but heaven forbid that a citizen enroll is child on the “wrong” side of a school district border.

In San Jose, Calif., many parents want to get their kids in Fremont Union schools because they're so much better than neighboring schools. So parents sometimes cheat to get their kids in. At least cheating is what local officials call it. Steve Rowley, district superintendent, said, "We have maybe hundreds of kids who are here illegally, under false pretenses."

Illegally. False pretenses. Sounds like the kids are criminals. All they're doing is trying to get a good public-school education. Don't the public schools' defenders insist all children have a right to a good public-school education?

And that is exactly the argument used for education border-jumpers and their offspring – they need a good education to succeed. But we won’t allow America kids to jump the borders of school districts to get one.

Read John StosselÂ’s column and you will be truly and righteously outraged.

Posted by: Greg at 03:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Bravo to these five teachers who refuse to place a pro-gay poster in their classrooms, despite a district mandate.

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, " This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

The high school's Gay-Straight Alliance designed the poster, which includes pink triangles and other symbols of gay pride. In December the school board approved a policy requiring all district teachers to hang the posters in their classrooms.

District officials said the poster is an effort to comply with state laws requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment. They say that too often teachers do not reprimand students who use derogatory slurs or refer to homosexuality in a negative way.

"This is not about religion, sex, or a belief system,'' said district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the poster policy. "This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation."

“Not about religion, sex, or a belief system”? Really? So if a student expresses his firmly held religious belief that homosexual activity is immoral and that practitioners thereof are going to burn in Hell, they won’t be reprimanded? Heck, given the official endorsement of homosexuals as a protected class, will students who adhere to traditional moral and religious beliefs feel that “this is a safe place to be who you are”? I don’t think so.

Speaking as a teacher, I don’t accept anyone giving crap to anyone else over sexual orientation, race, or any of the other protected statuses. Not because these kids are “special”, but because all kids are special. My kids know that they will not get away with that sort of crap in my presence – and they learned that from their older siblings and cousins before they ever set foot in my room.

But I wouldnÂ’t put the poster up. It gives an imprimatur to one side of the homosexual rights issue that I think should not be given in a classroom setting. It is implicitly a tool of indoctrination.

And if you disagree with me, consider this – how long would this poster be allowed to remain in any public school classroom anywhere in the United States?

You want to tell me again that this isn't about special treatment for one group based upon their sexual practices, or the disfavoring of a point of view -- especially if it is religious?

UPDATE: I found the poster online. Look close and see what is missing.

Yep, that is right -- straight kids are pointedly not included among those for who the classroom is declared to be a safe place to be themselves.

UPDATE – 1/27/06: Looks like the teachers have given in. That is too bad.

"We are a diverse staff. We have teachers here who are active in their churches, and we respect their beliefs," Furtado said Wednesday. "But none of those teachers have said they won't put up the posters because of that."

Teachers have a week to hang the 8 1/2-by-11 posters, which were designed by the 30 or so students in the school's Gay-Straight Alliance. Furtado will check all 200 classrooms next week to see if the posters are visible, and she said she'd have "a private conversation" with teachers who don't comply.

"The expectation is compliance," she said. "It's board policy. But what's great is that today we have some very conservative teachers who've already put it up."

Too bad than none had the guts to stand their ground. The poster’s contents are exclusive, divisive, and oppressive – not inclusive, uniting, and liberating.

MORE AT: Right on the Left Coast, Joanne Jacobs, Dispatches From The Culture War, California Conservative

TRACKBACKS: Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, Samantha Burns, Gribbit, Conservative Cat, MacStansbury, RightWingNation,, PointFive, Adam's Blog, third world country, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Real Ugly American, Liberal Wrong Wing, Uncooperative Blogger, Publius Rendevous, Bullwinkle, Voteswagon

Posted by: Greg at 03:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 690 words, total size 7 kb.

I criticized the initial plan – this change is an improvement, though the earlier version will make this plan tainted in the eyes of many on both the Left and Right.

A conservative activist dropped his offer to pay students up to $100 per class for providing information on what he called "radical" professors at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The activist, Andrew Jones, said Monday he would continue his effort with unpaid volunteers.

Jones' Bruin Alumni Association had offered UCLA students up to $100 to supply tapes and notes from classes to expose professors he considered to be pushing liberal political views on their students.

After news reports about the plan, Jones was criticized by faculty members who complained of a "witch hunt." Several prominent members of his organization's advisory board, including a former congressman, resigned from the group after details of the payment plan became public.

Jones, 24, a 2003 graduate and former head of the campus Republicans, said he was concerned about the level of professionalism among teachers at the university. He said the payment offer had become "a distraction from the real problem, which has been all along the issue of classroom indoctrination by UCLA professors."

The University is still opposed – and implicitly threatening to punish any student who dares to speak out and supply proof of classroom bias.

Lawrence H. Lokman, a UCLA spokesman, said University of California rules bar the distribution of course materials unless permission is granted by the instructor and campus chancellor. As a result, he said, Jones' campaign violates UC policy even if no payments are involved.

IÂ’m suspicious of this rule, because it prevents the public from finding out about the workplace conduct of public employees. Does that not constitute an unconstitutional restriction on the right to speak on a matter of public concern, and to petition for the redress of grievances?

And besides, wouldn’t the students in question be whistleblowers – who are, we are told, nothing less than patriots out to secure the public’s “right to know” and disclose the unsavory actions of government institutions and officials.

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

Environmentalism trumps health.

Asthma sufferers may not be able to buy nonprescription inhalers much longer because the devices contain propellants that some think harm the ozone layer.

An advisory panel voted 11-7 Tuesday to recommend that the Food and Drug Administration remove the "essential use" status that Primatene Mist and other similar nonprescription inhalers require to be sold, spokeswoman Laura Alvey said. Final revocation of that status would mean a de facto ban on their sale.
The FDA usually follows the advice of its outside panels of experts, though a decision can take months. If the agency opts to follow the recommendation, it would begin a rule-making process that would include public comment, Alvey said.

Wyeth Consumer Healthcare estimates that 3 million Americans use Primatene Mist for mild or intermittent cases of asthma. About two-thirds also use a prescription inhaler but rely on Primatene as a backup. About 700,000 use the inhalers because they don't have a prescription or lack health insurance.

The incredible arrogance of government is enough to take one’s breath away – literally.

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Environmentalism trumps health.

Asthma sufferers may not be able to buy nonprescription inhalers much longer because the devices contain propellants that some think harm the ozone layer.

An advisory panel voted 11-7 Tuesday to recommend that the Food and Drug Administration remove the "essential use" status that Primatene Mist and other similar nonprescription inhalers require to be sold, spokeswoman Laura Alvey said. Final revocation of that status would mean a de facto ban on their sale.
The FDA usually follows the advice of its outside panels of experts, though a decision can take months. If the agency opts to follow the recommendation, it would begin a rule-making process that would include public comment, Alvey said.

Wyeth Consumer Healthcare estimates that 3 million Americans use Primatene Mist for mild or intermittent cases of asthma. About two-thirds also use a prescription inhaler but rely on Primatene as a backup. About 700,000 use the inhalers because they don't have a prescription or lack health insurance.

The incredible arrogance of government is enough to take one’s breath away – literally.

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

He’s moved to the Middle East, and now he’s wearing a abaya – will this guy ever stop the move into Bizarro-World?

MANAMA, Bahrain — Pop star Michael Jackson was spotted shopping in a Bahrain mall today, hiding his face behind a veil and donning a black robe traditionally worn by women in the Gulf.

He was with three children, apparently his own, who also had their faces covered by dark scarves. An unidentified woman accompanied them.

The pop star, who seems to be settling in the Persian Gulf, was seen leaving Marina Mall in the Bahrain capital, holding a child by the hand. On the way out a back door, he shook hands with security guards.

The woman — also dressed in the black robe called an abaya, jeans and a scarf that partially covered her face — had the two other children. All three children were wrapped in black scarves and wore yellow shirts and sweatpants or khakis without robes.

Since his June acquittal on child molestation charges in California, Jackson has made several trips to Bahrain as a guest of Sheik Abdullah bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the son of Bahrain's king. He reportedly was negotiating a position as a consultant with a Bahrain-based company that plans to set up theme parks and music academies in the Middle East.

On the mall outing, Jackson wore an abaya, pants, a white shirt and men's shoes. His head and face were wrapped in a black veil and he also wore black gloves.

The veil, abaya and gloves were of a style typically worn by conservative Bahraini women.

Uhhhhhhh…. Yeah.

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

He’s moved to the Middle East, and now he’s wearing a abaya – will this guy ever stop the move into Bizarro-World?

MANAMA, Bahrain — Pop star Michael Jackson was spotted shopping in a Bahrain mall today, hiding his face behind a veil and donning a black robe traditionally worn by women in the Gulf.

He was with three children, apparently his own, who also had their faces covered by dark scarves. An unidentified woman accompanied them.

The pop star, who seems to be settling in the Persian Gulf, was seen leaving Marina Mall in the Bahrain capital, holding a child by the hand. On the way out a back door, he shook hands with security guards.

The woman — also dressed in the black robe called an abaya, jeans and a scarf that partially covered her face — had the two other children. All three children were wrapped in black scarves and wore yellow shirts and sweatpants or khakis without robes.

Since his June acquittal on child molestation charges in California, Jackson has made several trips to Bahrain as a guest of Sheik Abdullah bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the son of Bahrain's king. He reportedly was negotiating a position as a consultant with a Bahrain-based company that plans to set up theme parks and music academies in the Middle East.

On the mall outing, Jackson wore an abaya, pants, a white shirt and men's shoes. His head and face were wrapped in a black veil and he also wore black gloves.

The veil, abaya and gloves were of a style typically worn by conservative Bahraini women.

UhhhhhhhÂ…. Yeah.

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

You know, just to make it clear that we are serious about cross-border incursions by the Mexican military? Especially if they are helping to smuggle drugs or illegal aliens.

Men dressed as Mexican Army soldiers, apparent drug suspects and Texas law enforcement officers faced off Monday on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande, an FBI spokeswoman said today.

Andrea Simmons, an agency spokeswoman in El Paso, told The Associated Press that Texas Department of Public Safety troopers chased three SUVs, believing they were carrying drugs, to the banks of the Rio Grande during Monday's incident.

Men dressed in Mexican military uniforms or camouflage were on the U.S. side of the border in Texas, she said.

Simmons said the FBI was not involved and referred requests for further details to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., reported today that the incident included an armed standoff involving the Mexican military, suspected drug smugglers and nearly 30 U.S. law enforcement officers. It said Mexican military Humvees were towing what appeared to be thousands of pounds of marijuana across the border into the United States.

The incident follows a story in the Bulletin on Jan. 15 that said the Mexican military had crossed into the United States more than 200 times since 1996.
Chief Deputy Mike Doyal of the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department told the newspaper that Border Patrol agents called for backup and were joined by Hudspeth County deputies and DPS troopers. Mexican army personnel had several mounted machine guns on the ground more than 200 yards inside the U.S. border, the newspaper said.

Doyal said deputies captured a Cadillac Escalade that had been reported stolen from El Paso, and found 1,477 pounds of marijuana inside. He said Mexican soldiers set fire to one of the Humvees stuck in the river.

The site is near Neely's Crossing, about 50 miles east of El Paso, it said.

Why no shooting in this situation (or any of the other 200+ incidents)?

"It's been so bred into everyone not to start an international incident with Mexico that it's been going on for years," Doyal said. "When you're up against mounted machine guns, what can you do? Who wants to pull the trigger first? Certainly not us."

The border in this area is clearly marked – it is called the Rio Grande – and such crossings are frequent. They are denied by the Mexican government.

It is time for the US to make this a shooting war. It might be the only thing that will get the attention of the Mexican authorities and make them realize that the US is serious about border security.

If we really are serious about border security.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Jawa Report

Posted by: Greg at 03:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

Joel Stein is against the troops.

That says it all.

IÂ’ll waste no more bandwidth on him.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Jawa Report, Wizbang,

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Gov. Erlich is ahead in the polls as he seeks reelection in Maryland. Lt. Gov. Steele is in the lead in the race for Senate. The GOP is growing in once solidly Democrat Maryland.

What are the Democrats doing to counter this trend? Seeking out new voters – convicted felons.

Democratic lawmakers, who have long pushed to restore voting rights to Maryland felons, say racial politics and election-year considerations make this the year they open the polls to every ex-convict.

"This law seriously disenfranchises a large number of African-Americans," said Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat who is gathering sponsors for a voting-rights restoration bill she plans to submit.

"Their disenfranchisement impacts the power of African-Americans in this state," said Mrs. Marriott, whose bill would give all felons the vote immediately upon release from prison.

If Mrs. Marriott's bill succeeds this time -- it has died in committee the past three years -- an estimated 150,000 felons would be able to cast ballots in Maryland. About 85,000 of them are black and likely Democrats, according to Justice Maryland, a penal reform group that supports felon voting rights.

These convicted murderers, rapists and armed robbers could vote as early as the Nov. 7 general election, if the law takes effect on the traditional Oct. 1 start date. And felons could sway the results.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, won the 2002 governor's race by 66,170 votes, according to the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Mr. Ehrlich's re-election bid this year is expected to be an even closer contest against either of the Democratic candidates -- Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley or Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan.

"That might be the line used by Democrats as to why they should support the bill," said Tara Andrews, executive director of Justice Maryland.

And let’s make matters perfectly clear here – this measure primarily benefits violent felons and career criminals. First offenders who committed non-violent crimes generally have their rights restored three years after their release from prison.

That should make it obvious whose side the Democrats are on in Maryland – and it isn’t the side of the law-abiding.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

Mike Adams reports on this coalition of conservative and libertarian students to overturn a rule at University of North Carolina-Greensboro that infringes upon freedom of association.

“The Anti-Discrimination statement must include that student organizations may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, military, veteran status, political affiliation or sexual orientation.”

After reading your report, members of the College Libertarians and College Republicans recognized that their rights as political organizations are being circumvented by this patently unconstitutional policy.

It is clearly unreasonable to request political organizations to admit members of opposing political parties. To require them to do so would sabotage the level of political discourse on campus. Therefore, these two groups have asked UNCG to change this policy. They have asked that the anti-discrimination statement be altered to except political groups from the political affiliation portion of the statement and religious groups from the religion portion of the statement.

Until the anti-discrimination statement is officially altered, the Republicans and Libertarians are refusing to include the full statement in their respective organizational constitutions. They are also refusing to otherwise comply with the unconstitutional policy. And, best of all, they have warned the UNCG administration that they are prepared to pursue legal action to remedy the situation.

The university is retaliating, recently billing them $238 for copying a few dozen pages of public records related to donors to UNCG. I’d like to encourage folks to help defray the cost of copying – and other related expenses – by donating a couple of bucks their way. You can do so at the following address: UNCG College Republicans, Elliot University Center, Box N3, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170. If you would rather have your money go to the UNCG College Libertarians, they can be reached here: UNCG College Libertarians, 110 Odell Place, Greensboro 27403 (make checks payable to Guilford County Libertarian Party). Give what you can to help advance reasoned political debate on one campus.

Posted by: Greg at 03:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

From Bruce BartlettÂ’s column at Townhall.com.

Ever since Watergate, a key media template has been that the Republican Party is the party of corruption. Thus every wrongdoing of any Republican tends to get page one treatment, while Democratic corruption is treated as routine and buried on the back pages, mentioned once and then forgotten.

Yet any objective study of comparative party corruption would have to conclude that Democrats are far more likely to be caught engaging in it than Republicans. For example, a review of misconduct cases in the House of Representatives since Watergate shows many more cases involving Democrats than Republicans.

Skeptics can go to the web site of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, popularly known as the House Ethics Committee. Click on “historical documents” and go to a publication called “Historical Summary of Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives.” The document was last updated on November 9, 2004 and lists every ethics case since 1798, when Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut attacked Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont with a “stout cane” and Lyon responded with a pair of fireplace tongs.

By my count, there have been 70 different members of the House who have been investigated for serious offenses over the last 30 years, including many involving actual criminality and jail time. Of these, only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.

I’ve regularly pointed out that the Democats are the party of corruption in this country – so corrupt that the media doesn’t treat corrupt Democrat public officials as newsworthy. I’ve had folks minimize the importance of Democrat corruption in their comments here. But the numbers tell the story quite clearly.

Posted by: Greg at 03:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

They must have thought this guy was a union employee on the job.

It took more than six hours for anyone to realize that a 64-year-old Brooklyn man had died on a New York City subway train.

Eugene Reilly, who died of a heart attack, likely got onto a Brooklyn-bound Q train just before 1 a.m. Thursday. He wasn't found until 7:15 a.m. when a curious commuter touched his shoulder, trying to wake him, the New York Daily News reported.

Reilly, a mail handler, worked the 4 p.m.-to-12:30 a.m. shift and was headed home, his wife said. He was sitting up in his seat, which transit officials said was likely the reason their workers left him alone for so long, the newspaper said.

"The policy is that if someone is sitting up, employees are not allowed to touch them," said Deirdre Parker, a city transit spokeswoman.

A different transit official said employees probably saw Reilly, who was in the last car of the train, but thought he was sleeping.

"People sleep on the train all the time," an official said. "No one thought anything of it."

I know this happened in NYC, but I canÂ’t help but think of an old song.

Did he ever return,
No he never returned
And his fate is still unlearn'd
He may ride forever
'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned.

Posted by: Greg at 03:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Just days after the NYC transit workersÂ’ union rejected the contract they were offered following their illegal strike, this picture appeared in the New York media.

Note the date and time – 1/22/06, 1:13 PM.

Needless to say, your average New Yorker, who was not supportive of the pre-Christmas strike, is outraged.

"I can't believe this. If they want more money, they should have to work for it," steamed commuter Carolyn Brand, 23, of New Jersey, told The Post after being shown the picture.

* * *

Jordan Saxe, 26, who spotted the sleeping clerk and snapped his photo, said he thought the man "might be sick or hurt or dead."

"I tapped on the glass to see if he was OK," Saxe said. "Then I realized he was snoring. He was out cold and didn't budge. To me, this is a moral issue. I work in corporate America. You just can't do that in broad daylight."

* * *

Jani Coupour, 29, said he doesn't understand why transit workers are entitled to special treatment.

"If I was caught sleeping on the job I would be fired," he said. "These people don't have to worry about that, because of their union."

Passengers said the clerk also wasn't helping make the union's case that the MTA is wrong to try to remove agents from the booths.

"That's typical of them," said William Bookin, 40, a doorman who lives on the Lower East Side. "They don't want to be bothered. If you ask them for help, and if they are awake, they're rude to you."

* * *

"I'm worried about a possible strike," said Bill Thompson, 38, who works for the Medical Examiner's Office.

"The transit workers are extremely well paid. I'm a union worker and I have to pay $30 a paycheck for health."

Most riders said transit workers must be dreaming if they thought they would fare better after rejecting the contract.

"They're screwing themselves," said Chris Kannick, 28, of Murray Hill. "They won't get a better offer. In fact, they're lucky they have what they have."

The union, of course, is fully prepared to defend Sleeping Beauty here, and to refuse arbitration.

I think it may be time for Mayor Bloomberg to go PATCO on the transit workersÂ’ union. Sounds like the public would support him.

Posted by: Greg at 03:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 2 kb.

What possesses supposedly professional educators to do stuff like this?

BEAVER FALLS -- A 17-year-old high school student said he was humiliated when a teacher made him sit on the floor during a midterm exam in his ethnicity class -- for wearing a Denver Broncos jersey.

The teacher, John Kelly, forced Joshua Vannoy to sit on the floor to take the test on Friday -- two days before the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Broncos 34-17 in the AFC Championship game. Kelly also made other students throw crumpled up paper at Vannoy, whom he called a "stinking Denver fan," Vannoy told The Associated Press.

Kelly said Vannoy, a junior at Beaver Area Senior High School, just didn't get the joke.

"If he felt uncomfortable, then that's a lesson; that's what (the class) is designed to do," Kelly told The Denver Post. "It was silly fun. I can't believe he was upset."

Fire this idiot for unprofessional conduct.

Yeah, it might make him uncomfortable -- that will be a lesson, and what the his termination is designed to do.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

And by this I do not mean the average, run-of-the-mill liberal (usually a decent, reasonable person who is merely wrong) -- I mean the chronically discontent activists who would not be content with the actions of the United States and the current Administration even if George W. Bush went on national television, announced his capitulation to their policy demands, beheaded Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and then lit a match after dousing himself in gasoline.

Feminism and Marxism and other similar movements "have the ambitions of a monotheistic faith, offering a feminist [or Marxist] answer to every moral and social question, a feminist [or Marxist] account of the human world, a theory of the universe....It drives the heretics and half-believers from its ranks with a zeal that is the other side of the inclusive warmth with which it welcomes the submissive and the orthodox."

I'm not so sure about that last part. I don't think the protesters have a coherent world view that answers all questions; rather, I think they are suffering from debilitating, free-floating resentment that paralyzes them and makes realization of their ideas -- or indeed having any ideas -- impossible. The best examination of the problem of resentment came in the 1914 book Ressentiment (the French spelling is in the original) by Max Scheler. Scheler, a forgotten genius, was a philosopher whose work influenced the future John Paul II. According to Scheler, resentment is "an incurable, persistent feeling of hating and despising" that happens in certain people due to certain "psychic, mental, social, or physical impotencies, disadvantages, weakness or deficiencies of various kinds." It's less about social problems than mental illness.

James Hitchcock, interpreting Scheler, broke it down further: Resentment, he wrote, is about moral values themselves. It was the role of certain people, whether through mental problems or some other disadvantage, to hate the idea of morality itself. This is why resentment is incurable, and different from hatred or jealousy. If you're jealous of your neighbors sports car, you get over it when you by your own. If you resent him because he's a Christian -- well, there's really nowhere to go with that, other than to this year's protest march. It's also why resenters can't forge a coherent philosophy. If you're problem is with the natural law and morality itself, you're not going to be happy in this life. Yes, yes, we all know Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman et al hate Bush, the war, etc. But what are they for? The world may never know.

This lack of vision distinguishes resenters from terrorists; indeed, it is the Left that likes to talk about the resentment of terrorists -- because of the evil USA, they are forced to murder innocent people, and so on. In fact, terrorists have an absolutely clear plan. The want to conquer the world and set up sharia law. They don't hate morality, they just have a demonic understanding of it. They are evil. Yet if they ever attained their (impossible) goals, they would no longer feel hatred. One gets the sense that unlike them, Maureen Dowd just cannot be made happy. This is why the remarks about her problem not being political but a resentment at her failure to attract a man -- remarks I for a long time considered out of bounds -- may have some validity. If this attractive woman has not been able to get and keep a mate, perhaps the fault lies not in the stars or the Republicans.

And that is what differentiates my wife or Dan (a regular commenter here and author of Gone Mild) from the ranters and ravers like Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte -- the latter suffer from a pathological resentment of those whose disagree with them.

And yes -- I will concede that we on the right have a few of that ilk in our midst as well. Just not as many.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.

The Cut-&-Run-ocrats don't support the mission in Iraq or the troops that are are successfully carrying it out. But they are more than willing to use their deaths for political purposes in Buks County, PA.

A Republican group is calling for the removal of a death count of American servicemen in Iraq from the Doylestown headquarters of the Bucks County Democratic Committee.

Democrats have a sign in the front window of their Court Street office that includes the words "We honor our fallen heroes" and a running tally of U.S. military deaths in Iraq.

The count stood at 2,224 on Saturday.

Don Petrille, chairman of the Bucks County Federation of Young Republicans, said his group thinks Democrats are "using the numbers for political gain, and that's not something we think helps our mission or is an appropriate use for our soldiers."

Democrats defended the sign, though, saying it's a valid way of honoring fallen service members.

Your party has come out infavor of making their sacrifice meaningless -- it is therefore disingenuous to claim that you are honoring the dead.

Take down the sign -- or support them and their mission.

Posted by: Greg at 01:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

Free speech has become no speech in Polk County, Florida.

Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus won't be making any more legal appearances on the lawn of Polk County's administration building.

The County Commission on Jan. 11 voted unanimously to close the "free-speech zone'' that it created less than one year ago.

The free-speech zone was implemented last year after a church group in December 2004 built a Nativity scene on the lawn of the Neil Combee Administration Building without county permission. In the zone, individuals and groups were allowed to express themselves with displays or other forms of expression.

Care to guess why they decided to end a policy that facilitated the exercise of a fundamental civil liberty? Because of the objections of a so-called civli liberties group.

In late 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union and two co-defendants filed suit against the county over policies in the zone they think are unconstitutional.

After the suit was filed, county officials suspended some of the free-speech-zone regulations as part of a temporary agreement with the ACLU.

I guess the ACLU only supports freedom of for the speech they like.

Commies, Nazis, and Klansmen -- shout it out loud.

Christians -- Shut the f*&% up!

Earlier posts at Stop The ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Every week, Watcher of Weasels sponsors a competition among posts from around the Blogosphere. The winning entries are determined by The Watchers Council.

The Council has cast their ballots for last week's submitted entries. The winners are as follows.

Council Member Entries: The Glittering Eye with Options on Iran II

Non-Council Entries: The Anchoress with NY Times Tipped Terrorists? (UPDATED).

Posted by: Greg at 09:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Though the Chronicle is doing all it can to minimize his front-runner status.

Radio talker and former sportscaster Dan Patrick's entry into the state Senate District 7 race made the outspoken, hard-right, born-again Christian communicator the candidate to beat.

He's well-known in the area from years on the air and has a committed base of conservative fans. The three other Republicans vying to succeed retiring Sen. Jon Lindsay — former Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis, and state Reps. Peggy Hamric and Joe Nixon — are scrambling for second place.

With four strong candidates and more than a million dollars streaming in, it's likely no one will claim a majority March 7 and the nomination will be determined in a runoff.

The district is solidly Republican, so the GOP nominee will be the favorite in November against Democrat F. Michael Kubosh.

The article then goes on to claim that all of the currently serving politicians are seeking to run a grassroots campaign! Like Dan, the only non-elected official in the race, is not the ultimate grassroots candidate?

So far, Ellis and Hamric have been focusing on grass-roots efforts, conceding the public campaign to the better-funded Nixon and better-known Patrick.

Dan Patrick is the ultimate outsider -- to hear that incumbent politicians are running grass-roots campaigns is ludicrous!

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

Want a great example of dhimmitude in a supposedly secular country with a Muslim majority? Take a look at this piece from a Malaysian blogger.

The latest greatest document on Islamic treatment of non-Muslim minorities is a document published in AD 717 known as the Pact of Umar. Not surprisingly many Muslims (including your neighbours and colleagues) will find the occurences in today's Malaysia acceptable since this is where they get their guidelines on acceptable behaviour from.

First of all the Muslims term all the people who are kaffir as "dhimmis". This means they have to pay a jizya or a poll tax for protection. The local samseng back at school used to call this protection money. In the more refined Malaysia we give Muslims back tax dollars for monies paid to their religion. I once published a post or two on how Muslims are freeloaders because of this. I got condemned by a heavy hitting blogger but so far there has been no response from anyone as to why Muslims get their tax dollars back in equal amount for monies paid to the mosque and I don't get money back in equal amount paid to the church. Call it jizya, call it protection money or call it a mob shakedown. It's the first pillar of Islam in dealling with dhimmis. You pay more so that they can take more. Where I come from, that's called freeloading.

Let's see what else is in the Pact of Umar.

You'll have to go to Maobi to find out more about the Pact of Umar, and its de facto application in modern-day Malaysia.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

My wife lives with constant pain from a chronic medical condition. One of the hard parts of this illness is the difficulty in getting enough medication to give her relief -- not because it is not available, but because doctors are reluctant to prescribe it. One physician quite prescribing some of her medications to any patient, and anoyhter tried to limit her to only enough to last two weeks between appointments (which would have more than doubled our out-of-pocket cost through insurance). Why? Because of federal prosecution of pain management doctors under drug trafficking laws.

That may change now, due to the recent Supreme Court decision on Oregon's assisted suicide law.

Doctors who specialize in pain management and their advocates are hoping that last week's Supreme Court decision upholding Oregon's assisted-suicide law will boost their efforts to defend colleagues accused by the government of illegally prescribing narcotic painkillers to their patients.

With dozens of doctors, pharmacists and patients now in jail or awaiting imprisonment after being convicted of drug trafficking, the specialists and their attorneys say the Oregon ruling supports their contention that prosecutors have reached improperly into the state-regulated practice of medicine.

"The prosecutors have been making a policy argument in court against the treatment of chronic pain as it's being practiced, and this Supreme Court decision makes clear that is not their role," said Eli Stutsman, an Oregon attorney who represented a doctor and pharmacist in the assisted-suicide case. He is now arguing appeals for several convicted pain doctors.

"Before I was just a lawyer with a legal analysis before the courts, but now I have a decision of the highest court of the land," he said.

The question is, will that decision be followed, or will doctors continue to be prosecuted for following the best medical practices?

Radley Balko, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, a conservative Washington think tank, believes the government is being overly aggressive in prosecuting doctors, but he said he does not see the Supreme Court decision as a threat to the government's initiative against what it considers illegal prescribing.

"The justices carved out this little sphere of individual rights with the Oregon ruling, and I would hope that would migrate into the pain medication sphere," he said. "But I'm not all that optimistic because of other decisions they've made."

In particular, he noted, the court allowed the federal government authority to overrule state laws permitting the use of medical marijuana.

But John Flannery, attorney for a South Carolina doctor convicted in 2004 of illegally writing a handful of pain medication prescriptions after working at a pain center for only three months, said the decision has encouraged him about the prospects of an upcoming Supreme Court appeal of the case.

"The U.S. Supreme Court sent the Justice Department a powerful message, told them to back off, and to stop meddling in medical care in the states -- as it was none of their business," he said. "We can only hope that the courts don't stop with yesterday's decision, as there's more that the department's doing wrong -- terribly wrong."

The regulation of the practice of medicine is a state matter, not a federal one. The current federal proactice of prosecuting doctors for prescribing therapeutic dosages of medication is fundamentally wrong -- and hurts patients like my wife. The time has come for that practice to stop.

And I hope this decuision in the Oregon case brings such abuse of power to a sudden and permanent end.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

The Washington Post covers the dispute over when to start school -- an issue being faced in many parts of the country.

The pressures of federally mandated exams have pushed public schools here and in several other states to begin classes weeks earlier than usual to squeeze in more days of instruction before the critical tests, sometimes striking August entirely from vacation calendars and devoting the month, traditionally left open for childhood leisure, to class time.

But a widespread backlash, led by disgruntled parents organized into loosely affiliated Save Our Summers groups across the country, is underway.

Legislators in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Pennsylvania are weighing bills this year that would peg school start dates to Labor Day. North Carolina, Texas, Minnesota and Wisconsin passed similar measures in recent years.

The issue is one of the most controversial aspects in the debate over the exams used to comply with the No Child Left Behind law, leading to widening opposition and adding to the litany of complaints about the side effects of what critics call "high-stakes" testing.

Public schools here, for example, began classes at the beginning of August; essentially wiping out a month many had counted on for a spell of unhurried pleasure. Sherry Sturner, a mother of two in Miami-Dade County, had been looking forward to a family reunion up north and time at the swimming pool. But the new schedule did not accommodate them.

Now I won't waste my time teeing off on Mama Sherry, who seems to forget that there are two other entire months for her to spend at family reunions and lounging by poolside with the kids. Instead, I'll deal with the real issue -- the unreasonable expectations of parents and legislators on issues of school calendars and testing dates.

You see, the length of the school year has grown increasingly longer over the years. When I was a kid, the length of the school year was 170 days. Now it is 180 days here in Texas -- but parents and legislators still want us to fit everything into the same neat little "Labor Day to Memorial Day" package that existed when we were kids. The school year has lengthened as we have tried to increase standards in education, to reclaim the high rankings the US once had in academic performance.

And, of course, there is the issue of testing. If the state is going to tell us that we test in February (as we do here in Texas), then we want to get in the maximum number of days before testing, especially since promotion and placement decisions for students may be riding on test results which take weeks to be scored and returned by the state and its contractors.

But mostly it is a question of the number of available days for instruction, as well as certain cultural/traditional calendar issues, that give rise to early starts. This is especially true when districts wish to place semester exams before the Christmas holiday.

Let's look at this example of a school calendar, from what we will call "Generic Independent School District". It is typical of districts here in Texas.

This district already has a problem -- next year it needs to start in the week of August 21, given legislation passed in the last session of the Texas Legislature. I suppose that would not be too difficult to do. Eliminate the Staff Development Day on October 10, sending the kids to school on Veterans Day. Cut three days at Thanksgiving, giving kids only Thanksgiving and the day after -- I hope Grandma is only over the river and through the woods and not in another state or country. Push semester exams back a day, keeping the kids in school through December 16 -- teachers will just have to stay late to get their grades in before break, or perhaps finish on that January 2 Staff Development day. I guess that wasn't that hard.

But what about this idea that we should not start school until after Labor Day and be out by Memorial Day? How will we get the additional 10 instructional days? This is where it gets trickier -- for that involves taking 10 more days out of First Semester and finding days to replace them. That is impossible, as we have left only two non-instructional days after Labor Day and before Winter Break (which, for purposes of this discussion, cannot be touched -- imagine the parental uproar).

This new change already means that we are going to have to move some of First Semester into January. Kids will have one week of review followed by semester exams. To facilitate this, we need to eliminate the January 2 staff development day. That is one day out of the way, so we need nine more.

We have eleven possible days available. They are January 16 (MLK Day), February 13 (Presidents Day), March 6-10 (five days of Spring Break), April 14 (Good Friday), April 28 (Staff Development), May 25 & 26 (Thurdsay and Friday prior to Memorial Day).

Our first casualty has to be Spring Break. After all, it eliminates more than half of the deficit. Similarly, the two days in May are obvious choices, because they are just slack days before the Memorial Day deadline. We still need two days, so we must get rid of the Staff Development day in April (don't worry -- teachers will just do all of the eliminated days in August before the school year starts).

And so, we need just one more school day. Take your pick -- MLK Day, President's Day, or Good Friday (a likely high absentee day). Which do you get rid of? Do you offend blacks, Christians, or patriotic Americans? Personally, I'd get rid of MLK Day on the basis of its closeness to Christmas break, since it makes no sense to have a day off two weeks after a two-week break. But I doubt that any school board would have the testicular fortitude to stand by such a reasonable decision in the face of complaints from outraged black citizens. Similarly, I don't think that most Texas school boards would be willing to fight the battle over Good Friday -- especially given the financial hit that the district could take over the low attendance that day. So, we will eliminate Presidents Day.

What does that leave us? School starts on September 6, and students will attend every weekday until November 24. They will be back in session fro November 28-December 16, and then break for two weeks. School resumes on January 2, and the semester ends on January 13. Following MLK Day, school runs continuously until April 14, and from April 17 through May 26. Parents will, of course, complain that the lack of days off leaves their children tired and overworked, but what can be done? After all, they wanted that full three months off in the summer -- Memorial Day to Labor Day, just like when they were young. We cannot add days to the calendar.

So parents, legislators, tourism industry representatives and other interested individuals -- you have a choice. We must have kids in school at least 180 days (personally, I advocate more). The question is where to put those days. You can have a full three months of school vacation in the summer -- but if you get that, you will sacrifice those other days off you have come to expect during the year. If you take a count, the calendar I proposed had exactly fourteen weekdays off from Labor Day to Memorial Day -- and ten of them were during the Christmas season. Of the remaining four, two are customary vacation days at Thanksgiving, one is an ethnically sensitive national holiday and the other is part of a major religious celebration. That is not my choice -- it is yours. And it doesn't change my work schedule at all -- I will still have to report for Orientation and Staff Development during August, though perhaps a few days later.

But this calendar does something that those advocates do not realize -- it eliminates eight days of instruction before the TAKS test (February 21-23) and shifts them after TAKS. Does this help the students, or does it harm them? Does the elimination of a week-and-a-half of instructional time before the test make them more or less likely to pass? Given that students will be denied a diploma, retained a grade, or required to attend summer school or take remedial classes based upon their performance, I think it harms them. And like it or not, these tests -- and the consequences of low student performance -- are not going away any time soon.

You folks decide -- just tell me when and where I'll find a classroom full of kids with my name on their schedules and I will give them my all. I just hope you will give up the unrealistic dream of fitting a 180-day school year into a package designed for a 170-day (or shorter) school year.

UPDATE -- 1/24/06: Looks like the issue is rearing its head in Washington DC, where the School Board is debating an August 14 start date.

Posted by: Greg at 12:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1546 words, total size 9 kb.

You have to love the hypocrisy of the Islamofascist theocrats in Teheran that exists in this complaint directed at Jacques Chirac.

'The French president has increased ambiguities and fears by the world public opinion towards all world states possessing nuclear weapons,' foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi was quoted as saying by news agency ISNA.

The remarks made by Chirac on Thursday, in an outline of France's expanded nuclear strategy, were widely regarded as an indirect warning against Iran and its ambitions to expand its nuclear programmes.

'The bitter experience of use of nuclear weapons in the second World War has been so catastrophic that it could neither be acceptable nor justifiable to repeat even the probability of its use,' the spokesman said in a first reaction to Chirac's comments.

Assefi added that human beings' logic, religious beliefs and humanitarian values could in no way accept production and use of weapons of mass destruction.

So, Mr. Assefi, does that mean that your nation is prepared to dismantle it's nuclear weapon's program?

I didn't think so.

Posted by: Greg at 07:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

One would hope that a responsible author would reject a book plug from terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. Not William Blum.

Bin Laden said al Qaeda group was preparing more attacks in the United States but also told Americans, "It is useful for you to read the book 'The Rogue State.'"

"I was quite surprised and even shocked and amused when I found out what he'd said," Blum said on Friday in an interview with Reuters Television in his Washington apartment.

"I was glad. I knew it would help the book's sales and I was not bothered by who it was coming from.

"If he shares with me a deep dislike for the certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy, then I'm not going to spurn any endorsement of the book by him. I think it's good that he shares those views and I'm not turned off by that."

Not only that, but the hate-America crowd has rushed out to buy the book.

It has jumped to #30 from #209,000 on Amazon.com since the terroist leader endorsed the book during his latest threat to engage in terrorism in the United States.

Any question who the enemy is?

Posted by: Greg at 05:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

This bit broke yesterday on Drudge.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has learned Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) office is behind a last ditch effort to stop Judge Samuel A. AlitoÕs confirmation before next week's vote using a 2004 recusal request.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a complaint filed by H. Gerard Heimbecker of Upper Darby, PA accusing Alito of not properly listing the Heimbecker v. 555 Associates case in his Senate questionnaire.

Kennedy legal aide James Flug is behind the efforts to push this latest attack. The veteran aide has been criticized for Sen. Kennedy's misfires during the Alito hearing last week. Flug was reportedly behind the attacks Kennedy used against Alito related to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) and Vanguard recusal case.

In the 2004 case, Heimbecker not only filed a request for Alito to recuse himself but also the entire Third Circuit as well.

One Capital Aide aware the situation challenged Heimbecker's credibility. "The individual who filed this complaint is clearly a serial litigant. It will be interesting to see how far the Democrats will push this and what the mainstream media will make of it."

Now I'm not surprised to see Senator Kennedy (D-Who's You're Daddy?)engaged in more desperate attempts to smear a judge he disagrees with.What i am surprised about is his possible willingness to use a bizarre case like this one to do so.

A Delaware County retiree has filed a judicial-misconduct complaint claiming that Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. failed to disclose the man's case in his responses to a U.S. Senate questionnaire.

H. Gerard Heimbecker, 70, of Upper Darby, said Alito should have noted his efforts to have all the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges, including Alito, recuse themselves from hearing Heimbecker's appeal.

"Judge Alito holds himself and fellow judges above the law and the complainant beneath the law," Heimbecker wrote in the complaint filed Monday. The 3rd Circuit clerk's office docketed the case and said in a letter to Heimbecker that Alito had been given a copy of the complaint on Tuesday.

Heimbecker, a former fireman and sandwich-maker, describes himself as a conservative Catholic and lifelong Republican. He said Alito's alleged omission violates a rule requiring judges to avoid "impropriety and appearance of impropriety."

"He failed to be honest and totally truthful with the committee, for the reasons that he was protecting himself by not having to answer for his actions in covering up the actions of [another] judge," Heimbecker said yestserday.

Heimbecker is acting as his own lawyer in pursuing the complaint against Alito.

Sounds oh-so-serious -- until you look at the facts alleged in the case. This guy didn't just want Judge Alito from hearing his case -- he argued that the entire Third Circuit Court of Appeals was biased against him, and that NONE OF THE JUDGES should be allowed to hear his case.

Heimbecker wanted Alito and the other appeals judges to recuse themselves from presiding over one of a series of legal actions triggered when the landlord of his Bala Cynwyd sandwich shop did not renew his lease.

He asked the 3rd Circuit to recuse itself because of what he described as a witness' relation to a judge and because he claimed the panel was biased and prejudiced against him in not forcing another judge to step aside.

The landlord, 555 Associates, sued Heimbecker for malicious prosecution after he attempted to bring a private criminal complaint against it, said 555 lawyer Gerald E. Arth. The company won a default judgment in Montgomery County against Heimbecker, and he subsequently lost a lawsuit against it, its employees and others that eventually landed in federal court, Arth said.

"He was angry about what had happened in state court, and the resolution of that, and decided to file a lawsuit in federal court which had no merit, was dismissed," Arth said. "He's tried his hardest, I think, to claim that there was a grand conspiracy against him of lawyers, judges, insurance companies and everything else."

Heimbecker described it as "a case of arrogance. They're going to do what they want. I had the facts and the law and they disregarded all of it."

so what it appears we really have is an angry loser in a previous case seeking revenge. There appears to be no substance to his claim -- but since when does lack of substance (or truth) matter to Senator Kennedy (D-What bridge? What car? What dead girl?), who paid a college classmate to take a final for him and who tried to get his cousin to lie about Chappaquidick.

I personally agree with the White house spokesman about the complaint filed against Alito in this case.

"What this proves is that it's very easy in the United States, both to file suit and to file complaints," Schmidt said. "Every American has that right, no matter how frivolous it is."

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 5 kb.

It seems that there are those in maryland who are hell-bent on making sure than no one as unimportant as the citizens of Maryland get to have a voice on the definition of a fundamental societal institution.

First, a Maryland judge has struck down the traditional definition of marriage, claiming it is irrationally discriminatory.

In the long-awaited 20-page Maryland court ruling, Murdock took the position that banning same-sex marriage was no less discriminatory than outlawing interracial marriage, saying that "although traditions and values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory statutory classification."

In other words, a couple of thousand years of Western culture have no bearing on the laws of the state of Maryland.

Democrats are scrambling like cockroaches to avoid allowing the people a say on the issue -- they know it will hurt their party.

Even before the ruling yesterday, House Democrats took steps to try to prevent a constitutional ban from reaching a vote on the floor. House leaders made a technical change in procedural rules Thursday, over the objections of Republicans. Residual resentment from that move spilled into yesterday's floor session.

Minority Whip Anthony J. O'Donnell (R-Calvert) admonished his Democratic colleagues for what he said was an attempt to shield them from casting a tough vote in an election year. "We should not fear having a debate," he said.

Yesterday, House and Senate leaders met to discuss how to deal with the issue. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) and House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) have cast votes supporting the 1973 law against same-sex marriage.

But both also took the position that a constitutional amendment would be premature, because yesterday's ruling came from a single Circuit Court judge, not from the state's precedent-setting high court.

Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), who chairs the Senate committee that would have to approve an amendment for it to advance, said he saw no reason to act before the Court of Appeals has ruled. "One Circuit Court judge's opinion is not cause for amending the constitution," Frosh said.

Political strategists said Ehrlich and Democrats in the legislature probably have recognized the potential for a ballot initiative to provide the governor with a significant political edge as he seeks reelection. Republican political consultant Kevin Igoe said the ruling was like "waving a red flag at a bull" for Ehrlich's conservative base. If the issue appears on a ballot, he said, it would almost certainly drive up GOP turnout.

And since Maryland does not allow mere citizens to petition for an amendment to the state constitution, it is likely that the voice of the people will never be heard on this issue.

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

Personally, I think he and his fellow spies should be shot -- and I don't care that Israel is a putative ally of the United States.

A former Pentagon analyst was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison on Friday for passing U.S. defense information to two pro-Israel lobbyists and for sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat.

Lawrence Franklin, 59, who previously worked as an analyst in the office of the secretary of defense, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis. Franklin had pleaded guilty in October to sharing the information and also to illegally possessing classified documents.

Franklin had faced up to 25 years in prison. His sentence could still be reduced further because of his cooperation with the government which is still prosecuting a case against the two remaining defendants in the case -- former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.

Ellis said Franklin would not have to go to jail to start serving his sentence until he is finished cooperating.

Franklin is expected to testify against the two former AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. They have both pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to communicate national defense information provided by Franklin. Their trail is scheduled to begin on April 25.

Franklin did not make any statement at the sentencing but he said previously that he had never intended to harm the United States.

Federal prosecutor Kevin DiGregory urged Ellis to give a tough sentence since Franklin had knowingly disclosed classified information to unauthorized people.

"The danger of such unauthorized disclosure, when you disclose national defense information ... is that the United States government loses control of such information," he said.

When he pleaded guilty in October, Franklin said he disclosed the national defense information to the two AIPAC officials from early in 2002 through June 2004.

Franklin said he met with the political officer from the Israeli embassy at least nine times from August 2002 through June of last year and admitted he gave the officer classified information that he was unauthorized to receive.

And here I thought the Israelis had said that spying operations in the US were banned after Pollard was caught.

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, John in Carolina, Six24, Unpartisan, It Shines For All, Jurist
, News Blog.

Posted by: Greg at 03:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

He was always a part of my life.

I was born in California in the early 1960s, and so it is no surprise that the first politician whose name I knew was Ronald Reagan. He became our Governor around the time I as three-years old, and since my father was stationed in California for most of the late 1960s, I heard that name often. He was a giant of a man in the eyes of the boy I was.

Jump forward to the mid-1970s. I was a kid living on Guam. I remember listening to radio commentaries by Ronald Reagan. Twelv-years-old, and I looked forward to hearing that voice, talking common sense about the issues that faced our country. I knew he was right when he spoke of the evils of Communism, for I had watched the refugees from Vietnam flood my island home in the spring of 1975. I cried the day he went off the air, saddened by the loss of a friend and teacher.

My family returned to the US in the heat of the 1976 primary campaign. My parents, of course, were supporters of Ronald Reagan. I hoped and prayed that my hero, my mentor, would snatch the nomination from Gerald Ford. It was not to be. But four years later it would, and I was ready to work on my first campaign -- the campaign of my hero, Ronald Reagan. Reagan's triumph in the primaries, his nomination in Detroit, and his victory in November excited me like nothing before.

Two days remain linked forever in my mind. The first, twenty-five years ago, was Ronald Reagan's inauguration, and the flight to freedom of the hostages in Iran. I think that day set a tone for the future of the Reagan Administration -- the next eight years would be about a strong America and freedom for captives. The second is that awful day in March -- the man I admired wounded by an assassin but spared by the hand of God. If any of us had doubted that Ronald Reagan was marked for greatness, that day seemed to dispel all doubts. And it was eight years of greatness.

I will leave others to recount the deeds of Reagan as president. What mattered to me was the vision he set forth of America as a shining city on a hill, a beacon of freedom. What inspired me was the call to live out the heritage of liberty imparted by the Founders, and to spread that freedom abroad. It was his ability to move us to seek to do great things, and to comfort us in moments of tragedy, such as the Challenger explosion. In all of this, Ronald Reagan inspired us to be something better than what we were, and pushed us to move beyond ourselves. It is this vision that led me to become an active Republican, and to remain one.

And then came the day when my hero died. I wept for Ronald Reagan that day, and in the days that followed -- tears of joy that his suffering was done, and tears of loss that this man I loved was gone.

But is he? Or does he yet live in the dreams of those who hold fast to his vision?

Let us be faithful to that vision.

It can be morning in America again.

MY FIRST REAGAN POST

GREAT POSTS AT MIKE'S AMERICA

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 3 kb.

This must not stand! If you thought the Kelo decision was obscene, wait until you read this.

And it is happening literally just down the road from me -- I pass the property on a daily basis during the last leg of my drive home from work.

Man awarded $1 for 105 acres Port condemned

For years, Seabrook residents have said building the Bayport container facility north of town would hurt property values.

They might be surprised at how much one man got for his tract of land - $1 for 105 acres.

Pasadena land owner Glenn Seureau, II, thinks he was robbed of his by the Port of Houston Authority. He plans to continue an uphill battle with the Port until he is paid fair market value for the land.

One civil court judge, on the other hand, seems to think $1 is compensation enough for Seureau's land, located just north of Seabrook.

Seureau fought for nearly three years to protect his property, in his family for more than 150 years, from the Port's power of eminent domain, only to lose his case in May of last year in the court of Harris County Civil Court Judge Lynn Bradshaw-Hull.

The judge ruled that having paid Seureau $1, the Port now owns the fee simple title to the property. Seureau was also ordered to give back the Port's previous payment of more than $1.9 million at 5.75 percent interest and pay the Port's court costs at the same interest rate.

Seureau has appealed the ruling, and he and his attorneys are currently in negotiations with the Port.

Port officials declined to comment on the case, but confirmed that they are working with Seureau to reach an agreement.

The conflict began in September 2002, when a special commission held a hearing regarding the Port's request to condemn Seureau's land. Seureau did not attend the hearing, and the commission ordered the Port to pay him approximately $1.9 million for the property.

The Port deposited the funds into the registry of the court, taking constructive possession of the land, but Seureau refused to take the money or relinquish the title to the property.

"I didn't think (the Port) had the right to take the property," he said, adding that the Port's need for the land seems to be based on private rather than public interests.

The Port plans to build a portion of the Houston Cruise Terminal on the property.

Seureau also believes $1.9 million is less than the market value for the land, which he had planned to develop with multi-family residences.

He was later advised by an attorney that he did not have the right to contest eminent domain and withdrew the $1.9 million to pay for further appeals regarding the market value of his land.

The Port brought Seureau to Bradshaw-Hull's court on May 16, 2005 to obtain the fee simple title that Seureau had withheld until that point.

On May 17, the judge excluded the testimony of both Seureau and his only expert witness, Louis Smith, saying that neither man could provide evidence that was relevant or reliable regarding the market value of Seureau's land.

According to court documents, the judge's final ruling was based on a lack of evidence to support Seureau's argument.

Seureau also made a motion to exclude the testimony of one of the Port's expert witnesses, Matthew Deal. The court denied that motion.

Seureau, who lives in his 180-year-old family home next door to the recently condemned property, said that although he is not familiar with the judge's intentions, he sees Bradshaw-Hull's ruling as a "punishment" for trying to challenge the Port.

"I was forced to settle for less than market value," he said.

Bradshaw-Hull declined to comment on the case since it is on appeal.

So let's get this straight -- the judge allowed no testimony on the value of the land -- and then awarded an absurdly low value because there was no evidence in support of the land's value. Never mind that we know that the land was considered to be worth at least $1.9 million by the special commission. And she added insult to injury by ordering the victim of her obscene ruling to pay back all money he received with interest, plus legal fees to the publicly-owned Port -- which means he is paying the Port for the privilege of having his land stolen.

Notice, please, that this story is covered only by the local "tossed on the lawn" paper, not any of the major media like the Chronicle or the local television stations, despite teh outrageous nature of this ruling. They all made money hand over fist during the bond election a few years ago, as the Port spent tax money selling this expansion to the voters -- and it still runs propaganda ads about how great it is for the community. I guess they don't want to see that cash cow dry up.

Oh, and by the way, Judge Bradshaw-Hull (email here) is running for re-election on the GOP ballot.

But Bradshaw-Hull has competition from Linda Storey in the race for judge of Harris County Court at Law 3. Assuming she is qualified, I will likely give my endorsement her way.

Let us hope that this decision does not stand -- and that this judge is off the bench..

TRACKBACK TO: Stop the ACLU, Publius Rendevous, Caos Blog, Right Wing Nation, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Linkfest Haven, Bullwinkle Blog, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Point Five, Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, imagine kitty, Wizbang, Basil's Blog, Blogs For Bush

Posted by: Greg at 03:05 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 956 words, total size 7 kb.

That this individual's terrorist son was permitted to live after being involved in treason against the United States and the murder of a CIA operative (not the disclosure of a name of a US-based non-covert employee, but the actual murder of an agent in the field) was an offense against America that will stink forever in the annals of history.

Now the terrorist is seeking clemency after cutting a plea deal, and his father is claiming that he has been abused.

The father of an American jailed for fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan said on Thursday his son had been tortured and unjustly punished amid public hysteria over the September 11 attacks.

"The maltreatment and imprisonment of John Lindh was -- and is -- a human rights violation," Frank Lindh told the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. "It was based purely on an emotional response to the 9/11 attacks, not on an objective assessment of the facts of John's case."

A 24-year-old Californian dubbed the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh was captured in 2001 and jailed for 20 years under a plea deal. U.S. troops ousted the Taliban after they refused to hand over al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

At times fighting back tears, the father accused U.S. forces of torturing his son. He showed a photo of his son's body strapped to a stretcher at a military base in southern Afghanistan.

"I do not want to dwell today on the military's mistreatment of my son, but I will say categorically that he was treated in a way that is shameful to our nation and its ideals," said Lindh, an attorney at Pacific Gas & Electric.

"John Lindh did not need to be tortured to tell the American forces where he had been and what he had seen," the father said. "I cannot fathom why the military felt it necessary to humiliate him in this way."

Oh, dear, they had to restrain the little terrorist. Too damn bad.

And what is worse, this liberal lawyer wants to absolve his son from all guilt, despite the guilty plea.

After years of silence, the father of American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh called on President Bush on Thursday to grant clemency to his son, who he says was wrongly maligned as a traitor and murderer.

"In simple terms, this is the story of a decent and honorable young man embarked on a spiritual quest," said Frank Lindh, swallowing back tears at times during a speech at the Commonwealth Club, a nonprofit organization.

Frank Lindh said that although his son had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, they ended up adding dire consequences to his decision to join the Taliban, targeted by the U.S. after the 2001 attacks for harboring al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

Your son may have started out as a decent and honorable young man -- screwed up, no doubt, because of your abandonment of him and his mother to take up in a sexual relationship with another man -- but he ended up as a hateful member of a murderous group of backwards thugs. The honorable kid is dead, replaced by a terrorist. Sorry you cannot see that because of a father's love, but it is the truth.

Fortunately, there is another father who has a thing or two to say about the release of your vile spawn. He carries more weight with decent Americans than you do, you pathetic excuse for a man.

As passionately as Frank Lindh is advocating for his son's clemency, there is another father fighting just as hard to extend John Walker Lindh's sentence by getting him convicted of murder or treason.

Johnny Spann is the father of CIA officer Johnny Micheal "Mike" Spann, who was killed in a prison riot after being videotaped speaking with John Walker Lindh.

Johnny Spann is conducting his own investigation into the origins of the riot at the Mazar-e-Sharif prison, where suspected Taliban supporters were held. Spann contends that the uprising began with a planned grenade attack inside the prison building rather than a spontaneous scuffle outside where his son was interviewing prisoners, including Lindh.

I wish Mr. Spann well in his endeavor, and look forward to the day that Lindh is executed for his crimes, like the diseased swine he is.

Posted by: Greg at 02:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 732 words, total size 5 kb.

It seems that deviation from the party line will get you heaped with personal abuse and hate speech by the Left, even if you are a relaible liberal working for a thoroughly liberal part of the MSM like the Washington Post.

As a result, the Post has had to shut down comments on one of its blogs in the face of a seemingly coordinated assault upon its ombudsman based upon a technically erroneous statement in her Sunday column -- and a demonstably true and accurate correction today on the blog.

Jim Brady, the executive editor at washingtonpost.com, notified users of the post.blog that the public comment feature had been suspended "indefinitely" after "a significant number of folks" posted personal attacks, profanity, and hate speech.

Attempts by E&P to reach Brady have been unsuccessful so far. It seems likely the move is related to controversy in recent days over SundayÂ’s Post column by ombudsman Deobrah Howell. She has been heavily criticized by some political Web sites and bloggers for writing that indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both political parties, when most research shows he only gave directly to Republicans.

In response to the Post shutoff, bloggers critical of Howell quickly directed users to another blog that allows comments at the Post site, and dozens of comments ripping the paper for its latest move soon appeared there. Another blog published the Howell-related comments that had been deleted by the Post. A typical one concerning Howell reads: "She doesn't get the benefit of the doubt regarding her honesty. The Post ought to be ashamed of the way she is doing her job."

Just two days ago, Hal Straus, opinions editor at the Post's site, revealed that it was experiencing technical problems because of the more than 700 comments received concerning Howell's column. He said the Post had tried to remove about a dozen comment "that failed to make a substantive pointand were simply personal attacks on Howell and others."

Then, this morning, Howell responded at the Post’s blog, explaining that she had heard from “lots of angry readers” and wished that she had written that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties, adding: “While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

“Records from the Federal Elections Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff’s Indian clients contributed between 1999 and 2004 to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats. The Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts.”

This explanation, in turn, drew an immense and sometimes nasty response to the comments section today, with some critics pointing out flaws in her reasoning and comparisons. A few hours later, Brady announced the blog comment turnoff, without explaining exactly why.

Funny, isn't it, that the Left calls conservatives fascists and terrorists while acting the part themselves?

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage worldwide if a group of Christians did this to a group of Muslims trying to open a mosque?

At least 12 people were injured in clashes in Upper Egypt when a group of Muslims attempted to stop Christians converting a house into a church.

Security officials said the Muslims set fire to building materials for the building in Odaysat, near Luxor.

Several members of both communities were reported injured in the subsequent clashes, as well as two policemen.

It is the latest in a series of violent sectarian incidents in Egypt in the past few months.
A security source quoted by Reuters said the Christians did not have official permission to build the church.

Police arrested 10 young men and the owners of the house, reports say.
Correspondents say curbs on building churches have been one of the main grievances among Copts, although these restrictions have been eased recently by presidential decree.

The Coptic Christian community is believed to make up 10% percent of Egypt's population of about 70 million.

It doesnÂ’t say, but typical Egyptian practice would be to arrest only the Christians, whose right to assemble, worship, and open or repair churches remains sharply limited.

Maybe those of us in the civilized world should impose similar restrictions on Muslim freedom until the Muslim world grants basic human rights to Christians. After all, what would they do -- declare jihad and start a worldwide campaign of terrorism? Oh, that's right -- they already did that, despite having more freedom in our society than they have in their own.

MORE AT: Free Copts

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Just when you think the media cannot get any weirder, AP hands us this one. Read that caption.

And you wonder why so many of us consider the MSM to be anti-American.

From Little Green Footballs via Michelle Malkin.

MORE AT Macsmind, Six24, FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog, Below The Beltway, Noisy Room, The Kevin Show.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

First, let me say that I would whole-heartedly support such a course of action (and think we should have nuked Tora Bora).

Second, let me say that IÂ’m shocked to hear it coming from France, of all countries.

France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.

Deflecting criticism of France’s costly nuclear arms programme, President Jacques Chirac said security came at a price and France must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state’s centres of power and its “capacity to act”.

He said there was no change in FranceÂ’s overall policy, which rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict. But his speech pointed to a change of emphasis to underline the growing threat France perceives from terrorism.

“The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part,” Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in northwestern France.

“This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind.” Chirac, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, said all of France’s nuclear forces had been configured with the new strategy in mind and the number of nuclear warheads on French nuclear submarines had been reduced to allow targeted strikes.

I’m just curious – wouldn’t the world community have a hissy-fit if President Bush announced the same policy?

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Excuse me, folks -- do the children do the grocery shopping in your house? If not, then you chose to buy them this stuff.

Advocacy groups and parents are suing the Nickelodeon TV network and cereal maker Kellogg Co. in an effort to stop junk food marketing to kids.

The plaintiffs are citing a recent report documenting the influence of marketing on what children eat. Ads aimed at kids are mostly for high-calorie, low-nutrition food and drinks, according to the government-chartered Institute of Medicine.

Wakefield, Mass., mother Sherri Carlson said she tries her best to get her three kids to eat healthy foods.

"But then they turn on Nickelodeon and see all those enticing junk-food ads," Carlson said. "Adding insult to injury, we enter the grocery store and see our beloved Nick characters plastered on all those junky snacks and cereals."

Carlson and another plaintiff, Andrew Leong of Brookline, Mass., spoke at a news conference organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

They intend to sue Kellogg and Nickelodeon parent Viacom Inc. in state court in Massachusetts and served the required 30 days' notice on Wednesday.

"For over 30 years, public health advocates have urged companies to stop marketing junk food to children," said Susan Linn of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "Even as rates of childhood obesity have soared, neither Viacom nor Kellogg has listened."

And the companies are not required to listen. They are using legal methods to market legal products.

The problem is that the parents in this case either cannot or will not act in the role of parents. Instead, they buy what the kids demand and allow them to consume it in the quantities they want. Whatever happened to the days of parental authority? Whatever happened to kids being told “No”?

Dismiss the suit and fine the litigants and their lawyers for filing this frivolous suit.

Oh, and revoke their parental rights.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Excuse me, folks -- do the children do the grocery shopping in your house? If not, then you chose to buy them this stuff.

Advocacy groups and parents are suing the Nickelodeon TV network and cereal maker Kellogg Co. in an effort to stop junk food marketing to kids.

The plaintiffs are citing a recent report documenting the influence of marketing on what children eat. Ads aimed at kids are mostly for high-calorie, low-nutrition food and drinks, according to the government-chartered Institute of Medicine.

Wakefield, Mass., mother Sherri Carlson said she tries her best to get her three kids to eat healthy foods.

"But then they turn on Nickelodeon and see all those enticing junk-food ads," Carlson said. "Adding insult to injury, we enter the grocery store and see our beloved Nick characters plastered on all those junky snacks and cereals."

Carlson and another plaintiff, Andrew Leong of Brookline, Mass., spoke at a news conference organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

They intend to sue Kellogg and Nickelodeon parent Viacom Inc. in state court in Massachusetts and served the required 30 days' notice on Wednesday.

"For over 30 years, public health advocates have urged companies to stop marketing junk food to children," said Susan Linn of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "Even as rates of childhood obesity have soared, neither Viacom nor Kellogg has listened."

And the companies are not required to listen. They are using legal methods to market legal products.

The problem is that the parents in this case either cannot or will not act in the role of parents. Instead, they buy what the kids demand and allow them to consume it in the quantities they want. Whatever happened to the days of parental authority? Whatever happened to kids being told “No”?

Dismiss the suit and fine the litigants and their lawyers for filing this frivolous suit.

Oh, and revoke their parental rights.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

A belated post for the January 6th results:

Council links
Winner: Let Me Tell You Something, President Bush -- Gates of Vienna

Runner Up: How MSNBC's Craig Crawford Saved My Day -- Right Wing Nut House

Non-council link
To Speak or Not To Speak: Coming Out As a Neocon -- Neo-neocon

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquidick) may have concealed a child for the last couple of decades.

The National Enquirer splashes this week with a shocking story about Sen. Ted KennedyÂ’s secret love child with a Cape Cod woman whom the mag says he dated during his days as a swinging single.

According to the tabloid’s source, the boy, named Christopher, just celebrated his 21st birthday and is “mature enough to make his own choices about his background and biological father.”

A Kennedy family confidante told the Enquirer, “This is one of the biggest secrets in the Kennedy family and known to only a few people including Ted’s ex-wife, Joan.”

As for the senator, his spokesgal Melissa Wagoner last night called the tabloid tale “irresponsible fiction.”

Here’s the story according to the Enquirer: Back in 1983, Kennedy, then 51, took up with Caroline Bilodeau, an attractive brunette, several months before divorcing Joan, the mother of his three kids — Kara, Ted Jr. and Patrick.

The relationship seems to have ended with the announcement of the pregnancy and Ms. Bilodeau decided to have the baby.

“Caroline announced to the family that she was two months pregnant around May 1984,” blabbed a Bilodeau confidante. “Ted was not happy about the news. He already had three kids with Joan and knew a baby out of wedlock could hurt him politically.”

According to the Enquirer, the scandal-scarred senator begged Bilodeau to have an abortion, but she refused.

“He told her he couldn’t undergo another scandal — not after Chappaquiddick, not so close to his divorce from Joan” said the source. “He was very angry when she defied him and had the child.”

Imagine that -- St. Teddy of the Sacred Precedent of Roe v. Wade dumped his pregnant girlfriend because she exercised her right to choose! heck, he tried to coerce an abortion for his own political advantage!

I guess the possibility of taking responsibility for his child, stepping up and being an active father never entered into the picture for the old horn-dog

But then again, maybe the young man is better off for not having been exposed to the corrupting influence that is Teddy Kennedy.

MORE FROM Lifelike Pundits, Pardon My English, Hub Politics, Matt Margolis, Mitchieville, Ace of Spades, Wizbang.

Posted by: Greg at 05:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.

Not really, when you consider how many of the major liberal precedents of recent decades overturned long-standing precedents.

Part of the answer, of course, is that the left's commitment to stare decisis is selective. Many of the Supreme Court's iconic liberal decisions overruled prior case law. Brown v. Board of Education (1954), overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896); Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which established the constitutional right to a free public defender in felony cases, overruled Betts v. Brady (1942); Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which applied the exclusionary rule to state court prosecutions, overruled Wolf v. Colorado (1949); and so on. Nor need we reach far back into history for such instances. Just two years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court found a constitutional right to perform acts of homosexual sodomy, thereby overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, which itself was no historical relic, having been decided in 1986. Yet none of the liberals who now wax eloquent about stare decisis criticized Lawrence's violation of that principle.

It would be easy to ridicule liberalism's inconsistent attachment to stare decisis as opportunistic. Nor is it hard to find a straightforward political motive. In a narrow partisan sense, it makes sense for liberals to emphasize attachment to precedent when confirming conservative nominees, since the best they can expect from such nominees is a holding action. One day, when a Democratic president is appointing liberal justices, we'll no doubt see more emphasis on the "living Constitution."

Still, something deeper may be involved as well. When liberals talk about a "living Constitution," what they really mean is a leftward-marching Constitution. Liberals--especially those of an age to be senators--have spent most of their lives secure in the conviction that history was moving their way. History meant progress, and progress meant progressive politics. In judicial terms, that implied a one-way ratchet: "conservative" precedents can and should be overturned, while decisions that embody liberal principles are sacrosanct. To liberals, that probably seemed more like inevitability than inconsistency.

Over the last 25 years, however, the ground has shifted. History stopped moving inexorably to the left and began to reverse course. The conservative movement achieved electoral success under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. It took a while longer for the conservative trend to reach the judiciary, but it's no coincidence that a number of conservative federal judges, including John Roberts and Sam Alito, got their start in Reagan's White House or Justice Department. Now, 20 later, they are eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court.

Now this may look like a call for activism on the part of judges. To the degree that it is, I condemn it. However, as I read HinderakerÂ’s commentary, it is more of an attack upon the theory that the Constitution is a living and evolving document. After all, such evolution provides for no stability whatsoever.

What we need is a steady course marked by a respect for the original principles which underlie the Constitution. As such, that may mean taking a liberal approach in one area, and a more conservative approach elsewhere. Indeed, a group of honest judges dedicated to the proposition that the Constitution means what it says as intended by its authors may require that some lofty liberal precedents be left undisturbed (such as Brown, which overruled the foul and false Plessy precedent) due to their unambiguous correctness, others (Roe and Lawrence chief among them) rightly deserve no less than a stake through the heart so that matters best left to legislative deliberation might be returned to their proper sphere.

What we ultimately need is not blind respect for precedent. We need respect for and fidelity to the Constitution itself.

TRACKBACK TO: Stop the ACLU, Publius Rendevous, Caos Blog, Right Wing Nation, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Linkfest Haven, Bullwinkle Blog, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Point Five, Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, imagine kittyWizbang, Basil's Blog">.

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 6 kb.