« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »
September 30, 2005
What to do about Tom DeLay?
With the recent indictment of Tom DeLay for conspiracy, other corruption has become apparent such as with Harry Reid. Tom DeLay engaged in travel plans some consider unethical, however, in the aftermath of that scandal over 200 Congressmen (from both parties) has to "revise" their travel documentation. Regardless of party, one does not need to look far for corruption. The grassroots on both sides is not particularly enamored with it either.
Some think it's the end of the Republican Party, but one only needs to look to Illinois to see how this will play out. Illinois has a governor with approval ratings even lower than President Bush. The current governor, a Chicago Democrat, got into office because the prior Republican administration is corrupt. When a Chicago Democrat runs on the platform to clean up Springfield and the voters buy it, you know you have problems. Now corruption is king (or rather still is king) and the Republicans are running on the platform of throwing out the Dem corrupt cronies. No one is buying so they Republicans are drafting a favored governor (Jim Edgar) from yesteryear to run again. The only problem is that he taught George Ryan everything he knows and while corrupt, wasn't as extreme as Ryan. That aside, Jim Edgar has announced he wants nothing to do with it.
My suggestion to deal with DeLay's supposed corruption? (Supposed because it took, what, 6 grand juries to find anything on him?) Massive blood-letting. Let's have both parties, everyone from the top all the way down to village dog catcher engage in a legal battle royale of corruption investigations. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you think some political officials are corrupt. It's time to get this all out on the table because you know several hundred Congressmen have some crimes they want to hide. We can talk about some of the prior scandals (the House banking scandal for instance) but let the gloves come off and drop the "good 'ole boy" attitude and let them viciously attack each other in the criminal system.
One, it will go a long way to getting to corruption and waste out of government. Politicians get away with this because they never pay the piper. Take a look at the highway bill and how much pork and vote buying is there. If you want corruption out of politics, this is what it takes. I may be conservative, but I'm no fool. I know there are corrupt Republicans out there, and its time for them to pay the piper too.
Two, it emphasizes and underscores why we need limited government. Government needs to be big to be corrupt. If it doesn't have $2.2 trillion dollars to throw around, it becomes much harder for them to get companies to start bribing them. There aren't kickbacks on the $1,000 orders I do for work, for good reason. It's time to downsize the government and let the local entities do the social work of government. At the lowest level, we can at least keep an eye on them. I know where the mayor of my town lives and I can call him up at home right now. Good luck trying to get in touch with the President. Or Tom DeLay for that matter.
This presents a golden opportunity for those who believe in limited government. There are greedy people in the world and they want money and power. A massive corruption investigation, top to bottom, complete with jail sentences will make politicians have second thoughts the next time they want to shovel some cash to contributors to their campaigns. If I stole $500, I'd be doing time right now. It's time for those who have stolen so much more than that and wasted the rest to have their day in court.
Links: Cao, Wizbang, Michelle Malkin, Powerline, Captain's Quarters, et al
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:26 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Column Up: "Leave it to Parents"
My latest Daily Illini column "Leave it to Parents" is posted n the state of public education.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Over $24 Billion in US Consumer Money is at Risk of Being Stolen by Spyware
You can read the post I put up about it here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 29, 2005
The Clinton Legacy of Corruption
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance - Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates* - Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation - Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify - Most number of witnesses to die suddenly - First president sued for sexual harassment. - First president accused of rape. - First first lady to come under criminal investigation - Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case - First president to establish a legal defense fund. - First president to be held in contempt of court - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
Read the rest here, and take DeLay's problems in stride.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Stop the ACLU: The War on Abstinence
The ACLU has delcared war on abstinence education. The "guardian of civil rights" has determined that such programs are dangerous according to the Waxman report that I debunked last year. That report did not say all abstinence education programs contained errors, and included programs as erroneous because of ludicrous things such as the word "snuggling" as suggesting religion. The ACLU has picked the parts of the report out that the liked and started to run with it.
Skipping past the labeling of policy decisions they don't agree with as "dangerous", exactly what in abstinence education violates anyone's civil liberties? Parents are perfectly free to get condoms for their kids, buy them porn, or show them how to use sex toys. Abstinence education does not impede anyone from doing anything; it is the suggestion that one ought not to do anything. Yet, the ACLU considers this issue a matter of reproductive freedom.
Simply put, this is not a legal fight to protect anyone's rights. This is a fight to advance a specific agenda that has nothing to do with rights. Teachers are not running around arresting children for having sex.
They suggest that abstinence education is dangerous because kids will do it anyway and won't have essential information to protect themselves. The story goes they must be informed on all the choices such as Plan B, and amusing ironic name considering that safe sex is supposed to be safe (and not require Plan B's). Kids simply won't listen when being told not to have sex.
However, the same people insist on DARE programs in schools which tell kids to stay off drugs. Do we get rid of these programs too? Should we take out DARE and instead introduce a program that shows kids how to do drugs properly to minimize the chance of contracting Hep C?
Critics have said that the ACLU is not interested in defending civil liberties as much as they are fighting for the advancement of a certain agenda. This latest war on abstinence is the best example of this in action. No rights are being violated but the ACLU is on the scene to prevent the dissemination of messages that they disagree with.
This was a production of Stop The ACLUblogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 28, 2005
Local C-U Anti-War Protesters Mocked by the Daily Show
If you take a look at the Daily Show and watch the episode "March of the Peaceniks", you'll see C-U's own anti-war protesters mocked by John Stewart...
Awesome.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Indict 'Em
The saying goes; a motivated prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to. Tom Delay has been indicted on conspiracy charges after years of this prosecutor trying. First it was Abramoff, but after realizing that scandal implicated Democrats (in fact over 200 Congressmen started “fixing their paperwork”) and it was ok’d by the House of Representatives lawyers, they had to drop that one. Now they got a conspiracy charge that was cooked up to give this prosecutor jurisdiction he would not otherwise have. That’s not to say that he’s innocent, but it is to say that the Democrat’s plan to power is not to beat Republicans at the polls, it’s to invent charges against them. Call it the Rush Limbaugh treatment.
Here are some quotes from Democrats on the development:
But Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic leader, called his indictment “the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people”.
And from Tom McMahon of the DNC:
People ask what the difference is between the two parties, and this indictment gives one clear answer.
Republicans are committed to pushing the legal limits to collect checks from special interests who want to use government for their own narrow purposes. Democrats are committed to funding our party with contributions from ordinary Americans so that when we take power, the government will represent the people.
You can make your personal commitment to changing the culture of corruption by getting your Democracy Bond -- a monthly commitment to contribute to the Democratic Party:
Need we bring up some examples of Democrat corruption?
These people are all rich before they get into office and they take large pay cuts once elected, so they take perks. This isn’t something that is a Democrat or a Republican agenda because both parties are guilty of it. Need we bring up former disgraced Presidents that committed perjury?
The message the DNC is sending out is, “Get the corrupt Republican cronies out of office! We want our corrupt cronies in!”. That’s about as intelligent it is. And to be fair, that’s exactly the platform of the Illinois GOP against the Democrats in ’06. It swings both ways, but as a state that’s about to go on two consecutive governors in two terms getting indicted (who were from opposing parties) let’s at least be honest about corrupt being a political value, not a partisan value.
The lesson for the GOP, however, is that conservativism pays. If you are doling out millions in pork, eventually the money is going to get traced back to you. You won’t ever get bought or bribed if you aren’t in the business of wasting taxpayer money. The timing of DeLay announcing that fiscal conservativism is dead is nothing short of ironic here.
Thanks to OTB, Political Teen, Kit, others.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:08 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
What is it with Anti-semites?
David Green, local anti-semite, writes in to the DailyIllini on the occasion of Simon Wiesenthal's death to spew his hateful diatribe. He has nothing against Wiesenthal, he just can't stand to let them man pass in peace without taking a swipe at the Jews and the US for being evil regimes. He much prefers us to be happier and more just regimes like Soviet Russia, Saddam's Iraq, the Taliban's Afghanistan, Hitler's Germany, or some other of the joyous left-wing paradises out there.
For reference, this was the column he was writing in response to.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Coalition for Darfur: Anarchy and the UN
Another great post up on the situation in Sudan. On the 65th Birthday of the UN, it should be quite telling that in a nation where they are supposedly active, the reality is that people are still dying and the nation is descending into anarchy.
===
As Darfur descends into anarchy, the United Nations appears unable to do any more than express concerns and continue to ask the parties involved to cease their violent attacks.
After rebels attacked and took control of the town of Sheiria last week, the Sudanese army said it was prepared to retake the town, to which the rebels replied that they would "repulse anything from the Sudanese government's army."
The upsurge in violence forced thousands more out of the villages, swelling the ranks of the internally displaced that already numbers nearly 2 million.
As the violence was raging, even the UN's own Special Representative Jan Pronk, a man who tends to see everything in Sudan through rose-colored glasses, was forced to admit that the violence was spiraling out of control. He was joined by the US government, which stated that the "uptick in violence ... is of concern to us" and the UN's genocide advisor, Juan Mendez, who acknowledged that Khartoum had done little to disarm militias or end the "culture of impunity" that exists in Darfur.
Pronk went on to state that the UN must give the Sudanese government and rebels an ultimatum to compel them to reach some sort of peace
agreement and even made the startling admission that, thus far, the UN has utterly failed to deal with Darfur
Pronk said that when the Darfur conflict began U.N. humanitarian officials agitated for the Security Council to take up the conflict, which it refused to do.Pronk was quoted elsewhere as saying
A "massive force" was needed [in 2003] then to guarantee security but instead several thousand African Union troops and monitors had to carry the burden. And now the council needed to plan for how to keep the peace in case a peace deal was signed.
He said the war situation in Sudan was "everybody’s failure" and could have been avoided if the international community had acted quickly.Of course, the international community did not act quickly, nor are they acting quickly now.
How could the present day situation have been avoided?
"I think there should have been intervention in 2003," Pronk said, adding that while the occurrence of genocide in the country was debatable, "There was mass slaughter of people. It needed humanitarian intervention."
In fact, while Darfur burned, the BBC reported that American and British intelligence officials, along with representatives of the UN, China and 12 African nations were in Khartoum discussing cooperation on counter-terrorism operations in the region.
Hosting the conference is part of a sustained diplomatic push by Sudan to shake off its pariah status ... When the opportunity for this second regional conference on counter-terrorism came up, Sudan competed for the right to host it ... The decision of the CIA to agree to come to Sudan shows the pragmatism of the intelligence community against the continuing political desire of America to punish Sudan for what has happened in Darfur.Khartoum continues to work to "shake off its pariah status," with Sudanese Ambassador Khidir Haroun Ahmed publishing an op-ed in the Washington Times today claiming that "After two decades of brutal civil war, Sudan is emerging as a reminder that engagement, dialogue and intensive diplomacy can resolve seemingly intractable problems and permit a country to look to the future with optimism."
Meanwhile, the violence and anarchy Khartoum unleashed is now spilling over into neighboring Chad, a country that is already host to an estimated 200,000 refugees from Darfur
A group of unidentified armed men in military uniform crossed into Chad from Sudan early on Monday, killing 36 herders and stealing livestock, the Chadian government said.The violence, in addition to threatening the people of Darfur, is also threatening the relief work that sustains them, as U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland noted yesterday
"If it (the violence) continues to escalate, we may not be able to sustain our operations for 2.5 million people requiring life-saving assistance," he said, adding: "In Darfur, it (aid distribution) could all end tomorrow. It is as serious as that."As Eric Reeves never fails to remind us,
in December 2004, Egeland warned that 100,000 people could die a month if humanitarian organizations are forced to suspend operations in Darfur.
Despite all of this, Pronk still managed to recently declare that progress was being made on implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South and on efforts to reach peace in Darfur.
Such a statement is utterly feckless and shameful.
As Gerald Caplan, author of "Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide," wrote last week
But what we are learning from Darfur, which we never remotely imagined, is that even naming a genocide is an utterly inconsequential exercise in hot air ... despite the apparent concern of many western leaders, despite the pressure from elements of civil society, the catastrophe in Darfur is explicitly allowed to continue ... As always, everything takes precedence over the suffering and death of hundreds of thousandsAfter two years, 400,000 deaths, and an estimated 3.5 million now entirely dependent on humanitarian aid, it must be stated that the UN and every one of its member nations have failed the people of Darfur and, in all likelihood, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
of distant, exotic others. It won't be the last time."
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 26, 2005
Job Approval Ratings: Bush vs Blagojevich
For the period of 9/16-9/18, Bush's approval rating according to the AP was 40%.
For the same period, Rod Blagojevich's approval rating is only 36%.
We may get a new governor in 2006, but from the looks of things, nothing is going to keep the next governor from being another corrupt governor too.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
New Blog Traffic Generator
BlogMad, hasn't opened yet but you get bonus credits for signing up early... give it a shot.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?
Many people view the ACLU as anti-Christian (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union, etc). With all the cases they take beating away any symbol of Jesus in the public square, it's hard to think they AREN'T anti-Christian. As the new symbol of Los Angeles shows, they don't seem to have a problem with other religions, just Christianity it appears. The question is, are they really anti-Christian?
The ACLU says they are the guardian of liberty who works to defend and preserve individual rights. However, they are less fighting for something than fighting against something. They fight against intelligent design and abstinence education not because they infringe on rights, but because they are part of an order they believe needs to be abolished.
Being anti-Christian implies that they intend to specifically attack Christianity as an end of itself. As Roger Baldwin (a co-founder of the ACLU) said of the goals of the ACLU:
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted, and I traveled the United Front road to get it.
The ACLU's actions are a part of a political worldview they hold. It was founded by communists and though many members and lawyers would say they aren't communist today that foundation influences the way they look at things. They are militant privacy advocates and anti-government to the point of wanting to take away valid tools from law enforcement. This is why they helped Rush Limbaugh, not because they support his speech, but because their causes temporarily aligned when the Florida prosecutor's office seized his medical records unjustly. That is not to say that the government is lily white when it comes to privacy, but to say that monitoring phone calls of suspected terrorists leads to a police state is ludicrous and scare-mongering.
The ACLU attacks the traditional foundation of the family in society. This is why they fight against parental notification of abortions, school choice, and the parent's role in educating their children. In fact, they attack traditional forms of authority beyond that of the state. In communist nations, the state is the highest authority and all needs and actions must be made in connection with what is best for the state. That is why you can talk about purges and gulags and communists don't flinch. Communism requires them.
Their attacks on Christianity aren't designed to eradicate Christianity, per se. They are designed to establish a social order (or more appropriately destroy the existing order) and customs that advance their ideas and Christianity isn't a part of it. In short, they aren't anti-Christian in intent, they are anti-Christian in effect.
Thanks to OTB
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 23, 2005
DI Column Posted: Don't Get Stuck on Stupid
You can read it here.
You can see my the snippet of the e-mail Kagan sent here about the alleged racial cleansing on New Orleans.
If you'd like to read about the many conservatives who have been silenced or discriminated against nationwide, I encourage you to check out FIRE
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 22, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: Radical Campus Left Claims Racial Cleansing is Going on in New Orleans
From the local campus anti-war protesters who are also struggling with the issue of whether or not to openly support the "Iraqi resistance":
"And still, even tonight, teams of military, US Marshals, and local police perform sweeps and raids on the remaining hold-outs. We will never know the true death-toll of the storm, nor the near certain fact that many brown and black residents were gunned down in cold blood in a form of ethnic cleansing."
It's one thing to talk about race and poverty, its another to say that the federal government is wiping out black people in the streets of New Orleans.
There's only one word for stuff like this... agitprop.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Hurricane Katrina: Officials Caught Stealing Relief Supplies
Storm Donations Found at Official's Home
Police found cases of food, clothing and tools intended for hurricane victims at the home of the chief administrative officer for a New Orleans suburb, authorities said Wednesday.The donations filled a large pickup truck four times. "It was an awful lot of stuff," Caraway said.
Well, well. I can't wait to see how Bush is accountable for this.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:17 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Second Edition of the Carnival of Life
Sorry for the late post on this one, yesterday was a very hectic day for me. This is the second edition of the Carnival of Life. Because of light contributions last week, we skipped and added those posts into this week. We still need hosts for upcoming weeks, and need many more posts to go with the carnival. Keep getting the word out!
Future Hosts:
September 28th - Stem Cell Extremist
October 3rd - Pro-Life Blogs
October 24th - The Revolution
Here are the last two weeks of entries.
Jay at Stop The ACLU presents ACLU Loses In Parental Consent For Abortion Case. The ACLU chalks up a rare lose against common sense laws that say parents really are the parents of their children.
DeputyHeadmistress at The Common Room presents Messages in Movies
DeputyHeadmistress also submits The Gift of Unplanned Blessings:
"We are the recipients of many unplanned blessings, and children are not the least of them.
In this post I want to tell you about two special "unplanned" additions to our family who were adopted. We had three children, had just had a miscarriage, the headmaster was enlisted in the AF, and I was a sahm (this means very little money). We weren't seeking adoption at all, but we heard of two little girls who needed a home together, and we just couldn't come up with a good reason to say no."
Cross Blogging asks Will Abortions Become Obsolete? with new medical technologies that make traditional conception "obsolete". (As an aside, to clear up some misconceptions. Galileo was not persecuted because of his science. Many others before and after him came to the same conclusions. His science, while sloppy (tides don't prove the earth revolves around the sun) didn't get him into trouble. His big mouth and attitude problem (things which I do have expertise in) got him into trouble. It's one thing to advocate ideas, it's another to start cramming them down the Pope's mouth in medieval Europe.)
This Carnival is Ubercarnival listed.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Culture & Cosmos: Kennedy Using Katrina to Attack Private Schools
The area affected by Hurricane Katrina has a much higher than normal percentage of students in private (usually Catholic) schools. This is because of the imfamously poor state of public education in the area. If you want to be left behind and assured of no resources with which to get out of New Orleans because of a Hurricane, public schooling is your best bet.
Because of the amount of people displaced who would otherwise go to private schools, President Bush proposed to give them assistance in getting into private schools where they ended up. Instead, Kennedy insists that all children must be put in public schools unless the families (who now have no jobs) can come up with a second set of tuition money to pay on their own.
I agree, it is ironic that the opposition to the Bush plan is coming from 4 Irish Catholic senators.
=====
One of the Senate's best known Catholics has worked to reject a proposal by President Bush that would have given families displaced by Hurricane Katrina financial aid to send their children to private or parochial schools. A bipartisan student relief package put forth by Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy and Wyoming Senator Michael Enzi did not include a provision that would have given students up to $7,500 because Kennedy opposed the provision, according to a high level Congressional staffer who spoke with Culture & Cosmos.
Culture & Cosmos also learned that a prominent Church prelate said he was furious that aid to private schools had been kept out of the package and he was especially angry that it is being blocked by "four Irish Catholic Senators."
The proposal for financial aid came from the Bush administration and the Department of Education and noted that, "Communities in Louisiana significantly impacted by the hurricane had an above average number of children enrolled in private schools — 61,000 students in private schools compared to 187,000 in public schools in four severely impacted parishes. These significantly impacted Louisiana communities averaged 25% of students attending private K-12 schools — much higher than the 11% national average of private school students." Out of the 61,000 students in private schools, 81%, or 50,000 attend Catholic schools. In fact, New Orleans public schools have long had a reputation for poor quality and the Catholic school system there is seen as an affordable refuge.
The total price tag for the Education Department's proposal which aims to cover most of the cost of educating students displaced by Katrina is $1.9 billion. The administration estimates that of that total, 25% or $488 million would be needed for educational support if their proposal was implemented.
Kennedy publicly criticized aid for private schools yesterday in a statement: "But I am extremely disappointed that [President Bush] has proposed providing this relief using such a politically-charged approach. This is not the time for a partisan political debate on vouchers." Despite the high percentage of New Orleans students who attend private school, Kennedy said "we need to focus on rebuilding the public school systems which are the cornerstones of the Gulf Coast communities and economies."
Catholic League president William Donohue praised the proposal. "This is more than an education issue – it is a matter of fundamental civil rights. Having been ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, the residents of New Orleans want to put their lives back together as soon as possible. What they don't need now is for federal lawmakers to stand in their way by playing politics with the choices they make."
Legislators are still hashing out the final details of the relief package they will send to the president so it is still possible that money for vouchers will be added back into Senators Enzi and Kennedy's legislations.
One observer pointed out that "it is a joke that Kennedy still thinks he is the preeminent Catholic politician in America. He is a disgrace on this and other issues important to Catholic."
Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500 Fax: (202) 289-2502 E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:09 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Stop the ACLU: Stop the Pilfering of Tax Dollars
Many cases the ACLU takes are settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars before actually entering a court room. When an agency is sued by the ACLU, they are rightfully intimidated. The ACLU is a national organization with huge resources to call upon. Elementary schools, for instance, don't have teams of lawyers standing by. They don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for lawyers who will fight for the school. Instead, they roll-over and take the easy road, just give the ACLU what they want.
In some circles this would be called extortion. In law, it is apparently called civil rights justice.
I have yet to get a satisfactory answer as to why someone who sues a city government for the use of a religious symbol gets $1 and the ACLU gets over a million. Here's this week's blogburst.
=======
On 1, Oct. 19, 1976 Congress passed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which gave the Courts the power to award attorney's fees in civil rights cases to the prevailing party. 'The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976' was passed with high hopes, and the good intentions that it would help provide relief for individuals that might not otherwise be able to afford the expenses of defending their civil liberties if they were violated. The ACLU, and other judicial activitist have completely turned the intentions of this amendment on its head.
Whenever the ACLU fights voluntary prayer in school, a war memorial because it's in the shape of a cross, ten commandment displays, or keeping the boyscouts from military sponsorship, and they win, you pay for their attorney's fees.
What was intended to protect people from having their civil rights violated has been twisted by the ACLU to use as leverage when they threaten small schools and communities that can't afford to defend themselves from the well funded, and well staffed ACLU bully. Yes, legislation intended to protect civil liberties is often used to supress religious expression by the likes of the ACLU.
There is currently legislation in the House introduced by Representive Hostettler that hopes to remedy its abuse. It is an amendment that limits the attorney fees in Establishment Clause cases to injuctive relief only. In other words, if the ACLU wants to pick a fight over someone praying in public, or a ten commandments display that offends one sensitive athiest, they'll have to dig into their own deep pockets, and it will not come from yours.
We want your voice to be heard in D.C. supporting this legislation. It's really simple, all we need is your autograph.
SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ACLU OFF THE TAXPAYER'S DOLE
This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. If you would like to join our efforts to fight the ACLU, it's very simple. Just register at our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info you will need. Over 100 blogs already on board. Join us!
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:58 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Coalition for Darfur: Decent into Anarchy
Crossposted from Coalition for Darfur. More updates on the deteriotating condition there that the new and improved UN is still failing to do anything about.
====
One week ago, experts and observers warned that Darfur risked "sliding into a perpetual state of lawlessness." At a time when Khartoum and the Darfur rebels were preparing to meet in an attempt to move the essentially non-existent peace process forward, IRIN was reporting
Banditry and continuous attacks by armed groups on humanitarian workers, Arab nomads and villages in Darfur have increased significantly over the past weeks and threaten to destabilise the fragile ceasefire in the volatile western Sudanese region.The "fragile ceasefire" has never really existed
and fears of "perpetual" lawlessness are misplaced considering that Darfur has been essentially lawless for more than two years.
Last week, the World Food Program reported that "security levels deteriorated in Darfur during the reporting week." This week, the WFP reported that "despite precautionary security measures, attacks on commercial and humanitarian vehicles continue in Darfur."
And as the UN was expressing
its concern "about the recurrent attacks carried out by armed men and gangs in Darfur states, which target civilians and commercial vehicles hired by relief organizations," Norwegian Church Aid was reporting that "relief convoy has been raided at gunpoint by bandits in Darfur for the second time in a short period. The security situation in Darfur shows signs of deterioration"
A growing problem is also that aid convoys are now being ambushed with increasing regularity by bandits on horses and camels. Norwegian Church Aid vehicles have been raided at gunpoint twice in a matter of weeks ... The field teams who travel most often through the western and southern parts of Darfur regularly encounter en route, and are often chased by, heavily armed men riding on horses and camels. Since the aid operation began just over a year ago, security has presented a great challengeAnd the violence continues.
for the agencies. Yet whereas assault, exchanges of fire and attacks on villages were previously politically motivated, much of the violence seems now to be criminal in nature.
Just yesterday, it was reported that 40 were killed in fighting after an attack on the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement/Army by "armed nomadic tribesmen" [aka "the Janjaweed"]. This was followed by another report that 80 government soldiers had been killed by the SLM when they captured the town of Sheiria in a surprise attack in retaliation for earlier
government attacks on rebel-held territory.
The attack on Sheiria put at risk some 33,000 civilians who rely on humanitarian assistance after staff from three NGO's were withdrawn due to the fighting. And for good measure, the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) "reported that the security situation in the Kalma camp housing displaced persons has further deteriorated with a large number of security incidents, including some 60 reported
attacks on women over the last week alone."
All of this took place while the sixth round of peace talks were being held in Nigeria.
It has now been more than a year since the United States declared the situation in Darfur a "genocide" - and the security situation on the ground is now even arguably worse. While government-orchestrated attacks on civilians have diminished, mainly because "there are not many villages left to burn down and destroy," the rampant insecurity in all likelihood still qualifies as part of Khartoum's genocidal campaign to "deliberately [inflict] on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
The genocide is not ending and the situation is not improving. The people of Darfur have, for all intents and purposes, been abandoned.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 21, 2005
National Conservative Coming Out Day - Summary and Pics
Well the National Conservative Coming Out Day has come and gone. For about the ten or so conservatives that were there, there were about 100 or so protesters. Most of the time they sat there with their backs turned, held up signs, and were quiet. There were members of I-Resist (who isn't a legitimate organization anymore apparenlty) with a megaphone that kept making noise. One picture below is a guy who yelled "stop being a dick". PRIDE was there trying to say they didn't like the stereotyping but in their press release they stereotype conservatives as wanting women in the kitchen.
My article in the DI on Friday will have most of my opinions, but here are some parting pictures of the event which was, all in all, uneventful. Pictures are in the full entry, click on it. My favorite is the 5th picture of the girl protesting intolerance and bigotry by wearing a shirt that has a racial slur on it.
The all of about 6 conservatives up there, outnumbers by probably even the number of cops on the scene.
Can't have a coming out without a closet door, I guess.
Some of the hundred some odd protesters.
One of their signs.
Nothing like protesting bigotry and intolerance while wearing a T-shirt with racial slurs.
This was megaphone, stop being a dick, guy.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
LGBT Celebrates Being Called Mentally Ill?
Remember Love In Action? The recipient of the wrath of the LGBT because of a kid's blog postings before he even got to the camp? Well, they chalked up a victory today. From the article:
The state inspected two facilities in Memphis on Aug. 19 and determined Love In Action International Inc. was providing housing, meals and personal care for mentally ill patients without a license, according to a subsequent letter to the organization from the Department of Mental Health.
The basis for the action of the state was that this place had to be licensed to treat mentally ill people. Ummm, do they realize that the state basically just called all gay people mentally ill? Do they know that's what they are embracing so they can make their point?
The decision was not based on the concept of treating gay people so that they are straight, or even if such a thing is possible, but solely that they needed a license which I imagine can't be too hard to correct and open back up. I was just amused that the attack on this place ended up embracing something that I can't imagine they'd accept, that gayness is mental illness.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:32 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
National Conservative Coming Out Day
Today is National Conservative Coming Out day which will be celebrated on campus. The entire progressive coalition of groups apparently is going to be out and protesting wearing black shirts because they can't stand it when conservatives talk. I'll be there with a camera (I just got a new digital camera) and get some stuff up on it later today.
Oh, and it's complete with a gun raffle. Go figure.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 19, 2005
I Have a Wiki Bio :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bambenek
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Is Corporate Fraud Really Worse than Rape?
Two Tyco execs were just sentenced to 25 years for their corruption and embezzlement of corporate funds. Ebbers, for his WorldCom fraud also got 25 years. The sentence calls to mind the magnitude of corporate criminals compared to other more heinous crimes.
Take the case of Joesph Edward Duncan III who raped and tortured a 14 year old boy at gunpoint and received a 20 year sentence, 5 years shorter than the Tyco execs. How about John Wesley, who after being convicted in 2004 for child molestation while out on probation is back in jail for harassing a 7 and 8 year old girl. Or Mary Letourneau who served only a 7 year sentence for raping a 13 year-old child while she was his teacher. Can someone explain the rationale for sentencing someone who defrauded stock holders harsher than rapists? Is there anyone out there who would care to argue that corporate corruption is worse than rape?
There are those that think even life without parole is too much for murders, rapists and the like, but no punishment seems to be enough for corporate criminals. Why is this?
It is part of the rich-poor class warfare stoked by the left. If you are rich, you should be punished. Instead of simply having more modest sentences with hefty restitution and fines, they get sentences harder than the ACLU would ever stand for a rapist to be sentenced for.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:23 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
DI Responses: I am amused
I make points, the lefties bring ad hominems. I'm amused.
Another column kinda in response
and
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 16, 2005
DailyIllini Column up: The War on Free Speech
You can read it here...
Or you can comment below.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Blago Under Federal Investigation?
Illinois Leader just broke that two gulity pleas have put Blagojevich in the cross-hairs of the over-worked and under-paid US Attorney Peter Fitzherald.
Today, in the guilty pleas entered in federal court by attorneys Steve Loren and Joseph Cari for participating in a an extortion scheme designed to direct investment firms managing tens of millions of dollars of state Teacher Retirement System (TRS) pension funds to hire particular consultants and make specified campaign contributions.
What is it about Illinois and governors demanding campaign contributions for business? This threatens to break open the 2006 race for governor, perhaps pushing the Dems to put someone up in the primary to avoid losing the governor's mansion to the Republicans, who will undoubtedly be thrown out in one term for the same kind of corruption that got them booted in 2002.
Say hi to The Political Teen
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 15, 2005
Stop the ACLU: The Source of Rights in the United States
Did you know that the Constitution makes an explicit reference to Jesus Christ as Lord?
From the Signature section:
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.
It's common knowledge that the "AD" dating system is a reference to the life of Christ, that's why some scholars are trying to change "AD" to "ACE" (after common era) to not offend Muslims and the like. More importantly, it is calling it the year of "our Lord", our being the collective pronoun which implies that it is the Lord for all the signers.
It is important to not be unwelcoming to those of other faiths or no faith, but that does not translate into the need to mute all Christian beliefs in the public square, or to require that all public officials be atheist. Our founding was ripe with religious references, and more important, the source of our rights which makes the US distinct is based on religion.
Other nations give rights to its citizens out of its largesse. It can give rights and take rights away at will because they are rights the state can bestow. Not so in the United States. God has granted man certain inalienable rights that the government has no business taking in the first place. The United States can't take away the free speech of a person because it has no legal or moral power to do so. It doesn't grant free speech, we already have it, it simply does not get in the way. The acceptance of a higher power than the state is the cornerstone of the entire doctrine of rights in the United States, take it away and there is nothing stopping the government from repealing or amending, say, the First Amendment. The United States can't give away a right to an education or a right to health care because rights aren't for the government to give.
Here's this week's Stop the ACLU Blogburst.
===========
Just yesterday a lefty judge ruled the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional. It's pretty simple, either we are a nation under God, or a nation without God. I'm not sure the far left know how dangerous it is that they are trying to take God out of our history, and how fragile our moral fabric has become. It wasn't that long ago the out of control judicial branch ruled in favor of the federal government to take away our private property. There is no doubt the judicial branch has too much power that goes unchecked. It's time Congress step up and put a stop to the judicial tyranny and legislation from the bench. Rehnquist said it should be an impeachable offense. I completely agree.
Part of the process of exposing the radical agenda of the ACLU is to expose some of the deceptive tactics that it uses. One of those methods is often referred to as "spinning". One example of this is to take a quote from someone, take it out of context, and claim that it means something completely different than it's original intent. That is the case in one lie that the ACLU uses in many cases....
Not that many people could quote you the first amendment, but many would tell you that it refers to separation of church and state. That is a common misconception, and is absolutely not true. The words "separation of Church and State" are not in the first amendment. What the first amendment does say is,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."This falsehood comes up almost every time religion and politics touch, and usually by the ACLU. Most recently it has come up with the issue of the ten commandments case.
So where did this myth come from?
It all started with a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Danburry Baptist Association in 1802. The focus is on a portion of the letter where Jefferson states, "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state..." Jefferson wrote this letter to the Danburry Baptist Association to assure them in their concerns that the government would not establish a national denomination.
One of the most significant in a series of cases heard by the Supreme Court on the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment was Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). It was in this case that the phrase "Wall of separation of Church and State" became the cry of the far-left, and anti-Christian movement.
Intent of The Founding Fathers
So, was the original intent of our founding fathers to keep religion completely out of the government? Well, I will let them speak for themselves.
If Jefferson believed that the government should keep its hands out of religion completely, then why, while President of the United States, and the first elected president of the Washington, D.C. public school board, did he place the Bible and the Isaac Watt's hymnal into the public school system as required reading?Source
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God."Quote(Gouverneur Morris, 1792, Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France.)
Founding father who physically wrote the Constitution, and most active member of Constitutional Convention, spoke 173 times on the floor.Source
"Why...should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed last long; and, probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes hold of the mind."Quote
(Fisher Ames, The Works of Fisher Ames, 1809.) Founding father who on September 20, 1789 helped provide the wording for the First Amendment. Source
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.... The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.... Let it simply be asked, 'Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?' ...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
(George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)Quote
These are just a few quotes showing how the founding fathers recognized religion's place in the founding of our government. The First Amendment was meant to ensure the churches protection from government interference. Not vice versa.
"There was a secular study done by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era, which was 1760-1805.
This study found that 94% of the documents that went into the founding era were based on the Bible, and of that 34% of the contents were direct quotations from the Bible.
88% of students nationwide are educated in the public school system.
The Bible was the foundation and blueprint for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, educational system, and our entire history until the last 20 to 30 years".Source
As a matter of fact, Congress funded the printing of the first English language Bible printed in America. It came to be known as the "Bible of the American Revolution".
Who Has Endowed You With Your Rights?
It is a very important question, because whoever gives you the rights also has the power to take them away. Is it the state or God? Here is what the Declaration of Independence has to say about it:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Source
If you believe that your rights come from the state or society and not God, it brings up the question that George Washington asked...
"..Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?' ...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
(George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address.)
Or the one that Jefferson himself asked...""Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
(Thomas Jefferson,Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781.)
And in summary, I will ask the same question. If you completely remove God from having any role in our government, you have handed your rights over to the State. The founders unanimously agreed that our rights were endowed to us by a Creator. They all signed the famous declaration that stated so. So, their intent should be obvious. It will be a scary day for those in the majority who believe in a deity, if the State tries to assume that role. Especially when it comes to our civil rights. And the secular direction that America is being pushed in is leading us far away from the original intent of our founding fathers. When the Courts have assumed the role of stripping us of our first amendment rights to express religion, they are playing God! And the fact that this is already beginning to happen, is a legitimate thing for us to fear.
It's time we stand up and make our voices known.This was a production of stop the ACLU blogburst. Over 100 blogs already onboard. If you would like to join us please just go to our portal, and register. You will be added to our mailing list, and we will send you the information you will need.
For sites already on board, See Here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:20 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
September 14, 2005
Coalition for Darfur: A Meaningless Pledge
From Coalition for Darfur.--------
Some are hailing the inclusion of language regarding a "responsibility to protect" in the draft declaration on UN reform to be discussed during the three-day summit being held in New York.
The "Responsibility to Protect" is, according to the seminal report on the topic
[T]he idea that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.The report, and the idea, were generated by the international community's ignominious failure to intervene in situations such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The thinking was that it was necessary to shift the debate away from a "right to intervene," which carries serious implications for the cherished idea of national sovereignty, and toward a "responsibility to protect" those people in danger.
After much debate, compromise and rewriting, the final text included in the draft declaration came out looking like this
The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapter VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case by case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to help states build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assist those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.Nowhere has the Security Council or the UN member states actually pledged to do anything. This section carries no legal obligations; rather, it merely reiterates that the UN has a responsibility "to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity," which is something they already an obligation to prevent under the Genocide Convention.
Note also that it doesn't say that the UN has a "responsibility to protect" but rather a "responsibility ... to help protect" those at risk. That is a big difference.
As such, it is a little difficult to share Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin's excitement
But a Canadian-inspired initiative highlighting the world's responsibility to protect threatened people and prevent genocides is a clear move forward, Martin said.Considering that there is "another Rwanda" currently taking place in Darfur, why are we to expect that suddenly the UN is going to take seriously its "responsibility to protect"? Has the UN failed to act thus far solely because it lacked this one resolution? The UN has resisted acting on Darfur for two years and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this recognition of a theoretical "responsibility to protect" will have any impact on the legal or political concerns that have thus far prevented action.
The doctrine "essentially says that if Rwanda occurred today that the United Nations would act," he said, referring to the genocide that took an estimated 800,000 lives in the African country in the mid-1990s.
If the UN and its members truly believed in the "responsibility to protect," they would be protecting the people of Darfur, not writing resolutions vaguely promising to act when Darfur-like situations arise in the future.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:13 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The Unconstitutional Pledge: Redux
A federal judge in San Francisco today has ruled that it is unconstitutional to recite the pledge of allegiance in public schools. The ruling flies in the face of the recent Newdow v Common Sense ruling in 2003 that says there is nothing wrong with having school kids declare their allegiance to the legal entity that pays for their education and supplies their freedom. There is also nothing illegal about people such as Newdow lobbying their federal legislators to change the law, but that takes too much time. The court that ruled that the pledge was unconstitutional was also the same court that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court in the Neadow case.
updates as I get them
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
It's unclear why Judge Karlton believes he's bound by a appealate precedent that was overturned by the Supreme Court as wrong. Newdow has brought the case that he lost again to the courts, this time representing some atheist families and their children. While Karlton has narrowed the case to recitation of the Pledge instead of the constitutionality of the pledge itself, he made it clear that "There is nothing whatsoever that requires acknowledging God to love this country".
The Supreme Court case in 2003 focused solely on Newdow's ability to sue on behalf of a child he does not see and does not have custody of. This case remedies the problem by Newdow fishing out a few families to represent instead and present the same arguments laying the way for the Supreme Court to actually decide the issue this time.
=============
Judge Karlton can be contacted at:
Karlton, Lawrence K.
Hinkle, Tim, Secretary, 916-930-4130, Fax: 916-491-3905
Rivas, Ana, CRD, 916-930-4133, Fax: 916-491-3934
Others talking about this:
OTB, Stop the ACLU, Michelle Malkin, ABP, others...
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:16 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
DI Letters to the Editor
I got two DI letters to my last column. Neither address the fact that it was, in fact, Mayor Nagin who left 500 buses to get destroyed instead of evacuating his people.
What does this have to do with anything? Nothing.
Jason, a history major, has never read anything that has filled him with such anger as when I call someone who is a communist a commie. I got a good laugh at least.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:23 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Fiscal Conservativism: 1994-2005 R.I.P.
Today Tom Delay announced that Fiscal Conservativism and Limited Government has died.
In proclaiming a new era of government waste at the hands of legislators, Tom DeLay, a key figure in the Republican Revolution in 1994, has made clear that corruption will trump principle in the GOP.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 13, 2005
Unions Have to Pay People to Protest Walmart
Picketers for Hire: The strange business of protesting jobs that may be better than yours
The Unions pay people $6/hr to protest the Walmart and provide no benefits while they sit out in the sun. Walmart pays more, offers benefits, and has air conditioning inside.
Does anyone else see this as silly that they have to PAY people to protest a Walmart?
No one cares.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:54 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Carnival of Liberty, Carnival of the Capitalists, and Carnival of Life
The Carnival of Liberty is up here
You can find the Carnival of the Capitalists here.
And contribute to the Carnival of Life that will be up tomorrow.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:22 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Bonfire of the Vanities #115
Welcome to the 115th edition of the Bonfire of the Vanities, a collect of the blogosphere's most foul smelling posts. Today's edition would have been brought to you by one of my favorite drinks, the Irish Pipe Bomb, but none of the recipes I found have you lighting the shot glass on fire (if you have such a recipe send it to me) and searching for "Irish Pipe Bomb" on the web has now landed me on the No Fly List. Instead, today's Bonfire is brought to you by the letters B and S and the number 0.
The upcoming bonfire stops are as follows:
Week 116 (Sept 20) - File It Under (url: http://www.fileitunder.com)
Week 117 (Sept 27) - The Zero Boss (url: http://www.thezeroboss.com/)
Week 118 (Oct 4) - Available
If you're interested in hosting an upcoming edition of the Bonfire
let Kevin at Wizbang! know via e-mail.
Mr. Satire at satire.myblogsite.com/blog presents Celine Dion Gives Passes To Hurricane Katrina's Poor Victims To Touch Pricey Things In Her Mansion. This is what celebrities get when they start speaking as if they know how to handle the real world. Their expertise is in pretending.
Jack Cluth at The People's Republic of Seabrook presents Can I get that to go? And is that fresh donkey urine?? Think twice before getting Chinese…
Mark A. Rayner at The Skwib presents Epidemiologists Searching for Deadly Noodle Vector? He says: "More coverage of the Pastafarian schism, this time with a sideswipe at silly CDC programs." Me? Don't look at me, I just light the bonfire on fire.
FMF at Free Money Finance presents Scooters: The Perfect Second Car? How many ways can one talk about the cost of gas without actually talking about the cost of gas?
Don Surber at Don Surber presents The Next Chief Justice?. He got preempted in his post on a possible Chief Justice Thomas by Bush nominated Roberts instead.
Two Dogs at Mean Ol' Meany presents A Big Shout Out to