Psychic CSI - Lefties Catch Coulter Bending Space-Time!

Here is a shocking story from the Times:

Justice Recalls Treats Laced With Poison

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 — A discussion of recent threats to judges’ safety, at a bar association conference in suburban Dallas last week, became startlingly specific when Sandra Day O’Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice, recounted that each justice had received in the mail “a wonderful package of home-baked cookies” that contained “enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court.”

Justice O’Connor’s remarks were reported on Thursday in The Star-Telegram in Fort Worth.

Although the episode was not publicly disclosed when it occurred in April 2005, it had a public, although little-noticed, denouement last month when the sender of the poisoned cookies was sentenced in federal court here to 15 years in prison.

The sender, Barbara Joan March of Bridgeport, Conn., pleaded guilty to 14 counts of “mailing injurious articles.” The 14 recipients included the nine justices; the chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the director and deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The packages, containing either candy or baked goods, were laced with rat poison.

All mail received at the Supreme Court is screened, and the tainted packages never reached the justices, said Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer. The danger posed by the packages was immediately apparent. Each contained a typewritten letter stating either, “I am going to kill you,” or, “We are going to kill you,” and adding, “This is poisoned.”

The letters carried various return addresses of people who had earlier connections with Ms. March, including seven who attended college with her. The F.B.I. determined that Ms. March wrote and sent the letters, typing a number of them on a typewriter at a public library near her home.

Pretty ghastly.  But let's see how some prominent lefty sites react - here is Steven D at the Booman Tribune:

Remember Ann Coulter's Joke About Rat Poison And Justice Stevens?

It wasn't funny then, and it's even less funny now:

And following a Times excerpt, we get this conclusion:

This is what you get when one party makes a concerted effort to demonize judges and our judicial system.  I can't wait to see how Michelle Malkin, et alia, explain this one away.

Over at Orcinus, David Neiwert strikes the same creative notes:

Home to roost

Have you noticed how conservatives -- you know, the folks big on "personal responsibility" -- squeal like little mandrakes whenever someone calls attention to their culpability in engaging in irresponsible rhetoric that specifically encourages violent and criminal behavior? Especially when the chickens come home to roost?

...And anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that there's a causal connection there. It may not be a matter of legal culpability, but there is a larger moral culpability at issue here that is inescapable.

Now comes today's news that someone sent a batch of poisoned cookies to the Supreme Court:

The news: Each justice on the United States Supreme Court received in the mail "a wonderful package of home-baked cookies" that contained "enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court."

Which, I'm sure the Rick Morans of the world will tell us, has no possible connection to the following remark from Ann Coulter earlier this year:

"We need to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."

I am not Rick Morans and I would never attempt to encroach on his territory, but here we go - there is no causal connection.  Both Steven D, in his own comments, and Mr. Neiwert, in an UPDATE, acknowledge a tiny flaw in their cause-effect scenario - let's hand the mike to Mr. Neiwert:

NOTE: Yes, it's true that the poisoned cookies were sent in 2005, and Coulter's remark was in January of this year [2006]. The point is this: Coulter is one of the leading luminaries in a sustained program of demonization against liberals and government generally -- including so-called "judicial activists" -- for several years now.

Yes, well, whatever.  Cookies were also sent to the chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, and Air Force;  and the director and deputy director of the FBI - has Ms. Coulter specifically, or other righties generally, been demonizing them?

Don't answer!  We can do even better than that in demolishing this particular fact-free edifice.

Let me first applaud teri, commenting at Wizbang, who offered  this:

Probably her real aim was to cause trouble for the people whose return addresses she used. If she just sent threatening notes and unpoisoned cookies, it would not have made enough trouble for her former acquaintences.

Right the first time!  And why do I say that?  Well, unlike my friends in the reality-based community who can simply see evil in the world and know it is caused by righties, I am stuck with Google and Pacer (the US Court search system), and other such tedious time-wasters.

So let's check the sentencing memorandum (8 page .pdf) for Ms. Barbara Joan March.  This starts at the bottom of page six:

Third, the defendant's conduct does not appear to have been motivated by any personal, political or professional animosity toward the intended recipients of the letters. Rather, interviews with the purported senders of the letters, as well as factors cited in the presentence investigation report, suggest that the defendant's conduct likely was motivated by a misplaced anger toward the purported senders of the letters, former friends and colleagues who in the defendant's mind somehow had abandoned or wronged her.1 See Presentence Investigation Report at ¶88. The fact that the defendant chose to mail the letters to high-level public officials in a misguided attempt to cause more harm to the purported senders has increased her sentence by approximately five years.2

Any questions?  This DoJ press release provides a quick summary of the case as well.  From the sentencing memorandum i see that Ms. March spent much of the past twenty years in prison and has previously engaged in bizarre, violent behavior.

Just by the way, I welcome suggestions for creative spellings and re-phrasings of "clown show" - I am really at a loss for words here, but I do feel as if I should put a tag on this fine effort by David N and Steven D.

Comments

[lurker]

Rick Moran discussed an incident where a conservative blogger sent letters filled with white powder to certain democrats. He wasn't happy that Michelle Malkin did not mention this guy.

Anyone read this story?

[David Neiwert]

Clown show?

If you're looking for a clown show, Tom, try looking in the mirror.

If you're not interested in the reality that folks on the right regularly, and thoughtlessly, discuss eliminating liberals and inflicting violence on them; call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies; if you're not interested in the rather common-sensical notion that this kind of rhetoric eventually gets acted upon in the real world -- well, you're just not interested in reality.

And judging from all those smug remarks about "reality based" bloggers (not to mention your toss-off "whatever"), that seems abundantly clear.

[TexasToast]

How dare you you call Fort Worth "surburban Dallas" - regardless of the spelling! ;)

[TexasToast]

Seriously, David is correct. Words are powerful.

[JJ]

David, dear man, you miss the oddness of the accusation that is responded to.

At any rate, don't believe that your take on "whatever" excuses the reality-based from accountability.

Plus, saying that some on the right make mistaken judgments and therefore the post says "not interested in reality" is a strange piece of bogus argument all of itself.

[Paul Zrimsek]

We don't have to decide anything about the creative spellings and re-phrasings right now, do we? Neiwert's clearly a weasel first and a clown second.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Not to suggest that demonization of judges is never a problem.

[topsecretk9]

--If you're not interested in the reality that folks on the right regularly, and thoughtlessly, discuss eliminating liberals and inflicting violence on them; call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies; if you're not interested in the rather common-sensical notion that this kind of rhetoric eventually gets acted upon in the real world -- well, you're just not interested in reality.--

OH Puuuuullleezz....Wah Wah...here is a kleenex...just need to win the dumb hicks with guns, god and ?....you guys - Liberals - have demonized conservatives to no end...

GOP pro-religion, against abortion, guns ect...?

Extremist.

Newly elected Dems - pro-religion, against abortion, guns ect...?

Moderate.

Meanwhile, name me the last fantasy film GOP'er produced assassinating Clinton, or as Rich McEnrore reminds...

New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi introduced Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a Queens College commencement ceremony as someone who would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he thought he could get away with it."

I think Kerry said he'd do this with one stone if he could.

[jerry]

So I'll guess that you're supporting Anne Coulter but opposed to the generalized sending of poisoned cookies (sending to Justice Stevens would be acceptible)?

[Anonymous]

Left wing nut ball threatens Bush, guess its the Liberals bloggers fault:

Elk Grove Man Indicted for Threats against President Bush
Published: November 3, 2006
SACRAMENTO-- United States Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced today that a federal grand jury returned a ten-count indictment, yesterday, charging Michael Lee Braun, 51, of Elk Grove, with one count of threatening the President of the United States, one count of sending threatening communications to an individual, and eight counts of providing false information and perpetrating hoaxes.

This case is the product of an extensive investigation coordinated by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, comprised of federal, state, and local law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, United States Postal Inspection Service, and Sacramento Metro Fire.

According to Assistant United States Attorney Ellen V. Endrizzi, who is prosecuting the case, the indictment alleges that Braun sent a letter on March 7, 2006 threatening to kill President George W. Bush. The indictment also alleges that Braun sent a letter on June 6, 2006 to Tom Sullivan, a KFBK radio personality, that threatened to kill his family. Both letters also contained an unknown, white powder that Braun claimed was “poison” and a “death powder.” The remaining eight counts of the indictment allege that Braun sent letters containing a white powder to various hotels, organizations, and political figures as a hoax, with the intent that the recipients of those letters would believe that the powder was anthrax or some other poison. Laboratory analysis confirmed that in each instance the powder was non-toxic. """

I pronounce all liberals GUILTY!

[ajacksonian]

I do not adhere to *any* labels save those that give definition to actions for others. This woman's ACTIONS are despicable in the extreme and she should be held personally accountable for such.

Putting labels on INDIVIDUALS for ideas is an attempt to restrict not only your mode of thought but to then use anything *else* that adheres to that label to use AGAINST the individual. That is dishonorable. It is an attempt at thought control.

When I see *anyone* on any part of the political spectrum to attempting to apply LABELS to IDEAS and then purport that some ACTIONS are linked to those IDEAS even when the ACTION is not carried out by the speaker of the IDEA, I find that repulsive. If you like to use that as a paradigm to slander individuals with the ACTIONS of others, then do be prepared to have your OWN political philosophy *linked* to those purporting similar and taking ACTIONS on their own which may or may not be driven by such philosophy or ideology.

The central basis of Western thought is that the Individual is absolutely responsible for their ACTIONS. In the United States we put forth that even the most reprehensible of IDEAS should be allowed so that they may be diminished and demeaned and attacked so as to have their failings show up. Attack Ann Coulter for her WORDS but if she is not 'in the know' about the ACTIONS of another to have actually tried to carry out that IDEA, then you are using a non-causal, non-substantive LINK between the two.

To then spread that over an entire spectrum of thought which covers a wide swath of ideas and concepts and purport it to be held commonly amongst such is ALSO despicable. It is tarring people unjustly as INDIVIDUALS with ACTIONS they have not explicitly supported or taken part in.

I fully support that individuals are fully and absolutely responsible for their ACTIONS or in their explicit support for the ACTIONS of others. And, as a Jacksonian that must mean that Responsibilities come FIRST, Due Process means to address actions SECOND, and my individual Rights are to be used to uphold the First and Second before I put them to my own, personal use. That is how civilization is built, supported and protected by Individuals. By tearing at individuals with Group Labels and then sticking anything one dislikes to that Label you are dishonoring that compact between We the People as it forms disunity amongst the People, follows no Due Process and is a diminishment of the Rights of those that are being pre-judged without *any* factual basis due to their individual actions. That latter demeans individuals in many areas, including one-self if you are the Great Judge of Who Gets What Label for which you then castigate them. Even if they have done nothing, supported nothing and in no way have any identification with the entire label or even a substantial part of it. By unjustly applying such a label you are diminishing your OWN conception of what is possible for individuals and restricting your OWN rights by not supporting them for OTHERS.

But then that viewpoint of mine is, apparently, not held by most of the polarized political factions who feel free to attach labels, demean what it means to be a cognizant individual, impugn character at third-hand with those that are not even supported by those they are impugning, and trying to squash the Freedoms that we enjoy by pre-limiting them to certain channels in which they can be attacked. Some how those things do *not* appear to me as attempting to "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility.." which are things We the People support doing in order to HAVE a United States of America. For those are OUR responsibilities as a People and Government is just *one* thing we do to sustain them. We are still fully, and completely accountable for upholding these responsibilities held in common outside of limited Government. That is what responsibilities *are*: things that guide one in the just use of one's actions.

But then, I do think strange thoughts.

[Anonymous]

David Niewert says: ""call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies; if you're not interested in the rather common-sensical notion that this kind of rhetoric eventually gets acted upon in the real world -- well, you're just not interested in reality."""

Well let me see, liberals all claim to love and suport the military, yet when these instances arise they can't seem to explain their actions.

1. John Kerry claimed our troops terrorize women and children?

2. John Kerry claimed if you don't try and get educated and are basically lazy you end up having to fight the countries wars.

3. Dick Durbin claimed our soldiers act like Hitler or PolPot.

4. The left is constantly trying to get our Armed Services kicked off college campuses..why?
Liberals have physically attacked recruiters on college campuses.

5. San Franciso just voted to kicked out ROTC from the schools? Why?

6. Every year when the Democrats controlled congress they had a vote on cutting the military by 50% across the board.

Is this supposed to get us to believe that the left embraces and supports our military?

If you don't want your patriotism or support of our military questioned, then by all means condemn these actions as anti-military and especially hurtful to the military in the middle of the GWOT.

[hoony]

It's not a reality based community. It's a cartoon based community.

[Anonymous]

In addition, two Democrat Presidential candidiates, Clinton and Kerry both made statements about how they loathed the military....did that hurt them with their core voters?? Absolutely not!

And let's not forget Daily Kos's wonderful 'SCREW THEM' comment about former military guys who went to help bring stability to Iraq...it was quite the eulogy.

[Tom Maguire]

If you're looking for a clown show, Tom, try looking in the mirror.

Why, are you standing behind me? I'm not that paranoid!

If you're not interested in the reality that folks on the right regularly, and thoughtlessly, discuss eliminating liberals and inflicting violence on them; call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies; if you're not interested in the rather common-sensical notion that this kind of rhetoric eventually gets acted upon in the real world -- well, you're just not interested in reality.

Yeah, yeah. How many conservative speakers are never even scheduled at college campuses because the security situation would be hopeless? As a specific example, who started the Minuteman brawl at Columbia? Why not put up a post or two about left-inspired violence? Or are you seriously imagining it is only the right that spawns this? (I presume you are not that detached, but who knows.)

Help me out - do you stand by your interpretation of this rat story as an example of right-inspired violence, or do you admit it is a weak launching point for a rant about violent-onciting righties?

And do you think we shouldf all turn around and write "Here is an incident that had nothing to do with Ann Coulter, but let's trash her anyway"? Pretty coherent, David.

[Tom Maguire]

David is correct. Words are powerful.

C'mon, Tex - whoever said they weren't? This case is simply not the proof of it.

One might just as coherently argue that this case highlights the problem with television violence, or elaborate serial-killer novels, or the perilds of maintaining a state-run postal service.

Or maybe this incident proves that Bush Lied in Iraq - why not?

Please - link the evidence and the arguments, 'kay? Or let me know if that sets the bar too high.

[Anonymous]

In addition, its not just negative comments about our military, but also at a minimum nuetral and sometimes supportive of our military's enemies.

Howard Dean thought the military used too much force on Uday and Qusay Hussein.

Howard Dean thought Osama Bin Laden might not be guilty and deserved the benefit of the doubt, he thought we shouldn't 'pre-judge' him as if declaring war against soemone is a 'prejudgement'.

Then there's Democrat Dingell who says:
Dingell proclaimed himself neutral. "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel." Asked, "You're not against Hezbollah?" Dingell answers, "No..."
REMEMBER HEZBOLLAH HAS KILLED HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS, yet Dingell can't seem to find it in his heart to take sides between a terroist group that killed hundeds of American and an elected democrat country.

Any

[Tom Maguire]

So I'll guess that you're supporting Anne Coulter

Interesting guess, jerry - the basis would be what - that I didn't condemn her for an icident to which she had no connection.

Hey, if it helps: my cat got stuck in a tree last night and meowed for hours - 'effen Ann Coulter!

Better?

[Anonymous]

Remeber the Kennedy assasination? I bet that happened because of all of Coulters'
anti-Kennedy, pro Mary Jo living rants.

[Anonymous]

I guess what the left is saying, That Ann Coulter and the others are responsible for attacks on Liberals then they must also believe that the liberal politicians and press attacks on our troops are causing the troops to be attacked and killed by the Islamic terrorists.

So it isn't our troops being in Iraq that causes terrorism, but liberal anti-military and anti-American commentary.

[Tom Maguire]

For folks who are intent on remaiming fact-free: an equally plausible alternative view is that Ms. March was horrified that Bush was "selected, not elected" in 2000 and then led us into war and repressed our civil liberties - hence the targetting of the FBI and military as well as the Supreme Court.

Personally, I am appalled that the left could stand by silently while one of their own, in response to five years of demonization of Scalia and the conservative court, would engage in this deplorable act, blah, blah, blah.

Jerry, Tex, David, at all - care to apologize on behalf of the left, or don't you take violence seriously?

[boris]

"Snipers Wanted" ha ha ha just a joke you guys ...

The reason for the double standard wrt violent jokes is that they are more afraid of the right than we are of them. Here anyway. Despite the taunting over "look who's afraid of those big bad terrorists", they really are more concerned about rightwingers taking away their fun than islamofascists taking away their lives.

It's why they are so big on gun control. You thought is was because of crime? Ha. That's what they want you to think. Criminals favor gun control so their law abiding victims will be easier targets.

[Pofarmer]

call them treasonous and the source of all the nation's ills, and depict them as monsters allied with our enemies;

Hey man, if the shoe fits.

[Pofarmer]

Or would that be birkenstocks?

[Pofarmer]

Terrorrists cause terrorrism. Moron.

[Anonymous]

Let's look at this from another angle..

If a Republican said that he loathed abortion, tried to cut funding for abortions, voted to remove all abortion clinics from the city and constantly complained and made disparaging remarks about the abortion industry, some liberal somewhere may get the idea that he was
ANTI-ABORTION.

Same goes for ANTI-MILITARY.

And yes, I am questioing your patriotism and if that bothers you, then start taking Americas' side once in a while.

[Pofarmer]

Terrorrists cause terrorrism. Moron.

[Cecil Turner]

'effen Ann Coulter!

Did you ever consider the possibility she was bogarting the time machine while Karl was trying to go back and reset the Diebold counters?

[Pat]

I've loved Ann Coulter ever since she revealed she writes at home in her underwear.

How very liberal of her....

[Pat]

Why would Nancy Pelosi vote to stop military recruitment on college campuses?

Is that a pro military position?

Shouldn't the military have the same ability
as other government departments to recruit educated people? Or do they just want dumb people like Kerry claimed?

So don't tell me Nancy is pro military if she wants them barred from our campuses like some kind of lepers or Mark Foleys..

[TexasToast]

Tom

Insert the President of the Vice President in the place of Justice Stevens in Ann Coulter's funny joke about rat poison, and you have a federal crime. A man in Aspen was arrested in front of his 7 year old son for telling VP Cheney "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible." That was silly, but it shows how sensitive we are these days to verbal threats. Calling Cheny "reprehensible" is considerably less threatening than suggesting that someone send Justice Stevens rat poison.

Certain people get their jollies (or make a living) skating (or attempting to skate) just this side of incitement. On our side we have the fellow who was stalking George Allen. On your side we have, well, the usual suspects who, in the process of ranting about "traitors" and such, skate over the line and encourage readers or listeners to take matters into their own hands. Laura Ingraham's suggestion that her listeners tie up the democrat's voter protection hotline is one small example.

Causation is, as you point out, unprovable. Still, as we have discussed in the past, there is a reason for things like background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases.I don't want Homer Simpson to be able to buy a gun without a waiting period because "he is angry NOW."

[Ari Fleischer]

But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

[PeterUK]

"Seriously, David is correct. Words are powerful".

Posted by: TexasToast | November 17, 2006 at 09:24 PM

"New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi introduced Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a Queens College commencement ceremony as someone who would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he thought he could get away with it."

Posted by: richard mcenroe | November 17, 2006 at 05:23 PM

So very true Texas Taqiya,What one would expect from the "hilarity based community".

[Cecil Turner]

Causation is, as you point out, unprovable.

Seems to me, on the specific point at least, it's disprovable. And personally, I find this sort of thing a lot more offensive than Coulter's "joke." YMMV.

[Bob]

TT said:

A man in Aspen was arrested in front of his 7 year old son for telling VP Cheney "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible." That was silly, but it shows how sensitive we are these days to verbal threats. Calling Cheny "reprehensible" is considerably less threatening than suggesting that someone send Justice Stevens rat poison.

actually the truth is:

A man in Aspen was arrested in front of his 7 year old son for telling VP Cheney "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible." That was silly, but it shows how sensitive we are these days to verbal threats. Calling Cheny "reprehensible" is considerably less threatening than suggesting that someone send Justice Stevens rat poison.

Another fine example of the left hearing what they want to hear!

[Bob]

oops I don't know how typeoad did that... here's what really happened

The Secret Service is still declining to explain its original comment that Howards' behavior "wasn't quite right." Meanwhile, in fairness, there's at least one minor inconsistency in Howards' account. Howards told the Associated Press (via Nexis) that he "may" have touched Cheney.

[PeterUK]

Boris,
"they are more afraid of the right than we are of them".

The truth is they are frightened because they judge you by themselves,they woulfd put you up against a wall.

[PeterUK]

"I've loved Ann Coulter ever since she revealed she writes at home in her underwear.

How very liberal of her....
Actually,liberals write wearing someone elses underwear.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Ann Coulter travels with bodyguards and the FBI has an ongoing investigation of threats to her. Not to mention she's been physically attacked on a college campus while making a speech.

[Old Dad]

Remember the scene in Patton where the good general instructs his translator to tell a Russian general that he doesn't care to drink with a Russian SOB. The Russian replies something along the lines of "you're one, too." They have an understanding.

The left thinks the right is a pack of SOBs and vice versa. The problem comes in trying to make the case rationally. There's just not good empirical data. Plenty of anecdotal evidence, though, that goes both ways. So we pick a side.

Dave N got caught trying to dress up his prejudice with a silly argument. He should just admit the mistake and shut up. We already understand that he thinks the right is a pack of bastards.

So what?

[SteveMG]

I welcome suggestions for creative spellings and re-phrasings of "clown show"

Opera bouffe?

Carni convention/show/meeting/get together?

SMG

[BumperStickerist]

The Not-Ready-for-Mime-Time Players

[daveinboca]

Niewert has been free-basing or something; the liberals are the ones physically attacking Coulter and others on college campuses like Columbia, where if you disagree with Niewert and his leftie buddies, you do not have the right of free speech.

Or so Niewert's friends would say.

And the garbled syntax of gargling Sen. Leahy has recently been interpreted as taking away Laura Ingraham's right to a radio show. For the usual specious reasons factitious fools like Leahy propound.

NO FAULT ON THE LEFT! [Mark Rudd to myself when he was a guest at my apartment in Ann Arbor thirty-eight years ago. Also from Mark: "Dare to Cheat, Dare to Win." Plus he smoked all my dope!]

Niewert's graduated to a bong, but his reality-basing is the same as Rudd's.

[Lesley]

New phrasing or spellings for clown show? Let me second Steve MG - how about the "I Pagliacci" side of the Aisle?

[McGehee]

"Insert the President of the Vice President in the place of Justice Stevens in Ann Coulter's funny joke about rat poison, and you have a federal crime."

Which would be relevant if Tom were defending Ann for those comments, which, I don't see him doing so here. All he's done is point out the impossibility of those comments having anything to do with this instance.

Jeez.

[Big Bang Hunter]

- Hey guys. Its a hell of a lot safer to scream, and rant, and demonize the other person, when it's not likely they're going to whip out a sword and cut off your head. The Left intellectually ingages in "substitution" constantly just from a standpoint of survival.

- Sometimes I personally think they put too much credence in the idea we'll always put up with it and act civil. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but then the alternative, fighting back against the real enemy is indeed perilous, when you are afraind down to your core.

- I don't see them as unpatriotic as much as self-involved pussies.

[Don Meaker]

So, if unelected supreme court justices usurp legislative authority, in conjuntion with a third plus 1 of the Senate, in violation of the Constitution, what do you do? At that point, assassination becomes the only option. Rational people will work to keep unelected judges from usurping the authority of other branches, or if judges clearly are bent on that path, will impeach them.

In the immortal words of Ben Franklin, at the constitutional convention: "If the President could not be removed by Impeachment, he could always be removed by Assassination." Does anyone think that Ben wanted to assassinate a president?

Impeachment is there, as an encouragement to keep the number of assassinations down. The knife and the claw were here long before us. Politics, by which we agree to act using discussion, consensus, procedure, is the highest creation of the human animal. When someone had to resort to assassination, he is, nearly by definition, pretty far into the violent tail of the bell shaped curve.

Assassination remains, a tool of last resort for sane people. Judges, Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and Presidents should all act as trustees of the People, not as tyrants.

[Don Meaker, Jr.]

Dad,

You're off your meds again. Let's get you back home.

[TallDave]

** Public Service Message **

Please do not accept any cookies from Don Meaker.

Thank you, this has been a public service message.

[Forbes]

The only thing that's entertaining about Ann Coulter is her ability to get under the skin of lefties, like this David Niewjerk, and push their hot buttons. The resulting foaming-mouth spittle that ensues reveals the utter lack of evidence or logic that the non-reality based community relies upon.

Self-parody at its finest.

TM, as always, provides entertainment at its finest.

Cheers.