First of all, the Denver Center for Performing Arts complex is tax-payer funded. So that makes it public property. Second, the McCain event was open to the PUBLIC. So she had every right to be there. If you watched the video, the officer tells her she can stay if she gets rid of the sign. So clearly the sole reason she was asked to leave, is her sign. Carol Kreck is going to fight the trespassing charge, and she's going to win. I wouldn't be surprised if the DA doesn't just drop the case.

Hey Shooter, thanks for illustrating my first point. So what she was part of a group? Ever hear of the first amendment FASCIST? We have the right to freely associate with who ever we please. Don't like it, move to China. We won't miss you. If Obama's people had people removed from public property, then I'm just as pissed at him as McCain's people. Because we true patriots believe the constitution applies to everyone, unlike you jerk wad. If Obama is suppressing free speech, then that's just as wrong as McCain doing it. We aren't partisans around here.

Since old elephantman is too lazy to figure out how to get to an Obama event. He asks us to help him out. Of course, since none of us knows where elephantboy lives, kind of makes it impossible. So either tell us where you live elephantdung, or give up the act. It's getting old.

I wonder what chance those secret memo's on torture the ACLU was able to pry loose, will receive any MSM attention at all. If it gets reported at all on the cable news channels, it will be reported only once. The news channels are too busy with Obama's Germany speech, to cover anything else. With 24 hours in a day, you have such a limited time to report important news stories. Just not enough time to cover torture, with Obama and the latest celebrity scandal. Did you hear Batman got arrested? (eyeroll)

Bernhart Glenn wasn't calling the ACLU journalists, he said they were doing the work journalist should be doing. Actually investigating the government and obtaining information on what the government is doing. I don't see corporate media doing any investigative reporting anymore. That costs too much money, better to stick with celebrity gossip and fluff like that.

Someone had the audacity to write that the GOP is losing the media wars. You got to be kidding me. I live in CO and the latest poll shows McCain now leads Obama. The reason is because people blame the democrats for the high cost of gas. Now I wonder why people are blaming the dems for the high cost of gas? Because that's the GOP talking point that gets printed uncritically everyday in the "liberal" media. All we hear is drill drill drill, but the dems won't let us. It's all their fault. McCain gets a free pass after every gaffe he makes. Yeah the GOP sure is losing the media wars. It sure doesn't help that Obama is such a pussy when it comes to campaigning too. McCain said Obama wants to lose the war in Iraq so he can win the presidency. McCain basically called Obama a freaking traitor. Obama's response, that's disappointing. Someone calls me a traitor and I'm fucking kick their ass. Obama's response will get him attacked even more as weak on patriotism and love of country. Why do the dems keep making the same mistakes every 4 years? They vow to run "clean" campaigns, while the GOP runs in the gutter. You'd think losing 2 prez elections in a row would teach you something. You can't try to be clean, when your opponent is gutter trash.

I was suprised to read an AP story about the torture memo's the ACLU uncovered in my local paper the Rocky Mountain News. Since I haven't read the AP article online, I have no idea how much was edited out or not, to run in my local paper. However the title of the article was "'Good faith' protects against torture charge, memo says." I think you can tell by the title alone, what the gist of the article was. Basically an apologist position that even though they committed torture, they thought it was legal to do so. So while I was surprised to see it covered in my local rag, I wasn't surprised at all at how it was covered.

One of the things Cass Sunstein said, is that the president should only be prosecuted for "egregious" crimes. Now how does one define "egregious"? As the brilliant Jonathan Turley said, any crime committed by the President should be considered egregious. But let's try and use Cass Sunstein's advice. Because even if we use Cass's definition of what category of presidential crimes should be prosecuted, Bush definetly fits the bill. I think most people would consider the ordering of TORTURE to be egregious. I think most people would consider lying about a need for war, to be an egregious act. If you haven't read "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Vincent Bugloisi, you need to. Bugloisi, the famed prosecutor that prosecuted Manson, writes that Bush can be tried for murder. Any prosecutor in the nation where a soldier died in Iraq, could bring charge of murder against Bush. The definition of 1st degree murder is careless disregard for human life. If you create the conditions where you know someone will be killed, like lying to start a war, then you can be prosecuted for murder. There's no need to do the killing yourself. So by any reasonable person's standards, the crimes of Bush have been egregious. So why is Sunstein against prosecuting the Bush administration? God help us if this asshat gets on the Supreme Court.