Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 15, 2007
George Will :: Townhall.com Columnist
Duncan Hunter's story
by George Will
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


When Bob Hunter, a Riverside, Calif., businessman, would hear of a conservative's campaign that needed volunteers, he would pile his family into the station wagon and drive off to ring doorbells. Hunter's son Duncan grew up believing in retail politics.

When Hunter returned home after serving as an alternate Goldwater delegate at the 1964 Republican convention in San Francisco, he told Duncan about chatting with another alternate, an amiable fellow, some actor, named Reagan. Who two years later was elected governor. Duncan learned early on about rapid upward mobility in politics.

In 1969, he dropped out of college, joined the army and was sent to Vietnam. From there he mailed his pay to a friend who purchased for him an island in Idaho's Snake River, where Duncan farmed after his discharge. Then another friend said a San Diego law school would admit him without a college degree. In 1980 he was a lawyer with a storefront office in San Diego's Hispanic community when his father walked in and told him he could be a congressman. Never mind, his father said, that this district was only 29 percent Republican. Reagan was at the top of the ticket.

Duncan says his Baptist minister, respecting the separation of church and state, told parishioners they should vote for the Reagan of their choice. They distributed 400,000 Duncan brochures. Today Duncan is in his 14th term representing eastern San Diego County. Three weeks ago he formally launched his presidential candidacy.

Why does he think he can become the first House member elected president since James Garfield in 1880? Why does he think he can do better than the two strongest House candidates in recent elections? In 1976, Arizona Rep. Mo Udall finished second to Jimmy Carter in the New Hampshire primary (28.4 percent to 22.7 percent), then narrowly lost Wisconsin (Carter 36.6, Udall 35.6). In 1988, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt won Iowa, finished second to Michael Dukakis in New Hampshire, then ran out of money.

"For some candidates," Hunter says, "the conservative constituency is an inconvenience. For me, it is my hope." He hopes to be seen as the most conservative Republican candidate, as he understands conservatism. He is pro-life, an expert on defense issues, a hawk on border security (he authored the legislation that mandates 854 miles of fences across the major southern border routes used by smugglers of narcotics and people) and a skeptic about free trade.

He chaired the Armed Services Committee in the previous two Congresses and believes that the principal issue for the foreseeable future will be national security -- not just Iraq and terrorism, but also the rise of China's military (perhaps nine submarines under construction, with five more to come; the purchase of Russian-built destroyers designed to attack U.S. aircraft carriers with very fast and sophisticated missiles; upward of 800 medium-range ballistic missiles deployed). He believes U.S. forces can pacify Iraq, where his son served two tours as a Marine.

Asked what his wife said when he told her he was running for president, he pauses, then says, smiling: "She's happy now." She seems remarkably resilient. Not long after a wildfire consumed his house, he asked her, "Honey, can you do a fundraiser in two weeks?" She said, "Sure. My son is in Fallujah, my house has burned down, how many people do you want to invite?"

"God bless New Hampshire," Hunter says, noting that its population (1.3 million) is less than half that of San Diego County. But he almost certainly overestimates the power of retail politics in a nominating process that is becoming increasingly compressed. California, Illinois, New Jersey and Florida might move their primaries to Feb. 5. If they do, both parties' nominees might be known a year from now.

Hunter won what might have been the first contest of this presidential cycle -- the Maricopa County (Phoenix) straw poll. It's a start. He says he has $300,000 "in pledges," a sum that could be a rounding error in the McCain campaign's accounts. But he says, "I kind of know what I stand for" so "I don't need consultants, and that saves a lot of money." He has produced some commercials -- just talking to the camera -- for $200.

One-third of new businesses fail within two years; 50 percent to 70 percent of new products that make it to market fail. Hunter, a burly, rumpled political product seeking a market niche, probably will fail. But as Goldwater said when he entered politics in Phoenix in 1949, "It ain't for life and it may be fun."

George Will's e-mail address is georgewill(at symbol)washpost.com. (c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
George F. Will is a 1976 Pulitzer Prize winner whose columns are syndicated in more than 400 magazines and newspapers worldwide.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read George Will's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Nice guy, not a real bull rider.
So, the stands are full,
the anouncer calls the
bulls name, "Evil Money Cult"
he has never had any one
left on board at the 8 sec. gun.

Duncan Hunter has drawn this
hard ride, in fact tells the
guys back behind the chutes,
"Do not worry, I'll ride this monster"

He pulls the rope tight, he
pulls the hat down low,
the gate guy a guy named
Lou Dobbs ask "ready"
Duncan nods "outside"

The ride starts, oops
the bull spins "left"
looks back at Duncan,
"Its me George Bush"


Duncan says no way will
I call this bull out in
public, and off into the
SOFT DIRT NEAR THE GATE
DOWN GOES THE VERY FEARFULL
OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITEE EVIL RE-ELECTION
MONEY CULTS MONEY, Duncan Hunter
a 1 second bull rider

Liberty - Gonzales was not wrong
Liberty, whether we like it or not, Gonzales's view on habeas corpus is correct.

You can't take away something a person doesn't have and that is what he was referring to.

If legitimately or not, you have surrendered or never had a right (foreigner not under our Constituiton) bringing you to the U.S. for detention doesn't give you that right.

He could have answered it better probably but it was easy to understand what he was saying and it is true. Most of the detainees in Gitmo never had the right of habeas corpus so how can you take that right away?

There are other things, such as clarifying when the President is "intended" to be Commander in Chief" that our Constitution nor interpretation by the Courts have left clear enough to end the debate over the power of the Commander in Chief which are much greater than the powers of just being President.

Duncan Hunter
I've been saying all along that This is our next POTUS. Now get on board and send your contributions! Also if you use his name on other blogs that will get more people talking and that in turn will get talk shows to talk about him ect. HE IS THE REAL DEAL. HE CAN BE ELECTED!!!

You know what....
I would think that people considering voting for Duncan Hunter would be the more truly conservative folks on this board. Yet, the same old tired things get thrown around.... If one dares to raise a threat to our Constitution that a "Republican" put forward, well then, that person must be a leftist, or a liberal. It gets very tiring.

Tell me... is your allegiance to our Constitution and our country, or do you think allegiance to a political party more important?

Just wondering.

wiseone
I AM NOT a leftist. I am a REAL conservative. Sorry if that bothers you. I stand up for my conservative principles. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you do not do the same?

By the way, I am voting for Ron Paul for President. Does he remind you of a leftist?

Tell me if i have this right
Liberty, a leftist, is trying to convince a group of mostly conservative posters that we should not vote for Hunter, a true conservative, because Liberty, a leftist, doesn't approve of a piece of legislation that Hunter helped draft.

OK, I give up Liberty (mostly because I'm tired of reading your endless beatings of the same dead horse). Let's all vote for Ted Kennedy instead.

Vic
You said, "The Cato quote: My conclusion: A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.

A citizen may be detained but Habeas Corpus applies. He may NOT be tried under the act."
------------------------

And again, Vic....

1. There seems to be disagreement among Constitutional scholars of whether an American citizen can be tried under this act or not. It is true that they cannot be tried by a Military court though.

2. Even if Cato is correct and they cannot, but they can be detained... Per Cato, "a citizen may be detained but Habeas Corpus applies". Ok, Vic, let's say you were picked up and whisked off to Gitmo. Thus, "detained". However, if you can prove you are an American citizen, you have habeas corpus rights. We are now at a dead stop, Vic. If detainees by their very nature are stripped of habeas corpus initially, HOW DOES AN AMERICAN GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEY ARE IN FACT, AMERICAN and thus have habeas corpus rights? One year later? Two years later? Three years later? In the meantime, you get to experience what it is like to be in a prison camp and may have the opportunity to see what water boarding is all about. Just wonderful!

aurorawatcher
You said, "On the other hand, the US Constitution is pretty clear on the issue"

Yes, it is and it is also clear about when habeas corpus can be stripped from American citizens. However, that does not seem to impact what our Attorney General believes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFqYVAOosM

Aurorawatcher, you know as well as I do, that we have all kinds of unconstitutional laws on the books. This fact does not seem to bother our lawmakers and those enforcing those laws. These unconstitutional laws are enforced all the time. How about the illegal wiretaps? How about illegal searches and seizures? What about "sneak and peak"? Just to name a few.


"We have different views of constitutional rights. I think you maintain constitutional rights even if you violate the law so long as the crime you commit is not directed at substantially harming the government of this country. When you cross that line, you've voluntarily given up your rights. Nobody has taken them away from you. You've given them up! Which makes you no different from someone who has never had them."

I respectfully submit that this is a very dangerous stance to take. When I mentioned above, "at the whim of the President", that had to do with the Military Commission Act.

It says (Section 3, Chapter 47A, Subchapter I, Sec. 948a):

" (1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."


Consider the statement, "who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities". Let's say you UNPURPOSEFULLY supported, in their judgement, by subscribing to an innocent magazine whose funds are used to help the dreaded "terrorists"? It sounds like in the long run you'd be exonerated, because it wasn't "purposeful", but in the meantime, you could be sitting in Gitmo for years and years.

Bottom line, this is a very dangerous piece of legislation that gives way too much power to a select few and puts your Constitutional rights up for grabs.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said, "Let no more be said about CONFIDENCE IN MAN, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution".

Do you really just want to "trust" that this piece of legislation is not mis-used?

To Liberty
The Cato quote:

My conclusion: A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.

A citizen may be detained but Habeas Corpus applies. He may NOT be tried under the act.

To aurorawatcher
The "corruption of blood, except during lifetime" means that you can take their property from the heirs by convicting someone of treason after they are dead. This was fairly common in the 1700s. It does allow confiscation if convicted while alive.

Liberty - I get your point
If Bill Clinton or anyone who operates in the same moral vacuum were elected president, the suspension of habeas corpus would be something to be concerned about. On the other hand, the US Constitution is pretty clear on the issue, as I've listed below. This is taken from Encarta, with comments.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Comment: Congress can only define a few types of offenses as treason. A person accused of treason can only be convicted if there are two witnesses to the crime, or if the person confesses in court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Comment: Congress can impose punishments and fines and can confiscate property from those convicted of treason. The heirs of the convicted person retain a right to inherit any estate, however.

It's not based upon the whim of the president, but upon clear evidence of support and aid to treason. And, yeah, I think such people have given up their constitutional rights. It's one thing to protest policies or politicians, it's quite another to substantially aid terrorists. I believe that people who have done that to the extent that CREDIBLE evidence can be found against them have already given up their constitutional rights. The solution to avoid internment at Gitmo would be not to knowingly provide funds, transportation or information to foreign terrorists. I think the objection to it comes from people who think that it should be okay to cross that line and not face consequences, maybe be given the freedom to nip off to another country like Benedict Arnold did and not have to pay the piper for their treason.

We have different views of constitutional rights. I think you maintain constitutional rights even if you violate the law so long as the crime you commit is not directed at substantially harming the government of this country. When you cross that line, you've voluntarily given up your rights. Nobody has taken them away from you. You've given them up! Which makes you no different from someone who has never had them.

Superior Candidate
Duncan Hunter is probably the best choice for president, although I prefer Tancredo first.
I think if the two men were to be on the same ticket, that platform would be unstoppable.
Conservatives will choose Hunter, because he is the real thing, who knows what he stands for.
Hunter will probably write his own presidential speeches, and do what is best for America--not Big Business.
Conservatives have been betrayed by the Republican Party, for we will never forget the treasonous amnesty proposals of the RINO administration. Neither will we forget the jailing of federal agents Ramos and Compean.
Hunter stands for the American people and nation, and We stand with him.

In a free society....
Please read this. It is relevant to this discussion on "trusting government" to do the right thing.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst020507.htm

What Will left out
Will wants to know what makes Hunter think he can be the first House member to become Prez since Garfield. He tries to answer his own question but leaves out the best reason. The total absence of any other true conservative that has a better chance.

McCain is a traitor (to the GOP). Giuliani is pro-abortion and believes in man-made global warming and all the economic handcuffs that go with it. Newt has back-story issues.

Romney announced earlier this week but we all know he has flipped on some issues and can't possibly be a true conservative if he won in Massachusetts (where was he while the Mass. Supreme Court was trying to shove gay marriage down the rest of our throats?).

The reality is that the so-called leaders of the party have left the conservative base high and dry to court the favor of a leftist media that will never vote for them or support their agenda even if they do get (re-) elected. So let's get behind Hunter, or Tancredo if you prefer. Let's make one the Prez nominee and the other the VP.

We have nothing to lose but our chains.

Sorry, typo
Constitutional

I like what I know so far....
I like what I know so far about Duncan Hunter. Although I would like to know more about his foreign policy ideas and his economic ideas. Where is he on taxes? Spending? Pork?

Although with the current crop of RINOs putting their names in the hat, any decent conservative should have a good chance. But we need to get the grass-roots organized on this now!

I am not a huge Condi fan and I don't think she is interested in the VP spot. I would like to see Santorum, but would rather see him the Supreme Court! I like Watts, but would he be happy with the VP spot? What is he up to nowadays anyway?

aurorawatcher
You said, "Why shouldn't Homeland Security b able to detain an American citizen when there is CREDIBLE evidence that he/she has acted against the interests of the United States?"

I have no disagreement with what you said. The problem is that if you are deemed an enemy combatant, you are stripped of your Constitutional rights. If you are stripped of these rights, you have NO RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE CHARGED WITH...NO RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, etc. If you are stripped from these rights, HOW are you supposed to show you are an American citizen? At least if you can do so, at that point you are tried, you will be tried by a civilian court, as opposed to a Military court. However, in the meantime, you could be sitting in Gitmo for years, experiencing close hand what "water boarding" really is.

Do you really want to give the government the authority to deem you an enemy combatant at the President's whim... SUSPEND your Cosntitutional rights.... whisk you off to a secret prison camp, INDEFINITELY, without you ever knowing the charges against you? Under this, you are guilty until proven innocent. Not the other way around.

Two things
I like Duncan Hunter so far, though I have issues with his "tough on crime" votes because a few of them fly in the face of practical knowledge (for instance, Washington State's wellness court has seen a HUGE improvement in recidivism rates by sending drug offenders to treatment rather than jail), but I could live with that. It's mostly the states that make those calls anyway.

Habeas corpus - why exactly should an American citizen committing a war crime against the United States government by substantially supporting foreign terrorists expect protection under the law? Why shouldn't Homeland Security b able to detain an American citizen when there is CREDIBLE evidence that he/she has acted against the interests of the United States? Remember the American kid who converted to Islam and joined the Taliban in Afghanistan? There were a lot of questions about whether an American citizen could be tried in the same way a foreign terrorist could be? He should have been because he chose to join the terrorists against his own countrymen. I'm very much a fair trial sort of person. I believe in innocent until proven guilty and I've sat on a jury that nullified the law, so don't get me wrong -- but sometime American citizens leave the protection of their citizenship and should not be afforded rights they gave up willingly. When one commits treason against the United States, one can't expect to be treated as if one simply jay-walked.

Habeas Corpus
Don't forget that Lincoln suspended it too. He was equally vilified for doing it in the press but, he could and did suspend habeas corpus.

However, the circumstances were different. A person who is not a U.S. citizen, of course, doens't have the right of habeas corpus though usually that right is extended in civil proceding. War and military action have usually been different. We certainly didn't provide the Germans and Japanese we captured in WW II habeas corpus. We held them until an exchange or the end of the war and that is allowed in military action.

If, there is any reason, that the right of habeas corpus doesn't apply to a person who has become an "enemy combatant," then of course you can't take it away because it was either never given or volutarily surrended once the person took up arms against the U.S. They, when taking up arms against the U.S. (not just committing a crime but actually trying to thwart the people of the U.S. through their government) are surrendering their rights volutarily.

You wouldn't have them get those rights back just because they got caught, would you? You might extend them as a courtesy but, since they surrendered their rights they aren't entitled to get them back anytime they choose. Spector is manipulating this for his own agenda.
quote:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
--------------------------
Is a person who "rebels" and becomes a "foreign combatant" not risking his rights? He is putting the safety of the U.S. at risk and thus, the Commander in Chief (not the President, though the same person) can suspend this right as past Presidents have done.

We are looking for "meaning" where none may apply without each case specifically being ruled on by the Supreme Court. While the Court has ruled on Gitmo and we believe we know what they mean or at least Spector thinks he knows, don't count on it. So far, the Supreme Court has diliberately left several ruling vague where they could have been much more specific on the powers of the President.

It think it goes to the challenges they would face if they did say beyond a doubt what they belive is the role of Commander in Chief. Both parties want the power when they are in office and neither wants the other to have it when they aren't. The Court is split and future appointments would be affected by a clear-cut ruling. They may have "human feelings" after all and not want to be so specific they have no wiggle room left for future decisons if the people on the Court decide they know better than the politicians what should be done.

I do not trust the Court and believe at some point, we the people, may need to amend our Constituion to define this issue better and also, the meaning of "actual service" which is all the military has be be involved in for the President to become Commander in Chief with all the powers that go with that "super postion" that can even overrule courts and is only checked by Congress in impeachment and funding, or by the voters at the next election. That ability to overrule courts is what gives him the power to "pardon."

That doesn't mean he is right or justified but only that he has more power than most people realize as Commander in Chief which is not the same as Presidential powers when the military is not "in actual service of the United States."
Quote:
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
===========================

No mention of war, unrest, rebellion, etc. Just "actual service."

Quote:
The shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
----------------------

The Commander in Chief position was created to rest all decision making in one person during a time of "emergency" but they worded it "actual service" by the military because at that time, I don't believe they ever envisioned what we are doing now around the world whether you agree with what we are doing or not.




sounds okay
Hunter maybe should get some consultants to help him organize a national campaign even if he knows where he stands on the issues.

To liberty your utube link, that was way to short of an exchange to get any true context to either what the constitutions statement is or the true thoughts of the A.G. As for the mca act right in the quote you had about "person" it seems it explained that would be anyone who is a unlawful enemy or combatant I am not sure but once you take up arms against the U.S. in this manner do you not lose your rights as a U.S. citizen anyway?

Futher Allen Spector is a very accomplished lawyer himself and rarely comes across as a conservative member of the legislature. Just a note to his ability to guide a conversation to the point he wants to express and therefore it is very critical to get the whole conversation and resource other instances of statement from those he is interviewing.

Hunter won't win the California Central
Duncan Hunter made a lot of Central Coast residents angry (Republicans and Democrats) when he kept pushing to expand private game hunting for military vets - excluding public use - on Santa Rosa Island. That does not fit California's concern for the environment.

Personal Knowledge
Duncan Hunter was MY congressman until Jone 2006,when I moved. He always returned an answer to your letter, and if you had a problem, he either fixed it or told you who was holding it up.

I did investigative work for his sister, an endangered species in the US: An honest attorney.

The San Diego Union felt proud of themselves when they brought down "Duke" Cunningham. They tried for a YEAR to find dirt on Duncan Hunter, then claimed a mistake by the County Assessor was cheating by Hunter.

Duncan Hunter is THE REAL DEAL. He does not have to change any positions to run for national office.

You see Guiliani, McCain, Romney and others scrambling to "adjust" their stated philosophy to coincide with Conservatives. Duncan Hunter is already there.

You want to know where he stands?
SEE:
http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Duncan_Hunter.htm

Great Link Dave
Thank You, I've just done a quick look see, lots of info.

Hunter is the man

Want My Vote?
Just tell me you will turn the Army loose to prosecute the war to a successful finish and tell me you will send ICE out to cite every business hiring illegals. And tell me you will prosecute every business that has been using illegals.

You got my vote.

Hunter, Tancredo, Gingrich
Are all the kind of people this country desperately needs to "right the ship". These TRUE CONSERVATIVES would be a breath of fresh air compared to the current sprinting to socialism by both sides of the aisle. I pray that one of these guys gets on the Nov 2008 ballot.

Vic
you said, "I'll lay off Liberty though until he learns how to read."

Do you want to explain your comment? I explained to you the problem with the legislation. Did you not read it? If you did, tell me where you disagree and why.

Crawfish
re: Condi. I guess that's possible, but do you really think her viewpoints are that different from the other NEOCONS? If they were, why would she agree to be in this administration and do their bidding?

Truthserum...
At the risk of "edangering America as we have known it",what good is your post if no one reads it?I have lived in many ages and each and everyone of them has "endangered America as we have known it".

Don't worry,I skipped your post as you recommended,so I am not the beneficiary of your knowledge.If you really want to "save America as we know it" why don't you write a column as George Will and Thomas Sowell do? I'm sure you can do a better job and I promise to read it(if you can get Townhall to print it).It's called the KISS principle.Fair enough?

Your Loyal Drive- By shooter.

Liberty
Yes, Condi was on the CFR, but she was there to do W's bidding. Methinks her PERSONAL viewpoints there might be a bit different from her boss'.

Still Tancredo
Hunter seems like a good man--but he's no Tom Tancredo. Tancredo is a bulldog on the illegal immigration issue, and this is what we need. His book "In Mortal Danger" should be read by everyone concerned about our southern border problems.

I met Tancredo recently in New Hampshire and was very impressed with his verbal quickness. He has enough info on the tip of his tongue to talk for an hour on the subject of immigration.

Yes, Hunter is a good man, but if you placed the two of them together answering questions it would be no contest. And THAT is the stuff that impresses voters.

To bsq
The reason Oberlsquat was brought into it was he was the first that started this BS about it applying to US citizens. I'll lay off Liberty though until he learns how to read.

bsq
I agree and understand what you said. Right after I wrote that post about having it confirmed by several reps, I realized that was kind of a stupid thing to say, albeit true.

If you look below that, you will see where I take what the Cato institute said about the bill and attempt to illustrate what my understanding is of the problems with the wording of the bill.

There really wasn't a reason for you to be nasty, bsq.

San Diego view
Duncan is the real deal. Conservatives who want a leader who sticks to his principles look no further. He did get tinged by the check writing overdraft "scandal" but not seriously.

reply to Virginia Patriot
re:
***********************************************
Virginia Patriot writes: Thursday, February, 15, 2007 9:22 AM
truthserum
Received another form letter from Sen. Warner. You are right, relentless contact is paying off. the tone and content of the letters has changed remarkably since he was crowing about the "virtues" of S.2611 in June letter. Three versions so far, the last one touting the secure fence act and barely mentioning the demise of s.2611. Did not mention his vote for it.
EVERYONE, write e-mails, snailmails, call their offices, don't let up, we can stop amnesty and get them to enforce existing laws.
************************************************

Thanks for the feedback, and KEEP THE FAITH!!!
I have gotten occasional letters/e-mails back from Congressmen/Senators responding point-by-point to my righteous indignation about ILLEGAL aliens-- their propensity to crimes, gangs, drug permeation, welfare abuses, job confiscations, etc.

They live in a vacuum up there inside the Beltway were they are bombarded by the MM, the Chamber lobby, LULAC, La Raza, etc., ad nauseam. Teddy's staff immigration lawyers wrote the damm Scamnesty Bill (S.2611)... traitor Juan McQuisling just added his name to it! The other side is EXTREMELY powerful and well funded, BUT 68% of the voters are on our side-- for now:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back906.html

We MUST carpe diem! RELENTLESSLY!!!

Nam65-66
Thank God for truthserum. By the sheer number of his many words "the very future of America as we have known it " is saved! Lay off man!

Vic
Lay off Liberty will you. He has this confirmed by several "representatives" (with a small "r" no less) ...yeah, I don' know what that means either but, he has "several" of them which, at a bare minimum adds some bulk(like fiber dude). Not to mention "Constitutional scholars"! There is no mention of how many of them he has but, since they are capitalized, you probably don't need quite as many as you do small "r" representatives. So...get a grip man!

Seriously though, why is anybody bringing Olberman into any serious discussion? His opinion is utterly and totally devoid of meaning or value.

Vic
You also should watch this, because Gonzales says here that habeas corpus is not necessarily guaranteed by the Constitution for American citizens. He is wrong, of course, but this is his stance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FOgUVi-jbU&eurl=

Best candidate I've seen so far
Just visited Duncan Hunter's website. He is by far the best candidate I have seen so far. I will be following his progress closely.

reply to Nam65-66
re:
***************************************************
Nam65-66 writes: Thursday, February, 15, 2007 7:21 AM
Another thread...
...demonstrating we need a word limit on posts on Townhall,especially when individual comments become longer than the article.
**************************************************
Pardon the verbiage... I had rather thought that the very future of America as we have known it was an important thing... silly me!

Some make myriad short posts here where their points are impossible to follow, and/or simply carp to and fro with an adversary with sound and fury signifying nothing. Others say, "start a blog," but nobody sees those. My long post was apropos to Duncan Hunter and the column, well-referenced, and intended to serve as an efficient way for like-minded individuals to reference the data. The reading-averse can simply skip it.

Vic
Let's look at what Cato said in the link you supplied:

"Legal scholars are debating whether the Military Commission Act [MCA], passed by Congress on September 29 and soon to be signed by President Bush, applies to U.S. citizens. The answer is more complicated than one would think.

First: Under Sec. 948a(1) an unlawful enemy combatant is “(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents …; or (ii) a person who…has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal….” Use of the word “person” suggests that citizens may be detained as unlawful combatants.

But second: Sec. 7(a) denies habeas rights only to aliens. Thus, a citizen who is detained as an unlawful combatant would appear to have habeas rights to challenge his detention.

Moreover, third: Sec. 948b states that “[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants.” In other words, only non-citizens may be tried by a military commission.

My conclusion: A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA."

------------


Let's look at what is said by Cato...

"denies habeas rights only to aliens. Thus, a citizen who is detained as an unlawful combatant would appear to have habeas rights to challenge his detention."

Big word... "appear". So, they aren't challenging the fact that Americans can be deemed unlawful combatants and carted off. It seems that what they are saying is that Americans would be able to challenge our detention. So, we're out an interesting crossroads at this point. In order to have habeas corpus rights, we have to prove we are American. However, without habeas corpus rights, just how do we do that?????

As far as being tried by a military commission at the point that we actually GET a trial... it is my understanding that no, Americans cannot be tried by a military commission. We would actually be tried by a civilian court. However, we both know that this might take years to come about. Remember, if you are deemed an enemy combatant, you no longer have Constitutional rights.

See the quandry?

Electibility
If you like Hunter -- Support Him! Send him money! There is absolutely no reason that at this early stage of the game anyone has to get "practical". Don't buy the GOP leadership and Townhall columnists' line that "insert your favorite candidate here" has no chance and you better start lining up behind one of the "Big 3".

Personally, I am slightly more inclined toward Tancredo (assuming he runs), but I am sure that it will become evident before too long which candidate has more legs and I could very easily switch over to Hunter if his candidacy looks more viable. If you're one of those GOP'ers that will in the end vote for whomever wins the GOP nod, regardless of how much of a RINO they are, in order to prevent a President Hillary or President Obama... Fine, I can respect that. But, again at this stage of the game you should choose a candidate that best represents your views and worry about electibility later.

As for myself... I just can't bring myself to vote for anyone who believes in amnesty, and I am afraid that all of the "Big 3" support this in one manner or another. I've never not-voted for a Republican in any election -- this could well be the first time.

Vic
It actually does. I have gotten that confirmed from several representatives, not to mention, Constitutional scholars. it has nothing to do with Olbermann.

Like I said, they may not have INTENDED to write it so loosely worded, but the way it stands now, it does.

To Liberty
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Also 948a&b

See below link from Cato

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/10/02/does-the-military-commission-act-apply-to-us-citizens/

Contrary to what libtards like Olbermann have said, it does not apply to US Citizens.

truthserum
Received another form letter from Sen. Warner. You are right, relentless contact is paying off. the tone and content of the letters has changed remarkably since he was crowing about the "virtues" of S.2611 in June letter. Three versions so far, the last one touting the secure fence act and barely mentioning the demise of s.2611. Did not mention his vote for it.
EVERYONE, write e-mails, snailmails, call their offices, don't let up, we can stop amnesty and get them to enforce existing laws.

Hunter/Santorum 2008
George Will would like us to believe he has no chance so we will not vote for him in the primaries. It is our choice, not the monied interests who would like to keep the cheap labor express going. If you don't buy into the spin and look honestly at the issues, Hunter trounces Giuliani, McCain, etc. It is time for We The People to select OUR candidate, not hold our nose and vote for whoever has been paid for.

Thanks Great Introduction!
Sounds like the Man the republican party and the country needs!
Need volunteers let me know!

God Bless!

Eddie

sbmcgraw
Listen, I'm not saying that Hunter is all bad. I AM concerned about his sponsorship of the Military Commission Act though, because it does strip habeas corpus from American citizens, not just foreigners.

I like a lot of his other stances though.

For myself, I'm voting for Ron Paul, because I believe him to be the best conservative voice out there, by far.

Folks, please don't make me the enemy for raising an issue about something Hunter sponsored. If you are considering voting for Duncan Hunter, our principles can't be very far apart.

Crawfish
Condi is CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). This is the same organization that brought us the blueprint for merging the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It is called, "Building a North American Community". Here's a link to the document:

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

This is WHY we are not securing the borders.

Here's a lot more information about it, if you are interested. Phyllis Schlafly's website has a good repository of articles about this whole plan, from a variety of sources.

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/

wouldn't it be great..
If we could get enthusiastically behind someone for a change? Hunter is articulate, sincere and a true conservative. I won't vote if McCain is the ticket. Newt's good as well, and I'm sick of hearing he's got skeletons. STOP LISTENING TO MSM rantings, folks.

We are going to need a clear conservative voice...when is the GOP going to get this?

Vic
You said, "Another choice to look over carefully. And if he sponsored the MCA, then that is a good reason to vote FOR him. Liberty, go drink your koolaid."

Vic, perhaps before commenting, you should take a few minutes and go READ THE LEGISLATION. It's not very long. Just google:

Military Commission, thomas


Vic, they may not have intended to make this thing so loosely worded that it also pertains to Americans, but the fact is, that it does.

I don't think we are on different sides. Are we?

This Is Our Guy...
"I kind of know what I stand for" so "I don't need consultants, and that saves a lot of money." He has produced some commercials -- just talking to the camera -- for $200"

I'm going through my wallet right now trying to find $5. or so that I can send him.

THANKYOU MR. WILL for giving him some exposure. The MSM has successfully blocked him out. They don't want Middle America to know about the next Reagan.
DD
http://streetlevel.townhall.com

my top choices
Hunter is one, along with Tancredo, Condi Rice, and JC Watts. All are solid conservatives. Rice or Watts would help split the black vote, and each could whip any liberal in a debate setting. I'd say something about them being articulate or well-spoken, but that would mean that a) I'm a racist, and b) They're not really black (according to the MSM and other lefties).

time for realism, not idealism.
I like Hunter's realistic view of the world. We should not antagonize China, but nor should we think trade policies(which adversely affect our nation and benefit China)will make the Asian giant less disposed to militarism.

I also like his positions on terrorism and the border.

He is a realist. On foreign affairs, we should move away from "democracy crusades", and return to what is in our national interest.

Don't believe he has much of a chance. These days it is all about $$$$$.

Been that way for decades.



Duncan Hunter
His viability may be judged more accurately proportionate to the negative or silent treatment he receives from the MSM.

I will be watching, but am already wondering where I send my campaign contributions.

Another thread...
...demonstrating we need a word limit on posts on Townhall,especially when individual comments become longer than the article.

Sounds good to me
Another choice to look over carefully. And if he sponsored the MCA, then that is a good reason to vote FOR him. Liberty, go drink your koolaid.

Hunter is right about 1 critical issue
Frankly, it is unlikely that a congressman could get enough traction, but then, "who would have thunk it" that an obscure Arkansas governor would win, albeit via gadfly Perot screwing up the vote... Daddy Bush would have won in a 2-man race against zipper man Slick Willie.

One of Hunter's key virtues: he does not buy into the disingenuous sophistry/charade/con game about the purported benefits that ILLEGAL aliens provide America. Most Republicans are owned by the business lobby, which is selling out America for cheap labor at immense costs all-in to society, especially to the CITIZEN taxpayers who are forced to pay for their welfare services, crimes, drugs, school decimation, and community erosion. "Comprehensive immigration reform" is simply a pig with lipstick-- Scamnesty disguised as a desirable goal. It is NOT our immigration system which is broken-- it is nonfeasance, indeed malfeasance, by Presidente Jorge and the feds to aid and abet ILLEGAL behavior that is the crisis! We simply need to enforce EXISTING laws-- just like IKE did. It is NOT simply a case of border transgression-- these people become serial lawbreakers. We MUST stanch the invasion soon, or America will be lost, morphing into a third world entitlement state.
http://www.amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/HispanicsReport.htm

In case you have not heard yet, the Justice Dept. has effectively admitted that it lied about the facts to incriminate the two border guards in a kangaroo court witch-hunt. According to Congressman Ted Poe, a long-time Texas judge, among other Congressmen familiar with the details, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's case
was a ruse, perhaps really intended to show that America is interminably friendly toward Mexico and ILLEGAL aliens, partly to help assure the election of Vicente Fox's man in the fall Mexican election-- afterall, the Bushies want to keep the goals of the North American Union on track! [read: the Mexification/Reconquista of America so miscreant businesses can have dirt cheap labor subsidized by CITIZEN taxpayers, and the power "elites" can get numerous new entitlement voters to assure that Big Brother will control traditional America-- and destroy it!]

What can be done? Middle Americans JUST LIKE YOU derailed Kennedy-McQuisling Scamnesty in 2006... following are some links where you can get engaged to learn more and join the SACRED fight to save America... first, one that will take you to all official contact info for your reps in Congress:

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm

Bookmark it, and CONTACT THEM RELENTLESSLY! Some folks get discouraged when they get only formulaic replies from Congressmen, but know that they have staffers who track the humor and tenor of feedback.

When Kennedy-McQuisling Scamnesty was pending, it was Middle Americans like YOU who stopped it-- Peter King and other long-time Congressmen said they had NEVER SEEN such a visceral and consistent righteous indignation reaction from the hustings, bayous, boondocks, prairies, etc. in Middle America.

The money, organization [La Raza, LULAC, ACLU, labor leaders, Chamber and miscreant employer ilk, Catholic Church hierarchy], and power is on the other side of the ILLEGAL alien crisis, BUT the voters (68%) are on AMERICA'S side for now!-- until so many of the invaders flood in here that they out-vote us...
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back906.html

GET INVOLVED IN THE FIGHT TO SAVE AMERICA NOW! It was not raining when Noah began construction of his ark! The disingenuous sophistry and con games on the other side are myriad and omnipresent-- WE MUST fight back vigorously and unrelentingly with truth, justice, and the AMERICAN way!

http://www.teamamericapac.org/
http://www.numbersusa.com/index
http://www.amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/HispanicsReport.htm
http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back906.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070110a.h
tml
http://www.grassfire.org/
http://www.minutemanhq.com/pet_hr1986/
http://www.americanpatrol.com/
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2003/feb03/psrfeb03.shtml
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54132
http://www.vdare.com/malkin/060426_illegal.htm
http://www.vdare.com/bevens/060323_immigration.htm
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=000a298a-sp00000000&sp-q=illegal+immigratio
n&sp-p=all
http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/060331_vfl.htm

If you want to screech your righteous indignation at Presidente Jorge just for fun anyway (since he won't listen), you can do so here (indulge yourselves, AMERICANS!):
comments@whitehouse.gov

What is the solution besides enforcing existing laws? THIS IS-- FAR AND AWAY-- THE MOST ESSENTIAL STEP!!!-- REQUIRE ABSOLUTELY an INVIOLATE, TAMPER-PROOF I.D. CARD for ANY NON-citizen to work, receive public assistance, get licenses, rent apartments, attend college, request emergency services, apply for scholarships, pass go, etc.-- in short, TO FUNCTION PERIOD while visiting AMERICA. This technique would make it MUCH TOUGHER for miscreant employers to break the law by winking at fraudulent docs, AND would cut down on welfare fraud, tax dodging, etc. ILLEGALS should be made to repatriate to apply for the card, subject to a thorough vetting by US. It will also readily allow us to track crime records, taxes paid, and social services used. It is horsestuff sophistry that this would "violate their rights"-- someone here ILLEGALLY has NO
citizenship "rights"!!!

FURTHERMORE, American citizens have to prove who THEY are all the time!!! This solution destroys the straw man ruse that, "We cannot round up and deport 12 million ILLEGALS"-- they would go home to apply for the card at their expense and trouble, the very same way they got here!!! This will also simultaneously allow us to get a handle on those who overstay their visas for nefarious reasons such as plotting terrorism, because it will hinder their ability to sustain themselves in America to take flying lessons, etc.

May God bless America and save her from the Conspiracy Of Evil which seeks to eliminate her border with Mexico to create the North American Union so businesses can milk the cheap labor and the PC "elites" can control us with Big Brother entitlement government that the tsunami of ethnocentric undereducated, indigent third worlders will ineluctably insist on.


Duncan Hunter
He sponsored the Military Commission Act. I think you might want to find out a bit more about that. It doesn't just apply to foreigners, but to American citizens too. It has to do with the "enemy combatant" clause.

That means, you too, can be carted off to a secret prison and detained indefinitely, without ever knowing the charges against you.

Here's our Atty. General saying that the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus for Americans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FOgUVi-jbU&eurl=

I have heard that Duncan Hunter is very good on all other things, but sponsoring this bill is pretty bad.

Thank you for an introduction....
.. that I didn't realize that I needed. My personal choices have been solid for years: Rice-Romney. Condi trouncing Hillary would be SUCH fun! Hunter has got to be positioned more prominently in the National picture as the result of his declaration. He will be well received.

Hunter as President
In my book he beats the other GOP hopefuls, if he has no skeletons hiding in a closet somewhere.

You can bet the Dems will drag him through the mud if there is anything than even hints at impropriety.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.