-...

I'm tired of those who love prying. The first comment got me nodding- prosecute and investigate the highest level criminals who mismanage everything, or so it seems, yes!

I no like, or respect a busybody, and think he/she can meddle into my privacy? O nope.

I deem 'um snoops, and up to no good. I'll not be suspicious? I'll not harbor inner fears.

!?.

O, another oracle, augur, seer, scribe, and a fraud who dreams 'um supreme 'hotshot'..[?]!

O, approach the real problems. Probe Reality! Fix what is harmful policy. The War mentality.

I'm back into old musty books, weary of bloke plebeians, fancy folks, those who mouth they care, and all I often view are more hypocrites, decked-out in fancy cloaks, continue storms,

and engage in more war, death, frauds,

and politician's ignore fairness. Justice.

That's my personal view, or opinions. Yes!

I am optimistic. No. O prying busybodies?

I am not into politics. Is it all a conspiracy?

I'm gonna go back to tend a garden. Nature!

thanks much for the reference. It eases my mind greatly.

Brightstar.... I would suggest that if you're getting your news from Michael (Weiner) Savage, it would be advisable to back it up with additional sources. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin come to mind.

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Three or four years ago my friend Professor Paul Gottfried asked me if the cultural Marxists (CMs) had taken over Loyola College yet and ruined the scholarly atmosphere there, as they have at so many other institutions of higher education. My answer at that time was no, although there have been sightings. One or two CMs had apparently received a government grant that they were using to pay a few faculty to listen to them explain how to "infuse" their left-wing ideology into all of their classes, but no one seemed to take them very seriously. My economics department colleagues assured me that the proper approach was just to ignore these lunatics.

Shortly after that conversation with Professor Gottfried the CMs took over and began acting, well, like lunatics. I learned from the local media that the former academic vice president had rejected an applicant for a top job because the applicant "wasn’t black enough." The job was academic vice president for diversity and the interviewee was an African-American man with very impressive credentials. According to news reports, this man was told that he was well qualified, but that the College preferred an African-American with somewhat darker skin.

So here was a man who had probably been discriminated against in employment during his lifetime who had reached the peak of his professional career, and was interviewing for what was probably his dream job. And he is told he wasn’t getting the job, once again, because of his skin color. And you probably thought "lunatic" was too strong a word.

... for more click on sig

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

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

If you find anyone of any race who hires, fires, or votes based on race --- you have found a racist.

Isn't it the case that Geneva prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment of any prisoner in wartime (irrespective of whether they are classified as a POW)?

Seems to me that Holder was agreeing with Geneva without fully understanding Common Article 3, so he almost unintentionally ended up agreeing with Hamdan.

Iranian grain ship seized as Somali pirates hold world to ransom
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5183710.ece

Operations undertaken by the coalition fleet are fraught with legal difficulties, ranging from restrictive rules of engagement to rights of habeas corpus, as the British Navy discovered when it detained eight pirates after a shootout last week.

The Indian navy has since sunk a pirate mothership. I presume world condemnation is soon to follow. Heh.

If you want to understand why conservatives and moderates fear putting the left in charge of protecting the US, look no further than the left's "commitment" to the rule of law.

In short, the left believes that the rule of law must be understood to protect the rights of non-citizens to the detriment of citizens of the US. So the rule of law in the Obama administration will apparently mean that a significant number of terrorists will be released from Gitmo and brought into the US to be treated as a US citizens will. No matter the potential danger to actual citizens here in the US.

And when it comes to immigration, the left's view is that those who come to the US with complete disregard for our laws and our immigration policies and the interests of those immigrants who choose to follow the law should be treated effectively the same way that legal immigrants are. Various government officials in California have said very clearly that they will ignore the federal law on immigration. Just how is that supporting the rule of law?

My hope is that Mr Obama is wiser than many on the far left who voted for him. Or at least that his self-interest will prevent him from giving in to the far left in his party.

I agree that positions and comments in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 should be discounted, and what counts for more are subsequent statements and actions. I am more troubled by Holder's comments on the insane War on Drugs™. As you said, this drug prohibition nonsense has been bedrock policy for 20 years now in the country. But I think things may be changing. Massachusetts, for example, just passed a marijuana decriminalization ballot initiative by more than two to one, even though all the usual suspects were railing that the end of civilization was at hand.

One effective tactic is to highlight the shocking costs associated with intoxicant prohibition: the direct costs of investigation, prosecution, and incarceration are compounded by the lost tax revenue (for marijuana, anyway) and the costs associated with combating the black marketeers who always have and always will satisfy the demand. When the country is going broke, that's a good time to re-examine our priorities.

I have no doubt that the Obama administration will disappoint me and other progressives in many ways. But, if he can clean up the Justice Department and get it back to upholding the law without political considerations overriding everything else, I’ll still consider having supported him worthwhile.

Eric Holder for Attorney General looks to be a positive first step. A lot will depend upon the remaining Justice Department appointments, and the quality of the U.S. Attorneys Obama appoints, but I’m cautiously optimistic.