Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

The political practice of siccinctly placed sound bites to support their position has again been implemented by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. In his efforts to smear President Bush and publish his opposition to the war in Iraq, he has lashed out at the American Soldier.

Like an insurgent sniper, he continues to take pot shots at the GIs to support his convictions.

In a story by ABC News, he is reported to have said the following:

Rep. Murtha Says Fallout From Killing of Iraqi Civilians Will Turn Out Worse Than Prison Scandal

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL

WASHINGTON May 28, 2006 (AP)

...The shootings last November at Haditha, a city in the Anbar province of western Iraq that has been plagued by insurgents, were covered up, said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

"Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long?" Murtha said on "This Week" on ABC. "We don't know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command."

Murtha said high-level reports he received indicated that no one fired upon the Marines or that there was any military action against the U.S. forces after the initial explosion. Yet the deaths were not seriously investigated until March because an early probe was stifled within days of the incident, he said.

"I will not excuse murder, and this is what happened," Murtha said. "This investigation should have been over two or three weeks afterward and it should have been made public and people should have been held responsible for it."

A retort to his comments from a Marine also appeared in the Washington Post

Mr. Murtha's Rush to Judgment

Sunday, May 28, 2006; B06

A year ago I was charged with two counts of premeditated murder and with other war crimes related to my service in Iraq. My wife and mother sat in a Camp Lejeune courtroom for five days while prosecutors painted me as a monster; then autopsy evidence blew their case out of the water, and the Marine Corps dropped all charges against me ["Marine Officer Cleared in Killing of Two Iraqis," news story, May 27, 2005].

So I know something about rushing to judgment, which is why I am so disturbed by the remarks of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) regarding the Haditha incident ["Death Toll Rises in Haditha Attack, GOP Leader Says," news story, May 20]. Mr. Murtha said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

In the United States, we have a civil and military court system that relies on an investigatory and judicial process to make determinations based on evidence. The system is not served by such grand pronouncements of horror and guilt without the accuser even having read the investigative report.

Mr. Murtha's position is particularly suspect when he is quoted by news services as saying that the strain of deployment "has caused them [the Marines] to crack in situations like this." Not only is he certain of the Marines' guilt but he claims to know the cause, which he conveniently attributes to a policy he opposes.

Members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq need more than Mr. Murtha's pseudo-sympathy. They need leaders to stand with them even in the hardest of times. Let the courts decide if these Marines are guilty. They haven't even been charged with a crime yet, so it is premature to presume their guilt -- unless that presumption is tied to a political motive.

ILARIO PANTANO

Jacksonville, N.C.

Mr. Pantano's comments are food for thought for all politicians and reporters who try and convict through the media. This type of blatant accusation should be considered slanderous and libel if presented before convictions have been reached. If such blowhards were thus held accountable for their actions, there would be less heartbreak and sorrow among the falsely accused and the guilty will eventually receive their just rewards.

The legal presumption of innocent until proven guilty seems to have take a holiday the past few years.

What's a Voter to Do?

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La has been revealed as another blight spot on Capital Hill. He has risen to infamy following the reports from an FBI sting operation that videotaped him receiving over $100,000 in cash to be used as bribes; as well as audio tapes where he describe measure to funnel other money through his children to him for future bribes.

Filing: Tape Shows Lawmaker Taking Money
May 21 4:35 PM US/Eastern

By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press Writer
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer…

The affidavit says Jefferson is caught on videotape at the Ritz-Carlton as he takes a reddish-brown briefcase from the trunk of the informant's car, slips it into a cloth bag, puts the bag into his 1990 Lincoln Town Car and drives away. The $100 bills in the suitcase had the same serial numbers as those found in Jefferson's freezer…

Jefferson assured the FBI informant in their coded conversations that he paid the money to the Nigerian official, even though the money was still in Jefferson's possession when agents searched his home Aug. 3.

On Aug. 1, two days after Jefferson picked up the $100,000, the informant called Jefferson to ask about the status of "the package."

Jefferson responded: "I gave him the African art that you gave me and he was very pleased."

I hope you caught the fact that even though he was given the money to pay a bribe to a Nigerian official, he lied to the FBI informant and kept nearly all the money for himself.

This is the same Rep. William Jefferson, D-La that we read about last September after Katrina hit New Orleans. I found this blog by Jonathan Tasini that refers to the news reports at that time.

More Ethical Problems for Rep. Jefferson

… Seems like Rep. William Jefferson has even more ethical problems. As I reported before, Jefferson is under FBI investigation.

Now comes a new report that might indicate a pattern: CNN's John Mercurio's The Morning Grind reports on a Roll Call story that says "Rep. William Jefferson, under investigation by the FBI, went on the defensive Wednesday in the wake of a damaging ABC News report that the Congressman allegedly used National Guard resources to gather personal belongings from his New Orleans home amid the Hurricane Katrina rescue operation...."

Here was the ABC News summary: Sept. 13, 2005 — Amid the chaos and confusion that engulfed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck, a local congressman used National Guard troops to check on his property and rescue his personal belongings — even while New Orleans residents were trying to get rescued from rooftops, ABC News has learned. On Friday, Sept. 2 — five days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast — Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who represents New Orleans and is a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was allowed through the military blockades set up around the city to reach the Superdome, where thousands of evacuees had been taken. Military sources tells ABC News that Jefferson, an eight-term Democratic congressman, asked the National Guard that night to take him on a tour of the flooded portions of his congressional district. A 5-ton military truck and a half dozen military police were dispatched. Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard tells ABC News that during the tour, Jefferson asked that the truck take him to his home on Marengo Street, in the affluent uptown neighborhood in his congressional district. According to Schneider, this was not part of Jefferson's initial request."

There is more on Rep Jefferson and other questionable Congress members at http://www.beyonddelay.org/index.php, a site dedicated to exposing legislative ethics violations.

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La

Five days after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, on September 2, 2005, Rep. Jefferson allegedly used National Guard troops to check in on his home and collect a few belongings – a laptop computer, three suitcases, and a large box. Military sources told ABC News that Rep. Jefferson asked the National Guard to take him on a tour of the flooded portion of his congressional district. Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard said that during the course of the tour, Rep. Jefferson asked that the truck stop at the Congressman's home. The Congressman entered his house and collected his belongings, returning to the truck, which was now stuck in the mud. The National Guard ultimately sent a second truck to rescue the first truck and Rep. Jefferson and his belongings were returned to the Superdome.

Questions, questions, questions….

What was in the ‘laptop computer, three suitcases, and a large box’ that was more important than the lives of his constituents who were still perched on rooftops, without food or water?

Was it more money from the freezer?

Cryptic correspondence with undercover FBI informants?

How does a person serve for 16 years in the House of Representatives and become embroiled in such a blatant criminal investigation?

Was he just born that way?

Is it because after 16 years, graft, corruption and elitism have become a way of life?

Or is Jefferson a poster child for term limits?

Wanted: Real Leaders

The following is a letter I wrote to Joe Klien from Time Magazine regarding his article entitled:

Pssst! Who's behind the decline of politics? [Consultants.]

Dear Mr. Klien,

I was very impressed by the above mentioned article you wrote. I have reached the same conclusion over the past several years. It actually began with Rush Limbaugh in his early days. I listened fairly regularly back then and one day realized that the reason so many people devoutly followed him was because he lead. He articulated his views with passion, eloquence and was unfazed by those who opposed him. Whether you liked him or not, you knew where he stood.

These are the very traits you identified that the people of the United States seek when electing leaders. I voted for President Bush both times because even though I didn't always agree with every thing he did, I definately knew where he stood. I wanted a leader, not a poll puppet. I wanted a man that believed in God as I did. I wanted someone with personal conviction and passion.

Political tactics today consist of discrediting your opponent's beliefs while keeping your beliefs fluid enough to move freely to what ever the safe topic of the day might be. Hillary Clinton has mastered this maneuver. Say what ever your audience believes, whether you believe it or not.

I agree with your prediction for the 2008 Presidental election that:

The winner will be the candidate who comes closest to this model: a politician who refuses to be a "performer," at least in the current sense. Who speaks but doesn't orate. Who never holds a press conference on or in front of an aircraft carrier. Who doesn't assume the public is stupid or uncaring. Who believes in at least one major idea, or program, that has less than 40% support in the polls. Who can tell a joke—at his or her own expense, if possible. Who gets angry, within reason; gets weepy, within reason ... but only if those emotions are real and rare. Who isn't averse to kicking his or her opponent in the shins but does it gently and cleverly. Who radiates good sense, common decency and calm. Who is not afraid to deliver bad news. Who is not afraid to admit a mistake. And who, above all, abides by the motto that graced Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Oval Office: let unconquerable gladness dwell.

I hope that there is such a candidate. I will likely vote for them, regardless of their race, gender or party.

Thanks for your insight.

David L. Mefford
david@mefford.org

Does Hillary Clinton Really Understand the Scriptures?

I was amused by the article about a speech given by Hillary Clinton regarding the upcoming immigration reform bill in the Senate.

Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants
By BETH FOUHY
AP Political Writer

Surrounded by a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates, Clinton blasted the House bill as "mean-spirited" and said it flew in the face of Republicans' stated support for faith and values.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

I was wondering what Mrs. Clinton was referring to in both of her examples.

First, in the story of Good Samaritan, the traveler was from Samaria, a state within the political boundaries of the Country of Israel. The assumption can be made that because he was a Samaritan, a group of mixed Jewish and Canaanite blood, he was born in Samaria, was a legal citizen of the Country of Israel, and thereby free to wander at will from Galilee in the north to Judea in the south, helping anyone he chose assist. He had not entered from a foreign country illegally, obtained work with fraudulent documentation, and was not sending his wages back to support his family in his country of origin.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the State of Judea in the Country of Israel and except for a short stint in the land of Egypt; the record says he lived the balance of his life in Nazareth of Galilee. He did travel on an annual basis from Nazareth to Jerusalem for the celebration of the Feast of the Passover, but this was a legal trip, one that did not require visas, passports or other authorization.

In light of this information, I am completely at a loss to be able to relate Jesus and the Good Samaritan to the immigration reform bill. The legislation is designed to grant citizenship to 9 - 11 million individuals that entered this country illegally, but found work and have been able to elude the law for more than five years. That is more people than presently live in the states of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona - combined. It will also remove recent border jumpers and send them back to their country of origin where they would have to apply for entry under the current laws.

How does anyone have the audacity to stand up and say that someone who intentionally broke the laws of this country has a right to be absolved of that crime and not face the consequences they have earned? There are those who state that these immigrants only take the jobs that current legal residents refuse to do. Wrong; they take jobs that legal immigrants would take them if there were not so many illegal immigrants restricting the number of legal immigrants we can allow into the country. They are taking the jobs from those who are obeying the law, not those that are too lazy to work.

Immigration laws are important and necessary in our country. Without them, we would be flooded with new citizens faster than the economy can absorb them. What a remarkable place the United States of America is. It is one of the only countries in the world that has to put up fences to keep people out. The better solution would be to improve the economies of other nations so their citizens wanted to stay home because they had freedom and the opportunity to make a good living. Then immigration would not be an issue.

The immigration laws of this country may be in great need of repair, but as long as they are the law, they must be followed and enforced until changed. If not, we do not have a democracy, but anarchy.

Is that what Hillary Clinton is advocating?

Government Of The People, By The People, For The People

The recent events surrounding the purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, and the resulting management of United States sea ports security by an Arab country has eroded a misconception of the United States government.

A vast majority of countries around the world, especially those who don’t like the U. S., think that George Bush owns, controls, and dictates what America does and doesn’t do through out the world. In their eyes, Mr. Bush represents all that they despise about the Western World. Because they haven’t experienced democracy in their own countries, they don’t understand that even though the President directs the largest and most powerful army in the world, he is unable to use it for his own personal pleasure.

In their world, kings, dictators and other totalitarian leaders own everything and everyone. The country exists for the pleasure and gratification of the leader and his supporters. It is easy to see that coming from this perspective, one would perceive that leadership in the United States is no different.

The Dubai Deal, while not done with the direct guidance of the President, was strongly supported by him as his administration’s policies and something that was good for the country. But the backlash from the voters resounded up through the halls of Congress and slapped Mr. Bush soundly in the face. Polls indicated that more than 65% of the country did not want this kind of deal to be made. With the power of this mandate in hand, the Congressional leaders were able to step into the fray and convince the UAE that modifying the deal to drop the US ports would be in their best interests. Without the support of the people, this deal would not work.

There have been those throughout the term of the present administration that have complained that the Republicans have run an agenda counter to the wishes of the American People. It appears obvious now that if the President or Congress chooses a course of action that is counter to the basic feelings and needs of this Country, the People will speak up and dictate what will happen.

President Lincoln would be please to know that nearly 150 years later, the United States of America still possesses a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Brokeback Hypocrites

I have avoided commenting on "Brokeback Mountain" and the controversy surrounding it. There is a very true principle that discussion of an idea, even though it is a wrong idea, can give can it credence, legitimacy and legs. With this risk in mind, I will express a few truths that are overlooked and need exposure.

I have not seen the film and will not. But this is irrelvant, since I am not commenting on the film, but on those who support it. I have read many reviews that were supportive and sympathetic of the themes displayed so my opinions are not based on negative, right-winged conservatives. But there are two disturbing issues that have surfaced from these discussions.

First, drama has proven over the millennia to be a powerful influence on the actions of the human race. Literature has changed the course of nations. It is always a disservice to society when disgusting tales of losers and reprobates are portrayed bigger than life on the silver screen. The precise form of deviant behavior is irrelevant for the damage is still the same. The fabric of society is shredded, not re-enforced. Conversely, those who overcome adversity and challenges rather than wallowing in it, motivate society to improve, perservere and triumph.

The other disturbing element is not the proselytizing of a lifestyle that I personally believe brings damage and unhappiness to all it touches. (It is ironic that the film poignantly supports this very idea.) The problem is the cavalier, in your face, narrow minded, bigot attitude from the film’s supporters. I have worked on stage, in films and I even directed Jake Gyllenhaal’s sister when she was a student in high school. I have worked with straight people, gay people and those who didn’t know what they were. Everyone is trying to find happiness. It is too bad that, as Garth Brooks put it, too many are looking for it in all the wrong places.

It hurts to see how so many of the vocal liberal community ridicule and demean those who do not believe the same way they do. Choosing not to watch a program that is counter to my beliefs is no different than a pro-choice activist choosing not to attend a pro-life rally, or a peace activist refusing to see a film that glorifies war and carnage. Participating in something that offends one’s senses, is not required to be objective or informed. In this country, we have the right to agree to disagree. Making light, ridiculing or harassing an individual for their beliefs is fine as long as you allow them the same opportunity to make you feel like an idiot for the way you believe.

Preserving Your Right to Be Offended

I am continually amazed at the number of people who believe that the Constitution guarantees them the right to not be offended. The First Amendment, by definition, allows me, or you, to say anything; whether it offends someone or not. The only limitation is slander, in that you cannot say something that is untrue if it causes damage or harm to someone else. Actually you can still say it; you just have to be willing to pay for the resulting damages.

This myopic view of self-expression is most pronounced among the religiously challenged, the morally challenged and the sexually challenged. Those who espouse that it is their right to be able to walk down the streets of America and not be offended by any display of religion. Those who want to live by relative truth, depending on what the definition of “is” is at that moment, and don’t want to be accountable to absolute truth. Those who haven’t figured out whether they are male, female or whatever, and don’t want to have their process of exploration dampened by guilt.

Yet even these dissenters all agree that they are a small minority in this country, and as such, are eligible for protection under the Constitution. But this raises a serious contradiction. I have always been taught that democracy, or even a republic, is ruled by the common consent of the majority of the population. This is why elections are determined by a 51% margin. And changes to the rules by which we are governed have to be agreed upon by a 3/5 or 2/3 majority. Where does it say in the Constitution, the Amendments or even the Federalist Papers, that the will of the minority has the ability to supercede the will of the majority?

The only rights we posses in this country are guaranteed to individuals, not groups. We have the rights of expression, security and privacy. We have the right to assemble, choose our leaders and to determine our own destiny. We also have the right to disagree, to demand change and to see those changes realized when the majority agrees with the need for the changes.

With this in mind, why do the majority in this country, the 80% that have declared a religious belief and the 65% who regularly attend or practice their belief, have to hide in back rooms and shuttered meetinghouses? When 80% of the people in this country believe in a Supreme Being, why do the words, “one nation under God” and “in God we trust,” need to be stricken from our society? Why do minorities have the audacity to choose to move into a religious community because they like the environment and want to raise their children there; and then turn around immediately to criticize, demean and demand that the community change to their own personal preferences?

It reminds me of a line from the movie “The Age Of Innocence,” when the male lead is willing to break the arranged engagement to his fiancé to marry another that he really loves. His secret love, refusing to accept his sacrifice, says, “If you did, you would cease to be the very thing I love.”

Don’t they see,... or do they?

The Battle Over Christmas

My heart has been heavy as I have read numerous articles regarding the absence of Christmas in the Season. I have heard from both sides, those who lament the vacancy and those who would cut of my nose so as to not offend another. I am afraid that the real truth is that Christ was removed from Christmas long before Holiday Trees and The Hanging of the Greens.

At the time of Christ, His birth was not celebrated. As the centuries rolled along and the powerful churches of the Middle Ages utilized the existing celebrations to create an excuse for promogating Christianity, Christmas was generally regulated to a Church Service commemoarting the His birth. The modern traditions of evergreen trees, gift giving, caroling, yule logs and feasts all had their origins in non-Christian winter celebrations of light and fertility.

Even in the days of the Dickens Christmas, gifts were seldom given. People attended family dinners and neighbors would sing songs of the Savior's birth and share treats and goodies. These traditions were gradually assimilated into the American culture from the immigrants of the late 1800th century.

I remember my grandparents of others of the first half of the 20th century only expecting one or two small gifts as children, a display of love and appreciation, not a gluttony of goodies.

But the last 50 years has seen an ever greater push toward material giving and mountains of gifts. Now parents feel guilty if they haven't spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on each child and many children feel cheated if they don't receive what they have been promised on TV. It is a time to get something for nothing, a season of selfishness.

It doesn't matter whether it started with greedy retailers, politically correct gurus or international inclusionists, the Spirit of the Season has been choked for decades.

There is a movement growing to limit purchased gifts of a few to children and adults should exchange home made gifts or services. The savings from this frugality should then be shared with those less fortunate. This is going to be a hard sell because of the tremendous economic impact it would have on retailers in the United States.

I think that we need to find ways to think of others, rather than ourselves, share love and good will rather than presents and cards. Becoming angry with a person who wishes to not offend another is really the unchristian act. If Christians can not motivate others to join them because of the joy and peace they derive from living the truth, then boycotts, insults and retaliation will never work either.

Rather than using money, power and force, let us use the tools that Jesus gave us of love, compassion and faith to change the world.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

As a follow up to a previous article from Oct 4, 2005, a new article that appeared in the Washington Post reveals that Ronnie Earl, District Attorney from Texas, has more guts and gumption than common sense.

DeLay Lawyers: D.A. Tried to Coerce Jurors
By SUZANNE GAMBOA
The Associated Press
Saturday, October 8, 2005; 7:30 PM

The story claims that Earl not only went to a third grand jury when the second grand jury refused to indict Tom Delay after the first indictment had to be dropped because there was no legal basis, but he intimidated the third grand jury into making their decision. As in all journalistic reporting of court cases, it is impossible to determine who really did what. This is why we have our day in court rather than our day in the media.

But the evidence released so far continues to indicate that Mr. Earl is either trying to make a flimsy charge stick or he is totally inept as a prosecuter.

Not Loud Enough or The Wrong Message?

Two articles appearing today from Democratic sources, substantiate an idea that has been festering with me since the Election of ’04. In the first,

Carville: Dems need stronger narrative to win
By Elizabeth Gibson
October 07, 2005

James Carville, a political humorist, in a speech to Democratic students at Northwestern University, explained

…that Democratic candidates can’t succeed by shouting out to every group in a crowd. Instead candidates should tell stories with the three elements of any good story — setup, conflict and resolution.

“No Kumbayah crap,” Carville said.

Another article from the Washington Post,

Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; A07

quotes two former Clinton advisors, William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck. They complained that the Democrats must change their philosophies to run more down the center of the political spectrum rather than relying on either leftist-liberals or trying to capture the swing voters.

...Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.

Howard Dean, when elected as the Democratic Party Chairman this past summer, declared that the reason the Republicans defeated the Democrats in 04 was that the Republicans had a better defined message and a more succinct way of expressing it. If the Demos wanted to win in the future, they would need to better articulate their stance so the American People could embrace it.

The problem with the Democratic platform has nothing to do with clarity, definition or volume, it has everything to do with substance and character.

When my grandfather was a Democrat, it was the party of the working man with a goal of "a chicken in every pot." The leaders believed in God, resisting communism and protecting America. We had just spent six long years of World War II defending these principles.

Today, the party has been over-run by leftists, extremists and special interests that are not only of little concern to the majority of Americans, but quite scary. Everyone finds comfort in those who look, act and believe as they do. When the fringe of the nation demands that religious middle-class heterosexuals greet with a kiss hedonist yuppie homosexuals and that lower income blacks should be embraced by upper income white executives, all the parties involved have just a little trepidation.

The relocation of the poorer black families from Hurricane Katrina highlighted some of this attitude as the refugees expressed concern about living in other “cultures” and most have chosen to return to their “home” as soon as possible.

Demos have tried too hard to make a collalition of all the fringe groups and in so doing, have alienated the core electorate of the nation. Whether we like smaller or larger government, involvement in international affairs or prefer isolationism, most people want security in their homes, their jobs and in their community. The electrate has learned that policies change, storms arise and the world moves on. Because of this, they will always lean toward leaders they feel have character, integrity and the charisma to lead in a crisis regardless of the party.

This is what the Democrats need to learn to internalize in order to win. If they could do that, I would likely vote along with them since they would have become a viable alternative.

Maybe The Stink Will Stick

There is nothing quite as exciting as watching history in the making.

Texan Ronnie Earl, the Travis County District Attorney, jumped again into the national spotlight and secured a place in legal history when he dropped the charges against Tom Delay because the law Delay was indicted with breaking was not created until a year after the alleged conspiracy took place. Because of this blooper, he asked the Court to drop the previous count and issued new charges of conspiring to launder money and money laundering. Of course, this new action begs the question; did anyone research this charge to see if there was actually a law in place in the State of Texas that was violated?

That sounds harsh, but in light of Dan Rather’s career curtailing calamity and the equally notorious and far from factual reporting on the mayhem of Hurricane Katrina that slung mud on the federal government, (aka, the Bush Administration); one wonders if the Democratic mind has the capacity for rational thought. Now, I realize that there are a great many good Democrats on the grass roots level that have the ability to think and act intelligently. I know that they don’t resemble the national figures any more than I remind you of Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy. But I ask you; what is going on?

Is the left so emotionally charged and angry at the present situation that they are blinded to legal procedures and scientific discovery? I remember the consternation I felt during the Clinton years. I not only disagreed with the polling for politics style of leadership and abhorred Slick Willy, the great compromiser, but I had a personal distain stemming from damage he had inflicted on those I loved and cared about. Regardless of my revulsion, I watched the impeachment proceedings and cringed when emotion tended to move the trial out of the rule of law and into a personal attack.

But I realized that nothing lasts for ever. I didn’t vow to move to Canada or kill myself if change was not immediate. I knew that real leaders would emerge to fill the vacuum.

In the case of Tom Delay, it appears that Mr. Earl is repeating a previous blunder, (Conspiracy Theorist Indicts DeLay,) from 1993 when he tried to indicted

“Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison with allegedly misusing staff and equipment in her state treasury office for political purposes.”

He realized just before the jury was selected that he didn’t have the evidence needed for a conviction and asked that the charges be dropped.

"When the case finally went to trial in February 1994, Earle, lacking the evidence to prove his charges against Hutchison, asked the judge to dismiss them before a jury could be sworn in. That would have allowed Earle to go after Hutchison again, at a later time, with the same charges. Because of the prohibition against double jeopardy, however, dropping the case after a jury was seated meant Earle would never be able to harass Hutchison with the charges again.

Judge John F. Onion, Jr., spurned Earle’s request and swore in a jury. Earle then refused to present any case. Onion ordered the jurors to acquit Hutchison, which they promptly did."

Charge them and drop them appears to be the Travis County motto. If you can’t convict, maybe the stink will stick.

Will Blacks Be Welcome in Utah? Part 2

Just a short follow up on a previous blog about whether Blacks from New Orleans will be welcome in Utah. The Salt Lake Tribune had this article about a family that chose to stay in Utah.

A Utah Welcome Home
Neighbors pitch in to give evacuee family all they need

By Todd Hollingshead The Salt Lake Tribune

A touching story that shows that compassion for others is not limited or restricted to race or religion. It is sad to understand that we detest in others those character traits we despise in ourselves. I am afraid that those who cry "racist" the loudest are actually the most guilty.

Where Was Big Brother?

We have become a country of second-guessers, Monday morning quarterbacks and backseat drivers. It doesn’t matter what the event; the instant replay, blow by blow analysis and ceaseless dribble regarding who did what or who didn’t do what rolls out from the time the event begins until long after our interest ends.

The current classic example is the hearing when Former FEMA director Michael Brown appeared before a House Republican Committee hearing. He was slammed, ignored and rebuked for failure to perform tasks that were not his. Comments by Mr. Brown include:

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional," two days before the storm hit, Brown said…

"I've overseen over 150 presidentially declared disasters. I know what I'm doing, and I think I do a pretty darn good job of it," he said…

"So I guess you want me to be the superhero, to step in there and take everyone out of New Orleans," Brown said…

"We put that money in our budget request and it was removed by the Department of Homeland Security" he said…

Brown in his opening statement cited "specific mistakes" in dealing with the storm, and listed just two.

One, he said, was not having more media briefings.

As to the other, he said: "I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences, and work together. I just couldn't pull that off." ..

Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., “pushed Brown on what he and his agency should have done to evacuate New Orleans, restore order and improve communication.”

"Those are not FEMA roles," Brown said. "FEMA doesn't evacuate communities. FEMA does not do law enforcement. FEMA does not do communications."

In spite of his statements, the committee unleashed undue criticism and blame. It sounded like each member was taking the opportunity to make pre-authored statements that would distance themselves from the mess rather than addressing the problems and Mr. Brown’s comments.

"I'm happy you left," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn. "That kind of look in the lights like a deer tells me you weren't capable of doing that job…"

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., told Brown: "The disconnect was, people thought there was some federal expertise out there. There wasn't. Not from you…"

Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Texas told Brown: "I don't know how you can sleep at night. You lost the battle…"

In a testy exchange, Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn, compared Brown's performance unfavorably with that of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks…

The problems of Katrina are only being repeated with Rita.

I am terrified of the ‘where was Big Brother’ attitude that has been vented from these events. And the thing that upsets me the most is that the cry and hullabaloo is likely coming from only a few and amplified by the media. I have every faith and confidence that the majority of those that stayed or left shouldered the responsibility to care for and protect themselves

There are reports of people complaining that there is no power, water or sewage in many of the hard hit parishes in western Louisiana. Those who chose to stay should have done so with the understanding that they would be on their own. That means no help from the outside!!! What part of “Get out of Dodge” did they miss?

Reminds me of the note seen hanging on the wall of a car repair shop, “Lack of preparation on your part doesn’t necessarily constitute an emergency on my part.”

This country was built by people who had the courage and tenacity to do it themselves, with or without help from anyone else. But I see more and more, this independent attitude eroding away to a childlike dependency on a Big Brother, a Protector, an all powerful government.

It has been said so many times before, "Any government that has the power to supply you with everything you need, also has the power to take away everything you have.”

When Should We Leave Iraq?

The movement to declare the Iraqi War as unjustified, bring the troops home before another American is killed or another Iraqi is humiliated or tortured is appearing to gain steam. At least in the eyes of the media. I have noticed that the Media has had a field day as new icons for this movement have come to the fore front.

In a story from Yahoo News on September 23, entitled, Human Rights group alleges Iraq prisoner abuse, the author describes how 3 un-named soldiers have come forward and declared that in the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division, abuse was a regular course of action.

The abuse was meted out as part of military intelligence interrogations or merely to "relieve stress" of troops, the report said.

"Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC (persons under control) tent. In a way it was sport," a sergeant is quoted as saying.

"One day (a sergeant) shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guys leg with a mini Louisville Slugger, a metal bat," he said...

"The accounts here suggest that the mistreatment of prisoners by the US military is even more widespread than has been acknowledged to date, including among troops belonging to some of the best trained, most decorated and highly respected units in the US Army," the report said.

Also Cindy Sheehan and her entourage marched on Washington demanding "Peace now" in an article in the Washinton Post:

Anti-War Demonstrators March on Washington

By JENNIFER C. KERR
The Associated Press
Saturday, September 24, 2005; 10:25 PM

Other notable quotes included:

"President Bush needs to admit he made a mistake in the war and bring the troops home, and let's move on," Rutherford said. His wife, Judy, 58, called the removal of Saddam Hussein "a noble mission" but said U.S. troops should have left when claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction proved unfounded...

"We found that there were none and yet we still stay there and innocent people are dying daily," she said...

"Bush Lied, Thousands Died," said one sign. "End the Occupation," said another...

Folk singer Joan Baez marched with the protesters and later serenaded them at a concert at the foot of the Washington Monument. An icon of the 1960s Vietnam War protests, she said Iraq is already a mess and the troops need to come home immediately. "There is chaos. There's bloodshed. There's carnage."

In the British paper, The Independent, there was a story entitled:

Soldier's chilling testimony fuels demonstrations against Iraq war
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 24 September 2005

The story details and embellishes reports from Hart Viges relating to mass killings and slaughter by US Troops in Iraq.

"I don't know how many innocents I killed with my mortar rounds," Mr Viges, who served with the 82nd Airborne Division, said during a presentation this week at American University in Washington. "In Baghdad, I had days that I don't want to remember. I try to forget," he added...

The rare insight into the chaos of the combat ­ including an order to open fire on all taxis in the city of Samawa because it was believed Iraqi forces were using them for transport...

Actually, those are the only notable quotes from Mr. Viges. The balance of the article is the authors thoughts, updates on casualties in Iraq and some quotes from Kathy Kelly, a veteran campaigner with the group Voices in the Wilderness, declaring that Mr. Viges' testimony will greatly benefit her cause.

So, according to these reports, the country has galvanized behind the anti-war movement and the conscientious objectors and our boys are ready to come home? A grieving mother, a conscientious objector and a few un-named soldiers are not policy makers for the country. I don't want us to have to be there, but even if as a country, we chose now to leave Iraq, there are some harsh realities to face.

At this point, it really matter's little if the Administration lied about the weaponss of mass destrutcion or whether the Iraqi intelligence communtity duped us into believing they had WMD to prevent our aggression. The facts are that we are there and Saddam and his WMD are not.

What happens if we pull all of our troops home tomorrow or next week? There is no stable government, no constitution, no established laws, little working infastructure and what is there is being destroyed by the insurgents nearly as fast as we can repair it. There is great tension between the competing Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites over religion, security and soverenty. The insurgents under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have vowed to remove all the infidels from the land and have declared war on the Shiite majority. They also have targeted any Iraqi that has worked for, cooperated with or smile favorably on an outsider. We are loosing a handful of troops each month while the Iraqis are loosing hundreds.

And what about the thousands of Iraqis that have been killed, maimed or lost loved ones because of the insurgents? The peace activists would have you believe that we are responsible for their sorrows because our presence is prolonging the insurgency. But they are actually being killed because they have dared to stand up and challenge the age-old totalitarian rule of dictators, oligarchs and theocracs that has dominated the region for millennia. If we left, their lives would not be spared, but would be annialilated immediately because they pose a threat to the controlists.

If we pulled out before there is a stable government, the country would plunge into civil war. It would likely become divided into three or more unstable ethnic regions with insurgents and terrorists continuing to decimate the population in an effort by each group to gain a majority by eliminating the opposition. I fear that the bloodbath would be remincent of Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge or more recently, Yugoslovia as it divided into Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia where millions of people were brutilized, raped and massacred; men, women and children. Political and ethnic cleansing would be the order of the day.

But is that our problem? Is it okay for 100,000 or 500,000 Iraqis to be butchered as long as no more American soldiers loose their life? Which course is the most humane and moral? If we are to think globally and act locally with the enviroment, shouldn't we be doing the same politically? Where does our responsibility for freedom end? At our borders, with our allies, with our family?

Pulling the troops out of Iraq too soon would be selfish and much more self-serving than anything the administration is being accused of doing. It would create more instability in the region. It would demoralize those groups around the world that are hoping that someday their country will allow them the basic freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where the rule of dictators will be replaced by the rule of Law and their children will have hope for a productive future without fear.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving, a Merry Halloween and a Scary Christmas

I always did have a problem while growing up when we would harvest our garden in September and early October, but not celebrate Thanksgiving until the end of November. It was refreshing during the 2 years I lived in Canada to enjoy Thanksgiving on October 10, it helped make sense of the holiday.

Then as I grew older, it became irritating when the national holidays were assigned to the closest Monday. So Lincoln's birthday was February 12 and Washington's was February 22 but we would celebrate both on a Monday in between. I could almost accept that. But when Memorial Day was changed to the last Monday in May and Veteran's Day became the second Monday in November, it didn't take long to have trouble remembering that Veteran's Day was really November 11 and Memorial Day was May 28,... or was it the 31. (Oh well, does it really matter any more?)

I was gratified to realize that there was something sacred about Christmas, the Fourth of July and New Year's Day. I know there is nothing sacred about New Year's Eve, but it would have been very confusing to have it the last Monday of December or the first Monday of January if New Years Day was still on January 1. I suppose we could have had New Year's Eve and New Year's Day on the same day??

But back to the point. I walked into Walmart the other day, and noticed that the Halloween promotions were already displayed. I quickly calculated that with Halloween starting 6 weeks before the actual activity, we had about 3 weeks until the Christmas decorations arrived and 4 weeks until the Hanukkh menorahs lined the isles but I think someone forgot all about Thanksgiving. Well not forgot, everyone will want to take Friday off of work, but there certainly isn't any time or space in the media or markets for William, the Pilgrim or Tom Turkey.

So to make sure I have this straight, I need to buy the kid's Trick or Treat costumes on the way home from Back to School night so I will have plenty of time to shop for Christmas before I buy the pumpkins to carve before the candy is gone and then I will still have time to buy those final items on the Christmas wish list when I purchase the turkey and cranberries, but I have to set aside some time to make a dreidel, set up the tree and grab some noise makers before they all dissappear and still make it on time to the family picnic on Labor Day.

It's no wonder that we feel that the Holidays are a little overwhelming.

As The Chickens Come Home To Roost....

Several articles showed up today in the news as predictors of what we will continue to see. They each chronicle the typical government response to large sums of money; divert it to your own pet project or skim a large chunk off for you and your friends.

The first story, Money Earmarked for Evacuation Redirected by Rita Beamish of the Associated Press, reports on money that was earmarked for Hurricane Studies. She found that most of the money never made it where it was intended, but was redirected in to studies about the causeway and other unidentifiable places.

The $500,000 that Congress appropriated for the evacuation plan went to a commission that studied future options for the 24-mile bridge over Lake Pontchartrain, FEMA spokesman Butch Kinerney said.

The second, Louisiana Officials Indicted Before Katrina Hit, by By Ken Silverstein and Josh Meyer, LA Times Staff Writers, explains that State officials were already in trouble trying to accounting for $30 - $60 million dollars that had been given to them for hurricane and disaster preparedness and studies.

Senior officials in Louisiana's emergency planning agency already were awaiting trial over allegations stemming from a federal investigation into waste, mismanagement and missing funds when Hurricane Katrina struck.

And federal auditors are still trying to track as much as $60 million in unaccounted for funds that were funneled to the state from the Federal Emergency Management Agency dating back to 1998.

The third, FEMA's Woes Were Merely the Beginning, by Nicole Gaouette, Alan Miller and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, LA Times Staff Writers, discusses the Federal Agency's problems and unpreparedness for such a disaster.

Interviews with federal officials indicate that recovery difficulties have gone beyond the Federal Emergency Management Agency and span key agencies in Washington, where top officials are trying to respond to a huge reconstruction problem for which they had no policies or plans. Large contracts are pouring out of agencies, but the task ahead involves issues Washington hasn't thought seriously about since the 1960s.

As we sift through these articles it becomes evident that Murphy's Law has been broken. There are too many people in high places that have risen far above their ability to perform and are now responsible for situations that they are completely unable to handle. As I read, I wanted to cry out and volunteer to manage these problems. There are many experienced individuals around the country that can properly plan, direct and succeed at this monstrous task. But the sad truth is that while they were busy learning the tricks of the trade, the present position holders were handing out campaign bumper stickers and soliciting contributions for the present office holders.

I worried when the majority of the appointees of President Clinton all seemed to come from Arkansas and the appointees of President Bush appear to have a home address of Texas.

Now the worry is over and the predictable results are in play. We have thousands of people handling billions of dollars in reconstruction money that don't know how to change a door knob or plan a family picnic.

The Supreme Court, John Roberts and the Rule of Law

I have been able to only hear some of the proceedings in the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I have read a great deal of what the opposing and supporting sides are saying about him. There are a few basic points that have emerged from the debate and should be elaborated upon.

First - The attitude of many people regarding the purpose of the Supreme Court has shifted over the last 50 years. Rather than being a body that reviews laws to determine if they are consistent with the Constitution and existing law, the Court is seen as a body that should decide the morality of law. This would empower them with the authority to create or to strike down laws according to the beliefs and attitudes of the members of the Court. It would negate the power of the people through the Congress to create laws. There was a reason the founding fathers invested the power to make laws in the Congress. By doing so, this power remains in the hands of the people. When it is given to 5 of the 9 Justices that are appointed by the President, we no longer have a democracy or a republic, but an oligarchy.

Second - Because too many special interests groups believe in the power of the Court to create law, they have adamantly stated that no person should be on the Court if the Justice does not hold the same moral values that they adhere to. We have seen repeated attacks on Judge Roberts as interrogators have tried to determine his personal beliefs and values on the principles they hold most dear. The most compelling reason to me that Judge Roberts in a perfect person for the job rests in his repeated declarations that his passion is preserving the Rule of Law, not in furthering any particular personal agenda. Any Justice on the Supreme Court should hold this standard in the decisions they address.

Finally - There are many legal activities that I personally feel are damaging to either individuals or society, but because they are currently legal, I must allow those who choose to do these acts the same freedom I expect them to allow me. If a law or activity is dangerous, destructive or harmful, it is the responsibility of the people through the Congress, not the Courts, to create or change the law. By following this path, we will find the true intent of the Founding Fathers when they stated that the purpose of the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Mud Slinging Govenor Takes on a Gun-toting President

An Associated Press article quoted the soft spoken Gov. Blanco:

Blanco: Body Recovery Taking Too Long Sep 13 2:41 PM US/Eastern

NEW ORLEANS

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco lashed out at FEMA on Tuesday, complaining the agency is moving too slowly in recovering the bodies of those killed by Hurricane Katrina.

The dead "deserve more respect than they have received," she said at state police headquarters in Baton Rouge.

She said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency still has not signed a contract with the company hired to handle the removal of the bodies, Houston-based Kenyon International Emergency Services.

Calls to a FEMA spokesman in New Orleans and the Homeland Security Department in Washington were not immediately returned.

I am amazed at the brashness demonstrated by some people. This is the lady that was given over a week to prepare for the worst disaster to strike this country and when her turn came to "stand and deliver," she failed miserably. Now to top it off, she continues to rant and rave against the people that are bailing her out. What kind of a dog bites the very hand that feeds them?

The other disgusting reality is that if the Govenor had done her job properly in the beginning and had evacuated the area properly or had supplied the aid needed, there would not be the amount of dead bodies to recover.

I work with disaster victims all the time in my occupation. If this was a business enterprise, most companies would have told her to take a flying leap at the moon. No amount of potential profit would justify working with this nasty, demanding, cantacerous, spiteful snippet. But to avoid confirming her damaging dialogue, the Federal Government and its supportive agencies are stepping forward and addressing the problems.

The Govenor's cadundrum is grasping the enormity of the task and the reality of the steps needed to avoid providing additional ammunition from future mistakes. Since she didn't grasp it in the beginning I don't know why we should be surprised when she can't grasp it now.

I have had other clients that fit the mold of the Govenor. The over-riding similarity between them is that since they really don't know what they want or how things should be done, they have a difficult time recognizing the goal when they reach it.

It was gratifying to see that the Mayor of New Orleans has changed his tune and is now trumpeting a more positive melody of how soon the City will be open and back in business.

My own company is sending personnel to work with the local restoration firm that will dryout the Hyatt Regency. This building will work as a staging ground for the other restoration companies that will do the cleanup and restoration. The amount of manpower and equipment to dryout and restore these communities is beyond the scope of most people. If too many people are allowed in to begin the work too soon, situations reminiscent of the Superdome and Convention Center will emerge again as too many start competing for too few resources.

My daddy used to say that when the mouth was open, the ears were closed. I hope that the Govenor can close her mouth long enough to see and hear what is actually happening and not spend her time inventing negative accusations to sling mud on the President. A mud slinging Govenor against a gun-toting President, I wonder who would win that fight?

Let's Play Katrina, The Blaming Game

The accusations of failure and deliction of duty on behalf of the federal government that are oozing out of the goo left by Katrina would be hilarious if not for the fact that too many people are not checking the facts and are believing them. There have been many articles in the media dealing with the proper order of responsibility and the dismal failures on the local level. The article,

The Left's False Assault on President Bush by Peter Ferrara, Posted Sep 8, 2005 in Human Events is the most concise to date dealing with the actual facts.

Mr. Ferrara makes several important points,

1. The federal government is not the first responder
2. FEMA is a financial institution and has no law enforcement authority or personel
3. The resources of FEMA are designed to restore the communities after the fact
4. The National Guard are not under the direction of the President, but the Govenor
5. It is illegal for federal troops to be used against United States Citizens.

These restrictions were set in place to protect the rights of the citizens from being trampled by a dictator minded President. It is ironic that the very people that have complained that President Bush is taking away our freedoms, liberties and setting up a dictatorship, complained when he did not take control and overpower the State and Local officials.

When we understand the way the country is supposed to be run, it is easy to see that the failures to protect and preserve the people of New Orleans lies directly in the laps of the Mayor first, and then the Govenor. I am also amazed that Mayor Nagin and Govenor Blanco are the only ones that are screaming that they were abandoned. Why aren't the Govenors and Mayors of Mississippi and Alabama making the same statements? They have expressed a desire for aid to have come sooner, but they are not blaming the problems they have on President Bush. They are digging in and fixing the mess themselves.

There was little that could have been done to avert the havoc that Katrina unleashed on the city. We do not have the ability to build strong enough to withstand the intense winds and tidal surges that came with this storm. We didn't even know what 145 mph winds would do to the buildings. The tragedy here is the mismanagement of resources, the failure to learn from previous experiences and the paltry partisan politics on the part of the local officials that costs the lives of hundreds of people in New Orleans. If these people are not held accountable for involuntary manslaughter, they should at least be booted from office. If the citizens of Louisiana are unwilling to do this, then they will have made their own bed and will have to sleep in it.

Disastrous Floods, Salt Lake vs New Orleans

I work in the Flood and Fire Restoration business in the Salt Lake City area. I received a call to handle a sewer back-up in one of our local cities. It had a couple of anomalies, a dog was fell in the sewer line and plugged it up and it moved twice, stuck each time and flooded a total of 18 homes. The city did not accept any liability for the problem, but agreed to pay for the cleanup and restoration costs in the name of public safety and then will go after any liable parties that may be uncovered.

The ironic piece to this story is that this back-up occurred two days before Katrina hit New Orleans. I was able to compare both disasters side by side. The thing that struck me most was that in both cases, the residents were victims. They had done nothing to cause the problems they were facing and looked to others to solve the problem. Both felt helpless as the government agencies worked their way through the web of potential legalities before being able to take a position. Our company was called out and stood at the ready, but needed to wait until either the City or the residents agreed to pay for our services before we could begin.

It took a couple of hours, but the City did agree to pay for the costs of cleanup, allowing my crews that were standing by to begin. Once this decision was made, the residents pulled together to help one another and several offered to wait and allow others with more seriously damaged homes to be cleaned first.

Aside from the fiascos at the Superdome and the Convention Center in New Orleans, the residents from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have acted in much the same manner. There are emerging many stories of heroism and sacrifice. I hope we will hear more of them as time goes on.

I am sure that out of the million people displaced by the hurricane, there were only a few thousand that we are embarrassed to know. That is less than 1%. The angry accusations aimed at the federal government are coming from people who either failed at their job during Katrina or have a history of Bush Bashing. Either way, they really are not a creditable source.

More on this later.