As you can see from the above map, Israel, those ' Zionist interlopers', as Iranian president Ahmadinejad calls them, are really crowding the surrounding Muslim countries in the Middle East (Israel is the tiny sliver of yellow in the middle, next to the sea). It's getting so an Allah-fearing Muslim can barely breathe these days without a Jew fouling up the air in the neighborhood. I hear there is even a Jew in Iran. The nerve. On the plus side, it's said the Jew in Iran DOES know his place as a second class mud person infidel, descended from pigs.

If Israel's neighbors got their wish, the 'interloper' Jews, who, btw, have dwelt on current Israeli land in the vicinity of the holy city of Jerusalem since biblical times (and I'm talking Old Testament), would move their entire nation a few hundred miles west, smack dab into the Mediterranean Sea, or maybe to Europe, as the Iranian president suggested during his recent 'Feel The Love' speech at Columbia university. I imagine Ahmadinejad might recommend, oh, say, Germany as the ideal Jewish relocation spot, since he says nothing bad ever happened to a Jew there.

How did things get so screwed up between Israel and the Arabs ? That's a story too long to tell here, so let's just start in modern times with a thumbnail overview from 1948 forward, when the United Nations approved the partition plan dividing Palestine into two states, one Israeli and one Palestinian. The Israelis accepted the plan and were thrilled to finally have their own state, but the Arab League rejected the plan, violence started, war broke out, and has basically never stopped. So the reason the Palestinians haven't had their own state since 1948 is mostly because of the Arab/Muslim inability to accept peace rather than anything the Jews have done. They prefer war at all costs rather than peaceful coexistence. They have made that clear despite numerous attempts at reconciliation by the USA, the UN, and others. The rest is mostly propaganda. The next time you hear someone talking about Israel 'occupying Palestinian territories' , as I heard policy wonk/actress/clueless Angelina Jolie say the other day on the radio, remember that. The last Arab to strike a meaningful peace with Israel was probably Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. Remember what happened to him too. The Arab League suspended Egypt from the League for signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, and in 1981, Sadat was assassinated after a fatwa approving the assassination had been obtained from Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the U.S. for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Peace with Israel just doesn't play in the Arab world. They start going all jihad-y at the very thought of it. Only the destruction of Israel plays in the Arab world. So, if anyone thinks the Israelis are going to be all eager to cede the high ground of the Golan Heights to their mortal enemies and become sitting ducks, think again, unless the Israelis suddenly become one of those Kool-Aid drinking suicide death cults like Jim Jones led in Jonestown.

But we have a whole crop of historical revisionists at work in the United States these days, working hard to discredit Israel for protecting itself against Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, Iran, etc, etc. It's not just Mz Jolie. There are many useful idiots out there. You see, it is politically convenient at the moment to blame the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on Israel, because the USA supports Israel, which means George W. Bush supports Israel, so…according to the leftist doctrine that absolutely everything Bush does has to be wrong…, therefore ISRAEL MUST BE WRONG. As in all historical revisions of the left, the facts be damned. See, simple as pie. That's part of the very reason Ahmadinejad was at Columbia to begin with. That's why his 'free speech' rights were SO important, far more important than the rights of the Minutemen, or the ROTC, or some other vile conservative speaker could ever be. It's all about the ideological push, and right now it's pushing against those Zionist 'interlopers'. Not to worry, though. Everything will go back to normal once we elect a Democratic president.

The issue of illegal immigration comes down to this:

Is the United States allowed to control it's borders ?

If you answered 'Yes' to this question, you have mastered the obvious. Congratulations. Nowadays, that almost seems like an accomplishment. After all, our elite Ivy League universities allow repressive genocidal Islamofascist neo-nazis access to their microphones so our bright young minds can be exposed to 'free speech', so the obvious isn't as obvious as it used to be. It reminds me of that old saying, 'keep an open mind, but don't open it so wide that your brain falls out'.

If you answered 'No' to the question, you are either a fool, an illegal alien, or possibly a Columbia faculty member, so nobody cares what you think. The obvious continues to elude you.

If we don't have the right to control our borders, we are not even a country. Forget about sovereignty. Forget about the Constitution. They become meaningless words on meaningless pieces of paper. On the plus side, as if this could possibly be a plus, without a country, there is no reason to pay your taxes anymore, since we will all be living in a real life version of the movie Mad Max. Welcome to the Thunderdome.

So, assuming we can agree that the USA has a right to control it's borders, let's ask, THEN WHY DON'T WE ?

One reason is that aforementioned fools, who go by the name LIBERALS in the political world, have turned the issue on it's ear. They say that if we control our Mexican border, we are being racist, because Mexicans are from Mexico, you know, and they have brown skin. This is about as dumb as dumb can be, because we have the right to control our borders regardless of who is on the other side of them, but that's what they say. I'm not making it up. It would be an interesting social experiment to see what those same liberals would say if tens of millions of Canadians were coming into our country illegally. I'm sure the libs would be very confused as to how to react to that one. They'd probably think it was a neocon conspiracy to increase the number of white people in the country.

Another argument used by some of the pro-illegal alien lobby (can you even believe there IS such a thing, much less that they are taken seriously ?) is that 'the illegals do the jobs americans don't want to do'. Now, THERE is some racism for you. It's like saying the Mexicans are SUPPOSED to be our servants and our underlings. Some diversity that is. "Look Juan, I fought for your right to pick my fruit for 4 bucks a day !". Pick THIS, gringo.

So, it's the right of the USA to control it's borders, it's not racist to control the borders, and it's morally wrong to create a permanent underclass of semi-slaves to do our dirty work for us under the table.

So, what DO we do ? Have endless congressional discussions about it ? Propose a bunch of new legislation ?

Nope. We only need to do TWO things.

One: Enforce the laws already on the books. In 1986, we passed an immigration control act, but we didn't enforce it. So, the estimated 2.7 million illegals that were here then have grown to between 12-21 million. Nobody knows for sure. At this rate, it won't be long until there are 50 million illegals or more. That is what the failure to enforce the laws has done. Proposing amnesty, which some favor, isn't worth a darn until the flow of illegals is shut off, or at least slowed drastically. You can't fix an overflowing sink while the faucet is still running. The longer we wait, the harder this gets.

Two: Make Mexico stop the flow from their side. We have considerable economic influence with Mexico. They will do something about it if we make them. If we don't, they will continue to export their problems to this country.

Why is it that the Clinton's can lie through their teeth on a regular basis and never get called on it by the mainstream media, even when the lies come only a few days apart ? Okay, my friends, put your hands down, I know you all know the answer. This is for those 'other' people, the ones who think the Clintons can do no wrong, who think the Clintons actually have decency and character and things like that.

Hillary has been out on the campaign trail telling some whoppers lately, as pointed out in Ron Kessler's column. Here are a few examples from the column:

Regarding the moveon.org ad attacking general Petraeus: Clinton on Meet the Press on Sept. 23 called for an end to such attacks. "I don't condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country", she said.
Yet three days earlier, Clinton had voted against a Senate resolution to condemn the MoveOn.org ad
——————————————————————————————
On Sept. 23, on Fox News Sunday, Clinton said that she has "fought hard" for body armor . . ." She added, "I've stood with my colleagues to fight hard for armored vehicles because we knew that they needed additional protection in Iraq and they weren't getting it".

Yet last May, Clinton voted against the emergency supplemental bill to provide $1.6 billion for body armor, including advanced combat helmets; $2.4 billion to help protect against improvised explosive devices; and $3 billion for mine-resistant, ambush protected vehicles.
——————————————————————————————-
During her Sept 23 appearance on Meet The Press, Clinton said that current strategy in Iraq is not working: "I will end our involvement at the level that we've seen that has not proven to be successful".

But in August, Clinton had said in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., that the so-called surge in Iraq is "working".
——————————————————————————————-
Clinton's prevarications about her vote to support the Iraq war are even more striking. On Oct. 10, 2002, she stated on the Senate floor: "It is clear. . . that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons".

In fact, she voted against an amendment introduced in 2002 by Sen. Carl Levin that would have required more diplomacy. On the Sept. 23 Meet the Press, Clinton made yet another misleading statement about that vote, saying she opposed the measure because she did not want to give the United Nations veto power over U.S. actions. But the measure did not give the U.N. veto power and explicitly said the U.S. has the inherent right to use military force in self-defense.
——————————————————————————————
Another article detailing Hillary's hypocrisy on Iraq can be found here.

But I can't disagree with everything Hillary says. "The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not", stated "lifetime Yankee fan" Clinton.

Amen, girl.

I also think there are some Hillary quotes that DO reflect her true convictions, like these:

"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power"

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" - on revoking the Bush tax cuts.

"Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody's going to believe them" - Hillary the 'feminist' on hubby Bill's numerous indiscretions and sexual attacks. Another Hillary quote is also pertinent here. "As women and as lawyers, we must never again shy from raising our voices against sexual harassment" - Right, unless political power is involved and/or the women are 'trash'.

And then there's the personal side of Hillary (when the cameras aren't rolling): "Fk off! It's enough that I have to see you sh!t-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your Gdamn job and keep your mouth shut".
(From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning".

And finally, the introspective (and self-serving) Hillary. "Probably my worst quality is that I get very passionate about what I think is right".

Sure it is, Hillary. Sure it is.

On John Edwards website, he says he wants to get rid of those Two Americas he's always talking about. The site says "Building One America will take strong, bold steps, not incremental steps and half measures. Edwards has proposed detailed plans to put Washington back on the side of regular families".

Okay. So what are these "detailed plans" ?

Here are Edwards' proposals to eliminate poverty and make schools better:

- Force every american to buy health insurance, and
have the government subsidize those who can't afford it.
- Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour.
- Triple the earned income credit.
- Eliminate the marriage tax penalty
- 'Invest' in rural community colleges
- Create a new Labor Taskforce to oversee business
- Create a million voucher for low-income people to move into good neighborhoods
- Phase out housing projects
- 'Invest' in refurbishing decaying neighborhoods
- Create a new $500 tax credit for low-income people
- Expand the child care tax credit up to $5000 per year
- Subsidize bank accounts for working families (I have no idea what this means)
- Create a home rescue fund for borrowers that get behind on their mortgages
- Shed 'excessive' mortgage debt through bankruptcy
- Create a new Family Savings and Credit Commission to protect families from abusive
financial products
- Create a late charge penalty grace period for credit cards
- Cap interest rates on payday loans
- Encourage low or no-interest loans
- Create a million jobs for the poor
- Enact universal government preschool
- Shrink classroom size
- Pay teachers more
- Make curriculum more challenging (finally !, something that doesn't cost taxpayers or
the business sector money)
- Giving bonuses to middle class schools that enroll low-income students
- Double federal magnet school funding to attract middle-class suburban students to
high-poverty urban neighborhoods
- Create second chance schools for high school dropouts
- Enact a College for Everyone program to pay public-college tuition, books and fees for
students who agree to work part-time during their first year at a school
- Encourage father responsibility by increasing child support collections
by $8 billion over the next decade
- Fight teen pregnancy
- 'invest' in home visits by registered nurses to low-income parents
- 'invest' in family literacy programs
- enact the Employee Free Choice Act to increase union membership

And how is Edwards going to raise the trillions and trillions of dollars
required to do all this ? Well, let's go to his tax reform plan and find out:

Edwards will:
- Raise the capital gains tax to 28%
- Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income people
- Keep the estate tax
- Crackdown on offshore tax havens
- Improve IRS service
- Audit corporations and wealthy people more
- Increase taxes on hedge funds, private equity firms, and executive pensions

Wow. I guess those million new jobs for the poor will all be government jobs, because this would be the biggest government increase since the Russian Revolution. When I think of the net effect of all Edwards' policies on our economy, one word comes immediately to mind: CATASTROPHE. Edwards' policies will increase the price of every good that every consumer buys, stifle investment, raise unemployment, drastically expand government spending, drastically increase government bureaucracy, make US business less competitive……….If you wanted to draw up a recipe to destroy the US economy, I doubt you could do much better than John Edwards has, unless your last name was Castro, or maybe Kucinich. Now I understand why Edwards pays $1200 for a haircut you can get anywhere in the country for $20. That adds up about the same as his economic designs for the rest of us. Keep your hands on your wallets, and don't elect John Edwards.

Some of the presidential candidates are beginning to come out with their plans to fix Social Security. A common idea among many Democratic contenders is that the way to close the coming SS gap (the shortage of SS revenue relative to retiree payouts that will occur after the baby boomers retire) is to simply remove the SS payroll tax ceiling, thus subjecting all of a wealthier person's wages to the 12.2% SS payroll tax. Currently, only the first $97,000 of a person's wages is subject to the tax. Barack Obama has recently come out with this proposal..

Sounds like a pretty simple solution, doesn't it ? No raises in the retirement age, no increases in the SS tax rate, no reductions in benefits. Cool. Plus, we'll get the wealthy people to pay for it all, making it a liberal Democrat's dream scenario. Tax the rich. Beautiful. Elect Obama. Sure, it turns SS into almost a full blown welfare program, but hey, it solves the Social Security problem. Done deal. Bring on the next problem, so we can increase taxes and spending to fix that one too…..

But, on second thought, maybe there's more we need to consider. There might be a fly in that SS ointment. I think Barack is forgetting about how SS operates (it's a scam). I think maybe he is assuming that there actually IS a Social Security trust fund, when there actually ISN'T one. Every dollar of SS revenue that is collected beyond what is paid out to retirees goes into the general fund and is immediately spent. All of it. Then IOU's are written back to the SS 'trust fund'. So, the 'trust fund' doesn't contain any, you know, FUNDS, just pieces of paper that claim "I'll gladly pay you on tuesday for a hamburger today", like Wimpy did on the old Popeye cartoons. Keeping that in mind, what then happens to all that extra SS revenue that Obama is generating by eliminating the SS payroll tax ceiling ? IT IS ALL SPENT, and that results in A WHOLE BUNCH MORE IOU's BEING WRITTEN BACK TO THE (LOL) 'TRUST FUND'. The end result is that the SS gap only gets bigger, and future taxpayers are on the hook for redeeming even more IOU's than they were before. The central fallacy of the SS ponzi scheme is thus exposed. Economist Thomas Sowell stated it simply: You can't spend money and save money at the same time. Hard to make it any clearer than that.

What eliminating the SS payroll tax ceiling WILL do is to fill the federal big government coffers with cash for all the federal big government politicians to spend on federal big government programs. And wouldn't you know, Barack Obama just happens to be one of those politicians. What a coincidence. That SS cash influx might even lessen the deficit (just as it masks the true size of the deficit today) if the pols don't spend it ALL, but it won't do anything to fix Social Security. There's an old saying that perfectly describes how the politicians have 'invested' in our retirements via SS: It's known as 'getting ripped off'.

To fix Social Security, first congress must stop spending all the money, so that a real trust fund actually exists (DUH !). That step will at least stop Congress from being criminally complicit to extortion and fraud. However, don't expect any Democratic presidential contenders to jump on board that train, because that will give them LESS taxpayer money to play with, so it gets an automatic 'HATE IT !' from the big government types. It's anathema to them. It's like asking a junkie to voluntarily shoot less heroin. Not gonna happen. They'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming to honesty. Remember the fit they threw when Bush proposed partial personal accounts, which would have taken Congress' grubby mitts off only a small part of our SS money ? The congressional crime bosses went into full hissy fit mode over that one, so you know fixing Social Security isn't something they are interested in at all. What they are interested in is using SS as a scare tactic, and as a tool to keep you dependent on your benevolent big government overlords.

The Republican presidential frontrunners have declined an invitation to be involved in a PBS debate on minority issues at a black college, to be hosted by Tavis Smiley. Earlier in the year, all but one GOP candidate declined a similar NAACP event. Ditto for a debate on a spanish language television channel. You can read the story here.

It has now become obvious what these men are doing, and I'd like to utter a string of curse words here at the cowardice they are displaying. I submit that if the Republican frontrunners are too afraid to air their views in front of what they perceive will be a hostile crowd (90% of black people vote Democrat, and PBS has a pronouned leftward lean), then THEY ARE NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The president of the country represents ALL the people of the country, not just the ones it is politically convenient to represent. If they are afraid they will be asked some hard questions, well boo-hoo, then get out of the race. They are SUPPOSED TO BE ASKED HARD QUESTIONS. I had similar disdain for the Democratic candidates earlier this year when the Dems all passed on a debate because it was being hosted by conservative leaning Fox News. It looks to me like we have a bunch of spineless jellyfish wanting to become the leader of the free world and commander in chief. I have only one word in response: NO !

How about all you candidates grow a pair ? Okay, maybe not you Hillary, but the rest of you better man up. You all make me sick.

Welcome to the All Da King's Men blog. This site will feature primarily political and current issues content. The blog title obviously comes from the Robert Penn Warren novel All The King's Men, which was about the rise to power of fictional political boss Willie Stark. The blog title also has a personal meaning to me, which shall remain a secret for now.

My personal overall political bent tends to be libertarian/conservative, though not 100% of the time. There are exceptions to everything. The blog topics will reflect that. I generally favor limited government with low taxes and low government spending, which makes me nearly extinct in today's political climate, which I'd describe as all out political 'pander-monium'. I might not go quite as far as Mark Twain did by calling Congress the 'only native criminal class', but it's always wise to keep a watchful eye on the folks who can reach into your pocket and appropriate your money.

I hope you all enjoy this blog, and I hope to hear from you.

Sincerely,
Da King

Hillary has announced her new universal health care plan, and I have to say, I like it better than the old plan already. For one thing, the new plan is only 16 pages long, while her 1993 version was about the size of the Old Testament. Plus, nearly half of the 16 pages are just pictures of people smiling over the wonderfulness of Hillary's happy health care plan, so the actual text is probably only 8-10 pages written in a large font. I'm sure Hillary has covered all the health care bases though, because, after all, her husband balanced the federal budget in the year 2000. You can link to Hillary's health care plan here

As a public service, I offer my Politico-To-English translations of some key points of Hillary's plan. Since Hillary's plan is just a collection of broad generalities, so are my translations. That's all there is so far, though you'd never know it by all the media fanfare.
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary : A Guarantee of Quality Coverage

Da King: The government will FORCE you to carry health insurance. No exceptions, comrade. You WILL submit.
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary: Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

Da King: Hillary, please. No efficiency measures are going to come anywhere near to offsetting the costs here. Overall costs will increase greatly, since the taxpayer will pick up the costs for all those who can't afford coverage, and insurance and drug companies will be mandated to cover all pre-existing conditions without exception, thus driving up their costs dramatically. And incidentally, for you smokers, cigarettes will soon cost about $295.00 per pack. Okay, I'm exaggerating about the cigarettes. They might only be $15-20 per pack. In any case, very expensive for plants that grow in the ground, but that's what they get for being 'sinful' plants, I guess.
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary: End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination

Da King: American taxpayers will have to pay the health insurance costs for tens of millions of the geometrically increasing numbers of illegal aliens
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary: Government will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

Da King: Be very afraid. The socialists are coming ! Your taxes are heading through the roof. The problems with the health care system have only just begun.
—————————————————————————————-
Hillary: A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers

Da King: I have a bridge to sell you.
—————————————————————————————-

After the Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapsed, leaving 13 people dead, much was said about our misplaced state and federal spending priorities. The mainstream media and the Democrats (which might seem like two separate entities, but are actually one and the same) mostly blamed Bush, citing the high cost of the Iraq war, or blamed poor Republican leadership in general, with statements like "Republicans are for less government, so of course infrastructure is going to deteriorate. Republicans favor tax cuts for the rich, so they don't care if your family members are killed by collapsing bridges as long as Halliburton stockholders can increase their bottom line". We will set aside for the moment that the Minneapolis bridge had been classified as 'structurally deficient' since 1991, or that there are many, many, many other bridges in the same deficient category all across the country, and have been for a long, long, long time. That stuff is politically inconvenient.

But you see, none of that matters now, because thar's a new sheriff in town. We elected new Democratic congressional leadership in 2006. They are LARGE AND IN CHARGE, and they had a spiffy new 100 day plan too (nearly the entire plan failed, but heck, at least they HAD one. That alone was a step forward, if only in a figurative sense). Anyway, now we have the good guys in government, the Democrats, and last week they passed the transportation bill, yippee, which………, CONTAINED 8 BILLION DOLLARS OF TOTAL EARMARKS, 2 BILLION DOLLARS OF NEW EARMARKS, AND ONLY 1 BILLION DOLLARS FOR BRIDGES. Read about it in this USA Today article. It's a pork-packed bill full of non-essential political pandering.

Now, I know it was a whole six weeks between the Minneapolis bridge collapse and the Senate passing that transportation bill, but I have to assume even politicians can't forget their promises THAT quickly.

It couldn't be that the Minneapolis bridge collapse was just used as political fodder for partisan purposes by politicians in order to garner votes and raise money, could it ? Naw, that can't be it. Politicians lie ? Especially Democrats ? Perish the thought. Let's call Moveon.org asap. Somehow, I bet Bush and those nasty neocons made them do it…Somehow.

For anyone who isn't familiar with the story of the teen racial problems in the small southern town of Jena, Louisiana, there is a pretty good overview of the smarmy tale here

There is a lot to sort out amid all the conflicting stories being thrown out by the teenagers on both sides of the Jena dustup, but there is one thing I think we can all agree on, based on witness accounts from both sides: those six black kids (the "Jena Six") DID beat and stomp that white kid into unconsciousness, and that IS a violent crime. At least I hope we can all agree on that, being reasonable people.

I don't want to try the case of the Jena Six here, since I was not one of the witnesses, but my feeling is that the initial charges of attempted murder were excessive, and that the reduced charges of aggravated battery are proportional to the crime. Sounds like another initial case of an overzealous prosecutor to me, as in the media feeding frenzy commonly known as the Duke Rape Case. Prosecutors often charge the maximum and then reduce charges later, which I have never liked, but that's what they do. The son of a friend of mine was just charged with assault for an auto accident because a passenger in the car, the driver's buddy, broke his arm. No way is that assault, there wasn't even any intent, but that's what they charged him with. Makes no sense at all. That's a travesty, but at last word, neither Al Sharpton nor Jesse Jackson have staged a 'No Justice, No Peace' protest rally for him, as they have for the Jena Six.

And it's Al and Jesse I want to talk about. Is it just me, or do Reverend Al Sharpton and Reverend Jesse Jackson sound more and more like the very racists they used to protest against ? When Jesse says Barack Obama isn't acting black enough on the Jena Six issue, I mean, what in the heck is that but a call to racism ? Can you imagine what would happen if the race was reversed, and a white preacher told a white politician he wasn't acting white enough because he wasn't speaking out in favor of some whites who committed a crime against blacks ? My God, he'd be shunned and out of a job quicker than you could say KKK, and rightfully so.

Jesse also made the following statement. “Across this country, there are two justice systems—one for blacks and one for whites. Black young men are not more likely to commit crimes than whites, but they are more likely to be stopped by police, more likely to be arrested if stopped, more likely to be charged if arrested, more likely to be jailed if convicted, more likely to be charged with felonies and more likely to be tried and imprisoned as adults.” Jesse is a master of the sound byte for sure, but actually, blacks are FAR more likely to commit crimes than whites. Blacks are 12% of the population, but commit over half the murders, muggings, and other violent crimes. That's hardly a secret, even if it goes mostly unreported. If we can't start with the truth, then we can't have any kind of meaningful discussion, Mr Jackson. And btw, the police aren't sent out on assignment every day to meet their monthly quota of arresting black people across the country. The police are primarily responders. They go to where they are called. They go to where situations arise. If they are patrolling your neighborhood frequently, you should look at what is wrong with your neighborhood first, not what is wrong with the police. What the police are mostly trying to do is keep people safe.

Reverend Al chimed in regarding the Jena Six. “You cannot have justice meted out based on who you are rather than what you did…This is the most blatant example of disparity in the justice system that we’ve seen. You can’t have two standards of justice.” Now, if Al is talking about the original charges of attempted murder, he has a point, but from what I'm hearing from the protesters, they want the charges dismissed completely, which definitely WOULD be a disparity of justice, because the Jena Six DID THE CRIME. Does that matter anymore ? Apparently not to the Al and Jesse racial pot stirrers it doesn't. Mychal Bell, one of the Jena Six, who is referred to on the 'Free The Jena Six' website as 'a football star', has FOUR prior convictions for violent crimes, including two prior battery convictions, which I guess the website must have overlooked, wink, wink. The Jena Six isn't some big civil rights issue. Mychal Bell isn't Rosa Parks, and he never will be. Jena in 2007 isn't Selma in 1965, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are certainly not Martin Luther King.

When Al and Jesse's Traveling Racial Hype Show comes to town, truth is the first casualty. Ask the Duke lacrosse team. If we don't want everything in this society to be divided by race, let's start calling out the people who DO divide everything in this society by race, on both sides.