Obama to honor Sen. Kennedy at funeral Mass (OneNewsNow.com)

Obama to honor Sen. Kennedy at funeral Mass (OneNewsNow.com)

Shared via AddThis

Miles Says Obama Must Attack Somali Pirate Bases

Can anybody imagine JFK traveling overseas to disparage his own countrymen, or to assure Mohammedans that America does not consider itself a Christian country?

Would Kennedy have waved off reporters' questions about an American hostage in harm's way, and insisted on droning on about pork-barrel politics instead? The contrast between President Kennedy and President Obama hasnever seemed starker than this week.

Retired Green Beret Jim Miles analyzed President Obama's response to the initial Somali pirate incident, brought to a conclusion by Navy SEAL
sharpshooters earlier this week.

One of his predictions has already been disproved: the epidemic of
Somali piracy on the high seas was not subdued by the rescue earlier
this week. Rather, Somali pirates have rallied to commandeer multiple additional U.S. ships. However, Miles did prescribe the proper response to such a contingency later in his post. It will be interesting to see his
remarks on the multiple attacks which came later this week.

It is interesting to note that the President's militant Muslim
family members in Kenya are ethnic Somalis, not Swahili-speaking Kenyans. The President is quite sentimental about his African kinsmen, and has written of his loyalty and commitment to them, and to Muslims in general. It must personally difficult for him to act decisively against the Somali menace.

Here is Jim Miles' post in his blog Hipshot from earlier this week.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Navy Seals takeout Somali pirates

When we first heard about the Somali pirates holding American freighter Capt. Richard Phillips hostage in a small boat my wife angrily exclaimed, "A bunch of pirates forces America on it's knees! Where are Special Forces or Navy Seals?"

I thought at the time she summed it up well. America appeared to be on its knees and where in the hell were our special ops? As a retired Green Beret I knew that somewhere in or near the immediate area off the coast of Somalia the US Military was standing by to rescue the good captain. Standing by for orders from the new president.

This was a test for President Obama and his administration. Would he order a rescue attempt? Authorize the use of military force? The world was watching.

He had just made his first foreign visit telling world leaders what an arrogant country America was and bashing his own country in the process. When asked about the incident by reporters Obama said he was discussing housing and dismissed them with a wave of his hand. So much for looking out for an American being held hostage by a bunch of armed, Somali thugs.

I thought President Reagen gave the best definition of foreign policy and national defense when he said, "Our foreign policy should be based on the principle that we will go anywhere and do anything that has to be done to protect our citizens from unjust treatment. Our national defense policy should back that up with force."

Can't be any plainer and to the point than that. Although it seems that just about everyone in the Obama administration is either a buffoon or a tax cheat he must have a few top-level advisers with common sense. I'm sure someone, a military type, advised the president that it was time to quit pussyfooting around and authorize the use of military force in dealing with the pirates. A voice whispered in his ear, "Now is the time to appear Reaganesque, Mr. President. Give the order and let the military carry it out, Sir."

"Dingy" Harry Reid and Nancy "Birdbrain" Pelosi and their gang of losers and traitors, including the smartest woman in the world Hillary Clinton, probably reacted to the use of force with an "OMG, I can't believe he authorized the Navy to kill those poor, unfortunate pirates. How terrible. What will the world think?"

Who gives a rat's butt what the rest of the world thinks? You can bet the scumbag Somali pirates will think twice before attacking one of our ships on the high seas again.

Regardless of world opinion, U.S. Navy SEALs deserve medals for taking out three Somali scumbags with three well placed sniper shots and wounding a fourth in the successful rescue of Captain Phillips. Way to go Navy Seals!

President Obama, finally in authorizing the use of military force, acted like a Commander In Chief. And it works every time it's used if the president issues the order and then lets the military do its job without undue interference from the White House.

It worked when Reagan sent the US military into Grenada to rescue US students in Grenada in 1983. And it worked when President Bush One sent US troops into Panama and toppled Noriega and again in Desert Storm One to oust the Iraqi military from Kuwait. And it's been working in Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of the "cut-and-run" policies of congressional Democrats.

The Korean War, 1950-53, was our first "no-win war" where it was okay to fight and die but not to win, because it might start a bigger war. Truman fired Gen. MacArthur for insisting on winning a war. In Vietnam we just "cut and run" after winning all the battles.

President Johnson bragged to reporters that the Air Force "can't bomb an outhouse in North Vietnam without my approval." As a result of micromanaging the Korean and Vietnam Wars from the White House we now have a nut case in North Korea threatening to nuke everyone and a bunch of armed communist thugs running things in Vietnam.

The Carter administration made the same mistake in the failed operation to rescue US hostages in Iran. "Give the order then get the hell out of the way" is a winning policy.

The failure of the US military operation in the Mogadishu, Somalia under the Clinton administration (Black Hawk Down) is another stark example of failed leadership from the White House. In October, 1993, a 440 man US Delta force launched an operation against Somali Warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid and his rebel force. Outnumbered and refused reinforcements the Delta force suffered heavy casualties in a seventeen hour battle that resulted in eighteen killed and eighty-four wounded.

The bodies of dead American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu and seen on TV around the world. Clinton responded by withdrawing US troops from Somalia. Another "cut-and-run" debacle.

The next move for the Obama administration, now that the Somali riffraff has threatened to start killing hostages in retaliation for the deaths of the three pirates, is to order military air strikes on Somali targets including pirate vessels. The only thing these scumbags understand is military force. Every time they hijack a ship we strike a target in Somalia.

The Obama administration should request, in no uncertain terms, other nations join the US in conducting joint military operations against Somali pirates and their bases in Somalia. The "speak softly but carry a big stick" policy worked well for Teddy Roosevelt.

However, in the end it will be up to the US to lead the charge.The time has also come for merchant shipping to start arming their crews or hire armed security. The US Navy has shown that shooting and killing pirates has a dampening effect on hijacking ships and taking hostages, especially when its a US ship.

The Obama defense team has a chance to institute a "talk softly but carry a big stick" policy in dealing with Somalia and its bunch of pirates. A douse of superior US military firepower would definitely send the right message. Let's hope the new president is listening.

Obama consolidates power, reduces do-gooders to his discipline

JFK was a tax cutter, and in fact Ronald Reagan's tax cuts 20 years later were inspired in part by the Kennedy tax cuts and resulting prosperity of the early 1960s.

No danger of confusing President Obama with JFK here. He is not only increasing taxes robustly, but cutting the deductions allowed for charitable contributions. This is not mere revenue generation, but consolidation of power in the national government at the expense of private philanthropy - especially churches and parachurch organizations - which compels further dependency on government officials, and potentially yields a large, loyal patronage constituency where once potential rivals lurked.

Princeton professor Robert George has observed that socialism is not merely antithetical to individualism, but it is an attack on "mediating civic institutions," such as the family and the church. When collectivists' ambitions ambitions approach the totalitarian, there's not enough room on this planet for government and church and family. In the long run, such totalitarians cannot tolerate independent families or churches, and come to view them as incubators for resistance.

American Leftists couldn't openly oppress church and family a generation ago, but times have changed. They are now in full control of the media (see yesterday's post about "media malpractice"), so there is no watchdog to hold them accountable. The electorate has been so thoroughly dumbed down (see yesterday's post for URL for filmmaker John Ziegler's exit interviews of 2008 voters) that electoral accountability becomes less likely with each passing day. Triumphal Leftists are casting off restraint now as the Democratic regime settles in.

As an example, legislators in Connecticut recently proposed a bill to remove Catholic Church property from the custody of its bishops, and to require that it be held by laymen. This is transparently an act of retaliation and intimidation of the church because it dares to oppose homosexual marriage. The Latter Day Saints are incurring similar intimidation in California, for the same reason.

Already Catholic Charities has been driven out of the child adoption business in Massachusetts by homosexualists. If President Obama and his allies are not restrained, there will be soon be no refuge for Christian philanthropy - or Christian conscience - in the U.S.

The Death of Journalism

JFK unquestionably was better liked in the media than his Republican opponent, Vice President Richard Nixon. And television was kind to him because he struck a more attractive figure than Nixon. After the Kennedy-Nixon debate, famously, most radio listeners thought Nixon had won, while most who watched it on television thought Kennedy won.

Although there was some gauze-focused, syrupy coverage of the Kennedy "Camelot" in the White House, and a lot of understandably nostalgic retrospective coverage after his assassination, the news media played campaign coverage "down the middle," for the most part, and comedians had no significant persuasive role yet.

Half a century later, the news media were openly partisan in favor of Obama, and if the large news organizations took their role more seriously than Jon Stewart or Saturday Night Live's Tina entertainers, it was often difficult to distinguish. Documentary filmmaker John Ziegler calls it "media malpractice," and says that we have witnessed "the death of journalism."

It appears from this exit poll that dysfunctional public education and vapid, self-indulgent news practices have combined to produce a smug, opinionated, but disastrously ignorant electorate. http://www.howobamagotelected.com/assets/videos/interviews.html.

Obama Replaces Vulgar Jeremiah Wright with Homosexual Bishop

J.F.K. and Barack Obama both affiliated closely with clergymen - Kennedy with cold warrior Cardinal Spellman, and Obama with liberation theologian Jeremiah Wright. Obama denounced Wright after his mentor persisted in embarrassing him during the primary campaign. This article reports that he has replaced Wright with homosexual Episcopalian bishop Eugene Robinson, who has provoked numerous congregations to leave his denomination.

Activist: 'Pastor to presidents' replaced by gay bishop
by Jim Brown

OneNewsNow

A conservative Christian activist says it's a sad omen for the Obama administration and the United States that Barack Obama has been seeking guidance from the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop.

The Times of London reports that the president-elect sought out New Hampshire homosexual bishop Vicki Gene Robinson for advice three times during his presidential campaign. Robinson, whose ordination in the Episcopal Church has caused a deep rift within the Anglican Communion, was reportedly sought out by Obama to discuss what it feels like to be "first."

Robinson notes in their three private conversations, Obama voiced his support for "equal civil rights" for homosexuals and described the election as a "religious experience."

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Obama's consultations with Robinson show the true tenor of his upcoming administration. "It looks like Billy Graham has been replaced by a gay bishop. We're moving to, perhaps, our first anti-Christian president; it's beyond post-Christian. Gene Robinson advocates homosexuality as part of the Christian experience," he explains. "Now Bible-believing Christians cannot accept that. Homosexual practice is sinful, as taught by the scriptures. This man [Obama] pretends to be faithful to Christianity, even as he works very hard to undermine it."

LaBarbera suggests Robinson may possibly replace Jeremiah Wright as one of Obama's main spiritual advisers. Wright was Obama's Chicago pastor for 20 years before disassociating with the controversial preacher during the presidential campaign.

Obama plays masterful Edgar Bergen to the church's Charlie McCarthy

John F. Kennedy made a financial contribution to fellow anti-communist and WWII Navy veteran Richard M. Nixon when, early in his political career, Nixon was running against a Democrat who was soft on Communism. Some have attributed this to cynical motives, but in all likelihood this contribution predated both men's cynicism, and thus expressed genuine solidarity against Communism and its enablers in the American Left.

Barack Obama, by contrast, has unmistakable Marxist impulses and can be described without caricature as a disciple of Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. But Obama, too, is aware of the advantages of straying across the line to forage in Conservative orchards. The Obama campaign recognized early on that the Left has no credibility with centrist Americans under its own name, owing to decades of condescension and outright hostility to American religion, mores and working-class culture.

With only a brief, quickly suppressed gaffe that disparaged white Pennsylvanians for "clinging" to their guns and churches, the Obama machine has exercised remarkable message discipline by co-opting the Christian label, and has used social conservatives' language to soften the distinctions that will be painfully evident once Obama appoints his cabinet and nominates his judges.

The Black Church has apparently put itself entirely at the disposal of the Obama campaign. But Obama has also made major inroads in the white evangelical and Catholic communities. He has drawn endorsements from former pro-life stalwarts Douglas Kmiec and Frankie Schaeffer, and a divorced white Florida name-it-and-claim-it Megachurch preacher couple who will go unnamed here.

This was possible, of course, only with the collaboration of Obama's confederates in the mass media. The New York Times, for example, has mastered the technique of putting Leftist words in conservatives' mouths, often by identifying apostates as conservatives long after they cross over to make separate peace with the Left.

The Times article about the Supreme Court's Heller decision last week is a case in point:

October 21, 2008
Ruling on Guns Elicits Rebuke From the Right
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — Four months after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess guns, its decision is under assault — from the right.
Two prominent federal appeals court judges say that Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is illegitimate, activist, poorly reasoned and fueled by politics rather than principle. The 5-to-4 decision in Heller struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

The judges used what in conservative legal circles are the ultimate fighting words: They said the gun ruling was a right-wing version of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that identified a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Scalia has said that Roe had no basis in the Constitution and amounted to a judicial imposition of a value judgment that should have been left to state legislatures.

Comparisons of the two decisions, then, seemed calculated to sting.

“The Roe and Heller courts are guilty of the same sins,” one of the two appeals court judges, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote in an article to be published in the spring in The Virginia Law Review.

Similarly, Judge Richard A. Posner, in an article in The New Republic in August, wrote that Heller’s failure to allow the political process to work out varying approaches to gun control that were suited to local conditions “was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.”

Sharp criticism of a recent Supreme Court decision by federal appeals court judges is quite unusual, though these two judges — both Reagan appointees — are more outspoken than most.
Judge Wilkinson, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., was recently considered for a spot on the Supreme Court. Judge Posner, of the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, is perhaps the most influential judge not on the Supreme Court.
Not all conservatives agree with the critics, of course. Robert A. Levy, a libertarian lawyer who was a principal architect of the victorious strategy in the Heller case, rejected the comparison to Roe.

The two sides in the Heller case claimed to rely on the original meaning of the Second Amendment, based on analysis of its text in light of historical materials. The amendment says, “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.”

The more liberal justices said the amendment protected only a collective right tied to state militias, thus allowing most gun control laws. The more conservative justices found an individual right and struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

In Judge Wilkinson’s view, the upshot of the court’s extensive historical analysis was that “both sides fought into overtime to a draw.”

Others said the quality of the combat was low. “Neither of the two main opinions in Heller would pass muster as serious historical writing,” Jack Rakove, a historian at Stanford, wrote on the blog Balkinization soon after the decision was issued.

The strong reaction from the right after Heller was preceded, with a sort of symmetry, by liberal support for an individual-rights reading of the Second Amendment. For much of the 20th century, the conventional view of the amendment had been that it only protects a collective right. (Warren E. Burger, after retiring as chief justice in 1986, called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen.”)

But some prominent liberal law professors, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, have concluded, sometimes reluctantly, that the amendment in fact protects an individual right. Professor Levinson’s seminal 1989 article in The Yale Law Journal captured the tone of the enterprise. It was called “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

In an interview, Professor Levinson said, “The result in Heller is eminently respectable.” But he added that he understood why some conservatives were upset. “People say the Roe court was too interventionist,” he said. “So is the Heller court from that perspective.”

Judge Wilkinson’s basic critique is that the majority, like that in Roe, used an ambiguous text to impose its policy preference on the nation, at great cost to the democratic process and to local values. He assumed, as most experts do, that the decision would apply to the states.

“In both Roe and Heller,” Judge Wilkinson wrote, “the court claimed to find in the Constitution the authority to overrule the wishes of the people’s representatives. In both cases, the constitutional text did not clearly mandate the result, and the court had discretion to decide the case either way.”

Judge Posner built on themes in his recent book “How Judges Think,” which argued that constitutional adjudication by the Supreme Court is largely and necessarily political. The Heller decision, he wrote in The New Republic, “is evidence that the Supreme Court, in deciding constitutional cases, exercises a freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology.”

Indeed, Judge Wilkinson wrote, “Some observers may be tempted to view Heller as a revenge of sorts for Roe” or “a sort of judicial tit-for-tat.” As Judge Posner put it, “The idea behind the decision” in Heller “may simply be that turnabout is fair play.”

Mr. Levy, who helped win Heller, said some conservatives wanted almost all decisions to be made by the political branches rather than the courts.

“But these are constitutional rights,” Mr. Levy, now chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group, said of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. “They are not rights consigned to the legislature.”

The analogy to Roe, he went on, is misguided. There is no reference to abortion in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment, by contrast, indisputably protects a right to keep and bear arms, though there is sharp disagreement about the scope of the right. Mr. Levy said the natural reading of the amendment, one supported by historical materials, was that it protected an individual right.

In his article, Judge Wilkinson wrote that he “readily agreed” that Roe “involved the more brazen assertion of judicial authority.” But he added that the Roe and Heller cases shared a number of common flaws, including “a failure to respect legislative judgments,” “a rejection of the principles of federalism” and “a willingness to embark on a complex endeavor that will require fine-tuning over many years of litigation.”

Judge Wilkinson saved particular scorn for a brief passage in Justice Scalia’s opinion that seemed to endorse a variety of restrictions on gun ownership. “Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Whatever else may be said about the Second Amendment, Judge Wilkinson wrote, those presumptions have no basis in the Constitution. “The Constitution’s text,” he wrote, “has as little to say about restrictions on firearm ownership by felons as it does about the trimesters of pregnancy.”

Mr. Levy, too, said he was not a fan of the passage. “I would have preferred that that not have been there,” he said. “It created more confusion than light.”

It is too soon to say much about the legacy of Heller. But Judge Wilkinson said that Heller, at a minimum, represented “the worst of missed opportunities — the chance to ground conservative jurisprudence in enduring and consistent principles of restraint.” At worst, he warned, “There is now a real risk that the Second Amendment will damage conservative judicial philosophy” as much as Roe “damaged its liberal counterpart.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 23, 2008 An article on Tuesday about conservative criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the application of the Second Amendment to gun control in the District of Columbia omitted two words from a passage in the decision concerning gun regulations that remained presumptively lawful. “Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The words “felons and” were omitted.

Obama's Campaign Would Have Been the Envy of Nixon, Maybe Even Gordon Liddy

JFK had a spirited contest with his Republican opponent Richard Nixon in 1960, and even his own son John Jr. joked about the voter fraud in Chicago that helped turn the tide in JFK's favor. But it's safe to say JFK and his brother Bobby would have been aghast at the spectacle of Democratic law enforcement and prosecutors marshalling the coercive powers of the state against political speech by his opponents.

Obama has been silent as his organization has put together a law enforcement campaign against his adversaries that would have made Nixon envious.

There is much that the disgraced Republican would have been still more envious of: the mainstream media's silent complicity and abstention from any serious investigation of the Obama organization's campaign against dissent, the internal discipline within the Obama campaign - no "John Dean" ratting Obama out, no "Deep Throat" informing investigative reporters (who in any case haven't the least inclination to discredit Obama), no "Alexander Haig" recruiting coup d'etat participants. And externally, Obama faces no "John Sirica" or "Sam Ervin" figure. Truly, Obama is blessed.

This WorldNetDaily article describes some of the intimidation the
Obama campaign is bringing to bear in Missouri and Pennsylvania, important
battleground states in the upcoming election.


Prosecutors for Obama hunting for 'lying ads'
'Truth Squad' using sheriffs, DAs to police bias against candidate
WorldNetDaily

A team of Obama-supporting prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri is preparing to pursue legal challenges to any presidential campaign ads deemed to be false or misleading.

KMOV-TV in St. Louis reports District Attorney Robert McCulloch, a past president of the National District Attorneys Association, said that whether the ads could be attributed to an opponent's campaign itself, or another organization, "If they're not going to tell the truth, somebody's got to step up and say, 'That's not the truth. This is the truth.' "

The effort appeared to be part of a move by the Obama campaign to block advertisements to which it objects. The campaign also sent "threatening" letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama's gun stance, according to the National Rifle Association.

The NRA's Political Victory Fund condemned the attempt at censorship.

"Barack Obama and his campaign are terrified of the truth," said Chris W. Cox, chairman of organization. "Sen. Obama's statements and support for restricting access to firearms, raising taxes on guns and ammunition and voting against the use of firearms for self-defense in the home are a matter of public record. NRA-PVF will make sure that everyone knows of Obama's abysmal record on guns and hunting."

The Obama campaign declined to respond to a WND request for comment.

The NRA said Obama sent "cease and desist letters" to news outlets in the two states, "denouncing the ads and demanding their removal from the airwaves."

"Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation's history. That's the truth," said Cox." NRA-PVF has the facts on our side. No amount of running from or lying about his record and then intimidating news outlets in the hope of deceiving American gun owners and hunters is going to work. Those strong arm tactics may work in Chicago, but not in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not as long as NRA-PVF has anything to say about it."

The warnings were from Obama lawyer Robert Bauer, who told station managers that in order to stay in the Federal Communication Commission's good graces, they should not air the ads.

Josh Marquis, an Oregon prosecutor who serves as a spokesman for the NDAA, said the comments from Missouri don't sound like the McCulloch he knows.

"I'm really surprised. I know Bob," Marquis told WND.

The KMOV report said the Obama campaign asked members of Missouri's law enforcement to target anyone who "lies" or issues misleading television ads. Formation of the Obama "Truth Squad" was the result, the report said.

McCulloch declined to return a call from WND seeking comment.

The KMOV report said the campaign was being conducted by McCulloch and another prosecutor, Jennifer Joyce, along with a number of sheriffs throughout the state.

"They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year. They also say they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that violate Missouri's ethics laws," the report said.

"We want to keep this campaign focused on issues," Joyce told the station. "We don't want people to get distracted. Missourians don't want to be distracted by the divisive character attacks."

The campaign was assembled to "set the record straight," they said.

Officials with the Missouri Sheriff's Association declined to talk about any sheriffs who might be involved in the campaign.

At the blog Gateway Pundit, the reaction was immediate.

"St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can't even being to describe how wrong this agenda is," writes blogger Jim Hoft.

Hoft said Joyce and McCulloch "are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama."

Missouri blogger Doctor Bulldog commented: "Don't think they will stop with just the local radio and television stations. Oh, no. We bloggers are next on the chopping block. It doesn't matter if it is the truth. It only matters if Obama deems it a lie (i.e. – something that can cause damage to his bid to be president). Basically, no one is free to criticize Obama here in Missouri."

In the St. Louis Examiner, a commentary said, "Look, politicians are all about lies. It may be annoying (I find it entertaining), but that's for their opponents and good-government groups to counter – not law enforcement. … Even if the officeholders joining the 'truth squad' are nominally stepping out of their official roles in order to put on their (political) party hats and play politics, it's inappropriate. They wield too much power to use it to wag their fingers at people who say un-nice things about political hopefuls. Prosecutors and sheriffs are, after all, normally thought of as people with the clout to put their targets behind bars."

Marquis told WND politicians keep their right to have a political opinion and express it, but the DA's organization strives hard not to be partisan.