By John LeBoutillier

DOWN AND DIRTY


Here is the ‘down and dirty’ analysis of last week’s monumental Supreme Court decisions upholding Positive Discrimination (what American liberals try to sugar-coat as Affirmative Action) and Sodomy:

The Supreme Court – despite the lofty rhetoric, robes and impressive digs – is, in fact, a political institution. The Court is just as political as the White House or the Congress and, as such, it is very sensitive to public opinion.

The nine Justices are wary of shaking up the public too much just as elected officials usually only propose gradual change.

Positive Discrimination is a tricky and controversial issue. To ban it altogether – although probably the best course of events – would have been a wrenching decision that would have enflamed millions of people. Instead, the Court punted. They basically muddled it up enough to maintain the status quo.

If the public had been overwhelmingly anti-Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination then this so-called conservative court probably would have followed public opinion and outlawed it. But, like the true politicians they are, they stuck their wet fingers into the air and tested the breeze. What did they feel? A mixed bag of public thoughts and prejudices that made them basically leave this subject to die its own death (hopefully) a generation down the road.

The Texas sodomy case is yet another perfect example of the Supreme Court bending to the prevailing majority public opinion. And that – as awful as it sounds – is that sodomy and promiscuous sex and all sorts of behaviors are “not the government’s business.”

Since the Clintons were elected in 1992 and began their sex-crazed presidency with condoms on the Christmas trees and gays in the military, this country has basically adopted a libertarian point of view. The prevailing line is: “What someone does in their private life is their own business.” You hear this type of thinking everywhere.

The pro-morality Christian movement is in the distinct minority politically in this country. And the Bush White House has deliberately stayed away from this type of issue because all the Bushes care about is getting re-elected.

The 9 Justices have morphed over time into a mirror of the public at large: afraid to take a controversial stand on moral issue – with the exception of Scalia and Thomas.

What is the future of Roe vs. Wade? Will a future Supreme Court ever ban abortion?

No, it will never happen because to make all abortions illegal would be so disruptive as to tear this nation apart.

So politicians running for office can promise to do this and that, but in reality the Supreme Court is afraid to make wrenching decisions. Yes, they made shave around the edges a bit on issues like parental notification and late-term procedures. But the basic ‘right’ of a woman to choose an abortion is not going to be taken away by any politically-appointed Supreme Court.

Over time, through education, adoption and abstinence programs, our nation may reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. But rights are never taken away. Once the Court or Congress gives a new ‘right’ or benefit (i.e. prescription drugs), it is virtually impossible to take that right away.

That is just plain political reality – and so are all decisions by the Supreme Court.

By John LeBoutillier

BUSH RE-ELECT NUMBER



According to the Cook Report – one of the most reliable inside-the-beltway political reports – President George W. Bush’s re-elect number is a paltry 42%.

A re-elect number is the number in a poll of respondents who say they would definitely vote to re-elect an incumbent – regardless of the opponent.

The accepted rule in politics is any incumbent with a re-elect number under 50% is in trouble.

G.W. Bush’s 42% re-elect is exactly the same as his father’s in June 1991. And, of course, his father went on to suffer a humiliating defeat with only 37% of the vote in a three-way race against Democrat Bill Clinton and third-party candidate Ross Perot.

The Bush White House feels – despite the worrisome 42% number – which things are lining up nicely for re-election in November 2004. Here is their view:

1) Saddam has been vanquished. Bush won the war.

2) The War on Terror will be the backdrop on the 2004 election and Bush is strong in the national security area.

3) The economy is rallying, albeit slowly.

4) The GOP has moved positively on a prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare.


The White House feels that they have co-opted the Democrats’ best issues and control the agenda for 2004.

If that is so, others ask, then why the 42%? Why not 52%?

Good questions!

Here are some potential trouble spots ahead for the Bush White House:

1) The economy does not rebound. Instead, the so-called ‘jobless recession’ becomes the dominant campaign issue. (Recently NBC News showed the states Bush narrowly won in 2000 that have suffered job losses since then. This could be a major campaign issue in 2004.) Remember that it is the ‘perception’ of the economy that counts.

2) Another major terrorist attack here inside the United States. Such an attack – and it is awful to think of such events as political fodder – could be used to undercut the main Bush issue: his handling of national security.

3) Iraq spirals out of control and a fundamentalist Shiite Islamic revolution seizes control over the southern half of Iraq – precisely where most of the oil is. Under this scenario, Bush’s war against Saddam – without major allies in the Arab world – will be seen as a tragic error.

4) Some unexpected event – always a possibility – that totally shakes up the 2004 race. 9/11 helped Bush; another event may enhance his stature – or undo it.

5) The weak Democratic field. The White House salivates at the thought of running against many of the present field of Democratic presidential candidates.

6) The nation is split 50-50 these days. Thus any one of the above could tip things either way.


President Reagan also had a weak re-elect number 18 months before his huge 1984 landslide. Then, as now, we were coming out of a recession. BY the summer of 1984 it was Morning in America – the economy was humming along and Mondale wanted to raise taxes. Reagan won a huge election victory.

G.W. Bush is poised to repeat that outcome, despite lingering fears that, instead, he might repeat his father’s.

By John LeBoutillier

THE TUMOR - PART I


For over twenty years I have been writing and saying that there is something rotten inside our intelligence community. For lack of a better term, I long ago dubbed this element The Tumor - signifying the malignant and metastasizing nature of this cancer.

My contention is that this ‘element’ inside our intelligence community has its own agenda, is ‘above’ presidential or congressional control and oversight, has its own source of funding and has thus hijacked United States Government policy.

The Tumor is a group of men inside CIA, DIA, the service intelligence agencies and elsewhere who actually spy on elected and appointed officials.

For example, whenever the House or Senate run an investigation of any of our intelligence agencies, The Tumor sees to it that one of ‘their own’ people is actually on that Congressional staff doing the investigation! That way any damage can be controlled and the naïve Congressmen and Senators can be ‘led’ elsewhere.

Similarly, The Tumor places its people throughout the Executive Branch – State Department, FBI, Pentagon, White House – all to ‘keep tabs’ on what the USG is doing.

This, of course, is disgraceful.

US taxpayers’ dollars are not to be used for one part of our federal government to spy on another. But this is happening – right under our noses.

Let me make one thing clear: The Tumor is a group of men inside our intelligence community; this is not an indictment of all the people inside our intel community.

The Tumor has been involved in a number of fiascos – the running of drugs and guns into and out of Central America back in the 1980’s, the so-called Secret War in Laos in the 1960’s and 1970’s, the drug running in Iran and Afghanistan in the late 1970’s, the Vietnam POW cover-up and maybe the ill-fated 1991 decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power a the end of the Gulf War.

Today The Tumor may be the mystery element that hijacked US foreign policy over Saddam’s still-to-be-found WMD. Someone – or something – kept pushing forward on WMD despite grave doubts inside the intelligence community. For example, the now-familiar tale of Saddam allegedly trying to buy uranium from Niger was completely discredited ten months before the President cited it in January’s State of the Union Address. Yet someone got this report into the single most important speech a president delivers.

How could this happen?

Who could have done it?

National Security Advisor Condi Rice claims that CIA cables to the White House discrediting the Niger report “never reached the upper staff level.”

Such a claim simply cannot be believed.

If the CIA cannot get its information to senior White House staff and the president then something is seriously wrong. Could The Tumor have blocked this report? Or could they have hijacked the whole intelligence reporting system in such a way as to pre-determine the outcome?

And what of the Bushes?

Could the first George Bush as CIA Director back in 1976 have been a partner of The Tumor? Or a captive?

And how does that impact this George Bush?

These and many more questions will be addressed about The Tumor in the coming weeks.

By John LeBoutillier

MUSLIM NAZIS


For almost twenty years before imposing the Final Solution, the German Nazi Party openly advocated the ‘extermination’ of all Jews. And western and American political and business leaders did business with these German Nazis – despite the clear and unashamed anti-Jewish views.

Sure enough, having obtained power, the Nazis imposed their particular brand of what is now called ‘ethnic cleansing.’ Six million Jews were exterminated and, had it not been for the successful advance from both sides by the allies, millions more would have been murdered. Their crime? Being born with Jewish blood in their veins.

Today yet another mass extermination is being advocated by people that we again are doing business with: Palestinian and Arab leaders loyal to Yasser Arafat and the Hamas terrorist organization.

These ‘Muslim Nazis’ openly call for “all Jews to be driven into the sea.”

These Muslim Nazis use these suicide bombings to derail a peace process that will – forever – solidify Israel’s right to exist. And that very principle – the ‘right to exist’ – is what these hateful radicals cannot abide. Thus Arafat – on the verge of a comprehensive peace treaty in 2000 – declared an ‘intifada’ on Israel and launched a wave of new suicide bombers. The result? Arafat’s long-time nemesis, Ariel Sharon, was elected Prime Minister by a now-radicalized Israel.

Another ‘right’ is complicating the process. The ‘right to return’ is something Arafat and Hamas insist upon. This ‘right’ would mean that millions of displaced Palestinians and their offspring would have the right to move back into their family homes in what is now Israel. Thus, the ‘right to return’ would mean that the voting majority inside Israel would be non-Jewish. And it would then not take long for the Arafats of this world to impose that life-long dream to exterminate all the Jews.

Of course, Israel circa 2003 is a lot different than the German Jewish minority population in post-war German circa 1933-39. Israel today is a modern liberal state surrounded by medieval Arab nations wallowing in backwardness, deprivation and autocracy.

Israel has a top-flight military – including nuclear weapons – and they have proven over and over again their relentless determination to “never again” allow a Holocaust. That is why they took out Saddam’s nuclear reactor in 1981 – and why they will not allow Iran to develop nukes, either.

The proposed Road Map put forward by the Bush Administration specifically states that there can and will be a separate Palestinian State. It does not allow for the ‘right to return.’ And, anyway, Israel will never – ever – agree to such a suicidal provision.

Meanwhile everyone in the region suffers. The Palestinians are used by their Arab brethren as a symbol of western imperialism. But do the rich Arabs help alleviate the Palestinians’ poverty? No!

No, they allow them to wallow in camps and compounds with soaring unemployment and no hope for a better future – all to blame an ‘enemy’ in Israel and America.

In fact, Israel’s economic potential will help the Palestinians once an agreement is reached. So, too, will Jordan and Egypt gain economically by a vibrant, peaceful regional economy – once this ‘intifada’ stops.

All that is preventing a New Age in the Middle East is a handful of radical, murderous thugs who use brain-washed youths as weapons to prevent progress.

It is time to eliminate these Muslim Nazis – just as we systematically hunted down German Nazis during and after World War II.

Only when they are gone will real peace begin.

By John LeBoutillier






HOLLYWOOD HATES AMERICA


Nothing shows the vacuousness of network television more than the two-year-long obsession with so-called ‘reality TV.’

These shows prove that the Hollywood ‘creative people’ can’t create anything. So, instead, they spend their days dreaming up ways to show lots of good-looking bodies in various states on undress.

The latest – NBC’s FOR LOVE OR MONEY – masquerades as a contest for two dozen women to find the “man of their dreams.” Then they trot out the object – Rob Campos – a lawyer who, it has now been revealed, was heaved out of the Marines for drunkenly groping a female JAG officer in Newport, Rhode Island.

But, just to show the Hollywood thinking on ‘true romance’ they secretly added a ‘kicker’ into the show’s format: the winning woman also gets one million dollars! So the lesson to be learned by the millions who lap up these shows is: trickery with the heart and body for money is to be celebrated.

We could all write it off as “just TV,” but we should fear the poison these shows spread throughout society. The young learn behavior from TV – sad as this is to admit.

To see so many attractive women on these shows admitting on camera that they are in it for the money and then turn their charms onto Rob Campos (who does not know about the $1M prize) is to lionize a subtle form of prostitution.

No wonder half of all marriages now end in divorce. If romance has become more about the wallet than the heart then we are going to continue to be a dysfunctional society.

Hollywood’s reality show craze proves another point: they can’t create clever shows or movies like they used to.

In the old days Hollywood writers were simply the best. From CASABLANCA to ROMAN HOLIDAY to hundreds of other movies, those well-trained writers knew how to craft a compelling story.

Today, movies and shows out in L.A. are written by committee – with ‘politically correct’ criteria being a must. Thus every story has to have an anti-religious, anti-‘square,’ sexually deviant component. No wonder so many of the shows and movies are box office and ratings disasters.

And Hollywood liberals – by using their shows as tools to promote their political views – have made themselves a permanent political issue. While Hollywood finances the Left, the conservatives correctly brand Hollywood now as the Capitol of Liberalism.

And all the while the social fabric of this nation deteriorates through behavior modification and learning from the movies and shows.

Fashion, language and male-female behavior are all learned through TV and movies. And what our young are learning is a total disaster.

The only hope we have is that counter-programming and independent movies – and major financial setbacks - will push Hollywood back toward the political center.

Please make no mistake about this: our young ape the entertainment they soak up day and night. If it is rotten, their characters will become rotten.

We need to address this problem head-on.

By John LeBoutillier







MEMO TO RUDY



President Rudy Giuliani. Sounds pretty good to you, doesn’t it, Rudy?

The problem you have though – and always have had – is that inside the GOP you are not seen as a true-blue conservative. In fact, your pro-life, socially moderate-to-liberal philosophies make you a tough choice for Republican conservatives to swallow. True, your exceptional 9/11 performance has made you a bit of a national icon, but much of that ‘halo effect’ will have worn off by 2008.

Here is a way for you to heal your problem with the Right and also re-enhance your national status: defeat Hillary for her Senate seat in 2006.

Just think about it: you beat her in 2006 and she can’t run for President in 2008. The GOP will be ecstatic to have finally punctured the Clintons’ balloon. And you will be seen nationally – not just in New York – as a Giant Slayer. Your political stature will dwarf all other Republicans angling to run for President in 2008, including First Brother Jeb Bush.

And forget the old maxim that you have to ‘pay your dues’ in the Senate for six years before you run for any other office. In your case – eight fantastic years turning New York City around plus your 9/11 leadership followed by the defeat of Hillary – would entitle you to start running for President right away!

The GOP and especially your Achilles Heel – the nominating conservative wing - would embrace you as a hero!

You would be the first Republican to defeat a Clinton since 1980, when then-Governor Bill Clinton lost his re-election race in Arkansas.

Bush, Sr., Dole, Gingrich in the House and Trent Lott in the Senate – not to mention the weak GOP Senate candidate Rick Lazio - all opposed the Clintons – and all lost. You, Rudy, could vault over all of them by beating Hillary in 2006.

Now some of your advisors are undoubtedly counseling you not to run for the Senate. They are saying, “Why risk losing that race and derailing your presidential ambitions?”

Here is why: you cannot win the GOP presidential nomination as a social liberal. Sure, you are tough on crime and provided strong leadership on 9/11. But you are a thrice-married, twice-divorced pro-choice Catholic who favors gay rights. Do you really believe that GOP primary voters are going to choose you over a real conservative? Or over Jeb Bush when his older brother in the White House is running the GOP?

No, you won’t make it.

But if you roll the dice and take on Hillary, it is a no-lose deal for you. Win and you’re the new darling of the GOP’ you’d be so hot that you may very well win the nomination over Jeb and everyone else. Lose and the party owes you – Big Time – for dirtying her up in what will undoubtedly be the toughest race ever in New York political history. They may even make you the Vice Presidential choice.

Rudy, if you take this bold step – even if you really don’t want to be a Senator – you will come out ahead.

You will raise tens of millions of dollars nationally in the snap of your fingers for a race against Hillary. Unlike 3 years ago when you were sick with prostate cancer, in the midst of a crumbling marriage and running the nation’s largest city, you will have your new wife by your side and nothing to distract you from criss-crossing the Empire State as a full-time Senate candidate.

You can beat Hillary, Rudy.

Now comes the key question: do you want to?

By John LeBoutillier







MEMO TO RUDY



President Rudy Giuliani. Sounds pretty good to you, doesn’t it, Rudy?

The problem you have though – and always have had – is that inside the GOP you are not seen as a true-blue conservative. In fact, your pro-life, socially moderate-to-liberal philosophies make you a tough choice for Republican conservatives to swallow. True, your exceptional 9/11 performance has made you a bit of a national icon, but much of that ‘halo effect’ will have worn off by 2008.

Here is a way for you to heal your problem with the Right and also re-enhance your national status: defeat Hillary for her Senate seat in 2006.

Just think about it: you beat her in 2006 and she can’t run for President in 2008. The GOP will be ecstatic to have finally punctured the Clintons’ balloon. And you will be seen nationally – not just in New York – as a Giant Slayer. Your political stature will dwarf all other Republicans angling to run for President in 2008, including First Brother Jeb Bush.

And forget the old maxim that you have to ‘pay your dues’ in the Senate for six years before you run for any other office. In your case – eight fantastic years turning New York City around plus your 9/11 leadership followed by the defeat of Hillary – would entitle you to start running for President right away!

The GOP and especially your Achilles Heel – the nominating conservative wing - would embrace you as a hero!

You would be the first Republican to defeat a Clinton since 1980, when then-Governor Bill Clinton lost his re-election race in Arkansas.

Bush, Sr., Dole, Gingrich in the House and Trent Lott in the Senate – not to mention the weak GOP Senate candidate Rick Lazio - all opposed the Clintons – and all lost. You, Rudy, could vault over all of them by beating Hillary in 2006.

Now some of your advisors are undoubtedly counseling you not to run for the Senate. They are saying, “Why risk losing that race and derailing your presidential ambitions?”

Here is why: you cannot win the GOP presidential nomination as a social liberal. Sure, you are tough on crime and provided strong leadership on 9/11. But you are a thrice-married, twice-divorced pro-choice Catholic who favors gay rights. Do you really believe that GOP primary voters are going to choose you over a real conservative? Or over Jeb Bush when his older brother in the White House is running the GOP?

No, you won’t make it.

But if you roll the dice and take on Hillary, it is a no-lose deal for you. Win and you’re the new darling of the GOP’ you’d be so hot that you may very well win the nomination over Jeb and everyone else. Lose and the party owes you – Big Time – for dirtying her up in what will undoubtedly be the toughest race ever in New York political history. They may even make you the Vice Presidential choice.

Rudy, if you take this bold step – even if you really don’t want to be a Senator – you will come out ahead.

You will raise tens of millions of dollars nationally in the snap of your fingers for a race against Hillary. Unlike 3 years ago when you were sick with prostate cancer, in the midst of a crumbling marriage and running the nation’s largest city, you will have your new wife by your side and nothing to distract you from criss-crossing the Empire State as a full-time Senate candidate.

You can beat Hillary, Rudy.

Now comes the key question: do you want to?

By John LeBoutillier







NEW NATIONAL NIGHTMARE



Have you ever had a day – a project – a game – an event that from start to finish was an unmitigated disaster no matter what you did to change it?

You feel like you’re in an uncontrollable swirl of events – and all you can do is hold on and wait until the inevitable disaster is over.

That is the exact situation we face with Hillary Clinton as a public figure and then certainly running for president in 2008. We are caught up in the vortex of an uncontrollable series of events – and nothing we do can alter it.

Looking back on the history of these Clintons, we see that at each and every time when they were vulnerable – 1992 pre-New Hampshire Primary when the Jennifer Flowers tapes came out and the draft board letter was made public – or when Hillary was running for the Senate and her early poll numbers were weak – they have escaped and lived to fight another day.

The 2000 New York GOP fiasco of Giuliani getting prostate cancer and then revealing his latest extra-marital affair followed by an unprepared and minor league substitute, Rick Lazio, who ran an atrocious campaign is yet another example - inside this vortex - of the absolute unstopability of the Hillary Express.

Where it is headed – or where it finally ends we do not yet know. But all our conventional attempts to stop it have failed.

For example, the facts do not matter. A careful recitation of her lies, crimes, contradictions and moral transgressions makes no difference to so many people. They ‘see’ Hillary differently than we do.

Attacking her does not work, either. In fact, it only helps her popularity.

The other GOP hope is to dredge up a ‘Republican Hillary’ – ala Elizabeth Dole – and try to neutralize Hillary that way. Good luck!

Of course, Hillary has to get re-elected to the Senate in 2006. Should she lose that race then the presidency two years later would be out of her reach. But do you believe the New York Republican Party is going to come up with a dynamite candidate who can beat her in a state that is leaning left – especially when they have already given up trying to field a candidate next year against the other Senator, Charles Schumer?

No, I am not giving up on stopping Hillary from being elected President. We must fight each and every way possible – always, unlike the Clintons, within the confines of the letter and the spirit of the law.

But it feels like an inevitablity that Hillary will be at least the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. Whether she wins or not is obviously not known.

We are all inside this vortex. It is, as President Ford called Watergate, a ‘long, national nightmare.’

When – or how – it ends we do not know. But it feels like all things run by liberals: it’s going to be bad for our country.

By John LeBoutillier







SPEICHER, SADDAM & WMD: TOGETHER?


It’s now two months since the war in Iraq ended and yet we have made almost no progress on three crucial unresolved issues:

1) Where are Saddam and his two murderous sons?

2) Where is 1991 Gulf War Navy Commander Michael Scott Speicher – long reported by credible intelligence sources to be alive and under the ‘personal’ control of Uday Hussein?

3) Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that precipitated that war in the first place?



Is it possible that all of them - Saddam and sons, Speicher and barrels/vials of the most potent WMD – are together somewhere?

Could the treacherous Saddam have grabbed Speicher from his last underground prison cell and taken him with him during his own ‘escape from Baghdad’?

In other words, poor Speicher is Saddam & Sons’ insurance policy against any direct attacks on their location or attempts to seize them.

Here is a so-far unreported clue: for thirty years Saddam has ‘adopted’ young male orphans throughout Iraq and raised them to become loyal sycophants. All of his personal bodyguards were thus raised and recruited. They were always fanatically loyal to Saddam – and only to Saddam. He rewarded them with Mercedes, with legal immunity for many crimes and with tons of cash.

These ‘bodyguards’ were more powerful than most of the 55 Iraqi leaders on the deck of cards because they controlled access to their Great Leader.

In the two months since the war ended, we have not heard of one of these bodyguards being captured. Not one.

Where are they? Certainly if they are roaming around Baghdad some citizens would finger them to US troops for capture.

Is it possible they aren’t around because they have escaped with their ‘father’ – Saddam – his two sons, Speicher as insurance, tons of ill-gotten cash and gold and the most potent WMD – all for protection and insurance?

Another tantalizing clue: US forces are not finding any evidence of bodies buried at either site bombed when we thought we caught Saddam by surprise – once on the first night of the war and the other in early April. In fact, the US Army Colonel in charge of ‘digging up’ remains at the site of the first bombing said most bombs missed their targets.And there never was the long-rumored ‘underground command bunker’ we had been told of.

In fact, where are all these underground palaces we hadheard of? Have you seen even one on television? Have our media been denied access – or do they simply not exist?

Two months; no news on Saddam & Sons, Speicher and WMD.

Maybe they’re all dead and buried.

Or maybe – just maybe – they’re all together in hiding some place.

In that case, why can’t our highly vaunted, $60 billion per year intelligence operation find them?