Posted on 11/20/2007 12:10:24 PM PST by Captain Kirk
To the Editor
I read Mona Charens column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (kook, as Im sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.
1. Dr. Pauls commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasnt pardoned Libby either, by the way.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Truth in advertising requires that EX EX EX admit that he supported Julie Annie for President before Mona Charen did. Thus your criticism of Mona rings a bit hollow. She is wrong about Julie Annie but so were you AND she is right about the paleosurrenderman paleoPaulie and you are verrrrry wrong on that score.
If taking acid hasn’t helped you to mental clarity yet, isn’t it the definition of insanity to keep repeating your errors and expecting different results????
I would bother explaining federalism to you again, and the rights of the separate and sovereign states but I've found it
A) goes way over your head and
B) is a waste of my time
Do go away now. Your rhetoric is becoming even more uncomprehensible by the post.
No loonier than the fantasy world of Republicans posing as conservatives. (Romney, Giuliana, Huckabee, et al)
L
ROFL. Well that was back when it was only the Big Three running and thought that Rudy would take a federalist view on social issues.
DO I FRIGGIN' SUPPORT HIM NOW?
Thus your criticism of Mona rings a bit hollow. She is wrong about Julie Annie but so were you AND she is right about the paleosurrenderman paleoPaulie and you are verrrrry wrong on that score.
I'm not a syndicated columnist though. I can afford to change my mind.
Never forget that the conservative movement is CONSERVATIVE and only incidentally libertoonian, if at all.
It is not coincidental that paleoPaulie is as widely reviled here as he is. He is a treasonous weasel, a "constitutional" delusionist, a fake, a phony and a fraud. He and his love slaves should go third party and sap the voting strength of the antiwar, antiAmerican Demonratic candidate whichever he she or it may turn out to be.
Channel Abbie Hoffman, share some smoke with his shade and resist the restoration of American values. The paleosurrenderman will be toast in just a few weeks whether you and yours like it or not. Tick, tick, tick....
May we assume that the paleosurrenderman Dr. Demento is equally opposed to a federal crackdown on babykilling and on deviations from the standard of marriage???? Or have you changed your mind on the issues themselves????
If you want to change your mind, come away from the dark side and reject Dr. Demento and his treason toward American interests and efforts.
In any event, thank you for admitting that you supported Julie Annie in the past which is what you are ripping Charen for doing now. She, however, has always been right in opposing paleoPaulie and you have not been as right as she on that issue. Julie Annie is only slightly more likely to be the GOP nominee than Dr. Demento and both have infinitesimal chances or, more likely, no chance at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.