How about that little war, eh? Thanksgiving around here is that the thing is being wound up quickly, with very few American casualties. In the process, we are also thankful that so many of our "Special Operations" teams now have successful (bragging rights) missions under their belts and will be even more efficient in the trials that are sure to come.

After all, practice makes perfect. That's a nasty thought when the goal is killing people and breaking things associated with war. But, the enemy came here and attacked unarmed civilians on our land. That was an open declaration of war. Therefore, they deserve whatever they get.

And what was all this hype about them being such ferocious fighters? We're told they beat the Soviets. So? Take away everyone's nukes and we could have quickly beaten the Soviets anytime in the last century, too. The United States Military is not the Soviet military. Our people are trained differently and have better equipment throughout the services.

Those of us who write were "reminded" (unofficially) that "lose lips sink ships." There was a standing request that we not use any of the juicy tidbits about out military forces we gleaned. In fact, even when information was publicly broadcast by European media outlets, it was often not picked up by the media here. I fail to understand that rational -- and was on vacation most of the time, anyway. But, that's the way it was. Silly!

Yet, when I learned how many (a lot) of our "Special Operations" teams were on the ground over there, I knew the jig was up for the Taliban. The fly-boys say that one fully armed B52 could take out most of our East Coast. Well, 10 to 20 of our Special Operations teams can easily disrupt a small country and cause the government to change. Add in some of the experienced Special Operations teams from Britain, France, Germany, etc. -- then back them up with great air cover, including a few B52s -- and the enemy army on the ground becomes little more than sitting ducks.

And, that is exactly what happened!

The hold up was not the Taliban "army" on the ground. The problem is that the many tribes in Afghanistan hate each other and are not cooperating on forming a new government representative of the country as a whole. And, without such a government to replace the schizoid Taliban reprobates who are being bombed out of existence, the country would stay in a semi-permanent state of civil war. For our needs, that's not helpful.

So, still, they are giving negotiators a chance. But, right now Afghanistan is a chaotic country. Instead of organization, there are gun-toting gangs, all loyal to different warlords, "patrolling" the cities and countryside. Many are basically rival gangs, which is not helpful to anyone.

The Northern Alliance says it controls up to 85% of the country. That's probably not really true, though, because that group only includes a few of the tribes.

Anyway, those "ferocious" Taliban forces turned tail and ran. Interestingly enough, it was nice of them to bunch up in areas that were very easy to bomb. Meanwhile, they were finding that food and ammunition were starting to get a little scarce because that's what Special Operations squads do: disrupt everything, especially supplies.

Now the Taliban wants to surrender. Of course, they also want us to allow all the foreigners fighting on their side free passage out of there.

The Taliban even formally petitioned (the infidels at) the United Nations to arrange a semi-unconditional surrender of their forces. However, the top UN envoy for Afghanistan said the UN had no one there on the ground, "and simply cannot unfortunately accede to this request."

At one point it seemed almost as if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld might actually laugh. There's no way he plans to let that army scatter to the winds and be available to fight anew another day.

Instead, Rumsfeld announced that a $25-million reward for bin Laden's capture should provide an incentive to leaders of Pashtun tribal groups to help find him. "As enemy leaders become fewer and fewer, it does not necessarily mean that the task will become easier," Rumsfeld admonished yet again. "People can hide in caves for long periods, and this will take time." He also said that 20,000 Taliban still remain in Kunduz, more than 10,000 of them foreigners.

Which means, we know where most of them are and we intend to make them not exist anymore.

Then, there was a reply from the frightened enemy: Mohammed Saeed Haqqani, a security chief at the border town of Spin Boldak in Kandahar, one of the last provinces still under Taliban control, said the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were the work of Jews trying to blacken the name of Islam. "The US has not provided any information about his (bin Laden's) involvement in the attacks," Haqqani told reporters. "He has not the telecommunications means to conduct such activities. Being our guest we are duty bound to protect him. The Americans have offered $25-million for Osama. We will give $50- million for Bush, even though we are a poor country."

Which, we might add, is not a very good way to get the bombing to stop and negotiate a surrender. Especially after, in one of his many video tapes released to the media, bin Laden actually took responsibility for the attacks of September 11. Apparently Haqqani has not yet received that news. No matter. His statement just moved his location up on their Air Force hit-lists.

Then comes Syed Tayyad Agha, spokesman for Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. He told a news conference that the terror attacks have been superseded by U.S. attacks on Afghanistan. "Now there is a new fighting against Muslims and Islam, and the international and global terrorists like America and Britain, they are killing daily our innocent people," he told journalists.

In short, it looks a lot like these people ruined their brains on that opium they're raising for export to here. They flee like a flock of little girls, then stand and growl like a rabid Pit Bull terrior. In truth, though, they look a lot more like a Chihuahua than a Pit Bull. And, that Chihuahua is about to get squashed.

Look for the mop-up to start just as soon as there is an agreement for the new government. Then, we'll see who is next.

In a regulation/memo dated: November 14, 2001, Christine Todd Whitman, the current U.S. EPA Administrator, published "Availability of Federally-Enforceable State Implementation Plans for All States."(1)

According to the EPA politburo: "The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a plan for each State which identifies how that State will attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set forth in section 109 of the Clean Air Act and 40 Code of Federal Regulations 50.4 through 50.12 and which includes federally-enforceable requirements. Each State is required to have a SIP which contains control measures and strategies which demonstrate how each area will attain and maintain the NAAQS. These plans are developed through a public process, formally adopted by the State, and submitted by the Governor's designee to EPA. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review each plan and any plan revisions and to approve the plan or plan revisions if consistent with the Clean Air Act."

This is just one of numerous instances where the federal government seems to be exerting regulatory and police control over our States with somewhat dubious legal authority to do so. For instance, in Pollard v. Hagan (44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)), the U.S Supreme Court declared: "[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ... Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law."(2)

In Alden et al. v. Maine (98-436, 1999) the Supreme Court admonishes: "The Constitution, after all, treats the powers of the States differently from the powers of the Federal Government. As we explained in Hall: 'In view of the Tenth Amendment's reminder that powers not delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or to the people,' the existence of express limitations on state sovereignty may equally imply that caution should be exercised before concluding that unstated limitations on state power were intended by the Framers." . . .

"The Federal Government, by contrast, 'can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication."(3)

So, how can any EPA regulation be "mandatory" within a sovereign State? It can't, legally. But, the EPA continues:

"SIP requirements applicable to all areas are provided in section 110. Part D of title I of the Clean Air Act specifies additional requirements applicable to nonattainment areas. Section 110 and part D describe the elements of a SIP and include, among other things, emission inventories, a monitoring network, an air quality analysis, modeling, attainment demonstrations, enforcement mechanisms, and regulations which have been adopted by the State to attain or maintain NAAQS. EPA has adopted regulatory requirements which spell out the procedures for preparing, adopting and submitting SIP's and SIP revisions that are codified in 40 CFR part 51."

In New York vs. U.S.(488 U.S. 1041, 1992), the Supreme Court explains why the federal government may not order States to do much of anything:

"States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government. The positions occupied by state officials appear nowhere on the Federal Government's most detailed organizational chart. The Constitution instead 'leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,' (The Federalist No. 39), reserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment." . . .

"Whatever the outer limits of that sovereignty may be, one thing is clear: The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a Federal regulatory program."(4)

Surely the lawyers at EPA know of these Supreme Court cases. But, they obviously do not honor our Court system. Because, as they continue:

"Section 110(h)(1) of the Clean Air Act mandates that not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and every three years thereafter, the Administrator shall assemble and publish a comprehensive document for each State setting forth all requirements of the applicable implementation plan for such State and shall publish notice in the Federal Register of the availability of such documents."

The New York vs. U.S.(4) case was a very clear order on why Congress and the federal regulatory agencies cannot and must not require States to regulate:

"We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. ... The allocation of power contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments' regulation of interstate commerce." . . .

"But whether or not a particularly strong federal interest enables federal regulation, no Member of the Court has ever suggested that such a federal interest would enable Congress to command a state government to enact state regulations. No matter how powerful the federal interest involved, the Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.

"Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the 'consent' of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment. ... The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the 'consent' of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States."

The U.S. Supreme court continued on with that thought and slapped the federal government's overreaching regulatory hand yet again in Printz, v. U.S. (95-1478, 1997).

"Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear 'formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." . . .

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."(5)

And so is the supreme law of our land today. Under our Constitution, States are sovereign governments. "The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment." Which means that any public official either demanding or agreeing to this encroachment should be summarily removed from government service. They have, after all, violated their oath of office, as well as our Constitution, as recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

1. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2001/November/Day-20/a28970.htm

2. http://www.uhuh.com/laws/fedjuris.htm

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/44/212.html

3. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-436.ZS.html

4. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-543.ZS.html

5. http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/95-1478.html

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) today released the publication Hate Crime Statistics, 2000, which annually reports on bias-motivated incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders.(1) During 2000, law enforcement reported 8,063 bias-motivated criminal incidents to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. As viewed by the national Program, a hate crime may have multiple offenses, victims, and offenders within one incident. Thus, the 8,063 incidents involved a total of 9,430 offenses, 9,924 victims, and 7,530 known (distinguishable) offenders.

Intimidation continued to be the most often reported hate crime offense during 2000, accounting for 34.9 percent of all measured offenses and 53.7 percent of total crimes against persons.

Destruction/damage/vandalism to property was the most frequently reported crime against property and comprised 29.3 percent of the total offenses and 85.3 percent of total crimes against property.

Nineteen of the hate crime victims were murdered as a result of their killers' prejudice. Ten of these homicides involved racial bias; 6 were attributed to a bias against an ethnicity or national origin; 2 more were driven by bias against a sexual orientation; and 1 resulted from a religious bias.

Under UCR definitions, a victim may be either a person, a business, an institution, or society as a whole. Of the 9,430 hate crime offenses, 7,745 were committed against individuals; 6,130 targeted persons and 1,615 targeted their property. Businesses, religious organizations, and various other institutions were the targets of 1,685 of the reported offenses.

The term known offender, for UCR purposes, does not imply that the identity of the perpetrator is known but only that a distinguishing attribute, race, has been identified. Of the 7,530 known offenders, 4,847 were white, 1,411 were black, and the remainder were other races (157) or of unknown race (729). Multiracial groups (groups of offenders of varying races) accounted for 386 offenders.

Racial prejudice was the motive in the majority of single-bias incidents, 53.8 percent; religious bias underlay 18.3 percent; sexual-orientation bias, 16.1 percent; and ethnicity/national origin, 11.3 percent. Disability bias was the catalyst in less than 1 percent of incidents. There were 8 victims of incidents involving multiple biases in 2000.

The majority of hate crime incidents (32.1 percent) occurred in or on residential properties. Highways, roads, alleys, or streets were the settings for 17.9 percent of the reported incidents, and 11.4 percent took place at schools and colleges. The remaining incidents were distributed among various locations.

Agencies in 48 states and the District of Columbia participated in the Hate Crime Data Collection Program during 2000. Collectively, the 11,690 reporting agencies represent 236.9 million United States inhabitants or 84.2 percent of the Nation's population. Though the reports from these agencies are insufficient to allow a valid national or regional measure of the volume and types of crimes motivated by hate, they offer perspectives on the general nature of hate crime occurrence.

1. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/hate00.pdf

Also see: Uniform Crime Reports at:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/00cius.htm

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron252.htm. Revised 4-22-03. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.