I do believe that Mark Foley’s depravity has reached or surpassed Clinton’s use of Monica as a humidor or getting “serviced” while on the phone with a Congressman.

Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page, according to new Internet instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages.

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys under the age of 18.

This message was dated April 2003, at approximately 7 p.m., according to the message time stamp.

Maf54: I miss you
Teen: ya me too
Maf54: we are still voting
Maf54: you miss me too
The exchange continues in which Foley and the teen both appear to describe having sexual orgasms.
Maf54: ok..i better go vote..did you know you would have this effect on me
Teen: lol I guessed
Teen: ya go voteÂ…I don't want to keep you from doing our job
Maf54: can I have a good kiss goodnight
Teen: :-*
Teen:

The House voted that evening on HR 1559, Emergency War Time supplemental appropriations.

According to another message, Foley also invites the teen and a friend to come to his house near Capitol Hill so they can drink alcohol.

Teen: are you going to be in town over the veterans day weekend
Maf54: I may be now that your coming
Maf54: who you coming to visit
Teen: haha good stuff
Teen: umm no one really
Maf54: we will be adjourned ny then
Teen: oh good
Maf54: by
Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen: yes yes ;-)
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen: shhhÂ…
Maf54: ok
Teen: that's not what my ID says
Teen: lol
Maf54: ok
Teen: I probably shouldn't be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted

I am horrified and disgusted.

And I want to know who knew of these actions or had copies of these messages and did nothing to safeguard the young people involved.

And regardless, I want to see the sick freak go to jail for a very long time.

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 2 kb.

We keep getting this nonsense from Vicente Fox, the President Pendejo of Mexico.

Mexican President Vicente Fox, who leaves office Dec. 1, has called the barrier "shameful" and compared it to the Berlin Wall. His spokesman yesterday urged Bush to veto the bill.

"This decision hurts bilateral relations, goes against the spirit of cooperation needed to guarantee security on the common border, creates a climate of tension in border communities," Ruben Aguilar told reporters.

I’ll tell you what – if you would keep your border jumpers and drug smugglers out of our country, and we wouldn’t need to build a fence. But since you and your country encourage and profit from both the trafficking in illegal drugs and the trafficking in human beings, we need it. Look in the mirror if you want to know why it has come to this.
Maybe your successor will do a better job with this matter.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

We keep getting this nonsense from Vicente Fox, the President Pendejo of Mexico.

Mexican President Vicente Fox, who leaves office Dec. 1, has called the barrier "shameful" and compared it to the Berlin Wall. His spokesman yesterday urged Bush to veto the bill.

"This decision hurts bilateral relations, goes against the spirit of cooperation needed to guarantee security on the common border, creates a climate of tension in border communities," Ruben Aguilar told reporters.

I’ll tell you what – if you would keep your border jumpers and drug smugglers out of our country, and we wouldn’t need to build a fence. But since you and your country encourage and profit from both the trafficking in illegal drugs and the trafficking in human beings, we need it. Look in the mirror if you want to know why it has come to this.
Maybe your successor will do a better job with this matter.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Arizona Democrats want Republicans to denounce and apologize for one of their own – because they don’t like his ideas on immigration reform.

Several Arizona Democrats are calling on Republicans to denounce controversial comments by a prominent Mesa representative and take steps toward meaningful immigration reform, including tough sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The comments last week by Rep. Russell Pearce advocating a return to a mass-deportation program from the 1950s called "Operation Wetback" have outraged many in the Latino community. But the state Republican Party has been silent on the issue, and a spokesman said the party has decided not to comment on the statements by Pearce, a House leader and one of the GOP's leading voices on immigration issues.

* * *

"We need to secure the border and go after employers hiring illegally," [Democrat Rpresentative Steve] Gallardo said. "We need comprehensive reform that is meaningful and successful, not a failed policy from the 1950s."

Actually, the program in question didn’t fail – it was remarkably successful in cutting the number of folks illegally entering and working in the country.

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

* * *

[O]n June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

Now you can argue about whether such a program would be desirable today, but to call it a “failed policy” is clearly not accurate. Given that there were only about 3 million illegals in this country at the time, it is hard to argue that a program that got rid of half of them constitutes a failure. And it is certainly clear that the program was more successful than anything that is going on now.

Maybe the best answer would be to include such a program along with stiffer employer sanctions, a border fence, and proposals put in place other proposals suggested by both Democrats and Republicans – crackdowns on human smugglers and the use of increased technology. I suppose I’d even be open to a guest worker program – once we get the numbe of people illegally in this country down by 90-95%.

But apologize for floating the idea of trying a policy that worked? I donÂ’t think so.

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.

IÂ’ve liked almost every Mormon IÂ’ve ever met. They are among the kindest, most decent folks I know or have known.

At the same time, I do look askance at Mormon theology. I made a serious study of the religion years ago (while dating a Mormon girl – I’ll own that motivation), and I find it impossible to buy into some of the more unusual aspects of Mormon teaching.

But theological differences alone will not keep me from voting for a candidate I otherwise believe to be well-qualified. And that leads me to Dr. James DobsonÂ’s comments on Gov. Mitt RomneyÂ’s religion and its effect on his candidacy.

A prominent and powerful evangelical Christian leader, James Dobson, said yesterday that the Mormon faith practiced by Governor Romney of Massachusetts could pose a serious obstacle if Mr. Romney makes a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

"I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon but that remains to be seen, I guess," Mr. Dobson said on a syndicated radio program hosted by a conservative commentator, Laura Ingraham.

Mr. Dobson, the founder of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, did not say why Christians would fail to support Mr. Romney. Mr. Dobson also acknowledged that the governor's stands on social issues are similar to those of many religious conservatives.

"He's a nice guy. He's a very attractive man. He's got a beautiful wife and a lot of his principles and values are consistent with ours," Mr. Dobson said. A spokesman for Mr. Romney, Eric Fehrnstrom, had no immediate comment.

In 1960, this country put the “Catholic issue” behind it by electing John F. Kennedy to the presidency. Let’s hope that we can place the “Mormon issue” behind us in 2008. That doesn’t mean electing Romney because of his faith, but it does mean that Americans should give him a respectful hearing and thoughtful consideration as a part of his run for office.

And I believe that many -- indeed, most -- among the Christian Right will give him a decent hearing.

"If he's pro-life, pro-family, I don't think he'll have any problem getting the support of evangelical Christians," a founder of the Moral Majority, Rev. Jerry Falwell, told the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mo. earlier this year.

IÂ’m with Falwell on this one.

* * *

Greg Pierce of the Washington Times offers some reasons why Romney would be a good choice for the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

Gotta respect the rights of those not covered by the treaties, otherwise our sideÂ’s soldiers might not be treated humanely. That is the argument from the pro-terrorist anti-American anti-war Left.

Yeah. Right.

Like this.

IRAQI officers loyal to Saddam Hussain filmed their cold-blooded murder of two British bomb disposal officers who were captured after a roadside ambush.

An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by SaddamÂ’s military intelligence.

The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.

IÂ’m sure glad our enemies show such high respect the for the terms of theGeneva Convention. Let's give them equally humane treatment.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

How else can you explain the refusal to take this overly generous offer from the Israelis?

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said on Monday that Israel had offered to release up to 1,000 prisoners in exchange for captured soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit, but Hamas had turned down the proposal.

"[There was] a deal that could have freed 900 to 1,000 prisoners, but sadly they have decided to keep holding him," he told Al-Arabiyeh Television.

Egypt has been mediating between Israel and Hamas over the release of Shalit, who was abducted at Kerem Shalom on the Gaza border on June 25.

So there you have it – a thousand Terrorstinian fighters are worth less than one Israeli soldier. So says Hamas.

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Proving that the conservative paper is just as capable as the liberal media of entering the Alice in Wonderland world of "First the sentence, then the trial", the Washington Times has called for the resignation of Speaker Dennis Hastert over the Tom Foley case.

The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened.

I'm sorry -- the initial emails were not sufficient to take any such actions. Indeed, media outlests that had them found them to be insufficient to even write stories about them. Rather than blame those who found the emails "overly friendly" until the disgusting IMs came out last week, I think it is more important to find out who has had the clearly inappropriate IMs and why they were held back from the authorities untim now. After all, some of them date back a couple of years, which means that they, not the Speaker or any other member of the leadership team, endangered every page.

By the way, what did the initial FBI inquiry into the initial batch of emails conclude last summer?

An FBI official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the field office concluded that the e-mails "did not rise to the level of criminal activity." The bureau announced Sunday that it would begin a preliminary investigation into Foley's more explicit electronic exchanges with teenagers.

In other words, the FBI concurred with the judgement made by Hastert and others (including members of the media who had the emails but chose not to run them) -- there was nothing in the emails that needed to be pursued. So what you had with the original batch of materials was a unanimous conclusion by the House Leadership, the FBI, and the press that there simply was not anything in the emails that rose to the level of misconduct.

The release of the IMs changes that.

Unfortunately, it may be a while before the results of the investigation of this matter come out. Let's behave like rational adults and wait for those results rather than engaging in hysterical recriminations over a couple of emails (absent the IMs) that seem less like a sexual predator seeking a victim and more like a responsible adult expressing concern about a young man whose family had just survived one of our nation's biggest natural disasters.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.

It shouldn't be a federal case, but it is. Why? Because some of my colleagues in education appear unable to digest the basic lesson of Tinker v. DesMoines and subsequent decisions on the rights of students while at school.

Amber Mangum was a frequent reader during lunch breaks at her Prince George's County middle school, silently soaking up the adventures of Harry Potter and other tales in the spare minutes before afternoon classes. The habit was never viewed as a problem -- not, a lawsuit alleges, until the book she was reading was the Bible.

A vice principal at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Laurel last month ordered Amber, then 12, to stop reading the Bible or face punishment, according to a lawsuit filed Friday by Amber's mother. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, alleges that the vice principal's actions violated the girl's civil rights.

"Amber's a new Christian, and she's trying to learn all she can," said Maryann Mangum, the girl's mother. "She reads her Bible and she goes to Sunday school. . . . It really upset me when she was not allowed to read it on her own time."

John White, a spokesman for the school system, said administrators learned of the lawsuit Friday and were not prepared to comment on its claims. "We're just beginning to look into it," he said.

Mangum said her daughter was reading her Bible on Sept. 14 when Vice Principal Jeanetta Rainey approached. According to Mangum and the lawsuit, Rainey told Amber that reading the Bible violated school policy and that she would face discipline if she continued to do so.

Later that day, Amber recounted the episode to Mangum, who is her adoptive mother and also her biological grandmother. James Baker, a family friend, sent a note to the school asking that the principal identify any policy barring students from reading the Bible during their free time.

The note quoted a section of the school system's administrative procedures, saying that students "may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable, non-disruptive activities."

In other words, not only did the administrator ignore the constitutional rights of Amber Mangum, this administrator also ignored written district policy. And when the family challenged that misconduct, the school's principal decided to send teh complaint down the memory hole and ignore it.

No one is asking for special rights here. All that is being sought is equal rights. And if students may read the book of their choice during non-instructional time, the religious content of their choice cannot legitimately be used to thwart their choice of literature.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

I would have thought that common sense would have prevailed. making the video was probably not a good idea -- and posting it on the district website was an eve worse one.

A suburban school superintendent says he was only trying to be funny when he took videotaped interviews with his new teachers, spliced in his own gag questions and made the faculty members look like killers, strippers and drug users.

Now he could lose his job.

"How do you like to unwind?" Bremen High School District Superintendent Rich Mitchell asks in the mock documentary that he later posted on the Internet. The tape cuts to a teacher who replies: "I enjoy a lot of leisure activities."

"Such as?" Mitchell asks.

"Killing," says the teacher.

Mitchell asks another teacher: "What were the results of the last drug test that you took?"

The reply: "It was positive."

School board president Evelyn Gleason said Mitchell could be fired over the stunt, though she said the seven-member board will first investigate. "I think at the very least an apology should be made," Gleason said.

"I personally think he stepped over the line when it went on the Web site," she said. "I think it was a bad idea gone wrong."

Now I'm all for a little humour at the beginning of the year, but this seems to have crossed the line. And making the video available where it could circulate is even worse. I wonder if this matter doesn't open the district up to lawsuits.

Posted by: Greg at 10:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

Injuries are a part of the game of football. So are late hits. I can even accept the occasional “dirty hit”, with appropriate sanctions applied.

But a premeditated action calculated to injure an opposing player, engaged in well after the whistle has blown? That goes far beyond what anyone will recognize as a legitimate part of the game.

Tennessee defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth was ejected early in the third quarter Sunday after he kicked Dallas center Andre Gurode in the face. Now the tackle expects to be punished and knows he deserves it.

* * *

Julius Jones had just scored on a 5-yard run, putting Dallas up 20-6 in what wound up as a 45-14 victory. Gurode's helmet came off, and Haynesworth, standing over him, used his right foot to kick Gurode in the head.

Gurode said they hadn't been talking or having any exchanges that led to Haynesworth kicking him twice. He received stitches above his forehead and beneath his eye.

"In all my years of football, this has never happened to me. I've never been kicked in the face like this, and I've never seen anybody kick nobody else in the face," Gurode said.

A flag was thrown, and Haynesworth followed an official toward the Titans' sideline, protesting.
Haynesworth pulled off his helmet and slammed it to the ground, prompting another flag. Referee Jerome Boger disqualified Haynesworth, and the player walked off the field after talking briefly with Titans coach Jeff Fisher.

This was not accidental. The play had stopped and Haynesworth looked around before assaulting Gurode. Gurode eventually required 30 stitches to his face, and was unable to return to the game due to blurred vison.

Unfortunately, TitanÂ’s coach Jeff Fisher doesnÂ’t appear to understand the gravity of the situation.

The coach called Haynesworth's actions unacceptable and promised he would be punished by the Titans even if the NFL disciplines him.
"It's ridiculous to get to that point. Two back-to-back penalties like that, there's no place for it," Fisher said.

Excuse me? No place for back-to-back penalties? How about “there is no place for actions that would get you charged with a felony if they took place off the field”? Or maybe “there is no place for actions calculated to gravely injure a player, especially after the play is over”?

Haynesworth needs a long suspension – perhaps encompassing the rest of the season – for his misconduct. I would encourage the local prosecutor to consider filing criminal charges in this case. Michael David Smith over at AOL Sports Blog thinks that Gurode should sue Haynesworth. What this thug did cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be classified as “just a part of the game.” And I say this fully acknowledging that Haynesworth has acknowledged that his actions are indefensible.

By the way, I expect that Haynesworth will get a very cool reception the next time he comes to play here in Houston. Andre Gurode is a local boy – a graduate of the school where I teach. I’m sure the fans will give Haynesworth hell.

UPDATE: Looks like the suspension will be for five games, which is unprecedented in NFL history. But I'm still not sure that it is adequate.

The NFL handed down an unprecedented five-game suspension on Monday to Tennessee Titans defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth for kicking Dallas Cowboys center Andre Gurode in the head.

That length of suspension represents the biggest on-field disciplinary action in league history. Charles Martin held the previous high for a suspension, sitting two games for his bodyslam of Bears quarterback Jim McMahon on Nov. 23, 1986.

"There is absolutely no place in the game, or anywhere else, for the inexcusable action that occurred in yesterday's Titans-Cowboys game," commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement.

"This is an unprecedented suspension," Titans coach Jeff Fisher said. "I feel like his actions on the field were also unprecented."

The coach indicated that Haynesworth would not appeal the decision.

"I felt there needed to be some serious action taken from a discipline standpoint, and I think what the league has done now is adequate," he said.

The suspension will cost Haynesworth $190,070 -- $38,014 per game -- which adds up to five-seventeenths of his 2006 base salary of $646,251.

"I think five games, five paychecks is substantial," Fisher said.

The suspension takes effect immediately. Haynesworth can return on Nov. 19 for the Titans' game at Philadelphia.

That means that Haynesworth will be with the team when they come to Houston, Gurode's hometown, on December 10. I want to encourage every fan of the Houston Texans to make sure that Hanesworth is the recipient of the sort of contempt he deserves from every lover of the game. Indeed, I encourage fans in every city to boo haynesworth and make sure he knows that we don't need his sort in the NFL.

And fortunately, there is still the possibility of prosecution.

The action could potentially cost Haynesworth more than a suspension from the football field. The Nashville, Tenn., police department issued a statement saying it "stands ready to assist [Andre] Gurode in criminally prosecuting [Albert] Haynesworth if Gurode so chooses."

Gurode's cooperation appears key to any charges being filed against Haynesworth.

"In assault situations, an affirmative desire for prosecution and an acknowledgement of cooperation from the victim, in this case Gurode, are preferable before officers and prosecuting attorneys move forward with the development of a case," the statement continued.

Posted by: Greg at 08:40 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 914 words, total size 6 kb.

IÂ’d be shocked, but weÂ’ve all seen in recent years that too many Muslims have no sense of shame.

The Islamic world will be relieved if the Pope makes a full apology," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

In an interview on the Fox TV, Erdogan said that religious leaders should refrain from using the words of Islam and terrorism together.

"Such remarks hurt all the Muslims. We should refrain from remarks which may overshadow alliance of civilizations," he stressed.

First, the Pope has nothing to apologize for.

Second, weÂ’ll quit linking Islam and terrorism when the terrorists do.

Posted by: Greg at 08:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Two American citizens -- one native born -- who were placed on the no-fly list and told they could not return to the United States without an FBI interview were permitted to return to the country yesterday.

Two American citizens of Pakistani descent returned to the United States on Sunday, five months after they were denied permission to fly home to California unless they submitted to an interrogation by F.B.I. terrorism investigators.

The men, Muhammad Ismail, 45, and his son, Jaber, 19, of the Northern California farming town of Lodi, returned from Pakistan on a flight that landed at Kennedy Airport in New York around 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. They were scheduled to arrive in California on Sunday night or early Monday on a connecting flight, their lawyer said Sunday.

The Ismails are an uncle and cousin of Hamid Hayat, a Lodi man who was convicted in April in federal court of providing material support to terrorists. Mr. Hayat told investigators he had attended a terrorism training camp during a long stay in Pakistan and intended to carry out unspecified attacks in the United States. Mr. HayatÂ’s father, Umer, was convicted on a lesser charge of lying to investigators about the amount of cash he carried to Pakistan on a 2003 trip, but a jury deadlocked on terrorism charges.

The Ismails were not charged in the case. They attributed their predicament to being related to the Hayats, the only people to have been charged in what federal prosecutors have described as an investigation into possible terrorism links in Lodi.

Julia Harumi Mass of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who is representing the Ismails, said the pair had no terrorism connections. In a complaint in August to the Department of Homeland Security, she urged the authorities to explain any accusations against them and why they had been denied permission to fly home.

Legal experts said the matter raised questions about balancing terrorism investigations against American citizensÂ’ right to travel freely without having been charged with a crime or detained as a suspect.

This was the proper move by the FBI. The federal government has no legitimate right to strand its citizens in a foreign country as a means of coercing them to waive their right to not speak to law enforcement officials.

Now we need to investigate how such an over-broad order was issued in the first place, and guarantee that such an attrocity never happens again.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Recognizing that the policy in place for fourteen years was flawed, the Houston Police Department has modified its handling of immigration issues.

Under fire in recent months over its policy toward illegal immigrants, the Houston Police Department is unveiling new procedures today to allow more cooperation with federal agents trying to catch criminals living in the country illegally.

Officers still will not inquire about the immigration status of people they haven't arrested, so the changes are unlikely to quiet critics who have labeled Houston a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants.

But the department is making several key revisions.

An announcement is expected today, less than two weeks after the shooting death of police officer Rodney Johnson caused simmering opposition to the department policy to flare anew. An illegal immigrant who previously had been deported is charged in the slaying.

Now what this means is that HPD won't go on ignoring violations of immigration laws, but will instead cooperate with federal authorities .

Among the changes to take effect this week:

•The department will hold people detained or arrested for traffic violations or other minor crimes — Class C misdemeanors — if warrant checks show they are wanted by federal agents for defying an order to leave the country or for returning after being deported in connection with a criminal case. Under existing policy, police generally did not hold such people for federal authorities, even if officers were aware of the federal warrants.

•The department will allow immigration agents unfettered access to the city's two jails, as they have had in the Harris County jail, and officers will start asking all arrestees whether they are citizens.

•Fingerprints of anyone booked into the jails without proper identification will be checked against a national fingerprint database. That could help officers identify wanted criminals, including people wanted for serious immigration violations, police say.

Now the policy does not go far enough, in my book. HPD officers should inquire about the immigration status of ALL individuals arrested or cited and then notify federal authorities of those here illegally. This is, however, a good start.

And for those who argue that immigration is a federal issue and that the local cops should not be involved in enforcing such laws, would you care to let us know what other federal laws you don't want cops enforcing?

Kidnapping?

Terrorism?

Drug trafficking?

Come on, surely there must be some other federal law besides the one against border jumping that you don't believe local cops should enforce.

And interestingly enough, the policy change was expedited by the murder of HPD Officer Rodney Johnson by a previously-deported, child-molesting, border-jumping immigration criminal.

The death of officer Rodney Johnson expedited the Houston Police Department's new policy of asking people arrested in minor crimes for identification and running criminal background checks on those who cannot provide it, but the change was being formulated before he was killed during the arrest of an illegal immigrant, Mayor Bill White said Sunday.

"That did provide an additional impetus to bring this to conclusion, but it was in the works anyway," White said at a news conference Sunday formally announcing the change. "Both Chief (Hurtt) and I, after that death, we asked for an expedited review of everything we could to identify people who are wanted (for criminal activity)."

I wonder -- will Houston city councilwoman Ada Edwards call Mayor White and Chief Hurtt "pimps" for making the change, as she did Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs when the GOP congressional candidate courageously called for the policy's change on the day of Johnson's funeral?

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Unhinged or Calculated by Soccer Dad, and Fear and Loathing in the Land of the Pure by Isaac Schrödinger.  Here are the full results of the vote

Posted by: Greg at 09:58 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 4 kb.

When I first read about the emails by Rep. Mark Foley to a congressional page, I dismissed the matter as unimportant and not worthy of comment.

After all, this was not a stranger seeking out kids on the internet -- this was a known, trusted adult. And the information he sought, which his staff claimed was for a letter of recommendation, I routinely ask kids for full name, address, phone number, date of birth, and information about extracurricular information when I write them letters of recommendation for college, and keep that information (and the letters) on file for a couple of years for future reference. And I can't tell you the number of pictures of former students I have around my classroom.

And while I found the question about what the young man wanted for his birthday to be a bit odd, if you consider that the kid lives in the area hit by Hurricane Katrina it looks like an act of kindness subject to wild misinterpretation.

And then the IM came out -- and Foley rightly resigned.

But we are now faced with the question of who knew what and when.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was notified early this year of inappropriate e-mails from former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a 16-year-old page, a top GOP House member said yesterday -- contradicting the speaker's assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week.

Hastert did not dispute the claims of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), and his office confirmed that some of Hastert's top aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the boy and to treat all pages respectfully.

* * *

Hastert's aides learned in the fall of 2005 only of e-mail exchanges that House officials eventually deemed "over-friendly" with the Louisiana teenager, the speaker's office said yesterday in a lengthy statement. "While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation" with Reynolds, the statement said, "he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution."

Boehner and Reynolds said their offices learned of the Foley e-mails months ago from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R), who sponsored the page from his northeastern-Louisiana district.

"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of the e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's," Reynolds said yesterday. "Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me."

Now if all they had were the initial batch of emails, I think the matter may well have been handled appropriately. Hastert, a former teacher and coach, likely would have looked at them exactly as I did. And he did exactly what I believe iIwould have done in that situation -- tell a colleague to be more aware of appropriate boundaries and to cease contact with the boy. Otherwise, there was nothing to the matter to be done. No law appeareds to be broken based upon the facts as initially known.

But unless someone can demonstrate that the IMs were known to congressional leaders or their staffs, Democrat politicization of Foley's misdeeds is inappropriate. Not that it will stop statements like this.

With his statement, [Rep. Tom] Reynolds, who is locked in a difficult reelection campaign, signaled he was unwilling to take the fall alone amid partisan attacks that were becoming increasingly vituperative. The Democratic National Committee yesterday issued a statement asking "Why Did Tom Reynolds Cover Up Congressman's Sex Crimes?" It continued: "While the shocking [online] exchanges produced an immediate uproar that cost Congressman Foley his job, at least one member of the House Republican leadership had known about the situation for months and did nothing about it: . . . Reynolds."

Now I agree with people on both sides of the aisle that this matter needs further inquiry. But absent evidence that the sexually-charged IMs were known before last week, I have to argue that this is a scandal without substance.

UPDATE: GOPBloggers asks What Did The Media Know About Foley And How Long Did They Know It?

Everyone from the St. Petersburg Times to the Palm Beach Post to Roll Call to the Washington Post had the emails that were released by ABC this past Thursday, and none of them went with the story. It seems rather odd now that those same reporters are asking Hastert and others, what did you know and when did you know it?

An interesting question, given that the St. Petersburg Times admits to having the original emails back in November. If they were not significant enough for them to run the story back then, how is it they can damn the GOP leadership in Congress for also finding them to be less than compelling?

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Ms. Underestimated, Stop the ACLU, LaShawn Barber, Florida Masochist, Sister Toldjah, A Blog For All, Wizbang Politics, Blue Crab Boulevard, Lawhawk, Unpartisan, Gay Patriot, Real Clear Politics, The American Mind, Right Wing News, Suitably Flip, Ace of Spades, Michelle Malkin.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Bullwinkle Blog, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Clash of Civilizations, Random Yak, Blue Star Chronicles, Pursuing Holiness, Samantha Burns, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Church & State, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 912 words, total size 8 kb.