The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to check the actions of the President and the Congress. It can void a President’s actions if they are not allowed by the Constitution. It can void laws that Congress passed if they violate the U.S. Constitution. After the 14th amendment, it can also void state government’s laws if they also violate the constitution.

Jean Edward Smith wrote an article for the New York Times advocating the stacking of the Supreme Court if a Democrat is elected to the presidency in 2008 and the Democrats maintain control of Congress. The pathetic ideological fantasy that Smith penned makes a muddled mess of the various actions that have been taken or attempted to influence the Supreme Court as far back as 1805. For someone as scholarly and educated as Smith appears to be on paper, he has authored 15 books and is professor at Marshall University, his article is not only fallacious but blatantly stupid and perversely dogmatic. Smith has absolutely no acumen as to the role of the Supreme Court in the United States government.

He used the following statement to mislead the reader into thinking the Marshal Court and the framers of the Constitution were functioning laterally with each other in real time:

The framers of the Constitution did not envisage the Supreme Court as arbiter of all national issues. As Chief Justice John Marshall made clear in Marbury v. Madison, the court’s authority extends only to legal issues.

John Marshall was the 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What Marshall did with the Marbury decision was place the Court’s power to declare laws unconstitutional directly upon the fact that the United States has a written Constitution. This is something the liberals, such as Smith, seem to forget we have. John Marshall was one of the great Chief Justices but he also, with the Marbury case, initiated judicial revue. The case of Marbury v. Madison was not within the Supreme Courts jurisdiction and should have been rejected but was accepted thus initiating judicial revue.

He also spewed assertions regarding an over reaching court, alluding to the current Robert’s court:

When the court overreaches, the Constitution provides checks and balances. In 1805, after persistent political activity by Justice Samuel Chase, Congress responded with its power of impeachment. Chase was acquitted, but never again did he step across the line to mingle law and politics.

Again with the beguiling. Thomas Jefferson was behind the impeachment of Chase. He was not impeached for the reasons Smith states. Before leaving office, John Adams, stacked the court system with Federalist judges to keep the Federalist agenda alive. Jefferson, a Republican, was displeased by this action and sought to change it. Jefferson was intent on breaking up the Federalist packed courts and impeachments was his only tool. Sage, incidentally was impeached for ruling on law on basis’s other than the Constitution among other things.

Another stupid statement:

But the method most frequently employed to bring the court to heel has been increasing or decreasing its membership. The size of the Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution. It is determined by Congress.

Smith is starting to warm up to where he is headed with this article. In this statement he is referring to the various times that Congress has decreased or increased the number of justices on the court to advance or protect their ideology. Depending on whether they wanted to limit an opposition President’s picks or expand the President’s picks if he was cut from the same clothe. In other words it has only been done by corrupt Congresses’ and by his alluding that the next Congress should apply it could only mean that they, too, are just as corrupt.

The last time court stacking was tried was with FDR. His plan was so superficially stupid and obviously transparent, Congress voted against it as to not be associated with it. His plan was to appoint a justice to the court whenever a justice reached the age of 70 to help keep the court from falling behind on its workload. The court was up to date and had not been behind and there were 5 justices at the age of 70. He would have had five instant appointments and absolute control of a politically mandated Supreme Court.

He polished off his bird-brained diatribe with this:

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

Nearly all the court stacking listed above never made it to fruition and the ones that did were done through corruption and with the intention to circumvent the rule of law.

Smith is so infected with a malignant far left liberal mentality that he knows the facts but is incapable of laying them out in a fair and balanced exposition. What type of education do you think Professor Smith’s students are receiving? Do you think they leave his class with a truly balanced idea of factual history? Or are they taught a twisted ideological version of the facts?

The Robert’s Court finds itself in a precarious situation. Since it appears to be “thumbing its nose at popular values” rather than using the Constitution to decide a law’s constitutionality, maybe the country would be better served, according to Smith, if Roberts, Alido, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy were replaced by one MTV veejay, a VH1 veejay, the editor of People Magazine, a high school art teacher and Paris Hilton. This seems like a well rounded group with first hand knowledge of “popular values” and coupled with the other four activist justices on the court would have a perfectly balanced court to interpret the “popular value” of a law according to Smith.

Justice Roberts also finds himself in a bind with Congress:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation…“There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it,” Specter said, singling out Roberts.

So now not only should the Supreme Court be concerned with using “popular values” as a basis for the court’s rulings rather than the Constitution, it must also rule according to the the inane and meaningless questions answered during the Senate confirmation hearings.

After being unceremoniously executed last week by the hands of the Democrats, John Doe has been resurrected by the Republicans.

Congress has sent the 9/11 bill to Bush to sign. On Thursday the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 85-8. The House passed the bill with a vote of 371-40 yesterday. The measure will implement the remaining September 11 commission’s recommendations for national security.

The John Doe provision was introduced by Republican lawmakers in both the House and the Senate.

Long live John Doe.

CARACAS, Venezuela – President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that foreigners who publicly criticize him or his government while visiting Venezuela will be expelled from the country. Chavez ordered officials to closely monitor statements made by international figures during their visits to Venezuela and deport any outspoken critics.”How long are we going to allow a person, from any country in the world, to come to our own house to say there’s a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?” Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.

I can’t think of one good thing to say about Hugo Chavez. He is a dictator and not of the benevolent type. His statement above brands him as a hypocrite. He called Bush El Diablo during his speech at the U.N. headquarters in New York City. But I do agree with the spirit of his statement. If someone from another country comes into your country and criticizes your country or its leadership, they should be on the next flight and no questions asked. It is a lack of leadership and honor to tolerate that behavior from a non citizen. There have been myriad speakers brought into this country for the sole purpose of belaboring the United States. The most recent incident came from the Irish Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams. She gave a speech at Southern Methodist University and declared that President Bush should be impeached because of our involvement in the Iraq war. She should have been sent out of this country post haste. These defects are visitors and should act accordingly. Coming to this country is a privilege not a right. Visitors, tourist, etc. do not share the free speech rights of the first amendment that U.S. citizens do. Only citizens have privileges and immunities under the Constitution as well as the full protection of the equal protection and due process clauses.

To further enhance the above statement on how to deal with foreigners who want to come into our house and spew their anti-American rhetoric, a different approach should be taken against U.S. based groups and organizations that benefit from tax payer dollars that are anti-American and promote and spread terrorist and treasonous propaganda. You can’t suspend their 1st amendment rights or deport a citizen, nor should you, but you can cut off the flow of tax payers’ dollars and tax exemptions to these organizations.

A few cases in point:

The Council of La Raza was responsible for those thousands of illegal aliens clogging the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws and demanding concessions. The Council of La Raza is a radical anti-American organization who operates federally funded charter schools that teach a separatist agenda. The Council of La Raza received over $15.2 million federal grants last year. $7.9 million of it came from the U.S. Department of Education for Charter Schools. They have managed to add themselves to congressional hearings. Congress also earmarked an additional $4 million of taxpayer money for La Raza to address housing reform. When you witness those marches and threats aimed at disrupting a city or the nation–you paid for it.
The ACLU is one of the most prominent and oldest anti-American groups around. They have tied up our court system with an uncountable number of lawsuits to further their anti-American agenda. If there is a cause that is outrageously liberal or runs counter to the fundamentals of this country, the ACLU will be on the scene to file a lawsuit. They are not anti-religion, just anti-Christian. They are pro pedophile. They recently defended NAMBLA, North American Man-Boy Love Association, in a lawsuit. They have gone after the Boy Scouts of America; they have gone after public schools for singing Christmas songs at school during a Christmas play. Nothing is off limits to these cretins. They will relentlessly attack an organization that would give moral guidance while at the same time defend the promotion of child abuse. They do not receive federal funding but they are tax exempt. You are paying their share of taxes so they can use that money to assault, on a daily basis, the foundation of this country.

Publicly funded universities, who have long been a bastion of liberalism, have moved further and further to the left. The more elite the school, the more they have moved to the left. Schools such as Harvard, Brown, Berkley, Duke, Stanford, etc. have moved so far to the left they are infected with malignant ideology. 72 percent of those teaching at universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative according to a recent study. 50 percent of those surveyed stated they were Democrats and 11 percent were Republican. In elite schools, such as those mentioned above, there is a more profound move to the left with 87 percent as liberal and 13 percent as conservative. The study was performed by Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University, and co-author of the study. These far left pinheaded professors, Ward Churchill and all his ilk, get permanently embedded with tenure and it is virtually impossible to pull these weeds out. A defective professor with tenure can essentially hold a university hostage.

U.S. based terrorist organizations should be eliminated and members and supporters prosecuted for supporting and promoting terrorism. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the most radical and well funded of the domestic based terrorist organizations. Steven Pomerantz, the FBI’s former chief of counter terrorism, notes that CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups. A few highlights of CAIR’s more esteemed leaders and members:

• Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter, has a long history of funding terrorism. First, he was convicted in July 2004, with his four brothers, of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to two designated state-sponsors of terrorism, Libya and Syria. Second, he and two brothers were convicted in April 2005 of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader, whom the U.S. State Department had in 1995 declared a “specially designated terrorist.” Elashi was convicted of all twenty-one counts with which he was charged, including conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist. Third, he was charged in July 2004 with providing more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, America’s largest Islamic charity. When the U.S. government shuttered Holy Land Foundation in late 2001, CAIR characterized this move as “unjust” and “disturbing.”

• Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, an American convert to Islam, served as CAIR’s communications specialist and civil rights coordinator; today he sits in jail on terrorism-related charges. In June 2003, Royer and ten other young men, ages 23 to 35, known as the “Virginia jihad group,” were indicted on forty-one counts of “conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas.” The defendants, nine of them U.S. citizens, were accused of association with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a radical Islamic group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State in 2001. They were also accused of meeting covertly in private homes and at the Islamic Center in Falls Church to prepare themselves for battle by listening to lectures and watching videotapes. As the prosecutor noted, “Ten miles from Capitol Hill in the streets of northern Virginia, American citizens allegedly met, plotted, and recruited for violent jihad.”
• Bassem Khafagi, an Egyptian native and CAIR’s onetime community relations director, pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and passing bad checks for substantial amounts in early 2001

• Rahih Haddad a CAIR fund raiser, was arrested in December 2001 on terrorism-related charges and deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he co-founded which was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department in October 2002 for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations
  Sirai Wahhai a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted co-conspirator in the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheik, Omar Abdul Rahman. In defense of having Wahhaj on its advisory board, CAIR described him as “one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America.” In October 2004, he spoke at a CAIR dinner.
  CAIR has numerous links to Hamas and has also consistently defended other radical Islamic terrorists. Rather than praise the conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, it deemed this “a travesty of justice.” This is a perfect example of if there is smoke there is fire, except there seems to be more fire than smoke with CAIR.

Publications or any media outlet that make public any classified information should be prosecuted with the same vigor as an individual could expect who was caught revealing classified information to an enemy. There is no difference between handing off classified information in a dark alley or making it available on a medium for any one to see. Same result. Media outlets who have crossed over from journalism to treason by publishing classified information should be prosecuted. The New York Times has published, on two separate occasions, classified information. They published classified information about the NSA’a terrorist surveillance program and they also published a classified report on troop reduction and movement in Iraq. ABC news broadcasted classified information concerning a CIA covert operation designed to destabilize the government of Iran. This is not journalisn, it is treason and heads should roll.

There comes a point where you have to draw a line in the sand concerning what will be tolerated and how far you willing to let political correctness drive national security policy. The United States has moved well past that point.

I consider all the elements listed above as realistic terrorist threats as they all operate with the same agenda and seek the same result. Here are a few simple solutions as a start for eliminating some of our domestic terrorist threats:

• If you are not a citizen and want to criticize this country or spread anti-American propaganda you will be sent out of the country.
• Cut off tax payer’s dollars that fund radical groups like La Raza.
• Revoke the ACLUs and other organizations of the same persuasions tax exempt status.
• Stop using tax dollars to fund universities that continue to offer tenure and keep on staff radical professors that promote and teach with a radical leftwing ideology rather than a balanced ideology.
• Shut down CAIR and any other U.S. based organization that has ties to terrorism or any terrorist organization and prosecute them for the terrorist they are.
• If a publication or any media outlet discloses classified information, prosecute them for treason.

Hugo Chavez does make a good point-he just does not go far enough. There is a fine 1^st amendment line between free speech and treason, but there is a line. You do have to honor the constitutional rights of these groups, but you do not have to support them with taxpayer’s dollars. You cannot use the anti-American rhetoric alone for executing the above actions for two reasons: they are constitutionally protected and you would have to dismantle the Democrat Party.

Fiction: A car draws attention circling the block several times around a bank. It finally parks in front of the bank. There are four people in the car. They are acting suspiciously. They appear nervous. They pull stockings over their faces. John Doe calls 911. The police arrive. John Doe saves the day.

Who is John Doe? You are John Doe. He is your neighbor. He is your boss. He is your friend. I am John Doe. He is every citizen in this country. He is the best defense against crime. He is the early warning that can prevent a catastrophe. He is the eyes and ears of this country and he is in trouble.

Reality: On November 21, 2006, six Muslim imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 after passengers on the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight complained about the imams’ suspicious behavior.

Here is a list of their suspicious behavior:

• According to police reports, an Arabic speaker told a flight attendant that the men were invoking “bin Laden and condemning America for killing Saddam.”
• They kept changing seats finally ending up with two in first class, two in the middle and two in the back of the plane. Only one had purchased a first class ticket.
• They made several requests for seatbelt extenders although they were not overweight. When they received the extenders they did not fasten them but instead laid them on the floor by their feet.
• They were praying loudly.
• They repeatedly used the word “Allah” loudly.
• All six boarded together with the first class passengers even though only one of them had a first-class ticket.
• Three of them had one-way tickets.
• Only one of the six checked a bag.
• The gate attendant alerted the captain that they were acting suspiciously before boarding the plane.

The captain made the decision to delay the flight because of the numerous complaints. The captain consulted a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground-security coordinator and the airline’s security office. All concurred that there was a concern. The imams were asked to leave the plane by the captain and airport security but refused. Police were alerted and the imams were detained and questioned. John Doe gets sued.

At the very least this was a security probe by the imams. It could have been a dry run. It could have been real. What ever the plan was it was interrupted.

Here comes the lawsuits. The lawyers for CAIR, on behalf of the imams, filed a federal lawsuit suing US Airways and the airport commission in Minneapolis for “intentional discrimination.” They also named “John Doe”, a passenger, in the suit. Their intentions are to find out who complained about them and to sue those individual passengers also. These imams should be serving time in jail for their actions instead of filing lawsuits. CAIR is a terrorist organization and should be pulled out by the roots like a weed and anyone associated with it should be prosecuted for terrorism and treason.

CAIR has enormous wealth to go after John Doe. CAIR recently received a $500,000 cash infusion from Prince Talal of Saudi Arabia

Congressional Democrats failed to include a provision in the homeland security legislation, by a failed vote of 57-39, that would have protected the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to terrorist attacks. The democrats believe that if you see something suspicious you should just keep your mouth shut. It is outrageous, but expected, that the Democrats would allow individuals to be punished for coming forward and protecting this country.

This is just a glimpse of what to expect for national security if a democrat is elected to the White House in 2008. Does this make you feel safe? Can you imagine this gaggle of windbags in control and we are involved in a full scale war? Do you trust them pull out the stops to prevent another terrorist attack on the homeland if needed?

The Scooter Libby debacle was a political witch hunt from day one.

Robert Novak, in interviewing Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State, was asked by Novak why the CIA would send Joe Wilson to Niger. Armitage’s answer was “his wife works at the CIA.” Novak confirmed this with Bill Harlow, CIA public relations. Richard Armitage came forward and identified himself to the Justice Department as Robert Novak’s source before a special counsel was ever appointed. The special counsel was appointed after it was determined that Valarie Plame was not covert at the CIA and after it was an established fact that Armitage told Novak about the Wilson/Plame connection.

Did Valerie Plame commit perjury in the Scooter Libby case? Probably so , but with much more factual evidence against her than was presented against Scooter Libby at his trial. Scooter Libby was convicted with “I don’t know and I can’t remember answers” while Plame’s testimony continues to contradict itself.

The Democrat controlled House Intelligence Committee claims that Plame has been consistent with her testimony, but there are three different versions of it on record. The House Intelligence Committee is resisting providing proof to back up their assertion of consistency.

Here are the three different versions of Plame’s testimony concerning the Wilson/Niger recommendation:

• She testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee claiming that she never recommended Joseph Wilson, her husband, to the CIA, her employer, for a fact finding mission to Niger.
• She testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that she did not recall if she recommended her husband for the mission.
• There is an internal CIA e-mail from her stating that Wilson “may be in a position to assist.”

The Democrat controlled House Intelligence Committee is refusing to look into the inconsistencies in her testimony. Further evidence the whole Libby fiasco was politically motivated.

Here is the commonsense part that a Democrat’s brain, which is incapable of processing common sense, can’t grasp. Joe Wilson did not have one iota of intelligence background. There was absolutely no evidence he had the aptitude for intelligence field work. He did not have a security clearance. He could not have not been any less qualified. Yet the CIA chose him. The CIA could probably have gotten a more qualified person by picking a random name in the Langley phone book. Valerie Plame worked at the CIA. She claimed under oath that there was not a connection. It would be absolutely inconceivable to not be able to connect those dots. She claimed she did not have the authority to recommend him. Who needs the authority to recommend someone? How about that e-mail from her recommending Wilson?

Patrick Fitzgerald knew there was no basis for a criminal investigation from the day he was appointed and well before he started pursuing Scooter Libby. He knew that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. That should have been the end of the investigation had there been a shred of honor in Fitzgerald . The whole basis for the investigation was her being outed as a covert agent for the CIA. By the time Scooter Libby testified before the Grand Jury, there was not an underlying crime. No responsible prosecutor would bring perjury charges on the evidence he had. Fitzgerald also knew from FBI interviews that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had identified Plame as a CIA officer to Robert Novak who’s article started this whole abortion.

Fitzgerald also jailed, for 90 days, columnist Judith Miller for not providing evidence for a crime that did not take place. She sat in jail and Fitzgerald knew there was never a crime committed.

This could not have been more politically motivated and evidence continues to come forward about Valerie Plame’s inconsistent testimony. This is not a matter of knowing all the facts of the case or what turned up in the investigation. It is the time lines of who knew what and when, that make this case abhorring. When it was discovered there was not a crime committed that was the time to close shop and leave.

Even Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence was a lack of political backbone. Bush went on record to state that Fitzgerald conducted a “dignified, thorough investigation.” It would be unbelievable to think that the facts and time lines of the case are known to everyone except Bush, or could he be that inept. His reason for the commutation was that the sentence was too long. It was at the absolute low end of the sentencing guidelines. That was a very weak reason. To know this case as Bush surely did, and not give Libby a full pardon is just cowardice.

An investigation should be opened against Valerie Plame for perjury.

Patrick Fitzgerald should not have a law license and should have to repay the cost of the investigation after he knew a crime had not been committed. Or on the other hand, he may be sly like a fox. Since Sandy Burger pleaded guilty to stealing classified documents from the National Archives to protect Hilliary Clinton, he received a $10,000 fine, the loss of his security clearance for three years and serve two years probation. To highlight the depth of stupidity of losing his security license for only 3 years, he had and will have in three years access to the National Archives which houses the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and other important papers including top secret documents. Noel Hillman was the prosecutor in charge and approved the sentence. Bush nominated Hillman on Jan. 25 2006 to be a United States District Judge. Maybe Fitzgerald was hoping for the same remuneration for having the same level of ineptness.

The Office of Special Counsel should be pulled out by the roots. It runs contrary to the fundamentals of our Constitution. The Special Counsel is unaccountable and usually conducts itself accordingly.

The Dow closed today at a record 13,861 after posting a 283 point gain for the day. The biggest one day gain since March of 2003. The S & P 500 hit an all time record close of 1547. The driving force behind the gains today were retail sales. Sales at 50 major chains rose a combined 2.4 percent, according to a tally by the International Council of Shopping Centers. The results beat its most recent forecast of a 1.5 to 2 percent rise. Wal-Mart’s better than expected sales jump of 2.4 percent was one of the primary catalyst for the market’s rise.

Here are a few highlights of the economy as of today:

• Record highs for the stock markets.
• Average hourly earnings are at historical highs of $17.38 per hour.
• The Federal Reserve has kept the short term interest rates at 5.25 percent.
• The Federal Government has recorded it’s one day record of overall and corporate tax receipts of 85.8 billion.
• The unemployment rate is currently 4.2 percent. Lower than the average during the Clinton years.
• The nations budget deficit was $413 billion in 2004 and is expected to drop to $205 billion in September’s year end for the government. Because of record tax receipts.
• Inflation is in check.

The current field of the Democrat party’s presidential candidates have not had one single debate without bemoaning the horrible state of the economy. They have cried that the economy is only benefiting the wealthy and leaving the middle class and poor behind. The Democratic sycophants strategist have all echoed the same pathetic rhetoric as the presidential candidates about the economy. Every single left wing economic pundit for the past year, commenting after the market reaches a new high, starts off with the same phrase: don’t read too much into these numbers. The market closed at 4:00 pm est today, I had already heard the phrase “don’t read too much into this by 4:10 on a business program.

It is not the wealthy, the fat cats or the rich driving retail sales, especially at Wal-Mart. It is the backbone of this country–the middle class and working class citizen. What the economically challenged left either cannot grasp or is purposely avoiding admitting, is if retail sales this time of year are driving the market, it is because people are working, have disposable income to spend and are spending it. It is junior high economics. As the middle class are working and spending, they are literally being told on a daily basis by the left and the main stream media how horrible the economy is and how adversely it is affecting their lives and their only salvation is for a Democrat to be elected to the White House.

Even though the left would do anything to derail the current state of the U. S. economy, they have yet to state what they would replace the current economy with or what a good economy is.

I really would like to know……What is a good economy?

The human body’s healing abilities are amazing. Cut it and it will heal. If you break a bone, it will heal. It can pretty much recover from most traumas. This is what the women on the View, much to their chagrin, found out with that pesky regrowth of gray matter.

After a two week hiatus the View has returned. While the hosts were out, it is rather obvious they had surgery. At some point their brains may have been trying to regrow gray matter and they had it surgically removed. They must be required to undergo a CT scan twice a year by the network. The CT scan must have revealed some regrowth of gray matter. Now this surgery has a financial link. If they came back on the show and showed a semblance of intelligence then they would be at risk of losing their core audience. This would have catastrophic monetary consequences for them personally and for the network.

Whoopi Goldberg was the guest host. In order get her intelligence on par with the regulars, she had to sit in the green room and watch two hours of highlights of The View featuring Rosie O’Donnell. This is guaranteed to temporarily drop an IQ to around 72. On their return they decided to flex their collective intellectual might by discussing the Scooter Libby sentence commutation. They are a week late and few billion brain cells short of adding anything of any substance to the subject. It is yesterday’s news.

Here are a few highlights of their chatter on the subject:

• JOY BEHAR: Paris got more time than “Scooter” Libby. He got no time
• WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Don’t get me started about “Scooter.”
• GOLDBERG: But they’re supposed to, they’re supposed to wait.
• HASSELBECK: What about Clinton’s pardons? You don’t-
• BEHAR: It’s ancient history. We’re talking about now.

If you read the whole transcript, they debated the facts of the case and the constitutionality of the commutation. They did not get one fact correct concerning the issue. They apparently never read Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution but wanted to share their interpretation of it. Even the token conservative and former reality show star, Elizabeth Hasslelbeck, was unable to defend Bush’s decision on Scooter Libby’s sentence commutation because she does not understand the facts and is incapable of getting them straight.

The 110th congress is ready for their well deserved summer break. This was a very ambitious congress and they should be exhausted. They ran on a very industrious 100 day platform with a laundry list of to dos. They essentially promised everyone nirvana after 100 days. It didn’t work out so well for them, their list or those who stood around waiting on nirvana.

First there was the misunderstanding of what constituted 100 days. They pulled a Bill Clinton on the meaning of 100 days:

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

It was assumed that 100 days started on January 3 and ensued for 100 days. But they only ran the clock on the days they were actually in session, stopping it when the took a break, lunch, left the chambers, weekends and for football games. and stopping it at their discretion then restarting it again.

Here are a few of their more significant accomplishments since January 3rd:

• Spent some time debating a constitutional amendment on flag burning.
• The immigration debate. Took some time off to hold hearing around the country. Came back and debated some more.
• Debated a constitutional amendment on gay marriage.
• Launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents, numerous interviews and over 600 oversight hearings over the Iraqi war, too many supeunas to count, firing of federal attorneys and Scooter Libby. Not one of them do they have any authority over and regardless of the outcome of the hearings, they cannot take any action.

• Spent some more time voting 246 to 182 on a non-binding resolution opposing the Iraqi war.
• Passed a 100 billion war spending bill after buying the votes to pass it with 20 billion in pork spending.
• The speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, met with the President of Syria, Bashar Assad, after being told not to by the State Department. She relayed a message to him from the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. Olmert vehemently denied ever making that statement to Pelosi.
• Congress demanded a meeting with Gen. Petraues, the new U.S. General in Iraq, but Pelosi was too busy to attend the briefing with him.
• Harry Reid announced to Al Queda that the U.S. had been defeated by them and we should give up an bring the troops home.
• Proposing the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
• Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, requested an Air Force C-32 (757) to ferry her and her entourage around at $22,000 per hour. Is demanding that lawmakers be allowed to bring their adult children on tax-payer funded travel for free.
• Worked very hard at getting their approval rating down to 28%, then blamed it on George Bush and the Republicans in congress.
• Raised the minimum wage with results that will further decimate low wage earners.

Yes, they have been very busy indeed. It really would be unfair to call them a “do nothing Congress.”

I read an article by Helen Thomas, who has been covering the White House since the Lincoln administration, in the SeattlePI titled The High Court takes giant steps backward. It is in reference to the recent Supreme Court’s rulings.

This was probably the most uninformed, ignorant and manifestly baseless article written by a leftwing journalist I have ever read. There was such a gulf of disconnect with reality that it is hard to conceptualize that the author actually believed the content of what they wrote and if she did, it was nothing less than spewing poison to liberal left wing moonbats. You also have to assume the publication is as ignorant as Helen Thomas to publish it since it was factually inaccurate.

I will break the article down by each affirmation of stupidity:

The new Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been in decades. It’s also meaner. To use the word conservative for the Supreme Court is inane. You have four radical liberals and four strict constructionist and one swing vote. They are mean. So now being conservative is just mean. Are they making mean rulings? I don’t understand it. A constructionist and conservative are mutually exclusive.

It is a dream come true for Republican presidencies dating back to the “strict constructionist” court aspirations of President Nixon and now made possible by the conservative George W. Bush. She can’t seem to make up her mind if the court is conservative or constructionist. The only people who have a problem with the court being constructionist are people who absolutely do not believe in the constitution or the intent of the founding fathers. This would be liberals. A constructionist justice will ascertain the original meaning of the text and apply the text as it is written, no more no less. It is not conservative or liberal, it is above either one. A liberal justice has no interest in the original meaning of the text if it does not advance an agenda.

Before closing down for the summer last month, the high court tossed out a flurry of decisions that overturned or reinterpreted long-standing liberal precedents. Again she is complaining about the overturning of liberal precedents. This is typical of liberals. They have no interest in what is constitutional or what is just– as long their agendas are advanced. She is using the word long-standing very loosely. There was only one decision that was long standing that dated from 1911 and it concerned price fixing and needed changed.

The majority justices are running counter to the current trend against right-wing ideologues and a power-grabbing unilateral presidency. For the first time since the early 1980′s, the Democrats have been in control of congress. They have only had control for the past six months. We have a two term Republican president in office. I am not seeing much of a trend here. Just a lot of hyperbole. Liberal ideologues are very good at selling their myopic views as fact.

On race, the court apparently has decided to return to the “good old days” when separate was considered equal when it came to racial segregation, a concept that the high court discarded in the 1954 landmark decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kan., which desegregated the nation’s schools. Here is where her ignorance of SCOTUS is pathological. Brown v. Board of Education, under the Marshal court, in its most fundamental form eliminated the use of race to determine where a child went to school because the court ruled that using race violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Brown v. Board of Education did not desegregate the schools as she stated. That was 17 years later in a case involving Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklingburg Board of Education during the Burger court. The current ruling that she is referring to involved two white grade school children that live withing one mile of two schools and were bused ten miles to school because of their race. The current ruling only affirmed Brown v. Board of Education. Her contradiction here is that she was harping about the court overturing long standing rulings. Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson from 1894. That case ruled that “separate but equal” did not violate the 14th amendment.

The Roberts court also upheld an unconditional ban on the procedure that opponents dub “partial birth abortion.” Supporters of abortion rights see this decision as a harbinger of doom for the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion. The Supreme Court ruled on the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, with a 5-4 decision concerning partial birth abortion. The decision came from an appeal from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who stuck down the law banning partial birth abortion as unconstitutional. Her facts are wrong. She states that that the term “partial birth abortion” is used by opponents of abortion. This is wrong, the pro abortion group uses this expression to buffer the actual clinical term for it.

The court also ruled that public school principals and teachers can discipline students who display signs or wear T-shirts that carry messages counter to the schools’ anti-drug policies. The decision overturned a 1969 ruling that students do not shed their rights “at the schoolhouse door.” The case she is referring to is Morse and the Juneau School Board et al v. Fredrick, or the “bong hit for Jesus case.” The classes at the school were just outside school grounds watching the Olympic torch relay go through their town. Fredrick unfurled a 14 ft. banner that read “bong hits for Jesus.” He was told to take it down. He refused and was suspended for 10 days for promoting drug use which violating the school district’s anti-drug policies. He sued on a 1st amendment violation. The court ruled in favor of the school board, but Roberts did make the comment had the banner been political in nature it may have been protected speech. The biggest misconception Helen Thomas committed here, or was too ignorant to know, was that a few weeks later in the case of Marineau v. Guiles the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a seventh grader who wore an anti Bush shirt. It was deemed political speech and protected.

In a blow to the principle of separation of church and state, the court rejected a challenge by the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” against a White House program that helps church charities competing with government programs obtain federal grants. You can’t have a liberal diatribe without the subject of separation of church and state coming up. What principle is she talking about. There is not “a principle” anywhere in the constitution, the amendments to the constitution or the Federalist Papers. Here are a few quotes concerning “separation of church and state” by the guys who wrote the book on it:

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said.
“[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating,“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Jay, Original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court,
“The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.”

George Washington
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle”

Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution.
“[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.”

Fisher Ames author of the final wording for the First Amendment wrote,
[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.”

And yet, it seems the old cliche that the Supreme Court reads the newspapers has hit home — at least when it comes to the shameful treatment and torture of detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan.In a surprise ruling, the court agreed to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can use federal courts to challenge their imprisonment, reversing a decision in April not to hear arguments in the case. Now she alluding that the Supreme Court is reading the newspapers about the detainees in Guantanamo and bowing to the press. You would have to be absolutely void of an iota of intelligence to believe that any jurist on the Supreme Court would choose to review a case based on what the newspapers said. She did not mention what papers influenced the court. Maybe the paper she writes for. Maybe it was one of her articles that persuaded them. Not every newspaper in the U.S. is a liberal anti-American rag.

With the Roberts court in command apparently for a long time, all I can say is: “Cry the beloved country.” Even this quote she closes her article with is as irrelevant as she is. This is from the title of a book by South African author Alan Paton. which is a social protest against the structures of a society that would later give rise to apartheid.

The left is obviously in possession of a beta version of photoshop made for facts and reality to morph their myopic view of the world. This unreleased version of photoshop can obviously do the same thing to a fact or slice of reality that photoshop for photos can do for overweight entertainers. Once you run that program and hit save, you have crossed the line from journalism to propaganda.

This article is purely propaganda.

Posted to Constitutional Law | Comments (1) | Email This Post |

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton blasted his successor’s decision to spare former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby from prison, telling Iowa radio listeners that Libby’s case differed from his own administration’s pardon controversy. The former president said, “I think the facts were different.”

For once I have to agree with Bill Clinton. The commuting of Scooter Libby’s sentence did differ and the facts were different from Clinton’s pardons. Bush was not paid to pardon Scooter Libby. Laura Bush’s brothers were not involved. Scooter Libby was not convicted of terrorism against the United States. His family members did not contribute millions to the Bush Library to secure a pardon. I do agree with Bill Clinton– there is a difference.

Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.

Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, Denise Rich, Marc’s former wife, was a close friend of the Clinton’s and had made substantial donations to both Clinton’s library and Hillary’s Senate campaign.

Carlos Vignali, 30, had his 15-year sentence for conspiracy to sell cocaine reduced to time served, and walked free on Clinton’s last day in office. His father, Horacio, is a rich and powerful leader in the Los Angeles Hispanic community who has made large donations to the Democratic party. Hugh Rodham, Hillary’s brother, received $400,000 to lobby for the pardon of Vignali.

Hillary Clinton’s other brother Anthony Rodham was embroiled in an federal investigation involving his selling pardons.