As Many As 10,000 Websites Attacked on Saturday Morning

Gordon Taylor - Managing Editor
2/10/07

The HinzSight Report has learned that there was a coordinated attack on at least 5 website hosting servers and effecting as many as 10,000 websites. The attacks have been of the Distributed Denial of Service type, often directed at a specific website.

This attack was coordinated at specific servers, bringing them down one at a time. These types of attacks are not uncommon, although this coordintated effort certainly seems to be directed at one hosting company, name withheld upon request.

The attacks began early Friday evening, and have continued into Saturday. The first server affected was at approxamately 7:30 PM and most recent attack was attacked late Saturday afternoon.

More as this develops.....

Do Democrats Work With the Enemy?

By Steven Foley - Senior Writer
Orange County, California
02/10/2007

Senator Kennedy offered to help the soviets mount a public-relations offensive in the United States!

That's a questions the right has been asking for a very long time in this country and an acquisition that's finding more and more proof as time goes by.

In his new book The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism Paul Kengor a political science professor documents Reagan's crusade against communism and the end of the Evil Empire! Using declassified presidential documents, interviews, Soviet media archives, and secret KGB documentation, Kengor reveals that in 1983, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy offered to help the Soviets mount a public-relations offensive in the United States!

According to John Smith at the Washington Times in a piece called Cold War contacts the book goes into depth about the apparent collusion or the at least the willingness of the Democrat Party to help an enemy of the united states to discredit or defeat a republican president.

Photo below is Ted Kennedy circa chappaquiddick

In 1983, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy offered to help the Soviets mount a public-relations offensive in the United States. This propaganda attack would target President Reagan and his policies.

These are the same policies that eventually ended the Cold War and reduced the possibility of nuclear annihilation. This charge was made by Paul Kengor in his book "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."

This new book adds to research done by Herb Romerstein, Yevgenia Albats, Vladimir Bukovsky, Pavel Stroilov and others. They all indicate that Mr. Kennedy felt that any bad relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were the sole fault of Mr. Reagan and that talk of a Soviet military threat was nonsense. These articles seem to validate reports that were first published by Vasili Mitrokhin - the former KGB historian who secretly copied sensitive KGB files and released them after the fall of the Soviet Union.

According to this research and released KGB papers, Mr. Kennedy felt that the booming economy during Mr. Reagan's presidency made him popular - and thus a difficult target for Democratic criticism. Because of this, Mr. Kennedy reportedly felt that Mr. Reagan's only weakness was in foreign policy. Here, the articles say Mr. Kennedy felt the Soviets might be of assistance, if Mr. Kennedy and the Democrats could get the ear of the general-secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Numerous articles also said that this anti-Reagan/anti-U.S. conspiracy was not a one-man operation by Mr. Kennedy. They indicate that former Sen. John V. Tunney, a California Democrat, went to Moscow and met with officials of the KGB on Mr. Kennedy's behalf. Additionally, in their book "The Sword And The Shield," Christopher Andrew and Vasili Metrokhin said that as early as 1975 the KGB began operations to penetrate the inner circles of a number of leading Democrats, including the likes of Mr.
Kennedy and Ramsey Clark.

They also mentioned that a Democratic Party activist had been recruited by the KGB and had supplied the Soviets with information from a variety of Democratic leaders, including President Carter. Speaking of Jimmy Carter, according to John Burtis of the Canada Free Press, Mr. Kennedy also worked against Mr. Carter in 1979. Mr. Burtis reported that Mr. Kennedy offered to help Moscow when Mr. Carter harshly criticized the Soviets for their invasion of Afghanistan.

According to Charles Dunn, the dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, these types of subversive activities were in "clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and at the expense of presidential authority." Here the question arises, are these accusations true? Would a U.S. senator, the brother of a beloved U.S. president, conspire with the Soviets against his own country? The works by Messrs. Metrokhin, Kengor and Romerstein, and others seem to lend credence to the charges if they don't actually confirm them.

If this sounds like a familiar story you've defiantly been paying attention. This agenda by democrats of "Power" before "the good of the country" should shock and appall every American. It's been my contention that the left in this country has been actively working to undermine this president in a similar way during the war in Iraq!

Though I have absolutely no proof of any democrat offering to directly help the enemy, like Mr. Kennedy allegedly did, they have sure waged a media war and have done their level best to discredit the president, America and our mission! You have to step back and ask yourself who's side are they really on? And are these the type of people you want representing you in Congress? I know my answer!

British May Be Onto Autism Cure

By Dave Hinz - Publisher
2/10/07


British researchers have announced a possible breakthrough in the treatment of Rett Syndrome, one of the severest forms of Autism. Autism is classified as a developmental disability that results from a disorder of the human central nervous system. It is diagnosed by impairments to social interaction, communication, interests, imagination and activities.

Researchers at Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities in Scotland announced on Friday that research on lab mice indicated that when a particular gene was “switched on” the mice appeared to have a full recovery.

"The results we came across were entirely unexpected. Until now it had been thought that Rett syndrome is irrevocable, but our findings show that the damage to nerve-cell function is, in fact, reversible,” said Adrian Bird, professor at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology, in Edinburgh.

British scientists first announced in 1998 that they had identified a group of genes they thought responsible for Autism. The significance at that time was in identifying and locating the genes, ending the debate as to whether Autism was caused by genetics or by outside factors while young.

"We have found that autism is probably a complex genetic disorder. It is not one due to a single gene, as are cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy,” said Anthony Monaco of the Trust Centre at that time.

Since that 1998 report, the scientists have studied that group of genes, working with lab animals to identify and treat the various forms of Autism. Rett Syndrome is rare among the different types, in that it is triggered by a single gene. While the scientists are cautiously optimistic about this single breakthrough, they are hopeful that this success will lead to further breakthroughs in other forms of Autism.
"There's this perception the brain is so sensitive that once something goes wrong there's nothing you can do. Our data says reversibility is perfectly possible," Prof Bird said.
"Alzheimer's and Parkinson's involve neuronal cell death. In this case and in autism, the neurons don't die. If you give them back what they are missing, they resume normal service. If there's hope for Rett syndrome, maybe there's hope for these other things, too,” Bird added.

While the news has been hailed by parents of Autistic children as a ray of hope for the future, the scientists are quick to point out that any hope for a cure is most likely still years away. Still, parents claim, any breakthrough is greeted with optimism.
"My daughter was diagnosed 16 years ago and there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Suddenly, that could change. It's fantastic," said Fiona Padgett. Her daughter, Mandy, was diagnosed with Autism when she was two years old.
Autism, and the other four pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), are all considered to be Neuro-developmental disorders. The five disorders, expected to be confronted by this research are: Autism, Rett Syndrome, Childhood disintegrative disorder, and Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified.

Romney Draws Large Crowds, McCain Blood in SC

By Mike DeVine - Legal Editor
02/07/2007

Excerpts from The (Columbia) State newspaper:

Mitt Romney's assignment in the 2008 S.C. Republican presidential primary is simply this: Derail John McCain's "Straight Talk Express." If there were any doubts about Romney's mission, they were erased during the former Massachusetts governor's two-day visit to the state last week.

Romney will not have to work too hard to derail a train that derailed itself here in the Palmetto State six years ago despite Granite State Big Mo, when GOP sandlappers saw how crooked was the talk from the Straight locomotive.

Romney attracted large, enthusiastic crowds at stops in Charleston, Aiken and Columbia. It was a shot in the arm for his campaign.

How remarkable is this? More than a year before the first primary, a former Massachusetts governor/Mormon draws such crowds in a land the MSM deems a bigotted Baptist backwash. The MSM didn't cover the Romney tour, much as they don't cover a historically qualified war in Iraq.

Romney's chief rival in South Carolina is McCain, the U.S. senator from Arizona who leads in the polls here and enjoys the backing of the state's GOP establishment. Romney isn't impressed. Endorsements never elected anybody, he says. In the 2000 S.C. Republican presidential primary, McCain won 43 percent of the vote, losing to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush. Today, McCain is polling about 38 percent against Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

McCain has lost at least five percent of his followers and probably more, given the open primary system in SC.

Romney noted his foe from Arizona wrote the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that restricts certain types of contributions. "That's a terrible piece of legislation," Romney said. "It hasn't taken the money out of politics. ... (But) it has hurt my party." Conservative Christians, who make up a third of the GOP primary vote, oppose McCain-Feingold. But that's not all. McCain opposed President Bush's tax cuts, Romney noted. "I supported them," the former governor said. McCain believes the president's interrogation of terrorist detainees was a violation of the Geneva Accords. "I disagree with him," Romney said. Of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, Romney said, "I think it was a mistake."

McCain's record is his worst enemy. Romney's job is easy.

Rudy Will Announce Candidacy in California on Saturday.

Exclusive to The Hinzsight Report
Rudy Will Announce Candidacy in California on Saturday.

By Dave Hinz - Publisher
2/05/07

Although Rudy Giuliani filed amended paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission on Monday, removing the words “testing the waters,” and filing a “Statement of Candidacy,” he will not formally announce his intention to run for President until a luncheon speech to the California Republican Party State Convention this coming Saturday in Sacramento, The Hinzsight Report has learned.

When asked Monday, by Sean Hannity if the filing meant that he was
now running for President, Giuliani said, “Without a formalannouncement this is as close as you can get. I still have tomake a formal announcement…”According to a source close to the NY campaign, this formal announcement will be delivered at that luncheon in California.

The Hinzsight Report has learned some details about the Giuliani campaign strategy. Giuliani will have only three dedicated fund-raising offices; New York, Washington, DC, and California. He expects to raise 100 Million this year alone at 250 different engagements.

The Hinzsight Report first broke the story last week, that Giuliani is presently sending operatives to all 50 states to begin the work of securing his name on the primary ballots. This revelation was followed Tuesday with the revision of his FEC paperwork.

A number of large states, including California, have indicated a willingness to move their state primaries to January, giving them more influence in the primary process. Traditionally the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have jump-started the National election season. Actions by several major states threaten to change that.

“Iowa and New Hampshire will skip ahead into this year, if necessary, in order to be first,” according to Carl Cameron of Fox News, “even if it means caucuses at Christmas.”

Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, has received high marks from the public, stemming from the leadership he displayed following 9/11. He has just returned from speaking engagements in New Hampshire and South Carolina, both early primary states.

But, California will be pivotal in any election bid, a fact not lost on the candidate. A former prosecuting attorney, who made his reputation as a crime fighter, he turned New York City around by cutting taxes, reforming welfare and education and, fighting crime.

He contemplated a run for the US Senate from New York, running against Hillary Clinton in 2000. He was forced however, to withdraw when he was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer. It was 9/11 however that thrust him into the National Limelight.

The New York Daily News reports that Giuliani has arrayed a formidable campaign team. “Joining Team Giuliani will be Home Depot founder Ken Langone, hedge fund manager Paul Singer and Texas oilman Boone Pickens.

Team member Paul Singer is a discreet hedge-fund tycoon who has been described as the Republican George Soros, a donor to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and a prominent backer of an anti-affirmative action campaign in Michigan, according to campaign finance and press reports.”

According to the Daily News, “Paramount CEO Brad Grey, former Vikings quarterback Fran Tarkenton, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, PepsiCo chief Dawn Hudson and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein,” are all leaning toward Giuliani, but are at this time, uncommitted.

Keep ‘Em Flying at 60–the Sky’s the Limit

Lance Thompson - Contributing Editor
02/06/07

The FAA is considering raising its mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots to 65 from the current 60 years, according to a 30 January 2007 story in the Wall Street Journal by Andy Pasztor. Opposition to this rule change by the Air Line Pilots Association has softened, but other groups may have objections and concerns. Nonetheless, this change has much to recommend it.
In the cases of professional athletes, firefighters, and Vegas show girls, the three score limit seems quite reasonable. But for airline pilots, the attributes which deteriorate with age can be corrected (vision), augmented (strength) and monitored (health). In counterbalance, attributes such as judgment, experience, decision making and problem-solving ability all improve with advancing years.

There is an economic argument as well. A sixty year-old commercial pilot has thousands of hours of flight time, hundreds of hours of costly training, and a wealth of experience in handling a myriad of situations. Surely at that age, he or she is at the apex of knowledge and skill. To waste five years of this expertise is prematurely to deny the flying public a valuable resource.
The question brings to mind the talent we might have wasted if other prominent figures had decided to hang up their hats at age 60.

Benjamin Franklin (17 January 1706) When Franklin was 60, he was an American diplomat in London. He addressed the House of Commons to explain colonial resistance to the Stamp Act. He answered questions for two hours, impressing all present with his knowledge and arguments. The Stamp Act was subsequently repealed. Franklin helped draft the Declaration of Independence when he was 69, and secured France as an ally in the Revolutionary War when he was 72. He served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention at the age of 81. We’re lucky he didn’t retire 21 years earlier.

George Washington (22 February 1732) When Washington was 60, he was re-elected as President. During his second term, he rebuffed French attempts to pull America into a European war, reaffirmed federal authority by putting down the "Whiskey Rebellion," weathered a scandal involving a member of his cabinet, secured the release of American prisoners from Barbary pirates, and voluntarily left office beloved, admired, and honored–at the age of 65.
Winston Churchill (30 November 1874) When Churchill was 60, he was a minority party member of Parliament, writing a multi-volume biography of Marlborough. Hitler had just declared himself Germany’s new Führer. When Churchill was 65, Germany and Russia had invaded Poland, Hitler’s war machine seemed invincible, and Churchill himself had not yet become Prime Minister. His determined defiance of the Nazis and his uncompromising leadership during World War II all came after his 65th birthday.

Douglas MacArthur (26 January 1880) When MacArthur was 60, he was Grand Field Marshall of the Philippines, preparing the region to defend itself against Japan. World War II had yet to involve the American nation. His battles against the Japanese invaders and his campaigns to retake the Southwest Pacific all lay ahead. When MacArthur was 65, he supervised the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay and subsequently conducted a masterful administration of occupied post-war Japan. When he was 70, the Korean War began, and his triumph at Inchon was still in his future. MacArthur served his country well in the ten years after his 60th birthday.

Ronald Reagan (6 February 1911). When Reagan was 60, he was wrestling with a Democratic legislature over welfare reform–as governor of California. When he was 65, he was vying with President Ford for the Republican presidential nomination. He was just shy of 70 when he first took the oath of office for President of the United States. Restarting America’s economic engine, winning the Cold War and, speaking of airlines, busting the illegal air traffic controllers’ strike were all in his future. We’re lucky he didn’t retire at 60.

All of these figures displayed good judgment, grace under pressure, and confidence born of experience well after their 60th birthdays. These are exactly the qualities one would hope for on the other side of the cockpit door.

These exemplary individuals also encourage us to continue to aspire and achieve, even in what film maker Clint Eastwood calls "the back nine" of life. (Eastwood, by the way, won his first directing Oscar at age 62, and his second at age 75.)

Hillary Clinton and Her Mistake!

Ken Taylor - Senior Writer
02/06/07
In every interview, every campaign appearance, every sound bite, almost her every waking breath, Senator Hillary, (the Hildabeast), Clinton has been back peddling concerning her Iraq vote and standing for the Congressional authorization to use force. Stating repeatedly that her vote was a, "mistake, " and actually voicing this reversal of opinion in an animated, memorized tirade that sounds much like listening over and over again to a voice mail greeting, Hillary is using this as another opportunity to bash the President and attempting to portray herself as an innocent who was misled and nearly forced into voting for the use of force.

Her political savvy gives her the realization that the average voter has an extremely short term memory and that what she says today will be forgotten tomorrow and what she said four years ago on the eve of the Iraq invasion has been for the most part totally forgotten by the electorate. This of course allows her to twist what she stated emphatically in 2003 when she not only stood on the Senate floor and supported using force against Iraq but stated that her own personal investigation of the intelligence made it clear that Iraq supported terrorism and that regime change was the only option since Saddam would not follow UN mandates nor allow inspections.

Here are just two examples of many stating her emphatic position prior to the Iraq invasion.
October 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

January 22, 2003 "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

This was not a , "mistake, " nor was it a vote that was twisted by deception as she is trying to say today. It was a calculated and studied vote in support for force against Iraq based on intelligence reports that she viewed, advise from her political advisers who told her that it was in her best interest politically to vote for the authorization because the polls would lean in her favor if she voted expressing her support.

Fast forward to 2007. Many polls show that support for our presence in Iraq is dropping and Hillary who is guided by the rule of political expediency now is changing her tune and even attempting to claim she was duped into her vote. All in an attempt to satisfy her base who is totally opposed to Iraq, or any other US military action anywhere. She is not one who is guided by conscience, principle or core beliefs but is completely poll driven and develops policy positions in accordance to what she believes will gain the most support and votes.

As the push for 2008 approaches her run for President will be guided completely by what she and her advisers perceive will best play to whatever public she is facing, the demographics of any news program, late night or daytime television show she is a guest on and how vocal her liberal base in the Democrat Party is. This is just the beginning of the many faces of the Hildabeast.

Can You Face Some Unpleasant Facts?

By Gavin DeFreese - Senior Writer
02/06/2007

Rumack: Elaine, you're a member of this crew. Can you face some unpleasant facts?
Elaine: No.

~ from the film Airplane!

Will I be hated by future generations?

Will they dream of the once great cities which now lay in ruins?
Will they know what a polar bear or a penguin looks like? Will
they be able to go out into the open without restrictive protective
garments afraid to bear their skin to the light of the sun?

Will they think I was too arrogant, apathetic, or just too plain
stupid to see the writing on the wall and endless warnings of
the coming conflagration?

This weekend I heard it from almost every talking head on every
channel… global warming is real and it is caused by man! The IPCC
has spent the last five years and countless dollars so that it
can now unequivocally say that man is to blame for climate change
and that we will have to deal with some extreme conditions in
the next 100 years.

Unequivocally that is, as long as you agree with their theory
in the first place.

Maybe they should spend the next five years trying to better
understand the word "unequivocal". Better yet, instead of worrying
about climate change that even Stone Age man proved he could weather
and come out the better for it, maybe we should all be worrying
a little more about terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism instead.
Long before global warming can accurately be blamed for the death
of a single innocent, the deranged hand of man will have claimed
millions.

Worry about global warming in today's times is kind of like worrying
about smoking while playing Russian roulette!

It will not be a two or three degree rise in temperature that
will make future cities uninhabitable, but instead the thermonuclear
fire of rogue a WMD. Polar bears and penguins will be unheard
of by our children, not because the polar environment has vanished,
but because the learning environments have. Women will not be
able to go outside without protective clothing, but it will be
the religious police that cause them to hide their skin, not the
ravaging sun.

Will the next generation scorn my existence because I was too
concerned with what the talking heads of the major networks were
saying about global warming, instead of paying attention to what
the severed heads of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg were bearing
witness?

RESOLUTION FOR DEFEAT

By Ken Taylor- Senior Writer
2/4/2007

The Senate is poised to pass this week a non - binding Resolution expressing non support for the increase in the number of troops that are currently in Iraq. This reaction follows the announcement by the President of an increase of troop strength of 21, 500
based on a new strategy of gaining full control of the troubled areas in Iraq which are mainly located in and around Baghdad. The increase in troops and the strategy are a result of plans that were developed by both the Pentagon, in field Commanders and Presidential military advisers. An increase deemed necessary by new Multi National Commander General David Petraeus who the Senate confirmed unanimously.

The Resolution is a result of a combined effort lead by Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia. While all but two Democrats not surprisingly support the Resolution only a handful of Republicans have expressed their support which was the reasoning for the compromise Resolution in order to gain enough GOP support toprevent a filibuster.

The two Democrats Christopher Dodd,(D CONN), and Russell Feingold, (D WIS), are not supporting the compromise because they support the increase but because the new version does not call for a defunding of the war!

While the Resolution is non - binding which means that regardless the President as Commander in Chief can still go forward with the increase, it does have far reaching ramifications that make it a dangerous and defeatist attempt by the Senate to undermine the war and our troops. It also shows a complete hypocrisy by Senators who support the Resolution

The hypocrisy - The Senate hypocrisy is two fold concerning this defeatist resolution. Nearly every Senator is on record prior to the Iraq invasion expressing support for attacking Iraq and in fact most emphatically stated that it was necessary for United States National Security and that it was the right move by the President and he had their complete support. Secondly last week the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus as the new Iraq Commander. The Senate expressed their complete confidence in his abilities and expertise in command and full confidence in his strategy in handling military affairs in Iraq. A strategy that I might add is in TOTAL agreement with the President including his statement of the necessity of the additional troops.

Message to the troops - while in the short term the Resolution does not effect the troops the message that it sends has an immediate and very damaging effect to troop morale. Our soldiers deserve the complete support of the people AND their elected officials. In passing and even debating this Resolution the United States Senate is in essence stating to our troops that they do not support what they are doing. It can only be taken by the soldier in the field as a slap in the face to their service for our country and the sacrifice and accomplishment they are making daily for the cause of freedom. A mission that they support and in which they voluntarily serve and that the Senate is demeaning by their politically based statement which is designed for the enhancement of their personal careers rather than support for our troops as Senators claim it to be.

Message to the enemy - after the United States pulled out of Somalia shortly after the infamous, "Black Hawk Down, " incident, Usama Bin Laden came to the realization and stated that America did not have the stamina to fight a sustained war nor the strength to face the death of our soldiers and citizens. This lead directly to the planning and implementation of the 9/11 attacks. This Resolution sends a similar message to the enemy in the fact that it states that a governing body of the United States of America is siding against the military effort that is fighting this enemy. Which only encourages both insurgents and terrorists alike to fight with a new vigor as they are emboldened to believe that the harder they fight the more likely the United States will leave because the will to complete the mission and achieve total victory is not in our make up.

We entered this war against terrorism united as a nation with a resolve to see it through to final victory both in remembrance of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks and to end the scourge of terrorism so that we nor our children would ever have to face the sorrow and anger of that September morning again. When we entered Iraq nearly everyone agreed of its necessity and its association in the war against Islamic extremists and the states that support them.

While no one associated Iraq directly with 9/11 all understood Hussein's terrorist ties and his support for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Everyone realized the danger of allowing this rogue state to continue and the implications of financial, weapons and yes known WMD available for support of terrorism.

Now just over five years after 9/11 victory is no longer desired and Senators and Representatives alike are reversing their stance for political expediency. Whether one supports the President or not everyone can agree that he is a man of principle and regardless of pressure or polls the security and the good of the country is foremost in his duty and his responsibility. He has not wavered in his resolve and he still understands the consequences of failure and the necessity of victory.

Standing for what is right does not mean caving to political pressure or making policy in accordance with polls and the advancement of political careers or even winning elections. This is what our Senate has become a political animal whose only interest is being elected while never standing for anything. This type of attitude would have compromised with the British during our own Revolution and we would have never become a nation.

General Douglas MacArthuronce said that, "in war there is no substitute for victory." In this war not only is there no substitute but it is a necessity for our nation, our security and our future. If it were left to the Senate and their resolutions we would fall to defeat and Islamic radicalism would rule the world.

New Jersey High School Expands Student Drug Testing

by Dave Hinz - Publisher
2/4/07

Pequannock Township High, in Pequannock, NJ has unleashed a mini firestorm by instituting random drug testing of students capable of detecting alcohol use more than three days prior to the test.

Under a program instituted in 2005, Pequannock students who participate in sports or other extracurricular activities are already subject to random screening using the EtG test, which screens for ethyl glucuronide, a substance produced by the body when it metabolizes alcohol.

This expansion of the testing already being done is funded by a three-year $120,000 federal grant.

"This is a major issue for America," School Superintendent Larrie Reynolds said Tuesday. "There are more kids that die each year in alcohol-related traffic deaths than there are soldiers who have died in Iraq. The numbers are staggering."

The school’s actions, however, have raised the ire of civil libertarians such as the New Jersey branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. They see the drug testing as an invasion of privacy.

"Medical care and treatment are issues between parents and children," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the New Jersey group.

Nobody will be kicked out of school, or removed from activities because of a positive test, Superintendent Reynolds points out. Instead, they will receive drug counseling and their parents will be notified.

The parental notification is one of the issues the ACLU sees as a privacy issue.

The Maverick Who Can

By Quentin Langley - International Editor
2/4/2007

In what is shaping up to be a fascinating election year, no candidate divides the commentariat and blogosphere as sharply as Rudy Giuliani.

Opinions vary from those who regard him as the hot favorite to those who say he will crushed in the primaries, and could not, in any case win the general. On the whole I am in the camp that says he would be a formidable candidate in the general election.
His proven ability to win over independents and Democrats more than counters the lukewarm feelings of the base. A Republican who pulled in an extra 5% in the North East and upper Midwest would pull in five states (and more than sixty electoral votes) that went for Kerry, as well as securing three otherwise doubtful states that narrowly voted for Bush. Slipping by 5% in the Bible Belt would cost the Republicans nothing, as the GOP margins in those states are huge.

Giuliani’s first, and much bigger, challenge is to win the primaries. And assessing his chances there is far from easy. Polls show him first or second in every state. But polls measure mostly name recognition at this point. Will socially conservative voters stick with Giuliani when they learn more about him? Inside the Beltway consensus is not. But we are no longer limited to public polls and Beltway commentators. Now we have the blogosphere.

Bloggers are, mostly, not professional pundits, but they are also not synonymous with the general electorate. Most bloggers already know of Giuliani’s messy divorces, his pro-choice stance on abortion and his sympathy for gay rights. These nuclear bombs, which are presumed to be fatal to his candidacy with the caucus goers of Iowa are already factored in by bloggers. And there is a strong pool of bloggers who sharply disagree with Giuliani on social issues, but have decided to back him anyway.

While professional pundits such as Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post and David Mark, former editor of Campaigns & Elections are convinced that Giuliani’s campaign will implode and John McCain’s will thrive, bloggers believe, and hope, that the reverse is true. McCain usually does very poorly in online polls.

The blogger Streiff is a great example. A contributing editor at the highly influential RedState he describes himself as “a Roman Catholic, pro-life near absolutist, social conservative”. He is fully aware that Giuliani’s views are very different from his own. But he also believes that Giuliani can be trusted, above any other candidate, to prosecute the long war in defense of America.
The fact that Giuliani makes no efforts to pander to social conservatives is a plus, not a minus. Streiff knows exactly
where he and Giuliani disagree, and is prepared to accept that in exchange for unparalleled leadership on national security.

Streiff believes that McCain, though an outspoken supporter of the War on Terror, would falter in the face of media criticism. He seems to crave adulation above all things. Giuliani, by contrast, “seems to get stronger under pressure, not weaker”. Other bloggers too, who parse the statements on abortion of other candidates for decades old signs of weakness, seem to give more regard to Giuliani’s forthright opposition than to the flawed support of more pragmatic men.

It comes down to trust. People trust Giuliani, and that will make him a more formidable candidate than the pundits expect.

Quentin Langley is editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net an academic at the University of Cardiff and is a columnist with Campaigns & Elections. This article was first published in the Common Sense series for Lake Champlain Weekly.

"Politics Gets in the Way of Patriotism"

By Dave Hinz - Publisher
2/04/07

"What we have in this country is politics and patriotism, and sometimes the politics gets in the way of the Patriotism," retired General Tommy Franks said this morning in an interview on the FNC before
the Superbowl in Miami.

In speaking about the War in Iraq, he continued, "We know about the cost of being there," referring to the death of more than 3000 American soldiers in combat in Iraq. "What we need to think about is the cost of leaving too soon."

Questioned about his opinions on the war, the former general who led American forces to victory in two actions against Saddam Hussein, reiterated his support for our forces on the ground in Iraq.

He pointed out that he hasalways looked at the situation there as what he called "a three legged stool." The three legs, he told the viewing audience, are;

The military and police of the Iraqi government, or the security angle. Improved
economic progress throughout the country. The government establishment
of the "Rule of Law" in governance of the Iraqi people.

In fielding questions concerning the situation in Iraq, he pointed out that there is much discussion in the media regarding the security situation, but little is being said about the improving Iraqi economy and progress within the Iraqi government.

"We need the leaders of the Shia, Sunni and the Kurds to step up in an adult way," in order to make progress in the country.

The general indicated that he is optimistic about our chances for success in Iraq.

Asked what he is doing now, the former general pointed to his Leadership Institute, in Hobart, OK, where, according to the institutes mission statement, the goal is "to advance the understanding of historical events, encourage leadership development and inspire enlightened decision making by providing a forum for critical thinking through scholarly research, exhibitions, and public programs."

Texas Gov Tied to Big Pharm Money?

By Dave Hinz - Publisher
2/3/07

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry has stunned his conservative supporters by signing an Executive Order mandating that all sixth grade girls receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV. The papillomavirus can cause cervical cancer in young women. Texas now becomes the first state to mandate such a vaccine.

Circumventing a legislature that opposed the measure, and conservative and parents rights groups, Perry's Executive Order would appear to be indirect contrast to the conservative Christian values he espouses. Perry is on record to oppose abortion and stem-cell research using embryonic cells. Religious groups who oppose the mandatory vaccine fear that requiring the vaccine will promote premarital sex, and undermine the rights of parents to teach their own values in the home. Much of his support comes from the religious right. But, it appears, that much of his cash comes from Merck.

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil
for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country. Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government. The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

An Executive Order from the Governor has the force of law in Texas, with the legislature unable to repeal it. The order will take effect in September 2008, and will remain in effect until either Perry or his successor changes it.

Can This General Be Saved?

by Lance Thompson - Contributing Editor
2/2/07

Ordinarily, I would never offer advice to a general, but one in particular is fighting a losing battle with outdated strategies, ineffective equipment and a dysfunctional command structure. Immediate action must be taken to prevent total defeat. Therefore, I hereby humbly submit a plan to save America’s oldest general--General Motors.

A 2 February 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal, by John D. Stoll and Neal E Boudette reported that GM sales fell 16.6% in the month of January, despite a growing economy and in contrast to sales gains by Honda, Toyota and Daimler-Chrysler. GM plans to produce 175,000 fewer vehicles in the first quarter than it did a year before. Toyota is poised to surpass GM in number of vehicles manufactured in 2007. Toyota estimates building a total of 9.42 million vehicles to GM’s expectation of 9.18 million vehicles. It would be the first time GM has lost the number one spot since the ignition key was invented.

General Motors didn’t take Japanese competition seriously until the 1980s, when Honda, Toyota and Datsun surpassed American cars for quality, reliability and economy. GM and other American car manufacturers eventually closed the quality gap, and enjoyed the double restorative of cheap gas and Americans’ embrace of high-profit SUV’s. GM could have used this reprieve to invest in research and development of fuel-efficient cars, but instead behaved as if the party would never end. A spike in gas prices hit the SUV market like the asteroid hit the dinosaurs, and GM was stuck with a line of brand new large SUV’s just as Americans were bailing out of them.

GM had another ace in the hole–their best-selling vehicles had always been full-size pickup trucks, a market in which the Japanese never competed. That changed in recent years as the Nissan Titan, Toyota Tundra and Honda Ridgeline became hits with Americans who gladly traded their American pickups for models from Japan.

General Motors has several domestic divisions–Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet, Hummer, Pontiac, Saturn, GMC trucks. The overlapping domestic brands are leftovers from the fifties, when Americans were used to three choices–three car companies, three TV channels, three flavors of ice cream. In those days, it made perfect sense to have several GM divisions offering variations of the same automobile because car customers acted out of product loyalty, family tradition, and consumer inertia. It was common for a family to trade the two- or three-year old Buick on the new Buick model because the portholes were bigger.

The landscape has changed substantially since those days. One of the three major American companies is now a subsidiary of Mercedes. The Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Swedes, English, Australians. Chinese and French all manufacture automobiles competing for the American market. Japanese and German firms have built factories in the United States, employing American workers and building popular, high-quality cars and trucks.

GM has steadily improved quality, but aside from cutting out the Oldsmobile brand in 2000, they have balked at major reorganization such as that proposed by Alan Mulally, the ex-Boeing executive who took over the CEO spot at Ford. As number one car maker, GM could rationalize complacency. But as they fall to number two in 2007, complacency will come to a screeching halt. At least, it should.

The prescription for turnaround may be wrenching and difficult, but it is nonetheless necessary. Each GM brand must have a unifying identity and purpose. Product lines must not overlap. Redundant lines must be eliminated. Specifically:
Eliminate Chevrolet Cars. Chevrolet cars range from the entry-level South Korean-built Aveo to the world-renowned Corvette. The Chevrolet car line tries to be all things to all people, and has no division identity. Chevrolet cars should be eliminated, (despite the excitement over the return of the Camaro).

Retain Chevrolet Trucks. In contrast to Chevrolet’s anonymous car line, Chevy trucks have a robust reputation, and the Silverado pickup is GM’s best-selling vehicle. Chevy trucks are identified with dependable, hard-working service. This even suggests a marketing direction: "Chevy–Trucks That Work." Chevy would become GM’s truck division–heavy duty, SUV’s, pickups, crossovers and even the popular compact HHR would all fit easily under the marque.
Eliminate GMC Trucks. GMC bills itself as "Professional Grade," but Chevy outsells GMC with essentially similar products. Whatever marginal advantages GMC vehicles offer over their Chevrolet twins could be made available as options. Let Chevy sell the trucks.
Eliminate Hummer. Despite its high visibility, Hummer has always been a niche market, and no matter how small they become (H2 and H3), a Hummer will always be a dated symbol of gas-guzzling excess. The underpinnings of Hummers are regular GM trucks. Let Chevy sell the trucks.

Eliminate Buick. Buick recently has offered beautiful cars–the Lucerne and LaCrosse are stylish and handsome. But Buicks are built with aging car buyers in mind. Controls are easily manipulated, instruments are large and legible, interiors are living-room comfortable. Most of GM’s most loyal customers are seniors already–they don’t need an entire division that advertises the fact.

Eliminate Cadillac Trucks, Concentrate on World-Class Cars. The swing away from big SUV’s is the perfect excuse for Cadillac to get out of the truck business. Cadillac capitalized on the success and high profit margins of massive SUV’s, aided by publicity about NBA players and rap stars cruising around in bling-festooned Escalades. But Cadillac should be the prestige division. Cadillacs should be the most powerful, technically sophisticated, stylistically distinct automobiles in the world, not over-indulgent trucks.

Emphasize Pontiac Affordable Performance. Pontiac should be the youth-oriented division, offering performance and active lifestyle for a reasonable price. That means compacts and coupes for singles; SUV’s and crossovers for young, active couples; and sedans for young families. Every Pontiac should emphasize power, handling and styling.

Emphasize Saturn European Performance. Saturn has recently turned to Opel of Europe for its new models, including the new Vue SUV, and is an ideal division to showcase GM’s worldwide technological reach. Even the Saturn Sky, an affordable roadster, recalls the drop-top sporting days of the MG and Triumph. Saturn should not sell any rebadged domestic vans or SUV’s.
Share Corvette Magic. While most Chevrolet cars will not be missed, the Corvette remains a superstar. Corvette should be available by special-order only, through any GM dealer. Its Cadillac cousin, the XLR, is distinctive enough to continue, but the magic of the Corvette nameplate could then enhance the entire GM line. The special-order status would add exclusivity to the plastic classic and ensure that every one that comes off the line has an eager owner waiting.

These changes would cut repetitive products and lines, reduce excess inventory, and make GM a leaner, more focused company. The changes will be costly and painful, but so is maintaining a course which gradually erodes the company’s dominance in the automotive world. Leaders make decisions, take action, and boldly take the initiative. The General must realize that without such drastic action, the company will never return to the winner’s circle.

The Mainstream Media is Racist!

By Dave Hinz - Publisher
1/28/2007

Football fans do not cheer for the black quarterback who threw the ball, while not cheering for the white receiver who caught it.

Football fans do not cheer the black running back who carried the ball while ignoring the white lineman who opened the hole.

Football fans are color-blind, rooting for the content of a man’s character…err, the state of a man’s skill, rather than the color of his skin.

The football fan is closer to the ideal espoused by the Rev. Martin Luther King than the Mainstream Media will ever be. The overriding theme of this year’s Super Bowl, like the last decade, is not that of two deserving teams battling it out on the field for this year’s supremacy. The story line in the MSM is “Finally, a Black Head Coach will win the Super Bowl.”

One would think it was 1965 in Selma, Alabama to hear the MSM tell the story. Historic!

The fact of the matter is that the American public has long since moved beyond all that. It is only the MSM that is still living in the “Jim Crow” South.

NEWS FLASH: Note to MSM: The NFL has been integrated. Move on!

One would think/hope/pray that this year would finally put this puppy to bed. While hope might well spring eternal, don’t bet the farm!

The more likely scenario for next year will be “Who will become only the second black head coach to lead a team to the Super Bowl title. Yatta, yatta, yatta!

For the record, while I have nothing against Lovie Smith, I favor Indianapolis this year. Payton Manning has arguably been the best quarterback in football for the past three to four years and deserves to win.

Head coach Tony Dungy, besides having established a long record of coaching success, is a fine man from a fine family. And, he is from my own hometown of Jackson, Michigan. Is that a good enough reason to want to see him succeed, simply because we share friends, family and a hometown? It’s good enough for me!

GO COLTS!

Barack Obama Is Not a Black Democrat

By Gavin DeFreese - Senior Writer
02/01/2006

I guess being a white, southern republican I really don’t need to give the Left or the MSM any more ammunition, I feel rest assured they will find a “hidden message” in the title of this commentary anyway. It is a known fact that the progressive ears of liberals can decipher the ultra-high frequency dog whistle encryption they claim is incorporated into conservative and Republican messages. I know the KosKids can do it can do it, the faithful at MyDD most assuredly can, even Wolf Blitzer has shown to have this superhuman talent.

Lacking stamina? The gist is in the last 4 paragraphs...

So eager are the minions of the Left to use the race card and yet flustered by their inability to play it against Republicans, they have come up with a type of racism (dog whistle) that is so vaporous it is difficult to rebut, or prove. Not that proof of the accusation is really important to them anyway. They seem to care little that racism is a characteristic trait of only the extreme regions of both sides of the political spectrum. Racism is no longer main stream and the efforts of the Democrats to use it as a dividing wedge are starting to come back to haunt them. Senator Joe Biden recently realized this after making a questionably racist remark about Senator Barack Obama. It was made out loud and center stage, nothing really open for a finessed interpretation.

"“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

So according to Joe Biden, the Democrats have a beautiful swan with Barack Obama after years of ugly ducklings. I mean, that’s storybook, man. No wonder the MSM has been parading him around the media arena like a show dog at Westminster; they finally have a bright, clean, nice-looking African-American groomed for the main stream.

Remember, Senator Biden said this, not me. Actually, this is the second time he has made race based comments that would have had aRepublican drawn, quartered, and stripped of rank.

"You don't know my state," he said. "My state was a slave state.”~ him or his hair plugs
in the first place, but still politely avoids the word racism in his brief criticism, and there are those that defend his statement by saying it was a speech typo, a precedent set by the Jon Cary Irak blunder. The Congressional Black Caucus didn’t even comment, of course it would be hard to worry about the silly senator from Delaware when you have John Conyers blocking Stephen Cohen from the doorway like a modern day George Wallace. No 24 hour coverage of this story demanding multiple apologies and resignations (Lott was hounded incessantly for 2 straight weeks), just a few red-faced apologists saying his words were controversial (strangely enough, WAPO doesn’t mention racism either).

For those that claim to be able to hear a dog whistle, it seems strange they tend not to hear the bullhorn of their own party.

I could continue ranting and linking with how Democrats can say just about anything and get a pass while racism is a known fact™ plank of the Republican platform but I shan’t, because there is something more important to explore. The real story here is what Joe Biden was really trying to say. I’ll let the words of Martin Luther king, Jr. set the stage.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.~

You see the times have changed but Democrats have not.

Republicans have chosen for positions of power such people as Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas because of their intelligence, sterling character, and leadership capabilities. Their race is not an issue, except possibly to their ideological opponents. They are not segregated into their own caucus, nor or they thought of as being different because of the color of their skin.

Conversely, Democrats have John Conyers, Maxine Waters, and Sheila Jackson Lee who are the polar opposites of their GOP counterparts. Though equally smart and capable, the party itself seems to encourage or at least enables their behavior that is characterized by clinging to an institutionalized racist past. As individuals, who have fought this scourge much of their lives, I am sympathetic to their situation. The Democrats as a party however, are not be able to set aside the past to build a brighter future. Instead they seem intent on propagating racial divide and eager to make this an issue in all matters for political gain.

IMHO Barack Obama is one of the first Democrats on a national scale to break this mold and to embrace the body politic as himself instead of as a black man. Senator Biden, in what could be considered as a blatant racist statement or at least parapraxis, chose some very poor words to describe Senator Obama’s emergence. I do not believe Senator Biden intended his comment to be offensive; however I do think he meant to say that Barack Obama is “unique” as far as Democrat African-Americans go on the national scene.

I think Joe Biden meant to imply is that Barack Obama is potentially a strong opponent, but his limited experience will hold him back in the primaries, not the fact that he is black. His foot-in-mouth disease combined with the Democrat tactic of making race an issue in everything made him fumble the snap. The habit of making race and racism an issue even where it does not belong has come home to roost. It is shameful yet indicative of what the Democrat party and its pervasive use of class/race warfare politics has come to, because while Barack Obama long ago broke the race barrier, but his peers refuse to admit it.

Senator Obama is not a black Democrat, he is a Democrat contender.
I understand that Senator Biden called Mr. Obama to straighten things out, I wonder if he reminded the senator from Illinois again that he is black?

Abortion, Fourth Amendment Cases Will Test Chief Justice’s Consensus Building Skills

By Mike DeVine - Legal Editor
02/01/2007

The amazing consensus building power displayed by the new Chief Justice of the United States during his brief time on the court will be tested more when the court reconvenes next month than it was in the final months of the 2005 term and the first months of the 2006 term.

The latter term reconvenes on February 20, 2007 with two federal sentencing guidelines cases which play into the hands of Roberts’ consensus building skills. The rest of the term will not be so easy, as they delve in the reasonableness of searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and the so-called “right to privacy” in late-term or partial birth abortion cases.

The US Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, both before and after the replacement of the now retired Sandra Day O'Connor with Associate Justice Samuel Alito, went longer than it had in over 40 years without a major case being decided with less than a 6-3 majority.

Of course, this depends on what one's definition of the word "major" is. That streak recently ended when the court ruled 5-4 to severely restrict the ability of government employees to sue for alleged violations of free speech rights in the workplace.

Prior to the "Roberts consensus streak", the only significant 5-4 decision was in a death penalty matter in which Justice Alito abided by his vow during his Senate confirmation hearings to never be the fifth vote affirming imposition of capital punishment. Alito had testified that he believed that no sentence of death should be upheld by less than two votes. He made good on his promise by forcing a remand for further consideration of mitigating factors.

But the socially and politically contentious issues that faced the court last summer and early autumn sorely tested Roberts' task and produced some glaring “failures”, especially those related to the extent of the President’s war waging power, thanks to a required Roberts recusal and a liberal Kennedy moment in one case.

Justice Kennedy caved in the case challenging the power of the President to hold military trials before tribunals established and constituted solely by the executive branch as an incident of war policy, as well as its opposition to federal court jurisdiction over enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and elsewhere outside the borders of the Unitized States.

Hamden's lawyers hopes that Roberts’ would retract his recusal due to his participation in the case being heard which opinion he joined while he previously served in the DC Court of Appeals were dashed, but given Kennedy’s betrayal, it turns out that even had Roberts not recused himself, the President would have still lost 5-4.

But Roberts’ power was revealed as still a potent force in the Tom Delay/Texas redistricting cases which had enabled the Republican Party to solidify its control of the House of Representatives from 2000 through 2006.
Roberts has very often managed to enlist liberal justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens to embrace the essence of traditional conservative judicial philosophy, i.e. to rule only as broadly as is necessary to decide the particular case before them, and avoid setting broad policy for future action as much as possible, so as to leave room for the political branches to decide matters in the political arena based on the facts and political realities existing at the time and to leave the court room to maneuver in the future so as to avoid wild reversals in precedents the public relies upon in considering their actions.
John Roberts so far has shown a preference for that traditional kind of conservatism on the court. The writing of his legacy has only just begun however, and the contentious next few months will be more the norm that the exception if the recent history of the court continues.