Which Party Would This Be?

[Kathianne]

Surprise! It's a Democratic Primary race. The black female ran the ad against her Jewish opponent. It's been pulled from You Tube, but you can find it here:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/nasty_attack_ad_hits_jewish_de.php

The NY Times reported on it, but failed to identify the party affiliation of the attacker:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/us/07memphis.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1218118105-oolkHDuR7YBOjGot/Di9Mw&oref=slogin


August 7, 2008
Race Takes Central Role in a Memphis Primary
By ADAM NOSSITER

In the culmination of a racially fraught Congressional campaign in Memphis, a black candidate is linking her liberal-leaning white primary opponent in Thursday’s contest, Representative Steve Cohen, to the Ku Klux Klan in a television advertisement.

Mr. Cohen’s campaign said it was an unusually direct effort to inject race into the contest.

The advertisement for the challenger, Nikki Tinker, juxtaposes Mr. Cohen’s picture with that of a hooded Klansman, and criticizes Mr. Cohen for voting against renaming a park in Memphis currently named for the Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Ku Klux Klan founder...

The commercial comes against a backdrop of lingering resentment by some black ministers in Memphis at Mr. Cohen’s election in 2006. Several have been outspoken in the view that a district that is 60 percent black should not be represented by a white man; Mr. Cohen, who is Jewish, was the object of boos and jeers at a meeting of the Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association last summer.

Anti-Semitic fliers — “Why do Steve Cohen and the Jews Hate Jesus?” one asked — written by an African-American minister from outside the district have also been circulating in Memphis. ...

[hjmick]

Nope. No bigotry in the Democratic party. Nuh-uh, no way, not them.

[Immanuel]

Darn, I wanted to see the video but when I click on it, I get the message....

"We're sorry but this video is no longer available".

I wonder who got to them?

Immie

[Kathianne]

Darn, I wanted to see the video but when I click on it, I get the message....

"We're sorry but this video is no longer available".

I wonder who got to them?

Immie

I'll see if anyplace else captured it.

[red states rule]

Surprise! It's a Democratic Primary race. The black female ran the ad against her Jewish opponent. It's been pulled from You Tube, but you can find it here:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/nasty_attack_ad_hits_jewish_de.php

The NY Times reported on it, but failed to identify the party affiliation of the attacker:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/us/07memphis.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1218118105-oolkHDuR7YBOjGot/Di9Mw&oref=slogin

I hope the Dems who have said they have never seen any rqacism from their side will look at this and comment

[Kathianne]

I keep looking, but no luck so far. Since you tube removed it, question has been, "Did Tinker also stop the ad playing?"

[Kathianne]

Best I could find, news program that plays the ad:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y5uSy1SrFwM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y5uSy1SrFwM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Immanuel]

Thanks Kathianne. I saw the news article.

I'm sorry to people who disagree with me, but I don't think the name of that park should be changed. Like it or not, The Confederacy is part of our history. I don't condone slavery or the treatment of minorities in this country since the end of the Civil War, and I literally despise everything the KKK stands for, but times were different in the 1860's than they are now.

Slavery did not provoke General Forrest to war. It was conditions in our country at the time. Many of those conditions still exist today. We have a federal government that has gotten too big for its britches and that is what the South fought against in 1860. That happens to be what many of us today think is wrong with things now.

I'm not predicting a new Civil War, but I can understand how frustrated the South got then.

There is absolutely no excuse for his founding of the KKK. I'm sure he was a bigot, and that is in itself despicable, but when the time comes and Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton finally enter their final resting places, you can bet there we be people demanding statues and parks in their honor as wel. All three of those people are as much of racists as General Forrest was.

I would not have honored the General in the first place, but under no circumstances should the park be renamed today.

Anyone know what they want to rename the park to?
Immie

[April15]

Olberman ran the item in his show last night as worst person in the world beating out O'Liely!

[red states rule]

Olberman ran the item in his show last night as worst person in the world beating out O'Liely!

So you are one of the few people who watch Countdown To No Ratings?

[April15]

So you are one of the few people who watch Countdown To No Ratings?I watch Keith. I can't stand O'Liely. Besides it is more truth than O'Liely puts out!

[retiredman]

Olberman ran the item in his show last night as worst person in the world beating out O'Liely!

I sincerely hope that Cohen trounces her. We don't need shit like that.

[red states rule]

I watch Keith. I can't stand O'Liely. Besides it is more truth than O'Liely puts out!

Yea, Keith Overbite is near the bottom of the ratings - while Bill has won his timeslot for 90 straight MONTHS

Tell us more about Keith the liberal moonbat

[hjmick]

I watch Keith. I can't stand O'Liely. Besides it is more truth than O'Liely puts out!

I can't stand either one of them, but at least O'Reilly didn't build his career by bashing Olberman every night. Truth is, I've harbored a strong dislike for Olbermann ever since he was a local sports hack in Los Angeles. His mouth reminds me of that old Clutch Cargo show.

[red states rule]

I can't stand either one of them, but at least O'Reilly didn't build his career by bashing Olberman every night. Truth is, I've harbored a strong dislike for Olbermann ever since he was a local sports hack in Los Angeles. His mouth reminds me of that old Clutch Cargo show.

Whne you have gotten your ass kicked in the ratings like Keith has - what else can you do?

MSNBC is a far left kook network, and all Keith does is toss out red meat ot the few viewers he has

He is not taken seriously. He writes for the Daily Kos, and has shown himself to be a liberal hack carrying the water for Obama

[theHawk]

I watch Keith. I can't stand O'Liely. Besides it is more truth than O'Liely puts out!

What don't you like about him? Hate the fact he calls out the judges who let pedophiles out of jail? Hate the fact he demands stricter sentencing laws for child molesters? Hate the fact that he calls out lawmakers who refuse to pass laws cracking down on pedophiles? O'Reilly is a great American citizen who dedicates his time to exposing the shitbags of this country, which is probably the real reason you hate him.

[red states rule]

What don't you like about him? Hate the fact he calls out the judges who let pedophiles out of jail? Hate the fact he demands stricter sentencing laws for child molesters? Hate the fact that he calls out lawmakers who refuse to pass laws cracking down on pedophiles? O'Reilly is a great American citizen who dedicates his time to exposing the shitbags of this country, which is probably the real reason you hate him.

and has went after Pres Bush, and Republicans for over spending, the border, and the mistakes made with the war in Iraq

[Yurt]

i don't understand why people call o'reilly a liar, can these peeps cite to a single lie?

[red states rule]

i don't understand why people call o'reilly a liar, can these peeps cite to a single lie?

No

They go by what they read on the George Soros hate fillled web sites. Like Rush, they say what a liar he is, but they never watch or listen to his show

Keith Overbite actually uses Media Matters as a news source

[April15]

What don't you like about him? Hate the fact he calls out the judges who let pedophiles out of jail? Hate the fact he demands stricter sentencing laws for child molesters? Hate the fact that he calls out lawmakers who refuse to pass laws cracking down on pedophiles? O'Reilly is a great American citizen who dedicates his time to exposing the shitbags of this country, which is probably the real reason you hate him.I don't like his program, that is not hate. O'Liely negates being truthful by omission.
Pedophiles seem to be your whole animosity towards our courts and legal system. Speaking of shit-bags my animosity is the US AG won't do his job and arrest Bush for crimes he has perpetrated.

[manu1959]

I don't like his program, that is not hate. O'Liely negates being truthful by omission.
Pedophiles seem to be your whole animosity towards our courts and legal system. Speaking of shit-bags my animosity is the US AG won't do his job and arrest Bush for crimes he has perpetrated.

list of crimes please.....

[manu1959]

So you are one of the few people who watch Countdown To No Ratings?

i hear april 15th called the failed sportscatser and asked what time the show starts and he said "what time can you be in front of the TV?"

[April15]

Yea, Keith Overbite is near the bottom of the ratings - while Bill has won his timeslot for 90 straight MONTHS

Tell us more about Keith the liberal moonbatI have no idea what a moonbat is other than maybe some cleaver attempt at insult. I find his voice to be easy on the ear. His writers opinions mimic mine for the most part. And his worst person in the world segment is funny as hell.

[red states rule]

I don't like his program, that is not hate. O'Liely negates being truthful by omission.
Pedophiles seem to be your whole animosity towards our courts and legal system. Speaking of shit-bags my animosity is the US AG won't do his job and arrest Bush for crimes he has perpetrated.

Are you going to list the lies, or are you going to mindlessly rant on like a typical liberal?

[red states rule]

I have no idea what a moonbat is other than maybe some cleaver attempt at insult. I find his voice to be easy on the ear. His writers opinions mimic mine for the most part. And his worst person in the world segment is funny as hell.

He is a moonbat. Anyone who uses media matters as a news source, and does not check the facts in his stories because they fit his political views - is a moonbat

[April15]

list of crimes please.....Here are a list of international statutes Bush has violated. His actions constitute criminal behavior punishable under international law.
Quote:
The United Nations Charter

Article 1: The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Article 2, paragraph 4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Quote:
General Assembly Resolution 3314

On December 14, 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3314, which defined the crime of aggression. This definition is not binding under international law, but it is often cited in opposition to military actions.
This definition makes a distinction between aggression (which "gives rise to international responsibility") and war of aggression (which is "a crime against international peace"). Acts of aggression are defined as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one's own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression. A war of aggression is a series of acts committed with a sustained intent.The definition's distinction between an act of aggression and a war of aggression make it clear that not every act of aggression would constitute a crime against peace; only war of aggression does. States would nonetheless be held responsible for acts of aggression.
Quote:
Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war waged not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
-Robert H. Jackson
Quote:
Nuremberg Principles

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI


The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War Crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Quote:
Article 7 of the treaty stated that:


For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

What kind of penalty is appropriate for such crimes?
Not to mention he has used executive privelige to quash any and all investigations into his actions. His failure to care for the constitution as required by his oath of office.

[red states rule]

To shorten the list, the REAL crime the libs want to charge Pres Bush is winning 2 national elections. To libs like April it is the Dems birthright to win elections and be in charge

[April15]

He is a moonbat. Anyone who uses media matters as a news source, and does not check the facts in his stories because they fit his political views - is a moonbatWell it seems to me that any news source other than National Review is suspect in your world.

[red states rule]

Well it seems to me that any news source other than National Review is suspect in your world.

They are factual unlike the Soros smear sites

[April15]

To shorten the list, the REAL crime the libs want to charge Pres Bush is winning 2 national elections. To libs like April it is the Dems birthright to win elections and be in chargeNot what is said.

[red states rule]

Keith Olbermann Admits MSNBC Is Liberally Biased
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 15, 2007 - 12:54 ET


The idea that cable network MSNBC is liberally biased is certainly no stunning revelation. However, when one of its foremost liberal hosts, Keith Olbermann, admits it on the air, that is truly something to behold.

Such actually occurred Thursday evening, and was captured for posterity by Real Clear Politics' Blake Dvorak (h/t NBer SMGalbraith, video available here courtesy Olbermann Watch with thanks to NB reader Damien G.).

To set this up, Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards bought some advertising time on MSNBC Thursday evening to respond to President Bush's address to the nation concerning Iraq. After the ad finished, Olbermann disgracefully said the following:

I don't want to be diverted by talking about commercials in the middle of the show but, Rachel, why on earth did he buy that commercial? I don't think I'm saying anything unknown to the audience, I don't think he would have gotten a hard time from this particular network. Why on earth did we do it that way?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/15/keith-olbermann-admits-msnbc-liberally-biased

[manu1959]

the US AG does not work for the "International Government"......good try though.....bet you can't guess how many of those clinton broke during the blow job years.....


Here are a list of international statutes Bush has violated. His actions constitute criminal behavior punishable under international law.
Quote:
The United Nations Charter

Article 1: The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Article 2, paragraph 4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Quote:
General Assembly Resolution 3314

On December 14, 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3314, which defined the crime of aggression. This definition is not binding under international law, but it is often cited in opposition to military actions.
This definition makes a distinction between aggression (which "gives rise to international responsibility") and war of aggression (which is "a crime against international peace"). Acts of aggression are defined as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one's own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression. A war of aggression is a series of acts committed with a sustained intent.The definition's distinction between an act of aggression and a war of aggression make it clear that not every act of aggression would constitute a crime against peace; only war of aggression does. States would nonetheless be held responsible for acts of aggression.
Quote:
Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war waged not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
-Robert H. Jackson
Quote:
Nuremberg Principles

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI


The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War Crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Quote:
Article 7 of the treaty stated that:


For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

What kind of penalty is appropriate for such crimes?
Not to mention he has used executive privelige to quash any and all investigations into his actions. His failure to care for the constitution as required by his oath of office.

[red states rule]

and another example of Keith NOT checking the facts before he runs with a smear job

Sloppy Olbermann Mistakenly Relays Leftist Blog's False Attack
By Mark Koldys (Bio | Archive)
July 23, 2008 - 23:03 ET

Keith Olbermann is notorious for filching stories from the blue blogs, particularly ones that attack the eeevil Bill O'Reilly. But now his sloppy, unprofessional practices have come back to bite him. He aired an out-and-out falsehood tonight as fact, ripping and reading from the most unreliable source in existence.

On "Countdown" tonight Olbermann assailed O'Reilly over his segment on Rep. Robert Wexler. After some crack about altering the color of Wexler's lips (a confirming clue as will be seen), he then turned the indignation up to '11' and ridiculed Bill for not knowing that Florida doesn't have a state income tax:

OLBERMANN: The Frank Burns of News then speculated that Wexler was somehow trying to cheat Florida out of income tax. Fund had to inform him that Florida doesn't have an income tax. "No income tax? This is where my argument falls to the ground!"

Don't believe me? Watch the video

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-koldys/2008/07/23/sloppy-olbermann-mistakenly-relays-leftist-blogs-false-attack

[hjmick]

Here are a list of international statutes Bush has violated. His actions constitute criminal behavior punishable under international law.

Bush has committed these crimes according to...?

And he has not been brought up on charges because...?

[April15]

Keith Olbermann Admits MSNBC Is Liberally Biased
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 15, 2007 - 12:54 ET


The idea that cable network MSNBC is liberally biased is certainly no stunning revelation. However, when one of its foremost liberal hosts, Keith Olbermann, admits it on the air, that is truly something to behold.

Such actually occurred Thursday evening, and was captured for posterity by Real Clear Politics' Blake Dvorak (h/t NBer SMGalbraith, video available here courtesy Olbermann Watch with thanks to NB reader Damien G.).

To set this up, Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards bought some advertising time on MSNBC Thursday evening to respond to President Bush's address to the nation concerning Iraq. After the ad finished, Olbermann disgracefully said the following:

I don't want to be diverted by talking about commercials in the middle of the show but, Rachel, why on earth did he buy that commercial? I don't think I'm saying anything unknown to the audience, I don't think he would have gotten a hard time from this particular network. Why on earth did we do it that way?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/15/keith-olbermann-admits-msnbc-liberally-biased

Hell yah it is biased liberally.

[April15]

Bush has committed these crimes according to...?

And he has not been brought up on charges because...?As Bush refused to be signitory to the international court, premonition?, he is not covered by the rules.

[red states rule]

Hell yah it is biased liberally.

As I said, Keith is a liberal moonbat who shapes and delivers his "news" to fit his agenda

[red states rule]

As Bush refused to be signitory to the international court, premonition?, he is not covered by the rules.

Thank God he did what was needed to protect this country - and you

[April15]

Thank God he did what was needed to protect this country - and youI have nothing to fear but Bush and conservatives.

[red states rule]

I have nothing to fear but Bush and conservatives.

They will not behead you and post it on the internet like AQ will do. Libs like you need anger management classes

[April15]

They will not behead you and post it on the internet like AQ will do. Libs like you need anger management classesI do not fear beheading it's the liberties that I miss and frankly don't need all the security they do. Death is but a moment of recollection.

[red states rule]

I do not fear beheading it's the liberties that I miss and frankly don't need all the security they do. Death is but a moment of recollection.

What liberties?

Your right to show what a liberal moonbat fool you are has not been taken away

Try speaking out against the goverment in Iran, or other countries and see what happens

[avatar4321]

As Bush refused to be signitory to the international court, premonition?, he is not covered by the rules.

well why would we abrogate our soveriegnty to a court that won't protect our basic rights?