I thank God Almighty that Al Gore is not the US president.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Gored in Jeddah
Published February 15, 2006


The Muslim-Danish cartoon controversy has provided an excellent teaching opportunity in which the West demonstrates to the Arab world how even insulting/silly/opportunistic/sycophantic speech is allowed expression in our world in the belief that Truth ultimately will prevail.

Exhibit A: Al Gore.

The former vice president spoke in Saudi Arabia last weekend at the 2006 Jeddah (not to be confused with Jihadist, though we're not sure why) Economic Forum, where he bashed the U.S. and made Kumbaya noises about all just-getting-along.

Which is fine. We'd all like to just get along, but could the Saudis go first?

Perhaps Gore, instead of slapping the U.S. for behaviors unbecoming a superpower, might have asked the Saudi monarchy to stop sponsoring terrorists. He might have asked them to stop funding Islamist schools that teach future terrorists that the U.S. is the Great Satan and that all Americans are infidels who need to be killed.

That would be a nice start to our keeping open channels of friendship and mutual understanding. On the other hand, it would probably be considered bad manners to bring up terrorism and that Wahhabi thing while a guest in the Host State. Better to bash the homeboys, who can be counted upon to resist the urge to behead people with whom they disagree.

Besides, Gore has every right to his opinion. We believe in that concept in the West. He also has every right to say that the U.S. committed terrible abuses against Arabs living in the U.S. after the 9-11 attacks, even if it's not precisely true.

Terrible abuses? Gore apparently was referring to the detention of some 1,200 Arabs in the U.S. in the immediate wake of the 9-11 attacks. With a section of New York destroyed and the smell of burning human flesh still in the air, it seemed reasonable to try to prevent any more attacks.

I'm sure the government considered arresting as many elderly white women as possible, but opted for the politically risky alternative of detaining people of Arab descent whose papers didn't seem perfectly in order and who otherwise fit the description of the 9-11 attackers.

Some of those detained, regrettably, were held for a time without being charged or without speedy access to legal representation.

"This was unfortunate," Gore might have said, "and the U.S. doesn't countenance unfair treatment of any group. We hope in the future to operate more efficiently should the need, God forbid, arise again."

While he was sounding slightly presidential, Gore might have continued:

"Of course, we're counting on you, good Saudis, to help us ensure that no such atrocity is committed ever again. We know you can't be held accountable for the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. We don't believe in indicting nations on the basis of a few bad actors.

"But we sure would appreciate it if you'd consider closing down those hideous schools that teach children to hate and kill. And that 72-virgin gig? I mean really." (Urgent Note to Readers: This is not a cartoon.)

To his credit, Gore did urge his audience to join the West in condemning Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons. But he saved most of his criticism for his own country, also blasting the U.S. visa policy toward Saudis, which he curiously said was playing into al-Qaeda's hands.

It is true that some Saudis have to wait longer-than-usual periods after applying to enter the U.S., presumably while every care is taken to ensure that they're coming for purposes stated rather than to take flight lessons.

No one wants this world we've inherited from the terrorists, least of all Americans who don't relish endless security checks. Nor does anyone want innocent people detained or denied access to a nation that welcomes all.

Were I an Arab-American detained for no good reason and denied my civil rights because of my ethnicity, I'd be furious. I'd raise Cain, write op-eds and maybe even file a lawsuit. And then, very quietly, I'd thank Allah that I live in the U.S., where such protests are encouraged and where a citizen can sue his own government.

However much we might wish otherwise, we're locked into this defensive mode for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, everyone is entitled to think and say what he pleases. The same free speech that permits dissent -- and controversial cartoons -- also allows fools to out themselves.

Surely even the Saudis see the true picture -- that Al Gore is a bitter politician who, sadly, seems to be one slice short of a loaf these days.

Kathleen Parker can be reached at kparker@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5202.

Here is just one of the many reasons that I thank God for not allowing Al Gore to be president of the United States of America. It was bad enough that he spent 8 years as the VP; good thing he was overshadowed by all of his boss's scandals and nothing he thought or stood for was ever considered. Perhaps the lesser of two evils.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________

February 15, 2006
Al Gore: International Man of Mystery
By Tom Bevan

And so the saga of Al Gore continues. Gore seems to have tired of giving his regularly scheduled harangue of the Bush administration to domestic audiences, because this week he took his podium-pounding show on the road. On Sunday at a major international economic forum in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Gore decried the treatment of Arabs in the United States after September 11, telling the crowd that many had been “indiscriminately rounded up” and “held in conditions that were just unforgivable." Gore criticized America’s current visa policy as “thoughtless” and “a mistake” and then apologized for the “terrible abuses” Arabs have suffered in America since 9/11.

This is a new twist on a recurring theme. We’ve gotten used to some – usually the Hollywood set – berating the United States from the enlightened confines of Western Europe. We’ve seen low ranking elected liberals like Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan show up on enemy soil in Iraq to denounce the United States. And we’ve also watched members of the Democratic leadership at home compare the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet Gulags.

But Gore’s remarks set a new standard. Al Gore is the former Vice President of the United States and one of the most recognizable American political figures in the world. His accusation of the “indiscriminate” abuse of Arabs in the United States is disgracefully irresponsible not only because it is a grotesque misrepresentation of fact but because it was delivered in the country that is the epicenter of extremist Wahabbism, and the home of Osama bin Laden as well as 15 of the 19 hijackers responsible for killing more than 3,000 innocent Americans four and half years ago.

As with most things in politics and diplomacy, context is everything. Gore didn’t need to fly half way around the world to apologize to Muslims living, working and going to school in America after 9/11. And if Gore believed America’s treatment of Muslims after September 11 to be so shameful, why hadn’t he made it the centerpiece of one of the numerous, widely covered speeches he’s given in the last few years?

But the bigger mystery is this: did Gore really think his comments were beneficial to the United States of America? Was he putting the interests of his country first? Did he believe making an exaggerated claim of U.S. abuse of Muslims and then apologizing for it on Middle Eastern soil would somehow help build goodwill for the United States in the Islamic world?

To the contrary, the damage done by Gore’s willingness to stand in the heart of the Islamic world and confirm the most deeply held fears and prejudices of Muslims against the United States by grossly exaggerating the treatment of Arabs after 9/11 far outweighs any goodwill he may have generated with an apology.

There has to be another calculation involved: namely, that Gore was trying to build goodwill for himself (both in the Muslim world and with crucial constituencies at home) by claiming rampant abuse of Muslims in America and then offering a personal apology. Simply put, Gore took the opportunity to make himself look good by making his country look bad.

And what about the substance of what Gore said on America’s current visa policy? Last month he ripped the Bush administration over a program designed to eavesdrop on conversations between suspected terrorists overseas and persons in the United States. Now Gore bemoans the tighter restrictions placed on visitors traveling to the United States from countries that have a higher likelihood of producing terrorists.

Gore is against eavesdropping on potential terrorist communications and he’s against tighter screens for visitors originating from Islamic countries. So exactly what would America’s national security policy look like under a Gore administration? For the sake of the country, that’s one mystery best left unsolved.

Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics

The difference many times between what republicans do with news and what democrats do with news lies in their overall philosophy on life.
Dems; If they don't like whats happening, they make something else up they do like and say it over and over in every newspaper and on every network.
If they do like whats happening, they make up something to convince people that democrats actually did something good and say it over and over in every newspaper and on every network.
Rep; If they don't like whats happening, they come up with a plan that can actually make things better and forget to counter plan for the lies that will be told about there plan.
If they do like whats happening, they sit quietly and let it work and fell to defend themselves from vicious attacks on fabricated accusations.
Just my observation.
Please read this next article.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
February 4, 2006
The Silence of the Good News
By Lawrence Kudlow

Economic pessimists have had a field day ever since GDP was reported a week ago at only 1.1 percent for the fourth quarter. But the latest jobs report released on Friday blew them out of the water. Including revisions, January employment is a huge 317,000 above the initial December level. In fact, over the past three months, non-farm payrolls have increased an average 229,000 per month. That’s explosive. We’re on pace for another 2 million jobs in 2006, following gains of 2 million in 2004 and 2005. Wages are also picking up steam, and with gasoline prices falling, consumer purchasing power and retail sales are climbing.

So the question for the Bush Administration is this: What are you waiting for?

As soon as the breakout employment news was released, Salesman-in-Chief George W. Bush should have been in the Rose Garden giving it air time. He should have declared that jobs have continued to grow big time while the unemployment rate has fallen -- all the way down to 4.7 percent. He then could have used this optimistic data to build his already strong case for extending the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. These 2003 tax cuts, along with lower income taxes, are a good reason why jobs numbers are strong and the economy is prosperous.

What are they waiting for?

In his State of the Union message, Bush noted that recent tax relief has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- money that has been used to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth. People will spend their money more wisely than government will.

Bush ought to keep this drumbeat up. On Friday, the drums were deafeningly silent.

The latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office show a clear supply-side effect where lower tax rates and higher after-tax rewards for work and investment have expanded the economy and created a huge surge of tax collections. Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association first reported that actual revenues from the lower capital-gains tax rate came in $46 billion higher over the last three fiscal years and $62 billion higher over the last three calendar years than congressional estimates. The Laffer curve is alive and well.

The naysayers are always quick to pounce on low-growth glitches in the economy, such as the Hurricane Katrina-induced GDP report for the fourth quarter. But a glitch is just a glitch. The greater reality is that the economy is growing nicely, jobs are being created, wages are rising, profits are strong, and productivity trends are excellent.

Good news is all over this still very new year. The “January effect” -- the traditional January stock market rally that follows the traditional December sell-off -- was the best since 1999. Same-store retail sales in January beat all projections with a 5.2 percent yearly gain. Car sales have had a nice comeback. And consumer confidence has now increased for three straight months.

Even wages are coming online. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings are up 3.6 percent year-on-year. That’s the best since 2000. Then there’s the personal-income proxy derived from hours worked multiplied by wages. This measure registered a 6 percent gain in the year ending January, way up from 4.5 percent last October. With retail gasoline prices coming down 23 percent last fall, from $3.07 to $2.36, real wages are on the rise.

Pessimists can obsess about a mild housing slowdown, but expanding businesses and jobs are throwing off plenty of income. If only the president would jump on all this positive economic data, the pessimists would be exposed as data-deprived, hyperbolic, and just plain wrong. More, by truly seizing the economic moment, he would strengthen his case for tax-cut extensions. Right now, he doesn’t yet have the votes in the Senate. The battle must be joined.

Additionally, the Bush administration has just requested another $70 billion for the battlefronts of Iraq and Afghanistan, another $18 billion for Gulf Coast recovery, and $2.3 billion in case the Avian Flu epidemic ever arrives. This is essential spending, but it is also essential that budget makers dig deep for spending offsets. A $400 billion budget-deficit estimate will politically damage the tax-cut case. New House Majority Leader John Boehner must really get moving on the road to budget reform.

If there is no turnaround, overspending and headline deficits will politically crowd out the vital tax-cut extensions that are so necessary to investor, business, and consumer confidence.

The supply-side economic growth plan is working. But the governing GOP coalition must close the circle on budget restraint. Economic growth and Republican political longevity depend on it. The president must do his part by turning up the volume on the good-news economic data.

CIA Head Slams Wiretapping Disclosure

US intelligence officials told Congress Thursday that disclosure of once-secret projects like President George W. Bush's no-warrant eavesdropping program have undermined their work.

"The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing disclosures about a variety of CIA programs that he suggested might have been compromised.

Goss said a federal grand jury should be impaneled to determine "who is leaking this information."

The Bush program, which he ordered shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, was brought to light by The New York Times in mid-December and has caused a continuing controversy within the Washington establishment. That first story, and others written since, relied on unidentified sources from within the Bush administration.

Democratic members of the intelligence panel accused the Bush administration Thursday of wanting to have it both ways.

"The president has not only confirmed the existence of the program, he has spoken at length about it repeatedly" while keeping Congress in the dark, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the panel's senior Democrat.

Rockefeller suggested that such "leaks" most likely "came from the executive branch" of the government.

That brought a terse response from FBI Director Robert Mueller, who said, "It's not fair to point a finger as to the responsibility of the leak."

In the weeks since the leak, the president and other senior administration officials have publicly defended the eavesdropping, but the full Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to be briefed on it, CBS News correspondent David Martin reports.

The sometimes pointed exchanges came as leaders of the nation's intelligence agencies appeared before the panel rare public session (raw video) to give a rundown on threats facing the world.

Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss asked the intelligence officials at the witness table "whether or not our position has been compromised" by publicity surrounding the program. John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, and his principal deputy, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, agreed that it had.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The ridiculous left dems want it both ways themselves; They want the focus to be on Bush and the ficticious claim that he illegally seeks wire taps on international calls, not on the fact that someone illegally leaked the classified info. But, not so long ago, they wanted the focus of the Valerie Plame saga to be on the leak of her identity, not on the fact that she was in no danger or not involved in any covert operation at the time nor had she been in several years. Because of this it was merely a technicality of the law and not involving national security or her safety whatsoever. (remember, no malice is yet to be found on this)
This really shows where their priorities lie. It not only reveals some very disturbing truths about their agenda, it reveals their deep burning desire to risk national security for a single straw of political hay.
-Jamey Green

Couple Get Prison in Chili Finger Case
By KIM CURTIS, AP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SAN JOSE, Calif. (Jan. 18) - A couple who planted a severed finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili in a scheme to extort money from the fast-food chain were sentenced Wednesday to prison terms of at least nine years.

Anna Ayala, 40, who said she bit into the digit, was sentenced to nine years. Her husband, Jaime Plascencia, 44, who obtained the finger from a co-worker who lost it in a workplace accident, was sentenced to more than 12 years.

"Greed and avarice overtook this couple," said Superior Court Judge Edward Davila, adding that the pair had "lost their moral compass."
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The judge in this case probably did what should have been done. These two nuts cost Wendy's millions. Had they not been found out, they would have gladly taken the spoils of their conspiracy and went about their business.
But, the judge makes a comment; "Greed and avarice overtook this couple" "they lost their moral compass."
While I agree whole heartedly with his opinion on this couple, I would like to hear his opinion on the moral compass of the Vermont judge that recently made national headlines with his surprising sentence of only 60 days behind bars for a confessed child sex offender that had confessed to repeated offenses over a four year period.
His victim was sexually abused from age six until age ten.
The moral compass of the offender is not a question in my mind, but a judge, who is educated, who knows very well the repeat offender statistics of sex offenders and who knows the rehab statistics of sex offenders, who well knows that the most recent child rape and murder cases were perpetrated by repeat offenders that should have been behind bars themselves, does bring some question as to the direction that his own moral compass is pointing.
I wonder if this "finger in the chili" couple may have gotten their compass out of line by observing some of the following;
-Modern politics in all of its glory, from the white washing of the "white water" to the definition on national television as to the true meaning of sexual relations.
-O.J. Simpson and his antics (not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court)
-Michael Jackson (now had his trial not gone his way, he may have been able to apply president Clintons definition of sex and been exonerated anyway) I mean we have determined that he was ok in sleeping with young boys, fondling young boys, undressing in front of young boys and watching young boys undress right. The actual sex thing was the only wrong thing in question; right? I'm still confused. One more question; Its ok to do all of that in person, you just can't look at those things on the internet, right?
-John Kerry pictured slinging his military medals into the river, then saying he didn't do that, then saying he was in Cambodia later to remember that he was never in Cambodia, then voting for the War and not voting for the war, then running for president of this country. (only in America)
-Ted Kennedy on any committee to question anyone else's morals.

This is certainly just a few headlines among hundreds that could easily bring a moral compass into question.

-Jamey Green

I know that I appear to be all over the board when it comes to what I post and when I post it, but when I read things that really capture my interest I want to share them. Like the following article; It really says how I feel about the war on terrorism, which is what is going on in the middle east including Iraq for those that don't have a clue. It really gets to the heart of the matter and seems to be what President Bush has eluded to all along. Enjoy!-Jamey Green

December 28, 2005
The Big Story of 2005 (Someone Tell The New York Times)
By Austin Bay

In December 2004, I wrote a column that led with this line: "Mark it on your calendar: Next month, the Arab Middle East will revolt."
The column placed the January 2005 Palestinian and Iraqi elections in historical context. These were not the revolutions of generals with tanks and terrorists with fatwas, but the slow revolutions of the ballot box, with political moderates and liberal reformers the genuinely revolutionary vanguard. To massage Churchill's phrase, these revolts were the beginning of democratic politics, where "jaw jaw" begins to replace "war war" and "terror terror."

These slow revolts against tyranny and terror continue, and are the "big story" of 2005 and the truly "big history" of our time.

Partisan, ignorant, fear-filled rhetoric tends to obscure this big history, in part because the big story moves slowly. The democratic revolt is grand drama, but it doesn't cram into a daily news cycle, much less into "news updates" every 30 minutes.

Television, the medium where image is a tyrant, finds incremental economic and political development a particularly frustrating story to tell. A brick is visually boring -- a bomb is not. The significance of a brick takes time to explain, time to establish context, while a spectacular explosion incites immediate visceral and emotional responses. In the long term, hope may propel millions -- hope that democracy will replace tyranny and terror. But in the short haul, violence and vile rhetoric, like sex and celebrity, guarantee an immediate audience.

So the "big stories" get lost in the momentum of the "now."

In April 2004, I interviewed former U.S. Sen. (and 9/11 commission member) Bob Kerrey. The subject was Iraq and the War on Terror in "historical terms." Kerrey had argued in a speech he gave in late 2003 that "20 years from now, we'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who says it wasn't worth the effort. This is not just another democracy. This (Iraq) is a democracy in the Arab world."

"If you look beyond the short-term violence and instability (in Iraq)," Kerrey told me, "you do see significant activities on the part of the Iraqi people that indicate they understand the commitment necessary to govern themselves. ... There are going to be in the short term terrifying, confusing moments, (like) attacks on Iraqi police headquarters. The intent (by the opposition) is to produce destabilization, to cause people to say, 'Let's get out of here; they don't like us.' ... If we stay, then I am very confident that Iraq will build a stable democracy ..."

That's a clear statement of U.S. strategy in Iraq. Here's my formulation, from February 2003: "Removing Saddam begins the reconfiguration of the Middle East, a dangerous, expensive process, but one that will lay the foundation for true states where the consent of the governed creates legitimacy and where terrorists are prosecuted, not promoted."

Implementing the policies and sustaining the will to achieve these goals is of course immensely difficult. It's a painfully slow process -- too slow, it appears, for television.

The Iraqi people, however, see it. In October, after the Iraqi constitutional vote, an Iraqi friend of mine dropped me an e-mail: "Major players (in Iraq) are coming more and more to realize that dialogue, alliances, common interests and just plain politics is the way to win -- not violence, intimidation and terror. So this (lesson) is apparently slowly 'sinking in' in our confused and frightened Iraqi mentality."

Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said that the constitution is "a sign of civilization. ... This constitution has come after heavy sacrifices. It is a new birth."

Jaafari echoed a sentiment I heard last year while serving on active duty in Iraq. Several Iraqis told me they knew democracy was "our big chance." One man said it was Iraq's chance to "escape bad history." To paraphrase a couple of other Iraqis, toppling Saddam and building a more open society was a chance "to enter the modern world."

The great democratic revolts are profoundly promising history. They are the big story of 2005 -- and, for that matter, the next three or four decades.

Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate

I was really uptight today as I learned that a Christian, conservative judge was the one that shot down the possibility of Public schools in PA offering the view of "Intelligent Design" along with those theories of Darwinism (Evolution).
I wonder if he truly believes that the evolution theory holds any water. One of the reasons this came to the judge is because of many scientist who believe that the complexity of certain objects studied is so great that to think of any other theory aside from Intelligent Design would seem absurd.
The judge sited another reason that seemed strange to me; he said that intelligent design was not a theory it was a religious view. If it is but a religious view, and you believe it, wouldn't that make it a theory to you? See #6 in the following dictionary definition;
Theory;
1 : analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

My point is can you really say that proof lies with the theory of evolution as opposed to the belief in the bibles account? Throughout history the bible has a much better track record that Darwin does.

The judge also takes that same old tired approach that is suppose to scare everybody away; the infamous "separation of church and state" argument. So in light of his obvious lack of historical accuracy I am reprinting an article from The Christian Law Association. Please take time to read this and study what this great country was really founded on and not what some nuts are trying to make it into.
-Jamey Green


Americans are generally uninformed when it comes to the United States Constitution. The results of a 2001 survey show that 84% of adults don’t know that freedom of religion is one of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment! On the flip side, the majority of Americans wrongly believe that the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is actually found in the Constitution.

Here is what the First Amendment actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As Christians we have come to associate the phrase “Separation of Church and State” with the government’s current hostility towards religion in the public arena. It is important, therefore, that we understand the “truth” about how this phrase became a part of constitutional case law and our culture.

Intent of First Amendment

The First Amendment was intended to forbid the federal government from establishing a national religion. The American people favored this because they had seen the harmful effects of established churches in most of the colonies. In Massachusetts, for example, Baptist pastors such as Isaac Backus were imprisoned for refusing to pay state taxes to support the established (Congregational) church.

In Virginia, the established Church of England had used the Divine, Moral, and Martial Laws of 1611 to compel daily church attendance. Willful failure to attend divine services could result in a loss of wages, whipping, imprisonment, or even death! Although Christians not belonging to the Church of England won the right to practice their faith in Virginia without fear of persecution in 1699, the state government still tried to exercise control in religious matters.

In the 1780s, the Virginia legislature considered a general tax bill for the support of “Teachers of the Christian Religion.” Payment was mandatory. As a result, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and other denominations vehemently opposed the bill. In 1785, James Madison expressed their sentiments well:

[T]hat religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right...We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.

The bill not only failed, but also served to promote the successful passage of Thomas Jefferson’s “Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom” in 1786. Under this Virginia law, the people could not be forced to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever. There could be no punishment for religious opinions or belief. Freedom of religious expression replaced the sin and tyranny of compelling a man to contribute to the spread of opinions that he disbelieved and abhorred.

Virginia’s religious freedom law laid a foundation for the passage of the First Amendment. By 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified, most of the colonies saw the merits of not establishing a national religion. The 1631 sentiments of Rhode Island’s Roger Williams were echoed in all but Maryland, Connecticut and Massachusetts:

God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.

Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut rejoiced at the election of Thomas Jefferson as the third President of the United States. On October 7, they wrote to Jefferson, their fellow believer in religious liberty, saying: “[We] believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State.” The Danbury Baptists complained to Jefferson of religious laws made by Connecticut’s government. They feared the Congregationalist Church would become the state-sponsored religion and expressed approval for Jefferson’s refusal to “assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.” Although the Danbury Baptists understood that Jefferson, as President, could not “destroy the laws of each State,” they expressed hope that his sentiment would affect the States “like the radiant beams of the sun.”

It was Jefferson’s response to this letter that is the origin of the infamous phrase “Separation of Church and State.” Jefferson’s reply on January 1, 1802, showed his agreement with the Danbury Baptists that:

Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. [View a draft of Jefferson's handwritten letter provided by the Library of Congress. Large file: 2.3mb]

In referring to this “wall of separation” Jefferson was borrowing from the metaphor of Roger Williams, a fellow Baptist and Rhode Island’s champion of religious freedom. Williams had previously written of “a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”

Interpretations of the “Wall of Separation”

Christian scholars interpret Jefferson’s Danbury letter in its context. They accept Jefferson’s view that religion is a personal matter that should not be regulated by the federal government and that the federal government has no power to change law in the States. They interpret the “wall of separation” in the same way as Roger Williams: as a wall to protect God’s garden from the world, to protect the church from the government.

In contrast, non-Christian scholars lift the Danbury letter out of its historical context. They turn the “wall” metaphor on its head and use it to protect the government from the church. This results in a concerted effort to rid government of any religious influence. Hence, the opposition to Bible reading in schools, the Boy Scouts, official proclamations promoting religious events, nativity scenes in public displays, the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings, prayer in public places, etc. They fail to recognize that the Danbury Baptists would never have rejoiced at Jefferson’s election if he stood for removal of religious influence on the government.

In 1947, the Supreme Court made the situation worse. This is when the Court gave the “wall” metaphor constitutional standing in Everson v. Board of Education. In this case, the court said:

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Note: no breach of the wall was found in Everson. The New Jersey statute permitting the state to reimburse parents for the expense of busing their children to and from private, including parochial, schools was upheld.)

In the Everson case the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applied to individual states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to this only the federal government was precluded from establishing a religion. It is this Supreme Court case that stands in the way of individual states passing legislation that favors religion.

The Everson decision is a clear departure from the view of the Founding Fathers. The First Amendment was not intended to stop the states from establishing a church or favoring a particular religion. Both Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists understood this. Jefferson’s reference to the legislature of “the whole American people” shows his understanding that the First Amendment applied to the federal government exclusively. Indeed, on January 23, 1808, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Rev. Samuel Miller saying:

Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. . .

The Danbury Baptists did not even ask Jefferson to apply the First Amendment to the states. They acknowledged, “the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State.” Rather, they looked to Jefferson’s power of persuasion to prevail in Connecticut.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

In the battleground to find the true meaning of the “wall of separation between Church and State” it is useful to consider the actions of the founders after the First Amendment was passed. A review of a sampling of their activities makes it is clear that the founders had no intention of neutralizing government from all religious reference:

• The House of Representatives called for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving on September 24, 1789—the same day that it passed the First Amendment.
• From 1789 to today, Congress has authorized chaplains, paid by public funds, to offer prayers in Congress and in the armed services.
• Jefferson closed the Danbury letter, written in his official capacity as President, with a prayer: “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man.”
• On the very day Jefferson sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists he was making plans to attend church services in the House of Representatives.
• Jefferson signed a treaty into law in 1803 that provided for a government-funded missionary to the Kaskaskia Indians.
• In response to Congress’ request of July 9, 1812, President James Madison issued a proclamation recommending a day of public humiliation and prayer to be observed by the people of the United States, with religious solemnity.
• In 1832 and 1833, Congress approved land grants to Columbian College (later George Washington University) and Georgetown University, Baptist and Jesuit schools respectively.
• The Ten Commandments are inscribed on the wall of the United States Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court begins each session with the prayer: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”
• The ongoing use of the New England Primer in public schools despite its many religious references.
• Every president has invoked God’s name in a prayerful manner in his inaugural address.

Presidential Viewpoints

This month as we celebrate President’s Day, let us also consider the views of our first three Presidents on matters of church and state:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
—George Washington, Farewell Address to the United States, 1796

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
—John Adams, October 11, 1798

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
—Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural address, March 4, 1805

The intent of the First Amendment and the words and actions of our Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, clearly demonstrate how the words “the separation of church and state” were originally understood. These words were never intended to remove God from government; rather they were intended to keep government from controlling and manipulating religious practices. Unfortunately today, two hundred years after Jefferson wrote the phrase, these words have turned on those they were intended to protect.

"Tookie Williams should not have had to Die"
Today in America there is a disease that spreads like an epidemic among people. We stand by and watch as it slowly kills, maims and destroys lives. All too often, once it appears it has already taken its toll and tragedy is just ahead. Like many debates that go on endlessly in our world of medicine and politics with no real conclusions or answers, the root cause of this disease too is debated.
The disease that I see feeding on our young people and infecting our nation is that of not being held accountable.
There is overwhelming evidence of this in our public school systems, in our families and on our jobs. It is all around us and has probably infected our on household if not our on selves. We have created and now are residing in a culture of unaccountability. We don't hold children responsible for their actions in order to correct them, (we make excuses for them); criminals in large part, especially those in pedophilia and sex crimes are not held responsible, (we make excuses for them). We have created excuses like racism, child abuse, alcohol, drugs, insanity, obesity, poor, rich, born with it, religion, my style, my daddy, my mommy, my brother, my sister, my dog ate my homework all have been used to desensitizing our thinking on the simple fact of accountability. We have lobbyist, organizations, government entities all that spend millions each year in pointless research and campaigns to explain how or why it was not someone's fault.
When I was young, my mother said in so many words, "if you do this or don't do what I tell you then this will happen". Guess what? "this" happened more than I care to mention. I am well aware that part of the problem I am trying to describe is caused by the very fact many do not have moms and dads like the one I described and lived with for years, but that can not become another excuse.
If you break it, you must pay for it. If you disobey, you must be corrected.
Our problem with this was not created overnight and the solution will certainly not come any faster, but it will never come if we do not see the error of our own ways and allow ourselves to be held accountable to those that are coming up by giving them an opportunity to be better, stronger, smarter and of a good character because of instruction tempered with discipline and administered in love.
Children should not have to touch the stove to know its hot, or walk into the path of an on coming car to realize the road is dangerous. If this analogy seems a little elementary and absurd to you, then where does your opinion lie with the way we allow men like Tookie Williams to realize all to late that judgment cometh.
Mankind has proven through the years that left to their own, morality will vanish and culture will be overtaken with lawlessness. This has been evident in the aftermath and study of many great cultures and peoples that have vanished.
People and their culture cannot live with out order and law. It will become depraved.
I wonder if Tookie had someone to smack his hand when he reached for the stove? I wonder if he perhaps had a teacher to look the other way when he did something wrong just to keep the peace? I wonder early in his criminal career if their was a lesser crime that he committed that went unpunished or was simply dismissed? What if any of this were true, could we draw on the assumption that any one of these scenarios could have created a turning point in his thinking and ultimately in his life. Nah! Its much easier to blame his color, or the state, or that he was poor or the governor or anybody but him. Truth is, we may all have a part in it.
This world is a scary and dangerous place. Children cannot be treated like wind-up dolls; just pull the string and let them go.
Tookie is the one who is responsible for his actions, but if all of the Hollywood stars, with their fame and fortune and lust to place blame anywhere except where it should go, could look back over his life with an objective eye they just might find a time and place that certain actions might have helped Tookie spare his own life.
Jamey Green

Why not all executions deter murder

By Joanna Shepherd

ATLANTA – At approximately 12:00 a.m. Pacific Time on Dec. 13, Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed in California. His execution was California's twelfth since 1977. Although California has the largest death row in the United States, with approximately 650 inmates, it has one of the lowest ratios of inmates executed to inmates on death row. California sentences many to death, but it executes few.
There are many moral and legal issues in the debate over capital punishment. One central issue is whether executions deter murder. Deterrence is the basis that many policymakers and courts cite for capital punishment. For example, in one of his presidential debates with Al Gore in 2000, President Bush stated that capital punishment deters crime and that deterrence is the only valid reason for capital punishment. Likewise, the Supreme Court, when it held in its landmark 1976 decision Gregg v. Georgia that capital punishment was constitutional, cited deterrence as one of its main reasons.


Theories are conflicting as to whether executions will reduce or increase murders. Executions may deter some criminals from committing murder because they raise the potential costs of committing a murder. Or, executions may lead to a brutalization effect, creating a climate of brutal violence and setting an example of killing to avenge grievances.

Recent empirical evidence initially seemed to confirm the deterrence theory. In the past decade, 12 empirical studies by economists, published in peer-reviewed journals, have found evidence consistent with a strong deterrent effect. Most of these studies, including three by me, use large data sets that combine information from all 50 states or all US counties over many years to show that, on average, an additional execution deters many murders.

Although the previous studies estimated a national average deterrent effect, it is reasonable to assume that the deterrent effect will vary based on the great differences in states' application of the death penalty. For example, states vary widely in: their definitions of capital crimes, their frequency of imposing capital sentences, their frequency of executions, their methods of execution, and the publicity those executions receive.

In a study recently published by the Michigan Law Review, I use three well-known data sets common to empirical studies of crime and well-tested empirical methods. I find that the impact of executions differs among states with the death penalty. Although executions appear to deter crime in approximately one-fifth of these states, in the remaining 80 percent, executions show no deterrent effect. Indeed, in some of these states, executions produce the opposite effect: Murders increase after executions.

Why does this happen? One important factor is that, on average and with exceptions, the states where capital punishment deters murder tend to execute many more people than do the states where capital punishment incites crime or has no effect.

An intuitive explanation for this is that each execution creates two opposing reactions: a brutalization effect and a deterrent effect. For a state's first few executions, the deterrent effect is small. Only if a state executes many people does deterrence grow; only then do potential criminals become convinced that the state is serious about the punishment, so that they start to reduce their criminal activity. For most states, when the number of executions exceeds some threshold level, the deterrent effect begins to outweigh the brutalization effect. In the four-fifths of states where executions either increased murders or had no effect, the brutalization effect either counterbalances or outweighs the deterrent effect.

What about the earlier studies showing deterrence as a national average? These results appear to be caused by the few states with many executions and deterrence outweighing the many states with no deterrence or increased murders.

Will Stanley Williams's execution increase or decrease murders? If Williams had been executed in Texas, his execution would be expected to deter future murders. My study shows a strong deterrent effect there, seemingly motivated by the hundreds of people that Texas has executed in recent decades.

California is different. The three data sets that my recent paper analyzes vary by time period and other characteristics. Therefore, there are some differences among the data sets in the states that fall into each group: deterrent, no effect, and brutalization. Nevertheless, none of the data sets in California show that executions deter murder.

Perhaps this is explained by Williams being only the twelfth execution in California in the past quarter century, compared with the 650 on death row there. Perhaps this low ratio of executions to death-row inmates is not enough to convince potential criminals that the possibility of execution is a real threat that could be imposed on them.

However, it is possible that future executions in California may have a deterrent effect. Ten of California's 12 executions have taken place within the past decade. Perhaps the increased frequency will shift California to being a deterrence state. If so, the execution of Williams may save the lives of other potential murder victims. Only time, and future empirical analysis, will tell.

• Joanna Shepherd is an assistant professor of law at Emory Law School

Valerie Plame's Last Day at the CIA
Sources Confirm Betrayed Agent's Departure From Agency
By PETE YOST, AP

WASHINGTON (Dec. 10) - Valerie Plame, the CIA officer whose exposure led to a criminal investigation of the Bush White House, spent her last day at the spy agency Friday.

Neither the agency nor Plame's husband would confirm her departure, but two people who have known Plame for a number of years confirmed she was leaving.

Married to Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame was working at agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in 2003 when her CIA status was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak. That triggered a probe that led to the recent indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.

Plame had served for many years at overseas postings for the CIA, and her employment remained classified when she took a headquarters desk job, traveling overseas periodically.

She was an employee in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division.



"Her career was arbitrarily and whimsically destroyed by a mean political trick," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.

Plame's CIA connection was disclosed eight days after her husband accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

In the preface to the paperback edition of his book, "The Politics of Truth," Wilson says that he and his wife were the focus of a "Republican smear machine."

Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, remains under investigation in the Plame probe. Libby, who resigned from the government the day of his indictment, has pleaded not guilty to five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI.

Plame has been cast by Bush administration defenders as "just a desk jockey at the CIA, someone who wasn't really undercover and a manipulative Mata Hari who aspired to bring down the Bush administration. All of that is false," said former CIA officer Larry Johnson, a friend of Plame. "At the end of the day, she was betrayed by her own government and they show no signs of remorse."


12-10-05 05:46 EST

This article is a wonderful example of how the news media loves to spin events and make them into something that never really existed before. Don't you like the way they refer to Mr Novak as a "conservative columnist", while they make Mrs V out to be this pitiful, poor, hardworking CIA agent equal to someone that had put her life on the line in high risk, covert, undercover operations in the face of terrible threats that can no longer do her job because someone knew she was married to Joe Wilson. And when the question came up about who told ole Joe to go to Africa and do a fact finding mission on discrediting the Presidents comments about intelligence reports from many other countries concerning "yellow cake" (something nuclear) they simply said, his wife did.

Lets stop here for just a moment- Did she have the authority to send him or even suggest that he be the one to go? (that would be like Bill Clinton having Monica handle the investigation of the stained dress)
I have not heard one news source ask that question, except Fox News, with no answers as of yet.
Has anyone actually read Joe's report. From what I can gather his report contained nothing that would show any contradiction to the initial intel reports that Bush had sourced. But the book he wrote about the trip states things somewhat differently. He simply opinionated his report based on his pre-conceived ideas and not on fact.

Lets face the truth!
1. She was not in danger
2. He should not be the one reseaching on CIA time and money.
3. They have pretty much concluded that no crime was committed surrounded the Plame game. Only mis-spoken answers to questioning by the investigators. (I could replay the tape with Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman" over and over here but I won't)

At the end of this article it almost makes me sick the way they use the betrayal song, while democratic leaders pipe off sound bite after sound bite on how this war on terror is not able to be won. They throw dishonor in the face of every American soldier with the spin rhetoric they pump through their sewer channels everyday, and for what? Political gain. They have not gained anything yet in my opinion.. But it is certainly evident that they will stop at nothing to bring down this administration, even if it cost them their pride, dignity and integrity; not that there was much of that left in that party anyway.

Just don't spew your venom on our men and women of the military that fights for a cause you have obviously forgotten about.
Jamey Green

The Night That The Light Went Out In Mississippi
Via Bitter who got it from Radley Balko of The Agitator.

Cory Maye sits on death row. His crime? He shot the son of the police chief. Why? Cause said son of a police chief was a member of a raiding party that busted in his house in the middle of the night unannounced serving a "no knock" warrant at the wrong damn address. Mr. Maye dutifully shot the armed intruder as I'd hope any one of you would do. But the problem is that despite it being justifiable you have a black man in Mississippi who shot the white son of a white police chief. He was charged & then convicted by an all white jury, based on the dislike of the defense attorney's closing statement & their belief that he was too uppity.

If the reports that Mr. Balko based his post on are accurate this is a gross disregard for justice & the law.

This story from WLBT written by Maggie Wade has a different take on things.
(FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW AND READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE)
WWW.publicola.mu.nu/archives/2005/12/08.COM

The following is a small excerpt from a very good article by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard.

Pump Up the Volume
Finally the "nonpolitical" White House gets wise.
by Fred Barnes
12/12/2005, Volume 011, Issue 13

WE NOW KNOW WHAT WAS behind President Bush's mysterious refusal for so many months to respond to Democratic attacks on his Iraq policy--a refusal that came at great political cost to himself and to the American effort in Iraq. It wasn't that Bush was too focused on Social Security reform to bother. Nor did he believe Iraq was a drag on his presidency and should be downplayed. Rather, Bush had made a conscious decision after his reelection to be "nonpolitical" on the subject of Iraq.

Follow the link to read the rest of this article.

Following is a quote from a recent speech given by Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld; I don't think he could have defined it more clearly. This example shows how our media is covering Iraq and the lack there of.

"You couldn't tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the nearly 26,000 Americans that were casualties in a brief 40 days at Iwo Jima," Rumsfeld said of the World War Two battle against the Japanese for the small Pacific island.



''To be responsible, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks.''


"So too, in Iraq, it's appropriate to note not only how many Americans have been killed -- and may God bless them and their families -- but what they died for, or more accurately what they lived for," Rumsfeld said in his speech at the John Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.

December 3, 2005
The Stakes in Iraq
By Jon Kyl

"The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every ... transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men."

- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, #71

President Bush gave an important speech last week that stems directly from Hamilton's observation that responsible leaders must at times rise above transient public opinion influenced by clever politicians to guide society toward the greater good.

Recognizing that the protests of anti-war activists, amplified by partisan attacks, have begun to affect public support for our presence in Iraq, the President took to the podium at the U.S. Naval Academy to remind the nation of the nature of the enemy we face in Islamic extremism. Perhaps his most important message was that victory in Iraq is a vital U.S. national interest: what happens there will either embolden terrorists to expand their reach, or deal them a decisive and crippling blow. In a world of instant soundbites about casualties, and politicians focused on the next election, it falls to the Commander-in-Chief to constantly remind us of the big picture.

Pelosi's Disastrous Miscalculation The House Democratic leader may have just handed a victory to the Congressional GOP. by William Kristol 11/30/2005 4:18:00 PM

Email a Friend

Respond to this article
Today, Nancy Pelosi endorsed withdrawal from Iraq. Her statement is a political opportunity for the GOP.
Until now, it seemed to me more likely than not that Democrats would win back the House in 2006: Bush's numbers are bad; the GOP is getting no credit for a strong economy (which could in any case weaken by a year from now); the Abramoff scandal is going to get bigger; twelve years in charge of the House, and three years in control of all three elected bodies, have created weariness and dissatisfaction with the GOP. All this made me think the 2006 elections could result in a Speaker Pelosi.
I now think that unlikely. Pelosi's endorsement today of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat, the party of surrender. Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory.
It goes without saying that Bush should seek victory in Iraq regardless of Congressional elections, and regardless of polling results. But Republicans on the Hill, whose nervousness has in turn rattled
some in the White House, should now realize that the die is cast. If, a year from now, Iraq is judged to have been a mistake and to be a disaster, the Democrats will benefit--for that is the position of their leadership. But if Iraq is judged to be a war worth fighting and winning--a war we are proud our soldiers are fighting and which we expect to win--that judgment will benefit the GOP in a way it might not have until Pelosi's statement today.
So all Bush has to do is fight the war. And if he really wants to torment the Democrats--and advance the war effort--he could make Joe Lieberman Secretary of Defense.
--William Kristol

I like these guys at the Weekly Standard. They tell it like it is. Pelosi can't hide her true colours forever. Her, Hillary and many others have tried fervently in the past few years to appear to be somewhere in the middle. The truth is bound to come out.

What a head-line!

One a terrorist attack, the other a natural disaster. We mark the Sept. 11
anniversary in the midst of a recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Four years ago, a
shocked nation united and its leaders vowed to protect its citizens. Today, the
government's slow response to Katrina is under fire. Has your confidence been
shaken?

The answer to the above question is HELL YEAH! Disasters, terrorist attacks, crime (when it happens to us) even accidents can all cause our confidence to waver.
Here is a survey question that follows the head-line;

In the weeks after Sept. 11, the president's approval ratings surged past
90 percent. But critics have come down hard on the Bush administration's slow
response to the disaster that followed Hurricane Katrina.News Analysis:Leader Who Rose in 9/11 Slips

This is border line absurd, don't you think. This blame game that everyone from the city officials to the DC bureaucrats are playing goes to prove that they will use any crisis, no matter how tragic, to smear their opponent. We will most definitely look back and see where certain things could have been done differently, for instance;

• when did the LA state government issue its request for federal help, was it timely or did their lack of planning play a roll?
• Did the mayor of New Orleans tell the poor people that that they would be on their own in case of flooding? Someone chose not to let the buses roll. That decision was made in the city, by the city.
• For those that could have gotten out but chose to stay; I'm confident if they had know the extent of this storm they would have made a greater effort to get out.
• Who controls those levies surrounding New Orleans? Has proper maintenance been done, was this just too much of a storm or lack of planning?
• Where were the first responders? In the hurricane perhaps, fighting for survival like many others.
• Since they compared it to (9-11), Do you think that Bin Laden and Al-quieda could have planned such an attack in 9 months?
• Were these people a threat known to the USA prior to 2000?
• Did President Clinton, while in office, demand the release of one of the hijackers from an Israeli prison (even though the Israelis had a policy of not releasing anyone with blood on their hands) to appease the Palestinians?
• Did we have Bin Laden in the '90's and chose to let him go?

No doubt, hind sight is 20/20. I have heard it said, "how could George Bush in 9 months do what Bill Clinton couldn't do in 8 years". But I don't blame Clinton for what happen on 9-11.

The levies surrounding New Orleans, has never broke the way they did with Katrina. I don't blame the engineers.

Prior to a catastrophe, our plans seem to be working. But in reality, we never really know what tomorrow holds, do we?

Here are a few things, if known, would probably have been done differently;

• Adam and Eve eating the fruit
• letting Hitler reign
• our Civil War
• Viet Nam
• News media with an agenda

It is very difficult to predict nature and evil humans.

In my experiences, the people that are slinging mud and blame, most of the time, have something to hide themselves.

The following is an article I thought everyone should read:

Op-Ed Columnist
The Case for a Cover-Up
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: September 10, 2005
At last there is a light in the darkness. Washington was slow to respond to Katrina's victims, but now Congress has finally sprung into action. It has bravely promised to investigate the situation.

Skip to next paragraph


More Columns by John Tierney Unfortunately, the members haven't figured out exactly how, because Democrats want it to be done by outsiders. They say the Republicans will turn it into a cover-up. But why does that bother the Democrats so much? Shouldn't members of both parties want to cover this up?

Suppose, for instance, investigators try to find out who had the brilliant idea of putting the Federal Emergency Management Agency inside a new department with an organizational chart modeled on the Soviet Ministry of Agriculture and Food Economy. One Democrat, Hillary Clinton, did question whether FEMA would suffer, but the idea was originally championed by her colleagues, particularly Joe Lieberman.

Mr. Lieberman joined Mrs. Clinton this week in calling for a "re-examination" of FEMA's status, but he was against independence before he was for it. After the Sept. 11 attacks, he helped lead the charge to create the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans first resisted, as the Democratic National Committee pointed out during the presidential campaign last year. Its radio advertisement declared: "John Kerry fought to establish the Department of Homeland Security. George Bush opposed it for almost a year after 9/11."

Or suppose the investigators try to find out why the Army Corps of Engineers didn't protect New Orleans from the flood. Democrats have blamed the Iraq war for diverting money and attention from domestic needs. But that hasn't meant less money for the Corps during the past five years. Overall spending hasn't declined since the Clinton years, and there has been a fairly sharp increase in money for flood-control construction projects in New Orleans.

The problem is that the bulk of the Corps's budget goes for projects far less important than preventing floods in New Orleans. And if the investigators want to find who's responsible, they don't have to leave Capitol Hill.

Most of the Corps's budget consists of what are lovingly known on appropriations committees as earmarks: money allocated specifically for members' pet projects. Many of these projects flunk the Corps's own cost-benefit analysis or haven't been analyzed at all. Many are jobs that Corps officials don't even consider part of their mission, like building sewage plants, purifying drinking water or maintaining lakeside picnic tables.

The Corps is giving grants to improve New York City's drinking water. In Massachusetts, the Corps offers BMX-style bike jumps at a lake near Worcester and runs a theater next to the Cape Cod Canal showing a video of "Canal Critters."

In rural Nevada, an area not known for hurricanes or shipping channels, the Corps has been given $20 million for construction projects. When I asked an official why so much was being spent in Nevada, he said that the money was paying for wastewater treatment and mentioned the name of Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat's leader in the Senate.

"Senator Reid is a great and good man," the Corps official explained, "and he is on our committee."

This week Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat, lambasted Mr. Bush on the Senate floor. "Everybody anticipated the breach of the levees, Mr. President," she said. But she and others from the Louisiana delegation have been shortchanging the levees themselves. As Michael Grunwald reported in The Washington Post, they've diverted large sums to dubious Corps projects aimed at increasing barge traffic, not preventing floods. Ms. Landrieu forced the Corps to redo its calculations when a project to deepen a port flunked its cost-benefit analysis.

Would Congressional investigators focus on these pork-barrel projects? I would guess not. My daring prediction is they would make two discoveries. First, that mistakes were made by many people outside Congress. Second, that more money must be spent on flood protection throughout America.

A few outside skeptics may suggest letting this money be spent by mayors and governors in flood-prone areas who can lose their jobs if they earmark it for too many boondoggles and allow disasters to occur. But members of Congress would conclude that only they can be trusted to dispense the money. Of course, should there be another flood somewhere, they would be glad to investigate.

Email: tierney@nytimes.com

Can you say $4 a gallon gas?
August 28, 2005 05:14 PM PST
Lousiana has 17 active refineries, producing about 16% of America's fuel.


Total American refinery capacity utilization was at 93% in 2004.


American refineries are now operating at 97% capacity, processing 17 million barrels of oil a day (American consumes 20.6 million barrels of oil a day.)


If Katrina takes refinery capacity off-line, the effect at the pump will be immediate. Ther is no more capacity available to up output within the counry. Shortfalls will have to be made up from imported gasoline suppliers. They are unlikely to be moved by complaints of gauging from American congressmen.


At this point Americans may ask why no new refinery has been built in the United States since 1976. (There is one on the drawing board for Yuma, Arizona.)


There were 315 refineries operating in the United States in 1981. There are 144 operating today.


BTW: 25% of American oil and natural gas production comes from off-shore drilling in the Gulf. No word yet on Katrina's impact on those operations.


Bottom line: High gasoline prices are the result of decisions made by legislators. It is that simple. Congressmen decided to put in place the laws that have led to these prices, and to the higher ones ahead. They have chosen to cripple refinery construction and domestic oil exploration.


The "they," by the way, are overwhelmingly Democrats. Not exclusively. There are a handful of Republicans who don't mind you paying $3 a gallon and more, soon to be $4 a gallon.


But the vast majority of Republicans want to make new refinery construction easier, and new oil exploration --beginning in ANWR-- lawful.


In fact, the ANWR vite will be coming up soon. You may want to call your elected representatives and ask how they will be voting and what they will be doing to get new refineries under construction.


The Congressional switchboard: 202-225-3121
The previous article is from Hugh Hewitts blog- call the number above and tell them how you feel.

"We no longer deal in facts. We deal in talk radio. You've heard of talk radio, right? That's the game in which one idiot tries to say something more outrageous than the previous idiot."
"We deal in the blog world, too. Blogs are computer bulletin boards in which dweebs have the freedom to say anything about anyone. They talk tough, too, because it's safe and anonymous."

The main stream media, throwing out garbage that the american people have had to sift through over the last 25 years in hopes of finding a thread of truth to live on.
We make news the old fashion way, we churn it. This should be their slogan. It sure does appear to me that they churn and churn until they come up with a concoction that fits their sleazey, left leaning, liberal thinking and spew it out to the general public as if it is the truth. "And thats the way it is" or was it? Isn't that how ol' Walter use to sign off.
They are certainly reaching new lows even today. The NEW YORK TIMES is at it again. Check out the following;
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN Drudge Report — Posted 6 hours ago — Permalink The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts' two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Ain't that a shame?