If it were, there wouldn't be so many liberals with law degrees.


n rocket science you cannot change the realities of the landscape which govern how a physical object behaves under the physical forces acting on it. In law you can. Congress can pass new laws whenever it wants. It can amend old ones and make them less or more complex, or repeal them altogether. It and the state legislatures can trump any of the judiciary's decisions by respectively proposing and ratifying amendments to our constitution. Through these legislative bodies we the people can change the realities of the landscape which govern how a political or legal object behaves under the political or legal forces acting on it.

To think our laws belong to lawyers is wholly un-American. They belong to all of us, whether private citizen or chief justice of the supreme court. Their protection must equally apply to every person. Our constitution — that instrument from which all our nation's laws derive their legitimacy and force, and to whose support every federal, state, and local public servant is bound by oath or affirmation — was itself ordained and established by us. We, not our servants, are the only keepers of our nation of laws.

If justice — or the prevention of injustice — is the purpose of those laws, then we should also remember and recognize who's responsible for establishing justice in this country. (Hint: it isn't lawyers.) As Plato remarked: "Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens." That is, no matter what law happens to be on the books, unless the people themselves demand justice and are convinced such law serves to promote it, the efforts of all the lawyers, police officers, judges, and presidents in the world are helpless in giving that law real effect. Regarding the law's purpose, Frederick Bastiat said that

the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

On the other hand, if income and job security for lawyers is the purpose of our laws then we're already screwed. No matter what lawyer happens to be on the bench she'll be more concerned with serving her colleagues and promoting her profession than any justice we may demand. The only way to completely thwart such purpose is to declare that a conflict of interests always exists in all cases where those who publicly make, administer, and interpret the law and those who at any time privately practiced it for profit, are the same. This means shutting down at least that side of the revolving door between government service and the legal profession which allows entry from the latter to the former. A constitutional amendment requiring this might read:

No person shall be President or Vice President of the United States, a Senator or Representative in Congress, member of a state legislature, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who shall have engaged in the practice of law and received any compensation for his services therein.

No more officer courtier courtesan of the court or other specially privileged title. No more occupational conflict of interests or appearances of impropriety among jurists and counselors. Still, what a non-lawyer does after leaving government service — including becoming a lawyer — is her business.

No doubt a lawyer will look beyond our constitution to counter with representations of a judge's qualifications which basically say the following:

But cases are complex. A judge who is unable to see the clear appositeness of Adumbrate v. Subliminal, 666 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, in light of the more stringent tests set forth in Ex plicable Mullingagain, supra, is completely clueless! For the above reasons, therefore, only lawyers should be judges.

Lawyer, sue thyself. Our constitution establishes no prerequisites, not even age or citizenship, to anyone's serving as a federal judge. Certainly only lawyers have been supreme court justices; although nearly two in five had no prior judicial experience. But as our own heritage proves, not all judges in this country have been lawyers:

By the middle of the thirteenth century, lawyers so monopolized the courts in London that the King was forced to decree that, except for a few special causes, litigants were entitled to plead their own cases without lawyers.... [In America] mistrust of lawyers made appearance in court without benefit of counsel the preferred course. Lawyers had no position of honor or place in society in early colonial days. The pioneers who cleared the wilderness looked down upon them. For example, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641 expressly permitted every litigant to plead his own cause and provided, if forced to employ counsel, the litigant would pay counsel no fee for his services.... In early colonial days, the rule of informality was a necessity in court proceedings since most presiding judges were not lawyers. By the time of the Revolution, legal proceedings had become more technical and reliance on precedent had evolved, both of which required people trained in legal interpretation. As the decades of the 18th century passed, legal questions became more complex and the need for skilled attorneys was recognized. Enough individuals had gone into law so that by the time the First Continental Congress commenced, 24 of the 45 delegates were lawyers, and in the Constitutional Convention, 33 of the 55 members were lawyers. Nonetheless, the number of lawyers although growing was still few, many judges were still laymen, and the legal process still remained sufficiently simple to permit persons whether rich or poor to plead their own causes.... During the 1700s most citizens were literate and nearly everyone read a newspaper. There were numerous libraries and bookshops in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York by the time of the Revolution. This broad literacy and the people's political involvement in their democratic institutions transformed the average American into a citizen-lawyer. [Iannaccone v. Law, 97-6045, 142 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1998, internal citations omitted)]

The "our laws are now way too complex" chicken and the "our courts are now way too overpopulated by lawyers" egg argument I'll save for another post. Suffice it to say that in an era that produced the most astoundingly monumental and universally inspiring legal document in all of human history, the case was most of our judges had never privately practiced law.

The law – a profession whose general principles enlighten and enlarge, but whose minutiae contract and distract the mind.

—Harvard College freshman Joseph Story, 1798.

Far from seconding Dick the Butcher's motion, a reminder that everyone is, under our constitution, "qualified" to serve on any federal bench by no means disparages lawyers or their profession. While personally they may lack a sense of fairness and most other forms of common decency, lawyers can and do occupy a useful place in front of that bench. My contention is with our allowing them also a place behind it. (Hence the phrase "monopolized the courts.") Moving, rather, two other clichés, I would that we conservatives keep our eyes on the real prize, instead of missing the judicial forest for the judge or justice trees.

Our goal isn't to one-up liberals by putting our gals and guys on the courts instead of theirs. Our goal is to make the courts relatively irrelevant to our normal, everyday lives. To push this matter along more quickly, a second section might be added to the above constitutional amendment which reads:

Section 2. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, or on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall submit rulings and orders of the supreme court to the people of the several states, which thereupon shall not be valid unless approved by the electors in a majority of all the states within one year from the respective dates of their submission; provided that no ruling or order shall be submitted more than seventy days after it was issued, and that no conviction of treason, felony, or other crime shall be affected.

We shouldn't play the liberals' game of trying to use judgeships as the strongest way of advancing the hopes and dreams we have for our country. That's the problem. Courts were never meant for such use; and have become the corrupted abominations they are now because liberals and some others set out to make them that anyway. I want the courts to settle specific cases that hardly affect anyone except similarly situated litigants — not make policy "affecting all our lives" (© 2005, Chuqy Schumerde).

We need to pull down those pedestals they've perched themselves on, which they mainly use to look down on us, our rights and our liberties. We need to return that usurped control over our lives solely to all of us, where it rightly belongs, and re-empower our two elected branches of national government. Finally, as we conservative pioneers clear the political and legal wilderness of nutty liberal ideas, we must for the sake of all our freedoms ensure that the courts have a strictly limited position of honor and the least possible instrusive place in society. It virtually won't matter who's on the supreme or any other court once we make it again the case where courts really don't matter all that much to us or our elected representatives.

Assuredly lawyers love the power they believe they get from a near-imperialistic court system to which they as "officers" belong and whose decisions "affect all our lives." Such shamelessly egocentric arrogance, unmatched by even congressmen and presidents, is just begging us freedom-loving citizens to crush it and to put judges back in their proper place of merely umpiring cases, not engineering society. Adios, too, to every chance liberals have of ever setting up federal judges as philosopher-kings, of ever gaining any kind of power in this country through the unconstitutional backdoor of politically-driven rather than legally-driven court decisions and procedures, and of ever using that illegal system to criminalize non-liberal thought. A lawyer-judge here and there is not, however, going to have any real chance of changing this corrupt system. It is up to us to change it, if not outright gut it.

Abraham Lincoln, a miserable failure most of his life in both business and politics, was also a self-taught lawyer. A very successful one too. So how hard can it be?

This is why I am exasperated and a little dismayed by the hue and cry I've heard raised against one single lawyer, Harriet Ellan Miers, now President Bush's former nominee to serve as an associate justice on the supreme court of the United States. From an early summation of the arguments against and the dissatisfaction with her nomination, to the lavender herring of her answers last century to some Dallas homosexual group's questionnaire as well as an intraconservative mud-battered one of this substituting "which" for "that". From the 57 typed, single-spaced pages showing the nominee's answers last week to a Senate questionnaire (full text; PDF format) which didn't sound at all insulting or incomplete with respect to her regard for either the questioners in that August Body™ or their questions, to a progeral's opinion that if "Miers is capable of causing the right to weep, wail and gnash its teeth, she can't be all bad," which did sound every bit insulting and incomplete with respect to his regard for both the questioners outside it and their questions. From Miss Miers' court testimony over 193 months ago in which she characterized the Federalist Society as a "politically charged" organization, to her speech less than 6 months ago before that same organization praising it for stimulating "an on-going debate about the principles of the Constitution," adding that "our nation is better for it" and "as this debate has raged your organization has grown tremendously." From other speeches over a decade ago in which she offered the Self-Determination Test, to E Tu Dobson previously giving her a passing grade on the Religious Test. From Melanie Morgan's open letter politely asking our president's supreme court nominee to withdraw, to finally the latter's letter to our president the day before yesterday withdrawing her nomination. At this point I think it only right to ask who among her critics, or anyone else for that matter, would be willing to stand in her shoes even a minute, much less as long as she had through a politically electrified pre-confirmation hearing "process" which, unwittingly or not, resulted in making the suit of our president — the same president those of us out here believe in and trust deeply enough to have turned out in record numbers just to get him elected — appear now studded with a full regalia of puppeteers' strings from above and one or two ill placed daggers from the back?

Be that as it may, as members of a principled movement that endeavors to promote Big Ideas for the good of our country and her citizens, it would be very small of us to revel in this withdrawal as anything more than a mere restatement of the same old demand for some larger share of tiny crumbs dropped from the still gluttonous supreme court conference table. What bigger idea is there than totally throwing off that judicial aristocracy and its esquirean pedigree which have plagued our courts too long with a self-serving over-complexity and an ever-increasing enmity between us and our "public" servants, both being corruptive and poisonous to our establishment of justice? Only by so throwing them off will we have any chance of making every judge on our courts completely accountable to We the Very Ordainers and Establishers of that constitution they're bound by oath to support for our benefit — not theirs or their profession's.

To repeat: I don't want liberals on the courts acting like they're our appointed masters in this country. I don't want conservatives on the courts acting like liberals by acting like they're our appointed masters, either. I want American citizens to once again be their own masters in this country because they alone, not any court, are its owners — notwithstanding any judicial ruling, decision, opinion or other attempted usurpation to the contrary. In other words, I don't want either liberal robed masters or conservative robed masters telling all of us what to do to comport with their legalistically trained views on matters that affect all our lives; I want us to tell all of them what they must do to comport with our own electorally expressed views on any and all such matters.

Conservatives have, using copious evidence, effectively made their case to a majority of the American electorate that liberals will and do consider us merely their servants whenever they get to sit on the bench. That's why we're voting them out of office in droves so they'll never even get the chance to appoint one of their own to sit on it. Once it's shown that conservatives (in name only) will and do the same thing — as if it's their turn now to consider us they're servants — we'll toss them out too. A consNObative all-powerful master is no better than a libressive one. Both would tyrannize us and our freedoms with such power.

With specific regard to the supreme court, it is not and should not be considered the be-all, end-all of preventing injustice and protecting our rights in this country. We are. In individual matters, each of us is primarily responsible for that prevention and protection. In any Affect All Our Lives matters, all of us are solely responsible for electing legislators and executives who will respectively define and enforce our government's authority, by and under law, to prevent injustice and protect our rights. This authority may be wide or very limited. Whichever it is at the federal level, we decide through our elected representatives, senators, and president, not through our supreme court. The latter's function and role is only to settle any disputes over the particular manner in which our government is exercising or failing to exercise its lawful authority.

The bottom line is that the arrogance of those who're supposed to serve only us in our courtrooms must be quashed if we're to regain any sufficient control over both them and all our lives. The folks against whom the invective "what egos!" was first uttered must no longer be able to use our legal system as their own personal playgrounds for exclusively strengthening their and their profession's political muscles. The way to achieve this is not by trying to beat liberals at their own game and getting confirmed to the supreme court our appointments of self-important lawyerly tyrants instead of theirs. It is by ensuring there will never be a place at all for any such tyrants in our judicial offices or, indeed, the rest of our public offices ever again. In unreciprocated fairness to ones already appointed and serving, the last section to my Fumigate Our Governments Amendment might read:

Section 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of the President and Vice President of the United States, or that or the appointment of any Representative or Senator in Congress or member of a state legislature, or any executive or judicial officer, either of the United States or of a state, chosen or appointed before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

In the meanwhile, before Frum & Partners, Esqs., L.L.P. get a chance to resharpen their daggers, let's not try to change the realities of the landscape which govern how we sworn enemies of liberalism normally behave under the intolerant media and other elitist forces acting on us. It's the landscape where conservatives—

1. Give a person the chance to be heard before shouting them down and crying "Off with his head!";
   
2. Produce real evidence (usually less than a decade old) backing up their charges against a person instead of relying primarily on feelings that prejudge him guilty;
   
3. Know this president has proven repeatedly that he keeps his promises and is a man of his word, and has, far more than any president since Ronald Reagan, earned our trust;
   
4. Never break the eleventh, or President Reagan's commandment;
   
5. Offer alternatives to things they oppose rather than merely oppose (as in "Give me Janice Rogers Brown, and give the Dhimm al-Qratic Party death!");
   
6. Shake their heads at nervous nellies who trot out mainly dire predictions of doom based on anecdotal evidence (such as the kind that environuts selectively use to "prove" humans cause global warming); and
   
7. In short, do not act like liberals.

Then we'll likely get a nominee not only to our liking but one who's convinced he or she won't be subjected to anywhere near the same kind of prehearing tar and feathering the last one was.

	11:57 PM   0

Co-conspirators Joshin' Wilson and his wife Valerie indicted alongside EPIC leakers Erik Gustafson and Carl LeVan.


tephen F. Hayes, in his Weekly Standard article "The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons," reports that

on June 14, [JoKe] Wilson spoke at a forum sponsored by the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC). Although Wilson never told the gathering he was the source for the stories about "the ambassador's" trip to Africa, his comments revealed intimate knowledge of the mission....

The website for EPIC includes a biography of Wilson under the June 14, 2003, event that concludes with this sentence: "He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children."

Osama Bin Laden and Aboop al-Zitcoward released a joint statement today saying "we welcome any news that the infidel crusader Bush and his unjust and unnecessary 'war on terror' have been dealt a serious setback. We have high hopes that our offers to work progressively with al-Dhimmoqrats toward achieving peace in our time through the Shari'a for America Initiative® will bear much better fruit from Allah than it did in al-Qanada." Both terrorists Nobel Peace Prize nominees were sure that "had the infidel [Franklin] Roosevelt been dealt a similar setback he never would have been successful with his criminal invasion and occupation of Germany, which was not involved in the attacks on Pearl Harbor." A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department refused to disagree with this statement.

	11:15 AM   0

That's the praise you brave heroes get from this very grateful citizen for making two already-dead, hell-bound enemies of civilization that.


oo hoo hoo. Poor little already-dead terrorists. What a shock their postmortem constitutional rights were violated!

While their appeasers, sympathizers, aiders, and comforters in the media both here and abroad whine and complain about a very useful military tactic for necessarily humiliating and demoralizing our mortal enemies so they'll either break ranks and desert or succumb to undisciplined rage, thus making our heroes' jobs of bringing them to justice and permanently defeating them a less risky one, I for one am most thankful that our real soldiers — unlike some of their PC-mindful "leaders" whose butts brains are only good for polishing cushioned chairs behind bureaucratized desks on soft, pastel-color carpeted floors at the Pentagon — are doing whatever it takes to fight this total war to actually win it for America and the rest of the civilized world.

Our enemy's martyrs fighters baby-bombers have signed no Geneva, Paris, Madrid, Turtle Bay or any other kind of convention, nor ever even pretend that they have whenever they get hold of any of our heroes before summarily beheading him. None of our troops should ever have any of his hands tied with such fatal pretension either. He should be honored — not harassed by those claiming to be on our side or overly fearful of child-targeting killers — for improving our chances of hunting down and wiping out this entirely dishonorable, cowardly enemy.

Our heroes here all deserve a well done for making those two deservedly dead cowards well done in order to flush out and drive back more of that rancid pigmeat.

	6:51 AM   0

Before we can win this war, we need to start acting like we are at war.


ulags. I'll show you gulags, Democretards. A Superprecedent®, Settled Law™ of a gulag:

In 1950 2005, Congress, concerned about communism islamofascism, passed the Detention Act of 1950 2005. The Detention Act of 1950 2005 (the "Act") can be found in the series of books called the "Statutes at Large" in any law library. This law gave the government the capability to arrest and detain those people or groups which were deemed to be subversive and a threat to the government of the United States, and hold people in detention camps around the country.

As the concern over the conflict in Korea Iraq grew, Congress's anxiety over the existence of communist islamofascist groups located in the United States also grew. A survey was ordered to assess available confinement facilities in the United States. The Department of Justice recommended that the camps located at Army and Airforce bases, and former prisoner-of-war camps [and current detainee-of-war camps like Club Gitmo (©Maharushi)], be made available to be used as detention camps. It was also determined that it would also be more cost effective to repair existing camps than it would be to build new camps. In 1952 2007, Congress appropriated $775,000[,000] for the activation and rehabilitation of six[ty] camps.

After you've thought emoted that one over a bit, scroll through Now Playing on your TiVo and find/watch episode 9066 of the reality show Fear Factor sponsored by Post Conspiracy-Nuts®. Better yet, if you like classic sitcoms you'll cry "Whee doggie!" when you hear this one's theme song blaring in Dolby Surround:

This is the story about a man named Debs. A raving socialist who wanted gummit to keep his family fed. Then one day he was protesting World War One and up through the courts came his unanimous conviction. Sedition that is, obstructing recruitment, Treason with a capital T....

....although [Eugene] Debs did not advocate for violence of any kind, merely decrying the imperialist nature of the war won him a federal prison sentence. He had given the offending speech in Canton, Ohio on June 16, 1918. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, esteemed in legal circles today, delivered the opinion of the Court that upheld Debs' conviction....Justice Holmes found that Debs had "obstructed the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States" because he spoke out against the war.

Specifically, Justice Holmes cited two passages uttered by Debs: "You need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder" and "Don't worry about the charge of treason to your masters; but be concerned about the treason that involves yourselves"....these remarks resulted in Debs being sentenced to 10 years in prison [gulag] with all nine justices of the US Supreme Court concurring in the judgment....

Fast forward through four score and seven years of settled precedents...

We know you don't want us to win in Iraq. If you did, you'd want us to stay until the job was done. What job, you ask? Since you aren't known for your recall abilities (only your ability to get recalled), I'll remind you: It's the job of fully honoring our domestic and international commitments to make Iraq a verifiably Crimes Against Humanity-free, Weapons of Mass Destruction-free, and Terrorist Sponsor-free country, which it wasn't by any stretch of the imagination before our alliance removed the cancer of Saddam Hussein's regime and its totalitarian aggression from the region. It's the job that falls under the category Providing for the Common Defense of our nation and all her citizens. Since you aren't known for your ability to realize when "your" country's facing clear and present threats either, here's another reminder: Saddam Hussein's regime was harboring our enemies, was involved in their attacks on our country (links, ties, connections, and then some), and was working to give them weapons of mass destruction. But you just keep screaming "hype" and MoveOning left along:

As you approach the camp gates, you'll recognize among your fellow future gulagians more than a few very familiar faces. For example, such subversive, traitorous pinkos as leaders of the aptly named Code Pink, of which your beloved patron saint of chiggers and fire ants Windy Wheezin' of the Dynamited Levee is all but, if not already a member, and which willfully obstructs the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of both the service and the United States — a felony under 18 U.S.C. 2387, as is the attempt by Occupation Watch, which it co-founded, to get our troops to mutiny and desert their posts en masse. Competing against Ted al-Qennedy in the camp's Low Dive & Dog Paddle Championship will be Ramsey Clark and his NeverANSWERers, who'd never act to stop war or end racism started by such bigoted, warmongering madmen as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, simply because their group is too busy serving as an active propaganda agency for bigotted, warmongering madmen. Soloists in the Detainees Choir's rendition of "All We Are Asking Is Give Terrorists A Chance" include Veterans for Peace Surrender members who, unlike academicians who merely support deserters (never our soldiers) or try to obstruct recruitment, conspire in actually aiding and abetting desertions. While serving up lunch at the Durbin-Hinchey Dining Hall for hungry campers returning from their grueling mornings of trying to invent new ways to compare our troops' commander-in-chief to Adolph Hitler, are none other than the artistic and intellectual members of NION (Nothin' In Our Noggins) whose state of unconscionableness rivals that of Aboop Mooseflab al-Zitcoward's most feverish, vitriolic, anti-America ravings. Just part of the diverse multi-culture of camp life you're going to find and enjoy there, Democretins.

But, but, but — drivel it out, Democrasshat — but, but Bush lied and stuff, yeah, Bush lied, you know, and kids died!, and, you know, no blood for oil! — finished? — and, like, you know — (apparently not) — there were no weaponed of mass destuckion — wow, nearly a complete phrase there — Bush knew!, like, he knew! the attacks would happen, and, and, and Bush don't care about black people! — now you're getting off track — and, and just want taxcuts for the rich!, not forthechildren!, just thetoponepercent! — that $500 check I got must mean I'm a toponepercenter too, huh? — like, and, you know, is is, I don't recall, everybody does it let's moveon — O.K. — just about sex! — that's — Bush=hitler!! — really — Bushlied!!! — quite — polpotgulagconcentrationcamp!!!! bloodforoil!!!!! — enough!

So "Bush lied"? Let's try something that you'll find completely novel. It's called laaaaahjik. Ready? (Nevermind, dumb question.) Here's what the president said about Iraq: He said what happens there

matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue.

Then he added that our enemies

may deploy compact and relatively cheap weapons of mass destruction — not just nuclear, but also chemical or biological, to use disease as a weapon of war. Sometimes the terrorists and criminals act alone. But increasingly, they are interconnected, and sometimes supported by hostile countries.

In conclusion he agreed that

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

And he

looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

Even years later he contended that

there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know.

Oh, all right. I lied. Those aren't President Bush's words. They're the words of former president Billjob Lecherson Qlinton.

Let's try again, then. Here's what Condoleeza Rice said about Sodamn Insane:

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Oops, did it again. I lied, Dhimmifibs died. Hilldabeast Chickenhawk'em al-Qlinton said that.

O.K. I'm only going to say this once. I will not use quotes from that woman — Madam Notsobright. Instead, this is what Colin Powell said about the evilness of doing nothing to remove such threat before it affects our and the world's security:

We believe that he needs to fulfill all the Security Council obligations and that that is an appropriate way to deal with him.

Not only that, Secretary Powell said that

Saddam Hussein, armed with chemical and biological weapons, is a threat to the international community.

Secretary Powell then said that the

record will show that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction, which he's clearly not collecting for his own personal pleasure, but in order to use....

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Speaking to college students, Secretary Powell advised that the world has not

seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein.

Secretary Powell said that, should the Iraqi despot

break out of the box that we kept him in...[one] scenario is that he could in fact somehow use his weapons of mass destruction....

Another scenario is that he could kind of become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction — that he could be the place that people come and get more weapons.

Then Secretary Powell said that if history has taught us anything, it is that

if you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far — that he can do untold damage.

If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier, then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War.

Less than a year later, Secretary Powell emphasized that

We are now dealing with a threat, I think, that is probably harder for some to understand because it is a threat of the future, rather than a present threat, or a present act such as a border crossing, a border aggression. And here, as the president described in his statement yesterday, we are concerned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's ability to have, develop, deploy weapons of mass destruction and the threat that that poses to the neighbors, to the stability of the Middle East, and therefore, ultimately to ourselves.

Drats, you caught me with my brooches down. Don't go turning blue in the face now. I'll admit it. It was Madam Allblithe who said all that. But we were never alone in the White House together!

To make up for all this lying, I'll stop with these few quotes from Karl Rove on Iraq which I'm sure you're going to just love:

As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in which to invest.

You bet he was thinking of Halliburton when he added that "invest" remark. Then the Rovester cranked up his eeevil rightwing mindcontrol machine and sent out this eeeevil message to every programmable redstater robotvoter who wasn't living under 7,500 feet of solid neutronium, safe from its eeeeevil brain-altering carrier waves:

Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on commerce and cooperation.

For any stragglers living atop high mountaintops and whatnot, he let loose an eeeeeevil amplified pulse which caused his wildly misinformed dumbiacs to believe that the president

has said that over the long-term, the best way to address the challenge Iraq poses is "through a government in Baghdad — a new government — that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region."

No lie. What I mean is, is that, yes, actually, it, uh, well, is. I so sincerely regret that you caught me lying to you again. Those are really the words of Sandy Burglar. Oh and by the way, I lied about stopping too:

Really, just need a couple more. On the up and up, here's what Donald Rumsfeld said about the "elected" dictator (no, not President Bush, Dhimmoonbats; the bearded guy — that scruffy-looking one whose last known address was a drained septic tank): Secretary Rumsfeld told us

it's clear that we have been unable to strike any kind of a productive relationship with Saddam Hussein, and as soon as Saddam Hussein is no longer the head of that government, that there's new regime that follows him, that we will look forward to finding ways in which we could engage them in a much more productive fashion, particularly after they comply with all of the UN sanctions. There's an eagerness on our part to do that. But I think as long as he remains in office as the head of that state, it's unlikely that we could have anything but the current policy in place, with very little prospects for relief.

All right. Done. And that wasn't Donald Rumsfeld who said this. (What were you expecting?) They're Secretary of Defense William ruShtowar Cohen's words. (Just in case you're keeping score, I lied about needing moore also.)

Lies, all lies! The most serious, most blatant kinds of lies. A huge tangled knot of lies. So were they all "execut[ing] a comprehensive and sustained plan of deception" too? Why would Thomas Graham, Jr. — Bill Qlinton's special representative for arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament — start the warning balls rolling with speeches about why Iraq, Lybia, and Iran "must be prevented from acquiring weapons of mass destruction at all costs," if they weren't getting ready to execute such a plan? ("At all costs"; isn't that — how do you Libericans say it? — rather extreme?) Why were HolyJoe Lieberman, Dianne Finkenstein, Barbara Milquetoastski, Tom Dasshole, Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry, Bob Graham-nuts, Harold Fjord, Tom Lantos, Tom Judgers-Not-Jurors Harkin, Barbara NARAL-darling Boxer, Robert KKKleagler-elf Byrd, Weasley Clark, Jacques ChIraq, John Hairwarts, Dick Gumphardt, Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, Tedfish al-Qennedy, Carl NoRice Levin, Patty Osama-Schoolbuilder Murray, Nancy bitterPill-O'See, Soddom&Sons Productions™ filmmaker Scott Ritter, John TriggerPuller Rockefeller, and Henry Waneman helping them to pull off that plan as well? Does this mean Qlinton=Hitler?

The answer, of course, is it wasn't nor is a plan of deception. It's something you DemoSorosickos completely stopped doing right after America elected a Republican to her highest office and you became pathologically obsessed and blinded by your incomparable Sole Quest™ to grab power for just yourselves and your own benefit and selfish interests — ours and our country's be damned. It was and is facing reality:

The network of terrorist organizations which attacked us on and before September 11, 2001, and which is still attacking us and our allies today (our troops are "us" too, by the way, Deceiverats), is part of an international conspiracy to oust the United States completely from any and all involvement in the Middle East and thus undermine and effectively defeat our vital national security interests in that region. Those interests include our treaties with Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, our access to that portion of the world's energy supply market, and our rooting out and destroying every source of ongoing buildups and readiness for mass-murderous attacks on our and our allies' civilian populations. States currently assisting that terrorist network — namely, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria — are part of this conspiracy. Thanks to our present reality-based executive branch, Iraq no longer is.

Knowing these threats we were facing from an Iraq occupied by a known terrorist-supporting, massgrave-digging, ceasefire-breaking enemy of international peace and security — for example, too,

A senior Iraqi official has now admitted that their two large Unmanned Aerial Vehicles — one developed in the early 90s and the other under development in late 2000 — were intended for delivery of biological weapons.

(emphasis added) — it's a Good Thing we ground his regime into dust when we did, rather than just muleheadedly respected his country's sovereignty (unlike he did regarding Kuwait's) and outright ignored his continuous violations of that cease-fire agreement which he himself signed (not only precluding any peace treaty, but meaning we were still at war with him). Or perhaps you rather we'd left the world to the proven mercies of Uncle Saddam and just taken the chance, regardless how slimmer it became, that none of those UAV's nor something like them would've wound up hovering over San Francisco, or that a thousand of its residents wouldn't have smelt sweet apples before they all violently vomited and died? Are you so willing to literally bet your life — as well as ours — on a hope that avoiding the "mistake" of removing such an international war criminal from power and, instead, forever trying to contain him, when all previous attempts at that have miserably failed, will somehow increase our security?

Nonetheless, you just keep on moving on, Deludedrats, burying your heads in the sand and blaming our country and our country's president during wartime for everything under the sun — including our increasing utter refusals at the ballot box to hire you for any public position that might require you have more responsibility than expert, frequent use of the latest-model mop or broom. Just see how much more of our trust you'll never earn when you again go out and attempt to sabotage our country's war efforts with your openly subversive and seditious "movement" towards denying her the total, final victory she must have over death-loving terrorists if she's to preserve both herself and those rights you're now so irresponsibly abusing. Continue giving aid and comfort to such terrorists whose most insidious utterings against those efforts, and whose causes, based on their real hatred for America and her leaders, have become increasingly indistiguishable from your own — even as they're bent on eradicating all who aren't like them, including you.

In the meantime, while you're hoping they're "probably not capable of building even a crude nuclear weapon," while you're opposing every effort we're making to keep those from being you moonbatards' famous last words, while you're primping and pimping your "movement" for and on every Terrorphile-Stream Media network from Al-jazeera to Al-CNN (Callit-iNsurgency-Notterrorency), while you're busily trying to plant those bright neon signs of weakness flashing We're Not United! Handringers Oasis! Appeasers Resort & Hotel! so attractively in the terrorists' eyes, while you're screaming we can "win without war," while you're asking "why attack Iraq when there were greater threats to the security of our nation?" as if in the event we ever did go after any of those "greater threats" you wouldn't come out against that as well, while you're offering nothing in the way of any cognizable alternative other than "hey, I know, let's retreat and surrender! that'll make it all better," while you're more concerned about why the terrorists hate us than about why the few we haven't captured, killed, or permanently scattered yet haven't stopped breathing, while you're calling unprecedented free and open elections, unprecedented democratic and constitutional guarantees, and unprecedented hope for the tens of millions of lives we helped liberate from brutal oppression and murderous fascism nothing but a "quagmire," while you're vying for the title of Sycophant of the Millennium exclusively awarded by backstabbing "allies" like Grance and Fermany, while you're holding on to your blind faith that Sodumb & Bin Dumber "hated each other" even in the face of more and more facts repeatedly proving you wrong, while you're continually moaning "no WMDs found" even after we continued to find more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more evidence of them, while you're moonbattily howling that we need to forsake our international obligations and just abandon the Iraqi people and their country to international terrorists who're just dying to make it their base of operations against the whole world, while you're screeching how much these cowardly child-targeting and child-killing vipers need to be understood and called benign-sounding names like "insurgents," "militants," or "freedom fighters" instead of demanding we do whatever it takes to obliterate them all off the face of the earth so they won't be able to ever again exist as anything more horrible than a bad memory, while you're feeling we still have the luxury of waiting around for help from Saddam's most-favored nations that won't ever arrive, and wouldn't ever be reliable or adequate even if it did, rather than acting now to save people threatened by terrorists and their state sponsors, while you're burying your duly departed International (sic[k]) "Freedom" Center Centre and Osama Theme Park, while you're ringing your hands over the islamofascist invasion of EUrabia, while you're <moonbatalert>blaming everyone except the terrorists</moonbatalert> when there is a warning the latter might attack us just like you'd blamed everyone except yourselves and the terrorists when there was no warning they would, while you're abusing what little official power you have in bullying any of our wartime congressional leaders with your manifestly trumped-up, solely politically-motivated indictments just for your own party's sake, interests, and welfare and never for the American public's, while you're superglued on stupid, while you're desperately trying to convince us you have at long last reanimated your sole but long-dead cranial neuron, and while, out of your base frustration at and hatred for an America in which you justifiably possess no real power, you're otherwise acting dupably and duplicitously on behalf of our craven enemy in furtherance of his aims, don't ever recall this: Every time your "movement" stages an anti-war anti-America protest, not only do you overtly give aid and comfort to that enemy but you divert police resources and manpower away from helping find his spies and operatives on our own soil. That's because the police have to look out for you instead of being on the lookout for them. If I were a terrorist bent on killing American "infidels" in a "martyrdom operation," I'd have no difficulty figuring into my surveillance or attack plans one of your protests as a diversionary tactic, knowing full well that law-enforcement presence around key infrastructure targets is necessarily going to be reduced. Emote that one over too.

With all this willful, hate-based subversiveness, sedition, advocating of mutiny and desertions, sabotaging of our war efforts, and giving of overt aid and comfort to our enemy, you aren't helping us win this war at all, Deleakerats. Indeed, you'd rather our country retreat into isolationism, renege on her international obligations, wait only until more muslumass-murderous attacks have left thousands more of her citizens dead (and get blamed for those too), and yet still do nothing afterwards but offer any of her surviving ones more counseling. That's the surest way to lose this war and plunge our country — out of sheer desperation and utmost necessity — into a very real paranoid police state. While you may want that, no truly freedom-loving citizen does. The latter knows in his bones that, to quote a great president, "there is no peace without victory."

Predictably, you don't get this. You miserably fail to realize, as the TeddyJo al-Qennedy Resignation Petition (Guardian WatchBlog) puts it:

We do have enemies, and our enemies have chosen this war and this battleground. We cannot retreat from it. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree on how we got there or not, we are at war with them in Iraq now. The recent horrific beheading of Nick Berg shows us exactly what kind of people those enemies are, and what they want. We must rid the Middle East of these terrorists — that's what the War on Terror is all about. And Ted Kennedy [and each and every other Traitorat] has repeatedly given aid and comfort to the enemy in various ways in the course of this war.

Your own words and deeds keep proving it's pointless to ever hope you'll get any of this and somehow change.

Gulagton Hotel & Resort Polpotville, Traitornia( partial guest list )
Bin Laden Cafeteria: Tom Andrews, Joan Baez, Medea Benjamin, David Bischel, Jane Bright, Cher, Noam Chomsky, David Cortright, David Cross, Kelly Dougherty, Daniel Ellsberg, Jodie Evans, Melvin A. Goodman, Tim Goodrich, Woody Harrelson, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Hoffman, Rickie Lee Jones, Dolores Kesterson, Lila Lipscomb, Serge Louchnikov, Kevin Martin, Nadia McCaffrey, Ray McGovern, Bill Mitchell, Robert K. Musil, Sue Niederer, Jeff Norman, Sean O'Neill, Patton Oswalt, Rick Overton, Edward Peck, Lou Plummer, Nooshin Razani, Jonathan Richman, Susan Sarandon, Susan Shaer, Cindy Sheehan, Martin Sheen, Michelle Shocked, Fernando Suarez del Solar, Celeste Zappala, Dante Zappala, Howard Zinn. Che Guevara Recreation Centre: Brian Becker, Leslie Cagan, Stanley Cohen, Danny Glover, Barbara Lee, C. Clark Kissinger, John Walker Lindh, James McDermott, Michael Moore, Lynne Stewart, Oliver Stone. Waterbucket Brigade: Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller, Ron Wyden.		Taliban Memorial Soccer Stadium: Aimee Allison, Amy Hagopian, Charlie Anderson, Sarah Bardwell, Medea Benjamin, Peter Camejo, Pat Dooley, Eve Ensler, Jodie Evans, Dennis Kyne, Craig Rosebraugh, George Soros, Gloria Steinem. Surrender Seminar: Saundra Addison-Britto, Brenda Allen, Medea Benjamin, Sophie Bloch, Jacqueline (Jackie) Cabasso, Kelly Campbell, Kymberlie Quong Charles, Alona Clifton, Felicia Eaves, Chuck Fager, Lisa Fithian, George Friday, Joseph Gainza, Liz Rivera Goldstein, Van Gosse, Christopher Harrison, Leslie Kielson, Maleena Lawrence, Judith LeBlanc, Cliff Suk-Jae Lee, Siu Hin Lee, Rahul Mahajan, Jessica Marshall, George Martin, Cristina Martinez, Michael T. McPhearson, David Meieran, Gael Murphy, Efia Nwangaza, Michael O'Gorman, Baltazar (Bal) Pinguel, Bryan Proffitt, Amy Quinn, Virginia Rodino, Ann Roesler, Nancy Romer, Sobukwe Shukura, Fernando Suarez del Solar, Denise Thomas, Prasad Venugopal, Susan Wenger, Bob Wing.

Now, mind heart you, I'm not suggesting that anyone question your patriotism. On the contrary. I'm demanding that the blazingly clear lack of it you repeatedly show in overtly giving my country's cruelest enemies valuable aid and comfort (to them) in time of war, subject you both to federal-court trial for knowing and willful acts of treason and, pending the jury's verdict, to immediate detention in those gulags you ceaselessly complain exist on our soil. In the manifest certitude you are again proven wrong, this time with regard to their existence, then I'm also demanding that that be remedied as well.

To put it most succinctly:

Get in the damn fight, or stay out of the way until it's over. Stop trying to undermine the morale of our military and our people at home.

We have appropriated vast sums, not only for our own protection, but also to strengthen freedom throughout the world. We are capturing terrorist leaders right and left, thus weakening their ability to successfully attack us. We are, in short, doing all we are capable of doing to confront and permanently remove a clear, present, and continuing danger to the security of the United States. And still you want us believe we aren't making any progress?

That's why I believe you must stay out of the way until "the damn fight" is over. Then it'll be an easier fight, over in a matter of years instead of decades, since you won't be anywhere around again actively hindering it. You'll personally have all the free health care and all the free public housing you could ever want. We won't even require that you pay any taxes for an "unjust and unnecessary" war. We'll be making all your dreams of not ever becoming involved or associated in any way with our country's upcoming victory over global terrorism come absolutely true.

Of course there may not be a John Ashcroft coming after you in the middle of the night. But there will be an Alberto Gonzoles. You know, the person you claim did everything but draw up the blueprints for the Gulag at Gitmo® because of a memo he received which said laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." So you can take great discomfort in the thought feeling that he has more experience at the job of gulaging than his predecessor, Mr./Ms. Enemy Democombatant.

What? You're saying this might be considered cruel and unusual punishment? Doubtful. As in previous total wars, even our federal courts recognize that our nation is fighting for its survival as a free nation, that treason threatens her survival, that "sedition against the United States is a crime against the nation," and that Congress may take and has taken steps "to provide for the common defense, to preserve the sovereignty of the United States as an independent nation, and to guarantee to each State a republican form of government," among which include treating "seditious conduct as a matter of vital national concern." Bringing you moonbatraitors to justice is only a matter, then, of presenting "sufficient evidence":

We are not unmindful of the fact that the United States is now engaged in a total war for national survival and that total war of the modern variety cannot be won by a doubtful, disunited nation in which any appreciable sector is disloyal. For that reason our enemies have developed psychological warfare to a high degree in an effort to cause unrest and disloyalty. Much of this type of warfare takes the form of insidious propaganda in the manner and tenor displayed by petitioner's three pamphlets. Crude appeals to overthrow the government or to discard our arms in open mutiny are seldom made. Emphasis is laid, rather, on such matters as the futility of our war aims, the vices of our allies and the inadequacy of our leadership. But the mere fact that such ideas are enunciated by a citizen is not enough by itself to warrant a finding of a criminal intent to violate Section 3 of the Espionage Act. Unless there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to bring about the specific consequences prohibited by the Act, an American citizen has the right to discuss these matters either by temperate reasoning or by immoderate and vicious invective without running afoul of the Espionage Act of 1917. [Hartzell v. United States, 322 U.S. 680, 689]

The biggest evidence, of course, is the uncontested fact you did not and still do not want us to defeat our enemies — including Iraq's fascist dictator, with whom we were still at war even before we found enough will to finally "finish the job" of removing him, and now his longtime al-Qaeda pal Aboob Zitcoward — and have done and are still doing every overt thing within your rapidly fading powers to effectively prevent us from defeating them. You are traitors to your country. You are traitors to freedom. You are, far unlike anyone else, concerned about no one and nothing but yourselves and how you may seize and hold power. You're no better than the islamofascists we're fighting. Like you, they would, if given the chance, impose on everyone else a regime of total hopelessness and fear in which their subjects have no right to choose anything except complete submission under shari'a or, in your case, liberal law. Gratefully, this nation's free citizenry shows no intention of ever submitting to either.

I'm fully aware that it's incredibly futile to ask you to recall that, without any fair warnings, our enemy reduced two of our tallest buildings to rubble, targeted and killed thousands of our and other nations' civilians, seriously wounded tens of thousands more, and formally declared war on us. Yet not even one Defeatistrat member of Congress bothered to submit the first resolution formally declaring war against him or any of his state supporters. At least several Republicans did.

Obviously, in accordance with his capabilities, our enemy has no intention of fighting a limited war with us. So why are you thinking feeling we must try to fight one with him now? Do you yourselves not have the will to fight anything else? Even when it is necessary and proper to defend our way of life?

In a war of attrition, our enemy believes that any apparent lack of will on our part, and no such lack on his, gives him the better hope of becoming the victor. A war of annihilation, not attrition, on the other hand is one that he is totally incapable of waging against anyone right now. But not us. Given his and our capabilities, it is the only one where he is always, fatally placed at a disadvantage. Then why are you wanting to practicably hand him that limited-war advantage he desires? Why are you not demanding that we fight, instead, the kind of war he can never win? Are you suggesting we wait until he grows strong enough so he can engage us in a fair fight? Being the master at the waiting game that he is, this is exactly what our enemy desires too. For the sake of our way of life, about which you've never shown any unselfish concern, we should give him no such chance:

We should issue fair warnings to civilian populations for them either to promptly evacuate before we turn Damascus into Dresden and Tehran into Tokyo, or to immediately begin rising up against and liberating themselves from their aggressive, terrorist-supporting oppressors so we can move in quickly to join and assist them. The choice of which one happens would be theirs, not the terrorists' nor the oppressors' harboring those terrorists. In a war against global aggression by fascists who hold a collective death wish, whose highest rank in their cowardly shadow-hidden force is "martyr," whose only real targets are civilians, and who must rely wholly on a supportive or at least passive population to harbor or hide them, it truly is a stark matter of being with us or with the terrorists. If our goal is to defeat them completely and forever, we must allow no in between. This applies to you too, Dhimmirats.

Imagine Iraqi democracy. It isn't hard to do. Nothing terrorists can hope for. No religion of jihad too. Imagine all the Iraqi people, living their lives in freedom.

Imagine no Middle East tyrants. I wonder if you can. No Syrian and Iranian ones. Freedom also for every woman. Imagine all Islamic peoples, each sharing an equal vote.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. When you're transported to your gulags, then we'll start to win this one.

	5:13 PM   0

On or around September 13^th...


got a head cold, which my lawyers had said isn't illegal to the best of their knowledge and belief. I went to the ATM and withdrew about $10 from my checking account, which my lawyers advised me I could do without violating current state or federal laws. I took that $10, left the ATM, drove to a drug store, parked my car in front of said store, got out of my car, then went inside the aforementioned store. My lawyers assured me all this is (legally speaking) hunky-dory too. I went down the medicine aisle and found a box a Sudafed. I then picked up the Sudafed box with my right hand, turned it over and read the label to see if there wasn't some kind of warning saying what I was doing (reading the back of a Sudafed box or merely handling it) is unlawful. I didn't find such a warning. So I took the Sudafed box to the checkout counter, waited till it was my turn, put the Sudafed box on said counter, then took out my $10 and handed it to the drug-store associate. She placed the Sudafed box inside a small plastic bag before handing it back to me. She also handed me three unmarked one-dollar bills in U.S. currency, along with two quarters, a dime, and one penny (which turned out to be a Canadian penny, by the way). My lawyers said this transaction isn't a violation of any known local, state, federal, or international law either. I proceeded out of the drug store, got back into my car, cranked it up, put it in gear, and started to drive away. Unfortunately, another customer was backing up out of the parking space directly behind me at the same time and our two cars bumped each other. The other driver and I examined both vehicles and, upon mutually agreeing that no visible damage had been done to either, got back into our respective cars and drove away in opposite directions. At some point later that same day, I arrived at my home and parked my car in the driveway, which my lawyers claimed I could legally do. I got out of my car and went inside my home, taking along the small plastic bag that contained the Sudafed box I purchased earlier from the drug store using the $10 I had withdrawn beforehand from the ATM machine. I went directly to my kitchen, got a drinking glass out from the cabinet, placed the glass (open end up) approximate three inches under the kitchen sink's faucet, turned on the faucet, and filled the glass nearly halfway up with water before turning off the aforesaid faucet. Then I took the Sudafed box out of the small plastic bag, opened said box, and extracted one Sudafed pill from its container. (This is what the Sudafed box's label itself recommended I do.) I placed the extracted Sudafed pill inside my mouth, took a large sip of water, and swallowed both the pill and that water at the same time. Approximately one hour later, my head cold felt better, which my lawyers believed was allowed under all relevant statutes.

Exactly three years to the day after the aforementioned events took place, I was served a notice by America's D.A.™ Ronnie Earle saying that he had gotten one of his grand juries to indict me for conspiracy to attempt unlawful establishment of one or more meth labs, as well as for international money laundering in connection with said attempted establishment of said meth lab(s). He also indicted the half glass of water I drank to wash down that Sudafed pill on the charge of conspiracy to attempt unlawful destruction of criminal evidence.

I hear he's willing to let me cop a plea with him on the lesser, unrelated charge of failure to exchange insurance information with the motorist whose car I bumped in the drug store's parking lot, provided I agree to mention on my Web log that all corporation money is evil. So in the interest of doing what Ronnie Earle dictates is The Right Thing®, I hereby state (albeit under extreme duress):

All Corporation Money Is Evil!

Attested by me on the posted date shown herein:

	10:23 PM   0