Tuesday, July 08, 2008

More about the Addison Motion clanger

Yesterday I posted A clanger in the Addison Motion to Dismiss. If you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to read it.

The post includes a statement attorney James Maxwell made in his dismissal motion filed on behalf of Durham Police Sgt. David Addison and three other DPD employees (2 sworn, 1 civilian). Regarding the Plaintiffs, three unindicted members of the 2006 Duke Men’s lacrosse team, Maxwell said:

“In this instance, none of these Defendants (sic) were even subjected to arrest or indictment and after March 21 (one week after the alleged events had occurred), none of these Plaintiffs were even considered a part of he (sic) ongoing investigation.”(emphasis added)
I want to share here parts of three of the comments I’ve received in response to Maxwell’s clanger. Respondents are in italics; I’m in plain.

An offline commenter said - - -

All the lacrosse players were very much part of the investigation for many months.

In addition to the NTO, Nifong threatened to go after all the players at the party for aiding and abetting with potential punishment of up to 30 years in prison.

In April, 2006 the DPD entered campus, without warrants, and attempted to interrogate players and search their rooms even though DPD knew the players were represented by counsel.

In June, 2006 Nifong subpoenaed Duke for players' key card information even though Duke had provided this information to DPD two months earlier in violation of FERPA.

Even after Dave Evans was indicted in May, 2006 and Nifong said he expected no further indictments, his statement left the door open. More importantly the parents and players did not believe him since he had lied so many times already.

You’re right on every point. I’m guessing the Plaintiff’s attorney, Bob Ekstrand, will point out all that and more in his response to the motion. And what can Judge Beaty but wonder as we do why Maxwell dropped such a significant clanger.

Now from the post thread - - -

That filing is so dishonest that one wonders if the attorney is in need of being disciplined or even disbarred. First, Addison made his statements AFTER March 21, and the NTO came after that as well, something you pointed out.

The very point of the NTO was that ALL of the white lacrosse players were official suspects, something that is true on its face. One cannot get a court order to take DNA from someone WHO IS NOT A SUSPECT.

When the defense makes statements such as we have seen, and those are filed as official documents, then we have an attorney who knowingly is filing false information. However, why should we be surprised if the attorneys for the defense are lying? After all, they are representing defendants who lied from the first day and still are lying.

As regards the statement at issue here, I don’t know if Maxwell was being dishonest or just unintentionally disclosed his belief the Plaintiffs weren’t really suspects on or about March 21 and thereafter, but were instead simply pawns in a developing and extensive frame-up attempt?

Wouldn’t you and the rest of us like to know what Maxwell has or will say to the other defense attorneys about his clanger?

You comment really hammers home critical points which Maxwell ignored but Ekstrand surely won't.

Another commenter said this - - -

It does make one wonder about the quality of the attorneys hired by Addison and others in this case. One would think that Addison and his compatriots would:

1.) hope that their attorneys would know the difference between defendants and plaintiffs;

2.) have attorneys who would hire someone to proofread what they submitted for spelling errors or at the very least employ spell check since they (unlike me who quite often dashes something off and forgets to proofread for spelling and grammatical errors) are charging their clients big bucks for what one would hope would be top quality professional services:

3. ) once again have attorneys who would have taken a logic course so as to see the fallacies in the arguments that they presented in their responses.

However, given that this is Durham in wonderland, I suppose that they figure that the judge is in their pocket and so any response, no matter how illogical, how poorly spelled, or even incorrectly worded will still fly.

This wouldn’t be the first time Durham City has spent public money and not gotten much, if anything, in return.

If it turns out the attorneys Durham’s hired to protect itself from accountability for the frame-up attempt and the ongoing cover-up are not very helpful, wouldn't that be poetic justice?

I thank all three of you for your comments, as I do others who’ve commented.


Anonymous said...

I am prepared to be shocked, SHOCKED, if the LAX team win any of the suits. Each and every one of these INNOCENT young men were done in by the government - and now we hope and pray the same government will rule in our favor. It is very brave of us to support them in the face of all of the ongoing crimes our government is waging against us, the people of the United States, and people around the world.

This is a simple truth: the government will never protect your rights. The SCOTUS has conspired with Congress and the Executive to see to that. The Duke FRAME is not an isolated incident. It is only something that happened to people YOU care about. I care about them too.

Most of you people wickering on about the frame will turn around and look to your government to save the economy, wage war on terrorism, wage war on drugs, support child protective services, pay taxes, and worship leaders like Churchill and Lincoln, Bush, McCain, Obama, Paul, Clinton. Until you realize that the police, the government, the courts, the laws, the bureaucrats are the enemy, not the heroes we once thought we could depend on and trust - there will be no justice. It is not enough to keep your nose clean and try and stay under the radar, you have already been placed on the State's Enemies List - you people can think and the government hates that.

Go ahead and discount these comments - there isn't much one can do now anyway. It would be interesting to know though, what are you going to do when they come for you, your children, your wife, mother, parents, churches, neighbors? What are you going to do?

The second amendment has been officially gutted by SCOTUS - read the whole decision then get back to me. The government will only allow possession of weapons inadequate to defend against them. The possession of weapons will only be allowed until the National Guard (Not under your governor's control anymore, in case you haven't heard)until the army move in and take them away. Haven't you heard about what was done to decent law abiding citizens during the Katrina Homeland Security fiasco?

I hope and pray for the INNOCENT young men of the frame, but there is no hope for the country. If there is any hope, perhaps you can explain.

bill anderson said...

I do need to clarify my earlier point. The attorney could just be very stupid, and we have seen some pretty stupid people in this whole sorry affair. However, the facts are so obviously foreign to his filing that I think he was trying to see just how much he could get away with. (Sorry for dangling that preposition.)

Still, we see some real mind-benders in these filings. In the June filing, Duke claimed Tara Levicy was telling the truth and that Crystal was a "victim." But in the latest filing, they admit Levicy did not tell the truth, but that so what, it did not matter.

And, Jamie Gorelick wants me to believe that judges just order mass DNA testing via NTO on a regular basis. Right. Race-based mass testing. Just another day at the office.

The precedent set here could be huge, and this is larger than just who wins or loses this case. Ronald Stephens shot a huge hole in civil liberties with his race-based NTO, and I do hope that the court says something about it.

Anonymous said...

To the Anon at 3.10: Yeah, and the government started the AIDS epidemic, too. Welcome to the blog, Reverend Wright.
Tarheel Hawkeye

Anonymous said...

To anon at 3:10 -

Many of use share your frustrations because of what we see around us: legislators abdicating responsibility, and courts intruding where they were never meant to. Having said all that, I remind you the USA is a democratic republic. We elected the people who did all these things and the fault is not in the stars but in ourselves. Yes, things are not perfect and they never will be because we are people and people are fallible. Moreover, as I have said in my comments here, we should not aim for utopia, or said somewhat differently, the enemy of the good is perfection.

I suggest instead of being frustrated, you work for a candidate you like and you contribute money to the candidate you like. Also, try to convince others calmly and with good arguments of the correctness of your policies. That is how you might effect change. Seeing conspiracies everywhere will only increase your level of frustration.

Jack in Silver Spring
PS TH you were a tad harsh.

Anonymous said...

@Jack in Silver Spring

The United States of America is not a democratic republic, it is a Constitutional Republic. In a constitutional republic the constitution reigns supreme, not unconstitutional laws and executive orders that misguided elected officials dream up. We have inalienable rights, also known as God given rights. But, that does not stop our government from trying to convince us that THEY and ONLY they decide which rights or when those rights shall be granted.

"The very point of the NTO was that ALL of the white lacrosse players were official suspects, something that is true on its face. One cannot get a court order to take DNA from someone WHO IS NOT A SUSPECT."

The President recently signed into law something called S.1858: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007. The new law has a trick name, like the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Homegrown Terrorists Act. S.1858 is the law now. It means that every newborn baby in the USA is getting its own NTO, just like the Lax men. Every new and totally innocent baby is being sampled for DNA and that code is being filed. The data base is searchable by our government, including DOJ, FBI, police, IRS, you name it. The effect of the law will mean that we have sanctioned an unbelievably huge DNA data base that can identify not only individuals, but blood relatives of those individuals.

We are beside ourselves when the crack pots in Durham take DNA from totally innocent men. I didn't notice a peep out of you when S.1858 passed through the stinking guts of our misguided government and was signed into law by that democratically elected misguided decider.

"In June, 2006 Nifong subpoenaed Duke for players' key card information even though Duke had provided this information to DPD two months earlier in violation of FERPA."

We are beside ourselves when Duke University hands over FERPA data to the police. I didn't notice an outcry when both Obama and McCain endorsed so called telecom immunity, which gives our government blessings in spying on us without a warrant.

Perfection? How about just being lawful in government? What are you going to do when they come for you, your children, your wife, parents, church, neighbors? The Lax men are INNOCENT, every one of them, look what the government has done to them. What makes you think you are safe?

Support a candidate? If you consider that we have free speech, then if I put my money where my mouth is, the government has made a law that says my speech is OK up to and including only $2,300 per candidate. Duh?

Jack, I appreciate your response, but consider this: check points, and militarized police on every other corner, CSTV cameras everywhere, being required by law to carry your government issued ID, come only at the END of the process of becoming a police state. The police state includes all of the things I have said, all of the things we have seen in the Duke Frame, and more. I have gone on too long already. And, isn't it cute to scoff at conspiracies.

Anonymous said...

"That filing is so dishonest that one wonders if the attorney is in need of being disciplined or even disbarred."

I also wonder. The attorneys in several briefs charge that the Plaintiffs allege they have a right not to be investigated when there is a possible crime.

But the Plaintiffs have never alleged that; only that any investigation must be conducted with respect for the constitutional rights of suspects.

This is a blatant distortion of the pleadings; and the Court should (but probably won't) take notice of it.

Anonymous said...

"Ronald Stephens shot a huge hole in civil liberties with his race-based NTO, and I do hope that the court says something about it."

Where was the ACLU to complain about this?

Where was the Duke Law School to complain about this?

Why hasn't the NC Judicial Standards Commission started investigating the judges who made such outrageous rulings in the lax case?

Why hasn't the NC Board of Nursing
started investigating the actions of Levicy?

Why hasn't the NC Bar started investigating the actions of many of the attorneys involved?

Anonymous said...

I am flattered that you included my posting in your response. I agree that it would be poetic justice if the Durham city leaders found themselves paying large sums of money for inadequate counsel - however wouldn't that just result in further suits? (I am not a lawyer so unlike many who comment with far more legal knowlege I am really at a loss to understand what exactly is their end game).
The other question that I have concerns Linwood Wilson acting as his own attorney. Does he have a legal background? If not, who is advising him in his responses to motions? Is he preparing the way for any judgement that might go against him to be thrown out based on inadequate representation ("only a fool hires himself ...")?
It would seem that the defendants in this case are still hoping that all of this will somehow be swept under the rug and will go away. Except for what one reads here, on liestoppers, and DIW, there is no national coverage of what is occurring. I cannot understand the lack of concern that seems to permeate the reading public on this issue of political correctness that seemingly has permeated all levels of society in this country - the case of the IUPUI student is just another example of this. We have administrators, police, and prosecutors who are more than willingly to insist that their version of things must be correct and even when the evidence contradicts their positions, they insist then that the evidence is faulty or dead out wrong because nothing shouldbe able to get in the way of the politically correct narrative that they have spun.

Anonymous said...

perhaps we'll see an amended MTD for Addison? Could the 3/21 date just be a typo -- and the intended date be after the Evans indictment -- when Nifong said something to the effect that there were no more suspects?

Anonymous said...

To anon at 3:10 PM and again at 1:11 AM via JnC -

Do not think I do not empathize with your feelings on many issues. If you have read my many comments on this site (which JnC has so kindly allowed to be published here) you should have an inkling of how I think. Indeed I have pointed out in one of my comments on the recent Heller case that the Court can see individual rights in the penumbra of the Constitution, but can't seem to see them when written in black and white in the body of the Constitution as amended.

But let me turn to some of the points you make. The first about the USA being a Constitutional Republic is correct and the Federal government derives such powers as it has from the Constitution. As a practical matter, though, we citizens vote for our representatives and they are supposed to do our bidding. If our representatives vote in ways we don't like, we can vote them out of power. If we don't do that, then we are to blame for not doing so. As to executive order and legislating courts, you are spot on. But the problem is that our national legislature, the Congress, has abdicated the responsibility given to it in Article I which places all legislative powers with it. The fact that we have allowed the Congress to abdicate such powers as given to it is our fault. We have to hold its feet to the fire. That's because the courts are unelected and the executive to amorphous for us citizens go get our hands around it.

As for supporting candidates, would that I can spend that much per candidate. But of course, this another area we need to blame ourselves. Spending limits are patently unconstitutional, and yet they pass muster before the Court. (Got to love those penumbra.) We have allowed one side of the debate to dominate, and they have convinced Congress that it would be good to impose such limits. We who oppose the limits have to convince the Congress to undo them or seek to vote it out of power.

As for FERPA, sometime ago I wrote a comment here pointing the illegality of its use by Duke. Let's hope a court will at least rap them on the knuckles for it. And as far scoffing at conspiracies, that is what came across in your first comment. Note that TH picked up on it as well.

Jack in Silver Spring
PS I have not commented on S. 1858 because I don't know anything about it. I will comment on it when and if the chance arises.

Anonymous said...

@Jack in Silverspring and the rest of you

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I did not sense in your words a connection between the Lax men, their travails in Durham, and the direction our country is headed in toto. You seem to have a belief that US voters have the capacity to understand the government and make thoughtful, informed choices at the polls. If this is the case, then how do you explain the government we have today? Would it shock you to know that dumbing down the US population through inadequate education helps grow a complacent population which can be easily manipulated. Thankfully, your comments do not blame one political party over the other - is this an unspoken acknowledgment that the current government has acted against us in harmony, and in microcosm the Lax men? Taken with the complete and active road blocks on the part of the SBI and DOJ to investigate the frame what other conclusions must we reach? The government does not care about the rights of the Lax men full stop. And thus we can say with confidence the government does not care about your rights or mine.

I think you try and sound optimistic, letting the fault lie with our voters, letting the people have the government they deserve - but this does not qualify our nonelected bureaucrats from the correct interpretation of our laws and rights, it only lets us individually try and kid ourselves about the massive shift from liberty and protection from government to police state. It is past time to face the ugly truth, Jack.

What are you going to do when they come for you? This is a sincere question. I would imagine that you believe that somehow you are safe. And what gives you this false security? On March 1st, 2006 the Lax men thought they were safe and protected by the rule of law if they thought about it. It turned out they were not safe from the clutches of government, didn't it?

This is your opportunity to comment on S.1858: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007. The LAX race based NTO and S.1858 are only two data points on the continuum of our descent into the police state. I would appreciate it if you, or anyone else, would look it up and offer thoughts. Within the context of the Duke Frame I see a conspiracy by government and private individuals in important roles to ignore our God given rights to liberty, and constitutional rights to protection from the state. The complaints clearly state there was a conspiracy between Durham government (the police are part of the government you know) and Duke. And we all know there has not been one finger lifted on the part of government to investigate and correct the wrongs committed by government against the INNOCENT Lax men. Every day in this country INNOCENT babies are having their DNA taken by the government, coded, and filed for future reference by law enforcement, or any bureaucrat - fill in the blank. The whole country has been served with an NTO.

Maybe many of you cannot see the forest for the trees - maybe you still think the frame is a local distortion in government and it can't or has not happened in your personal realm. I've got news for you - telecom immunity, and increasing executive powers, are happening in your personal realm. We hated that Duke turned over FERPA data without a warrant - how does it make you feel to know that the government has taken away your right to privacy, your right to protection from governmental intrusion, and said it is OK to listen to your telephone, computer, banking, without cause, without a warrant. How does it make you feel to know that you may be pulled over by the police and searched without probable cause? How does it make you feel to know that your right to keep and bear arms will last only until the next natural disaster when the Homeland Security come and take them away?

I suggest you expand your horizon and look at the government with critical thoughts. You are old enough, I'm sure, to remember when we were not routinely treated like an enemy by the system, when we believed there was some protection from the rogue elements in elected and nonelected government. Tell me now, how isolated is the frame? How can you believe the government will rule in our favor and acknowledge the crimes committed against the Dukies?

How different would our society be today if, instead of the Pledge of Allegiance, schoolchildren (in private or home schools, of course) were required, each day, to read or recite this paragraph from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Anonymous said...

To anon at 3:10 PM at 1:11 AM and again at 11:01 AM via JnC

My response here will not be in the order in which it appears in your latest response. I will, though, try as best I can to respond to all the points you have made.

You said the following:
"I think you try and sound optimistic, letting the fault lie with our voters, letting the people have the government they deserve - but this does not qualify our nonelected bureaucrats from the correct interpretation of our laws and rights ..."
My response is that whether I am optimistic or pessimistic, I still see the voters as being responsible for the government they elect. On that we will have to agree to disagree. As for non-elected bureaucrats interpreting laws, that I see as Congressional abdication of its legislative responsibility (and something I have mentioned several times). Bureaucrats should not have the right to make new rules and regulations until such time as those rules and regulations are passed as a bill and signed off on by the President. (Think Securities and Exchange Commission which has made a rule about insider trading. That rule was never legislated by Congress and yet people have gone to jail for violating it; or think EPA [instituted by the RINO President Nixon] which makes rules galore about the environment independent of the Congress, etc.) We the voters acquiesce to such things when we do not hold Congress' feet to the fire on such matters.

I do agree with you that we as a population have experienced a " ... dumbing down ... through [an]inadequate education [that] helps grow a complacent population which can be easily manipulated." I would add to that we have an MSM that the people have not yet totally figured out presents a one-sided leftist viewpoint of the world (although I think they are slowly getting there). Do not however depend on the government to educate you properly. We, as parents and grandparents, have to educate our children and our children's children to be thinking Americans. (You would be surprised of the push-back on some of the issues from my grandchildrens' other grandparents.)

Where does this figure into the Durham/Duke hoax? Well I started reading several of the bloggers when it finally hit me (early on) that this whole thing seemed to be a frame. I now use the Hoax as a frame of reference when I point out to others that the news in MSM is so distorted as to be disinforming (in the propaganda sense of the term). Do not think I am not terribly disappointed in Senator Dole for not pushing the so-called Department of Justice to investigate this case, as I am in President Bush. I do have not the slightest doubt that, were the people who were framed black, the DOJ would have been all over this case in a heartbeat (and that the MSM would have cast it in a totally different light).

Your take on the Durham/Duke Hoax is that the government doesn't care about our rights. Actually, I think it cares about the rights of certain selected groups and not others. Americans have such a guilt complex about what it did to the black population (and black leaders [including so-called academics in academia] play the victimology card so assiduously) that any time there is a white on black crime (real or imagined) that the white person is automatically treated as guilty and the accuser is treated as being the "victim" and not as the "alleged victim." I maintain that the government must treat all its citizens equally; but you would be surprised as to the number of people who think otherwise.
(NB The moral of Duke/Durahm and other such case [Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, etc.] is do not talk to the police for any reason under any circumstance unless you have counsel present.)

Turning to government intrusion, in particular eavesdropping and so forth, there I think we are between a rock and a hard place. There is a group of terrorists who would do us harm and have done us harm. How can one interdict that group before it does us further harm without taking some of the measures to which you object? I do not know, and that's a conundrum to which I do not think there is an easy answer.

Finally, I come to S.1858. I did a cursory examination of it last night, and I am amazed that it passed under the radar without commentators at National Review or the Weekly Standard noticing it (although a commentator at World Net Daily did). I think the bill is deficient as it stands. First, what was the Constitutional basis that allowed the Congress to legislate it; second, why did the bill not include a provision for parental notification with the right to opt out? Finally, what safeguards would there be to prevent the information from being used later in life against the newborn infant whose DNA is tested? I think we need to write our Congressman and Senators on the issues I raised. At least they'll know that some people are uncomfortable with the bill as passed and signed into law.

One final last point. I think your idea of reciting the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (I would add - along with pledge) is super.

Jack in Silver spring

Anonymous said...

@Jack in Silver spring

We will agree to disagree, especially on the so called telecom immunity. A couple of catchy phrases recently uttered in Congress went something like this:
A bill supporter said we cannot allow a pre-9/11 mentality to hamper the protection of the American people.
A patriot said that on July 4th 1776 British subjects were in a shooting war with their government, our country was founded on this pre-9/11 mentality and we must not destroy our God given and Constitutional rights with this bill.

If you were surprised by the new DNA collection law, perhaps I should give you a heads up on H.R.1955 and S.1959; Bills to establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism and for other purposes, also known as the thought crime bills. S.1959 sits patiently waiting in the Senate Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee.

I wonder why you mentioned only the leftist MSM? Surely you must recognize the fact that the right have their mouthpieces and propaganda machines in place as well? Propaganda of the MSM make finding the facts, for most Americans, difficult. But whether the propaganda is superficially left or right, the implicit assumptions are that we do have problems, that the problems have solutions, and that the only solutions are more government.

Our current and recent government is turning our country into a police state. The political climate does not bode well for civil rights. The government is running scared, damning the Constitution, damning the Bill of Rights; I do not see a path to justice for the INNOCENT Dukies, nor punishment for the Duke/Durham conspirators.

Thank you again for the thoughtful discourse.

Anonymous said...

To anon at 3:10 PM at 1:11 AM, at 11:01 AM and 4:36 PM via JnC

I certainly would like to see us go back to the Constitutional government you espouse. But to do that you would have to go back to before Herbert Hoover. Many of the ills we have today (a legislature that has abdicated its legislative responsibilities to the Administration) date from the Hoover Administration and of course the Roosevelt Administration. As Adam Smith said, there is a lot ruin in a nation. It took the Roman Republic about 60 years to crumble and morph into the Empire. I fear as you do, that the same thing will happen here (even though right now that does not seem to be in the cards). I say that not for the reasons you do, but for other reasons. Our tax system by taxing lightly people below certain incomes and heavily people above certain incomes has created a class of irresponsible voters. They want the government to do as much as possible because they don't bear the costs. Given how many people look to government for assistance, our government can easily morph into an overbearing socialized system.

Milton Friedman once pointed out that America is an anomaly, as is democracy in general. The history of the world has been dominated by authoritarian regimes. I fear, like you do, that we are slowly slipping into that mode. But what you perceive to be our government turning this country into a police state I think is simply a symptom of other ills that came earlier.

(As for the bill to which refer, I will have to do some more homework on that as I did with S. 1858.)

You asked me the question:
"I wonder why you mentioned only the leftist MSM?" For one reason, the MSM dominated by leftists and they no longer provide even a modicum of truth. They want government intervention and they will say anything to convince readers that self-reliance and independence are not good. (Think of It Takes a Village.) The right end of the media that I frequent (this blog, the National Review and the Weekly Standard) do not favor government intervention. They favor the old kind of responsible self-reliance that made America great. They espouse the things which I think to be the proper path for the country to follow.

Finally some of what you perceive to be a government running scared is just that, in the sense that at the Federal level, President Bush is trying by all means to prevent another 9/11 on his watch. Other aspects of things that have happened are simply abuses of power by unrestrained prosecutors. I have here three in mind in particular: Patrick Fitzgerald, Mike Nifong, and Elliot Spitzer. Indeed, all three prosecuted individual whom they knew to be innocent.

It is up to people like you and me, John, Tarheel Hawkeye, archer05 and ken in dallas, to convince others of the errors of their ways, and try to turn things around if that is at all possible.

Jack in Silver Spring

zonga said...

Bless you.

Anonymous said...

"Last week the US Congress passed an ex post facto law that legalized the illegal behavior of telecommunication companies . . . Retroactive laws are unconstitutional." - Paul Craig Roberts

I believe any of America's Presidents could have led the country back on its rightful course of Constitutional government and the rule of law. Could have, but did not.

"Our tax system by taxing lightly people below certain incomes and heavily people above certain incomes has created a class of irresponsible voters." I totally agree. I would also like to pin the blame on a federal government that borrows and prints money to support its programs - from A to Z, but especially for welfare and war. If we were taxed according to actual government spending we would be in ruins. No, wait, we are in ruins. No matter why the government spends money, inflation and our national debt, and regulation have ruined us.

I'm sorry there seems to be a blind spot for the massive government intervention being demanded from the right. Nevertheless, the left must also be stopped cold as well.

President Bush has the might but not the right to destroy our country to try and save it from his delusions. At the end of the day, we are destroyed from within.

"It is up to people like you and me, John, Tarheel Hawkeye, archer05 and ken in dallas, to convince others of the errors of their ways, and try to turn things around if that is at all possible." Very very kind of you to include me in your list. I offer another list of individuals who are trying to turn things around, they may not appear in your regular reading, but you might find some of them outstanding.

Judge Andrew Napolitano -
The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land - 2006
Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws - 2006
A Nation of Sheep - 2007

Paul Craig Roberts -
THE TYRANNY OF GOOD INTENTIONS: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice - A former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Roberts has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, has just been released by Random House.

Jim Rogers: Fannie and Freddie ... let the patient pass away
Added: July 15, 2008
Category: Education
Jim Rogers Fed Fannie Mae Freddie

William Anderson

Pat Buchanan

Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Glenn Greenwald

William N. Grigg

Karen Kwiatkowski

Gary North

Charley Reese

Lew Rockwell

Mike Rozeff

Laurence M. Vance

Ancient history, I know, but a man's reputation must be based on history, as should a Nation's.
"On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel. The Israeli forces attacked with full knowledge that this was an American ship and lied about it. Survivors have been forbidden for 40 years to tell their story under oath to the American public. This USS Liberty Memorial web site tells their story and is dedicated to the memory of the 34 brave men who died."
and the older site: