Remembering the Massacre

Five years ago today, al-Qaeda introduced itself to the American public by extinguishing the lives of almost 3,000 people in the financial district of Manhattan, the shores of the Potomac and lastly in the fields of rural Pennsylvania.

The World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks on September 11th did not mark the beginning of the Islamic radicals’ war on America, its citizenry, or the Twin Towers, which were first bombed eight years before 9-11.

Between the failed 1993 and successful 2001 bombings on the World Trade Center, 53 Americans were killed in four attacks on US military and diplomatic off-shore targets, yet no large-scale war on Islamic terror networks was launched after either of these tragedies.

American support for Israel, the deployment of US military personnel on the sacred Arabian peninsula, the invasion of Iraq during the first Gulf War and our nation’s alliance with “pliant” leaders of certain Muslim nations are standard excuses issued by Al-Qaeda and their ilk for the attacks on Americans.

But giving credibility to reasons issued by al-Qaeda and their apologists to justify their acts of mass homicide is foolhardy.

It should be remembered that Osama Bin-Laden originally denied involvement with the September 11th attacks only to later admit complicity and produce video images of the terror leader fraternizing with the would-be martyrs/murderers. Imagine that: not only is al-Qaeda full of butchers, they’re liars too!

Sadly enough, I bet there were more than a few people in high positions of power that were as troubled by their fibbing as they were by their killing.

Perhaps their true intentions can be gleaned from a video tape released in early September of this year, called “An Invitation to Islam”, where an American convert to al-Qaeda, Adam Yehiye Gadahn who is also known as “Azzam the American”, declared "To Americans and the rest of Christendom, we say either repent (your) misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next."

The stuff of Billy Graham it isn’t; but what the video message does communicate is that in the eyes of al-Qaeda there are only three kinds of people in this world: Muslims, non-believers that will be converted to Islam and dead infidels.

September 11th was about using the example of the latter to achieve by fear the second point.

An unintended consequence of the terrorist attacks was to raise awareness about the existence of this ideology and its adherents in the western world. While for al-Qaeda 9-11 was a glorious triumph, it ran counter to their expansionist agenda as Islam was already in the process of making great strides towards accomplishing without much fuss the conquest of Europe through exploiting lax immigration policies and making babies in countries with near zero-population growth.

Though the Continent has not yet regained the assertive nationalist nerve it lost after the Second World War, terrorist attacks on both sides of the pond have at least roused from their slumber some political leaders of influence outside of the once and future caliphate of Grenada (Spain) and the supposed Euro-powerhouses of Germany and France, whose politicians are already hostage to electorally significant Muslim minorities.

Unlike America’s Bolshevik nemesis of the past, the new threat to our nation and civilization is not an entity that can be negotiated with since for al-Qaeda, the very existence of people subscribing to a faith other than Islam, either in Israel or on the planet Earth, is blasphemy.

Compromise with al-Qaeda can only be achieved by submitting to their faith or volunteering for beheading, the alternative for the preservation of western civilization being the aggressive eradication of al-Qaeda and its allied cells on the homefront and in their frontyard.

The American al-Qaeda video might have been pure crazy talk, but there is no doubting its sincerity when it comes to the part where they intend to inflict suffering on those who don’t or won’t embrace the Koran.

Al-Qaeda’s propaganda rubbish aside, there is only one logical reason why September 11th happened: because our government failed to take appropriate action in the aftermath of previous attacks by a terrorist organization that refused to be ignored.

That is a mistake that can never be repeated again.

RINO Stomp: The Missing Linc Wins

US Senator Lincoln Chafee is perhaps the least favorite Republican amongst Republicans due in large part to his inclination to vote with the other party. Yet his consistent record of contrarianism when it comes to Republican issues didn’t prevent him from winning renomination on Tuesday evening thanks to being the scion of a longtime state political figure and a lot of help from an administration he has given little legislative support.

Had Chafee lost to his primary challenger, Stephen Laffey, the pundits would have drawn a comparison to the party insurrection against Joe Lieberman across the state line.

Just as the Right mocked the Democrats for embracing the tinfoil hat crowd by dismissing their 2000 vice-presidential nominee, the Left would have retorted that Chafee’s primary defeat was proof of the GOP’s domination by conservatives who demand that their affiliated members of Congress toe the line or walk the plank.

Yeah…I wish that myth was fact.

Such a comparison would have been flawed as the similarities between Lieberman’s and Chafee’s unpopularity within their own party begins and ends with their respective positions on the war in Iraq.

Lieberman is a true liberal that rebelled on one issue made sacrosanct by MoveOn.org. Chafee, also a true liberal, tends to be off the reservation on virtually every bill of consequence. In 2005, Chafee’s ACU rating (a conservative barometer on congressional votes) was a twelve out of one hundred making him the most liberal Republican in the US Senate.

Seventeen Democrats, including arch-liberal Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, had a higher ACU rating than Chafee, who had the same score as Hillary Clinton.

Chafee’s party registration card is about the only written documentation of his Republican affiliation since his voting record certainly doesn’t prove it. Here are just a few of the ways the Rhode Island RINO earned his “horn” over the years:

Announced to the media that he wrote-in George W. Bush’s father as a protest vote in 2004.

The same day he bragged about casting a ballot for “Poppy” in lieu of “Dubya”, Chafee publicly mused about leaving the GOP if the younger Bush was re-elected.

Was the lone Republican to vote against invading Iraq.

Voted for legislation providing for taxpayer funded abortions.

Was the sole Republican to vote against the confirmation of Judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court, which was not the only instance when Chafee, a member of the Gang of 14, opposed a Bush nominee to the federal bench.

Voted for an amendment that would have put American servicemen under the jurisdiction of an international court and a bill that would have mandated a backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Treaty.

And just in case you haven’t been keeping score, I should also mention he’s for legalizing same sex marriage and often votes against the pro-second amendment lobby.

This is what the National Republican Senatorial Committee spent a reported one million dollars to keep in office. I am sure NOW and every other loony liberal group under the sun will be pleased that they can spend their money elsewhere now that a “safe vote” is guaranteed no matter which senatorial candidate wins in Rhode Island in November.

Chafee’s few conservative moments include and are almost limited to voting for the GOP organization of the Senate, confirming Chief Justice John Roberts and supporting John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. Blink and you risk missing Chafee making a good vote.

Clearly the NRSC’s money would have been better used in one of the five other competitive Republican defenses or in the five close US Senate races where the Democrats are hoping to hold seats than trying to prop up an incumbent who was unattractive to Republican voters, with good reason.

The NRSC believed that the incumbent was more electable in a state where Bush didn’t even receive 40% in 2004, which is the same argument the president and the national GOP used when they rescued Pennsylvania US Senator Arlen Specter from almost certain defeat at the hands of conservative Congressman Pat Toomey two years ago.

Sadly, Snarlin’ Arlen is like Jesse Helms compared to Chafee.

For the sake of the GOP, I hope the 2006 mid-terms don’t produce a fifty-fifty split in the US Senate. Judging by his absence from the Republican column on so many previous votes, Linc might live up to his 2004 election threat and go missing.

PC Denies Holiday Reality

The leaves have fallen. There's a cool breeze outside. And I can't find a decent parking spot at the mall.

Ah the joys of holiday season!

What holiday in particular? Well there's Hanukkah, a religious celebration commemorating the uprising by the Maccabees in Judea against their pagan Assyrian conquerors, but society at large tends to simply recognize it as the lighting of nine candles for mysterious reasons or worse yet that Hanukkah is just the "Jewish Christmas." And then there is my favorite, Kwanzaa, a sham holiday that gives Festivus a sense of legitimacy...after all the latter was not invented by a convicted felon.

Conduct a nationwide poll about the details of the Kwanzaa and Festivus and my money is on more people having knowledge of Frank Costanza's celebration best known for its feats of strength, airing of grievances, and its centerpiece ornament, the aluminum Festivus pole, than they do about Kwanzaa, which is only 40 years older than Festivus. The main difference between Festivus and Kwanzaa is that one was intended to make people laugh and the other is just a joke.

What bothers me most about Kwanzaa, aside from its artificial nature, creation by a racial militant who tortured two black women, and the outright ludicrousness of the whole deal (web site) is that it is given more reverence by the media, Hollywood, and politicians than the second holiest day in the West's predominant faith.

I remember watching Bad Santa, surely not an accurate barometer of modern society (or is it?) and hearing a background announcement at the mall the Billy Bob Thornton character was about to rob wishing its patrons a happy Hanukkah, a joyous Kwanzaa, and a happy holiday season. That they left out one important proper named holiday in particular offended me more than all of the profanities and vulgar references in the film, and there were many.

It is truly sad that the most recognized holiday in Western Civilization is now the holiday that none dares speak its name.

Now it appears House Speaker Denny "Go To Hell New Orleans" Hastert is having a "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" moment by demanding that the "holiday tree" outside of the Capitol be officially referred to as a Chri...well you know...tree.

Even the Democratic mayor of Boston is hopping over the political correcting of his city's "seasonal tree." The Canadian who donated the tree was so incensed that his timber was having its name shivered into common noun status that he publicly stated his regret for cutting it down.

And though we are weeks from December 25th, you can bet your red stockings that ACLU lawyers are busy applying their war paint as they giddily begin their assault on public schools from Omaha to Wilmington to save children from being compelled to sing and/or listen to "Silent Night" or "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town," since the subject of the song is a reference to Saint Nicholas, a revered figure in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Of course the ACLU will only be able to spring into action if some atheist divorcee drops a nickel on the school, thus relegating his or her child to more school yard taunting than the unfortunate grade schooler with the surname Slutsky.

Yet despite the success of liberals and anti-Christians there is one Gibraltar of reality they can't crack: turning December 25th into just another day of the week. Lawyers might rid the educational system of "Joy to the World," merchandisers can assign any secular moniker they wish to their turbo sale time, but they will never get mail delivered or garbage picked up on that particular day.

That government shuts down and most businesses aren't open on December 25th is reality's recognition that the day is special even if it isn't observed by one and all.

And since there seems to be a national, unspoken conspiracy against going to work that day why can't department stores name their "Holiday Season Sale" a "Christmas Sale" and government refer to their giant, green needle-bearing tree a Christmas tree without threat of litigation? And in the likely event public entities do get sued, they should have the chestnuts to stand up to such anti-Christian grinches.

Benson Speaks; Saints Spiral

The "Will they stay? Will they go?" Saints soap opera continued this past week when that public relations guru himself, Tom Benson, took out a full-page advertisement in the Times Picayune's Sports section about his intentions and to complain about all of the "taking his name in vain" that has been en vogue in south Louisiana as of late.

Titled, "Tom Benson Wants To Return To New Orleans," and not the much hoped for, "The Saints WILL Return To New Orleans," the owner emphasized his roots with the community by extolling his 8th ward background and the donations he has made to the area before droning about how Katrina affected his organization and the city and then patting himself on the back for not "downsizing," though his team has unofficially relocated.

Benson concluded his screed by making no promises about going back to New Orleans nor did he close the door to moving on the greener pastures. Also not addressed in his paid defense is the termination of the senior team executive who pushed hard to play most of the "home games" at Tiger Stadium.

Rather than offer the homeless yet hearty local Saints fans hope that the team will remain in Louisiana, the advertisement reinforced Benson's intention to keep his relocation options open, possibly to use the threat of moving as a bargaining chip when renegotiating with the financially strained state.

Or Benson has already made up his mind about staying put in San Antonio and is just angling for time while his legal team devises an exit strategy that will placate the NFL Commissioner's office, which has been more of a friend to New Orleans in the post-Katrina period than the city's "native son."

Benson's advertisement is nothing more than a carefully worded public statement intended to cause people to infer that the Saints are coming back to New Orleans, so be sure to buy those tickets for the Baton Rouge games. Amazing how an entire-newspaper page half-full of text could at the same time say so little.

Only days after Benson promulgated his "urbi et orbi," his taxpayer subsidized property did something that seemed heart-wrenchingly impossible after December 25, 2004: gave Nick Saban another win in Death Valley.

Despite the dwindling playoff hopes and the imminent move, Tiger Stadium's upper east side and north end zone were packed. But after two quarters of torturous play, the crowd showed more enthusiasm for the paper airplanes that made it from the nosebleed seats on to the field than the men on the field.

The team had numbed its fans so much that at one point, the upper east side looked like the Battle of Britain, with paper airplanes of all designs tossed by kids, senior citizens, and soccer moms alike.

Spectators were able to differentiate between the RAF and Luftwaffe representations as the latter were made from the page of the program with the Reichs-chiseler's picture on it.

Speaking of the Saints' game day program, the page containing the history of "Death Valley" did not have a photo of Tiger Stadium, but a picture of the venue where LSU played the Capital One Bowl.

How might you ask does a man consumed with his precious team allow his employees turn the second half of a football game into "arts and crafts" hour?

Perhaps if Benson was as concerned with making his team as competitive on the field as he feel they should be in the ledger book, Louisiana wouldn't have to subsidize his outfit.

But it's easier for him to extort tribute instead of putting competent people in place to produce results for his team, hence his satisfaction with a head coach who hasn't taken his team to the playoffs since 2000 and is too stupid to bench an obviously hurt quarterback who needed surgery at the end of the 2002 season and is currently performing like his jersey number.

The Saints have three more games in Death Valley. Governor Blanco, whose steeliness in handling Benson was one of her shining marks in office, is imploring fans to do their part to keep the team in Louisiana by packing the stadium.

I guess all of those losing seasons when people like me sold out the Superdome counts for nothing in 2005.

In the world of Tom Benson, all that matters is "what have you done for him lately."

The Right Yells Fire Over Miers


President Bush's selection of White House attorney Harriet Miers has given many conservatives the same feeling a five-year-old when told he’ll be having broccoli and not hamburgers for dinner.

Several prominent conservative polemicists have already begun the gnashing of teeth. Pat Buchanan has labeled Ms. Miers unqualified and the beneficiary of nepotism. Rush Limbaugh, the high priest of conservatism, was more charitable implying that the president's choice was due to political weakness. Rush's conservative callers were not so kind in their assessment. I am sure leggy-right winger Ann Coulter was zealously penning her acid-ink commentary within minutes of the announcement.

Though I will not be the first to say that Harriet Miers's nomination is a let down, I will state it just the same. Not being much concerned about whether Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement gets mad over the toilet seat being left up, I was hoping that Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael Luttig would have been picked.

A proven conservative jurist, Luttig had the credentials and most importantly the age, at a relatively young 51, to have made a significant contribution towards the rolling back of judicial liberalism that has contaminated our Federal Republic for the past half-century.

However, I was not surprised when the president announced his choice of Ms. Miers.

During the original handicapping for the O'Connor seat, back when Big Bill (Rehnqusit) was still wearing his gold bars, Appeals Judge Edith Brown Clement of the Fifth Circuit was considered John Roberts's main rival. Yet Clement's name never really surfaced in the second round for the same spot on the high bench, which was somewhat of a poker tell about the president's intentions.

So what of this latest enigmatic nominee?

First that she has enough of the president's confidence to have her investigate him for nasty "surprises" prior to his 1994 run for Texas governor, a common practice by candidates since a lawyer would be obligated to keep all information discovered confidential, covered under the attorney-client privilege.

Second, we know Ms. Miers has made some interesting campaign contributions. She donated $1,000 to then Tennessee US Senator Al Gore, but this was prior to his political metamorphosis from boll weevil to Captain Planet. A possible explanation for the donation could be that one of Ms. Miers's clients asked her to donate on his or her behalf, a tactic employed by some donors who prefer to remain anonymous.

It's also possible that a client or a friend asked her to donate to Gore as a favor since campaign finance laws have unreasonable maximum limits. This was cited as the reason why New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, a black Democrat, contributed to George W. Bush's 2000 campaign.

Ms. Miers also gave to Lloyd Bentsen's re-election campaign as US Senator in 1988, but once again this was probably done more for professional reasons than political sympathy, since Bentsen was assured of re-election.

Republican candidates also received donations from Ms. Miers, including Texas Republican US Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Phil Gramm. Perhaps of some solace to anxious pro-lifers who have a lot at stake with the composition of the US Supreme Court is Ms. Miers's contribution to a Texas anti-abortion organization.

Understandably, these traces of conservative tendencies aren't very reassuring to conservatives. With the judiciary becoming increasingly aggressive in issuing "extra-constitutional" rulings and mandates, strict constructionists can't be blamed for being Doubting Thomases.

Too many “Trojan Horses” let inside the walls of the US Supreme Court by Republican presidents who have exhibited Whitmanesque poor judgment in their selections have burned conservatives. Remember, Justices Stevens, Souter, and "Judge Weathervane," Kennedy, were tapped by Republicans.

While conservatives are itching for a fight, the White House is looking for the path of least resistance. With the president's go-to man in the US House indicted and the US Senate Majority Leader under investigation, not to mention the tanking polls, the executive branch is not hankering for a battle that could backfire and endanger the GOP's 2006 chances.

This writer has already made a leap of faith with now Chief Justice Roberts and will once again give the benefit of the doubt for the same reason: President Bush cannot afford to be bitten by a liberal selection.

The prospect of a Jeb candidacy in 2012 or that of other members of the House of Bush for lesser offices would be forever haunted by a lingering liberal on the court. The president is far too shrewd of a politician not to consider this. For a man who places loyalty as the greatest of political virtues, it is doubtful for the president to entrust his legacy with an unknown quantity.

The US Senate Minority Leader has already painted himself into a corner by offering effusive praise for Ms. Miers and his Democratic colleagues might have a tough time playing roadblock. Furthermore, I anxiously await Ted Kennedy, brother to a president who appointed his brother Attorney General, to level accusations of cronyism and nepotism.

My biggest problem with Ms. Miers, assuming she will live up to Bush's campaign pledge to choose Scalias and Thomases for the judicial branch, is her age, 60. If she turns out to be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised as a candidate then her impact won't be so great.

That same shortcoming could be a blessing if Ms. Miers proves to be the latest "d'oh" GOP appointment,

The Roberts Confirmation: More Theater Than Deliberation

Though I am a conservative Republican, had I been a member of the US Senate back in the early nineties, I would have voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court.

My logic is as follows: the job of a United States Senator in "consenting" to the president's appointment to the country's highest court, the legislator need not agree with the nominee's philosophy, but simply pass judgment on their good character, ability, and academic and legal credentials.

US Senators should not engage in applying an ideological litmus test to nominees; that is the job of the president.

The concept of lifetime appointments is a check against the fickle electorate, thus balancing shifting political attitudes with tenured experience and stability. In a sense, the public "votes" for justices by electing a president reflective of the victorious party's philosophy and unless there are shortcomings in the previously cited criteria, US Senators should abide by the indirectly stated will of the people.

This is how it used to be, as a good example is found in Antonin Scalia's unanimous confirmation in 1987. President Clinton's two liberal jurists fared almost as well, with Ginsberg garnering an impressive 96-3 and Breyer being sent to the court by a 87-9 margin.

"US Senator Bayham" would have had some conservative company in going along with the Clinton judges as stalwart right-wingers like Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm voted with the majority, even though the GOP held a substantial minority of 43 US Senators at that time.

It should also be noted that both Breyer and Ginsberg received quick hearings and were confirmed within three months of their nominations.

However, if I knew then what we have all seen now through the impetuous antics of Ted Kennedy and Co., I would be far less inclined to consent to Breyer. I would unequivocally vote against Ginsberg based upon her penchant for citing foreign laws and traditions when ruling in American cases, which by the way is a matter for questioning by Republican US Senators when screening all judicial nominees.

Since John Roberts was tapped by President Bush to join the court, Democratic US Senators have pitched temper tantrums, engaging in character assassination through gross hyperbolic insinuation, making Judge Roberts appear as if he wore a white robe instead of a black one.

US Senator Charles Schumer of New York was condemning Roberts as an extremist, only minutes after his nomination had been made public. And pro-abortion militants were trying to block him based upon the chance he would throw out Roe v. Wade, the supposed "law of the land" that mandated the "right" of nationwide pregnancy termination by judicial fiat.

By the way, laws are not invented by judges but are supposed to be passed by the legislative branch of government, though to hold a judiciary nominee picked by a Democrat to this standard would result in automatic filibustering and perpetual gridlock for the judiciary.

Another rogue element in Supreme Court confirmations is the grandstanding by presidential aspirants. When examining the roll call vote on Roberts, you'll see quite a few Democratic luminaries exploring a presidential run, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden. Even Evan Bayh, perhaps the most conservative contender in the 2008 Donkey Stampede, made a point of voting against Roberts.

Though Mrs. Clinton has gone through great lengths to posture herself as a centrist, she knows that the feminist lobby exerts considerable muscle in the activist dominated primaries.

Not that the Democratic political kabuki was restricted to just the White House aspirants. Going over the list of Democratic yeas largely coincides with incumbents from marginal blue and red states. For these vulnerable Democrats, the Roberts vote allows them to show their "independence" from the national party.

A tip of my hat goes to Russ Feingold, the true believer, ideological liberal heir to the late Paul Wellstone, a US Senator who does not hail from a "red state," and a potential presidential candidate in 2008 for his vote for the new head of the Supreme Court.

The tin-foil hat wearing bloggers of the Left might not appreciate his gesture of voting on qualifications and not philosophy, though he has done a tremendous service through his example to bring back sanity and reason to Federal judiciary's confirmation process.

Farewell To The Chief

With a strong endorsement coming from the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of John Roberts's confirmation as the new Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, the interregnum in the judicial branch's leadership will soon come to a close.

And while this tribute to the late lamented Chief Justice William Rehnquist is tardy, due in large part to the national catastrophe that hit at the same time as his passing, I did want to say something about a man who embodied sanity in a branch of the national government that has been overrun with lunacy since before Ike erroneously appointed the "Dumb Swede" from California to the high bench.

The "Smart Swede" from Wisconsin was a strict constructionist and a jurist who did not hold tradition in contempt. His appointment was a rare conservative footnote during the ideologically vacuous Nixon Administration.

Rhenquist's interpretations of the US Constitution defended the rights of the unborn in Roe v. Wade and not long ago defended property rights from government-developer combines in the now infamous Kelo v. New London case, a precedent sanctioning land snatching for primary private gain with residual public benefit.

Though Rehnquist would know many lonely moments on a court packed with liberals ironically appointed by Republican presidents, he was, in this writer's opinion, the best Chief Justice since Charles Evans Hughes.

While his tendency to embrace conservative positions was appreciated by those on the right, there is an important unsung characteristic the Chief possessed that people of any party affiliation can admire.

Similar to the coverage of the previous pope, Strom Thurmond, and other aged and infirm conservative figures, there was a giddy media "death watch" on the chief justice over the past few years. Rehnquist was suffering from thyroid cancer and, in response to rumors of his pending retirement from the bench, snipped "That's for me to know and you to find out." To my knowledge, no similar dark vigils have been set up for court elder John Paul Stevens.

Rehnquist's participation in the courts proceedings exemplified his sense of duty and his drive under trying physical circumstances to "keep living until he's dead."

What precisely does that mean?

We live in a society where convenience is placed on a higher pedestal than the value of life. The "Soilent Green" mentality that has pervaded our culture has had its effect. A pregnancy is an annoyance to be terminated on a whim; old people are to be put out of our...I mean "their," misery; as are the severely debilitated, described charitably as persons in a persistent vegetative state.

Though seriously ill, Rehnquist never exhibited a lack of competence and made arrangements to be able to effectively serve on the court. Just like the late Pope John Paul II, Rehnquist proved through his service that despite severe illness an individual can continue to contribute even at the dusk of life.

The highlight of the 2005 Presidential Inauguration for me was not the better seating that came with being a member of the Electoral College, but seeing Big Bill, whose absence was almost taken as a certainty leading up to the event, swear in President Bush for a second term. When his presence was announced, I immediately shot up from my folding chair and gave the chief a rousing ovation, which was matched by others who then recognized the significance of the Rehnquist appearance.

Here was a man defying the winter elements and the limits on his own health because he felt he had a duty. While the AARP might neglect recognizing Rehnquist's example, the chief, who worked with a tracheotomy tube in his throat, should be a hero for every senior citizen wanting to continue being productive and not resign themselves to the shuffleboard or the hammock just because of age.

There was more to the professional career of William Rehnquist than the gold bars on his black robe and three decades worth of sound, cogent opinions. The chief tried to protect the sanctity of life in its earliest stages from the bench and by carrying on through advanced age and sickness was himself an argument against euthanasia.
==================================================
With Hurricane Rita's pending arrival, my prayers are with those in southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. Please stay safe and be mindful of the many hazzards that come with a visit from nature's Luca Brasi.

Honor Thy Founding Document

NOTE: Most my time and columns have been dedicated towards assisting with the relief effort and chronicling the killer storm known as Hurricane Katrina. As time passes, I will begin posting on non-forces of nature issues on a more regular basis.

For years I have eagerly awaited the creation of Constitution Day, a recognized holiday celebrating the adoption of America's current organic law. My silent vigil has ended with the attachment of a seemingly non-germane amendment to a spending bill with the creation of a day honoring America's governing charter.

The US Constitution was the colonial separatists' second attempt at establishing a lasting national government. The original constitution was the Articles of Confederation, a document that provided for a weak central government that recognized the several states as a loose association of pseudo-republics.

Thankfully wise men such as Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Jay, and James Madison were aware of the flaws of the first system and plunged ahead with the adoption of a pragmatic document that would preserve the union.

Had the Constitution not been drawn up and ratified, the United States as we know it would not have survived the political-military sectional crisis known as the War of 1812, a conflict ignited by British contempt for the colonies evidenced through their impressment of American sailors and expansionist politicians inflamed by British-incited Indian attacks on western settlers who also desired the "liberation", or rather expropriation, of Canada.

New England, a region that had once been the hotbed of rebellion to King George during the Revolution, had established strong commercial ties with the Mother Country and saw the war as disastrous for their merchants. Northeastern Federalist politicians shut out from the new Democratic-Republican governing dynasty hardly contained their glee over initial American military setbacks. The more militant elements of this crowd met at the Hartford Convention to explore their options, including possibly leaving the Union.

While the northeastern secessionist push dissipated in the wake of Andy Jackson's stunning victory on the plains of Chalmette at the Battle of New Orleans, it is doubtful that the United States would have survived Mr. Madison's War intact, assuming the union under the Articles of Confederation would have made it into the 19th century.

The US Constitution was one of history's most successful political horse-trades. Small states received protection through the creation of an equally apportioned US Senate while the larger states were afforded their proportional voice in the US House of Representatives. State rights advocates were appeased by the legislatures' authority to determine the composition of their state delegations to the US Senate, until this fell victim to early 20th century populism. Classical liberals managed to have their way by locking certain protections through the Bill of Rights.

France, by comparison within a similar timeframe, needed to go through four republics (the first of questionable legitimacy), a Nazi-puppet regime, two empires, and a few kings to get it "right" with their current Fifth.

Actually Constitution Day is not really a full Federal holiday, which was snuck into an education bill by Senator Robert Byrd of WV as a rider amendment. The amendment mandates that all schools that receive Federal financing must take part in the celebration by reserving time to herald the great document, an ironic twist since one could argue that such an order violates the regularly trudged upon 10th Amendment that guarantees (HA!) states' rights.

I believe September 17th merits full national holiday status, even though it comes roughly within two weeks of the floating Labor Day holiday. The adoption of the US Constitution is only second to the day America became a sovereign state in importance.

Senator Byrd decried the reality that Americans spend more time on "Desperate Housewives" than they do focusing on the legal foundation of our Federal republic. I concur with "Sheets" on this matter on principle and for partisan reasons.

As we have seen once again with the latest ludicrous edict emanating from the California-based Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, two centuries of precedent and tradition are routinely tossed out by Federal judiciary on the whim of unelected judicial legislators.

The public would be more irate over the taxes they pay to Washington and would begin holding their state officials to a higher standard, as locals would no longer be able to bumble without consequence hoping Uncle Sam will bail them out.

New Jersey residents would no longer be financing million dollar bus stops in Alaska as less revenues stream into the Beltway for redistribution from sea to shining fjord, and instead detour straight to the state capitals.

If people became more educated on the limits of the national government's authority as intended by the Founding Fathers, there's a chance the Democratic Party would be decimated at the polls and just maybe the GOP could get back its soul.

Happy Constitution Day.