Two men returning from Canada fromt he US were arrested by Canadian authorities with handguns and ammunition strapped to their bodies.

Ali Dirie, 22, and Yasin Mohamed, 23 -- both Canadians from the Toronto area -- face weapons-related charges and are in police custody in Niagara Falls, Ontario, according to a police statement. Ontario's Provincial Weapons Enforcement Team and the Niagara Regional Police Service are investigating.

Detective Sgt. Shawn Clarkson, of the Niagara Regional Police Service, would not say what led border officers to search the men.

The men's vehicle underwent a routine search at about 5:40 a.m. at Peace Bridge, which links Buffalo, New York, with Fort Erie, Ontario.

Interesting, isn't it, what one detail is omitted from the description of these perps. I'll bet you can figure it out from their names. You don't suppose ther emight be a connection to violent extremism in the group that was omitted, do you?

Posted by: Greg at 06:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, the ACLU can't touch them over there.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Aug 14 13:37:58 2005 (CQ3Yp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Did you hear about the new ideas bouncing around TSA regarding who is to be searched and what items can/can't be taken on a plane?

The TSA memo proposes to minimize the number of passengers who must be patted down at checkpoints. It also recommends that certain categories of passengers be exempt from airport security screening, such as members of Congress, airline pilots, Cabinet members, state governors, federal judges, high-ranking military officers and people with top-secret security clearances.

The proposal also would allow ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows on flights. Allowing those items was suggested after a risk evaluation was conducted about which items posed the most danger.

If approved, only passengers who set off walk-through metal detectors or are flagged by a computer screening system will have to remove their shoes at security checkpoints. The proposal also would give security screeners the discretion to ask certain passengers "presenting reasonably suspicious behavior or threat characteristics" to remove their shoes.

The proposal also would give screeners discretion in determining whether to pat down passengers. For example, screeners would not have to pat down "those persons whose outermost garments closely conform to the natural contour of the body."

Now some of this is just common sense. Miss Hottie in her spandex outfit is not likely to be carrying anything that you cannot already see -- why pat her down, other than for a cheap thrill? On the other hand, Betty bint Burqa might need to be that pat down (or better yet, a full cavity search) to make sure she is not carying anything dangerous.

On the other hand, I don't see why it is a good idea to let folks carry throwing stars and ice picks in the cabin. And I would really like that crossbow to stowed away with the checked luggage, thank you very much. But yeah, let on the nail clippers, knitting needles, and 1 1/2 inch swiss army knives that fit on a keychain.

And as for exempting "members of Congress, airline pilots, Cabinet members, state governors, federal judges, high-ranking military officers and people with top-secret security clearances", I take extreme exception to the proposal. Sure, let the military folks on without a serious search, but I want all those politicians and judges to be subjected to the highest level of security procedures not reserved for Islamists wearing suicide belts and waving machine guns. After all, if they are going to make these laws and regulations that inconvenience the common citizen, they should be subjected to the full measure of these requirements EVERY SINGLE TIME they get on a plane to ensure that they are aware of the burden us common folks face.

Posted by: Greg at 03:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.

Alief ISD, located on the west side of Houston, Texas, has a strict policy for those students who get into fights. Students who "participate" in a fight are expelled. Now the parents of Matthew Meloy, a former student at Hastings High School, are fighting that rule, suing the district after their son was brutally beaten during his senior year.

Meloy says he was jumped by four other students who were bullying another member of the baseball team.

His family blames it on Alief ISD's strict "no fighting" policy.

"He'd write, "Dad, I didn't want to get kicked out. I didn't want to get suspended. I didn't want to fight. I didn't want to do that because I didn't want that to happen', " says his father, Rick Meloy.

Meloy's father says his son was obeying the school district's zero tolerance policy when it comes to fighting.

"He absolutely knew that because that is something that is in the handbook at the school. It's drilled into the students' heads that if you participate in any way you will be expelled," says Jess Mason, the family's attorney.

When asked if they tell kids not to fight back, "We tell them not to assume they can use that as a justification," says the district's Paula Smith.

Just how badly was the 215-pound, 6-foot three-inches Matthew beaten? Well, his injuries included a jaw broken in two places, teeth floating on busted gums and injuries so severe that he couldn't talk. Two years later, he still has additional surgery ahead of him.

This rule and the way it is expalined and enforced makes students incredibly vulnerable. Matthew Meloy was terrified of being expelled just weeks before graduation, which would have destroyed his future plans for a college education at Texas A&M, one of the finest educational institutions in Texas (no matter what I say to the faces of my Aggie friends). Instead he was beaten to a pulp and could easily have been killed.

Will the next victim of this policy be a young woman who fears that any resistance to a sexual assault will result in her expulsion?

It seems to me that the courts need to intervene and hold those who make such policies liable both professionally and personally for the damage that they and their policies cause.

Posted by: Greg at 06:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 2 kb.

I've gotten plenty of interesting comments from the Left in relation to my Cindy Sheehan post. I was polite and respectful of the woman, but it seems that any hint of criticism of the woman regarded by the Bush-haters as "Saint Cindy, Our Lady of the Martyred Son" is grounds for savage (and anonymous) hate speech.

One of the perps posting such attacks on my site appears to be our old friend Ridor, though he denies making the post while claiming he watched someone else do it (*******************).

Look what the guy posted on his site.

Malkin, Drudge, LGF and RWR: When Cindy Sheehan asked for GW Bush to come out of his reclusive Crawford Ranch for few minutes of talk, to have the normal conversation. Show some compassion for the mother of a dead soldier. After all, he is on his 50th vacation in 5 years (10 per years!), he said he wanted a vacation to "reconnect with his folks in Texas" -- this is his chance to be normal and be civilized. Apparently, no. GW Bush dispatched his supporters like Matt "Roehmosexual" Drudge, Michelle "Chink Bitch" Malkin, Little Green Snotballs, that nobody's prick, Rhymes with Right to assault the mother of a dead soldier of her simple request to meet and talk with GW Bush on a casual level.

It is interesting to note that these people did not mention that the secret service agents made an indirect threat that they will arrest the mother because she is the "threat to the national security". Wow, GW Bush is the national figure? Please!

That Roehmosexual, Matt Drudge did this on persistent level, obviously because he regarded her as an annoyance that can bring the downfall of GW Bush's popularity. His current polls are at an all-time low, which is good for me.

That "Chink Bitch" Malkin had the guts to speak for Casey Sheehan, Cindy's dead son -- she said that Casey would be embarrassed of his mother. Excuse me, Michelle, you do not know Casey like Cindy does -- you just write and spew your fucking dumb-ass rhetoric, claiming to speak for people who has nothing to do with you!

As for RWR, he is just an idiot from Texas. Simply put. He claimed that GW Bush did meet Cindy last year. Yes, in front of media! In front of hundreds of persons, but not one on one. Compassion! Compassion! Franklin Delano Roosevelt did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. JFK did it. Bill Clinton attended the dead soldiers' funerals. Did GW Bush? No. GW Bush joked by calling Cindy, "Mom" and even asked his assistant, "Who are they?" -- implied that GW Bush is a buffoon and do not care at all.

GW Bush and his Republican cronies knew the art of media, thanks to the Nixon debacle, to use against the mass. How? To pretend. To stand and pose for 5 minutes so that the pictures can be taken, then when it's over, the families are out due to the "national security". No time for a normal conversation between a true citizen and the nation's President. But he has time to have 50 vacations in 5 years. No conservatives and Republicans will disseminate why GW Bush has 50 vacations in 5 years, but they are willing to destroy the grieving mother of a dead soldier.

How great is it?

First, let me thank you for putting me in the same category as Drudge, Malkin and Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. I'm honored just to be on some of the the same blogrolls as them, and here you are mentioning me in the same sentence as them for our parts in the conspiracy to defame Mrs. Sheehan that Karl Rove is orchestrating from his Secret Rose Garden Bunker. I'm flattered beyond words that you rate my writing, influence, and importance so high.

Now let me point out that you managed to get a pair of two-fers in your post. Calling the lovely and multi-talented Ms. Malkin a "Chink Bitch" is clearly the first, covering the bases as racist and sexist at the same time. Based upon your subsequent communications with me (which appears below), I have to classify your reference to Matt Drudge as a "Roehmosexual" (my reason for believing that you dictated the comment even if ****** typed it) qualifies as both homophobic and anti-Semitic. Good job. Curiously enough, you failed to find a slur of any kind for Mr. Johnson of LGF, which iis a sign that the quality of your posts is slipping --you usually find at least one intolerant epithet to direct at anyone with whom you disagree. As for my "prick", you lack the necessary clearance to have any information about it.

Now I posted a response in your comments section -- which you promptly deleted. So much for your advertising it as "the Unsafe Zone of Personal Attacks -- Which Means, Fire Away With Your Insults" (proofreading tip -- you don't need that comma).

But you did decide to respond to me at my email address.

From: Ridor [ridor9th@gmail.com]

To: XXXXX [rhymeswithright@gmail.nospam.com]

Date: Aug 12, 2005 9:36 PM

Subject: hey

fyi, ur comment has been deleted as expected.

You accused me of racism, sexism and homophobia -- that is ludicrous. Michelle Malkin called Deaf people "deaf-mute" -- my emails to her has not been responded and she continued to slander Deaf people as "deaf-mute" which is very offensive to start with. So for that, I reserve the right to retaliate back with a "Chink" comment. Deal with it, you fat boy.

Matt Drudge is gay, period. He is quick to accuse and out many people -- even people who questioned GW Bush, Matt was swift to out the person's sexuality -- but what if he was Jewish, will he do the same thing? No. Therefore I reserve the right to call him Roehmosexual.

Sexism? What?

And you fell for McCock's comments -- I *did* not write on your blogsite -- I read, yes, and in fact, someone IN my apartment responded to your comments while I stood and laughed. Rest assured, it was NOT me who commented on your blogsite. After all, who wants to touch your blogsite? Certainly not me.

Please be delusional and remain in your little world with your friends like McWeenie.

R-

--
The One and Only Ridor
Check www.ridor.blogspot.com -- be very afraid.

What can I say? Ms. Malkin gets copious amounts of email. We know that you rarely disagree with anyone in a polite or pleasant fashion. Why would you expect her to take the time to bother writing back.? How does that justify racist and sexist abuse directed at her? It doesn't -- but more on that later.

And then there is Drudge. You insist the guy is gay. I don't know, and don't really care. I respect his right to keep his private life as private as he wants it -- something that was supposed to be a sacred right for homosexuals, according to all the gay advocacy groups. I'm not aware of his having outed anyone over politics (that tends to be the province of hate-mongering gay activists), but I'm sure you can point to his having linked to some story or other from some publication that did so. What is particularly amusing is that you were part of the political feeding frenzy over Jeff Gannon's sexual orientation, so I don't see where you have any room to criticize. And given your reference to Drude's religion, it is clear that you intended the homophobic rhetoric to be laced with anti-Semitism as well. Good job!

As for your comments about me, I challenge anyone reading this to look at my one and only post on Mrs. Sheehan and explain to me how it constituted an attack -- unless discussing an unflattering piece of news is an attack.

Now I won't go into any discussion of the claims you advance on behalf of Mrs. Sheehan. I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat game over it. I have, until today, believed that she is being used. I'm not so sure about that any more, based upon some MSM articles I've come across -- but I want to show her son respect by not attacking her.

I think I've already made clear my position on the comments that I continue to believe you wrote -- if you didn't write them, you dictated them to someone else or used voice recognition software. Your explanation reminds me of another famous denial -- "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

I can think of only one explanation for the hate that seethes through your writing. It has to be rooted in your childhood.

Now no doubt your early socialization as a child raised by a Klan of inbred hate-mongers in the backwoods of the Appalachians leads you to believe that such bigotry is acceptable in polite society. It isn't -- **************.

Oh, and by the way -- what is your fascination with the penises of conservative heterosexual males like me and McConnell that leads you to comment on them so frequently? Is it desire, envy, or simply another feature of your warped personality that leads you to engage in on-line sexual harrassment? Just curious.

UPDATE: You will notice a couple of spots where I have substituted a chain of asterisk for previously posted material. I made several gratuituous comments in this post which were snarky and hurtful -- and which do not do me credit. They also seem to have cut Ridor very deeply in a way I never intended. I've removed them in realization that I may have crossed a line with them. I won't post the emails, as Ridor made it quite clear they were intended to be private.

Posted by: Greg at 05:19 PM | Comments (70) | Add Comment
Post contains 1640 words, total size 10 kb.

Look, Mom, I'm an interstellar blogging sensation!

I don't know for sure if there is a real transmission or not (I assume that there is, but have no independent way of verifying it), but the price is right and the certificate is cool. Go check them out and sign up.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Good gawd! What if the Kommie Kos Kiddies did the same thing? I can see another remake of the movie "Contact" (Jodie Foster) only this time instead of Hitler...we see the first blog in space...(take your pick)

Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Aug 12 14:47:49 2005 (nXE8W)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I thought about asking this question yesterday, in light of the NARAL ad linking John Roberts to abortuary bombings.

After all, the ACLU defended the rights of followers of the genocidal NAZIs to march in Skokie in the 1970s, well-after the perpetration of the Holocaust.

And they have long supported the right of the KKK to spew their hate-filled rhetoric, despite 140 years of racist terror committed by the group.

So if Roberts is responsible for a terorist act committed by one individual years after his intervention in a case in which the future killer was involved, surely the ACLU must be held responsible for prior actions by the groups they defend.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Washington's Wasteful Ways: Alaskan Pork Chops by The Education Wonks, and Planned Parenthood Fantasizes About Blowing Up "Anti-Choicers" by The Dawn Patrol.  Full results of the voting may be found over at Watcher of Weasels.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Americans still love Lucy. Lucille Ball is the top rated star on Marketing Evaluations, Inc.'s list of deceased celebrities.

Lucille Ball is America's most beloved dead star. The company that developed the "Q score" that broadcasters and advertisers quietly consult to measure a personality's popularity has done a survey that tests the reputation of performers who have gone on to that big soundstage in the sky.

The redheaded sitcom star of the 1950s and '60s, who died in 1989, has topped past "Dead Q" lists as her comedies seemingly live forever on television, said Steve Levitt, president of Marketing Evaluations, Inc., which conducts the tests.

"What is there not to like about Lucy?" he said.

Bob Hope, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart and Red Skelton follow her on the popularity list.

Ms. Ball, who died in 1989, was understandably unavailble for comment.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

I've not said anything on this site about the Cindy Sheehan situation up in Crawford. She is entitled to her beliefs, no matter how wrong I believe them to be.

My respect for her son's sacrifice has led me to respectfully avert my gaze from the sorry spectacle she is making of herself. Grief can, after all, cause people to do and say irrational things. I have therefore remained mute on the subject (save for one comment satirizing a post by John Aravosis over at Americablog).

But members of the Sheehan family are speaking out, in a statement issued through The Drudge Report.

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

I think that says about all that needs saying about Mrs. Sheehan.

By the way, is anyone else struck by the fact that there is so little media coverage of survivors who support the war? Could it be that those are the "dog-bites-man" stories and this is "man-bites-dog"?

UPDATE: From the New York Post.

[Cherie Quartarolo's] e-mail was initially sent to San Francisco radio station KSFO and then reported on the Web site of the Vacaville Reporter newspaper in Casey Sheehan's hometown.

The Post e-mailed Quartarolo, and she responded by identifying herself as the aunt and included a copy of her statement.

KSFO talk-show host Melanie Morgan told The Post that she got to know Quartarolo after a July trip to Iraq by conservative radio personalities.

Quartarolo contacted her after hearing her reports praising U.S. troops.

Quartarolo didn't claim to be speaking on behalf of Casey's father, Patrick Sheehan, who is separated from Casey's mother and who has declined to comment on her protest.

(HAT TIP: GOPBloggers)

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

First it was the disgusting behavior of the state's Lt. Governor. Now it seems that the majority leader of the Pennsylvania state senate has forgotten that he is the servant of the people, not a feudal lord.

Bill McIntyre did not expect many replies when he e-mailed a tongue-in-cheek greeting to members of the state General Assembly on the one-month anniversary of the vote to give themselves a raise.

"I thought they would just ignore it," McIntyre said.

About a half-dozen replied.

One suggested he walk a mile in their shoes and run for office. Another asked if McIntyre had ever supported a legislative pay raise. Still another sent a two-page letter explaining why he voted for the raise.

Then there was the reply from Democratic Senate leader Robert J. Mellow, D-Lackawanna: "Why don't you get a life? Please do not mail my office another e-mail."

Senator -- if hearing from citizens who disagree with you is a problem, resignation is the proper solution. If you lack the integrity to quit now, I sincerely hope that your constituents remember and purge your disrespectful ass from public office.

Posted by: Greg at 05:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

Clearly these folks are not sorry about the content of their ad -- merely that htey have been caught. How else can you explain this non-apology from the pro-abortion lobby group after they withdrew their mendacious ad?

"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America

Misconstrued?

You flat out accused the man of backing the bombing of abortuaries, when his own words in the same documents and oral arguments made it clear that he believed such acts should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. That is a flat-out, full-blown abortion of the truth, not a difference of opinion or the misconstuing of your intent.

If they had any integrity, your board of directors would have fired you by now, Ms. Keenan.

MORE FROM Blogs for Bush, Captain's Quarters, Jawa Report, Conservative Thinking

Posted by: Greg at 04:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 2 kb.

Why on earth would the Brits even consider letting this guy back into their country. After all, in addition to urging assaults on their country, he has been a sponge living on welfare benefits for years.

THE British Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, will refuse a request from the extremist cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed to be allowed to return to Britain for a heart operation on the National Health Service.

As ministers finalise their new rules to exclude Sheik Bakri Mohammed from Britain, the cleric said that he should be allowed back from his holiday in Lebanon for an operation to widen an artery that would cost up to pound stg. 8000 ($18,750) if he had to have private treatment.

Officials believe the 47-year-old leader of the al-Muhajiroun group is trying to test the Home Office's promised immigration rules.

Senior officials said that the Home Secretary could exercise leniency if it were a life-or-death matter but a routine operation was unlikely to be grounds for lifting any ban.

One said: "His heart condition was not serious enough to prevent him flying to Beirut last weekend and I am sure they have very fine hospitals in Lebanon where this procedure could be done."

On the other hand, perhaps they could let him back in and give him appropriate medical treatment.

Lard coated stints, perhaps.

Or better yet, just transplant a pig's heart into this jihadi's chest.

Posted by: Greg at 04:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Pig heart? Nah, too extreme. Let's go for replacing defective heart valves with pig heart valves. And ensure that the hospital menu is all pork.

Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Aug 12 15:09:19 2005 (nXE8W)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I don't know how I would cope with this situation if I were one of these teachers. Guaranteed a paycheck, but with no regular duties and an unclear future, these seventy teachers are in a sort of limbo.

Just days before the start of school in HISD, some contract teachers don't have permanent jobs.

They were all let go when three highs schools deemed low performing by the state were reorganized.

The total number of teachers in this situation? Seventy. Why so many? because state law requires that such chronically low performing schools have a 100% replacement of staff. Personally, that strikes me as a bit inefficient. After all, within that group of teachers are folks whose students did well and who would be an asset to the resonstituted campus.

It is interesting, too, who doesn't have a permanent assignment.

When school starts Monday at Kashmere High, veteran teachers Peter Nagy and Linda Murray won't be there. They've lost their jobs.

"I love teaching," said Peter Nagy, history teacher. "I don't like what HISD has done to me. I think that is utterly unjustified."

Nagy taught history at Kashmere for 20 years.

Murray is a 10-year veteran who taught English. Last year she was Kashmere's teacher of the year.

But as of Thursday, neither one of them has been assigned to a new school.

The school's teacher of the year wasn't scooped up? I wonder why. I mean, here is someone who looks to be an asset somewhere in the district.

Honestly, I'm surprised that the district hasn't mandated their placement somewhere.

Posted by: Greg at 04:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

I think this letter from the Houston Chronicle stands up well all by itself.

Honoring a hero's way home

Last weekend I returned home to Houston on a Continental flight.

As our plane approached the gate, the captain announced that we would be greeted by an arch of water from waiting fire trucks in order to honor a hero on board. At first I was confused, but once we got to the gate, I understood.

We watched from the windows as the ground crew respectfully removed a piece of cargo and placed it in a special van. The size of the cargo, the markings and the fact that it was accompanied by a military officer made it clear that our flight was privileged to accompany a fallen hero, coming home on a final journey.

I do not know who the hero was, or who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the values that Americans hold dear, but I prayed for the family and friends left to mourn, and for the other warriors who risk their lives to protect us.

I also appreciated the staff at Bush International Airport for its respectful tribute.

JAMES ALLEN
Sugar Land

Thank you to all the folks at Bush Intercontinental Airport who made this tribute happen.

And may God bless this unknown hero and his family.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.

A bunch of liberal exploiters of the masses (they are rich, after all, so their wealth is obviously ill-gotten via the alienation of the sweat and toil of the workers) are promising to donate at least $1 million each to propagandize the proletariat for the Socialist Democrat Party.

The money will be funnelled through an organisation called the Democracy Alliance which, according to a report in the Washington Post, will help fund a network of thinktanks and advocacy groups seeking to halt the shift to the cultural and political right.

The formation of the alliance is a radical rethinking of Democratic strategy and a response to the frustration felt by many liberals at the Republican stranglehold of both the House of Representatives and Senate and the White House.

At last November's elections, President George Bush was returned to office despite the deteriorating situation in Iraq and an uneven economy, leaving many Democrats baffled.

The alliance chairman, Steven Gluckstern, a retired investment banker, told the Post many liberal contributors felt that a dramatic new and more sustained approach was needed, instead of the cash poured into special interest pro-Democrat groups ahead of an election.

"It wasn't only the failure to win, it was the question, 'what does it take to win?'," Mr Gluckstern said. "Among the lessons learned was that to bring back the progressive majority in this country is not just a periodic election investment strategy."

The organisation aims to raise $200m, with more than 80 backers already agreeing to pledge $200,000 a year over five years.

Now hold on. I thought that we needed to get money out of the political process. I thought that think-tanks and interest groups were responsible for corrupting the system by amplifying the voices of the wealthy and rendering the common people irrelevant. You mean such things are noble if they they support liberal causes? Sounds like a hypocritical thing to me.

The alliance is the brainchild of Democratic strategist Rob Stein, who says the left's infrastructure is outdated.

He said there is a big imbalance in the amount of cash that goes into left and rightwing thinktanks. Over the past two years, he said, thinktanks pushing the conservative agenda had received $295m, while leftwing institutions were given just $75m.

Could it be that you folks haven't had an idea since Johnson screwed up Vietnam and the American economy all at the same time? The conservatives have engaged in scholarly research and made serious policy proposals. How much money do you people really need to make false claims of voter fraud, draw magic-marker "No Blood For Oil" signs and test-market the nickname "Chimpy McHalliBusHitler"? I think your donors got ripped off when they wrote that $75 million check.

Posted by: Greg at 02:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm not a hip-hop fan, but I have to admire San Francisco hip-hop station KMEL-FM. They have refused to eject a US Navy recruitment booth from their annual Summer Jam concert, as demanded by anti-American peacenik groups who would have no free speech if not for the protection afforded them by the Navy and the rest of the armed forces.

Clear Channel officials said the Navy and other military recruiters had sponsored the Summer Jam concert for at least 10 of its 19 years. But activists are particularly concerned this year. Only one Bay Area music station has more listeners than KMEL-FM, according to the most recent Arbitron ratings. A Clear Channel official confirmed that roughly 40 percent of the station's audience are people of color.

"For many people in these communities (of color), the military is an escape from the violence they see in their neighborhoods," said Jen Low, an organizer for the protesters. With several branches of the military not reaching recruiting goals and with public opinion polls turning against President Bush's handling of the war, activists see an opportunity to show "the Navy is attempting to use any and all means to meet its goals," according to the activists' letter.

They want KMEL to sever its "ties" with the Navy or grant "counter- recruitment groups equal access to the 2005 KMEL Summer Jam as that granted to the U.S Navy."

Medecki said counter-recruiters were welcome to have a booth at the event at Shoreline Amphitheatre for the same price other sponsors paid -- $5,000 to $10,000.

The aging hippies, trust-fund communists and pro-terrorist anarchists can't come up with that sort of cash -- but plan on buying tickets and distributing literature inside the venue without a booth.

Here's hoping the event and venue have a solicitation policy banning this, and enforce it.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol doesn't know his place in the constitutional order of things. He seems to think he is a little king, immune from criticism by the peasants over whom he rules. As such, he demonstrates the arrogance of the imperial judiciary quite well.

Judge bashing begins with the public, the media and politicians, said Piersol, who is president of the Federal Judges Association. Most mainstream media and politicians are supportive of the judiciary, but some are not, he said.

Judges should expect criticism because their decisions have a direct effect on people's lives, Piersol said. But recent events, such as reported threats against Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, who ruled in the Terri Schiavo case, have caused concerns, he said.

Harsh verbal attacks by elected officials are not productive and can be seen as an invitation to retaliate for judicial decisions, he said.

In the Schiavo case, Greer's rulings faced congressional criticism, Piersol said. Greer reportedly received death threats after he ordered Schiavo's feeding tube be removed and denied a petition from the Florida Department of Children and Families and Gov. Jeb Bush to take Schiavo into state custody.

To confront judge bashing, Piersol said judges should communicate with Congress and their critics to try to temper their positions. In individual cases, where judges can't speak for themselves, they should allow judicial allies to speak on their behalf, he said.

Now I'll concede that death threats are never appropriate -- though I can think of a number of judges who merit a good horse-whipping. But if you cannot handle "harsh criticism", then you do not belong on the bench. If you truly believe that your ruling is in line with the laws and the Constitution of the United States, then your conscience should be clear and any criticism should roll off your back as if you are a duck. But if that criticism gets to you, then you might want to examine the reason why -- and not blame the tone of the critics.

But if, Judge Piersol, you really believe that the harsh criticism of you and your court really do harm to you, then you already have the tool in your possession to put a stop to it. Use your contempt power to imprison those whose contemptuous words impair the dignity and the function of the court. And yes, I am serious -- because after all, that power is there to make sure that the courts and their authority are properly respected. You can then make your case before another judge when the habeas corpus hearing is held to contest the legitimacy of the arrest -- and before the Senate of the United States during the impeachment proceedings. Better yet -- order the arrest of some of these Congressmen and Senators who are issuing "invitation to retaliate for judicial decisions." I mean after all, you are a judge, and they damn well had better respect you and your decisions. Who do they think they are criticizing you?..I particularly love this bit of rhetoric, Judge Piersol.

Mainstream media generally have been supportive of the judiciary, but that doesn't include "virulent talk shows," Piersol said.

"Overheated rhetoric does no good," he said. "(These talk shows) can indirectly do harm."

Come on, judge -- order the arrest of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly. They are a menace, and they do harm by their words. That cannot be permitted, regardless of any purported right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The negative effests of such virulent speech must be stopped, for the good of the courts.

But seriously, judge, how about if I stop being sarcastic for a moment or two, though I do not know that I can restrain my contempt for you long enough to treat you like a man worthy of respect. There is a reason that Article III is the third and least detailed of the three Articles which establish the branched of government. The founders made it clear in their statements about the relative power of those branches. The courts were to have the least power of the three branches. They were to be the least dangerous to liberty, and were expected to be deferential to the elected branches. Somewhere along the way, you and your fellow judges forgot that, and came to believe that the two elected branches were to be subordinate to yours, and the will of the people was to be of little import. When the courts resume their constitutional role and quit usurping the place of Congress, the President, and the several states, then maybe we will quit being so critical -- and will give you the sort of deference your office used to deserve.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 802 words, total size 5 kb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ad is false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From time to time I will blog about personal things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now get out of my country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, about the facility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parents will pay $450 a month rent.

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

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

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

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

Call me a non-tech geek.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full results may be found at this link.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kamel could not offer a precise date for the hermitages.

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

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

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

(Hat Tip: The Anchoress)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone got some good ideas?

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

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

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

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

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin, Junkyard Blog)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The players entertained the boy until his parents arrived.

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

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

But they did the right thing anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two events that made my life complete.

You coming into the world.

You promising me forever.

Thank you.

And may I somehow be worthy, my darling one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel is clearly not a friend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bravo to Matt Bramanti of Lone Star Times.

From the cloned dog story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In regards to your most recent column:

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

2) What makes you an expert on flipped birds?

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

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

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

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

1 Did you delete my earlier comment?

Bartleby

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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