1) Note to all those Christian-hating leftists out there ranting about “theocracy”: THIS is what a theocracy looks like.

2) Looks like a group of African-American politicians have strayed off the Democrat plantation. Will the voters in their county follow, and help elect Michael Steele to the US Senate?

3) Another reminder about why the issue of judicial nominations requires that conservatives get out and vote for Republicans in this year’s Senatorial races – Justice John Paul Stevens.

4) Democrat candidate steals signs to suppress opponent’s message – but of course, it is the GOP’s fault. I guess that is because the Dems are the party of no personal responsibility.

5) Looks like the terrorists are getting another pass from the UN. How much longer until the Israelis are forced to go after the Hezbollah rats in the sewer that is south Lebanon?

6) Drew Brees tells his Democrat mama – I don’t support you, so quit using me in your campaign ads!

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ve got no doubt that the senator was aiming to disrespect the President of the United States, but instead he hit every man and woman in the United States military. But then what do you expect from this pampered imbecile who sold out his own comrades in arms with false claims of war crimes, all to advance his own political career.

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Clearly not the sort of man who should have ever been considered for the role of Commander-in-Chief.

But let’s look at the numbers from one branch of the service – the Air Force.

Academic Education

-- 49.2 percent of officers have advanced or professional degrees; 39.4 percent have master's degrees, 8.5 percent have professional degrees and 1.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 22.8 percent of company grade officers have advanced degrees; 16.5 percent have master's degrees, 5.9 percent have professional degrees and 0.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 85.4 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees; 70.7 percent have master's degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree.

I’m curious, Senator – what other employer would have such high educational attainment among its employees? I don’t think you would find such achievement in your average corporation, school district, police or fire department. It would take a highly specialized organization – a law firm, hospital, or NASA.

No, our armed forces are made up of dedicated, educated individuals who love our country – something that apparently cannot be said of the Democrat party, given this statement and the lack of Democrat outcry against it.

But then again, let’s assume that my charitable speculation about John Kerry’s ignorant insulting comment is correct. Let’s assume that he meant to insult the President of the United States, George W. Bush. As I recall, they both attended the same university – and Bush out-performed Kerry academically.

Lots of great coverage of this story in the Blogosphere. Ms. Michelle Malkin is great, as is Captain Ed. Jawa Report is fantastic as well.

UPDATE: OH MY GOD! I cannot believe the gall of this arrogant piece of shit from Massachusetts. He makes Teddy Kennedy and Barney Franks look like they have class.

This is how John Kerry responds to critics who defend our troops.

Statement of John Kerry Responding to Republican Distortions, Pathetic Tony Snow Diversions and Distractions

Washington – Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry’s comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

IÂ’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. FoxÂ’s ParkinsonÂ’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

In other words, the John Kerry dares to question the right of Americans to question his defamatory statements about the American military! Rather than apologize for his ill-chosen words, he attacks anyone who would dare to call criticize him for them. The arrogance of this son of a bitch!

An reckless driver who caused an auto accident stole my dream of a military career many years ago, and so I chose a career of service to my country by going into teaching. Along the way, I have encouraged my students to consider serving their country in the military – and many have entered the Armed Forces. Often, they are among my best and brightest. So while I didn’t get the opportunity to serve, I want to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of young men and women who I love and respect as if they were my own flesh and blood.

Screw you, Senator Kerry! Go to Hell!

UPDATE II: American Legion condemns Kerry comments. So does John McCain.

Update III: Even though his words are on tape, Kerry denies that he said what he said – and even dares to question John McCain’s right to question him. I guess only left-wing, anti-American vets have a right to speak out on this issue. Heroes like McCain need not apply.

Posted by: Greg at 09:50 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1044 words, total size 8 kb.

All of us know it is true -- the first rule that new teachers learn is to forget most of what they learned in their education classes back in college. Indeed, some of the worst teaching we experience comes from our education professors, so following that advice is not difficult.

This should be a shining moment for education schools. Never has the nation paid so much attention to improving the quality of teaching. Yet the institutions that produce teachers have never faced so much criticism.

"Teacher education is the Dodge City of the education world," said Arthur Levine, former president of Columbia University's Teachers College. "Like the fabled Wild West town, it is unruly and chaotic."

Stanford University educational historian David F. Labaree wrote in a recent book: "Institutionally, the ed school is the Rodney Dangerfield of higher education; it don't get no respect. The ed school is the butt of jokes in the university, where professors portray it as an intellectual wasteland."

The attacks have become so frequent and intense that some educators say they have gone too far. But a growing number of educators say ed schools fail to give teachers enough background in their subject matter, fail to prepare them for the difficulties of urban schools and fail to recruit the best students.

For a study on ed schools released in September, Levine surveyed administrators with firsthand knowledge of these problems: principals. Only two of every five principals surveyed said ed schools were preparing teachers very well or moderately well to get new curriculum and performance standards into the classroom. Only one-third said their teachers were very or moderately well prepared for maintaining classroom order. Only one-fifth said their teachers were that well prepared to work with parents.

Of course, there is little agreement on what to do to make things better. I'll put in my two-cents worth on the matter.

1) Require that students get a degree in their subject matter. My college allowed education students to take two fewer classes in their subject area so that they could take teaching methods classes. I had already taken the full class-load for a regular history degree before switching to the education program, so I was the exception among my classmates in having just as much preparation as a student seeking a regular degree.

2) Make education degrees a five-year program. Heck, maybe make it a Master's degree program.

3) Talk about how to deal with parents. My first parent conference was at 22, during student teaching. Many of my colleagues didn't have their first until after they were hired. It is a daunting experience, and one that most new teachers are ill-prepared for.

4) It is all nice to prepare teachers for a classroom where every kid has a computer at home, reads on grade level, and isn't worried about the food and shelter components of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That isn't where I teach, nor is it where most teachers teach. help us learn about real kids, not ideal kids -- or the children of professors at the campus laboratory schppl.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.

No wonder I've noted a touch of desperation among left-wing bloggers in recent weeks -- it looks like the Democrats may be about to lose what they believed to be a "sure-thing" election here in CD22.

That isn't my assessment -- that is the conclusion that one has to draw based upon the polling data found in Monday's Houston Chronicle.

The Republican write-in effort to hold former Rep. Tom DeLay's congressional seat, once viewed as a long shot, has created a tight race, according to a Houston Chronicle-11 News poll.

Thirty-five percent of respondents said they would vote for a write-in candidate, a statistical tie with the 36 percent support for Democrat Nick Lampson, according to the poll of more than 500 likely voters in the 22nd Congressional District.

Most who say they will write in a candidate plan on naming Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the Houston city councilwoman backed by the Republican Party. Two lesser-known candidates also are running as write-ins.

One voter in four is still undecided.

Libertarian Bob Smither, the only person besides Lampson on the general election ballot, drew 4 percent support.

The third option on that ballot is "write-in." Voters who make that selection on the electronic voting machines that most will use are directed to an alphabet screen, where they use a wheel to spell out their choice's name a letter at a time.

And since the names of all eligible write-in candidates will be posted in each voting booth, I feel confident that people will not be intimidated by the process. Indeed, I keep hearing from folks who have early voted that they are hearing the sound of wheels spinning and buttons being pushed by those around them -- an indication that there are a great many CD22 voters who are taking the time to use the write-in option to select a candidate.

What the polls show is that Lampson has only 36% of respondents saying they will vote for him -- while 35/1% indicate a plan to vote for a write-in candidate. Of that percentage, 79.4% (or 28% overall) plan on voting for Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. That is an incredible total at this point, and likely to grow as the undecided vote breaks Republican in this heavily GOP district.

Even more important -- both for this year and for 2008 -- if Shelley Sekula-Gibbs were on the ballot, she would be leading Lampson 52% to 35%. There is clearly a preference for her in this race, and only Democrat efforts to keep any Republican off the ballot following DeLay's resignation make this seat one that can be considered "up for grabs".

And actually, I would note this is a Zogby poll, and they tend to favor Democrats. I'm therefore betting the numbers are actually even closer than this result indicates.

UPDATE: And look who came stumping for Shelley today -- President George W. Bush himself!

UPDATE II: Some interesting pieces from RedState.com on Shelley's campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are A Liberal Manifesto and Other Halloween Frights by Right Wing Nut House, and Archaeological Temple Artifacts Drive PalArabs Crazy by Elder of Ziyon.  Here are the full results of the vote.

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 5 kb.

1) Not only is illegal immigration a crime, but it appears to have become the province of organized crime. Those “good, hard-working people willing to do jobs Americans won’t” are being charged hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars by traffickers in human flesh. It is almost a latter-day slave trade. No wonder the Democrats are unwilling to act to stop it – after all, they supported the trade in human beings in the 1800s, too.

2) The Duke Rape Case continues to implode. First we find out the DA has yet to interview the victim, now we find out that she may have asked to be marked up during her ride home. The morals of those young men may be suspect, but it continues to look more and more like their actions were not criminal.

3) Which party is the Party of the Rich? Take a hint from the top political donors in this country – they support the Jackass Party.

4) What should the GOP focus on for the next week? Judges. Judges. And Judges.

5) I could be happy with a Mitt-Jeb ticket in 2008 – but would still prefer seeing a Mitt-Condi ticket instead. But then again, I’m one of those conservatives who like Mitt Romney.

6) IsraelÂ’s preemption of terrorist violence is justified under international law and the UN Charter. An excellent article explaining why appears at TCS Daily.

7) When will Gary Kubiak realize that David Carr is not consistent enough to start for the Houston Texans – and that Sage Rosenfels is? Texans fans want to know – and soon.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

I think Suzanne Fields says it quite well in this piece, which demonstrates the anti-Semitism underlying so much of the criticism of Israel today -- and the tendency of some people to blame every evil on the Jews.

When Jews is news

"Jewcentricity" is a word that sounds like it was coined by an embittered anti-Semite. But it's actually the inspiration of Adam Garfinkle, a Jew, writing in The American Interest magazine to call attention to a phenomenon that has roots in anti-Semitism and runs from the silly to the sublime: " . . . the idea, or the intimation, or the subconscious presumption . . . that Jews are somehow necessarily to be found at the very center of global-historical events."

"Jewcentricity" is most evident in the recycling of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," a fictitious text commissioned by the czar's secret police for a Russian audience at the end of the 19th century, describing a fanciful cabal of Jews who plan to take over the world. Some critics of the neoconservatives, some of whom are Jewish, cite the protocols, so called, in their accusations that Jews have hijacked American foreign policy. Others, critical of Israel, hyperventilate over the power of the "Israel lobby."

"The Protocols" have naturally become a best seller in several Muslim countries, including Turkey and Egypt, where they were turned into a television series. ("Semitic Sex in the City," however, it was not.) "The Protocols" were featured on the Iranian stands at last year's book fair in Frankfurt "to expose the real visage of this Satanic-enemy," along with an abridged edition of Henry Ford's literary thriller, "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem" (which never made it to the screen). "The grip of the Jewish parasitic influence," asserts the preface of the new edition, "has been growing stronger and stronger ever since [Henry Ford's time]."

Serious examples of "Jewcentricity" are reflected in the media obsession with Sen. George Allen's Jewish mother, who was born in Tunisia and barely escaped the Holocaust, and before that, with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's Jewish roots in Czechoslovakia. The national newspapers and television networks spent considerably more time investigating the senator's "blood" parentage and its likely effect on his re-election campaign than the blood being spilled in Darfur. "Why?" asks Adam Garfinkle. "Because . . . Jews is news and there are no Jews in Darfur." That doesn't slow down the conspiracy theorists in other countries, with or without Jews, from obsessing over the myth of sinister Jewish power.

Germany's Jewcentricity is of a completely different order. No negative slur against Jews goes unanswered in the law courts or in the court of public opinion. This has hardly eliminated prejudice against Jews. In an anti-Semitic prank with echoes of the Third Reich, a high-school student in eastern Germany was forced by bullies not long ago to wear a sign around his neck in the school yard: "In this town I'm the biggest swine because of the Jewish friends of mine." The teacher reported it, the chief of police was firm in his outrage, and the state minister of the interior promised an investigation. Germany does not tolerate public exhibition of Nazi symbols.

But the strain of anti-Semitism that many thought would vanish after the horror of the Holocaust has again risen again in the Middle East and among European fellow travelers of the Islamists, whose rhetoric targets Israel in a way that Hitler would readily recognize. Israel is the euphemism for the demonized Jew. The Jews become, as Jonathan Rosen observed in The New York Times, "interchangeable emblems of cosmic evil."

It's not simply an empty gesture that maps available in Middle Eastern countries show Israel erased. Hezbollah demonstrated its capacity to send rockets into Israel, and the Iranian nuclear threat is aimed first at Israel.

Jews remain convenient scapegoats as they continue to haunt the fantasies of rationalizers and haters who want to avoid responsibility for their own culpability. In the 1930s, Jews were blamed for everything that went wrong in Germany (and later in Eastern Europe). Today they're perceived as the seminal cause of Islamic terrorism, subject to the same old media stereotypes that thrived in Nazi newspapers. Getting rid of the Jews in Europe wasn't enough.

"Jewcentricity" serves a specific purpose both in the Middle East and in Europe. It unites the Muslims against a common enemy and conceals their own divisions and discontents, which would be there even if there were not an Israel to hate. Increasing Muslim populations in Europe threaten the peace in ways that absent Jews do not. But we can blame the Jews, anyway.

The Nobel Prize-winning Hungarian novelist Imre Kertesz observes that Europeans mask their criticism of Israel in mournful tones about the Holocaust but use the language that led to Auschwitz. "Because Auschwitz really happened, it has permeated our imagination, become a permanent part of us," he says. "What we are able to imagine -- because it really happened -- can happen again."

And that some today wish to minimize or deny the historical reality of Auschwitz and the other death camps makes such a repeated attempt at genocide all the more likely.

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 870 words, total size 5 kb.

I've recently been accused of racism by a local blogger (echoed by a commenter here) because, among other things, I offended liberals by making a comment about a local African-American Democrat and crack cocaine.

But now I have a question for those who want to make such an accusation.

On liberal blogger Taylor Marsh's site, she makes this assessment of a prominent Republican.

Liddy Dole was on crack this morning on Fox "News."

Do you find that statement unacceptable? If not, is the statement acceptable because Dole is white or because she is Republican -- or is it the combination of Dole's whiteness and Republicanism that makes it acceptable?

Or is it just that you folks are are alarmists who like to make the charge of racism whenever possible, just to discredit your opponents?

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

I certainly think this rather disgusting "toy" would qualify. Thankfully, public pressure got it pulled -- sort of.

A "sexy" pole-dancing kit has been pulled from the toys and games section of a website run by Britain's biggest retailer after protests from outraged parents.

The Peekaboo pole-dancing kit, which has a "sexy garter" to help "unleash the sex kitten inside" was sold in Tesco Direct's toys and games section, the Daily Mail newspaper reported.

"Soon you'll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars," its blurb reads.

"Unleash the sex kitten inside ... simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go!"

The £50 ($125) kit includes a 2.6 metre chrome pole, a 'sexy dance garter' and a DVD demonstrating suggestive dance moves, the report said.

Do we really want our children to be "strippers in training?

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, if you claim that black votes are not counted or not counted accurately, eventually people are going to start believing you and decide that going out to vote just isn't worth the time.

or Democrats like these in tight races, black voter turnout will be crucial on Election Day. But despite a generally buoyant Democratic Party nationally, there are worries among Democratic strategists in some states that blacks may not turn up at the polls in big enough numbers because of disillusionment over past shenanigans.

“This notion that elections are stolen and that elections are rigged is so common in the public sphere that we’re having to go out of our way to counter them this year,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist.

This will be the first midterm election in which the Democratic Party is mobilizing teams of lawyers and poll watchers, to check for irregularities including suppression of the black vote, in at least a dozen of the closest districts, Ms. Brazile said.

DemocratsÂ’ worries are backed up by a Pew Research Center report that found that blacks were twice as likely now than they were in 2004 to say they had little or no confidence in the voting system, rising to 29 percent from 15 percent.

And more than three times as many blacks as whites — 29 percent versus 8 percent — say they do not believe that their vote will be accurately tallied.

Voting experts say the disillusionment is the cumulative effect of election problems in 2000 and 2004, and a reaction to new identification and voter registration laws.

Long lines and shortages of poll workers in lower-income neighborhoods in the 2004 election and widespread reports of fliers with misinformation appearing in minority areas have also had a corrosive effect on confidence, experts say.

The harder question is whether this jaded outlook will diminish turnout.

Won't it be amusing if the Democrats are hoist on their own petard, and a big part of their coalition stays home because tehy believe -- incorrectly -- that their vote won't be counted anyway?

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

That is what it looks like to some observers, especially to former representative Talmadge Heflin, who lost to current state representative Hubert Vo in 2004 by a mere handful of votes.

A Vietnamese-language radio ad campaign that backers call a get-out-the-vote effort amounts to a dollars-for-votes scheme to help a Vietnamese-American legislator, his challenger claims.

The state House District 149 flap concerns ads urging early votes at an Asian-American community center, and pointing out that $5 coupons available at the center can be used at a nearby mall.

The Vo campaign disavowes all involvement in the ad campaign, which is sponsored by a Vietnamese community group. And the group insists {wink nudge} that the intent of the ad is to boost anemic voter turnout in their community, NOT to help Vo.

"We have 35,000 Vietnamese registered voters and only 12,000 actually vote, so what we did was create the One Brings One campaign urging people to bring a family member to the polls to vote with them," said Van Huynh, executive director of the group.

"Our businesses felt it would be helpful and fun to create something enjoyable for voters, so they offered coupons for use at the Hong Kong Mall. Anyone can come for the coupons. We don't obligate them to vote. And we have a disclaimer on our ads saying this campaign is not related to any candidate or any election."

Huynh said the group is awaiting an official opinion from Harris County officials on the legality.

"We have turned over all our scripts," he said. "If the officials say this violates election laws, we will immediately drop the whole campaign."

David Beirne, spokesman for Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman, the county's elections administrator, said he advised the group to stop running the ads and initially thought they had been dropped.

When group leaders continued running them and asked for an official opinion, Beirne turned the matter over to the District Attorney's and U.S. Attorney's offices for review.

But the ad only runs on Vietnamese-language radio, not on any stations that cater to teh wider community in the district. Given that this just happens to be Vo's base, it seems mighty convenient.

And an awful lot like traditional Democrat tactics of offering a beer, a pack of smokes, or five bucks to those who go out and vote "the right way."

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't agree with the content on the mailers in question, but I still believe that there is a right to say what is said. Allowing government employees to stifle that right is unacceptable.

Vancouver postal workers have walked off the job to protest an anti-gay pamphlet theyÂ’re being asked to deliver to hundreds of homes.

They say the brochure distributed by a religious group amounts to hate mail -- but they face disciplinary action if they refuse to handle it.

Ken Mooney, the Vancouver president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, says the walkout sends a message that posties will not “participate in the dissemination of homophobic material.”

The pamphlet says AIDS is “the plague of the 21st century” and calls homosexuality “ungodly, unhealthy and unnatural.”

Mooney says postal workers are “deeply offended” by the mailing, which he says subjects members of the gay community to “scorn and hate.”

Frankly, I'd take offense at large parts of the message and much of the language in the pamphlet. I'd drop mine in the nearest garbage can after first using it to scoop up the dog crap in the back yard.

But I don't see where the union or individual postal workers have any place determining what goes through.

And I applaud Canada Post for indicating that those who refuse to deliver the flier will face serious punishment.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Since he left office, former President Carter hasn't met a terrorist leader or Third World dictator whose side he won't take against the US or Israel. For doing so, the Left has declared him to be a revered elder statesman.

But now he has gone too far -- even for his own Democrats.

Top Democrats are rushing to repudiate former President CarterÂ’s controversial new book on the Middle East, in which he accuses the Israeli government of maintaining an apartheid system.

Two key party leaders — Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, party chairman, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — and several congressmen issued statements Monday saying that the book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” does not represent their views on the Jewish state.

“It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously,” Pelosi wrote in a statement. “With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel.”

Carter’s book is being published by Simon & Schuster and is slated for release November 14. In an advanced draft copy of the work, obtained by the Forward, the former president asserts that Israel’s current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute “a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.” He argues that Israel’s settlement policy is principally to blame for the failure of peace initiatives in the Middle East.

Dean also took issue with CarterÂ’s assessment.

“While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Dean wrote in a statement. “On this issue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors.”

Several Democratic members of New York’s House delegation — Reps. Steve Israel, Charlie Rangel and Jerrold Nadler — also have issued statements criticizing Carter’s book, as did Rep. John Conyers, Jr., a Michigan Democrat who is often criticized by members of the Jewish community for his failure to support Israel in a certain instance. Last summer, Conyers was one of eight House members who did not vote for a resolution backing the Jewish state in the wake of the Hezbollah attacks.

Good grief -- when even an anti-Semite like Conyers denounces someone for being too critical of Israel, you have to recognize that they have gone way too far.

And another sign that the argument goes way too far is when French government officials start taking the opposite side of the issue.

rench Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy declared last week he has changed his opinion on Israel's controversial separation barrier in light of its drastic effect on terror, forcing French authorities to clarify their position on the issue.

The barrier, which separates the West Bank from the rest of Israel, has garnered much criticism for creating a ghetto-style situation for the Palestinians and for allegedly appropriating Palestinian land on the Israeli side.

But although the French government has been critical of it since the start of its construction four years ago, Douste-Blazy has now reversed the feeling.

“I have significantly evolved on the matter of the separation fence” said Douste-Blazy on French Jewish television TFJ on Thursday. “Although the wall was a moral and ethical problem for me, when I realised terror attacks were reduced by 80 percent in the areas where the wall was erected, I understood I didn’t have the right to think that way.”

Douste-Blazy is the first high ranking French official to openly state his support for the security fence.

Remember -- he is part of a government that opposed and led the condemnation of the security fence. That there is now support for the fence from a member of that government should be seen as significant.

Buit not to worry -- Hamas is still in Dhimmi Carter's side.

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 724 words, total size 5 kb.

1) ACORN, long connected to voter registration fraud cases around the country, is now accused of more voter fraud in St. Louis. “Hundreds of fraudulent voter address changes have been submitted to St. Louis County election officials.” Just trying to win one more for the Democrats.

2) Female circumcision. Just gotta love those Islamic folk remedies for promiscuity in two-year-olds. Can the sentence include using the same scissors of the “dad” who did this to his daughter?

3) More charges in this espionage case – American military secrets being given to the Red Chinese.

4) Looks like the Foley outing came from within the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. The staffer involved has been fired – for unauthorized use of the organization’s computer equipment, not for violating Foley’s right to keep his sexual orientation a secret. None of which, of course, mitigates teh fact that Foley is a perv.

5) Some folks think their ethnicity entitles them to do what they want – even if it is against the rules and disrupts school. And these claim they want to join the US military? They sure don't seem loyal to THIS country.

6) Imam to rape victims – It’s your fault for dressing like a whore. "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."

7) This clown would be a great companion for my Holocaust-denier troll KKKen – an Australian convicted of intentionally spreading the virus that causes AIDS is challenging the existence of the HIV virus in court.

Build it so they wonÂ’t come! Bush signs border fence bill.

9) Coming home! The Bnei Menashe (children of Manasseh) will return to their ancestral homeland in Israel after 27 centuries of exile from the land God gave to their ancestors at the time of Moses.

10) Freedom of speech trumps Islamo-censors in Denmark.

Posted by: Greg at 09:20 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 3 kb.

I understand that there are arguments on both sides of the gay marriage issue that folks find persuasive. But yesterday's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court should frighten and offend folks on either side of the issue. After all, it is a case of judicial activism run amok.

The New Jersey Supreme Court left the door ajar for the approval of same-sex marriage Wednesday, ruling that gay couples are entitled to rights no different from those of heterosexual couples.

The court gave state legislators 180 days to craft a bill offering same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, though it appeared to leave open a choice between calling the status "marriage" or "civil unions."

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution," the court said in its 4 to 3 ruling.

Now the problem here should be obvious to anyone who isn't looking at the decision from a "results-oriented" perspective. The justices do not find a right to gay marriage in the state's Constitution -- and then go on to overturn the status quo anyway on vague theory taht "the status quo is intolerable". They order that the legislature act in 180 days to create gay marriage -- in fact, whetehr or not they do so in name. And the minority dissented not because of this radical judicial activism -- no, they don't feel the court was activist enough! they wanted teh court to create gay marriage and implement it through judicial fiat! In both cases, however, they ignore th specific policy decisions of the state legislature to NOT create gay marriage when they passed a domestic partnership law.

This could have some serious impact in New Jersey and elsewhere.

The New Jersey decision could stoke the fires for social conservatives elsewhere in the nation, who during this election cycle have complained loudly of their unhappiness with the Republican Party. New Jersey, however, tends toward social liberalism -- albeit with strong pockets of social conservatism. As the court's decision stops short of mandating same-sex marriage, few expected it to unhinge a taut race for the U.S. Senate between Sen. Robert Menendez (D) and Republican Thomas H. Kean Jr., according to political observers. Menendez and Kean oppose same-sex marriage, although Kean has gone further and called for a state constitutional amendment to ban it.

"If the Supreme Court had flatly forced the state to recognize gay marriage, it would have had a negative effect and rallied the conservative Republican base in New Jersey and hurt Robert Menendez," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "As it stands, he should be okay, but this could rally evangelicals elsewhere."

I disagree. The Kean-Menendez race has been tightening. I think it could be enough to push Tom Kean over the top -- all without becoming "unhinged".

If Kean were to focus on the issue of judical activism and the importance of keeping a GOP majority to ensure that judges who recognize the constitutional limits of their office are confirmed, it could gain him votes. Ditto a stronger emphasis on the constitutional amendment issue.

On the other side of the river in Pennsylvania, this could help Rick Santorum defeat Bob Casey, Jr..

In Maryland, this could help Michael Steele garner a few more black votes for his GOP race, given that blacks tend to be conservative on the gay marriage issue.

Similarly, this could swing a few House races to the GOP as well.

And those eight gay marriage referenda around the country? I think they could now be wins for the traditional marriage side of the issue, which was in doubt after New York and California courts refused to do what the New Jersey judges have.

UPDATE: And that is a new direction being tried by conservatives around the country.

MORE AT: Malkin, Hot Air, Church & State, Blogs for Bush, Ace of Spades, Riehl World View, Wide Awakes, Gay Patriot, Wizbang, Don Surber, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 705 words, total size 6 kb.

Having been part of a church doing a renovation, I know what passions can be arroused. And when you are renewing a historic building with great sentimental value to an entire faith, I can imagine things only get more difficult.

When the historic Tabernacle, the egg-shaped building that is home to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, reopens next year after a lengthy face-lift and seismic retrofit, visitors will find something new: the pews.

The loss of the original, and uncomfortable, pine pews, handmade in 1867 and meticulously etched and painted to look like oak, angers many Mormons, whose religion is strongly defined by its history and its forebearsÂ’ hardships.

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, released a two-sentence statement saying some original pews — Ms. Farah would not say how many — would be returned and that others would be replaced with oak copies “to maintain historicity.” “No determination has been made on what will happen to the unused original benches,” the statement said.

Church officials would not give an explanation for the change, Ms. Farah said in an interview.

“The church is circumspect about the pews, because it is a work in progress,” she said of the Tabernacle renovations, including the pews.

Lack of an explanation angered LaMar Taft Merrill Jr., a retired schoolteacher who grew up here and lives in Lexington, Ky. Mr. Merrill, a descendant of an early church apostle, said not returning the pine pews would be a “shameful act” by the church’s “misguided top echelon.”

“You can’t ever replace what’s original,” he said. “And an oak bench is no more comfortable than a pine bench.”

I'm sure there are reaons for the new pews -- but I cannot think of what they are. The original pews are still in good shape? Why replace that link to the past?

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Good grief -- the Democrats are attacking pro-abortion liberal GOP write-in candidate Don Richardson, who hasn't voted for a Republican in a primary in this century, as "too conservative for Texas".

Republican Congressional Write-In Candidate Don Richardson Is Too Conservative For Texas

Republican congressional write-in candidate Don Richardson wants to:

- Put American troops on the border to stop illegal immigration
- Allow law enforcement officials to wiretap suspects without a warrant
- Permit the government to read suspects' e-mails without a warrant
- Allow the government to conduct random searches without a warrant

Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

The man doesn't even register in opinion polls. Why is the DCCC attacking him? Could it be an attempt to get some conservatives to vote for him to ensure the defeat of Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the official GOP write-in candidate? Could it be that the Democrats are running scared in the race, believing that the good doctor might beat the Democrat carpetbagger?

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

BUMPED: Since I've now been deemed worthy of no fewer than three posts on his website by the lying, thieving Demo-dirtbag, I figured I'd celebrate by bumping this to the top of the page.

Some weeks ago, I wrote a post in which I used a term that I probably shouldn't have use. I'm told that it is a racist term, though I have always understood it to be a label based upon illegal conduct. After much discussion on another blog, weeks after the fact, I became convinced that my understanding was wrong, admitted as much, and offered an apology. I even included a disclaimer on the post, as I don't believe in sending things down the "memory hole" when they are inconvenient.

That apprarently was not good enough for one moonbat moral midget. He stole a family photo from my site and infringed upon my copyright by having it hosted on no fewer than three separate image-hosting services claiming that he held copyright to the image (and then entered into an illegal agreement with another local Democrat blogger to host the image on her server under her account). I directed him to quit violating my copyright and suggested that he remove defamatory statements about me. I'm taking steps -- not including legal action, which I never intended or threatened -- to deal with him.

He has decided that I threatened a lawsuit or violence against him, and so he decided to "expose" me as a "disgusting racist." He even quotes me from a number of posts -- quotes which are in some cases taken out of context, in other cases legitimate policy or social positions, and in others cases of satire on a level far beyond his comprehension.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. He has also decided I have no right to blog under a pseudonym -- which I have done out of a professional obligation to make sure that there is never any question of my trying to indoctrinate my students with my political opinions -- and posted my name on his site and in a couple of other locations. As such, I won't be linking back to him, for I still intend to maintain as much of my anonymity as I can.

So let's look at the offensive quotes.

The first thing he objects to besides the offensive term is found here.

He then goes on to accuse Councilwoman Ada Edwards of "scrambling for a few more Hispanic votes like they were crack rocks."

As the councilwoman is black, he clearly means to imply that I was using racist stereotypes to attack a black woman. But let's look at the whole quote in context.

"I apologize to the Johnson family today for one of our colleagues attempted to pimp the death and tragedy of Officer Johnson for their political career," said Councilmember Ada Edwards.

Edwards, of course, was whoring herself out to those who support the violation of American law and American sovereignty, scrambling for a few more Hispanic votes like they were crack rocks, just to advance her own career.

So as most folks of any degree of intelligence would recognize, I was playing on Edwards' own invocation of pimping, extending her own metaphor. I guess that escaped his understanding, even though I explained it elsewhere when he objected.

And then he goes on listing other excerpts from posts on my site, claiming "there is obviously no context in which these hateful remarks are acceptable." In doing so, of course, he gives himself license to take the quotes out of context.

I'll let you decide -- both if they are acceptable, and if he is honest in his characterization of what was said in these ofhter posts.

1) He objects to this.

"That's one more dead terrorist in Hell with Allah."

Of course, that statement comes from a post making fun of a jihadi suicide bomber who blew himself up early while riding a bicycle to his target. He believed he was going to spend eternity in Allah's abode, and I presume he knows best -- and since he was on a mission of murder and mayhem, I can only presume that his final destination was Hell. I see nothing to apologize for -- but if my Democrat friend chooses to be an apologist for terrorists, he is welcome to that role and should fit right in with Sheehan, Murtha, and Lamont.

2) He is also troubled by this excerpt.

"In return, we will ship the Arab Muslims in the United States -- regardless of their citizenship -- back to the Middle East...They and their relatives back in their homelands have shown their utter inablility to live at peace with neighbors who are different from themselves....After all, if the Jews are not a good fit in the Middle East, why should the unassimilable Muslims be welcome in America?"

I might almost agree with his assessment -- were it not for the fact that he raped the context to post it. You see, the entire piece was a satirical response to an editorial in a Jordanian paper advocating the expulsion of all Jews from the Holy Land. And my conclusion? Try this on for size.

And if my proposed solution -- excluding people from America based upon religion and ethnicity -- is unacceptable, upon what basis can anyone support the expulsion of Israel's Jews from the land given them by the international community in the 1940s and which they have defended time and again over the last six decades? The only possible answer is a rank, festering anti-Semitism which abides in the blackened souls of the opponents of Israel.

I'm not sure if this moonbat is an anti-Semite or simply never read "A Modest Proposal" in 12th Grade English -- or the entire post from which he quoted.

3) Now this quote might appear hard to defend at first.

"Where are the peacemakers from the Religion of Peace? All I see are jihadi swine."

But then again, it was a story about one more group of would-be terrorists -- and my excerpt from the story once again made it clear I was talking about Islamic extremists being a threat. However I, like many Americans (indeed, like many people worldwide), am waiting to hear more forthright, non-nuanced denunciations of terrorism and unambiguous moves to expel the extremists from their midst or to marginalize them within the Islamic faith. Or is it that my liberal friend is offended that I would hurt the feelings of jihadi terrorists by calling them so vile a name as "pigs"?

4) I'll concede I might have done better on this one, and further thought and reflection might have led me not to phrase this quite the way I did.

"Sorry, no respect for any ethnicity or religion with this scumbag...Just following the example of Muhammad, I guess. I recall that he liked sex with little girls, too. Would somebody please remind me what is there in Islam that is good and noble?"

But then again, I refuse to offer a lick of respect for someone who decides that his religion and culture dictate that he violate a court order regarding custody, take his child to another country beyond the reach of the courts that awarded custody, all with the intent of having his 12-year-old daughter marry a guy in his mid-20s. If it is the position of my esteemed opponent that I should respect such behavior, that is fine -- but then I want to know what principled objection he could possibly offer to the Mark Foley "talk dirty to me" IMs? Or does he object to my stating the historical fact, acknowledged in Muslim religious works, that the "Prophet" married a girl at age 6 and had sex with her at age 9 to cement an alliance with her father? Maybe he just likes the idea of sex between older men and young children. I just don't know.

5) This one looks bad.

"Israel has the capability to nuke your camel-humping ass."

Of course, the quote does come in the context of a commentary on news that Iran is buying subs capable of launching nuclear missles -- shortly after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map and at a time when his nation is working to develop nukes. Now I suppose members of the Ahmadinejad Fan Club might take exception to my insulting the genocidal Holocaust-denier who is the leader of Iran, but I don't -- especially since he was one of the folks who took Americans hostage at our embassy in 1979. I hope that my critic doesn't find my anti-Fidel quotes, either -- after all, if he likes Ahmadinejad, he must love Castro.

6) You decide on this one.

"In other words, fundamental human rights are anathema to Islam."

This was commentary about a case involving a woman who has been baptized and seeks to be recognized as a Christian. She has been told by Malaysia's civil courts that it is a matter for the Muslim religious courts, and the Muslim religious courts have indicated the she will be imprisoned until she recants her apostasy. I guess that this leftard doesn't find that sort of theocratic infringement on human rights to be offensive -- only Christians in America being allowed to vote and have their policy preferences make it into the law.

7) You could argue that this one is bad.

Under no circumstances should any alien not yet legally admitted to the United States be held to have any rights beyond the right to continue breathing.

I think the remark stands on its own -- but if you wish to shill for those who violate our nation's immigration laws, go right ahead. I will add that I believe such folks do have one other right -- the right to immediate deportation, with the associated costs deducted from the foreign aid appropriated for their homeland.

I was simply pissed-off when I wrote this -- but he does a creative editorial job to make it appear I am saying something else entirely. Here is his version.

"Why are we sending one thin dime to a backwater, Third World hell-hole like New Orleans?"

Then there is the complete sentence (note to moonbat -- when you edit, make sure you punctuate it so that is evident).

Why are we sending one thin dime to a backwater, Third World hell-hole like New Orleans -- especially as long as this jackass is in charge?

Oh -- it was actually a commentary on Ray Nagin, who had just described Ground Zero as "a hole in the ground" that New Yorkers have been unable to get fixed. Given the conduct of our "guests" from New Orleans over the last year (hey, folks, thanks for the soaring homicide rate!), I see nothing to repent or apologize for -- and as far as Mayor Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin is concerned, I described him in significantly more polite terms than the average lefty moonbat uses for our president in daily conversation.

9) Not only is my critic a supporter of illegal immigration, but he objects to criticism of other criminals as well -- even when their actions causs the suspension of search-and-rescue efforts in the aftermath of a major natural disaster. After all, this is viewed as hateful.

"What needs to happen is that those caught looting especially those armed thugs we have all been hearing about simply need to be shot on sight."

Here comes what I actually said, and you will see that the context is everything.

First, the priority is wrong. Search-and-rescue needs to be the primary mission, not property protection. What needs to happen is that those caught looting (especially those armed thugs we have all been hearing about) simply need to be shot on sight.

Yes, I have sympathy for those who have been getting food, diapers, and other necessities. However, the situation is so out of control that order needs to be restored ruthlessly. I don't believe there are many recipes that call for a boom-box, a 32-inch flat-screen television or ten pairs of designer jeans.

I think you see where there is serious dishonesty at work. But if he wants to oppose the imposition of law and order so that people can be rescued from the riseing waters of a hurricane, let him defend that position.

10) Oh, and he objects as well to this, though he doesn't bother to provide more than a snippet.

A reader emails to tell me that [he] is still at it, and yesterday called Islam "the religion of barbarism."

Well, yeah -- but I think you need to consider exactly what was written.

Italian journalist who converted to Islam kidnapped by jihadis in Afghanistan – who demand the return of an Afghan convert to Christianity for application of the sharia penalty for apostasy (which is, of course, death). Am I the only one who smells a set-up here? Better idea – the civilized world will keep the Christian and the followers of the Religion of Barbarism can keep their co-religionist.

Hey -- I'd argue that anyone who doesn't find the actions committed in the name of Islam by these folks to be barbaric has the problem, not me. I guess we see what some Democrats really stand for.

Now I considered closing this blog in response to this controversy. I'm not going to do so. This attack means that my blog has become important in a way I never expected and never dreamed -- and never wanted.

The Left is afraid of ME.

This is an attempt to embarrass me and silence me -- and there have also been email and online threats to try to get me fired from my teaching job (I guess you have to be a left-wing academic fraud and faux-ethnic like Ward Churchill to qualify for free speech in the academy). But I look around at folks I admire -- Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Michelle Malkin, Dr. Mike Adams -- and I recognize my beliefs as mainstream. Yes, my rhetoric is Coulteresque, but it certainly is more elevated than what is found on "mainstream" leftwing sites like Kos or Democrat Underground.

So here I stand; to do otherwise is to betray the First Amendment and my own beliefs.

And to quote a bunch of liberals whose politics I despise, "I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down."

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2428 words, total size 15 kb.

After all, she will be beholden to Dingell and Rangel and Murtha and all the other hard-lefties in her party who are afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

So while she might not push such a move, would she block one by other members -- members of her own senior leadership?

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged not to pursue impeachment of President George W. Bush if Democrats win the November election.

"Impeachment is off the table," said Pelosi in an interview aired Sunday on CBS "60 Minutes."

Asked if that was a pledge, Pelosi said it was.

"Yes, it is a pledge," she said. "Of course it is."

Pelosi called impeachment "a waste of time," and suggested Republicans -- who have controlled the House for 12 years -- would make political hay out of it if Democrats tried to impeach Bush.

"Wouldn't they just love it if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth after 12 years is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them. Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."

Actually, Nancy, they are lame ducks whether you people win or not. And I see nothing in your "pledge" that is binding on any other Democrat.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 1 kb.

And it is about time. When students get to high school without knowing nouns and verbs, much less punctuation rules, there is a problem. And sometimes the only solution is to teach the rules by the old "drill and kill" method, rather than by having children "explore" their way to proper grammar.

Direct grammar instruction, long thought to do more harm than good, is welcome once more.

Several factors -- most notably, the addition of a writing section to the SAT college entrance exam in 2005 -- have reawakened interest in Greiner's methods.

Nationwide, the Class of 2006 posted the lowest verbal SAT scores since 1996. That was the year the test was recalibrated to correct for a half-century decline in verbal performance.

Gaston Caperton, the College Board president, has lamented the scarcity of grammar and composition course work in public schools. In surveys, not quite two-thirds of students said they had studied grammar by the time they took the 2005 SAT.

Those concerns, and a growing consensus among scholars that many high school graduates "can't write well enough to get a passing grade from a professor on a paper," drove the addition of a third section to the SAT, upending decades of balance between reading and math, said Ed Hardin, a content specialist at the College Board.

Let's hope for a more literate future generation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | Comments (170) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Otherwise the Houston Chroinicle missed the big story while reporting on the reaction of the Hispanic community (especially among those here illegally) to changes in HPD policies on working with immigration officials.

Immigration activist Maria Jimenez is quoted extensively in the article. But the attribution of comments becoenm indirect in the final paragraph.

"Everything is stalled on immigration reform," she said, but she nonetheless urged those who are eligible to vote, or who have family members who are, to cast their ballots in the upcoming election.

I've got no problem with her urging people to vote if they are eligible. I want to see every eligible voter vote. But this sentence could be read as a claim that Jimenez advocated the those ineligible to vote should vote if they have an eligible family member but are not eligible to vote themselves. I hope that she is not urging that fraudulent votes be cast. If that is what she called for, reporter Cynthia Leonor Garza missed the big story.

However, I hope that we are just seeing sloppy reporting/editting at the Houston Chronicle. It would not be the first time.

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Of course, all it does is quote al-Qaeda leaders and show terrorist training films captured during the war on terror.

Republicans took a page from President Johnson's Cold War-era presidential campaign with an advertisement set to air this weekend called "The Stakes," which prominently features al Qaeda leaders threatening to kill Americans.

"Just like in the Cold War, the reality is that our nation is at war with an ideology and not a country," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.

Democrats, however, have called the commercial, which is reminiscent of Johnson's 1964 "Daisy" ad, a "desperate ploy to once again try to scare voters."

The advertisement, which is available on the Republican National Committee Web site, is scheduled to run on national news networks Sunday. Republicans are emphasizing national security and terrorism issues in their bid to maintain control of Congress with about two weeks before the November midterms.

And the offensive content?

The ad features al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, speaking, but the only sound is a ticking clock in the background. The terror leaders' quotes are posted on the screen and key phrases in the quotes stand alone as the rest of the quote fades out.

In one instance, bin Laden is quoted as saying, "With God's permission we call on everyone who believes in God ... to comply with His will to kill the Americans." As the text of the quote fades out, "kill the Americans" remains on the screen.

Another bin Laden quote: "They will not come to their senses unless the attacks fall on their heads and ... until the battle has moved inside America" -- fades out, leaving only "inside America" on the screen.

Meanwhile, footage of terrorists engaged in martial arts and weapons training rolls in the background. One scene shows terrorists traversing monkey bars over fire.

The ticking clock morphs into a heartbeat as the ad comes to a close, and the only spoken words on the commercial announce, "The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising."

If the Democrats are really opposed to terrorism, how could they object to the content of the ad? They wouldn't be trying to hide the facts, would they?

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.

We keep hearing that women have high status in Islam. But then you get a book, popular in American mosques, written by a prominent Islamic leader, which advocates the following. It makes it clear what the practical status of women is in that religion.

When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of "the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost."

Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book "Woman in the Shade of Islam" by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. "[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," reads one widely accepted translation.

And for those who want to argue that the author of the book, a Saudi cleric, was representing a minority position or one held only abroad, consider the experience of the author only a few weeks after she received a copy.

Not long after I picked up the free Saudi book, Mahmoud Shalash, an imam from Lexington, Ky., stood at the pulpit of my mosque and offered marital advice to the 100 or so men sitting before him. He repeated the three-step plan, with "beat them" as his final suggestion. Upstairs, in the women's balcony, sat a Muslim friend who had recently left her husband, who she said had abused her; her spouse sat among the men in the main hall.

At the sermon's end, I approached Shalash. "This is America," I protested. "How can you tell men to beat their wives?"

"They should beat them lightly," he explained. "It's in the Koran."

And even one online audio sermon (now censored after the speaker was challenged on the issue) made the following suggestion.

Last October, I listened to an online audio sermon by an American Muslim preacher, Sheik Yusuf Estes, who was scheduled to speak at West Virginia University as a guest of the Muslim Student Association. He soon moved to the subject of disobedient wives, and his recommendations mirrored the literal reading of 4:34. First, "tell them." Second, "leave the bed." Finally: "Roll up a newspaper and give her a crack. Or take a yardstick, something like this, and you can hit."

An imam from Kentucky, addressing a mosque in West Virginia. Telling the men to beat their wives.

And yet the feminists are silent about Islam.

I've been accused of hatred and bigotry for daring to suggest that there is something fundamentally barbaric about Islam. But my (liberal) critics fail to address the barbarism of the teaching that women should be beaten. They would insist that any Christian organization that advocated domestic violence be banned from every college campus in the nation -- but they are supportive of the presence of Muslim organizations that advocate physical abuse of disobedient women as a mark of diversity and pluralism.

I'm sorry -- such diversity and pluralism are not useful or needed anywhere in our society. Fundamental respect for women requires taht we condemn such teachings and the violence and sexual assault that come with them. Islam must change -- or Islam must be rejected, marginalized and excluded.

Unless, of course, we in the civilized world wish to reconsider our views against the physical and sexual abuse of women, and adopt the "enlightened" ways of Islam.

Posted by: Greg at 01:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

Garry Trudeau has gotten a bad rap from conservatives over the years -- some of it deserved, some of it not. But I think we need to acknowledge some basic human decency on his part and how it serves as a counterpoint to how the Left responded to Vietnam vets -- and how some respond to the vets of today's War on Terror.

IN THE BANQUET ROOM WERE MEN WHO WERE BLIND, men with burns, men with gouges, men missing an arm, men missing a leg, men missing an arm and a leg, men missing an arm and both legs, men missing parts of their faces, and a cartoonist from the funny pages.

We were just a few blocks from the White House, at Fran O'Brien's Steak House. Fran's was hosting a night out for casualties of the current war, visiting from their hospital wards.

It's hard to know what to say to a grievously injured person, and it's easy to be wrong . You could do what I did, for example. Scrounging for the positive, I cheerfully informed a young man who had lost both legs and his left forearm that at least he's lucky he's a righty. Then he wordlessly showed me his right hand, which is missing fingertips and has limited motion -- an articulated claw. That shut things right up, for both of us, and it would have stayed that way, except the cartoonist showed up.

Garry Trudeau, the creator of "Doonesbury," hunkered right down in front of the soldier, eye to eye, introduced himself and proceeded to ignore every single diplomatic nicety.

"So, when were you hit?" he asked.

"October 23."

Trudeau pivoted his body. "So you took the blast on, what . . . this side?"

"Yeah."

Brian Anderson, 25, was in shorts, a look favored by most of the amputees, who tend to wear their new prostheses like combat medals. His legs are metal and plastic, blue and knobby at the knee, shin poles culminating abruptly in sneakers.

Trudeau surveyed Brian's intact arm. "You've got dots."

"Yeah." Dots are soldier-speak for little beads of shrapnel buried under the skin. Sometimes they take a lifetime to work their way back to the surface. At this, Brian became fully engaged and animated, smiling and talking about the improvised explosive device that took his vehicle out; about his rescue; his recovery; his plans for the future. Trudeau, it turned out, had given him what he needed.

("In these soldiers' minds," Trudeau will explain afterward, "their whole identity, who they are right now, is what happened to them. They want to tell the story, they want to be asked about it, and you're honoring them by listening. The more they revisit it, the less power it has over them.")

And this is not a PR visit -- this is a part of who Trudeau is. Indeed, it is a part of his body of work, having maimed the beloved B.D. in Iraq and walked with him through recovery, rehab and post-traumatic stress. He may have a problem with the war and the president, but he behaves as a man of decency -- and a patriot.

God bless you Garry Trudeau.

Posted by: Greg at 12:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 549 words, total size 3 kb.

Let's be honest -- we all know he did it, even if the prosecution did screw up the case so badly that they could not possibly have gotten a conviction. And while I may reject the notion of a civil liability for a crime following a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal trial, that doesn't change my certainty that OJ killed Ron and Nicole.

Now he may have confessed -- hypothetically, of course.

ELEVEN years after O J Simpson walked free from America’s most controversial murder trial, the former star athlete is at the centre of a row over reports that he is being paid $3.5m for an autobiography in which he describes how he “hypothetically” might have murdered his ex-wife and her male friend.

* * *

The National Enquirer’s account could not be verified this weekend but the newspaper provided extensive details in a four-page report on what it called a “tell-all blockbuster”. Simpson is said to describe how he “grabbed a knife from a man who accompanied him to Nicole’s home — and moments later found himself covered in blood and looking down on the bodies of Nicole and Ron”.

The other man is identified only as “Charlie”. No mention of an accomplice or witness emerged at either of Simpson’s trials, but according to the book, “Charlie” had earlier paid Simpson a late-night visit and passed on gossip about Brown and other men, prompting Simpson to “explode” in rage.

“Simpson prefaces these key pages by almost half-heartedly claiming that this part of the book is ‘hypothetical’,” the Enquirer reported. Simpson is said to have written that he stormed around to Brown’s Los Angeles home to confront her. He grabbed a knife he kept in his Ford Bronco car, but “Charlie” snatched it away from him.

According to the Enquirer, the book describes a series of arguments between Simpson, Goldman and Brown. Simpson snatched his knife back from “Charlie” and launched into a “blur” of violence.

When he saw the couple lying dead on the pavement, “OJ says he was in a daze, asking himself who’d done it,” the Enquirer reported. “He was still trying to work out what happened when a terrified Charlie whispered ‘Jesus Christ, OJ, what have you done?’” Simpson’s lawyers made no comment on the allegations last week. Other legal sources said there was no danger that Simpson could be prosecuted again for the crimes — however “hypothetical” his confession — under America’s double jeopardy laws forbidding retrial after acquittal.

Granted, this is originally from the National Enquirer, but they have been known to get scoops like this from time to time. And this would explain why OJ Simpson is playing golf rather than looking for the real killer like he promised.

By the way -- might "Charlie" be OJ's old buddy, Al Cowlings?

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

To us in the West, that is a line from a Monty Python movie.

In Iran and other parts of the Islamic world, it is a reality, due to the imposition of sharia law. Article 83 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, as one example, declares stoning to death a permissible punishment for some types of adultery.

This needs to be read by every American -- indeed, by ever citizen of the civilized world. I've put the more graphic details below the fold.

Hello.

I read your recent article about stoning to death.

Reading your article reminded me of the bleeding bruises in my heart once again.

You wrote about murdering by stoning.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 734 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, that is the analysis by Barron's Magazine, being touted by Drudge.

BARRON'S COVER Survivor!
The GOP Victory

By JIM MCTAGUE

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers, BARRON's claims in their next edition. The Democrats, as widely reported, are expecting GOP-weary voters to flock to the polls in two weeks and hand them control of the House for the first time in 12 years -- and perhaps the Senate, as well. Even some Republicans privately confess that they are anticipating the election-day equivalent of Little Big Horn. Pardon our hubris, but we just don't see it.

Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data -- suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber's 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three.

I still have hope.

Posted by: Greg at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

A great day for the integrity of American elections. Now we just need such laws in 49 other states and the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Arizona may enforce a new state law requiring voters to show a photo identification card at the polls on Election Day this year, despite a pending lawsuit by opponents who say the measure will disenfranchise the poor, minorities and the elderly.

In its unanimous five-page ruling, the court did not decide whether the Arizona law was constitutional. Rather, it overturned a federal appeals court in San Francisco that would have blocked enforcement of the law until the opponents' suit could be decided.

That would take too long, the court said, noting that, "in view of the impending election," Arizona needed "clear guidance."

The actual impact of the Arizona law, which was approved in a statewide referendum two years ago but has not yet been applied, was still too unclear to justify changing the state's plans so close to Nov. 7, the justices said.

What is the requirement?

Arizona, which borders Mexico and has seen a surge in migration in recent years, is one of several states that have recently enacted a photo-ID requirement in response to reports that illegal immigrants and other ineligible voters have been casting ballots.

The Arizona law requires voters not only to present proof of citizenship when they register but also to present a photo ID when they go to the polls. Those without a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot, but their votes do not count unless they can produce a valid identification card within five days.

It requires proof of identity and residence -- hardly unreasonable. And it provides a method for those who don't have the identification on Election day to have their vote count. The IDs are even free if you cannot afford them.

Now if only we could find a way to require proof of citizenship as well.

By the way, while the Court's opinion said it is not ruling on the merits of the case, this decision makes me believe that they lean in favor of the identification requirement. If there was a serious probablility of the anti-identification forces winning, they would have enjoined enforcement.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

1) They’ve never been willing to interfere with Hezbollah terrorist attacks, and have even flow the Hezbollah flag with their own. Now the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon -- so-called "peace keepers" -- wants to shoot down Israeli airplanes engaged in acts of self-defense. Is it “US out of the UN/Un Out of the US” time yet?

2) The Vatican says Christians and Muslims must stand together against terrorism. WeÂ’ve done it, they havenÂ’t. Dialogue and understanding can go nowhere until they do.

3) Gee – they may as well be talking about my Democrat critic.

Activist efforts to limit America's free marketplace of ideas -- such as the tactic of slandering commonsense criticism as "Islamophobia" -- are contrary to the very foundation of democratic governance.

Just because a liberal or minority disagrees with a comment does not make it racist, bigoted, or hateful – or even wrong. By the way, you might consider checking out the proposed methods of dealing with jihadi terrorism – they are spot-on.

4) More global warming hysteria – which overlooks the fact that Greenland is called GREENland for a reason. Receding glaciers are a reversion to the status quo at the time of Greenland’s discovery condition in the time of Eric the Red and Lief Ericson. I'm curious -- what produced the "global warming that created those conditions? Or had something happened to cause "global cooling"? Or -- horrors -- might the current warming trend be part of a centuries/millenia-long pattern of warming and cooling?

5) Somehow this got overlooked in reporting of the defensive action by Israel against Hezbollah’s terrorists – Hezbollah was using cluster bombs against Israel. Israel was roundly condemned for doing so, but the actions of Hezbollah were covered-up. Could it be another sign of the anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist stance taken by the world media?

6) Muslims Gone Wild! Another example of Islamic tolerance and respect for human rights.

7) Run silent, run deep, Check out the most silent and deadly attack submarine on earth – part of the fleet of the SWEDISH navy!

Do-it-yourself abortion on day of scheduled delivery not illegal – judge dismisses charges against woman who shot herself in the stomach to murder her baby. Pro-choices support the decision in this article. Does anyone want to defend it here?

9) Why should anyone with sense oppose socialist socialized medicine? Maybe you should consider this horrendous outcome that puts economic efficiency ahead of human life.

10) Is it treason yet? CNN shows terorist "snuff films" of sniper attacks on US troops. I’ll bet they would have gladly aired Nazi propaganda films of the “heroic” SS defending their positions against the Allied “invaders” to present the “unvarnished truth” about D-Day, spliced with clips of an exclusive interview with Adolph Hitler.

11) Dem staffer suspended for leaking classified information to the press (and therefore to the enemy). Democrats are outraged – that the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee would take action to safeguard our nation’s military and intelligence secrets. I guess the only thing they believe should remain hidden from public view is the Plame Name. More from Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed.

12) Don’t speak ill of any Islamic practice – it could “incite” Muslims to violence. And your friendly neighborhood supporters of terrorists at CAIR want to make sure doing so does. My take – “Hurrah for John Gibson!”

13) You've got to see the picture with this story -- Bambi was feeling mighty playful when he saw this cross-country runner.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 6 kb.

I guess I don't find any of this to be a big deal. After all, what the board of the institution has done is indicate it is going to stay within the bounds of what has always been Baptist custom and practice.

Trustees at a Baptist seminary have put it in writing: They will not tolerate any promotion of speaking in tongues on their campus.

The 36-1 vote Tuesday came nearly two months after the Rev. Dwight McKissic of Arlington said during a chapel service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that he sometimes speaks in tongues while praying.

McKissic, a new trustee at the Fort Worth school, passed the lone dissenting vote on the resolution.

It states: "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices."

As an organization, Baptists (especially Southern Baptists) are not charismatic/pentecostal in their theological stance. As a seminary, the school is indicating that it will anchor itself to baptist tradition.

That isn't to say that I have a problem with any of the spiritual practices the school disassociates itself from -- I remain neutral on the validity of them.

Frankly, I'd be shocked if it did not -- and would hope that any seminary of any denomination would cling to its its doctrinal anchors.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Trauma, Passivity, & the Fear of Aggression by ShrinkWrapped, and Prison Jihad? by The Weekly Standard.  Here is where you can see the full results of the vote.

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 5 kb.

This terrorist plot looks like a direct attempt to shut down this blog. The other six stadiums are just a distraction from their true target.

After all, my wife and I will be in our customary seats in Reliant Stadium.

A Web site is claiming that seven NFL football stadiums -- including Houston's -- will be hit with radiological dirty bombs this weekend, but the government today expressed doubts about the threat.

The warning, posted Oct. 12, was part of an ongoing Internet conversation titled "New Attack on America Be Afraid." It mentioned NFL stadiums in New York, Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, Houston, Oakland and Cleveland, where games are scheduled for this weekend.

The Homeland Security Department alerted authorities and stadium owners in those cities, as well as the NFL, of the Web message but said the threat was being viewed "with strong skepticism." Officials at the NCAA, which oversees college athletics, said they too had been notified.

Houston-based FBI officials would not comment on any security measures that might occur as a result of the threat to detonate a dirty bomb at Reliant Stadium and the six other NFL stadiums throughout the nation.

"But, we always have a presence at the games and at major events," said FBI Special Agent Shauna Dunlap.

If I don't go watch NFL football, the terrorists win.

GO TEXANS!

Jawa Report has done great work covering this story -- including posting the threat and the site in question. Gateway Pundit connects the dots to previous terrorist threats.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Some articles of note that you might want to look to.

1) We were told that the Enron case conviction of Ken Lay proved that the law applied the rich and powerful just like it does to everyone else. Guess what – now folks are upset because the law is being applied to Ken Lay just as it is to everyone else!

2) HmmmmmÂ…. Top Dem makes a statement indicating that a black Republican is a slave. IÂ’m curious, where are the leftist sensitivity police on this one? Malkin has more.

3) Italian journalist who converted to Islam kidnapped by jihadis in Afghanistan – who demand the return of an Afghan convert to Christianity for application of the sharia penalty for apostasy )which is, of course, death). Am I the only one who smells a set-up here? Better idea – the civilized world will keep the Christian and the followers of the Religion of barbarism can keep their co-religionist. Malkin weighs in on this one

4) Service dog dies after saving owner from fire cause by cat – while trying to save the cat.

5) We are a nation of over 300,000,000. Notice the statistics on foreign-born individuals –and realize that the population would be 10-20 million less if we actively deported border-jumping immigration criminals.

6) One of these could ruin the whole day of our enemies. And to think such weapons wee the stuff of science fiction only a few decades ago!

7) Donna Shalala proves she is still a typical Democrat – "I believe that the young men we have recruited for our football team are young men of great character. But they did a very bad thing." Wasn’t that what she said about Slick Willie, too?

Arab-American group sues to find out if terror deportees disproportionately Arab and Muslim – tells America to ignore the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were disproportionately Arab and Muslim.

9) Muslim group condemns second Koran in toilet at university in NYC. Conveniently, the group fails to condemn murders of Christians or honor killings by fellow Muslims.

10) For that matter, the group in the above story also has failed to condemn this attack upon a pro-Israel editor in Pakistan – or his trial on sedition charges for advocating diplomatic relations between that Muslim country and the Jewish state.

11) Gay terrorist Mike Rogers – making homophobia a legitimate political strategy since 2004. I guess “It’s just about sex” only applies to Democrats. Captain Ed has a great commentary on Rogers’ strategy of left-wing homophobia. IowaHawk has this humorous insight on possible Democrat moves to make use of Rogers' efforts.

12) Desperate Democrat rips opponent over her cheesy romance novel. Have you no issues?

13) It may surprise you to discover I support the plaintiff in this suit – but think any damage award should be nominal. After all – how much “emotional distress” should a reasonable individual have over a dismissed ticket? But then again, she does appear to suffer from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

14) But look what has been banned as “patently offensive” speech at Marquette University.

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”
-- Dave Berry

15) During his days as Russian dictator, didnÂ’t this guy defend the Berlin Wall, which was designed to keep the people of East Germany prisoners of their own government? ShouldnÂ’t he have faced a trial for crimes against humanity by now?

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 598 words, total size 6 kb.

I don't smoke. I consider it a disgusting habit, and question the sanity of those who engage in it. I've watched too many friends and family members die of smoking-related illnesses.

But I oppose the half-hearted "smoking ban" measures that are being proposed and implemented here in Houston and other places in the US.

As Houston debates whether to ban smoking in bars, cities across the country are enacting their own smoking bans, adding fuel to a movement that has gained momentum during the past few years.

In the two weeks since Mayor Bill White released a draft ordinance to extend the city's ban, which council members will consider today, at least four smaller municipalities across the country, as well as France, have banned smoking in restaurants and bars.

Houston's decision could affect how state lawmakers approach the issue, said Joe Cherner, an expert on the smoking-ban movement and founder of BREATHE — Bar and Restaurant Employees Advocating Together for a Healthy Environment.

"If Houston passes a strong law, Texas will pass a law within a year," he predicted, based on how other states have reacted to bans by their largest cities.

Houston's existing law prohibits smoking in dining areas of restaurants but allows it at bars. Customers can smoke at bars within restaurants so long as the smoke doesn't drift into the dining area.

The mayor's proposed changes would extend the ban to bars but include some exemptions such as cigar shops, outdoor patios and some private functions.

Council members also will consider various amendments to the proposal. One would exempt stand-alone bars that were in operation before Sept. 1, and others would extend the ban to cigar shops and most outdoor patios.

The council is divided on the issue, so it's unclear which, if any, of the proposals has the best chance of being approved.

We have the evidence that smoking is harmful, and (arguably) that second-hand smoke is equally dangerous. And yet smoking continues to be legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Governmen continues to raise revenue off of the addiction of its citizens to a clearly dangerous substance. I find that unacceptable.

So I will come flat out and say it -- either we need to accept the liberty argument that people should be free to smoke, or we should accept the argument that cigars, cigarettes, snuff, chew, and other such products are so irredeemably dangerous that their production, sale, and possession should be banned. Quit the half-hearted measures and just do it.

Or just don't do it, and repeal all restrictions on the basis that adults have a right to do with their bodies what they want to do with them.

The middle ground on this issue is not principled and not in the public interest. Either be willing to follow the logical outcome of every study of the effects of tobacco on the grounds of public health, or admit that liberty dictates allowing people to make dangerous choices and businesses to cater to those choices if they desire.

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 3 kb.

This might be of interest to my fellow diabetics.

Diabetics gained a new way of controlling their blood sugar levels Tuesday with federal approval of a novel pill for Type 2 diabetes, which affects about 20 million Americans.

The Food and Drug Administration said it approved Januvia, which enhances the body's own ability to lower blood sugar levels, after clinical trials showing the new pill works just as well as older diabetes drugs, but with fewer side effects like weight gain. The drug is made by Merck and Co. Inc.

* * *

Januvia, also known as sitagliptin phosphate, works with a one-two punch: It increases levels of a hormone that triggers the pancreas to produce more insulin to process blood sugar while simultaneously signaling the liver to quit making glucose. The pill does that by blocking production of an enzyme, called DPP-4, that normally inactivates that hormone.

Unfortunately, this drug may be out of reach for many Americans -- rather than the current $15.00 to $30.00 a month cost for the most common generic diabetes drugs, this one will cost nearly $150.00. Whether and when insurance companies will cover the medication and at what price level is unknown at this time.

Novartis is expecting approval of a similar medication by year's end.

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the past 2 ½ years, I’ve given glimpses of my life to you. Probably the one thing that I’ve made most clear is that I am married o a woman I passionately love, and that I want to have as the center of my life for the rest of my life. You would also be aware that there are health issues in her life that are a source of great concern.

And for that reason, some changes are coming.

I plan on blogging a bit less – and I want to explain why.

IÂ’m up before sunup every morning, out the door by before dawn, and donÂ’t return home until for another 9-10 hours. I teach a night class that takes me out of my home several nights a week. That means my evenings with my wife are at a premium, especially since my return time is late enough that she will be asleep or ready for bed when I get home after class and so there is not any significant time to spend with her then.

And I look at how I have spent those evenings lately – including a bonus one last night, when torrential rains and flooding in the Houston area caused the cancellation of my night class – and I’m not happy.

I’ve spent them making replies to the Holocaust denying neo-Nazi troll who just won’t leave, despite my best efforts to rid my site of his filth. I’ve done the same with the filth-spewing “liberal” who can’t string three words together without one being a profane insult. I’ve made posts on my site and commented on others – and last night found myself doing battle with a thief who stole a photo off my site, among other things….

And then IÂ’ve spent what time is left with the woman that I love.

IÂ’ve been struggling with this issue for several days now, and driving in to school this morning, I found myself asking a basic question.

“What is your priority and why?”

And in one of those brutal epiphanies that are a part of life, I recognized that the answer I wanted to give wasnÂ’t well-reflected in my actions.

After all, this blog is simply not that important, but IÂ’ve let it become a driving force in my life to an extent that has ceased to be healthy. And IÂ’ve let it begin to take the place of what matters most in my life, allowing this hobby to become too time-consuming and too important.

And so I will be cutting back. I have to, for the sake of my own sanity and the happiness of the person I still want to spend the rest of my life with.

That will mean probably only one or two posts a day, and possibly days without any posts at all. It will mean putting the focus on the part of my life that really needs to be the priority – my wife, especially while she still enough has enough good days to balance out the bad ones that have slowly come to be more frequent over the last few months. I want to take those walks and long drives. I want to go shopping with her. I want to go out for a movie or dinner or take a romantic weekend away. And maybe I’d rather not have thoughts about possible posts, how to respond to commenters, and site traffic levels crowding out my attention to her when she needs it most.

In short, I need blogging to be less of a jealous and demanding mistress and more of a recreational diversion.

I hope folks will still come around. I hope people will still comment (well, maybe not KKKen or Nunya, but decent people), and maybe even link back to something that you like. But if the changes don’t meet with your approval, please know that I have appreciated your visits and wish you well – and hope you will still pop in from time to time.

And sweetheart, if you are reading this, know that IÂ’m sorry for too many evenings and weekends when IÂ’ve failed to give you your due. I know I canÂ’t make them up, but I can strive to do better.

Posted by: Greg at 05:44 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 715 words, total size 4 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are "As Long As We're Talking, We're Not Shooting At Each Other" by Right Wing Nut House, and Is Islam Waging War on the World? by Reconquista.  I have linked to both winning entries and to the full results of the vote.

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 5 kb.

Lynne Stewart was once a great lawyer.

Sadly, while defending a client, she chose to become part of a criminal conspiracy to direct terrorist activities.

Convicted in federal court, she was sentenced yesterday for her crimes.

Lawyer Lynne Stewart was sentenced Monday to 28 months in prison for helping a terrorist client communicate with his followers, a far less severe sentence than the 30 years sought by federal prosecutors.

As U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl delivered his sentence in a packed federal courtroom in Manhattan, Stewart lifted her glasses and dabbed at tears while her husband gave a tight hug to their daughter. An hour later, the 67-year-old lawyer emerged from the federal courthouse holding hands with her granddaughter and grandson and, to loud cheers and applause from hundreds of supporters, declared a victory of sorts over the Bush administration.

What is disgusting is that this "victory over the Bush administration" comes despite the fact that the judge acknowledged that Stewart's offense was reat, severe, and potentially lethal.

n fact, Koeltl made it clear that Stewart had committed a serious offense by smuggling messages between her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and his followers in the Middle East, including a statement withdrawing the sheik's support for a cease-fire with the Egyptian government. Stewart's actions, Koeltl said, constituted "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct" and material support for terrorism, and could have had "lethal consequences."

Koeltl noted, however, that neither Stewart's actions nor those of her co-defendants, translator Mohammed Yousry and Rahman aide Ahmed Abdel Sattar, resulted in violence in the United States or overseas.

It seems, though, that the judge in this case was a fan of her prior legal work, and allowed his admiration for her previous public service to be the basis for this absurdly low sentence -- and therefore wildly departed from federal sentencing guidelines.

Stewart should have spent the remainder of her life rotting in prison. Instead, the judge sent a message that terrorists and their associates who act out of what are perceived as noble motives can expect leniency.

And you wonder why many of us have argued against treating terrorism as a criminal matter and not a military one. Judge Koeltl proves that the courts are ill-equipped to handle such matters.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

This little tidbit, commented upon by Stop the ACLU and Jawa Report, is utterly stunning

Emadeddin Z. Muntasser and Muhammed Mubayyid face charges in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts for the soliciting and expenditure "of funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications." Their Care International "charity," a now-defunct Boston-based al Qaeda front organization, published, among other things, the English version by al Qaeda co-founder Abdullah Azzam of "Join the Caravan," which states: "he obligation of Jihad today remains [individually required] until the last piece of land, which was in the hand of the Muslims, but has been occupied by disbelievers, is liberated."

In their Oct. 5 request for a dismissal, the defendants effectively -- and unwittingly -- explain all the reasons why the federal government should outlaw Islamic charitable giving in the United States.

In their motion, attorneys Mrs. Estrich, Malick Ghachem, Norman Zalkind and Elizabeth Lunt, argue that the defendants merely exercised their religious freedom and obligation to give "zakat" (Islamic charity).

Their motion cites Chapter 9, verse 60 of the Koran, which describes "those entitled to receive zakat." According to the definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam, "category 7" of eligible recipients are "volunteers engaged in jihad" for whom the zakat cover "living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons)."

In other words, faithfully practicing Islam mandates the funding of terrorist activities -- and funds given in support of jihadi terrorism should be tax-deductable!

We Americans keep being told that jihadi terrorism is not a true face of Islam, that Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorist activites are contrary to its teachings. We are frequently told that jihad is an internal struggle and not the spreading of Islamic hegemony by the sword. yet the argument presented in federal court by distinguished lawyers -- law professors, the campaign manager for a former Democrat nominee for president, and the former head of a state ACLU chapter -- are arguing precisely the opposite as they seek the dismissal of the charges against individuals who have aided and abetted terrorism.

I'm not sure which is more shocking -- that these "respectable" folks are explicitly siding with jihadi terrorism against the United States, or that they are arguing that the United States Constitution protects jihadi terrorism against interference by the United Staes government.

Oh, and this is one more reason to vote Republican -- the ACLU is an actively partisan group that favors teh Democrats, and Estrich is a likely judicial nominee in any future Democrat presidential administration.

MORE AT: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Ace of Spades, Texas Hold 'Em, Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 4 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Washington Post raises interesting questions about who would become speaker -- and potentially president in the unlikely deaths of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- under a secret list of individuals as "Speaker Pro Tem".

But that is not the interesting part to me.

Perhaps the biggest question, some lawyers say, is whether a House speaker -- full time or pro tempore -- can assume and keep the presidency under any circumstance. A statute, not the Constitution, lists the speaker's place in the line succession.

A case can be made that no one in Congress qualifies as an "officer" eligible to assume the presidency under Article II of the Constitution, said Neil Kinkopf, a professor of law at Georgia State University. The question may never be settled, he said, because the Supreme Court would take it up only if a speaker became president and someone challenged the action in court.

My guess? This would constitute a political question with which the courts would be unlikely to involve themselves. And given that speaker (and President Pro Tem of the Senate) are boh constitutionally ordained offices, I'd have to argue that they do qualify as "officers" for purposes of the succession.

But if they don't, would any individual occupying a statutorily created position as a cainet secretary qualify?

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.