THE TRAGEDY OF ISLAM

By Michael Graham

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth:

Islam is a terror organization.

For years, I've been trying to give the world's Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American's complete disinterest in their faith. Before 9/11, I knew nothing about Islam except the greeting "asalaam alaikum," taught to me by a Pakistani friend in Chicago.

Immediately after 9/11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that "Islam is a religion of peace."

But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean "nobody."

Certainly not the group of "moderate" Muslim clerics and imams who gathered in London last week to issue a statement on terrorism and their faith. When asked the question "Are suicide bombings always a violation of Islam," they could not answer "Yes. Always." Instead, these "moderate British Muslims" had to answer "It depends."

Precisely what it depends on, news reports did not say. Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you're killing Jews.

That is part of the state of modern Islam.

Another fact about the state of Islam is that a majority of Muslims in countries like Jordan continue to believe that suicide bombings are legitimate. Still another is the poll reported by a left-leaning British paper than only 73 percent of British Muslims would tell police if they knew about a planned terrorist attack. The other 27 percent? They are a part of modern Islam, too.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is outraged that I would dare to connect the worldwide epidemic of terrorism with Islam. They put it down to bigotry, asserting that a lifetime of disinterest in Islam has suddenly become blind hatred. They couldn't be more wrong.

Not to be mean to the folks at CAIR, but I don't: Care, that is. I simply don't care about Islam, its theology, its history — I have no interest in it at all. All I care about is not getting blown to smithereens when I board a bus or ride a plane. I care about living in a world where terrorism and murder/suicide bombings are rejected by all.

And the reason Islam has itself become a terrorist organization is that it cannot address its own role in this violence. It cannot cast out the murderers from its members. I know it can't, because "moderate" Muslim imams keep telling me they can't. "We have no control over these radical young men," one London imam moaned to the local papers. Can't kick 'em out of your faith?

Can't excommunicate them? Apparently Islam does not allow it.

Islam cannot say that terrorism is forbidden to Muslims. I know this because when the world's Muslim nations gathered after 9/11 to state their position on terrorism, they couldn't even agree on what it was. How could they, when the world's largest terror sponsors at the time were Iran and Saudi Arabia — both governed by Islamic law.

If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder — and the scoutmasters in charge simply said "Could be" — the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago.

Today, Islam has entire sects and grand mosques that preach terror. Its theology is used as a source of inspiration by terrorist murderers. Millions of Islam's members give these killers support and comfort.

The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.

As I've said many times, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true "religion of peace." I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world's Muslims. I believe they want peace.

Sadly, the organization and fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in the name of their faith.

Many Muslims, I believe, know this to be true and some are acting on it. Not the members of CAIR, unfortunately: As Middle East analyst and expert Daniel Pipes has reported, "two of CAIR's associates (Ghassan Elashi, Randall Royer) have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, one (Bassem Khafegi) convicted on fraud charges, two (Rabih Haddad, Bassem Khafegi) have been deported, and one (Siraj Wahhaj) remains at large."

But Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf admits what CAIR will not. He's called for a jihad against the jihadists. He's putting his life on the line (Islamists have tried to assassinate him three times) in the battle to reclaim Islam and its fundamental decency.

He remembers, I'm sure, that at a time when Western, Christian civilization was on the verge of collapse, the Muslim world was a bastion of rationalism and tolerance. That was a great moment in the history of Islam, a moment that helped save the West.

Let's hope Islam can now find the strength to save itself.

*******************************************

Folks, . . . the author of the above column, Mr. Michael Graham, lost his job in talk radio because of the above column, published in the Jewish World Review, ( http://www.JewishWorldReview.com ). Think about that for a moment. Talk radio, whether it's liberal or conservative, is there for the purpose of the exercise of free speech. It's there to create a discussion, where there may not have been a discussion before, and where open discussion is the buzzword of the day.

He LOST his job, . . . suspended without pay! Not because he violated some FCC rule. Not because he said the 'F'-word, on the air. Not because this man is anti-American. Not because he is spewing lies. . . . .but, simply because he offered his opinion and view of, what HE perceives as the truth. He's been very successful in talk radio, in the past few years. Now this. Suspended without pay, . . . That implies that something is pending, . . . pending what? An investigation by CAIR?

No one ever tried to kill Air America, (it's dying of its own accord), and certainly, we, here in America, can understand the Islamic world, where the dictator usually owns the station and all the frequencies it broadcasts upon. We as Americans must now speak out, and allow our voices to be heard -- THIS AIN'T RIGHT! We don't stifle free speech. We don't quell the voices because everyone can't agree.

This is an outrage! Let's DO something about it! Either Michael Graham is correct, or he's not. But I'm here to say that he's got every right to be on either side of that issue, here in America, or we become what we loathe -- a dictatorship, . . . controlled by idealogues and extremists like those members of CAIR -- supporters of terrorism, if, for no other reason, because their religion doesn't allow them to speak ill of anything. Time for an awakening -- both American and Islamic.

God Bless,
Dan'L

NOW's fraudulent abortion poster women

The National Organization for Women, (NOW), recently posted an Emergency Alert with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee," . . . Women's Lives on the Line."

In the alert, NOW included the photos of four women it said "are the faces of women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions," below, the obvious inference being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe vs Wade will cause women's deaths. Let's do some research on NOW's claims, . . . okay?? . . .

First, let's fully understand the issue: A reversal of Roe vs Wade issue will only take the abortion decision back to each of the 50 states, . . . it would not outlaw any abortion.

Secondly, if deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to search back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)??

And, thirdly, the person they identify as Becky Bell, died in 1988 - after abortion had been declared legal. NOW originally championed Becky because she was 17 at the time of her death, and Indiana, where Becky lived, had recently passed a parental notification law. Even so, Becky could still have obtained a legal abortion. All that said, the post-mortem report showed Becky died from pneumonia, not related to any abortion. In fact, that she even obtained an abortion in the first place is disputed, both by her best friend and also by the medical findings.

NOW's fourth example is Rosie Jiminez. Jiminez also died after abortion was made legal, in 1979. Pro-aborts blame her death on the Hyde Amendment, which banned taxpayer funding for Medicaid abortions. Pro-aborts blame us for not paying for Jiminez's abortion rather than themselves for not extending "charity" to Jiminez. Stop and THINK about that for a minute. They could have helped out with all of their money, and that of their partners over at Planned Parenthood, but they choose, instead to demonize anyone claiming that taxpayers shouldn't fund these kind of decisions, . . . interesting!! Furthermore, pro-aborts admit Jiminez died with a $700 scholarship check in her pocket that she "chose" not to use to procure a so-called "safe" abortion. So, apparently, NOW wants us to believe that they support everyone, whether they have good, sound, well-tested, and approved decision-making powers, or not. What's next?? NOW's support for pedophiles??

NOW's latter two examples would also make the point that legal access to abortion has not stopped bottom-bottom feeding abortionists (legal abortions being the bottom-feeders) from preying on desperate mothers, who suffer from the same societal embarassments that were always present, and will ALWAYS be present, whether abortions were/are legal, . . . or not.

Are you sure you want to go there, NOW?

God Bless,
Dan'L

AMERICA STUCK IN IRAQ?

The clueless media has a new poll out today about Iraq. This one comes to you from USA Today/CNN and our very own, local resident, Mr. Gallup.

The poll says Americans don't believe the U.S. will win the war in Iraq or establish a stable Democracy there.

Unfortunately, this poll demonstrates one thing: the brainwashing propaganda from the Democrats and from the left seems to be working.

What a wonderful comfort this must be to the Islamic terrorists of the world. Surely the word will reach Saddam, . . . and bring about another big grin.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to some, especially those who have publicly said otherwise, in commentary here, or in our local Daily Newsrag, The Daily Nonpareil, but the United States has already won the war in Iraq, and we have already established a stable Democracy there, . . . all in record time and with very low casualties. By any measure of modern warfare, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a resounding success. Yet, for some reason, people are choosing to believe the Bush-bashing doom and gloom scenarios reported on the evening news.

I guess we have the wonderful system of government schools to thank for that lack of critical thinking on the part of the masses. There is one bright spot in the poll, . . . it finds that people don't believe sending troops to Iraq was a mistake. So let me get this straight...the war was a failure, we can't win, . . . but sending the troops wasn't a mistake. Right.

Oh, and to get an idea of just how slanted this poll is against the Bush administration, get a load of this question: "Do you think the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction??" Fifty-one percent said yes. That's too bad. Here's a question they should have asked, (but, of course, DIDN'T): "By the way, did you know weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq??" You won't ever hear that, from our friendly professional career journalists, with any national news provider service, nor their friends (read: "Well-Paid Vendors") who conduct their polling "services."

God Bless,
Dan'L

Kennedy Flip-Flops on Quizzing High Court Nominees

By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com
Senior Staff WriterJuly 28, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts "will be expected to answer fully" any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should "defer any comments" on such matters.

In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators "must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views."

Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.

"Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years," Kennedy said. "In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come."

The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's "commerce clause" and added that "other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights.

"Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown," Kennedy charged. "What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers."

Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

"Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues," Kennedy continued. "I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights."

During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases.

"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court," Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. "This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent." See Video
Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967.

Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned.

Fugitive in Daniel Pearl murder captured in Pakistan

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) — Police and intelligence agents Wednesday arrested a suspected militant who was wanted for a role in the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, officials said.

The man, identified as Hashim Qadeer, was captured from a bus at a terminal in the eastern Pakistan city of Gujranwala, a police and an intelligence official said on condition of anonymity. Both requested anonymity because they are not authorized to make media statements.

Pearl was kidnapped and later beheaded in the southern Pakistan city of Karachi while he was researching a story on Islamic militancy in 2002.

Months later, a court in Karachi convicted four Islamic militants in Pearl's killing, including British-born Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was sentenced to death. The three others were given life imprisonment.

The Karachi-based intelligence official said Qadeer is believed to have arranged a meeting between Sheikh and Pearl at a hotel in Rawalpindi, a city near the capital of Islamabad.

Two other militants wanted in Pearl's case were killed in shootouts with security forces last year. Five others remained at large, and Qadeer was one of them, the police official said.
In 2003, authorities listed Qadeer among the country's 40 most-wanted men.

************************************

But the mainstream media and their partners in the Leftist War against the War on Terror, those I like to call "mainstream Democrats," would have you believe that none of our efforts have led to anything positive; . . . that we've lost the focus on capturing the specific terrorists; . . . that there's never any good news out of the region; . . . and that we should all follow their example, sitting around, wringing our hands and worrying about things like whether one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Someone please show me a terrorist who actually understands and wants freedom, PLEASE! Freedom fighters, . . . my ass!

God Bless,
Dan'L

AMERISAVE ACCOUNTS --

The new, improved plan from the Democrat Party, designed to answer Bush's Social Security Reform!!

JUST ANOTHER VOTE-BUYING PROGRAM FROM THE LEFT

Well, . . . It's about time!! The Democrats have finally come out with their grand and glorious idea on Social Security reform. Instead of further stonewalling of the Bush proposals, and stalling their own allies in the mainstream media, they've finally come out with what they think is a viable response. They call it "Amerisave." Basically here's what you have. If you are in the low or middle income groups -- the Democrat's favorites -- you will get matching funds for every additional dollar, beyond your Social Security taxes, that you invest for your retirement. Where do those matching funds come from?? Why, increased taxes, of course!! Where else!! Increased taxes on high-achieving Americans.

What a plan!! You take money away from people who don't generally vote for you and give it to people who do generally vote for you, and you call it Social Security reform! And how much money? Original estimates are around $75,000,000,000, (yes, that's seventy-five billion bucks), for ten years. That, of course, will turn out to be hugely underestimated. In every election cycle the Democrats will come forward and promise that if you'll just vote for them they will take more money from the evil rich and add it to the retirement accounts of lower and middle-income Americans.

Amerisave is a vote-buying plan. Nothing less. And, . . . I gotta say, after all the demonization of privately owned accounts, . . . this?? They want you to think that this is comparable to "private accounts!!" Oh, that's right, when you die -- it goes right back to the government, (that's the part they mention, ONLY when asked, but keep it under whisper or less, on the volume control).

Oh, . . . . and just what will the government be doing with the surplus Social Security taxes ever year?? The same thing your government has been doing for you every year out of the past 40+.

They will take that money and spend it on yet more vote-buying programs, and in return they will put another IOU into that filing cabinet in West Virginia. This is a policy the Democrats started decades ago, . . . and one they are defending to the death today. Too bad they don't realize that more and more Americans can see right through this political facade they're selling, dressed up like a gimme program. In a nutshell, . . . instead of letting you keep that money that you earned and put it in a private account that you control for your retirement, . . . AND for your families perpetuity, . . . it will be seized and spent.

Business as usual from the left.

God Bless,
Dan'L

HANOI JANE – On the road again!!

Fresh off her recent book tour, the former Mrs. Ted Turner has decided to start a new tour. Keep in mind, she went to a number of media moguls, asking them to help her live down her reputation as “Hanoi Jane,” because she had a new movie and a book coming out, and needed the money; and they fell all over themselves, complying with her requests. Although America has moved decidedly to the right, that effort enjoyed a certain degree of success, because of the similar agenda among her collaborators.

But recently, Jane has made some new adjustments to her political thought processes. She said she was sorry for putting on that VietCong helmet, and posing on that anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi. She played down the idea that she wasn’t sorry for her position against the Vietnam War, or for going to Hanoi, in the first place, . . . even though she admitted that fact to Barbara Walters.

This time, however, she’s decided that she'll be hitting the road in a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. Military operations in Iraq. Rumors have it that she'll be riding in an environmentally-friendly bus that runs on vegetable oil. I hope she finds enough Chinese restaurants along the way to be able to fill up. Maybe she should call it, “The Grease for Peace Tour.” . . . . Or, . . . maybe . . . . “Oil, Oil, -- It’s ALL about Oil!”

Fonda claims she hasn't taken any stand on any war since Vietnam, but now she's "breaking her silence." Ummmm, . . . whatever, . . . (too much work, digging for those quotes, I know I’ve heard, over the past twenty-five years), . . . She's made her anti-War on Terror/Bush-bashing views known in various recent media appearances, (one can’t help but wonder if this is part of that same effort to live down that nickname??) as well as statements to individual journalists at those many book signings. Expect this little “Grease for Peace” bus trip to get plenty of free publicity.

But don't expect something else. Don't expect the media to ask Hanoi Jane what exactly we should do once we comply with her wishes that we pull all the troops out of Iraq and the country falls into chaos. Are we supposed to just let the terrorists take over and use it as a base to kill innocent people, or a point of launch toward every western country??

That's something you never get from the anti-war crowd, or their Hanoi Janes of this world, . . . an actual solution to the problems they spew about.

God Bless,
Dan'L

WHY ALL THE FUSS OVER THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY??

Democrats and various leftists are frantically searching for a reason to oppose the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the areas of concern (for those on the left) seems to be whether or not Judge Roberts was ever a member of The Federalist Society.

John Roberts belongs to a group called The Federalist Society.

No he doesn't.

Wait, yes he does.

Well, maybe not. Hmmmmmm??

At least he's listed in the 1997-98 directory, but he says he has no memory of joining up. A statement from the president of the Federalist Society says: "The Federalist Society has a longstanding practice of not disclosing our dues-paying membership rolls out of respect for the privacy of our members." Who knows??

Okay, . . . what if he was?? . . . or worse, yet, . . . What if he IS?? Why all the controversy about The Federalist Society?? What is it about this group that has John Roberts distancing himself from it?? Democrats and the media are acting like he might be a member of the Communist Party. (Actually, they would probably approve of that membership)

Maybe we'll get a clue if we go to The Federalist Society's website. There we'll find frequently asked questions about The Federalist Society , . . . and in the very first question we find out answer.

Q: What is the Federalist Society??

A: It is an organization of 35,000 lawyers, law students,
scholars, and other individuals who believe and trust that
individual citizens can make the best choices for
themselves and society. It was founded in 1982
by a group of law students interested in making sure
that the principles of limited government embodied
in our Constitution receive a fair hearing.

Well, . . . there you go. The dreaded "I-word" appears twice in that one answer! "Individual!!"

Remember, . . . we are supposed to be at war against individualism in this country . . . . Our old friend from Massachussetts, Edward (Teddy) Kennedy told us so! So if we have a Supreme Court nominee who is a member of an organization that not only supports the idea of individualism, but that believes that individual citizens can make better choices for themselves then can government . . . . why, that's just about as close to blasphemy as you can get, . . . for a liberal!! People just have to understand that government is there to relieve them of the oppressive responsibilities that go with actually go with being a practicing individual!! Everybody knows that individuals should not try to make important decisions and chooses for themselves . . . . this crucial task should be left to government!!

But wait! There's more!

Let's look at the second FAQ on The Federalist Society's website.

Q: How does the Federalist Society carry out its mission?

A: The Society's main purpose is to sponsor fair, serious, and
open debate about the need to enhance individual freedom
and the role of the courts in saying what the law is rather
than what they wish it to be. We believe debate is the best
way to ensure that legal principles that have not been the
subject of sufficient attention for the past several decades
receive a fair hearing.

Now we're really seeing the problem that liberals might have with a membership in The Federalist Society, aren't we? What's this nonsense about enhancing individual freedom? There's that dreaded "I" word again! And how could any liberal worth his salt ever support the idea that the role of the courts should be in telling us what the law IS??

Why doesn't the rest of America understand that the courts --- especially our Supreme Court --- are supposed to make law, not interpret it??

Why, if the Supreme Court can't make law, how are liberals going to ever get any legislation passed??

We'll see how far this goes. Right now the extreme left thinks that there is a chance of demonizing Judge Roberts by tying him to The Federalist Society. Soon we'll see dark hints about The Federalist Society being labeled an "extremist" organization. To a liberal, the very idea of individualism and limited government is extreme.

Now look, folks, if a little o' retired cop, like myself, can go out there on the internet, and do a bit of research and learn these things about The Federalist Society, so can the up and coming journalists in the media, if they really want to portray themselves as journalists. We'll see if the contemporary journalistic profession will step up, and tell us just what the left is worried about, or whether they'll be sitting off in the corner, wringing their hands, too.

Reference: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/july/0726_roberts_nomination1.shtml

God Bless,
Dan'L

Durbin: Pro-Life Stance Would 'Disqualify' Roberts

The Senate's No. 2 Democrat said Sunday that if Judge John G. Roberts doesn't recognize that the Constitution's right to privacy covers the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, it would "disqualify" him from serving on the Supreme Court.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if President Bush had "the same right" to appoint pro-life justices that President Clinton had to appoint pro-choice justices, Durbin at first insisted, "I'm not looking for a litmus test."

"As important as reproductive rights and women's rights are, I just basically want to know that if the next case involving privacy and personal freedom came up, what he believes," the Illinois Democrat claimed.

Asked, however, what he would do if Roberts "said he did not see a right to privacy in the Constitution," Durbin told MTP host Tim Russert: "I wouldn't vote for him. That would disqualify him in my mind."

Asked whether he intended to question Roberts directly about his position on Roe vs. Wade, Durbin said: "I'm going to get very specific. But I've had an experience with him before. He didn't get very specific in his answers when he was up for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals."

The next logical question that SHOULD have been asked of the good Senator, was, "What IS that, if not a litmus test, Senator Durban?" But the nice Mr. Russert let him off the hook, AGAIN!

God Bless,
Dan'L

Politics and Justice for All

By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 24, 2005

There were some bumps along the way, but for the first 120 years or so, it was a pretty smooth ride. From George Washington in the late 1700s, right through William Taft in the early 1900s, presidents generally stuck to the golden rule that restraint should be exercised when picking a Supreme Court nominee.

Then came Woodrow Wilson, who in 1916 picked Louis D. Brandeis, a Jewish lawyer from Boston and a member of the more progressive wing of the president's Democratic Party, to be the 60th justice in the court's history.

Well-known as a liberal reformer and Zionist, Brandeis was immediately denounced as a "radical" by conservatives, and his nomination sparked a four-month political feud. Though he was finally confirmed to the court, the battle over his nomination demonstrated just how divisive the confirmation process could become.

Struggles over nominations to the Supreme Court have only increased in intensity in the decades since -- perhaps peaking in the late 1980s and early '90s with the public spectacles that surrounded the Senate's rejection of Robert Bork and the confirmation of Clarence Thomas.

After President Bush's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the court last week, legal scholars say the confirmation process has become so politicized that both parties see Supreme Court nominations as an opportunity to better position themselves with voters in future elections.

Mark Moller, the Cato Institute's senior constitutional studies fellow and editor of the Cato Supreme Court Review, said that "if the Democrats cave to Roberts, they'll seem ineffectual to their base, so it's an incentive to them to politicize the debate, whatever Roberts' credentials are."

"There's no doubt that the process has gotten more politicized," Mr. Moller said. "It's gotten progressively worse with each president."

While the power to appoint justices lies solely in the hands of the president, Congress has power to set the limit of how many justices there will be, and each justice must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate.

Before the Brandeis nomination made headlines in 1916, there were several heated fights over nominees, six of whom had been rejected by the Senate during the first century of the Supreme Court. But the early battles stemmed chiefly from the politics of senators and presidents, rather than the nominees themselves.

During the tenure of President Grant after the Civil War, Attorney General Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar was rejected. Grant later withdrew the nomination of Caleb Cushing after Republicans accused the nominee of having corresponded with Confederate President Jefferson Davis during the war.

But it was with the Brandeis confirmation that the first major "turning point" arrived in the way the confirmation process was conducted, according to legal scholars and historians, who say it marked the first time a nominee's personal ideology had caused such intense political upheaval in Washington and around the country.

The result, according to an account by historian Melvin I. Urofsky, was that "every facet of the nominee's life and career were examined in minute detail."

"Despite the injection of some religious and social prejudices into the debate, the major issue at all times was whether or not an alleged 'radical' should be admitted into the sacrosanct -- and conservative -- citadel of the law," Mr. Urofsky wrote.

The Senate confirmed Brandeis by a 47-22 vote, but the stage was set for many battles to come, battles that became even more personal.

A trend emerges
Overall, the Senate has rejected 12 Supreme Court nominees and confirmed 113. In the early days, senators were content to simply weigh a nominee's qualifications on paper before voting him up or down.

But by the 1920s, the Senate began to require nominees to appear in person to answer questions. And in the years that followed, the process became increasingly politicized. In 1930, President Hoover nominated John J. Parker. The Senate rejected him after the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People raised concerns over remarks he had made about blacks while running for governor of North Carolina in 1920.

In 1967, President Johnson named Thurgood Marshall as the first black nominee. The president was quickly lambasted by critics who saw it as an attempt to win over blacks at a time when race riots were breaking out nationwide.

Several senators gave Mr. Marshall a lengthy grilling over his knowledge of the Constitution, but he was eventually confirmed on a 69-11 vote. A year later, Mr. Johnson nominated Justice Abe Fortas to replace outgoing Chief Justice Earl Warren, and chose Homer Thornberry to replace Justice Fortas as associate justice.

But the Fortas and Thornberry nominations were withdrawn when senators -- angry that both men were longtime personal friends of the president -- filibustered them. Just as it may have appeared that a trend was emerging in which Senate Republicans were unnecessarily blocking nominations by Democratic presidents, Richard M. Nixon came to office and the opposite began to occur.

Senate Democrats crushed President Nixon's nominations of Clement Haynesworth of South Carolina and G. Harold Carswell of Florida in 1969. Both men were rejected by close votes after facing aggressive public opposition by civil rights groups. Some Southern senators charged that the men were victims of regional bias, and that the rejections meant that no Southerner could be appointed to the court.

The confirmation battles of the mid-20th century bore some similarity to earlier struggles, but in the late 1980s, the process took a new turn.

The birth of 'Borking'
In 1986, President Reagan chose Judge Robert Bork as his nominee for the high court. Historians and Supreme Court observers on both sides of the aisle generally agree that the partisan politics that defined the Bork nomination left a legacy that has shaped every confirmation hearing since.

"There's no question that the fight over the Bork nomination was a watershed in the modern history of Supreme Court nominees," said Deborah Pearlstein, a Stanford University law professor and speechwriter for President Clinton.

"Opponents of the nominee mobilized more aggressively, more successfully, and in a more organized way than had been done for many years before Bork," she said, adding that the opposition that grew during the Bork hearings reshaped the way nominees answer questions posed by senators.

Almost immediately after the nomination of Judge Bork, who at the time sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, civil rights and feminist groups began publicizing complaints about his conservative record. Critics argued, among other things, that Judge Bork's views would endanger legalized abortion, which had been declared a constitutional right in the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Senate Democrats quickly mobilized to oppose the nomination. Within an hour of Mr. Reagan's naming Judge Bork, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, appeared on the Senate floor to rail against the nominee.

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution," Mr. Kennedy claimed. But, according to Mr. Moller, Judge Bork worsened his own prospects once the confirmation hearings began when he revealed his view that being on the high court "would be an intellectual feast."

Rather than take the advice of Reagan administration aides shepherding him through the process, he "proceeded to be very open about what his views were," Mr. Moller said.

'Political circus'
Some legal scholars contend, however, that it wasn't Judge Bork's fault that, for the first time in 70 years, the confirmation process had devolved into a public spectacle.

"Not really until the Bork nomination did confirmations to the court become a political circus," said Stephen Presser, a legal historian at Northwestern University.

"The signal from the Bork nomination was, 'Come on, let's make up irrelevancies and let's fry people for things that shouldn't really matter to the process at all,' " Mr. Presser said.

The Senate rejected Judge Bork by a 58-42 vote. But the aftermath continued to be messy when Mr. Reagan's next choice, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, withdrew his nomination after admitting he tried marijuana in college. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was eventually confirmed into the spot.

"Bork really was in the mainstream, but was made out to be a radical character that he was not," Mr. Presser said. "I don't think it gets any lower except maybe the Clarence Thomas hearing, but that's something different because you're mixing race and sex and God knows what all."

During the Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991, the nominee found himself accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, a former assistant from the days when he had headed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Television and newspapers had a field day with the accusations. The nominee likened the treatment from Democratic senators to a "high-tech lynching" and being "caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree." He was confirmed on a 52-48 vote.

The difficulty faced by Justice Thomas -- compared to the relative ease with which subsequent nominees Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were confirmed during the Clinton years -- shows how unpredictable the confirmation process has become since the Bork nomination, legal scholars say.

Ms. Pearlstein said the legacy of the Bork hearings is a contemporary confirmation process where nominees are increasingly eager to avoid answering personal or ideologically difficult questions.

"It's really since Bork that nominees have religiously declined to answer direct questions from senators on the substance of their constitutional views," she said. "Avoiding most direct questions is of dubious value, given the nature of our constitutional democracy, but it's a strategy that has worked for all of the post-Bork nominees, from Souter to Thomas to Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

The most famous use of the "decline to answer" technique, according to Ms. Pearlstein, came on an abortion question during the Thomas confirmation hearing in 1991, when he told senators he simply had never given any thought to whether Roe v. Wade was rightly decided.

• Researcher Amy Baskerville contributed to this report.

"A University of Colorado professor..."

How about this? How about this story on the heels of Senator Kennedy's speech yesterday at Johns Hopkins? The American left is just something! "A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims. Students and faculty members at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., have been protesting a speaking appearance on Feb. 3 by Ward L. Churchill, chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department.

They are upset over an essay Churchill wrote titled, 'Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.' The essay takes its title from a remark that black activist Malcolm X made in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Malcolm X created controversy when he said Kennedy's murder was a case of 'chickens coming home to roost.'

Churchill's essay argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War." So here you have a Colorado University professor, the chairman of the ethnic studies department, asserting something that nobody in the US government has, and that is that Iraq was behind 9/11. Not bin Laden, not Al-Qaeda, not Mullah Omar, not the Taliban.

It was Iraq, because of the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 US bombing -- and do you know how many children this man says we killed? Five hundred thousand. He says we killed 500,000 Iraqi children in a bombing raid, plus the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN following the Persian Gulf War.

The essay, written by Ward Churchill, contends the hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were "combat teams," not terrorists. His essay says, "'The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.'

The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were 'military targets.' 'As for those in the World Trade Center,' the essay said, 'well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break.'

The essay goes on to describe the victims as 'little Eichmanns,' referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II. Churchill said he was not especially surprised at the controversy at Hamilton, but he also defended the opinions contained in his essay. 'When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind,' Churchill said. 'If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either.' The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were 'a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States.

Wake up.' A longtime activist with the American Indian Movement, Churchill was one of eight defendants acquitted recently in Denver County Court on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade. His pending speech at Hamilton has drawn criticism from professors and students, including Matt Coppo, a sophomore whose father died in the World Trade Center attacks. 'His views are completely hurtful to the families of 3,000 people,' Coppo said. A spokesman for Hamilton College released a statement noting that Hamilton is committed to 'the free exchange of ideas. We expect that many of those who strongly disagree with Mr. Churchill's comments will attend his talk and make their views known.'"

Now, Jeanne Kirkpatrick has been suspended from making speeches. Thomas Sowell has been shouted down on stage at liberal universities. You know the drill. No conservatives are ever invited to give a commencement speech anywhere -- and here this guy, who claims we've killed 500,000 Iraqi children, that Iraq sought revenge by blowing up the World Trade Center, that the victims of the World Trade Center bombing are just a bunch of little Eichmanns and, "What do we expect?

We brought this on ourselves," this is the American left today. This man -- you may think this is kooky and it is -- but I'm going to tell you, something, folks. If you go to a bunch of Democratic websites, these little -- you know, they've got their own new media out there and the Democratic Party had better figure this out real fast. These Moveon.orgs and Americans Coming Together and all these other little web sites, these people think they're running the Democratic Party now. If you go to those websites, you'll find sentiment not that far removed from what you just heard me quote from Ward Churchill, who is the chairman of the ethnic studies department at University of Colorado.

This is not a minor institution, not a minor department, and he's the chairman of it, and he's running around making these statements. Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should squelch things. I want these people to keep talking. I want these people to keep saying what they really believe. I want the spokespeople of the left to keep identifying their own beliefs. It may be hurtful, and it may be outrageous and it may be a pack of lies, folks, but it's about time people found out who the American left in this country is.

It's about time we found out what is being taught on college campuses. It's about time. You may disagree, you may think this is over the top, over the line, that this guy's insane and he's a wacko, and he shouldn't be given a voice, that they ought to cancel his speech and so forth. It's only going to make him a martyr. It's only what he wants. Let him speak. Let him be heard. Let the American left continue to properly identify itself and themselves to all in America who can hear it.

LAPD Recruits Computer to Stop Rogue Cops

By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ
The Associated Press
Sunday, July 24, 2005; 1:33 AM

LOS ANGELES -- Dogged by scandal, the Los Angeles Police Department is looking beyond human judgment to technology to identify bad cops. This month, the agency began using a $35 million computer system that tracks complaints and other telling data about officers -- then alerts top supervisors to possible signs of misconduct.

The system is central to a federal oversight program ordered by the U.S. Justice Department after a wave of abuse allegations in the 1990s cast doubt on the LAPD's ability -- and willingness -- to police itself.

"There definitely needs to be computerized management" of officers, said Andre Birotte, the LAPD's inspector general. "There have been concerns with all the scandals that have gone on within the department."

Community leaders hope the tracking system can help restore public confidence shaken by high-profile shootings and scandals involving the LAPD.

"I don't think any single thing will solve problems with the Police Department. But this could go a long way toward doing it," said the Rev. Cecil "Chip" Murray, an activist and former pastor of First African Methodist Episcopal Church, an influential congregation in South Los Angeles.

The system, developed by Sierra Systems Group Inc. and Bearing Point Inc., mines databases of complaints, pursuits, lawsuits, uses of force and other records to detect patterns that human eyes might miss or choose to ignore.

In the past, much of that data existed only on paper spread across various bureaus. That made it difficult to compile detailed performance profiles of officers and spot potential abusers.

Now, anyone whose conduct differs sharply from their peers' automatically gets flagged. That could mean a vice detective who fires significantly more shots than other investigators or anti-gang cops with a high number of excessive force complaints.

Safeguards have been built in to catch abuse that might be widespread within certain peer groups.

If the system pinpoints unusual conduct, it triggers an electronic message to direct supervisors, who must take a second look. The notices also travel up the command chain to a deputy chief as an extra level of oversight. Managers can access the system anywhere in the department through an internal Web site.

Depending on their conduct, some officers could be ordered to undergo more training or counseling. Follow-up investigations could lead to firing or criminal charges.

Other troubled police departments, including New Orleans and Miami-Dade County, have turned to such tracking systems. New Orleans recorded a drop in citizen complaints, and Miami-Dade saw a decrease in use of force reports in the first years after systems were implemented, according to a 2001 study by the Justice Department.

The technology could face its toughest test at the LAPD _ the second-largest police department in the nation with nearly 13,100 officers, jailers, dispatchers and other personnel.

Portrayed on TV as dutiful and honest in the "Dragnet" and "Adam-12" eras, the department has long struggled with allegations of brutality, even before the 1991 videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King.

Tension flared again this month when police shot and killed a 19-month-old girl and her father as he clutched the girl and fired dozens of rounds at officers. Police are investigating the standoff, which left relatives and activists outraged that officers didn't show more patience during the incident.

Some rank-and-file officers fear the tracking system could mistakenly tag hardworking personnel and hurt their careers.

"How many times do you have to get triggered before they slow you down, transfer you, and you get a bad reputation?" said Gary Ingemunson, independent counsel for the union that represents LAPD officers. "The subtle message is: stay in the middle of the pack. Don't stand out."

Union lawyers also argue that bad cops could game the system by curbing their activities just enough to avoid being detected, while good cops might hesitate in life-and-death situations due to concerns about getting flagged.

"A lot of hesitation could get somebody killed," Ingemunson said.

Police Chief William Bratton questions whether anything can end abuse and corruption by officers.

"Nothing will eliminate it," Bratton said earlier this year as the city announced that payouts from a corruption scandal at the Rampart Division would cost taxpayers nearly $70 million.
Claims that officers working in the rough division beat and framed innocent people resulted in scores of criminal convictions being reversed.

"As long as you have police officers, you always have the potential for corruption," Bratton said. "As long as you have human beings, there is potential for crime."

Others wonder whether computer algorithms can analyze something as complex as police behavior. They say no amount of number-crunching can account for stress, personal problems and psychological quirks.

"There are people who look wonderful ... and then do something out of the blue that's totally inappropriate," said Dr. Susan Saxe-Clifford, a psychologist who has worked with Los Angeles police. "We're working with people, not machines."

Los Angeles police have little choice about using the system, first recommended in 1991 by a special commission formed after the King beating that found major lapses in the agency's efforts to roust problem officers.

Critics lobbied for the system over the years but met resistance from the department and City Hall. Federal funds set aside for the program went unspent.

Meanwhile, accusations of abuse persisted. Last year, the department fielded nearly 6,500 complaints ranging from excessive force to racial profiling. About 14 percent have been sustained, with 1,400 still under investigation.

By comparison, there were 5,212 complaints in 1999, with 36 percent upheld after nearly all the investigations were completed.

The LAPD said it has made progress in countering abuse. Under the 2001 federal consent decree, it beefed up its internal investigations and established an ethics enforcement section that runs sting operations on suspected corrupt officers.

Department brass have tried to ease fears of the computer system, saying most of the cops spotlighted won't face consequences. Many could even receive commendations if the system shows them doing exemplary work.

What's more, the computer doesn't make a final decision but only gives a statistical overview for superiors to inspect, said Deputy Chief David Doan, who heads the bureau installing the system.
"A human being will analyze that and will be making that judgment," he said.

*****************************
My Take on This Subject:

If only the administrators of the department where I retired sixteen years ago, would have had the insight, or the ability, to make these kinds of decisions, things would be a tremendous stride ahead of the current state-of-affairs in local law enforcement. Too bad these things must follow the usual bureacratic route to success, . . . slow and painfully full of errors in administrative judgment.

God Bless,
Dan'L