Slanderous NBC Minuteman portrayal dishonors Law and Order Patriots!

"Minutemen... are placed by Providence in the post of honor, … it is the post of danger... The eyes … of North America … are upon you. Let us therefore, be altogether solicitous that no disorderly behavior, nothing unbecoming our characters as Americans, as citizens … , be justly chargeable to us." -- The Provincial Congress of Massachusetts 1774

PARTIAL VICTORY CLAIMED, BUT MINUTEMEN OUTRAGED BY LAW & ORDER 'NEW YORK MINUTE' PROMOTION & BROADCAST

NBC'S SLANDERS MINUTEMEN AS MASS MURDERERS

Minuteman email:
… someone called me before the show and said that in a Channel 12 promo, which did a story after Law and Order, they saw me standing there talking to someone.....that means, I, as well as every other recognizable Minuteman/woman, is now a target..... That was a pretty crappy thing for Law & Order to do as far as I am concerned. Pheonix, AZ

TOMBSTONE, AZ (November 17, 2005) – As a result of the outcry by Minuteman volunteers and their supporters nationwide, the National Broadcasting Company ("NBC") removed the name "Minutemen" from its on-air promotion yesterday of the Law & Order episode, "New York Minute."

While this represents a partial victory over NBC's abuse of the good name of the Minutemen, it does not mitigate the harm done to the Minutemen nor the danger to them by NBC's attempt to 'enrage America' at the Minutemen.

NBC chose to endanger lives for profit!

NBC dropped the name "Minutemen" from its on-air promotion demonstrates that the network recognized it had a severe problem on its hands.

Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Inc. ("MCDC"), issued the following statement denouncing NBC for its slanderous promotion of the Law & Order episode last night that smeared the Minutemen as thugs and mass murderers:
Click here for Chris Simcox response on Lou Dobbs.

"We endeavored in good faith to contact NBC regarding our concerns about the promotion and broadcast of the 'New York Minute' episode of Law & Order that aired last night. Unfortunately, NBC refused to respond to our numerous attempts to contact them and aired the episode.

"NBC repeatedly broadcast promotions for the episode that stated 'was it murder or Minutemen protecting our borders?" Last night just hours before the broadcast, the NBC Web site for Law & Order displayed the text, 'Cold-blooded murder or Minutemen vigilantes on the U.S. border?'
"Even though the episode itself used the name 'Countrymen' for the border watch group instead of 'Minutemen' as advertised, damage had already been done to the Minutemen by NBC's incessant naming of the 'Minutemen' in its promotion and campaign to entice and inflame the public leading up to the broadcast.

"We held out hope that the episode would end with a plot twist that reflected the truth: that it is smugglers who threaten, kidnap and murder their human cargo. However, NBC portrayed the group advertised as the Minutemen, in real life a group of civilian volunteers with an unblemished record of non-violence, as gunning down a human trafficker, attempting to kidnap at knifepoint an illegal alien and of literally cooking to death a dozen illegal aliens in a cargo truck.

"NBC promised the episode would 'enrage America.' Because of that provocative statement and the false light in which NBC portrayed the Minutemen, members of our group have reason to fear acts of violent retribution against them and their families by enraged Americans and others who believe that Law & Order stories are 'ripped from today's headlines.'

"NBC has acted with reckless disregard for the truth in an effort to harm the Minutemen by its promotion and broadcast of the Law & Order episode, 'New York Minute.' That NBC did this during November sweeps when the network tries to maximize ratings so as to line its pockets with increased advertising dollars makes this slander of the Minutemen even more despicable."

The sister organizations Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Inc., and the Minuteman Project, Inc., are recognized nationally as the founders and leaders of the civilian border watch and day labor site observation movement. The names "Minutemen" and "Minuteman" are regularly used by the public and the media to describe our organizations and our members.

The Minutemen have rescued hundreds of men, women and children who have been abandoned to die in the desert wilderness by their human traffickers.

By intentionally creating an environment of rage and hate and putting the lives of Minutemen all over the country at risk we hold NBC responsible for any and all violence, persecution, brutality, aggression, hostility and "hate crimes" toward Minutemen the promotions incite.
NBC - Stop the escalation hate for profit.

These attempts to defame the Minutemen must be put to an end. Please take a few minutes to call your LOCAL NBC affiliate right now and tell them not to promote hate for profit.

This is a very clear attack. Good men and women must stand up and say NO to the hate. I urge you to fight the good fight. You are being heard and the lawless open border crowd must use fabricated stories to incite hate.

God Bless,
Dan'L

BASHING BOBBY WOODWARD

The legendary Washington Post reporter named Bob Woodward is in the proverbial dog house.

You may remember him from his thousands of appearances on the "Larry King (A)live" Show, on CNN. He has been held up for decades by CNN and those on the left as the patron saint of the Watergate Scandal, but now Woodward has fallen out of favor with liberals over his role in the Valerie Plame case. So what did Saint Bobby do?

He simply kept the promise not to reveal his source, until he absolutely had to. I thought that was supposed to be the honorable thing to do, . . . because journalists are protected by the First Amendment and all. But that's not why virtually ALL Democrats are hopping mad at Ol’ Bobby Woodward. It's because he's totally screwing up their political witch-hunt of the Bush administration.

Because of Robert Woodward's admission, it makes more plausible Scooter Libby's defense that he heard about Valerie Plame from journalists.

The case was awfully weak to begin with, but now Patrick Fitzgerald's case is now weakened even further. Although Fitzgerald says he's going to press on with it, . . . it's much more doubtful he'll get a conviction, in the end.

A lot of hard-core Democrats are going to lose a lot of wagers, on this one, . . Or, . . . in many cases, they might strengthen their reputations as bet-welchers.

So who was Woodward's source?? He's not saying, . . . But, Karl Rove says it wasn't him and now there's word today it that wasn't Dick Cheney.

Hmmmmmmm!!

The whole Valerie Plame (non) affair is getting weaker and weaker. And the left couldn't be more upset.

God Bless,
Dan’L

Cheney Bites Back

November 16, 2005

Text of Remarks By Vice President Dick Cheney (As prepared for delivery)

"As most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington, D.C. back in the late 1960s. I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully.

In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition.

And the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.

They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat … that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions … and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn't afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.

Those are facts.

What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we're going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.

We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right … and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable … and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory."

VRWC ALERT, . . .


The socialist "wanna-be's" at MoveOn.org are at it again.

Time after time, MoveOn takes action against American capitalism, job-creating economic policies, and the free enterprise system in general. They push for everything from economy-wrecking environmental extremist treaties, to job-wrecking anti-business bills, to family-destroying tax policies.

This time, they're taking aim at a true American success story: Wal-Mart.

In fact, Wal-Mart is one of the greatest success stories in business history, improving the lives of countless individual working Americans and their communities. By providing goods to shoppers at the lowest possible price and playing a positive role in the community, Wal-Mart has benefited working families far more than any special interest group. People vote with their feet -- and 138 million people per week decide it's to their benefit to shop at Wal-Mart.

The liberal hacks at MoveOn.org can't stand that. So, true to form, they've helped sponsor a new movie, "Wal-mart - The High Cost of Low Price," and they're holding thousands of "House Parties" across the nation TONIGHT to push their new Michael Moore-style propaganda movie against the retail chain.

The movie is produced by Robert Greenwald, a Michael Moore clone who also produced "Uncovered" (against the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq) and "Outfoxed" (against the only Fair and Balanced news network, Fox News). His new "documentary" is so full of falsehoods that even the TRAILER has been refuted for all of its blatant ERRORS!

Well, we do NOT have to "sit back and take it" -- in fact, we can FIGHT BACK and refute all of these lies by hosting our OWN House Parties, and showing a TRUE and FACTUAL documentary on Wal-Mart that's being released TODAY: ""Why Wal*Mart Works and why that makes some people C-R-A-Z-Y!"

Let's get the word out -- AND let's have some FUN doing it!

TAKE ACTION: This is a great response to MoveOn.org's latest antics. You can view the trailer for this film here (Windows Media format):
http://wms6.streamhoster.com/stohley/trailer.wmv

Produced by the Galloway Brothers, "Why Wal*Mart Works" offers a free-market exploration of how Wal-Mart fulfills its mission of "Always Low Prices," saving the average American family $1,250 every year, and the reasons why Wal-Mart drives its critics crazy. True independent filmmakers, the Galloway brothers funded the entire "Why Wal*Mart Works" project themselves.

According to producer Ron Galloway, "We show that the major arguments presented against Wal-Mart can be refuted with the facts, solid logic and reason and compelling personal stories from people whose lives have been touched in a positive way by Wal-Mart. There are always two sides to a story."

It's time that the RIGHT side of the story is told -- but we need YOUR help to tell it! We've set up a website so that you can register and tell us that you're willing to get this new documentary (being released TODAY), and invite your friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, etc. to come over to watch this American success story.

Help us counter MoveOn.org's "house parties" with movie showings of our own! Last time we did this, we had MORE parties than they did, in EVERY STATE in America! Click here to register YOUR house party now:
http://www.conservativealerts.com/walmartparty.htm

If you just want to see the movie, you can order it now from Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000BWFSOA/conservativea-20/

NOTE: Even the *trailer* for MoveOn.org's film is FULL of factual errors and misrepresentations! Robert Greenwald's outright falsehoods include claiming Wal-Mart forced the closure of a Middlefield, Ohio hardware store, when, in fact, the store closed before Wal-Mart opened its doors, and the hardware store has since reopened under new ownership! Watch how Wal-Mart exposes even MORE lies by watching their short onlne video, "3 Minutes, 3 Errors, 3 Strikes" -- click here:
http://walmartfacts.com/newsdesk/article.aspx?id=1448

100 million working Americans shop at Wal-Mart every week. They deserve to know that the store where they spend their hard-earned dollars provides them with the best value and cares deeply about their communities. In fact, why not look up YOUR local MoveOn.org house party, then drop the host an email asking them to also screen the "Why Wal*Mart Works" documentary (at www.whywalmartworks.com) for fairness? Click below and scroll down to your state, then click on where it says "For more details, email the host":
http://www.walmartmovie.com/wednesday.php

Be sure to forward this VRWC Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help spread the TRUTH about this American success story, and FIGHT BACK against the wanna-be socialists at MoveOn.org.

Thank you!

God Bless,
Dan'L

Dichotomy?? Trent Lott attends a birthday party for Strom Thurmond and gets thrown out of the leadership, . . . yet Hillary Clinton attends one for KuKluxKlan grand wizard Robert Byrd and nobody says a word. Except her Senate opponent in New York, that is.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Colin Powell's Tape Shows Iraqis 'Evacuating' WMDs

Bush officials have done such a poor job defending themselves against charges they lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that even their supporters seem to have forgotten about some of the most compelling WMD evidence.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, for instance, keeps apologizing for his speech to the United Nations on the eve of the Iraq war. But at least one chilling bit of evidence he introduced there has never been refuted.

Here's how Powell introduced his case on Feb. 5, 2003:

POWELL: Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you're about to hear is a
conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26 [2002], on the day before United Nations teams resumed inspections in Iraq.

The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general,
from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard.

TAPE TRANSCRIPT:

IRAQI COLONEL : About this committee that is coming with [U.N. nuclear weapons inspector] Mohamed ElBaradei.

IRAQI GENERAL : Yeah, yeah.

COL: We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it??

GEN: You didn't get a modified, . . . You don't have a modified . . .

COL: By God, I have one.

GEN: Which? From the workshop . . . . ??

COL: From the al-Kindi Company

GEN: Yeah, yeah. I'll come to you in the morning. I have some comments. I'm worried you all have something left.

COL: We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left. [END OF
POWELL TAPE EXCERPT]

What type of "modified vehicle" do America's extreme Leftist Iraq ar critics think Saddam's general was worried about?? . . . . A souped-up 1969 Dodge Hemi-Charger?? . . . or a Supercharged Toyota Supra??

And what, pray tell, does the Left think Saddam's colonel was referring to when he said, "We evacuated everything, . . . . We don't have anything left"??

God Bless,
Dan'L

Democrats Rewriting History Regarding Iraq Intelligence

Attack, attack, attack . . .

. . . that’s the only message that has been coming from the Democrats in Washington. Without any semblance of a positive vision for America’s future, those on the left have resorted to sniping at anything the president and Republicans in Congress are doing. In many cases, the strategy has been working because of the lack of will of Republicans to fight back. However, the latest attacks regarding pre-war intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq are so off base, that, thankfully, President Bush is fighting back.

The Democrats are back on their kick of saying President Bush “misled” the American people in the build-up to war in Iraq. They claim he stretched the truth and exaggerated the facts. However, every step of the way, Democrats in Congress were privy to the same intelligence, and in public statements, speeches, and votes, they were on the same page as the president. I guess that page was written in erasable ink.

This past Friday, on Veterans’ Day, President Bush used a portion of his speech to address his critics. At one point, President Bush said, “While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.”

Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.

As FOX News is reporting today, on his way to the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, President Bush spoke to American troops in Alaska and again hammered the Democrats, saying, “They spoke the truth then and they’re speaking politics now.”

A few items are important, given the fact that the media continues to cover this story even though the Democrats have presented no new information. They continue to use the same tired claims over and over again, and yet they still get coverage. First, America was not alone in its assessment of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Britain, France, Russia, and other nations all had similar intelligence reports on Saddam’s weapons capabilities and his desire to reconstitute his weapons programs. Second, Democrats reviewed the intelligence provided by the CIA and other agencies and overwhelmingly came to the same conclusions as the president.
“Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past,” Bush said. “They’re playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible.”

One of the president’s harshest critics now is Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). Yet, even Kennedy was singing a different tune just a few years ago.

In a speech in September of 2002, Kennedy said, “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Speaking on CBS’s “Face the Nation” in October of 2002, Kennedy said, “Saddam Hussein Is A Dangerous Figure. He’s Got Dangerous Weapons.” Was Kennedy purposely misleading the American people at the time?

“Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people,” Bush said yesterday.

The Democrats are engaging in grand theatrics, and the mainstream media continue to give them a stage. It is up to all of us to point out not only the hypocrisy of their claims, but the fact that if anyone is misleading the American people, it is the Democrats, and not President Bush.
********************************************************************

Unless you've been hiding under your bed, you know that Democrats have stepped up their campaign to convince the American people that over two thousand young men and women of the American armed forces died in Iraq for one reason and for one reason only, Bush lied. The problem with this "Bush lied" charge is that Democrats know full well that it simply is not true. The issue for Democrats though is not whether or not the charge is true, but whether or not they can convince the American people that it is true. For politicians ... and I'm referring to politicians on both sides of the aisle ... the truth is whatever you can convince the people that it is. The problem with this particular attempt to create a new truth is that it is undermining our war on terror and endangering the men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Here's a link for a Wall Street Journal article by Norman Podhoretz titled "Who is Lying About Iraq?" http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540. In his 10-page essay, Podhoretz does an excellent job of showing just how completely dishonest the Democrats are being in their attacks on Bush. The problem we face here is that people who are convinced that Bush lied about the reasons for going after Saddam won't bother to read the article. These people just don't want to be inconvenienced by the truth.

On the same issue, last night we had an object lesson in just why leftists hate Fox News Channel. Brian Wilson appeared on Special Report with Brit Hume to specifically address some of the "Bush lied" claims being made by Democrats. The first Democrat featured in Wilson's report was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Reid recently said that his vote for using military force to remove Saddam was based " ... on a number of things. Yellowcake. Aluminum tubes. Secret meetings by Iraqi agents in Europe. Training facilities in Iraq training terrorists."

Well, . . . that seems to be at variance with what Harry Reid said on March 17, 2003. On that date Reid said "I agree with - and have long supported - the ultimate goal of disarming Saddam Hussein. Removing this despicable tyrant from power will make the world a safer place." Hmmmmm . . . . no mention of yellowcake, aluminum tubes or terrorist training. He just said that the world would be a safer place with Saddam out of power. Anti-Saddam then. Pro-Saddam now. Go figure.

Oh -- and don't give me flack about that "pro-Saddam" line. To say that the United States should not have gone to war in Iraq is to say that Saddam Hussein should not have been removed from power. You can't have it both ways.

Next we have Michigan's Democratic Senator Carl Levin: Just a few days ago Levin, in pushing the idea that Bush lied, said "President Bush said before the war you cannot distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein." Is it true? Did Bush really say that? Some reporters pressed Levin and his aids to come up with the specifics of that quote ... when Bush said that you cannot distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The best that Levin's office could do was to come up with a White House briefing on September 25, 2002. At that event Bush was asked who he considered to be the greater threat to the United States, Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. He answered: "Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, . . . you can't distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda when you talk about the war on terror. You can't distinguish between the two because they're both equally as bad."

Does it seem to you that Levin took that statement out of context?

Of course he did!

. . . . And since Fox News Channel didn't let him get away with it, that makes Fox News Channel a right-wing extremist hate machine.

However, . . . Carl Levin wasn't through with his distortions and lies. He also claimed that Bush said that Saddam trained the 9/11 hijackers. Take the way-back machine to January of 2003. Bush was asked if he thought that Saddam had anything to do with training the 9/11 hijackers.

His response? "can't make that claim."

OK, Senator Levin . . . . you're move.

It's not news that politicians lie. They do -- Republicans and Democrats alike.

The news here is that you won't find the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Time or Newsweek going out of their way to investigate the claims made by Levin, Reid and the rest of the "Bush lied" cabal the way Fox News Channel and The Wall Street Journal did. Why, that would be out of the mainstream, wouldn't it??

God Bless,
Dan'L

THE WILD, WHACKY, AND SLIGHTLY CRAZY AL GORE

Still reeling from his loss (yes folks, he did lose, as attested by his being a loser, ever since) 5 years ago to George W. Bush, Al Gore likes to poke his head out of his hole once in awhile and say something really, really stupid. His latest proclamations concern his favorite among subjects, . . . that of global warming.

Now we all know Gore has been peddling the theory that global warming is destroying the Earth for quite some time. Absolutely nothing new there. Remember, though, that it wasn't all that many years ago when Gore-types were warning of global cooling.

Al now says global warming is a greater long-term problem than Islamic terrorism. He made the remark in passing when giving an interview about his investments, . . . but the statement gives you, as an intellectually honest American, a window into the thinking of the radical leftist mind. To them, their anti-capitalist, socialist, environmentalist agenda is more important than protecting the people of the United States from Islamic terrorism.

Listen, . . . I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist. Of course it does. For hundreds of thousands of years the earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling. There in proof positive that the Sun has been hotter in the last 20 years than in the 20 preceding years. Guess what? Hotter sun, . . . hotter earth.

My point of disagreement with the eco-nuts is their assertion that the warming of the earth's surface is due solely to the actions of man. Global warming?? Why, there isn't even agreement over global warming among the scientific community.

What troubles me is that there should be absolutely no disagreement when it comes to Islamic terrorism. They want to kill us, and they will stop at nothing until either we're all dead, or the United States has been taken over and converted into an Islamic state.

There are 537 people in Florida we have to thank for saving us from a Gore presidency, . . . and with the passage of time, we are starting to realize just how lucky we all are. Thanks Al, for the demonstration of our fortunate situation.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Alito's Sock Drawer

If you can't beat him on philosophy, try ethics.

Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito must be sailing toward Senate confirmation. We say this because his opponents--who know they can't beat him on credentials or judicial philosophy--are now rolling out the "ethics" machinery.

The eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote last week to the chief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals demanding more information about Judge Alito's participation in a 2002 case called Monga v. Ottenberg. On Thursday, Chairman Arlen Specter urged the nominee to give a "full public response" on this and another business case in which he participated even though, Mr. Specter wrote, "it is my conclusion that there has been no impropriety on your part." You can say that again.

Bear with us while we recount a few of Monga's gory details, for that's the only way to understand how absurd the conflict-of-interest accusations are. The case concerns a litigious widow, Shantee Maharaj, who was trying to get a federal court in Philadelphia to enjoin the Vanguard investment company from paying her late husband's creditors, as ordered by a Massachusetts state court. The court had found that the IRAs her husband had set up--some of which were invested in Vanguard mutual funds--were the product of fraud and therefore should be available to pay creditors.

The federal judge in Philadelphia dismissed the case, which then went to the Third Circuit, where Judge Alito sat on the three-judge panel that unanimously dismissed it. Next stop was the Supreme Court, which declined to hear it. It was at this point that Ms. Maharaj claimed that Judge Alito should have recused himself because he was invested in mutual funds managed by Vanguard.

Let's consider this proposition. Mutual funds are diversified securities portfolios managed by an investment company. Investors in, say, IBM, are owners of IBM. But investors in a Vanguard fund are not "owners" of Vanguard--which is precisely why many judges choose to invest in mutual funds. A mutual fund is a way for judges to avoid a conflict of interest that would result from investing directly in companies that might be implicated in cases that could come before them.

Geoffrey Hazard, an expert on legal ethics, put it this way in a letter to Mr. Specter: "Having a Vanguard mutual fund is not owning an interest in the Vanguard managing company, any more than having a bank account in a commercial or savings bank involves an ownership interest in the bank." Under the governing rules for the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Mr. Hazard says, Judge Alito's participation in Monga was "not improper." The judge had no personal financial interest in the outcome of Monga.

After Ms. Maharaj requested his recusal, Judge Alito wrote a letter to the chief judge of the Third Circuit, saying that he did not believe his ownership of shares in mutual funds managed by Vanguard was a reason for disqualification. Nonetheless, he voluntarily recused himself from the decision about whether to rehear the case. The appeals court did decide to rehear it, and another panel again dismissed it unanimously.

That would be that, except for Senator Ted Kennedy, who is making a big deal of an answer Judge Alito gave on a form he filled out in 1990. The judge was up for confirmation to the appeals court at the time, and he was asked how he would handle any conflicts during his "initial service" on the court. Judge Alito had replied that he would recuse himself in cases involving Vanguard and Smith Barney, which was his brokerage firm.

In a letter replying to Mr. Specter late last week, Mr. Alito explained that "as my service continued" on the appeals court he "realized that I had been unduly restrictive on my 1990 questionnaire." Under any judicial rules or code of conduct, there was no legal or ethical reason for him to recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard and Smith Barney. If such a standard did hold, we'd add, then only judges who kept their savings in mattresses or sock drawers would be deemed worthy of confirmation to the High Court.

This is all common sense, but we rehearse it in detail to signal the barrage that may be coming in the next two months. Liberal interest groups are becoming frustrated as they realize they won't be able to defeat Judge Alito over abortion or civil rights or anything of judicial substance. But they're more determined than ever to take him down. "You name it, we'll do it," declared Nan Aron, head of the Alliance for Justice that works hand-in-glove with Senate Democrats. But that doesn't mean the rest of us should believe any of it.