The Barr Code

By Road Scholar

April 4, 2008 7:21 AM | Link to this

Bob, Can Bush or his cohorts (VP,AG,etc) be taken to court for obviously violating/ignoring the Constitution?

By Skeptic Tank

April 4, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this

Why is it that information this vital, this disturbing, and this catastrophic, can only be unveiled when, for all intents and purposes, it’s far too late? Unfortunately, this element of quasi-fascist reasoning implicit in the Bush administration has been obvious to his detractors for a long, long time. But now that the evidence is on the table for all to see, he will still be defended by the mindless Republican cheerleaders, while the majority of us will continue to beg our legislators to take decisive action against this administration, to no avail. Please, Mr. Barr: you were at the forefront of impeaching a former President for acts of perjury and immorality. Can you not publicly cry out for impeachment of THIS President for acts of Constitutional violation that make Mr. Clinton’s transgressions pale in comparison?

By Absolute power corrupts absolutely

April 4, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

This is indeed indicative that Bush craves totalitarian power as a means to achieve his goals. Let nothing stand in his way, including the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. What is really scary is that there are sure to be many who will endorse all of this because it will make us more “safe and secure” and “if you have nothing to hide it should not bother you”. By the way, does anyone remember that Nixon wanted to deploy Customs agents across the country as a national police force, instead of just on the borders, because they are not bound by the requirement of having to have search warrants? Welcome to the United States of Stazi.

By Copyleft

April 4, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

I’m not surprised. Even now, on the previous topic, someone called ‘Gunnar’ is insisting that there’s no such thing as a “right to privacy,” so we should all welcome an all-powerful police state.

The funny part is, he takes Mr. Barr to task for questioning this because Barr is “supposed to be a conservative”!

By Will Jones

April 4, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

Mr. Barr, Some years ago you appeared at a political discussion/forum at a theater group on N. Highland in Atlanta. The awareness was shared with you by many in the audience that proof of Bush’s and Cheney’s complicity in 9-11 was available for all to read in Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor.”

Why should any consider you worthy of public office at any level when you clearly seem incapable of following the truth? Have you read the book, yet feel the false-flag operation creditable? Does treason not offend your particular sense of “patriotism?” Trying not to “rock the boat” but know the virtuous, righteous path you’ll follow once in office? You wish to shun controversial disagreement with fascist plutocracy? Don’t care? Too stupid?

Please explain, “Deadeye.”

By zeke

April 4, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Yes Bob, I support our President in all efforts to thwart terrorists from attacking the US or it’s citizens. If there is genuine belief or probable cause to believe that a US citizen is in touch with a foreign or domestic terrorist, the President or his assign has complete constitutional authority to take whatever measures necessary to prevent those events. We need to revive the subversives acts of the past to insure that leftist, socialist, populist, communist and idiots in general do not harm the US or it’s citizens, PERIOD!

By zeke

April 4, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Can Lincoln be prosecuted postumously for violating the Constitution? If not, GET OFF BUSH’S CASE FOR TRYING TO PROTECT THE USA!!

By Copyleft

April 4, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

How would that work, Zeke, since his oath of office requires him to “suport and uphold” the Constitution you claim he’s beyond the strictures of?

What exactly IS his job, if he’s allowed to ignore the Constitution that defines it?

By Mark

April 4, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

“He who sacrifices Freedom for Security deserves neither” - Ben Franklin.

What would Franklin or Jefferson or Madison have to say?

By mackado

April 4, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Bob, you did such a good job on that impeachment thing that now you join the “libertarians” whatever that is.

The constitution directs the president to protect this nations against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Please note “BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.” That is the presidents primary duty. All presidents in the past have suspended some elements of the constitution when at war and whether you believe it or not we are at war and thank God we have someone like Bush at the helm rather than limp wristed idiots like you and the CESSPOOL party candidates, dumb and dumber.

Yep, you are a real piece of —-!!!

By redneck

April 4, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, I’ll ask you a question. You are at war and you need info to stop a devastating attack on your side and there was a means to intercept informations being passed between the foreign enemy and traitors in this country. Now my interpretation is that the president has the authority to listen in on those conversations but for the sake of arguement would you use that information or would you sit on butt and let thousands of your people be killed?

Judging by the name you use on here I would guess that you are sympathetic to the terrorists cause and think that the only reason they attacked at all is because the USA is bad.

Tell me that I am wrong!!!

By Gunnar

April 4, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

there’s no such thing as a “right to privacy,” so we should all welcome an all-powerful police state.

Copyleft, this conclusion does not follow from the premise. Mr Barr’s fundamental error is the failure to distinguish between Law/Order and National Security. It’s the same error that the clintons made in the 90s, when for the first time in US history, external national security threats were treated as law and order issues.

This is why we saw FBI agents going into foreign countries and arresting terrorists and bringing them back to the US for trial. The goal of “trial” is the key. From that error, one logically concludes that any evidence not gathered according to the constitution would be inadmissable, so they erected a “wall”. This lead directly to 9-11.

If this were the American philosophy on Dec 7, 1941, the mission would have been to find the specific pilots who carried out the attack and bring them to justice in american courts. But this whole Clintonian view is based on a fundamental error.

The constitution does not restrict the defense of national security in the least. If it did, every war the US ever fought would be examples of gross violations of the Constitution. Killing and maiming people would clearly violate the first six amendments in the Bill of Rights. And in case you’re thinking that this doesn’t apply on US soil, everyone in the civil war were american citizens on US soil. If an enemy force took over portions of the US, the american military would not be violating the bill of rights when it kills, maimes and detains the enemy.

Mr Barr brings up the 4th amendment, but it doesn’t apply to national security, never has. A warrant only makes sense in the context of admitting something into evidence for a court of law. The Navy Seals aren’t trying to admit anything into evidence. You are confusing the president with this guy: http://www.justice.gov/ag/. It is the Attorney General who is the top law enforcement officer of the United States. Although appointed by the president, technically, he does not “report” to the president. He is an officer of the Court first.

You and Mr barr are suffering from national-security-is-a-law-and-order-issue derangement syndrome. I guess he spent so much time fighting the Clintons, that he has accepted their erroneous premises.

“Widely accepted understandings of the constitutional text reflected in judicial precedent and executive practice confirm the existence of an exclusive Commander in Chief power.” -Julian G. Ku is an Associate Professor of Law at Hofstra University.

Zeke is correct that your erroneous view means that Lincoln and all previous 42 presidents are guilty of violating the constitution. In addition, every single military engagement from Lexington and Concord to Falujah are examples of apparent gross violations of the 1st 6 amendments in the bill of rights, by the twisted ACLU/democrat/Barr logic.

In reality, the fourth amendment cannot possibly apply to national security, since it deals only with restrictions that the government must obey to get evidence admitted into court. In national security actions, a court is not the goal, therefore warrants are n/a. It makes no sense to be able to kill a terrorist, but not be able to monitor their communications.

Every President has had the constitutional authority to engage in surveillance for the purpose of national security prior to FISA. Congress cannot limit the President’s constitutional authority as protect national security. Upholding the constitutionally specified separation of powers is the true conservative position.

The Supreme Court’s Dickerson v. United States decision reinforces the point that the President’s Article II powers, which are not merely “constitutionally rooted” but are in fact clearly established by the text of the Constitution, certainly prevent any limitation attempt by congress, including FISA. The President’s power to protect the nation against our enemies cannot be circumscribed by Congress without violating Article II of the Constitution.

By Gunnar

April 4, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, as I’ve carefully explained, the president is NOT ignoring the constitution. He just isn’t the attorney general.

Mark, no freedoms have been restricted as of late to increase security. Your premise that the two are in natural conflict is false. If we reduced our national security efforts to 1 guy, would our freedom increase?

When Reagan increase the size and scope of our national security effort, our freedoms did not decrease. Our rights were more robustly secured.

By Martin

April 4, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

I now strongly believe it is time to impeach Bush and Cheney. These views of the constitution are incompatible with their being in their offices.

This is not a left/right or liberal/conservative argument. It is simply that the views espoused by and acted on by this administration go so far outside what the constitution says/is/allows that it is time to take the only action open to us and remove them from office.

By Gunnar

April 4, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

Martin, you are very confused. By this logic, we should have impeached the previous 42 presidents as well.

By Will Jones

April 4, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

…glad you asked, Mark. Our Founder, Thomas Jefferson had this to say:

“Warring against [the principles] of the people,… there is no length to which [the delusion of the people] may not be pushed by a party in possession of the revenues and the legal authorities of the United States, for a short time indeed, but yet long enough to admit much particular mischief. There is no event, therefore, however atrocious which may not be expected.” —Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1798. (*) ME 10:56

The “atrocious event” in this time is 9-11: committed by Bush and Cheney, as proven, incontrovertibly, by PhD David Ray Griffin, and known by 80% of the American People.

“The Emperor’s New Clothes” takes on new meaning with the hysterics of the Bushite fascists’ and perverts’ false assertions.

Jefferson was a prophet. Check out further proof of his Divine inspiration at www.theamericanfundament.blogspot.com

By Dusty

April 4, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Will Jones@11:14

Yes, there are deranged people in this world but neither Bush nor Cheney are one of them. You, Will, have given us every sign that you are one of the disturbed ones.

Bringing forth the most rediculous conspiracy of all times is your forte. You do not have the mental balance to even realize the absolute foolery of your accusations about 9/11. I hope you get help but I doubt that you can realize how much you need it.

Maybe you should read “Alice in Wonderland”. You might enjoy yet another conspiracy presentation.

By Copyleft

April 4, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Okay, Redneck: You’re wrong.

The president actually DOES have the authority to order the wiretapping of such communications… provided he gets a warrant. (That’s from the Fourth Amendment, for those keeping track of that “quaint” old document.)

All I’m asking is that the president obey the law. When did that become such an outrageous, “leftist” demand?

By Copyleft

April 4, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

And Gunnar… I’m not mistaking national security for law enforcment. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a military one.

You can no more use the military to fight terrorists than you can use them to fight inflation. That’s not their job.

By Barbara

April 4, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again regarding Bob Barr and his resistance to this administration’s attempts at thwarting terrorism on our soil. He’s a hypocrite, as he doesn’t like any surveillance that will uncover clients he defends from hiding offshore money in island bank accounts.

By Gunnar

April 4, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

— You can no more use the military to fight terrorists than you can use them to fight inflation. That’s not their job

Copyleft, ok, you are making this too easy. 1) the military can be used to fight terrorists, proving you are quite disconnected from reality. Examples are Barbary pirates, Reagan bombing of Khadaffi, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israeli wars, etc, etc.

2) National Security is far more than the military. The national security structure consists of: US Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, Special Forces, CIA, NSA, etc. You see, NS stands for NATIONAL SECURITY!

By Dusty

April 4, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

Copyleft @12:01

By golly, maybe your are correct. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a military one. Why didn’t we think of that one?

We should have sent the POLICE to Apghanistan. They could have questioned Islamofascists saying “Just the facts, mam.” Inspector Cloiseau could have represented the French. Scotland Yard would have put up a fence near Pakistan. Even Ms Marple would have been drafted. And Judge Judy would be a great decider in tough cases.

Thank you, Copyleft. Who said liberals did not have great ideas??

By Gunnar

April 4, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Dusty, great point. Copyleft has also accepted the incorrect premise that an enemy can be categorized by his weapons of choice. IOW, a terrorist is merely an enemy combatant who prefers to use an asymetric and unconventional (but very old) battle plan.

We don’t have various enemies like terrorists, nukers, missile shooters and spiers. We have enemies like chinese, cubans, and islamic extremists. Their choice of weapons doesn’t change the fact that they are enemy combatants. They need to be countered by the national security establishment, and not by our first responders, and just like we could not bring a soviet mig pilot to justice in an american court, there is no reason to bring terrorists to justice in a US court. They are either killed, become POWs or they remain at large.

By peter

April 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Dusty you are absolutely wrong here…..BUSH and Dick Cheney are off the wall, with Greed and Power.

Any YOU are a lemming, with her head in the sand !

By songbird

April 4, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

How do you classify Timothy McVeigh? Terriorist or not?

By Will Jones

April 4, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Your dispute, “Dusty,” is with the revealed prophetic wisdom, quoted, of America’s Founder, Thomas Jefferson.

Professor Griffin’s book proving Bush’s and Cheney’s complicity in 9-11, for each to read and judge, does not cite my corroborating testimony to make his case, so the ad hominem you employ here merely puts your integrity, acuity, workable intelligence, or fascist partisanship in proper context.

Bush did 9-11. One is either for treason or for America.

Bush is a homosexual draft-dodger cheated into the White House by only the Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court.

Bush’s father killed John Kennedy to send us to die for the pope in Vietnam.

Bush’s grandfather was the money conduit from Vatican-banker Rockefeller and the Roman Catholic elite to Adolph Hitler through the author of “I Paid Hitler,” papal baron, his fellow Knight of Malta, Fritz “The Rockefeller of Germany” Thyssen.

You are either for Bush and his proven perversion, draft-dodging, and treason or not.

Read the book or stay the fool, traitor, dupe, patsy, moron, or stooge. Your call.

By Barbara

April 4, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Peter, since I’ve heard this blanket statement for eight years, will you please educate me here. How are Bush and Cheney off the wall with greed and power? I want a real explanation of facts and not some network media line.

By RealityKing

April 4, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

My 14 year old daughter has those same 4th amendment rights. But I still quietly watch over her.., the ignorance of the innocent is better left blissful.

By Barbara

April 4, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Oh Will, you are a comic, indeed. Let’s see, when you recite Bush being a homosexual, you’ve lost all credibility. I do believe it was Lee Harvey Oswald that killed JFK. Of course, when you believe what left-wing (left behind mentality of the 60’s) professor has to say, then you’re the one in trouble, my friend. I’ll just bet you don’t like Neal Boortz or Bill O’Reilly either, now do you Will?

By patriot

April 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

Are these lawyers that wrote these memos named anywhere in them? If so, are they members of the Bar in any states? If so, maybe their respective Bar Assocations need to hear about their views on how they support and defend our constitution. Maybe they no longer need to be members of the Bar

By Will Jones

April 4, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

You sure like those draft-dodgers, “Barbara.”

A jury determined that an element of the CIA assassinated President Kennedy.

“Hunt v. Liberty Lobby” was heard and adjudicated in the Federal District Court of Southern Florida in 1985. A record of the case can be read in “Plausible Denial,” by Mark Lane, if you wish to correct your ignorance.

As to Bush’s proclivities, established with his Yale roommate Victor Ashe and the homosexual initiation rituals for Skull & Bones: no matter how long a man is married or how many children he has, or how he dodged the draft, 202 visits over a two-year period, to his private residence, by a $200/hr male homosexual prostitute, such as those documented by James Guckert/Jeff Gannon’s signatures in the Secret Service logbook at the Social Entrance of the White House, make Bush a homosexual.

Any who say otherwise simply make comment on his or her own “orientation” and life choices.

By Copyleft

April 4, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

I notice Gunnar, Redneck, et al., haven’t answered the question: “What’s so amazingly ‘leftist’ about demanding that the president OBEY THE LAW?”

You know, the law he’s sworn to uphold. Remember that?

By Dusty

April 4, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Copyleft@3:39

I have news for you. We have had a W-A-R going on that you haven’t noticed. It is a war to stop terrorism from spreading throughout the Middle East and spread to America. Our military ones are laying down their lives to keep us safe and free. YOUR APPRECIATION IS NULL & VOID.

You want to quibble about the actions of the Commander-in-Chief during war times. He is designated as the one to see that we are protected and HE HAS DONE JUST THAT. He is following his oath of office. As far as keeping freedom for us and giving it to others…BUSH DID IT!

First we have the deranged (Will) who honestly believes any whacko theory given by fanatics.

Then we have you, dedicated liberal, willing to sacrifice the country in order to undermine the Republican Party and insult George W. Bush. I think your intentions are the scourge of this country.

You as a citizen are also expected to have an allegiance and uphold the country. Remember that??

By David Duke

April 4, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

idiots in general-This would cover you and your activities Zeke! Will, you are absolutely speaking the truth. Bush is a homosexual! Copyleft, how can you expect a worm who stole the office of President to uphold the Constitution of the United States? It is my hope that Bush, at some point, will be brought to trial for his crimes against humanity!

By Will Jones

April 4, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

“Dusty,” I believe the prophetic wisdom cited of America’s Founder, Thomas Jefferson. Do you reject it as a Fifth Column traitor, or as simplly an ignorant dupe?

America was founded by Whigs (anti-Roman Catholic). Bush, from a Vatican-supporting, Nazi-financing, JFK-killing German, Roman Catholic clan - Busch) committed 9-11 whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Professor Griffin’s book is excellently written for even the simplest mind to grasp…and is incontrovertible.

I have sworn the Oath twice. Unswayed by caterwauling liars, Nazis, perverts, traitors, or those who support them, I will continue to “support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND domestic.”

Read the book noted or condemn yourself as unworthy or incapable of civil discourse.

By Dusty

April 4, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

Hey Copyleft,

Your buddy David Duke is here agreeing with you. Two of a kind!!

By Gunnar

April 4, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, I did answer that question, you’re just not getting it. The president is obeying the law. He has NOT brought anyone to TRIAL without obeying their 4th amendment rights. Since he is not the attorney general, he never would anyways.

When the president is acting as CIC, a role you seem to be pretending does not exist, this president, just like the previous 42, is not bound by the bill of rights. When you figure out that you cannot make your claims about “obeying the law” without first reconciling that no previous president has had to consider the bill of rights in connection with discharging the constitutional duty to protect national security, then you can talk to us about who is answering questions and who isn’t.

The Supreme Court’s Dickerson v. United States decision reinforces the point that the President’s Article II powers, which are not merely “constitutionally rooted” but are in fact clearly established by the text of the Constitution, certainly prevent any limitation attempt by congress, including FISA. The President’s power to protect the nation against our enemies cannot be circumscribed by Congress without violating Article II of the Constitution.

Put simply, the 4th amendment only has relevance to getting information admitted into evidence for a court of LAW. When the president sits down with the joint chiefs, CIA, NSA, there is no court involved. Since this is the most basic point concerning the separation of Powers between the 3 branches of government, your ignorance of this is truly an indication of a complete failure in civics education.

By Dusty

April 4, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

Will Jones@4:19

Thomas Jefferson would not have had anything to do with the likes of you. He had an extraordinary mind whereas you….oh nevermind.

I don’t read books by religious fanatics or bigoted blowhards. It is a waste of time. Same as discussing anything with you. I won’t do it anymore.

By Will Jones

April 4, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

Should you not be perfectly barren and fully accursed, “Dusty,” your children are to be pitied.

A woman voicing support for a treasonous faction of homosexual draft-dodgers’ sending good men and women to die killing innocents on behalf of evil is just about as reprehensible as a woman can be.

Be gone foul spirit! May the Devil take you.

Death for treason.

Annuit Coeptis