I once believed that Jimmy Carter was the most decent -- and least competent -- president of my lifetime. Sadly, only the latter judgment now stands in light of the despicable book he has recently published, a work that can only be labeled as anti-Semitic.

Now we find out a possible motivation -- Jimmy Carter has been beholden to Arab and Muslim money for his personal financial prosperity, as well as the ongoing support of his Carter Center. And these connections date back to the earliest days of his failed presidency.

Between 1976-1977, the Carter family peanut business received a bailout in the form of a $4.6 million, "poorly managed" and highly irregular loan from the National Bank of Georgia (NBG). According to a July 29, 1980 Jack Anderson expose in The Washington Post, the bank's biggest borrower was Mr. Carter, and its chairman at that time was Mr. Carter's confidant, and later his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance.

At that time, Mr. Lance's mismanagement of the NBG got him and the bank into trouble. Agha Hasan Abedi, the Pakistani founder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), known as the bank "which would bribe God," came to Mr. Lance's rescue making him a $100,000-a-year consultant. Abedi then declared: "we would never talk about exploiting his relationship with the president." Next, he introduced Mr. Lance to Saudi billionaire Gaith Pharaon, who fronted for BCCI and the Saudi royal family. In January 1978, Abedi paid off Mr. Lance's $3.5 million debt to the NBG, and Pharaon secretly gained control over the bank.

Mr. Anderson wrote: "Of course, the Saudis remained discretely silent... kept quiet about Carter's irregularities... [and] renegotiated the loan to Carter's advantage."

There is no evidence that the former president received direct payment from the Saudis. But "according to... the bank files, [it] renegotiated the repayment terms... savings... $60,000 for the Carter family... The President owned 62% of the business and therefore was the largest beneficiary." Pharaon later contributed generously to the former president's library and center.

When Mr. Lance introduced Mr. Carter to Abedi, the latter gave $500,000 to help the former president establish his center at Emory University. Later, Abedi contributed more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects. Even after BCCI was indicted — and convicted -— for drug money laundering, Mr. Carter accepted $1.5 million from Abedi, his "good friend."

Such a connection is clearly scandalous, carrying with it an appearance of impropriety if not an actual impropriety in the dealing of preferential treatment to Carter and his family.

And the financial connections continue with the founding and support of the Carter Center.

Carter is a major recipient of aid from the Saudis, for instance. Before his death in 2005, King Fahd was a longtime contributor to the Carter Center and gave Carter several million-dollar donations. In 1993 alone, King Fahd presented Carter with a gift of $7.6 million. And the king was definitely not alone in his largesse. As of 2005, the kingÂ’s high-living nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, has donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center...that we know about.

The Saudi Fund for Development, the kingdomÂ’s leading loan organization and one of the sources of money for all those hardline mosques and madrassahs shows up repeatedly on the Carter centerÂ’s list of supporters. Carter has also taken money from the Bin Laden family - in 2000 he secured a pledge from the bin-Laden family for a $1 million contribution to his center.

Another big source of funds for Carter has been the United Arab Emirates. In 2001, Carter went to Dubai - a country where Jews are not permitted by law, incidentally - to accept the Zayed International Prize for the Environment, named for Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the late UAE sheik and founder of the government funded Zayed Center, the source of some of the most virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda in the world. Among other things, the Zayed Center took a book written by a French author claiming that 9/11 was an inside job by the CIA and the Mossad, translated into Arabic and distributed it throughout the entire Middle East. And the Zayed Center is a prime benefactor and host to Holocaust deniers of all persuasions.

Carter got a $500,000 prize from these people, and when he spoke at the awards ceremony,he gushed that the "award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan al-Nahyan."

Carter still receives an annual personal stipend from the Zayed Center.

Carter's book has been panned by most reviewers -- indeed, the only positive reviews I have read have come to me from my former troll, KKKen Hoop (whose rampant anti-Semitism and general hate-mongering finally got him banned). Carter, of course, complains that this is due to the influence of Israel and Jews in American politics and publishing. Indeed, Carter claims that he is just seeking to promote debate on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians, and that no college or university with a large Jewish enrollment will invite him to speak.

The former complaint, of course, is an anti-Semitic canard of long-standing -- and the latter is a lie.

Which brings us to Alan Dershowitz's piece in today's Boston Globe, challenging Carter on his refusal to debate the issues he raises after being invited to do so by Brandeis University, a school founded by Jews with a high concentration of Jewish students.

When Larry King referred to my review several times to challenge Carter, Carter first said I hadn't read the book and then blustered, "You know, I think it's a waste of my time and yours to quote professor Dershowitz. He's so obviously biased, Larry, and it's not worth my time to waste it on commenting on him." (He never did answer King's questions.)

The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received. He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.

In other words, Carter finds it necessary to resort to lies and slander to discredit his opponents. What he really wants is a free platform to lecture Jews about the evils of the Jews, free from rebuttal by a Jew. I agree with the assessment Dershowitz makes of Carter's refusal of an offer that meets his earlier criteria -- he is a bully who is afraid of anyone who might stand up to him and his lies and distortions.

And I'll take it a step further -- he is afraid that his disgraceful sell-out of an American ally will be exposed, and that the world will see that there is really little difference between his views of Israel and Jews and those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and David Duke.

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 1278 words, total size 8 kb.

This split within the Orthodox Churches is quite sad.

Rival groups of monks wielding crowbars and sledgehammers clashed Wednesday over control of a 1,000-year-old monastery in a community regarded as the cradle of Orthodox Christianity, police said.

Seven monks were injured and taken by boat to receive medical treatment. They were released after several hours. No one was arrested, but three monks were banned from re-entering the Orthodox sanctuary of Mount Athos, on a self-governing peninsula in northern Greece.

Esphigmenou monastery is the scene of a long-running dispute between Orthodox Church authorities and rebel monks who occupy the site. Both Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, leader of the Orthodox Christian church, and Greece's highest administrative court have ordered their eviction, but the monks refuse to budge.

The rebel monks vehemently oppose efforts to improve relations between the Orthodox Church and the Vatican.

The fighting broke out between the rebel monks and a group of legally recognized monks.

The outsiders attempted to force their way into the monastery's offices in Karyes, the administrative center, to begin construction of a new building. The occupying monks attacked them with crowbars and fire extinguishers.

Esphigmenou's rebel abbot, Methodius, said his monks were provoked.

"We were attacked and had to respond," he said. "They should be ashamed to call themselves men of the cloth."

In October, a court in the nearby city of Thessaloniki handed down two-year suspended sentences against nine monks and former monastery members for illegally occupying Esphigmenou's offices.

A pity that the rebel monks show neither submission to the leaders of their church nor charity towards their fellow Christians.

Posted by: Greg at 05:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

And in light of the conference held by the Madman of Teheran, I think it is important to take note.

Local Muslim leaders lit candles yesterday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to commemorate Jewish suffering under the Nazis, in a ceremony held just days after Iran had a conference denying the genocide.

American Muslims "believe we have to learn the lessons of history and commit ourselves: Never again," said Imam Mohamed Magid of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, standing before the eternal flame flickering from a black marble base that holds dirt from Nazi concentration camps.

Around the hexagonal room, candles glimmered under the engraved names of the death camps: Chelmno. Auschwitz-Birkenau. Majdanek.

"We stand here with three survivors of the Holocaust and my great Muslim friends to condemn this outrage in Iran," said Sara J. Bloomfield, the museum's director, addressing a bank of TV cameras in the room, known as the Hall of Remembrance.

The museum, she noted, holds "millions of pieces of evidence of this crime."

This is a moving and inspiring article. I encourage you to take a look.

Posted by: Greg at 05:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again putting the lie to the idea that border-jumping immigration criminals are not taking jobs away from American workers.

The line of applicants hoping to fill jobs vacated by undocumented workers taken away by immigration agents at the Swift & Co. meat-processing plant earlier this week was out the door Thursday.

Among them was Derrick Stegall, who carefully filled out paperwork he hoped would get him an interview and eventually land him a job as a slaughterer. Two of his friends had been taken away by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and he felt compelled to fill their rubber boots.

"Luckily, they had no wives or family they left behind. But it was still sad. They left their apartments filled with all their stuff. I took two dogs one of them had. The other guy had a cat I gave to my sister," he said.

Greg Bonifacio heard about the job openings on television and brought his passport, his Colorado driver's license, his Social Security card and even a color photograph of himself as a young Naval officer to prove his military service.

"I don't want to hassle with any identification problems because of my last name," said Bonifacio, a 59- year-old Thornton resident of Filipino heritage.

I'd lay odds that you would find a similar reality in each and every community where these raids took place -- American citizens lining up out the door for good jobs that they need and want to do.

American jobs.

American workers.

They go good together -- when those workers are not aced out by those who violate our nation's laws -- and sovereignty.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

As a rule, I don't remove posts. Instead I update them and annotate them and admit to errors and changed opinions.

However, I've never gone quite so far beyond the pale in attacking another blogger -- especially given my later change of heart about the blogger in question as a writer and as a human being. My negative views of a year ago modified over the course of several months to an attitude of respect, and I had reached out to her -- but had never given a thought to taking down this post due to my longstanding policy of not deleting posts. That was a misjudgment on my part.

Debbie recently contacted me expressing her dismay at what I had written and a comment I had not realized had been left here and which should have been deleted due to its content. I deleted the comment, and further discussion has led me to recognize that the post in question should not remain on the blog. Not because it reflects poorly on me, but rather because it reflects poorly on her. Leaving a post of the former sort is appropriate and an exercise in humbling the soul; leaving one of the latter sort is to perpetuate an injustice.

Debbie, you have my apology -- and my respect for the way in which you approached me privately after I had wronged you publicly. I know that my words here are not much, but I offer them to you in a spirit of regret and contrition for the offense I have given.

Posted by: Greg at 08:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 1 kb.

The Madman of Teheran now prophesies for his false god.

"The oppressive powers will disappear while the Iranian people will stay. Any power that is close to God will survive while the powers who are far from God will disappear like the pharaohs," he said Wednesday, according to Iranian news agencies.

"Today, it is the United States, Britain and the Zionist regime which are doomed to disappear as they have moved far away from the teachings of God," he said in a speech in the western town of Javanroud.

"It is a divine promise."

The time is now at hand to act against this maniac, before he has a chance to bring his nuclear plans to fruition -- if he hasn't already.

Posted by: Greg at 08:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

If the Supreme Court does not use this case to sharply limit -- if not completely overturn -- the Kelo decision, then private property means nothing and eminent domain will have become nothing more than a shake-down tool.

Claiming he is the victim of legalized extortion carried out under eminent domain powers, a landowner in New York is asking the Supreme Court to hear his case.

Landowner Bart Didden claims in a petition that a developer convinced the village of Port Chester, N.Y., to seize his land through eminent domain after Didden had refused to pay the developer $800,000.

As part of a 1999 redevelopment plan, the council had designated Didden's land as a "redevelopment area." This gives the council the power to condemn the property and hand it over to a developer of its choice.

Didden planned to build a CVS Pharmacy on the site, but the developer, Gregory Wasser of G&S Investors, wanted to build a Walgreens there. According to the petition, Wasser threatened to convince officials to condemn Didden's land under eminent domain if Didden did not pay him $800,000 or make him a 50 percent partner in the CVS project.

Didden says he refused the offer on Nov. 5, 2003. On Nov. 6, 2003, the village of Port Chester filed a condemnation petition to acquire the land and transfer the lease to G&S to construct a Walgreens.

Didden calls the case "extortion through the abuse of eminent domain" justified by the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, in which the court ruled that the Fifth Amendment "takings clause" allows the government to condemn private property for redevelopment purposes.

"Essentially, the courts have ruled Kelo turns any redevelopment zone into a Constitution-free zone for property owners confronted by politically connected developers," Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said in a statement.

Frankly, we simply need to go a step further, and ban the use of eminent domain in any case where the land will leave government hands in less than 50 years -- or at least permitting land-owners and their heirs the right to repurchase their property for $1 if the land is to be turned over for private development in any time period less than half a century.

And if not, we simply need the Supreme Court to declare that private property, as understood by Americans since the founding of the Republic, no longer exists in this country.

Posted by: Greg at 08:16 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

Newsweek offers this interesting insight on the Massachusetts governor.

As a founder of the venture firm Bain Capital, he grew extremely wealthy buying troubled companies and fixing them up for profit. By 1998, he'd concluded he "had enough money" and began looking for another challenge. He found it in Salt Lake City, where the planned 2002 Olympic Games were embroiled in allegations of financial mismanagement and malfeasance. Taking charge, Romney got the Games back on track and sold himself as a Mr. Fix-it when he ran for Massachusetts governor in 2002.

Romney's aides are hoping Republican primary voters will see a pattern: here's a turnaround specialist ready to fix the party, the country and the world. "The idea is to be the fresh perspective," says one adviser, who asked to remain anonymous describing strategy for a still-unannounced campaign. "McCain is yesterday, Giuliani is today, Romney is tomorrow."

But there is also this -- McCain is unpredictable, Giuliani is liberal, and Romney is a conservative. Everyone else is simply irrelevant -- including Newt Gingrich, who simply has too much baggage to possibly win an presidential election.

Posted by: Greg at 08:06 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

Cobb County schools will no longer have the following disclaimer on their science textbooks.

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Will someone please explain to me how that constitutes an endorsement of religion. After all, the THEORY of evolution is exactly that -- a THEORY. How does saying that it is a THEORY constitute a statement at all about religion?

After all, the study of science is supposed to be careful, open-minded, and critical regarding the evidence presented to support a theory. How does urging exactly such an approach to the THEORY of evolution constitute an endorsement of religion, not of science and the scientific method?

I guess this means that the study of science in this country must be close-minded, slip-shod, and uncritically accepting of claims based upon the authority of the majority.

Posted by: Greg at 04:56 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The problem is here:

"Evolution is a theory, not a fact"

The nitwits who wrote this are operating on the common misconception that a theory is just somebody's opinion, to be contrasted with fact. Theories are not opinions. Theories explain facts; without theories, facts are meaningless.

Nobody that ignorant of science has any business anywhere near any educational institution, much less writing "disclaimers" for textbooks.

Posted by: rightwingprof at Wed Dec 20 06:17:29 2006 (o7KrD)

2 I'd argue that you are quite wrong here -- the board is properly pointing out that evolution itself is not a fact, but is instead a theory (which is, of course, based upon evidence).

I guess you have a problem with folks looking at that evidence with an open mind to determine whether o not the evidence supports the theory.

Perhaps the opponents of the school board would prefer a sticker that would say the following:

"Evolution is dogma. Do not carefully examine the evidence with an open mind, nor think critically about evolution. Accept it on faith, because your betters tell you to."

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 20 07:43:26 2006 (z3YfB)

3 "I guess you have a problem with folks looking at that evidence with an open mind to determine whether o not the evidence supports the theory."

I guess you're on drugs, if you somehow got that out of what I said. The sticker is crap. By calling something a theory, you are discounting it -- that was the purpose of the sticker. That is ignorant, as in uneducated. Those idiots have no business anywhere near a classroom, much less a school board or administration.

Posted by: rightwingprof at Wed Dec 20 07:59:10 2006 (o7KrD)

4 So let's get this straight.

When you say evolution is a theory, it is a technically correct statement that tells the truth about the state of science and follows the scientific method because you are an intelligent, educated man who speaks the truth in an accurate fashion.

When the rest of us say evolution is a theory, we are discounting it and are ignorant, uneducated people who have no business being involved in education and are, presumably, on drugs.

Not, of course, that you are some sort of arrogant elitist who seeks to contemptuously dictate to those who are inferior to you.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 20 08:59:32 2006 (gMDr3)

5 My problem is, why single out evolution? There are a lot of theories - gravity, etc. By singling out evolution, the right-wingers are trying to diminish evolution. The sticker would not be offensive if it applied to anything (including theology). But, by singling out evolution, it falsely implies that evolution deserves extra suspicion.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Dec 20 15:34:07 2006 (IU21y)

6 And therein you prove your ignorance, Dan -- it is the LAW of Gravity, not the THEORY of Gravity. In science, LAWS can be tested in an empirical fashion and shown true or false. Evolution (in particular macro-evolution from one species to another), on the other hand, cannot be so tested and is destined to remain a theory in the scientific sense of the term, though I'll be the first to concede that it is the best one going (and so I will thank you to drop the "right-wingers" nonsense).

Now as for your comment in regards to theology -- I'd be glad to see theology taught in the public schools friend, and am even qualified to teach it based upon my seminary education. Are you proposing that we start teaching it? And if you are, are you adept enough to understand that science and theology have different rules and structures that make your trite little comment inapplicable to the latter?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 20 16:13:45 2006 (/+kEc)

7 Sorry, RWR - usually, I am able to have my wits about me at 9:34 in the evening, but I was extra-tired yesterday evening. Yes, it is the law of gravity, but it is the theory of relativity, plate tectonic theory - even atomic theory! Why aren't those theories singled out?

Again, there's nothing wrong with reminding students that "material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered". The problem is when that critical consideration is directed at only one aspect of human knowledge.

And, no, I do not know of any difference between science and theology that makes the concept that "material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" inapplicable to theology.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Dec 21 00:31:22 2006 (IU21y)

8 Well, on the theology point, certain aspects of it (including the existence of God) are taken as matters of revealed faith, and are often unquantifiable and/or untestable.

And I would argue that evolution, in particular, gets singled out for two reasons. The first is that it does raise some hackles religiously. But the second is that evolution is, all too often, presented as indisputable scientific fact -- indeed, as if it is a scientific law and not a theory.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 21 04:20:08 2006 (Swgdm)

9 It's cute to claim that theology gets a free pass on critical thinking, but not very convincing. The theologians I know would be willing to accept that the material they present "should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered".

And I don't think evolution gets presented as any more indisputable than relavtivity or atoms.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Dec 21 16:03:26 2006 (IU21y)

10 Gee, Dan, that isn't at all what I said.

I said that theology and science use different methods -- and that certain elements of theology are not quantifiable or testable in the manner that things scientific are supposed to be.

After all, I challenge you to put God in a test tube.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 22 02:29:05 2006 (T4PbY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

James Baker was part of one sell-out of the Kurds after the Gulf War. Now his Iraq Surrender Group has proposed another sell-out by seeking to appease those who fight America at the expense of those who cooperate with America. Kurdish leader Masrour Barzani urges the United States to reject such a solution.

The Iraq Study Group's recommendations will accomplish nothing in Iraq. Its expressions of "gratitude" to those of us Iraqis who fought on the battlefield for freedom and liberty ring hollow. The report ignores our accomplishments, dreams and sacrifices in favor of a concern for those whose ultimate goal is the destruction of democracy.

Our federal constitution, which the majority of the Iraqi people voted for, is treated flippantly, as though it were a negotiable document rather than the hard-fought result of lengthy negotiation among those willing to participate in the new Iraq. Further, the study group's approach is driven by the concerns of the countries in this region rather than by the concerns of the Iraqi people.

Many Iraqis, especially the Kurds, are justifiably concerned about this. No one from the study group visited Iraqi Kurdistan, which the group admits is safe and pro-American, and where there has not been a single U.S. casualty since the war. Kurds not only fought alongside Americans but lost some of our best men to American friendly-fire incidents. Yet we staunchly support the work of the coalition and are eternally grateful for the sacrifices the American people have made for our future.

The report is right to acknowledge that part of the problem in Iraq is America's inability to distinguish friend from foe. Unfortunately, Baker-Hamilton fares even worse in this regard. This comes as little surprise, since it was partly written by those who orchestrated the saving of Saddam Hussein in 1991.

Remember -- the Kurds have steadfastly supported US efforts to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. They have paid a terrible price for those efforts, as the United States has abandoned them in the past.

Once again Kurds are about to be sold out. Should the U.S. administration adopt the recommendations of Baker-Hamilton, the Kurds will be sacrificed to protect the interests of Iraq's neighbors. We were massacred in 1975 and 1991 by Saddam Hussein because we thought that our commitment to democracy and tolerance made us natural U.S. allies. We responded then, as we did four years ago, to American calls for the introduction of a new era in the region. Like Americans, we dream of a better future for our children, one in which they can grow up without deformities caused by chemical attacks on our villages.

Baker, Hamilton, and the Iraq Surrender Group have a different vision -- negotiate with America's enemies even if that means that America's friends once again pay the price of our failure to stay the course, honor our commitments, and support our allies.

Iraq's constitution should be treasured. Iraq's neighbors should not be allowed to violate our sovereignty. Democracy and federalism are the popularly chosen basis of the new Iraq. Never again should Kurdish wealth be stolen to finance genocide against the Kurdish people.

While Kurds welcome American troops into their homes, Baker-Hamilton proposes that the United States revise its policies to meet the demands of those firing at its soldiers. According to the study group, we are all part of "a problem" that needs fixing, and we are equally unworthy of America's protection.

Don't sell us out to our authoritarian neighbors and those who are terrorizing our communities. We agreed democratically to participate in this project because we were guaranteed the rights needed to protect our people. We Kurds are asking President Bush and America to remember the sacrifices we have made to keep your loved ones safe in Iraq. We are asking you to keep a promise where those before you have failed.

We must stand by the Kurdish people, and all the peace and freedom loving Iraqis. We must finish what we started, resolute in the assurance that our course is correct and our goals are proper. If we do not, we show the world one clear truth -- the United States is not to be trusted, and American promises and commitments will not be honored when the going gets tough. In short, the decision that faces America is stark -- will we continue to be a great nation which stands with our allies, or will we simply be an impotent joke with which others ally themselves at their own peril?

Interestingly enough, the top leader of Iraqi Shiites has come out in support of US efforts to work with a coalition of Iraqi forces to isolate extremists, rather than negotiate with those who bankroll those who seek to bring down the US-backed government.

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 5 kb.

It may be that the Palestinian people are so sick of the feuding terrorist groups that dominate the Palestinian Authority that they are voting not to give their own life-blood to save them.

As gunmen spilt it and warring politicians hailed its sanctity, ordinary Palestinians showed their disgust for feuding Hamas and Fatah gunmen by refusing to donate blood.

Doctors at Gaza City’s main hospital are used to a plentiful supply of volunteers queuing up to donate blood for victims of Israeli attacks. But faced with the selfinflicted wounds of the nascent Palestinian civil war, that supply has all but dried up. “We are all frustrated and depressed,” said Dr Jumaa al-Saqqa, director of publicity at the Shifa hospital.

He said that his staff were used to treating countless victims from battles with Israeli forces. But on a day in which his hospital became a battlefield, staff were dispirited at having to treat the victims of violence between Palestinians.

“We have a shortage of blood in the bank now. During Israeli incursions hundreds of people come to donate blood but now nobody. Why give your blood? For whom? For one to kill the other? I want to just take my white coat off and go home.”

Outside, Ismail Haniya, the Islamist Prime Minister, protested that the “smallest drop of Palestinian blood is dear to us”. Yet even as he spoke, his Hamas fighters were kidnapping, killing and wounding security personnel loyal to President Abbas.

And a day after Tony Blair backed the “moderate” Mr Abbas, fighters loyal to his Fatah faction sparked the day’s violence by using an ambulance to attack a Hamas unit at Shifa Hospital, killing one Islamist policeman with a rocketpropelled grenade and injuring ten in the gunfight that ensued.This set off a wave of revenge shootings and kidnappings across northern and central Gaza. Hamas reportedly captured the Fatah gunman suspected of firing the grenade, and shot him dead, dumping his body on the street. Six gunmen were killed and dozens wounded.

Will the Palestinian people recognize that their society is dominated by thugs, criminals, and pirates and continue to reject them all? Are they prepared to let them die rather than allow the lives of more innocent Palestinians to be spilled as collateral damage in a hopeless war against Israel? Or will they start giving blood again once the victims of these terrorist factions are Jews, not each other?

In other words, is this boycott a hopeful sign for peace, or merely a temporary aberration?

Posted by: Greg at 04:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

And no, I don't mean Betsy Ross -- I mean the current 50-star banner that waves over our country and around the world.

I sure didn't -- until I came across this article today. The designer's name is Robert G. Heft, and the story of how he came to design the flag is sort of amusing to this teacher.

As a junior at Ohio's Lancaster High School in 1958, Heft needed a project for his American history class.

He found his calling when he came across the story of Betsy Ross, creator of the country's original flag. Armed with an idea, Heft took his family's 48-star flag and removed the blue portion of the banner.

It took him nine hours to cut out the 100 fabric stars needed to cover each side of the flag's top corner, he said. Heft went the 50-star route because of speculation that Alaska and Hawaii would become states.

Heft asked his grandmother to sew the blue section onto the flag, but she refused after realizing he'd dismantled the family's banner.

"She didn't want anything to do with it," Heft recalled.

Out of options, Heft took matters into his own hands, sewing his version of "Old Glory."

After working on the flag for 12 1/2 hours, Heft said he expected his grade to match his effort, but his teacher gave him a B-minus. Normally a quiet student, Heft said he had to confront the teacher.

"I approached him (thinking), 'Are you kidding me?' " Heft said.

After the discussion, the teacher told Heft that if he got the flag accepted nationally, he would give him an A.

Heft then sent the flag to a state representative and in 1960, his design became the country's official symbol. His teacher promptly bumped up his grade.

That sort of goes to show that a teacher never know what influence his or her words will have on a student -- and that it is important to be prepared to follow through on promises you make to students.

Heft still owns that original flag -- and speaks about his experience and patriotism to over 200 groups a year. He is working on a book about the flag and his experiences over the year.

Oh, and this July his design becomes the longest-serving flag in American history.

Not bad for a high school history project.

Posted by: Greg at 04:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 2 kb.

That is what Swift & Co,, recently hit by immigration raids in six states, appears to have done.

Former employees are suing Swift & Co. for $23 million, alleging the meatpacking company conspired to keep wages down by hiring illegal immigrants.

The 18 former employees are U.S. citizens who worked at a plant in Cactus, north of Amarillo, one of six facilities raided in a federal sweep that led to the arrests of nearly 1,300 employees and temporarily halted Swift's operations.

"These plaintiffs are ... victims in a longstanding scheme by Swift to depress and artificially lower the wages of its workers by knowingly hiring illegal workers," said their attorney, Angel Reyes.

And there seems to be a good prima facie case. After all, how do you explain the rate of pay dropping from $20 an hour to $12 an hour over the last several years, even as wage rates in this country have been rising? Simple -- get rid of those expensive Americans and replace them with cheap foreign laborers in this country illegally.

These border-jumping immigration criminals were not "doing jobs Americans won't do". No, they were (and others are) doing jobs that Americans are ready, willing, and able to do -- taking money out of the pockets and bread out of the mouths of American citizens by depressing wages in the industries in which they work.

And unethical businesses like Swift & Co. are willing participants in their crime against the American people.

Posted by: Greg at 03:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

I was surprised to receive my first piece of 2008 campaign literature this week.

I guess this makes him The Early Frontrunner.

Don Richardson, for those of you who don't remember, got a whopping 6% of the vote in the special election to fill the remainder of Tom DeLay's unexpired congressional term (Congresswoman Shelley Sekula Gibbs got 62%, Libertarian Bob Smither got 19% and Democrat Nick Lampson was too scared to run against a Republican who was on the ballot) and as a write-in in the general election received .28% (yeah -- that is twenty-eight one-hundredths of a percent, or 428 votes). But he's running again!

I hear that he is showing up at all the county GOP Executive Committee meetings in the district, and that he put in an appearance at Congresswoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs' recent open house in Fort Bend County.

Richardson, of course, has some problems -- including the fact that before this year it had been over a decade since he had voted Republican or participated in a GOP primary. He has yet to file his final FEC report and filed all of his earlier expenditure reports late. There is also the little issue of his having lied to the assembled precinct chairs of CD22 and his seeking a bribe from the RNC.

Needless to say, I won't be supporting Dishonorable Don Richardson.

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are The Peace Myth by Andrew Olmsted, and The Clash of Convictions and the Remaking of the World of Wars by Winds of Change.NET.  Here are the full results of the vote.

ere are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 4 kb.

Nancy Pelosi is out to upend the Constitution again.

Freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances? Only if you register with the government first, and fill out all the burdensome forms!

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) has pledged to take up a lobbying reform proposal that would impose new regulations on speech by grassroots organizations, while providing a loophole in the rules for large corporations and labor unions.

The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of “grassroots lobbying” and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.

The report would include identifying the organizationÂ’s expenditures, the issues focused on and the members of Congress and other federal officials who are the subject of the advocacy efforts. A separate report would be required for each policy issue the group is active on.

“Right now, grassroots groups don’t have to report at all if they are communicating with the public,” said Dick Dingman of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. “This is an effort that would become a major attack on the 1st Amendment.”

Under the bill, communications aimed at an organization’s members, employees, officers or shareholders would be exempt from the reporting requirement. That would effectively exempt most corporations, trade associations and unions from the reporting requirements—but not most conservative grassroots groups, which frequently are less formally organized.

This bill is aimed directly at you and me, ladies and gentlemen. It is designed to quiet grassroots activists. No doubt the next move will be to apply these same measures to individual activists, including bloggers.

Posted by: Greg at 04:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

If one of my colleagues were doing this in class, I'd be among the first to report him.

Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it.

Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard NoahÂ’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz broke the church-state boundary.

“If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,” Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. “He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.”

The student, Matthew LaClair, said that he felt uncomfortable with Mr. PaszkiewiczÂ’s statements in the first week, and taped eight classes starting Sept. 13 out of fear that officials would not believe the teacher had made the comments.

Since Matthew’s complaint, administrators have said they have taken “corrective action” against Mr. Paszkiewicz, 38, who has taught in the district for 14 years and is also a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church. However, they declined to say what the action was, saying it was a personnel matter.

I'm sorry -- PaszkiewiczÂ’s statements are out of bounds. They go well beyond an expression of opinion and into preaching.

Which is not to say there is not a proper place for the discussion of religion in a high school classroom. I teach world History, and am obliged to talk about a number of world religions. I strive to be neutral on them all, including Christianity. I do, however, find myself struggling to explain some of the finer points of Christian theology when we discuss the Reformation, because you cannot understand what it was all about without actually talking about the theological controversies that were at its heart. But I do not -- and steadfastly avoid -- preach my view of religion.

And even my fellow "extremists" on religion in the public arena agree with my view.

Even some legal organizations that often champion the expression of religious beliefs are hesitant to support Mr. Paszkiewicz.

“It’s proselytizing, and the courts have been pretty clear you can’t do that,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that provides legal services in religious freedom cases. “You can’t step across the line and proselytize, and that’s what he’s done here.”

On the other hand, that is not to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Matthew's position on the issue.

In a Sept. 25 letter to the principal, Matthew wrote: “I care about the future generation and I do not want Mr. Paszkiewicz to continue preaching to and poisoning students.” He met with school officials and handed over the recordings.

I don't think that discussion of Christianity -- even discussion that crosses appropriate boundaries -- constitutes "poisoning students."

Still, Matthew's actions in this case are every bit as appropriate as those of students who object to the political proselytizing that goes on in the classrooms of many liberal teachers and professors. I'm pleased he stood up for what is right.

Posted by: Greg at 04:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.

From the lips of Michelle Obama, wife of Senator Barack Obama.

"My income is pretty low compared to my peers"

How little is this impoverished waif making?

According to a tax return released by the senator this week, the promotion nearly tripled her income from the hospitals to $316,962 in 2005 from $121,910 in 2004.

By my calculation, she has seen a 260% increase in her earnings in one year -- a year in which the major change in her life was the election of her husband to the Senate. I'll let you make the decision over whether or not that is suspicious.

Oh, by the way -- her earnings in 2004 would have paid the salaries of three teachers in my school district that year, and the 2005 earnings would have paid for nearly eight. So when I hear that she is underpaid, I have very little sympathy for her. -- especially when you consider that the family income in 2005 was $1.7 million, which would pay the salaries of 42 teachers in my district.

And these are the supposed champions of the little people.

H/T American Thinker

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm saddened by this decision by the city of Fort Collins, Colorado, but pleased by the decision of many city merchants to show greater sensitivity.

A few Fort Collins merchants are adding a Jewish menorah to their holiday displays following a decision by the city last week not to include one in the city's display.

Despite a renewed request by Rabbi Yerachmiel Gorelik, of the Chabad Center of Northern Colorado, the Downtown Urban Renewal Authority stuck with limiting the city's display in Old Town to nutcrackers, Christmas trees and elves.

"I showed them a video of every president lighting a menorah at the White House," said Gorelik. "It's so unfair to promote only one religion, but I don't think they reconsidered it for a moment."

This is the second year Gorelik tried and failed to sway the city.

So, on Dec. 21, as in past years, Gorelik will light a menorah in celebration of Hanukkah at the Old Town display, but after the ceremony it will be moved to a nearby pub's lighting display.

U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., will attend this year's menorah lighting.

Gorelik said more than a dozen other Fort Collins businesses and a school have called him about putting a menorah in their holiday lighting displays.

The eight days of Hanukkah, the Jewish Festival of Lights, mark the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem in 165 B.C. after a long war. There was only enough oil for single night's light, but the oil lasted for eight nights.

Phil Pringle, who owns Pringle's Wine and Liquors in Fort Collins, said he's going to add a menorah to the holiday decorations at his shop.

"I'm Catholic, but I'm a great proponent of free speech," said Pringle. "Instead of being so antiseptic, I'd like to see the city be more tolerant."

Pringle said he understands the city's legal concerns, but believes symbols that reflect other religious beliefs could be included in the city's display.

"I have no problem with Kwanzaa or pagans. I wouldn't object to a winter solstice display," said Pringle, who has owned the liquor store for 24 years.

Gorelik said he has supplied several businesses with menorahs and said it's the city's Christmas trees that caused the dispute.

"This is not initiated by the menorah, it's initiated by the Christmas trees," he said.

The city should have included a menorah in its holiday decore -- and it should have also included a Nativity scene, out of recognition of the reason for the season. But I will remind Rabbi Gorelik that the menorah is, strictly speaking, a religious symbol whereas the Christmas tree is not -- a principle long upheld by American courts.

But most important, we see the inclusion -- indeed, the welcoming -- of Jews and their holiday traditions by average people, a reality not found many other places on this globe.

UPDATE: The New York Times has great coverage of this story today.

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

So -- do we have the will to stop their nuke program NOW?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday his country was ready to transfer nuclear technology to neighboring countries, nearly a week after Arab states on the Persian Gulf announced plans to consider a joint nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad told a top Kuwaiti envoy he welcomed the decision by the Islamic republic's Arab Gulf neighbors to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, state-run television said.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer to regional states its valuable experience and achievements in the field of peaceful nuclear technology as a clean energy source and as a replacement for oil," state media quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Mohammed Zefollah Shirar, a top adviser to the Kuwaiti emir.

Unfortunately, we know that the Iranian program is not peaceful -- and that the Iranian leader has implicitly threatened to use nukes to wipe Israel off the map. Do we act -- or do we allow the situation to continue on, permitting Ahmadinejad to complete the work that he denies Hitler began?

Posted by: Greg at 03:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

I love this quote from President George H. W. Bush AKA Bush 41.

Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush said in Japan he would try "to beat the hell out of" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she were to run for president.

Bush may be friends with former President Bill Clinton, but if New York's junior senator campaigns for the White House in 2008, as many expect, "I'll be back on the other side (of politics), and I will be trying to beat the hell out of her, if I possibly can," a grinning Bush said in Tokyo, where he spoke at Waseda University's school of sports and science.

Here here!

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Want to bet these folks claim they love the United States -- just loathe the military?

Police charged five protesters on Friday during the second demonstration in a month outside the new Army recruiting station.

"We thought it was important to not have this recruiting station open quietly," said Emily McFarlane, a UNC-Chapel Hill junior who helped organize the protest at the Army Career Center, 1502 E. Franklin St.

About 30 protesters -- members of Students for a Democratic Society, The Raging Grannies and others -- held signs, walked in a circle and shouted, "Out of Iraq, out of our schools! Out of town, shut the war down!"

Property manager Analisa Bellamy, flanked by about five police officers, told the protesters to move to the public sidewalk several yards away on East Franklin Street.

After her second request, all but three protesters moved to the sidewalk.

Two of them, Barry Freeman, 80, and Janie Freeman, 71, were charged with second-degree trespass after refusing Bellamy's request that they put their signs down. The couple's 8-by-11-inch signs read "Hands Off My Grandchildren."

Stephen J. Woolford, 39, a peace advocate from rural Chatham County, was charged with second-degree trespass.

Attila Nemecz, 26, of Raleigh, and Eric Gardner, 22, of Apex, were charged with picketing.

I'm sure every one of those protesters considers themselves "pro-choice" -- but they want to make sure that their choice is the only one that potential recruits can learn about and access. They are not patriots -- they are anti-American fascists who actively support our nation's enemies.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Or at least as valid as any aspect of the sharia barbarism that accompanies jihadi Islamist extremism.

Mohabbat Khan Mosque Khateeb Maulana Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi said on Wednesday that a fatwa (decree) issued for the killing of a Danish cartoonist who had drawn caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), would not be withdrawn.

“We have put a price on the blasphemer’s head, and will pay one million dollars to the person who kills him,” Qureshi told Daily Times. Qureshi said that the US government had banned his entry into America and refused him a visa after he issued the fatwa against the cartoonist working for Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Qureshi, who has been criticising the US and leading anti-US rallies, said he was not against Americans. He said he had visited the US every year between 1984 and 2000, but stopped going there after the 9/11 attacks. “I am only against US government policies which are anti-Muslim,” he said. staff report

Well, time for a little solidarity. more...

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 4 kb.

How was a priceless Afghan treasure preserved through two decades of Russian occupation and Taliban oppression? That is the story in the current issue of Der Spiegel.

The treasure, from a Bactrian tomb that dates from roughly the time of Christ, was secreted away by Afghans and hidden until the American liberation of their country following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

It was a mystery of legendary proportions. When a 2,000-year-old treasure trove went missing from Afghanistan's National Museum in the 1980s, the rumors abounded: Did the Soviets take it? Was it looted and sold on the black market? Were 22,000 pieces of gold, jewel-encrusted crowns and magnificent daggers melted down and traded for weapons?

As it turns out, none of these plausible scenarios ever happened. Instead, a mysterious group of Afghans had stowed the so-called Bactrian gold underground and guarded its secret for over two decades of war and chaos. This month, some of the artifacts are on display at the Guimet Museum in Paris.

The group, the so-called "key holders," held the keys to the underground vault where the treasure was kept underneath the presidential palace grounds. They are believed to have hidden the treasure sometime after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They diligently kept their secret throughout the civil war of the 1990s and the period of Taliban rule all the way up through the 2001 American-led invasion.

"Over the last 20 to 25 years, during food shortages and money crises, this handful of people ... could have sold these collections instead of going hungry, but they never once sacrificed their own cultural heritage," Fredrik Hiebert, an archaeologist with the National Geographic Society, told the Associated Press.

There has to be a book in this story somewhere -- one that is filled with love of country, love of history, and a great deal of intrigue and courage.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

I once believed that Jimmy Carter was a good and decent man. He may have been at one time. But his recent book reveals the festering anti-Semitism in his soul -- and he refuses to defend that book if it requires actually meeting a critic on an equal footing.

Former President Carter has decided not to visit Brandeis University to talk about his new book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" because he does not want to debate Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as the university had requested.

"I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz," Carter told The Boston Globe. "There is no need ... for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

The debate request is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, Carter said.

No, Mr. Carter -- the debate request is proof that Americans want honest discussion. You claim that you want to promote dialogue -- but when offered a chance for discussion and debate, you refuse to participate. I guess it is question of what the meaning of "dialogue" is -- and in your vocabulary, it means "shut up and listen to what I have to say."

I guess it is simply the case that Jimmy Carter doesn't want to share the stage with a Jew as an equal -- instead he would rather visit a Jewish university and tell the Jewish students what is wrong with the Jews.

For shame, Mr. Carter -- you truly are the Worst President Ever -- and now have become the Worst Ex-President Ever.

Posted by: Greg at 10:17 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

A good decision -- how do you penalize a company and stockholders today for (lamentably) legal actions taken (often by a predecessor entity) over a century and a half ago?

A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected most claims by slave descendants that they deserve reparations from some of the nation's biggest insurers, banks and transportation companies.

The three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that slave descendants have no standing to sue for reparations based on injustices suffered by ancestors and that the statute of limitations ran out more than a century ago.

But the panel did keep alive a smaller portion of the suit, claiming that major U.S. corporations may be guilty of consumer fraud if they hid past ties to slavery from their customers.

The opinion, written by Judge Richard A. Posner, said that "statutes of limitations would be toothless" if descendants could collect damages for wrongs against their ancestors.

"A person whose ancestor had been wronged a thousand years ago could sue on the ground that it was a continuing wrong and he is one of the victims," the court said. It said statutes of limitations could be extended in some cases but not for acts committed 100 years ago.

The panel also said the descendants lacked standing to sue because their links to the slaves were distant.

Now the court did keep alive a consumer fraud claim, but I doubt it will prevail. After all, does a company have an affirmative obligation to disclose any connection to slavery in its distant past?

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the issue that this country struggles with in the wake of the decision by Gov. Jeb Bush to suspend executions in his state and a federal judge's order that California revamp its execution protocol.

Executions by lethal injection were suspended in Florida and ordered revamped in California on Friday, as the chemical method once billed as a more humane way of killing the condemned came under mounting scrutiny over the pain it may cause.

Gov. Jeb Bush (R) ordered the suspension in Florida after a botched execution in which it took 34 minutes and a second injection to kill convicted murderer Angel Nieves Diaz. A state medical examiner said that needles used to carry the poison had passed through the prisoner's veins and delivered the three-chemical mix into the tissues of his arm.

In California, a federal judge ruled that the state must overhaul its lethal-injection procedures, calling its current protocol unconstitutional because it may inflict unacceptable levels of pain.

Judge Jeremy D. Fogel of the U.S. District Court for Northern California ordered the state to revise its procedures and consider eliminating the use of two drugs: pancuronium bromide, which causes paralysis, and potassium chloride, which causes cardiac arrest.

The judge did not order executions halted, though they have been effectively on hold since February while he conducted a review.

The "pervasive lack of professionalism" in the executions, Fogel wrote, "at the least is very disturbing."

Forgive me, but since when did it become a moral, much less constitutional, requirement that executions be painless, bloodless procedures that spare teh convicted killer pain? Yes, I know we do not permit "cruel and unusual" punishment, but is it really cruel that a condemned man might be conscious of his punishment being carried out? Does it really shock the conscience that the guilty might feel some level of fear and pain, just like his victims did as he snuffed out their innocent lives? No, it does not.

But this illustrates the fundamental problem with the jurisprudence in this area. We have allowed judges to set themselves up as philosopher kings, deciding on the basis of some undefined standard what constitutes "cruel and unusual". We have judges who are intent upon ensuring that the condemned not experience on bit of suffering as their lives ebb away in payment for their crimes. The ultimate end is likely to be a ban on lethal injection -- currently considered to be a "humane" method of execution, on the grounds that any suffering on the part of the condemned constitutes cruelty which shocks the conscience.

However, I would argue that your average American holds a very different position on the issue. We recognize that capital punishment is, in the end, punishment. And while we do not want ancient spectacles like those in the Colosseum, burning at the stake, or crucifixion, we are not troubled that a killer might feel some discomfort as he experiences his much-deserved demise. I'd bet that your average American would have no problem with seeing the return of firing squads or the hangman's noose as the standard form of execution. Indeed, only the horrors of the Holocaust render the gas chamber unacceptable to me, the method of execution indelibly linked to the Hitlerian genocide and therefore morally unacceptable.

So I'll say it plainly -- rather than a lethal injection of three drugs, let's go back to the lethal injection of lead by a team of marksmen.

Posted by: Greg at 09:57 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 582 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The Founders' definition of "Cruel and Unusual" punishment was different from ours. Back in the day (until about 1843) the penalty for treason (which the Founding Fathers were facing, had the Revolution not worked out)was being "Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered".

The prisoner was dragged behind a horse to the place of execution, hanged by the neck until semi-concious (the neck-breaking noose was not then in use), cut down, emasculated and disemboweled, forced to watch as his genitals and intestines were burned in front of him, then beheaded and his body cut into four parts, which were sent to different towns as a warning to others.

Women had it easier. The penalty for treason for them was burning at the stake.

Some people define "Quartering" as being ripped into four pieces by four horses, but that was a French punishment, not practiced in England.

That, my friends, was "cruel and unusual."

Posted by: bristlecone at Thu Dec 21 07:53:02 2006 (Fdgf2)

2 transvestite rockstar

Posted by: Albina-mm at Sat Nov 8 14:49:34 2008 (VUzoz)

3 transvestite rockstar

Posted by: Albina-ln at Sat Nov 8 17:37:38 2008 (VUzoz)

4 bbr brakepedal

Posted by: Albina-wi at Sun Nov 9 00:20:01 2008 (VUzoz)

5 maryam muhammad highland towers apartment sun labratories xeroderma pigmentosum ongoing research well digging yuba countyaverage cost

Posted by: Mary-ci at Thu Jan 15 11:10:23 2009 (uZ42s)

6 , fnzmphcd, 664, qttalofg, ckz, hvnpvebf, 22092,

Posted by: Ywwvclnv at Mon May 18 05:02:16 2009 (nb6/g)

7 boreal, zqdjxdqj, =)), vkhnxehb, xcurzj, wdaanais, >:-[,

Posted by: Ukpewuqg at Wed Oct 7 08:03:24 2009 (yxzt7)

8 rushmore, mmhkjpen, DD, rlcuyjew, >:O, ikavpqpk, 79188,

Posted by: Lzzxstiz at Wed Oct 7 10:48:59 2009 (djihS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This should be of interest to all my fellow diabetics out there.

n a discovery that has stunned even those behind it, scientists at a Toronto hospital say they have proof the body's nervous system helps trigger diabetes, opening the door to a potential near-cure of the disease that affects millions of Canadians.

Diabetic mice became healthy virtually overnight after researchers injected a substance to counteract the effect of malfunctioning pain neurons in the pancreas.

"I couldn't believe it," said Dr. Michael Salter, a pain expert at the Hospital for Sick Children and one of the scientists. "Mice with diabetes suddenly didn't have diabetes any more."

The researchers caution they have yet to confirm their findings in people, but say they expect results from human studies within a year or so. Any treatment that may emerge to help at least some patients would likely be years away from hitting the market.

This is great news -- but the "years away" part of the last sentence is frustrating. What we seem to have here is a cure for a life-threatening disease, one that may be confirmed very quickly -- but it will be much longer before regulators approve making those of us with diabetes healthy and able to live normal lives again without glucose meters, pills, insulin shots and highly regulated diets. Such delays seem cruel.

Posted by: Greg at 09:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

I want to lift this woman up as an example to America's Muslims -- and to all Americans. For while I am often very hard on the religion of Islam and the evils perpetrated in its name, I recognize that there are many Muslims (an overwhelming majority, in fact) who are good and decent people.

Fadwa Hamdan is one of them.

Stomping her boots and swinging her bony arms, Fadwa Hamdan led a column of troops through this bleak Texas base.

Only six months earlier, she wore the head scarf of a pious Muslim woman and dropped her eyes in the presence of men. Now she was marching them to dinner.

“I’m gonna be a shooting man, a shooting man!” she cried, her Jordanian accent lost in the chanting voices. “The best I can for Uncle Sam, for Uncle Sam!”

The United States military has long prided itself on molding raw recruits into hardened soldiers. Perhaps none have undergone a transformation quite like that of Ms. Hamdan.

Forbidden by her husband to work, she raised five children behind the drawn curtains of their home in Saudi Arabia. She was not allowed to drive. On the rare occasions when she set foot outside, she wore a full-face veil.

Then her world unraveled. Separated from her husband, who had taken a second wife, and torn from her children, she moved to Queens to start over. Struggling to survive on her own, she answered a recruiting advertisement for the Army and enlisted in May.

Ms. HamdanÂ’s passage through the military is a remarkable act of reinvention. It required courage and sacrifice. She had to remove her hijab, a sacred symbol of the faith she holds deeply. She had to embrace, at the age of 39, an arduous and unfamiliar life.

In return, she sought what the military has always promised new soldiers: a stable home, an adoptive family, a remade identity. She left one male-dominated culture for another, she said, in the hope of finding new strength along the way.

“Always, I dream I have power on the inside, and one day it’s going to come out,” said Ms. Hamdan, a small woman with delicate hands and sad, almond eyes.

She belongs to the rare class of Muslim women who have signed up to become soldiers trained in Arabic translation. Such female linguists play a crucial role for the American armed forces in Iraq, where civilian women often feel uncomfortable interacting with male troops.

Finding Arabic-speaking women willing to serve in the military has proved daunting. Of the 317 soldiers who have completed training in the Army linguist program since 2003, just 23 are women, 13 of them Muslim.

The story is inspirational -- and demonstrates how Muslims can and should be a part of every aspect of American society.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

One could completely derail the prosecution case -- and the other may or may not have anything to do with the case.

The first is a motion to throw out the photo lineup.

The woman who said she was raped at a party thrown by Duke's lacrosse team misidentified her alleged attackers in a photo lineup that was "an incoherent mass of contradiction and error," defense lawyers argued in court papers filed Thursday.

Attorneys for the three indicted players filed a motion asking a judge to bar prosecutors from using the photo lineup at their clients' trial and prevent the accuser from identifying the players from the witness stand.

Duke University law professor James E. Coleman Jr. said the case would be "effectively dismissed" if the court finds the lineup inadmissible "and rules that it is so suggestive that there can't be an in-court identification."

What evidence would be left without the identification? None, based upon yesterday's information about the DNA testing.

And then there is this -- which may be irrelevant, but could be a bombshell.

The woman at the center of the Duke lacrosse rape case is pregnant and due to give birth any day, roughly nine months after the team party where she says she was raped by three men.

The pregnancy was confirmed late Thursday by a person familiar with the case, speaking to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity. Fox News and WRAL-TV in Raleigh reported that she gave birth Thursday night.

There had been no prior indication that the woman, a 28-year-old college student who already has children, was pregnant. She has not spoken in public since granting an interview to the News & Observer of Raleigh shortly after the party.

The person who confirmed the pregnancy to the AP had no information about the father. Defense attorneys have stressed for months that no sex occurred at the party. They have cited DNA testing that found genetic material from several men in the accuser's body and in her underwear -- but none from any member of the lacrosse team.

If the baby's father is not one of the accused, it probably won't impact the case at all. On the other hand, if one of the accused is the father, that takes the case in an entirely new direction. (UPDATE: She is not due until February. A judge has ordered a paternity test anyway.)

UPDATE: The fraud appears to be confirmed. Where is the US Department of Justice to deal with this obvious conspiracy to violate the civil rights of these young men?

The head of a private DNA laboratory said under oath today that he and District Attorney Mike Nifong agreed not to report DNA results favorable to Duke lacrosse players charged with rape.

Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security of Burlington, said his lab found DNA from unidentified men in the underwear, pubic hair and rectum of the woman who said she was gang-raped at a lacrosse party in March. Nurses at Duke Hospital collected the samples a few hours after the alleged assault. Meehan said the DNA did not come from Reade Seligmann, David Evans, or Collin Finnerty, who have been charged with rape and sexual assault in the case.

Meehan struggled to say why he didnÂ’t include the favorable evidence in a report dated May 12, almost a month after Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted. He cited concerns about the privacy of the lacrosse players, his discussions at several meetings with Nifong, and the fact that he didnÂ’t know whose DNA it was.

Under questioning by Jim Cooney, a defense attorney for Seligmann, Meehan admitted that his report violated his laboratoryÂ’s standards by not reporting results of all tests.

Did Nifong and his investigators know the results of all the DNA tests? Cooney asked.

“I believe so,” Meehan said.

“Did they know the test results excluded Reade Seligmann?” Cooney asked.

“I believe so,” Meehan said.

Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of you and the district attorney? Cooney asked.

“Yes,” Meehan replied.

This farce needs to be ended immediately -- and Nifong needs to go to jail.

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 707 words, total size 5 kb.

While the American Left wails over the fact that captured terrorists don't get a mint on their pillow at Gitmo, the top court in Israel has recognized that targetting terrorists for death is a proper policy.

Israel's high court upheld Thursday the military's right to assassinate members of groups the state defines as terrorist organizations, but cautioned that such operations should always be weighed first against the potential harm to civilian bystanders and the human rights of the target.

The unanimous decision departs little from guidelines the military says it already follows in carrying out "targeted killings," the terminology used by the government and by the court in its ruling. But it does say commanders should allow an independent investigation to follow each assassination and recommends that the military compensate "innocent civilians" harmed in the operation.

Under current practice, Israel's military works with Shin Bet, the domestic security service, to compile lists of Palestinians who are influential or active figures in armed groups. Using eavesdropping equipment, aerial surveillance and informants, air force pilots or drone operators receive detailed information about a target's movements, most commonly in the Gaza Strip, where the army no longer operates regularly on the ground.

Military officers say the decision to strike is made -- sometimes in a matter of minutes -- by balancing the threat posed by the target against the potential for injuring bystanders. Many of the strikes have killed civilians in addition to targeted individuals.

Israeli military officials said they would review the court's findings in coming days. But one senior officer who specializes in matters of international law said the ruling, although vague in places, appeared to be a "validation" of existing policies regarding assassinations, and he expected few new restrictions to be implemented.

Why is it that I expect that American courts will not use this decision by a foreign court when interpreting our Constitution in cases related to the Crusade Against Jihadi Terrorism? Could it be because the decision makes sense on a fundamental level, and recognizes that terrorists, like the pirates of old, are the enemies of all mankind?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 3 kb.

Will the Tyrant of Havana soon be residing in Hell? According to US intelligence sources, Satan's minions are probably preparing a particularly warm spot for Fidel as you read these words.

Cuban President Fidel Castro is very ill and close to death, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said yesterday.

"Everything we see indicates it will not be much longer . . . months, not years," Negroponte told a meeting of Washington Post editors and reporters.

Castro relinquished power for the first time in 47 years after surgery July 31 for an undisclosed intestinal disorder.

So start chilling that champagne -- and get the necessary supplies ready to celebrate Cuba libre with Cuba Libre.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Which means, of course, that there will be no way of checking if folks have over-stayed their visas. Is there anything that the Department of Homeland Security is doing right?

In a major blow to the Bush administrationÂ’s efforts to secure borders, domestic security officials have for now given up on plans to develop a facial or fingerprint recognition system to determine whether a vast majority of foreign visitors leave the country, officials say.

Domestic security officials had described the system, known as U.S. Visit, as critical to security and important in efforts to curb illegal immigration. Similarly, one-third of the overall total of illegal immigrants are believed to have overstayed their visas, a Congressional report says.

Tracking visitors took on particular urgency after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when it became clear that some of the hijackers had remained in the country after their visas had expired.

But in recent days, officials at the Homeland Security Department have conceded that they lack the financing and technology to meet their deadline to have exit-monitoring systems at the 50 busiest land border crossings by next December. A vast majority of foreign visitors enter and exit by land from Mexico and Canada, and the policy shift means that officials will remain unable to track the departures.

Is it time to dismantle DHS yet, and replace it with an effective agency for dealing with homeland security?

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Is it time to dismiss the charges and disbar the prosecutor yet?

A laboratory hired by the prosecution in the Duke lacrosse case found DNA from unidentified men in the accuser's body and underwear but none from the defendants, according to a defense motion filed Wednesday.

DNA Security of Burlington in May produced a report to Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong that made no mention of finding the genetic material.

Wednesday's motion raised questions about whether Nifong and DNA Security withheld evidence favorable to the defense. It also cast further doubt on accounts given by the accuser, who told nurses and police that her attackers ejaculated and did not use condoms. The tests revealed no DNA evidence from any of 46 lacrosse players then suspected in the case.

"This is strong evidence of innocence," said the motion, which was signed by attorneys for all three defendants. "There is not a single mention of this obviously exculpatory evidence in the final DNA Security report."

Defense lawyers for months pressed Nifong in court to release all test documents from DNA Security. The evidence in Wednesday's motion was contained in thousands of DNA Security papers that a judge in October ordered Nifong to give to the defense.

Defense lawyers, citing the state's open file discovery law and the U.S. Supreme Court requirement that prosecutors surrender all helpful evidence, asked for more lab records, including analyses, notes, e-mail and logs of phone calls. They also asked that Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security, be questioned under oath. A hearing is scheduled for Friday in the case.

And it would appear we need to shut down the lab, too, for ginning up a report tailored to the prosecutionÂ’s wants and needs instead of bringing the facts to light.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, if they are ordering a retrial, it doesn’t seem like such a victory for the right to speak freely.

Two Christian pastors found to have vilified Muslims under Victoria's religious hatred law won their appeal and hailed the decision as a victory for free speech.

The Court of Appeal ordered the case to be reheard at the original tribunal, before a different judge and with no further evidence. It set aside the orders for public apologies in newspaper advertisements and for the pastors not to repeat their remarks.

Last year Judge Michael Higgins found that Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries vilified Muslims at a seminar on jihad in Melbourne in March 2002, in a newsletter and a website article.

He said these suggested that the Koran promoted killing and looting, that Muslims wanted to take over Australia and terrorists were true Muslims.

Justices Geoffrey Nettle, David Ashley and Marcia Neave overturned that finding but rejected the appeal that the Racial and Religious Vilification Act was unconstitutional.

They ordered the Islamic Council of Victoria, which brought the original complaint, to pay half the appellants' appeal costs but left the costs of the original hearing to be decided by the judge who rehears the case.

On what basis was the original decision overturned? This one – a distinction that I think is very important.

Justice Geoffrey Nettle said Judge Higgins equated hating Muslims' religious beliefs with hating Muslims because of their beliefs. This was not so — many people might despise Pastor Scot's perception of Christianity, yet not dream of hating him.

"No doubt the purpose of the act is to promote religious tolerance. But the act cannot and does not purport to mandate religious tolerance," he said in his judgement.

Indeed, Judge Higgins had held that quoting the Koran to prove a negative point about Islam constituted religious vilification of Muslims – effectively arguing that the truth was not only not a defense in such cases, but was evidence of the offense having been committed.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, if they are ordering a retrial, it doesnÂ’t seem like such a victory for the right to speak freely.

Two Christian pastors found to have vilified Muslims under Victoria's religious hatred law won their appeal and hailed the decision as a victory for free speech.

The Court of Appeal ordered the case to be reheard at the original tribunal, before a different judge and with no further evidence. It set aside the orders for public apologies in newspaper advertisements and for the pastors not to repeat their remarks.

Last year Judge Michael Higgins found that Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries vilified Muslims at a seminar on jihad in Melbourne in March 2002, in a newsletter and a website article.

He said these suggested that the Koran promoted killing and looting, that Muslims wanted to take over Australia and terrorists were true Muslims.

Justices Geoffrey Nettle, David Ashley and Marcia Neave overturned that finding but rejected the appeal that the Racial and Religious Vilification Act was unconstitutional.

They ordered the Islamic Council of Victoria, which brought the original complaint, to pay half the appellants' appeal costs but left the costs of the original hearing to be decided by the judge who rehears the case.

On what basis was the original decision overturned? This one – a distinction that I think is very important.

Justice Geoffrey Nettle said Judge Higgins equated hating Muslims' religious beliefs with hating Muslims because of their beliefs. This was not so — many people might despise Pastor Scot's perception of Christianity, yet not dream of hating him.

"No doubt the purpose of the act is to promote religious tolerance. But the act cannot and does not purport to mandate religious tolerance," he said in his judgement.

Indeed, Judge Higgins had held that quoting the Koran to prove a negative point about Islam constituted religious vilification of Muslims – effectively arguing that the truth was not only not a defense in such cases, but was evidence of the offense having been committed.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 3 kb.

Does this new regulation strike you as somehow wrong – and a case of overreaching by government?

People who melt pennies or nickels to profit from the jump in metals prices could face jail time and pay thousands of dollars in fines, according to new rules out Thursday.

Soaring metals prices mean that the value of the metal in pennies and nickels exceeds the face value of the coins. Based on current metals prices, the value of the metal in a nickel is now 6.99 cents, while the penny's metal is worth 1.12 cents, according to the U.S. Mint.

That has piqued concern among government officials that people will melt the coins to sell the metal, leading to potential shortages of pennies and nickels.

"The nation needs its coinage for commerce," U.S. Mint director Ed Moy said in a statement. "We don't want to see our pennies and nickels melted down so a few individuals can take advantage of the American taxpayer. Replacing these coins would be an enormous cost to taxpayers."

There have been no specific reports of people melting coins for the metal, Mint spokeswoman Becky Bailey says. But the agency has received a number of questions in recent months from the public about the legality of melting the coins, and officials have heard some anecdotal reports of companies considering selling the metal from pennies and nickels, she says.

Under the new rules, it is illegal to melt pennies and nickels. It is also illegal to export the coins for melting. Travelers may legally carry up to $5 in 1- and 5-cent coins out of the USA or ship $100 of the coins abroad "for legitimate coinage and numismatic purposes."

Violators could spend up to five years in prison and pay as much as $10,000 in fines. Plus, the government will confiscate any coins or metal used in melting schemes.

The rules are similar to those enacted in the 1960s and 1970s, when metals prices also rose, the Mint said. Ongoing regulations make it illegal to alter coins with an intent to commit fraud. Before today's new regulations, it was not illegal to melt coins.

Now hold on – is the money MY money, or the government’s money? Do the coins belong to me, or to the government? What about the metal the coins are composed of – my property or the government’s? And if the answer to these question is that it is my property, where does the government get off penalizing my decision on how to dispose of the coins and their metal content?

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Talk about intolerant “tolerance” by the forces of secularism – this takes the cake!

A high school choir was asked to stop singing Christmas carols during an ice skating show featuring Olympic medalist Sasha Cohen out of concern the skater would be offended because she's Jewish.

A city staff member, accompanied by a police officer, approached the Rubidoux High School Madrigals at the Riverside Outdoor Ice Skating Rink just as they launched into "God Rest Ye Merry Gentleman" and requested that the troupe stop singing, the Riverside Press-Enterprise reported Thursday.

Cohen, the 2006 Olympic silver medalist and 2006 U.S. National Champion, had just finished her performance at the rink on the downtown pedestrian mall, and was signing autographs.

Choir director Staci Della-Rocco said she complied with the request "because a policeman told me to stop. I didn't want to have a big old huge scene in front of my kids," according to the newspaper.

The city staff member, special-events employee Michelle Baldwin, could not be reached for comment. City Development Director Belinda J. Graham confirmed the incident.

Now for what it was worth, Ms. Baldwin seems to have been acting outside of the scope of city policy.

"This request was simply made by a staff member who was attempting to be sensitive to the celebrity guest, without considering the wider implications ... or consulting with her supervisor for guidance," Graham said in an e-mail to the newspaper.

Mayor Ron Loveridge called the incident "unfortunate."

"You kind of wish people do a little checking first. You certainly have my apology," he said, referring to the choir members.

But that Baldwin even thought the request was appropriate – and that the officer was willing to accompany her to silence the group – should tell you just how far some folks are willing to go to ensure that everybody except Christians are receive “tolerant” and “sensitive” treatment.

Oh, and as for Sasha Cohen, she never requested that the songs stop, nor does she object to hearing Christmas carols. Seems to me that the city employees involved could take a lesson from the person in whose name they were acting.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess I don’t understand why I should feel bad for the family in this story. After all, they are here breaking the law, and yet they are somehow presented to be victims of the government’s decision to enforce the law.

Isabel Ramirez wept as she clutched her 18-month-old daughter, Brenda, in the ramshackle trailer park where she lives.

Her husband, Juan, had been detained in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant where he worked, and she didn't know where he was.

"He was the only one working. He paid for everything, the bills, rent. I have three kids," 33-year- old Isabel Ramirez said.

As she spoke, her 7-year-old daughter, Laura, was at school, and her 3-year-old son, Juanito, kicking muddy snow by the trailer, was having a very bad day.
His father "is in jail," Juanito said. He threw a stick angrily down at the snow and turned and banged his head against the side of a broken trampoline.

As authorities began deporting workers rounded up in raids at meatpacking plants here and in five other states, this city, which for decades has run on illegal labor from Mexico, confronted an unexpected challenge: what to do about kids left behind.

I’ll answer the question for you – deport the kids with the parents if they were not born with American citizenship. If the kids were born here, revoke the parental rights and place them for adoption – or permit the parents to irrevocably renounce US citizenship on behalf of their children.

Now some of you might object that this proposal is harsh. Know what – you are right. But harsh measures are the only ones that will allow us take control of our border. And you might object that the foster care/adoption expenses would be high for those children taken into state custody. But then again, the taxpayers are already footing much of the bill for the millions of children of illegal aliens in this country, so the added cost would be significantly less than one might think.

And for those who think illegal immigration is a victimless crime, you might want to read this piece from MSNBC.

UPDATE: More efforts to portray the immigration criminals, their families, and their employer as victims of the government enforcing the law.

And in a move that is probably even more outrageous, this story tries to present the American consumer as the real victim -- something that I expect to see repeatedly as there is a concerted push for an amnesty.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess I donÂ’t understand why I should feel bad for the family in this story. After all, they are here breaking the law, and yet they are somehow presented to be victims of the governmentÂ’s decision to enforce the law.

Isabel Ramirez wept as she clutched her 18-month-old daughter, Brenda, in the ramshackle trailer park where she lives.

Her husband, Juan, had been detained in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant where he worked, and she didn't know where he was.

"He was the only one working. He paid for everything, the bills, rent. I have three kids," 33-year- old Isabel Ramirez said.

As she spoke, her 7-year-old daughter, Laura, was at school, and her 3-year-old son, Juanito, kicking muddy snow by the trailer, was having a very bad day.
His father "is in jail," Juanito said. He threw a stick angrily down at the snow and turned and banged his head against the side of a broken trampoline.

As authorities began deporting workers rounded up in raids at meatpacking plants here and in five other states, this city, which for decades has run on illegal labor from Mexico, confronted an unexpected challenge: what to do about kids left behind.

I’ll answer the question for you – deport the kids with the parents if they were not born with American citizenship. If the kids were born here, revoke the parental rights and place them for adoption – or permit the parents to irrevocably renounce US citizenship on behalf of their children.

Now some of you might object that this proposal is harsh. Know what – you are right. But harsh measures are the only ones that will allow us take control of our border. And you might object that the foster care/adoption expenses would be high for those children taken into state custody. But then again, the taxpayers are already footing much of the bill for the millions of children of illegal aliens in this country, so the added cost would be significantly less than one might think.

And for those who think illegal immigration is a victimless crime, you might want to read this piece from MSNBC.

UPDATE: More efforts to portray the immigration criminals, their families, and their employer as victims of the government enforcing the law.

And in a move that is probably even more outrageous, this story tries to present the American consumer as the real victim -- something that I expect to see repeatedly as there is a concerted push for an amnesty.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.