[COLUMN] Politicians a bunch of porkers

Artist unknown 

Well, it came in just under the wire, but President Bush wins the Lucente Award for the Funniest Hypocritical Comment of the Year.

“This legislation contains certain provisions similar to those found in prior appropriations bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities,” Bush said in a statement issued by the White House last week after signing into law the $517 billion Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. “To  avoid such potential infirmities, the executive branch will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions.”

In other words, he will do as he pleases instead of letting the courts rule on the constitutionality of laws with which he disagrees.

What’s ironic is that Bush, who apparently has never read the Constitution or, at the very least, holds it in disdain, has the gall to criticize a congressional bill for being unconstitutional. And then he signed it anyway! That is a true sign of leadership (note the sarcasm). A true leader would have vetoed this legislation and forced the Congress to submit a responsible — and balanced — budget bill.

The Congress also shares the blame for this bloated bill, which should have been passed months ago, as the fiscal year began Oct. 1.

[COLUMN] FBI bullies take more than lunch money

I am often criticized when I refer to law-enforcement officials as jackbooted government thugs. However, there is no shortage of examples of an oppressive, out-of-control government and its armed minions acting in a thuggish manner.

In one area, this is particularly outlandish - forfeiture laws. Federal, state and local officials are acting like schoolyard bullies and taking what they please, when they please.

If you believe your property is your own and that the government will protect it, you are sadly living in a bygone era. Today, police officials can steal money and property and citizens have little recourse in getting their property back. In fact, these property seizures do not even have to be accompanied with criminal charges.

That's right.

You can be completely innocent and the police can still take your property without due process of law.

Here in Lima, the police immorally seized more than $400,000 from a man who claims to have spent his life saving that money. The FBI, acting in a manner reminiscent of the KGB or the SS, refuses to give the money back unless the man can provide receipts proving that the money was earned legally. The man, by the way, was never charged with a crime. The police only found the money when the man legally and rightfully killed a robber in his home who was trying to steal the money.

This is a widespread police practice.

[COLUMN] Get rid of, don't reform, primary system

 I have long been opposed to the primary system and the 2008 election demonstrates everything that is wrong with this strange way of the parties choosing their candidates.

The primary system is a 20th century invention, coming from the so-called Progressive Era, when politicians destroyed America by creating all kinds of reforms inconsistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers. Other idiotic and anti-freedom legacies of the Progressive Era include the federal income tax (government-sponsored theft), direct election of Senators (thereby eliminating the only check on the power of the popular majority),  Prohibition (what one drinks is no business of the federal government) and women's suffrage (haha! Just kidding!).

Before the primary system, which kicked off in Oregon in 1910, party delegates at the national convention chose candidates. Those delegates were usually chosen at state and local conventions. Because of this, conventions usually chose a candidate based less on the popularity contest and ability to raise money and more on the ability of the candidate to express the party platform and the candidate's electability.

Candidates chosen this way tended to be better candidates than what we get today. These people tended to be well-informed and passionate about the causes and direction of the party. The candidates chosen, for the most part, were serious people with intellectual gravitas. They were usually people who stood for something other than being elected and they usually had a philosophical compass that guided their decisions.

Today, however, with few exceptions we get nothing but intellectual lightweights who are guided by polls rather than philosophy. Can you imagine a national convention nominating a slime ball like Bill Clinton without the primary system?

[COLUMN] More irrationalism from Islamists

Her crime?

Allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear after a vicious seventh century warlord named Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim, better known today as simply Muhammad.

Sudanese authorities arrested Gillian Gibbons, 54, on Sunday after she asked her class of 7-year-olds in Khartoum, Sudan, to name the stuffed bear as part of a school project. One of her pupils suggested Muhammad because that was his name.

Gibbons was using the stuffed bear to teach children about animals and their habitats.

A secretary at the school, Sarah Khawad, complained to authorities.

By all accounts, the naming of the teddy bear was simply an innocent exercise. Even a Muslim teacher's aide, who was in the classroom at the time of the naming, said she was not offended by the name and did not give it a second thought.

As irresponsible and excessive as Gibbons' sentence was, it could have been much worse. She faced a year in prison, 40 lashes, or a huge fine.

The problem here is reminiscent of the Danish cartoon fiasco last year when Islamists rioted and killed 139 people because a Danish cartoonist drew images of Muhammad painting him as he really was, a terrorist and warlord.