Fulton Lewis - "Top of the News ... As It Looks From Here"

Our Next Commander-in-Chief?

2008-03-30T10:57:35Z

Barrack Hussein Obama

Ready for that 3:00AM Call!!!

ooops! Hey Barrack, you're supposed to speak into the OTHER end of the phone.

OBAMA'S PASTOR DISASTER - by Mark Steyn

2008-03-16T15:11:03Z

(My congratulations to syndicated columnist Mark Steyn for this OUTSTANDING article!)

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright thinks that, given their treatment by white America, black Americans have no reason to sing "God Bless America." "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America," he told his congregation. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human."

I'm not a believer in guilt by association, or the campaign vaudeville of rival politicians insisting this or that candidate dissociate himself from remarks by some fellow he had a 30-second grip'n'greet with a decade ago. But Jeremiah Wright is not exactly peripheral to Barack Obama's life. He married the Obamas and baptized their children. Those of us who made the mistake of buying the senator's latest book, "The Audacity Of Hope," and assumed the title was an ingeniously parodic distillation of the great sonorous banality of an entire genre of blandly uplifting political writing discovered circa page 127 that in fact the phrase comes from one of the Rev. Wright's sermons. Jeremiah Wright has been Barack Obama's pastor for 20 years – in other words, pretty much the senator's entire adult life. Did Obama consider "God Damn America" as a title for his book but it didn't focus-group so well?

Ah, well, no, the senator told ABC News. The Rev. Wright is like "an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with." So did he agree with goofy old Uncle Jeremiah on Sept. 16, 2001? That Sunday morning, Uncle told his congregation that the United States brought the death and destruction of 9/11 on itself. "We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," said the Rev. Wright. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards."

Is that one of those "things I don't always agree with"? Well, Sen. Obama isn't saying, responding merely that he wasn't in church that morning. OK, fair enough, but what would he have done had he happened to have shown up on Sept. 16? Cried "Shame on you!" and stormed out? Or, if that's a little dramatic, whispered to Michelle that he didn't want their daughters hearing this kind of drivel while rescue workers were still sifting through the rubble and risen from his pew in a dignified manner and led his family to the exit? Or would he have just sat there with an inscrutable look on his face as those around him nodded?

All Sen. Obama will say is that "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." And in that he may be correct. There are many preachers who would be happy to tell their congregations "God damn America." But Barack Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He's not the Rev. Al Sharpton or the Rev. Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial grievance-mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race, the candidate who doesn't damn America but "heals" it – if you believe, as many Democrats do, that America needs healing.

Yet since his early twenties he's sat week after week, listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race-huckster.

What is Barack Obama for? It's not his "policies," such as they are. Rather, Sen. Obama embodies an idea: He's a symbol of redemption and renewal, and a lot of other airy-fairy abstractions that don't boil down to much except making upscale white liberals feel good about themselves and get even more of a frisson out of white liberal guilt than they usually do. I assume that's what Geraldine Ferraro was getting at when she said Obama wouldn't be where he was today (i.e., leading the race for the Democratic nomination) if he was white. For her infelicity, the first woman on a presidential ticket got bounced from the Clinton campaign and denounced by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann for her "insidious racism" indistinguishable from "the vocabulary of David Duke."

Oh, for cryin' out loud. Enjoyable as it is to watch previously expert tossers of identity-politics hand grenades blow their own fingers off, if Geraldine Ferraro's an "insidious racist", who isn't?

The song the Rev. Wright won't sing is by Irving Berlin, a contemporary of Cole Porter, Ira Gershwin and Lorenz Hart, all the sophisticated rhymesters. But only Berlin could have written without embarrassment "God Bless America." He said it directly, unaffectedly, unashamedly – in seven words:

"God Bless America
Land that I love."

Berlin was a Jew, and he suffered slights: He grew up in the poverty of New York's Lower East Side. When he made his name and fortune, his marriage to a Park Avenue heiress resulted in her expulsion from the Social Register. In the Thirties, her sister moved in with a Nazi diplomat and proudly flaunted her diamond swastika to Irving. But Berlin spent his infancy in Temun, Siberia (until the Cossacks rode in and razed his village), and he understood the great gift he'd been given:

"God Bless America
Land that I love."

The Rev. Wright can't say those words. His shtick is:

"God damn America
Land that I loathe."

I understand the Ellis Island experience of Russian Jews was denied to blacks. But not to Obama. His experience surely isn't so different to Berlin's – except that Barack got to go to Harvard. Obama's father was a Kenyan, he spent his childhood in Indonesia, and he ought to thank his lucky stars that he's running for office in Washington rather than Nairobi or Jakarta.

Instead, his whiny wife, Michelle, says that her husband's election as president would be the first reason to have "pride" in America, and complains that this country is "downright mean" and that she's having difficulty finding money for their daughters' piano lessons and summer camp. Between them, Mr. and Mrs. Obama earn $480,000 a year (not including book royalties from "The Audacity Of Hype," but they're whining about how tough they have it to couples who earn 48 grand – or less. Yes, we can. But not on a lousy half-million bucks a year.

God has blessed America, and blessed the Obamas in America, and even blessed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose bashing of his own country would be far less lucrative anywhere else on the planet. The "racist" here is not Geraldine Ferraro but the Rev. Wright, whose appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old.

"God Bless America
Land that I love."

Take it away, Michelle.

©MARK STEYN

"ROCKABEE" IS CLEARLY THE GOP FRONTRUNNER!

2008-02-06T12:50:17Z

Clearly, Arizona Senator John McCain has a comfortable lead in the race for the 1,191 delegates needed to secure the GOP presidential nomination – receiving a nice lift from the balloting on Super Tuesday. The latest count: McCain – 613; Romney – 269; and Huckabee – 190.
What McCain needs to carefully consider as he writes the critically important speech he will deliver tomorrow at the CPAC in Washington, D.C. is that he is not the choice of a majority of Republican voters. He has failed to make any significant inroads in the ranks of conservatives but instead is reaping the benefits of the fact that they are at this point divided between the philosophical Reaganites (favoring Romney) and the religious right (supporting Huckabee). McCain’s lead is the result of plurality victories. He has captured a majority of the GOP vote in only 3 states: Connecticut (52%), New Jersey (55%), and New York (51%). In contrast, Romney has scored majority victories in 6 contests: Colorado (59%), Massachusetts (51%), Utah (90%), Maine (52%), Nevada (51%), and Wyoming (67%).
When pitted against “Rockabee” (Romney/Huckabee), McCain’s showing has been quite unimpressive as the chart below reveals:

STATE	McCAIN	ROMNEY +	HUCKABEE =	"ROCKABEE"
Alabama	37%	18%	41%	59% *
Alaska	16	44	22	66 *
Arizona	47	34	9	43 *
Arkansas	20	13	60	73 *
California	42	34	11	45
Colorado	19	59	13	72 *
Connecticut	52	33	7	40
Delaware	45	33	15	48
Florida (Jan. 29)	36	31	13	44 *
Georga	32	30	34	64 *
Illinois	47	29	17	46
Iowa (Jan. 3)	13	25	34	59 *
Maine (Feb. 1)	21	52	6	58
Massachusetts	41	51	4	55
Michigan (Jan. 15)	30	39	16	55
Minnesota	22	42	20	62
Missouri	33	29	32	61 *
Montana	22	38	15	53 *
New Hampshire (Jan. 8)	37	32	11	43
Nevada (Jan. 19)	13	51	8	59 *
New Jersey	55	28	8	36
New York	51	28	11	39
North Dakota	23	36	20	56 *
Oklahoma	37	25	33	58 *
South Carolina (Jan. 19)	33	15	30	45 *
Tennessee	31	24	34	58 *
Utah	5	90	1	91 *
West Virginia	1	47	52	99 *
Wyoming (Jan. 5)	0	67	0	67 *

In 24 of the 29 states that have had primaries or caucuses to date, the combined Romney/Huckabee vote exceeded McCain’s vote (the “Rockabee” total is bold & underlined). In other words, what can be considered the anti-McCain Republicans outpolled the pro-McCain voters. In 19 of those states, that anti-McCain vote was greater than 50% meaning that over half of the Republicans opposed the Arizona senator.
Of particular importance is that 17 of those 19 states were so-called “Red States” in 2004 (marked with an asterisk *). Unquestionably, these are the heart and soul of the Republican Party and have been vital to its success in the last two presidential elections. If McCain cannot rally behind him the overwhelmingly conservative Republican base in these states, he will clearly lose many of them in November and Republican hopes of beating either Clinton or Obama are nil.
What has lured some conservatives into the McCain camp is the notion (forwarded by his endorsement in the New York Times and other liberal media) that he is the only Republican who can win the presidency. In truth, almost the opposite is the case. Keep in mind that no Republican in the last half century has been elected President by campaigning on a “moderate” platform. Nixon, Reagan, Bush #41, and Bush #43 were all successful because they advocated policies which reflected their party’s conservative majority. McCain is not likely to be the first to break that trend.
The dilemma facing McCain now is: does he apologize for his liberal past and assure conservatives that he’ll be a “good boy” in the future on issues like immigration, campaign financing, Supreme Court appointments, and tax cuts? If so, he had better make it very convincing because his credibility on these issues is in serious doubt. Furthermore, if he does make these necessary concessions and conversions, he is sure to be hit hard as a “flip-flopper” by the Democrats in the fall. On the other hand, if he does not make amends with the conservative majority of his party, his defeat in November is virtually assured.
“Rockabee” would be a sure winner!

CNN FEATURES HILLARY PLANT AT GOP YOUTUBE DEBATE

2007-11-29T11:39:40Z

Retired "Brig. Gen." Keth Kerr who was featured as a "spontaneous" questioner on CNN's YouTube Republican Debate on Wednesday night (Nov. 28) is actually an operative in the Hillary Clinton campaign. On June 27, 2007, the Hillary for President organization announced the formation of "LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) Americans for Hillary" and listed the admittedly gay "Gen." Kerr as a member of its Steering Committee. That fact was not mentioned by Kerr, CNN, or the program's host Anderson Cooper.

In his recorded YouTube message, Kerr challenged the GOP presidential contenders on the issue of the military's "don't ask/don't tell" policy that has been in effect for nearly 15 years. He was also invited by CNN to attend the debate in person and was given several minutes of national television time to challenge the candidates' defense of current policy. His “comments” turned out to be more like a filibuster but moderator Cooper did not interrupt.

In his self-introduction, Kerr said: "My name's Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I'm an openly gay man." That also was a little deceitful. In fact, Kerr never really reached the rank of general. He was a colonel in the California Army National Guard. It is common practice at Guard retirement ceremonies to give an honorary promotion to the state rank of Brigadier General but that is not federally recognized and the title cannot be used or the rank worn outside of the state. It has little meaning other than a nice certificate on the wall, and the use of the "General" title at local Guard functions.

Apparently, CNN's strong anti-conservative prejudice runs so deep that it is willing to resort to some cheap, dirty tricks to try to derail the Republican campaign. Given the network’s history of consistent radical liberal bias, it is difficult to believe that the Kerr incident was a naïve mistake. It is more likely that it was another attempt to sandbag the Republicans – hopefully embarrassing them on the sensitive issue of gays in the military. It didn’t work. The general stated: “For 42 years, I wore the army uniform on active duty, in the Reserve, and also for the state of California. I revealed I was a gay man after I retired. Today, ‘don't ask/don't tell’ is destructive to our military policy.”

Senator John McCain responded: “General, I thank you for your service to our nation. I respect it. All the time, I talk to our military leaders, beginning with our joint chiefs of staff and the leaders in the field, such as General Petraeus and General Odierno and others who are designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can. Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it's working.”

So Hillary’s campaign strategy obviously goes beyond planting friendly questioners at her own appearances. It now includes sending her lieutenants (in this case a General) into the enemy (GOP) camp in an “Operation Harassment.”

Just think what the Reid/Pilosi/Clinton/Obama/Edwards clan would have done if Fox News featured some harrassing questions by a Guiliani operative during a Democrat debate. Am I wrong in thinking there would be a congressional investigation?

THE TWO FACES OF HILLARY

2007-09-26T17:31:11Z

This is how the leading Democrat contender for her party's presidential nomination looks when she is with a crook ...

And this is how the leading Democrat contender for her party's presidential nomination looks when she is with an American hero ...

A picture is worth a thousand words!!!!
________________________________________________________________

My friends Bruce Eberle and Don Heiliger have reminded me of some very appropriate historial statements:

Abraham Lincoln: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

Robert E. Lee: "It appears we have apointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.
"Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials -- after the fact."
________________________________________________________________

MR. PRESIDENT, THERE ARE EVEN MORE LESSONS FROM VIETNAM!

2007-09-24T19:41:21Z

_________________________________________

My thanks to Wes Vernon for his superb article "Reaching Out to Democrats and other GOP Masochisms" (Renew America - Sept. 17, 2007) in which he said some very kind words about my late father. I encouarge you to read it: Reaching Out ...
__________________________________________

   It was courageous of President Bush to draw a comparison between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq during his speech Wednesday at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City. It is a theme he will probably pursue further next Tuesday when he addresses the American Legion in Reno.

   The anti-war movement has long drawn a connection between the two conflicts, but from their own perspective. They are convinced that they can once again mount enough public pressure to force the politicians in Washington to withdraw from Iraq just as they forced the U.S. surrender in Vietnam over 30 years ago. And you’ve got to give them credit. Led and heavily financed by extremist groups like MoveOn.org, they have already succeeded in capturing every major Democrat candidate for the presidency and a vast majority of the Democrats in Congress. Polls continue to show, however, that 2/3rds of the American people – while insisting that there be progress on the political front in Iraq – are opposed to withdrawing our troops before their mission is accomplished.

   In his speech, Bush pointed to the “catastrophic consequences” of America’s failure in Vietnam. Estimates of the number of Vietnamese that ended up in prison camps range as high as 400,000, and, as the President noted, tens of thousands of them died. Over 1.5 Vietnamese became refugees. In neighboring Cambodia, 1/5th of the total population (1.7 million Cambodians) were slaughtered by the brutal Pol Pot regime. Bush concluded: “One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people,’ ‘re-education camps’ and ‘killing fields’.”

   There is a further comparison that could be made to Vietnam, and even to the Korean War, which may be even more relevant than the one drawn by President Bush. We can be certain that today’s militant Jihadists who are dedicated to our death and destruction have examined American conduct in these past conflicts in hopes of discovering both our strengths and our weaknesses.

   If I were Osama bin Laden, I would certainly be a student of American history. I would highlight the Korean and Vietnam war experiences where America suffered huge losses but failed to pursue the wars to a victorious conclusion. I would note that, in every instance, America’s failures were the result of decisions by her political leaders who lacked the will, courage or stamina to persevere until victory was achieved. While being fearful of the awesome capabilities of the U.S. military, I would gain confidence and optimism from the weaknesses of the U.S. politicians and diplomats.

   If I were the leader of Syria or Iran, I would have learned that American political leaders – in both Korea and Vietnam – showed a clear unwillingness to prevent men and material from being imported from adjacent nations that were friendly to her enemies. The Red Chinese were granted full sanctuary for their bases above the Yalu River, despite the fact that it was from those bases that hundreds of thousands of Red Chinese troops supported by MIG jets attacked the U.S./U.N. forces in Korea. The same situation prevailed in the Vietnam conflict with U.S. politicians forbidding the interception of supplies being shipped through the Gulf of Tonkin by the Soviet Union, and by land from Communist China, into North Vietnam. And then Americans were handcuffed from conducting full-scale attacks against the Ho Chi Minh trail where it passed through Laos and Cambodia. Cannot Syria and Iran now assume that they will be able to send support across the border to help the terrorists fight the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan without suffering serious reprisals? Of course they can … and do!

   If I were in charge of the terrorist campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, would I be encouraged by statements like “The war is lost” from the leader of the U.S. Senate? Could I take heart from the fact that virtually all of the Democrat candidates for President of the United States are committed to an early withdrawal of American forces from Iraq? Could I surmise that if my efforts in Iraq are successful that they would also work in Afghanistan and elsewhere? Of course I could!

   And if I were an Iraqi living in the besieged city of Baghdad, would I want to identify myself with or assist the U.S. forces when each day the news carries reports that those troops might be withdrawn by the Congress in a matter of only months? To be closely associated with the Americans would carry an enormous risk of reprisals from the anti-U.S. forces that would surely occupy Baghdad soon after the U.S. departure.

   During the past century, U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated our strength, but it has also revealed our weaknesses. It is not only possible, but likely, that our enemies have learned and benefited more from our past mistakes than we have.

   The debate in our country seems to have centered on how soon we should withdraw from our war effort, and not what the consequences of withdrawal will be. The question that never seems to be asked to the anti-war activists: “What happens then?”

HELP … AND HOPE … ARE ON THE WAY!

2007-08-23T14:09:46Z

In mid-July, I had the privilege and pleasure of speaking before two of the organizations that will surely be contributing heavily to the inventory of tomorrow’s political leaders of our nation. I can happily report that the news is very encouraging.

The College Republican National Committee held its 57th National Convention in Washington, D.C. I had been a member of that organization when I was in college, and in the 1960’s I lectured and debated on over 750 campuses across the country and worked hard to set up a Republican Club wherever I discovered there wasn’t one. So, this year’s visit was a reunion of sorts. The College Republicans have grown enormously with chapters on over 1,800 campuses and a national membership of more than 250,000.

My other appearance was at the 29th Annual National TeenAge Republican Leadership Conference in nearby Alexandria, Virginia. TARs is now 41 years old. I remember vividly when Barby Wells and I sat down in my office on Vermont Avenue in Washington in the spring of 1966 and decided that there would be nothing wrong with setting up an organization to introduce the nation’s teenagers to conservative principles – particularly since they certainly weren’t learning anything about them in the public educational system.

The two of us, with the help of the late Rep. Donald Bruce (R-IN), founded TARs which occupied an 8’ x 10’ room in my office that I wasn’t using at the time. I had no idea that the seed which was planted then would grow into such a powerful tree.

Barby Wells is still there. She runs TARs from a small office in historic Manassas, Virginia – about a half hour via Metro from the heart of the nation’s capitol. With little more than pennies in its bank account, TARs has miraculously thrived and today has literally thousands of chapters scattered throughout all 50 states. Its current national membership is more than 200,000. Over the last 29 years, more than 300,000 teenagers have attended National & State TARs Workshops dealing with current issues and campaign organization. These go far beyond just philosophical discussions. There is a heavy emphasis on training in the nuts and bolts techniques of precinct organization, voter registration campaigns, and getting young people actively involved in the democratic process.

At this year’s Conference, I heard Jamie Osborne (SC) and Steven Munoz (FL) give an excellent presentation – complete with a PowerPoint show – about: how to set up websites, podcasts and blogs; how to communicate effectively; and, how to help your candidate win the election.

Other sessions taught TARs how to advance their cause by getting involved in community service, how to work cooperatively with senior party organizations, and how to break the wave of apathy that is an epidemic among many young people.

Mixed with these work sessions were daily trips via the D.C. area’s Metro to Capitol Hill to meet congressmen (including a special meeting with Senators Trent Lott and Jeff Sessions), a special briefing at the White House, and even a sunset visit to the inspiring Iwo Jima Memorial tribute to the Marine Corps … something every visitor to Washington should experience.

TARs is not just all talk. Its “alumni” include several Members of Congress, White House staff members, dozens of state legislators, and many party leaders. Twenty-two year old Justin Burr was one of this year’s speakers. He is the Chairman of the Stanly County, North Carolina Republican Party, and two years ago (at age 20) ran unsuccessfully in the primary for a seat in the State Legislature. The victor was the incumbent, much older than Justin, who touted his political experience. After being elected, however, he became immersed in a serious political scandal and was forced to resign from the Legislature. In the next few days, we should know if Justin is named to that seat by the party’s Executive Committee. He certainly would be the logical choice and, if fairness prevails, Justin should soon be in the State Legislature.

Getting young people – even in their late teens and early twenties – to bite the bullet and actually run for office is something TARs strongly encourages. They’ve got a good success rate.

The real acid test of my experience this week would come with my wife’s reaction to what she saw and heard. For over three decades, Barbara has been a school teacher and, quite frankly, is a little soured on America’s youth – particularly the 30% she sees “graduated” from high school who are unable to read their diplomas. Spending time with the College Republicans and the TARs was not only an eye-opener, but a heartening experience for her. Her impression: they are polite, well informed, articulate, responsible, dedicated and talented. On our flight home from D.C., she commented: “You know, there IS hope for our country.”

PARDON HILLARY'S HYPOCRISY

2007-07-23T10:10:40Z

    Hillary Clinton was out campaigning in Iowa this week and for the first time she brought along her husband, Bill. She wasted no time in lashing out at President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of “Scooter” Libby saying: “Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. …This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.” Standing behind her, Bill clapped along with the audience, but without too much enthusiasm.

   Surely, the former President realized that some journalist like me would dig back into the record of pardons and clemency granted when he was in the White House. It was so rampant and so corrupt that, at one point, it was labeled “Pardongate” and was the subject of an investigation by Federal prosecutors.

   Despite vigorous objections from the FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, President Clinton on August 11, 1999 commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States. They had been convicted of conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, sedition, and firearms/explosives violations. The sentences ranged from 35 to 105 years. Congress condemned the President’s action with a 95-2 vote in the Senate and a 311-41 vote in the House. When the House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation into the matter, Clinton invoked “executive privilege” in refusing to turn over some documents to Congress regarding his commutation decision.

   One of the more vocal critics of the President’s action was (are you ready for this) Hillary Clinton - his wife, the First Lady, and soon-to-be Democrat candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in New York. Anticipating that she would be running against Rudy Giuliani, she was trying to avoid any appearance of being soft on terrorism, or crime.

   In March, 2000, President Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory who had been convicted in 1982 on charges of bank fraud. They were owners of a carnival company and just happened to be close friends of Hillary’s younger brother, Tony Rodham. The group Judicial Watch filed a request with the Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had gotten $107,000 from the Gregorys to lobby for the pardons. Technically, they were “loans” – but were never repaid.

   Finally, on January 20, 2001 – his last day in office, President Clinton issued no less than 140 pardons and commutations. Many of these raised some serious questions:

   • Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions even though a federal investigation was currently underway into tax evasion and money laundering charges.

   • Carlos Vignali had his 15-year sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted (after serving only 6 years).

   Both Braswell and Vignali paid an estimated $200,000 to Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, to lobby the President for their clemency. When these payments were made public, Rodham claimed to have returned the payments.

   • Marc Rich, a fugitive from justice, was pardoned of tax evasion. He had been implicated in the Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes involving over 4 million barrels of oil. His former wife, Denise Rich, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made huge donations to the Clinton Library, and to Hillary’s Senate campaign.

   • Susan McDougal was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal.

   • Former Illinois Democrat Congressman Dan Rostenkowski was pardoned after having been convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal.

   • Clinton also commuted the sentence of former Illinois Democrat Congressman Melvin J. Reynolds who was in jail for bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography.

   • Last, but certainly not least, President Clinton issued a full pardon to Roger Clinton, his half-brother, who had served time for convictions on drug charges. In less than a year after his pardon, Roger would be arrested again on charges of drunk driving and disorderly conduct.

   Now, Bill and Hillary Clinton have the colossal gall to utter a word of criticism about President Bush’s commutation of the jail sentence part of the “Scooter” Libby perjury conviction. A Special Federal Prosecutor’s “fishing expedition” had wanted to show that Libby was the culprit in disclosing the identify of CIA employee Valerie Plame. Since it was clear that Libby was not involved in that, and that no crime had been committed, it is difficult to understand why he was even on the witness stand in the case.

   When it comes to putting yourself “above the law” and “cronyism”, the Clintons clearly hold the record. Anyone who views that record will find it very difficult to “pardon” their bold and blatant hypocrisy.

I'LL HAVE TWO EGG ROLLS -- PLEASE HOLD THE KEROSENE!

2007-07-05T09:54:15Z

    I am one of many Americans who feel that we have become too dependent upon China. Virtually everything we see these days has “Made in China” stamped on it. Computers, phones, clothing and almost all plastic products. My concerns have ranged from economics (with each dollar that goes to China, they own another piece of the U.S. – our balance of trade is dangerously bad) to security issues (do we really want to be that dependent on a nation which is building rockets that are pointed at us).

   Nearly 80% of the toys sold in the U.S. each year come from Chinese manufacturers. One of these is a fake eyeball whose appeal is a mystery to me. One thing about it is not very cute, though. It is filled with kerosene! Other toxic toys include trains, bears and drums coated in lead paint.

   Yesterday, the list of contaminated and questionable products from China grew longer when our federal authorities slapped an unusual hold on farm-raised shrimp, catfish, eel and some other fish imports because of a concern that they contain potentially harmful drugs. (They don’t put a “Made in China” stamp on your scampi, or Shrimp with Lobster Sauce.)

   That disturbing announcement came just days after federal transportation officials ordered the recall of up to 450,000 tires made in China. They showed a tendency to lose their treads on the highway.

   Be careful when you buy a tube of toothpaste because some discount brands, imported from China, have been found to contain an antifreeze chemical that in significant amounts can be poisonous.

   And don’t forget to check that long list of pet foods, made in China, which have been recalled because they contained toxic chemicals which were killing our dogs and cats.

   All in all, Chinese manufacturers account for 60% of all product recalls in the United States – up from 36% in 2000.

   In our greed to take advantage of China’s cheap labor, we have helped build it into a gigantic economic power and, perhaps, a monster. We have bestowed “most favored nation” trading status on the Chinese – something else that we might want to “recall.”

   When you see “Made in China”, it could just be a warning label.

Now ... Time for REAL Justice in the Duke Lacrosse Team Case

2007-06-30T13:53:27Z

    It seems crystal clear that District Attorney Michael Nifong’s misconduct went well beyond the areas of jurisdiction of the North Carolina Bar. Withholding evidence, fraud and perjury are a few obvious areas in which he could, and should, be prosecuted. Beyond that, what about the nearly $1 million in legal fees paid out by the families of the defendants? The law provides Nifong with somewhat of a shield from civil damages resulting from any mistakes committed in the line of his duties, but the North Carolina Bar committee’s ruling shows clear evidence that he went well over that line. It said that he had manipulated the investigation to boost his chances of winning his first election for Durham County District Attorney (he had been appointed to the job in 2005 after nearly three decades as a lawyer in the DA’s office). In doing so, the committee declared, he committed “a clear case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct” that involved “dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.” Bottom line: justice in this case mandates the prosecution of Nifong and his reimbursement of legal costs plus damages to the families for the incredible pain and suffering they have experienced and are likely to experience for years to come. As for a jail sentence, if I were the judge he would get sum of the maximum sentences he was seeking for the lacrosse players.
         Another interesting possibility, since Nifong branded this as a case of “sex, race and class”, would be his prosecution under the Federal Civil Rights Act. Is there any question that the defendants in this case were targeted because they are white and the accuser is black? And there seems to be little doubt that the lacrosse player defendants were repeatedly denied their rights of due process.
        Durham County, of course, did not have a one-man District Attorney’s office. Mike Nifong had over a half dozen aides working with him on the lacrosse players case and each appears to have been complicit in the evidence “cover-up”, and perhaps also fraud, perjury and denial of due process. Justice mandates a thorough, impartial investigation into the role each Assistant District Attorney played in this matter and appropriate prosecutions/penalties for misconduct.
       Sometimes, the passage of time has a tendency to purge our memories. Let us not forget the long and outrageous list of insults, threats and abuses which the defendants and their families weathered since early April, 2006. The vicious newspaper ad published by 88 radical leftist Duke professors (the “Gang of 88”) with assumptions that the accused were guilty … along with the typically profound pronouncements about the evils of racist and sexist activity. (Duke Professor William Chafe compared the defendants to the murderers of Emmett Till.) To this day, Duke President Richard Brodhead has not uttered one word against these faculty members who had encouraged a horrible and unfair rush to judgment.
        Let’s remember the hostile reception Duke teams got from fans at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University – students parading around the field with “No Means No” signs. They chanted the slogan throughout the events. Posted throughout Durham were the “Castrate” signs and “Wanted” posters. The entire lacrosse team was portrayed as a bunch of rowdy hoodlums. They hired strippers! Never mind that Duke’s nationally famous basketball team had hired strippers for its team party just two weeks earlier. That was greeted with a “boys will be boys” attitude.
       Lacrosse coach Mike Pressler, one of the nation’s best, was forced to resign because of the pressure. He had spent 16 seasons at Duke and won three Atlantic Coast Conference championships. In 2005, his team appeared in the national championship game. Coach Pressler said something to the effect that there were 50 people who knew the truth, and 50 million who thought they knew it … or really did not want to know the truth if it got in the way of a good story. The media that joined the stampede to adjudge guilt included the regulars: New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, the Durham Herald-Sun and the Raleigh News & Observer. Nancy Grace chirped in her accusations from her CNN perch.
       And last, but certainly not least, the “Reverend” Sharpton/Jackson team felt obliged to jump into the mix, making their typically idiotic statements. Al Sharpton, appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s Show (Fox News), effectively said that we should believe the girl who claimed to have been raped because “when the prosecutors went forward, they clearly have said this girl is the victim.” When O’Reilly noted that the DNA evidence had shown no evidence of a crime and no link to the arrested lacrosse players, Sharpton responded: “But I think that all of the facts that you have laid out the DA had — and I know this DA is probably not one that is crazy. He would not have proceeded if he did not feel that he could convict.” It was just another in a long list of incidents where Sharpton has been woefully wrong. Jesse Jackson also felt the irresistible magnetic pull of a publicity opportunity. Like Sharpton, he rushed to the scene to prejudge the guilt of the accused “rich, white” lacrosse players. Jackson even pledged a full college scholarship to the alleged “victim”.
      At some point, whoever “frocked” Sharpton and Jackson should realize that these two “Reverends” are perhaps America’s top racists – in the real sense of the word. The Duke case certainly should be the last straw and merit their “defrocking.”
     Although there is some chance that legal action may be forthcoming again Nifong and perhaps his assistants, I will wager that the true “victims” in the Duke case will see nothing more in the way of justice. The lacrosse players, sadly, will not even get apologies from the “Gang of 88”, the radical media or the Sharpton/Jackson team. Their case has taught America a much-needed reminder that those accused of crimes should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

DEMOCRATS COLLAPSE ON IRAQ WAR ISSUE

2007-06-18T15:34:49Z

DEMOCRATS COLLAPSE ON ANTI-WAR VOTE

As children, we were taught that if you play with fire, you might get burned. Last week the Democrats discovered that playing political games with the Iraq War issue can be equally disastrous. When they took over the new Congress in January, there were claims that last November’s elections had given them a “mandate” to bring the troops home from Iraq, and for the last five months the House and Senate have been virtually myopic on the war issue – doing little more than passing funding bills which contained deadlines and other conditions that they knew would bring presidential vetoes. They also knew they didn’t have anywhere near the number of votes needed to override the vetoes.

As the debate lingered, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) said it more bluntly than anyone: if the Democrats were successful in forcing a bring-the-troops-home deadline, the Iraq war would become their war and they would have to accept responsibility for the consequences. At best, pre-mature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would result in total chaos there. At worst would be a takeover of the country by a coalition of militant Muslim jihadists and al Qaeda which would heighten the terrorist threat world-wide. If the Democrat leadership didn’t recognize that danger, it was clear that the American people did. Despite an obvious frustration with the war that is reflected in the polls, a New York Times poll this week shows that 69% feel that Congress should continue its funding of the war effort albeit with some benchmarks for progress that the Iraqi government must meet.

It had been a long, headline-grabbing show but on Thursday night it was showdown time. By an overwhelming 80 to 14 majority, the Senate voted to approve a $94.5 billion funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. 37 Democrats voted “aye” and only 10 voted against the bill. (Republicans Burr (NC), Coburn (OK), and Enzi (WY) also voted “nay” but not because they were against funding the troops. They objected to $17 billion in new funding, not related to the war, that was attached to the bill.)

The bill had already been approved in the House by a 280 to 142 majority (86 Democrats and 194 Republicans voting “aye”, 140 Democrats and 2 Republicans voting “nay”).

The real dilemma was the one facing Democrat presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. To win their party’s nomination, they would have to keep the support of the lunatic, but rich, anti-war left. MoveOn.org had mobilized an enormous lobbying effort making so many phone calls to congressmen on Wednesday and Thursday that several offices complained they couldn’t get a line to make an outgoing call.

Also to be weighed was the fact that a vote opposing funding for our troops in the field would surely come back to haunt them later, after they won the nomination, jeopardizing their chances of winning a presidential election with a much more moderate electorate. Both Senators had previously voted for funding, but on Thursday they caved in to the enormous pressure from their extremist backers and voted “nay”.

There was some cat-and-mouse maneuvering during the voting. As is customary, the first calling of the roll was not answered by many Senators who stroll into the chamber and cast their vote just before time elapses. Clinton waited until Obama voted just prior to the deadline. After she heard his “nay”, she quickly came forward and voted the same. Other leaders in the Democrat presidential race echoed their position. Former Senator John Edwards (NC) who is to the left of both Clinton and Obama had already declared that he would have opposed the bill. Non-candidate (but still third highest in the polls) Al Gore has staked out a far leftfield position almost identical to Edwards.

Bottom line: all of the leading Democrat presidential contenders have decided to posture themselves with the extreme left of their party, competing for the affection (and dollars) of MoveOn.org, Streissand, et al. Also-runners Chris Dodd (CT) and Joe Biden (DE) were split on the issue with Dodd voting “nay”, Biden “aye”. The other Democrat “nays” were cast by: Boxer (CA), Feingold (WI), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Leahy (VT), Sanders (I-VT), Whitehouse (RI) and Wyden (OR).

The outcome was received as a “shock and awe” assault by the anti-war activists. It was too much for one of its more publicized spokespeople, Cindy Sheehan. She formally quit the “peace movement” making her announcement Monday in a 1,200-word letter saying that the Congressional vote demonstrated that the U.S. was becoming “a fascist corporate wasteland.” (It remains to be seen if America can survive the loss of Sheehan AND Rosie – who quit “The View” – all in just one day!)

Sheehan’s statement may have been very close to accurate when she complained that Democrats were just “playing politics” with the war issue. Surely Democrat leaders knew months ago that there was no chance that an Iraq War funding bill containing withdrawal deadlines would ever be approved. The President had made it clear that any such legislation would be vetoed. An 80 to 14 rejection could hardly have come as a big surprise. So why did they waste all that time – virtually the entire first half of this legislative year? If there was serious concern about the cost of the war, what about the cost of the operations of Congress for those five wasted months -- itself billions of dollars. For what?

The most recent Gallup poll shows President Bush with an approval rating of only 33%. It also shows that the approval rating for the much-heralded Democrat Congress is only 29% and is on the decline. Surprised?

Jimmy - Thanks For Reminding Us About Just How Bad "The Carter Years" Were!

2007-05-25T10:16:45Z

    Last weekend, former President Jimmy Carter criticized George W. Bush’s presidency as “the worst in history” in international relations, and told a BBC radio audience that British Prime Minister’s loyalty to Bush was “abominable.” Blair, he said, had been “loyal, blind, apparently subservient.”

   It was the fourth time in the last six years that Carter has cast Bush as our “worst” president ever. He has inadvertently done us a favor by reminding us that there was a very ugly era when things were far worse than they are today – the period of 1976 to 1980 known as “The Carter Years.”

   At a time when the Washington establishment was the target of widespread public disgust – with the Vietnam war, Watergate and the Nixon resignation – Carter’s campaign emphasized that he was an “outsider” and that strategy helped him edge out Gerald Ford in 1976. Carter had huge Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. In 1976, Democrats held 292 House seats, compared to 143 for the GOP. Their lead in the Senate was 61 to 38 with 1 Independent. In 1978, the margin was reduced slightly: 277 to 158 in the House and 57/42/1 in the Senate. Getting congressional approval of his proposals should have been almost automatic. But Carter’s complete inexperience with the operations of the federal government were painfully obvious from his first day in the White House. His first priority was a package of tax, welfare and civil service “reforms”. He was unable to get it through Congress. He failed again when he attempted to get bills passed creating a consumer protection agency or an attempt to control rising hospital costs.

   In the wake of OPEC doubling and then redoubling petroleum prices, Carter’s energy legislation also failed primarily because it would have brought the nation’s oil and gas industries under a complex web of federal restrictions and regulations. He did succeed in setting up the Departments of Energy and Education but neither emerged as anything more than new add-ons to an already top-heavy federal bureaucracy.

   If the “proof of the pudding is in the eating,” the statistics on the Carter Administration are nauseating. Automobile prices increased 72%. New house prices went up 67%. In 1979 along, gasoline prices increased 60%. The inflation rate went from 6.8% in 1977, to 7.6% in 1978, to 11.5% in 1979, to 12.4% in 1980. National productivity declined sharply. The unemployment rate was roughly double what it is today under President Bush. Interest rates soared. By the time Carter left office, the prime rate was 21.5% - a new record.

   On July 15, 1979, the television networks aired Carter’s infamous “Malaise Speech” – written by Chris Matthews, currently the host of “Hardball” – which declared that the nation had reached a “crisis of confidence.” It was widely criticized as being a “huge depressant” at a time when America needed encouragement and a pep talk. Three days later, Carter called for the resignations of all of his Cabinet members. To further underscore the crisis atmosphere, he symbolically lowered the thermostats in the White House and other federal facilities to 65 degrees in the winter, and raised them in the summer to 78 degrees. Promotional pictures showing the President in a heavy sweater were supposed to inspire everyone to “follow the leader”. The national Christmas Tree was not lighted in 1979 and 1980. But few were impressed and even fewer were motivated.

   In his first month in office, Carter cut the defense budget by $6 billion. He then proceeded to order a severe reduction in our forces stationed in South Korea to just 14,000 air force personnel. When Major General John Singlaug, chief of staff of our operations in South Korea, criticized the plan, Carter fired him. (Carter himself abandoned the plan after removing only 3,600 troops.)

   It is Carter’s signature on the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 which surrendered U.S. control of that waterway to the Panamanian government.

   When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Carter flexed the U.S. muscle, declaring: “Let our position be absolutely clear. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” To show the Russians that he meant business, Carter prohibited our athletes from participating in the 1980 Olympics in Moscow which, of course, enabled the Soviets to capture even more gold medals.

   And now he calls the Bush policy “the worst in history.” Carter stated: “We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered.” What he attacks now seems to be almost identical to the “Carter Doctrine” of 1979. Maybe, he’s forgotten.

   Carter’s worst failure – the one which ultimately was his downfall – was his pathetic mishandling of the Iranian government’s seizure of our embassy in Teheran in November, 1979. His attempted military rescue of the 52 Americans held hostage there was an embarrassing disaster. The hostages were eventually freed within minutes of Ronald Reagan being sworn in as Carter’s successor.

   I suspect that Carter’s current campaign of attacking Bush is because he himself has been so widely cast as “the worst President in history” that he is desperately trying to drag someone else down to that position. Carter’s horrendous record is going to make that very difficult, if not impossible.

CAN'T ANYBODY HERE PLAY THIS GAME?

2007-05-21T16:29:03Z

The U.S. Constitution is a marvelous document and, despite some strong efforts to distort it, is pretty well intact after 220 years. It may be facing its greatest test in the not-too-distant future – one that it may not be capable of handling. What would happen if we just tossed out every politician in Washington? Public disgust with them has grown to the point where Americans seem to parroting the line Casey Stengel allegedly used when he was coaching the Mets: “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

Virtually every poll puts public approval of the Congress at well under 40%, and disapproval as high as 64%. There was a lot of hype about things getting better when the Democrats took over the House and Senate in January, but nothing has changed. Most of the innings so far have featured some fruitless arm-wrestling over the Iraq issue. The big guys that we came to see haven’t even gotten off the bench (some aren’t even in uniform): Immigration, Social Security, Medicare, Global Warming, High Fuel Prices, Tax Reform. There have been NO runs, NO hits, but dozens of errors. As the polls show, most of us are getting sick and tired of witnessing this spectacle. It is equal-opportunity disgust in Republicans and Democrats alike. What’s worse is that the ticket price is astronomical.

The ratings on President Bush have climbed just above the 30% mark. In baseball terms, his batting average wouldn’t be high enough to get him on the roster of any team except maybe in the Bush league.

Admittedly, we Americans aren’t nice to our presidents. Just take a look at their before and after pictures. Young, handsome Bill Clinton looked older than Methuselah when he said farewell to the White House after two terms. Surely, his impeachment had more to do with all that grey hair than did the “Affairs of State” – but of course to a great degree those two were closely linked!

George Bush has aged terribly during his 7 years. It’s a tough job, particularly when everyone is blaming you for everything bad that has happened. And I mean everything. The latest Rasmussen poll says that 22% of all voters believe Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks. Republicans reject that view by a 7 to 1 margin, but 35% of Democrats believe he knew, 39% say he didn’t, and 26% aren’t sure. (I bet if you polled Democrats on the cause of Katrina, a hefty percentage would also name Bush as the culprit.) The most convincing evidence that the President did not have advance knowledge of 9/11 is the fact that if he did it has been kept a deep, dark secret for nearly 6 years and that is an impossibility in Washington these days. The life expectancy of a secret there is less than 30 days. There is also an unexplained disparity when people who say Bush is the dumbest president we have ever had then contend he had “knowledge” of something that complex and important. They can’t have it both ways.

In a way, the current political crisis is like the global warming controversy. Everybody is complaining but things are just getting worse and worse. And the solutions that are being offered are just as absurd … like Sheryl Crow’s suggestion that we save trees by each of us using only one sheet of toilet paper when we finish doing what our parents used to call “number two.” And her brother goes one step further insisting that we should wash and re-use that sheet again and again. (Believe me, if I ever meet either one of them, I will not shake hands!)

The candidates being offered by both parties are hardly exciting and in reality promise just more of the “same ol’, same ol’.” Doesn’t it tell you something when the polls show that the third highest rated presidential candidates for president in both parties aren’t even candidates? (Al Gore and former Tennessee GOP Sen. Fred Thompson)

So the growing mood in America seems to be one of “throw the scoundrels out” – and, if we have to, throw out the baby with the bath water. The problem then, of course, would be to find replacements.

To be president, you must be a native-born American, at least 35-years old, and a U.S. resident for 14 years. Practically speaking, you also will have to be a record-setting fund-raiser. There is only one possibility that I can see. He meets the age, citizen and residency requirements (he first became a public figure 47 years ago). As for raising money, he has collected more in just one month than Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, John Sidney McCain, III, Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, III and Willard Mitt Romney combined! $380 million and counting! We know he’s very tough on crime and, from everything we’ve seen so far, he seems to be the model of a compassionate conservative. The way he dresses for work, we would never know just how grey President Spider-Man’s hair got or how many additional lines got etched on his face.

Next task: find 535 more for a Congress.

EUROPE STARTING TO TILT TO THE RIGHT!

2007-05-09T12:06:31Z

52-year-old conservative Nicolas Sarkozy won the most recent election for President of France. A record-breaking 84.6% of France’s 44.5 million registered voters cast ballots and Sarkozy captured 31.1%. He scored a significant victory with a 54% to 46% margin over Ségolene Royal, the Socialist candidate.
Although a member of the same Union for a Popular Movement that produced current President Jacques Chirac, Sarkozy is expected to bring France into a much friendlier relationship with the United States. You won’t see French troops fighting alongside Americans and English in Iraq, but you can expect greater cooperation in our efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons program.-
Germany, which took a decidedly hostile position toward the U.S. under Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, elected Angela Merkel as its new leader in 2005. She came out in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, describing it as “unavoidable”, and has been characterized by her opponents as “an American lackey”.
The conservative trend in both France and Germany suggests that President Bush’s foreign policies have not alienated our allies to the extent that congressional Democrats have charged. Slowly but surely, our allies seem to be coming to a realization that the President's concern about the dangers of international Muslim extremism is warranted. Europeans are becoming increasing worried of their own Muslim population now estimated at between 15 and 20 million. This was an unintended consequence of some post-World War II “guest-worker” programs intended to help Europe rebuild from the war’s devistation. The programs were supposed to be temporary, but the “guests” never left. In fact, they have taken advantage of family reunification programs which have enabled them to bring their relatives to their European homes. Muslims now make up nearly 5% of Europe’s total population. France has the largest (7-10%), followed by the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Italy. Given continued immigration and high Muslim fertility rates, their population throughout Europe is expected to double by 2025.
Jihadist networks extend from Poland to Portugal and terrorist acts have already been experienced in Spain, France, England, Holland and Denmark. (By contrast, there are no more than 3 million Muslims I nthe U.S. – less than 2% of our population.)
Of enormous concern to our Department of Homeland Security is passport-carrying, via-exempt mujahideen coming into our country from our western European allies. There is also an obvious parallel between the consequences of Europe’s “guest-worker” programs and our problems with (and some proposed solutions to) illegal immigration.
April 23, 2007

A NEW ERA FOR SUPREME COURT ABORTION DECISIONS?

2007-04-20T14:58:34Z

Wednesday's decision by the Supreme Court upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 marked the first time that a majority of justices have agreed that a specific abortion procedure could be prohibited. It was also the first time since the original Roe v. Wade decision that the Court said it was permissable to restrict an abortion procedure that did not contain an exception for the health of the mother.
Writing for the majority in the 5 to 4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated: "The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman." He noted that the law in question does provide an exception to save the woman's life. Abortion advocates, however, prefer "health" to "life" in the wording of legislation since a significant percentage of such abortions have been performed using an easily-defined excuse that a continued pregnancy might damage the "mental health" of the mother.
President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito, joined Kennedy and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in upholding the 2003 congressional law. Pro-abortion forces, as expected, are worried (and probably justifiably so) that this decision is the first in what will be a series that clamp down on abortions. In this one, the Court took aim at the most controversial -- and grotesque -- of abortion procedures in which the baby is partially delivered late in the pregnancy term. Its skull is then crushed and the brain is removed as the baby is extracted from the mother's womb.
The law was approved by an overwhelming bi-partisan vote of 291 - 142 in the House, and 64 - 34 in the Senate and was signed by President Bush on November 3, 2003.
The Court's decision this week IS likely to herald the beginning of a long and slow process of its curbing what has been a virtually unrestrained epidemic of abortions throughout the nation. At present, Woe v. Wade would override any major restrictions or abolitions enacted at the state level. That could be the next area pursued by the anti-abortion forces.

IMUS – IN MOURNING!

2007-04-18T10:42:06Z

If one thing can be said for (or against) Don Imus it is that he has been “an equal opportunity offender”! He has played the “shock jock” role perfectly – going after virtually everyone: all races, all religions, all political persuasions, all ethnic groups. You name it, and Imus at some point has insulted it. But unless I missed something I thought that is what “shock jocks” are supposed to do. They are expected to do what? Shock! Say or do outrageous things in order to get our attention and stimulate our minds. Deliberately yell “fire” in a crowded theater just to get everyone’s attention. It is important to underscore that there is no evidence nor has there even been an accusation that any Imus comments were made in anger or hatred. Or that he is "racist".

“Shock jocks” come in all shapes, sizes and philosophies. Jerry Springer has made a fortune by parading to our television screens the filth of America just so he could bleep out their obscenities and cloud over their ugly private parts. He’s a television “shock jock”. Howard Stern makes his living by reminding us of dirty words which he can now say freely on satellite radio, and by unveiling for us the breasts of hundreds – perhaps thousands – of women, many of whom could well fit the definition of “ho”. Shocking, but very profitable for Stern and his sponsors. This year, the music world has a record crop of its version of “shock jocks”. Turn on BET and MTV and you can be treated to “artists” like black rapper MIMS (Music Is My Savior) whose top-of-the-charts song “This is Why I’m Hot” has such stimulating lines as “This is why I’m hot. Catch me on the block every other day. Another bitch, another drop.” Or, later, “I hit Wash Heights with the money in the bag. We into big spinners. See my pimping never dragged. Find me wit different women that you niggas never had.” Truly inspiring, right? BET and MTV also feature some renderings by the black rap group “Ho Frat Ho!” (which I assume must be Hawaiian music – perhaps distant relatives of Don Ho.) Right?

By the way, the “ho” word was not a creation of the Ku Klux Klan, or David Duke. It was introduced by black rap world “culture” headliners like Snoop Dogg. Can we connect any parallel between Snoop’s frequent use of “b**ches” and “hos” and the Don Imus reference to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”? Not on your life! Snoop explained this week: “(Rappers) are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We’re talking about hos that’s in the ‘hood’ that ain’t doing s**t, that’s trying to get a nigga for his money. These are two separate things.”

You can always catch Snoop’s rap on BET and MTV. You will also hear the word “ho” so many times you think you tuned into the Santa Channel at Christmastime! I should mention that both networks are owned by CBS which, of course, fired Don Imus for his use of the “ho” word. Confused? Could there possible be a double standard here?

By the way, “Nigga”, freely translated, is “Nigger” which just happens to be the title of 75-year-old black activist/comedian Dick Gregory’s literary offering, published by Simon and Schuster. I wonder if his book has been removed from the libraries of New York City and burned since its City Council unanimously decreed in February of this year that use of the “n-word” is henceforth banned in what Sinatra called “a hell of a town”! (The Council’s action was in reaction to “Seinfeld” comedian Michael Richards’s use of the word during a stand-up performance at a Los Angeles comedy club.) So, make a note: there are varieties of “shock jocks” throughout the literary and comic worlds, too. A lot of them!

Comic Chris Rock frequently uses the “n-word” in his comic routines. He’ll continue to do so despite the City Council’s ban: “Enough real bad things happen in this city to worry about how I am going to use the word.”

Will BET forbid use of “ho” or the “n-word” in its shows? No! And a Grammy spokesman added that he doubts the academy’s 11,000 voting members would support any measure that might “censor artists”.

Gregory has appeared frequently on the Imus show and opposes the Imus firing! He has an interesting take on this entire issue and in a way he may have hit the nail on its elusive head. He said: “I don’t use the “n-word”. I say ‘nigger’. I think America is mature enough to deal with all our negativities. Can you imagine how the Jewish community would react if we said ‘c-word’ instead of ‘concentration camp’, or ‘s-word’ instead of ‘swastika’?”

Both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who spearheaded the drive to get Imus fired from MSNBC and CBS, have not shown much restraint in their speech over the years. Both have used the “n-word” frequently. Jackson referred to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown.” When a storm of protest erupted, the Nation of Islam’s radical leader Louis Farrakhan, an aggressive anti-Semite and a long-time Jackson ally, issued a public warning to Jews: “If you harm this brother (Jackson), it will be the last one you harm.” Sharpton has called Jews “diamond merchants”, has referred to “Greek homos”, and has claimed “white folks were in caves when we (blacks) were building empires”. Not all was without consequence. After Sharpton denounced the “white interloper” who owned Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem, the store was torched by some of his followers killing seven people. So, there are plenty of “shock jocks” in the political and religious world (did I forget to say “Reverends” Jackson and Sharpton). Then they put on their Holier-Than-Thou robes to go after Imus. And here let’s make a big note that most if not all of their statements were made out of either anger or hatred – or a combination of the two.

So, in a virtual sea of Do As I Say Not As I Do – filled with hypocrites and double standards – can we extract any sense at all in this controversy? Apparently, if you are black, you have free reign of the First Amendment – whenever, wherever and however – no matter what race, religion, sex, ethnic group or political persuasion your target might be. A black website, BlackRefer.com, offers this gem: “Q: How are women and linoleum floors alike? A: You lay them right the first time and you can walk all over them for the next 20 years.”

Non-blacks need to be very careful using any terms that might be considered “offensive” by any minorities lest you be branded a "racist" or “sexist”. By the way, it IS okay for other minorities to take a slap at themselves. “Q: What’s a Jewish American Princess’ favorite position? A: Facing Bloomingdale’s.” That’s just one of many Jewish jokes at http://judaism.about.com/library/2_humor/bldef-joke_jewishmothers.htm a Jewish website published by About, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company.

Let’s look down the road a bit. What on earth are we going to do with “Classists”? I mean people like Jeff Foxworthy who have lumped an entire class of Americans into what he calls “Rednecks" … and then proceeds to ridicule them? (e.g.: “You might be a redneck if you consider the fifth grade your ‘senior year’.”) Offensive? Classist? Interestingly enough, his biggest and most receptive audiences are rednecks! They love him, and his humor!

What about people who live in trailers (“trailer trash” according to Springer)? Or just walk through the boroughs of New York, and listen to the names used for Italians, Irish, Jews, Puerto Ricans, and virtually anyone and everyone else. The Speech Police are going to be VERY busy.

I'm not an Imus follower, but that's irrelevant. I view his characterization of the Rutgers ladies as stupid and highly inappropriate particularly when you contrast it with their very classy way of handling the situation which was stellar. His commercial sponsors had a right to withdraw their support and, if we don't like their decision, we have a right to stop buying their products and services. That's the way the system is supposed to work. (I'm surprised that companies haven't learned yet that associating themselves with "shock jocks" is rewarding but comes with a huge risk.)

In a way, America is at a First Amendment “crossroads”. We can let the firing of Imus mark the beginning of a new era where we punish any and all speech – no matter what the media, or intent – if it is deemed “offensive”. If we do so, let’s not be hypocritical. Let’s not just go after some because they are using “the public airwaves”, and let others off the hook because their song was played over cable, or their show is on satellite radio. If we are going to establish a tight Taliban-like rule of “goodness” on speech in America, for God’s sake let’s be consistent. Say goodbye to Imus, but also say so long to Jackson, Sharpton, Snoop, Gregory, Rock, Springer, Foxworthy, et. al. And, in the process, let’s blow a farewell kiss to the First Amendment.

Or, we can follow Dick Gregory’s advice, grow up, and be mature enough to take the verbal licks that are hurled at us because of our heritage, sex, religion, national origin, or economic status. The young ladies at Rutgers accepted Imus's apology, and we should do the same. Hopefully, there will be some lemonade that comes from this lemon. Maybe we can all learn to take more control of our own tongues and begin thinking more of the consequences of our words. We might just emerge as a better society with our cherished right of Free Speech intact and thriving. As a kid, when I was taunted by a jerk, I remember responding: “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” That turned out to be pretty effective.