I've been interested in the current hub-bub about the Vatican's position on admitting homosexuals to the presthood. It isn't just because it is an interesting theological or cultural phenomenon. Rather, I am intrigued because of my own experience of having spent four years in a major seminary (graduate school), departing one year short of ordination and eventually marrying a woman I adore. As such, I am familiar with many of the questions involved.

The Vatican is ordering seminaries to bar candidates for the priesthood who "practice homosexuality," have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or support "gay culture," according to a document published Tuesday by Adista, a Catholic news agency in Rome.

The long-awaited instruction to seminary directors was scheduled for official release next week. It has been the subject of numerous leaks that have sparked intense debate and led some Catholic leaders, including the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to defend the place of celibate gay priests in the church. But until Tuesday, a full text had not been published.

"The church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture," said the five-page document, which a Vatican official said appeared to be the authentic, final version.

***

The document does not call for the removal of gay men who are already serving as priests, and it does not flatly bar the ordination of anyone who has ever acknowledged a same-sex attraction. It says men whose homosexuality is "a transitory problem" may be ordained as deacons -- a key step toward the priesthood -- if they have lived in celibacy for at least three years.

Now let's break this down.

1) There is no place in the semnary or priesthood for those sexually active homosexuals.

2) There is no place in the seminary or priesthood for those with a strong homosexual orientation.

3) There is no place in the seminary or priesthood for those who adopt lifestyle and cultural choices that seek to normalize homosexuality.

4) Those with a homosexual tendency who demnostrate the ability to live a celibate life with integrity may be ordained.

Frankly, I think the document gets it just about right. Two of the points are so basic that I don't think they can even be argued.

The first point is basic common sense. The sexually active have no place in the celibate priesthood.

The third point is equally obvious. Those attached to a philosophy or lifestyle antithetical to the teachings of the Church are not fit candidates to be pastors and teachers. Afte all, they will not be able to uphold Church teachings with integrity.

Point two, regarding theose with a strong orientation, takes a little more thought to understand. It strikes me as being something along the lines of minimizing the possibility of lapses in celibacy. Given that a seminary is an all male community and that a priest often finds himself living in a house with another priest, there are intimate non-sexual relationships that develop between these men. I'll be honest -- such bonds are necessary to preserve one's mental well-being and prevent isolation. But if there is a sexual attraction -- either solitary or mutual -- in such reliolation of celibacy OR will splinter due to the strsses the attraction causes. I have seen both happen, and the results can be tragic for those involved.

The fourth point, though, seems to be teh most important one. If a man can live the celibate life with integrity for an extended period of time, then it that man is acceptable as a candidate for priesthood. In the context of this document, we are talking about homosexual asexual activity, but I think that the rule will be applied to all candidates, regardless of orientation. After all, a priest is committing to live a celibate life for the next 30-50 years -- shouldn't he be expected to demnonstrate that he can do so for a short period before making the permananet commitment?

Now there ae some comments regarding pedophilia that i would like to take up.

"There are people on the right wing who from the beginning saw this document as a kind of magic wand that would remove the taint of the sex abuse scandal," said the Rev. John A. Coleman, a Jesuit sociologist at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. "I think that's wishful thinking -- and pretty stupid."

Actually, Father Coleman, it is you who are stupid. You are intentionally ignoring what the data show about the scandal -- that most of the cases did not involve pedophilia, which would have required that the victims be prepubescent. That data shows that many of the victims were adolescent males, which is a sign that the perpetrator was not acting upon an attraction to children but upon a sexual attraction to young men -- precisely the sort of glorification of young men as sexual objects that is found in the homosexual community (not dissimilar to the objectification of young women among heterosexual males). I realize that this is an inconvenient fact in the examination of the abuse scandal, but it is a fact.

Ultimately, I don't see this document as making a great difference. Most of the homosexual seminarians I knew (about 25% of my classmates, and a higher percentage of those who were ordained) would be acceptable under these guidelines. And the shrinking priesthood will continue to shrink as long as celibacy is retained as a Church-imposed (not divinely mandated) rule.Until the celibacy issue is thoroughly reexamined, there will continue to be a shortage of men to fill the role of priest within the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Greg at 04:05 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 969 words, total size 6 kb.

No one can criticize John Murtha and his position on Iraq, according to the cut-and-run Leftists. Will they extend the same courtesy to this veteran, and kindly shut up? After all, I think he is in a better position than they are to know what to do.

A National Guard general from upstate New York responsible for securing one-quarter of Iraq for the past year said Tuesday it's not yet time to withdraw American troops, though progress has been made in turning over control to Iraqi authorities.

"I don't think a quick pullout is in the interests of anybody," Maj. Gen. Joseph Taluto said. "You've got to have a military that can secure the government."

Commander of the Troy-based 42nd Infantry Division and a task force of 24,000 U.S. troops in north-central Iraq until Nov. 1, Taluto said they helped establish 18 fully- trained and equipped Iraqi battalions and turned over 11 military operating bases to Iraqi control, including the former presidential palace in Tikrit on Tuesday.

"I think it's possible we can see troop reductions in 2006 based on what I see," Taluto said. "It has been on our watch incrementally getting better all the time."

The task force included about 3,500 members of the 42nd, about 400 from the greater Albany area, with the last few planeloads slated to return shortly. Maj. Richard Goldenberg said their area in Iraq comprised about 27,000 square miles, about half the size of New York state. It included Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish areas and about 40 percent of the country's oil fields.

Yeah, I think the commander of a major theater of operations would be in a position to comment about the appropriate policy on troop deployment. General Taluto says to stay. Let's respect his service and that of his troops by making sure that the mission is completed and that the American military leaves with honor.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like the hate-America-firsters of MoveOn.Org are out to take down Congressmen who disagree with them.

At least two of those attacked are veterans.

And here I thought we were supposed to honor our veterans and their service, and not question their position on the Iraq war.

The MoveOn.org ads are scheduled to begin airing nationally Thanksgiving Day. Local ads targeted to the individual congressmen will run on cable systems in each of the lawmakers' home districts a few days later, said Tom Matzzie, MoveOn.org's Washington director.

Last Thursday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The next day, the Republican-controlled House hastily arranged for a vote on Murtha's resolution. Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure. The final tally was 403 against Murtha's resolution and three in favor of it.

So it seems that the representatives are all within the mainstream -- even Murtha voted for the resolution -- but MoveOn.Org will not show other veterans the same respect they demand for the cut-and-run congressman from Pennsylvania.

It seems like it is high time for the American people to tell MoveOn to EffOff.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

Just to remind folks about the "high value" placed upon women by Islam under sharia law, I link you to this story. Women are nothing more than a commodity, to be turned over unwilling to satisfy family feuds, and to be raped or murdered if they refuse to cooperate.

A village council in Pakistan has decreed that five young women should be abducted, raped or killed for refusing to honour childhood "marriages".

The women, who are cousins, were married in absentia by a mullah in their Punjabi village to illiterate sons of their family's enemies in 1996, when they were aged from six to 13.

The marriages were part of a compensation agreement ordered by the village council and reached at gunpoint after the father of one of the girls shot dead a family rival.

The rival families have now called in their "debt", demanding the marriages to the village men are fulfilled.

The case is becoming a cause célèbre in Pakistan, pitting tribal mores against a group of modern-minded, educated women. Amna Niazi, the eldest of the five at 22, is taking a degree in English literature, while both her sisters want to attend university.

Their fathers are supporting them and have refused to hand them over, leading to a resumption of the blood feud, with two relatives shot recently and 20 people arrested, while promises of further retribution and murder abound.

In addition to the sentence on the women, the village council has sentenced to death Jehan Khan Niazi, the father of three of the women, and the fathers of the other two for failing to honour the supposed bond with men whose identities they are not even certain of.

The women have said they will commit suicide if their fathers obey the council.

That such abuse of fundamental human dignity is countenanced under Islamic law is disgusting. That the Pakistani government still fails to take strong action to end such attrocities is even worse.

Is it necessary for the civilized nations of the world to forcibly suppress Islam and its barbarous customs in order to ensure basic human rights for half of the human race?

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Talk is cheap, so make those who speak against the war take a stand by voting on continuation or withdrawal. That is the strategy of Rep J.D. Heyworth (R-AZ) in response to folks like John Murtha and Dennis Kucinich, who call continue to seek an immediate pull-out of US troops from Iraq.

"If they start this again, we'll call the vote again," said Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, whom members credited with suggesting holding a vote. "As far as I'm concerned, if they haven't learned from this, if they go back to this cheap talk, I would be more than happy to call for another vote."

I don't see any problem here. If opposed to the war, they should have no problem with making a vote consistent with their words -- especially if, as they claim, the American people are with them.

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, now the Left gets what it claimed it had wanted -- the indictment of Jose Padilla and the transfer of his case to full civilian control.

Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held without charges for more than three years on suspicion of plotting a "dirty bomb" attack in this country, has been indicted on three counts alleging he conspired to "murder, maim and kidnap" people overseas.

The indictment naming Padilla and four others was unsealed Tuesday after being returned last week by a federal grand jury in Miami. While the charges allege Padilla was part of a U.S.-based terrorism conspiracy, they do not include the government's earlier allegations that he planned to carry out attacks in America.

"The indictment alleges that Padilla traveled overseas to train as a terrorist with the intention of fighting a violent jihad," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference. Gonzales declined to comment on why none of the allegations involving attacks in America were included in the indictment.

I'm not surprosed by the lack of charges about plans to carry out an attack in the US. Making the information involved public would most certainly result in the disclosure of intelligence sources that are still useful. Better to put this Islamist pig away for a long time without burning a useful intelligence asset than to go "whole hog" when it would be detrimental to national security. As it is, three of the charges carry a potential life sentence -- one count each of conspiracy to murder, maim and kidnap people overseas, providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy.

According to the indictment, Padilla traveled overseas to receive violent jihad training and to fight violent jihad from October 1993 to November 2001. On July 24, 2000, Padilla allegedly filled out a "Mujahideen Data Form" in preparation for violent jihad training in Afghanistan and reportedly was seen in that country in October 2000.

A "Mujahadeen Data Form"? Am I the only one here who has a vision of burqa-clad women in a mud hut doing data-entry work?

The charges against him and four others allege they were part of a North American support cell that sent money, assets and recruits overseas "for the purpose of fighting violent jihad." The indictment mentions Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Egypt and Bosnia, but makes no allegations of specific attacks anywhere.

The others indicted are: Adham Amin Hassoun a Lebanese-born Palestinian who lived in Broward County, Fla.;, Mohammed Hesham Youssef, an Egyptian who lived in Broward County; Kifah Wael Jayyousi, a Jordanian national and U.S. citizen who lived in San Diego; and Kassem Daher, a Lebanese citizen with Canadian residency status.

Notice, friends, that we once again have a south Florida connection to terrorism -- where it is easy to flee the jurisdiction.. One of those indicted lived in San Diego, not far from the pourousborder with Mexico. Tow of the accused are in sustody in the US, while Youssef is in prison in Egypt and Daher is in Lebanon.

I wonder how long it is going to be before Left-wing supporters of the enemies of America demand the release of Padilla and his con-conspiritors on bail and the dismissal of all charges.

Posted by: Greg at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 4 kb.

They wanted the world to increase the use of bio-fuels, which are replenishable and pollute less. The Kyoto agreement includes compliance with their demands, and world governments are out to increase the use of this resource.

Now the radical environmentalists are changing their minds -- claiming that their favored "environmentally friendly" energy source is not so friendly to the environment after all.

An alternative fuel source once considered more Earth-friendly than petroleum is now being derided by some environmentalists and farming experts for allegedly hastening the destruction of the world's rainforests.

Bio-fuels, fuel made from corn, sugar cane or vegetable oil, can be used to power up everything from sport utility vehicles (SUVs) to diesel engines. Yet in spite of its reputation as a viable alternative to petroleum, this alternative fuel has prompted some environmental groups to point to the potential for environmental damage.

The British government, hard pressed to meet emission restrictions laid out by the greenhouse gas limiting Kyoto Protocol, is being criticized by the environmental group Friends of the Earth (FOE) for proposing to force oil companies to include bio-fuels in five percent of their gas and diesel fuels by 2010.

FOE is concerned that increased production of bio-fuels will cause the destruction of the world's rainforests.

"We live in a global marketplace and the worry is that some of these fuels will be imported," said Roger Higman of FOE, according to the UK Telegraph on Nov. 11. Higman is concerned that much more land will be needed to grow the crops necessary to produce bio-fuels and in turn increase deforestation.

"It could be genetically modified crops or palm oil from freshly cleared rainforests. There is also a concern that British farmers could flatten the countryside in order to grow bio-fuels," Higman added.

Now let me get this straight -- you want bio-fuels, but you don't want an increase in agricultural production to produce them. How did you think we were going to get them in the first place?

I wonder -- how much energy could be produced and how many acres of rainforest could be saved by using environmentalists as a source for bio-fuel?

Posted by: Greg at 08:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

What else can you call it when something like this happens?

A marijuana-laden dump truck got stuck in the Rio Grande between Texas and Mexico until men who looked like Mexican troops yanked the truck into Mexico, according to authorities.

Hudspeth County Chief Deputy Mike Doyal told the El Paso Times: "Everyone had the presence of mind not to cause an international incident or start shooting."

Excuse me?

Mexican troops?

Thursday evening, Border Patrol agents tried to stop the dump truck on Interstate 10, sheriff's officials said. The truck fled to Mexico in the Neely's Crossing area.

The truck got stuck in the riverbed, and the driver took off running. Doyal said the driver returned with armed men, including men who arrived in official-looking vehicles with overhead lights and what appeared to be Mexican soldiers in uniform and with military-style rifles.

Helping the drug smugglers avoid detention by rescuing them from American terrirory?

The standoff ended when the "soldiers" used a bulldozer to pull the dump truck into Mexico, sheriff's department officials said.

This damned well should have turned into a shooting incident! There should have been a whole mess of dead Mexicans "soldiers" when they did not stand down and permit the apprehensions of criminals on American soil. Wanna bet that we would likely see a serious decrease in border incidents involving mexican military and law enforcement personnel?

When, oh when, are we going to simply point our troops south and stop the violations of American sovereignty and security that come from Mexico every day?

HAT TIP: Blognomicon and The War On Guns.

Posted by: Greg at 07:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

This is fascinating.

Thousands of pilgrims are pouring into the dense jungle of southern Nepal to worship a 15-year-old boy who has been hailed as a new Buddha.

Devotees claim that Ram Bomjon, who is silently meditating beneath a tree, has not eaten or drunk anything since he sat down at his chosen spot six months ago.

Witnesses say they have seen light emanating from the teenager's forehead.

"It looks a bit like when you shine a torch through your hand," said Tek Bahadur Lama, a member of the committee responsible for dealing with the growing number of visitors from India and elsewhere in Nepal.

He has not moved from his spot in six months, has taken no nourishment, and has survived a snakebite.

He sks, though, that he not be called a Buddha.

After five days it was opened and he spoke. "Tell the people not to call me a Buddha. I don't have the Buddha's energy. I am at the level of rinpoche [lesser divinity].

"A snake bit me but I do not need treatment. I need six years of deep meditation."

Yes, fascinating indeed.

Posted by: Greg at 02:41 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Somehow I doubt that the Left, having conferred infallibility upon John Murtha for his service, will be willing to give the same level of respect to another hero in their midst -- 29-year Air Force veteran and former POW Sam Johnson.

Somehow I doubt it. After all, he is a Texan, a Republican, and a supporter of the war in Iraq.

“Pulling our troops out of Iraq now is unconscionable and irresponsible.

“We’ve got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through.

“I bet Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is high-fiving his buddies and praising Allah after hearing these news reports. Immediate withdrawal- and the conflict sparked by this debate - is just what al-Zarqawi wants.

“I was just in Iraq and our troops told me that they are motivated to spread democracy. They’re fighting for freedom and they mean business.

“We need to get the job done in support of freedom and to eliminate Al-Qaeda terrorists around the world.

“In case people have forgotten, this is the same thing that happened in Vietnam. Peaceniks and people in Congress – and America - started saying bad things about what was going on over there. Let me tell you what it did for troop morale. It’s a real downer.

“I just pray our troops and their families can block this noise out and know that I will fight like mad to make sure our troops have everything they need - for as long as they need - to win the global war on terrorism.”

John Murtha does not speak for all American veterans -- not even a majority of them, based upon my experience. As I pointed out earlier, he does not speak for the men and women serving in Iraq today, or those who have recently returned.

Bravo, Congressman Johnson.

HAT TIP: Generation Why? and Blogs for Bush.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Rep. John Murtha continues his campaign of advocacy for a cut-and -run strategy in Iraq.

Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months, but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops.

Democrats tell us that we cannot question his motives or proposal because he is a veteran and a war hero.

I mean if a three-decades-out-of-uniform partisan hack like Murtha must be given respect becasue of his service, shouldn't the opinions of those coming back from Iraq be worth infinitely more?

While Democrats and Republicans disagree whether American troops should be pulled immediately from Iraq, several returning soldiers from the New York Army National Guard's 29th Personnel Services Detachment on Saturday agree: Continue the mission.

After stepping off the red, white and blue bus that brought them back -- soaking in their first moments with friends and family -- some of the 15 soldiers talked about their support of the war.

Yeah, you read that right -- soldiers returning from Iraq expressing support for the war. Not congresscritters like Rep. Murtha (whose three decades in Congress have earned him solid credentials as an REMF) demanding a repeat of the great skee-daddle from Saigon, and not folks who have been spoon-fed bad news by the liberally biased folks inthe mainstream media.

What do these serving heroes, fresh back from a year of active duty that included service in Iraq, have to say about the war?

Well, there is this opinion.

"I think that if we left now, it wouldn't be a good idea because there's so much left to be done," said Guard member Sarah Spicci, of Mayfield.

And there is this from a soldier who was a sceptic before his deployment.

When Spec. Jason Alexis headed overseas, he wasn't entirely sure why so many people needed to go.

The University at Albany senior from Brooklyn changed his mind once he arrived, though.

"We are really doing a lot of good," Alexis said. Soldiers are helping the country get back on its feet, he said.

And then there is this little tidbit from a soldier who is a member of a family of soldiers.

Sgt. Scott Diange was greeted by a contingent that included his father, who wore a T-shirt with photos of four generations of Diange men -- three of whom have gone to war, and one, Scott's son, who's not yet old enough to go.

He had a message for the civilians back here.

"Keep supporting us," Diange said. "It's going to go on for a long time. I think we're doing good. We should stay over there until the job's done."

Those are good words.

Did you get the message, Americans? "Keep supporting us."

Do you understand that, impatient advocates of withdrawal? "It's going to go on for a long time."

Democrats, are you listening? "I think we're doing good."

John Murtha, heed this message from a soldier fighting THIS war. "We should stay over there until the job's done."

Sgt. Scott Diange -- you have my support, and the support of all patriotic Americans. Let's work to convince the rest.

LINKING TO OPEN TRACKBACK: Stop The ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 03:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Let's Discuss Bush Derangement Syndrome Again by Dr. Sanity, and Attention GOP Leadership: by The Anchoress.  The link to both winning entries can be found here.

Also, if you are looking for a nomination, see this post for the Watcher's weekly offer of link whorage.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 AM | Comments (76) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Or at least those are the reports coming out of Iraq.

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) - U.S. and Iraqi forces raided a farmhouse in northern Iraq at dawn Saturday, searching for suspected members of al-Qaida in Iraq. Eight insurgents and four Iraqi policemen were killed, officials said.

Brig. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri, the spokesman for the Mosul police, said Iraqi police and U.S. soldiers surrounded a house in the al-Sukar neighborhood of Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad.

A fierce gunfight erupted and three of the insurgents detonated explosives, killing themselves. Five more died fighting, while four police officers were also killed, he added.

Al-Jubouri said officials were attempting to identify the dead insurgents.

Nineva province Governor Duraid Kashmola confirmed the report, adding that one woman was among the dead insurgents.

U.S. officials in the area were not immediately available for comment.

Sounds like good news so far.

But it gets better.

Arch terrorists and al-Qaeda leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may have been killed, Arab press have reported.

According to reports, American and Iraqi forces are currently checking whether al-Zarqawi's body can be found among the bodies of other al-Qaeda members that blew themselves up at a house that was besieged by the forces at the northern town of Musul. (Ali Waked)

At least those are the reports from Arab sources Elaph and al-Mada, according to Iraq the Model and No End but Victory.

The Jerusalem Post also notes the reports.

The Elaph Arab media website reported on Sunday that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the al-Qaida in Iraq terror group, may have been killed in Iraq on Sunday afternoon when eight terrorists blew themselves up in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

The unconfirmed report claimed that the explosions occurred while coalition forces surrounded the house in which al-Zarqawi was hiding. American and Iraqi forces are looking into the report.

American sources neither confirm nor deny the report -- but do seem to hint at the possibility.

In Washington, a U.S. official said the identities of the terror suspects killed was unknown. Asked if they could include al-Zarqawi, the official replied: "There are efforts under way to determine if he was killed."

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

In other words, this may be it. The terrorist leader behind so much of the violence in iraq may be in Hell, roasting on a pit with an apple firmly clenched between his teeth -- a fit eternity for such an Islamist pig.

Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin and Mudville Gazette.

UPDATE: This update from the Washington Post has bad news (al-Zarqawi likely was not killed) and good some good news (imams and sheiks are cooperating in tracking the terrorist leader).

U.S. military officials believe it is possible that Zarqawi was killed in the raid but will not know with certainty until DNA tests are run, said a U.S. military intelligence official involved in Iraqi issues.

There is a "30 percent" chance that one of the bodies is Zarqawi's, he said. But he warned: "We've had dry holes before."

Over the past month, the official said, there has been a series of raids following a surge in tips from Iraqis unhappy with Zarqawi and his operation. These tend to be traditional Iraqi leaders -- sheiks and imams -- upset with the organization, especially its recent execution of Sunni Arabs in Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar. "Their feeling is that al Qaeda in Iraq has overstepped its bounds," he said.

Could this be a sign of the waning of the insurgency, right at the time that liberals want to retreat from the field in disgrace?

UPDATE 2: The Counterterrorism Blog is suggesting that reports of al-Zarqawi's death are greatly exagerated.

UPDATE 3: MSNBC reports that troops just missed capturing al-Zarqawi.

Posted by: Greg at 09:18 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 648 words, total size 5 kb.

Michelle Malkin, the multi-talented columnist and blogger whose beauty puts every other conservative pundit to shame, writes today about those racist/sexist/leftist commenters who have been waging an attack upon her and her husband, Jesse.

As I've noted in several newspaper profiles and television interviews, I met my husband in college, where he founded a right-of-center student publication that I wrote for and edited. He started off as a Berkeley-born Dukakis liberal; I was a congenital conservative who helped him see the light. We have been each other's best friend, editor, and sounding board for nearly half of our lives. He followed me to Southern California when I took my first newspaper gig in Los Angeles. He followed me up to the Pacific Northwest when I was hired by the Seattle Times. I followed him to Washington D.C. when he got a lucrative health-care consulting job. And when my career took off after I published my first book in 2002, he cut back on his own ambitions to be with our kids.

In his spare time (such as it is with an active kindergartener and an Energizer bunny preschooler), he helps me out when he can. Al Franken needs a dozen, overpaid Harvard-trained research assistants. I have my hubby's help for a few hours a week.

In other words, the Malkins are a couple who are very much in love with one another and who have put her successful career ahead of his so that their daughter can have one full-time parent.

SO what is the problem? Well, it seems that those on the Left do not thik an Asian woman could possibly be smart enough to independently formulate conservative views -- and that since Jesse Malkin is also a writer (focus on healt care issues, as I understand it), he must have some sort of influence and control over his wife.

Michelle does concede that ther eis influence -- but an influence based upon intellectual equality, not the domination of a husband over his wife.

As for my husband's "influence," why yes, he influences me all the time and vice versa. Spouses tend to do that to each other over the years. When I came up with my idea for Invasion after 9/11, he was skeptical. We don't agree on everything, but I've pulled him to the right on national security, the Second Amendment, and some social issues. He has put up with my insomniac writing habits, investigative obsessions, and workaholism for more than a dozen years, and I have successfully converted him to the conservative cause.

In other words, it sounds like a lovely marriage. It is the sort of relationship we should encourage and envy in this country, not one to be denigrated and destroyed.

Michelle makes a plea from the heart to her liberal critics, one which should be respected if these alleged opponents of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and the politics of personal destruction should respect if they are sincere in their beliefs (I doubt they are, thought they talk a good game).

The racist and sexist "yellow woman doing a white man's job" knock is a tiresome old attack from impotent liberals that I've tolerated a long time. It is pathetic that I have to sit here and tell you that my ideas, my politics, and my intellectual capital are mine and mine alone in response to cowardly attacks from misogynistic moonbats with Asian whore fixations. My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, productivity, sincerity, and integrity are routinely ridiculed or questioned because I happen to be a minority conservative woman. As a public figure, I am willing to take these insults, but I cannot tolerate the smearing of my loved ones. Because I have always been open and proud about his support for my career, my husband has taken endless, hate-filled abuse from my critics. His Jewish heritage, his decision to be a stay-at-home dad, and even his looks, are the subject of brutal mockery.

Enough.

If you have a problem with my work and what I stand for, go ahead and take me on. Keep calling me whatever four-letter-word makes you feel better when you can't win your arguments. But leave my family alone.

In other words, folks, if you want to combat her in the marketplace of ideas, have at it. If you are a lowlife scumbag who feels the need to engage in misogynistic race-baiting, do so if you must. But attacks and assualts on family are the province of intellectually deficient moral degenerates, and ae always to be condemned.

And if I may say, great picture. I think the t-shirt says it all.

God bless you Michelle, and your beloved Jesse -- and your adorable little daughter as well.

Posted by: Greg at 09:10 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 807 words, total size 5 kb.

I've never been a fan of "blue laws", which restrict business activities on certain days with an ostensibly religious significance.

Originally implemented to force folks to keep the Christian Sabbath, they interfere with the legitimate rights of those of other faiths (and no faith at all) to engage in commerce as they see fit -- and provides no equivalent protection for those whose Sabbath and other holy days fall outside of those of the Christian religion.

More to the point, they needlessly restrict the economic activities of Americans on their non-work days. After all, who is harmed if I purchase a car on Sunday?

Massachusetts has done away with most of its blue laws -- but among the exceptions is the one requiring that stores close on Christmas, New Years Day, and Thanksgiving.

One grocer, Whole Foods (which specializes in natural and organic foods), planned to open its 14 Massachusetts stores for Thanksgiving. A compettitor, Shaws Supermarkets, with over 200 Massachusetts stores, complained to the state and have brought the jackboot of the state authority down upon Whole Foods to force the closure of their much smaller competitor, which had sought and received permits from local authorities to open on the holiday.

What was the basis of thier complaint?

"We believe that allowing Whole Foods to open on Thanksgiving Day will create an unlevel playing field for all other retail grocers," Shaw's legal department wrote to Reilly on Nov. 4. "Besides disadvantaging competitors, a Whole Foods opening would harm consumers, due to lack of choice in the marketplace for consumers to shop and compare prices for the best deal."

I have two reactions.

1) What would have kept you from seeking a similar exemption?

2) Do you really believe that it is a greater harm to consumers to have a single choice on Thanksgiving than for them to have zero choices?

Not, of course, that Massachusetts consumers will be without recourse on Thanksgiving. Gas stations and convenience stores will be open under an exemption written into the blue law. I wonder if Shaws in Massachusetts has done like Krogers has here in Texas and Albertsons has done in other parts of the country -- opened up convenience stores and gas stations on their lots, which would allow them to sell all those Thanksgiving needs without competition from Whole Foods. And, of course, whatever convenience store or gas station they go to will have a smaller selection of goods at much higher prices than they would have paid at Whole Foods -- certainly a wonderful benefit of this state "protection" of the consumer. Not to mention that the available selections will not include the preferred organic and natural food selections of Whole Foods shoppers.

The state is offering a different justification for its actions.

A letter to Whole Foods from Reilly's fair labor and business practices division said, "Generally, the performance of work on legal holidays is prohibited unless permitted by a statutory exemption." The letter noted Reilly has the power to bring criminal charges against anyone who violates the state's blue laws.

Nick Messuri, chief of Reilly's business and labor protection bureau, said the blue laws sound archaic, but they protect workers from pressure to give up their holidays.

Whole Foods responds that no worker would have been forced to work on the holiday, and that they would have received double-time for the holiday shift -- a bargain I certainly would be glad to make (and generally did when I worked for an hourly wage).

But everyone here is protected by state regulation. Consumers are protected from being able to buy the items they need at the store they want. Workers are protected from choosing to make twice their hourly wage while still having plenty of time to mark the holiday. And Shaws is protected from their tiny, specialized competitor earning a little bit of good will from the public.

Thank God for the jackboot power of government protecting us from the invisible hand of capitalism!

LINKING TO OPEN TRACKBACK: Stop The ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:45 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 4 kb.

I’ve spoken elsewhere about the heartbreak Paula and I went through early in our marriage when we were unable to have children, and the frustrations of being unable to adopt – and the health situations that prevent either today. I will not recount them again today.

I will encourage people to note that Saturday, November 19 is National Adoption Day.

If there is room in your heart and home, consider adding one or more of the children seeking “forever families” into yours.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Since the Left seems so upset about Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) daring to quote a serving member of the US military's reaction to Rep. John Murtha's(D-PA) "Surrender Now" approach to Iraq, why is there not at least equivalent outrage over the violent actions of Rep. Harold Ford (D -TN)?

Ms. Schmidt withdrew her words, but not before Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., Tennessee Democrat, seemed to be headed for a fight with Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican. Mr. Tancredo afterward said he had been arguing with another Democrat over some of the charges Democrats had hurled at Republicans during yesterday morning's budget vote, and said Mr. Ford must have thought the argument was about Mr. Murtha.

"Say it to Murtha," Mr. Ford repeatedly shouted at Mr. Tancredo while he was being restrained by other members. Mr. Tancredo said he replied he wasn't talking about Mr. Murtha and told Mr. Ford to go sit down.

Yeah, you read that right.

Harold Ford attempted to make an unprovoked sneak attack upon Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is not a question of whether the words wre appropriate -- this is the takes one back to the cowardly assault upon Republican Senator Charles Sumner by Democrat Congressman Preston Brooks. No doubt he sought to recreate a scene of Democrat glory like is pictured below -- the assault and attempted murder of an elected member of the legislative branch over a perceived insult in a speech.

It appears that Ford, therefore, while unwilling to stand up to the enemies of America, is more than prepared to adopt the methods of the Empire of Japan or al-Qaeda to subdue his unwarned and unwary opponents. Indeed, he has so long been immersed in the fetid fever swamp that is the Democrat Party that he would gladly ape the behavior the supporters of slavery visited upon the friends of freedom.

I urge the House to House of Representatives to take action against the tmember who most truly violated the decorum of the House of Representatives -- Harold Ford must be censured or expelled for his actions this evening.

UPDATE: Decided to do a bit of PhotoShop work on the period depiction of the assault on Sumner.

Also, additional commentary is found at Booker Rising and The Pesky Fly, Is It Just Me, and ReidBlog.

LINKED TO OPEN TRACKBACKS: Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Uncooperative Blogger, MacStansbury, Don Surber, Point Five, Bacon Bits, Cao's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Euphoric Reality, California Conservative, Florida Masochist, Wizbang, The Political Teen, Blue State Conservatives, bRight & Early, Conservative Cat, NIF, Adam's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Something & Half of Something, MVRWC.

Posted by: Greg at 05:41 PM | Comments (69) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 5 kb.

I guess I don't see how this can be anything other than a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution -- and of the relevant sections of the New York Constitution as well.

A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a Staten Island clergyman who claimed his civil rights were violated when two billboards he ordered denouncing homosexuality were ordered covered up.

It was the second time that the Rev. Kristopher Okwedy has had his case dismissed. After Judge Nina Gershon originally threw out the case in 2003, Okwedy went to a state Appeals Court which ordered the case revisited.

This week Gershon again dismissed the case.

Okwedy was attempting to sue former Borough President Guy V. Molinari and PNE Media of violating his First Amendment rights when Molinair ordered the removal of two billboards.

Okwedy had paid PNE $2,500 for two signs that quoted biblical passages condemning homosexuality.

Molinari said at the time that the billboards violated the city's human rights ordinance protecting gays from discrimination and that he feared the billboards would inspire anti-gay violence. PNE complied.

Judge Gershon ruled that Okwedy had failed to prove that the human rights law was unconstitutional as applied to him because it collided with his religious and free speech rights.

Hold on.

A government official, acting under color of law, ordered that the religiously based speech of an American citizen be suppressed on the basis of a local ordinance and vague, unsubstantiated fears of possible violence?

Have freedom of speech and freedom of religion been eviscerated in this country because of the hyper-sensitivity and political clout of the sodomy lobby?

And if so-called "human rights ordinances" require the suppression of those freedoms, is it not entirely appropriate to refer to such measures as conferring "special rights" upon homosexuals while conferring second class citizenship upon those who fail to accept the "gay is OK" mantra of the Left?

Oh, and for those who have always said that such measures are no threat to freedom of religion, and that quoting Scripture could never be deemed to be a violation of any law in this country, think again. This is the billboard in question.

The suppressed material was almost exclusively a quote from the Book of Leviticus -- sacred to both Christians and Jews. Have religious believers really been stripped of their civil liberties in America?

LINKED TO OPEN TRACKBACKS: Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Uncooperative Blogger, MacStansbury, Don Surber, Point Five, Bacon Bits, Cao's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Euphoric Reality, California Conservative, Florida Masochist, Wizbang, The Political Teen, Blue State Conservatives, bRight & Early, Conservative Cat, NIF, Adam's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Something & Half of Something, MVRWC.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 5 kb.

In a disgraceful move this evening, the House Democrats forced the withdrawal of remarks by Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), the least senior member of the body.

Her offense?

Quoting a constituent in her speech -- a Marine colonel.

The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"He asked me to send Congress a message _ stay the course. He also asked me to send U.S. Rep. Murtha a message _ that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said.

The Political Teen has video of the speech.

Ultimately, Schmidt was compelled to withdraw her remarks so that the obstructionist Democrats would allow The People's business to be conducted.

This is not atypical of the Democrats and their contempt for those who serve in uniform.

In 2000, they did their damnedest to make sure their voices were silenced by getting their votes thrown out in Florida.

Today they prevent the words of a Marine from being quoted on the House floor during a debate on the conduct of the war in Iraq.

The Democrat Party's message to our men and women in uniform remains loud and clear -- "Shut up! You and your opinions do not matter to us."

OTHER VOICES: Red State, DannyBoy, Lifelike Pundits, BizzyBlog, Just My Opinion, Face Made 4 Radio, The Baltimore Reporter, Two-Sheds Gomer, Aldaynet, Random Thoughts, Tributaries, Evil Conservative, Texas Native, New England Republican, Sister Toldjah, Political Pit Bull, Thespis, Brutally Honest, Jawa Report, and Vince Aut Morire, Is It Just Me.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | Comments (90) | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 4 kb.

I suppose Re. Jophn Murtha doesn't really care about the views of those actually serving in Iraq, but one of them had the integrity to stand up and say what he thinks of Murtha's proposed cut-and-run policy.

"Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders routinely give to Pentagon reporters.

Speaking from a U.S. logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Brown said: "We have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of this nation."

I'll take one of our serving soldiers over bloated and bloviating politician any day. Sit down, Congressman, and do not disgrace yourself or the Marine Corps any longer. Show a little faith in the men and women still serving, instead of presuming that they are no match for the Islamist swine who murder the innocent like cowards.

And Col. Brown, email me if you ever make it to Houston -- I want to buy you a drink. The email address is over on the sidebar.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

No doubt encouraged by the speeches of James Murtha, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and other “Surrender Now” Democrats, al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists today murdered nearly 100 Iraqis in attacks on a hotel where foreign journalists stay and two mosques.

Suicide bombers killed at least 90 worshipers Friday inside two Shiite Muslim mosques northeast of the capital near the Iranian border, and a pair of car bombs outside a Baghdad hotel that houses foreign journalists destroyed a nearby apartment building and left several more people dead.

In Khanaqin, a mixed Shiite and Kurdish town 80 miles northeast of Baghdad, attackers wearing suicide belts walked into the two mosques and lined up among worshipers gathered for Friday prayers, then detonated their explosives as the imams at both mosques delivered their sermons. In addition to the 90 dead at the mosques, at least 75 worshipers were injured, said Ibrahim Hassan Bajillan, head of the local governing council in Diyala province.

The explosions collapsed the roofs of the Sheikh Murad Mosque and the larger Khanaqin Grand Mosque. Residents rushed to the scenes to search the rubble for victims. But after darkness fell, searchers called off the hunt for bodies for the night. Police said the toll is likely to rise after the search for victims resumes Saturday.

Shiite mosques are a frequent target of attackers in Iraq. Earlier this month, at least 29 people were killed in an attack on a mosque in Musayyib, south of Baghdad. The insurgency in Iraq is led by Sunni Muslims, the most radical of whom regard Shiites as heretics and accuse them of collaborating with U.S. forces.
In the capital, suicide attackers exploded two vehicles loaded with bombs outside the Hamra Hotel early Friday, collapsing at least one neighboring apartment block and shearing off walls around sleeping families.

The back-to-back Baghdad blasts killed at least six and wounded more than 41, police said. At least two children were among the dead, police said. There were no immediate reports of foreign casualties.

These killers enter into houses of prayer and murder worshippers. They gladly murder non-combatants. We must stand side-by-side with the freedom-loving Iraqi people and defend them, not engage in another Democrat-led Vietnam-style abandonment of a nation to the forces of violence and oppression.

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.

What else can you call it when a Marine urges that the United States surrender to the rag-tag terrorists because he doubts the ability of the American military to defeat them?

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," [Congressman John] Murtha said in a Capitol news conference that left him in tears. Islamic insurgents "are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. ". . . It's time to bring them home."

How else can you interpret that except as a statement that US troops are no match for the forces of Islamist terror and a call to cut-and-run in shame? What else is this except a call to abandon the Iraqi people who we liberated from Saddam so that the forces of al-Zaqawi and bin Laden can take over and oppress them with their “back to the seventh century” creed?

In addition, it is clear that Murtha implicitly called for the destruction of civilian control of the military when his position was challenged by the elected representatives of the American people.

Murtha, asked about the comments, replied sarcastically: "I like guys who got five deferments and [have] never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done." Cheney did not serve in the military, and Bush was an Air National Guardsman who did not leave the United States during the Vietnam War.

Apparently Murtha has a problem with those elected by the American people running the military. He seems to say that only those who have seen combat should be permitted to speak or have opinions on military matters. In short, it appears that he is seeking a military dictatorship antithetical to the system established by our Founding Fathers. I doubt he actually believes this -- but since when has the mere fact that ones words or policies would undermine the US Constitution ever stopped a Democrat from doing what is politically expedient?

And I wonder – when did Murtha speak out against Clinton’s troop deployments? I would bet that the answer is “Never”.

Could it be that Murtha is something significantly less than a patriot speaking his conscience? Might it be that he is simply a partisan whore and a disgrace to the Corps?

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.

Just what Marylanders need during this time of increasing energy costs – higher prices and shorter supply.

Under the clean-air plan, three power plants in Montgomery County and Southern Maryland owned by Mirant Corp. and three in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties owned by Constellation Energy Group will have to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury. The companies no longer will be permitted to purchase credits that enable them to bypass those standards.

Ehrlich said the new regulations come "with a serious price tag" for the two companies, estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Constellation released a statement yesterday saying that could mean higher electric bills for Maryland customers. A spokesman for Atlanta-based Mirant said officials there were studying the proposal.

Interestingly enough, none of the environmentalists quoted seem interested in making it possible for new power plants to be built. The result of this will be shortages in supply as the plants are forced to cut back on production, and higher costs as the companies must expend money to make the plants meet the standards and/or buy on the spot-market.

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

In the run-up to the visit of President Bush, the Red Chinese have arrested and imprisoned more of those who minister to GodÂ’s people.

Chinese authorities have arrested a priest and 10 seminarians from that nation's underground Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican-affiliated news agency said Friday.

President Bush, who is due to visit China as part of an eight-day trip to Asia, called on China's leadership this week to give the public more religious freedom and other liberties.

The Rev. Yang Jianwei and the seminarians were detained Nov. 12 in Xushui City in Hebei province, a traditional stronghold of Catholic sentiment in northern China, AsiaNews reported.

Six of the seminarians were released later, but Yang and the four others remain in police custody, it said.

Calls to local police seeking confirmation of the report went unanswered late Friday.

What will it take to get the world to speak out against the continued violation of human rights by the atheistic Communist regime in Beijing?

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

I think that one of their own, on the receiving end of this intolerance, puts it best.

Service is an everyday thing; it means that an individual regularly sacrifices for the good of the whole. Sometimes that sacrifice is trivial (maybe I would like to wear bigger pearl earrings with those Class As, but I don't) and sometimes it is serious, such as complying with the regulations that govern political activity among Army Officers. In both situations, soldiers forgo a privilege in the name of a bigger purpose--serving their fellow citizens.

I never ask that my fellow liberals agree with me, just that they respect my sense of obligation and professional duty. But at Harvard, that's a tough sell. Here, the emphasis is on the individual--the "me", the "I," and the "mine." It is difficult to explain a group obligation to people who idolize the first person singular.

But the most difficult part of the recruiting period has been learning the limits of liberal tolerance. It has been uncomfortable to see that the lessons I learned from the traditional liberal platform appear not to apply to me.

I salute you, First Lieutenant Kate Thornton Buzick. May God bless you for your service to this country

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Proving that the Islamist terrorists have no real commitment to Islam and no respect for Muhammad.

An audiotape purportedly from the head of al-Qaida in Iraq said Friday the group's suicide bombers did not intend to bomb a Jordanian wedding party at an Amman hotel last week, killing about 30 people. The speaker on the tape, identified as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also threatened to kill Jordan's King Abdullah II and bomb more hotels and tourist sites.

"Your star is fading. You will not escape your fate, you descendant of traitors. We will be able to reach your head and chop it off," al- Zarqawi said, referring to the king.

It would appear that al-Zarqawi places himself above the very family of his Prophet in determining what is the true practice of Islam, and is prepared to lay hands on those of his blood to further the perverse Islamist faith of the terrorists.

And, of course, al-Zarqawi is willing to lie for his cause.

Al-Zarqawi accused the Jordanian government of hiding casualties among Israeli and American intelligence agents, and he insisted al-Qaida in Iraq was not targeting fellow Muslims.

"We want to assure you that ... you are more beloved to us than ourselves," al-Zarqawi said, addressing Jordanians.

At least 59 people were killed in the near simultaneous bombings at three Amman hotels _ around 30 of them in the wedding party taking place at the Radisson. Witnesses told Jordanian security officials that the Radisson bomber talked his way into the wedding hall, watched it for a while, then jumped on a table in the hall to detonate his explosives.

So al-Zarqawi questions the word of the Muslim survivors of the attack, those who witnessed the attack and made statements at the time about the circumstances of the attack. He is not only a murderer of his fellow Muslims, but he is a murderer of the truth. And add to that his statement of intent to murder a descendant of Muhammad, and I fail to see how any true believer in Islam can follow such an obvious apostate

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

My mom is probably related to half of Rhode Island – not a big feat, given the relative size of that state. Her hometown is Cranston, Rhode Island, and much of the family still lives up that way. As a result, I’ve long taken an interest in Rhode Island’s politics, and the lamentable records of the Chafee family as Republican senators.

As a result, I gladly join Captain Ed in endorsing Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey for the GOP nomination for Senate in 2006.

I make this endorsement despite the fact that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is actively opposing Laffey in favor of Chafee.

I make this endorsement because of the fact that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is actively opposing Laffey in favor of Chafee.

Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said it is "ridiculous" that Laffey is running against "the only Republican that can keep the seat in the Senate." The committee is financing the ads and urging Laffey to abandon the race.

In recent years, Laffey endeared himself to the GOP by challenging the state's unions and other public officials; Republicans once courted him for lieutenant governor. Now, he is ignoring their entreaties to step aside.

"This is the story of my life," said Laffey, a 43-year-old former investment banker. "People tell me I shouldn't do things, and I end up doing them. Seems like I do them for spite sometimes."

The son of a toolmaker, Laffey frequently boasts about attending Harvard Business School despite being told he would not get in straight out of college. He scoffs at the Republican argument about the Senate race.

"The national Republican Party has sort of lost its way," he said. "Think about it: The first $200,000 they're spending is against a fellow Republican."

Yeah, that’s right. They are not going after the Democrats. They are not going against Chafee, whose tendency is to oppose the President and the rest of the GOP at every turn. They are spending this cash – raised from conservative sources – to attack the Reagan Republican in the race!

So if you can, send a few bucks LaffeyÂ’s way.

And remember – Not One Dime to the national campaign organizations.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

We see once more why treating the Islamists as civilized people will not work – they are not human beings, but are rather rabid swine.

NARATHIWAT, Thailand: Nine villagers from the same family were gunned down in their sleep yesterday by suspected Islamic militants in southern Thailand, as attacks escalated in the Muslim-majority region.

An unknown number of militants used grenades and automatic weapons to attack three homes in Ra Ngae district's Bo-Ngo village at 1.30am, killing all of those in one of the houses, including an infant, witnesses said. The massacre brings to 18 the number of people killed during the past week.

"There are nine villagers shot dead and another nine wounded," said Pracha Tearat, governor of Narathiwat province where the attack occurred, adding that the wounded had been taken to hospital and were out of danger.

Mr Pracha said the victims were targeted because they co-operated with the Government in its bid to quell an Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand that has been raging for more than 22 months.

"It's the really brutal work of militants. They kill everyone if they learn that those people take sides with the Government," he said.

Such murderous creatures need to be declared outside the protections afforded to mere criminals. These terrorists are the enemy of all humanity, and must be stopped by any means necessary, without regard for humanitarian considerations.

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

I wrote about the Lucas Dawson case not long ago.

Fortunately, there is a happy ending to the story for Dawson and his family. Lucas was cleared of the charge of voluntary manslaughter by the judge.

Sadly, there is also bad news for Dawson and his family. Lucas has had to leave his home to move to a safer neighborhood because of threats against his life from the rabid beasts in human form who engaged in an unprovoked attack upon him because of his sexuality. Those criminals remain at large, and face no charges for their actions.

Lucas Dawson began carrying a knife after being attacked while kissing his male lover in a South Philadelphia Park four years ago.

Now, after a second assault by gay bashers - one of whom he killed in self-defense - Dawson's thinking about getting a gun.

The 21-year-old was cleared yesterday of charges in the fatal stabbing of a 17-year-old boy who was among a group that attacked him near his East Mount Airy home on Oct. 29.

There was great relief at the Dawson home yesterday after the decision by a Municipal Court judge, but now the concern is his safety.

Last night, Dawson packed to leave home for fear of retaliation.

"I mean, seven guys jumped me, and one guy died," he said. "There's still six other people that want to hurt me.

"I fear for my safety, and that's why I'm moving away," he added. "I won't carry a knife on me anymore, but I am considering getting a gun permit."

David Diggs, the boyfriend of Lucas' mother, Lisa, said Lucas was not safe in the neighborhood any longer.

Now I find this situation rather shocking. Why hasn’t Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham seen to it that the perpetrators of this real anti-gay hate crime are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that their victim is allowed to live with dignity in his home. After all, this is the same Lynne Abraham who was willing to prosecute Christian demonstrators for nothing more than exercising their First Amendment right on a city street when it offended the radical homosexuals. Let’s contact her and ask why she won’t deal with violent felons who attempt to physically harm homosexuals with the same level of tenacity she shows towards Christians who merely speak a message homosexuals do not want to hear.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

I wrote about the Lucas Dawson case not long ago.

Fortunately, there is a happy ending to the story for Dawson and his family. Lucas was cleared of the charge of voluntary manslaughter by the judge.

Sadly, there is also bad news for Dawson and his family. Lucas has had to leave his home to move to a safer neighborhood because of threats against his life from the rabid beasts in human form who engaged in an unprovoked attack upon him because of his sexuality. Those criminals remain at large, and face no charges for their actions.

Lucas Dawson began carrying a knife after being attacked while kissing his male lover in a South Philadelphia Park four years ago.

Now, after a second assault by gay bashers - one of whom he killed in self-defense - Dawson's thinking about getting a gun.

The 21-year-old was cleared yesterday of charges in the fatal stabbing of a 17-year-old boy who was among a group that attacked him near his East Mount Airy home on Oct. 29.

There was great relief at the Dawson home yesterday after the decision by a Municipal Court judge, but now the concern is his safety.

Last night, Dawson packed to leave home for fear of retaliation.

"I mean, seven guys jumped me, and one guy died," he said. "There's still six other people that want to hurt me.

"I fear for my safety, and that's why I'm moving away," he added. "I won't carry a knife on me anymore, but I am considering getting a gun permit."

David Diggs, the boyfriend of Lucas' mother, Lisa, said Lucas was not safe in the neighborhood any longer.

Now I find this situation rather shocking. Why hasnÂ’t Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham seen to it that the perpetrators of this real anti-gay hate crime are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that their victim is allowed to live with dignity in his home. After all, this is the same Lynne Abraham who was willing to prosecute Christian demonstrators for nothing more than exercising their First Amendment right on a city street when it offended the radical homosexuals. A_WEBMAIL@phila.gov">LetÂ’s contact her and ask why she wonÂ’t deal with violent felons who attempt to physically harm homosexuals with the same level of tenacity she shows towards Christians who merely speak a message homosexuals do not want to hear.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

Just look at the absurdity of this letter, spawned by a recent Houston Chronicle editorial condemning ¾ of Texans for disagreeing with the editorial board.

Common-law status

Kudos to the Chronicle for reminding readers of the shameful discrimination against fellow citizens through Proposition 2.

I missed the discussion about the consequences of Prop 2 on any legal status similar or identical to marriage, such as "common-law marriage." As far as I can see, Proposition 2 is in direct conflict with the state of Texas' recognition of common-law marriages.

I can't believe it is legal to annul this age-old practice on these unions between men and women; I don't believe that was the intention of those drafting and approving Prop 2.

JENS HOUKEN
Houston

Uh, Jens – many states do not recognize common-law marriage at all, so it is clearly legal (and constitutional) for a state to not recognize common-law marriage.

But more to the point, the amendment just passed by the voters of Texas defines marriage as being between one man and one woman – but does not stipulate a form by which marriage occurs. Common-law marriage, therefore, is still legal in Texas, and was never under any threat from Proposition 2.

Except in the rhetoric of dishonest advocates of homosexual marriage, out to frighten voters into rejecting a reasonable amendment to the Texas Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Consider this call to arms for all those liberals out there -- STOP REPRODUCING!.

"We can't be breeding right now," says Les Knight. "It's obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can't be justified today."

Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, an informal network of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth. Knight, whose convictions led him to get a vasectomy in the 1970s, when he was 25, believes that the human race is inherently dangerous to the planet and inevitably creates an unsustainable situation.

"As long as there's one breeding couple," he says cheerfully, "we're in danger of being right back here again. Wherever humans live, not much else lives. It isn't that we're evil and want to kill everything -- it's just how we live."

Let’s get Mr. Knight sterilized right now – there is no time to lose, because every second he remains attached to his testicles provides the opportunity for him to reproduce. Ditto the rest of the pro-extinction movement.

And let’s encourage them to go one step further – the Voluntary Liberal Extermination Movement should urge like-minded opponents of the human blight upon the world to engage in mass suicide. After all, why put off until tomorrow (extinction will take a while) what can and should be done today.

After all, if they really love the planet more than they love the human raceÂ…

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Remaining faithful to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to the writings of Pope John Paul the Great, American bishops have taken a stand against the use of the death penalty.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops yesterday overwhelmingly approved a new statement of opposition to capital punishment, asserting that it contributes to a culture of death and violence in the United States.

It was the bishops' first comprehensive statement on the death penalty in 25 years, and coincided with the debate in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on a proposal to reinstate capital punishment in the Bay State. Massachusetts is one of 12 states in which the death penalty is prohibited.
The bishops, who are holding their annual meeting in Washington, said their longtime opposition to capital punishment is being renewed and strengthened by new teachings and new support for abolition of the death penalty growing out of the Gospel of Life encyclical issued by the late Pope John Paul II.

Citing John Paul's teachings, the bishops declared that ''the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, as is the taking of human life through abortion or euthanasia," but ''in contemporary society, where the state has other, nonlethal means to protect its citizens, the state should not use the death penalty."

Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who has strongly opposed the restoration of capital punishment in Massachusetts since Governor Mitt Romney proposed reinstating it last year, said in an interview that a ''sea change" is occurring among Catholics, who in the past have shown strong support for the death penalty.

''I think the abortion issue raised this up," O'Malley said. ''As people began realizing that the dignity of human life was being diminished by abortion, it caused them to consider other ways in which the dignity of human life was being diminished."

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of the Diocese of Brooklyn, who led the effort to formulate the new bishops' statement on the death penalty, told the assembly in Washington that the statement ''is a call to reject the tragic illusion that we can demonstrate respect for life by taking life, that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill others."

He and other bishops argued that polling results, recent declines in executions, and parallel decreases in death sentences are evidence that public and political sentiments are turning against capital punishment. He said the exoneration of more than 100 people who have been proven innocent after being condemned to die was bringing home to the public the flawed and biased nature of capital punishment.

The bishops drew a strong distinction between the church's stance on capital punishment and its absolute opposition to abortion and euthanasia, stating that the death penalty was an issue on which ''people of good will can disagree."

Now notice what is being said here – support for the death penalty is consistent with Catholic teaching. There is room for disagreement by those who remain in union with Rome, for the death penalty for the guilty is recognized as being permissible though discouraged. This stands in opposition to the teaching on abortion, as the intentional taking of innocent life is never permissible. Bear that in mind when pro-abortionists insist that support for abortion and support for the death penalty are equally in opposition to Catholic teaching – for they are explicitly lying when they make that statement.

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 571 words, total size 4 kb.

Remaining faithful to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to the writings of Pope John Paul the Great, American bishops have taken a stand against the use of the death penalty.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops yesterday overwhelmingly approved a new statement of opposition to capital punishment, asserting that it contributes to a culture of death and violence in the United States.

It was the bishops' first comprehensive statement on the death penalty in 25 years, and coincided with the debate in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on a proposal to reinstate capital punishment in the Bay State. Massachusetts is one of 12 states in which the death penalty is prohibited.
The bishops, who are holding their annual meeting in Washington, said their longtime opposition to capital punishment is being renewed and strengthened by new teachings and new support for abolition of the death penalty growing out of the Gospel of Life encyclical issued by the late Pope John Paul II.

Citing John Paul's teachings, the bishops declared that ''the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, as is the taking of human life through abortion or euthanasia," but ''in contemporary society, where the state has other, nonlethal means to protect its citizens, the state should not use the death penalty."

Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who has strongly opposed the restoration of capital punishment in Massachusetts since Governor Mitt Romney proposed reinstating it last year, said in an interview that a ''sea change" is occurring among Catholics, who in the past have shown strong support for the death penalty.

''I think the abortion issue raised this up," O'Malley said. ''As people began realizing that the dignity of human life was being diminished by abortion, it caused them to consider other ways in which the dignity of human life was being diminished."

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of the Diocese of Brooklyn, who led the effort to formulate the new bishops' statement on the death penalty, told the assembly in Washington that the statement ''is a call to reject the tragic illusion that we can demonstrate respect for life by taking life, that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill others."

He and other bishops argued that polling results, recent declines in executions, and parallel decreases in death sentences are evidence that public and political sentiments are turning against capital punishment. He said the exoneration of more than 100 people who have been proven innocent after being condemned to die was bringing home to the public the flawed and biased nature of capital punishment.

The bishops drew a strong distinction between the church's stance on capital punishment and its absolute opposition to abortion and euthanasia, stating that the death penalty was an issue on which ''people of good will can disagree."

Now notice what is being said here – support for the death penalty is consistent with Catholic teaching. There is room for disagreement by those who remain in union with Rome, for the death penalty for the guilty is recognized as being permissible though discouraged. This stands in opposition to the teaching on abortion, as the intentional taking of innocent life is never permissible. Bear that in mind when pro-abortionists insist that support for abortion and support for the death penalty are equally in opposition to Catholic teaching – for they are explicitly lying when they make that statement.

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 4 kb.

On the other hand, it seems clear that both the US and the Iraqi authorities are determined to stop such abuses, which appear to be perpetrated by elements of one political party.

U.S. and Iraqi forces raided a secret Iraqi detention bunker run by the Ministry of Interior in central Baghdad and freed 173 Sunni prisoners who had been tortured with electric shocks and drills, Iraqi and U.S. officials said yesterday.
The Ministry of Interior in the Shi'ite-led government has been repeatedly accused of allowing extrajudicial detentions and abuses, including operation of anti-Sunni hit squads.

A Baghdad police official said officers from the Shi'ite-led Badr Brigade, which answers to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) political party, were manning the bunker when the U.S. and Iraqi forces arrived.

"The army searched the bunker and found many prisoners there," said the police official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They found prisoners who had been treated inhumanely, tortured with warm water, electricity and drills in their bodies."

He said all the detainees were Sunnis, and police braced for an outburst of anger when news of the discovery is widely circulated today.

Since they have seen fit to act like Saddamites, I hope the Iraqi courts treat the perpetrators like Saddamites.

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

I rarely agree with the ACLU on cases involving religion, but I have to support them on this one.

A retired Atlanta librarian and a Sandy Springs bookshop owner are challenging a state law that grants a sales tax exemption for purchases of the Bible and other books pertaining to "Holy Scripture."

Their lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, said if such works are exempt from sales and use taxes, other philosophical, religious and spiritual works should be as well.

"The law is written in such a way that minority religions don't get the same tax exemption as better-known religions such as Christianity and Judaism," said Maggie Garrett, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, which represents the two plaintiffs.

State law exempts from sales tax all "Holy Bibles, testaments and similar books commonly recognized as being Holy Scripture." The decades-old law also exempts "any religious paper ... when the paper is owned and operated by religious institutions and denominations," but it does not define religious paper.

Frankly, the argument is a reasonable one – though I might be willing to take it a bit further and raise the issue of why books and periodicals are taxed at all, given that the tax can be seen as inhibiting the communication of ideas and favoring religious speech over non-religious speech.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

I was somewhat concerned as I clicked on the link to Mark GreenÂ’s column on Tom DeLay. I had never read him before, and I was anticipating a sharp attack on my congressman.

I was wrong.

Instead I was treated to a defense of DeLay, and DeLayÂ’s own defense of the three rebukes he received from the Ehics Committee for non-violations of the Senateethics rules.

In an interview last month, I asked the former House majority leader to defend the three things that led the House ethics committee to wag its finger at him without finding any outright violation. His answer was a civics lesson in the form of a whiff of modern political coffee.

First, the golf fundraiser with executives of an energy company. The DeLay lesson: No one should be shocked that people with a lot of money will get to hang out with politicians. Ethical issues arise only if money or proximity sparks a dishonest change of position.

Second, the famed attempt to get the FAA to help snag the wayward Texas lawmakers who had bolted the state rather than face a losing vote on redistricting. The DeLay lesson: He sought to learn the whereabouts of these runaways so that the will of the people could be realized through a vote. And the problem with that is precisely what?

Third, the promise he offered to a retiring House colleague to support his son in a primary in return for a vote for the Bush Medicare plan. The DeLay lesson: "Happens all the time – I've traded all kinds of things to get things I wanted from other members of Congress. It's how things get done."

I cannot help but note that two of the defenses are concepts I teach in my government class. Legislators make deals all the time to get support for measures they want passed, even to the point of supporting legislation they dislike. People with money want to be people with influence so they seek to socialize with people of power – it is not a surprise and is not a problem until and unless there is a quid pro quo. And as for the FAA issue, the abandonment of one’s responsibilities as a legislator in order to prevent the will of the people being done is much more unethical than trying to locate those who are on the lam.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 2 kb.

Congressman Tom DeLay wants an early trial if the charges against him are not dismissed at a November 22 hearing.

An attorney for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said Monday that he will request an early December trial date for the former House majority leader, if the case gets that far.

Lawyer Dick DeGuerin said in a letter that "time is of the essence" in the case that has forced DeLay to temporarily step down from his House post.

Judge Pat Priest has set a hearing for next Tuesday to consider requests to drop the charges against DeLay and his co-defendants. Defense attorneys have asked that the charges be dropped for various reasons, including alleged misconduct by a prosecutor.

"Should the indictments survive the hearings of November 22, we will request a trial date in early December," DeGuerin wrote in his letter to Priest.

DeGuerin is also asking that Priest, a visiting judge, move the trial out of liberal-leaning Travis County to DeLay's home county of Fort Bend.

This whole trial could be over quickly if DeLay is given his constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.

The one thing that could throw up a roadblock is his desire to move the trial from Travis County – a county so left-of-center that it was the only county in Texas that rejected Proposition 2, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. I sincerely doubt that DeLay could get an unbiased jury of his peers in that county – but I don’t know that moving it to Fort Bend County, the heart of his power base, will fly. I would suggest Wharton County, or Matagorda County, each of which is outside the 22nd Congressional District but and “neutral ground” for the two parties to the case.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ve been troubled by the decision of Dallas County prosecutors to seek an indictment against Juan Robles, the driver of that bus that burst into flames during the Hurricane Rita evacuation. As tragic as the deaths on that bus were, to me they did not add up to criminal conduct by the driver.

It seems like a grand jury agrees.

A grand jury declined to indict the driver of the charter bus that burst into flames and killed 23 Bellaire nursing home residents as they fled Hurricane Rita, Dallas County prosecutors said Monday.

The Dallas County Sheriff's Department had referred 23 counts of negligent homicide against Juan Robles Gutierrez, one for each death, to the district attorney, who presented them to the grand jury.

"I was always convinced that a grand jury or jury would vindicate my client of any responsibility in this," said Robles' attorney, George Shaffer. "My client is not a crook. He isn't a criminal. He didn't cause these people to die."

Shaffer said he expected Robles to be released from federal custody in Houston as early as today if federal immigration authorities set bail. He has posted a separate $50,000 bond in connection with his role as a witness in a federal probe into the fatal explosion and fire.

At Robles' home in Monterrey, Mexico, the 37-year-old bus driver's three older brothers said they were happy, but not surprised, that their brother was not charged with wrongdoing.

"It is very good news. We will sleep peacefully tonight," said Carlos Robles, 44, the eldest. "We are very happy, and we always had faith in the United States (legal system) and that things would turn out all right."

IÂ’m hoping that prosecutors go after those who failed to maintain the bus and who let it operate in this unsafe condition. That was not Robles.

Unfortunately, Robles is going to be released from federal detention. You may wonder why I say “unfortunately”.

Robles has been detained for unlawfully entering the United States in January, one month before he went to work for Pharr-based Global Limo.

If Robles is to be released, he ought to be released on the south-side of the US/Mexico border, with clear instructions not to return without legal paperwork.

Posted by: Greg at 02:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

After being driven off ABC Radio affiliate WMAL-AM in Washington, DC by the terrorist supporters from CAIR, Michael Graham has found a new home on the air in Boston.

Michael Graham was fired in August by WMAL-AM because he refused to apologize for saying "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam," on-air following the London subway bombings.

"I stand by it," Graham, 42, told the Boston Herald on Monday.

The former standup comedian and GOP political consultant officially took over Monday as WTKK-FM's afternoon drive host after a two-week tryout, replacing Jay Severin.

"I think he's a very bright guy," said Peter Smyth, chief executive of Greater Media, which owns WTKK. He said audience response to Graham had so far been "incredibly positive."

Why wouldnÂ’t he be popular? After all, he is speaking the truth as he sees it, and his point of view is not unreasonable.

CAIR, angry that their attempt to censor one and intimidate many has failed, is already planning their next move.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said they're disappointed with the decision and will monitor his new show for similar comments.

"When you describe one-fifth of the world's population to be a member of a terrorist organization, that amounts to bigotry," said Ibrahim Hooper, a group spokesman.

Sorry, Ibrahim, gotta disagree with you. When most of that one-fifth says next to nothing when their co-religionists murder Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and others in the name of the religion of that one-fifth of the world’s population, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the one-fifth is part of a terrorist organization – or at least providing aid, comfort, and support to the terrorists.

Congratulations, Michael.

Posted by: Greg at 02:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.