PGA News Release

AP Sports:

According to a new release from the PGA, an additional international tour has been added to next year's tournament.

Concerned (along with NASCAR) with the erosion of viewers to X-games type events, and particularly concerned about cornering younger viewers, the PGA is introducing PGA-X.

Intended to be played according to traditional rules of golf, this will take place only in free fire zones, and will replace golf balls with "dud" scatterable mines that should have self destructed. The PGA expects that given the distance between the club and golfer, most golfers will survive the occasional exploding dud.

The PGA additionally expects to include this program in its international relief portfolio, which includes mine field clearing and demolition.

The Rest of the World Hates America, Even Traditional Allies

But, that makes sense, doesn't it? The United States has a single common denominator that no other nation has: it is the only nation on earth that is a direct military threat to every other nation. That does not mean that we will attack every other nation, but even a country like Britian that is our closest ally has to know that we don't invade and occupy because we choose not to, not because we can't.

On the other hand, Britian does not have to worry about any other nation doing that, because it can defend itself against an invasion against the rest of the world. Even China is no threat to Britian, because it has no lift capacity to go half way across the world. The only direct military threat to Britian is the US.

Since the end of the Cold War (when presumably half of the world thought it was good we were militarily strong) is it any wonder that the rest of the world is uncomfortable with our power, particularly when we use it? The fact is that the entire world combined would not have been able to attack Iraq like we did, and with such ease dispatch its army. They seemed like boy scouts to us, but they were formidable to the rest of the world.

This is why the rest of the world is so keen on getting us to only use force when the UN agrees. They have no way to counter us militarily, and it makes them frightened to see how easily we can dispatch mass formations halfway across the world, and they want to have the power of our military with out having to pay for it themselves.

And they hate us because we won't acquiesce.

So, I am not sure it is a bad thing that they hate us. Because the alternative (being weak or subservient) would be worse.

Update: Fifth Amendment Takings Clause...New Standard of Law

Sirens….loudspeaker from police car:  PULL OVER, BUDDY.

Cop: Sir, we are seizing your vehicle, but will give you blue book value for it.

driver: But why officer? I did nothing wrong.

Cop: You are correct sir, you did nothing wrong, but your vehicle will be better utilized by this gentleman over here. He will drive it more, using more gas, providing more jobs for gas station and oil workers, not to mention environmental activists.

driver: But it is mine...how can you just take it?

cop: The city council voted, it was 5 to 4, but majority rules you know, so please sir, get out of the car now.

driver: Is this America today?

Cop: Yes.
driver: What is next? my computer because I spend too much time on the Antagonist Website, not being productive?

Cop: We took that this morning. Here is your check for $100, the value we decided it was worth.

Should the Supreme Court have Allowed Public Taking for Private Development?

The Supreme Court recently decided a case on the limits of eminent domain and the rights of individuals to be safe from having their land seized and sold to another private concern, and determined that it was fair game for municipalities.

The land is not stolen, but is appraised and "Fair Market Value" is given for the land. In this case a town in Connecticut wanted to entice a drug manufacturer into expanding its presence and build a new facility. As part of the enticement, the town condemned a neighborhood so that it could be knocked down and a new community could be built. Some of the owners in the neighborhood are fighting the taking on Constitutional Ground. The Court has yet to rule.

Land has always been treated under law as a special type of property, and typically equal cash value is not enough. The law recognizes that people have ties to land beyond simply the dollar value. Saying that they were duly compensated at the "Fair Market Value" should not be enough when the taking is simply for a private development.

In this case, the developer could have purchased the land individually from the home owners like any other developer. If the price was high enough, I imagine they would have all sold, regardless of ties to the neighborhood. The condemnation merely saved money for the Corporate developer at the expense of citizens.

Examples such as railroads and Power lines did not typically take entire neighborhoods away. They would take a small portion or right-of-way, but the land owner kept the majority of the land. Other takings like the WTC were developments by Government Entities, even if the actual developer was not. This Connecticut case seems to be especially egregious in its scope and purpose.

I also think it is a good argument that if economic development is a good enough reason to take any land, no land is safe. Having no floor leaves us all at risk of a developer selling growth to the community at your expense. It also seems like a good way for a community to get rid of "undesirable" neighbors by gutting all the poor neighborhoods and replacing them with Home Depot.

The previous standard of blight seems to meet the competing interests of community development and private property.

But, now you know. You own your property only at the will of a majority of your city council.

Is Senator Durbin a Patriot?

Given Senator Durbin's speech linking American actions to despotic regimes in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Cambodia, is it possible to consider him a patriot?

We keep talking about patriotism, but can you be a patriot and be wrong? I think patriotism centers on intent, not outcome.

This is an old post on a patriot I disagree with:

Michael Schwartz: Patriotic Hero
The anti-war SUNY professor is a hero and patriot. He is known for espousing that the US should lose in Iraq, and in Fallujah in particular.

I think the guy is a patriot and a hero because he is taking an unpopular position that he apparently believes and is willing to take personal risk to espouse it. Unlike Churchill, he does not denigrate particular people (i.e. victims) in making his case. Also different from Churchill, I think Schwartz has a defensible (though wrong) position. It is defensible because if his premise is accurate (that the US action creates more danger than it solves) then his solution is better for America (because it will reduce future US action). This contrasts with Churchill, who seeks the downfall of America.

Without people like this professor who are willing to stand up and argue unpopular positions, we really would have a steamrolled population, and meaningless freedom of speech. He proves that America allows dissent, and he widens public discourse, even if he is wrong. Churchill did the opposite, by painting anyone who drifts out of the mainstream as someone actively seeking the downfall of America.

That is why Schwartz is both a patriot (because he is trying to better America) and a hero (because he is doing so publicly with personal risk involved). And he can be both even when he is wrong with his solutions.

Those who attack him without addressing his arguments, however, are neither patriotic nor heroes.

______

So, based on the distinction I have drawn on patriotic dissent, I think Durbin could be a patriot, if his intent is to make sure we lose the war and bring the boys home, because he thinks that is best for America (for whatever reason). He could also be a patriot if somehow he thinks that his speech will help us win, even though I think that is clearly mistaken, like Schwartz.

But if he did it believing it would make it harder to win the war, but thinks the war needs to be won, then he is not patriotic at all...just an opportunist trying to make a name for himself, and very much like Churchill.  

Found: Weapon of Mass Destruction

AP Breaking News Baghdad:

One long sought after weapon has finally been found. According to sources, the unexpected small size of the weapon caused the fruitless search to continue with no success for the past couple years, but the recovery team finally identified the weapon, and its diabolical use.

Translated from Arabic, the instruction manual indicates that the user simply needs to watch the video while exercising and eating right, and mass will simply disappear. A threatening photo of Richard Simmons appears on the cover.

Military scientists are testing the procedure now to determine how effective the weapon is.

Top Ten Reasons Durbin was wrong that we are like Nazis.

I am sure you are concerned about the Senator Durbin comments, so I thought I would give you some talking points for your encounters with rabid democrats:

1. We attack prisoners with dogs, Nazis mated them with dogs.

2. Nazis gassed women and children, we just bomb women and children.

3. Nazis used swift tactics to quickly overwhelm and subdue the enemy, we use swift tactics to quickly create an insurgency.

4. Nazis specially targeted the members of a small religion, we specially target members of a large religion.

5. Nazis used freezing water on prisoners, we use air conditioning.

6. Nazis had initial success consolidating in the middle east only to be thrown out in a few years, we...okay maybe this is the same.

7. Nazis were really good at being the bad guy and made it into an art form, we can't even do a good job with torture.

8. Nazis were actually defeated by very powerful countries acting in concert, we are being defeated by rabble.

9. Nazis were very close to actually winning, we never were.

10. Nazis had significant support on the home front...

Senate Lynching Apology

Lynching is certainly an ugly part of our history, and deserves to be condemned, but I don't think the Senate should apologize for failing to violate the Constitution by passing anti-lynching laws.

First, its apology is unnecessary. The Supreme Court ruled that federal anti-lynching laws are unconstitutional, because the Senate did pass such a law in 1870:

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/cruiksha.htm

The law was intended to enforce the 14th Amendment and was called the Enforcement Act, and was struck down in a case called Cruickshank. It is actually difficult to imagine a more hideous example of racial violence in our history than the facts of this case, where a posse and sheriff literally slaughtered over one hundred black men. But The Court struck it down.

This is the section of the law that is directly applicable to lynching:

The sixth section is as follows:----

'That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provisions of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court,--the fine not to exceed $5,000, and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to, and disabled from holding, any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the constitution or laws of the United States.'

And the Court did strike it on the grounds that Congress did not have the power delegated to it to pass this law...at least in part.

The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship *551 which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.

The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.


So perhaps the Supreme Court should apologize, and certainly the States, but not the Senate, because it did try and stop it.

But second, over 100 years, 4700 people dead from lynching really is not that many for a country of our size, despite the horror of it. I recognize that lynching was more than simply those killed, but also about a community that was held at bay and prevented from being full citizens, and I do not wish to downplay the importance of that aspect of our lynching history. But just for a little perspective, we currently average over 6,000 black murder victims every year from methods other than lynching- which is roughly the same number as white murder victims, but there are 6 times more whites than blacks in America...so blacks are 6 times more likely to be murdered TODAY than whites. That is something the current government should do something about, and maybe should apologize for failing to do so.

Indicates how many were brought to the United States vs. the rest of the Americas.
Antagonist

Key Similarities between OJ and MJ

Why were neither of these guys convicted? Was it that they are black? Celebrities? Innocent? In California?

No, I think the key is that they are not a threat to anyone else. Neither one can harm anyone else who is not dumb enough to get in his bed. If you don't date them, they are not dangerous, and I think that is enough to aid "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a jury. If they are wrong, no one else will get hurt, unless they are dumb enough to go to bed with an accused murderer/pederast...recognizing MJ was a potential pederast and kids can't always protect themselves, but still, any kid who gets that close to him has plenty of parental involvment watching out for his interests. But if they convict an innocent man, the jury will feel guilty forever.

And I think that is reasonable. At this point, anyone who gets in bed with either pretty much deserve what they get, don't you think? Perhaps it is a rational justice system.

Second Amendment Explained:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But, what does it mean?  It means that the people may be armed, and really has nothing to do with regulating the militia.

This is the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate the militia and what the 2d amendment is referring to with "well regulated militia":

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Titles 10, 32, and 50 are the United States Code (federal law) that Congress created pursuant to the Constitutional responsibility "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia."  And from Title 10, Congress provides this explanation for who the militia actually is:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It is hard to imagine that "well regulated" means something beyond organizing, arming, and disciplining.  The Second Amendment merely clarifies that since the already Constitutionally provided for well regulated militia is necessary, the people have the right to keep and bear arms so that the militia will have armed people to call upon.  It also clearly separates out the right to be armed from simply militia members to include all of the people and not just able bodied males, just as the First Amendment reference to people assembling means the people gathering, not the militia going to drill.

Confederate Flag: Racism and Treason.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and treason against the Union.  There is no rational basis behind the argument of some that the flag means anything other than that.  It was added to southern flags in the 1950's solely as a sign of rejection of the end of segregation.

The Union was formed by the People, not the States ("We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..."). The States therefore did not have the ability to dissolve the Union, because it was the people, not the States that formed it. And as we know from the argument over the 2d amendment, the People is not the States. And it was "the people of the United States," not the people of individual states, that formed it.

Article 4, which discusses admission of states, says that Congress disposes of territory and property belonging to the US. States did not retain that power and therefore secession does violate the Constitution. It also guarantees to the states protection from domestic violence. Fort Sumter was domestic violence, and an attack on US property, which on the US had jurisdiction over, as agreed to in the Constitution. States could not form a junction of states without the consent of Congress.

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.


Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

And the States were not even allowed to make alliances and were specifically prohibited from a Confederation:

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Interestingly, the Articles of Confederation to the US (that preceded the Constitution) does specifically prohibit secession:

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And the Civil War was clearly about slavery regardless what "states rights" people argue. See the excerpts from the letters of secession below. I don't believe anyone can read those letters and not believe that slavery was the primary cause.

First line in the letter of secession from Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

South Carolina:

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Texas:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy…

I do not believe anyone can read those statements in the Letters of Secession and argue that the war was anything other than about slavery, and any symbol that glorifies the war is also about slavery.

Bush State of The Union 2003 excerpt re: Iraq

Just so we all recall what we were actually told about Iraq prior to the war, and can separate it from the selected quotes that we hear in the news:

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American armed forces. Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead.

In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America and America believes in you.

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed. The risks and suffering of war have not.

For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow.

This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all.

If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent.

And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military, and we will prevail.

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom.

"Deep Throat" Monetary Motive for Disclosure

UPI Los Angeles

W. Mark Felt has kept a deep secret from his family and friends for the past 30 years. At 91 years old and suffering from a debilitating stroke, what enticed Mr. Felt to break his silence now, which is sure to prevent his waning days from being anything but peaceful?

New filings today in state courts across the country may indicate the reason. Far from the oft speculated idea that his family was trying to cash in on a potential book, the lawsuits indicate a vendetta against a personal slight and malignment that Mr. Felt believes harms his image and was libelous. Unlike state law in California, plaintiffs must be alive in most states to claim a misuse of personal image.

Named in the lawsuit include Linda Susan Boreman, Gerard Damiano, and Harry Reems, as well as the business partners and distributors of the infamous movie, "Deep Throat."

According to the complaints, Mr. Felt believes that he is forever tainted by the title of that movie, and no one will ever believe that he was "Deep Throat" for altruistic reasons, but instead needed it to stimulate orgasm.