Larry,

What psychological need or want does it fulfill for you to insult others?

This is one of the things that I find amazing about the Democrat Party. Oh, the Dems claim to be open, accepting, the party that takes people as they are, but way too often I see attempts at humor like this.

Innuendo about gays, name calling, petty insults and jokes; way to show the values that you live by.

Here is a clue;
When you things like that picture link, it says more about you than it does JD or I.

Larry,

Many people use humor as an attack; just like you are doing now.

This is not the first time something like that has been posted. Cliff is always attacking people, not issues. This just seems more of the same.

Yes, I’ve read the Articles of Impeachment. Some of them are troubling and should be addressed. From my read on Congress and the public opinion right now, I would say there will never be any trial. First most of the charges are bunk, there are only a couple of actionable items in the list of 35. It makes Kucinich look like a crank.

So many of the articles are just rehashing previous issues that didn’t hurt Bush. The Valerie Plame case is a great example. Legally she was not covered by the law. Practically she was not covert, her neighbors, family, friends knew. If there was a violation of the law, why didn’t it come out earlier. The only charge that could be made was that Libby lied DURING the investigation. There was no charge that Bush, Cheney or anyone else violated the law. Case Closed but Dennis brings it up again hoping people’s memory are short.
Katrina response is another issue. Were there mistakes, yes. But the issues have been covered and debunked. Check out Popular Mechanic’s online- great resource to show that the media blew up most of the issues into federal issues and overlooked the city and state issues.

The biggest reason that the charges won’t go anywhere is simple: it would point out how Congress has been complicit and helping the violations of the Constitution in some areas and Congress’ utter incompetence in other areas.

Freedom and Justice? Please tell me what Freedom looks like to you? Is it Bush violating the Constitution to fight a war or democrats/liberals like Obama wanting to violate our rights to advance his agenda.

What freedom do you want?

Awww…Larry hurts my feelings….

And he still thinks I’m a white, heterosexual male – which makes him crazy because he doesn’t know which identity group to pander to.

…apparently the former group isn’t worth a decent pander…

Larry,

Sorry, but Plame wasn’t covert under the legal definition of the law. If she was, why wsan’t someone charged with releasing that information? Simple, because NO CRIME was committed.

You don’t find any of the charges to be outlandish? Poor Katrina response, Kucinich blamed anything and everything on Bush; nothing on Blanco and Nagin. Come on, get real.

Global Warming? Kucinich is charging Bush with lying about Global Warming. Quick, what has happened to the global temperature for the last 10 years?

Wilson’s own report stated that high level Iraqi officials approached Nigerian officials, but he then claimed that Iraq didn’t try to purchase yellow cake. Guess they were there to see about opening up a luxury resort, right?

These are the things that have been covered and dismissed for a reason. The other more serious issues should be addressed but won’t be.

I have said repeatedly to bring the issues forward, but to bundle them in this manner guarantees them to be dismissed.

A government at war has always been able to contravene the Constitution is someways, but the actions of the Democrats seem to be designed to hamstring our ability to fight. The recent Habeas Corpus decision from the SCOTUS is an example of this. For Americans, yes it definitely applies. But this is the first time in history that it’s been determined to apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil. How many people released from Gitmo have turned back up on the battlefield? Over 30.

Does anyone intend to say that we aren’t involved in a war for our existence?

But if you are concerned about Bush and his administration violating the Constitution and the laws, let’s see the outrage over Clinton and his administration. The Assault Weapon Ban clearly violated the 2nd amendment. The handgun bans in Chicago, D.C., San Francisco clearly violate the 2nd.

Richard,

There was also no investigation, unless you count the very circumscribed and limited ‘Scooter’ Libby fall guy distraction

How long did Fitzgerald investigate? 18 months, nearly 2 years; I need to move to Utah were that counts as a limited investigation. How much money did he spend on the issue?

WASHINGTON – An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame’s employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was “covert” when her name became public in July 2003.

There are two distinct and separate issues; 1 whether or not the CIA consider Ms Plame as “covert” and 2 Whether or not she was “covert” under the definition of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

If someone had violated that law, they would have clearly been charged with it at least. Fitzgerald knew of that law, knew it’s requirements and did not indict anyone. Ergo, the law wasn’t broken. Two clearly separate standards, the CIA in-house and the legal requirements of the IIPA.

As far as the danger to America, I agree but we are probably not thinking of all the same people. Bush and Congress by far have violated our rights, but those aren’t the only ones.

On this very blog, someone freely and distinctly admitted to wanting to violate citizens’ right to free speech and assembly. Where was the outrage?
Our rights are being violated in the name of Internationalism, Environmentalism, Multi-culturalism and we are being told it’s for our own good. Sorry but the actions of folks like this are removing the protections put in place by the Constitution and trying to turn us into a second rate European Union.

Richard, the 2nd amendment has been covered but some simple questions haven’t been answered to support your view.

Please tell me why there are sections in the Constitution:

Article 1 Section 8 (legislative)
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article 2 Section 8
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States

If these responsibilities and powers are defined, clearly and distinctly defined in the body of the Constitution, why not revise those sections to limit the power of the federal government to disarm the militia? It clearly states that Congress has the power to arm, why not state that Congress has the power to disarm or is prevented from disarming the states at that point?

Also, if your view is correct; why is it the ONLY Bill of Right amendment that gives a right to the states?

Not one of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights gives the states a right. Each time the rights are mentioned, it clearly talks about People.

Amendment #10 talks about powers not rights of the states
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Lastly, the right to armed self protection even if not covered by the 2nd amendment is clearly covered by the 9th, isn’t it?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Richard,

Other points from Fitzgerald’s press conference

CIA officer was not well- known,
That Fitzgerald explanation is very inadequate. Libby was convicted of lying about it, true….but the investigation clearly identified that the “leak” came not just within the White House but the State Department – Richard Armitage.

The facts are clear, Cheney, Rove, Scooter all worked to expose the fact of Valerie Plames involvement in the Joe Wilson situation.

He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson’s wife,

it’s also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials

Okay, it’s legal for Libby to know and discuss with government officials, but how about reporters.

And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

Even if no one else was charged with violating the IIPA, it is clear that there was reason to believe that Libby did. Statements from Libby and others provided that evidence; but he wasn’t charged. Because Plame was not covert by the definitions provided within the IIPA. It doesn’t matter that the CIA considered her covert, but what the law’s definition was and by that she did not meet the requirements.
Heck, I consider my identity covert, but that doesn’t mean that I’m covered by law.

Fitzgerald addressed this point, but obscured the issue by interchanging the terms “classified” and “covert”.

QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson’s identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I’ll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I’m not making that assertion.

Richard,

Your phrase is accurate, you are guessing. Why wouldn’t the prosecutor pile on as many charges as possible, that way if some didn’t stick the others would? Simple answer is Fitzgerald did it seems. 5 counts, but not one of them for violating the IIPA.

Care to address the 2nd amendment issues especially this one?

3) “The People” is a collective term, and does not refer to individuals but includes state governments

I would like to find out if the police can stop and search me for any reason if I’m alone but can’t do it if I’m a part of the state government?

Should all newspapers then be ran by the state?

The people has to refer to an individual if any of the other amendments are to make sense, wouldn’t you agree?

Bob S.

Richard,

I would like to find out what you think the US v Miller case decided, if you would be willing to share that information.

I am not making light of the situation or anything, just trying to find out what background information, how you understand it, etc.

If you would be willing to post that, I’ll respond accordingly with my understanding.

Richard,

Let’s try this again. I don’t know where the first attempt went, but I saved it.

Richard,

Thanks. I appreciate the link. I reviewed what was covered at the Findlaw link, and it is a summary of the decision.

from this cite, but others have the text of the decision http://www.hoboes.com/Politics/Firearms/miller/

To recap, the case is about 2 gentleman caught with a short barrel shotgun, the National Firearms Act required any such weapon to be subject to a tax stamp. Since Miller died prior to the case being heard and the lawyers didn’t even show up, there was no defense presented. This is my understanding of it, but I could be wrong.

So what did the case decide, let’s find out. I would like to quote from the decision itself

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,

Let’s question that statement. Do shotguns, sawed off shotguns have a place in the militia and therefore the current military. Yes, the military has been using sawed off shot guns for a long time, even as late as WWI (in case time, 1939)

From this site http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-History-669/u-s-army-special-1.htm“>pump shotgun

Yes, the was used in WWI and was actually called a trench gun. They were first employed by the Marines. Since the Marines comprised one of the few veteran units available to the US military, due to their experience in the banana republic interventions in S. America and the Phillipines. They were expanded and a full brigade were employed. The weapon you reference was the Winchester 1897 pump shotgun. It was equiped with a barrel heat guard, extended magazine, and bayonet lug. It was considered very effective in clearing trenchs, hence the name

So that part of the decision is not factual, knowing how to use a sawed off shotgun would be important for any militia.

Second, the decision did not state there was not individual right, but not a right to keep that weapon

we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument

This is an important distinction between not having a right to a sawed off shot gun and not having a right to any firearm, wouldn’t you agree?

So, who were the militia:

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense

With today’s laws against discrimination by gender or age, all legal adults should be eligible for inclusion in the militia.

So did Miller state that the individual didn’t have a right to keep and bear arms? NO

And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time

The second bold part is where the sawed off shot gun was declared not a part of the kind is common use, but that has shown to be wrong. Shot guns are still in use with today’s military, even sawed off shot guns.

The first bold part is where the individual right to keep and bear arms is actually confirmed; “bearing arms supplied by themselves“. Not provided by the state, the county, the city or even the federal government, but supplied by themselves.

From my understanding it appears Miller did not state there was no INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, but simply state there was no right keep and bear a sawed off shotgun.