'Hotel Souter' man visits Weare, leaves presents for Souter

August 20 2005

WEARE, N.H. -- Logan Darrow Clements flew across the country to visit Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown.

But the California man who wants to seize Souter's land through eminent domain to build a hotel didn't knock on the judge's front door when he stopped by Saturday afternoon.

"I don't want to go on his property," said Clements, who is behind the scheme to punish Souter for being one of five justices behind a ruling that supports government power to seize private property for other private development. The June decision allowed the city of New London, Conn., to take several older homes so a private developer could build a hotel and convention center, office space and condominiums.

"I just don't care to, but if he'd like to come out, I'd like to talk to him," said Clements.

Souter, who neighbors said was home, didn't come to the door.

Instead, Clements left gifts for Souter - he draped a T-shirt across the justice's mailbox and propped a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" behind it. The book, which promotes a philosophy of free will capitalism, is Clements' inspiration.

"I think it needs a coat of paint," he said of Souter's peeling house.

Clements also was in town for a private strategy session with three local supporters, and to promote his plan to townspeople at Weare's old Town Hall on Saturday. He and his girlfriend, Heidi Xu, had hoped to recoup travel costs by selling $25 "Lost Liberty Hotel" T-shirts.

But only about half-a-dozen people showed up.

"I just came to listen," said Heleen Kurk, a member of Weare's board of selectmen. The selectmen, like most townspeople, have already said they don't support seizing anybody's land."I feel it's an extremely poor way to go about solving the problem, if that's what they're trying to do," she said.

"I wanted to hear what I think is political theater," said her husband, state Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare.

Kurk said he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision and would like to see the New Hampshire Constitution amended to limit eminent domain to public uses, like roads. But he said Souter shouldn't be punished for doing his job.

"He wasn't a bad judge going off on a lark of his own. He was consistently interpreting the Constitution," Kurk said of Souter. "He's the wrong guy to take it out on.

"Clements supporter Keith Lacasse said it came down to a simple matter of geography.

"I live in Weare; he lives in Weare. He's the only one that I could really take it out on," he said.

It's doubtful that the plan, which must be approved at Town Meeting and by the local zoning and planning boards, will ever be realized. There also is state law to contend with, and inevitable lawsuits from challengers. Lacasse said he'd be happy if the state blocks the plan, because it will prove New Hampshire's laws are strong.

Forty-five years ago, the federal government seized East Weare village for a flood control project, but the local government does not even have a history of using eminent domain for public use, Rep. Kurk said.

"It's ridiculous. If you're going to put a hotel in Weare, you'd find a much nicer site," he said. "It's in the middle of nowhere, and that's not a pun.

"Souter's old brown farmhouse sits off a short dirt road in a remote section of town. On Saturday, neighbors Jimmy and Susan Gilman called the police after spotting unfamiliar cars parked by Souter's house.

"We just talked to him and asked him if he wanted us to make the call. He said, 'Yes please,"' said Jimmy Gilman, whose family has lived in the same spot for five generations.

Gilman has no love for Clements, or his plan.

"If that happens down here, I'll be disgusted," he said.

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

I'm considering a donation to this guy, so that he can withstand the expense of this battle against judges who are, so obviously, activist jurists, moving our Constitution into the realm of complete socialistic venture. . . . . Eminent Domain ---- My Ass!

God Bless,
Dan'L

John Roberts' papers have to be guarded!

A coalition of women's rights, civil rights, environmental and legal groups concerned about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court on Friday pressed for the release of documents on his work on 16 important cases heard by the high court in the early 1990s.

Their call came a day after more than 38,000 pages of documents from Roberts' work as a lawyer in the Reagan White House in the early and mid-1980s were released. Some of those memos showed that Roberts helped to formulate positions critical of state and national initiatives aimed at ending sex discrimination. Boxes containing pages of presidential records from the files of nominee John Roberts are delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee from the National Archives and Records Administration on Capitol Hill August 18, 2005.

We're still more than 2 weeks away from the start of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation hearings on September 6, and already the media is trumpeting an almost-daily headline about his writings.

Are they talking about the decisions he has made as a judge?? Nope.

Or arguments he has made while in front of the Supreme Court?? Nope.

They're going all the way back to when he was a White House lawyer in the Reagan administration. We're talking more than 20 years ago.

The headlines all scream that "Roberts criticized efforts to fight gender discrimination" and "Roberts opposed abortion" and on and on.

By the time the media gets done with him, we'll have headlines calling John Roberts the Anti-Christ who goes around beating up little old ladies. If all they have on him is what he wrote as a kid two decades ago, he'll sail right through confirmation.

How many of us still believe the same things we did twenty years ago?? I doubt that many of us do, . . . nor could we hold someone responsible for same, . . . if we were intellectually honest, that is!

Let's not get too hopeful about too many Democrats suddenly becoming intellectually honest, okay??

God Bless,
Dan'L

When will this guy learn??? . . .

Alleged "Republican" (AKA "RINO," or Republican In Name Only) Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is wringing his hands again.

Never really a supporter of George Bush or the war in Iraq, Hagel has been preaching doom and gloom at every turn and to anyone who will listen.

As a matter of fact, he sounds just like a Democrat.

Let's take a look at his latest proclamations, shall we??

The good senator says the United States is getting bogged down in Iraq, and the more time that passes, the more the conflict starts to resemble the Vietnam war.

Chuck also tells us that the whole effort is doomed to failure, complaining: "The longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop, meaning essentially that we are getting more and more bogged down, taking more and more casualties, more and more heated dissension and debate in the United States."

Really?? . . . . does he mean that everybody has to be on-board with the war for it to be successful?

There are always people protesting any war. But we'll play along for a minute here and do the comparison with Vietnam.

Here's a brief overview of what we know about the war in Iraq so far:

--The war has been going on for 2 1/2 years.
--The government was overthrown, Saddam Hussein is sitting in prison.
--Control was handed over to the new Iraqi government early, elections were held and a new Constitution is being drawn up.
--We won.
--In 2 1/2 years, there have been just under 2,000 casualties...1,861.
--The war is being fought with an all-volunteer force.

Now, for the sake of comparison, and for the benefit of people like Chuck Hagel whose memory is a bit rusty, here are some Vietnam War facts:

--The conflict lasted, depending on how you look at it, 10-20 years.
--The ultimate result was the fall of South Vietnam to the communists.
--We lost.
--There were some 58,000 casualties.
--The war was fought with the presence of a draft.

Yeah, . . . Iraq is just like Vietnam, . . . not.

It's interesting how the pro-appeaser defeatists want to throw in the towel just because some Islamic terrorists don't like democracy and the rule of law.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Constituent 'Violated' by Durbin Change on Abortion

By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 18, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- Sen. Richard Durbin will vote against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts in the Senate Judiciary Committee if Roberts disagrees with the Illinois Democrat's view that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to abortion. But that vote would directly contradict Durbin's beliefs as expressed in a 1989 letter to a constituent.

The recipient of that letter, Frank Tureskis, says he feels "violated" by Durbin's abandonment of the right-to-life position. He lived in Springfield, Ill., when Durbin was running for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1981.

"I kind of feel violated because I worked for the sucker, and then he turns around and ... ," Tureskis told Cybercast News Service, his voice trailing off. "I would not have backed him at all -- if he had not been pro-life -- with the effort and money I contributed."

Durbin recently discussed his views on the "right to privacy" -- a phrase liberals use to refer to judicial sanction of abortion on demand -- and the Roberts nomination during the July 24 edition of NBC's "Meet the Press."

DURBIN: "And as I said, 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 do you believe?'"

RUSSERT: "If he (Roberts) said he did not see a right of privacy in the Constitution, would that ... ?"

DURBIN: "I couldn't vote for him."

RUSSERT: "That would disqualify him?"

DURBIN: "It would disqualify him in my mind."

Tureskis described himself as "not a single-issue voter" but said pro-life issues are "very important" to him. He saved an Aug. 14, 1989, letter he received from then-Rep. Durbin in response to comments he sent Durbin about a recent court decision on abortion. Durbin's reply may surprise those only familiar with his pro-abortion Senate career.

"I believe we should end abortion on demand, and at every opportunity, I have translated this belief into votes in the House of Representatives. I am opposed to the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions and will continue to support amendments to prohibit the funding of elective abortions for federal employees and Medicaid recipients," Durbin wrote, concluding: "I continue to believe the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade should be reversed." View letter in PDF format.

Tureskis also recalled Durbin speaking at the Little Flower Catholic Church in Springfield when he was running for office.

"He definitely said he was pro-life," Tureskis remembered. "He convinced us to the point that he was the speaker at our annual right-to-life rally."

Durbin acknowledged his contradictory position on the issue to Russert.

"I came to Congress not having seen what I think is the important part of this debate and not understanding, if you will, really what was behind it," Durbin claimed.

"And I finally came to the conclusion that we really have to try to honor the Roe vs. Wade thinking, that there are certain times in the life of a woman that she needs to make that decision with her doctor, with her family and with her conscience and that the government shouldn't be intruding," added Durbin.

The Illinois Democrat complained that pro-life advocates in Washington would not accept legalized abortion even in circumstances when Durbin believed it was justified.

"It's true that my position changed," Durbin admitted.

Tureskis recalled his efforts to help Durbin get elected to Congress with sadness.

"I worked my butt off to get him elected as a representative because I'm pro-life myself, and this is what he did to us," Tureskis told Cybercast News Service. "The way I see it, he just turned on us."

Camp Casey Media Circus Proves Bias

So, Cindy Sheehan wanted to take her 15 minutes of fame for everything it's worth. That's fine. The trouble is that the louder you become, the more people start paying attention to you, . . . and the more they start looking in to other things you've said.

Now we're starting to learn a bit more about Jihad Cindy.

Wait a minute. "Jihad Cindy?"

Sorry, but yes.

This woman has become one of the best friends the Islamic Jihadists have out there.

Anyway, . . . we now know a bit more about Cindy's past utterances. She was speaking at an anti-war rally at San Francisco State University earlier this year. At that rally she said that George W. Bush was "the biggest terrorist in the world." She also said that Bush was "waging a nuclear war in Iraq," and that Iraq "is contaminated, and will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

Then came the potty mouth. Try this from Cindy Sheehan:

"They're a bunch of f—ing hypocrites, and we need to, we
just need to rise
up."

Want more from Cindy? Well the Drudge Report has more, . . . here you go:

"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bulls__t, that
this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading
freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills
makes Iraq more free?" "The whole world is
damaged.

Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it's so important
for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy,
then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls.
They need to go to this war." "We want our country back and,
if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down
to the person who picks up dog s__t in Washington, we will
impeach all those people."

It is becoming increasingly clear that Cindy Sheehan is deranged. The fact that she lost her son in Iraq may have been a contributing factor, but it does not mitigate the fact that she is a certified lunatic. She has now become a tool of not just one, but several movements. Among them the "I hate Bush because of 2000" crowd, both anti-war crowds, that connected with tired old socialists and communists, and that associated with people who lack the understanding that it is sometimes necessary to fight to preserve freedom and your way of life; the America haters who want to see this country weakened; and those who openly support the goals of the Islamic jihadists.

I wonder if NBC will cover the previous utterances of this whack-job. Probably not. As screwed up as she is, she fits the template. Cindy Sheehan is a story that can be hammered to embarrass and harass Bush. That makes it eminently newsworthy.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Here's another story you WON'T get from the mainstream media outlets:

Peanut Farmer's Grandson Sentenced

FAYETTEVILLE, Georgia -- A teenage grandson of former President Jimmy Carter was sentenced Friday to 30 days of house arrest and 36 months probation as part of a plea agreement involving the theft of a videogame console.

Jeremy Carter, 18, of Peachtree City, Georgia, was arrested last December after being caught inside the home of a former friend. Police said they found less than an ounce of marijuana in his shoe and smelled alcohol on his breath.

The victim did not want Carter to go to jail, which District Attorney Scott Ballard said "considerably" affected the outcome of the case.

Carter's burglary charge was reduced and he pleaded guilty to theft by taking, a misdemeanor.
"If you are convicted of burglary here, you go to prison for three years," Ballard said.

Carter is the son of Annette and Jeff Carter, Jimmy Carter's youngest son.

Ballard said Carter will also perform 100 hours of community service and undergo drug counseling.

Isn't THAT interesting?? You have to ask yourself why you didn't know about his arrest last December. And, if anyone thinks that were the topic of this story twin girls named Bush, from Crawford, TX, it wouldn't be Page One, in every print media, and lead every news broadcast in the country, you're blinded by partisanism.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Did you know that there is good news coming out of Iraq?

Naturally, since it benefits the Bush administration, the mainstream media is burying it.

But, here's a reporter with some sense of good journalism:

Good news out of Iraq must not go unnoticed

August 15, 2005

BY DEROY MURDOCK

Amid roadside bombs, constitutional squabbles and even a blinding sandstorm last week, one wonders if anything is going right in Iraq. Plenty is, actually.

The journalists' maxim, ''If it bleeds, it leads,'' prevails. Major news outlets correctly focus on the depressing consequences of the Improvised Explosive Devices and car bombs responsible for 70 percent of U.S. military fatalities in Iraq last month. Terrorist assassinations of civil servants and police officers obviously deserve coverage. But it honors neither America's soldiers nor Iraq's selfless patriots to overlook the achievements they share in this new republic.
The growth of locals in uniform is a positive military development.

According to the Brookings Institution's indispensable Iraq Index, brookings.edu/iraqindex, the number of on-duty Iraqi security personnel has risen from 125,373 in January to 175,700 today. They fight beside coalition forces against terrorists and Baathist holdouts. One joint raid nabbed 22 alleged insurgents in Yusufiyah on July 25, while another 10 suspected terrorists were caught in Ramadi on Aug. 3. In both cases, the Pentagon reports, citizens offered intelligence that helped Iraqis and their coalition partners nail these killers.

Civic-affairs work by uniformed personnel may have persuaded average Iraqis to furnish useful information. On Aug. 5, GIs and medics from the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Division, plus Iraqi police, performed health screenings on 200 Mosul children. They also gave these kids soccer balls.

During five such missions since mid-July, some 1,000 kids in Mosul received basic medical attention.

Infrastructure improvements also are encouraging. A new Kirkuk treatment plant began providing clean water to 5,000 people on June 27, the State Department says. Another 84 U.S.-led waterworks projects are under way in Iraq, while 114 have been completed.

Some 18,000 pupils will study in rehabilitated classrooms when they go back to school in mid-September. According to U.S. and Iraqi officials, 43 more schools were slated for renovation Aug. 6. So far, 3,211 schools have been refurbished, and another 773 are being repaired.

Iraq's monthly oil exports have grown from $200 million in June 2003 to $2.5 billion last month. This is due both to higher prices and to the fact that fuel supplies have swelled from 23 percent to 97 percent of official production goals in that period. These key improvements also help explain why Iraq's gross domestic product increased from a World Bank estimate of $12.1 billion in 2003 to a projected $21.1 billion in 2004.

Iraqis who endured Baathist censorship now enjoy a vibrant, free press.

Commercial TV channels, radio stations and independent newspapers and magazines have zoomed from zero before Operation Iraqi Freedom to -- respectively -- 29, 80 and 170 today.

Internet subscribers have boomed from 4,500 before Iraq's liberation to 147,076 last March, not counting the additional Iraqis who use Internet cafes. When Saddam Hussein fell, Iraq had 833,000 telephone subscribers. In July that figure had soared 356.4 percent to 3,801,822.

In the political arena, women hold seven of Baghdad's top 40 ministerial positions. While Iraq is more than 17.5 percent female, this is impressive political involvement for women in the world's most sexist region. Among others, women run Iraq's ministries of communications, environment, public works and human rights.

America's National Democratic Institute (a global outreach organization) last month trained 208 members of 70 political parties and 10 NGOs from across Iraq. They studied U.S.-style campaign skills including knocking on doors, canvassing petitions and organizing rallies. In another workshop, activists learned how to promote their parties' agendas on TV during two-minute and even 30-second sound bites.

The White House communications team -- hobbled by institutional bashfulness and a nearly terminal incapacity for self-expression -- must educate Americans and our allies more effectively on what works in Iraq.

While journalists should not whitewash Iraq's mayhem, they should cover the accomplishments of U.S. personnel, soldiers from the 27 other nations with boots on the sand, and the Iraqis who are rebuilding their country -- never mind the evildoers' blasts and billowing smoke.

Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Fairfax, Va

"It's gotten to the point now where it is common to go on Democrat websites and read about the pleasure it would bring if the president were assassinated. It is now common to read letters to the editors in newspapers which say it would be fun if [Osama] bin Laden actually came over here and slit Bush's throat, which is what a supporter of Sheehan wrote to a letter of the editor in one of the newspapers in this country. ... Do you have any idea how you people are perceived? Do you have the slightest idea how the decent people who make this country work perceive you? It is not with any respect. It is with contempt and it's with sorrow. But it's also with this realization: This country, if it is to survive, cannot be turned over to you people to lead and to run, because we will cease to exist as the United States the day that happens, and mark my word. It ain't going to happen." -----Rush Limbaugh, August 15, 2005 (Speaking on the subject of Cindy Sheehan, the bereaved mother of an Iraq War Hero, KIA)

Another History Re-Write

This is an absolute, and complete, . . . and very smelly, crock of you-know-what, . . .

President Bill Clinton, always looking for a chance to revise the history surrounding himself; especially about the impact of his disastrous administration's policies, has now weighed in on the issue of Osama bin Laden.

He said exactly these words in an interview: "I desperately wish that I had been President when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early. I don't know if it would have prevented 9/11. But it certainly would have complicated it."

Surely you jest, Mr. President. The U.S.S. Cole was attacked by al-Qaeda on October 12, 2000.

Of course, that was too late for Bill Clinton to do anything about it, right?? Well, . . . when you think about it, . . not really.

What Clinton is really doing is making excuses for his previous eight years of not just inaction, . . . but complete and total, intentional ignorance.

Let's take a look at what he could have done to prevent 9/11 along the way, shall we?? I’ll just hit the high points here, . . . no sense wasting valuable blog-space, . . .

In 1996, Osama bin Laden was expelled from the Sudan. The Saudi Government offered him to the United States Government on a silver platter. Bill Clinton and his Justice Department Staff, (as opposed to National Security or Department of State, where the issue should have resided), mulled if over for a couple days, and turned down the offer, and Osama went off to Afghanistan.

Would that have prevented the events of September 11, 2001?? Would it have prevented bin Laden from ever going to Afghanistan and setting up a base there?? Was Clinton operating in the best interests of the American electorate??

You be the judge. If you leave it Bill, he’ll be happy to re-write the history for you.

Keep in mind, we’re doing a review, here.

In 1998, Al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in East Africa. What did Bill Clinton do?? Nothing, really. He was much too busy dealing with Monica Lewinsky to be bothered with such things. Remember what members of his party said at the time?? Wasn’t it something about “consenting adults,” and “it’s nobody’s business,” . . .??

Then, in this very same interview, Bill Clinton actually has the unmitigated gall to say: "I always thought that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did." Oh really??

Why then, did you do absolutely NOTHING about it??

Mr. President, you're lying.

You didn't think Osama bin Laden was a threat at all. And 3,000 people paid the ultimate price for your inaction on September 11, 2001.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Durbin offered proof of column

By Charles Hurt

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published August 15, 2005

A law professor who used Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin as a source for a column last month about federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr. -- a column that Mr. Durbin later disputed -- has a taped phone message that he says proves the accuracy of his reporting.

"The taped message is consistent with my notes as well as my email and telephone communications with editors," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a letter earlier this month to Mr. Durbin. "There was never a question as to the accuracy of the [column]. The only issue ever raised by your staff was whether you would be mentioned in the article."

In a column last month in the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Turley wrote that during a private meeting with Mr. Durbin, Judge Roberts "was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin [Illinois Democrat] what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral," Mr. Turley wrote.

"Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself," wrote Mr. Turley, who added that it was "the wrong answer."

Conservatives immediately accused Mr. Durbin of applying a religious "litmus test" to the Roberts confirmation, and Mr. Durbin said the column was inaccurate.

"I don't know who was his source," Joe Shoemaker, Mr. Durbin's spokesman, said the day the column ran. "Whoever the source was either got it wrong or Jonathan Turley got it wrong."

After Mr. Turley named Mr. Durbin as his source and Mr. Shoemaker as the second, confirming source, Mr. Durbin's office acknowledged Mr. Durbin's involvement. But still, the Durbin office maintained that Mr. Turley had gotten his facts wrong even though he was taking notes as the senator spoke.

In an Aug. 4 letter to Mr. Durbin, Mr. Turley laid out his detailed recollection of the situation and quoted extensively from a taped telephone message from Mr. Shoemaker.

"While speculation continues as to what was said in your meeting, I wanted to establish that everything said in my article was taken directly from my notes, confirmed by your staff, and never questioned on any point on accuracy," Mr. Turley wrote. "I stayed out of this controversy for over two weeks as your staff has insisted that the account was inaccurate. However, it is grossly unfair to present this matter as an error on our part when we specifically confirmed the account with your staff and never heard a single objection on accuracy until the story ran."

Mr. Durbin's office refused to comment on the letter.

"I'm not going to dignify this with a response," Mr. Shoemaker said. "Turley got his facts wrong."

But Mr. Turley said that on the day before the column ran, he read the relevant portions of his column to Mr. Shoemaker.

"Mr. Shoemaker confirmed that he was present at the time and that 'it happened exactly the way the Senator said,' " Mr. Turley wrote in his letter to Mr. Durbin. "He agreed that the recusal statement was 'incredible.' "

The only quibble at that time, Mr. Turley said, was whether to quote Mr. Durbin by name even though the senator never requested anonymity.

"However, he asked for me to use 'a senator' rather than your name in the article," Mr. Turley wrote in reference to Mr. Shoemaker. "He explained that, given the explosive nature of the answer, he did not want the account to seem like it came directly from you."

After a day of trying to track down Mr. Durbin, Mr. Shoemaker left Mr. Turley a telephone message.

"In the message, Mr. Shoemaker made no objection to the accuracy of the recusal story," Mr. Turley wrote. "Rather, after insisting that our discussion was 'a casual conversation,' he again objected to the use of your name.

He objected that everyone would know that you were the source. He then repeated the position of your office that '[t]he only condition under which you can use that is to not identify our office, not identify Durbin, and to say that this came up in the course of several meetings with several senators.' "

FINALLY, . . . . A GOVERNOR WITH SOME CAJONES, . . .

. . . And, just when it seemed that no politician was ever going to do anything about the invasion of illegal aliens into the United States. I'm enthused!

Always hungry for votes from various groups, including Hispanics, politicians of every political stripe have been turning a blind eye to the problem. Some even want to give them worker cards, medical care, driver's licenses, . . . all for people who have broken our laws and are in this country illegally.

All paid for with your taxpayer dollars, of course.

Democrats are starting to smell blood on the issue. First, there was New Oawk Senator Hellary Clinton, jumping on the anti-illegal immigration bandwagon, (which was somewhat surprising, until you consider that she's obviously running for President), although many didn't take her seriously given her continuing record of hispandering. But now it looks like we have somebody seriously taking on the issue, and that somebody is another Democrat. (Sorry fellow VRWC members, -- I call 'em as I see 'em, and this is an important issue that I've been pointing out to Republicans for years) Someone has now seen the problem, first hand, found a solution, and has decided to take it head on, . . .

. . . And that someone is probably running for president in 2008, as well.

That someone would be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

Too bad for the Republicans, as this may just be one guy who can beat them, this time around. Their near-perfect record of being asleep at the switch is still intact, and this proves it.

On Friday, Richardson declared a state of emergency in the four New Mexico counties that border Mexico. He did this because he says illegal alien smuggling and illegal drug shipments are out of control.

The governor also has asked for a meeting with The Minutemen, the group of volunteers helping to police the border. Finally, somebody down there along the border is taking the problem seriously.

Is Richardson doing this just to try and siphon votes from Republicans and position himself for a run in 2008? Maybe, but who cares.

It's time somebody does something about the problem of millions of illegal aliens overrunning our country. Governor Richardson has no control over Texas or Arizona, where the problem will, no doubt, increase, and Heaven knows the Republicans have had more than ample opportunity to handle the issue, on both state and federal levels, but they've distanced themselves from it, as best they could. I'll never know why. Picking up that banner now, could be a rather difficulty laden exercise. The Bush administration is still looking the other way, . . . and it's going to start costing the Republican party at the polls.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Bush views force in Iran as an option

-- President Bush said he could consider using force as a last resort against Iran if it refuses to comply with international demands to halt its nuclear program, pointedly noting he has already used force to protect U.S. security.

Mr. Bush's statement during an interview on Israeli TV late Friday was unusually harsh. He previously said diplomacy should be used to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program, and if that failed, then the U.N. Security Council should impose sanctions.

The U.S. government and others fear Iran's nuclear work is secretly designed to produce nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders deny that, saying it is only for the generation of electricity.

In the interview, Mr. Bush said the United States and Israel "are united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a weapon." But, he said, if diplomacy fails, "all options are on the table."

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, one of the most prominent European opponents of the U.S.-led war on Iraq, told an election rally yesterday that the threat of force was not acceptable.
In what appeared to be a reference to Mr. Bush's remarks, Mr. Schroeder told the crowd in his home city of Hanover: "Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work."

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear program.

Tehran says it aims only to produce electricity and denies Western accusations it is seeking a nuclear bomb.

The European Union -- represented by Britain, France and Germany -- has been trying to find a compromise for two years between arch foes Iran and the United States.

Washington last week expressed a willingness to give negotiations on Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program more time before getting tougher with the country, and Mr. Bush made clear he still hoped for a diplomatic solution.

"In all these instances, we want diplomacy to work, and so we're working feverishly on the diplomatic route, and we'll see if we're successful or not," Mr. Bush said in the Israeli interview.

Mr. Bush has also previously said that the United States has not ruled out the option of military strikes. But U.S. officials have played down press speculation earlier this year they were planning military action against Iran.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Friday that negotiations were still likely with Iran on the condition the Iranians suspend their nuclear activities.

Members of the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously called on Iran on Thursday to halt sensitive atomic work.

If Iran continues to defy global demands, another IAEA meeting likely will be held, at which both Europe and the United States will push for a referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Mr. Schroeder, whose Social Democrats are lagging the opposition conservatives in opinion polls in advance of elections next month, said he was worried about developments in Iran because no one wants Tehran to possess atomic weapons.

"The Europeans and the Americans are united in this goal. Up to now, we were also united in the way to pursue this," he said.

Mr. Schroeder's opposition to the Iraq war was seen as a decisive factor in his unexpected victory in the 2002 general election, which he won narrowly after coming from behind.

But his critical stance caused serious ruptures in Germany's traditionally strong relations with the United States.

BUSH PROTESTING MOM CALLS FOR 'ISRAEL OUT OF PALESTINE' ‘U.S. OUT OF IRAQ’

VOWS NOT TO PAY HER TAXES

We've been telling you about the anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq. She is now calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares. When one reporter asked how she knows this, she refused to answer that reporter, moving instead, to another reporter's comments.

Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. It was her first meeting with President Bush that brought many accolades from her, but she's now, apparently, changed her approach, and can't say why she offered those words of praise, to anyone who would listen, at that time. Recently, her family sent an e-mail message to various media sources, critical of her activism, and decrying her position as one of "dishonoring her son's memory and legacy."

Now she says she's not going to pay her taxes. "I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny, . . . you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial." Mrs Sheehan may have hired the same advisors who helped Martha Stewart, prior to her being arrested for lying to the FBI. We recommend that she rethink this position, as there seems to be plenty of precident allowing for her to lose this battle, hands down. Her son's memory, as an American hero, also suffers, each day she continues her vigil.

"And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail," said Sheehan, of Vacaville, California.

The 48-year-old mom remains tented up in a ditch along the one-lane road that leads to Bush's Texas ranch.

As her protest entered its second week, hundreds of people with conflicting opinions about the war in Iraq descended on the area. We pray for all of them.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Effort to take Breyer's home moving ahead

Libertarian Party chief wants public to decide in March

By Joe Kovacs
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The effort to seize the vacation home of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is moving ahead toward the goal of a public vote in March.

That according to John Babiarz, chairman of the New Hampshire's Libertarian Party, who appeared tonight on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program.

"We have every intention of doing the proper petitioning and have the people of Plainfield make the decision," Babiarz said. "We're in the petition-gathering stage right now."

Babiarz, a 2002 candidate for governor in the Granite State, stressed the seriousness of the issue in the wake of the high court's recent ruling on eminent domain, giving governments the power to transfer private property from one private party to another. The decision ignited a firestorm of outrage across the political spectrum.

"Property rights are very important," said Babiarz, who would like Breyer's land to become a public park. "It's got to go from talk to action. ... I think the justices don't realize the impact [of their decision]."

Justice Breyer, who owns 167 acres in the Connecticut River Valley in Plainfield, N.H., is the second Supreme Court justice to be targeted for property seizure.

Justice David Souter's home is also in the crosshairs of a California entrepreneur who's looking to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel" on Souter's land in the town of Weare, N.H.

As WND exclusively reported this week, Breyer made news beyond eminent domain by saying not all rulings from America's highest court are correct, admitting judges don't have "some great special insight," and he defended the practice of studying courts in foreign countries to help decide cases in the United States.

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

It's time the citizens of the United States take back the rights given them in the documents drawn by the founders and forged by death and tremendous sacrifice of thousands of heroic Americans, in service to their country. Activists like Breyer deserve exactly what they dish out! The above Worldnet Daily article shows that there ARE American citizens who believe as I do, and are willing to continue the sacrifice, that others can continue to enjoy those rights drawn and forged over the past 229 years.

God Bless,
Dan'L