[Rhodes22-list] political: CNN Poll Finds Rhodes 22 Owner As #1 Political Irritant

[Brad Haslett]

Pete,

I'm learning from Rummy about the new rules.

You're an idot!

Brad

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 2:13 PM, petelargo <petelauritzen at earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
> Just got back from 3 day cruise in the florida keys. It was awesome. Then,
> Herb, I saw your posts. You ask me for my sources (verbally denigrating me
> and doubting that I even have them). Then when I give them to you, you
> don't
> like them or go "so what". It seems as if you are just going to hide
> behind
> the 3 monkeys rule and regurgitate your views (while acting like you are
> the
> only one without an agenda-laughable by itself).
>
> I don;t know what it means that the troops supported Ron Paul as their
> number one candidate. I just thought  it was interesting that they did.
> Don't you think it's interesting that they supported a fringe candidate
> like
> him? It's open for discussion. But it's true as I said it was. Why, why,
> why.
>
> When ANY politician hides their past records it is a red flag for concern.
> Lack of transparency in politics is the road to ALL evils. And again it is
> a
> fact that Bush made his service records confidential. Why, why why.
>
> You are not up to date on the illegality of Bushes DOMESTIC wiretapping.
>  Or
> again you are hiding behind the 3 monkeys rule (see no..hear no.. speak
> no..
> about Bush). And yes I am doing something about it as a supporting member
> of
> IMPEACHBUSH.ORG. However, I have made it clear that if Bush is caught in a
> proper sex scandal I will immediately drop my membership.
>
> data for all your illegal domestic wiretapping reading needs:
> http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/house_nsabrief_docs_012006.html
>
> 1) "Now, I want to be absolutely clear. What the President ordered in this
> case was a crime.... and we have to deal with that as citizens and,
> unfortunately, You have to deal with that as Members of Congress....Now,
> Members that stay silent are making a choice.  Very few Members have faced
> this type of test of Faith.  But You are facing it now, and as Citizens
> and
> as Members, it's now up to us.  We are called to account to the many
> benefits that we have gotten from this system. We are called to account to
> do something, and not to remain silent."
> Jonathan Turley
> Professor of Constitutional Law,
> George Washington University
>
> 2) "...so indiscriminate and sweeping a scheme of domestic intrusion into
> the private communications of American citizens, predicated entirely on
> the
> unchecked judgment of the Executive Branch, violates the Fourth Amendment
> 'right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and
> seizures' even if it otherwise represents an exercise of constitutional
> power entrusted to the President by Article II or delegated to the
> President
> by Congress in exercising its powers under Article I......the argument
> goes... Invasion of that citizen's privacy was, alas, but one of war's sad
> side effects — a species of collateral damage. The technical legal term
> for
> that, I believe, is poppycock. "
>
> Laurence H. Tribe
> Professor of Constitutional Law
> Harvard University
>
> 3) "...it is not simply a claim that the President has the sole power to
> decide which laws to violate and when to go outside the judicial power,
> but
> that he has the power to do so in secret....until the New York Times
> reviewed this program, he withheld the fact from the American people that
> his view was that FISA did not limit his powers.  He secretly believed
> that
> he had broader authority than was laid out in the public statutes, but he
> withheld and misled the American people about that view of his own
> powers......examine what kind of misleading statements, if not deception,
> were put before the Congress in connection with this"
> Kate Martin
> Director
> Center for National Security Studies
>
> 4) "...when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in
> 1978, it expressly rejected the President's claim of inherent authority to
> conduct warrantless wiretaps. It then went further and made it a crime to
> conduct such wiretaps. The President has acted contrary to the express
> will
> of the Congress. The Supreme Court has never approved a claim of
> presidential authority to authorize acts outlawed by the Congress."
>
> Kate Martin
> Director
> Center for National Security Studies
>
> 5) "...under his interpretation ... he could suspend the writ of habeas
> corpus, ... saying: This authorization enabled me to do anything in
> furtherance of the war effort. I can suspend the writ of habeas corpus
> unilaterally even though Congress hasn't ...He could authorize breaking
> and
> entering of homes in order to secure intelligence to fight the war against
> terrorism, despite the fact that there is an authorized procedure in an
> amendment to FISA that governs physical searches......the principle that
> the
> President has established here, if gone unchecked, will, as Justice Robert
> Jackson said, lie around like a loaded gun and be utilized by any future
> incumbent who claims a need. And the history of power teaches us one
> thing,
> that if it's unchecked, it will be abused."
>
> Bruce Fein
> Deputy Assistant Attorney General
> Reagan Administration
>
> 6) "In each case the president's answer has been the same ... Courts and
> Congress have little or no place to question his decisions....it is
> nonetheless a dangerous path for our nation. Our laws provide ample tools
> for fighting terrorism without eroding basic liberties. No one, not even a
> wartime president, is above the law"
> Michael S. Greco
> President,  American Bar Association
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/political%3A-CNN-Poll-Finds-Rhodes-22-Owner-As--1-Political-Irritant-tp17068794p17068794.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list