Gay Patriot

Just another WordPress site

Democrats Just Want Investigations to Prove What They Believe

by

When the president commissions a bipartisan investigation into an important matter of policy or law or to study a controversy, reasonable people tend to regard the panel’s conclusions as dispositive of the issue at hand. To be sure, some may question the bias of this or that panelist or the panel’s failure to evaluate certain evidence, but barring such evidence of bias, most will look seriously at the results of the investigation.
Similarly, if the Justice Department brings in a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of criminal behavior, most people expect that his investigation will be thorough. Should the prosecutor find evidence to substantiate such behavior, he will press charges. Without such evidence, he won’t issue indictments. And when the investigation is particularly thorough, people will understand that where no indictment was issued, the prosecutor didn’t find enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonble doubt that a crime had occurred.
As Democrats’ hatred of President Bush increased, they have called for no end to investigations of his Administration. They claimed they wanted to find out the truth. But, when those investigations, be they criminal or informational, reach conclusions with which they disagree, instead of finding such conclusions dispositive, they call for still more investigations. Or, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid did on Tuesday, misrepresent the findings of an investigation to suit their ends.
Like so many Democrats (and others on the Left), Mr. Reid holds that Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation proves something which Mr. Fitzgerald says the investigation didn’t even address. Given that many on the Left found (to borrow the words of one of my most persistent critics) that “Mr. Fitzgerald handled himself so incredibly well,” they should take him at his word that, “This indictment is not about the war.” But, that statement is at odds with the result they wanted his investigation to yield–evidence that the White House twisted intelligence in order to make the case for war.
[Read more…]

Congress vs. Bloggers — Round One

by

Via Polipundit:

Here’s the roll call on that House Bill to exclude blogs and e-mails and such from regulation by the FEC under McCain-Feingold:
179 (77%) = Republicans in favor of excluding the Internet from FEC regulation.
46 (23%) = Democrats in favor thereof.
Totals: 225-182-26, in favor.
This effort to exclude blogs from the FEC’s domain failed, however, because a 2/3 majority was required to pass that particular bill under the chosen procedural framework.

From the Associated Press: House Defeats Bill on Political Blogs

The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

Disappointing, but not over yet.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from GPW): Over at Malcontent, Robbie sees this as a strike against free speech.

Just a reminder . . .

by

. . . that one year ago today, George W. Bush was re-elected with a majority of the popular vote to a second four-year term as president of the United States.
UPDATE: Those of our critics have commented about the closeness of the vote in last fall’s election should note that since the (national) popular vote has been tallied (in presidential elections), only two Democrats in U.S history have won a second (in the case of FDR, second, third and fourth) term with a majority of the popular vote. And it was 104 years between Andrew Jackson’s (1832) re-election and FDR’s (1936).

Harry Reid Unhinged–Preferring Political Theater to Public Policy

by

Apparently, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wasn’t paying any attention to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald when he announced the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s then-chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby last Friday. As I noted at the time, Mr. Fizgerald stated clearly, “This indictment is not about the war.”
Today, when breaking Senate precedent by calling for a Secret Session under Senate Rule 21 without informing the leadership of the other party (in this case the Senate’s majority party), Reid acted as if Fitzgerald never spoke those words:

The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

He must have read a different indictment than I did–indeed, different from the one everyone to the right of moveon.org has read. (Or just read a speech he had written long before the indictment was handed down.)
Paul at Powerline thinks Reid needed this special secret session “to prevent the public from witnessing the spectacle of Democrats making fools out of themselves trying to explain the connection between that indictment and pre-war intelligence on Iraq.” Reid’s antics are nothing more than a stunt, really just a temper tantrum — or perhaps a bone to the party’s left-wing activists — to deflect attention from the president’s rebound in the past few days. And from the failure of the special prosecutor to find what they wanted him to find when he investigated the “leak” of Valerie Plame’s name.
In part, Democrats are still mad that Fizgerald didn’t prove their crazy conspiracy theory about Karl Rove. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts called the Minority Leader’s stunt an “unfortunate event” which resulted in Republicans agreeing “to do what we already agreed to do.”
Democrats aren’t just upset over the non-indictment of Rove and the likelihood of Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, they’re furious that the president they revile has once again seized the offensive. They must now be realizing how they failed to take advantage of the president’s late misfortune, his “past two months of much bad news and many missteps.
If Democrats had spent less time staging such media stunts as that today of Senator Reid, spent less time calling the president (& his allies) names, spent less time misrepresenting his record and put more effort into articulating their ideas and putting forward policies to address the problems facing the nation, they might have kept the president on defense. But, as Mr. Reid’s behavior today shows, they’re more interested in political theater than in public policy.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Republicans of Rohan

by

At the battle of Helm’s Deep in The Lord of the Rings, the Riders of Rohan, led by their King Théoden who, only days before, seemed incapacitated and unable to control his kingdom, are besieged and outnumbered by the forces of Saruman, orcs, half-orcs and wild men of Dunland. As these forces breach the fortress’s outer wall, it seems only a matter of time before they will break through the final gate, defeating Théoden and destroying his kingdom.
But, in his darkest hour, the good king fretted in what he called a “prison,” longing to feel again “the joy of battle.” Even as he fears the end, he will not be taken “like an old badger in a trap” so, instead of hunkering down, the besieged (and seemingly defeated) leader elects to go on the offensive.*
The great horn of Helm rings out and Théoden leads his loyal troops, riding out to take on their relentless foes. His troops rally behind him while their adversaries “cried and wailed, for fear and great wonder had come upon them with the rising of the day.”
So too has President Bush rallied his base with the nomination early this morning of Samuel J. Alito, Jr. as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. I just spent a couple hours reading conservative blogs and news sites and discovered a unanimity of support for this good judge among writers who were only recently divided over the nomination of Harriet Miers. William Kristol, one of the harshest critics of the Miers pick, wrote this morning that the president hit “a home run” in tapping Alito for the vacancy.
While our adversaries have not yet fled in fear as did Saruman’s armies, they have already begun to tremble, wailing at this allegedly “extremist” pick. The president’s opponents will fight, but because the president made a bold move in appointing a conservative jurist, he has put himself back on the offensive. The left is playing defense now. If the president wants to ensure Judge Alito’s confirmation, to continue the progress in Iraq and to accomplish his domestic policy goals, he needs to keep them there.
[Read more…]

For Some Democrats, it’s (Still) All About Rove

by

In the wake of the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby on a variety of charges related to the way he responded to the investigation of the “leak” of Valerie Plame’s name to the news media, many Democrats and some in the media (particularly the folks at 60 Minutes) seem to be regurgitating talking points they had written long before special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced the indictment.
Based upon what they are saying, one would expect that Fitzgerald had uncovered a vast conspiracy (aggressively led by the president’s heinous henchman, Dr. Evil himself, Karl Rove) to smear Joe Wilson. Yet, when I read the indictment this weekend, I learned exactly what I had gleaned from news reports (and Fitzgerald’s press conference) on Friday that Libby had been indicted on serious charges, but none of them for the underlying (alleged) crime. And Mr. Rove was not indicted. There was no conspiracy. Indeed, before the investigation, there wasn’t even a crime.
Some Democrats, however, seem to have read a different indictment than I. While Mr. Libby has stepped down, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says Rove should also resign “because of his role in exposing an undercover CIA officer.” Even though, after a lengthy investigation, Rove wasn’t indicted, wasn’t implicated in any crime, Mr. Reid acts as if the president’s longtime aide had committed some great crime. Perhaps that Democrat is just looking to punish him for the great crime of being the “architect” of President Bush’s re-election last fall.
[Read more…]

Fitzgerald, Libby and Liddy

by

***UPDATED POST WITH TRANSCRIPT OF FITZGERALD REMARKS — 8:37PM***
In this fast-paced world of cable TV and the Internet, I rarely have a day like today. I’ve been in my car driving from noon to about 4:00PM and had nothing else to do but listen and absorb the indictments handed down today in the “Plame Affair.” Dan has devoted a lot of time to this topic recently, but I’ve not had time. But there was so much going on in my brain as I was listening to the pre-indictment coverage, then live coverage of Fitzgerald’s press conference — that I had to sit down and get write before I forgot it all!
Upfront let me state the obvious: Scooter Libby was stupid. According to FOX News Channel (via XM radio), he apparently was a zealot with White House staff in warning them about the contents of their emails and their notes. Yet his own notes contradicted his “compelling story” (Fitzgerald’s words) about how he was last in a long line of phone calls and his sources were all reporters. So while it remains to be seen if Plame was or was not a “covert” CIA operative (the original charge of Fitzgerald), I completely agree with his decision to indict Libby based on the evidence I’ve heard in the indictment. I honestly think that Libby and Rove thought they could “spin” their way out of this story…. but for heaven’s sake, you do not lie to the FBI or a grand jury! Period.
Which brings me to my second thought. Unfortunately, VtheK and Lorie Byrd beat me too it! Fitzgerald made a strong defense of the seriousness of the law applying to public officials and that perjury and obstruction of justice were serious crimes that violate the public interest. (I will post the transcript when I find it.) When I heard Fitzgerald say this, I smiled broadly. He had just indirectly reinforced the credibility of Ken Starr’s efforts and indirectly condemned President Clinton. President Clinton, too, had “thrown up sand” in the eyes of then Independent Counsel Ken Starr. President Clinton, too, had been ‘indicted’ on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. I bet Hillary must have choked at that point in the press conference. And I figured the wacky Lefties who would glorify Fitzgerald must have coughed up some bile on that point as well.
**UPDATED at 8:37… Imagine these words, by Fitzgerald, in the context of the Clinton impeachment…

but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.
FITZGERALD: And I’d say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time.
When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.
In Philadelphia, where Jack works, they prosecute false statements and obstruction of justice.
When I got to Chicago, I knew the people before me had prosecuted false statements, obstruction and perjury cases.
FITZGERALD: And we do it all the time. And if a truck driver pays a bribe or someone else does something where they go into a grand jury afterward and lie about it, they get indicted all the time.
Any notion that anyone might have that there’s a different standard for a high official, that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice and perjury, is upside down.
If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it’s a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.

*****
It was also quite telling that Fitzgerald went out of his way to say first, then stress after being questioned, the total cooperation given to him by this Administration. Paul at Powerline has it on the money. This was the “anti-Watergate.” Maybe we have learned something…..
Finally, must all of our scandals have a similar name involved? G. Gordon Liddy, I. Scooter Libby. Weird. At least if convicted, Libby can look forward to a career in talk radio.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
FULL TRANSCRIPT OF FITZGERALD PRESS CONFERENCE AT THE JUMP….. [Read more…]

Libby Indicted for Doing what Wilson Did–but under Oath

by

As I listened today to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald outlining the charges against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, it became clear that what I had been gathering in new reports about the imbroglio over the last week was accurate; the Vice President’s then-Chief of Staff lied to investigators and grand jurors.
Libby has now been accused of doing exactly what Joe Wilson has been doing since that “Administration critic” wrote the New York Times op-ed at issue in this whole mess. He deceived people. With one big difference. Libby lied under oath and Wilson did so in the pages of newspapers, in the pages of his book, on the lecture circuit and on a variety of talk shows.
The First Amendment protects Mr. Wilson’s freedom to lie to the media. It doesn’t protect Mr. Libby’s to do so in a judicial proceeding. As a lawyer, he should have known better than to invent a story of how he learned Ms. Plame’s name, then tell it, not to amuse his friends, but to deceive federal investigators. He should have told them the truth. And now he appears to be guilty of serious crimes. Still, as the president said in his brief remarks just a few moments ago, “In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial.”
It doesn’t look very good for Mr. Libby now. If he did indeed lie to the grand jury (as the indictment indicates), he hurt the Vice President and the president as well. And he broke the law. He did the right thing in resigning. If a jury of his peers finds him guilty of the crimes for which Mr. FItzgerald indicted him today, he should pay a heavy penalty.

“This indictment is not about the war”

by

In his press conference, Special Prosectutor Patrick Fitzgerald said, “This indictment is not about the war.”
UPDATE: Now that Bruce has posted the entire transcript of Fitzgerald’s press conference, I can include the entirety of the special prosecutor’s answer to the question as to whether the indictment represents “a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.”
Fitzgerald’s response:

This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person — a person, Mr. Libby — lied or not.
The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone’s who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

Scandal About To Break In NJ Gov. Race?

by

EnlightenNJ has been following hints of a possible red-hot scandal and embarrassment about to crash all over Sen. John Corzine’s campaign for governor.
Corzine’s Next Scandal? – Oct. 25

Reporters are after a videotape of Corzine, inebriated, making statements that will damage him beyond belief with African Americans. (Carla Katz supposedly makes an appearance.) People who have seen this thing say it’s bad. African American leaders are aware of its existence, and don’t think the damage can be undone no matter how many $2 million “contributions” he throws their way. The only question is whether we find out about this before he’s governor, or after.

The Corzine Tape – Oct. 27

The person who has the Corzine tape is in intense discussions with the news media about releasing it. Whether or not the tape is released before the election, those who have seen it WILL be heard from. The next 48 hours could dramatically change the direction of this race.

My sources in the NJ GOP tell me that the rumors are hot and heavy, but skepticism remains as to whether there is any “there” there.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Miers Withdrawal–Victory for the Constitution

by

Like many conservatives, I was relieved to learn this morning that Harriet Miers had withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. While I was initially disappointed with her nomination, I believed that, as the president’s nominee, she deserved the benefit of the doubt. But, the more I heard about her, the more I began to lean against her confirmation.
As I said before, I believe the president blundered badly in picking her. He did not adequately consult with Republican Senators and his conservative supporters and was thus not prepared for their strong opposition to his choice. Many were not convinced that she would be a conservative jurist while others were troubled by her lack of judicial experience. Still others (including yours truly) were troubled that her writings did not show much understanding of constitutional issues and that her answers to questions from Senators (both in her questionnaire and in her meeting with them) were inadequate or mealy-mouthed.
Her failure to convince Senators she was up to the job of a Supreme Court Justice led to her decision to withdraw. While Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid — and other Democrats — claim that “The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination,” even some of his Democratic colleagues, notably Charles Schumer, questioned her qualifications. Had she demonstrated an understanding of constitutional law to Senators, I believe that most Republicans would have supported her confirmation — despite her lack of any conservative record on judicial issues.
As it was Senators’ concerns which led to her withdrawal, we see once again the genius of our Constitution which, in Article 2, Section 2, gave the President the power to appoint “Judges of the supreme Court,” conditioning that appointment on the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” More than two centuries ago, in a piece for the New York Packet, preserved for us as Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton saw the Senate’s “co-operation” in such appointments as “an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President:” [Read more…]

DeLay, like Clinton, Master of the Political Game

by

As I’ve said before, I’m no fan of Tom DeLay, but after seeing his confident smile on his mug shot yesterday, I gotta admit, I admire his political skills, just as I admire those of his chief political nemesis of the 1990s–Bill Clinton. Democrats are now gnashing their teeth at this Republican’s pose. It’ll be hard for them to use this image as a “campaign prop.”
The folks at the Democratic Underground are absolutely apoplectic, with one guy suggesting DeLay received “special treatment.” (Thanks to Malcontent‘s adorable Robbie for the tip.) One reporter noted:

He looks in the photo like a proud member of Congress who might just have won the lottery, not one indicted on charges of money laundering. The photo looks like it could have been taken anywhere.
And that was just the point.

(Via Drudge.) His pose reminds me of the confidence then-President Clinton showed when allegations first surfaced in January 1998 that he lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. As the story was breaking, that Democrat was preparing to deliver the State of the Union address. Given the allegations, many thought he should cancel the speech.
Such suggestions notwithstanding, Clinton stood firm and confidently strode into the House chamber that night to deliver his speech as planned. As I recall, he looked presidential and seemed unfazed by the allegations. So delivering that State of the Union address, Clinton saved his presidency. With the American people watching on live television (perhaps there was an increased audience due to the whiff of scandal), he made it appear that, despite the accusations, he was continuing to do his job — focusing on issues of national concern.
Clinton, like DeLay, is a master of the political game. It’s interesting to note that both men (Clinton largely through his surrogates) have gone after the prosecutors leveling charges against them, Clinton’s people badmouthed Kenneth Starr, DeLay taking on Ronnie Earle.
Despite my lack of enthusiasm for Mr. DeLay, I find myself rooting for him in his current troubles, have even considered making a token contribution to his legal defense fund. And all this makes me wonder about Democratic support for Clinton in the 1990s. Maybe they weren’t so much rallying to support their man as relishing his fighting spirit against charges leveled by his (and their) political adversaries.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

The Miers Blunder

by

I am perhaps the last conservative blogger to weigh in on the president’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. On the day the appointment was announced, I didn’t say much because I didn’t want to draw attention away from Bruce’s clever post on the topic (which garnered him much well-deserved acclaim in the blogosphere). And that I got busy with papers, classes and other things.
Like the folks at Powerline, I was disappointed with the choice. While Ms. Miers is, no doubt, an excellent attorney and, in many ways, a legal pioneer, rising in the profession at a time when there were few successful female attorneys and while she is loyal to a president whom I (by and large) support, I had hoped the president would pick someone like Miguel Estrada, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan or Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the latter my first choice. I hoped for someone who had not only a fine legal mind, but had also shown a keen understanding of the types of issues likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The president thus “missed an opportunity to drive home with the public the fact that the most brilliant and most principled thinkers in the legal profession are conservatives, not liberals.”
Basically, I think President Bush took the base for granted on this one. After John Roberts’ nomination was well-received by all but the most extreme conservatives, the president may have gotten a little cocky and assumed conservatives would support whomever he tapped for the Supremes. He thought they would see Miers’ loyalty to him as loyalty to conservative principles, so when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid liked the idea (of Miers’ nomination), the president may have thought he had a consensus pick. And ever eager to be a united, he named her.
In taking the base for granted, the president committed what is arguably the biggest blunder of his administration. The fact that he is trying to reassure conservatives after he announced the pick proves that he and his aides did not do their homework as he was considering Miers’ appointment. According to the Wall Street Journal‘s John Fund in yesterday’s Political Diary, her nomination was not properly vetted. She “was not interviewed by several key players who were deeply involved in the Roberts selection,” including “Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.” This morning, Lorie Byrd noted that the “lack of advance work led to the huge failure to anticipate the reaction of many to the Miers nomination.”
[Read more…]

Judith Miller’s “Missing Notebook” Is Now Found

by

I’ve been saying, well to myself mostly, that this whole Valerie Plame story is not what it appears.
Greg Mitchell has the scoop on the Plame scandal’s equivalent to the “missing 18 minutes” of the Watergate tapes. Ol’ Judy’s notes have been found!
The Case of the Missing Notebook – Editor and Publisher (hat tip: Lucianne.com)

If its recent track record is any guide, The New York Times, later today or tomorrow, will get around to confirming Michael Isikoff’s Newsweek revelation late Saturday that the missing notes Judith Miller has suddenly found and turned over to the federal prosecutor in the Plame case were located in a notebook in the newspaper’s Washington, D.C. bureau. The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has now scheduled another meeting with Miller on Tuesday.
The notes in question, we now know, cover a Miller discussion with I. Lewis Libby on June 23, 2003, two weeks before Joseph Wilson’s WMD Op-Ed that was thought to have set the Bush backlash in motion. These notes, the Times has disclosed, do mention Joseph Wilson. Isikoff observes that the notebook is “significant because Wilson’s identity was not yet public.”

Mr. Wilson…. that’s the sound of your phony story blaming Karl Rove unraveling….
-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Libertarians, Hear Them Roar?

by

Today will be “guest blogger” day at GayPatriot as I suffer with my back ailment and trudge through Dulles Airport, O’Hare, and points beyond.
Our first installment comes from Ted at Charging Rhino with his posting “Libertarians? Or just the Silly-Hat Party?”

My complaint with the “Libertarians” is that there is such a ideological and operational-gap between those who consider themselves to “be libertarian”, and those who are members and leaders of the Libertarian Party. In my experience, most libertarians are progressive or conservative Republicans; while the Libertarian Party-ites are left-wing whack-jobs with no real-world credentials and pathetic, questionable backgrounds whom I would not trust over a long weekend with a cat….No less a government.
As with the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither “holy” nor “Roman”; the Libertarian Party uses the word, but not it’s scope of meaning. They might as well be the Silly-Hat Party, it would coincide with their use of aluminum-foil linings.

-Bruce (GayPatriot on painkillers)

What Does A “Living” Constitution Really Mean?

by

I hate to get all “scholarly” on a miserable rainy Friday. But there was a very interesting discussion a couple days ago on Sean Hannity’s radio program. A caller said that in his mind a good test for Harriet Miers, or any SCOTUS nominee, would be to ask them if they believed the Constitution is a “living document.”
My initial thought was, well of course it is! That is what I was taught throughout my public school education. The Constitution has a mechanism to be amended if enough Americans were moved to do so. In fact, we even have the capability to convene a Constitutional Convention to make changes. So I believe that it is in fact a “living document.” But this caller had another, very interesting interpretation.
He said that in his mind the phrase “living document” meant that judges could intepret the Constitution any way they want. That the words in it don’t mean anything except through the filtered eyes of lifetime-sitting judges. That thought had never struck me before. And it is most disturbing because many if not most of our Federal judges are elite academic types with their heads buried in case law and whose allegiances are with the American Bar, ACLU, and other liberal causes. There is a clear disconnect between the judicial branch and the people. So this caller is right, the Constitution has become a “living document” for the Federal judges, but no longer for “We, the People.”
And then he made a more important point in my mind. The Constitution is a “contract” between our Founding Fathers and “We, the People.” If you had a guy building your home based on a contract you both signed, would you want him to interpret the contract with his own “intent” halfway through construction of your house? Of course not. So why are we allowing our sacred Constitution to be altered based on the will of liberal special interests with undue influence on the Federal judiciary?
Our Federal judges are in “breach of contract” with the American people.
Our President’s duty to us is to reclaim this contract and appoint Federal judges and Supreme Court nominees who believe that as well.
I will be very interested to hear how Ms. Miers answers the question….. “Is the Constitution a ‘living document’?”
-Bruce (GayPatriot)

TIME: Miers Backed ‘Full Civil Rights’ For Gays

by

Hat Tip: Hotline On Call
From TIME.com – A Sampling of the Writings of Harriet Miers

An indication of her stance on gay rights comes from this questionaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas Miers filled out while running for the Dallas City Council in 1989. In it, she supported full civil rights for gays and lesbians and backed AIDS education programs for the city of Dallas. (Source: Quorumreport.com)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)