Well, the 2010 Senate and Congressional Campaigns have just begun, not to mention the
2012 Presidential Campaign.  With President Obama in office for little more than a month,
partisan politics in Washington are full steam ahead.  Of course, no one has announced that they
are running against Obama in 2012 and by and large no one has announced their candidacy for
the House or Senate for 2010.  However, make no mistakes those campaigns and races are on.

There is no other way to explain how every single Republican in the House of
Representatives voted against the Economic Stimulus Package and only three Senators from the
Republican side of the aisle voted in favor of it.  The Republicans not looking out for the good of
the country, but rather for the good of their party, have obviously drawn a line in the sand that
they are going to make this economic mess that they more than helped create, be on the
Democrats' and Obama's shoulders.  They are betting as their mentor, Rush Limbaugh, is
hoping, that President Obama and thereby the Democratic controlled Congress fails.

Does anyone really believe that every single Republican in the House of Representatives
and all but three in the Senate did not think that the Economic Stimulus Package was a good
idea?     No, rather the Republican Party's leaders have determined that the Democrats have
enough clout in Congress that the Republicans can virtually contest anything that they want
knowing that it will still pass and if the legislation fails then the Republicans take no blame.
Sure, some may think that the expenditures are too enormous.  Some might think that the plan
may just not work.  But overall it smacks of dumping this economic mess that was left to
President Obama and the Democratic Congress on the shoulders of the Democratic Party and the
repudiation of involvement by the Republicans.

President Obama reached out to the Republicans in Congress, listened to their points of
view and even had the legislation tailored to accommodate some of the Republican concerns.
What did he get for this gesture of bi-partisanship?  Nothing, but a smack in the face, no support
and pure partisanship.  Of course, this was the exact message that they intended to send.  Letting
him know and the American people know that if things go bad it is the Democrats fault.
Obviously, they are betting that things will go bad and as Rush Limbaugh hoped that they will in
fact fail.

The question has to be asked, why do these people that we elect find that their allegiance
is more to their party and a radio talk show host than to the country?  Why is it more important
that the country fails so that they can get re-elected and put back in power in 2010 and 2012 then
it is for the country to succeed under a Democratic Administration?  What has happened to our
system of Government, to our two party system where retaking the Congress, Senate and the
Presidency of a crippled country is more important than being partners with the Democrats in a
country that is on the ascent? 

Eight years ago, the Republicans controlled everything.  The Presidency, the House, the
Senate and the Supreme Court.  They misused and abused that power leading to the change in the
Senate and the House in 2006 and a resounding change in the Presidency in 2008.  Now, as the
opposition party they have a chance to make amends.  They can take part in this government
which President Obama has welcomed them to do and be Americans first.  However, apparently
that taste of power they had for eight years during the heyday of the Bush Administration is too
intoxicating and too alluring.  Rather than be good Americans and doing everything for the
success of this country, they view themselves as good Republicans doing anything to hope for the
future success of their dying party.

This is not to say that they need and should agree with President Obama and the
Democratic Congress at every turn.  In fact, that would not be good at all as it is important in a
democracy to have a vigilant opposition.  But that opposition needs to be based upon what they
truly see as the good for this country rather than pure politics.  Right now, the Republicans are
practicing pure politics.  Since they have gotten us into this mess, it is amazing and bewildering
that they don't feel any responsibility to join with the Democrats to get us out of this mess.

     It is strange how things turn out.  President-Elect Obama started his campaign for
Presidency seeking the Democratic Party's nomination under a mantra of reform, of doing things
a new way, and change.  It reverberated in the minds of enough Democrats and some
Independents to get him the Party's nomination.

Not because he changed as a man, but because the circumstances changed, Obama was
not elected to the Presidency on his or because of his idealic core values.  No, Barak Obama was
elected to the Presidency because he instilled more confidence than John McCain, appeared to be
unflappable, intelligent and a man of pragmatism, putting those ideals off to the back burner.

His handling of the economic crisis as opposed to John McCain flapping in the wind,
might have decided the election.  Perhaps, it was his demeanor, simply his demeanor during the
debates.  But for whatever reason Barak Obama who started out his campaign for the Presidency
instilling in people who hoped for a change, by the time that he was elected, he had simply
become a candidate of hope.  Due to circumstances "change" has been dropped from the
equation.

Because of the terrible situation that this country finds itself in economically, if he wants
to succeed and therefore the country to succeed, he will find himself being that strong executive,
dare we say unitary executive, to get things done fast and quick and in time to stave off a
depression.  He will be forced to use executive orders and other measures not having the time for
a slow Congress. 

So the Obama that started out his journey for the Presidency, when the housing market
had still not fallen off the shelves, the Obama that ran for the Oval office when the Iraq war was
still topic number one and his opposition to it was his leading credential, so the President-Elect
who started his journey and ours when the Bush evil empire was still in full swing has lost the
luxury of those ideals and a more pragmatic, center of the road will be his course.

Nothing exemplifies Obama's move to the center more than his appointees to his Cabinet.
Vice President, Dick Cheney, also known as Darth Cheney, even pointed out that Obama's
Cabinet with the exception of two, is a Cabinet that he could live with.  His maintaining of
Secretary of Defense Gates, a Republican, in that same position speaks volumes of his desire to
forge alliances and to curry favor with the opposition during these tough times.  The lack of that
true left leaning liberal on his Cabinet is also meant to show the other side that he intends to live
in a pragmatic world.  So that pragmatic Obama is usurping the idealistic Obama and making
past enemies into "wait and seers" and causing those in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party
to wonder what has happened to their Messiah.

But has Obama gone too far?  To many, the answer is yes with his invitation to the
Reverend Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in Orange County, California to give the
invocation at his inauguration.  Reverend Rick Warren is the same man who moderated
interviews with Obama and McCain where it was promised to Obama since he was going first,
that McCain would be sequestered and not be given the opportunity to hear questions that were
asked of Obama and would be given to him later.  No sequestration took place and McCain had
an undeniably unfair advantage.  This is the same Rick Warren who has equated homosexuality
with pedophilia, rape and other atrocious acts.  This is the same Rick Warren who possibly did
more than any other one person to help get Proposition 8 passed in California and thereby
denying homosexuals the right to marry.

Obama has claimed that his invitation to Rick Warren is an example of his reaching out
to the other side as he promised all along.  That in fact may be the true reason, but it is still no
less offensive to his original core supporters, many of them gay and certainly most of them pro
gay rights.  To them it is a stab in the back.  To them it is a betrayal.  To them it is giving honor
to a man who has made a cottage industry out of professing the wrong of homosexuality and gay
rights. 

Obama may have chosen Rick Warren for that reaching out ideal, but more likely he
reached out to Reverend Rick Warren so that he could have another ally or at least not another
foe as he is forced in his first few months of office to make incredibly hard decisions on the
economy and the future of this country.  And from a pragmatic standpoint it might just be a
brilliant move.  However, for those who looked at Obama as that shining beacon of change, the
one to undo eight years of homophobia coming from the White House, eight years of the political
religious right calling the shots in this country, of eights years of seeing the Falwells, Robertsons,
and yes Warrens of this world being given time on television, time with the President, and being
elevated from religious ministers to agents of political repression, Obama's choice of Rick
Warren simply hurts.

President-Elect Obama do not forget who voted for you.  President-Elect Obama do not
forget who went door to door for you.  President-Elect Obama do not forget who raised money
for you.  President-Elect Obama do not forget who your friends are in a desire to make friends of
your enemies.  President-Elect Obama your choice of Rick Warren to be at your Inauguration
was simply wrong.  President-Elect Obama although you need to be pragmatic, sometimes a little
idealism doesn't hurt and it certainly will help those that supported you because of your ideals.

     Two day ago, General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State for George W. Bush,
announced his endorsement of Barack Obama for President of the United States.  This is the
same Colin Powell who sat before the United Nations, putting his reputation on the line,
verifying that in fact Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological labs and
imposed an almost immediate threat to western civilization and world peace.  This is the same
Colin Powell who after, it came to light that he was misled by the CIA and almost intentionally
used as a pawn by the Bush Administration because of his good will and almost universal
acclaim as being a man of honor, stood by the Bush Administration as a loyal soldier to his
Commander-in-Chief.  This is the same Colin Powell who many thought could be the first black
President with the support of the Republican Party. 

How times change.  Now that Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama he no longer is
the darling of the Republican right but has been called as much as a traitor by those same
conservatives who championed him when he was on their side.  When he was on their side, his
decisions according to them were always thoughtful and based upon facts and evidence.  Now
that he is for Barack Obama, suddenly according to those on the right, his decision is solely based
upon race.  This could be expected, after all he is a black man and so is Barack Obama.  In this
politically charged atmosphere no good motive is taken at face value and no action goes
unchallenged based upon the lowest common denominator. 

Yet, in the rhetoric of those on the right that are now chastising him comes that
underlying tinge of racism.  Some of the grand pubahs on the right have openly talked about how
the Republican Party made Colin Powell and how could he do this to them.  Underlying those
words is the clear message "we took this black man, embraced him as one of ours, elevated him
far beyond where he would have been able to go on his own and this is how he pays us back". 

These statements are not made about white politicians in public service because the
conservative right only believes that when they take a black man and make them one of their own
that they should be thankful to their masters.  Reminiscent of the southern plantation owners'
disbelief that the freed house slaves didn't want to stay.  After all, they were given good clothes
and treated better than the others.  They owed loyalty to their former owners.

We have yet to hear a commentator on the right chastise Joe Leiberman for his
repudiation of his entire party, for his attached to the hip endorsement of John McCain, and for
his forsaking all those that voted for him in numerous elections because he wore the Democrat
brand.  No, it's OK for a white man to do it because he is not beholding to anyone.  He is free.
But that black man should always remember where he came from and who he owes his favors to
for his success.

The McCain campaign continually talks about how they want to reach across the isle and
bring the country together.  Even if they have that desire to bring Democrats and Republicans
together, which we wholeheartedly doubt, do not they realize with their calls of Barack Obama
being a friend to a terrorist and implying that he is the same, with their comments that he does
not look like the reset of the previous Presidents, and with their attack on Colin Powell that they
are sowing the seeds of racial division and setting back racial harmony for decades.  Do not they
realize that they are sowing the seeds of minorities versus whites that is anti-American in nature
and destructive to this country in its time of economic turmoil?

The Republican Party seems to be myopic in what they are doing.  In California a local
party chairwoman put out mock food stamps with Barack Obama's picture on them with
watermelon, Kentucky fried chicken and barbequed ribs.  In Virginia, the McCain state chairman
told his supporters to go out and tie Barack Obama to terrorism and Osama bin Laden.
Throughout the country the Republicans and their allies in the media have now tried to use the
term "real Americans", "real Virginians", "real whatever" signifying that if you are Republican
or willing to vote for McCain, you truly are an American, but if you are willing to vote for
someone with the name of a Barack Obama, then you have lost your way as to patriotism. .

John McCain was once a maverick or so we have been told.  What he has become is the
ring master for the most racially divided campaign in decades.  What he has become is a man so
determined to become President that he no longer cares what the country looks like when he
becomes that leader.  In his campaign slogans, on his bumper stickers, he uses the term "country
first".  Maybe at one time that truly was his thought, however his actions or his inactions when
dealing with those that side with him show as some have thought all along, the bumper sticker
should really read "John McCain First".  What else would you expect from a man that shoved a
devoted crippled wife to the side and chased a beer heiress while still married.

     In last months issue, we asked you to vote in the primary for the candidate that you
believe best served your views and issues.  In fact, one of us implored you to vote your conscious
as he was going to vote for Senator Joe Bidden in the Florida primary.  Unfortunately, that
opportunity will not arise as Senator Bidden no longer has his hat in the ring, so to speak.

In the one month since that last article was written, boy how things have changed.  Not
only have Senators Dodd and Bidden dropped out of the race along with Governor Bill
Richardson, but once what seemed like an issue driven campaign has been relegated to he
said/she said, personal attacks, with the media focusing in on those attacks rather than issues.  It
seems like de jevu all over again.  The Democrats seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. 

For almost all Democrats, and even a good percentage of the Independents out there, it
does not matter whom the Democratic nominee for President will be.  Rather, those Democrats
and Independents just want a viable Democratic candidate who will end up in the White House
and turn back eight years of the worst Presidential administration in our country's history.  Most
of us, would be happy with one of the three remaining candidates; Clinton, Obama or Edwards.
Obviously, each one of us has our own preference.  The one thing that all of us do not want, is a
nominating process that leaves whomever is the standard bearer for the Democratic party,
tattered and torn and championing a divided party. 

Yet, even though a fractured Democratic party is the worst thing that could happen to the
United States at this time, the Obama and Clinton campaigns have embarked along that path.
They are thinking more for themselves than of the party and ultimately the country.

We have often said, that no one should vote for anybody that wants to be President.
Think of the ego that one must have to believe that they are the best suited to be the most
influential person in the world.  Anyone who has that ego, down deep does not deserve my vote.
Since one does not become President without having that ego, we are faced with the fact that we
must choose from one of these self-grandised personalities.  But, when these ego maniacs, are
willing to tear apart the Democratic party and are willing to show such fracture that a Republican
candidate who by all rights should have no shot at the Presidency becomes a threat, then these
Democratic candidates are letting us all down. 

Our world will not be that greatly different if Obama, Edwards, or Clinton are President.
Yet, our world will be greatly different from those three if Huckabee, McCain, Romney or
Guiliani should sit in the Presidents chair.  It is time that the Democratic candidates realized that
none of them is so special that they have the right to tear apart the Democratic party in order to
get the nomination.  It is time that all of them realized that getting one of the three of them
elected is more important than getting any one specific one of the three elected.

It is time that the Democratic party came together.  If the candidates cannot do it, we rank
and file people must demand it.  We cannot afford another four or eight years of Republican
domination, taking away our rights, our liberties, our economy, our sons and daughters and yes
the sole of this country.

On another note and some housekeeping, the City of Daytona Beach has filed with the
United States Supreme Court their Brief in Opposition to the Supreme Court granting certiorari
in the Daytona Grand matter.  All that is left to do at this stage, is wait for the Supreme Court
during this term to announce whether it will accept or deny certiorari (review) of this case.

Lastly, those of you in Florida who read this publication must join and donate to the FLA
SEA.  This organization is made up of adult cabaret owners and executives in the State of Florida
who want to be proactive in preventing bad legislation coming out of Tallahassee.  Whether you
are a large club owner or even a small bookstore, you must, you must, join this organization.
Any amount of donation would be appreciated.  Many of you, do not believe in joining
organizations.  Many of you, believe that the bigger guy will foot the bill.  Many of you are living
under false premises and pretenses. The bottom line is that big and small, adult cabaret or
bookstore, we need to band together and make the FLA SEA successful.

If you should have any questions on how to join the FLA SEA or want any more
information about it, please feel free to contact Benjamin & Aaronson, P.A. at 954-779-1700 so
that we can get you involved and hopefully make this organization a success that can look out for
your interests.

     Last year at this time it was assumed that John McCain would be the Republican nominee
for the White House.  All of the polls showed that he had a commanding lead on any would be
challengers.  He had set up an organization nationwide and looked like he couldn't be stopped.

Just two months ago, Hillary Clinton appeared to have sewn up the Democratic
nomination for the Presidency as almost every poll had her with a prohibitive lead nationwide
and double digit leads in Iowa and in New Hampshire, the first caucus and first primary States
respectively.  She also had the political machine in place and looked like she couldn't be stopped.
Yet, as we enter 2008 and the beginning of the primary season, it is nearly impossible to find a
State in which John McCain leads in the polls and Hillary is fighting to keep pace with her two
main rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

There are many reasons why these two front runner have slipped.  Most likely, they were
never as popular as their poll numbers reflected earlier on.  Rather, the earlier polls reflected
name recognition and strength of the political machine instead of actually people's choice as who
they wish to be President or at least a nominee.  Also likely, is the fact that these front runners by
the very nature of being a front runner are scrutinized more heavily, are quoted more often and
their imperfections are magnified before others are even scrutinized.  But regardless of the
reasons and there are many others, the one thing that these two candidates have shown us is that
we should never let the pollsters determine who the inevitable winner is and that we shouldn't
waste our votes on other candidates that don't have a chance of winning.

It should come as no surprise to those of you who read this column, that most likely we
will be voting for whomever is the Democratic nominee.  This may not be as much because of
our true allegiance to the Democratic party as much as our fear of another Republican President
destroying the little that is left of what this country once stood for.  Having said that, we do have
a disagreement between ourselves as to who we wish the Democratic nominee to be. 

However, the one thing we do not disagree with is that the race for the nominee in either
party would be much different if the political pollsters didn't tell us who the top tier candidates
were, who has no chance of winning, and why we must vote for either Edwards, Obama or
Clinton in the primary for our vote to matter.  If we were on the Republican side, our comments
would be the same as to why we only should be voting for Giuliani, Romney or McCain.  As you
may note, we have left out Huckabee.  Not because he cannot win the election, but because up
until just several weeks ago he was not one of the anointed ones on the Republican side.

When we talk to other Democrats, some have reported that they believe in and like what
Dennis Kucinich has to say.  Yet, to a man or a woman, they tell us that they can't vote for him
because he has no chance of winning and they don't want to waste their vote.  Other people
including one of the writers of this article, has expressed that of all of the candidates on either
side of the aisle running for the nomination for Presidency that Joe Bidden seems to have the
foreign policy experience, demeanor and intelligence to be the next great President.  Yet, the
same refrain occurs with those voters, "He has no chance of winning so which one of Hillary,
Borac or John do I vote for".

Since most of our friends are not Republicans or if they are they do not admit it to us, we
do not have as much personal interaction and experiences to make the same statements as to the
Republican nominee.  However, there is little doubt in our minds that the same is being said
about Ron Paul and the other second tier candidates on the Republican side.

Just for once it would be nice if people were blinded to the polls.  Just once it would be
nice if people weren't told that their vote was wasted because they voted for the person that they
think is the best.  Just for once, it would be nice to go into a political season with everyone
starting off even, with no front runners, and see who really is the one favored by their respective
parties.  To this end, no matter what side of the aisle you believe in, no matter whether you are
conservative or liberal, atheist or religious, just vote for who you truly believe is the best man.
After all, isn't the essence of democracy, voting for whom you choose, not for who you think
will win.  This is not Las Vegas and you don't get money for picking the winner.  This is
America and your vote only matters because you are voting, not because who you voted for wins.
Maybe in this manner we truly would know who we want to be President.

On another note, much is being said in the news and in Congress as to the interrogation
technique of water boarding.  First, let's get one thing straight.  Water boarding is torture.  We
declared it to be so in 1947 when we prosecuted and convicted Japanese war criminals for using
that technique on our soldiers.  If it was torture then, it is torture now.  Further, somehow we
have gotten so myopic that we believe if we do it, it is not torture, but you better believe, if we
found out our troops were being subjected to it, it would be torture.

Now having said that, should water boarding or other forms of torture be used as an
interrogation technique?  Our gut feeling is of course not.  Aren't we more of a humane country
than one that believes in torture?.  Haven't we signed onto the Geneva Conventions that
outlawed this type of behavior?  Don't we claim to have the moral high ground and moral
authority over all other countries on earth to do the right thing?  If that is so, then how can we
condone torture or water boarding? 

Yet, the equation is not so simple.  Although torture and water boarding may be
repugnant, and in fact experts claim that it leads to more often than not false information, is there
a time and place for its use?

As the Commander-in-Chief of this country, if you were to find out that a nuclear bomb
had been planted some place in the country, let's make it you home town.  Whatever that home
town may be.  You knew that there were 3 hours, 5 hours, 7 hours before it would be detonated
and when it went off thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions would die
and the person that planted that bomb was now in custody would you not use even torture to try
to attempt to get that information.

Sure, given a long period of time to interrogate, there is no need for torture, there is no
need for water boarding and in fact the experts seem to all agree that other means of interrogation
are more fruitful.  However, given that limited period of time does not the Commander-In-Chief
have a duty to the citizens of this country to use any technique or every technique available in
order to discern that information and thereby save those thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds
of thousands, or millions of lives.

These questions are for you to decide.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion on these
matters.  However, we want our decisions to be black and white or cut and dry.  Sometimes
though the world is not just black and white, sometimes it is gray and sometimes whatever
answer you give is just the wrong one.

   For the past several years, three adult book and video stores in Miami-Dade County have been fighting the county in order to keep doors on their video viewing booths.  The case originally was before Judge Aldaberto Jordan, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, who close to two years ago declared that the Miami-Dade County Ordinance was constitutional.

The bookstores took the fight up to the next level, that being the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals out of Atlanta.  Just last month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Jordan’s ruling thereby validating Miami-Dade County’s Ordinance to requires doors off booths.

The bookstores still have the opportunity to take the fight to the United States Supreme Court.  Whether this will be done or not will depend on each individual bookstore as to whether they want to continue the fight.  If the fight is not continued and the ruling stands, doors off the booths in Miami-Dade County will be the order of the day.

In other news, as reported earlier, Daytona Grand  has decided to take their fight up to the United States Supreme Court.  For those of you who do not remember or are unfamiliar with the matter, this is the case out of Daytona Beach in which originally Federal District Court Judge John Antoon, III declared the Daytona Beach nudity and alcohol nudity ordinances to be unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his decision.  In doing so, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals enunciated new standards of law, totally changing the landscape for the states of Georgia, Alabama and Florida.

The Daytona Grand case, not only conflicts with decisions out of other circuits, but also conflicts with decisions within the Eleventh Circuit.  There is no way to reconcile the Daytona Grand case with the Peek-A-Boo and Flanagan cases also out of the Eleventh Circuit.  Based upon these conflicts within the Eleventh Circuit and with conflicts with other cases from other circuits, it is hoped that the Supreme Court will exercise jurisdiction.  Last term the Supreme Court declined to hear cases from around the country dealing with similar  issues involved in Daytona Grand.   It is now hoped that the Supreme Court will recognize that the state of law is so varied throughout the country that it is time that they addressed the issue of adverse secondary effects in regards to adult entertainment and what level of proof is needed for a city to prove those adverse secondary effects.

Lastly, we wish all of you a happy holiday season, good health and a happy New Year.

  Last month Congressman Stark from California, while speaking on the House floor, chastised George W. Bush for his vetoing of the child health care bill because of economic concerns.  Congressman Stark pointed out that there certainly would be enough money for these children if we weren’t spending a trillion dollars in Iraq on a senseless war.  Unfortunately for Congressman Stark he finished his speech by stating something to the fact that George W. Bush has us in Iraq with the accompanying deaths for his amusement.

No one could rightfully say that George W. Bush is amused by what is going on in Iraq.  Rather, he might be unaware, unconcerned or even unsympathetic, but the term amused was inappropriate.  Other than that inappropriate term, what Congressman Stark had to say was valuable and on point.

However, once again the Republican right and their spin machine has changed the debate from the war in Iraq and its costs both there and at home to how dare someone speak that way of our President.  It is amazing to us, that these Republicans, these conservatives, these people who pride themselves on being so tough and chide the Democrats for being so weak, keep on getting their little feelings hurt by comments from the left.

First, there was the advertisement in the New York Times that questioned whether it was General David Petraus or General Betrayus.  Then there was this comment about George W. Bush and immediately the right wing spin machine took flight and changed the debate from the serious topics to how could Democrats speak this way.  What is more ironic, is that the right wing conservative sound machine seems to think that a four star general and the President of the United States can’t have anything bad said about them and they need to be protected while that same sound machine attacks and takes on the vulnerable.

The hypocritic right, seems to not care when Bill O’Riley comments that he was amazed that people in a black restaurant in Harlem didn’t express the term mother fucker when ordering ice tea or that there was polite conversation going on there like in any other restaurant.  Nor, did the right wing propaganda ministers, find it offensive that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConell’s office leaked the address of the poor boy who had the audacity to ask Congress to pass the health care bill so that other children like himself would have medical treatment.  This boy, suffered brain damage along with a paralyzed vocal cord.

Rather than that outrage from the right that how dare a boy 12 years old be attacked like this, the patriarch of the right wing talk shows, Rush Limbaugh in fact on his show mimicked the poor boy’s speech.  Apparently, one may attack a 12 year old boy, but not a four star general or the President.

To add insult to injury, Limbaugh on another show called soldiers who do not support the war any longer “phoney soldiers”.  This comment on their patriotism because they disagree with his viewpoint, was sickening, however there was no outrage from the same right wing media.

Bill O’Reilly who during Christmas times, makes a cottage industry out of complaining how Christmas is being taken away and how the liberals are anti his religion, found no problem in having the obviously anti-Semitic Ann Coulter on his show.  This was just days after Ann Coulter commented something to the affect that the Jewish religions and Jews are seeking perfection i.e. Jesus Christ.  On a later talk show when confronted by this outrage by many non-bigoted people, she explained that Jews do not believe in her savior and dismiss him, and that it is she that should be offended.  Of course, instead of right wing outrage, she found herself sitting across from Bill O’Reilly who did not even mention the subject.

Whether Congressman Stark’s comment was over the edge, it is up to you to decide.  Whether Bill O’Reilly’s comments about black eateries was bigoted, it is for you to decide.  Whether Ann Coulter’s comments are anti-Semitic, it is up to you to decide.  Whether Limbaugh’s comments about the 12 year old boy were over the top is for you to decide.  Whether Limbaugh’s comments about phoney soldiers was too much, again is for you to decide.  However, the right wing media does not believe that it should be for you to decide.  They have been selectively targeting comments by anybody who is anti-war or affiliated with the Democratic party in any manner.  They have intentionally glossed over and made allowance for despicable comments coming from their side of the aisle.  It is they on a daily basis that get up there and expound how the airways must be cleaned up from attacks on George W. Bush and General Petraus.  It is they who claim that there needs to be decorum and professionalism on the radio and TV.  Yet, it is they that are the biggest hypocrites. 

Either we live in a country with free speech, no matter how repugnant that speech is or we live with the alternative, censorship.   What cannot occur is what the right is trying to do.  They are trying to set up a two-tier system of communication.  If they say it, it deserves to be said.  If their adversaries say it, it is offensive and should be stopped.  Freedom of speech requires the hearing of things that one does not want to hear.  We certainly do not want to hear anymore from the conservative right, but nothing will stop us from defending their right to say their garbage.  With the garbage that they throw, they should be the last to clamor about what people say over the air and how it offends others.  Luckily, the more they speak, the more they attack, the easier it is for all to see what hypocrites they are.

    Originally this article was going to be about the death of Jerry Falwell.  More specifically, it was going to be about how proud we are of the media in general and those few remaining left wing media outlets specifically.  Our pride in the media stems from the basically honest accounts of Rev. Falwell’s life as opposed to the fictional hero made of Ronald Regan when he passed away. 

Instead of making Rev. Falwell something that he was not, the media instead has brought up the fact that he blamed 9/11 on gays, homosexuals and the ACLU.  The media accurately reported his hate mongering and the fact that he espoused the Jews, Muslims, Buddhist and even unrepentant Gentils would not be accepted by God upon their deaths.  The media aptly has pointed out that in the name of religion, his intolerance to others and the numerous “crazy” statements that he made.

However, rather than kicking a dead horse, although calling Rev. Falwell a horse is defaming to the equine species, we will instead concentrate on Alberto Gonzalez, our Attorney General, who on a daily basis it is revealed, rose to new lows as a human being.  What are we talking about?  Well, it is bad enough that Alberto Gonzalez played tricks with a selection of a jury in Texas, so that his mentor, George W. Bush would not have to reveal that he had been convicted of a DUI.  It is bad enough, that Alberto Gonzalez, believed that the Geneva Convention was quaint and antiquated and believed that torture somehow was  part of the American ideals.  But those were actions of a private lawyer and the White House Council, for his truly despicable deeds, one just needs to look at his tenure as the Attorney General of the United States.

For as long as anyone can remember, the Justice Department, U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S.Attorneys were hands-off when it came to politics.  Sure,  many Presidents selected U.S. Attorneys more likely than not from their own political party.  But once these U.S. Attorneys were sworn in, it was understood by all of the politicians, that justice in our system of government required that they be allowed to do their jobs free of political intervention.

Not the case with Alberto Gonzalez.  First of all, the U.S. Attorneys’ Office is now stacked with graduates of “Regents Law School”.  If the U.S. Attorneys’ Office was stacked with lawyers from Harvard, Yale or some of the other prestigious law schools, one could understand.  However, Regents Law School is considered by those that rate law schools, to be in the bottom tier. 

So why is our Justice Department stacked with these graduates?  The only answer is that “Regents Law School” is an arm of the Christian Broadcasting Network and not only were these Assistant U.S. Attorneys hired as political payback to the religious right, but also to take our Justice Department and make it an arm and tool of that same religious right.

Reports now have come out, that a Litmus test was employed at the Department of Justice for hirings.  Although against Federal law, although against common decency, although against everything that this country stands for, apparently the Justice Department actually asked applicants whether they were Republican or Democrat and who they voted for along with who their favorite Justices of the Supreme Court were.  All an attempt to garner whether they were Republican or Democrat and therefore whether they should be hired or not.  Again, inappropriate questions specifically when justice is to be blind and not to be based upon political ideology. 

Then there was the firing of the eight, nine or eleven, depending on who is counting, U.S. Attorneys for substandard performance.  However, upon analyzing each of these firings, the common theme was that, in fact, they had gotten good reviews from the Department of Justice, but had either failed to bring voter fraud cases against Democrats within their jurisdiction or brought criminal cases against Republican politicians or operatives in their jurisdiction.  Again, one of the cardinal no-no’s of our Justice Department that being the use of it for political gain and political maneuvering, was revealed to be the order of the day under Alberto Gonzalez.

Then there was the testimony by Alberto Gonzalez in front of both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees.  Although given months to find out how the ninth name appeared on the list of eight U.S. Attorneys to be fired, Alberto Gonzalez simply could only answer that he did not know how the name got on it.  What is most troubling, is that Alberto Gonzalez is supposed to the chief law enforcement officer in this country.  Alberto Gonzalez, more than any other person in this country, has the wherewithal to have professional investigators ferret out the truth.  If our Justice Department under Alberto Gonzalez is incapable of finding out who put the ninth name on the list, whether it was done at the White House or in his own department, then how can we trust this man to protect us from terrorists, criminals and those that would do evil to us.  Further, his constant answers in front of these two committees of “I do not remember” showed either that he was a liar or totally detached from his responsibilities and under either scenario does not deserve to be your Attorney General.

But just as you think there is nothing else to unearth about Alberto Gonzalez and his lack of ethics, ability, intelligence, and honesty, comes the latest report.  Former Attorney General, John Ashcroft was reported to be the most conservative Attorney General we may have ever had in this country.  His second in command, James Comey, was reported to be just as conservative.  Yet, even these two right winged conservatives felt that the White House’s idea of unauthorized wire-tapping was unconstitutional.  In order for these wire-tappings to go on, the White House wanted the Department of Justice to sign off saying that these wire-tappings were legal, thereby at least giving President Bush cover on his assault on American freedoms.

Even these two conservatives, could not bring themselves to sign on the dotted line.  So, your Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, in one of the most despicable maneuvers that have come to light under the Bush Administration (and that’s a pretty high standard) drove to the hospital when Attorney General John Ashcroft was recovering from pancreatic surgery, when he was under the influence of narcotics, and was lying in his hospital bed barely awake.  At the time, Alberto Gonzalez was the White House counsel, and did everything he could to convince an ill John Ashcroft to override  James Comey, who was then the acting Attorney General, and sign the document.  To John Ashcroft’s credit, he refused.

But this incident highlights the moral bankruptcy of Alberto Gonzalez.  Trying to take advantage of a person on their sick bed is reprehensible.  But, should we expect no less then the man who believes that the Geneva Convention is quaint and antiquated, that apparently America stands for torture, that civil liberties should be taken from the American people and that the President is actually, “King”.

    Our country deserves better than you Mr. Gonzalez.  Please leave!

    Well, the 2006 Congressional elections are over and for those of you who believe in First Amendment freedoms, adult entertainment freedoms, and in all honestly the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, last month’s victory by the Democrats could not have been sweeter.  Although it was assumed that the Democrats would take control of the House, it was little bit more than a dream that they would be able to take control of the Senate.  But sometimes dreams do come true and the nightmare of the Bush Administration is partially over. 

With control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Democrats for the first time in the last 12 years, have actually some power in Washington, D.C.  Of course, for six of those 12 years the Democrats did control the White House with Bill Clinton, but unfortunately due to the Monica Lewyinski scandal and White Water, his ability to flex his muscles were limited and Newt Grindrich and the Republican “Contract with America” was the engine driving the Washington, DC machine.  Now that the Democrats are in power in Congress, and George W. Bush a lame duck President, what will the Democrats do?  Hopefully they will govern with integrity, honesty and take back the moral high ground that somehow has been falsely seeded to the Republicans with their garbage “family values” montra.

There has been talk already about the Democrats in the House seeking impeachment of George W. Bush, and then having the Senate try George W. Bush on those impeachment charges.  Although, no one would be happier to see this occur then the authors of this article, in reality that would be the worst thing for this country.  It is not that George W. Bush doesn’t deserve to be impeached.  Rather, using any standard , his actions have been truly reprehensible and he does not deserve to hold that office.  He has lied to the American people as to our reasons for going to war in Iraq.  He and his minons cooked the books as far as intelligence goes in order to justify that war.  He fired the Generals who argued that we were going to war with inadequate troops to secure the peace.  He allowed his staff to out a CIA operative and then lied to the American people that he would fire anybody that was involved.  He blatantly lied to the American people when he said that wiretaps had to be done with a Court order, while at the same time he unilaterally authorized those wiretaps in contravention to established law.  He created no child left behind and then refused to fund the program.  He told the world that America does not condone torture while reports now have it that he personally authorized torture of those in our custody.  He has single-handily dismantled parts of the United States Constitution that had been the bedrock of this country for 200 years.  He sat idly back in Crawford, Texas while New Orleans went through hell and then boldly claimed that his ineffectual Homeland Security Department and FEMA were doing “a heck of a job”.  He has caused more division in this country than any President during these authors’ fifty two years of life.  Yet, he should not be impeached.

The question may be, why shouldn’t he be impeached.  The simple answer is because it is for the good of the country that he remain in office.  Back in the late 1990's, the Republican controlled Congress made a mockery of our country, by going down the path of impeachment with President Clinton, simply because he enjoyed a “blow job”.

Impeachment has been sparingly used throughout the history of this country.  The fact that it has been sparingly used is why this country is so strong.  It sets us apart from many of the Banana Republics, that once a new administration comes into office, the previous one is vilified, their conduct is scrutinized, and criminal indictments shortly follow.  Rather, we have lived in a country, that regardless of the partisan politics, we have always given great dignity to the office of the President and have cherished that office.  Should the Democrats now decide to impeach George W. Bush, the Democrats would be pursuing a democratic agenda.    One that is detrimental to this country.  If, in fact, the Democrats proceed with impeachment, they will now be setting a precedent that every President that has the opposite party in Congress would be subject to impeachment proceedings.

No, impeachment is too harsh for this country to go through on back-to-back Presidents.  Rather, impeachment should be something that we learn to use only, only, when the facts, the situation, and all are able to agree it is in order.  Right now, a good forty percent of this country or more, would vehemently oppose impeachment of this President.  This country cannot afford to be torn apart again.  This country cannot afford to be made into a Banana Republic, where we seek impeachment the same way as we seek the passage of any bill through Congress.  For the good of this country, George W. Bush should not face impeachment.

Having said this, there is nothing to stop and there should be nothing to stop the Democrats from doing investigations.  All the hypocrisies, wrongdoings and in fact criminal acts of the Bush Administration need to be revealed.  The truth needs to be told and the American people need to hear it.  But, regardless of what that truth ends up being, the best interest of this country is to allow George W. Bush to serve the last two years of his term, to slink into retirement, and to become a comic book character, a butt of jokes, and as history will record, the worst President this country has ever had.

   If you are one the thirty-two percent of the American people that still believe in and trust George W. Bush, then we hate to inform you that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have won.  Should you not be one of the tunnel visioned thirty-two percent then we hate to inform you that the American people have lost.

What are we talking about?  Well, George W. Bush has stated over the last several years, too many times to count, that Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the terrorists hate us because of our freedom.  He has somehow made our freedom as the basis of why we were attacked by Al Qaeda and despised by Muslim radicals.  In stead of going out of his way to ensure our freedom, to rub our freedoms in the faces of those who allegedly hate us because of our freedoms, George W. Bush and our government did the opposite and on October 17, 2006 capitulated to these terrorists.

Our government didn’t throw in the white towel, did not put out the white flag, did not issue any press release that we surrender, did not send any envoy to Al Qaeda saying we give up, but rather, capitulated to their hatred of our freedoms, by taking away our most fundamental freedom.  This freedom, this right, this lynch pin of our society and justice system, the right to habeas corpus.

What is habeas corpus?  The Latin interpretation in essence is “produce the body”.  What it means however in our system of justice and government, is that nobody can be held for periods of time without having the right to court redress for that detention and without the courts having the power to stop that detention.  Now, with a signature from your President, that right no longer exists to anyone who the President decides to designate as an enemy combatant.  Most of you, even if you knew that this occurred, believed that this only applied to known terrorists that were not American citizens.  Wrong!  This new law applies to anyone that the President designates as an enemy combatant and by that simple designation, all rights to justice in this country no longer exists.

What is really scary about all this, again is that it is the President’s determination solely that makes somebody an enemy combatant.  It is not too far fetched to believe that this definition will be stretched and molded to fit any and all that the government wishes to detain without redress.  It may be farfetched, but it certainly is within the realm of possibilities, that enemy combatants in the future could be members of the opposing political party, journalists that write articles opposing the government’s point of view, and yes even the ordinary American citizen who dares to protest this new law or any decisions of the government.

Therefore, for those of you who followed George W. Bush blindly and believed that Al Qaeda and the Muslim terrorists hated us because of our freedom, can now feel assured that they must not hate us any longer because our basic freedoms are being taken away.  But, those of you who follow that party line, must now acknowledge to yourselves, that if they hated us because of our freedoms, they have won because we are no longer as free as we were the day before 9/11.

For those of you who are not part of that 32%, you must all acknowledge now that our country has lost.  A country that stood for rights and freedoms is only as strong as the protection of those rights and freedoms.  With the taking away of the right to habeas corpus, no one in this country is as free, as safe, and as protected from evil doers within our own government as we were before 9/11 and now actually before we were on 10/17/06.  For those of us who believe in our freedoms, 10/17/06 may just go down in history as the day that our country turned the corner for the worse and that shining light of freedom and that beacon of justice shines less brightly.

Some of you may ask how did legislation such as this get passed.  The easy answer is politics.  Most of the Republicans in Congress voted for this bill.  Why?  Not because they truly believed in it, but because it made a great sound bite to argue that the Democrats were weak on terror if they voted against the bill.  The Republican Party reeling from scandal after scandal threw this bill down as a line in the sand.  If you didn’t vote for it, you were unpatriotic and therefore in the 2006 elections they would have something to attack you on.

The Democrats tasting the possibility of victory in November, 2006, most of them, idly sat by and voted for this Bill even though they did not believe in it.  The ones that did not vote for the Bill, hardly made a whimper as to its egregiousness.  After all, they were scared to be branded with the title “weak on terror”.

Lastly, the journalist, both in the print and the electronic media sat by idly.  Sure, some lashed out at the egregiousness of the Bill and how horrified they were.  But they were a small minority and branded as the radical liberal left.  Most of the media, treated this Bill and its passage and eventual signature as another political story refusing to believe that this was not politics as usual, but rather an affront to the dignity of this nation.  Of course, FOX news and the like, which acts as little more than a wing of the Republican party, championed the Bill.  Of course, after the Dan Rather fiasco of 2004, the rest of the media has been cowed into submission.  The media, instead of creating fear in the hearts of politicians that truth would be told, sat in fear that they would be branded part of the reason why we are in the middle of a war on terror and scared to death that they would lose access to the President and the others in power.

So while the opposition Democratic Party sat there muzzled, and while the media  fell asleep at the switch, a law that truly transformed our system of justice was passed giving power to detain human beings indefinitely without any redress, to that former cheerleader from Yale.  That same person, who lied to you about weapons of mass destruction, that same President and administration, that outed a CIA operative, Valerie Plamu; that same President and administration that told you that we would be greeted with open arms in Iraq and with flowers thrown at our troops; that same President who has told you every six months that the insurgency was about to die down and that democracy was just around the corner in Iraq; that same President who told you that he would not sleep until Osama bin Laden was found; that same President who told you that he really doesn’t think about Osama bin Laden; that same President who quite honestly is intelligently inferior to the necessities of his job.