I used to be a big fan of Bob Geldof. I liked his music, and I admired his activism on behalf of the poorest of the poor. I didn't always agree with him, but I found what he was doing to be worthy of admiration. That is why I find this decision regarding the (misguided) Live8 concert to be so shocking to the conscience.

Collecting food for the homeless and hungry is taking a back seat to poverty in Africa as organizers for Saturday's Live 8 concert ban charities from collecting donations at the event.

Organizers have said local fundraising could "dilute the focus" of the concerts, which includes encouraging the world's G8 leaders to eliminate the debt currently owed by African countries.

"That decision came right from Sir Bob Geldof, himself," said Live 8 spokeswoman Katherine Holmes, referring to the Irish rocker fronting the Live 8 concerts.

No, we cannot let there be any effort to actually help the homeless and the hungry -- that would imply that individuals and not just governments have a responsibility to take action on their behalf. Not only that, it would detract from the focus -- that you show your caring and concern more by going to a concert than by actually doing something for another human being.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

I understand Planned Parenthood not being charged in this case -- after all, they did the absolute minimum required of them by law. While it might have been desirable for them to take the extra step and actually verify that this little girl had given them the number for a parent rather than the adult who was raping her, such fundamental decency is not required under the law. Instead, they unwittingly facilitated the statutory rape of a 14-year-old.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters announced today that no criminal charges will be filed against Planned Parenthood over an abortion it performed on a 14-year-old girl on March 30, 2004.

Questions about the legality of the abortion came up after the girl's family filed a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court earlier this year alleging the abortion was performed without parental notification as required by law.

An investigation by Deters' staff found that the girl provided the incorrect phone number for notification. Instead of giving the agency her parent's phone number, she gave officials the telephone number of her 21-year-old boyfriend, the father of her unborn child.

"Apparently they made no effort to confirm to whom they were speaking when they placed their call to notify the parents," Deters said. "They did the minimum they could under the existing law."

Now I am curious about something else, though. Aren't doctors, nuses, and other staff of medical facilities mandatory reporters under the child abuse laws of the state of Ohio? If not, why has this case not produced an outcry from the public toplace upon them the same obligation that teachers and other professionals in a position to become aware of abuse have?

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

I've wondered why the two boys (I will not dignify them with the title of "men") in this incident haven't been charged with a hate crime. After all, their crime was based upon antipathy towards the victims based upon their actual or perceived national origin, as indicated by an American flag flying from the front of their homes.

Those guys didn't set fire to flags they owned in some sort of symbolic gesture. They burned flags that were someone else's private property, something with a value to the owners that goes beyond the cost of the cloth.

But far worse than that, some of those flags were on poles attached to the owners' homes.

Burning those flags goes way beyond expressing contempt in a petty-criminal sort of way. It is a chillingly dangerous and invasive act.

That makes this less like stupid kiddie-acting-up-anarchism and way too much like the real thing. It is a serious crime.

It is also just like the Ku Klux Klan burning a cross on someone's lawn to terrorize a family or an entire community. The damage isn't just to the wood, and it isn't a crime because of the symbol that was destroyed. The damage is the fear it creates for people in their own homes.

Aren't we told that the reason for hate crime laws is the impact of the crime that goes beyond the impact on the victim personally? Well, we have that here -- won't folks be afraid to express their pride in their country for fear that some creting is going to use that symbol of pride to burn the house down around their ears?

Or is a hate crime a hate crime only when it is expressing hate against the "right" people?

UPDATE: I had not seen this story when I wrote the above post.

A white teenager was charged with a hate crime Thursday for allegedly beating a black man with a baseball bat in the Howard Beach section of Queens, the site of an infamous racial confrontation two decades ago.

Police said Nicholas Minucci, 19, confessed to the Wednesday attack, which left the victim in critical condition with multiple skull fractures and a bruised kidney.

Minucci was charged with assault as a hate crime punishable by a minimum of eight years in prison as well as robbery and criminal weapon possession. Police also arrested a suspected accomplice, 21-year-old Anthony Ench, who was to be charged Friday with assault as a hate crime, authorities said.

A third companion surrendered to police and was being described as a witness.

Minucci's attorney, Lori Zeno, said the victim, Glenn Moore, 22, had tried to rob Minucci and threatened him with a screwdriver. Police said they did not believe Minucci's account.

Police said Moore and two other black men were walking in Howard Beach early Wednesday when they were attacked by three white men. One of Moore's friends said he was intending to steal a car, but Moore was not aware of the plan, officials said.

Prosecutors said Moore's assailants hurled racial slurs and allegedly told him, "That is what you get when you try to rob white boys."

Hate crime? Possibly -- but there appears that there could be an addiional angle of a possible crime by the victim or the group that he was with. I'll be watching how this plays out in the days and weeks ahead.

But again I'll ask the quyestion -- why is this a hate crime, but acts of arson committed against folks for flying an American flag not a hate crime?

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh, wait -- they are only Democrats. It's not as if the convicted vote-cheats are Republican or anything like that.

A federal jury on Wednesday found five East St. Louis Democrats guilty of vote fraud.

The defendants were found guilty on all counts following a four-week trial in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis.

Four of the defendants -- Jessie Lewis, Sheila Thomas, Yvette Johnson and former city official Kelvin Ellis -- were found guilty of conspiracy to commit election fraud and election fraud.

Democratic Party boss and former City Councilman Charlie Powell was found guilty of one county of conspiracy to commit election fraud.

The five were charged with paying voters up to $10 a vote to vote for Democratic candidates during the Nov. 2 general election.

The jury deliberated about five and a half hours before returning the verdicts.

"This is a wake-up call for East St. Louis," said juror LaMont Reed Jr. of East St. Louis. "I've seen this corruption all my life."

Judge G. Patrick Murphy, who presided over the trial, will set a sentencing date later.

Now when will we hear anything about this PROVEN vote fraud from Howard Dean, Michael Moore, MoveOn.Org, or any other members of the liberal cabal?

Will it be "never", or will it be later than that?

Posted by: Greg at 04:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

HereÂ’s a neat idea for dealing with Osama and every other terrorist on the planet. They are hostis humani generis -- the enemies of all mankind.

TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OF DEFINING TERRORISM as a species of piracy, consider the words of the 16th-century jurist Alberico Gentili's De jure belli: "Pirates are common enemies, and they are attacked with impunity by all, because they are without the pale of the law. They are scorners of the law of nations; hence they find no protection in that law." Gentili, and many people who came after him, recognized piracy as a threat, not merely to the state but to the idea of statehood itself. All states were equally obligated to stamp out this menace, whether or not they had been a victim of piracy. This was codified explicitly in the 1856 Declaration of Paris, and it has been reiterated as a guiding principle of piracy law ever since. Ironically, it is the very effectiveness of this criminalization that has marginalized piracy and made it seem an arcane and almost romantic offense. Pirates no longer terrorize the seas because a concerted effort among the European states in the 19th century almost eradicated them. It is just such a concerted effort that all states must now undertake against terrorists, until the crime of terrorism becomes as remote and obsolete as piracy.

What would be the impact of classifying terrorism along with piracy?

If the war on terror becomes akin to war against the pirates, however, the situation would change. First, the crime of terrorism would be defined and proscribed internationally, and terrorists would be properly understood as enemies of all states. This legal status carries significant advantages, chief among them the possibility of universal jurisdiction. Terrorists, as hostis humani generis, could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. Pirates are currently the only form of criminals subject to this special jurisdiction.

Second, this definition would deter states from harboring terrorists on the grounds that they are "freedom fighters" by providing an objective distinction in law between legitimate insurgency and outright terrorism. This same objective definition could, conversely, also deter states from cracking down on political dissidents as "terrorists," as both Russia and China have done against their dissidents.

Recall the U.N. definition of piracy as acts of "depredation [committed] for private ends." Just as international piracy is viewed as transcending domestic criminal law, so too must the crime of international terrorism be defined as distinct from domestic homicide or, alternately, revolutionary activities. If a group directs its attacks on military or civilian targets within its own state, it may still fall within domestic criminal law. Yet once it directs those attacks on property or civilians belonging to another state, it exceeds both domestic law and the traditional right of self-determination, and becomes akin to a pirate band.

Third, and perhaps most important, nations that now balk at assisting the United States in the war on terror might have fewer reservations if terrorism were defined as an international crime that could be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court.

I encourage you to read the article by Douglas R. Burgess Jr., “The Dread Pirate Bin Laden”. It may come out of the Legal Affairs, but it is incredibly approachable.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 556 words, total size 4 kb.

The spectre of the government throwing reporters into jail rightly strikes fear into the hearts of freedom–lovers everywhere. After all, that is one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship. But not every jailing of a journalist is a bad thing – nor does it offend the First Amendment for a reporter to be held to the exact same standards and requirements of every other citizen. A recent USA Today column puts it well.

Another problem is that claims of privilege turn the press into a privileged class. If ordinary people witness a crime, they have to talk about it. If they participate in a crime — say, by receiving classified documents — they have to say where they got them. Journalists want to be treated differently, but the First Amendment doesn't create that sort of privilege. Nor should we.

The author, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds himself, is precisely right. While the First Amendment clearly protects the right to freedom of the press, that does not create a special privilege for some sanctified class known as “journalists”. Reporters are, in the end, subject to the exact same laws as every other American. What next – a claim for exemption from laws against speeding because they are rushing to cover a breaking story? A total exemption from libel laws on the grounds that the potential liability that arises from inaccurate reports inhibits the reporting of the news?

I can’t help but think back a couple of decades to my college days. The editorial staff of a campus newspaper went out for a night of heavy underage drinking at the local bars. Several of them drank to excess. On their way home, while crossing the railroad tracks, they decided to play chicken with the 11:30 Amtrak. Five jumped – and the chronically-depressed alcoholic who wrote wonderful satires about campus life embraced the train like a long-desired lover. When the police arrived, his five companions refused to give statements to the police – claiming that as journalists it would compromise their ability to cover the death of their colleague, as well as the (never-to-be-written) feature on under-age drinking in local bars. Any other person making such a claim would have been charged with obstruction.

Now the reporters in the Plame case could, of course, make a Constitutional claim to avoid testifying. They could cite their rights under the Fifth Amendment to not incriminate themselves. After all, they are possibly going to have to admit their role in a criminal enterprise. But doing that would require them to concede that they did something wrong, something criminal. They want to avoid doing so at all costs, for that conflicts with their self-images as paladins out to forthrightly expose the truth. But what they are really out to do is cover up the truth for their own personal convenience.

Reynolds also points out the problem with creating a reporter’s privilege.

Many people who support these privileges say that they would be limited to “real” journalists. But who decides when a journalist is real? If the government decides, isn't that like licensing the press, something the First Amendment was designed to prevent? And if journalists decide, isn't that likely to lead to a closed-shop, guild mentality at exactly the moment when citizen journalism by non-professionals is taking off? All sorts of people are reporting news via Web logs and the Internet. Shouldn't they be entitled to the same privilege?

Press freedom is for everyone, not just professionals. James Madison wrote about “freedom in the use of the press,” making clear that the First Amendment is for everyone who publishes, not just members of the professional-media guild.

Do we really want the government determining who is – and who is not – a journalist? Do we really want to give some bureaucrat the power to grant – or deny – a citizen the full rights guaranteed under the “free press” clause of the First Amendment? Because that will be precisely what will happen when government gets to decide that some folks are “journalists” and have greater rights than other citizens. Let's not create a royalty to whom the rules do not apply.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 698 words, total size 4 kb.

The spectre of the government throwing reporters into jail rightly strikes fear into the hearts of freedom–lovers everywhere. After all, that is one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship. But not every jailing of a journalist is a bad thing – nor does it offend the First Amendment for a reporter to be held to the exact same standards and requirements of every other citizen. A recent USA Today column puts it well.

Another problem is that claims of privilege turn the press into a privileged class. If ordinary people witness a crime, they have to talk about it. If they participate in a crime — say, by receiving classified documents — they have to say where they got them. Journalists want to be treated differently, but the First Amendment doesn't create that sort of privilege. Nor should we.

The author, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds himself, is precisely right. While the First Amendment clearly protects the right to freedom of the press, that does not create a special privilege for some sanctified class known as “journalists”. Reporters are, in the end, subject to the exact same laws as every other American. What next – a claim for exemption from laws against speeding because they are rushing to cover a breaking story? A total exemption from libel laws on the grounds that the potential liability that arises from inaccurate reports inhibits the reporting of the news?

I can’t help but think back a couple of decades to my college days. The editorial staff of a campus newspaper went out for a night of heavy underage drinking at the local bars. Several of them drank to excess. On their way home, while crossing the railroad tracks, they decided to play chicken with the 11:30 Amtrak. Five jumped – and the chronically-depressed alcoholic who wrote wonderful satires about campus life embraced the train like a long-desired lover. When the police arrived, his five companions refused to give statements to the police – claiming that as journalists it would compromise their ability to cover the death of their colleague, as well as the (never-to-be-written) feature on under-age drinking in local bars. Any other person making such a claim would have been charged with obstruction.

Now the reporters in the Plame case could, of course, make a Constitutional claim to avoid testifying. They could cite their rights under the Fifth Amendment to not incriminate themselves. After all, they are possibly going to have to admit their role in a criminal enterprise. But doing that would require them to concede that they did something wrong, something criminal. They want to avoid doing so at all costs, for that conflicts with their self-images as paladins out to forthrightly expose the truth. But what they are really out to do is cover up the truth for their own personal convenience.

Reynolds also points out the problem with creating a reporterÂ’s privilege.

Many people who support these privileges say that they would be limited to “real” journalists. But who decides when a journalist is real? If the government decides, isn't that like licensing the press, something the First Amendment was designed to prevent? And if journalists decide, isn't that likely to lead to a closed-shop, guild mentality at exactly the moment when citizen journalism by non-professionals is taking off? All sorts of people are reporting news via Web logs and the Internet. Shouldn't they be entitled to the same privilege?

Press freedom is for everyone, not just professionals. James Madison wrote about “freedom in the use of the press,” making clear that the First Amendment is for everyone who publishes, not just members of the professional-media guild.

Do we really want the government determining who is – and who is not – a journalist? Do we really want to give some bureaucrat the power to grant – or deny – a citizen the full rights guaranteed under the “free press” clause of the First Amendment? Because that will be precisely what will happen when government gets to decide that some folks are “journalists” and have greater rights than other citizens. Let's not create a royalty to whom the rules do not apply.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 4 kb.

Why isnÂ’t this story getting more play in the mainstream media?

Senators from both sides of the aisle competed on Monday to extol the humane treatment of detainees whom they said they saw on a weekend trip to the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. All said they opposed closing the center.

"I feel very good" about the detainees' treatment, Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said.

That feeling was also expressed by another Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
On Monday, Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, said he learned while visiting Guantánamo that some detainees "even have air-conditioning and semiprivate showers."

Another Republican, Senator Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, said soldiers and sailors at the camp "get more abuse from the detainees than they give to the detainees."

In the last month, several senators, including some Republicans, have suggested that Congress should investigate reports of abuses at the detention center or that the military should close it to remove a blot on the country's image.

Oh, I see – the conclusions reached by the Senators is in direct contradiction to the editorial position of the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets. Therefore it needs to be hidden (like this one, on page A-15) or ignored completely.

But don’t worry – the facts won’t get in the way of Amnesty International and the rest of the rest of the Left making condemnations.

An official of Amnesty International, Jumana Musa, dismissed the visits as "this little Congressional show and tell." Ms. Musa said the statements did not address what she called the inadequate investigation of reported abuses.

"Whether or not people are being fed orange chicken," Ms. Musa said, "does not get at the heart of the issue."

Actually, it does go to the heart of the issue. These terrorist scum are not being abused, tortured, or killed, despite the claims of those who wish to make Gitmo into a gulag or a concentration camp. And the charges are being investigated, as the very report used by Senator Durbin proves.

But when will little things like the truth get in the way of the the LeftÂ’s irresponsible charge.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

Those who have watched or read Field of Dreams may remember the character “Moonlight” Graham.

On June 29, 1905, Moonlight Graham -- so nicknamed, some say, because of his insomnia -- made his single major-league appearance.

The North Carolina native played right field for the New York Giants for one or two innings and never got a chance to bat. Seeing his baseball career going nowhere, he quit to become a physician. In 1909 he took a train to Chisholm to answer an ad placed by Rood Hospital.

Moonlight Graham became Doc Graham -- married a local girl who taught at the school, and took care of the town's children for the next four decades or so. No kid who needed medicine, glasses, or a ticket to the ballgame ever went without. The story is beautiful -- and is one of those that makes America great.

As is said by Moonlight Graham in the book -- "Son, if I'd only got to be a doctor for five minutes, now that would have been a tragedy."

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

Those who have watched or read Field of Dreams may remember the character “Moonlight” Graham.

On June 29, 1905, Moonlight Graham -- so nicknamed, some say, because of his insomnia -- made his single major-league appearance.

The North Carolina native played right field for the New York Giants for one or two innings and never got a chance to bat. Seeing his baseball career going nowhere, he quit to become a physician. In 1909 he took a train to Chisholm to answer an ad placed by Rood Hospital.

Moonlight Graham became Doc Graham -- married a local girl who taught at the school, and took care of the town's children for the next four decades or so. No kid who needed medicine, glasses, or a ticket to the ballgame ever went without. The story is beautiful -- and is one of those that makes America great.

As is said by Moonlight Graham in the book -- "Son, if I'd only got to be a doctor for five minutes, now that would have been a tragedy."

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Some folks are just plain sick. I think this qualifies.

A 45-year-old Gardiner, Maine, man was arrested Sunday on criminal trespass charges after a teenage girl found him staring at her from below an outhouse seat, police said.

Police pulled Gary Moody from the waste tank under a log cabin outhouse off the Kancamagus Highway at about 12:30 p.m. Sunday.

"We had to decontaminate him," said Capt. Jon Hebert of the Carroll County Sheriff's Department, adding that firefighters hosed the man down before police handcuffed him.

"We treated him as if he were hazardous material," Hebert said.

Moody, 45, of Nash Road in Gardiner, was arrested Sunday in the area of the Lower Falls off the Kancamagus Highway in the White Mountain National Forest, a popular swimming hole. He was charged with criminal trespass. Police said he may face additional charges.

Sick sick sick sick sick!

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

1 So sick, RWR repeated the article post 5 times in a row!

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 29 15:02:18 2005 (3kXfE)

2 Yow! How did that happen?????

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 29 16:21:37 2005 (EZbJ8)

3 Ha. It did seem as though you wanted to get your point across, 5 times.

Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Jun 30 02:29:18 2005 (jhRit)

4 Must have been a LIBERAL!

Jooooooke!

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 30 15:22:45 2005 (r/FBF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Douglas Wood's manners have been called into question.

Apparently the Australian Left is upset because of the ‘boorish” behavior of the recently freed hostage. His offense? Calling the terrorists who held him hostage and executed the Iraqis held with him “assholes”. Or at least that is the view expressed by Andrew Japsan, the editor of The Age, Australia’s most left-wing major newspaper.

Said Jaspan: "I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood's use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."

You must be kidding. Kidnapped, threatened with death, forced to make a propaganda tape – that constitutes “treated well”?

And Japsan is not alone.

Consider Bob Ellis, who has written speeches and slogans for a collective of Left leaders such as Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, NSW Premier Bob Carr and Greens leader Bob Brown.

Ellis now praises Wood's kidnappers as "honourable men (with) a well-treated captive". Keysar Trad, spokesman for the Mufti, Sheik Taj el-Din el-Hilaly, also agreed Wood had been "well looked after".

The readers of The Age also have a few words to say.

“For those of us on the left, it’s a bummer that he didn’t come out and condemn the war,” wrote internet commentator Shay after Douglas Wood’s rescue. “But just because he’s not of our political persuasion doesn’t mean we should move into attack mode.” Ha! Wood’s fate was sealed as soon as he opted for “God bless America” over the more acceptable “Allah Akbar!” Loathing increased when he sold his story to the Ten Network. “Mercenary to the end,” shrieked one web-based hater. Another seethed: “You are lucky your captors had ethics and did not dispose of you.” The captors, who murdered their Iraqi hostages, had ethics? “Douglas Wood is a disgrace. He should hang his head in shame,” bitched one of many at The Age’s website. “He was profiteering from this wholesale slaughter,” yelped someone who might have been correct had his remark been directed at Saddam Hussein during his oil-for-food orgy with the United Nations. “I think the Woods are stupidly rich and that Douglas is the one who likes being rich best,” announced insightful Mike W. “Was he there helping Iraqis or was he there making money and working for the coalition?” asked Age reader Gregoire, unaware that it’s possible to do both.

And, of course, the real offense of Douglas Wood.

It seems that to a Leftist, this makes Wood the boorish inferior of the killers who beat him and held him captive. It is why journalist Tracee Hutchinson, in an Age column, calls him a "blustering buffoon", moaning: "It was enough that his words God bless America had been played over and over on his release."

Yep, that’s it – he dared to speak well of America. Such words are unacceptable to the Left.

Paging Mr. Rove.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

Hopefully we will see more suits of this kind -- and citizen success -- in this post-Kelo world. I mean if the government is going to say that your land is “only” worth $14,000 when it takes it but then turns around and sells it for over four times as much, they clearly were in error on the market value of the property.

In May 2004, the city's Redevelopment Agency, a state-approved board, was granted a court order to employ eminent domain - the government's right to seize property - for Shennett's lot.

Last week, Shennett said he learned for the first time in January that his property had been taken. The city sent him letters in 2004, but Shennett says he never got them.

During a hearing on the matter in Superior Court last week, a judge ruled that Shennett was never properly informed and that the commissioners who approved the $14,730 compensation price for the property must meet again and allow Shennett to get his own appraisal.

The Redevelopment Agency, meanwhile, sold the property to Wayne Asset Management of Kinnelon for $60,000 in December.

Despite the discrepancy in price, which has been a source of contention, the city has the right to pay Shennett less for the property than what it was sold for, said William Ward, a Florham Park attorney with the firm Carlin and Ward, which specializes in eminent domain cases.

The city claims that the difference is due to a zoning change that went through in order to enable the development, and that the law therefore allows it to pay Mr. Shennett the value at the time they seized it from him – prior to its own actions that allowed itself to see a 300% increase in value. In other words, the city artificially kept the value down through zoning. Once it found a buyer for the land, it acted to jack the price up to what the new buyer was willing to pay – and as the owner, it received the benefit of the new market value.

Oh, and did I neglect to include a bit about the developer.

In the meantime, Wayne Asset is building a new house on Shennett's property.

Wayne Asset is run by Wayne Alston, a former city councilman who in 1992 was charged by federal authorities with taking $6,000 in bribes from a city landlord and paying himself $15,000 in bonuses from state funds.

But a mistrial allowed Alston to plead guilty to a lesser charge, and he was sentenced to five months in prison and a year of supervised release

Dirty politician, getting favirs from (and giving them to?) his buddies who are still on the council.

Shame!

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

Hopefully we will see more suits of this kind -- and citizen success -- in this post-Kelo world. I mean if the government is going to say that your land is “only” worth $14,000 when it takes it but then turns around and sells it for over four times as much, they clearly were in error on the market value of the property.

In May 2004, the city's Redevelopment Agency, a state-approved board, was granted a court order to employ eminent domain - the government's right to seize property - for Shennett's lot.

Last week, Shennett said he learned for the first time in January that his property had been taken. The city sent him letters in 2004, but Shennett says he never got them.

During a hearing on the matter in Superior Court last week, a judge ruled that Shennett was never properly informed and that the commissioners who approved the $14,730 compensation price for the property must meet again and allow Shennett to get his own appraisal.

The Redevelopment Agency, meanwhile, sold the property to Wayne Asset Management of Kinnelon for $60,000 in December.

Despite the discrepancy in price, which has been a source of contention, the city has the right to pay Shennett less for the property than what it was sold for, said William Ward, a Florham Park attorney with the firm Carlin and Ward, which specializes in eminent domain cases.

The city claims that the difference is due to a zoning change that went through in order to enable the development, and that the law therefore allows it to pay Mr. Shennett the value at the time they seized it from him – prior to its own actions that allowed itself to see a 300% increase in value. In other words, the city artificially kept the value down through zoning. Once it found a buyer for the land, it acted to jack the price up to what the new buyer was willing to pay – and as the owner, it received the benefit of the new market value.

Oh, and did I neglect to include a bit about the developer.

In the meantime, Wayne Asset is building a new house on Shennett's property.

Wayne Asset is run by Wayne Alston, a former city councilman who in 1992 was charged by federal authorities with taking $6,000 in bribes from a city landlord and paying himself $15,000 in bonuses from state funds.

But a mistrial allowed Alston to plead guilty to a lesser charge, and he was sentenced to five months in prison and a year of supervised release

Dirty politician, getting favirs from (and giving them to?) his buddies who are still on the council.

Shame!

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

There is continued progress towards the development of a new Iraqi Constitution. Maybe this will be the breakthrough they need to undercut the terrorist "insurgency".

In a meeting with a group of Sunni and Shiite leaders, the cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, outlined a proposal that would scrap the system used in the January election, according to a secular Shiite political leader, Abdul Aziz al-Yasiri, who was at the meeting. The election had a huge turnout by Shiites and Kurds but was mostly boycotted by Sunni Arabs.

Such a change would need to be written into Iraq's new constitution, which parliamentarians are drafting for an Aug. 15 deadline. Although there has been little public talk about what form elections might take under the constitution, Ayatollah Sistani has been highly influential in Iraq's nascent political system.
Under the proposal, voters in national elections would select leaders from each of the 19 provinces instead of choosing from a single country-wide list, as they did in January. The new system would essentially set aside a number of seats for Sunnis roughly proportionate to their numbers in the population, ensuring that no matter how low the Sunni turnout, they would be guaranteed seats.

Now some folks are saying this should have been done from the beginning, and I donÂ’t disagree. Where I do disagree is the notion that it was the fault of the US and the provisional government. Sunnis boycotted the election under threat of terrorism from the so-called insurgents. Their poor showing was therefore their own fault

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

Edward Whelan makes this observation over at National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog.

Justice Souter and his four colleagues who joined his majority opinion in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case evidently get their understanding of this country from the New York Times op-ed page. Consider this bizarre closing to an argument section that aims to refute Justice ScaliaÂ’s dissent:

“

ublic discourse at the present time certainly raises no doubt about the value of the interpretative approach invoked for 60 years now. We are centuries away from the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre and the treatment of heretics in early Massachusetts, but the divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable. This is no time to deny the prudence of understanding the Establishment Clause to require the Government to stay neutral on religious belief . . . .”

If the Court is going to rest its ruling in part on prudential (i.e., policy) reasons like this, it would be helpful if it would tell us what the dickens its references to “public discourse” and “the divisiveness of religion in current public life” are supposed to mean. Is the Court giving anti-religious forces the equivalent of a heckler’s veto? Or does it seriously believe that we are in even the remotest danger of a modern-day St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre?

Who gets to decide what religious expressions are too divisive to be permitted? Will it be based upon the reasonable judgment of the average citizen? Or will it instead be based upon the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the most overly sensitive religion-haters and member of minority faiths? After all, we have already seen where the so-called “reasonable man” standard was jettisoned in sexual harassment cases in favor of a “reasonable woman” standard – which quickly evolved to be the easily-offended woman standard. Will such notions lead to yet another layer of PC “sensitivity” being imposed in place of the actual, original understanding of the Establishment Clause as it was written by the Framers?

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Please, dear Lord, anything but having to listen to this!

Tone-deaf AMERICAN IDOL reject WILLIAM HUNG is teaming up with one-hit wonder BILLY RAY CYRUS for a revamped version of the country star's mega-hit ACHY BREAKY HEART.

Novelty hitmaker Hung has recorded a string of summer hits, including Cyrus' classic, for new album MIRACLE: HAPPY SUMMER FROM WILLIAM HUNG.

And Cyrus will even appear in the tongue-in-cheek video.

Hung's new album also features covers of hits like IT'S A MIRACLE, I LOVE LA and SURFIN' USA.

Although in his defense, Billy Ray did have more than one hit. And remains a fan favorite in country music.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

In a move that surprised absolutely no one, Kay Bailey Hutchison today announced her intent to run for a third Senate term.

Hutchison's re-election announcement was anticlimactic, coming 10 days after she sent word via a press release on a Friday evening that she wouldn't run against Perry.

About 200 supporters gathered to hear Hutchison speak Monday at an aviation museum next to Love Field. The 61-year-old senator said she wanted to stay in Washington to work on federal issues such as homeland security and tax relief and to move up the Senate GOP leadership ladder.

And Kay has established herself as a serious force in Washington, and can be expected to move up the ladder in Senate leadership. Who knows -- the day might not be far off when she holds one of the higher offices held by a certain former Texas senator named Johnson -- be that Senate Majority Leader, Vice President, or even President.

Hutchison had vowed to serve only two full, six-year terms. She said Monday that she still supports term limits but would not bind herself unless senators from other states also left after two terms.

I agree with Hutchison's reasoning here. It is not good for the state to abide by term limits not accepted by all. Not that I am a term limit fan -- far from it, as I believe them to be antithetical to good government. Just look at cities like Houston, which limit city offeceholders.

Frankly, I find this to be a good thing for Texas, and a better thing for the Texas GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

What more need be said about these two quotes from Hate-America-Firster Ward Churchill?

"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal," he said. "But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"

and

Later, in a question-and-answer period, Churchill was asked whether the trauma "fragging" inflicts on that officer's family back home should be considered, he responded: "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"

At a certain point, doessn't advocacy of a political position cross a line beyond which speech has no protection? And doesn't that "speech beyond the pale" include advocacy of mutiny and murder within the armed forces of the United States?

UPDATE -- The story on WND seems to have been lifted without attribution from the blog "Pirate Ballerina." To download the audio, click here. (Hat Tip -- Lone Star Times)

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

The views of a British Christian group have led to its bank dumping it. The problem – the group’s opposition to homosexuality puts it at odds with the bank’s commitment to “diversity”. There is no room for tolerance of dissenting views.

The Co-operative Bank has asked an evangelical Christian group to close its account because of its anti-homosexual views.

The bank said the opinions of Christian Voice were incompatible with its support for diversity.

Christian Voice said the bank, based in Manchester, was discriminating against it on religious grounds.

It is now waiting for other religious groups with similar opinions to be asked to close accounts, it added.

Christian Voice has held an account with the Co-operative Bank for about three years.

But now the bank has decided the group's stance on homosexuality is so extreme, it has asked members to look for a new bank.

"It has come to the bank's attention that Christian Voice is engaged in discriminatory pronouncements based on the grounds of sexual orientation," a spokesman for the bank said.

"This public stance is incompatible with the position of the Co-operative Bank, which publicly supports diversity and dignity in all its forms for our staff, customers and other stakeholders."

So letÂ’s see if I understand the bankÂ’s position correctly. Diversity is so important that it cannot allow for a diversity of views among its customers. WouldnÂ’t that mean that the bank does not really value diversity, but instead values homosexuality over Christianity?

Posted by: Greg at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Tthe winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Beautiful Indifference by Dr. Sanity, and Kos Says U.S. Torture 'Equal' To that of Saddam Hussein (A Comparison) by The Jawa Report. Congratulations to the winners and all participants.

Posted by: Greg at 03:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Newsday columnist Less Brains Les Payne wrote one of the more outrageous pieces of race-baiting hate-mongery that I've ever encountered. And to do it, he has to tarnish a victory for racial justice over the hatred of the KKK.

The conviction of the 80-year-old Mississippi racist for a 41-year-old murder reminds us that the new Republican Party, the GOP that gave us Nixon, Ford and Reagan, Bush 41 and his unspeakable son, rode into power on the backs of the Ku Klux Klan.

This triple murder in June 1964, to sum up for the attention-deficient, hastened the passing of the first Civil Rights Act in July of the same year. By promising blacks the vote, this act stampeded white Southerners into the arms of the national GOP and provided the margin needed to dominate Congress and the White House. These party-switchers would, of course, demand their pound of flesh and along the way, pay homage to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan who made it all possible.

The Civil Rights Act was first introduced by President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated before its enactment. This historic reform prescribed the initiation of equal rights for blacks in voting, education, public accommodations, union membership and in federally assisted programs. Passage of the law fell to President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was a protege of Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia, who led the filibuster against it, declaring: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure ...which would ... bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our states."

After signing the bill into law, Johnson reportedly told close associates that "I am afraid we have lost the South for a hundred years."

Payne, of course, forgets the minor detail that the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed precisely because the GOP threw its weight behind the laws that brought about equality for blacks, while the Democrats took the credit for the passage of the legislation that its own Klan-ridden party could never have passed alone. Furthermore, he fails to acknowledge that those who came over to the GOP at the time left behind an equal number of colleagues who continued to oppose civil rights from inside the Democrat party, while the GOP remained a fundamentally pro-civil rights party -- as it is to this day.

Payne also fails to not ethat the only member of Congress with a history of KKK involvement is Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a Klan organizer, recruiter, and supporter. The "Conscience of the Senate's" recent autobiography still fails to deal forthrightly with facts that are on the historical record regarding his relationship with the KKK years after he quit. On the other hand, whenever a Klansman pokes his head above the hedges in the GOP, he is quickly repudiated by the party -- as can be seen with the GOP response to David Duke. But somehow it is the GOP, in Payne's view, that pays homage to the Klan.

So what has the recent conviction of Klansman Edgar Ray Killen in Philadelphia, Miss., to do with the modern GOP? More than the party would openly admit.

The white South as a touchstone for success has not been lost on the GOP. It was no accident that Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 presidential campaign by trekking to Philadelphia in search of symbol and Mississippi blessings. It was at this terrible place, so sacred then to Cowboy Reagan, that, on the night of June 21, 1964, the Klan abducted and murdered Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner.

Actually, I'll argue it is very much an accident that the campaign began in that place. I've read the transcript of that day's speech (I cannot find it on the web, though) -- it doesn't speak to issues of race or civil rights at all. Here is a key chunk of it, the section that uses the dreaded term "states rights".

What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state's rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.

As you can see, this is not an appeal to themes of race and racism, but rather to the hallmark of Reagan's campaign -- reducing governemnt and decentralizing federal power. Those are themes that resonated tehn and resonate now, but which are clearly race neutral. And while folks like Payne make much of the Philadelphia speech, they do not often have the integrity to mention that the next speech he gave was one devoted to the traditional Republican theme of support for civil rights -- at the convention of the National Urban League.

Les Payne wants to paint every southern Republican -- including those of us transplanted here from northern locales -- as unreconstructed Confederates, night-riding Klansmen, and black-hating Dixiecrats. He is wrong, for the GOP continues to support the principles of equal opportunity that have always animated it. What his column does show is that he is animated with the very racial bias that he thinks propels us.

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 918 words, total size 6 kb.

Will Franklin over at WILLisms has put together a photographic display of notable quotes from our favorite Democrats. Drop in for a quick look.

Posted by: Greg at 05:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't like the proposed amendment to ban flag desecration, and I oppose it. To some that makes me a ahte-America-first-liberal sort of guy -- but that isn't it at all, as many of you have read my condemnations of the America-hating Left (and Right) over the last year. Rather, I am concerned about what will be held to constitute desecration (how about a flag patch on the seat of a pair of pants, or anywhere on Michael moore's body?), and the fact that other much more powerful symbols of this country (the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence) are not covered. And yes, I am concerned about the slippery slope that will exist (not might -- will) if we start tinkering with the bedrock principles of the First Amendment -- heck, it is already hard enough to get Congress and the courts to respect them as it is, as we have seen in cases permitting the regulation of political speech in the name of "campaign finance reform".

Mark Steyn, though, has an interesting take on the matter.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 04:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 664 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like at least one Texas town had a vested interest in Kelo coming out as it did -- and is wasting no time to make its move to seize the property of two businesses in order to give to another, all in the name of economic development.

With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.

Over the years, Freeport's lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.

"This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city," City Manager Ron Bottoms said.

Lee Cameron, director of the city's Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city's downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs. He said three hotels, two of which have "high interest," have contacted the city about building near the marina.

"It's all dependent on the marina," Cameron said. "Without the marina, (the hotels) aren't interested. With the marina, (the hotels) think it's a home run."

Posted by: Greg at 04:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 5 kb.

Over at PrisonPlanet.com, Alex Jones has the truly horrific details of the abuse perpetrated by New London officials against those residents whose attempts retain their own property were rebuffed by the liberal majority of the Supreme Court yesterday.

These include;

- An insulting offer of $60,000 from the government on a home worth $215,000.

- Unannounced visits to Cristofaro's elderly parent's home demanding they sign a contract to hand over their property.

- Intimidating and harassing phone calls at all hours of the day.

- Parking bulldozers and wrecking balls outside the houses pointing at the property with threats of "your house is next."

- Revving the engines of the bulldozers outside the houses in the early morning hours of the morning.

- Cristofaro's mother becoming distraught and suffering a heart attack after being served with condemnation papers that said she no longer owned her property and had ninety days to leave.

- A death bed plea from a 93-year-old resident begging "what about my house, what about my house?" The man had been living in his home for 80 years. The contractors would park construction vehicles on his property, make his house literally shake and would, Waco-style, shine bright floodlights into his home as his blind wife cowered in fear.

- A threat to charge residents back rent if they lost the case, effectively meaning the homeowners will have to pay the city to be kicked out of their own homes. One resident, William von Winkle, would owe the city $200,000 in back rent.

- When the Supreme Court decision was made on Thursday, the city had police cruisers and a fire truck casing the neighborhood because they feared the residents would riot. "What were they planning on doing? Hosing us down?" stated Cristofaro.

- Real Estate agents paid by the government to force residents to sign contracts to hand over their homes were on an $8,000 commission to get the signatures by any means possible.

- William von Winkle's apartment tenants were forcibly evicted and locked out from their homes in the early morning hours during winter with snow on the ground, before the city even owned the property. Von Winkle had to break back into his own apartment block to prevent his tenants from freezing to death.

In other words, "We made you an offer -- you cannot refuse."

(Via Random & Politically Incorrect Thoughts!

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

All the discussion of the Kelo case has put me in mind of a use of eminent domain down here in Houston that led to the demise of an internationally known store that was over 130-years-old. Now please note that this is a "pure" eminent domain case, dealing with highway expansion that is a true "public use". But the effects were just as devastating, because the deck was stacked and the state held all the cards.

Western-style clothier Stelzig of Texas has possessed the grit of an Alamo defender for more than 130 years, withstanding floods, the Great Depression, recessions and even a bit of cowboy backlash.

By the end of this year, though, the country's oldest Western store could ride off into the sunset, shutting its doors for good. It's a case of Houston's massive highway system gobbling up the retail landscape.

The state acquired the company's land via eminent domain for the West Loop construction project, but the settlement amount for the property is still in dispute. A panel of special commissioners, which sets the amount, ruled in July that the Stelzigs should be paid more than $4.7 million. The state is contesting that ruling.

Until the store gets that money in hand, owners say, they can't buy new property for relocation or build a new store . The state says they must vacate by Dec. 31.

Hardly a storybook ending for a family-owned business spanning five generations, serving everyone from foreign dignitaries to American presidents, oil barons and pop icons to your everyday urban cowboy.

Leo Stelzig Jr. said he thought he found a permanent home for the business his grandfather founded when it relocated to the Galleria-area location from downtown about 18 years ago.

"Then the state comes along and says they're taking it," Stelzig said. "It's not a choice. That puts you in the position where you have to vamonos. And that's terrible."

The odds of the store reopening in the future are remote. "It's pretty slim," Stelzig said. "When you liquidate inventory, furniture and fixtures, that's pretty tough."

"We don't want to quit doing business," his daughter, Frances Stelzig-Butler, chimed in.

The Stelzig property is needed for the $80.97 million road reconstruction project. The contract was awarded by the Texas Department of Transportation in July and work is scheduled to begin in January, says Janelle Gbur, spokeswoman for TxDOT.

Yeah, that's right -- the state didn't like what its own panel decided, so they took the matter to court, which meant that the family got nothing while the state got immediate possession of the property. I've never seen any resolution to the case, so I can only presume that the family is still waiting to be paid for land over which thhousands drive daily.

No doubt we will see plenty of this as communities engage in eminent domain for economic development -- "Take this low-ball offer or we will take the house with no compensation while we tie the matter up in court for the next few years." With a home being the major investment of most Americans, and a small business being the sole source of income for many an entrepreneur, what choice will the victims have? Can you afford to wait for two or three or five years, paying a lawyer and a new mortgage, while a judge or jury decide what you should be paid for a major asset that the government has already confiscated and is already using? Can you afford to wait out the appeals process if you or the state are still not satisfied? I know I can't, and I suspect the same is true of most Americans.

Now there is a mini-happy-ending to this story, but one which strikes me as bittersweet. Stelzig of Texas did get a resurrection of sorts this past year -- as part of a shop at Bush Intercontinental Airport. But gone are the days when it was a thriving business that had customers from around the world and a distinguished place in the fashion world.

Posted by: Greg at 06:06 PM | Comments (78) | Add Comment
Post contains 694 words, total size 5 kb.

IÂ’ve been saying for some time that the excesses taking place in Canada and other foreign environs could eventually reach to within AmericaÂ’s borders. I just didnÂ’t expect it to come so soon.

Is there no longer a right for employees to engage in Constitutionally protected speech about their religious beliefs on their own time? DoesnÂ’t firing them for such activity constitute discrimination based upon such speech constitute employment discrimination based upon religion, which is banned by the statute by the federal government and all fifty states? Or does the judicially-discovered right to sodomy override those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

An employee of the Allstate insurance company has been fired from his job for comments that appeared in a men’s journal denouncing same-sex “marriage,” even though the statement was penned in the employee’s own spare time and from home.

“I explained to Allstate that the article was a reflection of my personal Christian beliefs, and that I had every right to both write it and to have it published,” J. Matt Barber told WorldNetDaily news. “I further explained that I had written the article while at home on my own time, that I never mentioned Allstate's name and that I neither directly nor indirectly suggested that Allstate shared my Christian beliefs or my views on same-sex marriage.”

Allstate made no attempt to hide its bigotry. According to its report, “The claimant was discharged from Allstate Insurance Company because an outside organization had complained about an article he had written while on his own time.” The company even tried to have Barber denied unemployment insurance, which can be withheld if a person was fired for a violation of company policy or rules.

Now what awful things had Barber written in the article to which the online publication appended a biography identifying his employer without his knowledge? What evil, hateful, discriminatory words had he caused to be published? How had he engaged in misconduct so grave that Allstate sought to have him denied unemployment benefits mere weeks after the birth of a child following a difficult high-risk pregnancy? Well, take a look.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

Will Democrats and other leftists deny the accuracy of Karl RoveÂ’s words as applied to MoveOn.Org and its ilk?

The story began with a man who has received little attention in the controversy, a young film student named David Pickering. Visiting his parents' home in Brooklyn on September 11, 2001, Pickering immediately began to worry about the consequences of U.S. retaliation for the terrorist attacks. "It was this incredible moment in which all doors were opened and the world was seeming to come together," Pickering told me in an interview for my book, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. "I had this feeling that it would be a shame if that were spoiled by a spirit of vengeance."

The next day, September 12, Pickering wrote a petition calling on President Bush to use "moderation and restraint" in responding to 9/11 and "to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."

At the same time, Pariser, who had graduated from college the year before and was working at a liberal nonprofit organization in Massachusetts, was writing a similar petition, which he put on a website he created called 9-11peace.org. Pariser noticed Pickering's work and e-mailed him to suggest that they merge their sites. Pickering agreed, and 9-11peace.org featured a petition which read:
We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . .

Meanwhile, across the country in Berkeley, California, MoveOn founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades were writing an anti-war petition of their own. Entitled "Justice, not Terror," it read, in full: "Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists' hands."

As they staked out their own anti-war position, Blades and Boyd were also following the progress of 9-11peace.org. In a September 2004 interview for The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, I asked Blades how she had come to know Pariser. "It was after 9/11," she told me. "He put out a message similar in results to the one we had, basically an e-mail petition asking for restraint. It went viral on an international scale. . . . Eli's petition grew to half a million in half a week. Peter [Schurman, the executive director of MoveOn] contacted him because he figured he probably needed some help. We did provide him with some assistance, and we started working together on other issues and eventually merged." In the end, their shared opposition to U.S.-military retaliation for the September 11 attacks brought Pariser and MoveOn together. (For his part, David Pickering moved to Paris to attend film school.)

Critics have suggested that at the very least, Rove's "liberals" charge was overbroad. That's a fair criticism. But as far as MoveOn is concerned, Rove's words were accurate and fair.

The shoe fits – wear it.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 4 kb.

HereÂ’s who they want to run the museum at Ground Zero.

A museum that is set to rise above the hallowed soil of Ground Zero has showcased art that the families of 9/11 victims are denouncing as offensive, anti-American - and a slap in the face of nearly 3,000 dead innocents.

The Drawing Center, a little-known cultural group in SoHo, has mounted works linking President Bush to Osama Bin Laden and showing a hooded victim of U.S. abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

The storefront museum currently features a "pseudo-didactic PowerPoint presentation on the Axis of Evil" that appears to mock Bush's famous description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Previous exhibits include a drawing of four airplanes swooping menacingly out of the sky - one of which is flying directly at a naked woman lying on her back, legs spread-eagled. The acrylic image is titled "Homeland Security."

What do the families of those who died in the 9/11 attack on our country have to say?
more...

Posted by: Greg at 12:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ve read a lot of great stuff on the Kelo decision, which effectively gutted the above clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. The best analysis seems to be that of Professor Stephen Bainbridge.

Unfortunately, the requirement to pay fair market value is a grossly inadequate safeguard on government power for two reasons. First, it fails to take into account the subjective valuations placed on the New London property by people whose families have lived on the land, in at least one case, for a 100 years. In other words, the government now will be able to seize land at a price considerably below the reservation price of the owners. Indeed, as Will Collier explained:

"... the price even a willing seller would be able to get from his property just took a huge hit. All a developer has to do now is make a lowball offer and threaten to involve a bought-and-paid-for politician to take the property away if the owner doesn't acquiesce."

Second, unlike the prototypical eminent domain case, in which the land is seized to build, say, a school or road, in this case the city is using eminent domain to seize property that will then be turned over to a private developer. If this new development increases the value of the property, all of that value will be captured by the new owner, rather than the forced sellers. As a result, the city will have made itself richer (through higher taxes), and the developer richer, while leaving the forced sellers poorer in both subjective and objective senses.

Justice O'Connor's dissent makes the point eloquently:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random."

"The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

After news of Napoleon's victory in the Battle of Austerlitz was conveyed to British Prime Minister William Pitt, Pitt pointed to a map of Europe and said: "Roll up the map; it will not be wanted these ten years." In light of the Supreme Court's decision to side with New London, we might just as well roll up the Takings Clause of the Bill of Rights, because we won't need it any longer.

Indeed, not only have the justices declared that we do not need the Takings Clause any longer, but they have indeed taken it, eviscerated it, and left its carcass to rot in the sun, for we have now seen the principle of eminent domain expanded far beyond the concept of public use and the revitalization of truly blighted and decayed areas to include the destruction of viable middle class communities.

UPDATE -- Great blog with a good proposed constitutional amendment.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

How else can you interpret this conclusion from today’s editorial on the Kelo case?

Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

In other words, property rights be damned – be happy the government is giving you anything when they throw you out of your home for the benefit of someone else.

UPDATE: I had no idea how right I was when I wrote this -- the NY Times itself has screwed the little guy in an "eminent domain for economic development case" that allowed it to get the land for its new headquarters from an unwilling seller. And they updated the original editorial surreptitiously to include an acknowledgement of this fact in the editorial after it was published. Good going to Lawroark at Protect Homes, Not Flags.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

How else can you interpret this conclusion from todayÂ’s editorial on the Kelo case?

Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

In other words, property rights be damned – be happy the government is giving you anything when they throw you out of your home for the benefit of someone else.

UPDATE: I had no idea how right I was when I wrote this -- the NY Times itself has screwed the little guy in an "eminent domain for economic development case" that allowed it to get the land for its new headquarters from an unwilling seller. And they updated the original editorial surreptitiously to include an acknowledgement of this fact in the editorial after it was published. Good going to Lawroark at Protect Homes, Not Flags.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

But no doubt Dick Durbin and the rest of the Left will be glad to explain to us that these exist because we have failed to keep the cells at Gitmo appropriately climate-controlled.

US Marines have found manuals on taking hostages and decapitation during a raid on a guerrilla hideout in the Iraqi village of Karabla, near the town of Qaim, close to the Syrian border. The Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that in the hideaway the troops also found several hostages who were being held there by Islamic militants. The hiding place was being used as a centre for the interrogation and torture of hostages, and contained electrodes and other instruments of torture.

The manuals found were used as Jihad (Holy War) handbooks. The first was titled: "How to choose the best hostage", the second covered decapitation and was called: "Rules for cutting off the heads of infidels", and the third manual, "principles of the philosophy of the Jihad", was more theoretical.

The three documents, the last of which is 574 pages long, carry the name Abdel Rahman al-Aliya, which the newspaper says is probably a cover name to hide the identity of the real author. The hideout - in the volatile western Anbar province which has been the scene of fierce fighting between insurgents and the US-led forces - is believed to have been used by the group led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is credited with introducing the practice of decapitation to the activities of the Jihadist movement.

I’m curious – what is the position of Amnesty International and the International Red Cross on this?

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Howard Dean lied about the contents of his party’s report on the Ohio election this past year. Who says so? One of the authors, and the Democrat official in charge of election in one of the counties he cited as proof of intent to suppress minority voter turnout.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean tried to claim that the report nonetheless backed up charges that there was widespread "voter suppression" in Ohio involving long lines at polls due to a misallocation of voting machines and unlawful voter identification requirements.

Mr. Dean also indicated that the report backed up his belief that Republicans actively worked to suppress black voter turnout. "It's been widely reported over the past several years that Republicans do target African-Americans for voter suppression," he told reporters. "It's very clear here while there was no massive vote fraud, and I concur with the conclusion -- it's also clear that there was massive voter suppression."

But Mr. Dean's statement landed him in hot water when a scholar involved in writing the DNC report, Cornell University Professor Walter Mebane Jr., explained to the media that while the report had found numerous irregularities, it could not determine whether there was any partisan intent behind them. He also noted that county election boards in Ohio, which determine the distribution of voting machines, are bipartisan. Mr. Dean then had to return to the microphones to revise his remarks: "While we certainly couldn't draw a proven conclusion that this was willful, it certainly has the appearance of impropriety."

But William Anthony, a Democrat who is chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party in Ohio's capital of Columbus, rejects any suggestion of voter suppression. "Most of the precincts that stayed open late because of long lines were in the suburbs," he told the Columbus Dispatch last November. Mr. Anthony, who is also chair of the Franklin County elections board, acknowledged that the high turnout and a ballot that involved more than 100 choices for some voters did create lines, but added that he was offended by allegations from "a band of conspiracy theorists" that voter suppression had occurred. "I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" That, in turn, raises the question: Why do Democrats like Mr. Dean persist in inciting racial tensions with wildly exaggerated claims that black voters are being disenfranchised?

Howard Dean – do you not realize that every time you and your fellow Democrats lie about voter fraud and vote suppression, you undermine the public’s confidence in the electoral system of this country? Do you not realize that doing so will serve to further alienate voters from the process? And do you not realize that, in the end, your partisan falsehoods will undermine support for the government of our country? I will ask the question, sir – why do you hate America?

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

Howard Dean lied about the contents of his partyÂ’s report on the Ohio election this past year. Who says so? One of the authors, and the Democrat official in charge of election in one of the counties he cited as proof of intent to suppress minority voter turnout.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean tried to claim that the report nonetheless backed up charges that there was widespread "voter suppression" in Ohio involving long lines at polls due to a misallocation of voting machines and unlawful voter identification requirements.

Mr. Dean also indicated that the report backed up his belief that Republicans actively worked to suppress black voter turnout. "It's been widely reported over the past several years that Republicans do target African-Americans for voter suppression," he told reporters. "It's very clear here while there was no massive vote fraud, and I concur with the conclusion -- it's also clear that there was massive voter suppression."

But Mr. Dean's statement landed him in hot water when a scholar involved in writing the DNC report, Cornell University Professor Walter Mebane Jr., explained to the media that while the report had found numerous irregularities, it could not determine whether there was any partisan intent behind them. He also noted that county election boards in Ohio, which determine the distribution of voting machines, are bipartisan. Mr. Dean then had to return to the microphones to revise his remarks: "While we certainly couldn't draw a proven conclusion that this was willful, it certainly has the appearance of impropriety."

But William Anthony, a Democrat who is chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party in Ohio's capital of Columbus, rejects any suggestion of voter suppression. "Most of the precincts that stayed open late because of long lines were in the suburbs," he told the Columbus Dispatch last November. Mr. Anthony, who is also chair of the Franklin County elections board, acknowledged that the high turnout and a ballot that involved more than 100 choices for some voters did create lines, but added that he was offended by allegations from "a band of conspiracy theorists" that voter suppression had occurred. "I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" That, in turn, raises the question: Why do Democrats like Mr. Dean persist in inciting racial tensions with wildly exaggerated claims that black voters are being disenfranchised?

Howard Dean – do you not realize that every time you and your fellow Democrats lie about voter fraud and vote suppression, you undermine the public’s confidence in the electoral system of this country? Do you not realize that doing so will serve to further alienate voters from the process? And do you not realize that, in the end, your partisan falsehoods will undermine support for the government of our country? I will ask the question, sir – why do you hate America?

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

America lost a true hero this week, former Marine Corps Commandant and Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Gen. Louis H. Wilson. He passed away at age 85 at his home near Birmingham, Alabama.

Retired Gen. Louis H. Wilson, a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the Marine Corps, has died. He was 85.

Wilson, who had battled a degenerative disorder of the nervous system for several years, died Tuesday at his home in the Birmingham suburb of Homewood, said his daughter, Janet Taylor of Vestavia Hills.

Wilson was awarded the Medal of Honor for his service in the South Pacific during World War II. According to the award citation, he organized night defenses throughout continuous enemy fire and, though wounded three times, coordinated hand-to-hand fighting for 10 hours to hold his unit's position.

He later became the Marine Corps' 26th commandant, holding the position from 1975 to 1979.

"The members of the Howlin' Mad Smith Detachment of the Marine Corps League join our fellow Marines around the world in mourning the passing of Gen. Wilson," said Bob Arnwine, commander of the Birmingham unit. "His leadership, courage and valor will forever be a part of the legacy of our Corps."

A native of Brandon, Miss., Wilson moved to Alabama from California in 2000 to be near his daughter.

Wilson is also survived by his wife, Jane.

Taylor said Wilson will be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

God bless you, sir, for your service to this country. may you fine eternal rest in God's presence, surrounded by your beloved comrades.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, that isn’t precisely what they said. A more accurate summary would be “Your property is not your own if the government wants it for any reason – including to give it to someone else.”

A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Imagine that – these poor dumb citizens believed that they had the right to decide when and if they would sell their homes and property to private developers, and at what price.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1077 words, total size 7 kb.

The evil sought by Wafa al-Biri is impossible for me to understand.

Only two months ago, her family wrote to Sorooka Hospital in Beersheba, Israel, to thank them for the fine care she received after being burned in a gas stove explosion. She had an appointment on Monday morning, but didnÂ’t make it.

Thank God.

But Wafa didn't arrive for Monday's 8 a.m. appointment. "I didn't think much about it. I just marked her as one of the people who didn't show up," Krieger said.

Wafa had begun the journey to her appointment with Krieger, arriving at the Erez border crossing from Gaza into Israel around 5:30 a.m., armed with a letter detailing her appointment and her official permission to cross into Israel for humanitarian reasons.

But that wasn't all the young woman was armed with. She carried a 20-pound bomb inside her underwear. Her target was the outpatient clinic of Soroka hospital and, inevitably, the doctor who saved her life.

She told IDF interviewers that she also wanted to take out 30 to 50 Jews, including children.

And some people believe that this kind of animal should be rewarded with an independent country which will forever threaten the lives of every Israeli? That must be a sick joke, right?

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

We’ve all read about honor killings in Muslim countries – the murder of women whose behavior is considered “unchaste” by their families. Causes range from being sexually assaulted to being alone in a room with an unrelated male, as well as actual morally questionable actions like the commission of fornication and adultery – acts which still do not merit murder.

And now we are headed that way in the United States if we do not clamp down on such quaint socio-religious customs among Muslims in this country. Take this as an example.

The Oakland County Prosecutor's Office on Thursday will attempt to permanently end the parental rights of a Madison Heights couple who police say neglected to seek medical help for their daughter after her older brother allegedly beat her over her relationship with a non-Muslim boy.

The 15-year-old girl, who is a Madison Heights Lamphere High junior, suffered a broken back in the beating, according to court documents. The trial to determine whether parental custody rights should be terminated is set for Thursday before Oakland Circuit Judge Joan Young.

The girl's brother, Ahmad Abdelmomen, 21, is charged with aggravated assault in the April 29 incident at their home in Madison Heights. Abdelmomen is free on bond pending a July 13 preliminary hearing before Madison Heights 43rd District Judge Robert J. Turner.

"She complained of the injury to her parents, but they didn't take her to a doctor because they condoned the punishment her brother gave her," said Robert Zivian, an assistant Oakland County prosecuting attorney assigned to the neglect case.

The following day, when the girl was still complaining of injuries, her parents called for an ambulance, according to Madison Heights Police Detective Sgt. Ron Hillman.

"She was in a lot of pain, and when she eventually went back to school, it was in a wheelchair," Hillman said. "It was too painful for her to stand for any period of time."

The girl initially told hospital workers she fell, Hillman said. After being questioned by police, she admitted that her brother had beaten her because he was upset over her relationship with a boy who was not of their religious faith, Hillman said.

"She wrote me a two-page statement about how both her brother and her parents disapproved of the situation," he said. "She wrote that's what prompted the beating in the first place."

The girl was placed in temporary foster care following the incident, Zivian said.
"Now she is recanting the original story and also claiming she fell down some stairs," Zivian said.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 820 words, total size 5 kb.