Is a lawyer legally or morally responsible for the later actions of those whose rights he defends?

That is the key question that has to be asked before analyzing the current NARAL ad attacking Judge John Roberts.

After all, seven years after he filed a brief arguing that a certain law did not apply in a particular case (a position upheld 6-3 by the Supreme Court), one of those peripherally involved in the case committed a different, much more heinous act of the sort which Judge Roberts had condemned in his brief.

During the 1980s, members of Operation Rescue and other groups sought to prevent abortions by shutting down clinics through human blockades. The protesters massed on the sidewalks outside clinics and tried to stop doctors, nurses and patients from entering. Usually, they overwhelmed the police. However, if police came in force to break up the blockades, the protesters moved on to other clinics.

Keenan noted that in the four years before the Bray case was decided, there had been 48 bombings and arsons of abortion clinics in 24 states.

Defenders of abortion rights looked for a legal weapon to counter the blockades, and they thought they had found it in the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 — originally passed to authorize the federal courts to protect newly freed slaves from violence by whites.

The law applies whenever "two or more persons Â… conspire for the purpose of depriving Â… any persons or class of persons" of their equal rights under the Constitution. It permits judges to issue orders that restrain those who have violated the law.

In 1989, the National Organization for Women sued Operation Rescue in federal court in Alexandria, Va., after a series of clinic blockades. A federal judge ruled that the protesters had conspired to prevent women from obtaining legal abortions, and he issued an order making the protesters subject to arrest if they trespassed near abortion clinics. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., upheld that decision.

Operation Rescue lawyers appealed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which was closely watched nationwide.

Starr and Roberts notified the court that they would file a brief on the side of Operation Rescue, and they asked for time to argue the issue before the justices. Under U.S. law, the solicitor general's primary job is to represent the federal government before the high court, but the office is also free to intervene in other cases that involve some aspect of federal law.

Roberts appeared before the court, opening his remarks by saying that he was not defending the acts of the protesters. Instead, he argued that the Ku Klux Klan Act did not apply in the context of abortion. The century-old law applied only to a "discriminatory deprivation of rights, not simply the deprivation of rights," he said.

"Opposition to abortion is [not] the same as discrimination on the basis of gender. That's wrong as a matter of law and logic," he said. Many women as well as men oppose abortion, and it is not because they hate women, he argued.

Now let's be quite blunt here -- the position he took was correct. Assigning him the blame for a later abortion clinic bombing by Eric Rudolph is like blaming Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP for the acts of the Weathermen by "encouraging" political activism against racial discrimination by waging a legal campaign against Jim Crow.

How false is the charge in the ad? Consider this from FactCheck.org.

An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .

The ad is false.

And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.

The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.

In other words, the only two facts that are accurate in the ad are that Roberts submitted the brief and that Rudolph blew up the clinic. Any attempt to draw a connection betwee those two events is completely specious.

Actually, one could make an argument that the reaction to the Supreme Court decision was much more directly responsible for Rudolph's violent acts. Virginia prosecuted the protesters for the non-violent blockades (similar to civil rights sit-ins of the 1960s) and obtained convictions for them. Bill Clinton and his pro-abortion cohorts passed the the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) to authorize the very sort of prosecutions that the pro-abortionists in the Bray case were seeking. Having cut off an effective means of peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience to protest abortion, Rudolph turned to violence. Bill Clinton and company are therefore responsible for the bombing of the Alabama abortuary.

Of course such an argument would be false -- just as false as the NARAL ad. And were we on the pro-life side of the abortion issue to make such an argument, NARAL and its allies would rightly condemn us.

But they are more than willing to lie in the service of their liberal cause.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Sister Toldjah, John Bambenek, All Things Conservative, LyfLines, Jack Lewis, The Unalienable Right, Red State, QandO, bRight & Early, Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers, Secure Liberty.

Posted by: Greg at 06:10 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 993 words, total size 7 kb.

From time to time I will blog about personal things.

I've hinted around school issues once or twice, but quite obliquely.

Today I'm going to break a rule -- I'm going to comment on a colleague.

This colleague is a large, arrogant individual who has alienated a great many colleagues. It doesn't take most folks long to recognize him for the sort of person he is.

He is also the campus representative for one of the four major teacher organizations in the state -- the one that presents itself as a union (there are no real teacher's unions here in Texas, since we can't strike or collectively bargain). So during our in-service time, he was permitted to make a brief "sales pitch" to the faculty along with the other campus reps.

What comes out of his mouth as part of his presentation?

"And if you have a problem and need a lawyer, just call them and they'll get back to you within 24 hours. They do a great job getting things straightened out for you -- I wouldn't be teaching here if they didn't!"

Our principal simply bowed his head and covered his face. One of the folks at my table whispered "Now we know who to blame --maybe Shakespeare was right about killing all the lawyers."

You know -- I don't think that little tidbit added to the credibility of that particular organization at all.

Posted by: Greg at 06:35 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 1 kb.

Chari Cohen met Enivaldo Oliveira when he was working illegally in a restaurant after entering the country seeral years before with a forged visa. They dated, married, and had kids, both aware that Envialdo was an immigration criminal who had no right to be in the United States whatsoever and was subject to deportation.

In the spring of 2004, Envialdo went back to his native Brazil voluntarily, in an effort to get permission to legally enter the United States on the grounds that his separation fromhis family was a hardship. Under terms of US immigration laws, he was properly denied a visa.

"We went to them, they didn't come to us," Chari said of their seeking official help. She said their approach was, "'We made a mistake, and we want to fix it,' and Enivaldo said, 'I have a wife and a baby and I want to legalize my status here.'"

Enivaldo went off on the six-month voluntary leave to return home to begin the transition. But, that process came to a halt when U.S. immigration officers in Peru determined the separation of the family did not warrant enough hardship to overrule an eventual denial of his return. The Oliveiras are now appealing Enivaldo's rejection.

Chari said the best opportunities for her family are here in the United States, and scoffs at the prospect of moving to Enivaldo's Brazilian town, which she describes as a tiny farm village, a six-hour ride through the mountains to the closest hospital, without a playground or any adequate resources for her children's upbringing.

"We didn't want to separate our family. We wanted to be together for the rest of our lives," she said. "He didn't leave because he wanted to. He left because that is what he had to do."

Upon arriving back in Brazil after leaving the United States March 8, 2004, he began assembling the paperwork he would need to bring to his appointments with the United States Embassy in Peru, the location where Enivaldo's case was handled. The office, Chari said, was a 16-hour trip away. Each time he has visited, the office has told him he is missing another piece of paperwork, and finally denied the request.

Imagine that -- the laws of the United States are being enforced. Envialdo Oliveiraknowingly broke the law when he came to this country, knowing broke the law when he stayed here and work, and Chari Cohen Oliveira knew what she was doing when she married Envialdo and had children with him. Any hardship in this case is of their own making.

Of course, they don't see it that way.

Meanwhile, charges the family does not face adequate hardship exasperate Chari, who worries about the upbringing of her daughters without Enivaldo to join them for dinners, to play soccer, and the hugs, smiles and attention she said he loves to give.

"I am your everyday mother who just wants the best for her kids. I just want my kids to be with their dad. I want my family to be together," she said.

She said she's lost her energy and personality through the struggle, and feels exhausted.

"I'm like nothing anymore," she said. "We're dying without him. What is enough hardship? Homelessness is not enough hardship?" Chari said that come September, she does not have housing lined up for the family.

Chari describes the early months of her daughters' lives, when Enivaldo would awaken in the middle of the night to help her nurse the babies.

"He's a great father, and a great source of support for me. You couldn't ask for a better family man," she said.

"Are my kids going to grow up on welfare support because it's not enough hardship?" she said. Chari said her scholarship to the University of Massachusetts was revoked when she needed to take more time off from school to spend with her children than the school allowed, and that limits her employment opportunities. "I can't finish school. I can't afford day care," she said.

"My kids need a father. There is no backup plan. He's going to be coming back here," she said resolutely.

"Our life doesn't continue without him. This isn't a game. It's no joke here; it's people's lives," she said. "It's exactly what Enivaldo and I didn't want."

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what you and your immigration criminal husband want. If you want your daughters to be raised in a two-parent household, then there is a simple solution -- take your daughters and move to Brazil. Under terms of our nation's laws, Envialdo will be eligible to get a visa sometime after March of 2014 -- just in time for your oldest child to start college.

I realize, of course, that this is not what you want, but following the law is not optional. Enforcing the laws of the United States in an even-handed manner is not optional, even if it does inconvenience those who break those laws. I'm sure that Envialdo is a good father -- but I suspect the same can be said of many folks currently incarcerated for other crimes. Should we turn loose all the parents in our nation's prisons for the sake of their children? Who else should be exempted from the law?

I feel very badly for your kids. It is a pity that the two of you were irresponsible enough to bring two children into the world who will have to live with the negative impact of the decisions made by their parents before they were born. Yes, they are victims -- but not of an uncaring government, but of a pair of selfish, immature parents who didn't consider the consequences of their decisions.

Now get out of my country.

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 970 words, total size 6 kb.

My Congressman, Tom DeLay, is one of the most maligned men in Washington. I genuinely believe that most of the attacks are based no blind hatred, not actual evidence of substantive wrong-doing. You may disagree.

That said, I would like to remind folks that there is another side to Tom DeLay, one that comes out of what is an undeniably decent part of the this many's character. Tom DeLay has a long-time commitment to the welfare of children in the foster care and adoption system.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay today opened a privately financed project touted as an innovative way of giving abused and neglected children a stable foster home environment.

"There is no other place in the entire country that does what we're trying to do," the Republican said of the project. "And we hope to take this as a model around the country because the foster care system in every state has problems that need to be dealt with."

Some folks, of course, cannot help but find something shady in the project because the facility has been built by Perry Homes, which is owned by Swift Vet's backer Bob Perry. But given that Perry operates one of the largest residential builders in Houston (I believe the largest, but I'm not sure), that should not come as a surprise. It is just one more baseless attack.

Anyway, about the facility.

The first phase of the project, costing about $8 million, consists of eight seven-bedroom homes, a gym and a chapel. Each of the houses will serve as a home for six foster children, plus their foster parents. A second phase will add 24 homes and boost the investment to $25 million, all from private sources, he said.

In other words, nearly fifty kids now have a good foster placement as a result of this project. Another 144 will eventually be a part of the program. This is not something out of the ordinary for Congressman DeLay -- he has been active in adoption and foster care issues for many years on a personal level, and has been a leader on the issue in Congress.

DeLay, though, gives much of the credit to his wife.

DeLay credited his wife, Christine, a former teacher who years ago became a court-appointed special advocate for foster children, with the idea. He said they realized through taking in three foster children that the system needed help.

As you see, this is not some "for public consumption" project for the DeLays. Rather, it is a part of their way of life.

Well Done, Tom and Christine, and all of those involved in this new endeavor.

UPDATE: Well, the Houston Chronicle finally got around to telling us about the facility in a separate article. I guess that some folks at the paper finally realized the the original article was a hit-piece on DeLay that ignored the important story -- the one about the kids and the program.

Christine DeLay said foster children often feel like outsiders in their neighborhoods because they have different names than their foster parents.

"It (Rio Bend) is just like a regular neighborhood, there is one big difference, everybody on the street and the streets to come will be foster parents," she said.

Rio Bend is on the north side of Richmond on 50 acres of land donated by the George Foundation, a philanthropic group.

The foster children, who will attend public schools, will remain in a Rio Bend home from the time a court removes them from their parents until they can return to their parents or are adopted.

DeLay said foster children often are forced to move from home to home, an experience that can leave emotional scars for years.

The first phase of the $7.2 million project consists of eight 4,600-square-foot homes.

Rio Bend administrator Margaret Gow said the second phase will add another 24 houses to the site, which also has playgrounds, athletic fields, a chapel and a swimming pool. When completed, the entire cost of the project will be about $20 million.

Each house has space for six foster children and the foster parents. There is also a room for a nanny and a small apartment for the parents and their biological children.

There are guest quarters on the site for foster children who have turned 18 and are no longer in the care of the state.

The parents will pay $450 a month rent.

Lutheran Social Services of the South will be responsible for administering the day-to-day activities of Rio Bend such as interviewing, training and supervising foster parents.

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 772 words, total size 5 kb.

I've been wanting to tranfer all the stuff from my old blog, Precinct 333, over to this site as a way of archiving my blogging experience and getting everything in one semi-neat place.

Unfortunately, I could not figure out how to do it.

Call me a non-tech geek.

Jim from Zero Intelligence and Snooze Button Dreams helped me out by making the tranfer for me. The help is very much appreciated, and my deepest thanks are extended.

Posted by: Greg at 05:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings has died after a battle with lung cancer.

ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings died today at his home in New York City. He was 67. On April 5, Jennings announced he had been diagnosed with lung cancer.

He is survived by his wife, Kayce Freed, his two children, Elizabeth, 25, and Christopher, 23, and his sister, Sarah Jennings.

In announcing Jennings' death to his ABC colleagues, News President David Westin wrote:

"For four decades, Peter has been our colleague, our friend, and our leader in so many ways. None of us will be the same without him.

"As you all know, Peter learned only this spring that the health problem he'd been struggling with was lung cancer. With Kayce, he moved straight into an aggressive chemotherapy treatment. He knew that it was an uphill struggle. But he faced it with realism, courage, and a firm hope that he would be one of the fortunate ones. In the end, he was not.

"We will have many opportunities in the coming hours and days to remember Peter for all that he meant to us all. It cannot be overstated or captured in words alone. But for the moment, the finest tribute we can give is to continue to do the work he loved so much and inspired us to do."

Jennings was someone I could not dislike, even as I often found myself in disagreement with him. I'm sorry to see him go.

May God grant him eternal rest, and may his family be comforted in this time of loss.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY: LaShawn Barber, Michelle Malkin, Captains Quarters, ConservaGlobe, The View From My Chair, Ramblings' Journal, The Political Teen, Patrick Ruffini, The MUSC Tiger, Grapevine's Ramblings, and Crooks and Liars.

Posted by: Greg at 05:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 3 kb.

The Watcher's Council has voted on this past week's nominees.

Rightwing Nuthouse has taken first place among the members of the Council with The Coming Catastrophe? The Counterterrorism Blog was selected as the winning non-council entry with The American Islamic Leaders' "Fatwa" Is Bogus.

Full results may be found at this link.

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Doug Forrester is financing his own campaign for governor of New Jersey. He has not made active overtures for funds from private individuals, nor has he sought significant support from the party. Now, having spent $11 million of his own on the race, there is a move afoot to effectively shut down his campaign under terms of an old state law.

The law bars insurance companies and other state-regulated industries doing business in New Jersey - and individuals with majority ownership in the companies - from contributing to candidates or political organizations in the state.

Forrester holds a 51 percent ownership interest in an insurance company that sells most of its policies to governmental clients in New Jersey.

"All of the kinds of things we've done with regard to contributions have been done appropriately and have been examined by appropriate legal counsel," Forrester said in an interview Friday.

Yet the state election law could put into question the contributions that Forrester has made, including those to his own campaign, since he formed his insurance company in 2003. Under the law, designed to prevent undue influence by insurance companies, banks and other state-regulated industries, prohibited contributions might have to be returned.

The Attorney General's Office, which has strictly interpreted the law over three decades to apply to insurance companies and their subsidiaries, declined to comment.

Forrester's company, Heartland Fidelity Insurance Co., was established by him in 2003 to sell health-benefits insurance. Heartland is managed by a second Forrester company - the New Jersey-based BeneCard Services Inc. - which brokers and administers the Heartland contracts. Forrester said he has made more than $50 million from his business, and he is financing his campaign for governor almost exclusively with his own money.

Since forming Heartland, Forrester has spent $11 million to win the GOP gubernatorial nomination and has said he will also personally finance his fall campaign against Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon S. Corzine.

In addition, Forrester has contributed several hundred thousand dollars to various GOP candidates and committees in the state since forming his insurance company.

***

Forrester, after consulting with his attorneys, drew a fine line Friday between the corporate status of the two companies. He said the New Jersey campaign-finance restrictions for insurance companies do not apply to him because he licensed Heartland Fidelity in the District of Columbia.

Heartland "is a D.C. company. It is not regulated by the State of New Jersey," he said through his campaign spokeswoman, Sherry Sylvester. "The statute is not intended to reach beyond the boundaries of New Jersey."

The state law, however, covers companies that "do business" in New Jersey. Heartland's business is produced through BeneCard, a Forrester-owned company with about 100 employees, located in Lawrenceville.

An official at the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance said the issue is where Heartland does business, not where it is licensed and regulated.

"If Heartland is selling insurance to New Jersey entities through BeneCard, they're conducting the business of insurance in New Jersey," said Anne Marie Narcini, ombudsman and manager of consumer protection at the state department.

Now lets look at this for a moment. The goal of the law is to prevent corporate interests from buying influence. However, this is not someone seeking to buy influence -- this is the candidate himself, spending his own cash. Yt is impossible to argue that this is the intent of the law at hand.

There is, of course, another issue. If strictly interpreted, it prohibits the candidate himself from giving anything of value to himself for campaign purposes? Can he buy clothing which he will wear at campaign events? Can he pay for his own dry-cleanting? Heck, can he pay for his own meals or gasoline? To construe this law as applying to expenditures by the candidate himself would result in such logically absurd questions. Furthermore, it would put Forrester and like individuals at a disadvantage relative to other citizens of New Jersey, in that it would prevent him from engaging in political speech activities on his own behalf that are open to every other New Jersey citizen.

I think that any court challenge would have to look at the holding in Buckely v. Valeo, the seminal case on campaign finance law. It held that there can be no limits on a candidate's expenditure of his own funds on behalf of his own candidacy unless the candidate accepted public financing of his campaign. The majority held that such limits infringed upon a First Amendment right "to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election." This is precisely the case here. Furthermore, the court noted that "the use of personal funds reduces a candidate's dependence on outside contributions and thereby counteracts the coercive pressures and attendant risks of abuse to which the contribution limitations are directed." In other words, Forresters expenditures serve the very end sought by the statute.

Ultimately, we have before us a classic example of why political speech limitation laws campaign finance reform laws are unwise and tread dangerously close to infringing on essential liberies -- and probably cross the line.

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 869 words, total size 6 kb.

Rev. Fred Phelps, a long-time Democrat activist, is well known for his hatred of those with whom he disagrees. That makes him typical of members of that party, which equates dissent from their platform with evil. (on the other hand, Democrats view dissent which showers hatred on the US as the ultimate patriotism). That's why they turned out to revile a dead soldier and the country he served at his funeral.

An anti-America protest scheduled to coincide with an Opelika soldierÂ’s funeral Saturday occurred with little confrontation.

However, there were those who turned out to pay tribute to the slain soldier who voiced opposition to the Kansas-based church group’s message summarized by picket signs bearing slogans like “God hates you” and “America is doomed.”

Protected by police border tape that surrounded an area across the street from Greater Peace Baptist Church, where the service for Sgt. Christopher J. Taylor was held, the group of about 15 from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., began what they call a “Love Crusade” with a parody of the song “God Bless America.”

Margie Phelps, daughter of WBC pastor and anti-gay activist Fred Phelps who spearheads the group, loudly chanted anti-gay rhetoric.

Several American flag-waving supporters protested this message by standing in front of the barricade, partially blocking view of the group from Jeter Road where the church is located.

This prompted some members of the church group to step out of the designated area set up by Opelika police.

To ensure a peaceful assembly, police ordered the group to stay within the set boundaries, prompting a complaint from Fred PhelpsÂ’ son Timothy who claimed police were violating their oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

“They have to do everything they can to shut us down,” said Phelps. “This is what you call government taking a side on an issue. This is what you call Nazi America.”

In addition to mocking patriotic songs and waving anti-gay signs, one group member dragged an American flag on the ground with her foot.

Yep -- sounds like the typical tactics of the Leftist anti-war groups. So quit trying to claim that Fred Phelps and his ilk are conservative, because they are nyot. Each and every one of their actions at this funeral are typical of left-wing demonstrations by ActUp, MoveOn, and ANSWER.

Posted by: Greg at 06:18 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

Two archaeological discoveries, only a few hundred miles apart. Both shed light on the region's rich heritage and importance. Notice how differently they are reported.

The first comes from Israel, where a possible palace or fortress from the time of David and Solomon has been discovered in East Jerusalem.

An Israeli archaeologist says she has uncovered in East Jerusalem what may be the fabled palace of the biblical King David. Her work has been sponsored by a conservative Israeli research institute and financed by an American Jewish investment banker who would like to prove that Jerusalem was indeed the capital of the Jewish kingdom described in the Bible.

Other scholars are skeptical that the foundation walls discovered by the archaeologist, Eilat Mazar, are David's palace. But they acknowledge that what she has uncovered is rare and important: a major public building from around the 10th century B.C., with pottery shards that date to the time of David and Solomon and a government seal of an official mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.

The discovery is likely to be a new salvo in a major dispute in biblical archaeology: whether the kingdom of David was of some historical magnitude, or whether the kings were more like small tribal chieftains, reigning over another dusty hilltop.

The find will also be used in the broad political battle over Jerusalem - whether the Jews have their origins here and thus have some special hold on the place, or whether, as many Palestinians have said, including the late Yasir Arafat, the idea of a Jewish origin in Jerusalem is a myth used to justify conquest and occupation.

Notice that the report is loaded with questions about the nature of Israel three millenia ago, its importance, and whether that presence has any real significance. The article even goes so far as to implicitly question the roots of Jews in the region -- something that requires a blind anti-Semitic streak and an ignorance of history. The Jewish presence in the region 3000 years ago is clear, and certainly predates the presence of the Arab jihadi horde that conquered the region some sixteen centuries later. The subtext here is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the discovery of evidence supporting the Hebrew Scriptures as supporting Israel's claim to the a covenant right to the Land of Israel. And given that this discovery is in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem, there are those who want to discredit the discovery.

On the other hand, this Christian era discovery in Egypt receives only slight coverage.

The remains of an ancient church and monks' retreats that date back to the early years of monasticism have been discovered in a Coptic Christian monastery in the Red Sea area, officials said Saturday.

Workers from Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities found the ruins while restoring the foundations of the Apostles Church at St. Anthony's Monastery. The remains are about 2 or 2 1/2 yards underground, said the head of the council, Zahi Hawass.

The monastery, which is in the desert west of the Red Sea, was founded by disciples of St. Anthony, a hermit who died in A.D. 356 and is regarded as the father of Christian monasticism. A colony of hermits settled around him and he led them in a community.

The remains include the column bases of a mud-brick church and two-room hermitages.

The remains of a small oven and a stove for food were found in one hermitage room, Hawass said. Another room had Coptic writing on the walls and a small mud-brick basin.

"These hermitages are the oldest in Egypt and they cast light on the history of monasticism in Egypt," Abdullah Kamel, the head of the council's Islamic and Coptic Antiquities department, told The Associated Press.

Kamel could not offer a precise date for the hermitages.

Christians account for an estimated 10 percent of Egypt's population and belong mainly to the Coptic Church, an Orthodox church that traces its origins to St. Mark.

Notice, there is no question of denying the Christian heritage of Egypt or that Christians have a legitimate place in Egypt. This is a significant find, potentially telling us much about the development of the early monastic tradition within Christianity. Having studied the Desert Fathers and Mother of the fourth and fifth centuries, I can tell you that there are great gaps that could be filled in by the research conducted at this site.

Why the difference in coverage? I would like to suggest that it goes back to the relationship between Islam and the two communities whose presence is revealed by the discoveries. In Egypt, Christians have meekly accepted dhimmi status, living as second-class citizens in their own homeland. Their presence, and their historical place, are therefore accepted by the Muslims. But the Jews of israel have deared to stand on their own feet and challenge the right of the Arabs to dominate them. Rather than wilt in the face of some eighty years of Muslim terror and murder (dating back well before independence to the time of the Balfour Declaration), the Jews have fought back and carved themselves a country after being dhimis in their own homeland for over a millenium. The discovery of evdence which legitimized their presence must therefore be delegitimized by the opponents of Israel and the partisans of the Palestinians.

(Hat Tip: The Anchoress)

Posted by: Greg at 07:54 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.

This could be a lot of fin -- Air America has a contest to come up with possible bumper stickers for its listeners (*smirk!*) .

Air America Radio is launching a contest to come up with the most creative and/or funny bumper stickers to get the word out about Air America Radio.

We need ideas for slogans, graphics, concepts — whatever you think best conveys the spirit of Air America Radio's shows, hosts, and our mission to take back the airwaves.

We will pick the top 10 ideas and then we'll invite our loyal fans — that's you — to pick your favorites. The top three winners will get a full set of Air America Radio bumper stickers plus the stylish Air America Radio tote bag!

You know -- I bet that those tote bags would be great for kids headed down to the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club.

Anyone got some good ideas?

(Hat Tip -- GOP Bloggers, Say Anything & Two Babes and a Brain.)

Posted by: Greg at 07:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 2 kb.

I love it when bloggers tweak friends and enemies in the blogosphere.

Over at Rightwing Nuthouse, Rick posted a taxonomy of the left side of the blogosphere. I really encourage you to take a look -- its funny, but with a serious point.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin, Junkyard Blog)

Posted by: Greg at 03:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Folks were outraged by Rep. Tom Tancredo's comments on destroying Mecca and Medina. Muslims were particulary upset by the implied threat to the sacred cities.

Why, then, is there no outcry as the Saudis destroy the history of the two cities.

Historic Mecca, the cradle of Islam, is being buried in an unprecedented onslaught by religious zealots.

Almost all of the rich and multi-layered history of the holy city is gone. The Washington-based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 per cent of millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades.

Now the actual birthplace of the Prophet Mohamed is facing the bulldozers, with the connivance of Saudi religious authorities whose hardline interpretation of Islam is compelling them to wipe out their own heritage.

It is the same oil-rich orthodoxy that pumped money into the Taliban as they prepared to detonate the Bamiyan buddhas in 2000. And the same doctrine - violently opposed to all forms of idolatry - that this week decreed that the Saudis' own king be buried in an unmarked desert grave.

A Saudi architect, Sami Angawi, who is an acknowledged specialist on the region's Islamic architecture, told The Independent that the final farewell to Mecca is imminent: "What we are witnessing are the last days of Mecca and Medina."

According to Dr Angawi - who has dedicated his life to preserving Islam's two holiest cities - as few as 20 structures are left that date back to the lifetime of the Prophet 1,400 years ago and those that remain could be bulldozed at any time. "This is the end of history in Mecca and Medina and the end of their future," said Dr Angawi.

Why the destruction? Who is the driving force? Why the forcies of militant Wahabbism, the preferred version of Islam of the Saudi Royal Family.

"At the root of the problem is Wahhabism," says Dr Angawi. " They have a big complex about idolatry and anything that relates to the Prophet."

The Wahhabists now have the birthplace of the Prophet in their sights. The site survived redevelopment early in the reign of King Abdul al-Aziz ibn Saud 50 years ago when the architect for a library there persuaded the absolute ruler to allow him to keep the remains under the new structure. That concession is under threat after Saudi authorities approved plans to " update" the library with a new structure that would concrete over the existing foundations and their priceless remains.

Dr Angawi is the descendant of a respected merchant family in Jeddah and a leading figure in the Hijaz - a swath of the kingdom that includes the holy cities and runs from the mountains bordering Yemen in the south to the northern shores of the Red Sea and the frontier with Jordan. He established the Haj Research Centre two decades ago to preserve the rich history of Mecca and Medina. Yet it has largely been a doomed effort. He says that the bulldozers could come "at any time" and the Prophet's birthplace would be gone in a single night.

Now I will be honest. I have some major problems theologically with islam. I believe Muhammad to be a crazy man who peddled false visions and revelations to a gullible group of followers, perverting the truths of Christianity and Judaism to justify his deeds. But I also recognize the historical significance of the sites being destroyed, and have great concern that important archaeological evidence will be destroyed.

I wonder, though -- why are Muslims not speaking out against the destruction of their own heritage at the hands of religious extremists? Why won't the UN raise its voice at the destruction of sites that are part of the heritage of the whole world? Where is the international pressure to preserve these valuable historical sites and open them to the world?

In other words, why aren't the Saudis being held to basic standards of international decency for the sake of all mankind?

Posted by: Greg at 10:17 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 671 words, total size 4 kb.

I cannot believe the gall of this man -- or the fact that he thinks we are so stupid as to be unable to figure out the difference.

Following the anti-terrorism proposals unveiled on Friday Dr Naseem told the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme that he saw "similarities" between Mr Blair's approach to Britain's Muslim community and Hitler's demonisation of Jews early in his time as German Chancellor.

"I think he is not very wise in the way he did it. I am saying he is not handling the situation wisely, because he says one thing at one time and another at another," he said.

"He [Hitler] was democratically elected and gradually he created a bogey identity, that is, the Jewish people, and posed to the Germans that they were a threat to the country.

"On that basis, he started a process of elimination of Jewish people.

"I see the similarities. Everything moves step by step. I am saying these are dangerous times and we must take note of this."

He added that the measures proposed by Mr Blair would be "appropriate" if there was evidence that foreign nationals were in the country fomenting terrorism.

"A government is entitled to take measures to safeguard the country and the nation, but the problem is that the government speaks with so many tongues that one is confused.

"Up to last week, we were given to believe that the terrorists were home-grown, 'clean-skinned' and Muslim.

"The measures being taken are against those who come to this country who are asylum-seekers and they are supposed to be misusing or abusing hospitality.

"Mr Blair told the Cabinet last week that people blame anything but faith, including poverty, discrimination and the war on terror for the bombings, so the message seemed to be that they are blaming everything else, but they should be blaming faith."

Let's see -- can Naseem point to Jews in the 1920s and 1030s preaching hatred of the German people, or of non-Jews in general? Can he point to Jewish terrorist activity, murdering innocent Gentiles at random for the purpose of terrroizing them? I think we all know the answer.

But if Dr. Naseem and his ilk keep it up, we will find it necessary to expel Muslims from Western society for our own protection. After all, Islamist terrorists and their apologists (and I'm not sure which Naseem is) are a a cancer in our midst. If the Muslim community keeps choosing folks like Naseem as leaders and spokesmen to represent their faith to the rest of us, then the community itself is the problem, not just the extremists.

Posted by: Greg at 09:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

We keep being told that Islam is a religion of peace -- in fact, some will tell you that the word "Islam" itself means peace (that is a lie -- it means submission). In light of this, some folks have wondered how Islam could take over the world. I mean, what means would this "peaceful" religion use to impose itself on an unwilling world?

DC Watson offers a scenario for an Islamic takeover of the world.

1. Apply for asylum in the West, because the nation you call home is oppressive and barbaric.

2. Migrate to the West, appear to be meek and mild, well-mannered and soft-spoken. Meet with upper levels of your host nation's government, claiming to be an ambassador of pluralism.

3. Then on weekends at Muslim gatherings, promote the implementation of the very same oppressive and barbaric behavior that you claim to have left behind for a better life in the West.

4. When those in your fellowship murder innocent people with airliners and bombs, you throw out a generic public condemnation, making sure that you name no specific names.

5. Disassociate yourselves with the Muslim killers, saying that they are out on the fringe of Islam, and claim that this is only a “tiny minority of extremists” who are committing these crimes -- because killing innocent people goes against the teachings of Islam.

6. No matter how many of your fellow Muslims are convicted of terror crimes, always maintain this story.

7. Oh, and always make sure that you don't let it slip out that no non-Muslim is considered innocent.

8. Always, always, always use religion for protection.

9. Even though your religion is loaded with cutthroats, always compare them to one or two loons from another religion.

10. Even though your book of scripture is chock full of racism and violence, always compare it to the scriptures of other religions, even though you know, like the rest of the world knows, that the believers of these other religions aren't out hacking, bombing, kidnapping and beheading like the believers of yours are.

11. Always remember to play the phony race card. Playing the victim is the best way to keep those who actually worry about hurting your fragile egos from protecting themselves against your deceit and undermining.

12. Remember that every time incitement to violence against non-Muslims slips out of your mouth, always use the excuse that your words were taken out of context. Oh, and be sure to call anyone who challenges you a bigot. Remember, play that phony race card!

You know, this hypothetical plan sounds mighty familiar to me. Does it seem familiar to you?

Posted by: Greg at 05:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm one of those who is often critical of athletes and others who fail to do the right thing. Maybe its the money and the fame that cause them to forget to be decent human beings -- sort of like actors these days.

But I want ot give a shout-out to the Cincinnati Reds for doing right by a little boy at one of the worst moments of his young life. And yeah, I'm giving a hankie alert on this one.

Cincinnati Reds players rallied around a 6-year-old boy after his grandfather collapsed in the stands this week.

"We just tried to make a bad situation a little better," outfielder Ken Griffey Jr. told the Cincinnati Enquirer.

While paramedics were working on the grandfather, a security officer took the boy to the Reds' bullpen. The Reds did not release the name of the grandfather, who died Wednesday night of an apparent heart attack.

The boy, identified as Antonio Perez, sat with players for the last two innings of the game, and Griffey went and got him when the game ended. The boy participated in the Reds' high-fives celebrating their 8-5 victory over Atlanta, and he then joined the players in the clubhouse.

Clubhouse manager Rick Stowe said the Reds showered the boy with bats, wristbands and autographed baseballs. Shortstop Felipe Lopez gave him the batting helmet that he wore in this year's All-Star game.

The players entertained the boy until his parents arrived.

"We play a game," Griffey told the Enquirer. "What he was going through doesn't compare. It was important that the little guy not be by himself."

:et's be honest here -- these guys didn't have to do this. They didn't have to stick around with the kid or give him some really neat gifts. They could have stuck a ball cap on the kid's head and gone home, leaving the scared little guy to sit in the security office until his parents arrived, not knowing what was wrong with his grandfather.

But they did the right thing anyway.

And that is what separates the decent folks from the posers.

Gentlemen, you passed the real test of manhood, and I salute you.

And to the family of Antonio Perez, I extend my deepest sympathies on the loss of a beloved family member. May God comfort you in this time of loss.

Posted by: Greg at 04:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.

You promised the voters that you would put your assets in a blind trust. Five years later, only 1/3 of the assets are in the trust, and it isn't so blind. What's the deal, Senator Corzine?

When multi-millionaire U.S. Sen. Jon S. Corzine ran for his seat six years ago, he promised voters he would place his assets in a blind trust.

The move was to counter critics who charged that his portfolio, especially in a global investment banking and securities firm, could pose a conflict of interest.

But a review of his financial disclosure forms shows that Corzine, a Democrat seeking to become governor, has not put all of his assets in a blind trust. Moreover, the U.S. Senate ethics committee has not approved the trust that he has set up.

And Corzine's blind trust may not be that blind: The Newark mailing address for the trust is the same as his U.S. Senate campaign committee, according to his state financial disclosure form.

Corzine's agreement with the trust manager has not been made public by the candidate. His campaign did not respond to requests Thursday from Gannett New Jersey to release the agreement and identify the managers of the blind trust and Corzine's two other investment companies.

In 2001, Corzine told the Gannett News Service that two former Goldman Sachs partners, Jacob Goldfield and Chris Flowers, and a lawyer, Nancy Dunlap, would manage the blind trust. Dunlap is listed as an official with his U.S. Senate and gubernatorial political campaigns.

No law requires Corzine to put his assets in a blind trust. He also isn't required to submit the trust to the Senate ethics committee for approval. But getting approval means the agreement governing the trust would be a public record, and that Corzine would have to comply with strict Senate rules regulating such funds, including a requirement that the manager be independent, and not related to, the senator.

"Once the ethics committee has approved it, it's truly blind,'' said Pamela Gavin, the Senate's superintendent of public records. "If it's not a qualified blind trust, it has not been blessed by (the) ethics (committee).''

Tell me, Senator, would you accept this sort of ongoing deception from a GOP colleague -- or opponent?

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday was ten. Today is {cough}{cough}{ahem!}.

Two events that made my life complete.

You coming into the world.

You promising me forever.

Thank you.

And may I somehow be worthy, my darling one.

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

It is time we do something about Israeli spying on the US.

Two former employees of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group were indicted yesterday on charges that they illegally received and passed on classified information to foreign officials and reporters over a period of five years, part of a case that has complicated relations between the United States and one of its closest allies.

Although no foreign government is named in the indictment, U.S. government sources have identified Israel as the country at the center of the probe. The Israeli Embassy in Washington also confirmed yesterday that it has been "approached" by investigators in the case.

The 26-page indictment, handed up in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, represents the first formal allegations of criminal wrongdoing against the former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC is widely recognized as one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington and has carefully cultivated close ties to Congress and the Bush administration.

The indictment also recasts the government's allegations against Lawrence A. Franklin, a Defense Department analyst who had already been charged with disclosing secret information about possible attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and other topics. One of six original counts was dropped against Franklin, 58, of Kearneysville, W.Va.

Former AIPAC director of foreign policy issues Steven J. Rosen, 63, of Silver Spring was indicted on two counts related to unlawful disclosure of "national defense information" obtained from Franklin and other unidentified government officials since 1999 on topics including Iran, Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. A former AIPAC analyst, Keith Weissman, 53, of Bethesda, was indicted on one count of conspiracy to illegally communicate classified information.

Let's start by shutting down this unAmerican organization and den of spies.

And let's follow it up by cutting off every red cent of aid to Israel.

Israel is clearly not a friend.

Posted by: Greg at 05:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Would you forgive a half-million dollar personal loan to your ex-girlfriend? How about if she were in a position to help you get an important job -- a job in which you would make decisins to benefit her business?

Would reasonable people with a modicum of ethics find this situation problematic? I think so.

Which is why the Democrat candidate for governor of New Jersey thinks such a conflict of interest is just fine.

Senator and gubernatorial candidate Jon S. Corzine lent the president of New Jersey's largest state workers union $470,000 when the two were romantically involved three years ago, then forgave the debt last year.

Corzine defended the transaction, first described in reports Thursday in the Newark Star-Ledger and the New York Times.

Corzine turned the 10-year mortgage into a gift to Carla Katz last December, according to court documents. The move came a week after he kicked off his campaign for governor and several months after the two stopped dating.

Katz, 46, is president of Local 1034 of the Communications Workers of America. The union local represents 9,000 state workers.

Corzine's involvement with Katz is significant because the two could find themselves on opposite sides of the bargaining table if he wins the November election. Corzine is a Democrat who was elected to the Senate in 2000, and he announced in December that he would run for governor.

The Republican candidate for governor, businessman Doug Forrester, said Corzine's gift to Katz "suggests an all-too-familiar pattern in New Jersey of public officials entangling themselves in relationships that are not private matters but in direct conflict with the public interest."

Speaking after a news conference Thursday on an unrelated matter, Corzine said the loan would not hamper his administration's ability to negotiate with the union.

"I don't think there's a conflict," said Corzine, 58. "The relationship has ended."

I wonder at what point the romance will be rekindled after the election? In the mean time, she will be in charge of dispensing campaign funds in his race -- and he will be offering more "sweetheart deals" to the union.

Posted by: Greg at 05:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

Bravo to Matt Bramanti of Lone Star Times.

From the cloned dog story:

Blockquote>South Korea’s pioneering stem cell scientist has cloned a dog, smashing another biological barrier and reigniting a fierce ethical debate — while producing a perky, lovable puppy.

They left out delicious. A perky, lovable, delicious puppy.

Researcher Hwang Woo-suk said the cloned dog would help in researching diseases that plague humans:

"Dogs share physiological characteristics with humans," he said. "A lot of diseases that occur in dogs can be directly transferred to humans."

"And thatÂ’s why you must always cook your dog until itÂ’s medium well," he cautioned.

Dr. Hwang quickly ended the press conference, saying it was time to "wok the dog."

"Uh, I mean walk," he stammered. "Walk the dog."

I mean let's be honest here -- we were all thinking it.

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

In regards to your most recent column:

1) He didn't flip the press the bird.

2) What makes you an expert on flipped birds?

3) Why use a hate-mongering hypocrite like John Aravosis as a source to condemn hpocrisy -- after all, he's a guy who believes in a right to privacy for liberal homosexuals only.

4) When did the press become royalty or the "representatives of the public"?

5) Didn't you have anything substantive to write about?

Posted by: Greg at 05:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Did you delete my earlier comment?

Bartleby

Posted by: Bartleby at Thu Aug 4 12:00:22 2005 (r/FBF)

2 No -- I wonder what happened to it, since it never made it to my box.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Aug 4 12:30:46 2005 (fI2Yv)

3 OK - maybe I thought I hit submit before I left for work, but didn't.

Posted by: Bartleby at Fri Aug 5 00:14:30 2005 (r/FBF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hey, what's a wasted $2.5 million in taxpayer dollars, right? It was great press.

All 700,000 flu shots ordered from Europe by the state of Illinois last year amid fears of a nationwide shortage have expired and may go to waste at a potential cost to the taxpayers of $2.5 million, officials said Wednesday.

Illinois never even received the vaccine, because the Food and Drug Administration would not approve its import. The shots, which must be used during the year for which they were manufactured, expired Monday, Deputy Gov. Bradley Tusk told The Associated Press.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich ordered the vaccine overseas last October. Illinois agreed to pay about $2.5 million for the 256,000 flu doses earmarked for the state. The rest would have gone to Cleveland, New Mexico and New York City, which were part of the deal.

Yeah, the purchase violated federal law and the vaccine didn't meet US health and safety standards, but since he is a Democrat the purchase simply made it clear that he CARES about the people. On the other hand, if a Republican had tried to fob off unapproved drugs or vaccines on the poor and elderly....

Not to worry, though -- the Democrat Administration is still hoping to use the expired pharaceuticals. What compassion!

Posted by: Greg at 05:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not sure how to react to Judge John Roberts' answer to a question about respecting precedent.

"Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system," Roberts wrote. "A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

I've gone back-and-forth over this one.

On the one hand, the judge is perfectly corrct. Precedent is important, and should not be overturned lightly or because of mere political considerations. To the degree that a precedent has become embedded, it is better to limit the precedent or distinguish cases from it rather than overturn it. After all, stare decisis is important,.

On the other hand, a rigid adherance to stare decisis is not desirable. After all, even though today's judges follow in the footsteps of their predecessors, that does not mean that they must be bound by them. Brown v. Board of Education required teh overturning of a number of decisions dating back some six decades. Should the precedent value of Plessy v. Ferguson have been blindly respected, despite the fact that its holding flew in the face of the clear meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution? Should ANY precedent be held so sacred that preserving it must outweigh getting the decision right?

It is my profound hope and earnest belief that Judge Roberts, in giving this written response, intended to communicate that he would respect precedent with his eyes wide open. Bu if I am wrong, and the statement is meant to communicate that he would uphold a wrong decision for the sake of stability, his confirmation risks continuing the damage done to American constitutional jurisprudence by Kennedy and O'Connor in the Webster case.

I think this would be a fruitful area for conservative senators to look at.

Posted by: Greg at 04:28 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, we have a report from a non-partisan group that analyzed the 2004 elections, looking for cases of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement.

They found some.

Would you care to guess which party was responsible for more?

I'll give you a hint -- think "jackass".

he American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund today released the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the facts surrounding allegations of vote fraud, intimidation and suppression made during the 2004 presidential election.

The ACVR Legislative Fund report, "Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppression In The 2004 Presidential Election," finds that while Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. The report finds that paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election. Examples include paid Democrat operatives charged with slashing tires on GOP get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee and an Ohio court order stopping Democrat operatives from calling voters telling them the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place information.

The report further finds that thousands of Americans were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain "nonpartisan" organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states. Examples include a law enforcement task force finding "clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee," including hundreds of felon and double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city and multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN workers for voter registration fraud in several states.

Actually, I would have to argue that the article mischaracterizes the report. While I may have missed something in the main body of the report, I was unable to find a single instance in which the ACVR was able to confirm any GOP intimidation or suppression of voters. On the other hand, the organization was able to find multiple instances of Democrat misconduct. As far as vote fraud is concerned, the group found most of it connected with "third-party" groups that were not directly affiliated with either party, though groups that were repeatedly mentioned included ACORN and MoveOn.org.

I guess we can all draw our conclusion about which party seeks to undermine the American electoral system -- and like I said, think "jackass".

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY from Blogs for Bush and Patrick Ruffini.

Posted by: Greg at 03:18 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

The American jurisdiction of the Antiochian Othodox Church (what used to be known as the Syrian Orthodox Church) has left the National Council of Churches over its continued leftward theological and political drift.

Dearborn, Michigan. July 28, 2005.This afternoon the Archdiocesan Convention of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America voted overwhelmingly to leave the National Council of Churches USA. The Archdiocese is holding its annual convention this week in Dearborn, Michigan.

The action was not a temporary “suspension” of membership, but a formal withdrawal from the NCC. The clergy unanimously approved the withdrawal, followed by a unanimous vote of the lay delegates supporting the move. An announcement of the final vote was met with thunderous applause by the Convention.

Reasons given for the withdrawal include the general liberalism of the NCC, whose General Secretary, Bob Edgar, withdrew his signature from a statement defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

This may be the beginnig of a trend among Orthodox groups, who are increasingly unhappy with the drift from (small o) orthodoxy by the NCC and its member denominations.

The Antiochians aren’t the only Orthodox jurisdiction that has acknowledged the NCC’s increasingly leftward tilt. At their own just-concluded conference in Toronto, the Orthodox Church in America also discussed the usefulness of the NCC but has not yet cut its ties. The statement that the OCA issued concerning its discussion of ecumenical relations was a collage of bureaucratic platitudes, mostly expressed in the passive voice, and no doubt indicative that the forces of the status quo were not giving up without a fight. When you read phrases such as “concerns ... were expressed” and “it was noted” and “requires careful consideration and discernment” then you can bet that someone’s digging in the heels.

I'd be interested to see what this eventually means for the ecumenical movement in the US, and whetehr there comes into being some new body that incorporates Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical churches.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

I know that verdicts are sometimes overturned by a judge on appeal -- but for the trial judge to set aside a guilty verdict rendered in his/her own courtroom is unusual.

It has just happened in Alaska, in a particularly interesting case.

A Ketchikan judge on Monday set aside guilty verdicts returned by a jury against the activist group Greenpeace and the captain of its boat for violating state environmental regulations during a 2004 visit to Alaska.

District Court Judge Kevin Miller provided little reason for his unusual order acquitting the Greenpeace defendants except that, in his judgment, the evidence did not support the guilty verdicts.

"The decision to remove these verdicts from the province of the jury is one that this court does not take lightly," Miller wrote.

Miller presided over the jury trial and was responding to a post-verdict request by the defense to consider a reversal of the convictions.

Assistant attorney general James Fayette, reached in New York while on vacation, said: "I've been a prosecutor in Anchorage for 12 years and I've never seen this. ... I've never heard of it happening."

Now I've heard of it happening before,but not often. Usually it is in a much more technical case than one of this sort, and involves much more complicated issues. It is also much more likely to happen in a civil case. But it seems to me that there isn't much to dispute here.

A Ketchikan jury found Greenpeace Inc. and Arctic Sunrise Capt. Arne Sorensen guilty in May of violating Alaska oil pollution prevention laws during a July 2004 trip the activist group made to Southeast Alaska to conduct an anti-logging campaign in the Tongass National Forest.

Under state law, a non-tank vessel larger than 400 gross tons must file an oil spill response plan application with the state, including a certificate of financial responsibility and an oil spill contingency plan.

The jury on May 9 convicted Greenpeace on two counts of operating a ship without oil spill contingency plans on July 12 and July 14, 2004. The jury found the organization not guilty of operating without a certificate of financial responsibility for cleaning potential spills.

The jury found Sorensen guilty of two counts of operating without contingency plans on both dates. He also was found guilty of not having the financial responsibility certificate on July 12 but not guilty of operating without the certificate on July 14.

William Beekman, the ship's agent, also was charged with operating without either document. The jury acquitted him of both charges.

Now hold on here. Either the documents in question were filed or they were not. Period. Either the vessel was operated without them or not. Sounds rather cut and dried. What would have been missing?

I think this matter needs to be appealed -- and the judge needs to be scrutinized.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

HeadlineL

Democrats vow not to take out anger on Roberts

Translation:

"We've talked about it and will if we can"

Why do I interpret the headline in that manner? Could it be because of this?

Judiciary Committee Democrats are seeking documents from Judge Roberts' time as deputy solicitor general, and Democratic aides said Mr. Bush has seen how united their party can be when they think the administration is stonewalling on information.

"There's little appetite in the Democratic caucus for further abuse of power by the president or stonewalling," said one aide, adding that the party will be even more insistent on information about a Supreme Court nominee than they were about Mr. Bolton.

Notice the partisan lies and spin. The president did not abuse any power. The administration was forthcoming with documents until the Democrats made it clear they were unconditionally opposed to Bolton and were on a fishing expedition for supporting evidence. The Democrats plan on further unprecedented requests to prevent the president from installing a highly qualified nominee to the Supreme Court who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

More about duplicitous Dems -- who confuse their minority rantings with the will of the majority of the Senate -- in this article.

Posted by: Greg at 06:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Ralph Isenberg has vowed to starve himself to death if the government carries out its threat to deport his wife, a convicted prostitute who is in this country illegally.

Ralph Isenberg risked everything for her. His marriage of 30 years disintegrated. His best friend stopped talking to him. His adult son and daughter shunned him.

Now he says he's prepared to die for Yanhong Hu.

Mr. Isenberg, a member of Dallas' City Plan Commission, said he is planning to begin a hunger strike this week after trying everything to keep his new wife in the country.

Since they met about three years ago, he persuaded high-placed government and business leaders – including U.S. Reps. Pete Sessions and Eddie Bernice Johnson and the entire Dallas City Council – to write letters of support for her residency application.

But Monday, immigration officials said they would not allow Yanhong Hu, who now goes by Nicole Isenberg, to stay in the country past Aug. 15. The couple had sought a six-month extension after the birth of their daughter on July 1.

No. Hell no! Get her out of the country now. She has a history of immoral conduct and illegal activity, and therefore is ineligible to stay. And you are more than welcome to go with her, Ralph.

Paul Hunker III, chief counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Dallas, said Mrs. Isenberg needs four waivers for immigration law violations before the State Department can approve her application for permanent residency.

"This is really one of the most egregious cases I've seen in my 12 years as a government attorney," he said.

Mr. Sessions had lobbied for a six-month delay in her departure, citing concern for the health of the baby.

Wealth or political influence cannot be a factor in the enforcement of immigration law, but the birth of a U.S. citizen is strongly taken into consideration, Mr. Hunker said.

"Originally, the Aug. 15 date was set with the birth of their child in mind, because of a request made by their attorney," Mr. Hunker said. "If we didn't care about the child, we would have picked [Mrs. Isenberg] up and deported her."

So you see, this August 15 date is the one that you people asked for, Mr. Issenberg. You cannot now claim it is an unreasonable requriement. And you met your wife as one of her johns at a bathouse/massage parlour/brothel(?), so I find your statements that her conviction on prostitution charges was all a mistake to be less than persuasive.

Money and connections are no basis for a waiver of our nation's laws.

And Issenberg's threatened suicide is reason enough to speed up the deportation.

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

Presidnet Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton as UN Ambassador, effectively bypassing the Senate logjam onterfering with his confirmation.

Democrats, of course, are furious.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., called the appointment "a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N."

Really, Senator? I mean, the recess appointment has been used by every president since George Washington, pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution, which reads as follows.

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

And since you are concerned about "devious maneuvers that evade constitutional consent" and "darken the cloud" over the nominee's credibility, consider this.

In 1961, John F. Kennedy used the recess appointment to gain a seat on the federal bench for Thurgood Marshall, who six years later become the first black associate justice on the Supreme Court.

Was the president involved a bad man who was upsetting the constitutional order of things? Was his nominee therefore not a credible judge? Were those who vilified the nominee therefore justified in their continuing obstructionism and increasingly vile rhetoric? Did you condemn that president and his nominee during your initial Senate campaign back in 1962 for governing outside of the constitutional system? And if you did not, surely you are willing to speak out today to condemn the two individuals involved in this long-ago constitutional travesty which showed contempt for the Senate. right?

There is, of course, a way for the Senate Democrats to bring John Bolton's tenure as UN Ambassador to an end. Call his nomination to the floor. Demand a vote, on the record, on the nomination. And then, when a majority of Senators votes against the nomination, Bolton will be out on his ass. It's really a quite simple process.

Oh.

You mean you don't have the votes to reject the Bolton nomination?

You say that the Senate will approve the appointment, and Bolton will be able to serve until January 2009 instead of January 2007?

You say that the Senate WOULD consent, if only a minority of Senators would stand clear and allow the vote to take place?

Well then I have to ask -- who is really engaged in "a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent"?

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

Minutemen in Arizona discovered the body of a dead border jumper over the weekend.

Minutemen volunteer Fred Puckett said he was saddened by the discovery and blamed the death on the government's lack of enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"This poor woman had to die here because the government will not secure our borders," Puckett said. "All of the politicians are responsible for this."

Exactly right.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Folks in the Second Ward area of Houston are complaining about day laborers -- most of whom are border jumping immigration criminals. They frighten off customers, according to local businessmen, and they worry local residents.

The response of pro-immigration crime activists?

Juan Alvarez, an activist working to organize the day laborers in that area, asked homeowners to be compassionate.

"I know it is a problem for most of you, but on the other side they are human beings, too," Alvarez said.

He maintained that a crackdown at the sites could force the laborers out of work and into crime.

Hold it -- they are already criminals. Their presence here is a crime. Why should we be tolerant and understanding of their crimes? And why should we give in to this blackmail -- "overlook and assist these crimes or they will commit worse crimes" as demanded by the pro-immigration crime activists?

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

I found this interesting column raising issues about embryonic stem cell research. I think the point made is a good one.

Pro-embryonic stem-cell research proponents, like the snake-oil hucksters of old, have done a masterful job of rolling their wagon into the town square and selling the quick and easy.

Embryonic stem cells, they argue, hold the cures for everything from Alzheimer's to diabetes - if only embryonic stem cell research wasn't banned by the dark emperor, George W. Bush.

In truth, however, embryonic stem cell research hasn't been banned. Private labs have spent millions trying to see if healing potions could be unlocked using embryonic stem cells. But as the private sector money dried up, a push for federal funding ensued. Bush has said no to that.

Yet why does the private-money river mirror the Rio Grande trickling through the bosque? If this research truly promises cures for cancer, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's, for example, private companies' stockholders should be counting their money, right?

Could it be that after years of such research, there is no honest indication that embryonic stem cells hold the keys to anything

Where is the private money for this research? Why the push for government funding? Is the problem that there has been a lack of results to justify private funding? If so, why the demand to throw money down what private industry has determined to be an unprofitible rat-hole?

This question isn't just an academic one for me. My wife suffers from a cluster of conditions that could benefit from stem cell research -- whether based upon adult stem cells, cord blood, or embryonic cells. I want to see good research done. What I don't want to see is money or opportunity wasted on bad research. That's why I'm suspicious of the push for embryonic stem cell research which seems to have yielded very little when adult stem cell research and cord blood research seems more promising.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

The British are going to engage in terrorist profiling in an attempt to safeguard its people.

People from certain ethnic groups are more likely to be stopped and searched on London transport in the wake of the bombings, British Transport Police say.

A force spokesman said communities were not being singled out, but police have to "target the people we think may be involved" in bomb attacks.

The policy has been supported by Home Office minister Hazel Blears.

***

She told BBC News: "That's absolutely the right thing for the police to do.

"What it means is if your intelligence in a particular area tells you that you're looking for somebody of a particular description, perhaps with particular clothing on, then clearly you're going to exercise that power in that way."

She said it was important people were kept informed and those who were stopped were given an explanation.

"I think most ordinary decent people will entirely accept that in terms of their own safety and security," she added.

Consider the common sense nature of that concept. We know the profile of the folks we are fighting. We know that they are among us, ready to kill innocents. it makes sense to give scrutiny to those meeting the profile -- not mass detentions or lock-ups, simply heightened scritiny.

Most ordinary decent people would accept that.

And we know that the usual suspects object -- the ACLU, Muslim groups, liberals in general -- quite loudly to any procedure that doesn't make black grandmothers, Japanese tourists, Congressional Medal of honor winners and babies in diapers subject to the same level of scrutiny as Muhammad Atta's identical twin brother. Scratch that -- they object to any procedure that scrutinizes Atta's twin at all.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

After all -- who on earth did Albert Eisele think he was, treateing her like she was subject to the same rules as everybody else. Why -- she didn't mean for THAT COMMENT to make it into print.

But Thomas said yesterday at the White House that her comments to Eisele were for his ears only. "I'll never talk to a reporter again!" Thomas was overheard saying.

"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.

But Eisele said that when he called Thomas, "I assume she knew that we were on the record."

"She's obviously very upset about it, but it was a small item -- until Drudge picked it up and broadcast it across the universe," Eisele said.

Still, he noted that reporters aren't that happy when the tables are turned. "Nobody has thinner skin than reporters," Eisele said with a laugh.

Additional comments from Instapundit and The Violence Worker.

Posted by: Greg at 01:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember the terrible act of hatred experienced by the pregnant widow of Pfc. Tim Hines and his family last week? You know, the one in which someone uprooted American flags from their yard and set them ablaze underneath one of the family car on the night of his funeral.

Well, police have arrested two teens, age 15 and 13, and charged them with this crime.

Be prepared to be outraged by the bogus comments of the cops.

Two teenage boys were charged Thursday with burning 20 small American flags set up in honor of a soldier who died from injuries suffered in the Iraq war.

Police said the boys apparently did not know the significance of the flags they took from the yard and set afire under a car belonging to the soldier's sister-in-law. The vehicle was destroyed.

Excuse me -- what the hell do you mean that they didn't know the significance of the flags? Where the f*ck are they from that they don't know that an American flag signifies this country and our love for it -- not to mention the many men and women who have fought beneath it and laid down their lives for the nation it symbolizes?

It appears that the little miscreants were involved in other vandalism that morning. Here's hoping that the judge in this case is sure to include public service time at a rehabilitation facility for veterans. These boys need to know why those flags were there, and why what they did was horrendously wrong.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY from The Violence Worker, Instapundit, and NeoBabble.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

And there is no room for argument -- this IS Lauren Bacall, after all.

"When you talk about a great actor, you're not talking about Tom Cruise," Bacall says.

"His whole behavior is so shocking. It's inappropriate and vulgar and absolutely unacceptable to use your private life to sell anything commercially, but I think it's kind of a sickness."

That pretty much says all that needs saying on the matter.

And as for you, Ms. Bacall, you are still one of the most beautiful women in the world today.

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

BUMPED DUE TO UPDATE & ANNIVERSARY

One of the worst naval disasters of World War II was the sinking of the USS Indianapolis. Some 900 men made it into the watter after it was hit by two torpedoes on July 30, 1945. Only 316 survived to be rescued five days later -- their shipmates the victims of injuries, exposure, and sharks.

Sixty years after he narrowly avoided death in the U.S. Navy's worst sea disaster, World War II veteran Loel Dene "L.D." Cox is haunted by a dream.

He's with buddies somewhere — the faces and places change from night to night — and suddenly they disappear.

"I turn around and they're gone. I hunt for them, and I may accidently find one of them, and I lose him again," he said. "It's that way every night."

The nightmare forces the 79-year-old West Texan to relive an unforgettable ordeal. Cox was among 316 survivors of the sinking of the heavy cruiser USS Indianapolis between Guam and the Philippines on July 30, 1945.

Of the 1,199 crewmen, about 900 lived through a Japanese submarine attack, but they abandoned ship in shark-infested waters and were left for dead until rescuers arrived almost five days later.

By then, nearly 600 more crewmen had perished. In all, about 880 Indianapolis sailors and Marines lost their lives.

"They don't hardly talk about it in the history books. They talk more about Marilyn Monroe than the Indianapolis and it's a crying shame," Cox said last week.

The retiree from Comanche is among 93 living members of the Indianapolis crew. Sixty of them gathered in the ship's namesake city last week to mark the 60th anniversary of its sinking and the recent exoneration of Capt. Charles Butler McVay III of Navy charges of putting the ship in harm's way.

"We thought it was a travesty — every crew member who survived," said Cox, who in 2000 helped persuade Congress to posthumously clear the captain. McVay survived the sinking but took his own life in 1968.

When survivors put aside memories of their harrowing experiences, they take solace in having accomplished a crucial top-secret mission. Four days before the Indianapolis went to the bottom, the ship delivered the inner workings of the first atomic bomb, which was dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6.

The Indianapolis returned from near Japan to San Francisco after a kamikaze attack off Okinawa on March 31, which killed 13 sailors. After repairs, mysterious crates were put aboard, and with record speed, the ship delivered the bomb components to Tinian Island.

Before that mission, Cox was aboard the ship for two other historic missions. The Indianapolis was the command ship during the assault on Iwo Jima and assisted in the first air raids on Tokyo.

There is more to read about this naval tragedy, one more chapter about the lives -- and deaths -- of the Greatest Generation.

UPDATE: Dave Goodman from eMusings at Chez Goodman shares the story of one member of the crew of USS Indianapolis. I think I've found my non-council nominee for this week's Watcher's Council. Prepare to be touched.

Posted by: Greg at 05:58 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 526 words, total size 3 kb.

I've had it with Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. I'm serious -- I'm washing my hands of the man. This Republican precinct chair will not be passing out any of his material, will notbe making phone calls, and certainly won't distrubute yard signs to the party faithful. And I know that a lot of other Republicans have lost their enthusiasm for him.

What is my beef? It isn't his failure to get appraisal caps on property taxes passed. It isn't the fact that he can't control the state Senate, despite holding the most powerful job in Texas government (the Governor is a distant third). No, it is his utterly inane comment about a proposal to strip all the controversial elements from the education bill being debated in the second special session of the year.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he was worried that there was support for what he called a "poison pill" amendment that would have removed nearly all of the reform measures in the bill, leaving only provisions for a teacher pay raise and textbook funding.

Yeah, you read that right. Paying for textbooks and raising teacher salaries (Texas teachers make about $6000 a year below the national average) constitutes a "poison pill". Good Lord -- they are the two things that most Texans agree on, according to polling data! If this man thinks that they are "poison", I'm willing to do all I can to make sure he is defeated, even if that means biting the bullet and voting for his eventual Democrat opponent. The stuff that would have been stripped from the bill were provisions raisng the age for teacher retirement while cutting the benefit level; and, if a school or district meets state standards to be classified as exemplary, gutting due process and workplace rights for teachers (guaranteeing that no school or district will ever meet those standards again).

No, Dewhurst has got to go -- and I put that above any party loyalty that I might feel. If he is going to label textbooks and teacher raises as "poison" after presiding over a vote to give legislators an $6500 annual increase in their pensions for their $7200-a-year part-time job, he clearly is the wrong man to hold this or any other public office.

Oh, and by the way, I find it interesting that the Houston Chronicle didn't find that "poison pill" quote to be sufficiently important to report on it. in its article on the new education bill -- nor did most of the rest of the news media in the state. I guess they don't consider textbooks and teachers to be important, either.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

For all the attempts by the Communist dictators in Beijing to domesticate Christianity, it appears that faith in Christ is growing by leaps and bounds in that oppressed nation.

The precise figures cannot be known, in a country in which Christians are still persecuted. But the evidence suggests that there may be as many as 80 million or even 100 million members of underground Christian churches in China, unapproved by the state.

The Chinese Communist Party, meanwhile, has only 70 million members. If those figures for worshippers are even roughly accurate, then we are looking at a very remarkable development in the history not only of Asia but of all mankind.

While the Communists have the weapons, they seem to be losing the hearts of the people. Will we find that, like in Poland, the yearning for Christ will be sufficient to undermine the atheistic system of Marx, Lenin, and Mao?

I particularly love this observation by the author of this editorial.

ommunism and its blood-brother, fascism, have been responsible - in Asia, Europe, Africa and South America - for more human misery over the past century than any other systems of belief thought up by man. By denying human beings their individuality, all totalitarian systems brutalise the human condition, reducing everyone in their sway to the status of ants, or cogs in a machine. Christianity teaches that each of us is a moral being, responsible for our actions to our Maker, and individually bound to love our neighbours as ourselves.

A century from now, Communism will be a distant memory, supported only by college professors and others lacking contact with reality. May our descendants, by the grace of God, see a similar comparison between the evil force that is Islamist jihadism and Christianity.

The paper also has an excellent article by Richard Spencer about Christians in China. I encourage you to look at it, as well.

Posted by: Greg at 05:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.