SamSaid!

ROBERTS

     So the first USSC nominee will be a male from the DC Circuit Court. Good move by George Bush. John Roberts will no doubt take a lot of flak from the likes of Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schuman, and California's Senator Barbara Worthless. But the best guess is that Roberts will be confirmed without a filibuster. The Dem's may huff and puff, but they don't have much to hang their hat on when it comes to denying him confirmation. And all of this will likely transpire before Rhenquist decides to step down.

     Post Rhenquist, if George Bush decides to nominate a true conservative  (and I think he will) – it will be the second nomination, not Roberts,  who will set off the fire works. The Rhenquist replacement  will likely be a woman, one who is not averse to political battles and stands to the right of Roberts. Right now, in anticipating the retirement of Rhenquist George is already creating the short list of possible nominees to replace him. Without a doubt, that's when the filibuster and the nuclear option will face off again. Once Roberts is seated on the Court, the way will be clear to appoint a conservative as Chief Justice, and add another conservative as the 9th member. If the Dems scream and howl and choose the filibister route, they will pay a steep price, and the Republican Senators will be forced to act with authority. The opportunity that has fallen into the lap of George Bush is almost without precedent in US History. The next 6 months will set the course of this country for decades, and he knows it.

Don't blow it,  George!

NUMBERS

     Islam is one of the world's great religions  –  at least numerically. And many philosophers and academicians have ranked Mohammad as one of the 5 most influential humans who ever lived. Currents estimates are that there are 1.2 billion Muslims on earth, and that 1% of them (12 million) are fanatics  –  the suididal murderous terrorist types. One percent doesn't sound like much, but 12 million does. That is a lot of people hell bent on killing  — all in the name of Allah.

     It is interesting that many Muslim leaders (both secular and cleric) around the world denounce the terrorism, bombings, suicidal attacks, and mindless murder of the innocents. But it is equally interesting that very few of the top Islamic religious leaders have denounced terrorism and the lunatic fringe.  Thru religious schools and other religious teachings, the Muslims –  at the urging of their top leaders —continue to breed more terrorist fanatics  –  every day, every week. . A truly terrifying statistic is that they are breeding them faster than we can kill them. Combating terrorism will be with us for a long time  — until the top religious leaders of Islam recapture the Koran from the fanatic fringe. Until the top Mullahs and Ayatollahs come forward to stop the mayhem, it will continue. Politicians and military leaders can do only so much. Until the Ayatollahs step up, Islam will sink further toward being a rogue religion.

     In London it was 50 dead and 700 wounded  – maybe more. The earlier train bombing in Madrid was even worse. And that kind of “success” for the terrorists only fertilizes the weed patch. And of course accompanying the gruesome statistics are the nay-sayers blaming George Bush for a mess in Iraq. But what if we had NOT gone into Afghanistan and Iraq? Would we we any better off with the terrorist training camps still flourishing, and the Al Queda network growing unimpeded?

     Bear in mind  –  Mohammad did not conquer the middle east and lands to the east and west by persuasion. That sword was mpre than a symbol. I have a suggestion for our top religious leaders in the US. Why not have them host a top level meeting of reloigious figures from all over the world –  all major religions  –  to gain unanimity against terrorism and indiscriminate killing.  Why not put a spotlight on the big time Ayatollahs? What do we have to lose? It would certainly have more influence  than the UN.

LONDON

     London has made headlines 2 days in a row. First, there was he big news that London had been awarded the Olympics of 2012  — besting Paris, France, whose Premier, Jacques Chirac had strongly insulted the British the day before. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

     But then came the ominous news that terrorists bombs had exoploded in the London subway/bus system  — killing over 30 civilians. Not a good sign. Many years ago in the heyday of the British Commonwealth, Britain opened the immigration doors to citizens of Commonwealth nations, and many people from all over the world found their way to London and other English cities. Over time,  Britain, which had been a very homogenous country  — white, Christian, one language, one culture, one set of values  — suddenly became multi racial, multi cultural, multi lingual, multi religious, etc etc, reflecting the influx people with  non-British heritage. Now, there is a sizeble element of Muslims in Britain  — just as there is in France.

     Britain is not a police state, and the Londom Muslims can use their “freedom” to pursue their nefarious activities without a lot of legal interference. Very activist Muslim mosques now operate  — in full view. The Olympics will test the administrative competence of the British to handle the tourism, the competition, and security of both citizens and guests. The bombings on 7/7 should be of great concern to a country that prides itself on being “civilized”. 

     In our country, the left wingers are abolutely aghast at the thought of “profiling” middle east muslims. Why on earth should we seek or be alert to middle east muslims who meet the profile of suicide bombers and airplane hi-jackers? Should we profile them just because they are blowing up people?? After all, shouldn't we be on the look-out for those little old Swedish grandmothers with knitting needles??  The British are civilized, but not blindly so. Something tells me that they will not hesitate to keep a sharp eye on those who are the likely suspects.

     Over there, it is just common sense, not indiscriminate profiling. 

MORE ON SANDRA

     The reputation of being the “swing” vote is well earned. I visualize Sandra Day O'connor standing on the 50 yard line  –  occasionally drifting over to the Liberal 40 yard line, and then straying back over to the Conservative 40 yard line. Not too many cases of planting her feet on hard rock principle. She obviously agonized over the abortion issue and looked for ways to finesse it. And on affirmative action, she cleverly (?) rationalized that Affirmative Action (i.e., quotas) was no good in the Michigan law school, but was OK in the undergraduate school. I still can't figure out whether that qualifies as solving a problem, or just evading or postponing it.

     I'll always remember her comment that the US will have to live with race-based affirmative action for the next 25 years. I'd feel a lot better if she had started the count in 1975. But all in all, a classy lady.

ACTIVISM

     The US Supreme Court gave us a good example of judicial activism last week with a decision that significantly changed the rules on Eminent Domain  — which is a doctrine that allows the taking of private property by the government. For many many years, eminent domain has been used by governments to take private property for public use under limited circumstances. For example, land acquisition is necessary when building roads, bridges, dams, etc., etc. These are clearly cases of  public use which is the ultimate purpose of the land acquisition.

     But what a difference in the use of one word  –  “use” vs “benefit”.

    The City of New London, CT has fallen on bad times, and a major effort has been made to renew, re-build and revitalize the City. A laudable goal. In the City's master plan, private land was to be seized in order to re-develop the blighted areas. So in order to accomplish this worthy goal, eminent domain was used to seize the privately owned land. But some of the land owners objected to the seizure of their land. Hence the court case. The question wasn't the amount of payment for the land  — it was whether the City had the right to take the land.

    Ultimately, the US Supreme Court upheld the City on the basis that the taking would benefit the City and its citizens. Thus, the criterion changed from “public use” to “public benefit”. And further, under the City's plan the properties would change hands and the land ownership would transfer to the developers.

     By broadening the permissible use of eminent domain, the court has said in effect that “my property can be taken and given to someone else on the premise that the change will benefit the City  — economically” So instead of public use, the justification  hencefort will also be public “benefit”, including economic benefit.

     That is a mighty big step. Several states are already initiating legislation that will negate the New London decision, and in this case, such State laws are valid.

     One word  — big difference.

THE BATTLE LINES

     Sandra Day O'Connor has stepped down from the US Supreme Court, and the battle lines are forming for the major hassle over a replacement. The White House is currently mulling over the potential nominees, while the Democrats are ready to pounce on whomever it may be with the intent to destroy the person (persons) publicly. Get used to the term  — “right wing extreminst ideologue”. Teddy K and Joe Biden are rehearsing right now.

     George Bush has made it known that he intends to nominate a strict constructionist  — not a judicial activist who is willing and interested in putting a new spin on the Constitution. Ms. O'Connor has been regarded as a “swing” vote for the past 20+ years, so both the Rs and Ds have a lot at stake in this apppointment. It will be interesting to see how long the “compromise” over last month's appointments to the Courts of Appeal will hold  –  and whether the Dems decide to dust off their filibuster tactics (by whatever name)  again.

     Lots of issues are at stake, but the bottom line is “choice” in abortion. The rest of the party line left wing/right wing issues pale into insignificance by comparison. Roe v Wade was a judicial ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Legalized abortion is not a Constitutional “right”; rather, it is a ruling by a vote of 9 USSC Justices. Thus, it is always subject to being overturned by a court majority  — and  that is the Democrats' worst nightmare.Thus the pro-choice supporters of abortion are already manning the battle stations and the propaganda pieces are already flying.

    Chief Justice Rhenquist was expected to be the 1st Justice to step down (health) but O'Connor beat him to it. Even so, Mr Rhenquist's days on the Court are numbered. Considering the ever present wheeling and dealing in Washington, it is possible that a deal might be in the offing. The Democrats for example might offer (sub-rosa) an even swap  — we give you one now (O'Conner) and when Renquist steps down, we get our pick. Far-fetched??  You never know.

     But in any event, the network news and talk shows will have a field day reporting and analyzing  the latest details on the life and times of the nominee. I hope he/she has nerves of steel amd the hide of a rhinoceros. Both attibutes may be needed. The precedent was set by the Democrats' treatment of Judge Robert Bork a few years ago  — a thoroughly despicable treatment of an eminently qualified jurist  that gave rise to the term “Borking”. When the character assassination begins, we might all remember that term.

WITHDRAWAL

     Nowadays, the intelligentsia and the liberal media are pouncing on the idea of setting a withdrawal date from Iraq. The Iraqis now have a government (of sorts) and are acquiring the strength to handle their own affairs  — notwithstanding the “insurgents” who are hell bent on creating a civil war and and killing off democracy in the middle east. It is a fact that we are incurring casualties  — not a foreign event in a war. And so the liberals say. “enough is enough” –  it is time to get out and let the Iraqis fend for themselves. Translated, that means “cut and run” just as the terrorists predicted we would do.

     It we set a withdrawal date, we also set a date for the terrorists  — whether they be from Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, or all of the above. When we set a date, they make their plans and patiently wait until we bail out and hand the conflict over to the Iraqis  –  and them. What kind of birdbrains would set a date to guarantee the failure of middle east democracy, and vitually guarantee a civil war in Iraq? Sure, it is OK to be a pacifist and a critic of the Iraqi War, but that is a far cry from insuring defeat by announcing a cut off (withdrawal )date. Even if we were to decide upon a withdrawal date, anyone with an IQ over 20 would understand that it would be suicidal to announce it. 

     Here is Senator Joe Biden –  looking for ways to get his mugshot on TV screens as a way to bolster his recently announced Presidential ambitions. So now he poses as the great guru on foreign policy, notwithstanding the effect on our troops in the field, or our posture internationally. As a convicted plagiarist, he deserves contempt, not prime time coverage on Meet the Press.

GITMO

     The big media people and others on the left side of the political spectrum are bound and determined to make the Guantanamo military prison a big issue and paint the US Army as the bad guys. Here we have a group  –  200-300 raghead terrorists who are motivated to kill Americans, and all we hear about is so-called prisoner abuse. The remedy?? Close Gitmo.

    For sure, Gitmo has been the focal point of world attention for 3+ years. If there is one Military prison in the world where high level attention is focused, it is Gitmo. The people running the prison KNOW that their every move will be scrutinized by the hostile press – -  every day. They KNOW they have to be extra special in handling the prisoners  — no matter what the provocation. They KNOW that the Koran  — right or wrong  — is a hot button issue.  And with military discipline, they guards explicitly know what they can do and what they can't do. And every little bit of questionable conduct is magnified 100 times (New York Times?)

     Conceded, there are people who for various motives or beliefs oppose the Iraqi War. But it stretches credulity to exaggerate issues just to buttress that belief. They are firmly committed to the idea that anything to discredit George Bush is OK. Fair game for them is to discredit the President and ignore the positive aspects of the newly founded Iraqi nation. And in doing all this, they jump on so-called prisoner abuse at Guantanamo to condemn the President, the Army,  the Defense Department, the Soldiers, —  and casually ignore suicide bombings and the slaughter of civilians by the cohorts of the Gitmo captives.  By my thinking, something is badly remiss here.

     I just don't buy the idea that these Gitmo prisoners were just innocent souls who were swept off the streets and labelled “terrorists”. They have no uniforms, they represent no State, and they have no compunction in killing civilians. I would have no problem about closing Guantanamo if they would take all the prisoners, put them on a boat, and then sink it somewhere in the Persian Gulf.

    Decapitating captives is just one of those unfortunate incidents that happen in a war. Ho-hum.  But soiling the Koran?? Now there is a REAL issue. Everybody got that??

CUTTING COMMENTS

     I like sandwiches. At midday, I enoy looking over the luncheon menus to ponder over the sandwich selections. But if there is one thing that peeves me, it is the all too common occasion when a sandwich is not quite cut in two pieces. For some reason, the chef, cook, waitress or whomever manages to cut thru 98% of the sandwich, but leaves a little strand of bread uncut. So,  I pick up 1/2 of the sandwich ready for the first big bite and then see a mess on my plate where the 2nd half of the sandwich has come apart because of that little 2% that was uncut.

     It is not rocket science to cut a sandwich in two. In most cases the cut is along the diagonal of the bread, but even so, a math major is not required. The other day, our golf group was having lunch, and we ordered our sandwiches of choice. Not uncommon. When mine was served, I almost automatically picked up a knife and cut thru my sandwich where it had already been cut  –  end to end. When a buddy asked what I was doing, I told him about my concern over a sandwich not quite served in two sections  — one that had been cleanly cut all the way from one end to the other. He laughed  — and then picked up half of his sandwich only to see the second half become a badly arranged messy salad on his plate. That  last little connecting strand of bread got him. I laughed  — he didn't. 

     After he calmed down, I suggested that he avoid the problem by ordering a salad in the first place.

ROTC

     I attended college on the GI Bill of Rights. Without it, I would never have gotten there. At different campus affairs, the ROTC cadets marched and made their appearances and were respected if not applauded. They were certainly not looked upon with disdain nor contempt. Several of my classmates were ROTC cadets, and while we may have kidded them on occasion, we never disparaged them nor discredited the uniform. Now we have some of our “big name” academic institututions that are banning ROTC from their campuses.  What a helluva note.

     Universities are special places, and there is a lot to be said for academic freedom. But it seems to me that these colleges and universities exist for the opportunity of students to learn. And they even recruit the brighter students. Somehow, the cart is in front of the horse. Now we have students who are saying, “Now we are here, and we'll tell you how to run this outfit”. And our mealy mouthed spineless academics respond  — “Sure, OK, whatever you want”. If ever you want to see an example of the inmates running the asylum, just go to UCal Berkeley, or Columbia. Those two for starters. Is it too much to expect that the Trustees and Directors of Universities simply say to students. “ROTC is here and will stay here, and if you don't like it that's just too damned bad”. These under classmen Cadets are young men and women ready to put their lives on the line to defend these hapless windbags, and all they get is the back of the hand from scumbags who wouldn't cross the street to defend this country from anyone. If they want to to protest, let them. If they want to debate, let them. But the answer is not to ban ROTC from the campus. And I don't give a ratzass about hassles over homo's (gays, queers) in the military.

     The military exists to protect this nation and its citizens  — not to placate academic windbags and their student cohorts. Somewhere, somehow,  someone has to set the rules. ROTC is but a small part of a major undertaking. And when we see ROTC banned from college campuses, shouldn't we ask, “Is anyone in charge here?” Does anyone have the guts to stand up and be counted?

     As an Alumnus, I contribute to my University. When they ban ROTC, they will have gotten my last dollar.