This is about Bush circumventing the will of the people.

Democrats won the Congress, fair and square. They have the power to approve Bush's appointees.

It is Bush who is purposely ignoring the Constitution, or maybe he is just unaware of Congress' role government.

If Clinton had done this, the outrage!

You think Bush is your King.

Wade

Matt: Would Democrats really be that much happier if Fox decided he would just take his salary?

I guess you have to ask yourself... why is Fox willing to do this gig pro bono? When you answer that question, then you might understand why Dems would be much happier if he took a salary.

The dems would be happier with Fox taking a salary because they can tax it. Nothing more.

This is just more of the same old tired rhetoric from the left.

Its like listening to a broken record hearing these liberals talking points. What do they do, e-mail them out so the lemmings will know what to post? Sure seems that way. Teddy Kenedys emails read just like the leftists who post here. Go figure.

"Blah blah blah blah; blah blah; i.e., blah blah, inter alia, blah; e.g., blah blah blah; ergo, Bush is bad.

- Wade"

Isn't it amazing how the libs keep talking about not following the will of the people, yet when the Republicans were the majority and Bush had beat the snot out of John Kerry (who by the way was in Vietnam) they didn't give a care about the will of the people?

They win a small victory - its a mandate, the lose big its no mandate for the other side.

As to winning fair and square... there were a number of elections that were very close. There were also a number of dems who won because they talked like conservatives. Funny, when liberals have to hide their true colors in order to get elected that just doesn't seem like they care about honesty.

Also, given that the Dems always harped on "fixed" elections, what happened this time? I guess the Dems finally got their fraud to work? So, because of the greater good thats all right? Or maybe there was no voter fraud, no disenfrancised voters, in 06, or 04, or 00.

Silly arguement saying Bush doing his job is thwarting the will of the people, cause Bush was elected to office twice by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and the dems have done nothing but work to undermine that.

Come on Mark,

I'm kinda surprised even you are defending this move. Bush is stretching the bounds of our Constitution by abusing ambiguous language.

First of all, the Vacancy didn't "happen" during a recess; it was pre-existing.

Second, Bush is only showing his inability to be bi-partisan and his understanding that Congress has him against the ropes by first admitting defeat and withdrawing Fox's name and then sneaking him in the back door while they're gone.

Third, I know Belgium is a hotbed for US interests, but do you really want a man who mindlessly signs away tens of thousands of dollars of his own money, only because "someone asked" and "other people were doing it too", without knowing what for to be in any sort of authority position?

I know it is too much to ask this White House to respect the very ideals on which this nation was founded, but to retreat to such a position as they have is a new low.

On the other hand, Bush's other high profile recess appointment sure worked out great. Bolton really made a difference in restructuring the UN bureaucracy AND in shaping the US's North Korea policy.

While I could give a crap about Fox, it is the greater theme of back-channel governing that is disappointing.

OT-I was wondering if you were going to do a story on the revelation (not for some of us) that the US coalition is protecting the terrorist group that blew up the girl's school in Iran a few months ago? I've mentioned the MEK here before; of course to deaf ears, but now there is proof that our forces are supporting this terrorist group and aiding in their logistics; despite being a terrorist group on State's list.

Oh, you're not? (Shock)

And goat; since you want to bring up electoral history, remember Bush only won the court case in '00, Gore won the popular vote. I have personally moved on...you should too. Stop making excuses for the GOP loss in November.

But by your logic you have to remember; if dems didn't win on their Iraq policy in November 06, bush didn't win on his Iraq policy in November 04. Most voters noted gay marriage and abortion as their deciding factors.

"the libs keep talking about not following the will of the people, yet when the Republicans were the majority and Bush had beat the snot out of John Kerry (who by the way was in Vietnam) they didn't give a care about the will of the people?"

This whole "will of the people" BS needs to stop on both sides. The purpose of the minority party, whether it be Republican or Democrat, is to hold the majority party politically accountable...whoever won the last election is irrelevant to their function for that reason.

"There were also a number of dems who won because they talked like conservatives. Funny, when liberals have to hide their true colors in order to get elected that just doesn't seem like they care about honesty."

To be fair, Democrats were only "conservative" on the social issues, like abortion and gay marriage, which in most Democrats' eyes rank lower in importance to the war and the economy. The Democrats that won in those very close districts generally took hard positions against Bush on the war and on the economy.

"Silly arguement saying Bush doing his job is thwarting the will of the people, cause Bush was elected to office twice by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and the dems have done nothing but work to undermine that."

I repeat what I said about the role of the minority party in maintaining accountability in a democracy. Your party is doing the same thing, as well it should.

Gar Wood

Democrats' Playbook: Whatever President Bush does, or doesn't do, run to the media and charge that Bush "acted illegally". Repeat ad infinitum.

Democrats' Playbook: Whatever the Bush Administration does, or doesn't do, run to the media and charge that the Bush Administration "acted illegally". Repeat ad infinitum.

Democrats' Playbook: Whatever Republicans do, or don't do, run to the media and charge that Republicans "acted illegally". Repeat ad infinitum.

With "friends" like these who needs enemies?

This has to be the worst do nothing congress in american history. God bless you President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.

Wade if you got any dumber we could use you as a weather rock.

Anillo,

Geesh, you guys on the left would complain if Bush said the sky was blue...its Belgium, for crying out loud...

Bush is just doing what he's done from the beginning.. reward his monied supporters, and avoid oversite in whatever way he thinks he can.

Nothing new.

What's new the past six years is the surfeit of blind partisan Republicans who mistakenly equate allegiance with dear leader to conservatism.

You think Bush is your King.

So what, Wade--you think Pee-Wee Herman is your king. What are you doing with that tissue?

"Blah blah blah blah; blah blah; i.e., blah blah, inter alia, blah; e.g., blah blah blah; ergo, Bush is bad.

- Wade"

JPL, I couldn't have blah'd it better myself--ain't Wade a hoot?

Bush is just doing what he's done from the beginning.. reward his monied supporters, and avoid oversite in whatever way he thinks he can.

Your next statement, minnowhead, was "nothing new." I couldn't agree more--Presidents and other elected officials, from both sides of the aisle, do this all the time. You slipped up and told the truth for once, bud. DAV may give you an extra hug tonight. And btw, it's "oversight," not "oversite." You libs sure are lazy, with that phonetic typing. Grow up, boy.

Geesh, you guys on the left would complain if Bush said the sky was blue...

Ain't that the truth! Libs would bitch if you hung 'em with a new rope...

...its Belgium, for crying out loud...

Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 6, 2007 03:12 AM

Somewhere along the line Republicans lost their principles. That is what this is about. I don't think Fox is setting Belgium up for a Neocon military invasion, but the Constitution provides for the Senate to approve such appointments. Once again Bush is chipping away at our most precious document. Recess appointments were not to be abused this way. If Bush was doing this because of principal I could understand, but Fox is simply a campaign contributor hack whose has no principles as indicated by his support for Swift-Boaters who smear our veterans.

By not allowing a Senate vote, at least we wont have hear that up or down vote argument from the Repugs anymore. Bush just put another fork in another RNC talking point. He gave the Dems the Congress and within two years he will give them the Presidency.

President Bush formally withdrew the nomination.

You CANNOT-- legally-- recess-appointment someone who does not have a pending confirmation. That's the law. Period. The President knows this; he does not care.

Is there nothing the President could do that you would find fault with?

Federal law prohibits “payment of services” for certain recess appointments. However, if the recess appointee in question agrees that he or she will take an unpaid position and not sue the government at a later date for compensation, then the appointment can go forward, at least as the White House sees it. …

Federal law prohibits “voluntary service” in cases where the position in question has a fixed rate of pay, as an ambassadorship does.

So what Bush is doing is "stretching ths Constitution" but judges who say there is a constitutional right to abortion, gay marriage, gay sodomy are not?

You 'Rats will politicize everything and screech from the highest dung heap that anything Bush does is illegal and somehow subverts the people's "will".

Your knight in shining cum stains had 139 recess apointments in 8 years and W has had 167. Wow, big difference there.

Reagan had 243 in 8 years due to the fact he had to operate with a congress controlled by the other side (were they then bending to the will of the people since Reagan won HUGE majorities by today's standards?). Bush I (God bless him) had 77.

So, it's politics as usual. A sitting president uses recess appointment to fill a vacancy because Congress is acting the fool. The fact you guys are bleating about it is, frankly, embarrassing.

Grow up and focus on something that actually might make a difference. Here's a start, how about helping us kill terrorists so they can't kill our children? That a good start?

Matt,

One thing I would like to rehash is the group "swift boat veterans for TRUTH." Why, oh why don't some of these people get the TRUTH part? They stand for the TRUTH. Why don't some people get the fact that they were there, they saw and witnessed Kerry's folly.

Let the TRUTH be told. Some may say that Kerry was there, in the field, on a boat, with a gun, with real live bullets flying around him, and at him. How are we to know if this is the TRUTH? .

From here out, I'm putting all my faith in the Swift Boat Veterans FOR TRUTH. It says TRUTH in their name.

Given the same set of circumstances I have full confidence our Commander in Chief would have been there. Brave and heroic, wielding the sword of righteousness, smiting those who would do us harm.

O the hypocrisy, Raker!

One great day, one great day, it will catch up with you. Rest assured.

Jeremiah

Jeremiah

I think Jesus might be getting a little pissed off at being hijacked to represent your cause for death & destruction. Put away your war-like ambitions, Jeremiah, and be an avocate for the love & peace He preached to His followers. Easter is a time for new beginnings. You could turn a new page in your life and be true to the teachings of Christ. Bring the light in and cast away that evil darkness you are mired in.

Where are the Warriors for Christ, CO?

Where are those who will stand firm against the left-wing hypocrits in a dying Western civilization?

"Rise up O sleepers, and Christ will shine on you!"

Jeremiah

"You CANNOT -- legally -- recess-appointment someone who does not have a pending confirmation. That's the law. Period. The President knows this; he does not care."

What's the source for this extraordinary claim of yours, Jeremy Wilcox? As far as I can see, the only relevant part of the U.S Constitution (i.e., Article II, Section 2) says NOTHING about the President's needing a "pending confirmation" in order to make a recess appointment. That section provides as follows:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

Nowhere does this section say that Bush needed a "pending confirmation" in order to recess-appoint Sam Fox. So what's the basis for your claim?

If Christ were walking the earth today, do you think He would be endorsing pre-emptive strikes, kick-ass diplomacy and hatred against our fellowmen, Jeremiah? Since His message was 'love' perhaps you would be cursing Him as a left-wing hypocrit, also.

"Rise up O sleepers, and Christ will shine on you".

Good advice, you need to rise & wake up to the B.S. you have been fed and learn to see past the propaganda.

CO,

You see through a glass dimly. It is the democrats who are feeding the propaganda. Accusing our own military of 'torturing' known murderers, if you could call water boarding or playing loud music torture. The left extremists also want to hang a police officer for defending himself and his comrades in the line of duty, for shooting at a man who was driving a vehicle at him...

If you can't see the propaganda in those things, you really are asleep.

So the only one who needs to wake up is you!

The left are trying to destroy this nation with everything they have in them. They want to cut tails and run and hide. I guess because they think they will be admonished by the terrorists and given a throne of a royalty, a crown, a royal cloak, and a big scepter (fancy stick) to wave around and smight people over the head with...

It may sound like a nice fairy tale to live out, but it ain't gonna be that way. The Taliban will slit throats every chance they get, and they won't care who it is. They want world domination, and from the way it's looking, they might have it if the democrats take over. The jihadists are endorsing Pelosi, and that's not a very good sign at all. God help us...

But anyways ... I wanted to say this before I go.

A great man once said 'Christians are like unto stained glass windows. They sparkle and shine in direct sunlight. But their true beauty is only seen in darkness, from the light within.'

Jeremiah has that light from within, and it's been shining a lot lately. He's been through a lot in the past couple months, and he knows the truth. And it isn't him who needs to wake up, it's you.

JPL,
How soon we've forgotten Bill Lan Lee.

Lucas

It is admirable of you to protect your brother. I am sorry to hear that there has been trouble in his life lately. His faith should be a great comfort to him, and yes, perhaps one day, he will get to know the truth.

"How soon we've forgotten Bill Lan Lee."

Huh??? Are you saying that Clinton's recess appointment of Lee violated the Constitution? If not, what Lee got to do with my post?

CO,

My faith is a Great comfort to me, CO, No two ways about it, because without the Lord's help to sustain me, I would most likely not be here today, but, when I see my country being overran by a bunch of people who have no idea what they're doing by making recession for the benefit of terrorists, by making way for a bunch of illegals to infiltrate our great country who have no right to, by silencing the Christian movement, by murdering innocent little children right out of their mother's womb, by giving homosexuals the same rights as ordinary legally married husband and wife citizens, by creating tax burdens, by making it a right to burn the American flag, the right to create anarchy in our school systems through leftist ideological thinking, I get terribly upset and disturbed.

It should be a great concern to all the American people that we are becoming increasingly vulnerable to a bunch of illegals.......

That Westerners are not fighting like they should.........This was once a great country, yeah, way back in say, Washingtons time, yeah back say, two, three hundred years ago.

Why are we a nation in decline? because Christians have consistently allowed the Liberals to have their way, and it's high time that they started saying something, and STOP GIVING DEMOCRATS THEIR WAY!!!FIGHT BACK!!!

That's the only way American will ever be great again is if Christians will fight like they Great D.L. Moody and F.G. Smith and other Great Christian pioneers once did!!

So, let me make this clear, CO...as long as I am living and able, and God help me, I will stand up for what I believe, no matter the cost. Because what I have to say is far more important than what I feel like, and that is what every Christian should think like.

So, CO, May this coming day when we celebrate the trimphant resurrection of our Lord, may you be blessed by His glorious Grace!!

Jeremiah

JPL,
Uh, neither? I'm saying that the President has the authority to make (controversial) recess appointments.

Lee was far more controversial because his appointment was to head the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department despite his very public advocacy of racial quotas and preferences.

Bane

CO,

I appreciate the admonishment, but I'm not trying to protect Jeremiah. Defend him maybe, yes, that's just what we do for each other as brothers. But I was trying to get the point across that, there is no 'one day' to him seeing the truth. He knows it already.

He's very spirited in telling it, and I can tell a lot of people from the other side of the aisle get ruffled feathers about it. I sometimes get mad at their responses, but it's all cool... We over-look it and just keep chippin' away.

But anyways, I'll close on a good note.

Happy Easter, and I hope that you'll remember to think about what Christ did for you and the reason for this season. May God bless you and your family, and their families too.

Jeremiah, Lucas,

It's good to see both of you are still here fighting.

I've been spending more of my time searching for sites working on strategy and actions, or trying to organize their readers to do more to fight the Liberals rather than just "talk", but so far I haven't had much luck finding any. I feel like I'm spinning my wheel writing comments just to have the Liberals clutter and muddy them with their same misleading propaganda and lies.

Not only do Republicans and Conservatives need better and stronger leadership, but we need to start organizing and working together much more than we have in the past. The various Republican and Conservative organizations and groups should talk more to each other, work together, and coordinate their efforts and resources on those areas where they can agree. Blogs could do more to coordinate with each other and provide some direction to their readers. We need to make better use of blogs, but we also need to move beyond the blogs to reach those who don't spend much if any time on the Internet. I think that even the talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, and others could coordinate with each other and instruct their listeners on actions they could take.

There are many other things which could be done, but aren't. We need leadership at all levels and not just at the top!

AAR

Democrats might do better to worry about whether Nancy Pelosi committed a crime that could land her in jail!

Robert Turner writes April 6, 2007 in The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.Com...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

"Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?"

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad..."

"The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, 'without authority of the United States,' to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any 'disputes or controversies with the United States...'"

"Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble."

"...the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

"...Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution."

"The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers...the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: 'Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.'" (emphasis mine)

"... [Pelosi's] position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate."

"...not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president ... Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized..."

"The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law."

I think we need to start some Congressional hearings and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Nancy Pelosi's actions to if she should be indicted and jailed!!!

AAR

Sounds good AAR, but the problem is the dems will try to make the republicans who went with her the scapegoats. She will never even get censured by Congress, but they may lose their positions. Atleast in the dem/lib world it can't be Pelosi's fault if the law was broken - she has good intentions.

As for the recess appointment of Fox, good for Bush. Kerry would have blocked the appointment of anyone who contributed to the Swift boat group. Guess we know who was telling the truth, because I believe Kerry is protesting a bit too much about old news.

"I'm saying that the President has the authority to make (controversial) recess appointments. Lee was far more controversial because his appointment was to head the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department despite his very public advocacy of racial quotas and preferences."

Thanks, glad you explained, it was a little hard to tell where you were coming from in your first post. Turns out we're on exactly the same page.

"Isn't it amazing how the libs keep talking about not following the will of the people, yet when the Republicans were the majority and Bush had beat the snot out of John Kerry (who by the way was in Vietnam) they didn't give a care about the will of the people?

They win a small victory - its a mandate, the lose big its no mandate for the other side."

Well, as for not following the will of the people, that doesn't alarm us Libs nearly as much as not following the Constitutional framers' intentions. Circumventing the Congress destroys the balance between the branches, which destroys the Constitutional ideals. As for the will of the people, Rep.'s are guilty of the same thing you're calling Dem.'s for: They followed the will of the people , but aren't doing it now.

And GWB did NOT beat the snot out of JFKerry. He won by some pathetic margin of 2.5%, and the Rep.'s called that a "mandate". The last time Rep.'s had a sweeping victory and a mandate, was '94, aka 3.25 presidential terms ago.

Oh. You're right. JFKerry was in Vietnam, unlike GWB, whose father had to pull a few strings to get him out of the draft.
That's the difference btwn Iraq and Vit-nam: GWB had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

w00t

Hey, AAR. Isn't it amazing that you hate peace in the middle east so much that you're trying to get Pelosi landed in jail for conducting peace talks?
Well, you are the same people who got us into Iraq.

w00t

w00tGUY,

Do you believe we should follow the Constitution?

Do you believe the Constitution means the same thing yesterday, as it does today, as it should tomorrow... until and unless it is Amended by the people through the Amendment process mandated by the Constitution itself?

Do you believe we should follow the intent of the Constitution and any Amendments as they were intended when they were written and ratified... until Amended by the people through the Amendment process prescribed by the Constitution itself?

Do you believe judges should change the meaning and intent of the Constitution and our laws by their rulings -- often by a single vote -- and in effect Amend the Constitution and our laws by their rulings?

Do you believe judges should be permitted to change the meaning of the Constitution and our laws based on their views, based on what they think is best at the time they make their ruling, based on what they think is acceptable to society at the time they make their decision, and change the meaning again in the future based on what they think is best at that time?

Do you know that the role and responsibility to make our laws was assigned to Congress by the Constitution?

Do you know what an activist judge is and does?

Do you know that an activist judge believes is their RIGHT and DUTY to reinterpret, change, and in effect TO AMEND the meaning and intent of the Constitution and the law with THEIR RULING -- as THEY DECIDE is BEST at the time they make their ruling?

Do you believe the Constitution gives or intended to give judges the role, responsibility, or right to make our laws and Amend the Constitution?

Do you believe we should appoint activist law-giver judges who believe it is their duty and right to re-interpret the Constitution and our laws based on THEIR VIEWS and what THEY THINK IS RIGHT -- even if that is different from what was intended when the Constitution and laws were written, approved, and ratified?

Do you really put your trust and Constitutional rights and guarantees in judges -- to Amend the Constitution as they determine is best for you -- or do you believe you and the people are the ones to make those changes through the Amendment process mandated by the Constitution?

AAR

w00tGUY,

And your DEMOCRATS are the same ones who, by their WORDS, ACTIONS, and DEEDS...

...Have provided aid, comfort, and encouragement to the very terrorists our troops are fighting!

...Have encouraged the terrorists to kill more of our American troops and Iraqi families to support the Democrat's efforts, goals, and election!

...Have undermined the efforts of our government and our military to defeat the terrorists, secure, and stabilize Iraq!

...Have encouraged the terrorists to continue fighting, to continue their terrorism, to continue killing our American troops, to continue killing Iraqi families!

...Have told the terrorists that IF THEY WILL continue fighting... IF THEY WILL continue killing American soldiers... IF THEY WILL continue killing Iraqi families... IF THEY CAN just HOLD ON and fight A LITTLE LONGER... THEN...

DEMOCRATS WILL DEFEAT AMERICA FOR THEM and hand terrorists the victory that only DEMOCRATS can deliver!!!

Why would terrorists surrender and stop fighting? Why should terrorists stop their killing? DEMOCRATS HAVE TOLD THEM the DEMOCRATS are working hard to support and accomplish the MUTUAL GOAL of TERRORISTS and DEMOCRATS -- the defeat and surrender of America's military -- to deliver Iraq to the terrorists to use for their new homeland, base of operation, and training grounds -- funded by Iraq's oil reserves!

How much sooner might the Iraqi war have ended IF the DEMOCRATS had NOT encouraged the terrorists to begin and continue their killing and terrorism... as Democrats are still doing?

How many hundreds of billions of dollars might have been saved IF DEMOCRATS had NOT encouraged terrorists to continue their terrorism and killing rather than concede defeat and surrender?

How MANY American soldiers and Iraqi families HAVE DIED or been severely injured BECAUSE of the DEMOCRAT'S words, deeds, and actions? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? More?

AAR