Here are some links to help you make up your own mind about Justice Alito, nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States:

Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 2000 - Alito joined majority finding New Jersey law banning late-term abortions was unconstitutional.

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE NEWARK LODGE NO. 12 vs. NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT - Alito joined unanamous opinion allowing Muslim police officers to wear beards for religious reasons

ACLU vs. BRET SCHUNDLER, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Jersey City - Alito sided with majority allowing city holiday display which included a creche, a menorah, a Frosty the Snowman, Santa Claus, red sleigh and a banner hailing the importance of diversity.

More will be posted as they are found. Please feel free to post your own links to actual decisions (not opinion pieces or summaries without link to decision) and a brief description in our comments section.

Jon Corzine is sprinting the final mile.   And he's brought his best friends along for the ride.   His current TV ad campaign enlists Bill Clinton who tells us that he was a governor and he knows a good potential governor when he sees on.   He sees in Jon Corzine a future good governor of New Jersey.   But before we get to Bill Clinton, let's look at some facts.   These facts, as well as a good look at Clinton, do not bode well for New Jersey if Corzine is elected.

First off, New Jersey, like New York City, is largely controlled by a Democrat party machinery there pervades just about every aspect of life in the state.   It is the biggest cause of the state enormous property taxes - the largest, by far, of any state in the union.   The state is about as corrupt as any state can be.   One cannot do business in the state without a strong financial tine to the Democrat party.   Corzine calls his opponent Forrester a person who has made great wealth due to "no-bid contracts" but these contracts are controlled by state laws created by Democrats.   And Forrester's contracts were not "no-bid" as the facts have clearly demonstrated.   By New Jersey Democrats have made trade almost completely on "no-bid contracts."   So the pot is definitely calling the kettle black.

Corruption is the biggest problem in New Jersey today.   It has grown completely out of control and is now responsible for a good part of the huge cost of living in the state.   It cannot be allowed to continue.   And the state's newspapers recognize that.   That is why every major newspaper in the state of New Jersey has come out in support of Doug Forrester.   Yesterday the last one got in line - The Star Ledger came out in support of Doug Forrester.   The paper said, "Forrester is the candidate who has the best chance of stanching the self-inflicted wounds that undermine the state's abilities to meet its obligations and to operate with the trust of its citizens.   While we support most of the policies Democrat Jon Corzine has championed as a U.S. senator, he hasn't convinced us he can stand up to the entrenched bosses of his party or to the powerful public employee unions."

The Star Ledger is just the latest statewide paper to come out in favor of Forrester.   The Asbury Park Press, the state's second biggest paper, said, "If you want property tax relief and ethics reform, get to the polls on Election Day and vote for Doug Forrester for governor. He's New Jersey's only hope for reducing taxes, eliminating waste in Trenton and stamping out corruption."   The Record said, "Forrester…has run a campaign that has been relentless about ending corruption and restoring the public's trust in government. For these reasons more than any other, The Record recommends Mr. Forrester for governor."

Perhaps this does not impress you.   Perhaps you do not care what the newspapers say.   But you should at least consider that these papers lean a little more than a little left.   They are notorious for supporting Democratic candidates come hell or high water.   The fact that they support a Republican candidate for governor means the water has gotten high enough to put out the fires of hell.

Now onto Monsieur Clinton.   He was a governor of a state so maybe he should know a thing or two about what makes a good governor.   Clinton was governor of Arkansas (pop. 2,673,400) for many, many years.   The state is one quarter the size of New Jersey and far poorer.   It basically failed to educate any of its population before, during and after Clinton was its governor.   You cannot easily look this up because it is not available online but more children from my public high school went to the Ivy League the year I graduated than did so from the entire Arkansas public school system.   That's true of the next public high school to the west from mine.   That's true of the next one to the west of that.   Bill Clinton is not qualified to judge the worthiness of a candidate for New Jersey governor.   He is in, Jersey speak, a freakin hick, a hayseed, a country bumpkin.   If you listen to him, do so at your own (and unfortunately my) peril.

If Jon Corzine is elected governor of the state of New Jersey, the corruption we have come to know and hate so much will not only continue but become more deeply entrenched.   Property taxes will rise but not only that, the system which will cause them to continue to rise for generations will become further entrenched.   All the state's liberal newspapers see Forrester as our only chance.   It's up to you, vote the way the hick leader from a poor under-educated backwards state wants you to vote or do something smart for a change.

I cannot look into the hearts of men and know their intentions.   But at the same time I can predict the future as it related to Valerie Plame Wilson after her husband started leaking and then came right out and said the administration's case for going to war in Iraq was a fabrication.   Her career at the CIA, whether covert or not, was over the minute the administration found out about the circumstances in which Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought yellowcake Uranium.

Why was Wilson enlisted as a temporary agent to help the CIA cover its ass?   Remember this is the same CIA which had fed information to other presidents including Bill Clinton who said as recently as the end of 1998 he wanted to attack Iraq's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs."   Bush did not force the CIA to find a foundation upon which to base war against Iraq.   This CIA had already done that work and that's why Clinton said what he said.   I remember once being questioned by my boss about the capabilities of someone who worked for me.   I told him that I thought she did a sub-par job.   He replied, "OK, then we're going to fire her."   I was flabbergasted.   I hadn't intended on this result.   I set out to prove that my prior statement was exaggerated.   But it was too late, the genie was out of the bottle.   The CIA told several presidents that Iraq had "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs."   Bush said, "OK, then we're going to do something about that."   The CIA's reaction was to run in the other direction since they didn't want to have responsibility for going to war.   I cannot look into the hearts of men but this is blatantly obvious and consistent with human nature.

How the CIA reacted says nothing about the political bias of the agency.   But some of its members are definitely for one party or the other.   In the case of Joe Wilson and his wife, that bias is squarely in the direction of the Democratic party.   Let me say that again because it is not widely reported in the media.   Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson were and continue to be supporters of the Democrat party.   Valerie Plame happened to have enough pull at the agency to get her husband drafted for the role of disproving the "administration's allegations."   But did he disprove them?   That is a subject for debate at a later time.   But the allegations were not the administration's allegations.   They were the CIA's allegations and all the agency wanted was a contrary view so it could cover its ass.   Once the CIA reported Wilson's findings, its ass was effectively covered.

Joe Wilson decided to make his "findings" public and again I cannot look into his heart and know his motivation but that's not important.   Once he did what he did, the administration was going to figure out who he was, how he got appointed to this job and whether he had any bias against the administration.   Once they did an investigation, the administration was going to find out that he was a Democrat and got appointed because his wife, also a Democrat, had pull at the agency.   Once that happened, it seems simple enough to predict that her role at the agency was going to be one of investigating who was to blame for stealing office supplies.   That is not a hard conclusion to draw.   It does not require clairvoyance.

Reuters reports today on a "60 Minutes" interview Joe Wilson gave which aired last night.   Also included in the piece are interviews of other CIA people who say her career is over because her name came out.   Her name did come out and likely due to actions taken on the part of the administration.   But the administration was not trying to "out a covert operative" because they did not believe she was one.   In fact everything offered so far by those investigating the leak has failed to call her covert.   Everything offered has implied that her identity was "not widely known" and similar phrases.   But they fail to call her anything remotely resembling the type of agent whose identity is protected by the 1982 act.   Valerie Plame was not an "undercover intelligence agent."   If she was, we would hear much about it.   Instead we hear things like "obstruction of justice" or "perjury" just as we did in Martha Stewart's case.   The important thing to remember in all this is not whether Valerie Plame's career is over because the administration "outed" her.   Her career was already over.   Everything else is window dressing.

Man, minding own business, witnesses a crime, calls 911, and is called as material witness to said crime at trial.   Accused is convicted at least partially due to man's testimony.   Convicted sues witness contending his story was false, seeking to compel him to tell the truth AND "unspecified financial damages."   Man seeks legal help from state and local government who decide they cannot help even though the suit is wrong.

I do not know how various states deal with the above scenario.   I do know that in this one case, the courts are at least entertaining the suit.   That means the man who testified will have to incur costs in time and money to defend against the suit.   Luckily he has found an attorney to defend him pro bono.   That may happen for one of these cases, perhaps a few, but eventually witnesses will know that when they tell the police and the courts what they saw, they may be lining themselves up for significant legal costs.   For that reason, it is something which must be addresses by legislatures at all levels.

Witness testimony is never perfect.   Often 2 people seeing a single event from identical vantage points will report different observations, sometimes drastically different ones.   That is at least part of the reason we have trial by jury.   A woman reports she saw one man beat another 100 feet from her window.   The defense argues that the woman can barely see anything let alone make out the face of the defendant.   The jusy decides whether to even consider her testimony.   That's the way our criminal law system works.   So it is not merely a matter of a witness reporting what he or she saw but whether in the judgment of the jury, the man or woman can be counted on to tell the truth.

One can easily craft endless scenarios in which a witness might fabricate a story against an accused or in which he might be coerced to change a few critical elements of his story after an interview by police.   But we cannot allow defendants, whether convicted or not, to sue witnesses.   Maybe in this case the man found free representation.   Maybe in another case it will only cost the witness a couple hundred dollars.   But when you apply that to the less affluent areas of this country, which also happen to be where much of the country's violent crime occurs, this one aspect could cause the entire system of criminal prosecution to come to a grinding halt.   The time to put a stop to this is now, as soon as the possibility of defendants suing witnesses has reared its ugly head.

Democrat Senator Harry Reid ventured into stupidity on Sunday, saying Bush and Cheney should "should apologize for the actions of their aides."   Reid called onBush to promise not to pardon anyone implicated in the investigation of Valerie Plame's "outing."   I've said what I think about whether anything criminal happened here - I do not.   I think it is hard to refute this given not only the complete lack of serious charges but also the lack of the prosecutor even refering to Plame as covert.   Clearly this is a parking ticket for Libby and one he is likely to get thrown out.   What Reid is calling for is beyond anything justified by the results of this two year investigation.

Reid is calling on Bush to not pardon anyone.   Did he call on Clinton to not pardon drug dealers and money launderers at the end of his term?   The Democrat party needs to take a good look at the walls of their own house.   They are clearly composed of glass.

Patrick Fitzgerald says about the five count indictment he obtained against Scooter Libby, "This is a very serious matter, and compromising national security information is a very serious matter."   Why did he not say "and murder is a very serious matter" or "and grand theft auto is a very serious matter?"   He could have picked any "major" crime on the books if he wanted to draw a comparison.   Since he charged Libby with nothing aside from crimes stemming from one single, solitary lie he alleges Libby made and "made repeatedly," anything else he does and doesn't say about his investigation must be examined to judge whether it should continue and whether his efforts and the large pricetag have been worthwhile.

Not only did Fitzgerald not charge Libby with a major crime, he did not even imply that he found a major crime.   He did not charge Libby with "intentionally disclosing the identity of an undercover intelligence agent."   In fact, he did not even refer to Valerie Plame Wilson as an "undercover intelligence agent."   He called her "an employee of the CIA and her employment status was classified."   That is rather different than calling her "undercover" since that term has significant operational implications.   One must assume the reason he did not call her an "undercover intelligence agent" is he found her not to be one.   That being the case, the first element of any charge under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act was not found to be in existence.   If he was unable to find a crime had been committed which resulted in any "compromise of national security information," why did he even refer to such an infraction?

Fitzgerald did say, "Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."   Just as an aside, I want to tell you that my friends, neighbors and college classmates have no idea what I do professionally.   Actually I don't know what they do either.   The 1982 act was intended to protect field undercover operatives from being "outed."   It was not meant to protect people whose friends and acquaintances don't know what they do for a living even if that living is made under the employ of the CIA.   The fact that Fitzgerald had field agents ask her neighbors if they knew she worked for the CIA means he was trying to figure out if he could fit her under the definition of "covert" in order to push this case further.   The fact that he did so the day before he sought indictment is kind of an "oops, I forgot what I was trying to do" maneuver.   And the fact that he never called the woman an "undercover intelligence agent" means he felt that he had not proven this primary element of the larger potential crime.

Fitzgerald also said:

"Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts .. Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that ... That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it."

It is too bad he did not say "if investigators find the missing million dollars is not missing after all, they ought to pack up their crime kits and go back to the office rather than wasting everyone's time and money."   There was no missing million dollars in this case.

What Fitzgerald has done here is received a call from a concerned motorist regarding a drunken, wreckless driver; found and pulled over a motorist for suspicion of speeding; and realizing he can't make that one stick, charged the driver for a one day overdue inspection.   That is an afront to all of us.   That is an afront to the legal system of this country.

New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. openly criticized the editorial side of the business today.   For those of you who are not familiar with the news "business" this is highly irregular.   Newspapers generally consist of two separate organisms, publishing and editorial.   The editorial side is the one which develops the product - reports the news.   The publishing side is interested with revenue - they sell the ads.   Often newspeople refer to the "chinese wall" which exists between the two organisms - one side typically holds no sway over the other.   Obviously in the case of the New York Times, today that is not the case.

Jon Corzine released a statement in the wake of Harriet Miers stepping aside as nominee for the Supreme Court.   This reads in part as follows:

"I fear this episode demonstrates that the White House is beholden to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, which seeks to pack the Supreme Court with radical conservatives. President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers exposed a deep rift between mainstream America and the conservative base of the Republican Party, who would not even allow Ms. Miers a fair hearing in the Judiciary Committee before they disavowed and eventually derailed her nomination. In replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate voice on the High Court, President Bush must not use the Miers’ withdrawal as a chance to appease his conservative base. He ought to choose a judge for Justice O’Connor’s seat that will respect established precedent and the fundamental constitutional rights of all Americans. He must select a nominee that all Americans will respect; one who will protect the right to privacy, a woman's right to choose, civil liberties and rights, and one who will respect the importance of precedent and settled law."

I offer the following in refutation of Mr. Corzine's words.

• This episode did not expose "a deep rift between mainstream America and the conservative base of the Republican Party."   It exposed the true spirit of conservatism which is that principle must be held in higher regard than the individual.   Ronald Reagan discussed this at length.
  
  
• Conservatives did not prevent "Ms. Miers a fair hearing in the Judiciary Committee before they disavowed and eventually derailed her nomination."   Private citizens do not have the power to filibuster or otherwise derail a nomination.   Only Senators have that power which they use with alarming regularity.
  
  
• We do not take a poll of an outgoing justice's opinions be they moderate, progressive, or conservative in order to evaluate her replacement.   There is no ideological scorecard for Supreme Court Justices which we must consult in order to determine an appropriate replacement.   That was true when the court went from conservative to actiliberaliberl.   It is true today.
  
  
• Bush will appoint someone who "will respect established precedent and the fundamental constitutional rights of all Americans" since these are the minimal standards for serving any public office in this country.   But given the variety of opinions found within the American people, it is not possible to nominate someone who "all Americans will respect."   The founding fathers established the methodology whereby we select members of the court.   That methodology insured that the ethos ofmajorityority of the country will control.   That is why the nomination belongs to the President not the minority party which has lost the most recent election.
  
  
• Respecting "the importance of precedent and settled law" is redundant with stare decisis, a minimum standard for all lawyers and judges.   However, this says nothing about overturning existing precedent when it is judged to be bad law - something that happens across the nation's courts almost every day.
  

Mr. Corzine, you have voiced your desires for a liberal, activist judge to fill the open position.   Such a person has zero chance of obtaining 51 votes from the Senate.   No chance.   Passing a conservative justice with the opinions you most despise is the most likely outcome.   And that is because a majority of folks in this country feel that way.

It is very frustrating to be forced to listen to the newsies opinions about the Scooter Libby indictment.   I looked for quite some time trying to find access to the actual indictment - the raw document.   Finally my better judgment got ahold of me and I checked Foxnews who had the real deal without all the blah, blah, blah.   Here it is:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/libby_indictment.pdf

Pretty weak stuff when you compare it to the allegations floated by the media.   I find it difficult to understand whether Libby is being indicted for lying under oath or for lying to the Tim Russert!   But please read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

The only thing I want to add to the discussion is: if no crime was committed with the naming of Plame, why did any of this investigation proceed?   If an investigation is under way for a crime that has never been committed and an officer asks you where you were on a particular day at a particular time, or what you knew and when, and you answer incorrectly, whether on purpose or not, should you go to jail?   I'm of the opinion that you should not.   I'm also of the opinion that law enforcement officials need to first determine if a crime was committed before they have the authority to do anything else.   I believe that is at the heart of American civil liberties relating to unwarranted search and seizure.

Today is supposed to be the big day.   Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has called a press conference for 2:00 EDT today at which he is rumored to be announcing an indictment against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.   Oooohhhhhh INDICTMENT.   Democrats are getting giddy over that word.   The rumor mill says the indictment is likely to be for "making a false statement" to the grand jury.   Libby said he wasn't sure who told him that Valerie Plame was the CIA "covert" operative who was the wife of Joe Wilson, the specially appointed CIA agent who "discovered" the administration's claim that Iraq had sought yellowcake in Niger.   The circumstance around which a Bush administration critic would be drafted to do "undercover" intelligence work immediately before the country went to war with Iraq is cloudy at best.   Valerie Plame's "covert" status is similarly questionable.

As Fitzgerald's investigation has moved along, it has become increasingly clear that it was unlikely anybody would be charged for "outing" an undercover CIA operative.   The law under which this was investigated defines the type of agent who would be protected and Plame simply does not qualify.   Secondly the type of person who would have to do the "outing" is similarly defined and neither Libby nor RNC chief Rove qualify.   In other words, it is extremely unlikely there was an actual crime here.

But Democrats have sung the praises of Fitzgerald as a prosecutor's prosecutor.   He was said to be nonpartisan who is officially an "independent" but whose record lays bare the fact that he has prosecuted Republicans more than Democrats at a rate of more than 50:1.   The same Democrats who praise him note that he has a reputation for "creatively applying" the law.   Don't you just love a cop who creatively applies the law?   That obviously is something civil libertarians ought to praise.   Personally, I would prefer cops and guys in Fitzgerald's position did NOT creatively apply law.   If it isn't easy to fit somebody's actions into the definition of a crime, you as prosecutor ought to drop it.   The BTK killer was a code enforcement officer who was said to "creatively apply" the law and made himself a nuisance to his neighbors.   But so what?   Fitzgerald is "fair" and "creative."   And it now appears that the best he could do was get someone who "wasn't sure" for lying because he can prove that he did know.

I say he can "get" Scooter Libby but I don't actually mean that.   All Fitzgerald has succeeded in doing here is getting an indictment.   At the federal level getting an indictment is essentially the same thing as a cop deciding he is going to make an arrest.   It is a long way from getting a conviction.   It is a long, uphill way from getting a conviction.   But Democrats are not concerned about the conviction.   They are happy to receive the indictment.   It is enough for them to have the whiff of "corruption" in the air.   They would prefer not to so much sweat the details.   They'd rather keep everything a little murky so long as it generates headlines in their favor.   You on the other hand should do far more to understand what is going on.

Miers is gone.   I think it wasn't meant to be.   Liberals should have a sense of foreboding now.   It ain't gonna be pretty.   Chuckie, Teddy and friends, your absolute worst nightmare is about to come true.   There will be no concensus candidate.   This nomination was defeated by conservatives not liberals.   The next one will be crafted to suit conservatives.   We all missed listening to the libs making jackasses out of themselves.   That is about to change.

The NFL is reportedly considering relocating the New Orleans Saints to Los Angeles.

Whoopee.

The thing about football fans in Southern California is that they don't have huge team loyalties, and hence, don't spend a lot of dough. There are, for example, Angels fans and Dodgers fans. But despite how much they brag about being "long time Dodgers fans", they don't really spend much money as Dodgers fans. There's just something about So Cal that makes monetizing a sports teams difficult.

The other thing is that bringing the Saints to Los Angeles is an insult.

Imagine, if you will, the New York Yankees moving to Portland, OR. And then a few years later, Major League Baseball relocating the Colorado Rockies, a perennial loser, to New York. Don't you think New York baseball fans would be insulted?

Moreover, I don't think Los Angeles needs an NFL team. Historically, Los Angeles hasn't been able to hold on to big league football teams. The only team that ever started in Los Angeles was the Chargers, and they moved to San Diego. The Rams moved in from Cleveland, stayed for a long time, then moved to St. Louis. The Raiders, moved in from Oakland, and moved back to Oakland.

I guess there's something jinxy about Los Angeles and professional football teams.

Perhaps the NFL would do better to find a market with a less diverse population. Look at those folks in Green Bay, Wisconsin. They live for the Packers. But because an NFL team is so expensive to operate, it needs loyalty to survive in a town. Los Angeles just doesn't have that much loyalty to satisfy the high standards of the NFL.

My advice? Send them to Salt Lake City. They seem to do well with failed New Orleans teams.

If the President of Israel were to make a speech in which he called for the eventual eradication of Islam and all Muslims - removal of them from the face of the Earth, those dirty people, the entire world would be up in arms about it.   Very likely there would be something coming from the UN condemning not only the speech but the very idea.   Yesterday we heard the President of Iran make those very comments about Jews.   There are some condemnations coming from the likes of the US and Britain.   But the world, at large, is offering very little in terms of real reaction.   The Russians and Chinese have the least to say.   Nobody in the Arab world is condemning Iran for stating an official foreign policy of desiring to carry out genocide.   Israel is calling for the expulsion of Iran from the UN.   That seems unlikely for a number of reasons.   But why can the world not unite on the one concept that it is always absolutely wrong for one group to say "we desire to kill everyone in that country or of that religion?"   Until the world can come together on something as fundamental as this, there is absolutely no hope of anything even remotely resembling world peace.   Where are the peaceniks like Cindy Sheehan and her disciples on this?

There are a couple of things missing from the news today.   One is the speculation of what is going to come out of the Plame case.   The grand jury adjourned for the day without any word of indictments so I suppose there is nothing to report.   On the other hand this has dominated the news for days during which no real information came out.   Now is the waiting game and that doesn't generate any good news.

John Kerry did hold a press conference which was billed as a "major foreign policy speech" which instead afforded him the opportunity to take potshots at the Bush administration over Plame and saying regardless of whether there are indictments from the investigation, "for it and for misleading the nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history."   John was grateful for the opportunity to speak about this because he has no major thoughts on foreign policy.

The other piece missing from the news is coverage of the aftermath of Wilma.   If you've got family effected, you know this is easily as bad as New Orleans in terms of the number of people impacted and the extent of the damage.   The press has not chosen to cover this with anywhere near the "myopic zeal" they covered New Orleans since in that case, it was really about all those poor welfare recipients who America's stratified society had put in harm's way!   I suppose we were also missing the incompetent mayor and governor who provided the pathway to blame it on Bush.

There was some coverage about the number 2,000.   That's the number of soldiers who have died in Iraq.   We seem to like round numbers in our society.   That's why we use numbers like 60,000 and 50,000 to discuss the numbers of troops killed in Korea and Vietnam even though those numbers are imprecise.   2,000 sounds like an important mark but I wonder if it matters any more or less than 1999 or 2001.   There's no prize for any one of these numbers.   They simply number the ones who have paid the supreme price in defense of their country.   But there is nothing about that number or any other which is newsworthy.   It is no landmark worthy of notice.

I got a kick out of this article from the Associated Press, describing a growing hatred in Europe against Halloween, because it's perceived as an American holiday that has nothing to do with their tradition.

Critics see it as the epitome of crass, U.S.-style commercialism. Clerics and conservatives contend it clashes with the spirit of traditional Nov. 1 All Saints' Day remembrances.

And it's got purists in countries struggling to retain a sense of uniqueness in Europe's ever-enlarging melting pot grimacing like Jack o' Lanterns.

Of course, the truth is that Halloween actually came from Ireland, nearly 2,000 years ago, as a pre-festival celebration for All Saints Day, the commemoration of the dead.

But this part about Europe struggling to retain a sense of uniqueness perhaps tells the tale of what's going on over there. The real issue is that they don't have money to support their economies. If they had plenty of wealth to spread around, Europe could afford to hold on to its traditions.

But the purists and traditionalists in Europe are annoyed with Halloween because it's a necessary change, and they don't like to admit they're wrong. The traditions of Europe aren't doing much for their economy lately. Europe can't cope with the rise of cheap manufacturing jobs in Asia, thanks to their insistence on socialist philosophy. Europe needs to change, and purists don't like change.

Maybe "crass U.S.-style commercialism" will be good for their economy after all. With all the manufacturing jobs going to Asia, the only industry Europe will have left to depend on is American tourism.

Reuters reports Sean McManus, head of CBS Sports, will be the network's new chief of news.   Reuters notes that the younger crowd has tuned out network news in favor of the web and reports of news fabrication have cut the credibility of "mainstream news media."   Yet they discuss the manufactured story of Bush's National Guard service as "botched" or that CBS News was either "duped" or "blinded by myopic zeal."   Reuters says CBS retracted the story.   Here's a thought, why don't we conduct a poll and find out if the news audience thinks:

A) CBS was duped,
B) CBS suffered from myopic zeal, or
C) CBS deliberately engaged in fabricating news (including supporting documents) in order to alter the outcome of a presidential election and get the Democrat elected.

Which one do you think would receive the majority of votes?   I'd stake my amassed fortune on C.   And if as an aside to this poll we asked the average man on the street if he believed CBS had "retracted" the story, what do you think the majority would say?   I'd double down my newly enlarged fortune that the outcome would be: CBS sort of, kind of, weakly said something to the affect that some of its documents were perhaps not genuine but the story is correct as reported.

I feel richer already.   Any takers for my wager?   I didn't think so.

We have always argued that the Islamic world is interested in just a few things.   One of these is the complete removal of Israel from the map of the Earth.   This runs completely against any foreign policy the U. S. and its allies have since it is mostly their (and our) plan to establish and protect Israel because we (the western world) have largely been responsible for the removal of jews from their homeland.   You can certainly argue that the United States, Britain and much of the rest of the western world had nothing to do with the Roman Empire and its scattering of the Jews but the fact remains that they were scattered by force.   And what happened to Jews throughout the world after their scattering has not been what one could call justice.   The western world needs to recognize that its goals with respect to Jews and Israel runs completely counter to the Islamic world and as a result we are essentially at war with them.   These facts are made plain by recent comments by the leadership of Iran.

Iran's President is calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."   Iran also has denounced attempts to recognize the state or otherwise normalize relations with it.   Iran is saying that a new wave of attacks in Palestine will wipe Israel off the map.

Let's drop the pretense that there exists a Palestinian people whose homeland was taken from them.   Let's drop the pretense that there exists the possibility of making peace with the people who we call "Palestinian" but who are in fact Egyptians sent to the land to lay claim to it and thereby create the illusion of a wronged indigenous people.   Arabs, Persians and others in the area have always tried to make war against the Jews.   The fact that they do it in a clever fashion does not change the historical reality that what they are after is genocide.   And this is why we cannot allow Iran to develop the bomb.

Let's play a little game.   Who said the following:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."

The answer is United States President William Jefferson Clinton, December 16, 1998.

Check it out on CNN: click here

Eliot Spitzer is on the trail of dangerous criminals.   The New York State Attorney General has reached an agreement with UPS whereby the company will stop delivering cigarettes to individuals in the United States.   The cigarettes at issue are the variety sold largely by native tribes which have not been subjected to state taxation.   The agreement makes the United States Postal Service (USPS) the only carrier who currently delivers under-taxed or untaxed cigarettes to individuals.

Spitzer said the USPS practice of delivering cigarettes is "an embarrassment. Internet cigarette traffickers are increasingly using the federal mail system to distribute their wares."   He claimed the USPS has the authority to refuse to deliver these.   He called on Congress to put a stop to the practice immediately.   The postal service, however, disputes Spitzer's claim.

The issue in this effort to stop delivery of cigarettes is said to be twofold.   First there is the reduced cigarette tax revenues the states are experiencing because of the tax free cigarettes.   Secondly, Spitzer claim that internet cigarette sales cause cigarettes to fall into the hands of minors who cannot otherwise legally purchase them.   This second argument seems to be a fall back position and usually receives less attention than the tax issue.

But what of the tax issue?   Is it a valid concern?   According to the federal ATF agency, "States lose more than $1 billion a year in tax revenue from Internet tobacco sales."   This is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the tax revenues lost via mail order and other direct selling wherein sales and use taxes are not seldom collected.   The direct marketing business is huge in this country and the revenue lost is hundred, perhaps thousands of times greater than the revenue lost on direct cigarette sales.

New York State has a slightly different opinion regarding other forms of direct selling.   For example, sales of printed promotional materials are taxed in many state and local jurisdictions.   New York does not tax these and, in fact, has established a sales and use taxing structure that was deliberately set up to grow New York's printing and drop shipping business.   The state has other tax code provisions which are deliberately structured to circumvent other state's taxing authority.   In other words, New York state and its Attorney General speak with forked tongue.

The real reason Spitzer is going after the internet indian cigarette businesses is cigarettes are an easy target due to their general dislike by a clear majority of voters and this is an excellent way for the politically ambitious Spitzer to get positive press on a non-controversial issue.

After reading Dave's earlier post about Dr. Kamau Kambon using political hate speech to increase his market value (a la Ward Churchill), I felt compelled to make some observations.

Kambon said that every black person in America is a slave, and that every white person is a plantation owner.

Here are some examples of black slaves in America...

Jesse Jackson - best-selling author, founder of the Rainbow Coalition, and all around shakedown artist, yeah a slave.

Oprah Winfrey - who doesn't agree that the daytime television star is a slave to white moms?

Bill Cosby - who's being forced to dance, tell jokes, and make funny faces

Clarence Thomas - Supreme Court Justice, he doesn't really render decisions, he's actually just shining shoes

Richard Parsons - CEO of AOL Time Warner, forced to stuff CD-ROMs into millions of magazines

Stanley O'Neal - COO of Merril Lynch, token blackie, he's just there for the color

Barack Obama - Senator from Illnois, because it's a white conspiracy to elect a black senator

Tiger Woods - Because earning $11 million a year playing sports doesn't count as academics

Colin Powell - He's just a Bush monkey

Condoleezza Rice - Another Bush monkey

Tupac Shakur - Recording artist, deceased, because the only good black man is a dead one

O.J. Simpson - killed two white folks, and is now forced to live life in shame. Sounds like slavery to me.

Yeah, I would agree with Dr. Kamau Kambon. Blacks in America are slaves, and are being held back from prosperity.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama

I've made it my mission to keep you up to dat eon the comings and going of The Crawford Peace House.   The group is very busy these ays dealing with substantive issues.   CPH has two news items for you:

1) "Great news! we do have a national investigative reporter interested in interviewing every peace activist who were sick either after Crawford or after DC. I must hear from folks soon - i have recieved so many emails from all over the country ! I quietly have continued to collect emails from folks from all over the US and have continued to write to folks and ask them to further investigate the illnesses!

Please get this email around today!
Thanks
Nancy Cunningham
cunningb@flash.net
Dallas Air America Groups"

2) The group is catching grief about parking in Crawford from the fuzz:

"Well guys.. if they wont us park our vehicles anywhere in crawford, why don't we protest on bicycles? It would be fun, productive, and healthy!

johndeek23@yahoo.com"


I always figured all these people needed was something to keep them busy!

Zogby reports the results of a recent poll showing that a majority of voters are now optimistic about Iraq because of the country's success in passing its constitution.   Read More.

I have never seen a comprehensive discussion anywhere in the media which explored exactly who Valerie Plame and her husband are and what this scandal is really about.   Why is that?

Valerie Plame is spoken of as a covert CIA agent yet her duties were carried out at a desk in CIA headquarters.   Maybe I've read too many spy novels.   Maybe I just don't understand what covert and agent mean.   But in my extremely limited experience, when folks speak of a covert CIA operative or agent, I assume they are acting out in the field somewhere under the guise of doing something else.   I think of a guy or gal whose very life is at risk on a day to day basis.   Valerie Plame was never such an agent.

Joe Wilson is discussed as a career "diplomat" who was enlisted by the CIA for some sort of covert mission to learn if Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Nigeria.   He came back and reported orally (not in writing) that he had found such reports to be false.   His reports were dismissed out of hand and were never elevated to higher levels.   Democrats would like us to believe that this happened because his findings were inconsistent with the Bush administration's arguments to go to war in Iraq.   Joe Wilson "came out" and broadcast to the world his "expert" opinion regarding the claims.   There is some dispute regarding whether Wilson was so situated as to obtain real intelligence in regards to his "mission" or whether he simply went to Nigeria and perfunctorily made a few inquiries the results of which did not support the administrations other intelligence.   Nobody has ever claimed Wilson was a cracker jack intelligence guy who was basically flawless.

Now we are told to impeach the entire administration because somebody "leaked to the press" information concerning a CIA desk jockey?   Before you can out a covert agent, the outed one must be in operations, not just be an analyst.   The outed one also needs to be operating covertly - they need to be put in a bad, even dangerous place by having their identity exposed.   Neither condition applies to Valerie Plame.   Before something can be done for retribution, somebody with greater knowledge than Joe Wilson would have to act against the administration.   Somehow this whole can of garbage is beginning to smell really, really bad.   Somebody needs to put it out for collection.

Have you watched how Florida reacted to the latest hurricane?   It's been pretty methodical, pretty darn competent, pretty uneventful.   When you compare and contrast this with the other storms of the season, it is quite flattering to Florida and Jeb Bush.   Jeb is an excellent communicator but, more than that, He seems completely in control of the state's reaction to natural disasters.   I have to admit that until recently I wasn't very enamored with the idea of having another Bush in the White House.   But who, from either party, would make a beter choice for the executive branch of our nation's government.   Florida is a huge, complicated state with more problems than most.   The state has more than its fair share of seniors, immigrants (legal and illegal), and consists of one of the most diverse populations in the country.   Anybody who can run that place can run just about anything.   Jeb's relation to the Bush currently in office is simply irrelevant.

The Democrats are slowly showing us what their strategy is going to be for the midterm and next presidential elections.   That strategy appears to go something like this:

1) Take a poll to see what the most negative impressions people have about Republicans are.
2) Create the appearance of an impropriety which plays to number 1.
3) Make it last long enough for the Democratic news apparatus to not only publish it as news but also to publish a high volume of editorials exploring it close to death.
4) Get Democratic party members like George Stephanopolis to interview DNC chairman Howeird Dean about all the media reports and editorials and create the impression that things are completely out of control.

The reason Democrats are doing this are:

1) They are genuinely upset about the Republican party because the entire party is corrupt;
2) the instances which make the news are the single most important issues facing the nation; or
3) The Democrats have absolutely nothing else to add to the nation's political discourse.

It seems almost abusrd that Democrats are genuinely concerned with Republican corruption when you consider that the last sitting Democrat president was Bill Clinton who committed perjury in court while in office and relinquished his law license for five years due to his dishonesty.   Also other national party figures have engaged in "questionable" acts as when Jon Corzine donated $2.5 million to black churches in one year to secure political support, gifted more than a half million to the head of a union which came out and supported his candidacy for Senator, etc., etc.   Democrats would be better advised to clean up their own house before throwing stones at others.

The single most important issues facing this country are quite obviously the continued threats made by fundamentalist Muslims, cleanup and rebuilding associated with the current rash of tropical cyclones, and those folks in Iran and Korea who want to blow up the world.   So that couldn't be it.

My third possibility might be it but the Democrats must have something to add to the country's political discourse.   There are so many issues facing the country that they just must have some ideas about some of the problems.   Yet just try to rack your brain and come up with something, anything the dem.s have said in the past year or two or even more which represents an idea about solving any problem facing the country.   Go ahead, call my bluff.   Name a plan or program espoused by Democrats which deals with one problem this country has faced over the past decade.

I've watched more baseball in my lifetime than I care to admit.   As a result, I've seen my share of bad calls.   But this post season ranks as the worst umpiring I have ever seen.   Seldom in the history of the game have bad calls by the umps had such a large impact.   There were so many bad calls per game in the Angels - Yankees series and they happened at such critical moments that I was sure they had a huge impact on the outcome of that series.

At first I thought perhaps I was mistaken because I was a biased Yankee fan.   Then I saw the same thing happen against the Angels in the next series.   Sure writers can say the Angels didn't hit and they didn't.   But anyone who has really played this game knows that it is as much a momentum game as any other sport.   And the bad calls by the umps took the impetus away from the Angels or they might very well have swept that series.

Now we are in the World Series and the calls are at least as bad as they have been in the divisional and league championship series. Houston had the game tonight fairly well in hand.   Then with two outs and two men on, the homeplate umpire awarded first base to a batter for hitting what was obviously a foul ball.   The next batter up hit a grand slam.

I am so disappointed in the umpiring this year that words do not adequately express it.   I am almost as big a football fan as I am a baseball fan.   Football has long been taken away from the players on the field and handed over to the game officials.   It is fairly common for penalty calls to change the outcome of a game.   We've all come to expect that even though it doesn't soften the blow when it happens to your team.   It is a forgone conclusion that officiating has ruined the game of football.   I hope the same doesn't happen to baseball but I fear it already has.

Recently there was heavy media coverage about a dozen or so white supremacists who marched in Toledo, Ohio and, thereby, caused rioting in the streets.   I made my opinion about the rioting known in another blog posting. &nbso; I wanted to compare and contrast the institutional media's coverage of Toledo with their coverage of Dr. Kamau Kambon of North Carolina State University who publicly said, "We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem."   But before I can compare and contrast their coverage of the good doctor, they need to at least mention him once.

Perhaps you are familiar with the recent story about a pee wee football coach who shot someone because he was angry that one of his kids was removed from the team.   The victim was dating the child's mother.   The child had been removed from the team as a means of disciplining him for trouble he had been in recently.   Every media commentator is looking at this as a way to impeach the current state of youth sports.   They question if we haven't gone a little over the top with kids sports.   Maybe we are a sports obsessed society which has lost its focus on fun and recreation.   That's ridiculous.

A high percentage of this nation's youth participate in organized sports.   Let's throw out a ballpark figure of one quarter of the nation's kids.   Also there are the parents of these kids and some adults who do not have children.   Let's just guesstimate the number of individuals who are involved in youth sports at 30 million, a very conservative figure but many times the size of the population of New York City.   If you read a report of someone shooting someone else in New York City, what would you do?   Would you go on national media and proclaim that New York City had become a totally immoral place where the whole fabric of society had completely broken down?   No, of course you wouldn't.   That's because you are smarter than that - you have perspective on things.   Let's get a little perspective before we begin impeaching youth sports.   If you get a couple tens of millions of people together, eventually something bad will happen between two of them.   That's what we have here in pee wee football.

The next time something really gets me angry, I know what I'm gonna do.   I'm going to gether up a bunch of bricks and throw them through the window of my home and then through the windows of the stores where I buy my groceries, wine, etc.   Then if they send some doctors or paramedics to offer me medical treatment in the event I injure myself, I'm going to attack them.   I'm gonna get so mad that I'm going to destroy the place that really matters to me, the place where I live.   Pretty bleepin stupid, huh?   That's what we watched happen in Toledo, Ohio.   Now we get to listen to a bunch of people justify it, even make it sound like it made sense.   I don't think nazis should be allowed to march anywhere, least of all in my neighborhood.   But I'll be goddamned if I'm going to destroy where I live in order to work out my anger.   That's irrational.   That's what we saw in Toledo.

Jon Corzine has donated $2.5 million to black churches in New Jersey in order to obtain the endorsement of ministers.   Did you see any of this money or otherwise benefit from it?   Blacks make up approximately 13.6% of the state's total population.   That means there are a little more than 1 million black people in the state.   So Corzine has spent two dollars and fifty cents to obtain your vote.   Well that's a silly statement isn't it?   You're not going to vote one way or the other because money was "donated to black churches."   I know firsthand that the black population of New Jersey is far too intelligent for anything like that.   In fact the black population of New Jersey consists to a greater and greater extent of successful (some extremely succesful) hard working people who are intelligent and well educated.   But don't you find it just a little insulting that the guy would set out to buy votes?

Below is a screen shot of the web site of the Democratic National Committee.   I'm at a loss to understand what this accomplishes.   Does this further the cause of civil rights, equalize treatment of all citizens, feed or house the poor?   What purpose does this serve?

I'm not fool enough to be blind to what the Democrats are hoping to do by persecuting DeLay.   They are already doing about all they can on that front.   They've found a prosecutor in Texas to do their bidding but he is on extremely thin ice.   They've found a judge to hear the case but the guy is a contributor to MoveOn.org!

This is getting out of control but I'm not adding my voice to that.   I don't care a hoot about DeLay.   What purpose is this photograph playing in furthering the causes of the Democratic party?   You would expect to see something like this on the personal web site of some frat boy or maybe even some idiotic liberal bogger.   It is totally unprofessional appearing on the home page of a major political party.

There was a lot of good old fashioned, tie-died, 1960s feeling at the peace rally in Washington on September 24.   The press let us know the protest turnout was really pretty good, well in excess of 100,000.   They also let us know that, by contrast, the turnout for the pro-war, pro-Bush counter rally was meek at best.   It all sounded and looked a lot like those good ole days, the nineteen-sixties.   One young participant wrote in her blog, "When I got on the bus I met two adults who actually participated in peace events like this during the Vietnam War."   Wow, that must have seemed really cool.   This person wasn't even born when the troops came home from Nam but now she has the opportunity to sort of participate in all that.   But Iraq and Vietnam have little in common except in one important aspect.

They say if you "remember the sixties, you weren't there."   The joke is there were so many drugs around, you couldn't possibly remember any of it.   Well, I was too young to really participate in the sixties but I remember it very clearly.   I was born in 1960, grew up in the early seventies and while I could not have gone to Woodstock or any of that, the tension between parents and children, as well as much of the "nouveau humanitarian" popular teenage hippy thinking was just as prevalent when I went through high school.   There was this bizarre sort of peer pressure prevalent wherein one who thought of himself as hip, or cool, or even intelligent, had to "be in the know" by fully appreciating that the "establishment" (whatever that was) had gone astray.   You can't trust adults.   They're all "in on it."   "It" was some sort of conspiracy to back up "the man."   The conspiracy involved some sort of brainwashing which made a person favor war in order to subjugate the people of the world under the thumb of the United States - "the man."   If a high school kid wanted to fit in, he or she had better be "in the know," hate the "establishment," and never give in to "the man."

Kids who grew up a little awkwardly (as we all do) could find a sort of acceptance in the crowd if they educated themselves enough to be "in the know."   It felt good, really good, to be a part of something, anything.   The source for the information comprising "the know" was other kids who were more "in the know" than we were.   These kids espoused the same sort of philosophy the 60s peace protest leaders had but it was a bit more refined.   It had become so sophisticated that it was nearly a religion.   And so it went not just in the sixties but well into the seventies.

The children who grew up in this 60s-70s environment have long since come of age.   They are now doctors and lawyers, accountants and bond traders, mailmen, factory workers, teachers, etc.   They are also the current group of aging, but still in power, journalists and news executives.   They bought into the "anti-the-man" thinking they were raised around.   But now, they don't feel quite as fulfilled as they did in the sixties and seventies because there isn't that scene to hang out in and get constant positive reinforcement that they are hip and cool and in the know.   Just as the first hit of heroin is said to make you pursue the feeling for the rest of your life, this first hit of euphoria is something journalists and others who grew up in the midst of that peer pressure still seek out.

But there was something else going on in the fifties, sixties and seventies hiding just beneath the surface, just out of view.   The Communist political philosophy was in high gear.   Russia and China were pushing their individual brands of Communism and doing so fairly effectively.   That was, after all, why we were in Korea and Vietnam, to fight against the wildfire spread of world Communism.   Communism offered what it called the only real hope for world peace - fairness to all.   But they accomplished the spread of this fairness mostly through military operations because that was the easiest way to make it happen quickly.   The United States, or if you prefer, "the man" was using his armies to fight an enemy who was spreading its way through conquest and empire building.   The Communists and their friends came to see the United States as a formidable barrier to their plans until they realized they could manipulate American thinking to their favor.   These Communists poured gasoline onto the initial peace protests in order to make the flames shoot higher.   Communists added their organizational skills to what had been largely chaotic even anarchic, ad hoc protest gatherings and turned the thing into an all-out movement complete with organized demonstrations.   They essentially infiltrated the bands of youths who disliked seeing their friends come back in caskets or without limbs, or who were frightened of the prospect of themselves being sent off to war.   They added their philosophy to the thinking of the peer group.   Anti-war philosophers began claiming that Communism was good and right.   And long after the war was over, the former protesters espoused Communism and its philosophy.   This is documented historical fact, not merely the musings of a neo-con.

Along with the wars in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere came a realization that the enemy of Communism is America.   If you were "in the know," you took this for granted.   Communists took great care to further this notion via their informal channels into the nation's youth.   And the notion was spread via peer pressure.   Anything you could say which criticized American foreign policy was something which further established your bona fides.

That aspect of the sixties mindset has never changed.   Along with other liberal notions of "fairness" especially for the poor and downtrodden - those grievously injured by "the man" - the notion that anything the United States does outside its borders in the name of self-interest is morally repugnant and necessarily corrupt.   That is the well from which the idea springs forth that our military should only be used when the United Nations says it should since presumably the UN would never sanction actions taken merely in the self-interest of the US.   That idea, espoused by John Kerry during the presidential race, is among the most important liberals mantras.   Taken to the extreme it means the war in Iraq is wrong for one reason and one reason only, the United Nations did not sanction the action.   That is the foundation for the current peace protests.   There is more icing on the cake to be sure but the central motivation is we did what we did without the UN.   The rest is merely the PR through which those opposed to the war were able to get everyone else involved.   Cindy Sheehan doesn't see this.   The young blogger noted above doesn't see it either.   But it is there nonetheless.

Why do I make such a bold statement that the anti-war movement flows from a liberal notion that whatever the US does in its own self-interest is wrong?   Well, let's take a look at the participants in the September 24 Washington rally.   You won't find a comprehensive list of the parties who organized the thing or who formed the largest contingent of protesters anywhere in the old-line mainstream media.   They did not share that with us because they were too busy rekindling the sixties.   CNN described the scene as "In the crowd: young activists, nuns whose anti-war activism dates to Vietnam, parents mourning their children in uniform lost in Iraq, and uncountable families motivated for the first time to protest."   They even located one pro-Bush Republican man who said the only policy of Bush he doesn't support is the war.   Even the man's agents don't agree with the man!   COOL!

In order to make a real analysis of just who was at this thing and who was behind it, you have to go through reams and reams of blogs and web sites and put the thing together for yourself.   But thankfully, the good folks at Accuracy in Media (AIM) managed to put it together nicely in a piece entitled "Yellow Press Promotes Red Rally."   This piece names names and lists the organizations which made up the backbone of this "peace" rally.   It ain't pretty to look at but before you put marker to oak tag or string to white t-shirt, you ought to look at it.

AIM identifies numerous Communist groups and individuals.   Somehow that was missing from the list I read in the New York Times, heard on CBS radio, or saw on CNN.   Fox News covered some of it but they didn't get quite as in depth as AIM.   AIM points out that while there were some young activists, nuns, parents mourning their children, and families motivated for the first time to protest, there were a lot more militant Communists and other radicals than anything else.   That is because the Communists and other have aligned themselves with anybody who has a bone to pick with the US.   That includes pro-Saddam types.   That includes pro-al qaeda types.   That includes anyone opposed to America acting in its own self-interest.

If you were sober during the sixties (and seventies), you know what I am saying and what AIM is saying is true.   Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, we won't get fooled again.

The someone who ought to go directly to jail is named Frederick Enderle, City Manager of Loveland, Ohio.   Why should he go to jail?   Enderle should go to jail for being criminally STUPID.   He is the man overseeing the persecution of a woman who failed to file individual city tax returns.   Ohio is perhaps the only state stupid enough to have a city income tax return for just about every city in the state.   They are too stupid to apply a state-wide levy and distribute it properly to the localities.   But that doesn't begin to forgive Enderle's criminal level of STUPIDITY.

The woman Enderle is persecuting owes a grand total of $1.16 for the four years for which she owes returns.   That is not a misprint.   She owes One dollar and sixteen cents for four years back taxes.   Because she didn't file and because MONUMENTALLY STUPID FREDERICK ENDERLE is on the job, she now faces 18 months in jail and $4,000 in fines.   Landmark-worthy-STUPID Frederick Enderle made the snide comment about the woman, "This is a flagrant offender. She's been given ample opportunity and ample warning to file those returns and she chose to ignore them."   What a flagrantly STUPID moron.

I don't know where the man lives but if you do, please give him a punch in the nose for me.   If you can find him and punch him for me, please try to videotape it and e-mail me a copy of the file so I can sleep at night.   Knowing that somebody can be so fundamentally STUIPID and not catch a punch in the face is making me crazy.