An Honor For The Pope

This is just a neat story -- one about an appropriate honor for one of the most beloved men of my lifetime.

The Italian region of Abruzzo said on Wednesday it will name a mountain peak after Pope John Paul II on the pontiff's 85th birthday in May.

The 2 424m peak in the Gran Sasso, a region of jagged mountains in central Italy often visited by the pope, will be named "John Paul's Peak" on May 18th, the committee organising the ceremony said.

"We decided on the Gran Sasso because the pope visited it many times, in order to get some rest as well as to pray," said Monsignor Luigi Casolini, a member of the committee.

"John Paul II chose these mountains not only because they reminded him of Poland," but also because a nearby church often visited by the pope in his stronger days - Saint Peter of the Ienca - "is a place where spirituality is in the air", said Casolini.

"This place always had a special place in the pope's heart. He likes to walk on the paths surrounding the mountains, and therefore a path will also be named in his honour," he added.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

This Is Scary!

I pity the children who have been in this manÂ’s classroom.

A Bronx teacher who repeatedly flunked his state certification exam paid a formerly homeless man with a developmental disorder $2 to take the test for him, authorities said yesterday.

The illegal stand-in - who looks nothing like teacher Wayne Brightly - not only passed the high-stakes test, he scored so much better than the teacher had previously that the state knew something was wrong, officials said.

"I was pressured into it. He threatened me," the bogus test-taker Rubin Leitner told the Daily News yesterday after Special Schools Investigator Richard Condon revealed the scam.

"I gave him my all," said Leitner, 58, who suffers from Asperger's syndrome, a disorder similar to autism. "He gave me what he thought I was worth."

Brightly, 38, a teacher at one of the city's worst schools, Middle School 142, allegedly concocted the plot to swap identities with Leitner last summer. If he failed the state exam again, Brightly risked losing his $59,000-a-year job.

LetÂ’s see if you can tell the difference between the two men.

HereÂ’s Bright. HeÂ’s the teacher.



HereÂ’s Leitner. HeÂ’s the ex-homeless guy with a developmental disability.



Uh – yeah, they could be twins. Just add two decades, 100 pounds and a truck-load of skin-bleaching cream. I guess Bright really is stupid.

And if that didnÂ’t get you to draw the conclusion, try this part of the article out for size.

When The News went to Brightly's Mount Vernon home yesterday, a man who strongly resembled him insisted Leitner took the test on his own. The man, who appeared to be in his late 30s, denied being Brightly - saying he was the teacher's son.

Yep, he sounds like a real winner to me.

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

Angry At The Presidents -- Bush and Fox

Quit sucking up to Pendejo Presidente Vincete Fox, Mr. Bush. You are close to losing the respect of this Texas Republican.

President Bush yesterday said he opposes a civilian project to monitor illegal aliens crossing the border, characterizing them as "vigilantes."

He said he would pressure Congress to further loosen immigration law.
More than 1,000 people — including 30 pilots and their private planes — have volunteered for the Minuteman Project, beginning next month along the Arizona-Mexico border. Civilians will monitor the movement of illegal aliens for the month of April and report them to the Border Patrol.

Mr. Bush said after yesterday's continental summit, with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin at Baylor University, that he finds such actions unacceptable.

"I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America," Mr. Bush said at a joint press conference. "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way."

The Minutemen are not vigilantes, they are much more closely akin to the neighborhood watch groups around the country. How dare you suggest otherwise! They are doing nothing more than looking for lawbreakers and reporting them to the Border Patrol. If that does make them vigilantes, we need more just like them.

And just who does the Mexican Pendejo Presidente think he is trying to kid with his threats against Americans? Does his country protect “migrants” who cross its borders in violation of Mexican law?

The State Department says that the Mexican government, angry that a thousand American volunteers will begin an Arizona border vigil next month, consistently violates the rights of illegal immigrants crossing its southern border into Mexico.

Many of the illegals in Mexico, who emigrate from Central and South America, complain of "double dangers" of extortion by Mexican authorities and robbery and killings by organized gangs.

The State Department's Human Rights Practices report, released only last month, cites abuses at all levels of the Mexican government, and charges that Mexican police and immigration officials not only violate the rights of illegal immigrants, but traffic in illegal aliens.

Although Mexico demands that its citizens' rights be protected when they illegally enter the United States, immigrants who cross illegally into Mexico "are often ripped off six ways until sundown," says George Grayson, a professor at the College of William & Mary and a fellow at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

Mr. Grayson, who wrote a report for the center on Mexico's abuses of aliens, says "very little" is being done by Mexico to protect the welfare of the Central Americans and the others who cross into Mexico.

So, cabron Presidente Fox, whatÂ’s the deal here? Americans insist that their border be protected and seek to assist the proper authorities, and you make threats. Folks cross the Mexican border illegally and you stand by passively as they face extortion and violence at the hands of both Mexican criminals and Mexican law enforcement personnel. Yet you demand that your citizens have the red carpet rolled out for them, with more rights and better treatment than American citizens. Why donÂ’t you deal with the problems in your own backyard before dealing with the solutions to the problems in ours, hijo de puta Your Excellency? Until you do, this American would prefer that you and the rest of your chihuahuas chingadas government officials quit interfering in our internal affairs.

And President Bush – drop the immigration plan designed to appeal more to the Mexicans than it is to the Americans until after Vincete Fox has fixed Mexico’s problems with illegal immigrants.

UPDATE: The Washington Times went after President Bush's mischaracterization of the Minutemen as "vigilantes" prior to the visit of Mexican hijo de puta President Vincente Fox.

'Vigilantes'

We've reached a very strange moment in the immigration debate. On Wednesday President Bush condemned a group of good American citizens worried about the breaking of U.S. immigration law. He condemned the organizers of Project Minuteman as "vigilantes" even though they have broken no law and pledge not to do so. An hour or two later, Mr. Bush welcomed to his Texas ranch a man who insults the United States for its immigration policy and leads a government that routinely flouts U.S. immigration law.

Mexican President Vicente Fox hit a trifecta of contempt for the United States and its laws over the past week. First, he accused Americans of taking no pride in their country because the government is building fences in San Diego to keep out those who try to enter the country in defiance of the law. Next, he scoffed at the concern of U.S. authorities that terrorists may be crossing the U.S. border. Then, he vowed to stamp out the work of Project Minuteman and other efforts by Americans to protect their country. When Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona told Mr. Fox to show "a little less disdain for the rule of law north of the border," he was being only too polite. Nevertheless, Mr. Bush welcomed Mr. Fox to his home.

It's worth reviewing how we got here. First, the Bush administration has failed to do all it could do, and should do, to curtail illegal immigration. The most recent analysis, out this week from the Pew Hispanic Center, suggests that 10.3 million undocumented aliens live in the United States, up 23 percent from the estimated 8.4 million who were here only four years ago. Most are Mexicans. This has happened in large part because Mr. Bush seems not to be concerned about the growing tide of illegal immigration. He declined to provide in his 2006 budget for hiring the 2,000 additional border agents he promised in the intelligence bill he signed in December. Mr. Bush wants to hire only 210.

Meanwhile, the Mexican government has engaged in an unprecedented campaign to encourage the breaking of U.S. law. As we pointed out in January, the Mexican government publishes and distributes pamphlets instructing would-be illegals on how to evade detection at the border, and how to lie low once they're here. All the while, Mr. Fox continues a high-decibel campaign of rhetorical contempt for U.S. law.

Amid this chaos, states, local governments and citizen groups have responded. In Arizona, whose illegal population has grown fastest, a citizen initiative called Proposition 200 passed with a solid majority in November to place curbs on the distribution of public benefits to illegals. Many Hispanic citizens voted for it. Now, Project Minuteman -- a border-monitoring effort slated to begin April 1 -- has swollen to more than a thousand volunteers with 30 private planes to monitor activity on the border 24 hours a day, reporting what they find to the Border Patrol.

Mr. Bush's description of the Minutemen as vigilantes is a misreading of American history. The vigilantes were a lynch mob. The Minutemen are an expanded version of the Neighborhood Watch programs popular in many American cities. It's sad to see an American president roll out a royal welcome to a foreign dignitary so openly contemptuous of U.S. law, while simultaneously condemning Americans who are trying to help duly constituted authorities enforce the law.

Exactly right -- quit pandering to the Mexicans, Mr. President, and start doing the job demanded by the American people -- stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1229 words, total size 8 kb.

Refinery Explosion

The BP refinery in Texas City, Texas, suffered a serious explosion today. Fourteen are known dead, and at least 100 were treated at area hospitals. Crewa are still searching for other victims at the site, and some plant workers remain unaccounted for.



The refinery, which accounts for about 3% of the nation's gasoline supply, is about 15 miles from my home, and I could make the straight shot down 146 to the site of the explosion in 20-30 minutes, depending on whether or not I made all the lights.



Please offer prayers for the injured and dead, for the missing, for the families, and for all the workers and community members touched by this tragedy.

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Four Plead Guilty To Democrat Vote Fraud In East St. Louis

I've worked elections in St. Clair County. As a graduate student I worked closely with both Gaffner for Congress campaigns in 1988 (special election and general election). We were up on Jerry Costello both times until the East St. Louis vote came in. It was taken for granted that the city vote was not clean.

Some things never change -- except now they are getting caught and prosecuted.

Leroy Scott Jr., 46; Lillie Nichols, 51; Terrance R. Stitch, 43; and his wife, Sandra Stith, 54; pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count each of vote-buying before U.S. District Judge David Herndon on Tuesday morning.

The East St. Louis Democratic Committee held organizational meetings on Oct. 13, 20 and 27, headed by Committee Chairman Charlie Powell and discussed strategy for maximizing the Democratic vote for president, Illinois Supreme Court justice and the St. Clair County Board chairman in the Nov. 2 election, according to the charges.

"During these organizational meeting, the need to pay voters for voting the 'Democratic ticket' during the Nov. 2 general election, and the amount which said voters should be paid, was discussed by Charles Powell and other precinct committeemen," the charges stated.

Powell denied Tuesday he ordered anyone to buy votes, but only to get voters to the polls on Election Day. He also acknowledged there was a chance he could face an indictment.

"Everything is possible," Powell said. "I don't have any judgment on it whatsoever."

Robert Sprague, who heads the St. Clair County Central Democratic Committee, could not be reached for comment.

Two days before the election, the charges allege Scott, Precinct 38 committeeman, received $1,200; Nichols, Precinct 29 committeeman, received $1,500; and Terrance Stith, Precinct 23 committeeman, received $2,000 from the St. Clair County Democratic Committee.

Sandra Stith worked the polls for her friend, Edna Mayes, Precinct 11th committeeman, and received $500, the charges stated.

The Stiths, Nichols and Scott admitted Tuesday that they paid voters between $5 and $10 for favorably casts ballots during the Nov. 2 election.

Here's hoping that this will encourage an honest vote and an honest count in one of the most dishonest election venues in the country.

UPDATE: Looks like there is even more.

The head of the East St. Louis Central Democratic Committee and others bought votes in a 2004 election that included hotly contested races for Illinois Supreme Court justice and St. Clair County Board chairman, according to federal indictments made public Wednesday.

Besides committee Chairman Charles Powell, the accused include Kelvin Ellis, director of regulatory affairs for the city, who was named in an earlier indictment that among other things accused him of trying to arrange the murder of a witness against him in a vote fraud investigation.

U.S. Attorney Ron Tenpas said some of the money used to sway the vote came from the St. Clair County Democratic Party, but he stressed that the indictments didn't indicate that county Democrats were aware the money was used for vote buying.

Wrong thing to say, Ron. The East St. Louis Democrat Party apparatus is almost exclusively black, while the St. Clair County Democrat party is mostly white. You are certainly going to have people start shouting "racism" over the failure to indict folks from the county Democrats, since you've implicitly cleared the white folks while indicting the black folks.

The indicted Democrats are:

The five charged in the indictment with conspiracy to commit election fraud are committeemen [Charles] Powell, 61; Jesse Lewis, 56; Sheila Thomas, 31; Kelvin Ellis, 55; and precinct worker Yvette Johnson, 46. Lewis, Thomas, Ellis and Johnson also are charged with election fraud.

Please note -- Powell is the chairman of the East St. Louis Democrats. The truly sad thing is that, for all their work subborning vote fraud, only one of the favored candidate won.

Only one of the "favored candidates" identified in the indictment was elected. That was County Board Chairman Mark Kern, who trailed Republican rival Steve Reeb by about 4,000 votes in the rest of the county but won by about the same number when ballots in East St. Louis were counted. The city has a separate election authority from the rest of the county.

Talk about your gang that couldn't shoot straight.

And that "down by 4000/up by 4000" move when the votes were counted looks really familiar to me -- the first Gaffner campaign I worked on went into East St. Louis up by 2500 votes and came out down by the same margin, costing us the election.

Posted by: Greg at 03:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 772 words, total size 5 kb.

So Long, Dolphin!

As some folks who venture into the comment threads might note, dolphin has decided to swim away from my site for good after posting one more of his ever-so-superior comments directing insults my direction. I'm sorry to see him go and feel a certain loss over the sundering of what was once a very respectful and cordial relationship. At the same time, I cannot say I am surprised. Given the accusations made, I feel obliged to respond, and given the limits of Haloscan, I believe it to be prudent to post it here.

If you peruse the comment thread (and others), you will see that the thread in question was somewhat heated right from the beginning. Dolphin, you see, does not like to have anyone question his assertions on homosexual rights (or much else), and took immediate offense at my response to him. He was hostile to anyone who dared to do so, and refused to deal with the assertion that what he proposed in that initial post was nothing short of a eugenics program of the sort implemented and carried out by Southern Democrats and German Nazis during the 20th century. Having set out an untenable position, he simply refused to dialogue with me from that point forward, and spent time insulting folks who dared to characterize his position in a way that he disliked and telling folks to shut up, pouting because I questioned his veracity on an assertion about Justice Scalia (and refusing to back his assertion up), and discussing animal sex with Deb.

In the midst of this, dolphin chose to make a post on his site ridiculing Deb for a statement that she had made. There was no attribution and no linkage. My comment pointing that out (and taking him to task on some issues from my site) was deleted. He also responded to my Gmail account. I post the entire exchange that followed.

dolphin Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 7:33PM
To: PrecinctChair@gmail.com

I wanted to make sure you had my email address so next time you wanted
to address a comment specifically to me instead of in response to a
particular post and can't find the "email me" link on side bar of my
site, you will not have to waste my bandwidth with comments unrelated to
my posts.

Thanks

dolphin
=====================================================================================

The Precinct Chair Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 9:35PM
To: dolphin

Actually, dolphin, it was related to your post -- in particular your
uncited use of material from my site.

Link it or remove it.
=====================================================================================

dolphin Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 10:35PM
To: The Precinct Chair

I will not link to your site. I do not link to websites that frequently post anti-gay hate literature. If you so desire, I will place the name of your site in the post and people can google it if they care to. As for citing you for the quote, I don't see where I'm under any obligation to do so. The quote is not your writing and is not stored on your server so I don't see how you can claim any rights to it. At best, it's simply property of HaloScan.com which you have linked to from your site. Let me know if you'd like your site's title added to the post. It would be prudent to note that you authorized my comments to be used on another site without permission, yet I sent you no demands.

dolphin
=====================================================================================

The Precinct Chair Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:04PM
To: dolphin

I authorized the use of a comment thread from my site, which is well
within my rights, after authorization was requested.

I did not authorize your use of the comment thread because you did not
even have the courtesy to ask.

And I do not post ANY anti-gay hate literature. I challenge you to
find ANY anti-gay hate literature. Unless, of course, you view
disagreement with gay marriage as "anti-gay hate literature," which is
an absurd position. What I have come to discover is that, in your
eyes, "anti-gay hate" means "disagrees with dolphin on an issue
related to homosexuality."

I repeat -- link or delete. The choice is yours.

And yes, the name of my site is expected to be associated with any
material taken from my site or associated comment threads.
=====================================================================================

dolphin Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:20PM
To: The Precinct Chair

I will add your site's name to the post. As for linking, I will not do so, I do NOT link to hate sites (as determined by me), PERIOD. It's not a new policy instituted exclusively against you. It's been policy since I started my blog. The choice is indeed mine, and I will add your site name (though I am not under obligation to do so) however that is the extent of it. Having reviewed the HaloScan.com TOS, I am under no obligation to bow to your threats.
=====================================================================================

The Precinct Chair Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:35PM
To: dolphin

Where was there a threat?

And what on my site makes me a hate site -- other than the fact you
disagree with me?

Or will you avoid these questions, too, as you have the inconvenient
ones in the discussions on my so-called "hate site"?

At that point all communication ended -- and I removed the link to dolphin's website. I mean hey, why would I link to someone in my list of favored sites if they refuse to even link to me when they are taking information from my site on the basis that I run an anti-gay hate site? His conduct and position on the issue made that decision a perfectly reasonable one. Even in his private emails he was condescending and insulting, and made additional false accusations (would someone please point out the threat I am accused of making?). I had planned on leaving it at that, but I wanted to clarify for Amy's benefit that the questions were directed at dolphin and not Ridor. The rest simply flowed out of my frustration over the situation, and I decided that I would post it all as a way of dealing with that frustration and explaining dolphin's absence.

By the way, does anyone note the irony of dolphin stating that "it takes a small man to bash someone on a public website instead of taking his problems up with the individual involved in a polite and non-threatening or confrontational way"? What were most of his comments on that thread but bashing? For that matter, what would you call the item from his site which I objected to? For the record, I am following his precedent by making a conscious decision to neither link nor cite his blog -- I hope he has no objection.

While visiting the neo-con site (yes sometimes it's fun to see what they're up to), I came across this gem of a quote in the comments section and thought I'd share it here.

News Flash. Same sex marriage is not an invention of the gay community. -Deb S

.

Now she failed to mention WHO invented it, but if it was not gay individuals, the clear implication is that it was straight individuals who first decided they'd like to marry members of the same-sex. I think this is an example of "I just hate gay people so bad that I can't even handle the thought that THEY could want to get married so it must be a decision straight people made for them."

He bashed both Deb and I on his site (calling me a neo-con and not even having the integrity to identify me) on his public site, and tried to do it in a way that she would never know that she had been bashed -- and refused to allow me to respond on his site. So we can add "hypocrite" to the list of titles that he has earned here.

Dolphin says he isn't coming back here again, so I shouldn't respond to him. This isn't a response to him, but merely an explanation of his parting comment. If he does respond, I hope he does so in a "polite and non-threatening or confrontational way." After all, we wouldn't want him to act like a "small man" again.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1385 words, total size 9 kb.

But They Are Just Hard Workers Who Want Jobs

Like we donÂ’t have to worry about enough with the regular border jumpers, now we have to look out for these guys.

Law enforcement authorities in Arizona were on alert yesterday for six convicts who escaped from a prison in Nogales, Mexico, and may have tried to cross the border.

Mexican officials notified U.S. law enforcement agencies after the men overpowered guards at the prison Friday night, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Jose Garza said yesterday.

Garza and Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said that none of the six had been apprehended as of Monday. Estrada said he had been told that two of the inmates had planned to escape and four others "piggybacked" along.

Guns may have been smuggled in to the prisoners, and Mexican officials arrested some guards at the prison and were questioning them to determine possible involvement, he said.

After the men escaped, "They went on a rampage, robbed a bank, carjacked a couple of vehicles, all on the Mexican side, and apparently injured the husband" of an American consular official in Nogales, Mexico, Estrada said.

They are, of course, fine upstanding Mexican citizens who are just in search of work, whose crimes include robbery, assault, narcotics sale/trafficking and the murder of law enforcement officers. Maybe the Minutemen will spot them, since we've seen how well the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies in the region do with handling border jumpers.

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Ban The Sport, Not Good Sportsmanship

The traditional post-game handshake has been banned at high school girls soccer games in San Francisco. It seems that harsh words, insults and hard handslaps and even blows have been exchanged. So now the following rule has been put in place.

Not only that, but "all soccer players will be barred from saying a single word to their opponents, opposing coaches or officials upon the conclusion of every soccer game,'' Donald Collins, the school district's high school athletic commissioner, decreed in an e-mail to all coaches and referees Monday.

So instead of winners and losers exchanging friendly or even perfunctory high-fives, "all soccer players will immediately proceed to their respective sidelines upon the conclusion of every soccer game,'' Collins commanded.

This is precisely the wrong decision. This rule even punishes a student who thanks a referee or tells compliments an opposing player. If there is a problem, the offenders need to be disciplined, including suspensions or even bans. If it is so severe that displays of good sportsmanship need to be banned, then the teams need to be disbanded and the season cancelled. You donÂ’t implement another zero tolerance rule that fails to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate conduct.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

City Recalls Pledge-Sitter

The people of Estes Park, Colorado, have recalled a city councilman who refused to stand for or say the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of council meetings. The final vote tally was 905-603.

Habecker has been a trustee for 12 years, but the issue didn't arise until last year when the town board began reciting the Pledge before meetings. Habecker chose to sit out these sessions, calling the "under God" clause unconstitutional.

The recall election was original scheduled for Feb. 15, but Habecker went to court and had it blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge lifted the injunction.

"I don't think it's a sad day for me," said Habecker after the votes were counted. "I stood ...or sat.for what I believed in and I still believe that way and the vote of the town of Estes Park isn't going to change my mind."

Habecker said he still plans to attend board meetings and express his opinions. He says he'll probably file a lawsuit over the outcome, claiming he's being denied his "political capacity" because of his religious beliefs.

"What it means is that the people have a voice in their government and that's what the state statute was set up for," said Richard Clark, the recall organizer.

Now I have to tell you that while I understand and agree with the ide of getting him off the council I find the whole situation unsettling. I don’t dispute that Habecker has every right to refuse to stand for or say the pledge. If this were a regularly scheduled election, I know I would vote against him if he disclosed his objection to standing for the pledge. But I don’t know that I would vote to recall him over this issue, preferring instead to wait for his term to end. The reason is simple – Habecker is already threatening to sue over the recall, and it is possible that some judge could find a religious freedom violation in the recall. Waiting for the term to end would eliminate that option, because there is no way that he could challenge a general election.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

Double Standard

Chuck Colson offers this anecdote that raises the issue of a double standard regarding religious expression in the public square.

Ironically, while the Supreme Court was debating the role of religion in American public life and whether the monuments of the Ten Commandments could stand on public property, one group of Americans has settled the question for themselves. Medical students in Boca Raton, Florida, recently filled their classroom with the smell of incense and the sound of ancient chants. They lit candles and spoke about the body being the “temple of the soul.” And they did it all “on a state university campus, in facilities funded with . . . tax dollars.”

Did I mention that all this chanting and candle-lighting was in accordance with Buddhist ritual? You didnÂ’t really think that it would be Christian, did you?
The rites followed the final exam in Gross Anatomy on the Florida Atlantic University campus. Students, led by a professor, used them to pay their respects to the four cadavers they had used in class. What the Palm Beach Post called a “solemn closing ritual” ended with the exhortation to “go out and make a new world.”

The obvious question here is: What if Christian, not Buddhist, rites had been used? As columnist Terry Mattingly asked, how would the university have reacted if “rose incense” and “Byzantine” or “Gregorian” chant had filled the air? What if students had been told to “go in peace to love and serve the Lord”?

Where are the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? Why is a non-Christian religious activity, led by a professor, acceptable in a classroom at a state university if identical Christian activity is not?

Colson posits that it is because Christianity demands that society be confronted and changed. It demands that people make a choice to live morally and seek to improve the world. Buddhism, especially in America, makes no such demand. As such, the public expression of “diverse” Buddhism is acceptable, while the public practice if “intolerant” Christianity is not.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

Supremes Likely To Slap Down Johhnie

Celebrity lawyer Johhnie Cockroach Cochran appears likely to lose a case before the Supreme Court involving an injunction ordering former client Ulysses Tory to stop picketing him and forbidding Tory (or people acting on his behalf) from even speaking publicly about Cochran.

The Supreme Court appeared roundly unsympathetic yesterday as a lawyer for Cochran tried to defend an injunction issued by a California judge against Ulysses Tory, a disgruntled former client who picketed outside Cochran's Los Angeles office with signs describing him as a liar, cheat and worse.

The injunction bars Tory, along with his agents and representatives, from picketing or even speaking about Cochran in any public forum, apparently forever. A California appeals court upheld the injunction and Tory, backed by numerous press and free-speech organizations, asked the Supreme Court to strike it down in Tory v. Cochran.

Cochran's lawyer, Jonathan Cole, portrayed the injunction as Cochran's only possible remedy for years of verbal abuse and attempted extortion by Tory. Suing Tory for defamation afterward would yield little in damages from Tory, who has few assets.

This injunction is very broad. No speech. Forever and ever. No matter what the context. As Justice Breyer noted, the injunction could be construed in such a way as to prohibit ToryÂ’s attorney, Erwin Chemerinsky, from even mentioning Johnnie Cochran during the course of oral arguments.

The good news is that no justice seemed sympathetic towards CochranÂ’s position. In light of previous case law, it is almost unthinkable that the justices will uphold the injunction. But that a judge would ever consider such an expansive limitation on speech is pretty scary.

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Too Bad It’s Not The End Of A Rope

I’m glad to hear his fight for freedom is nearing the end of the line. If you sell-out the US, you deserve no mercy. I don’t care how noble you allege your aims to be.

Jonathan Pollard is running out of options in his fight for freedom, with his lawyers telling The Jerusalem Post that their current appeal is essentially their last legal venue of challenging his life sentence.

Should the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reject the appeal – a likely event, if the court's chilly reception so far is any indication – Pollard's lawyers would probably petition the Supreme Court. But there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would even agree to hear their case, much less overturn 20 years' worth of legal and governmental opposition to Pollard's release.

"Once we are out of the judicial system, our only remedy would be political relief in the form of a presidential pardon," said Jacques Semmelman, who is representing Pollard together with Eliot Lauer.

Semmelman and Lauer are trying to convince the court that Pollard's original defense counsel, Richard Hibey, was unacceptably ineffective. Hibey inexplicably failed to appeal the life sentence requested by the prosecution, and imposed by the court, despite the plea agreement that stipulated no life sentence be sought for Pollard.
Hibey and Joseph DiGenova, the lead prosecutor in the original case, refused requests to discuss the case.

And I’ll say it now – any president, Republican or Democrat, who pardons a spy deserves to be impeached.

UPDATE: Pollard's wife writes a vitriolic anti-American piece claiming anti-Semitism is behind her husband's treatment. Mrs. Pollard, who lives off a pension supplied to her by the Israeli government as payment for her husband's treason, insists that justice requires her husband's release.

Maybe I could go along with that.

Release Jonathan Pollard.

From the belly of a bomber flying over the Knesset at 30,000 feet.

I have no patience for those who support Americans who betray their country.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Too Bad ItÂ’s Not The End Of A Rope

IÂ’m glad to hear his fight for freedom is nearing the end of the line. If you sell-out the US, you deserve no mercy. I donÂ’t care how noble you allege your aims to be.

Jonathan Pollard is running out of options in his fight for freedom, with his lawyers telling The Jerusalem Post that their current appeal is essentially their last legal venue of challenging his life sentence.

Should the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reject the appeal – a likely event, if the court's chilly reception so far is any indication – Pollard's lawyers would probably petition the Supreme Court. But there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would even agree to hear their case, much less overturn 20 years' worth of legal and governmental opposition to Pollard's release.

"Once we are out of the judicial system, our only remedy would be political relief in the form of a presidential pardon," said Jacques Semmelman, who is representing Pollard together with Eliot Lauer.

Semmelman and Lauer are trying to convince the court that Pollard's original defense counsel, Richard Hibey, was unacceptably ineffective. Hibey inexplicably failed to appeal the life sentence requested by the prosecution, and imposed by the court, despite the plea agreement that stipulated no life sentence be sought for Pollard.
Hibey and Joseph DiGenova, the lead prosecutor in the original case, refused requests to discuss the case.

And I’ll say it now – any president, Republican or Democrat, who pardons a spy deserves to be impeached.

UPDATE: Pollard's wife writes a vitriolic anti-American piece claiming anti-Semitism is behind her husband's treatment. Mrs. Pollard, who lives off a pension supplied to her by the Israeli government as payment for her husband's treason, insists that justice requires her husband's release.

Maybe I could go along with that.

Release Jonathan Pollard.

From the belly of a bomber flying over the Knesset at 30,000 feet.

I have no patience for those who support Americans who betray their country.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.

When Will People Get This Straight?

One of the things that has long bothered me is the accusation made against George W. Bush that the number of executions in Texas during his time as governor reflected a lack of compassion. The charge is absurd, and based upon an incorrect assumption that the media is never willing to correct. The charge has shown up lately during discussion of the Schiavo case. Take this excerpt from a story I read today.

Death penalty opponents said Bush did not give the same presumption (in favor of live) to death row inmates in Texas, where he used his power to grant an execution stay only once while governor from 1995 to 2000.

In 2000, the state set a U.S. record with 40 executions, including that of Gary Graham, whose guilt was hotly contested and became an international controversy.

Yeah, they are right. Bush only used his power to grant clemency (not a stay, for he issued several, but actual clemency and commutation of the sentence) once during his time in office. That looks pretty damning, until you look at the Texas Constitution.

(a) The Legislature shall by law establish a Board of Pardons and Paroles and shall require it to keep record of its actions and the reasons for its actions. The Legislature shall have authority to enact parole laws and laws that require or permit courts to inform juries about the effect of good conduct time and eligibility for parole or mandatory supervision on the period of incarceration served by a defendant convicted of a criminal offense.
(b) In all criminal cases, except treason and impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of punishment and pardons; and under such rules as the Legislature may prescribe, and upon the written recommendation and advice of a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, he shall have the power to remit fines and forfeitures. The Governor shall have the power to grant one reprieve in any capital case for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days; and he shall have power to revoke conditional pardons. With the advice and consent of the Legislature, he may grant reprieves, commutations of punishment and pardons in cases of treason. (Texas Constitution, Article IV, Section 11)

Yeah, you read that right. As governor, George W. Bush could not do any thing about a death sentence without the prior consent of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, other than grant a single thirty-day stay of execution. In the Graham case, he lacked even the ability to do that much, vor his prececessor, Ann Richards, had previously granted one to Graham. Without support from the Board, Bush could do nothing. Any attempt to act would have been an impeachable offense under the Texas Constitution.

Now I realize that the Left never lets the facts get in the way of a good meme, but I would hope that honest and fair-minded people would see that the "blood-thirsty butcher Bush" accusation flies in the face of the facts of the matter.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.

Sex-Predator Border-Jumpers

And here we keep being assured that they just want to work. Apparently that isn't all they want.

Border Patrol agents have picked up three convicted sex offenders in the past few days in the Sasabe-Arivaca area, south of Tucson.

All three are Mexican nationals and are in federal custody on a felony charge of re-entry of an aggravated felon.

Few details on the arrests and the men's convictions were available, but a Border Patrol news release said:

Two of the men, both from Michoacan state, were picked up Friday in a group of 35 illegal immigrants.

After detaining the group, agents learned one of the 35, Jose Ramos Salmeron, age unavailable, had been convicted in 2001 in Texas of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child and deported to Mexico after his prison term.

Also in the group, agents found Carlos Avila-Gonzalez, who had been convicted of assault to commit rape in California in 1996. He was sentenced to four years in prison and deported in 1999.

The other man, Nicolas Jacinto-Huerta of Oaxaca state, was in a group of 57 illegal immigrants stopped Wednesday two miles east of Sasabe.

None of their ages was available last night.

Agents learned Jacinto-Huerta had been deported from the United States in 2003 after a 2002 conviction for having sex with a minor.

Since October 1, 2004, Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector have arrested 166 illegal immigrants with convictions for sexual offenses.

So, in case you missed that number, that is 166 sex-criminals crossing the border in one region in the last six months. That translates to over 300 a year. And if you include all the other regions...

So is it any wonder that those who live along the border are frightened of the flow of border-jumpers across the border and through their property and communities? Is it any wonder that some of them seek to assist the Border patrol, and some have even tried to make citizen's arrests when they catch border-jumpers in the act?

Vincente Fox, el Pendejo el Presidente de Mexico, insists that action be taken to stop Americans from defending themselves from the torrent of immigration criminals. Why doesn't he do something to help them -- perhaps starting by putting some of these rapists and child molesters up in the Presidential Palace and in the homes of his relatives.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

IRS Investigates Church That Hosted Kerry

The IRS is investigating Friendship Missionary Baptist Church for its political involvement in hosting a visit by John Kerry last year that took on the trappings of a political rally rather than a church service – and included words from the pastor that seemed to constitute an endorsement.

The IRS has notified a Liberty City church that it is under investigation for possibly engaging in political activity -- putting its tax-exempt status into question.

The probe is related to an appearance last October by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and several black leaders, including U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The reason for the investigation, an IRS official wrote in a 10-page letter obtained by The Herald, is that ``a reasonable belief exists that Friendship Missionary Baptist Church has engaged in political activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status as a church.''

Rev. Gaston Smith took a break from the revelry and worship of Palm Sunday services to inform the congregation about the inquiry. He said visits by political candidates are nothing new, and that the 75-year-old church did not violate U.S. tax code, as suggested in the letter. He has hired former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis to defend the church in the inquiry.

''This is not about politics. It's about principles,'' Smith said. Silence fell over the congregation as he spoke.

The inquiry raises serious questions about whether the predominantly black church can keep its tax-exempt status. If it fails, members and contributors could not deduct tithes and other gifts, upon which churches heavily rely to operate.

Some have raised issues of racism about the investigation, which appears to also encompass other Florida churches that hosted Kerry in the run-up to the presidential election. There have been accusations that the investigation is politically motivated. Others insist that the service was business as usual for the church, and that they did nothing wrong. But was it? You can decide whether the line was crossed for yourself by looking at this CBS/AP article on the visit.

The Democratic presidential nominee attended two church services Sunday, instead of his usual one, worshipping first with Haitian Catholics and then with black Baptists, where the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton tied his election to the civil rights struggle.

"We have an unfinished march in this nation," Kerry said at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, as many congregants waved fans handed out by the campaign with his slogan, "Hope is on the way."

"Never again will a million African Americans be denied the right to exercise their vote in the United States of America," Kerry promised, referring to the disputed Florida recount in the 2000 presidential race. As he often does before black audiences, Kerry said he has a legal team that will aggressively respond to any allegations of disenfranchisement.

Black turnout is key to Kerry's plan for victory in Florida and elsewhere - less than 10 percent of black voters nationally supported George W. Bush in 2000. But Kerry's campaign says there have been efforts to turn religious blacks against him based on his support for abortion rights and civil unions for same-sex couples.

Jackson told worshippers their political concerns are issues that touch their everyday lives, not gay marriage.

"I see disturbing signs today that some of our churches have been confused by wolves in sheep's' clothing," Jackson said. "How did someone else put their agenda in the front of the line?"

"November 2, the power is in your hands, hands that once picked cotton," Jackson said.

Added Sharpton: "Everything we have fought for, marched for, gone to jail for — some died for — could be reversed if the wrong people are put on the Supreme Court."

Speakers avoided criticizing President George W. Bush by name, since they were in church, but he was indirectly vilified.

Former Congresswoman Carrie Meek said Kerry is "fighting against liars and demons. ... He challenges the man who walks with a jaunty step." She rocked her hips in an imitation of Bush's swagger as the congregation cheered and Kerry laughed from his high-backed seat behind the pulpit.

And lest one think that this is a bit of political payback from the administration, consider this October press release from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State -- not a Bush friendly organization by any stretch of the imagination.

A Miami church that hosted a rally on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry Oct. 10 should be investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Americans United today asked the IRS to investigate the Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, which hosted a Sunday service that became a rally featuring speeches by Kerry, former Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton and other prominent Democrats.

During the service, the church's pastor, the Rev. Gaston E. Smith, introduced Kerry as "the next president of the United States" and told the crowd, "To bring our country out of despair, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry."

Sharpton also praised Kerry and attacked President George W. Bush. He criticized the Florida recount of 2000, promising that voters in the state would deliver a "big payback" to the president on Nov. 2.

Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said the church-based partisan rally seems to be a clear violation of federal tax law that bars houses of worship and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups from intervening in political campaigns.

"Federal tax law is clear on this matter," Lynn said. "Houses of worship may not endorse candidates for public office, and they certainly may not host huge partisan rallies. This was way over the top."

Concluded Lynn, "I urge the IRS to investigate this church's activities. Americans need to know that federal law will be enforced."

So it isnÂ’t a bunch of conservatives raising an issue, it is coming from a group that is generally pretty liberal and aligned with the Democrats. You would be hard-pressed to make the argument that this is a case of political payback. If the media reports are correct, it seems pretty clear that the church crossed over the line and engaged in explicit partisan activity at this event. Perhaps they need to lose their tax exemption. Certainly the strict separationists think so.

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1064 words, total size 7 kb.

Board Let’s Public Speak After All

It seems that the Hampshire County Board of Education is willing to let the public speak about district employees after all. Following discussions with the state ethics commission, the board decided to unmuzzle the public, provided that the comments did not become “defamatory or slanderous,” as determined by the board president.

Wanda Carney of the education-watchdog group West Virginia Wants to Know urged Hampshire residents to keep attending meetings and demanding action on the man at the center of a scandal that has embarrassed the community.

"You pay Mr. Mezzatesta's salary. You pay Mr. Friend's salary. You have a right to ask these elected officials to fire these two men," said Carney, a Kanawha County resident whose group filed the first ethics complaint against Mezzatesta.

Mezzatesta pleaded no contest in Kanawha County Magistrate Court in December to altering and destroying legislative computer records amid the ethics probe. He is under investigation by a special prosecutor in Hampshire County concerning whether an affidavit that he gave to the Ethics Commission last year was false.

Mezzatesta has declined to discuss his job status and took his family on a vacation out of state this week.

A recent audit by the state Office of Education Performance Audits was highly critical of the county's hiring procedures. The audit prompted the state Board of Education to strip Hampshire of its accreditation and declare a state of emergency.

Carney said she believes the local board will never act against Mezzatesta but the state will take over the troubled district in April, "and they will do this task for you."

Sounds like there is a lot more at work in this than a fundamental disrespect for the rights of citizens. Hopefully the situation will get cleaned up sufficiently to let the district return to a focus on its primary task – the education of its students.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

Board LetÂ’s Public Speak After All

It seems that the Hampshire County Board of Education is willing to let the public speak about district employees after all. Following discussions with the state ethics commission, the board decided to unmuzzle the public, provided that the comments did not become “defamatory or slanderous,” as determined by the board president.

Wanda Carney of the education-watchdog group West Virginia Wants to Know urged Hampshire residents to keep attending meetings and demanding action on the man at the center of a scandal that has embarrassed the community.

"You pay Mr. Mezzatesta's salary. You pay Mr. Friend's salary. You have a right to ask these elected officials to fire these two men," said Carney, a Kanawha County resident whose group filed the first ethics complaint against Mezzatesta.

Mezzatesta pleaded no contest in Kanawha County Magistrate Court in December to altering and destroying legislative computer records amid the ethics probe. He is under investigation by a special prosecutor in Hampshire County concerning whether an affidavit that he gave to the Ethics Commission last year was false.

Mezzatesta has declined to discuss his job status and took his family on a vacation out of state this week.

A recent audit by the state Office of Education Performance Audits was highly critical of the county's hiring procedures. The audit prompted the state Board of Education to strip Hampshire of its accreditation and declare a state of emergency.

Carney said she believes the local board will never act against Mezzatesta but the state will take over the troubled district in April, "and they will do this task for you."

Sounds like there is a lot more at work in this than a fundamental disrespect for the rights of citizens. Hopefully the situation will get cleaned up sufficiently to let the district return to a focus on its primary task – the education of its students.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

Do Teachers Get To Decide On The Education Of Their Children?

Yes, folks, that is the question that is to be decided by a jury in Texas. One would have hoped that no one would have even needed to ask that question, but apparently that was not the case in at least one Texas school district. The case involves a teacher, Karen Jo Barrow, passed over for promotion by Greenville Independent School District in favor of a less qualified candidate because of her decision to send her children to a local Christian school.

Barrow, who has had her principal's certificate for ten years and has taught for 15, alleges she was told by Superintendent Herman Smith that she had no future in the school district unless she removed her children from Christian school. But when she explained her religious objections to removing her children from the educational setting she had chosen for them, the teacher was denied the position and removed from the list of candidates. Instead the middle school principalship was given to an applicant who had not been recommended and who had not even completed the certification process.

Frankly, that is an outrageous abuse of power. There are a variety of reasons that one may choose a private school education for one's child. In her case, she felt that the best choice for her children was one that provided both secular and religious education. That is not an unreasonable choice. Using that decision as the basis for denying career advancement is nothing short of religious discrimination. Passing her over for a less experienced, less qualified candidate only highlights the fact that this was not a judgment call about qualifications. Barrow's response was to seek legal counsel, and a suit was filed on her behalf by the Liberty Legal Institute.

What I find even more shocking are the arguments made by the attorneys for the school district. It has been settled law for eighty years that the state may not compel parents to select a public rather than a private education. Unless employment by a school district results in the loss of basic citizenship rights, the school really lacks any firm basis for its actions.

Attorneys for the Greenville School District have attempted to justify Smith's actions by arguing that superintendents are under a great deal of pressure due to competition from charter and Christian schools. However, LLI is arguing that Barrow and other Christian parents have the right to choose religious education for their children without government retribution.

Smith also attempted to claim qualified immunity in the matter, initially arguing that Ms. Barrow's right to select private school education for her children was not clearly established at the time he refused to consider her application for the principal's position. The U.S. District Court in Dallas had ruled against the teacher, declaring that a parent's right to choose private education is not a fundamental right. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that ruling with a 3-0 decision in favor of Barrow and LLI.

Superintendent Smith must have slept through his class dealing with school law on the evening that they dealt with the seminal case on the issue of parental choice in education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268 US 510 (1925)) Without going into the entire background of the case, it dealt with the state of Oregon attempting to create an educational monopoly that made it illegal to send a child to other than a public school. The Supreme Court struck down that law with a ringing endorsement parental rights to oversee and direct the education of their children.

"The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

For the lawyers for Greenville ISD to make the claim that the law was not settled on the matter of Barrow's right to choose a religious education for her children is therefore absurd. She had every right to send her child to the school of her choice, and the attempt by the district to interfere with that choice by making negative decisions in the matter of employment or promotion is a clear violation of that right. When one couples the violation of that right with the religious basis of that decision, it is clear that this right is a fundamental one.

Interestingly enough, the school district seems to have already changed the policy at issue in this case. A quick look at the district website shows that the principal of Greenville High School is. . . Karen Jo Barrow.

Posted by: Greg at 04:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 824 words, total size 5 kb.

Putting Clouds Into Sunshine Laws

Virtually every state has some form of "Sunshine Law", designed to ensure public access to government meetings and government access. After all, in a representative democracy like ours, the people have to know what's going on, right?

Well, that isn't the position held by some folks down in North Carolina. They want local government and state agencies authorized to sue individuals who file open records requests, so as to block their access to meetings and documents.

Lawyers for local governments and the University of North Carolina are talking about pursuing a measure to allow pre-emptive lawsuits against citizens, news organizations and private companies to clarify the law when there is a dispute about providing records or opening meetings.

On another front, the city of Burlington is appealing a ruling last year by the state Court of Appeals that said the government can't take people to court to try to block their access to records or meetings.

Citizens can sue the government over records, the appeals court said, but not the reverse. The state Supreme Court takes up that case next month and is expected to settle the issue.

North Carolina's League of Municipalities supports Burlington.

"It makes sense to ask a court what the law is when there's a dispute about the Open Meetings Law, just like when there's a dispute about anything else," said Ellis Hankins, the league's executive director.

"We need to have open government," he said. "But governments need to operate. And there are unanswered legal questions."

The cities say they want to use an ordinary tool often deployed in other kinds of legal disputes, called a "declaratory judgment," to let judges settle disagreements about public access to records or meetings.

The problem is that this will make it less likely that the people will attempt to find out about their own government. After all, are you going to go down to the courthouse and request public records if that request could result in the need to hire a lawyer to defend yourself from the very government that the law supposedly requires give you access?

This is a bad idea. Let's hoe the North Carolina Supreme Court and the legislature slap the notion down.

Posted by: Greg at 04:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

Idle Rich Vote Democrat

We know that the poor and those surviving on entitlement program benefits are likely to vote Democrat. But so are non-productive Americans at the other end of the spectrum – those who live of trust fund money and inherited wealth that makes it possible for them to live a life of luxury without lifting a finger to work, according to Michael Barone.

Who are the trustfunders? People with enough money not to have to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard. People who can live more or less wherever they want. The "nomadic affluent," as demographic analyst Joel Kotkin calls them.

These people tend to be very liberal politically. Aware that they have done nothing to earn their money, they feel a certain sense of guilt. At the elite private or public high schools they attend, and even more at their colleges and universities, they are propagandized about the evils of capitalism and globalization, and the virtues of environmentalism and pacifism. Patriotism is equated with Hiterlism.

Their loyalties, as Samuel Huntington explains in "Who Are We?," are not national, but transnational -- they are citizens of the world with contempt for those who feel chills up their spines when they hear "The Star Spangled Banner." They are taught to have contempt for the economic contribution they make to their country as investors and to feel guilty if they make no other contribution. Their penance is that they must vote left.

Barone goes on to point to a number of electoral results in the 2004 race that highlight how trustfunders voted differently from their productive, working neighbors. Barone sums it up thus.

The good news for Democrats is that they have found a new source of votes and money. The bad news is that an important part of their core constituency has the characteristic that the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin ascribed to the press, "power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."

Maybe we need a special “trustfunder tax.” And after all, how could they, or the party they support, object to making the spoiled super-rich “pay their fair share.” Messrs. Kennedy, Kohl, and Dayton, get your checkbooks ready.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

Bishops To Campaign Against Death Penalty

One of the issues raised during the 2004 presidential race was John KerryÂ’s support for legal abortion in the face of unwavering Catholic opposition to the taking of unborn life. One criticism made by Kerry supporters was that they did not apply the same standard to President Bush on the death penalty. Well, now the bishops are going to take a much more active stand on the death penalty.

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, who played a leading role in developing the new campaign, said the bishops sense that public opinion is shifting against capital punishment, partly because genetic testing has proved that scores of death-row inmates were wrongfully convicted.

"I think the DNA evidence has really shaken up people," McCarrick said. "I think this is a moment, a very special moment, where we can talk about this and people are ready to listen."

The campaign will be formally announced today in Washington and then will move to the state and local level, using all the tools of persuasion at the church's disposal, said John Carr, a staff member of the bishops' conference who will play a coordinating role.

"We'll be filing briefs in court cases, talking with the people who publish textbooks in Catholic schools, using church bulletins, encouraging homilies and addressing legislation through state Catholic conferences," he said. "The death penalty will end in this country in several ways -- legislation, judges' decisions and decisions by individual prosecutors and jurors -- and we'll be seeking all of those."

There will be opposition to this from different quarters. Evangelicals tend to support the death penalty, as do many conservative Catholics. Even many of those in the prolife movement who oppose the death penalty consider it to be an issue that needs to take a backseat to the protection of innocent life.

Oh, and one more minor detail for those who chastised the bishops for not attacking Bush on the death penalty.

McCarrick, like Hahn, noted that Article 2267 of the Catholic catechism, an authoritative compendium of church teaching, says the church "does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives" against a criminal. But the catechism also quotes John Paul II as saying that today, cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Because of the nuance in the church's teaching, McCarrick said, the bishops will not argue that capital punishment is inherently immoral. "Our job is to try to persuade our Catholic people and everybody of good will that the death penalty in America at this time is not necessary, it's not useful and it's not good," he said.

In other words, the teaching on the death penalty is not of a kind with that on abortion, and people of good faith can differ on whether or not it is justified today in America without going against the teaching of the Church. In short, disagreement with the bishops on this point cannot be seen as morally equivalent to support for abortion.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 3 kb.

Liberal Fraud To Pass McCain-Feingold

They tried to make it look like a grassroots movement for campaign finance reform, but it was really Astroturf.

What Mr. Treglia revealed in a talk last year at the University of Southern California is that far from representing the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, the campaign finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by liberal foundations like Pew. In a tape obtained by the New York Post, Mr. Treglia tells his USC audience they are going to hear a story he can reveal only now that campaign finance reform has become law. "The target audience for all this [foundation] activity was 535 people in [Congress]," Mr. Treglia says in his talk. "The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot. That everywhere [Congress] looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform."

The truth was far different. Mr. Treglia admits that campaign-finance supporters had to try to hoodwink Congress because "they had lost legitimacy inside Washington because they didn't have a constituency that would punish Congress if they didn't vote for reform."

So instead, according to Mr. Treglia, liberal reform groups created a Potemkin movement. A study last month by the Political Money Line, a nonpartisan Web site dealing with campaign funding issues, found that of the $140 million spent to directly promote liberal campaign reform in the last decade, a full $123 million came from just eight liberal foundations. Many are the same foundations that provide much of the money for such left-wing groups as People for the American Way and the Earth Action Network. The "movement" behind campaign-finance reform resembled many corporate campaigns pushing legislation. It consisted largely of "Astroturf" rather than true "grass-roots" support.

But the results were spectacular. Not only did the effort succeed in bulldozing Congress and President Bush, but it might have played a role in persuading the Supreme Court, which had previously ruled against broad restrictions on political speech, to declare McCain-Feingold constitutional in 2003 on a 5-4 vote. "You will see that almost half the footnotes relied on by the Supreme Court in upholding the law are research funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts," Mr. Treglia boasted.

So letÂ’s get this straight. They wanted the measure passed. They funded the movement to back it. The even created a few groups in the process. Then they provided the legal rationale for upholding the law. What we have here is a conspiracy to commit political fraud, with a few wealthy and powerful groups determining the outcome of the process. In short, they did precisely what they claimed to oppose, but justify it on the basis that their motives were pure.

Maybe what we need is not campaign finance reform, but charity reform. Is it time for a little bit of trust-busting, people?

Who are the guilty parties? Pew Charitible Trust, George Soros's Open Society Institute, and the Carnegie Corp., among others. They even bribed National Public Radio to give them favorable coverage with a $1.2 million grant to cover “financial influence in political-decisionmaking,” and paid for the publication of a special issue of American Prospect on campaign finance reform with an undisclosed grant of $132,000.

One more reason to take the Oath of Defiance – the law in question is the result of surreptitious liberal chicanery to silence their opponents.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

Don’t Let The People Speak

The Tennessee Legislature has authorized a vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. The ACLU of Tennessee has decided that it needs to spring into action.

The proposed state constitutional ban on gay marriage that supporters say will keep the issue out of the hands of a judge is likely headed for a courtroom anyway.

Critics say they will sue to stop plans to amend the Tennessee Constitution, a day after the state House overwhelmingly approved the issue with the idea of putting it in the hands of voters in 2006.

The ACLU of Tennessee says it will pursue litigation to stop the gay marriage ban.

Right now, bans in Georgia, Kentucky and Nebraska are being challenged in court. But so far no court has overturned a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Representative Bill Dunn, a Republican from Knoxville who ushered the amendment through the state House, says he isn't surprised the ACLU plans on suing to stop the measure.

He says opponents lost in the Senate, the House and will lose with voters. He says their only recourse is to try a lawsuit.

Notice the difference. They are not going to challenge the wording. They are not going to challenge the procedures used. They are seeking to prevent the people from even voting. The official policy of the ACLU of Tennessee is the disenfranchisement of the citizenry if the ACLU opposes what they are voting on.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

DonÂ’t Let The People Speak

The Tennessee Legislature has authorized a vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. The ACLU of Tennessee has decided that it needs to spring into action.

The proposed state constitutional ban on gay marriage that supporters say will keep the issue out of the hands of a judge is likely headed for a courtroom anyway.

Critics say they will sue to stop plans to amend the Tennessee Constitution, a day after the state House overwhelmingly approved the issue with the idea of putting it in the hands of voters in 2006.

The ACLU of Tennessee says it will pursue litigation to stop the gay marriage ban.

Right now, bans in Georgia, Kentucky and Nebraska are being challenged in court. But so far no court has overturned a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Representative Bill Dunn, a Republican from Knoxville who ushered the amendment through the state House, says he isn't surprised the ACLU plans on suing to stop the measure.

He says opponents lost in the Senate, the House and will lose with voters. He says their only recourse is to try a lawsuit.

Notice the difference. They are not going to challenge the wording. They are not going to challenge the procedures used. They are seeking to prevent the people from even voting. The official policy of the ACLU of Tennessee is the disenfranchisement of the citizenry if the ACLU opposes what they are voting on.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Rice Highlights Religious Rights -- At Puppet Church Service

I'm a little bit disappointed in how Dr. Rice handled this one. I think she was trying to make the right point, but did so in the wrong way.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (attended a church service in Beijing Sunday in a visit that highlighted U.S. concern for religious freedom in the world's most populous country.

The visit to one of China's largest state-approved churches followed Rice's repeated denouncements during a tour of Asia about China's human rights record, and particularly its restrictions on worship.

The top U.S. diplomat drew attention to one of the problems in Sino-U.S. relations on the first night of a two-day trip to China that comes as the major powers are also at odds over Taiwan and Beijing's rapid military buildup.

I'm distressed that an American Secretary of State went to one of the government-authorized churches. I would have preferred that she had attended church with one of the many unofficial religious groups, the house churches, or with one of the persecuted Catholic congregation whose bishops remain loyal to the Pope rather than to the Communist government of China. This visit to a state-controlled church seems to place American support for religious freedom upon the government-run church, not the persecuted church that refuses to submit to government control.

For more information on the persecuted church worldwide, visit The Voice of the Martyrs.

UPDATE: This story contains much more detail on religious freedom and state-run churches in China.

Posted by: Greg at 04:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

Watchers Council Post

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.


Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Also, a new member of the Watchers Council is needed due to the resignation of Little Miss Attila. Here are the details on how to apply. I already have.

Posted by: Greg at 04:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

An Oath Of Defiance

There has been much discussion lately regarding the possibility of the FCC attempting to regulate blogs as political contributions under McCain/Feingold. This would have the effect of eliminating political speech on the internet during the weeks leading up to elections.

Let's set aside the fact that this is blatantly unconstitutional. Heck, the whole McCain/Feingold speech suppression scheme is unconstitutional, but has been upheld by the Supreme Court anyway. In short, the courts are not going to protect us, the Congress isn't going to protect us, and the FEC is part of the executive branch so that tells you the likelihood of help from that part of the government. In other words, all three branches of government are arrayed against the free speech rights in the blogosphere. Ain't no help coming -- the only thing available to us is the personal decision on compliance or defiance, and our mutual solidarity.

Patterico has called upon bloggers to sign on to the following statement.

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

I wholeheartedly subscribe to it, but find it a bit bland as a rallying cry. Doc Rampage has a much more colorful version of the pledge.

I'll stop blogging when I've got nothing more to say. Or when I move somewhere that I don't have Internet service. Or when I get bored with it. Or if I find something else I like better. Or something like that. But I stand firm on this! I shall not stop blogging just because someone passes a law telling me to. Screw you.

That comes a bit closer to my point of view, and I wholeheartedly subscribe to that formulation as well. My problem with this version is that it is, like so much of the internet, very individualistic. That's great, because we each need to make our decision as an individual, but I still find myself looking at it as being centered on the self and not the greater good. There is not solidarity in either of the two oaths -- each of us is, in effect, a rugged individual going it alone. Unfortunately, that independence makes us easy to pick off. We need to be banded together for mutual support.

That said, I propose the following, and ask others to offer constructive criticism. If you like it, please sign on to it.

We are the blogosphere, brothers and sisters, friends and foes, united together in support of freedom. We are diverse voices united in the pursuit of a multiplicity of goals and ideals, based upon our many divergent sets of beliefs and principles. Despite our differences, we together hold firm to this single unifying principle -- freedom of speech is the cornerstone of liberty, and we reject as tyranny efforts by any entity, be it religious, economic, political, or governmental, to regulate or forbid the free exchange of ideas on the internet. We pledge to resist, to the best of our respective abilities, any regulatory scheme which seeks to inhibit or prevent the publication or dissemination of facts and opinions on any matter of public concern, and promise our support to one another in that resistance. We are the blogosphere, and we will not be silenced.

And don't worry, folks, you will not be assimilated.

Posted by: Greg at 03:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.

If Homosexuals, Why Not Cousins?

Come on, gay marriage advocates -- what do you say to this one? Do you accept the right of society to apply rules here, just not to you?

HOLLIDAYSBURG, Pa. - A county judge refused to make an exception for two first cousins who want to marry, even though the couple assured the judge they don't want to have children.

Blair County Judge Jolene Kopriva on Thursday denied the marriage license application for first cousins Eleanor Amrhein, 46, and Donald W. Andrews Sr., 39, of Logan Township.

The couple say they have been together for several years, but Kopriva said state law bars first cousins from marrying because of an increased likelihood their children will have birth defects.

Don't these folks have the right, as expressed in Lawrence v. Texas, "to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Shouldn't they fall under the same prescription, as written by Justice Kennedy, to "an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." Doesn't this involve "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions"?

Or is it only in the case of gay sexuality and gay marriage that those rights apply?

Posted by: Greg at 10:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

Boxer Admits Democrats Violating Constitutional Confirmation Requirement

Radioblogger.com has the audio of Barbara Boxer's speech to the MoveOn.org rally. In it, she admits that the Constitution requires only 51 votes to confirm a judge, but that the Democrats are insisting in going beyond the dictates of the Constitution to confirm Bush appointees.

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

She may have a point. Maybe we do need a supermajority to confirm judges. But that isn't what the Constitution requires, by her own admission. To set that standard she needs to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Remember these words -- we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That is the sound of the Democrats pissing on the Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

Apologize For Crusades?

Well, now it looks like Muslims are demanding that the Pope apologize for the Crusades.

The principle of demanding apology from the Vatican germinated following Pope Jean Paul II's visit to Syria and Egypt a few years ago, and the apologies the Catholic Church presented to the Jewish and some other Christian doctrines, explained Sheikh Zafzaf. “Al-Azhar is only asking for a similar treatment,” he added.

I agree. The Pope should apologize for the Crusades -- and the fact that Christian Europe did not pursue them to their stated end, the permanent exclusion of Islam from the Holy Land. And I think the apology should come immediately after Islamic authorities apologize for their conquest of the Christian Middle East, their eight oppressive centuries in Spain, the destruction of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and the repeated incursions into Christian Europe. I mean, if we want to get into a game of historical tit-for-tat.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Police Arrest 5-Year-Old For School Tantrum

This is just outrageous. There need to be multiple firings -- both at the school and the police department -- over this brainless absurdity.

A 5-year-old girl was arrested, cuffed and put in back of a police cruiser after an outburst at school where she threw books and boxes, kicked a teacher in the shins, smashed a candy dish, hit an assistant principal in the stomach and drew on the walls.

The students were counting jelly beans as part of a math exercise at Fairmount Park Elementary School when the little girl began acting silly. That's when her teacher took away her jelly beans, outraging the child.

Imagine that -- a 5-year-old acting silly. I'd love to know what the silliness consisted of, that it would result in the child being denied participation in the academic work of the class. That is not ordinarily appropriate punishment at any age.

Minutes later, the 40-pound girl was in the back of a police cruiser, under arrest for battery. Her hands were bound with plastic ties, her ankles in handcuffs.

"I don't want to go to jail," she said moments after her arrest Monday.

Now, it seems to me that two things are true here. First, the child has an anger management problem and threw a whale of a tantrum. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. It is not, however, grounds for restraining a child in such a manner or for placing her under arrest. Was there no one in the building equipped to deal with a child having a tantrum? Were there no trained professionals employed in this building? Whoever called the police was just plain wrong -- even the district agrees.

While police say their actions were proper, school officials were not pleased with the outcome.

"We never want to have 5-year-old children arrested," said Michael Bessette, the district's Area III superintendent.

The district's campus police should have been called to help and not local police, he said.

Bessette said campus police routinely deal with children and are trained to calm them in such situations.

So who screwed up here? Find out and fire them. Period. They clearly failed to follow proper procedures laid out by the district. Rather than call in trained professionals to deal with the situation (though one would have thought that the teacher and the AP were trained professionals with a knowledge of how to deal with a 5-year-old having a tantrum), their choice was to have the child arrested, bound hand and foot, and hauled off in a squad car. That doesn't happen often with the 15-year-olds at my school of 2200!

And then there is the cop. Plastic ties on the hands and handcuffs around the ankles? For a forty-pound 5-year-old? Didn't that seem excessive to you as you were putting them on? Couldn't you have handled the situation with less drastic measures rather than how you would have dealt with, for example, a serial rapist or a cop killer?

And as for the district spokesman, I think this may be the most absurd thing he could have said.

Under the district's code of student conduct, students are to be suspended for 10 days and recommended for expulsion for unprovoked attacks, even if they don't result in serious injury. But district spokesman Ron Stone said that rule wouldn't apply to kindergartners.

"She's been appropriately disciplined under the circumstances," he said.

Really? You think that ANY of this was appropriate? You must have been smoking crack before you talked to the reporters about this, because there is nothing I would call appropriate about the discipline administered here.

Mama says that the little girl won't be going back to that school, and that she plans on talking to a lawyer. Good for her. No 5-year-old should be treated this way over a temper tantrum.

Posted by: Greg at 07:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 652 words, total size 4 kb.

Daley Administration Ignores Minority-Business Contracting Fraud

We've all heard about set-asides for minority-owned businesses. There's always been room for fraud in awarding those contracts, as it is not difficult to set up a front-man as the "owner/operator" of the business. The city of Chicago has ignored one such case for three years -- and the perpetrator is a major contributor to Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Two restaurants at O'Hare Airport have been allowed to rake in millions of dollars, even though the Daley administration learned back in 2002 that the company running them was probably a phony minority "front" for Panda Express and Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a top fund-raiser for Gov. Blagojevich.

Crucial Inc. won the O'Hare concessions in part because it was certified as a minority-owned business. Its largest shareholder was listed as Jabir Herbert Muhammad, son of the late Nation of Islam founder, Elijah Muhammad.

But a compliance officer inspected the firm nearly three years ago and was told by Muhammad himself that he was not running the day-to-day operations of the restaurants as required by the city.

"Everything is done by Panda Express," certification officer William Cunniff concluded in a July 31, 2002, report obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times. "Herbert Muhammad said that he was used to get Panda in the airport."

Crucial "seems to be a front for [minority business enterprise] status for Panda Express," Cunniff continued, noting that Crucial appeared to be operating out of an office for "Rezko Panda Express."

When did they take action on the matter? Tuesday, March 15, 2005.

How big is the apparent rip-off of public dollars? Pretty big.

Crucial -- which at one point also had a concessions deal with the Chicago Park District -- grossed $15.7 million between 1999 and 2002, city records show.

Not bad -- over $5 million a year, for contracts that most businesses could not bid on because they were reserved for minority businesses. All you need is someone to be your face, and you rake in a nice chunk of cash. I wonder how much of this Muhammad got, and how much went to Rezko.

But that may not be the only fraudulent minority business involving Muhammad and Rezko.

A separate company also run by Muhammad and Rezko -- Crucial Communications -- is a minority subcontractor to SBC on the pay-telephone contract at Cook County Jail. Some county commissioners questioned what Crucial does for SBC when the telecommunications giant was awarded the no-bid, $10 million contract two years ago.

Yeah, what would the business be doing for SBC? My guess is that SBC supplies the phones, and we know that they handle all of the wiring and operations. That means that Crucial probably just took a kickback for no work.

But wait, there is more. Apparently Rezko has another minority front-man currently operating Muhammad's restaurant business for him, and this same front-man has a minority business contract himself.

Muhammad, boxer Muhammad Ali's former manager, told the city's compliance officer that Panda does pricing, marketing and contract negotiations for the O'Hare restaurants. When it came to managing Crucial's office, he said he wasn't responsible and that the work was done by Al Chaib, a Rezko business associate who has since won a Subway franchise deal at Illinois tollway oases.

You know, I just love Chicago area politics. The corruption is unbelievable, and usually you can trace it back to some Democrat office-holder. It's that way now, and it was that way in the days of Richie Daley's daddy "Hizzona DaMaya", Richard M. Daley

Posted by: Greg at 06:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

The Voice Of The People Must Not Be Heard!

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is supported by 60% of the residents of the state of Michigan. The only likely way of defeating the measure is to keep the people of Michigan from voting on the measure.

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will probably pass if it reaches the 2006 state ballot and most likely can only be defeated by efforts to have it disqualified before the election, said Miranda Massie, lead attorney for the BAMN-led student intervenors in the Grutter v. Bollinger case.

Supporters of the civil rights measure, designed to ban government discrimination and preferences based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, have submitted over 500,000 signatures (they needed around 317,000) to place the measure on the 2006 ballot.

Massie argues that Michigan voters are simply too stupid to know what they were signing or understand what they are voting on.

Although polls show that MCRI has well over 60 percent approval among the Michigan public, Massie attributed its support to confusing language, saying California’s similar Proposition 209 passed for that reason.“The majority of people who voted for Proposition 209 did not know they were voting against affirmative action,” Massie said. “They thought they were voting for an expansion of the civil rights movement.”

Well let's look at what the MCRI actually says, and whether or not the language is too confusing for persons of average intelligence to understand.

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND OTHER STATE UNIVERSITIES, THE STATE, AND ALL OTHER STATE ENTITIES FROM DISCRIMINATING OR GRANTING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED ON RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.

THE PROPOSAL WOULD AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION BY ADDING A SECTION 25 TO ARTICLE I.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 25:
Civil Rights.

1. The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

2. The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

3. For the purposes of this section "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.

4. This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.

5. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

6. The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of Michigan anti-discrimination law.

7. This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

8. This section applies only to action taken after the effective date of this section.

9. This section does not invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.

Seems rather clear to me. Government cannot discriminate against anyone based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Government cannot give preferences based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Certain limited exceptions exist to this rule providing equal protection of the law to all people. What's not to understand? Who do you wish to discriminate against, Ms. Massie? To whom do you wish to give preferences? Why do you not prefer to judge people based upon "not the color of their skin,, but the content of their character," ability to do the job, academic achievement, or other factors that do not consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin?

But that isn't the end of Ms. Massie's outrageous statements.

Also, they will try to convince the courts that MCRI has hired black parolees to administer the petition in order to appeal to minorities.

Really? You mean that minorities are incapable of determining whether or not they support the measure when they sign the petition? Is it your position that they just don't know what's good for them, so they need a smart white lawyer like you to swoop in and protect them from themselves? Or is it that you don't believe that blacks should be allowed to circulate petitions? I'm certain it can't be the use of parolees, since it is an article of faith for liberals that all parolees should be permitted to vote and participate in the political life of their communities. Are you trying to disenfranchise black felons? If so, how does that square with your alleged support for civil rights?

When it comes right down to it, I'm pretty shocked by what appears in the article. In essence, Miranda Massie argues that the people of Michigan should be disenfranchised on a matter of public policy since they are going to vote in a manner she opposes. She argues that the voters are really too dumb to be permitted to dictate the policies of the state, so liberals like her should be allowed to dictate those policies for them. And she argues that minorities are not smart enough to participate in the political process, and that parolees should not be allowed to be involved in political activity despite the massive disenfranchisement of minorities that policy causes.

Now if Miranda Massie were a conservative Republican, say Trent Lott or George Bush, we would be hearing outraged wails about the racist nature of her arguments. We would be treated to throngs of minority activists marching on the University of Michigan campus chanting "Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Miranda Massie's got to go! Hey, hey! Ho, ho! BAMN's got to go!" The campus chapter of BAMN would be shut down, and its members would be required to attend "sensitivity sessions" and forced to admit their thought crimes. But none of that will happen, you see, because Miranda Massie is on the right left side of the issue of affirmative action. And the double standard for liberal hypocrites continues.

Posted by: Greg at 05:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1154 words, total size 8 kb.

Liberals Rally For Vote Fraud

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer was indicted last week on charges related to vote fraud. Yesterday his supporters turned out to protest the indictment.

"This is a rally for justice; this is a rally for democracy," said Orlando resident Thomas Alston, the former leader of the Orange County National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I'm not saying it is or isn't racist, but all these votes they're taking away from us are black votes."

So if breaking election laws increases the black vote, its a good thing?

Posted by: Greg at 03:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

Call Them What They Are

What's wrong with this lead?

A family of three illegal entrants was taken to Northwest Medical Center to be treated for dehydration and multiple bee stings after Marana police found them in the desert Wednesday afternoon.

"Illegal entrants"? Why do the media insist on coining new and ever more genteel terms for those who break our nation's immigration laws?

Posted by: Greg at 03:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

More Proof That Baseball/Steroid Hearings Are A Fraud

Several days ago I noted that I believed that the planned hearing on steroid use in baseball was nothing but a publicity stunt. That my suspicions regarding the fraudulent nature of the hearings were correct is proved by this story.

Less than 24 hours before the start of the highly anticipated session, Jose Canseco's request for immunity was denied by the House Government Reform committee. Canseco's lawyer said the former AL MVP will not be able to answer questions that would incriminate him.

"No witnesses have been or will be granted immunity," David Marin, a spokesman for committee chairman Rep. Tom Davis, said in an e-mail to the AP.

Given that the matter of steroid use is the subject of a grand jury investigation, the failure of the committee to grant use immunity for the testimony given leaves the players and executives abbearing under subpoena subject to criminal indictment and prosecution if they answer any questions. Even Jose Canseco, who has presumably told all in his book, is in danger if he testifies.

Canseco's lawyer, Robert Saunooke, was angry with the decision.

"It begs the question as to what they're convening this hearing for," Saunooke said in a telephone interview. "They effectively cut the legs off from underneath us."

Saunooke has said that without immunity, Canseco would invoke his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions.

"They told me we can't do the Fifth to every question," he said. "It's an absolute right of every citizen to not be compelled to give testimony against themselves. They do not make the decision. We do."

Actually, if Saunooke wants to give his client the best available advice, he will instruct him not to even state his name for the record. There have been cases brought in the past arguing that by answering even such innocuous questions as name and place of residence can be construed as a waiver of Fifth Amendment rights.

So what we have here are hearings being held by a committee that has "anything we want" as its jurisdiction holding hearings at which all those testifying will be obliged to assert their rights under the Fifth Amendment in order to escape a possible indictment for perjury. But it will get face time for the members of the committee on the evening and cable news shows and C-Span And that, ultimately, is what the hearing is all about.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

Supreme Supermajority?

Democrat political consultant Mark Mellman writes in today's issue of The Hill that Supreme Court nominees should need 60 votes to be confirmed. It is an interesting polemic, clearly set out to justify the current Senate filibuster of Bush appellate nominees as well as the anticipated Democrat obstructionism of future Bush Supreme Court nominees. Mellman, in fact, insists that the 60 vote requirement should be demanded.

Most Americans agree. In a recent poll we conducted, 69 percent said, “A nominee should have to get the support of at least 60 of the 100 senators.” Just 29 percent believe, “When the president nominates a justice to the Supreme Court it should take the votes of only 51 of the 100 senators to confirm the nominee and make them a Supreme Court justice.”

In short, a supermajority of the electorate backs a supermajority to confirm a Supreme Court nomination.

ItÂ’s a view shared by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

Supermajorities are appealing because Americans believe in government by consensus. If a nominee canÂ’t muster 60 votes in the Senate, there is not a sufficient consensus to put that person on the Court for life. If the president does not believe a candidate can meet the 60-vote threshold, he should not submit the nomination. If the president finds out during the course of hearings and debate that a candidate will not garner 60 votes, he should withdraw the nomination.

Frankly, I'd love to see that polling data, because I'm suspicious of such in-house polls.

But setting the question of the veracity and reliability of Mellman's poll and the partisan nature of his arguments (including ad hominem attacks on Clarence Thomas, Orrin Hatch, and Bill Frist), there is a bigger question -- is a supermajority really desirable for Supreme Court nominations? It might be, but Mellman fails to make a clear case for them, so interested is he in bashing his political opponents.

What Mellman also fails to do is consider the actual Constitutional requirement for confirmation, as set out by the Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause ii.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Right there you have it. The Constitution itself does not set out a supermajority requirement. It in fact does precisely the opposite, excluding the confirmation of "Judges of the supreme Court" (as well as appointments to executive branch offices) from the supermajority requirement set for the ratification of treaties. The standard for confirmation is therefore clearly set by our founding document, the supreme law of the land, as a majority vote. There is no interpretation needed, because the requirement is right there. End of discussion.

Now is there a way to change the number of votes required for confirmation as a"Judge of the supreme Court"? Yes, there is. It is found in Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress....

Let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi propose an amendment to the Constitution to set the bar for judicial nominees at 3/5, or even 2/3, of the Senate. See if it gets out of the House and Senate (which requires one of Mellman's beloved supermajorities) and let's see if 3/4 of the states (another supermajority required by the Constitution) will ratify it. My suspicion is that it won't ever get out of Congress.

And I wonder -- would Mellman be interested in requiring a supermajority of the Supreme Court be required to strike down a law as unconstitutional, since a mere majority of the justices does not represent a consensus of Americans on the matter?

UPDATE: I wonder how Mr. Mellman would reconcile his poll numbers with these poll numbers?

The survey, conducted by the Judicial Confirmation Network, concluded that 67 percent of voters agree that politics should be taken out of the courts and out of the confirmation process.

"It is abundantly clear that the American people are tired of the partisan, political maneuvering and the unwarranted character assassinations against qualified candidates for the federal bench," said Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, in a press release.

Eighty-two percent of voters agree that "if a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate," the poll found.

"People see through these aggressive and negative attacks waged by some individuals and groups on the left and they want it to end," Long said. She added that voters want senators "to do their jobs" and vote up or down on nominees "based on their qualifications, not the baseless, negative rhetoric of the left."

The survey also found 75 percent of voters agree that "President Bush should keep his promise made during the campaign to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice who will apply existing law, not make new law." And by 78 to 12 percent, voters agreed that senators have a "constitutional duty" to vote on judicial nominations.

Now again, I have no access to the actual polling data, so I have the same concerns about this poll as I do about Mellman's. I've been involved in survey research in the past, and know that how you ask the question can determine how respondents answer (we got 75% of our respondents to support legalized abortion in one question, while getting 67% to oppose it on another). But I find it interesting that on the same day we get such diametrically opposed numbers quoted at us.

Posted by: Greg at 03:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1091 words, total size 7 kb.

Democrats -- Politics Trumps People's Business

Once again, the Democrats have proclaimed their intent to obstruct the business of the American people if a minority is not permitted to exercise an unconstitutional veto over judicial nominees.

n a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist, Reid wrote that Democrats, who have 44 seats in the 100-member Senate, would refuse to cooperate on any legislation not related to the U.S. military presence in Iraq, national security measures and other "critical government services."

"Beyond that very limited scope, however, we will be reluctant to enter into any consent agreement that facilitates Senate activities, even on routine matters," Reid wrote.

Reid, however, dangles this little gem.

Reid wrote that if Frist would "abandon the nuclear option, I can assure you that Senate Democrats will cooperate with you to consider legislation and nominations."

Hopefully Frist will write back that he will drop any consideration of plans for the GOP to follow the 1975 Democrat precedent of changing filibuster rules by majority vote in mid-session as soon as the nominees who were approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee during the last Senate are allowed an up-or-down vote. Absent this immediate capitulation to the dictates of the Constitution, Republicans have no choice but to enforce change the rules in order to ensure that the Constitution is followed.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Muslims Seek Taj Mahal Land (And Cash) Grab

The Taj Mahal is India's most recognizable symbol. Built as a tomb for the Mughal Empress Mumtaz Mahal by her husband, Shah Jahan, it is a symbol of the enduring love of a husband for his wife. Now a Muslim group has claimed ownership of the Taj Mahal and its grounds, on the basis that it is a Muslim cemetary.

The Sunni Waqf Board (SWB), a Muslim trust, was given ownership of Uttar Pradesh's Muslim graveyards by the Indian government itself.

The board has issued notices to the Archaeological Survey of India as well as the central government, seeking their reply to its demand by the end of March.

Speaking to the BBC, SWB chairman Hafiz Usman said that other than the graves of the emperor and his wife, several other Muslim graves were also located within the Taj Mahal's boundary.

The presence of a mosque and a tomb within the complex clearly brings it under the board's jurisdiction, he says.

The board has quasi-judicial powers and has threatened to take an ex parte decision if its end March deadline is not met.

Frankly, this action is outrageous. For a private group to attempt to steal this historic site from the Indian people goes beyond arrogance. It is part of the heritage of the entire nation, not a minority religious group.

Later in the story, we get to the heart of the matter -- money.

Mr Usman said once the ownership issue had been decided, the board would demand that 7% of the total earnings from tickets should be transferred to its coffers.

The board also wants the power to regularly audit the accounts of the monuments and ensure that the money is not frittered away but used properly for the maintenance of the building.

He said the board did not stake a claim to the monument earlier as it had not wanted to enter into any controversy.

See, what the group is after is a chunk of the cash that the government makes off of the admission fees. I'm not sure what that would come to, but I think we can presume that we are talking about a hefty chunk of change.

Posted by: Greg at 07:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.