Michael Savage v. Janet Napolitano

Conservative radio host Michael Savage and several others filed suit yesterday against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder over the government's now-infamous "Rightwing Extremism" report. Among other things, Savage & co. claim the report "chills the expression of controversial speech in violation of the First Amendment" and "violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment by targeting certain individuals and groups for disfavored treatment based on the viewpoint of their speech."

Do they have a case? The Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr thinks not:

As I read it, the lawsuit is claiming that the issuance of a government report criticizing certain groups violates the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. But the Constitution doesn't provide a constitutional right to have the government not say things that might be considered criticism. Perhaps the plaintiffs want the Constitution to be radically reinterpreted by activist judges to invent some brand-new constitutional rights?

Comments

[John]

I think Kerr is right. What a dumb suit.

[James Ard]

I have the Democrats figured out. They stoke extremists into doing something stupid so they can say "see, that is what we were warning you about".

[libertymike]

The question is whether the constitution permits the government to issue such reports in the first place. Obviously, there is no textual support for the proposition that the government has the power to commission and then write and publish such reports.

[R C Dean]

Do they have a [First Amendment] case?

The First Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law . . . ." This wasn't a law passed by Congress, ergo . . . .

Now, of course, government action that is not authorized by Congress can also violate free speech rights. In those cases, the proper court action is a lawsuit against all the individuals involved, seeking to hold them personally liable for acting without color of law.

As a defense to that lawsuit, the defendants will try to establish that they were authorized by Congress to issue the report. If they weren't authorized, then they are personally liable for damages caused by the report. Attempts to prove up legal authority and damages should both be entertaining and instructive.

If they were authorized by Congress to issue the report, then contra Orin Kerr, I think there is a real issue as to whether a report threatening to put people under law enforcement surveillance, etc., merely because of their political opinions constitutes a chilling of free speech rights. This report wasn't mere criticism; it was identifying a class of people as being potential threats and worthy of police "attention."

[Mike in PA]

"I have the Democrats figured out. They stoke extremists into doing something stupid so they can say "see, that is what we were warning you about"."

Kinda like the Republicans???

Each party picks their own method of obtaining power, but they both reach the same end.

[P Brooks]

I would just like to point out that I have been saying "Dissent is not treason" for years.

Unlike despicable tribalist morons like Michael Savage.

[T]

I would just like to point out that I have been saying "Dissent is not treason" for years.

But according to Geraldo Rivera, talking about secession is treason. Who should I believe, you or that ridiculous muppet?

[Bert & Ernie]

" Who should I believe, you or that ridiculous muppet?"

He ain't one of our kind.

[jtuf]

The report is profiling, but I think you have to actually suffer some harm before you can file a civil suite. If the police arrest a conservate or libertarian based on the profile, then that person has grounds for a suite. Even though the report isn't bad enough to justify a suite, it is still bad.

[libertymike]

jtuf-

They have been defamed.

[Pro Libertate]

Government laws or actions that have a chilling effect on speech are potentially unconstitutional. I think there may be a case of sorts here, though the plaintiffs aren't the ones I would've chosen. It's more likely, at this point, anyway, to affect people like us, who comment on blogs, join organizations, write our editors, attend protests.

Of course, no one really knows whether this report translates into putting all conservative or libertarian activists on a watch list. But that's really the government's problem--it issued this report, after all.

[R C Dean]

This report wasn't mere criticism; it was identifying a class of people as being potential threats and worthy of police "attention."

To expand on this point: Would anyone seriously argue that a Hoover-era report claiming that anyone promoting the civil rights agenda should be viewed as a potential threat by the FBI wouldn't have had a chilling effect on free speech?

[Elemenope]

I actually agree with RCD and libertymike. The report is not innocuous criticism, insofar as it takes the form of advice to law enforcement. And being called an extremist could be construed as defamation if such a status can cause material harm to a person and is reasonably demarcatable to the extent that a rational person can tell the difference between mainstream and extremist.

[Pro Libertate]

Defamation is a stretch, by the way, and I believe you have to prove actual damages, too. Not to mention that we're talking about a tort action against the government and about at least some of the plaintiffs being public figures (potentially requiring proof of "actual malice").

I'd stick with the chilling effect angle. I'm not sure where the Equal Protection argument will take them.

[John]

The problem is that the report was issued to state and local law enforcement not federal. The Privacy Act prohibits the federal government from collecting information on people based upon their exercise of First Amendment rights. But the Privacy Act only applies to the federal government. I am not sure there is a remedy for the feds writing a report recommending that state and locals violate people's rights.

[shecky]

If the government declares Al Qaida a bunch of meanies, should they seek redress for defamation?

Does anyone think Savage's gig will be chilled as a result of the report?

And it is curious how many right wing loudmouths seem to be claiming the report refers to them. An admission that they are right wing extremists? Chilling effect, indeed.

[Paul]

The First Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law . . . ." This wasn't a law passed by Congress, ergo . . . .

RC Dean:

That technicality known as the First Amendment was gone a long time ago.

But that still doesn't mean they have a case, which I believe they do not.

For instance, absence of Congress passing a law, if Homeland Security (a regulating agency-- let's face it) arrested or detained people based upon a political viewpoint, that would probably fail a first amendment litmus test.

On the other hand, Congress can make a law, and it passes the first amendment litmus test. So go figure.

[Paul]

Does anyone think Savage's gig will be chilled as a result of the report?

Nah.

And it is curious how many right wing loudmouths seem to be claiming the report refers to them. An admission that they are right wing extremists? Chilling effect, indeed.

Uhm, well, not really. I haven't read the entire report, but unless you're one of those people that conflate libertarians as 'right wing extremists' then you might see it that way.

[Paul]

I actually agree with RCD and libertymike. The report is not innocuous criticism, insofar as it takes the form of advice to law enforcement.

Yeah, agreed here as well. For instance, if a memo were leaked instructing all TSA personnel to give extra screening to people who wore tie-dye and tee-shirts with environmental logos, we wouldn't dismiss it as innocuous criticism and a hand-wave.

[High Every Body]

For instance, if a memo were leaked instructing all TSA personnel to give extra screening to people who wore tie-dye and tee-shirts with environmental logos, we wouldn't dismiss it as innocuous criticism and a hand-wave.

But those are the ones who need to be watched!

[R C Dean]

Not to mention that we're talking about a tort action against the government and about at least some of the plaintiffs being public figures (potentially requiring proof of "actual malice").

Actual malice is the standard for a claim of defamation/libel by a public figure. I don't think it applies across the board to any lawsuit claiming a government official, even a political appointee, violated your civil rights or exceeded their authority.

[libertymike]

Elemenope-

You ACTUALLY? Its okay to agree with me. Every once in awhile, I do as well.

Yow won't agree with another angle. The 9th Amendment. Yes, I take the 9th more seriously than you. When I say that, I do not mean to belittle your regard for privacy. I know that you take privacy quite seriously. But I think that the 9th is all I need to tell the state that you do not have a right to collect information about me and if you claim that the state, for national security purposes, has the power to do so, I say that exception ain't in the amendment.

[libertymike]

R C Dean-

You are right about the standard for public figure defamation plaintiffs. I believe that the seminal case is the 1964 Sullivan v NYT matter?

You frequently refer to the rule of law. Do you think that the rule of law is compatible with the state being able to change the rules where the state is a party in a lawsuit? Do you think that the rule of law is compatible with the state being able to exempt itself from liability for actions that it will hold all others accountable?

[Orange Line Special]

And, as someone else pointed out somewhere I'm not going to bother finding, the report is more generalized than Kerr admits.

A couple months ago, Orin Kerr posted a sub-Jay Leno "joke" regarding Harold Koh (volokh.com/posts/1233874107.shtml). I left a comment - which you can see now has been deleted - on that post linking to the previous link.

In my limited experience, Kerr is only good for bringing what he thinks is funny; he's not exactly interested in getting the truth out there.

Reason has yet to acknowledge what their link-buddies at the SPLC already have: the DHS report closely tracks SPLC reports. What no one else besides me is discussing is that one part of the DHS report was based on a misleading report from Reason's link-buddies.

[libertymike]

How about the Red Scare documents? The blacklisting?

[libertymike]

OLS-

You may have noticed that I have, in my way, defended you. People should not immediately dismiss any poster's comments untile they have actually read and considered them...kinda like an intellectual due process, if you will.

Anyways, you do make some good points from time to time. However, let me offer you some unsolicited advice:

DON'T BE LIKE MOYNIHAN!

IMO, you do not need to make Reason the culprit in every post.

[prolefeed]

This is the crux of the question -- was this report simply discussing options (albeit loathsome, unconstitutional options), or was it de facto setting policy?

If the former, then that would be government agents exercising their First Amendment rights. If the latter, then that would be government agents infringing upon citizens' First Amendment rights.

[Pro Libertate]

R C Dean,

I was just speaking generally. Certainly, Savage is a public figure, but I do believe there can be entire groups covered in defamation actions, at least in theory. Damages are a real issue here, though.

[libertymike]

prolefeed-

Notwithstanding that the Supreme Court has taken the irrational position that the government has first amendment rights, why should we think that government employees have free speech rights qua government employees? The government is the agent. The parasite DHS employee is the agent of the government. Michael Savage is the principal. How can it be okay that the agent's employee gets to defame the principal?

[Kolohe]

This is the crux of the question -- was this report simply discussing options (albeit loathsome, unconstitutional options), or was it de facto setting policy?

The report was filled with the obvious, the trivial, and the caveated - like all of these reports. it specifically says that no known threats

It says that right wing people do not like a left leaning president. (duh.) It says that racists do not like a black guy being president (double duh).

I think there is a real issue as to whether a report threatening to put people under law enforcement surveillance, etc., merely because of their political opinions constitutes a chilling of free speech rights.

This has been going on for at least a hundred years. The government watching and listening to a person's public acts is hardly chilling anyways. (you start to get into invading their private sphere, and I'll be with you on the 'chilling' effect)

Savage is an unparallelled tool, even by the standards of talk radio. Nothing in that report is even remotely related to what he can and cannot do with his radio program. I'm also disappointed with the American Legion (VFW?) folks acting like total pansies over this.

[Tony]

Just because right-wing extremists have been granted legitimacy by the GOP which likes to mine them for votes and rabble-rousing doesn't make them less extreme.

[wataazu]

They issued a report about left-wing extremism too.

[Contrrary]

Hey Tony,
Do you think they should should all be locked up?

[Mike Laursen]

Conservative radio host Michael Savage and several others filed suit yesterday against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder over the government's now-infamous "Rightwing Extremism" report.

Don't you have to be affected by the government action in order to file a suit. I don't remember the memo calling out elaborate parodists of right-wing ideology as terrorist threats.

[Jammer]

Savage vs Napolitano and Holder. Ugh. Can I root for a blimp disaster over the stadium?

[Tony]

Do you think they should should all be locked up?

Yes that's exactly what I think. I've only been paying regular dues to the ACLU because I hate Jesus.

[R C Dean]

Do you think that the rule of law is compatible with the state being able to change the rules where the state is a party in a lawsuit?

Yes.

Do you think that the rule of law is compatible with the state being able to exempt itself from liability for actions that it will hold all others accountable?

Yes.

The rule of law is, in my mind, mostly about applying definite rules consistently. Those definite rules can include different treatment for different kinds of organizations, including the state.

I am powerfully tempted by more "natural law" type approaches that state that the rule of law must have a definite content (especially when that essential content is agreeable to me) but I am too much of a modernist/positivist to quite buy into it.

[R C Dean]

So. Hypothetically, Michael Savage is refusing to comply with a subpoena, and has a terrible phobia of spiders.

Would it be wrong to introduce a spider into his cell to induce him to talk?

[Pro Libertate]

Savage is so over the top that I sometimes suspect him of being a liberal who is going to take his mask off and yell, "Ah, ha!" I haven't heard him rant in years, but I can't imagine he's any better now than he used to be.

[wingnutx]

I halfway expect to find out that Michael Savage has been doing a long-term, Andy Kaufman-type troll, pretending to be a conservative nutjob in public.

[TrickyVic]

After reading the complaint, I don't see a case. It's righ-wingers being pissed off that a dem admin is using the term right-winger in the report. If the Bush admin DOJ did a report on left-wing terrorism and the left was up in arms, Savage et al would have a few choice words for the left-wingers complaining about it. Besides Savage et al wasn't harmed by the report. His rating have probably increased since the report.

[TrickyVic]

"""Savage is so over the top that I sometimes suspect him of being a liberal who is going to take his mask off and yell, "Ah, ha!""""

Pro, left-wing or right-wing, they are two sides of the same coin. Both sides only bitch about it when the other team does it.

[Pro Libertate]

TrickyVic,

No doubt. I just meant that his shtick is too crazy to be real. My feeling is that he fakes it for ratings and money, not because it's a giant goof on America.

[J sub D]

No doubt. I just meant that his shtick is too crazy to be real. My feeling is that he fakes it for ratings and money, not because it's a giant goof on America.

A media celebrity in America cynically says outrageous or controversial things to garner attention? Really? Whenever did that horrible trend get started?

[Pro Libertate]

Hey, Twain was awesome.

[economist]

Count on Michael Savage to make us Obama opponents look stupid by association.

*Bangs head against keyboard, takes long swig from bottle, bangs head again*

[Harold Eugene Johnson]

I would like to thank conservative radio host Michael Savage and several others for their suit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder over the government's now-infamous "Rightwing Extremism" report.

[Jon H]

TrickyVic wrote: " If the Bush admin DOJ did a report on left-wing terrorism and the left was up in arms"

The left-wing report came out in January.

[LoopFiasco]

I thought the equal protection clause was in the 14th amendment and that the 5th amendment, like the 14th, has a due process clause.

[DOHSracism]

I don't like her target of soldiers. It was more a report on Democratic oposition then actually reporting on any one group of extremist. The list did not name any organization just political views that the DOS considers extreme. Which is unlike the report on left-extremist.

But what I really don't like about the DOHS report is the report on white supremacist. That is clearly racial profiling. On top of that nether in the report on left-wing, or this report deal with Hispanic, Black, or any other supremacist. It only delt with whites. This is clear racism and dictatorship on Obamas part, almost Mugabe like, now all he needs to do is find another excuse to start killing us like his fellow black racist has been doing in Zimbabwe, and South Africa.

[Anonymous Descendant]

It's odd to me that people bugged by "Savage" try to peg him as a "tribalist."

Funny how Generalists who grasp a more complete understanding of decentralization, also have a knack for botany, like Geddes, Mumford, or even the more scorned and ignored upstarts who offend groupthink academia... those who speak their own mind and sense, like Weiner (Savage).

He strikes me as an American spirit who happens to be of Jewish Russian descent, much like my ex-girlfriend & her "tribe." Except, Savage is from the Bronx instead of from Britain. So, what? He derides "excessive laws and useless officials" who push radical - and radically failed - Utopian ideology, eg Totalitarianism. And the rest of his moral comportment regarding "degeneracy" is, well, nothing personal, it's just... savage.

Savagery, by definition, in its proper meaning is first of all, true... then we get into the one part inflammatory - one part true - and one part tragic.

What's the problem?

Last time I checked, the Savages were here first. Isn't that the great American Spirit that Hollywood maligns or laments, depending on which way the [useful "idiot] wind" is blowing?

Unless, of course, you are a radical Utopian "moron" and consider the American principle - which are Enlightenment principles, to be tribal. If you think the Enlightenment philosophies are tribal - you might have some tribal issues of your own, no? Thomas Jefferson didn't. Slander him as many try, he was no Aristocrat, despite Hollywood's opening stereotype of the man, before they recited the Declaration. In proper method fashion, they manage to say altogether in unison, "Our Fortunes" as if it were a Socialist mantra, instead of it's intended meaning, fate.

It shocks and disturbs some of us reasonable people that the Socialist dogma has not accepted its own fate. As usual, it is pushed by exceptionally wealthy people who don't really understand how they ended up with so much money. And they're probably right to feel they don't deserve it. But, they should speak for themselves, not for people who actually work for a living.

Jefferson & Adams write at some length about the many unpleasant traits of Aristocrats. They had many reasons to despise Aristocracy. Then there's Jefferson's rock and a hard place on the problem of Slavery, which he denounced as "an Abomination." [Pardon the religious overtones.]

As for Hollywood's and Soviet High School's complaint about women not being mentioned any place in the Declaration:

...whatever.

The Declaration, especially... if I were penning an F.U. to a British Despot, Stalin, or Adolph, I wouldn't mention my girlfriend either. Would you?

As for the Constitution proper, it seems to me they got it right. It has served women, ethnic minorities, and children... as well as any official effort in the history of our despised species.

If we are to appreciate "all cultures relatively" the least we can do is keep some perspective on men and women who lived in a dangerous situation, at the edge of a 10,000 year institution of Slavery. Their hostile natural environment was as difficult for you to imagine as would be our blithe comfort to them.

Jefferson spoke quite highly of the Native Americans. Read his letters, autobiography, & etc.

If you cannot afford to extend your "moral relativism" to the Savage, then at least admit one's own double standard of "cultural intolerance." Regarding the intolerance we show for the realities of our founding Americans, this point especially applies to you, Chomsky.

I say, ride the prairie airwaves with the lone Savage, for Liberty. So what if you think it's "hopeless." Empty emotions like "Hope" and those who thoughtlessly embrace it, go the way of the unknown Savage. The reason the Savage is remembered in our consciousness - what makes him known, is that the Savage did not follow the hopeful and hop on the bandwagon, or step into the boxcar without a fight. In America, the hopeless and the hopeful alike, my only hope to be fortunate enough to disappear from the prairie not onto a boxcar, but, a la "The Unknown Citizen" by W.H. Auden

[Anonymous Descendant]

TYPE CORRECTION!

...MAY only hope to be fortunate enough to disappear from the prairie, not onto a boxcar, but, a la "The Unknown Citizen" by W.H. Auden

[Evan]

Did anyone here actually read the suit? Read it before you dismiss it. It has some very good points.

[Mike Laursen]

Anonymous Descendant, you didn't need to correct the typo in your rant. Nobody read it, anyway.

[Anonymous Descendant]

or so you HOPE, Laursen.

You read it.

Perhaps if you read the suit, and then imagined it being a complaint filed by Scientific Utopian Extremists, you'd be more sympathetic there, Mr. Groupthink (who falls for Zeitgeist false liberation horse-hockey.)

Plenty of people at Reason will read it. I gather that Scientific Dictators refer to reasonable thought as a "rant" when they can't debunk it. You have Jane Totalitariano on your side, at the minute.

"Those who think tyranny is their friend and will stay their friend, don't know history. Tyranny is nobody's friend." - Savage.

[Mike Laursen]

You read it.

There you're wrong. I skimmed it just enough to determine it was a bunch of crazed babble. That doesn't count as reading.

[Anon]

"Crazed babble" - You're projecting from your own Narcissistic blog. Perhaps you're jealous of real publications that don't agree with you, or the fact that Reason would never let you near their association. I actually don't mind reading the work of others.

Did I say, "you read it" or "YOU read it."

Or are you all knowing and therefore beyond Reason... and reading.

Don't answer that. I know you will compose an ill informed lie. Thanks but no thanks.

[edna]

so much ink (well, bits, really) spilled discussing a publicity stunt. mike weiner is a master at this.

[raybutler]

For those geniuses who haven't bothered to read the infamous report, it is not only NOT an attack on speech, it doesn't name Savage or anyone else. It's not much of a report and didn't need to be done, but whatever.

libertymike | April 17, 2009, 12:37pm | #
The question is whether the constitution permits the government to issue such reports in the first place. Obviously, there is no textual support for the proposition that the government has the power to commission and then write and publish such reports.

Do you really want to live there, libertymike? Constitutional originalism? You too can be like Justice Thomas!

[Reaganite Republican Resistanc]

Napolitano's use of Oklahoma City in 1995 certainly is an intriguing example of how US military veterans are supposedly some sort of threat to us all.

That bombing was a single event, staged almost 14 years ago- hasn't Al Qaida staged hundreds of attacks on US interests since then? Why so little mention of them since she was appointed three months ago- isn't keeping a lid on those medieval savages 80% of her job description? Isn't that why the Department of Homeland Security created in the first-place?

Apparently there is no bounds to what government assets Obama will prostitute for his own purposes, either... while neglecting daunting, actual threats in the meantime.

So all who wondered why Obama chose this obedient toady to head Homeland Security now have their answer: a serious choice who would have focused upon real terrorist threats -not imaginary, partisan ones- like, say, a Rudolph Giuliani, wouldn't have been a willing participant is such a sham report.
-
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

[raybutler]

Cool off there, Reaganite. Again, read the material before jerking your knee, please. The report was on DOMESTIC terrorism, you ass.

[economist]

I would point out that there are many examples of lefty terrorism, like the Weather Underground back in the 70s. They just happened to be less competent than their righty counterparts.

[Anon]

Economist: you make an important point. The so-called "Left Wing" Statist struggles with reality beyond ideology. In this way the Statist is equally ill equipped to acknowledge any moral quandary with any number of radical Statist atrocities throughout its history, excepting Germany. For some reason they're good at perceiving '30's Germany as a heart of darkness. O! I know why, because they were taught in school that the Fascists are somehow a 'Right Wing' phenomenon. Only in the kaleidoscope Eyed world of Totalitarianism is there any such thing as "Right Wing". In the real world there are Statists, and people who have a real life. In the United Kaleidoscope Land of Totalitariana, neither wing is preferable. Both will stomp on your face.

[Mike Laursen]

You're projecting from your own Narcissistic blog.

There's some other kind of blog?

[Paul West]

Big deal another worthless lawsuit to add to that long list of worthless lawsuits has been filed. Savage may have opened up a real hornet's nest this time, by exposing this extremist "Janet Napolitano" for what she and those who employ her really are. "Socialists"

unfortunately, for Michael Savage he is now playing with real adults here,and as real adults they do tend to play quite rough at times. and when push comes to shove i wouldn't put it past them to deliberately sacrifice an entire planeload of citizens (passenger jet crash) just to silence Savage or anyone else who threatens too expose their devilishly clever agenda for destroying what little freedoms we now have left. the total subjugation under one almighty government of the beast and his image may already be unstoppable.

no honestly in the spirit of those government conspiracies, including 911 too. why would a evil perverted government agency or any above the law agency for that matter restrain from killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent men women and children just to take out one painful thorn.

[John Robinson]

Why stop at a passenger plane Paul,you might as well include nuking some city to get rid of a handful of troublemakers.

if 911 was indeed a conspiracy perpetrated by certain agencies within our government,who was silenced and why?

[Dauntless]

jtuf, it's suit, not suite.

[Bill Gast]

Janet from another planet Napolitano just can't keep her focus on what she was appointed to the cabinet position for. Do we have to remind her that she is the honcho that is in charge of keeping our borders and country safe from terrorists and those that would change our way of life in these United States? She has given us all reason to doubt that; (1.) she has the skill and capacity to manage a governmental agency. This is not the State of Arizona where she was Governor and (2.)She even has a clue on what her department is doing.
The recent bulletin that came out from her agency-supposedly reflecting her thoughts characterized disgruntled and homeless veterans as "indigents highly susceptible to right- wing extremist groups" As if that was not enough to indicate her mindset on veterans, she added a comparison to Timothy McVeigh the bomber as "a typical example."
Great Janet. Absolutely brilliant thinking. You head a department that in all actuality should be hiring every returning veteran available and at top dollar because of their discipline and experience. As if that tidbit on the thinking of the poster girl for weight watchers was not enough, she has to add; "Illegal aliens are not criminals" in a speech the week prior. What the hell are they then Janet? "Uninvited guests?" Maybe the fact that they jumped the border or had forged documents makes it a different federal offense? Americans need to understand; this Lady is the top cop-like the Attorney General of the Justice Department and she makes policy-or is charged with that task. From what we have seen thus far, She'll be transferring the gitmo detainees to Disneyland for safe-keeping when that facility closes. There is no way that this matronly gal is going to take the department anyplace but dysfunctional. That is if she is really running the place. In an excuse offered to the commander of the American Legion she stated ;
"The report was not worthy of this department," said the Secretary, "or of veterans. It was very badly written and should never have been released." Secretary Napolitano explained that the controversial document had been issued prematurely and, in its broadcast form, not properly vetted. "An analyst hit the send button when he had no authority to do so," she said.
Hello? ---Yes, it still rolls downhill in Washington---- now, an unknown "analyst released it ---without permission?????? So, what kind of other memos and instructions, mission assignments and security procedures are going out from the head office of the DHS without review? I look at this like the fiasco with Senator Barney Frank. In my eyes, this character is no different than Bernie Madoff. When asked his take on the reason for the banks defaulting, his answer was "I had no idea there was an upcoming problem" This is the Chairman of the U S banking and financial committee. What do these people do after they take office? They think there is a magic -"Place on remote auto-control" on their new desk?
First, Janet needs to return to another planet and take her government retirement and paid medical, etc, with her. Second, Our new Prez really should interview the person that replaces Janet and make sure they have their geography straight. In Canada, where she heightened our relations with our northern neighbor by indicating that the 911 terrorists entered the US from there and therefore it was Canada's fault for 911. It's getting so that if you see a "Janet" appointed to a government office you start to shudder. Remember Waco? Janet?..(?) Reno the Attorney General 30
Bill Gast
Editor,wesupportthevets.com

[ljp]

So Savage is 'against tyranny' yet believes the left should be locked up for 'treasonous' thoughts. Methinks it's actually Savage who is the fascist here...

[ljp]

Heh-heh! I guess I stand uncontested here. All those detestable pseudo-intellectuals that are Savage apologists dare not to disprove that Savage is a fascist because they cannot do it. I think anyone who thinks that Savage is so profound is as much an idiot as Savage himself.

[anon]

LJP, actually. Everybody just got bored of the argumentum ad hominems headed up by kiddos who are scared of their conscience, a healthy functioning Republic where everyone leaves everyone else alone... essentially, your thumb wrestling opponents have abandoned the borish chores of having to educate Sovietized runts on, o... I don't know, architects of your freedom & human rights, like: Aristotle, Solon, Rabelais, Voltaire, Victor Hugo, Locke, Paine, John Milton, Andrew Jackson
Every Single Important Framer of the Constitution,
Kant, Geddes,Mumford. Basic Economics 101

YAWWWWWN. Why do you expect anyone to argue with you. ...what's the point. Most kids who don't know about Rule of Law & Liberal Natural Law wouldn't recognize a Fascist if one hit'm over the head with a lifetime supply of BIG PHARM rations.

[Haha]

Take Savage away to the gas chambers and yell, Sieg Heil as he's being put in.. What a moron this man is.

[LJP]

anon, anyone who raves about having people locked up just for having an opinion is obviously fascist. Do I think Savage should be locked up? Certainly not. But I think he's a fascist and probably communist as well. (After all, he used to be one...)

[ljp]

Haha, since when did I ever say Savage should be put in a gas chamber? Don't put words in my mouth.