The Obama DOJ’s warrantless demands for e-mails

By Glenn Greenwald
A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant.

Another case conducted under seal and hidden from the people.  This administration continually demonstrates a total lack or regard of the Constitution.

Are we ready to take our Constitution back?  See you at the polls on November 2nd, We The People will render the current resident of the White House a lame duck resident. Random thoughts while observing the passing charade, I’m J.C.

A very significant case involving core privacy protections is now being litigated, where the Obama Justice Department is seeking to obtain from Yahoo “all emails” sent and received by multiple Yahoo email accounts, despite the fact that DOJ has never sought, let alone obtained, a search warrant, and despite there being no notice of any kind to the email account holders:

In a brief filed Tuesday afternoon, the coalition says a search warrant signed by a judge is necessary before the FBI or other police agencies can read the contents of Yahoo Mail messages — a position that puts those companies directly at odds with the Obama administration.

Continue reading

Graham blasts Axelrod: ‘Tired of this crap’

The Hill

By Eric Zimmermann

Graham continues to befuddle, his voting record is checkered, liked him in the past no longer sure.  Will post some of his votes tomorrow. Random thoughts while watching the passing parade, J.C.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was not happy with David Axelrod’s dismissal of Republican healthcare arguments this morning, calling it “crap.”

It’s RINO Season Lindsey and you just may go down with the useless

Appearing before Graham on ABC’s “This Week,” Axelrod had brushed off Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) criticism of healthcare reform, saying that Brown had voted for a very similar package for his home state of Massachusetts.

“Senator Brown comes from a state that has a healthcare plan that’s similar to the one we’re trying to enact here,” Axelrod said. “We’re just trying to give the rest of America the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have.”

That argument rubbed Graham the wrong way.

“The American people are getting tired of this crap,” Graham said of Axelrod’s comments. “No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington.”

The reform package passed in Massachusetts did include a health insurance exchange and individual mandates, similar to what Democrats have proposed on the naitonal level. But Graham said the key differences lie in how the package was paid for and what the secondary effects would be.

“They didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts,” Graham said. “They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts.” That argument rubbed Graham the wrong way.

“The American people are getting tired of this crap,” Graham said of Axelrod’s comments. “No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington.”

The reform package passed in Massachusetts did include a health insurance exchange and individual mandates, similar to what Democrats have proposed on the naitonal level. But Graham said the key differences lie in how the package was paid for and what the secondary effects would be.

“They didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts,” Graham said. “They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts.”

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

Not so fast Mr Constitutional Law Professor, make that senior lecture, ergo, that’s lawyer speak for teaching assistant.  Could it be that the  you, an alleged usurper,  has forgotten if you ever knew it, that under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is the most basic tenant in our system of justice.  Yes, it’s not codified in the Constitution per se but goes back to English Common Law.

So this may be a stretch Mr. President, but once again you are trying to desecrate the Constitution.  When you find a person guilty then you take their DNA.  You are not above the law Mr. President, you will be eventually be confronted with your failure of your sworn oath to Protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemy’s foreign and domestic.

Shouldn’t your number one focus be on jobs, the deficit, and gutting useless government spending.  That’s right you are not a fan of recent political economic models, put into place that straightened thing relative quickly  ended anxiety, stress,  home foreclosures, unemployment It is doubtful  your ill-conceived plan.  The never have, just raise taxes, and increase the deficit.

One day Mr. President it may be you who is required to give the DNA.  In this case, it makes no difference, the majority of Americans already know you are guilty. Random thoughts while observing the ‘Chosen One’ blind to the terribly obvious, J.C.

Many people believe the people with whom you surround yourself meet the latter definition. Random thoughts

Look Closely, He is not teaching Law, but Community Organizing

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you’re guilty, no matter what. So you’re not innocent unless you’re truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a juryUS Constitution on line:

By David Kravets


screen-shot-2010-03-10-at-33416-pmJosh Gerstein over at Politico sent Threat Level his piece underscoring once again President Barack Obama is not the civil-liberties knight in shining armor many were expecting.

Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades.

A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

The ACLU is suing California to block its voter-approved measure requiring saliva sampling of people picked up on felony charges. Authorities in the Golden State are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching” — when a genetic sample does not directly match another, authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.

Do you wonder whether DNA sampling is legal?

The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons, based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant.

Illustration: hibiotech/Flickr

Read More


Republican Leader of the House

I’m speechless, how little we know! Sorry, like the budget, this is so big!

Enter your email to subscribe to our news, opinion or floor alerts.

Elephants have great memories, Donkeys are stubborn like a Mule

Fifteen-months after taking over Congress, Democrats find they have accomplished little of their agenda.”


Families, Health Care, Education & Retirement Security

Making America Energy Independent

National & Homeland Security

Fiscal Responsibility & Taxes

Transparency in Spending Taxpayer Dollars

Most Open, Honest & Ethical Congress in History

Open, Fair & Bipartisan Operation of the House Floor


DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #76: We’ll Be More Honest, Open, and Ethical Than Republicans Were
Promise: “This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history” – Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, November 16, 2006

Broken Promise: “Pelosi and other Democrats were on shaky ground with their continuing claims that they are running the House with what she termed ‘great openness and transparency.’ …[B]efore Democrats stake their claims for charting a ‘new direction,’ they should deliver on some of their earlier rhetorical boasts.” – “Majority Ruling,” CongressDaily PM, March 30, 2007

Broken Promise: “It’s a familiar backpedaling pattern emerging early in the new Democratic-controlled Congress. From lobbying reforms to anti-corruption proposals to curbing earmarks, Democratic lawmakers who railed against Republican corruption a year ago have flinched from imposing the harshest standards on themselves.” – “Congress’ Reform Promises Fizzle,” The Politico, May 21, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #77: Promptly Name Members to the Ethics Pool
Promise: “At the beginning of a Congress, the Speaker or his designee and the Minority Leader or his designee each shall name 10 Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner from his respective party who are not members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to be available to serve on investigative subcommittees of that committee during that Congress.” – Democrats’ House Rules Package, Clause 5 of rule 10

Broken Promise: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has yet to name for this Congress the Democrats’ 10 member ‘ethics pool’ – the group of Members preselected by their respective party leaders to serve on investigative subcommittees as they are needed.” – “No Sign of Life in Jefferson Ethics Probe,” Roll Call, May 24, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #78: No Swapping of Earmarks for Votes
Promise: “A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or joint resolution (including an accompanying joining explanatory statement of managers) on any vote cast by another Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.” – Democrats’ House Rules Package, Clause 16 of Rule 23

Promise: “These strong [ethics] rules are significant steps toward honest leadership; enforcing these rules is critical to ensuring every Member of Congress lives up to the highest ethical standard.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, January 31, 2007

Broken Promise: “But Murtha went over to the Republican side of the aisle and told Rogers that he would never, ever get another earmark in the Defense Appropriations bill. This was a direct violation of rules Democrats sponsored and promoted.” – “Names in the News Can Be Divided Into Heroes and Villains,” Roll Call Column by Norman Ornstein, May 22, 2007. 218 Democrats voted to excuse Rep. Murtha’s ethics violation and shield him from an official House reprimand. – Roll Call Vote #402, H.Res. 428

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #79: “Drain the Swamp”
Promise: “In an election in which exit polls identified corruption as the No. 1 voting issue and Washington’s biggest corruption scandal involved lobbying, Democrats won in part by promising to curtail K Street’s excesses. Pelosi has said her first act as Speaker of the House in January will be to pass new rules limiting contact between lobbyists and lawmakers.” – “When the Democrats Take Back K Street,” Time, December 4, 2006

Broken Promise: “Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They’re also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.” – “Lobbying Reform Losing Steam in House,” Associated Press, May 11, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #80: Promote High Ethical Standards
Promise: “Democrats will exercise better leadership in the new Congress and work to raise the standard of ethics in this body.” – Majority Whip-Elect James Clyburn (D-SC), Press Release, December 8, 2006

Broken Promise: Majority Whip Clyburn voted “NO” on H.Res. 452, a resolution to force ethics committee action on Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) after his indictment on charges that include racketeering, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. – Roll call Vote #430 on H.Res. 452, June 5, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #81: Restore Integrity to the House Ethics Committee
Promise: On naming Rep. Michael Doyle (D-PA) to the House Ethics Committee: “With [his] commitment to the highest ethical standard, [Rep. Doyle] will serve with integrity, building on our bipartisan efforts to restore accountability, honesty, and openness to the House of Representatives.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, February 8, 2007

Broken Promise: A short time after being named by Speaker Pelosi to serve on the House Ethics Committee, Rep. Doyle voted to shield Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) from an official House reprimand after Murtha violated House rules. Other Ethics Committee members voted “present” to ensure their impartiality should the Committee officially investigate the matter. – Roll Call Vote #402 on H.Res. 428. Speaker Pelosi also appointed Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) to the House “ethics pool” concerning the Ethics Committee’s investigation into alleged crimes by Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), despite the fact that Rep. Ellison voted against allowing the Ethics Committee’s investigation of Rep. Jefferson to resume. – Roll call Vote #430 on H.Res. 452, June 5, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #82: Close the Revolving Door
Promise: “Close the revolving door between the Congress and lobbying firms by doubling (from one year to two) the cooling-off period during which lawmakers, senior Congressional staff, and Executive Branch officials are prohibited from lobbying their former offices.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction For America,” Page 22

Broken Promise: “The House Judiciary Committee yesterday stripped from the lobbying reform bill a proposal to limit the lobbying activity of congressional officials once they enter the private sector and soundly defeated two other top priorities of government watchdog groups. Several of the reforms Democrats voted to kill were part of the 2006 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act that Democrats made a centerpiece of their campaign message last year.” – “Panel Softens Lobbying Bill Provisions,” The Hill, May 17, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #83: Sever Links Between Lobbyists & Legislation
Promise: “That’s why we need a new direction here. That’s why we must sever the link between lobbyists and legislation so that we’re here for the people’s interests, not the special interests.” – Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Conference, September 29, 2006

Promise: “We are committed to immediate change to lead this country in a new direction, to put an end to business as usual, and to make certain this nation’s leaders serve the people’s interests, not special interests.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 21

Broken Promise: “[Passage of the card check bill] is clearly a payoff for big labor’s help in the election.” – “Don’t Take Secret Ballots Away From Workers,” Detroit News Editorial, December 26, 2006

Broken Promise: “The minimum wage bill at the top of the Democrats’ agenda was, in the words of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, simply ‘a matter of doing what’s right, what’s just and what’s fair’ – what’s right, just and fair, that is, as long as employees affected don’t work for a company in Pelosi’s congressional district. The minimum wage bill passed by the House last week curiously exempts American Samoa, where thousands of people are employed in a packing plant owned by Del Monte Corp., parent of StarKist Tuna. Del Monte just happens to be headquartered in Pelosi’s San Francisco.” – “Blundered Hours,” Investor’s Business Daily Editorial, January 16, 2007

<< Transparency in Spending Taxpayer Dollars :: Open, Fair & Bipartisan Operation of the House Floor >>

Report Prepared by the Offices of Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-FL), Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Conference Vice-Chair Kay Granger (R-TX), Conference Secretary John Carter (R-TX), Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Rules Committee Ranking Republican David Dreier (R-CA)

The Real Tea Party Story: Community Builders vs. Community Organizers

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

American Thinker

It’s great for our team, that the morons in Washington claim to have not paid any attention. In doing so they continued to fuel the fire that will roast them in November.  The smugness that many of them displayed at town hall meetings, if in fact they even bothered to hold them, will result in major pay-back time.  Those in Washington have forgotten that they are not our masters, nor rulers, we are their masters and we are about to give them a sound thrashing at the poll.  Random thoughts while observing the passing parade, J.C.

In less than a year, the MSM has gone from ignoring Tea Parties to mocking and insulting their participants to grudging coverage with ridiculing overtones. Finally it has arrived at giving wide attention to the movement, albeit grudgingly and ungraciously. A once-highly esteemed fourth estate, they have become talking-head dilettantes on a mission to save the disgruntled masses from democracy itself.

David Brooks, token toy conservative at the NYT, wrote his explanation for the Tea Parties without ever mentioning them by name, even. He wrote a whole diatribe on the meaning of it all. It’s a knee-jerk reaction by us commoners, you see, against the “educated class.” It has nothing to do with real issues, don’t you know. This whole wave of discontent is simply a revolt by the common man against his intellectual betters.

What a bunch of myopic poppycock.
The real Tea Party story is quite simple and an eloquent tribute to democracy: a genuine movement of ordinary people rising to the demands of their all-American principles. It represents a fundamental difference between those who seek to provide for themselves and those who see government as provider of all material goods. The Tea Party movement is a valiant resistance to decades of profligate entitlement spending, which has had the real effect of worsening every problem it was intended to fix, landing the country, at last, in a sea of impossible debt. Tea Partiers, like the Liberty Boys of 1776, stand steadfast on the principle of equality in the rule of law, not government-ordered equality in material-world goods.
Basically, the resistance boils down to a contest between community builders and community organizers.

How Alinsky Counterfeited Community-Building Associations
Up until this presidential election, when hearing the term “community organizations,” most Americans probably assumed that these were the traditional community-building, volunteer civic and altruistic groups, giving tirelessly of their spare time and dollars to improve their own and others’ communities.

The list of genuine, all-American volunteer citizens’ groups is endless. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his mid-19th century treatise Democracy in America, one of the most exceptional qualities of this country was her vast proliferation of purely voluntary civic and altruistic associations.
Americans of all ages, conditions, and all dispositions constantly unite together.  Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations to which all belong but also a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very specialized, large and small.  Americans group together to hold fetes, found seminaries, build inns, construct churches, establish hospitals, prisons, schools by the same method. Complete Article:

Keynesian Economics and the Wizard of Oz

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

The Cato Institute

Wow an entire article with great video at the links to prove that no country in the world has ever taxed itself into prosperity, nor will one. Random thoughts while observing generational theft by elected people a hell of a lot less intelligent than me, J.C.

When Dorothy and her friends finally reach Oz, they present themselves to the almighty Wizard, only to eventually discover that he is just an illusion maintained by a charlatan hiding behind a curtain. This seems eerily akin to to the state of Keynesian economics. It does not matter that Keynesianism isn’t working for Obama. It does not matter that it didn’t work for Bush, or for Japan in the 1990s, or for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s. In the ultimate triumph of theory over reality, the Keynesians say all that matters is the macroeconomic model behind the curtain showing that more government spending leads to more jobs and growth. Consider the recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which claimed that Obama’s stimulus created at least one million jobs. As Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation noted:

CBO’s calculations are not based on actually observing the economy’s recent performance. Rather, they used an economic model that was programmed to assume that stimulus spending automatically creates jobs — thus guaranteeing their result. …The problem here is obvious. Once CBO decided to assume that every dollar of government spending increased GDP…, its conclusion that the stimulus saved jobs was pre-ordained.

But surely this can’t be true, you may be thinking. Our public servants in Washington would not make important policy decisions based on a model that automatically produces a certain result, would they? Peter Suderman of Reason pulls aside the curtain:

[T]hose reports rely on assumption-packed models that effectively predetermine their outcomes; what they say, in essence, is that the stimulus worked because we assume it did. …That’s especially true when estimating government spending’s productive effects, which is accomplished by plugging numbers into a formula that assumes that government spending produces a multiplier—an increased return for every government dollar spent. In other words, it extrapolates from how much money is put in rather than from what has actually come out. And it does so using a formula that dictates that if money is put in, even more money will come out. According to the CBO’s estimates, depending on how the money is spent, one dollar of government spending can produce total economic activity of up to $2.50. What a deal! …[F]or all practical purposes, the same multipliers that were used to predict how many jobs would be created are being used to estimate how many jobs have been created.

Interestingly, CBO’s analysis is completely schizophrenic. Its short-run budget numbers are based on free-lunch Keynesianism that assumes deficit-financed government spending boosts growth, while its long-run numbers are driven by an assumption that government borrowing is terrible for growth (which is why CBO actually claims higher taxes boost economic output — see, for example, Figure 3 of this CBO analysis). It is impossible to know whether the people at CBO actually believe their own work, or whether they are simply trying to please their political paymasters by producing results that (conveniently) match up with political preferences for more spending today and higher taxes tomorrow. You can draw your own conclusions, but keep in mind that CBO is now making the absurd claim that a giant new healthcare entitlement will reduce budget deficits.

But I digress. Let’s now give a defense of the Keynesian model. The folks at CBO and other Keynesians who publish estimates that inevitably turn out to be wrong (Mark Zandi comes to mind) will claim that they are right because they are predicting results compared to what otherwise would have happened. So when they claim that Obama’s so-called stimulus created jobs, they are really saying that the economy would have lost even more jobs if the government didn’t spend all that money. The problem with this approach is that there is no independent benchmark, but this is not why Keynesianism is wrong. Indeed, most of the economic profession relies on this kind of “counterfactual” analysis. Instead, the problem with Keynesianism is that it fails the empirical test. The Keynesians may be good at constructing models, but that doesn’t mean much if the models don’t match the real world. Here’s what Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise said in recent congressional testimony:

Complete Article:

The Chicago Way!

Barney Frank To Undergo Gender Reassignment Surgery

George Town, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Breaking News!!!

Fox News


(Caution Not For Children) If you are gay, you may want to skip this section of the “no spin zone

From his upscale D.C. brownstone, in George Town, Democratic Congressman, Barney Frank, told Fox New’s Bill O’Reilly that rumors of his pending operation were accurate.  The Capitol has been abuzz.  Fearing that the issue might ‘hurt his position’ and influence on the upcoming  health ‘scare’ legislation, the congressman decided to put rumors to rest.


O’Reilly… What say you congressman about the actual reason ‘behind’ such an important decision?

Frank…(lisping and spitting)  First there were rumors and ‘inyourendo’ about  my being gay, and having a gay lover who was a prostitute. It was horrible Bill. A person’s private life and what they do in the comfort of their  home should not be under public scrutiny.  Then well, I noticed I was growing ‘man-boobs’ and I decided what the hell.

Frank…(more lisping and spitting) I’ve been screwing ‘normal people’ since I first was elected to the House of Representatives in 1972. I thought it would be a novel idea to see what a normal screwing feels like, thus the decision for gender reassignment surgery.  You know, O’Reilly, it’s going to make me a better representative of the people.

Barney’s Rump Rangers

Frank… continued (more lisping and spitting)  I have always fought for what was right, I mean left, for the good of the American people.

O’Reilly…Come on congressman, I’m not buying it.  You have enjoyed ‘sticking it’ to the tax payer to long, why now the change?  Come on, what say you congressman?

Frank….(still lisping, spit gone)  Well  allegations of my past behavior have cast a dark shadow upon my heart.

I  was appallingly naive. After an initial encounter in which I paid Steve Gobie $80 for sex, I tried to lift the younger man out of drugs and prostitution by hiring him to run errands. I wrote letters to Gobie’s probation officer and paid his psychiatric bills. I allowed Gobie the use of a car and sometimes my apartment when I was out of town.

O’Reilly…(shaking his head) Come on congressman your sexuality is your choice!

Frank…(screaming, spitting, and lisping) It is not, I was born this way, that’s why I want to change!

O’Reilly…That’s bull, let’s move along congressman.

After 18 months, of our sordid trysts, I dismissed Gobie upon discovering that he was bringing clients to my apartment.  I mean, can you imagine Bill?  Two years later, Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the Washington Post. The little prick then gave the story to the Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of The Mayflower Madam. This just broke my heart, I loved him, it was horrible. I’m serious here Bill!

O’Reilly…That’s understandable congressman.

Then there was the more recent incident of my partner at the time growing pot. I knew nothing about it and was not charged.

Fortunately for me, the House Ethics Committee could have reprimanded me. My constituents and colleagues were generally sympathetic. The scandal didn’t  involve seducing a minor, and I was and am still single. It is an incident from a past secret life that has come back to haunt me again and I’ve grown so weary Bill.  As I get older I want to settle down and get married.

O’Reilly (shaking his head)…Alright then congressman, I’m not really buying it, who said, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” but thanks for your appearance on the show.

Frank…(tearfully), Thank you Bill

O’Reilly… (still shaking his head) That’s it for tonight’s show, if you care to opine send your Emails to O’, O’Rielly@  Remember, name and town, name and town, keep your comments short and pithy. Stay tuned for Hannity.

Parody Unlimited, LLC