If you missed Craig T Nelson (Coach)

on Glenn Beck a couple of days ago, use the links below to see part of the video or read the transcript. It concerned a tax revolt and whether or not anyone would be willing to stop paying taxes and go to jail. Besides being a very funny man, Nelson was inspiring when he said he never voted to be part owner of GM or for any of the other nonsense going on today. He does not want to stick his children, grandchildren and the great grandchild on the way with the tab for all of this irresponsible spending.

video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/video-craig-t-nelson-s-gl_n_209024.html

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

A Criminal Administration
by Paul Craig Roberts

Caught in gratuitous and illegal spying on American citizens, the Bush administration has defended its illegal activity and set the Justice (sic) Department on the trail of the person or persons who informed the New York Times of Bush's violation of law. Note the astounding paradox: The Bush administration is caught red-handed in blatant illegality and responds by trying to arrest the patriot who exposed the administration's illegal behavior.

Bush has actually declared it treasonous to reveal his illegal behavior! His propagandists, who masquerade as news organizations, have taken up the line: To reveal wrong-doing by the Bush administration is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration's lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler's claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law.

Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence.

The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court. Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12/28/05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.

Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?

There are two possible reasons.

One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.

The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.

What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?

Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?

These possible reasons for bypassing the law and the court need to be fully investigated and debated. No administration in my lifetime has given so many strong reasons to oppose and condemn it as has the Bush administration. Nixon was driven from office because of a minor burglary of no consequence in itself. Clinton was impeached because he did not want the embarrassment of publicly acknowledging that he engaged in adulterous sex acts in the Oval Office. In contrast, Bush has deceived the public and Congress in order to invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans, illegally tortured detainees, and illegally spied on Americans. Bush has upheld neither the Constitution nor the law of the land. A majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done; yet, the Democratic Party remains a muted spectator.

Why is the Justice (sic) Department investigating the leak of Bush's illegal activity instead of the illegal activity committed by Bush? Is the purpose to stonewall Congress' investigation of Bush's illegal spying? By announcing a Justice (sic) Department investigation, the Bush administration positions itself to decline to respond to Congress on the grounds that it would compromise its own investigation into national security matters.

What will the federal courts do? When Hitler challenged the German judicial system, it collapsed and accepted that Hitler was the law. Hitler's claims were based on nothing but his claims, just as the claim for extra-legal power for Bush is based on nothing but memos written by his political appointees.

The Bush administration, backed by the neoconservative Federalist Society, has brought the separation of powers, the foundation of our political system, to crisis. The Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers, favors more energy in the executive. Distrustful of Congress and the American people, the Federalist Society never fails to support rulings that concentrate power in the executive branch of government. It is a paradox that conservative foundations and individuals have poured money for 23 years into an organization that is inimical to the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.

September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler's hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush's claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?

_____

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Copyright � 2006 Creators Syndicate

Sen. Craig loses appeal in airport sex sting case

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) � Idaho Sen. Larry Craig has lost his latest attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in a Minneapolis airport men's room sex sting.

A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected the Republican's bid to toss out his disorderly conduct conviction.

Craig was arrested in June 2007 in a Minneapolis airport bathroom stall by an undercover officer who said the senator solicited sex.

He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor and paid a fine, but changed his mind after word of his arrest became public. Craig insisted he was innocent, but the case effectively ended his political career.

Craig's attorney argued before the appeals court this September that there was insufficient evidence for any judge to find him guilty. Prosecutors said his guilty plea should stand.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iM7VsmCI91xXDASkhgtGf3_zk__gD94V9JQ00

Check website for Today show and get the advisor's name - Suze "Orzeman?" somebody.......she has a website, you can get answers there. Watch stock fluctuations.

where we blew up the terrorists ship killing soldiers. I missed where we hijacked their planes and killed thousands and thousands of them in one day and then danced in the street praising Allah. I missed where we bombed their WTC using a car bomb. I missed where we beheaded anyone we held prisoner of theirs.

We aren't doing things to terrorists just for sh!ts and giggles here. They have been at war with us for a long time. We finally go to war with them and WE are the bad guys? How so? Should we go back in history and put every president on trial for things that happened during the wars? Cuz there would be several presidents that would be put away if we go that route. This is war. We do what we have to do to keep Americans safe. What would you have said if we didn't interrogate these prisoners and LA was hit like they were planning. Or what about the Brooklyn Bridge they were planning on attacking as well. What would you think then?

I know exactly what you would think....you would ridicule Bush for not seeing it coming just like people did with 9/11. The warnings were there.....he should have known, etc. Well....Bush did what he did and we found out and stopped those attacks saving American lives and all you guys talk about is how two known terrorists were waterboarded. Cry me a friggin river. They are still living and breathing with their heads attached to their bodies which is more than I can say for some Americans they have captured.

GET A CLUE! These harsh interrogations saved American lives. The president is to serve and protect and he did and all you can do is cut him down for keeping YOU safe after 9/11.

I would waterboard a terrorist to keep YOU safe. Why...because you are my fellow American and I care about YOUR life.

Do you even remember 9/11? The phone calls from the people stuck in the building to their spouses to say goodbye. I sat in front of the TV for a whole week with tears in my eyes each time I heard one of those phone calls saying goodbye. Or how about the brave people who overtook the plane from the terrorists and plunged to their death. What about the people who were trapped in the building and jumped to their death? Do you not remember any of this?

How in the world can you feel sympathy for anyone who finds joy in what they did to us on 9/11...especially since they want to do more?

And you must have missed that on a daily basis, the far left have developed a gang mentality where all the usual rules have been thrown aside. You aren't debating here, you realize? I could go on, but I won't. There is no point.

Michelle Obama is a career woman herself. Between her and Obama....they make like 1 million bucks a year. That isn't all his income....that is hers as well. She spends time campaigning and traveling to give speeches. You say SP shouldn't be VP because she has young children. Here Obama is with young children and nothing is said. We assume Michelle is with them 24/7.....did Michelle personally call you and tell you that?? I am just saying that this whole argument about not liking SP because she should stay home with her children is just as relevent to argue when it comes to B. Hussein Obama and Michelle Obama and their children.

I refuse to continue to banter back and forth with you about this. No...I don't know personally if Todd is giving up his career to stay home with the children but I see Michelle doing a he11 of a lot that keeps her away from her and Barry's children.

Of course the economy is important and on everyone's mind right now. This is the worst economic fiasco since the Great Depression.

While this legislation is targeted at abortion, it doesn't actually say abortion. It says "procedures." Given it's broad language it can be translated into any type of procedure.

But lets take this scenario into consideration. Girl gets pregnant and wants to have the baby. Girl's health is at risk if she has the baby. Doctor does not believe in abortion at all, so does not have to give that patient the option of abortion. Get the picture yet? It's not all about abortion. It's about limiting health care in general.