Tuesday, 06 July 2010


Ken Berwitz

I hope you're not surprised by this.

In my blog of August 21, 2009, I said the following.  Please pay special attention to the sentence in bold print:

On July 9th of this year, during one of his world tours in which he apologized for the United States to some of the worst scum of the earth, as if we owed them an apology, President Obama met with moammar qaddafi and shook his hand.  Clearly, this was a very different way of interacting with qaddafi.  Even though Bush reestablished relations with Libya in 2006, he didn't fantasize some klind of warm, friendly relationship with its dictator.


On August 20th, the Scottish government, in its inexcusable idiocy, released convicted terrorist abdelbaset al megrahi.  megrahi was the one and only man convicted of taking down Pan Am flight 103 near the town of Lockerbie in 1988, and killing 270 people - most of them American and a great many of them young students. 


The rationale for al megrahis release was that he is dying of prostate cancer (a condition many people survive and live long lives afterwards).  This was supposed to show "compassion" (to a terrorist and mass murderer).

As you can see, we were told at the time that al megrahi had just a few months to live.  So what?  Why shouldn't he have died in jail?

Instead, Scotland released him.  And the terrorist-loving Libyan dicator moamar al khaddafi, who was asked by President Obama to put megrahi under house arrest, showed his concern for humanity (and respect level for Obama) by sending his own plane to pick this subhuman murdering scumbag up, and giving him a huge, love-and-kisses reception when he landed in Tripoli.

But now, almost a year later? 

Excerpted from an article by Phil Boehmke at americanthinker.com - the bold print is mine:

On August 20, 2009 Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland and allowed to return to Libya where he was expected to die within three months. According to the UK Telegraph, one of the physicians who examined Megrahi last summer has recently said that the infamous Lockerbie Bomber could live for another 10 or even 20 years.

Professor Karol Sikora who serves as the dean of medicine at Buckingham University may have had a much larger role in Megrahi's release than was previously thought.

The Scottish government insists Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister who took the final decision to release Megrahi, based his ruling on a medical report by Dr. Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS).


A report in the Sunday Times said Libyan authorities, keen to secure Megrahi's release, asked several experts to put a three-month estimate on the bomber's life but Professor Sikora was the only one to agree.

In a revealing statement Professor Sikora said.

"It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point. On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify [that]"

I knew it.  I bet you did too.

Those sons of bitch bastards knew full well he had longer than that to live.  But they let this mass murderer of children free so that he could live his life as a hero to the terrorist loving scum who are so proud of him.

This is why, except for extreme emergency, I will never knowingly buy another Scottish product again.  I hope you feel the same and act accordingly.

Michael Follon From ANNEXE B, PAROLE BOARD RESPONSE , page 11- 'Compassionate Release: US Government View: The US Government does not grant permission for this document to be published.' Regarding the article by Phil Boemke of americanthinker.com - 'he [Megrahi] was expected to die within three months.' No he was not. Read the actual Medical Report and Supporting Documentation. From an FBI blog 'FBI CHIEF TERRORIST'. Paragraph 2) reads - 'In 1988, Mueller supervised the investigation of Pan Am Flight 800 which was destroyed by a terrorist bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland. He successfully kept the CIA's connection to the bombing from becoming public. The CIA and FBI took control of the crash scene for the first day (keeping Scottish police at bay), searching through and removing numerous pieces of evidence and luggage from the wreckage to obscure the connections of the bombing to the CIA special team that was on board the aircraft. One CIA defector has said that the team had been returning to the states against orders to blow the whistle on CIA drug and terrorist connections in the Middle East.' Note the 'error' regarding the flight number of Pan Am 103. (07/06/10)

Michael Follon Ken - As the comments form would not allow me to submit HTML or a web address I am detailing how to obtain the same information through a Google Search. 1. In Search box key in "Scottish Government" "Compassionate Release" Lockerbie, then click 'SEARCH'. Under 'Lockerbie decision' click on 'Lockerbie information relating to decision on Mr Abdelbaset Ali...'. This will take you to the relevant section of the Scottish Government website. There are several options on the menu bar on the left hand side. 2. In Search box key in "THE LOCKERBIE TRIAL AND APPEAL" then click SEARCH. Click on 'THE LOCKERBIE TRIAL AND APPEAL - a knol by Robert Black'. 3. In Search box key in "Edinburgh Law Review January 1999" then click on SEARCH. Click on 'Setup for a possible trial by dr Robert - Plane Truth'. 4. In Search box key in "LOCKERBIE PRE-TRIAL REVIEW NOTES" then click on SEARCH. Click on first item returned (a PDF file). It was also widely reported here that a document which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had uncovered led to the British Home Secretary issuing a Public Interest Immunity Order to ensure that it never became public knowledge or was ever used in any appeal. Colin Boyd QC, who led the prosecution, was only appointed as Lord Advocate when his predecessor resigned because he was expected to conduct the case on entirely circumstantial evidence. As to any so-called Conspirancy Theory, I am not interested in such. What does concern and anger me is the gross misrepresentation of my country because of incorrect or inaccurate asumptions and reporting as well as blatant lies at a higher level. The media over here has not been exactly honest in its reporting about the decision to release Megrahi either. In Scotland this is mainly due to a pre-existing bias against one particular political party. In a letter to Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, regarding his letter to Kenny MacAskill MSP, Scottish Justice Secretary, I wrote - 'you write "I am familiar with the facts, and the law". What facts might that be? You may be familiar with United States Law but you are certainly not familiar with Scots Law. Criminal Law in Scotland has two procedures - Solemn and Summary. Solemn procedure applies to the most serious criminal offences. The burden of proof, for a safe conviction, is the responsibility of the prosecution and it must be BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. You further write "the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process". A Solemn procedure criminal trial conducted under Scots Law occurs before the High Court and requires a jury of 15 members. There was NO JURY at the Camp Zeist trial. There are three possible verdicts available - GUILTY, NOT GUILTY or NOT PROVEN. Compassionate release is part of the DUE PROCESS of Scots Law.'. Copies of this letter were sent to - President Barack Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper and Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd. (07/07/10)

Ken Berwitz Michael - if you have something more than a conspiracy theory - i.e. not just anecdotal or circumstantial evidence, but solid facts to back up your claims - I will be very interested to see it. And regardless of whether I'm personally persuaded, I would be willing to put it up on the blog so that readers can judge for themselves. Show me what you've got, either by posting another comment or providing one or more web sites, and we'll take it from there. (07/06/10)


Ken Berwitz

For no particular reason, I was thinking about how things have changed in just the past quarter century. 

Now 25 years is nothing.  In the annals of time it doesn't even move the chronology meter.  But technology, language and a bunch of other things have been changing so fast that it got me to thinking about how even simple transactions have been affected in this short period of time.  

Let me show you.

Millions of people buy groceries in supermarkets every day.  Let's say that, today, I'm one of them.  I've finished shopping and I want to get home.  So I walk up to the female, high school-aged cashier at an empty checkout aisle, and the following conversation takes place:  

Hi.  Is this line cash only or credit?




Before you start, I left my customer card at home.  Let me give you my phone number.


Sure.  What is it?


Im using a credit card to pay for this.




Id like to swipe the credit card, how do I do it?


Just run it through that machine on the counter in front of you.


I want $50 back.  Give it to me in small bills.  Two tens, four fives and ten ones.


Ok, sure.


Have a nice day.


You too.

Simple.  Easy.  No problem at all, right? 

Now, here I am just 25 years ago in 1985.  Let's see how the conversation would have gone then:  

Hi.  Is this line cash only or credit?




Is this line for cash only or credit?


Mister, this is a supermarket.  Not a bank.  We don't give credit here.


Hmmm.  Before you start, I left my customer card at home.  Let me give you my phone number.


Mister, I don't know what a customer card is.  And I don't want your phone number.  You're old enough to be my father.  Maybe even grandfather.  Please stop scaring me.


Im using a credit card to pay for this.


Credit card?  This is a supermarket, not a restaurant.  We don't take credit cards.  Yeesh.


Id like to swipe the credit card, how do I do it?


You want to swipe one?  Not from me, Mister, I'm in high school and I don't have any credit cards.  Look, you just tried to pick me up and now you're telling me you want to steal a credit card?  If you don't stop right now, I'm calling the manager.  And the police.


I want $50 back.  Give it to me in small bills.  Two tens, four fives and ten ones.




(As I'm being led away in handcuffs) Have a nice day.


Rot in jail, you pig.

Yep, things have changed a lot in the past 25 years.....

Zeke .... .... I want $50 back. Give it to me in small bills. Two tens, four fives and five ones. Ok, sure. .... .... .... Ken ... I think you and the cashier need to repeat 3rd grade arithmetic ... (07/06/10)

Ken Berwitz aaaarrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!! Thanks for the catch. It will be changed in a minute. (07/06/10)


Ken Berwitz

Here's a fun little puzzle for you:  Guess what these ten words/phrases have in common:




-Alma mater



-Argiope (not a typo, honest)


-Cassiope (not a typo either)


I'll wait an hour or so and append the answer below along with the source.  Feel free to be as intrigued (or bored by) it as you want.



Ok, you had your chance.

The common thread for all these words is that, according to merriam-webster online, they all are derived in one way or another from the word "mother".

You can read all about it by clicking here.


Ken Berwitz

From Mike Allen, writing for www.politico.com.  His article is in rust, my comments are in blue:

BAGHDAD  Vice President Joe Biden said after a three-day trip to Baghdad that the American people will see President Barack Obamas Iraq policy as a success when the combat mission ends on schedule Aug. 31. Biden said the administration will be able to point to it and say, We told you what were going to do, and we did it. We did no such thing.  Youre a liar. 


I think America wins, Biden told POLITICO in an end-of-trip interview at the ambassadors residence in the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex. I sound corny, but I think America gets credit here in the region. And I think everybody gets credit, from George Bush to [President Obama].  Ok, Joe:  What policy did Barack Obama follow that gave us a win?  All he has done is take troops out and at a far slower pace than he promised.  Did he provide some policy change from what President Bush did, which made us win more decisively or faster?  No he did not.  In actuality, then-Senator Obama specifically denounced the Bush surge, which won this war and said it would have the opposite affect.  Youre a liar.


I think Americans will recognize that there arent body counts ... that they got 95,000 people home. That will be noticeable that theyre home."  Yeah, we noticed.  We noticed that the Obama promise first was all troops out in 16 months, and then all combat troops out in 16 months.  May 20 was the end of Mr. Obamas 16th month in office, and there were still 90,000 troops in Iraq, including tens of thousands of combat troops.  Youre a liar.


The chief purpose of Bidens visit was to prod Iraqi politicians to form a government and end a four-month stalemate that followed parliamentary elections. The vice president said security in the country doesnt really relate to whether theres a government formed or not.  No relationship between the security of a country and whether it has a functioning government?  Thats not only a lie, it is an idiocy to boot.


The government that is the interim government now  a little like our interregnum period between November and January  is actually functioning in terms of security, he said. I am hopeful  I am confident  that in the relatively near term, theyre going to be able to work out an agreement on ... the new government.  Translation:  There is no government fully functioning right now.  During the time between a U.S. Presidential election and the end of the presidential term, there is a fully functioning government every day.  Lets not call this a lie.  Lets just call this the, oh, about 54,396th instance in which Mr. Biden has been ignorant of what he is talking about.  But in terms of security, if there were a crisis, how would it be handled?  Who would handle it?  No one knows.  Thats the part where he is lying.


Biden said he hopes a resolution will come by the end of the summer and maybe even considerably sooner. Better late than even later.


But he added with a smile, Thats like trying to decide when the Senates going to pass health care: They did it, but it took a while.  This is funny to you?


Biden said improved conditions in Iraq will bolster Democrats with voters in November.  Sure, Joe.  Everyone in the country is proud of Barack Obamas not George Bushs but Barack Obamas - contribution to our success in Iraq.  Any mushrooms left for me?


They are going to take a look and see that the president kept his promise getting troops home, which will give them more confidence in the foreign policy he set, Biden said.  As pointed out earlier, his promise is already broken.  Youre a liar.


Has there ever been a more clueless Vice President in the history of this country?  Maybe so, But I don't know his name.  Next to Biden, Dan Quayle looks Rushmore-ready.


Ken Berwitz

Harry Reid was in big trouble.  His actions as senate majority leader, along with a growing list of offensive comments which range from comically stupid (D.C. tourists smell bad) to despicably demoralizing (the Iraq war is lost) had put him in a deep hole.

But when the Republican Party nominated conservative, Tea-Party stalwart Sharron Angle as his opponent, his people clearly thought the problem was solved.  Through our ever Democratic-compliant media, Ms. Angle was immediately tarred as a looney-tune right wing simpleton;  someone who might be ok for comic relief at a town hall open mike, but couldn't possibly be anywhere near a seat of power in Washington DC.

That upswing in mood, I assume, lasted until the polls came out. They showed that, even after the major lambasting Ms. Angle took from Reid, he only had a 3% lead in the Mason-Dixon in late May.  But in the Las Vegas Journal-Review poll a week later, it was Ms. Angle with a 3% lead.  And in the Rasmussen poll weeks afterwards, Ms. Angle was ahead by 7%.

Panic time.

And what would Mr. Reid's campaign do in a panic?  Here's your answer, excerpted from an article at hotair.com.  The bold print is mine:

Reid Campaign Targets Angle Supporters With Phishing Website

posted at 7:40 am on July 6, 2010 by Legal Insurrection

A few days ago, Sharron Angle launched a new format to her website, giving the campaign a more professional looking web portal.

Harry Reids campaign, however, took the code from the prior Angle website and launched a website called TheRealSharronAngle.com. The fake website was what, in internet terminology, is called spoofing, where a seemingly real website is created, usually to obtain information under false pretenses (frequently referred to as phishing).

The purported purpose of the spoofed website according to a press release by the Reid campaign was to preserve Angles position statements on various issues but that purpose surely was contrived, since Angles prior website was cited and quoted extensively. All of Angles positions, as reflected on the original website, were fully preserved.

While creating a spoofed website may have reflected the childish ways of the Reid campaign, the way the Reid campaign set up the spoofed website was more nefarious.

The Reid campaign activated the prior sections of Angles original website where supporters of Angle could enter their e-mail and other contact information for future campaign communications, as well as a form to sign up as a volunteer. I know that the contact section was operable because I filled it out the form and hit the submit button.

Turning these contact and volunteer functions live must have been a deliberate Reid campaign decision, because the contribute function on the spoofed website was inoperable. The Reid campaign clearly wanted to gather names and contact information on Angle supporters, but did not want to go so far as to take fraudulent donations.

Since the website was titled The Real Sharron Angle and looked like Angles original website, it is likely that some people would have thought it was the real Sharron Angle website, and would provided private information under false pretenses if the fake website had continued.

The Reid campaign pulled the spoofed website this weekend, however, after receiving a demand letter from the Angle campaign threatening legal action (emphasis in original):

In addition, it appears that the only interactive function on the fake site is the capturing of names of persons seeking to add their names and email addresses as supporters of Sharron Angle.

Surely the Reid campaign is not planning to obtain the names and email addresses of Angle supporters under false pretenses and the to misuse those names and email addresses for some purposes other than the purposes for which the individual signors intended!

Needless to say, the Reid campaign and its supporters are spinning the incident as one where Angle wanted to preserve what TPM calls Angles Memory Hole.

But the reality is that by creating a spoofed website with the contact and volunteer functions operable, the Reid campaign sought to obtain personally identifiable information about Angle supporters. At a minimum, such information about Angle supporters would have been gathered under false pretenses.

Regardless of whether the Reid campaigns spoofing and phishing attempt was criminal, it was sleazy.

Harry Reid needs to explain why his campaign engages in such tactics. Perhaps after he explains why he refuses to debate Sharron Angle for several months.

Remember that popular Clint Eastwood movie "Dirty Harry"?  Evidently Nevada has its own version.  And, if the polls are accurate, it doesn't share the original's popularity level at all.

Nor should it.

Do I think Sharron Angle is some kind of heaven-on-earth candidate?  Not hardly.  She clearly is a right wing conservative, which I am not.  There is little doubt that we disagree on at least some major issues.

But when I add in what I know about Harry Reid, the issue of who to root for is quickly settled.  

I fervently hope that Nevada voters understand what is at stake here, and disgorge Harry Reid from the senate. 

He has hurt us too much already.


UPDATE:  Just a few minutes ago I got today's Talking Points Memo from David Kurtz, of the reliably Democratic/leftward TPM web site.  One of the items was as follows:

Angle Threatens To Sue Reid Over Posting Her Web Site. After Sen. Harry Reid's campaign posted her pre-primary web site online, GOP candidate Sharron Angle sent Reid a cease and desist letter, threatening to sue him for misuse of copyrighted materials. Angle's web site, which included some of her more extreme positions, disappeared after she won the primary, and re-appeared last week after undergoing a makeover by Angle's establishment consultants.

Do you notice a single thing about Reid's people activating the parts of that site where visitors give private information?  Me neither.  Harry is protected by his pals.

I do, however, see an accusation that Ms. Angle's "more extreme positions disappeared after she won the primary....." followed by the statement that they re-appeared in a different form on the updated web site.  In other words, the opinions didn't go away at all (note that Kurtz doesn't say they actually changed, he just writes it in a way that might confuse you into thinking so.  Nice verbal dance, Dave). 

Expect a steady diet of this crap right through to November. 


Ken Berwitz

My wife and I just got one of the emails we are regularly send by J. B. Poersch, Chairperson of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

The usual run of emails from Mr. Poersch involves an attack on right wing, lying, dishonest, unscrupulous (you can fill in the next 6 or 7 adjectives) Republicans and a plea for money.

This one is a bit different, however.  It says:

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your continuing support of the DSCC. There simply is no pathway to victory in November without help from our grassroots supporters. Our message will get out, Republican lies will be refuted and voters will be mobilized because you have been willing to back up your Democratic ideals with action.

As a thank you for standing with us, I'd like to offer you 10% off items in our new "This is Blue" store. Our T-shirts, caps, and car magnets are a clever way to show your Democratic pride - and strike up conversations.

Ok, fair enough.  Only one attack on Republicans which, to Mr. Poersch, is like complimenting them.  And a 10% discount on merchandise that promotes the DSCC. 

My excitement level immediately hit fever pitch.  So I clicked through to see what great stuff they were offering.  I got as far as the mugs and t-shirts.

An 11ounce mug - usually $10 - was only $9!!  What a deal.  I sell the DSCC every time I pour a cup and it only costs me $9 bucks.  Who ever heard of such a buy.

And then there were the t-shirts.  Usually $20 but, for me, $18!!!   Holy poop, A once-in-a-lifetime deal if ever there was one.  For only $18 I could become a walking, talking ad for the DSCC.

Ok, I admit I'm on a bit of sarcasm overload.  But I just couldn't stop myself. 

In fairness, if the RSCC, which I've never gotten any email from (I wonder if an RSCC even exists;  I suppose it has to) ever tries to convince me that the chance to buy a $3.99 mug for $9 or a $10 t-shirt for $18 is some kind of special opportunity, I promise to blog about it just as sarcastically.

Now if they could just get me 10% off a nice, sporty little Poersch.....oh, wait, that's not how you spell it.  Never mind.


Ken Berwitz

Self interest - make that self-preservation - is a very powerful thing.

Excerpted from an article by Jordy Yager at thehill.com:

Anticipating a furor of voter criticism over the July Fourth recess, Democratic lawmakers from the border region shot back at the White House last week, challenging the presidents speech on immigration in which he said that the southern border is secure.

Arizona Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords joined a growing Republican chorus in denouncing President Barack Obama for not pushing for more specific action in his Thursday speech on the nations immigration and border security issues.


Obama said that the U.S.-Mexico border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years. But the three Arizona Democrats disagreed.

The crisis on Americas borders wont be addressed with words, said Giffords. I was disappointed to hear the president give short shrift to border security concerns by saying that our nations southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years.

So what will Barack Obama do?  Sue them?  Will the congresspeople from Los Angeles and other California cities boycott them in the house chamber?

Incidentally, I have read that, because of Arizona's new laws, a great many Mexican illegals are leaving the state.  Presumably, at least some of them will be heading for California. 

I'm sure that the Californians screaming for a boycott will just love this influx and do everything they can to make sure the "undocumented immigrants" are snug, comfortable and afforded sufficient food, clothing, shelter, health care, college tuition discounts, etc. etc. etc. 


free` As a Californian I can tell you, WE DON'T WANT THEM!!! Also according to polls I have seen, the majority of Californians agree with me. (07/06/10)

Ken Berwitz free - I know YOU don't want them, and I know MOST Californians don't want them. But the people promoting boycotts of Arizona must be dying to see them come. I hope for your sake each one of them sponsors a few. (07/06/10)


Ken Berwitz

If it said "no internet browsing during worktime" I wouldn't have a problem with it.

If it said "no internet usage for anything that is not directly work-related I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But when it says "no internet usage for...."controversial web sites", without any definition of what that means.  I have a major - make that mega-major - problem with it.

From CBS News (the bold print is mine):

July 3, 2010 12:53 PM

TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.


The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.


It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."


The categories include:



Controversial opinion


Criminal activity


Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content



The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."


There is also no explanation as to why controversial opinions are being blocked, although the email stated that some of the restricted websites violate the Employee Responsibilities and Conduct policy.


The TSA did not return calls seeking comment by publication time.


Notice how the "controversial opinion" restriction is placed inside a list of other perfectly reasonable, understandable types of sites?  Is that supposed to hide it from us?  Are we supposed to not notice it is there?

And let's remember that this directive comes from the same administration which fired Gerald Walpin, without following procedure, for investigating misuse of funds by Sacramento Mayor and big-time Obama supporter Kevin Johnson.  Was that "controversial opinion" too? 

Until I know, specifically, what "controversial opinion" is, I will consider it to be a blatantly obvious act of censorship.  An outrage. 

The 2012 election cannot come fast enough.


Ken Berwitz

Here are two stories for you.  At first blush they may look very different, and they certainly come from different directions.  But, as you will see, they share a key thread of commonality.

From ABC News:

As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the states immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented.

From KNXV-TV, Phoenix:

FLORENCE, AZ Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu says he will not request a personal security detail after receiving "credible" threats against his life.


According to a department statement, individuals have made threats against the sheriffs life because of his stance on the issue, threats that have been deemed "credible" by outside law enforcement agencies and forwarded to the Pinal County Sheriffs Office for action and other threats made directly against Babeu and his staff.

Unfortunately - even tragically - these two stories are related.  The reason?  Both entities - the Mexican drug cartels and the Department of Justice under eric holder - are doing everything in their power to prevent the securing of our border.

Are you happy with the fact that they are both working toward the same goal?  If so, this should delight you.

Or, are you sickened to the core of your being about this?  If so, do something about it in November.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!