Posted on 01/22/2006 5:21:05 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, January 22nd, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; University of Maryland's men's basketball coach Gary Williams.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.
THIS WEEK (ABC): John Kerry, D-Mass.; Reps. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Jane Harman, D-Calif., chairman and ranking Democrat of the House Intelligence Committee; actor Gary Sinise.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz; formerUnited Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke; former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon.
Thanks. I am sure of what you hope & also, Libby will come out free good also.
LOL! just said he mortgaged his house tio finance his campaign.
As Sean would say, "Unbelievable!"
oversees they are pushing the homo agenda claim that ALL cowboys engage in homosexual behavior because they are lonely. (ala some kind of bizzare prison fantasy)
I just wish fox with stay away from just barfing back the homosexual agenda of hollyweirds PR firms. If I wanted to watch homosexual news, I would watch CNN.
I cannot imagine the danger we would be in if the president had let the traitors in congress know our methods of tracking terrorists.
"W could get rid of 'appointments', but it is nearly impossible to get rid of 'career' people, thanks to their union."
W: "Here is your choice Clinton State Department drone, Early Retirement or reassignment to be the the door keeper at the embassy in Zimbabawa for the rest of your life."
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545902/posts
Durbin's excuse was that the Abramoff funds he accepted were unsolicited. (IOW, I didn't ask for money from the crook, he gave it to me, therefore it's ok. Besides, I gave most of it to charity after he got caught.)
You've noticed that as well....
I can just hear Paulsen saying that. His delivery was impeccable.
LOL! Keep on making a fool of yoiurself, JFnK!
I haven't seen any of this yet...I'm recording most of them (except Bob S.)
I'm listening to the panel on FNS, but missed the first few minutes 'cause I turned my headphones off while Turbin was on.
"Good Morning! John Kerry is running again, isnt he?"
For those who "forgot" what Hanoi Kerry
did in the past read on and learn the truth.
Hanoi Kerry was still a USNR officer while he:
gave false hearsay testimony to Congress
negotiated with the enemy
helped the US lose a war
abetted in the deaths of millions
created a hostile environment for all servicemen
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Documents
Call to action!
Please help get this bill passed
AND signed into law
BEFORE the '06 elections!
Stolen Valor Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 3352 IH
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h.r.3352:
Fax, call or write your representatives and MSM
Emails for Activism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1388699/posts
Write your Congressman
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
PING every list you have!
Write every real Conservative Senator and Representative.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h.r.3352:
Spread the word far and wide.
This is a no brainer, conservatives control Congress
and the White House
Hear hear! (that's why he's pandering to liberals; he can't win on the Republican vote)
Obama wrote an email that raised $800,000 for Senator Bryd's reelection ??
HAHAHAHAHA .. He messed up Moveon.org's name .. called them Moveon.com
I agree with you - however - I think the idea that he is a threat to anyone's prospects is false.
He is a total fake - his base is very very small.
That's some more of sKerry's spin. First, the President has the power under the Constitution to do the wiretapping and second, he has kept some members of Congress informed about this (if Kerry wasn't one of them TOO BAD!).
I'm certainly no constitutional authority and know that there are always arguments on both sides of almost every issue, but found the following interesting and others may as well:
"For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.
Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order." The question is whether Congress had the power to limit such authorizations to a 15-day period, which I think highly doubtful. It would be akin to Congress telling the president during wartime that he could attack a particular enemy stronghold for a maximum of 15 days."
Here are some other snippets from the article:
For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection--especially in wartime--was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947.
>snip
Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded.
I'm not saying that what the president authorized was unquestionably lawful. The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
>snip
Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.
Mr. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, served as counsel to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, 1982-84.
Osama Obama had already given her heinous dispensation on the plantation remark.
Isn't amazing how no one ever points out that it is the Bush DOJ that is breaking this all open by prosecuting Abramoff.
Good stuff. This will blow up in the Dems faces, provided that the Reps keep firing back. Key point is going back to the loose lips in the Congress and other places.
She pandered to the blacks and a few days later pandered to her jewish constituents by demanding the President IMMEDIATELY do something about Iran.
If she makes a poor showing in NY her presidential prospects are lowered.
You have the best firewall. Look how well it protects you! LOLOLOL
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.