Mexicans Demand End To Rubber Bullet Use -- Sounds Good To Me!

Mexican lawmakers are up in arms over the use of non-lethal rubber bullets against damp-vertebraed invaders entering the United States from their nation. They want the Fox government to demand that the practice stop. Sounds good to me -- real bullets are a better alternative for dealing with lawbreakers.

What is particularly outrageous about this is that the Mexican government approved the policy back in 2001. My outrage is twofold. The first aspect is my outrage over a policy they asked for and approved. But the second part is the fact that we kowtowed to the Mexicans and allowed them any input on our border security issues when Mexico does next to noting to prevent the illegal incursions by its own citizens.

Living in a post-9/11 world, we have to recognize that border control is key to national security. The Houston Chronicle recently documented the failures of our border control/immigration policy, which has allowed some 400,000 illegal immigrants to disappear while on parole pending a status hearing. Many security experts expect the next group of terrorist attackers to have entered through Mexico -- probably posing as Mexicans, carrying fake birth certificates and real matricula consular cards.

So I don't care whether the Mexicans approve of our policy or not. We need to use real bullets. And if that means dead border crossers, that is too bad. It's a matter of national security.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

More Kerry, More Lies

Human Events notes the following Kerry lies on his service record, and the attempt by the campaign to spin them.

From the Congressional Record, May 27, 1986 (page S3594):

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; The troops were not in CambodiaÂ…I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me....

And from a letter to the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979 (as documented in Unfit For Command, page 46):

I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.

Well, there were no US troops in Cambodia at the time, and Kerry's unit can be documented as being over 50 miles away from Cambodia at the time. Oh, yeah, and by the way, the president in December of 1968 was one Lyndon Baines Johnson, NOT Richard Milhous Nixon. So what appears seared into Senator Kerry's mind is apparently so much bullcrap.

Now his press folks say Kerry mis-spoke. I'd buy that once, but not twice, separated by years. Theyalso claim he has publicly corrected himself. My question is when, where, and how -- and why has he not revised and extended his Senate remarks to reflect that?

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

So What's Your Beef?

The Left in this country have made much over the War in Iraq as grounds for dumping Bush. What are they going to do now, given this Kerry statement?

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

So, let me get this straight. You and Bush both accepted the same flawed intelligence in the weeks and months leading up to the war. You both believed in WMDs (which may yet be found). You have since criticized Bush for taking us into the war based upon erroneous information -- but now you tell us you would have supported the war even if the evidence had clearly indicated there were NO WMDs?

Now Kerry did ask four questions of his own -- and I'll answer them for him.

1) Why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace?

Well, Senator, there was a plan for the peace. It involved returning civilian control to Iraq as soon as possible (accomplished back in June) and allowing for free elections for the first time in decades. It also involved reconstructing the infrastructure, an ongoing process that involves American companies like Haliburton. In this it is similar to the pattern followed in Germany, Italy and Japan following WWII.

2) Why he used faulty intelligence?

Obviously, Senator, the use of faulty intelligence was obviously not intended. The problem is that virtually every major intelligence service in the world had the same general picture. So we are not talking about a US intelligence failure, we are talking about an international intelligence failure. How could that happen? Either Saddam had a massive disinformation campaign going on, or he was lied to by his own people which in turn meant that good intelligence painted a false picture of Iraqi capabilities.

3) Why he misled Americans about how he would go to war?

Meaning what, exactly? He said we would forge an international coalition to enforce UN resolutions, and did exactly that. He said we would catch Saddam, and has succeeded.

4) Why he had not brought other countries to the table?

Uh, he did -- some 40 other countries. I realize that didn't include Russia, Germany, and France (the three biggest Iraqi trading partners, who violated UN sanctions against that country), but one can hardly claim that it was the US going it alone.

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 438 words, total size 3 kb.

Kerry & Edwards Want Trained Terrorist Watch

You know, every now and then the other side makes a good point. John Kerry and John Edwards did on Sunday -- or at least seemed to, up to a point. See if you can catch what the problem is.

"We need a neighborhood watch kind of system so that we have a way to notify people, they know what they're supposed to do. We shouldn't have millions of Americans, or hundreds of thousands, trying to figure out at 3 o'clock in the morning what they are supposed to do. They ought to know what they're supposed to do," Edwards said.

"If you're going to be on the alert for terrorists, and these color codes are going to mean anything, then people ought to know what they're being called on to do. If we do that to protect ourselves against vandals or a burglary, why would we not do it to protect ourselves against a terrorist?" Kerry asked

Don't see it, do you. How about this -- THEY DON"T WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE GUNS. That's right. The Democrats seek to impose more and more limits on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In particular, they want to make sure that We the People do not have access to so-called "assault weapons." But exactly what sort of weapons would be most effective? High-powered automatic weapons of the kind used by police and military would be the most effective tools these trained citizens could have to prevent terrorist activity. But that won't ever happen, despite the fact that the maintenance of weapons for homeland defense was one of the two major purposes of the Second Amendment (the other being to enable the people to overthrow a government grown tyrannical, as happened in the American Revolution).

So what the proposal really comes down to is training Uncle Sid and Mrs. Garcia to communicate with the neighbors and call 911 if they see any terrorists around -- not to do anything that would really deter terrorism. That doesn't do anything to comfort me, near the mouth of the Houston Ship Channel, right down the street from the Bayport chemical plants.

In other words, Kerry and Edwards REALLY served up a big NOTHINGBURGER.

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

Why Homosexual Marriage Matters In 2004 Election

Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon write an excellent piece on why gay marriage is a crucial issue in 2004, and why the candidates cannot avoid it.

On August 3, a judge in Washington state decreed that the framers of that state's constitution included a right to homosexual marriage in the state constitution when they adopted the document in the nineteenth century. On the same day, voters in Missouri became the first to amend their state constitution to forbid homosexual marriage. That day made it clear that what we face -- the people oppose homosexual marriage (even when, as in Missouri, supporters of homosexual marriage outspent opponents by 40-1), but the judiciary seems intent upon contorting itself to find it in our laws and constitutions. What can be done about this disconnect.

President Bush supports an amendment to the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Kerry, feigning a belief in federalism, argues that the matter should be decided state-by-state. But given that the decision is coming from judges rather than the legislature or the people, that seems to beg the issue -- especially if a federal judge discerns the right in the US Constitution and a liberal Supreme Court stacked with Kerry appointees upholds the decision. After all, both Democrat nominees are on record against the Defense of Marriage Act (supposedly designed to allow for the states to make their own decision on homosexual marriage), and both have voted against amendment the US Constitution.

As a result, the issue of homosexual marriage must be one in this election. Why?

Events such as those last week in Missouri and Washington are making it less and less likely that Kerry, and the Democrats who cheered him in Boston, will get their wish. Kerry has made it clear that he and Edwards are personally opposed to same-sex marriage, so the debate will not be about the merits of this impending social change. Kerry, remember, has "no problem" with the Missouri vote. Yet everyone knows that, if left to themselves, judges like the ones in Massachusetts and Washington state will override the preferences of the 70 percent or so of Americans who likewise oppose same-sex marriage.

When it comes up in the fall campaign, as it certainly will, the issue will be what to do about this collision between democratic decision-making and judicial ambition. President Bush will have a clear answer: He will fight to preserve marriage, and his opponent will not. How does Bush know this? Kerry opposes changing the Constitution to preserve traditional marriage. He was one of 14 senators to vote against legislation to let states preserve it. And he is committed to appointing the kind of federal judges who created the problem in the first place.

That is the debate John Kerry can no longer avoid.

Or, put differently, it's about letting the will of the people or the will of the judges to prevail, and only President Bush is on the side of the people, when one cuts through all the Democrat dissembling.

Posted by: Greg at 06:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.

We Won't Hold Our Breath

There is at least one honest editorialist in the land. That soul works for the Bowling Green Daily News. I make this assertion because of an editorial which speaks the plain, unvarnished truth about the 9/11 report and the president. George W. Bush is owed an apology by a bunch of folks. What's more impressive, the editorial even names the names of some who need to start apologizing.

Who are the folks the editorial names?

Howard Dean.

Dennis Kucinich.

Al Gore.

Michael Moore.

John Kerry.

And in a conclusion that reflects my opinion to the last jot and tittle, the editorial says:

What is most disturbing about this is that it wasnÂ’t just our intelligence that said there were WMD in Iraq. British, French, Russian, Jordanian and Egyptian intelligence all said that Hussein possessed WMD.

Even the United Nations, hardly a supporter of the war, concluded that Hussein had WMD.

The bottom line is that this was an intelligence failure.

For political figures to blatantly deny the findings of the Sept. 11 commission and continue to throw false allegations about Bush is sad.

In essence Bush deserves an apology, but from the field of those throwing the punches, it doesnÂ’t seem likely.

Wow!

Posted by: Greg at 06:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

Swift Boat Heroes Respond

Kerry has tried to force ads featuring the Swift boat Heroes off the air. He has gotten John McCain, a veteran who didn't serve in the same unit as Kerry, to tell veterans who did serve in the same unit that they cannot criticize Kerry -- on the ground that those who were in the same unit didn't serve on the same boat with Kerry and the men from the boat support him (which leads us to ask why McCain thinks he has anything to say on the matter -- he didn't serve on the boat either). And Kerry surrogates, funded by George Soros millions, attempt to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by pointing to a single $100,000 donation from a Texas Republican. Now comes an article by Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish claiming that one of the vets, Kerry's former commanding officer, has retracted his statements about Kerry. That vet, Lieutenant Commander George Elliott, has denied doing so, and claims that Kranish has distorted his words.

I'm not sure what to make of this situation. Kranish himself writes in his book on Kerry that the senator admits he shot a fleeing VietCong because he feared the man would turn around. Where would that means Kerry shot him? Unless my understanding of anatomy is totally flawed, he would have had to shot the guy in the back -- a possible war crime. And given his other admission of war crimes (blogged on here), I find the charges leveled against him plausible.

But in the end, it is his post-war actions that need closer examination. Go read about the Winter Soldier investigation. Go read the book Kerry wrote in 1971 but doesn't want you to read today, The New Soldier. And go read the transcript of the 1971 Dick Cavett interview/debate between Kerry and Swift Boat Hero John O'Neill. I won't even get into the use of Kerry's statements by the North Vietnamese as part of their torture of American POWs, or of their continued use for propaganda purposes by that Communist dictatorship today.

I just want to know when the press will look at these issues with the degree of seriousness they deserve.

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 373 words, total size 3 kb.

NOT IN MY PRECINCT!

We don't need no stinking foreign monitors.

The Bush administration has invited a team of international monitors to observe the U.S. presidential election in November, but the group will not come from the United Nations, as some congressional Democrats had urged.

< SNIP >

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the largest regional organization in the world with 55 participating nations, will monitor the U.S. election on Nov. 2. Members include Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain and the United States.

This is a disturbing development from the administration, desperately triangulating between the Congressional Black Caucus and the GOP base. Let's just say this member of the base is not happy, and as Election Judge I will not let these folks through the door at my polling place without a court order or the paperwork required by the Texas Election Code. I run a clean and honest polling place, but I will not prove it to a bunch of foreigners just to please the race-baiting socialists of the CBC and the Euro-trash of the OSCE.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

I Like The Sound Of This

Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. It has a great ring to it. One more reason to support the president in November, despite bonehead moves like the one below.

Thomas is a scholar, writes fantastic opinions grounded in the Constitution and history, and is willing to challenge a precedent when it is wrong, even though it is old and venerated. After all, how many justices would be willing to say that Michael Newdow was right in his interpretation of SCOTUS jurisprudence on the Establishment Clause, but that the entire line of cases since Everson in 1947 had been wrongly decided and needed to be reexamined and overturned? Not one, for the rest voted to avoid the Pledge issue altogether.

A great man. We could, and have, done significantly worse.

And it would surely piss off the race-baiters and poverty-pimps of in the Democrat Party.

Posted by: Greg at 05:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Rep. Alexander Switches To GOP

Welcome to the Party, Rodney.

And to all you whining liberals out there, I offer you two words -- Jim Jeffords.

Posted by: Greg at 06:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Dems Lose Second Religion Adviser

Maybe if they pick some who actually supported religion they wouldn't have this problem. I mean, let's get real here. The first wone chosen was Mara Vanderslice, a publicly avowed Marxist-Leninist with ties to anti-Catholic activities and organizations -- hardly the sort to be particularly acceptable to believers. You know, "opiate of the masses" and all that stuff. The Kerry campaign quickly silenced her.

Buth then they picked Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, who as head of the left-wing Clergy Leadership Network. In that position she ran a group that argued that Jesus supported higher taxes as the way of ensuring that society cares for the poor, gay marriage, abotion, and increased secularism in American society. Hardly mainstream beliefs in America's Christian community, whether right, center, or left.

Congratulations to the Catholic League for riding this one down, and pointing out the continuing links of the Democrats to anti-Catholicism.

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Swift Boat Heroes Tell All -- Kerry "Unfit For Command"

John Kerry has made much of his "war hero" status. He even arrived at the convention by water, with a couple of his fellow swift boat vets at his side, just to make the point. But what do his fellow swift boat vets have to say about John Kerry?

We're about to find out, with the publication of Unfit for Command, by the members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And the Kerry camp is already squawking.

According to Drudge, the book claims

# Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.

# All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization.

# A "fanny wound" was the highlight of Kerry's much touted "no man left behind" Bronze Star.

# Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident.

# Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter.

# Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go -- becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months.

Now I cannot help but note that, beyond the questions of honesty and interpretation, at least one of these matters arguably constitutes a war crime. Given Kerry's later conduct, including his statements about war crimes in Vietnam, I find it very likely that the charge against the senator is true. He admits it in a 1971 debate with John O'Neill on the Dick Cavett show.

MR. CAVETT: Well, let's talk about that. Did you see war crimes committed and –

MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.

Speaking of his post-war activities, I stumbled across a site devoted to documenting the activities of Kerry and others involved in the famous Winter Soldier investigation. The notion that anyone involved in this could be elected to any office, especially the highest office in the nation, is appalling. It includes a link to John Kerry's infamous book, The New Soldier Better look at it quickly, because Kerry and his associates refuse to allow the book to be republished (used copies sell for over $500 -- and it is rumored that many of them are purchased for destruction), and regularly threatens legal action to knock sites off the web when they post this historical document that sheds such light on the character of the man who would be President.

In short, Kerry is clearly Unfit for Command.

Posted by: Greg at 06:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.

Religious Freedom v. Religious Freedom in the Workplace

Does an employer have the right to set workplace policies based upon his religion? That is an interesting question arising in a Florida case.

Lisa Morales was fired from her job with telecommunications company Rising Star for violating an unwritten policy and directives from her supervisors that pork and pork products not be eaten on the premises of the building, because the meat is "unclean" in the Islamic faith (Muslim halal rules are somewhat similar to Jewish kosher rules). She is now claiming religious discrimination, while Rising Star CEO Kujaatele Kweli indicates he is trying to accommodate all employees.

I don't have an easy answer to this one. May an employer ban conduct that he and many employees find religiously offensive? Or must he allow that conduct on the basis that it is permissible within another employees religion? And what of the very real problem of possible food contamination in a lunchroom, especially if in microwaves or on shared counter/table space? And to what degree is forbidding one type of food an illegal act of discrimination against some rather than an accommodation of others? Anyone want to give it a shot?

Posted by: Greg at 05:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Some Folks Are Just TOO Sensitive!

East Lyme, Connecticut farmer Joseph Smith has a goose problem. Most farmers solve that problem by firing off shotgun blasts to scare the birds away. Smith cannot do that because he is close to a state prison, and gunfire or other loud sounds create a security hazard. That led to the laborers on his farm making scarecrows out of one of the white hazard suits they wear while spraying chemicals on the fields.

Unfortunately, the result was a completely different problem.

The scarecrows so closely resembled Ku Klux Klan garb that they sparked complaints from minority guards and visitors at a nearby prison.

Workers on Smith's farm made the scarecrows last week out of the white, hooded environmental suits they wear to spray the crops. Soon after, administrators at the J.B. Gates Correctional Institution began receiving complaints.

Smith has had to remove his scarecrow, apparently because of pressure from prison officials.

Personally, I would have left the thing up. But then again, maybe it's better to give in than being annoyed to death by morons.

Posted by: Greg at 04:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

A Little Google Experiment

Joining DGCI and TrueBlue in a check of what Google registers in the way of keywords.

God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush, God bless George W. Bush

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

"Mother Teresa" Does It Again!

She's called President Bush and Vice President Cheney "un-patriotic". She's told a reporter to "shove it" for daring to ask her about the meaning of a speech. Now she's said that a second term for George W. Bush would be "four more years of hell." And for the third time, John Kerry has indicated that "she speaks her mind and she speaks the truth."

When are the going to rein-in this out of control mouth? And when will the media make an issue of it as big as they would if Laura Bush were making such comments -- or as they made of the college drinking escapades of the Bush daughters?

And in a matter that will likely not be reported, apparently Kerry thugs roughed up Bush supporters at the rear of the Milwaukee rally. As the GOP-backers stood on a bridge holding signs, Kerry supporters tried to block them with signs of their own. A scuffle later broke out as the Kerry backers tried to knock Bush signs out of the hands of Bush supporters and into the water below. Teresa Kerry encourages such incivility by her demonization of anyone who opposes her or her husband. And those, I daresay, are "un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits" entering into this campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 08:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Rusty Seeks Divorce

Rusty Yates, husband of child-killer Andrea Yates, has filed for divorce. Mr. Yates, a NASA engineer, cites marital discord, the fact that the couple has resided apart for three years (since the murders), and the lack of children (because Andrea murdered them after Rusty left his mentally-ill wife alone with them) as reasons for the divorce. According to legal representatives of Mrs. Yates, the move is not unexpected. Andrea Yates' attorney, George Parnham, commented on the timing of the filing, so close to the June 20 anniversary of the murders.

"I'm not sure that this was the most appropriate time for Rusty to do this," he said. "Then again, there's probably not any most appropriate time."

I think my wife, The Loyal Opposition, has the best take on this matter -- "I'm surprised it's taken him so long. Does this mean he has a new woman to start pumping them out with?" I don't know that the is any way to do it under Texas law, but I almost hope the judge refuses to grant a divorce, to protect any woman and potential children from Rusty.

Posted by: Greg at 05:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Bible-Banner Whines About The Heat

But she'd better get used to it -- it will be warmer where she's headed.

Apparently you are not permitted to disagree with Kay Staley -- at least not if you are a Christian. According to her, the estimated 40 letters, 50 phone calls and several e-mails she claims to have received are somehow unchristian because of their angry tone. I guess that she, indignant about a small memorial to Houston philanthropist William S. Mosher, is the only one allowed to become upset over something they find offensive.

Why is Staley upset? Because the memorial, erected outside the Harris County Civil Courts Building at the expense of Star of Hope Mission in 1956 and refurbished with private funds in 1995, contains a Bible. She wants that book banned from county property on the basis of the extra-constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. She also claims that she is discriminated against because the book doesn't represent her beliefs -- and that it also discriminates against the majority of Christians because the Bible doesn't represent their beliefs, either!

It sounds to me like US District Court Judge Sim Lake is looking at the right questions, as he has asked the attornies for both sides to brief him on the following issues.

•If the monument has both secular and religious purposes, does it pass constitutional muster by only showing that it has a secular purpose?
•Should he consider only the original purpose of the monument or the purpose it had since the monument was refurbished?
•Should he consider oral statements made at the dedication? This is a reference to religious statements made at the 1996 dedication.
•Should he consider the community understanding of the monument or only the described purpose of the monument?

Interestingly enough, I spent two weeks in that building last month when I did jury duty. My observation of it is that the monument is unobtrusive, standing about four feet high. It is rectangular, maybe 30 inches by 18 inches. Had I not known what it was there, I probably would not have noticed it. It clearly identifies both the donor and the honoree. I genuinely believe that if this monument is ordered away, that the eventual outcome will be the exclusion of any religious reference in any public place -- effectively establishing atheism as the official religion of the United States. It may be, as Justice Thomas indicated in the recent Pledge of Allegiance case, time to reexamine a half century or more of Establishment Clause jurisprudence on the basis of the unintended consequences of those decisions.

Posted by: Greg at 05:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

Former host sentenced

I was, for several years, a big fan of Jon Matthews, both when he was on KPRC and KSEV. His departure in the wake of charges of indecent exposing himself to a 11 year old neighbor came as a shock. I hoped he would fight the charge, but understood his stated reason for not doing so (a desire not to subject the girl and her family to a trial).

Yesterday he was sentenced to seven years probation, as well as the usual array of restrictions on registered sex offenders. Needless to say, his radio career is over.

What I find interesting is this bit at the end of the article.

"Those of you who have listened to my radio show and read my newspaper columns over the years know how strong a supporter I was of our criminal justice system. I can only say how misguided I was. Our criminal justice system is not based on justice; it is a quota system where conviction is the only scorecard," he said.

Matthews said he hopes one day to talk about the case.

That leaves me wondering if this was not a case of something being done unintentionally and being used by prosecutors to "get" a local gadfly. I just don't know.

But regardless, my concern is mostly with the young girl who has to live with this, and with her family. My she and they find whatever healing and closure they need.

Posted by: Greg at 04:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

Terrorists Seek Christian Blood

Terrorist cowards in Iraq targeted at least five churches this morning, killing two. They also targeted police, killing five people, including one American. The unprecedented attack on the minority Christian community was immediately condemned by many Muslim religious leaders, including at least one who has been opposed to the American presence in Iraq.

"This is a cowardly act and targets all Iraqis," Abdul Hadi al-Daraji, spokesman for radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, told Al-Jazeera television.

unfortunately, this just contributes to the fear of the small Christian minority in Iraq.

"What are the Muslims doing? Does this mean that they want us out?" Brother Louis, a deacon at Our Lady of Salvation, asked as he cried outside the damaged Assyrian Catholic church. "Those people who commit these awful criminal acts have nothing to do with God. They will go to hell."

And not only will they go there, we have an obligation to help send them.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Who's Leaking Now?

Democrats expressed outrage over the leak of the Sandy Berger probe and the name of disgraced former ambassador (and former Kerry advisor) Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, to Bob Novak. But I don't hear any complaints about this leak about Colin Powell's testimony before a grand jury in the Wilson/Plame/Novak case to Michael Isikoff and Eve Conant of Newsweek.

Powell is not, however, a target of the investigation. The subpoena is just one more sign that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is being thorough in his work. In other words, the president's pledge to have a full and complete investigation of the matter is being fulfilled, and there is no cover-up. What a refreshing change of pace from the type of obstruction we got from the previous occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

Berger Probe Continues

Despite frantic spinning by Democrats after reports that no original documents had been destroyed by former Clinton National Security Advisor and John Kerry advisor Sandy Berger, the probe of the events continue.

Why? Because, by his own admission, Berger broke security rules and probably the law by his actions. This has to be investigated, to determine how and why this security breach took place. It is ultimately not about documents stuffed in socks or pants, as some sensational reports have indicated. This is about national security. Anyone seeking to spin this as a mere political scandal doesn't get the full implication of what went on.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

No Hero Left Behind

Lest we forget, the Cold War was a real war. Men died in its pursuit.

Soon, God willing, five more will be coming home. They died in Greenland in 1962, when their P-2V Neptune sub-tracker crashed into a glacier. The remains of seven were recovered in 1966, but the other five have remained on the glacier to this day. At times the remains have been covered, at others the weather has made recovery attempts impossible.

The Atlantic Fleet Naval Air Force safety officer, Capt. Tom Sparks, is leading a 16-member recovery team, accompanied by dogs trained to search for cadavers. They are expected to be on the glacier for about a week and return to the United States around Aug. 15.

God bless them in this endeavor.

And God bless Bob Pettway, who has led a national letter writing campaign on behalf of the men and their families. He is kin to none of the men on that plane, just a Navy veteran who kept the memory alive. His efforts will surely be rewarded by a gracious God.

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Kerry Uses Marines As Prop

John Kerry forced himself upon a party of dining Marines at the Wendy's in Newburgh, N.Y., on Friday. As the foursome were dining, the candidate decided to use them as a photo-op prop, peppering them with questions which the Marines answered in curt fashion. Upon his departure (and to his credit, he did thank them for their service to the nation), the Marines were more than willing to express their true opinions.

"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]."

A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve.

The Marines — all of whom serve at nearby Stewart Air Force Base — wouldn't give their names.

Well, I guess that shows where the men in uniform stand on the "war hero" candidate.

Posted by: Greg at 08:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Outrage -- Marine's Murderer Paroled

Marine Lance Cpl. Tarron Dixon survived his tour of duty in the Middle East during the Persian Gulf War. At age 23, he had served 5 years in the Marine Corps. He came home to his family in Houston on June 4, 1991.

And was murdered by a group of teenage white supremacist scum on June 6, 1991.

Now one of the killers is being released on parole, having served only 13 years of his life sentence. What is worse, Dixon's parents were denied the opportunity to speak at the parole hearing. Because nobody bothered to notify them that there was to be a parole hearing for Donald Riley.

Riley, 19 at the time of the shooting, had three drug-related convictions and was on parole when he and other Brazoria County teens came to Houston to, as Riley told police in 1991, "(expletive) with some niggers."

Riley, John Carrillo and Jorey Thomas were each convicted of murder and given life sentences. Carillo and Thomas will not become eligible for parole until 2009.

A fourth defendant, Robert Jason Folks, was convicted on a lesser charge.

But the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the deadly weapon finding that was part of Riley's conviction, meaning he had to serve only a quarter of his sentence — life sentences are called 60 years for parole purposes — before becoming eligible.

A quarter would have been 15 years, and Riley has served 13. "Good time," credit for good behavior in prison, made up the extra two years.

It shocks me that this has happened. It's time to contact Governor Rick Perry and flood him with calls over this miscarriage of justice. His online contact form is here. His telephone number is (512) 463-2000. He may be contacte by fax at (512) 463-1849. And his address is Governor Rick Perry, Office of the Governor, P.O. Box 12428, Austin, Texas 78711-2428.

Why am I making this an issue? Because this killer should have never seen the streets again. Because Cpl. Dixon's parents should have been able to fight this travesty of justice.

And because Tarron Dixon's daughter will turn thirteen before too long, and will never be paroled from the sentence of life without knowing her father.


UPDATE: According to the Houston Chronicle, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles will meet with Cpl. Dixon's family this week and reconsider their decision. This is in accordance with state law that mandates the board meet with victims and their families at any time before a parolee is released. It is to be hoped that they will change their decision. You can contact the board here.

Also, this little tidbit appears at the end of the story

Meanwhile, a hearing is set for Oct. 14 on a writ of habeas corpus filed by Riley's attorneys seeking to overturn his conviction based on newly discovered evidence they said indicates he did not commit the crime.

A substantial portion of that evidence was presented to the parole board before its vote, said attorney Bill Habern.

I'm betting the evidence is a fraud, and hoping he doesn't get a new tial. In the mean time, I'll hope for a revocation of the earlier parole decision.

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.

Moore Farenheit 911 Lies

Fictumentary maker Micheal Moore is a (big fat) liar. Or at least that is the claim of the fine folks at the Pantagraph, the daily newspaper in Bloomington-Normal, Illinois.

Moore uses the paper's front page from December 19, 2001, as proof that George W. Bush lost the 2000 presidential election (he didn't, not according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and every recount of Florida). The paper Moore uses has the headline "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election". Guess what -- no such story appeared in the paper that day, much less on the front page.

So the paper did some research and found that the headline had run some two weeks before -- over a letter to the editor. Rather than headline news, it was the sentiment of one reader, and represented only that reader. And far from being the lead story, it was tucked inside the paper with the rest of the letters. Moore didn't even use the right typeface in his fake front page.

In short, MICHAEL MOOERE LIED.

Posted by: Greg at 06:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey, Michael -- Just Drive North!

Michael Moore thinks Canada and Canadians are better than the United States. So much so that he was even willing to invoke the name of the divine before a crowd of leftists.

"Thank God for the Canadians," Hollywood Mickey told a cheering crowd, including many Americans.

"They're just like us — only better!" said the filmmaker, who's been known to call his own countrymen, folks who made him megarich, "stupid."

"They like us," the puffy pontificator continued about his dear Canadians. "They just wish we would read a little more."

Michael, if you think that Canada and Candadians are so much superior to us mere Americans, might I suggest that you transfer your bank accounts to Montreal, and then pack up and move. I bet you could even get Canadian citizenship.

But that was not, of course, the only thing he had to say. It seems that those of us who disagree with him on the issues are "hate-triots" who "believe in the politics of hate-triotism".

"Most Americans, in their heart, are liberal and progressive. It's just a small minority of people who hate, they hate, they exist in the politics of hate, they don't believe two consenting adults should have the right to be in love and share their lives together and be legally protected by the state," Moore said to applause.

"They are not patriots; they are hate-triots, and they believe in the politics of hate-triotism. Hate-triotism is where they stand, and patriotism is where real Americans stand. And that is the truth and that needs to be reported," Moore added.

Actually, Michael, the majority of Americans do not support homosexual marriage, and polls are mixed on whether or not a majority supports civil unions. Most of us are willing to tolerate homosexuals, but not to grant marriage rights and the associated benefits.

He continued

"I don't know what it is with right-wingers and Republicans. They seem to have hijacked over the years the word patriotism and the American flag -- these things -- and it's an odd thing because the true patriots are those that believe the important thing is to ask questions," Moore said.

I believe that folks like you called us a "vast right wing conspiracy" and "right-wing nut jobs out to overturn the results of an election" when we asked questions during the Clinton Adminsitration. Apparently only liberal questions qualify as patriotism in Moore's eyes.

It got better.

"The right wing -- that is not where America is at -- the majority of Americans are liberal and progressive when it comes to the issues," he said.

"Every poll shows that the majority of America believe in women's rights, the majority of Americans want stronger environmental law, the majority of Americans want gun control laws, the majority of Americans are pro labor," he added.

Yes, but you want gun ban and confiscation laws, not gun control laws. You want environmental regulations that value finger-long fish over people, and birds over workers. And we are pro-worker -- but fundamentally differ on what that means, since we believe it means letting workers keep more of their money and to decide whether or not to belong to a union, two things you and your liberal buddies oppose.

Interestingly enough, he notes that he has received no death threats following the release of his recent fictumentary, Farenheit 911. This stands in contrast to the treatment that the Left gives conservatives.

I could go on and offer more analysis of Moore, but why bother. Let me sum it up by saying that a guy who says that Canadians are better than Americans, a guy with a history of calling Americans stupid, ends up by calling those who disagree with him "anti-American." Seems to me that the word better applies to him.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt posts the text of Moore's ravings here. Bring a (hot) air-sickness bag.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 658 words, total size 4 kb.

No Secret Ballot For YOU!

John Kerry and John Edwards have come out against the secret ballot, that fundamental electoral element that ensures each voter can vote his or her conscience without fear of intimidation or retaliation. Well, not in presidential elections -- in union representation elections. They prefer that workers be subjected to coercive "card check" programs in which union and management conspire to force acceptance of union representation.

This situation is particularly common in the Big Three automobile companies and their suppliers, where management waives the secret ballot election and then turns over personal information on all employees to the union. What follows is a series of letters, phone calls and home visits -- and often acts of vandalism and violence -- designed to "persuade" resistant workers to join. Once fifty percent of the employees have signed union cards, the union becomes the official representative of all workers, and automatically receives dues from the paychecks of unwilling workers.

Congressional supporter of the secret ballot, Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.), puts it very well when he says

"Hard-working folks deserve the right to a fair and secret
election, not the threats, arm-twisting, and shakedown tactics that come
with 'card check' campaigns."

Seems to me that if the unions were really out to REPRESENT the workers instead of shaking them down for dues, they would support the secret ballot. The fact that they do not support it speaks volumes.

Some 80% of newly unionized workers in the AFL-CIO are organized through the card check rather than the secret ballot. One wonders if the number of newly unionized workers would be so high if all had the opportunity for the secret ballot. More to the point, one has to ask how many of those workers would refuse to unionize under a national Right-to Work Law, defending the First Amendment right of every worker not to be forced into involuntary association with a union.

UPDATE: While perusing Lucianne.com this morning, I came across this piece that does a good job of explaining union abuses of the card check system from the inside.

Posted by: Greg at 05:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 3 kb.

Heinz Kerry to Reporter -- "Shove It!"

Teresa Heinz Kerry, the foreign-born billionaire wife of presumptive Democrat nominee John Kerry, addressed the Pennsylvania delegation to the Democrat Convention last night. In it, she decried the loss of civility in American politics.

"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics," she told her fellow Pennsylvanians at a Sunday night reception at the Massachusetts Statehouse.

A few minutes later Colin McNickle, editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, inquired about which "un-American activities" she was referring to. That was the point at which the fireworks began. According to USA Today,

Minutes later, Colin McNickle, the editorial page editor of the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, questioned her on what she meant by the term "un-American," according to a tape of the encounter recorded by Pittsburgh television station WTAE.

Heinz Kerry said, "I didn't say that" several times to McNickle. She then turned to confer with Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and others. When she faced McNickle again a short time later, he continued to question her, and she replied: "You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."

Now to be fair, Heinz Kerry did say "traits" rather than "activities", so there was a misquote. But McNickle did quote her in a substantively correct manner, and she refused to respond to that question. Some reports also indicated that she screamed for McNickle to "Shut up!" during the outburst. Apparently that is the attitude of Heinz Kerry towards the free press, something that didn't exist in the Third World hellhole where she and her European family helped exploit the black majority and where it still does not exist .

But what is interesting is the response of issued on her behalf.

A spokeswoman for Heinz Kerry later said, "This was sheer frustration aimed at a right-wing rag that has consistently and purposely misrepresented the facts in reporting on Mrs. Kerry and her family."

Interestingly enough, the spokeswoman couldn't be troubled to give one example of a misrepresented fact, or a response to the legitimate question asked of the Mozambique-born wife of the soon-to-be anointed Democrat candidate for President of the United States. And it is an important question, as it cuts to the heart of the attitude of the Democrats towards First Amendment protected political speech and freedom of the press.

Also interesting is the response of the presumptive 2008 candidate.

Asked about the exchange on CNN's American Morning, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday, "A lot of Americans are going to say, 'Good for you, you go, girl,' and that's certainly how I feel about it."

Apparently the Hildebeast (who will address the convention tonight, along with her husband, Billzebubba) has no respect for the media, most of which acts as lapdogs to the liberal Left. Independent voices are to be shouted down. I hope that she is wrong in her assessment, and that the American people have more respect for freedom of the press and the presence of diverse voices in the marketplace of ideas than the Democrats do.

I am particularly interested in a couple of points. First, no one seems concerned that the Foreigner cannot even remember what she said in a speech minutes before. Is this a sign of mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, or dishonesty, or the arrogant belief that the "little people" have no right to question her?

Second, Democrats were particularly outraged when Dick Cheney directed an expletive towards Pat Leahy in what everyone admits was a private conversation. Where is their expression of outrage at the Alien's abuse of a member of the media at a public event -- and her return for a second round after the initial outburst. It appears calculated to me.

Third, no less than the NY Times expressed serious concern at Jenna Bush's act of silliness when she stuck her tongue out at reporters and photograhers while riding in the presidential limousine. There was discussion in grave tones of the negative manner in which this reflected on her father and his campaign. If such a normal act by a 22 year old is such a source for concern, will this apparently hysterical attack by a "woman of mature years" who has decades of political experience behind her be treated in a similar manner by the media?

By the way, Colin McNickle will be blogging at the Democrat Convention this week.


UPDATE: A tip of the hat to the fine folks at Southern Appeal for Joel's entry on this little affair. It links to Pittsburgh television station WTAE-TV's story on the incident. It contain's two items of note.

The first is a part of her speech to the Pennsylvania delegates.

"I remember a time when people in political parties in Pennsylvania talked to one another and actually got things done," said Heinz Kerry, whose first husband, Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania, was killed in a plane crash in 1991. "We have to go back to those days when we can do things properly, for the people need it."

"My prayers for you, for me, for the country, for the world, are that we keep this at a high level, with dignity, with respect and with a great idealism and courage that took our forefathers to build this great nation," she said.

We see how long the dignity lasted on her part.

The second is the response of her husband, the presumptive nominee.

Kerry, speaking in Orlando, Fla., where he was to hold a town hall meeting Monday, told reporters, "I think my wife speaks her mind appropriately."

So apparently Kerry thinks that lying about the content of a just-completed speech and verbal abuse of a reporter for seeking a clarification of remarks is appropriate. How very telling.

It also contains the very classy statement issued by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

"Colin McNickle did just what any good reporter does -- he asked questions. And the question he posed in this instance was legitimate," said the statement by Editor Frank Craig. "The tape of Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech shows she used the word 'un-American,' even though she denied it. It is unfortunate that she ruined what was an otherwise good message by resorting to exactly the type of tactics she was criticizing."

Yep, that just about covers it.

Posted by: Greg at 04:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1061 words, total size 7 kb.

Silencing of Dissent in Boston Leads to Lawsuits Against Ridge and Secret Service

The Christian Defense Coalition had the permits in hand for Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights. Their plans were to march to the site of their prayer vigil, bringing their pro-life message to the very door of Senator John F. Kerry. But the Secret Service stepped in and closed the public sidewalks of Boston to the group on Sunday, despite the city permits. The result is a lawsuit against Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge and the Secret Service, demanding that the First Amendment rights of the protesters be respected and their previously authorized protests be allowed to proceed.

These actions seem to be a part of a pattern which has developed in Boston, especially as it regards the diverse coalition of pro-lifers. Dissent is not allowed -- or at least not where it might embarrass the Democrats or make them uncomfortable. Protesters are limited to a fenced-off "free-speech zone", out of sight or hearing of delegates, the media, or the public.

Funny, I thought all of America was a free speech zone.

Posted by: Greg at 04:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.

National Certification? I Think Not!

I just thought I'd take a look at the "right-wig rag" that Teresa Heinz Kerry attacked. I found this article on national teacher certification, and thought I'd examine it for right-wing bias or attacks on the Heinz and Kerry families. I didn't find any. But I did find some interesting stuff.

Frankly, the article is something of a puff-piece for the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, which has developed and administers the program. Now on the one hand, I like this. Getting the government out of certification has the potential to improve matters. But I do not know that this is the right method -- especially since the hwole thing was developed though the use of a lot of federal grant money.

First, the process requires that a teacher already be experienced and working in the classroom. That means that they are already certified by the state (or more than one state, as I am). When you consider, for example, that my Texas certificate will never run out (I was grandfathered under the lifetime certification law before it was replaced -- I'm going to let the Illinois certificate lapse since I don't plan on returning), there really isn't an incentive for me to seek additional certification. And since I will STILL have to meet the requirements of any other state I might choose to move to, there seems to be no particular incentive there, either. The whole thing is redundant.

Second, there is the time involved. It takes THREE YEARS to complete the process. Good God! That tells you right there that the requirements are cumbersome, time-consuming, and more effort than most reasonable people are willing to deal with. I teach school during the day and my night class, plus do my day -to-day stuff around the house and try to maintain a good and loving marriage to a wife with health problems. Where, exactly, am I supposed to find the time to do this? It does not exist for most of us. And then you get to start all over again, since the certification is good for only 10 years.

Third is the cost, $2300. Even if you consider that grant money is out there, it will likely cost the average teacher over $1000 to get this certification. Given the level of teacher salaries in many states, that is impractical. And the return on the investment is minimal, as most districts do not offer much of a salary increase (if any) for those who do get the national certification.

Fourth, I've looked at the standards for my own field. Oh, and that link is to the summary, not the 84-page PDF document of the standards for the certificate. I love the little things like this

II. Valuing Diversity

Accomplished teachers understand that each student brings diverse perspectives to any experience. These teachers encourage all students to know and value themselves and others.

Sounds like more PC liberal gobbledygook to me, which I confirmed by reading the full explanation in the manual, written in typical Educational Bureaucratese.

No, I won't be seeking this certification -- even though I already do 90% of what the standards say I should. I'm more interested in teaching my students well than in getting another piece of paper to hang on my wall. And I will keep hoping for a better, more practical alternative to come down the road, one which will meet the needs of both students and teachers, in both the public and preivate sectors of education.

Posted by: Greg at 04:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.

Bias in Academia Leads to Ignorance in Classroom in Pittsburgh

A lot of newspapers participate in "Newspaper in Education" programs. The Houston Chronicle does locally. In Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review offers newspapers to schools for academic use.

That is where Community College of Allegheny County English instructors Vicki Doerr and Margaret S. McDermott enter the picture. The pair have strongly objected to the school accepting copies of the Tribune-Review because of its "bias" and "yellow-journalism". The paper would corrupt the minds of students, and cause significant long-term harm to the students.

Consider this gem from Doerr to a colleague who opposed her move to keep "right-wing views" from the classroom:

I agree with you fully that considering various points of view is most important. Unfortunately, the Tribune-Review is one-sided, and that is my complaint. A conscientious teacher would have to supplement it with another publication, and if conservatism is what one seeks, surely The Washington Post, Commentary, or The Economist, even National Review (magazine) would have better samples.

The Washington Post a bastion of conservatism??????????????? Talk about being out of contact with reality!

Will the school be using the paper in classes? It is hard to tell. But I hope that anyone who finds themselves in a class taught by one of these ladies flees to the Registrar's Office to request a schedule change. Staying in the class would jeopardize your educational balance.

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Liberals Can't Blame Islam For Anything

Much talk has gone on in the last few days regarding the Sudanese genocide currently underway.

Waht I find interesting is the inability of the media to properly state what is happening. Muslim Arabs from the north are raping, torturing, and killing blacks from the southern part of the country -- Christian blacks -- with the full support and cooperation of the govenrnment. So, too, does Ted Byfield of the Calgary Sun.

This omission is not an oversight. It's a matter of deliberate policy. If terrorists murder several hundred people in a nightclub, or an office tower, or a theatre, and loudly proclaim, as they always do, that they're doing this for Allah, the news services will not describe them as "Muslim terrorists."

"We have to remember," says one liberal editor, "that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." More-over, to identify them as Muslims would reflect badly on the millions of law-abiding people in the western world who are Muslims and are not terrorists.

More to the point, Byfield continues,

The policy itself creates a journalistic fraud, and a dangerous one. It's not just that the reader is being inadequately informed. The reader is being misinformed.

What's going on in Sudan is a religious war. Yet it's being presented as a nationalistic one.

The Christians are identified as "rebels," the Muslims as "the government" or "the militia."

So the Guardian's policy automatically biases the story. Christian communities throughout the world are far more likely to sympathize and send help to their fellow- Christians than they are to a movement of "rebels," otherwise unidentified.

Spot on commentary. Good job!

Posted by: Greg at 12:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

Former Malaysian PM Declares Grad Students Property of the State

Well, here is one more way we are superior to every other country -- in the USA, we belong to ourselves (at least until the DNC gets its way). The former dictator of malaysia has a different way of viewing things.

Malaysian students abroad should be regarded as national intellectual property and countries that want to keep them should be made to pay compensation, former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said.

“It costs the Government a lot of money to send our students overseas. The foreign countries choose the best among our overseas graduates to work in their land.

"They should pay us for having taken away our graduates to work, since by right, their training and knowledge should be called intellectual property and we had paid for it,” said the former prime minister at Multimedia University's fifth convocation here Sunday.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Liberal Vandal Caught

Houston has been plagued by a liberal vandal for these last few weeks, armed with a stencil and a spray paint can. He has been tagging downtown and the University of Houston with his anti-Bush message for a couple of weeks now. The suspect, Jeffery Paul Cummings, is accused of doing $3000 worth of damage to buildings and walks at the UH main campus -- and is suspected of more damage to streets and buildings downtown.

This leads me to ask -- what is it with liberals and paint that leads them to do something so stupidly destructive? This guy. Anarchist taggers. The College Democrats back when I was at Illinois State University, who used exterior housepaint for their "Shadows of Nuclear War" demonstration because "since it is water-based it should wash right off with a hose." Do they truly believe that their right to free speech extends to destroying property that they do not own?

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrat Convention Schedule -- Day 1

With thanks and acknowledgements to David H. Roberson and the fine folks at The Libertarian Enterprise.

OPENING DAY AGENDA—DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION

Noon: Welcome and Call to Order—Terry McAuliffe

12:10 p.m.: Invocation—The Rev. Al Sharpton

12:15 p.m.: Luncheon Speech—"The Key to True Democracy: Fighting the Influence of Special Interests," by Sen. Ted Kennedy. (Special thanks to our luncheon sponsors, the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers.)

12:35 p.m.: Two Minutes Hate (Please watch the front telescreen in the convention hall.)

12:37 p.m.: Domestic Policy Address—"The Bush/Cheney Plan to Sell Us All as Slaves to Big Corporations," by Al Gore, rightful President of the United States

1 p.m.: Concurrent Educational Sessions—"Understanding the Constitution"

Conference Room A—"The Bill of Rights," by Sen. Charles Schumer. (Why the phrase "the people" means "the people" everywhere except in the Second Amendment, where "the people" means "the National Guard.")

Conference Room B—"Women's Rights," by Sen. Hillary Clinton. (Why "a woman's right to choose" applies only to abortion, and does not mean that a woman can choose what school her child attends, or how her government-mandated retirement funds are invested.)

Conference Room C—"The Right to Vote," by Rep. Rahm Emanuel. (With special focus on understanding the 2000 elections in Florida, where problems with a ballot approved by a Democratic election official in Florida's richest county prove decisively that Republicans stole the election by disenfranchising the poor, especially voters of color.)

2 p.m.: Two Minutes Hate

2:02 p.m.: International Affairs Address—"The Kerry/Edwards Team: Restoring World Respect to America," by Sen. Tom Daschle. (This exciting session will feature an endorsement of the Democratic candidates by Fidel Castro, via satellite from Havana; Jacques Chirac, via satellite from Paris; Kim Jong-il, via satellite from Pyongyang; and Osama bin Laden, via videotape from an undisclosed location.)

2:30 p.m.: Special Celebration of American Art and Culture (Courtney Love, 50 Cent, Michael Moore, and Howard Stern present a thrilling and inspiring performance exemplifying the very best America has to offer.)

3 p.m.: Foreign Policy Session—"War, Terrorism, and the Democratic Commitment to Protect America," introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel

3:05 p.m.—Roll Call of Democratic Military Heroes Throughout History, read by former General Wesley Clark

3:06 p.m.—"How to Stand Up Against Islamic Militants," by former President Jimmy Carter

3:30 p.m.—"A Multinational Approach to Fighting Terrorism: Following the Example of Spain and the Philippines," by Sen. Tom Daschle

4 p.m.: Two Minutes Hate

4:02 p.m.: Democratic Party Values Address: "Bush and the Religious Right: Apostles of Bigotry and Intolerance," by the Rev. Jesse Jackson

4:30 p.m.: Special Entertainment—"Death to Bush, the Imperialist Warmonger," original music performed by Sheryl Crow and the Dixie Chicks

4:35 p.m.: Afternoon Plenary—"Honoring Diversity: Acknowledging and Respecting the Variety of Views Within the Democratic Party," introduced by Sen. John Edwards

4:40 p.m.: "NAFTA, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War: How They Threaten the Principles Valued by All Americans," by Sen. John Kerry

5:20 p.m.: "NAFTA, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War: Why I Voted to Support These Important Efforts," by Sen. John Kerry

6:00 p.m.: Dinner Recess (Delegates may attend buffets in Conference Room A, B, or C. Special thanks to our dinner sponsors: Greenpeace, PETA, and the People's Republic of China.)

Posted by: Greg at 04:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

Libs Don't Understand Free Speech

The First Amendment prohibits government censorship of speech. That is pretty clear to anyone that can read. Apparently that category does not include liberals, who seem to believe that speech may never carry a personal cost, and that refusal to subsidize speech with which one disagrees is censorship. I could point to Whoopi, Ronstadt, or the Dixie Chicks as examples of this phenomenon. Government did not act against them. The offended merely snapped shut their wallets and refused to use their dollars to support folks whose message they opposed.

Which leads us to Silver City, New Mexico. Matt Runnels of KNFT radio decided to run a one hour program called "Radio Free Silver". Runnels saw it as balance for the conservative shows he broadcast, shows featuring Limbaugh, Savage, and O'Reilly. For what it is worth, I think it might have even been a good idea.

Station listener Jason Dobrinski didn't like the show. When he learned that the station placed ads in any show, regardless of the political objections of the advertiser, he spoke out. Even though there was no organized boycott, 20 to 25 advertisers threatened to pull their advertising from the station if the show remained on the station. They objected to the fact that their ads might run in a show that did not reflect their views and might offend potential customers. Faced with the loss of $10,000 in advertising dollars each month and unable to find new advertisers, Runnels fired host Kyle Johnson and cancelled the show.

The reaction of those involved is interesting. Runnels says:

"It wasn't like [the show] was preaching anarchy," Runnels said. "If you don't like what you hear, push the button. There's a lot of programming out there."

Johnson, the fired host and communications director for the Interhemispheric Resource Center, is even more incensed:

Johnson said the opponents' point was "not to debate, not to dispute, not to assert their point of view," but rather to silence those who didn't agree. "That indicates the intolerance and their lack of any ability to understand another viewpoint or to respect anyone else's right."

Dobrinski, on the other hand, paints it as the triumph of individual freedom:

"What has really occurred is that many people, acting independently, have exercised their rights to free speech in voicing their dislike of the program," he wrote.

I'll side with Dobrinski on this one. What Runnels and Johnson both miss is that it is legitimate to oppose a point of view that one disagrees with. It is proper to withhold one's support from an entity with which one disagrees. Therefore none of these businesses is required to advertise on KNFT, especially given their policy of placing ads of unsuspecting advertisers in the offensive show. The station owner has to make the best economic decision at that point. Does he limp along hemorrhaging money, or does he get rid of the cause of that injury? If he wants to stay in business, he had better dump the problem and give the people what they want to hear. ANd if he is as bothered by Rush Limbaugh as he claims to be, he is more than free to replace him in that slot -- much to his economic peril.

Given the whining of Runnels and Johnson, I hope that the advertisers still drop KNFT. The attack on these Americans for choosing not to be associated with speech they object to is a much bigger offense against free speech than their threat to withhold their business from the station.

Posted by: Greg at 05:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 4 kb.

Clinton Edits In Brit Bio Imply a Lie

We all know about Bill Clinton's political fantasy, My Life, which has had brisk sales in the US. The British edition is now out, and the way it has been subtly edited is quite telling. What does it tell? That Bill Clinton lied about Ken Starr in the American edition of the book.

What sort of things have been done?

Most of the changes center on what Mr. Clinton portrays as Mr. Starr's attempts to persuade potential witnesses to lie about the activities of the former president and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, now the junior senator from New York.

For example, in the United States edition, published by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House Inc., Mr. Clinton speaks of Mr. Starr's "continuing efforts to coerce people into making false charges against Hillary and me, and to prosecute those who refused to lie for him."

In the British edition, published by Hutchinson, also part of Random House Inc. and its German parent, Bertelsmann, the word false was deleted and the final clause was changed to "and to prosecute those who refused to tell him what he wanted to hear."

Why, you may ask, has the post-presidential prevaricator made these changes? Is the meaning of "is" different in England? Do the British define "sex" in some other manner than does the average American? The answer is simple -- British libel law. Clinton doesn't want to face a suit in which he must testify and which he will certainly lose.

Our British brethren have strikingly different libel laws. Not only does the Sullivan test not apply (public figures required to prove actual malice to win a libel case) like it does in the US, in England the burden is on the author to prove that the published information is true. Clinton knows that he cannot meet that burden because his statements are untrue. Therefore he has removed his accusations against Ken Starr.

In short, the fear of facing Ken Starr in open court has again cause Bill Clinton to admit that he is a liar. Perhaps we need a class action suit to bring justice to all those who believed they were buying a non-fiction book when they purchased the American edition of My Life. Paging John Edwards!

Posted by: Greg at 06:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.

Dems Close Down Businesses, First Amendment Rights In Boston

Mark F. Pasquale owns Halftime Pizza, just across from the Fleet Center in Boston. He had hoped to make some money off the Democrat Convention -- but discovered that delegates will be fed by special interest groups during the convention, effectively cutting out the small business owners in the neighborhood from any share of the convention dollar. More infuriating to this Republican, restrictions on pedestrian and vehicle traffic will make it impossible to conduct his regular business. That means that the economic impact of the convention will be red ink for one of the closest businesses to the convention venue, since he is being forced to close.

His response in the best tradition of the First Amendment, is a protest banner -- 24 feet long and 4 feet high. It reads "Say DNC Thanks for Nothing! Go Bush." Now the city of Boston has cited him for hanging an unlicensed banner and covering a door that is always locked and gated. Pasquale is one of a dozen businessmen so cited in the neighborhood.

It strikes me that we have a classic violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution here. This is not commercial speech, subject to government regulation. It is political speech, directed at the activities and actions of one of the major political parties as it nominates its presidential candidate. As such, the citation appears invalid on its face.

The Massachusetts GOP has expressed support for Pasquale, who indicates the sign will stay up and he will fight the citations. Are there any Boston lawyers out there who are interested in fighting for the little guy?

Posted by: Greg at 05:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

NYTimes -- Exercise of Constitutional Power Undermines Constitution!

The House of Representatives has passed legislation removing cases involving gay marriage from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This, opines the editorial staff of the New York Times, is "an outrage," and threatens the rights of every member of any minority group. They also go to great lengths to associate the action with racist Democrats during the civil rights era (though they do not, to be sure, note that the opponents of civil rights were Democrats).

What they do not say is that the move is unconstitutional. It is not. The relevant case is Ex Parte McCardle, 74 US (7 Wall.) 506 (1869). In it, the Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged the ability of the Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and of the complete jurisdiction of the lower federal courts). For a substantive analysis of the case and the validity of such an exclusion, consider this article by William W. Van Alstyne in the Arizona Law Review (15 Ariz. L. Rev. 229 (1973)).

What would be the outcome? Each state court system could decide on the matter of the constitutionality of the federal DOMA and the legality of homosexual marriage (and validity of those performed in another state) within its borders, but there would be no national precedent. This would provide what advocates of homosexual marriage claim they support: that no state will be forced to accept homosexual marriages in defiance of its own laws. Why, then, are advocates for homosexual marriage so outraged that Congress is acting to guarantee what they have said they support? Could it be that this reveals their real agenda -- forced recognition of homosexual marriage everywhere via the decision of a handful of unelected judges, despite the opposition of the majority of Americans?

Posted by: Greg at 04:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.