WAY over the top.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Million Phone March...sm
See link...
I don't think the phone call to CBS was a big deal....sm
This call has nothing to do with politics but more of a favor to a friend. He used his influence to help a friend out. Looks like CBS owed him the money anyway. Friends help each other out this way all the time, no harm done IMHO.
Travelgate is a different story. Firing the people for not reason to appoint friends is cronyism.
Huckabee's phone call from God. sm
Anyone else see this? Funny at first, but gave me the creeps by the end of it. I am surprised some of these people have not been struck by lightning.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/01/mister-huckabee-talks-to-god/#comments Yep, as long as none of us pick up a phone or
xx
Annoying phone call
You have no idea what is about to happen to this country if you do indeed vote for Hussane Obama. He is a socialist, and worse than that. Bottom line, truth of the matter is he wants to turn this country to socialism. You did not have to answer your phone. You chose to answer your phone. If you picked up the phone and realized what the add was you just hang up. How difficult is that? On the other hand, if Hussane Obama's group would have been on the other line, you would have fallen all over yourself. Come November remember this one thing if you do not remember anything else, you chose to vote for a "known terrorist." I do not know what news you are "listening too." I personally do NOT watch mainline TV -- esp not Communist network (CNN) as they are very slanted and do not deliver the true matters of things. Just remember you were warned, and if you vote a known terrorist backer then when this country becomes socialistic....you are the one who helped put him in there. YOu should be thankful for what you have already, and thankful for that phone call.
I'll answer the phone!!!!
x
I believe the phone company can still find the caller....sm
or at least the number from which the call originated. Phone records are accessible to law enforcement agencies when there is a reason for investigation.
I agree with you. Congress phone lines
in with so many complaints and not wanting to pass the stimulus. So there are others in this country who also agree.
Yes, Lurker, it's time to make more phone calls and get these Pat *Leaky* Leahy aided NSA Phone Taps
Looks like one of your own started the modern NSA wiretaps. I think the Democrats fail to realize there's this thing out there called the Internet and not just the bullhorn of the leftist media to give the peasants amnesia to what they've done in the past.
From Newsmax.com
Friday, May 19, 2006 12:49 a.m. EDT
Pat Leaky Leahy Aided NSA Phone Taps
In 1994 Sen. Pat Leaky Leahy co-wrote a law that forced telecommunications carriers to build convenient wiretap features into their networks enabling the kind of telephone records collection now at the heart of the controversy over the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance operation.
In recent days Leahy has called the NSA's actions troubling and potentially illegal - saying they show that the Bush administration is treating Americans like terrorists.
'The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans? he exclaimed after USA Today blew the lid off the program last week. Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?
But according to the Rutland Herald, Leahy was singing a different tune 12 years ago, when he was pushing the Senate to pass his bill, the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA].
I suggest to senators if anybody does want to hold [CALEA] up, I hope that at this time next year, neither they nor their constituents, nor anybody they know, is a kidnap victim or victim of a terrorist, and have somebody ask why nothing can be done, and be told because a law that had probably 99 percent support in the House and the Senate did not pass.
Contacted by the Herald earlier this week, Leahy said there was an important difference between what his law authorized and the actions taken by the Bush administration.
That law talks of the technology of the interception and what technology can be used to intercept and it assumes very clearly that it can only be done with a warrant, the Vermont Democrat insisted.
Some legal experts say, however, said that assumption is not as clear as Leahy claims. Analyzing CALEA in 2003, the Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal explained:
CALEA requires a telecommunications provider to make 'its equipment, facilities, or services ... capable of ... enabling the government ... [without a warrant] to intercept ... all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier.'
Civil libertarians are also troubled by Leahy's law.
The secret search and wiretap provisions could lead to an age of Big Brother-like surveillance, the American Civil Liberties Union complained in the same Law Journal report. Americans who oppose U.S. policies and who are believed to have ties to foreign powers could find their homes broken into and their telephones tapped.
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press WriterMon Apr 10, 4:55 PM ET
Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.
The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 — as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.
The national Republican Party, which paid millions in legal bills to defend Tobin, says the contacts involved routine election business and that it was preposterous to suggest the calls involved phone jamming.
The Justice Department has secured three convictions in the case but hasn't accused any White House or national Republican officials of wrongdoing, nor made any allegations suggesting party officials outside New Hampshire were involved. The phone records of calls to the White House were exhibits in Tobin's trial but prosecutors did not make them part of their case.
Democrats plan to ask a federal judge Tuesday to order GOP and White House officials to answer questions about the phone jamming in a civil lawsuit alleging voter fraud.
Repeated hang-up calls that jammed telephone lines at a Democratic get-out-the-vote center occurred in a Senate race in which Republican John Sununu defeated Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, 51 percent to 46 percent, on Nov. 5, 2002.
Besides the conviction of Tobin, the Republicans' New England regional director, prosecutors negotiated two plea bargains: one with a New Hampshire Republican Party official and another with the owner of a telemarketing firm involved in the scheme. The owner of the subcontractor firm whose employees made the hang-up calls is under indictment.
The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became President Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004. Other calls from New Hampshire senatorial campaign offices to the White House could have been made by a number of people.
A GOP campaign consultant in 2002, Jayne Millerick, made a 17-minute call to the White House on Election Day, but said in an interview she did not recall the subject. Millerick, who later became the New Hampshire GOP chairwoman, said in an interview she did not learn of the jamming until after the election.
A Democratic analysis of phone records introduced at Tobin's criminal trial show he made 115 outgoing calls — mostly to the same number in the White House political affairs office — between Sept. 17 and Nov. 22, 2002. Two dozen of the calls were made from 9:28 a.m. the day before the election through 2:17 a.m. the night after the voting.
There also were other calls between Republican officials during the period that the scheme was hatched and canceled.
Prosecutors did not need the White House calls to convict Tobin and negotiate the two guilty pleas.
Whatever the reason for not using the White House records, prosecutors tried a very narrow case, said Paul Twomey, who represented the Democratic Party in the criminal and civil cases. The Justice Department did not say why the White House records were not used.
The Democrats said in their civil case motion that they were entitled to know the purpose of the calls to government offices at the time of the planning and implementation of the phone-jamming conspiracy ... and the timing of the phone calls made by Mr. Tobin on Election Day.
While national Republican officials have said they deplore such operations, the Republican National Committee said it paid for Tobin's defense because he is a longtime supporter and told officials he had committed no crime.
By Nov. 4, 2002, the Monday before the election, an Idaho firm was hired to make the hang-up calls. The Republican state chairman at the time, John Dowd, said in an interview he learned of the scheme that day and tried to stop it.
Dowd, who blamed an aide for devising the scheme without his knowledge, contended that the jamming began on Election Day despite his efforts. A police report confirmed the Manchester Professional Fire Fighters Association reported the hang-up calls began about 7:15 a.m. and continued for about two hours. The association was offering rides to the polls.
Virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number, which currently rings inside the political affairs office. In 2002, White House political affairs was led by now-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. The White House declined to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002.
As policy, we don't discuss ongoing legal proceedings within the courts, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.
Robert Kelner, a Washington lawyer representing the Republican National Committee in the civil litigation, said there was no connection between the phone jamming operation and the calls to the White House and party officials.
On Election Day, as anybody involved in politics knows, there's a tremendous volume of calls between political operatives in the field and political operatives in Washington, Kelner said.
If all you're pointing out is calls between Republican National Committee regional political officials and the White House political office on Election Day, you're pointing out nothing that hasn't been true on every Election Day, he said.
My husband does just that. He is on the phone weekly with our sens and reps. state and federal. sm
Our congressment and senators et AL are on speed dial. If my husband has a beef or a question, he is on the phone letting them know (nicely of course) that they screwed up. But on the other hand he does call and tell them thank you when they do something right. One of the congressmen from Michigan voted no on the bailout. So he got a call from both of us. Same with the senator from Michigan who voted FOR the bailout. He got a call saying he has just lost 2 votes. We may be a minority, but the aides in those offices know who my husband is..and all he has to say is his first name. If you keep the heat on, hopefully things can change. Maybe not right away, but hopefully at some time. Just not in my lifetime I am afraid.
If I were an independent voter receiving McCain's garbage phone ad this weekend
You're making dinner and trying to sit down with your family to eat after an exhausting work week and pouring over your 401K loss report. You have just found out that the $42,000 you had accumulated as of last spring is now worth $26,040. You've just turned off the burner under the hot veggies when, BRRRINNNGGGG, the phone rings. It's the McCain campaign delivering an urgent message to you in the privacy of your own home, assuming you never listen to network news, read a paper or go on line and are unaware of their latest breaking news....telling you that Barack Obama is a terrorist who hangs with other terrorists, on the off chance that it might capture your previously uncommitted vote. If it happened to me, I would be up with the chickens Monday morning at the early voting polls telling every single peson within earshot that I had just voted a straight Dem ticket. How dare they?
marks the location of current message within thread
