Bush Outlines Plans To Help Homeowners

Staff - August 31st, 2007 - Associated Press

Bush said the Federal Housing Administration, a government agency that provides mortgage insurance to borrowers through lenders in the private sector, would launch in coming days a program called FHA Secure. The program would let homeowners who have good credit histories but can’t afford their current mortgage payments to refinance into mortgages insured by the FHA.

“This means that many families who are struggling now will be able to refinance their loans, meet their monthly payments and keep their homes,” Bush said.

Bush also urged Congress to modernize and improve the FHA so more homeowners could qualify for the mortgage insurance provided by the agency. Last year the House passed legislation to modernize FHA, but Congress has not yet sent a bill to the White House. “I look forward to signing a bill as quickly as possible,” Bush said.

Bush also pledged to work with Congress to reform a key housing provision of the federal tax code, which will make it easier for homeowners to refinance their mortgages.

“Let’s say the value of your house declines by $20,000 and your adjustable rate mortgage payments have grown to a level you cannot afford,” Bush said. “If the bank modifies your mortgage and forgives $20,000 of your loan, the tax code treats that $20,000 as taxable income. When your home is losing value and your family is under financial stress, the last thing you need to do is to be hit with higher taxes.”

Geroge W. Bush, America's leading socialist, once again spits on the concept of accountability and insists that your tax dollars should be used to bail out your neighbor when they make bad decisions. To George W., it is never the fault of the person who signed up for a loan they can't afford. That they were trying to get rich taking a gamble and the gamble failed, cannot be held against them. Lets just take tax dollars and BAIL THEM OUT.

There you go George W. Compassionate Conservatism in action. Actually, the only thing you can call it is socialism.

Richard Jewell Found Dead In Home

by Mike Morris and Jeffry Scott - August 29th, 2007 - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Jewell was initially lauded as a hero after a bomb went off on July 27, 1996, during an Olympic celebration in Atlanta. He called attention to the suspicious knapsack that held a bomb and helped evacuate the area.

Days later, he became the FBI's chief suspect, as The Atlanta Journal Constitution and other media outlets reported. The FBI cleared Jewell of any wrongdoing. He was never charged with a crime.

Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to the bombing in 2005 and is serving life in prison for it and other attacks.

After he was cleared, Jewell sued the AJC and other media outlets for libel, arguing that their reports defamed him. Several news organizations settled, including NBC and CNN.

The Journal-Constitution did not settle. The newspaper has contended that at the time it published its reports Jewell was a suspect, so the articles were accurate. The newspaper also has asserted that it was not reckless or malicious in its reports regarding Jewell. Much of Jewell's case was dismissed last year.

It took some time to decide whether to post this article on "The Rule Of Law" blog or here on this blog. On "The Rule Of Law" we post articles about the atrocious abuse of our "justice" system. One group targeted here on the "Inner Banks Eagle" is the Main Stream Media (MSM), an equally egregious set of powerful forces that destroy people and are also not accountable for their abuse. The courts protect liberal reporters of the MSM and rarely allow them to be held accountable. These two groups, the courts and the reporters, always defend each other. It is interesting how many reporters hate blogs because they are successfully attacking the abuses practiced by the MSM while the courts protect them. Liberal reporters simly HATE being held accountable.

The case of Richard Jewell is an example of the collusion between reporters and liberal (i.e. Democrat) justice officials who pick their suspects based on politics rather than facts. Mike Nifong. Patrick Fitzgerald. Janet Reno. All three have attacked suspects when even a trivial look at the evidence with unbiased eyes would have given no reason to destroy people's lives. However in all three cases there was no one who would defend the targets of their lies. Why?

The targets were of course the liberals new "profile" of the bad guy. That profile is white, male, religous and conservative. Jewell was an even better "profile" than most as he was easily described as a red-neck too. It is always amusing that when the profile of someone suspected of a crime is any other profile, the first thing the liberal media screams is "profiling". It is never "profiling" when the profile is their favorite profile; white, male, religous and conservative.

Janet Reno and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are liberals and still insist that their hatchet job on Richard Jewell was justified. They still say that their attacks "were accurate" even though we now know that nothing accused was correct. The "persecution" was based totally on the "profile" of the probable suspect being white, male, religous and conservative . . . . according to Janet Reno. The only evidence they ever had against Jewell is that he fit their profile. Jewell is a rare example of a liberal frame job that failed.

Scooter Libby is an example of how things usually turn out. There are still people who think that two "accusations" by liberal reporters make Libby guilty. Certainly all liberal reporters believe this.

Notice how all the articles about Richard Jewell still call him "suspected Olympic Park bomber" and not "victim of liberal slander." The second is more accurate.

As it turns out, Richard Jewell is a hero. He saved lives by doing his job well. That is what people should remember.

The Return Of The Eagles

by Michelle Malkin - August 29th, 2007 - michellemalkin.com

Answering Answer



Photo courtesy of Leslie Grainger

On September 15, the far Left group ANSWER (”Act Now to Stop war and End Racism”) will descend on the nation’s capital to demand what they’ve been demanding for the last six years in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks: immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, immediate closure of the Guatanamo Bay detention facility and immediate release of every last suspected al Qaeda operative in American custody, immediate impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and immediate capitulation to our enemies at home and abroad.

Now that is a really interesting list of goals. How many organizations do you know that advocate the destruction of America as a goal. Excuse me, they are carefull to phrase it differently, especially when they go in front of the public. It is only when they have totally democrat audiences they are quite that open. However when they always support any group that is an enemy of our nation you have to be an idiot to think that their agenda is anything but the destruction of America.

Answer argues passionately that Castro does a better job of providing health care than America does. They love him. They want to impeach George W. Bush, just as they wanted to impeach (and they still ridicule) Ronald Reagan.

In North Carolina business leaders support the socialist dominated Democrat Party with THREE TIMES the campaign donations given to the free enterprise based Republican Party. When business leaders are this stupid it reminds you of the old Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev when he said that "capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them". It certainly appears he was right. Of course Democrat donations are really bribes and the specific business leaders are rewarded for their corruption.

Another issue that always surprises me is the long term disconnect on Southern culture with regards to politics. Here in the South I have noted one thing. It is only the Republicans who adhere to the Southern axiom to be polite and non confrontational. Democrats hurl insults of racist and nazi and homphobe and sexist etc. etc. . . . . with no basis for any of them other than daring to point out they stand for socialism, or just daring to say you are a Republican. Republicans cower back from the insults. And America heads further down the road to socialism. When are Republicans going to stop avoiding confrontation?

Here is your chance. On 9/15 there will be a gathering of people who are fed up with ANSWER and the other socialist groups who hate America. The lossely affilaited groups known as "The Eagles" will be in Washington to confront ANSWER.

Will you? Take a stand. Be there.

When Does A Democracy Fight?

We are currently trying to decide whether we will continue to fight in the battlefield of Iraq. There is a famous quote that talks about when to fight that seems terribly appropriate for America to listen to right now:

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case; you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

~~ Winston Churchill

Man's Best, And Man's Best Friend

by Jonah Goldberg - August 24th, 2007 - Townhall.com

What we see most clearly in dogs are precisely the things we as human beings wish to see in ourselves: loyalty, joy, love, home, family, commitment, humor and an utter disregard for the pieties and pretenses of fashionable life. ("If you take a dog which is starving and feed him and make him prosperous," Mark Twain observed, "that dog will not bite you. This is the primary difference between a dog and a man.") My dog cares not that he is beautiful, that he is rich, that he is prized. All he cares about is that he is loved and that he has someone to love back.

This is very good Jonah. I don't think anyone has ever done a better job of summing up why dogs have for so long been considered man(kind)'s best friend. Those who can love a dog are people that you want to keep around you. [Those who love cats are people who are attracted to animals that will tolerate you loving them, but don't give it back except in small measure. It is love that is conditional.] Unconditional love is the love that allows for dogs to be abused in the way Michael Vick and others abuse them.

The two types of people who love dogs are those who give love the same way as a dog, unconditionally, and those who take unconditional love but don't return it. Michael Vick is the second kind. He is sick as are all who take unconditional love and use it to control their dogs rather than return it. That kind of love turns dogs, and people, into animals who will fight to the death for their master without realizing that the love they seek will never be returned.

What alienates society is using the love of a dog to turn him into a fighter for a master who is clearly not returning that love. Killing that animal for failing to be a good fighter, especially the brutal killings done here, proves beyond all doubt the selfishness and vidictiveness of the person.

There is a lot of discussion of about whether our society will forgive Michael Vick. I have a better question. Who thinks that Michael Vick will ever change from the selfish narcissistic animal who abuses a dog's love in this way? Apologizing is not enough. He must change. I have my doubts dog abusers can change.

The Rise Of The Fantasists

by Caroline Glick - August 25th, 2007 - Townhall.com

As the cliché goes, "A conservative is a liberal whose been mugged by reality." Like most clichés, this one exposes a larger truth. Namely, people often base their views on their fantasies of how the world should be, rather than on the reality of how the world actually is.

Great opening for this article. I haven't read much of Ms. Glick before. I will pay more attention in the future as she has certainly compiled some important observations in this article. She accurately notes that though the war by the Islamofascists has been going on since 1979, Americans pretty much discounted the idea that they could become a power worth our attention, until 9/11. That was a mistake based on ignoring reality.

Since that beginning over 40 years ago anti-American forces have continuously berated the idea that this Islamofascist movement is actually intent on ruling the world for religious reasons. Anti-America socialists insist we brought this on ourselves by the excesses of free enterpirse and this movement is simply resisting our abuse of the world. They don't believe it is communism and socialism as political and economic systems that failed in the Soviet union. They think America has caused all of the world's problems. If someone in Afgahnistan doesn't have food, it is America's fault. The problem with their view? It is primarily the rich from Islamic countries that support this Islmofascism movement. This reality is just an annoyance the anti-American socialists ignore.

Their view is simply a fantasy and Caroline calls its proponents "Fantasists". Interesting insight. She goes on . . .

These voices were relegated to the margins of public debate until the lead up to the 2004 presidential elections. Ahead of those elections, backed by George Soros's financial muscle, the fantasists had an enormous impact of the debate in the Democratic Party. Politicians who until then had supported the war generally, and in Iraq particularly, clamored to decry it.

This week, two leftist institutions - the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy Magazine - published a survey of conservative, moderate and liberal foreign policy experts. The results of the survey show clearly that while still a minority, the fantasists are far from marginal today.

In her summation of the results of this poll, the most saddening results are the following percentages of people who claim to be conservatives who support these fantasist beliefs:

38% believe that the US should recognize Hamas.
29% believe that the US should recognize Hizbullah.
25% believe Iran will behave more responsibly if they get nuclear weapons.
Only 24% think it likely that Iran would transfer nuclear devices to terrorists.

These are conservatives! The ideas above have considerably strengthened the number of people who are willing to abandon Israel to the Islamofascists under the fatasist view that our support for Israel hurts us with the Islmofascists. Amazingly the vast majortiy of jews in America vote for the party that supports these fantasist views. These fantasist views are going to lead to the destruction of Israel. Why would any jew back a party so misguided in its views of a democratic state like Israel?

When they get nuclear weapons Iran is going to provide them to Islamofascists to bomb Tel Aviv. All the major leaders of Iran say they will. Why are so many of the fantasists sure that the Islamofascists don't mean what they say? The Democrat Party is trying to turn Iraq over to Iran by precipitously pulling out our troops. That will empower Iran like nothing since Jimmy Carter's pitiful attempts to appease the kidnappers of American diplomats back in 1979.

It is likely that they will follow that by providing Al Qaeda with the 7 nukes they need for their dream attack of nuclear bombs going off in 7 American cities all at once. Caroline concludes her article with a pretty accurate summation; "Fantasies are alluring. Peddling them can even get you elected. But the majority of Americans who reject fantasy as a basis for making real world decisions should take heed of Israel's example. That example shows that despite the fantasists' fervent efforts to smother it, reality never goes away. Sooner or later, it mugs you."

This is true.

Lindsey Graham Deserved Local GOP's Censure

by Samuel Harms - August 22nd, 2007 - The Greenville News (greenvilleonline.com)

MEChA believes that certain territories inside the United States, such as California, Texas and Colorado, are still part of a mythical Aztec Empire and that Chicanos are the rightful rulers of the territory, known as "Aztlan." MEChA's motto: "For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" -- "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing" -- should be a wake-up call for Americans.

Graham spoke to this racist group and informed them "We are going to tell the bigots to shut up". He was speaking of Americans who criticize open borders. He was not criticizing the racist attitudes of La Raza and MEChA. He was criticizing Americans who disagree with them.

What Graham was doing was pandering to a racist group for their votes. Why shouldn't he be censured?

GOP Congressman Pays Price For Opposing War

by Josh Kraushaar - August 22nd, 2007 - The Politico

Onslow County GOP Chairman Ron Cherubini has refused to endorse [Walter] Jones for reelection and is actively supporting his opponent, [Joe] McLaughlin, even though party chairmen normally remain neutral in intra-party fights.

Craven County Republican Party chair Michael Speciale is still supporting Jones but admitted he might lose if the primary was held today.

"I've talked to a lot of people and I haven't talked to anyone that's still supporting him [Walter Jones]," said Speciale. "Everywhere I go people get upset with me because I'm still supporting him. They think I'm on the wrong side. Here's a man who served us well most of these years. We disagree with him right now and we're ready to kick him out to pasture."

The issue which divides Jones, and most democrats, from the minority of Americans (at this point) who see them as appeasers and traitors, is the failure to appreciate that the war against Islamofascism is truly a fight to the death. A great many Democrats and liberal independents have told me I am simply wrong to believe that leaving Iraq and getting out of this war is a big deal.

To them it is NOT appeasement. To them it is NOT treason. To them it is NOT gutlessly running from a war to destroy western civilization. To them Al Qaeda is just Afghanistan. To them Al Qaeda is just Osama Bin Laden. To them Al Qaeda is just a minor nuisance which got lucky on 9/11 and we can safely ignore them now.

They do not see that their willingness to "cut and run" will empower the Islamofascists. They are unable to conceive of the nuclear holocaust that will start the final battle for control of our nation. They do not see themselves as aligning themselves with our enemies, but simply ignoring enemies that they cannot perceive are truly a threat. When the blood bath in our streets starts over the nuclear holocaust that is coming, I don't think half of them will be able even at that point to understand the rage that many feel at their treachery.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

You can tell the democrats what is coming, but only they can pull their heads out of the sand long enough to decide if they are willing to listen. Right now, they are not willing to listen and it makes many of us want to shake them in rage. I pray that Walter Jones is defeated so that we don't have to settle this in the streets.

An Investment In Failure

by Thomas Sowell - August 21st, 2007 - Townhall.com

Despite whatever the left may say, or even believe, about their concern for the poor, their actual behavior shows their interest in the poor to be greatest when the poor can be used as a focus of the left's denunciations of society.

When the poor stop being poor, they lose the attention of the left. What actions on the part of the poor, or what changes in the economy, have led to drastic reductions in poverty seldom arouse much curiosity, much less celebration.

This is not a new development in our times. Back in the 19th century, when Karl Marx presented his vision of the impoverished working class rising to attack and destroy capitalism, he was disappointed when the workers grew less revolutionary over time, as their standards of living improved.

At one point, Marx wrote to his disciples: "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing."

Think about that. Millions of human beings mattered to him only in so far as they could serve as cannon fodder in his jihad against the existing society.

A conversation I had with some people on Thursday about Thomas Sowell was fresh in my mind when I read this article. Its focus brought me up short. Its focus is political even if the arguments are about creating wealth and jobs. For a man who started his life as an economist and mathematician, the evolution of Thomas Sowell has been interesting. He still uses his economic underpinnings when he strays into politics, but he is fighting a battle that many of the active members of the Republican Party have abandoned.

That battle is against the willingness of a democracy to vote for "bread and circus" as Robert Heinlein called it, echoing the weakness that destroyed the Roman empire. The power to vote has always been inherent even in nations that did not have the formal vote which is why the trend to socialism is always so strong.

In America we have the right to vote and for our nation to remain free our voters must listen to people like Sowell. Thomas Sowell is pointing out that we have an entire political party whose focus is fanning the flames of greed and outrage. At the same time, this party votes for actions that are holding down the people they profess to represent. The poor are not served by such duplicity.

Our current education system is designed to teach feel good narcissism while not providing the mathematical and language skills to succeed and break out of poverty.

Our welfare system is designed to trap the poor into a level of living that is not quite middle class while making any attempt to break free punitive. As an example, going from welfare to work means that a full time job producing $5500 more total income produces only $200 more in take home pay. What mother with children can afford to pay for child care in order to work with only $200 more take home?

Too many Republicans have started to echo the democrat program of pandering to greed and envy. It is time we stop this before we lose our nation to the failed system of socialism.

Two Things To Know Before Being Nuked

The Two Things To Know
Before Your City is Nuked By Terrorists

by Douglas MacKinnon - August 15th, 2007 - Townhall.com

1.) Tragically, horrifyingly, but quite predictably, it’s going to happen. The only question being which American city or cities?

In a recent conversation with a former high level intelligence operative of our government, I raised the possibility of terrorists successfully detonating a nuclear weapon within the United States. His response was sobering in its hopelessness.

[snip]

2.) When said attack comes, you and your family are on your own. Period. My friend stressed that "our government won’t be there to help us. It is broken beyond repair and incapable of assisting those most affected by the blast."

There have been a number of reports that make reference to Al Qaeda plans to nuke 7 American cities at once. The most consistent list has included Washington, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago, Las Vegas and San Francisco. There have been substitions in some lists of Boston and Philadelphia. What I think is most important is that there is high probability that when nukes go off it is not going to be a single city but will include many of our largest and most critical cities.

The devastation is going to be awesome. The death toll will be in the millions. The mutilated, injured and those dying of radiation poisoning will be millions more. Hysteria and fear will overwhelm millions more. Point number two above is what is sobering to many of us. Our government is not prepared to deal with the initial attack much less at least one follow on scenario that is credible. When this nuclear attack happens it will have been repeatedly predicted . . . as will the belief by many that appeasers and anti-war demogogues on the political left are making it more and more likely. They will be blamed. This does not appear to be of any concern to those who insist we must stop the war against the Islamofascists. The demand that we pull out of Iraq will encourage our enemies and accelerate their efforts to kill us. It is therefore hard for the appeasers to ignore that they are going to be target number one for many whose loved ones lie dead in our streets and who are enraged that liberal democrats did not just stand by and let it happen, but actually appeased and encouraged the killers.

A lot has been made of the fact that we are a divided nation, red and blue. At that point the division is going to get much . . . very much . . . worse. This is an important article that everyone needs to read. If we ignore the consequences of losing this war, which the ISLAMOFASCISTS started, it will inexorably lead to war here in our streets. This is not a war that we can avoid. We must win it.

Call Them ‘Yellow-haired People’

by Jennipher Dickens - August 17th, 2007 - Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald

There are many words in the English language which one might find offensive. Other words can be used in a context that's also meant in a derogatory manner.

Here in the good ol' US of A, it's always been a first amendment right to have freedom of speech. So long as you're not making threats to kill the President, you can pretty much say what you want.

Enter New York City.

Actually, enter McCain-Feingold too. A pair of Senators, one hypothetically counservative and one an extreme liberal, got a law passed that said you could not get involved in a political campaign during the last 30 days of a primary or the last 90 days of a general election campaign unless you gave your money directly to a politician in the race. According to McCain-Feingold you have no right to independently criticize anyone who is running for public office unless you are a member of the press.

If you do, federal bureacrats can fine and imprison you for daring to speak your mind. The United States Supreme Court ruled this was constitutional. Since it is well known that the press is composed of 18 liberals to 1 moderate and 1 conservative, the law clearly creates a bias in favor of socialism and government control of our lives.

At the same time, no level of government can interfere with your right to promote pedophilia and pornography. According to the same Supreme Court that says the legislature can limit free speech for politics (the express intention of the free speech clause in the Constitution), the legislature CANNOT limit free speech when it affects degrading our children or our women.

The only thing that I see wrong with Jennipher's editorial is her assumption that the court will not allow New York to infringe on the use of these words. Based on some recent court rulings they very will might continue the assault on free speech and let these laws stand. If the Supreme Court sees a way these laws can be extended to protect pornographers or socialists I am sure they will survive court scrutiny.

This is called justice in the 21st Century.

Easley Supports New County Taxes

It is important for Inner Banks Citizens to be aware of the latest plan to jack your taxes. The North Carolina Board of Realtors says that in a special deal with the legislature Governor Easley gave North Carolina counties the right to assess up to a 1% land transfer tax fee on the sale of property. Washington County is putting it on the November Ballot. Other counties are going to do the same unless we stop them.

Click on the title above to link to one of the web sites covering this proposal. How appropriate the web site is called "Its a bad idea". This is nothing more than confiscation of 1% of the value of your home. That is not 1% of your equity. That is 1% of the entire value of your home.

Since it is likely to damage the real estate market in North Carolina, it could result in wiping out the entire equity for some people who have bought in recent years . . . and still seizing 1% of what is left. How fair is that? Two serious damages to our citizens in one stupid law.

The major concern is getting the word out to citizens so they can lobby their county Commissioners to STOP THIS NOW. Do not permit this law to be passed. Keep it off the ballot. In the Inner Banks we are already the highest taxed counties in the state. Our area has an unfortunate tendency to see home owners as rich and able to pay whatever taxes the poor want to levy. It is one of the major reasons our area remains poor. The high tax rates kill our businesses and drive others out of the area. Don't let it happen.

Call your County Commissioner TODAY!

Backlash Over Book On Policy For Israel

by Patricia Cohen - August 16th, 2007 - The New York Times

“One of the points we make in the book is that this is a subject that’s very hard to talk about,” Mr. Walt said in an interview from his office in Cambridge. “Organizations, no matter how strong their commitment to free speech, don’t want to schedule something that’s likely to cause controversy.”

That sentence is completely insane and points out the real problem with what is happening on so many issues in our nation. This is America, but the heritage of political correctness is destroying our freedoms, especially free speech. How can any nation remain free when we can't discuss issues? What is dividing America today is a new attitude that you must not be controversial. You must not "stir the pot". You must be politically correct.

The result is that we no longer have a political dialog that can lead to compromise and understanding. We really don't even talk any more. We never have a civil dialog because the politically correct mantra of the Democrat Party says some things have been decided and can no longer even be discussed. You must simply obey the party line. Whatever is politically best for Democrats is right. However one of the really powerful political lobbies is the pro Israel lobby, and the Democrat Party has decided that Israel is wrong on Palestine. So if America doesn't condemn Israel it cannot be because their enemies are war mongering and evil, it has to mean that the Israel lobby is too powerful.

As this article points out though we cannot have a civil dialog about whether this is right or wrong. The premise cannot be discussed. Those who don't want it to be true, or rather don't want the Jewish community roiled about whether the Democrat Party is correctly aligned with the majority of one of their key contituencies, simly declare the argument is not right and cannot be discussed. End of discussion. No one will allow the book or the premise to be debated. The new standard of politically correct behavior.

This is the Democrat solution for topic after topic. It does not apply just to Israel. Try and have a debate over whether the Black Caucus should be supporting open borders and the damage that does to poor blacks getting a first job. Since Republicans argue that open borders harms young black males and that challenges the argument that Republicans are the "enemies" of the black community this premise also cannot be debated. Even saying it is true gets you labelled a racist or an uncle tom though no one even tries to explain how. Democrats don't need a discussion. Just hurl an insult.

We can't discuss controversial topics but we can hurl invective and insults. At least we can hurl invective and insults if the recipients are libertarians or conservatives. Discussion and free speech? No longer allowed. Hurling insults and invective at libertarians and conservatives? Not a problem for Democrats. Just exactly how is that NOT controversial?

Free speech is meaningless when it is never allowed to take place.

A Farewell To Rove

by Bill Murchison - August 14th, 2007 - Townhall.com

What? Karl Rove leaving the George Bush White House? I read the words; I can't digest them. Going home to Texas to write a book and, not only that, leaving politics altogether? So he announces. We'll see.

Some of Karl Rove's legacy is a direction in politics that is going to prove the biggest challenge of the next generation. That legacy is the growing hatred among all in politics that Michelle Malkin calls "unhinged". Rove defenders act like that hate is not earned by Rove's own actions. There is an element of truth to that.

Some of the hatred between the parties predates Rove. The vicious attempt to criminalize everyone in the Bush administration for "outing" Valerie Plame will fester for years. She was not "outed" as a part of any plan by Rove. She was "outed" because her husband had the audacity to lie and claim he, a democrat operative, was sent to Africa at the behest of the Vice President, Dick Cheney. The response included spreading the truth that Wilson was sent to Africa by his wife. However the hate over Fitzgerald's attempt to criminalize the rational defense of Republican actions which resulted from Wilson's false charge has not run its course.

Nixon may have been wrong in Watergate but the Democrat attempt to smear every Republican with criminality left a legacy that led directly to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Clinton was a liar and a perjurer. Clinton lost his law license and will never get it back. However his actions would not have led to impeachment except for the passionate determination of many Republicans to get even for Democrat excesses in Watergate. However to keep him from being convicted of the impeachment charges, Democrats defended truly contemptible actions. It is amusing to see how little they recognize the contempt that Republicans hold for their defense of Clinton's criminality. Democrats cannot seem to appreciate how Republicans view their wallowing in Clinton's sliminess by defending it.

Democrats may view the persecution of Libby and their attempt to persecute Rove as just retaliation for Clinton. It is not viewed that way by Republicans. It is proof that Democrats don't care about fair play or morality. It is proof they defend the slimy Clinton and are willing to continue the pattern that started in Watergate of criminalizing being Republican. The next round of payback will simply be another escalation in this war. It is starting to concern some of us that the escalations seem to be leading inexorably to the ultimate escalation, civil war.

However the best thing going for the Democrats right now is the internal war that Rove and Bush have started within the Republican Party base. Leading a party that was on a path of growth, they have used that growing political power for their own purposes and then spit on the principles that were driving the growth. The growth collapsed and Republicans are in disarray. Rove does not see this as his fault.

Freedom from government control and opposition to socialism was replaced by Rove and Bush with the largest pandering to pork that the nation has ever seen, creation of a new socialized medicine welfare entitlement for drugs, and a campaign to turn the Republican Party over to illegal immigrants.

The desire by many illegal immigrants to take California out of our nation and return it to Mexico is simply ignored. The damage to American citizens by giving away jobs to people who have no right to be here is aggravated by the arrogant claim that they are "jobs Americans will not do". When your job has been taken by an illegal alien immigrant, how can you ever forgive someone who insults you with such a statement to defend their actions in helping take your job? Rove will forever be despised by a huge percentage of Americans and an even larger percentage of Republicans.

The claim Rove makes that he is getting out of politics is amusing. He is so polarizing that few in the Republican party would hire him no matter what his talent. It will be interesting to see the reaction to his book. If he simply tries to defend his legacy, I doubt he will impress many, or even sell many books. However Rove is a smart man. He could come up with something that rocked our world if he repudiated the Bush legacy on pandering for pork, socialized medicine and amnesty for illegals. I don't see that happening based on Rove's rejection of these being any factor in the 2006 election debacle.

That said, you have to give Bush (and thus Rove) credit for the success in establishing a strong economy. It is the one clear legacy that is a direct result of actions and policies that they pursued with great vigor.

Black Caucuses Continue Betraying Black Folks

by Dr. Ada Fisher - August 11th, 2007 - North Carolina Conservative

Given the bills being considered by the US Congress to deal with illegal immigration which negatively impacts African-Americans as well as legal immigrants of color, the silence from the Black Congressional Caucus and state Legislative Black Caucuses is deafening though many print materials in illegal immigrant friendly languages. The plight of the Haitians being denied legal entry or any consideration for amnesty as we watch those who make it to our shores be turned away should be a front burner issue for the CBC if they truly are there to act in the best interest of black people. This is as important as apartheid was in South Africa. Why aren’t they joining hands in front of the US Capitol in protest against illegal immigration and the denial of fair entry for those who are darker in color?

Dr. Ada Fisher continues to rail against the incredible situation we find among liberal Democrats. Though African-Americans vote nearly 90% for democrats, black leadership continuously advocates socialist and progressive causes that damage the African-American community more than all others. Why are there so few in the black community who will stand up and denounce this pattern? How long will it be before conservative blacks recognize that their interests are better served by aligning with Republicans, their life long supporters, than to continue to be bamboozled by black leadership that only accepts socialist answers?

Why the Bush Administration Communicates Poorly

by Marvin Olasky - August 9th, 2007 - Townhall.com

When reporters told me in 2000 they thought Gov. Bush dumb, I told them he was business-management smart rather than graduate-student smart, a la Bill Clinton -- and who needed more Clinton?

[snip]

President Bush saw no reason to give his media opponents ammunition. He wanted to develop the most leak-free administration in modern times. He has succeeded.

Freedom from leaks, though, often has meant freedom from broad debate. From poverty fighting to Iraq, the administration has circled the wagons when challenged. The Bush administration became smart tactically but weak strategically -- and in the absence of a strong strategy to educate the American public about some crucial issues, the tactics worked only for a while.

Olasky can call it a planned strategy on communications if he wants, I cannot believe that there is any way to describe this strategy other than "tone deaf" arrogance. It is, as Olasky acknowledges, a strategic disaster. It is, as Olasky suggests, a strategy that treats each decision separately from all others, as MBA management often does. What it also points out is one explanation for why Bush is failing.

We are at war. Bush has as his primary responsibility prosecuting the war. In war people are asked to die for our nation. The number one job of the President during war is to keep support for the war as the primary focus. No matter how much Bush has been personally attentive to the individuals who are injured and the families of those who have died, his failure to maintain citizen support for the war means he is personally a failed President.

Absolutely Fabulist

by Ann Coulter - August 8th, 2007 - AnnCoulter.com

In their latest demonstration of how much they love the troops, liberals have produced yet another anti-war hoax.

The New Republic has been running "true war" stories from a brave, anonymous liberal penning dispatches from Iraq. The famed "Baghdad Diarist" described his comrades joyfully using Bradley fighting vehicles to crush stray dogs, mocking a female whose face had been blown off by an IED, and defacing Iraqi corpses by wearing skull parts on their own heads.

[snip]

In response to Beauchamp's revelation that he was the "Baghdad Diarist," the military opened an investigation into his allegations. There was no corroboration for his stories, and Beauchamp promptly signed an affidavit admitting that every single thing he wrote in The New Republic was a lie.

Ann writes with her usual sarcasm about the incredible situation where a liberal media power (The New Republic) attempts to con the American people with a series of lies promulgated as truth. After even liberal media groups acknowledge that the articles were lies, "The New Republic" continues to insist opponents are simply rejecting the truth out of conservative bias. They deny that their writer lied, even as the evidence is overwhelming.

Incredibly, the fact that Ann attacked them is now being used as proof that attacks against "The New Republic" are biased by partisanship. This mis-direction has now replaced the issue of truth or lies that started the discussion. It means that readers of "The New Republic" will never be told that the original articles were lies. "The New Republic" lies and then lies about their lies.

How can anyone ever take them seriously again?

California Wrong To Shut Down 'Vote-swapping' Sites In 2000

by Paul Elias - August 6th, 2007 - Associated Press (Contra Costa Times)

Nearly seven years after President Bush won the closest presidential election in U.S. history, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that California officials wrongly shut down "vote-swapping" Web sites in the days before polls opened.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it finally decided the issue to prevent California officials from taking similar action in future elections.

"I don't know if it's too late or just in time," said Brenda Wright, a lawyer for the Boston-based National Voting Rights Institute that argued the case in court. "It certainly has taken a long time, but we are very glad to get it straightened out for the upcoming election."

Oh yes. The heart of democracy. Swapping votes to rig an election. Certainly no surprise the 9th circuit is in the middle of making that the law of the land. Of course the 9th circuit was quick to assure everyone that it was only legal if it resulted in the election of a Democrat. Any similar scheme that benefitted a Republican was still unconstitutional.

Perceptions Of Iraq War Are Starting To Shift

by Michael Barone - August 6th, 2007 - Townhall.com

It's not often that an opinion article shakes up Washington and changes the way a major issue is viewed. But that happened last week, when The New York Times printed an opinion article by Brookings Institution analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack on the progress of the surge strategy in Iraq.

Yes, progress. O'Hanlon and Pollack [two democrats] supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Pollack even wrote a book urging the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- but they have sharply criticized military operations there in the ensuing years.

"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," they wrote, "we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory,' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

Their bottom line: "There is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

That's not what almost all their fellow Democrats in Congress want to hear. Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who unseated Republican Jim Ryun last fall, bolted from a hearing room when retired Gen. Jack Keane described positive developments in Iraq.

When liberal democrats pray for the defeat of our nation so stubbornly that they reject any news that does not support their view, something is seriously wrong. War is messy. George W. Bush has not been a great war President. He has backed some failed strategies and he has not felt it important to maintain public support for the war. That said, WAR IS MESSY. The only thing worse than a poor leader during war is to tolerate back stabbing traitors who eviscerate the will to win the war.

Unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves in the face of a democrat program predicting defeat that can fairly be called traitorous. More than 60% of the American people want to quit the war at this point in time. No matter what the consequences. If the consequences of quitting are that we see nuclear bombs go off in American cities, these appeasers are convinced they will not be held accountable. They close their ears and reject that possibility. That is today.

This article claims that it is possible to change the perception that quitting is the best answer. Since defeat is not reality but merely a preception born of the MSM's campaign of negative predictions and projections of defeat, a change in precption is possible. Enough people have accepted these predictions that we get the current majority support for quitting. We don't have to change everyone's minds. We just have to sway about 15% of the American population to have a majority supporting the war.

This article says the trend has changed. The key question is how fast will the perceptions of a working majority of Americans change?

Forward Into Battle

With The Wall Street Journal and a new business network, Rupert Murdoch and Fox News chief Roger Ailes plan their next move: all-out war.

by Johnnie L. Roberts - August 13th, 2007 (Issue Date) - MSNBC (Newsweek)

Rupert Murdoch, owner-in-waiting of The Wall Street Journal, is taking the high road. After a bitter three-month battle to win approval from enough bickering Bancrofts to buy their Dow Jones & Co., the mogul struck a gracious tone with the family, whose century of control he was now bringing to an end. "Given the Bancrofts' long and distinguished history as custodians of Dow Jones, we appreciate how difficult this decision was for some family members," Murdoch said in a statement issued in the wee hours of Wednesday morning, after receiving enough votes from family members to ensure his $5.6 billion purchase of the company. "I want to offer the Bancrofts my thanks, and an assurance that our company and my family will be equally strong custodians." With that, the great battle for Dow Jones came to a close.

This battle to acquire the Wall Street Journal was more than a battle about who owns one newspaper. This is a battle about the future of free enterprise, capitalism and socialism. It is reflected in the adoption by the Republican Party of George W. Bush's "compassionate conservative" message that has proven to be little but socialism light. It is about the war for the soul of all nations in our increasingly global society. Murdoch is right when he sees it as war.

The war between free enterprise, capitalism and socialism has gone on for centuries. Free enterprise and capitalism are not the same thing but many advocates of capitalism try and claim they are. The truth? Small business is all for free enterprise. Small business is the engine of the economy of nations. That is where the rules allow genius about the future to start new businesses and compete in an almost unfettered way against the status quo, delivering new products inexpensively to consumers. Capitalism is where the rich and static or dying businesses use their wealth and profits to purchase small businesses that have proven their mettle and pointed the way to the future. They expand these enterprises while using their partners in government to stomp out competition. Profits are thus enhanced at the expense of society as a whole, and in an intelligent society, new small businesses take up the slack.

Free enterprise is about competition, while capitalism is about limiting competition and maintaining the monopoly power that a business gained by winning the competitive battle through ending competition and replacing it with government rules and partnerships. The balance between free enterprise and capitalism is important because it is easy for capitalism to become socialism and destroy an economy when the partnership becomes too cozy or government starts to take over the ownership role. Socialism fails too many of the various parts of a society and can only be maintained through a tyranny. Eastern Europe proved this.

These definitions are not the commonly accepted definitions but are inherent in the common understandings of the concepts. The collapse of the Republican Party in the last election was reflected in two trends of society that are rejecting failed messages, one relating to this battle of free enterprise versus capitalism and the other a failed message about the use of war.

That first trend: as much as Bush's tax policies have driven the economy to new levels, the growing power of large corporations to over compensate the rich in collusion with government has created a backlash against free enterprise (ironically not against capitalism which was behind it). The rich are concerned about the backlash and want to make sure that the result is not a movement to socialism which takes away the private ownership component of capitalism so critical to the rich. They are happy with the current balance. They don't want small businesses to come along through free enterprise and destroy their wealth. Nor do they want socialism to seize it. Too many people are rejecting the free enterprise message and voting for government handouts.

The second trend: growing opposition to the idealism of spreading democracy in the middle east because it is too subtle a concept to win the hearts and minds of the American people when the blood of our citizens is the price. The tone deaf George W. Bush sucked the Republican Party into backing this concept of spreading democracy as the way to defeat Islamofascism. Many people who understood the real reason we are fighting, that Islamofascism must be defeated, backed Bush because it seemed a reasonable strategy, but these fellow Republicans lost out when the "spread democracy" message Bush touted failed even with the Republican core audience.

These two trends are critical. They are intertwined. This is where Murdoch's media empire comes in. We are moving into a world of super powerful organizations as nations respond to the movements of Islamofascism and Global Capitalism. We are also living in a world where people are determined to feel they have some control. People thus want to hear news that reflects their gut beliefs, not idealistic concepts they are unhappy with. The Murdoch empire is at the center of these two powerful trends. More than any other media empire Murdoch reflects the practical reality promoting both selfless patriotism toward governments that provide some freedom and monetary self interest of the rich providing economic stability in an era of globalization through large size organizations.

It is ironic that the existing media is so enamored of the failed concept of socialism they do not see the acceptance of practicality by Murdoch's empire as being middle of the road in this new world. They can only see Murdoch's "practicality" in reference to their left wing ideology developed in a different time in a different world. They thus believe it is right wing. It is not.

The part that concerns me is the consequence of this new world where every organization is huge. I recognize the reality of the global trend that Murdoch is simply riding, not leading. However the trend to large organizations is of great concern to the individual. Will freedom survive?

The Vanishing Jihad Exposés

by Mark Steyn - August 5th, 2007 - Orange County (California) Register

How will we lose the war against "radical Islam"?

[snip]

For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can't find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let's go to Amazon. Everything's available there. And sure enough, you'll come through to the "Alms for Jihad" page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world," according to Canada's Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.Unfortunately, if you then try to buy "Alms for Jihad," you discover that the book is "Currently unavailable.

[snip]

So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?

Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment

If this was about American courts it would be on my "rule of law" blog. However this is not about the corruption of the American court system. This is about the growing corruption of all western courts where defense against the Islamofascist movement is concerned. It is not just here in America that socialists have gained control over much of government. All of Europe is dominated by socialist politicians who use government to help the Islamofascist movement campaign of jihadism.

As the socialist movement and the Islamofascist movement grow politically closer and closer, the threat to our liberty grows greater and greater. That is the essence of what Steyn is talking about. We are, due to complacency and stupidity, allowing our future freedoms to be subverted by the government systems that have until now helped to defend our freedom.

Inside The Beltway - House Forms Special Panel Over Alleged Stolen Vote

by Jonathan Weisman and Elizabeth Williamson - August 4th, 2007 - Washington Post

. . . . when GOP lawmakers moved to send the 2008 agriculture spending bill back to the House Appropriations Committee for members to add an explicit prohibition on illegal immigrants receiving food stamps . . [snip] . . Democratic leaders were in no mood to comply.

Democrats appeared to have won the vote [this is opinion and a perfect example of how socialist writers brainwash readers], but with the voting time apparently having expired [still opnion, the clock used to keep track of the vote still had the voting process open and the votes were being tallied], GOP leaders persuaded three Latino Republicans who had voted with the Democrats to change their votes. At the same time, Democrats say, five Democratic lawmakers who had voted with Republicans were scrambling to change their votes as well [again opinion, this is the excuse being touted by the democrats and these writers, who side with the democrats are simply arguing the democrats case for them]. With two of the GOP votes changed, Democrats gaveled the vote shut, 214 to 214, and declared that they had won. But the public tally showed that the Republicans had won, 215 to 213, just as the vote was declared for the Democrats. The official final tally was 216 to 212 in the Democrats' favor [not according to the official electronic scoring system, only according to the opinon of democrats who change the rules as they wish].

But House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said there were no Democrats seeking to change their votes at the time. Moreover, he charged, Hoyer had told a protesting parliamentarian, "We control, not the parliamentarians." And, he said, electronic records on the vote disappeared from the House's voting system and on the House clerk's Web site.

"Many of my colleagues and I feel as though the vote was taken from us," Boehner said.

In a raucous protest, Republicans walked out of the House en masse.

This is a perfect example of the slanted and biased news that portrays opinion as fact by the main stream media (MSM). As you read this article you have to be impressed with how carefully the case is made that the democrats are right and the Republicans are wrong, without ever actually saying that. I really hate the inside the beltway lies which are so often presented as news, but every now and again the abuse is so obvious even an idiot can see the democrat corruption behind the lies. The only recent case of the electonic records disappearing was on this vote. Does anyone really think this is coincidence? These left wing writers don't seem to think this is ever worth noting.

The "unanimous" vote to refer this issue to a special panel gained support of democrats only after they were assured that the electronic records had "disappeared". There is therefore no record to be examined but the reality that the verbal vote count called by democrat leadership was in conflict with the electronic board at the time it was called. Nothing will ever come of this. The democrats stole a vote to keep illegal aliens getting federal assistance. They know it. The corruption has been hidden by deleting the records. It will be investigated and a year from now no one will know anything more than they know now.

What we know now is that the democrat party is a socialist party, at war with American free enterprise. They will commit any act of corruption that leads to socialist power, including aligning our government with any group that is at war with America. The Mexican government and its people are at war with America. They are invading America. It is therefore not surprising that democrats (in support of the socialist agenda of Mexico) always align themselves with the illegal aliens (their socialist brethren). Are you surprised?

The Turn - Defeatists In Retreat

by William Kristol - August 13th, 2007 (Publication Date) - The Weekly Standard

For the Iraq war's opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts-- [even]Democrats, no less!--reporting that the situation on the ground had had improved, and that the war might be winnable. It began with a plan for a series of votes in Congress that were supposed to stampede nervous Republicans against the continued prosecution of the war. It ended with the GOP spine stiffened, and the Democratic Congress adjourning in disarray, with approval ratings lower than President Bush's. It began with Democratic presidential candidates competing in their antiwar pandering. It ended with them having second thoughts--with Barack Obama, losing ground to Hillary Clinton because he seemed naive about real world threats, frantically suggesting that he would invade Pakistan.

Invade Pakistan? This is a realistic solution to the complexity of the middle east? It almost makes me wonder how much Obama was paid by the Clinton campaign to take this insane position so Hillary could look moderate in comparison.

In reality, the democrat insistence that this war is a simple problem of fighting just that minor part of the disorganized and ill defined movement of Islamofascists called Al-Quaeda, IS THE PROBLEM. We are at war with more than Al-Quaeda.

Both political parties are sending out strategies under labels that the America people do not realize are corrupt. George W. Bush calls it the war on terror, whatever that means. He says he doesn't want to offend "moderate" muslims. However none of the so-called "moderate" muslims have stopped attacking Bush long enough for clarity of what that means. Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi call it the war on terror too. However they don't mean war against everyone who wants to kill us. They merely mean war against that small element called Al-Quaeda. Anyone else who wants to kill us is considered "peace-loving" anti-war comrades since they also embrace the democrat party goal of socialism.

This war on terror "label" is useless for the simple reason that no one really knows what it means. It is being used by all sides to confuse the American people and hide exactly what this war is about. The opening quote above shows what I mean. The quote above starts with "For the Iraq war's opponents . . . ." What Iraq war? The war is against Islamofascism, not Iraq. George W. Bush's inarticulate stupidity in allowing the democrats to argue that we are not fighting one war, but several, and that one of them is against Iraq, shows why the America people are so confused.

We are in fact aligned with the democratically elected government of Iraq. The democrats argue that (though it is clear it was a "fair" election) because the former totalitarian Sunni's were ousted by military force they are the legitimate government of Iraq. The predominantly non Iraq based insurgency aligned with the former totalitarian elements that controlled Iraq for decades (both of which are opposed to America) are thus defended by democrats as being the "legitimate" government of Iraq. This argument is insanity. To argue we are aligned with an illegitimate government, as socialist forces all over the world argue, simply does not pass the stink test. In this one front, Iraq, in this global war, we are on the right side as much as we are on the right side in the overall war against Islamofascism.

We are in a war for survival against a movement that has been at war with us for a generation. The tone deaf George W. Bush can't seem to find a way to communicate this to the American people. The socialists in the democrat party are arguing against this view too, for very contemptible reasons, politics. They even argue we cannot win in this one front in Iraq, much less the whole war.

The democrats are wrong. We can and will win if we have the will to win. Our patriotic and magnificent troops are the reason. The only important question is whether we will give control of the executive branch of our government to the "defeatists" in the democrat party and allow them to abandon victory and declare defeat like they did in Vietnam. Next years elections are going to be very interesting.

F22 Raptor - Awesome

F-22 RAPTOR: LANGLEY AIR SHOW

Mike Reusch, a friend who is an aeronautical engineer consultant in the defense industry sent me an email today that includes a link to some simply awesome video of the new F22 Raptor. If you are an aviation enthusiast, you will love this. Be patient, it takes a while to buffer and load, but it's worth it. You can click on the title above or here to start the video. Text of Mike's email follows:

Fast (super-cruise) and stealthy, and integrated avionics are cool, but what really impressed me was the F-22s low speed stability and maneuverability. In the late 40s and to early 60s aeronautical engineers were going nuts on how to shape intakes to handle both subsonic and super-sonic air flows, without stagnation or compressor stalls. Supersonic in itself was a big challenge because you had to use shock waves to slow the intake air mass to sub-sonic before it hit the compressor blades, or they would stall. We figured it out, but the solution was keeping a lot of air going in the front end to make sure the all hot air kept going out the back end. As I watch this Mach 2 airplane suspend motionless in air and do tail slides, I am in awe of the engines and intakes.

I used to think the Su-27 / Su-31 Cobra maneuver was the epitome of 3rd to 4th generation fighter maneuverability. That snap maneuver doesn't hold a candle to what this two-dimensional vectored-thrust fighter with fat independent horizontal stabs can do at low speed. I am sure there are far more tricks up its sleeve in the high subsonic dogfight speed range.

It [the video] is about 5 minutes long but the last 30-40 seconds are priceless. ACC [Air Combat Command for the non-Air Force folks] just approved the Raptors new DEMO profile. This was the first show. Watch the elevators of the airplane in this demo. They work independently. It also has vectored thrust.

Thanks for the email Mike.

Black Fined $1 Million

By Mark Binker - August 2nd, 2007 - Greensboro News Record

RALEIGH — The federal courts had already taken former House Speaker Jim Black's freedom and power.

"It's the purpose of my sentence to take the money," Judge Donald Stephens, of Wake County Superior Court, told Black, a Mecklenburg County Democrat, during a sentencing hearing Tuesday.

Unfortunately the citizens of North Carolina are still burdened with the gerrymandered state legislature created after the successful bribe. That has not been undone. Black may have paid the price for his corruption personally, but the Democrat Party that he served, and the boss of that party, Marc Basnight, still survive. Nothing is being done to correct that injustice.

The political power that the Democrats gained after that corrupt deal is the reason that they are raking in the contributions at a rate three times the Republicans. THREE TIMES! Political power always means political contributions.

You have to wonder whether Black will be reimbursed for taking this hit for the Democrat Party after he gets out. The Democrat Party owes Black, big time.

Or perhaps he has already been paid. An AP article here in the Rocky Mount Telegram indicates that Black's real estate holdings (obtained while he was a poorly paid government official) are increasing in value by more than the fine. Wouldn't it be cool if you could rob a bank, invest the money, and when caught just give back the money but keep the profits? In America you can't keep the profits from your criminal activities . . . . unless you are a politician . . . or rather unless you are a Democrat politician.

Fred Thompson's Trophy Wife

by Susan Estrich - July 13th, 2007 - NewsMax.com

Fred Thompson, would-be presidential candidate, is 64 years old and looks it. His wife, Jeri, is two years younger than one of his daughters and looks even younger than her 40 years.

They have had two babies together since they married in 2002.

Does it matter?

Trophy wife? What garbage. This attack on Jeri Thompson has been going on for over a month now. It reminds me of the recent left wing attacks on Ann Coulter. Elle magazine asked Alec Baldwin in a tasteless interview "Would you rather sleep with Ann Coulter or Dianne Feinstein?"

"I gotta go with Feinstein," Baldwin answers. "With Coulter, we'd have sex and I'd have to jump out the window."

Coulter's response, typical Ann funny, "That's the only reason I can think of for wanting to have sex with Alec Baldwin."

The liberal blogs and the Main Stream Media (MSM) have been working overtime attacking Fred Thompson's wife, completely ignoring the fact that she was a very accomplished woman before she married Fred. Jeri Thompson is very smart. She's been a political consultant and has worked in top positions with major firms for years afer establishing her credentials as a successful lawyer. She worked as an aide in the Senate and at the Republican National Committee, highly respected positions. Also ignored, Fred Thompson is Jeri's first and only husband. They dated for years before they married, and Fred and his first wife had been divorced for over a decade before he started dating Jeri. Fred Thompson calls her his life partner and they are known to be very close.

You would not know these things from the attacks by liberal commentators, including this article I quoted from above by Susan Estrich. Estrich's comments are only slightly less outrageous than Josh Marshall's recent "poledancer" reference, an unfounded comment equating Jeri to a stripper, also attributed to Joe Scarborough in a statement that Ms. Thompson "works the pole". . . and even the equally outrageous constantly repeated reference to Jeri as a "trophy wife", implying she has nothing but looks. Such comtemptible comments by any conservative member of the press about a Democrat would get a person fired. It has gotten almost no reaction since Jeri Thompson is a Republican.

It should be noted that every article about Jeri includes a picture of the very photogenic Ms. Thompson. Here are just a few of the photos that have accompanied recent articles.









Jeri Thompson is attractive and openly devoted to her husband. Does that negate her accomplishments? Or more important, does that say anything negative about Fred Thompson? That, after all, is what these attacks are really about. Smearing Jeri Thompson in order to smear Fred Thompson.