I consider that quite a compliment coming from you. Alan Keyes is an extremely articulate and intelligent person. Go ahead and research... maybe you will learn something.

Well this clinches it.

Mr Keyes recently ran for office in Illinois. I heard him say many interesting and slightly controversial statements.

Make machine guns legal for any adult without a record for one.

Where's your LINK for that?

You really expect a link from that dolt?

Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns
Views on assault weapons at odds


September 15, 2004

Alan Keyes endorses the decision made by the Republican-controlled Congress to let the Assault Weapons Ban expire this week, and if he is elected to the U.S. Senate, he says he would back legislation preventing it from being revived. But his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, says he would support efforts to make the ban permanent.

That difference of opinion underscores the stark contrast on the issue of gun control between the two candidates seeking to become the junior senator from Illinois. In comments gleaned from a Tribune questionnaire, public statements and interviews, the two have offered widely divergent views.



"The reality is that piling more gun laws on top of the thousands of laws regulating firearms already on the books might make some people feel better," Keyes said in his questionnaire, "but there's simply no evidence that doing so makes our neighborhoods safer."

But Obama said the end of the ban--which means the gun industry will resume making and selling 19 types of military-style semiautomatic weapons--means America's streets will be more dangerous. Such weapons have accounted for a "disproportionate share of police fatalities," he said.

"I believe we need to renew--not roll back--this common sense gun law," Obama said.

On the general issue of whether gun control is a good idea, Keyes says government regulation should focus on punishing people who use guns to harm others, not restricting the availability of guns to law-abiding citizens.

Obama, meanwhile, proposes several gun-control laws, including restricting purchases of weapons and ammunition at gun shows, establishing a national database that would capture and record imprints left by bullets, and making gun locks mandatory.

On the issue of prohibiting citizens from carrying concealed weapons, Obama said he believes national legislation should be passed to "prevent other states' laws [allowing citizens to conceal their guns] from threatening the safety of Illinois residents."

Still, Obama said concealed weapons should be allowed for retired police officers and some military personnel. Obama, a state senator from Hyde Park, voted in favor of such legislation in March and, while the measure did not become law, his vote helped him to secure the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police.

Keyes, on the other hand, said he feels all laws preventing citizens from concealing weapons should be left to individual states, noting that 38 states allow some form of concealed carry. He said those laws have prevented crime in those states.

"Responsible gun ownership by the law-abiding is not something to be feared," Keyes said.

Last month, Keyes made headlines when he asserted that when the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was written, it guaranteed that ordinary citizens have the ability to defend themselves against the government and have access to the same kinds of weapons as infantry soldiers. That would mean the automatic version of M-16 assault rifles would become available today to ordinary citizens.

Keyes added that with America at risk of terrorist attacks, the ability of law-abiding citizens to obtain weapons is even more important.

"The terrorists can insidiously pop up anywhere. ... The front line of the war against terror once again involves citizens," Keyes said.

Obama, however, said that while he supports allowing hunters and sportsmen to own rifles, shotguns and other firearms, "ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own military assault weapons, such as AK-47s and Uzis."

Obama was harshly critical of the National Rifle Association, the nation's largest interest group opposing gun-control legislation.

He said the NRA helped kill the assault-weapons ban, even though most law-enforcement officials favored the law.

"I have been willing to stand up to the gun lobby in Springfield and would continue to do so in Washington whenever its agenda diverges from the best interests of our communities and law-enforcement officials," Obama said.

Keyes said he sees no problem with the influence the NRA wields.

"Representative democracy is supposed to be a free marketplace of ideas," Keyes said. "The NRA represents a certain set of ideas, and other groups represent other sets."


http://www.newsday.com/chi-0409150153sep15,0,5761821.story

This is the quote: "Responsible gun ownership by the law-abiding is not something to be feared," Keyes said.

You misquoted!

From your article:
"Last month, Keyes made headlines when he asserted that when the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was written, it guaranteed that ordinary citizens have the ability to defend themselves against the government and have access to the same kinds of weapons as infantry soldiers. That would mean the automatic version of M-16 assault rifles would become available today to ordinary citizens."

This is not a direct quote, it's an intrepretation of a statement made based upon the biases of the reporter.

The Second Amendment reads:

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The meaning is clear and the reasoning is conforming. The 2nd Amendment is for the enforcement of the other Amendments. Dr. Keyes supports the US Constitution. You find fault with THAT?


Good try.... but not good enough!

(please note: I quoted from the US Bill of Rights--if you need to find it, try Google, and it is davis that is trying to quote Dr. Alan Keyes)

What you mean, not good enough?

I said he advocates machine gun ownership by citizens. HE DOES. You asked for a link I gave it. I could have chosen from dozens of sites where he was quoted saying that.


He supports citizens being able to own fully automatic military style weapons. I heard it many times in the race. I live in Illinois.

Now whether you want to debate either the wisdom or constitutionality of said position ... that would be another issue altogether.

well with bushlovers in America everyone needs a machine gun.

That's a hell of an amendment isn't it? It was posted on the wall my entire childhood.

I guess I wasn't clear.

I was agreeing that yes, the entire DeLay matter is "political", because the underlying Texas law, the one he was trying to get around through this scheme DeLay is convinced is legal, is political in nature.

We seem to be having a bad case of "can't see the forest for the trees" The Texas law (and the laws of several other states) is against corporations funding political campaigns, in repudiation of the classic instance of the well-known "Senator from Standard Oil."

The idea that corporations shouldn't be able to themselves control of government is a rock-bottom fundamental political concept. That was the concept underlying the law, that that concept was/is wrong is what underlies DeLay's effort to get around that law and funnel money from corporations to candidates. Attempts to enforce that law and uphold that principle are the prosecutor's viewpoint.

Yes, it's ALL political--from the idea of corps buying themselves governmental power, through attempts to make laws against that, to attempts to evade the laws against it, to attempts to enforce laws against it. ALL POLITICAL.

But those of you who're defending DeLay might want to stop and think a minute. DeLay tossed down the polical gauntlet when he very loudly and publically announced his creation of TRMPAC, TRMPAC's goal (to get enough state legislators elected to redraw federal congressional districts, and cement his political party's power), TRMPAC's method (funnelling corporate money to state candidates who were on board with the redistricting plan), and then bragged about his success at it.

So far, DeLay has succeeded with his "it's all political" assertion, as if it being "political" makes it invalid, and distracting everyone into an argument about whether the prosecutor is engaging in legal nitpicking for political purposes.

So, let's return to the fundaments here: Was/is the original concept that DeLay implemented, not LEGAL, but rather, is it ethical? Is this--corporations funding campaigns for elective office--what we WANT? And are all efforts to prevent, slow or stop it therefor not just "political", but ONLY "political", and not an issue of public policy about how our government is selected?

I would hope so. I don't know much about Texas, but I've heard he has gone after both sides, but some of his prosecutions haven't gone well.

I'm willing to wait and see what happens.

I think it was clear enough. I'm learning more and more things are political. You just have to find out how and why.

Some?

More like one

But the RW must make political hay whilst they can.

Absolutely. I caught her at that. Here it is.



And unrepentent, as usual. What a lying loser.

Oh, it's not just Texas. As DeLay is fond of pointing out, 29 other states have such laws against corporate cash going to candidates for state office, and both parties routinely go through this money-laundering drill to get around those laws.

So, what's your thought? Is the law wrong? Or is trying to get around that law wrong?

Whenever everybody does it and blames the other side for doing it at the same time this type of thing is bound to happen. A stupid "drill" for a corrupt game.

So your recipe is what? Embrace corruption, and don't even try to enforce anti-corruption laws, cause after all, they're "all political"?

Are you thinking that Texas should repeal its law against corporate funding of state political campaigns, since enforcing it would "be political"?

If as you say both sides go through this drill routinely I would expect there to be a lot of indictments.

Are there? Or are they "getting around" them? Which would indicate to me they aren't breaking them, merely manipulating the system.

They are, just in general, "getting around them".

As DeLay pointed out (ad nauseum), this same money-laundering drill is going on, to a greater or lesser extent by both parties, in 29 states.

But I notice, Spot, that you still haven't replied to the central question: SHOULD corporations be funding political candidacies?

...and the hits keep on coming...



Shouldn't have bragged, Tommy-boy.

Shouldn't have bragged.

It depends on who else is funding them. Should unions be funding political campaigns?

I believe that is also illegal in Texas.

That's correct.

So is Friend Judy incorrect saying they all work around it?

Thank you.

And if or when they do contribute illegally they should be charged.

I was talking to a business representative for the local Pipefitters union. He said he is extremely careful even of any appearences of misbehavior. He said someone wanted to give him tickets to the Cubs and he turned them down. He said they were being very careful of everything they do.

Sure. Daschelle was Democratic minority leader. His wife worked for Boeing in some shady sweetheart deal. I'm sure the rightwingers have the link handy if you're interested.

Democrats lost congress in 1994 because they always sold their votes to lobbyists and the Republicans promised to return ethics to DC. I voted Nader in 2000 for that very reason.

Cubs playoff tickets maybe?

It was a month ago. Cubs in the playoffs?

Whats amazing to me is that the Reps have managed to take only 5 years to get to the levels of corruption that took Democrats 10 years to reach.

And surpass them mightily.

Corruption to the 13th power.

He's probably holding out for Bears Super Bowl tickets.

oooohhhhh right for the throat... Looks like Favre is getting whooped. So far.

I picked the Pack to lose 27-14. Had a shot at our pool by picking 10 of 13 winners wasn't enough to get to the tiebreaker. One guy went 11-13. Pretty damn good.

that is good.

more fooooootball! cya tomorrow.

No, they shouldn't, and for the most part aren't allowed to in the states with laws against corporations donating. The most recent campaign finance law specifically banned unions from donating to candidates. (But left a loophole for both corporations and unions to still participate in politics, just not by funding candidates.)



I didn't say they all work around it. I said both parties engage in this money-laundering, Reps much more than Dems. Dems and unions do it by means of trading money banned from donation directly to candidates for "educational", "issue" or (ha!) "non-partisan" voter registration drives and get out the vote activities.

It's not even Reps in general, though, who are are doing these swaps of cash-banned-for-candidates into cash-to-candidates. That's been DeLay-driven from the start, and he's been very, very public about it. DeLay (and a small group of Reps who surround him and who are presently disproportionately represented in GOP leadership, simply don't believe in the ban. The reject the principle that corporations should be banned from funding candidates, and don't believe that lobbyists should be banned from direct financial aid. And so, they've been very public, very bragging, about their efforts to find ways around the bans.

I'm sure Earle's indictments (that's now plural, he just issued indictments of DeLay for the other elements of this scheme/conspiracy) certainly ARE political, and I'm sure they ARE to a large extent motivated by personal dislike of DeLay and his bragging on his getting away with defying the law.

As noted, the entire question of whether corporations and unions (neither of which can actually vote, though they are legally defined as "persons", not organizations, with legal standing and some of the priviliges of citizens) should be able to directly fund candidates who can only be elected with votes from human beings, is a political one.

And then theres the nitty gritty of how one conducts oneself in relation to a law one believes is wrong, as DeLay believes this entire class of laws is wrong. I'm even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he's engaging in a sort of civil disobediance, openly defying it. My own problem with him is that, in whining that he's being persecuted for partisan reasons, he's attempting to weasel out of the flip side of civil disobedience: If you believe the law is wrong, you DARE them to prosecute you for it (that, at least, he's done), and then seek jury nullification.

Since you say you're not very political, jury nullification means that even though the defended has clearly done exactly what he's accused of doing, the jury acquits because they believe that the law is WRONG. They're nullifying the law by refusing to acquit, because they think the law shouldn't exist.

Did that enlighten you any?

Yes. The Dems got kicked out because they were ineffectual and corrupt, particularly in their dealings with lobbyists. And now, the the Reps, let by DeLay and his associates, have been dealing with lobbyists in ways the Dems never had the brazeness to attempt: The K Street Project.

Hence, my attempts to return us to the central question: Is this shameless involvment with lobbying and corporate funding of candidates "corruption", deserving of laws against it and prosecutions for violations/evading of those laws, or is it a valid and legitimate aspect of politics that should not HAVE laws made against it? Is defying them jaywalking and walking on the grass and spitting on the sidewalk, or is it a real crime that those who defy it should be prosecuted for?

Well, only if you think that Texas shouldn't have had laws against this, and that a Texas prosecutor specifically charged with enforcing Texas laws about political corruption shouldn't enforce Texas laws intended to curb it, and that there was nothing wrong with DeLay "working around" those laws that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Otherwise, it's a clusterfuck.

Care to share with us your opinions about whether such laws should be made, evaded, or enforced?

I do think the laws should be enforced, and I applaud Mr. Earle for having the stones to go after anyone that appears to be violating those laws, the powerful Mr. Delay included. The last comment in boldface was the end of the statement issued by Tom Delay, not a comment of mine. My apologies for the confusion.

Fair enough. I -did- think that because you bolded it, you agreed with it. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

No problem, Friend Judy. I bolded it because it struck me as absolutely ludicrous, considering who was saying it.

Good. At least we agree that its ludicrous!

Real crimes.

For your information flat-top, apparently I know more about ethics than 99% of Republicans.

Especially the apologists for the current congress and WH. All you have to do is go down the list of ethical lapses and investigations. And that doesn't even cover the investigations they've stonewalled.

You accuse me of not knowing what ethics are?

You betcha...last time I addressed this with ya you never gave me an answer.
According to you, ethics are flexible....who is to say the evil repubs are not just doin' what comes naturally...and are therefore ethical?

You want to disect the meaning and parse words. You don't want an explanation.

I know what's right and wrong. Even by their own standards Republicans come up lacking if you apply those standards in an even handed manner.

However, Republicans ARE doing what comes natural to them.

When did I say this? Situational ethics is Barto's specialty, not mine.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Jeez, that was quite a hissy fit Tom DeLay had, calling Ronnie Earle a rogue prosecutor, a partisan fanatic and an unabashed partisan zealot out for personal revenge.

Ronnie Earle? Our very own mild-mannered -- well, let's be honest, bland as toast, eternally unexciting, Mr. Understatement, Old Vanilla -- Ronnie Earle? If the rest of Tom DeLay's defense is as accurate as his description of Ronnie Earle, DeLay might as well have himself measured for a white jumpsuit right now.

For the one-zillionth time, of the 15 cases Ronnie Earle has brought against politicians over the years, 12 of them were against Democrats. Earle was so aggressive in going after corrupt Democrats, the Republicans never even put up a candidate against him all during the '80s. Partisan is not a word anyone can honestly use about Ronnie Earle, but that sure doesn't stop the TV blabbermouths. So many of them have bought the Republican spin that Earle is on a partisan witch-hunt, the watchdogs like Media Matters can hardly keep up.

On the other hand, I've never liked conspiracy charges. They are notoriously weak and often just an add-on when a prosecutor wants to make someone look bad going in: "... and he's been charged with six felonies!"

Conspiracy as a stand-alone charge is particularly hard to prove without evidence of other concrete acts. Was there a conspiracy to move corporate cash from DeLay's federal PAC to influence Texas legislative races? On the basis of what we have already known for months, that's a "Does a bear poop in the woods?" question. But as all watchers of "Law and Order" know, what anyone with common sense would conclude can be a long way from what can proved in a courtroom.

On the other hand, Earle has already had one spectacular failure trying to prosecute a high-profile Republican. His 1993 case against Kay Bailey Hutchison was a flame-out: The judge indicated in pre-trial hearings he had doubts about the admissibility of Earle's evidence, so Earle withdrew the charges -- no point if he couldn't present his evidence. The judge wasn't satisfied and directed the jury to acquit Hutchison. Hutchison had an unbeatable legal team -- Dick DeGuerin and Mike Tigar. For Earle, this is a case of once-stung.

Speaking of the aforementioned Dick DeGuerin, he is now defending Tom DeLay. Want to know how good DeGuerin is? One of his recent clients was Robert Durst, heir to a New York real estate fortune, who admitted killing and dismembering an unfortunate vic in Galveston. Durst was a suspect in a California killing at the time and had moved to Galveston posing as a deaf-mute woman.

Durst jumped bail on the Galveston charge and was arrested in Pennsylvania for stealing a chicken sandwich while carrying two guns and $38,000. DeGuerin got him acquitted on the murder charge on the grounds of self-defense, but they nailed him for the guns and tampering with evidence -- that would be dismembering the corpse. They let him slide on the chicken sandwich charge. I swear, I'm not making up any of this. That's how good Dick DeGuerin is.

If I were fool enough to give DeGuerin advice, it would be, "Don't let DeLay on the stand." The man just can't help himself -- he's just too mean, he always pushes it that step too far, like the cheap shot about Earle not coming to work unless there's a press conference on. (Ronnie Earle comes to work every day -- you can ask anyone at the county courthouse.)

That DeLay always takes things a step too far is apparent from his record. This is the man who pushed Bill Clinton's impeachment when everyone knew it would end with acquittal. He fixed his repeated troubles with the House ethics committee in typical fashion by going after the committee itself. His bludgeoning style earned him his nickname, "The Hammer."

Sometimes, but not that many, it is hard to tell the difference between playing political hardball and operating with no moral compass whatever. But in DeLay's case, we have a very long record, and what it is shows is that this is a man who has repeatedly crossed ethical and legal lines, and then claimed he was just playing hardball politics -- and that anyone who complained about it was just a partisan whiner. Whenever he is really threatened, DeLay plays the Jesus card and claims he is standing up "for a biblical worldview in everything I do and everywhere I am."

Back in 2003, when DeLay was involved in a sleazy legislative payoff to a big donor, his press secretary offered this defense, "It is wrong and unethical to link legislative activities to campaign contributions." It is precisely that upside-down quality about DeLay's bulletproof sense of moral rectitude that makes it so bizarre. Suddenly, it is not wrong or unethical to try to slip an unrelated amendment to help a campaign donor into the defense appropriations bill, it's wrong and unethical to raise questions about it.

To tell the truth, I don't think Tom DeLay is smart enough to keep getting away with this stuff.

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv

Ronnie Earle, by invoking DeLay's name in the raising of money for far-left Democrat interest groups, has shown his true colors; he is indeed a partisan prosecutor out to get DeLay, and those who claim otherwise are deluding themselves.


According to The Houston Chronicle, Earle has now crossed the line into raising money for far-left interest groups:

A newly formed Democratic political action committee, Texas Values in Action Coalition, hosted the May 12 event in Dallas to raise campaign money to take control of the state Legislature from the GOP, organizers said.
Earle, an elected Democrat, helped generate $102,000 for the organization.

In his remarks, Earle likened DeLay to a bully and spoke about political corruption and the investigation involving DeLay, the House majority leader from Sugar Land, according to a transcript supplied by Earle....

"It may help Tom DeLay establish his case that Ronnie Earle's investigation is a partisan witch hunt," said Richard Murray, a political scientist with the University of Houston.

"It clearly fuels the perception that his investigation is politically motivated. It was probably not a wise move," said Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who heads the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics.

Earle has a history of vicious partisan hackery:

EARLE'S LAST FORAY INTO politicized prosecution in 1993 turned into a huge embarrassment when he went after Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who was then Texas Treasurer. Earle made a series of trumped-up charges, including that the demure Hutchison had physically assaulted an employee. Earle dropped the case during the trial.


Defenders of Earle like to point to the red herring that Earle has prosecuted Democrats, as well as Republicans, over the years. What they don't mention is that those Democrats were clearly guilty of serious violations (the cases were open and shut), and those prosecutions happened decades ago, when Texas was essentially a one-party state (controlled almost entirely by Democrats).


The real issue here is a failure on the part of Democrats to cope with the loss of political power they held in Texas (and elsewhere) for so many generations. Because Democrats have been so ineffective at the ballot box, and because DeLay is, in part, responsible for that failure, he must be destroyed. http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/05/o...nnie_earle.html