Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 6/26
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted June 26, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
97 Comments
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) has said that he will propose an amendment this week to a spending bill for executive operations that will “place a hold on funds for Cheney’s office and official home until he clarifies to which branch of the government he belongs.” “The Vice President has a choice to make,” said Emanuel in a statement. “If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules.” In the FY 2008 budget, which was approved last week, the House Appropriations Committee stated without any controversy that it “recommends an appropriation of $4,432,000 for the Office of the Vice President, the same as fiscal year 2007 level and the amount requested by the President.”
This should prove interesting.
another late night coffee keeping me up — here’s a thought to provide an opportunity in the Wichita School District.In the mid – late nineties the Chicago School District constructed and opened the “Chicago Military Academy” in an old dilapitated Guard Armory (actually had a huge tree growning in the main assembly area. It was built in a ghetto area to provide an High School educational opportunity that was based on a JROTC / Military model for education, strong on basics, discipline, accountability etc …All service branches (exc the Coast Guard) are represented, most of the staff admin and faculty are either retired or former military members.
The application / screening process is formal and intense, parents are interviewed, agreements for behavior and discipline are spelled out and signed. I was lucky enough to be involved in a small way (I worked for a guy who was a strong supporter of the military and was making big donations of money and books). It was such a succesful program that the district began a program to install mini academies at several other schools.
Certainly the military gets a recruiting boost from them, (not everyone who completes the program goes onto military do I suspect many/most do). It is a pretty unique educational experience (compare the military academy experience with traditinal university settings although not quite that rigid). It provides a great opportunity for students to escape the ghetto (interestingly enough the academy in Bronzeville provided the impetus or cornerstone for neighborhood improvement programs and the area is slowly becoming a desirable place to live.) Students come from all over the city and have to want to be there and show it … The City was lucky to have widespread support for the idea, they were able to get Federal, DoD and State funds) to pay for most of the construction and start up costs and through JROTC departments get other funding that decreases the cost burden annually. It needed someone with the idea and passion for it to make it happen — he was a retired one star general, former Tuskeggee Airman — worked for Benny o Davis) — they should rename the area for him. The school has changed and impacted thousands of lives in so many positive ways. They were lucky to have Mayor Daley so Democrat he bleeds blue, (did you know his son joined the Army after 9-11?) as a strong supporter for it ….
I wonder if a similar program might work is needed in Wichita? Dave – Nathan what do you think? It did have opponents but they were pretty few –
Here’s a link:http://chicagomilitaryacademy.org/
For this administration, the Veep’s office should be renamed Puppet Master in Chief. And since he’s got way too many strings to pull as it is, he needs to delegate his Senate presidency to his daughter Mary.
When will there be a final report from the city manager about responsibility for the loss of the bowling tournament? Did the council give him a time to have a final report ready? What would Trump do if someone lost a 100 million dollar deal of his?
Cheney’s office apparently belongs in the Exempt Department, that hybrid place between the Executive Branch, and the Congressional Branch, and is beholden to no one!
Video Link below…
“WASHINGTON – Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican and a reliable vote for President Bush on the war, said Monday that Bush’s Iraq strategy was not working and that the United States should downsize the military’s role.
The unusually blunt assessment deals a political blow to Bush, who has relied heavily on GOP support to stave off anti-war legislation.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19426648/
Cheney’s office apparently belongs in the Exempt Department, that hybrid place between the Executive Branch, and the Congressional Branch, and is beholden to no one!
Posted by: The Phantom | June 26, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Hence VIce President Al Gore’s statement about “no controlling authority”
Seriously, having read several posts by others and some of Cheneys remarks, I certainly think this would be a good time for a review of SCOTUS, or others, and decide the actual status of the office of the vice president, nothwithstanding the current officeholder. As president of the senate, he should be under the legislative branch, but his duties often seem to fall under the executive. A review by SCOTUS would be very appropriate and more relevant the “bong hits for jesus”
The Constitution gives the Vice President executive power only on death or disability of the President. Constitutionally, Cheney’s claims of executive privileges and powers are meaningless.
Tom- So you say. Cheney says otherwise.Not being argumentative. I would tend to agree with you. however, I think that the vice president may have executive powers under the penumbra of the articles of the constitution, where all kinds of things not expressly stated can be found.Regardless of your or my belief, the vp (this one and others) will act as he will until there is a constitutional ruling by SCOTUS, clarifying the matter.
A ruling that we should somehow, bring into being.
Today’s exciting episode of Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour comes from the increasing body of evidence showing the political partisanship taking over the Bush Dept. of Justice.
Submitted for your approval are the following:
Posted on Tue, Jun. 19,
U.S. attorneys saga exposes weakened Justice Department independence
By Marisa Taylor and Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON – The investigations into the Bush administration’s decision to fire nine U.S. attorneys have exposed how the administration has eroded the firewall between partisan politics and the Justice Department and compromised the independence of the nation’s top law enforcement agency.
As early as 2002, administration policymakers, Republican legislators and GOP party officials began injecting politics into criminal investigations and civil and voting rights enforcement and applying political litmus tests to judges and career lawyers at the Justice Department.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of thousands of Justice Department documents, congressional testimony and interviews with current and former Justice Department officials reveals that the administration:
* Issued a series of directives to dismantle the traditional boundaries between White House political operatives and the Justice Department, permitting a larger circle of aides to discuss pending criminal and civil investigations.
* Ignored the advice of top Justice Department lawyers and crafted national security policies that pushed or breached the limits of the law. In one case involving secret spying, at least 10 top department officials – including then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and the head of the FBI – were prepared to resign in protest.
* Allowed political adviser Karl Rove and the White House Office of Political Affairs to become conduits for complaints about politically sensitive prosecutions. Elected officials and even lobbyists took their frustrations about individual cases or prosecutors to Rove, or to the attorney general and his aides.
* Replaced some independent-minded U.S. attorneys and career Justice Department lawyers with young lawyers who had little trial experience but belonged to the conservative Federalist Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association.
These changes began years before Alberto Gonzales became attorney general in February 2005, in the ask-no-questions atmosphere that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They occurred with the cooperation of a Republican-led Congress and reverberated from the distant Pacific territory of Guam to the Deep South to Western states that could be battlegrounds in next year’s presidential election.
The administration maintains that it’s a coincidence that most of the fired U.S. attorneys served in battleground election states, were investigating Republicans or had irritated local Republicans with their refusals to prosecute Democrats.
Many of the nation’s legal experts, including Republicans with long government service, see a troubling change in the administration of justice.
“We have a Justice Department that has substantially been turned into a political arm of the White House,” said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, who’s become one of the conservative movement’s fiercest critics of the president.
“To elicit confidence in the legitimacy of law enforcement, you have to at least create the appearance to the public that prosecutorial decisions and high-level personnel decisions do not pivot on political affiliation,” Fein said. “Irrespective of whether there’s actual partisanship in these decisions, the fear among the public is that this is occurring. It creates a chilling effect on the entire political discourse of the country.”
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17390957.htm
But wait, there’s more. Much more:
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/06/hbc-90000351
“We have a Justice Department that has substantially been turned into a political arm of the White House,” Bruce Fein told the McClatchy Newspapers earlier this week. He went on to say that the public could have no confidence that federal prosecutions of Democrats by the Justice Department were fair. Mr. Fein is a conservative Republican lawyer and legal scholar of some note–the former senior legal analyst at the Heritage Foundation. As the Deputy Attorney General, he was responsible for the operational management of the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan. Bruce Fein would not make such a charge lightly. He is speaking from knowledge, not conjecture.
His accusations rest on a growing body of evidence. Two professors at the University of Minnesota looked at the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of cases involving political figures. It showed seven prosecutions of Democrats for every one Republican. These prosecutions are coordinated and directed by the Public Integrity Unit, a group now under suspicion of being the single most politicized part of the Justice Department.
Under the direction of the White House, and particularly Karl Rove, the Justice Department undertook a series of prosecutions designed to undermine the positions of elected Democratic officeholders and help the Republican Party take their positions. In this space over the last two months, I have catalogued a series of cases which suggest White House-driven manipulation of criminal prosecutions. Sometimes the White House has intervened to shut down or obstruct prosecutions of Republicans – a process that started certainly by the spring of 2002, when Jack Abramoff, a protégé of Karl Rove and Tom DeLay, sought White House intervention to fire the U.S. Attorney in Guam. “I don’t care if they appoint bozo the clown, we need to get rid of Fred Black,” Abramoff wrote in March 2002.. And indeed, following White House intervention, the U.S. attorney was fired, a Republican party functionary was appointed in his place, and the investigation that threatened to expose a seedy Abramoff operation involving human trafficking was shut down. Thanks to the role played directly by the White House, the process took only a few days. Similarly, we have documented meddling to protect Republicans in San Diego, Los Angeles, Little Rock, Kansas City, and Arizona.
The curtain was pulled back on this plan [to put the Alabama's judicial system into partisan Republican hands] when Dana Jill Simpson, a Republican lawyer who previously worked on a campaign against Siegelman, decided to blow the whistle. Her affidavit described William Canary, a legendary figure in the Alabama GOP, bragging that “his girls” would take care of Siegelman. Canary’s wife is Leura Canary, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Alice Martin, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama is a close confidante of Canary’s. He referred repeatedly to “Karl,” assuring that “Karl” had worked things out with the Justice Department in Washington to assure a criminal investigation and prosecution of Siegelman. Canary is a close friend of Karl Rove, and I have documented their long relationship in another post.
[First came character assassination.]
And something nastier: after her intention to speak became known, Simpson’s house was burned to the ground, and her car was driven off the road and totaled. Clearly, there are some very powerful people in Alabama who feel threatened.
*****
Whistleblowers slimed, threatened, and criminally attacked–arson and intented homicide.
Yup, that’s our boy KKKarl, the President’s main man.
This has been another exciting episode of the Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour.
Littlejohn,
In the original Constitution, the Vice Presidency went to the _loser_. There is absolutely no way the Framers would have granted executive authority of the kind Cheney is asserting to the losing opponent in a national election. The 12th Amendment, which put the VP on the Presidential candidate’s ticket, was intended to fix a broken electoral system after the second and third place finishers tied. It was _not_ intended to grant the VP executive power.
Could you imagine Gore or Kerry as Bush’s Vice President?
Tom-
I agree about the original intent. Unfortunately, original intent seems to mean less and less while SCOTUS peers into the depths of the penumbra, and into the hallowed state of europe for guidance, instead of the principal of original intent. Now, the creed seems to be “THe Constitution is a living, breathing document that changes over time” meaning ” The COnstitution means what I say it means today, forget yesterday”
Another scroll over post by the Capn – very long, very boring and pointless.
I already explained the Cheney situation to Tom and others by annotating the executive orders that were passed allowing Cheney these new duties. There is really no big deal here other than saying that the Vice President can control the classification/de-classification of documents in his office.
Let’s stop whining about trivial things and get on to more important matters.
KCDude–
That’s smart thinking by Rahm Em.
If Cheney is going to play games, let the games begin . . .
Littlejohn,
Some parts of “original intent” get ignored, especially the 9th Amendment which states explicitly what all the other amendments imply: That the government does not _grant_ rights; they are reserved to the people.
Then there’s the fun with the 10th Amendment, which grants states _powers_, not _rights_. The Framers wrote the Constitution to limit power, thereby protecting the reserved, inherent rights _recognized,_ not _granted_, in the 9th.
Radicals love to rephrase this as “state’s rights,” even though there is no such thing in the Constitution, and the Framers would have laughed the “state’s rights” people out of the room.
But this business with Cheney – there’s no “original intent” or “gray area” argument that holds up. No one, not Congress, not the President, can rewrite the Constitution with legislation or with executive orders. Bush can claim it’s in his powers all he wants, but the Constitution is very clear on when the VP gets executive power and privilege.
Isn’t it more about wether his claims to not be a part of the Executive Branch, as opposed to wether he has the powers or not or his offices ability / requirement to classify information? Because he doesn’t have the powers of the president, how does that remove him from the executive branch?
But this business with Cheney – there’s no “original intent” or “gray area” argument that holds up. No one, not Congress, not the President, can rewrite the Constitution with legislation or with executive orders. Bush can claim it’s in his powers all he wants, but the Constitution is very clear on when the VP gets executive power and privilege.
Posted by: Tom | June 26, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Hence my desire for SCOTUS review.
I am of the “original intent” persuasion, not the “whatever we think” persuasion. I thought you already knew that.
You and I disagree on the tenth. That;s fine. The framers of the Constitution was very much interested in limited powers–of the Federal government– not the states. The Federal government was limited to powers expressly delinieated within the Constitution, all other powers to be held by the states. While it may be a misnomer to identify that as states rights, as a practical matter, holding all power other than what is specifically delinieated within the COnstitution as a states power is inherently giving the state the right to govern all other matters. Hence, “states rights”
This is much ado about nothing. Cheney refuses to respond to every congressional witch hunt and congress is in a snit.
I saw Rahm Emanuel being interviewed this morning and he appeared like a petulent little school girl. He is little more than frustrated buttboy for the Clinton political machine.
The good news is. . .as long as the democrats are going after Cheney they’re not hurting us with their ridiculous programs.
Hank
Love it when cons defend lawless behavior. But, when they’re busy defending Cheney they are less able to squelch our constitutional rights.
Posted by: ken | June 26, 2007 at 09:21 AM
“What would Trump do if someone lost a 100 million dollar deal of his?”
YOU’RE FIRED!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Republican | June 26, 2007 at 10:49 AM
“Let’s stop whining about trivial things and get on to more important matters.”
Spoken like a true “DITTOHEAD” !!!!!
Hmmm Steven,
Which law is Cheney breaking? Do we need a special prosecutor? Or is he just guilty of practicing politics as a republican?
Hank
And, which of your constitutional rights have been squelched lately?
Dude —
.. and he wouldn’t wait 4-5 weeks to do it!!!!! One phone call within 24 hrs and a least 1 person is sent packing.
Some one playing politics here?
also: re the VP and Executive Branch
In civics or American History classes weren’t we taught about the 3 branches and it’s where we learned that the VP was part of the executive branch? It must be confusing to any kid who has just learned about the branches of government. All those text books wrong?
I am of the “original intent” persuasion, not the “whatever we think” persuasion. I thought you already knew that.Posted by: littlejohn | June 26, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Yep. And I was as much clarifying my own thinking on this subject as I was responding to your post.
I strongly disagree with your position on the 10th Amendment, but alas, that discussion will have to wait for a day where I can spend more time on the Blog. Employment-style responsibilities beckon. Have a great day, Littlejohn!
Cheney IS part of the “executive” branch.
‘The Secret Campaign of President Bush’s Administration To Deny Global Warming’http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/1On page 2,”… But what Whitman didn’t grasp was that when it came to climate, the president was largely irrelevant.
Whitman should have had her doubts. Prior to joining the Cabinet, she sought personal assurance from Bush that the EPA would be able to call its own shots without deferring to the CEQ – the Council on Environmental Quality, a policy arm of the White House. As Whitman recalls it, Bush made no effort to mask his bureaucratic ignorance. “What’s CEQ?” he asked blankly.
Cheney took full advantage of the president’s cluelessness, bringing the CEQ into his own portfolio. “The environment and energy issues were really turned over to him from the beginning,” Whitman says. The CEQ became Cheney’s shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots.”
Continues with lots of details. Also see video/slide show.
Tom-
two quick points1) Isn’t that what cheney is trying to say, he is not beholden to laws that are applicable to the executive branch?
2) Under Article 2 (executive branch)Section 4 (impeachment) The President Vice President and civil officers are subject to impeachment.TO me, that gives grounds to the Vice President being under the executive branch.Therefore, the discussion becomes what duties and powers he has as a member of the executive branch, does it not? that seems to have varied through time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
I know wiki is not a definitive site, but a good place to start
Tom-See ya later
Spoken like a true “DITTOHEAD” !!!!!
Posted by: kscitydude | June 26, 2007 at 11:40 AM
I’ll take that as a compliment. I like to appeal to reason rather than emotion. :)
GMC
Someone here mentioned you were an attorney.
Now that the Judge vs Lost Suit Cleaners trial has found in favor of the defendents (Judge (plaintiff) has to pay legal costs) can / should the defendents file a defammation or loss of business suit and get reimbursed?
I would think they should be reimbursed for the damage he did to them.
Polls…
http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm
My right to a freedom from illegal search and seizure. And even the “far-left” John Ashcroft agreed with me on that one. Ha!
Just as a parenthetical comment, when John Ashcroft emerges as a hero of the constitution in the current administration, that should have been a clue to us, how much trouble we were in.
The office of the Vice President risks losing its funding due to Cheney’s lawlessness:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/secrecy-may-cost-cheney-dems-warn-2007-06-26.html
This seems to be a fight that congress is getting serious about, despite the nay-saying of some local apologists.
ken
Haven’t followed the case that close, other rapidly than this attorney/judge/plaintiff is an ass. It seems I read that the defendants got legal fees, beyond that, I don’t know. I suppose they could file their own suit alleging harm by pressing frivilous (to say the least!) claims, but I doubt they want to get involved in another court action.
Vaughn’s the civil suit whiz, BTW. Civil actions are a little out of my area of expertise.
While I’m here . . .
Just a thought on Cheney’s remarkable (and remarkably dumb, in my opinion) claim that he’s not in the executive branch. It appears that his own brief in his case a few years ago contradicted that claim.
http://volokh.com/posts/1182729380.shtml
How do you ’splain THAT to the court?
“other rapidly” ???
I’m sure I had a coherant thought somewhere – but it got lost on the way to my fingers.
The “Search and Seizure” so-called right has more open applicability on Military installations and some Federal installations.
I seriously doubt Cheney is worried about the cutting off of funds for the office of the Vice President. It will get crushed rather quickly as most know that setting a precedent like this would be totally beyond the pale.
Also, from the article Steven Davis referenced.
“Cheney’s office, meanwhile, is staying on the offensive: “Congressman Emanuel has a choice to make — deal with serious issues or create more partisan politics,” vice presidential spokeswoman Lee Ann McBride said.”
I will allow Jon Stweart to comment on the Cheney farce – he does a very good job:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml
Hey Eds,We need a dedicated thread on the Cheney 4th branch of government.
Gee, I did not know that the concept of “probable cause” had been flushed down the toilet. I am glad that fount’ of (mis)information was around to set us all straight.
GMC
thanks — in cases similar to that it makes sense to be able to sue stupid people for being stupid ? The WEblog / Opinion Line alone could keep 50 lawyers busy full time ….
(tongue in cheek) … but another career track for the bar? Hah!!
Republican,
“I like to appeal to reason rather than emotion. :)”
No, you like to lie, to support your incorrect opinions.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_28.html#comment-71041282
Oh thank you cosmos, my day wouldn’t be complete without another personal attack from you.
Republican, you’re welcome. I’m just providing the truth.
http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=278059
Kansas gets more (in)famous.
I keep thinking the Republicans are going to have to lie in the bed they are making regarding Executive powers and privileges.
Most certainly, the next President will not be a Republican. That next President is going to do the same things the current one is doing, only then, it will not be as fun for the GOP.
Oh good grief Ben! That church is just ill! Thanks for the link? :\
Ben,All I can say is “Jesus wept.”
Great one of my favorite songs is now ruined. Despicable
Jesus wept Steven?? I would say they needed a 5 gal. bucket for his tears on that video… And yet, these people circulate among us, and they exercise their Right to freedom of religion, and real scary, they VOTE!!
Hey “D” I wonder if they bought the rights to use that music before they recorded it?? Hmmm… maybe somebody should look into copyright infringement???
Amen to that Steven.
I understand their next video will be “Amazing Hate”.
Yes, you are right Chas. I think those poor folks did not read the part about “God is love.”
A freind of mine’s preschooler returned from her first Sunday school class and the kid was asked what she learned. She said, “God is love. Sit down, sit down, sit down.”
I would venture to say that this pre-schooler knew more than the combined knowledge of the Phelps “adults”.
I remember commenting once that it would be fun to see a huge crowd of people surround his “church” and sing “Jesus Loves you this I know … ” that I learned in Sunday school so many years ago.
Good idea Ben, but I would surely be arrested from singing off key and making a public nuisance. :D
To address a question or two from upthread concerning the “lost pants” suit.
No defamation, IMHO; filing litigation carries with it, IIRC, a limited privilege. Business owner could file suit for malicious prosecution (yeah, I know, name really doesn’t fit) and try to recover damages, however, despite the outrageous damage request, there was an issue of whether the cleaners did lose the Plaintiff’s trousers, giving probable cause to file the action, which from my law school moot court case, defeats the malicious prosecution claim. As the Plaintiff is an attorney (guess here, as he’s an ALJ), he’s also subject to sanctions for filing frivolous litigation.
As the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s legal fees, I think that’s likely as far as it will go. I’m sure the defendant doesn’t want to go through more litigation.
” “Congressman Emanuel has a choice to make — deal with serious issues or create more partisan politics,” vice presidential spokeswoman Lee Ann McBride said.”
1) Classified documents = national security = a very “serious issue”.
2) Obeying the rules re classified documents is not a “partisan” issue.
3) Congress multi-tasks, and dealing with defunding the VP’s office is not blocking other legislation.
Cosmos — VERY good… score 100% on ALL three points… well, maybe deduct 1/2% for point 3… it could open up some kind of amendment from the RED side of the aisle, that might block other legislation… so, a strong solid 99.5% LOL
Let’s hope that with Lugar seeing the light that enough other Republicans come over to break filibuster.
Who knows, if 17 GOP Senators see the light …
Here’s what I see is Mayor Bloomberg’s Template for expanding Gun Control across America.
Is there an attorney GMC or someone else who might shed some more light on these settlements which set-up a SPECIAL MASTER to oversee Gun Dealers?
How is this not in conflict with the 2nd Amendment, Gun Control Act of 1968, Due Process violation and other laws?
“Close to half of the 27 dealers named in the two lawsuits have now settled out of court and agreed to unprecedented oversight of their firearms sales. Under the terms of the agreements, a Special Master has been appointed who will have unlimited access to the dealers’ records and the power to impose escalating fines for any new violations of federal, state, or local gun laws.”http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/litigation/litigation
I think I can answer that one Max.
“and prohibits Congress from infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Special Masters would infringe upon the INDIVIDUAL’s right to bear arms and therefor unconstitutional.
But that is from a lay person’s perspective. :)
How are you people doing with the 6 in ‘06? You know, passing laws for the American People. Do you have even one yet? It’s just investigate investigate. I don’t care except Nancy and Harry said that wasn’t how it was going to be. When are we going to get our impeachment? When are we going to cut the funding for the war? Am I going to have to switch parties to get you people headed straight?
“6 in ‘06?”
Are you referring to the pledge to pass them through the House? I don’t think anyone was foolish enough to promise that Republican Senators would cooperate or that Bush would sign.
“6 in ‘06?”
My mistake. I thought I heard something about “We are large and in charge now, we will get something done, we’ve taken over” or something like that.How ’bout another hearing on something?
And what does the 2nd Amendment say about WHY there should be no infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms??? I think thats the FIRST half of the Amendment, that nobody likes to quote…
How about defending your position Chas instead of asking an open-ended question. :)
Why not an open ended question?? It is an open ended argument thats been going on as long as I can remember…. Here is the entire text of 2nd Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This was not ratified until AFTER the adoption of the Constitution.
Today, the military provides weapons for soldiers… In that time, the soldiers provided their own weapons… Thus the need for keeping and bearing arms, for the security of the free state…
IF that is the intent of the 2nd Amendment, then I hardly see why it is necessary for groups like the NRA to keep demanding the right to own armor piercing bullets, and high power rifles, and other weapons not very usable in a military circumstance…
I have always liked the amendment, personally… I sort of like keeping my two arms… and in warm weather, sometimes, I even bare them… with a short sleeve, or sleeveless shirt!!
I didn’t get to listen to Rush and Sean today so can someone who did tell me if Rush called Senator Richard Lugar un-American or a traitor or an America hater because of his recent comment that he no longer support the war in Iraq?
It looks like one by one the Republicans in Congress are starting to agree with what the Democratic people have been saying for months.
———————————GOP support for Iraq war slipsBy ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 54 minutes agoWASHINGTON – Republican support for the Iraq war is slipping by the day.
After four years of combat and more than 3,560 U.S. deaths, two Republican senators previously reluctant to challenge President Bush on the war announced they could no longer support the deployment of 157,000 troops and asked the president to begin bringing them home.
“We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq,” Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, wrote in a letter to Bush.
Voinovich, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released his letter Tuesday — one day after Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the panel’s top Republican, said in a floor speech that Bush’s strategy was not working.
CONGRESS — SEN. LUGAR: AMERICA MUST REDUCE PRESENCE IN IRAQ: Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, last night announced his support for an immediate shift in Iraq policy, calling on President Bush “to downsize the U.S. military’s role in Iraq and place much more emphasis on diplomatic and economic options.” ABC News notes that the “surprise” announcement dealt a “political blow to Bush, who has relied heavily on GOP support to stave off anti-war legislation.” In a major speech on the Senate floor, Lugar said that “victory” in Iraq as defined by Bush is now “almost impossible.” The current course of the war “has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond,” he said. Lugar warned that “persisting indefinitely” with Bush’s escalation strategy would “delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.” He specifically rejected claims that withdrawing U.S. forces would increase instability. Downsizing the U.S. military presence in Iraq would “strengthen our position in the Middle East, and reduce the prospect of terrorism, regional war, and other calamities,” Lugar said. Also yesterday, the Center for American Progress released its latest detailed Iraq progressive exit strategy, Strategic Reset, which calls for virtually all U.S. troops to be redeployed out of Iraq within one year.
IMMIGRATION — RIGHT-WING RADIO HOSTS ADVISE SENATORS ON IMMIGRATION BILL: “Talk radio is running America,” Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) recently told the New York Times. “We have to deal with that problem.” Since Lott uttered his comment about right-wing talk radio’s disproportionate influence on the Senate immigration debate, he has become a pariah on talk radio and in the conservative blogosphere. Unfortunately, the radio talkers have become more influential as well, with some even helping to craft legislation. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the key conservative negotiator behind the compromise bill, told reporters Friday “that California-based radio host Hugh Hewitt ‘had several ideas’ that ‘we are trying to include’ in amendments to be offered in an upcoming series of crucial votes. Hewitt, a conservative who has criticized many aspects of the bill, had Kyl as a guest on Thursday and asked: ‘Does the bill provide for any separate treatment of aliens, illegal aliens from countries of special concern?’ Kyl replied: ‘It’s going to, as a result of your lobbying efforts to me.’” Hewitt isn’t the only right-wing talker to directly influence a senator. After Atlanta-based host Neal Boortz “popped” Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) over his “qualified support” of the immigration bill, Boortz was brought in to consult with Chambliss, “even though the senator was not an on-air guest during the debate.” Chambliss now opposes the bill. Both Hewitt and Boortz hold positions that are well out of the mainstream. On his blog, Hewitt has suggested that former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) would be an ideal Supreme Court justice. Regarding immigrants, Boortz has said, “Give ‘em all a little nuclear waste and let ‘em take it on down there to Mexico.” Though conservatives may take up 91 percent of the talk radio airwaves, talk radio is not representative of the American people, who broadly support the key components of the legislation.
nuclear waste??? lmao!!!
Right wing talk radio is profitable and popular because, if nothing else, it is entertaing. Nobody wants to listen to bleating leftists like Al Franken whine and regurgitate the same tired, failed leftist garbage, ad nasuem.
Gee sgt. slaughter, that comment I posted about “Talk radio is running America,” Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) recently told the New York Times didn’t say “one” word about liberal and progressive radio.
Are you sitting on your brain again! Ha,ha.
What no paragraphs!
WTH!
“Right wing talk radio is profitable and popular because, if nothing else, it is entertaing” Yea, like pro wrestling and Paris Hilton.
When Trent Lott complains that is something; he is hardly ‘liberal’
The Immigration Reform and Amnesty bill passed the Senate today by a huge margin! 64 yeah votes! So much for “talk radio is running America”
Kev,
You traitors should not get too excited, this bill did not “pass” anything, yet. It is doubtful it will get out of the senate and even more doubtful that it will pass in the house. Don’t commence mastubating just yet.
Good grief, Sgt. keep the language at least half way non sexual!!! THAT is totally uncalled for!!!
sgt – just remember, your boy Bush is traitor-in-chief.
Urgent! If you are concerned about 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants being granted immediate legal status, PAY ATTENTION to what is happening in Congress today and next week!
You can see if your Senator voted to bring this Bill back to life that may lead to the immigration of illegal immigrants – regardless of their criminal records, whether they are working or on welfare at this site:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00228#name
WRITE your Congressmen NOW if you are concerned how they vote on the Illegal Immigration Issue!
Here’s a link to write any Congressmen in the USA:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
When this bill was first proposed, due to millions of emails and letters written to Congress – this Bill was delayed!
But YOU CAN’T Give Up Now IF you want to STOP this bill!
Bush and Congress keep pushing this bill down our throats even though American citizens are overwhelmingly against this bill!
Do they not listen to us?!?
Don’t just sit there, if you care about this bill WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN NOW to tell them NOT to pass this bill!
Correction, sorry for the error:
The Immigration Bill IS AMNESTY!
Urgent! If you are concerned about 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants being granted immediate legal status, PAY ATTENTION to what is happening in Congress today and next week!
You can see if your Senator voted to bring this Bill back to life that may lead to the IMMEDIATE LEGALIZATION of illegal immigrants – regardless of their criminal records, whether they are working or on welfare at this site:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00228#name
Americans DO NOT Support The Immigration Bill
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/support_for_senate_immigration_bill_falls_49_prefer_no_bill_at_all
Support for Senate Immigration Bill Falls, 49% Prefer No Bill At AllWednesday, June 06, 2007Public support for the Senate immigration reform bill has slipped a bit over the past week. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Monday and Tuesday night found that just 23% of voters now support the bill while 50% are opposed. Last week, 26% supported the Senate bill while 48% were opposed.
One More Poll:
Analysis: Majority oppose immigration billPublished: June 21, 2007 at 9:53 AM E-mail Story | Print Preview | License
By SHAUN WATERMANUPI Homeland and National Security EditorWASHINGTON, June 21 (UPI) — A majority of Americans oppose the immigration reform bill currently being considered by the Senate, and they have an overwhelmingly poor opinion of the way President Bush and the U.S. Congress have handled the issue.A Zogby Interactive poll of 8,300 representative adults nationwide found only 38 percent supported the bill currently being considered by the Senate, while 56 percent opposed it.
The news comes as the bill returns to the Senate floor, facing a series of contentious amendments.
The poll, commissioned by United Press International and carried out earlier this week, showed that opponents of the reform package appeared to have won the battle to define it: 65 percent of respondents agreed that “this bill represents amnesty for illegal immigrants.”
http://www.upi.com/Zogby/UPI_Polls/2007/06/21/analysis_majority_oppose_immigration_bill/2755/
Top Issues for Americans. Interesting to compare this to issues debated on this blog or by our wunnerful politicians.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=1675&pg=1
Roberts voted right to day and Brownback just sealed his fate as a last term senator as far as I am concerned. His office told me last week he would vote no on this bill. He voted yes.
Never presidential material I think he is no longer senatorial material.
What would make a senator whose office admitted that the calls they were receiving were 9 to 1 against passing this amnesty bill vote for it?
Why? George told him to!
all of you repukes make me sick
the immigration bill is the last thing to get worked up over
but while you live in fantasy world, the VP is taking a dump on the constitution, the president is giving his reverse midas touch to everything he takes part in and our country is falling apart
Wyandotte County just passed the casino issue by a whopping 80% margin.
No word yet on Ford County.
New word out! Ford County voted for a casino.
Now lets see how progressive we are. Can we pass a casino?
By Michael AbramowitzWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A05http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Vice President Cheney’s office offered its first public written explanation yesterday for its refusal to comply with an executive order regulating the handling of classified material, arguing that the order makes clear that the vice president is not subject to the oversight system it creates for federal agencies.
In a letter to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Cheney chief of staff David S. Addington wrote that the order treats the vice president the same as the president and distinguishes them both from “agencies” subject to the oversight provisions of the executive order.
Addington did not repeat a separate argument that has been previously advanced by Cheney’s office: that it is not strictly an executive branch agency but also shares legislative functions because the vice president presides over the Senate. That argument has drawn ridicule in recent days from Democrats and on late-night television.
Addington suggested in his letter that it was not necessary to rehash that dispute. “Given that the executive order treats the Vice President like the President rather than like an ‘agency,’ ” he wrote, “it is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning, based on the law and the legislative functions of the vice presidency. . . .” The controversy arises from the revelation last week, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), that the vice president’s office has not cooperated since 2003 with officials at the National Archives and Records Administration, who are charged with policing executive branch compliance with rules protecting classified information. In a letter to Cheney, Waxman wrote that the vice president’s office had not responded to letters from the National Archives contesting its legal position.
Joe! We shall see … right now I would rate it a toss-up. I also saw that the ‘anti-Sunday’ people are collecting signatures. Haven’t met any of them out my way.
Too bad we can’t wager on elections!
I hope hope hope we get a casino. I hate driving to Topeka
just think of the jobs it will add as well!!!
Casino? Cool, I think that I will open up a pawn shop and an escort service. hehehehehe
Maybe you can get your boyfriend Coulter to join you!
Leftist Hollywood actor, salad dressing slinger, and sometimes watchtower of wealthy wisdom Paul Newman says that President Bush poses the biggest internal threat to American democracy in his lifetime, mainly because of Bush’s use of xenophobia. Mr. Newman is therefore seeking donations to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.[No, I don't think he uses cheap foreign labor to make salad dressing.]
I agree with Newman….The Paul, not the Troy.