This we know–the free-market value of an original print by Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoon by the Houston Chronicle’s Nick Anderson is $32.49, thanks to a fierce battle between exactly two bidders.

Congrats to Mother Anderson for prevailing over your spouse.

As of this writing, a total of 12 separate individuals have bumped bidding up to $43.00 for an autographed picture of LST’s Fearless Leader appearing to hump an inflatable rhinoceros.

In other words, we’ve already won.

The question now is–how painfully can we run up the margin of humiliation? Rhino-humping pic twice as valuable as liberal Chron chicken-scratchings? Worth three times as much? More?

Bidding ends at 5:36 this afternoon.

BENZION ADDS: Since we’ve already proven which is worth more in a head-to-head contest, I’ll sweeten the pot (and try to bump up the profit)–winner will be allowed (within reason) to commission a Squawkbox photoshop or post an ad for their business or favorite charity, along with links, right here on LST’s front-page.

Win the pic and write it off as a business/advertising expense.

UPDATE: C’mon people! $67.00 for a piece of history, a Squawk photoshop, a featured advertisement and a business writeoff! Get over there and bid this thing up! Only 2 1/2 hours to go!

WINNING BID– $78.01, to Chicken Mom!

Let the drinking begin.

click for video

From The Legal Times of November 22, 2004:

The Bush administration has not weighed in on Medellin, though before the international court it opposed Mexico’s arguments, asserting what Mexico was seeking would be an “unwarranted intrusion” on state sovereignty. One short-term possibility in the Medellin case is that the Supreme Court will ask the solicitor general for his views before deciding whether or not to grant review. Interestingly Alberto Gonzales, nominated by President George W. Bush to be the next attorney general, opined about the consular treaty issue seven years ago when he was legal counsel to then-Texas Gov. Bush.

The Mexican government in 1997 made a Vienna Convention claim on behalf of Irineo Tristan Montoya, a Mexican national on death row in Texas. But Gonzales, who advised Bush on death penalty matters, wrote, “Since the State of Texas is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, we believe it is inappropriate to ask Texas to determine whether a breach … occurred in connection with the arrest and conviction.” Two days later, Montoya was executed.

There are many voices still maintaining the White House position taken in the prominent legal case of Medellin vs Texas was one of expedience and deference to the government of Mexico.  As you can see by the article quoted above, George Bush has been on both sides of this dilemma.  I strongly stipulate those who make simple judgements and convenient assumptions about the President in this matter have no idea what they are talking about.  It has been particularly frustrating for me to comment and post on this issue here since it is both complex and not given to brief explanation or easy answers.  Compounding this have been commentators and media voices who are misinformed or uninformed about this case.  Many readers and commenters are of the opinion the President chose to appease the Mexican government in Medellin when actually nothing could be further from the truth.

The far-ranging domestic and international legal implications of this case are numerous and carry repercussions for important principles upon which our government relies for its sovereignty, its system of justice and the faith fellow nations have in our honor regarding treaties we enter into with them.  The continual filing of writs of habeas corpus, as in Medellin, has been the source of much acrimonious dispute, but the creation of the Guantanamo detainment center after 9/11 has made it an even more important legal issue.  As Bruce Kesler notes at The Democracy Project where he derides the media for its portrayal of the SCOTUS ruling as a defeat for the Bush administration:

The issue was whether a treaty was “self-enforcing” in overriding states’ legal procedures, and whether the president can order the states to accept the override. Medellin claimed that the U.S.’s adherence to the 1969 Vienna Convention required that he should have been given immediate access to the Mexican consul.

The bigger, real issue is that the Supreme Court has set forth necessary new guidance requiring that the Congress and President – the political arms of our government – must take responsibility for precision in entering into treaties, in an age when assertions are increasingly made that “international law” either supersedes or should influence U.S. law.

There has been a great deal of commentary in legal circles about this case and ruling, none of which, by the way, mentions any motives of appeasement by the White House.  The legal, legislative and judicial questions raised by the Consular Treaty of Vienna of the 1960s, under which the International Court of Justice challenge was filed in The Hague have been the subject of debate since the early 1990s.  The Medellin case brought these to a head and offered the White House an opportunity to resolve this impasse.  As President, George Bush is bound by his oath of office to abide by all treaties ratified in the past, whether he agrees with them or not.  He is also bound to enforce the Constitution and the principles of federalism it codifies.  Herein lies a large part of the conflict. 

The Bush administration issued a directive to the states to comply with the Vienna Treaty and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Medellin vs Texas.  Thereby performing his duty and taking the proper position as the chief executive, George Bush also knew this challenge would not pass muster with a majority of the nine justices.  The ruling was returned properly and the ball now is in the court of the legislative branch which must provide statutory guidance for compliance with Vienna and other treaties.  Foreign nations cannot dispute the ruling because none have been able to provide an instance where their own domestic courts have agreed to be overridden by the ICJ.  George Bush played to lose so he could win.  He got exactly the result he set out to achieve.

The conservative/libertarian Federalist Society has this week sponsored an online debate with the following participants:  Solicitor General for the State of Texas and attorney for the respondent Ted Cruz, Saint Louis University School of Law professor David Sloss, Georgetown University Law Center professor Nick Rosenkranz, and former Legal Adviser to the U.S. State Department and current partner at Sullivan & Cromwell Edwin Williamson.

The links to the debate are here and I highly recommend them:

Part I:  Self-Execution

Part II: Presidential & Congressional Power
 

“A lot of you are going to have to make decisions above your level,” was Scott’s message to his people. “Make the best decision that you can with the information that’s available to you at the time, and above all, do the right thing.”

So wrote Colby Cosh, journalist and veteran Canadian blogger, in the National Post a few days ago.  That the CEO of the largest corporation in America would simply tell his managers, hours before a massive hurricane hits, to do the right thing does not fit the narrative of the simplistic Leftist fairy tale version of America. Cosh cites a new study by Dr. Steven Horwitz, an Austrian School economist and alumni of George Mason University, detailing the private sector response, the failings of the federal efforts and honoring Walmart as a heroic player in the disaster aid to Hurricane Katrina victims.  Horwitz remarks in the introduction of a very well-written work:

Many people believe that the government, particularly the federal government, should finance and direct both the response to and recovery from natural disasters. Such centralized political solutions have, after all, been the standard practice in recent U.S. history. This belief often rests on the assumption that the private sector’s profit motive would thwart the charitable impulses generally regarded as essential for effective relief. However, the private sector’s involvement in the response to Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast has provided strong reasons to be skeptical of this argument.

Dr. Horwitz offers these as his key recommendations:

1. Give the private sector as much freedom as possible to provide resources for relief and recovery efforts and ensure that its role is officially recognized as part of disaster protocols

2. Decentralize government relief to local governments and non-governmental organizations and provide that relief in the form of cash or broadly defined vouchers.

3. Move the Coast Guard and FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

4. Reform “Good Samaritan” laws so that privatesector actors are clearly protected when they make good faith efforts to help.

Steven Horwitz singles out the two most effective organizations in the reaction to Katrina’s aftermath as Walmart and the U.S. Coast Guard.  Here he summarizes the reasons for their outstanding performances:

The other major success story of Katrina was that of the Coast Guard, which rescued more than 24,000 people in the two weeks following the storm. Why were big-box stores like Wal-Mart and one particular government agency able to respond so effectively when other organizations were not? In this Policy Comment, I argue that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the incentives facing private-sector organizations actually lead them to outperform public agencies in many disaster relief tasks. Furthermore, where a government response is deemed necessary, agencies with more decentralized structures will perform better because they are able to tap into local knowledge and conditions.

Cosh’s trenchant analysis of companies’ true interests in a capitalist society and why they must do what they do to survive is excellent:

No one who is familiar with economic thought since the Second World War will be surprised at this. Scholars such as F. A. von Hayek, James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock have taught us that it is really nothing more than a terminological error to label governments “public” and corporations “private” when it is the latter that often have the strongest incentives to respond to social needs. A company that alienates a community will soon be forced to retreat from it, but the government is always there. Companies must, to survive, create economic value one way or another; government employees can increase their budgets and their personal power by destroying or wasting wealth, and most may do little else. Companies have price signals to guide their productive efforts; governments obfuscate those signals.

As they say, read the whole thing and I would recommend saving the Horwitz study for the next time some imbecile begins his lecture on the evils of Walmart and “big box” stores.

La Sanbe says shame on you for helping Sheriff Rick Flores!

And some of the cash obviously went towards his new ride. Check it out. If anyone needs a ride to the polls, just dial 727-big-ego.

Anyway, that’s quite a bit of cash at his disposal. But money is no object when you’ve got friends watching your back. “El Longhorn” tipped me off to a website that adores rick and his mission statement: protect the border from evildoers.

Ha, that link goes back to YOU, rich LST member! You should not be helping someone that wants to close the border! Don’t you know that? Here’s a picture of the bus you rich evildoers helped him procure.

Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? Be sure to visit La Sanbe’s site.

As LST commenter Bigmck noted this morning several of us have received a “census” from the RNC this week. I won’t be filling mine out. Browsing through the questions its obvious it is not a “census” but a donation letter. All the questions are issues important to conservatives. All the hot button issues are touched on - abortion, immigration, taxes, etc. Of course they fail to mention a lot of Republicans in Congress ignore them too. Its all fluff meant to play on our basest of emotions. That may have worked in the past but not any more guys. The kicker is the last one:

Will you join the Republican National Committee by making a contribution today?

o - Yes, I support the RNC and am enclosing my most generous contribution at: (amounts are $25 - $500)

o - Yes, I support the RNC, but I am unable to participate at this time. However, I have enclosed $11 to cover the cost of tabulating my survey.

o - No, I favor electing liberal Democrats over the next ten years.

Those are my choices? If I don’t send the RNC money I automatically support liberal Democrats? Now they’re trying to shame me into donating to the RNC. Sorry guys, that won’t work. I will continue to contribute to the campaigns of worthy individual candidates but don’t expect me to contribute to the party as long as the group tolerates things like this:

According to the book, the top three lawmakers slipping pet projects into bills are all Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee — Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi with $892 million; Ted Stevens of Alaska with $469 million and Richard Shelby of Alabama with $465 million.

Call me when you can demonstrate that the majority of your members adhere to conservative values.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws.

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.

Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

This is the last day for early voting. If you miss today, then you are taking a chance that nothing will interrupt your daily routine Tuesday and that you’ll be able to vote. Don’t take that chance! Get out there and vote today!

If you live in Harris County and are tired of politics as usual, why not make a stand for change? How? Vote for Kelly Siegler for District Attorney.

Well, that’s different, no? All you’ve been hearing is that the DA’s office needs a “change” and Kelly Siegler is Chuck Rosenthal in a skirt. I’m telling you straight up: that is a political game that’s been played to distract voters from the core qualification of her opponent, Pat Lykos. Pat Lykos’ core qualification for office is that she is a Republican party gadfly and hack and will do anything to get into office. She has ZERO qualifications to be District Attorney for one of the largest prosecutorial offices in the country.

Today’s Chronicle outlines the lengths to which party insiders will go to help one of their own. Unfortunately for Kelly Siegler, she is not an insider and this is her first run for office. Can’t have anyone like that in office, can we former County Judge Robert Eckels?

We first saw his proclivity to want to be kingmaker in his handling of his resignation shortly after reelection and hand picking of Ed Emmett to be his replacement. Now, he has given almost $60,000 to the Lykos campaign efforts, including $17,500 to a deceptive political action committee that uses “Harris County GOP” in its name to deceive voters into thinking they are an official group. With this $17,500, they sent out a mailer attacking Kelly Siegler and attempting to tie her to Chuck Rosenthal.

What does he say when called on the carpet about it?

Eckels said he was not trying to hide his role in the mailing, which shows Siegler and her disgraced former boss, Chuck Rosenthal as a pair, calling them “one & the same.” It also states, among other things, that Siegler “doesn’t believe ethical rules apply to her.”

Instead, Eckels explained, he merely agreed to fund whatever mail Pelfrey wanted to send on behalf of Lykos. Eckels and Lykos said they never saw the leaflet until it was mailed and did not discuss its contents with Pelfrey.

“The language is perhaps a little stronger than I might use,” Eckels said. Lykos said she thought Pelfrey’s mail was going to be an endorsement of her rather than a slam against Siegler — but added that the allegations in the leaflet are factual and based on public records.

He says he never saw it. He says “The language is perhaps a little stronger than I might use,”. Poppycock. He knew exactly what he was doing and why. To help his longtime hack. And what does she say? Never saw it. Thought it was going to endorse me. More poppycock. There is no reason for anyone to endorse her - she isn’t qualified. All they can do is attack Kelly Siegler with baseless, irrelevant trash.

Did Eckels also fund the despicable Link Letter trash put out by the equally despicable Terry Lowry? Not directly. He directed a $5,000 donation to Lykos, Lykos then gave $5,000 to Lowry. A pass through or just a coincidence? You decide.

Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill wasn’t happy about the use of the name.

Jared Woodfill, a lawyer who chairs the Harris County Republican Party, said the use of the name Harris County GOP PAC without additional data about its backers has fooled several voters into thinking the leaflet is the official word of the party, which is neutral in the district attorney’s race.

Sorry Jared, you’d have more credibility if the party hadn’t given so much money to the despicable Terry Lowry over the years.

Republican voters, do you really, truly want to change your party? Then vote for Kelly Siegler and send a message to the leaders that the good ol’ boy days are over. Besides, she’s the only qualified candidate in the race. Do you really want a political hack deciding who to prosecute or not?

What the heck is this?

——————–

——————–

——————–

Dawn Wolf Design– LST’s full-service graphic designer of choice. Talented, professional, competitively priced; a generous LST volunteer, we could not recommend her more highly. | 713-984-9200 | website

——————–