January 18, 2006
But now they’ve gone further – they have even cut off email access to all but those willing to pay for the privilege of communicating with their columnists.
The Times is refusing to allow email from non-subscribers to its star columnists. That’s right, you have to pay in order to be able to respond directly to the bloviators. Editor & Publisher reports:
If you haven’t signed up for TimesSelect, The New York Times’ online subscription product, don’t bother e-mailing the paper’s star columnists.Since the Times put the words of its eight Op-Ed columnists behind a paid wall last September, it has also decided that only TimesSelect subscribers should be allowed to e-mail Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, et al.
Back in September the Times asked the hundreds of papers who publish the Op-Ed contributors through The New York Times News Service (NYTNS) to stop printing the writers’ e-mail addresses with the columns (and to take the columns off their Web sites, too). Apparently not everyone got the message, because last week the Times’ syndication service sent out an advisory reminding its client papers to remove the e-mail addresses.
“If you are not a TimesSelect subscriber you won’t have access to that e-mail functionality,†Times spokesman Toby Usnik confirmed Tuesday. “It centralizes [the columnists’ e-mails] around the TimesSelect site.â€
But instead of being able to put an address in a mail program and firing it off at your leisure, TimesSelect subscribers now have to fill out an online form similar to the generic feedback forms found on many Web sites.
The free exchange of ideas seems oddly frightening to the Old Grey Lady these days. Considering the ideas they are peddling, that’s actually quite understandable.
Why would anyone really want to write to Maureen Dowd, anyway?
Posted by: Greg at
01:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.
But now they’ve gone further – they have even cut off email access to all but those willing to pay for the privilege of communicating with their columnists.
The Times is refusing to allow email from non-subscribers to its star columnists. ThatÂ’s right, you have to pay in order to be able to respond directly to the bloviators. Editor & Publisher reports:
If you havenÂ’t signed up for TimesSelect, The New York TimesÂ’ online subscription product, donÂ’t bother e-mailing the paperÂ’s star columnists.Since the Times put the words of its eight Op-Ed columnists behind a paid wall last September, it has also decided that only TimesSelect subscribers should be allowed to e-mail Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, et al.
Back in September the Times asked the hundreds of papers who publish the Op-Ed contributors through The New York Times News Service (NYTNS) to stop printing the writersÂ’ e-mail addresses with the columns (and to take the columns off their Web sites, too). Apparently not everyone got the message, because last week the TimesÂ’ syndication service sent out an advisory reminding its client papers to remove the e-mail addresses.
“If you are not a TimesSelect subscriber you won’t have access to that e-mail functionality,” Times spokesman Toby Usnik confirmed Tuesday. “It centralizes [the columnists’ e-mails] around the TimesSelect site.”
But instead of being able to put an address in a mail program and firing it off at your leisure, TimesSelect subscribers now have to fill out an online form similar to the generic feedback forms found on many Web sites.
The free exchange of ideas seems oddly frightening to the Old Grey Lady these days. Considering the ideas they are peddling, thatÂ’s actually quite understandable.
Why would anyone really want to write to Maureen Dowd, anyway?
Posted by: Greg at
01:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.
A Monroe man suspected of being a member of a radical environmental group was charged Tuesday in a federal court in California with plotting to blow up a U.S. Forest Service facility where genetic research is conducted.Zachary Jenson, 20, and co-defendants Eric McDavid, 28, of Foresthill, Calif., and Lauren Weiner, 20, of Philadelphia, made their first court appearances in U.S. District Court in Sacramento on Tuesday, said Patty Pontello, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California. The three, who are suspected members of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), are being held in the Sacramento County Jail pending detention hearings next week, Pontello said.
The three were charged with conspiracy to use fire or explosives to damage property, and also may have been planning to bomb a power plant, a cellphone tower and a fish hatchery, according to the FBI affidavit filed in the case. If convicted, they each face prison sentences of five to 20 years, Pontello said.
Lock 'em up and throw away the key.
Posted by: Greg at
01:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.
Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Columbus Dispatch: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."
Let me offer you a hint, you moron – Christian conservatives are not flying airplanes into buildings, strapping on suicide bombs, or killing your former comrades in the military (who it appears are lucky to be rid of you – you obviously got a Section 8 discharge).
Similarly, he declares most of his state’s voters to be un-American.
Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American."If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American," Hackett said.
Well, Paul, it is clear that you are outside the mainstream of American values. But your goofy comments put you right in line with Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, and the rest of the moonbat wing of the Democrat Party. America rejects you – just as it has rejected your party.
Posted by: Greg at
01:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.
Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Columbus Dispatch: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."
Let me offer you a hint, you moron – Christian conservatives are not flying airplanes into buildings, strapping on suicide bombs, or killing your former comrades in the military (who it appears are lucky to be rid of you – you obviously got a Section 8 discharge).
Similarly, he declares most of his stateÂ’s voters to be un-American.
Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American."If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American," Hackett said.
Well, Paul, it is clear that you are outside the mainstream of American values. But your goofy comments put you right in line with Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, and the rest of the moonbat wing of the Democrat Party. America rejects you – just as it has rejected your party.
Posted by: Greg at
01:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.
The Community of Faith for Economic Empowerment "is right on the front lines providing crisis assistance to supplement rental payments for dislocated families and emergency food and clothing assistance," the recent CBCF statement issued sometime after Jan. 4, explained.However, COFFEE was established "to implement" the New Orleans "With Ownership Wealth Initiative" (WOW), according to the COFFEE website, and the WOW program was launched by Rep. Jefferson in 2002.
COFFEE's links to Jefferson are so close that the chairman of its board of directors, Rev. Zebadee Bridges, was at the center of a controversy involving Jefferson and the so-called separation of church and state in 1999. Bridges reportedly used his pulpit at the Asia Baptist Church in New Orleans to endorse Jefferson for Louisiana governor and to encourage congregants to contribute to Jefferson's campaign.
In heading both the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which claims to have distributed the $290,000 and the WOW program, which is closely connected with the group (COFFEE) that received the funds, Jefferson has opened himself up to accusations of conflict of interest.
And since one of his aides recently entered a guilty plea and implicated Jefferson in criminal activity in seeking bribes, I would not be surprised to find that the Democrat culture of corruption that exists in Louisiana isn’t at work here.
Posted by: Greg at
01:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
The Community of Faith for Economic Empowerment "is right on the front lines providing crisis assistance to supplement rental payments for dislocated families and emergency food and clothing assistance," the recent CBCF statement issued sometime after Jan. 4, explained.However, COFFEE was established "to implement" the New Orleans "With Ownership Wealth Initiative" (WOW), according to the COFFEE website, and the WOW program was launched by Rep. Jefferson in 2002.
COFFEE's links to Jefferson are so close that the chairman of its board of directors, Rev. Zebadee Bridges, was at the center of a controversy involving Jefferson and the so-called separation of church and state in 1999. Bridges reportedly used his pulpit at the Asia Baptist Church in New Orleans to endorse Jefferson for Louisiana governor and to encourage congregants to contribute to Jefferson's campaign.
In heading both the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which claims to have distributed the $290,000 and the WOW program, which is closely connected with the group (COFFEE) that received the funds, Jefferson has opened himself up to accusations of conflict of interest.
And since one of his aides recently entered a guilty plea and implicated Jefferson in criminal activity in seeking bribes, I would not be surprised to find that the Democrat culture of corruption that exists in Louisiana isnÂ’t at work here.
Posted by: Greg at
01:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.
A man sentenced to church instead of jail attended services with a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation last weekend and says he'll be back for more.Brett Haines told a judge Tuesday that he attended the service as part of his sentence for a disorderly conduct conviction. He was accused of using racial slurs and threatening a cab driver Nov. 26 in Newtown.
Hamilton County Municipal Judge William Mallory gave Haines a choice between 30 days in jail or attending services at a predominantly black church for six consecutive Sundays.
The judge said he hoped the experience would broaden Haines' cultural awareness and make him more tolerant of minorities.
I could see doing this if he had vandalized the church, but going to “black churches” in lieu of jail does not relate to the crime here.
Prosecutors say Haines, 36, was arrested after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife. They say the intoxicated Haines threatened to punch Wilson, used racial slurs and said he hated black people.
This does raise a First Amendment issue in my mind.
Posted by: Greg at
01:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.
The best thing Ray Nagin could do for New Orleans would be to announce he's withdrawing from the mayor's race. Instead, he makes racist appeals and then pretends he didn't mean what he said. When asked about his comments by a local reporter Nagin said, "Do you know anything about chocolate? How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That's the chocolate I'm talking about." Yes, and vanilla comes from a brown bean, but no one would believe that a mayor who talked about making sure his city stayed "vanilla" was promoting racial integration.
Sit down, Ray, shut up, and let someone competent be mayor.
Posted by: Greg at
01:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
The best thing Ray Nagin could do for New Orleans would be to announce he's withdrawing from the mayor's race. Instead, he makes racist appeals and then pretends he didn't mean what he said. When asked about his comments by a local reporter Nagin said, "Do you know anything about chocolate? How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That's the chocolate I'm talking about." Yes, and vanilla comes from a brown bean, but no one would believe that a mayor who talked about making sure his city stayed "vanilla" was promoting racial integration.
Sit down, Ray, shut up, and let someone competent be mayor.
Posted by: Greg at
01:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
Gene and his wife were inside a flea market on North Lewis Saturday when two people walked inside and began asking about prices. Gene turned away for a moment, and then was body-slammed to the ground. "I was on my side and rolled over to my back and this young man was in my face saying give me all the money, I'm going to kill you and on and on and all I could think was I’m about to die and so is my wife."In that instant, instinct and military training took over and Gene pulled his gun from his waistband and started shooting. Several of his shots missed the robber and landed in the wall, but then, he noticed some blood drops. He thought he'd nicked the robber, it wasn't until later, he learned, the robber died. “It's a horrible thing that this young man lost his life. And, we say young man, but he was 6-feet-2 and was 200 pounds of young man muscle. He made a decision that ultimately cost him dearly. I'm sorry I had to hurt him, but I don't regret it."
I’m sorry, I find nothing horrible here – a rabid animal was put down to protect human life. As far as I’m concerned, Gene has nothing to regret – and should probably bill the robber’s estate for damages to the store and lost revenue for the time the store was closed.
And lest you think that Gene overreacted, consider this.
Gene says he didn't want to end up like the woman who was recently beaten to death after being robbed of her laundry money or the man who was shot and killed because he didn't have as much money as the robber wanted.The flea market has been robbed before. The owner of the store had been robbed and beaten just a few months earlier. The previous owner had been robbed and pistol-whipped. Not even adding security cameras was a deterrent.
Gene doesn't believe this incident will deter other teenage robbers very long, and he's thankful for a law that allowed him to protect his own life and that of his wife.
If a few more citizens stand up and act like free individuals rather than sheep, I think teenage robbers will be deterred. Word will get around that there is a serious price to be paid for committing armed acts of violence against armed citizens.
Posted by: Greg at
01:50 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.
A fledgling alumni group headed by a former campus Republican leader is offering students payments of up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies.The year-old Bruin Alumni Assn. says its "Exposing UCLA's Radical Professors" initiative takes aim at faculty "actively proselytizing their extreme views in the classroom, whether or not the commentary is relevant to the class topic." Although the group says it is concerned about radical professors of any political stripe, it has named an initial "Dirty 30" of teachers it identifies with left-wing or liberal causes.
Some of the instructors mentioned accuse the association of conducting a witch hunt that threatens to harm the teaching atmosphere, and at least one of the group's advisory board members has resigned because he considers the bounty offers inappropriate. The university said it will warn the association that selling copies of professors' lectures would violate campus rules and raise copyright issues.
I don’t have a problem with documenting who is “abusive, one-sided, or off-topic”. I do have a problem with issuing a hit-list before beginning the process of documenting the problems. And I’ve got an even bigger problem with the payments being made to students for turning over notes and tapes. There is just something unsavory about it – and it undercuts the notion that the students making the reports are acting as whistleblowers rather than ideologically-motivated mercenaries.
I urge the Bruin Alumni Association to rethink their methods.
Posted by: Greg at
01:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.
Kevin Cooper is an inmate on California's death row who escaped execution on Feb. 9, 2004, when the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a last-minute stay to retest evidence. This evidence withstood that retesting, and other defense arguments have been since shot down in federal district court. The appeals process on those findings is now working its way through the courts, and the earliest he may face execution again--if appeals go in favor of the state--may be late this year.His case has slipped into the background lately as death-penalty foes stole the airways in hopes of clemency for Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Yet the two murderers share many of the same supporters. As the "Save Tookie" campaign gathered thousands of signatures petitioning for the quadruple killer's clemency, the "Save Kevin Cooper" Web site has been championing his cause and featuring his writings.
Cooper's case is one in which it's hard to imagine anyone jumping on his bandwagon. He was an inmate at the California Institution for Men in Chino, serving time for burglary, when he escaped on June 2, 1983. Two days later he broke into the Chino Hills home of the Ryen family as they were sleeping and killed the parents, Douglas and Peggy, along with 10-year-old Jessica Ryen and 11-year-old Christopher Hughes, a friend of Joshua Ryen, who was the only family member to survive. "The first time I met Kevin Cooper I was 8 years old and he slit my throat," Joshua Ryen testified at an April 22 hearing in U.S. District Court in San Diego. "He hit me with a hatchet and put a hole in my skull. . . . I laid there 11 hours looking at my mother who was right beside me."
But Cooper does not lack supporters: the likes of Jesse Jackson, Mike Farrell, Richard Dreyfuss, Sean Penn and Denzel Washington have come to his defense. One would think that appropriate monikers for Cooper would have career-sensitive celebrities running for the hills: Ax murderer. Child killer. Mass murderer.
I’ve highlighted the testimony of Joshua Ryen, who is now in his 30s, to show you the evil of this stone-cold killer. But that doesn’t keep the usual suspects from coming to the aid of Kevin Cooper.
But they skipped the execution that California held the other night. They had the Golden Globes and MLK celebrations to attend.
And besides – the state of California was only executing a white man, not a fine, upstanding example of black manhood like Tookie Williams or Kevin Cooper.
Posted by: Greg at
01:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.
Kevin Cooper is an inmate on California's death row who escaped execution on Feb. 9, 2004, when the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a last-minute stay to retest evidence. This evidence withstood that retesting, and other defense arguments have been since shot down in federal district court. The appeals process on those findings is now working its way through the courts, and the earliest he may face execution again--if appeals go in favor of the state--may be late this year.His case has slipped into the background lately as death-penalty foes stole the airways in hopes of clemency for Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Yet the two murderers share many of the same supporters. As the "Save Tookie" campaign gathered thousands of signatures petitioning for the quadruple killer's clemency, the "Save Kevin Cooper" Web site has been championing his cause and featuring his writings.
Cooper's case is one in which it's hard to imagine anyone jumping on his bandwagon. He was an inmate at the California Institution for Men in Chino, serving time for burglary, when he escaped on June 2, 1983. Two days later he broke into the Chino Hills home of the Ryen family as they were sleeping and killed the parents, Douglas and Peggy, along with 10-year-old Jessica Ryen and 11-year-old Christopher Hughes, a friend of Joshua Ryen, who was the only family member to survive. "The first time I met Kevin Cooper I was 8 years old and he slit my throat," Joshua Ryen testified at an April 22 hearing in U.S. District Court in San Diego. "He hit me with a hatchet and put a hole in my skull. . . . I laid there 11 hours looking at my mother who was right beside me."
But Cooper does not lack supporters: the likes of Jesse Jackson, Mike Farrell, Richard Dreyfuss, Sean Penn and Denzel Washington have come to his defense. One would think that appropriate monikers for Cooper would have career-sensitive celebrities running for the hills: Ax murderer. Child killer. Mass murderer.
IÂ’ve highlighted the testimony of Joshua Ryen, who is now in his 30s, to show you the evil of this stone-cold killer. But that doesnÂ’t keep the usual suspects from coming to the aid of Kevin Cooper.
But they skipped the execution that California held the other night. They had the Golden Globes and MLK celebrations to attend.
And besides – the state of California was only executing a white man, not a fine, upstanding example of black manhood like Tookie Williams or Kevin Cooper.
Posted by: Greg at
01:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.
January 17, 2006
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. expressed doubts yesterday about legal restrictions on political ads by outside groups as the Supreme Court took up a new challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.Questioning Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who was defending the law, Chief Justice Roberts raised a hypothetical case in which a group runs an issue ad every month. Does the ad, he asked, become illegal in the months before an election?
Mr. Clement responded that such a group could continue to run the ads if it used political action committee money to pay for them, or if it refrained from identifying a candidate by name.
But Justice Antonin Scalia said that would undercut the purpose of the ad, adding, "The point of an issue ad is to put pressure on an incumbent you want to vote your way."
At issue is a provision banning the use of corporate or union money for ads that identify federal candidates two months before a general election. The case involves a lawsuit by Wisconsin Right to Life, which was barred from broadcasting ads that mentioned Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, during his 2004 re-election campaign.
In the first challenge to how the law was working in practice, the group in 2004 sought an injunction barring the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the provision against it. But the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia denied the request. A month later, then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist declined the group's request to intervene.
Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the fact that the ad also mentioned the state's other senator -- Democrat Herb Kohl, who was not up for re-election that year -- buttressed the group's argument that the ad was meant to influence legislation, not the election.
Now, if the members of the High Court will only consider the meaning of the words "Congress shall make no law" at the beginning of the First Amendment, it may be that we will see some movement towards the sort of restrictions on political speech that the Founders would have accepted -- namely NONE.
Posted by: Greg at
11:22 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.
That is what federal courts have held consistently.
They are right, and we should resist any altruistic impulse to place a “right to an education” in the Constitution, as proposed by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. While his heart may be in the right place, he clearly hasn’t considered the implications of his proposal.
In an attempt to better achieve the ideal of genuine equal opportunity, I've proposed an education amendment to the Constitution. It says: (1) All persons shall enjoy the right to a public education of equal high quality; and (2) The Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.
Speaking as a teacher, I have to shout out my opposition.
First, it is vague. Up to what age are individuals entitled to a public education? Up to what level of educational attainment? Are we talking about education through grade 12 for those under the age of 21, as currently exists in most states? Or are we talking a right to education through a bachelorÂ’s degree? Or does that right go on through a Ph.D. and beyond? There is absolutely nothing there that answers the question, or which constrains some judge somewhere from decreeing that the individual right to education extends throughout an individualÂ’s entire lifespan.
Secondly, this proposal is a major expansion of federal power. It effectively destroys state and local control over education and federalizes it. Will federal funds accompany the federal mandates? Or will the state and local education authorities be expected to do the heavy lifting of funding the dictates of the federal government? It seems clear that there will be mandatory higher taxes on all Americans to fund this power grab, while the local schools will be less answerable to the local community.
Third, there is the question of the status of private and home schools. Will this amendment result in the end of such alternative educational programs? We do know that private schools and home schools generally adhere to higher standards than public schools, and that the students enrolled in such programs generally do better on standardized assessments than their publicly schooled peers. Why exclude the most effective educational programs from federal funding? That cannot be justified on any legitimate educational basis – and isn’t the goal here to ensure a high quality education for all children?
Lastly, there comes the question of school discipline. Once the right to an education is constitutionalized, it will be unconstitutional to remove a disruptive student from a school. After all, they have a right to that education, and a right to be at that school. Expulsion as a means of dealing with major disciplinary infractions will be gone. So, too, will be suspension, for that will also be a denial of the studentÂ’s right to an education. Will there be any disciplinary tools left to those of us on the frontlines of education around the country, or will the right of a particular student, no matter how disruptive or dangerous, to attend school trump the right of every other student in the school to be safe and to learn?
None of this is meant to say that education is unimportant. As a teacher, I would have to argue exactly the opposite. But expanding the sphere of federal power with an unlimited mandate for expenditures and no clear limits on the extent of this new right is not the solution.
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
Posted by: Greg at
12:50 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 5 kb.
The five year suspension that the former (thanks be to God) agreed to in lieu of prosecution for his perjurious statements will end this week.
After five years of banishment from the legal profession, President Clinton will be eligible this week to reclaim the law license he gave up as a consequence of the inaccurate responses he gave under oath to questions about his relationship with a White House intern.
Mr. Clinton's suspension from the Arkansas bar, which he formally agreed to a day before leaving office in 2001, expires on Thursday. It is unclear whether the former president will seek reinstatement to the bar, but officials in Arkansas have been preparing for such a request.
"There are people who have had this date marked on their calendar," the executive director of the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, Stark Ligon, told The New York Sun. He said court rules prevent him from confirming or denying whether Mr. Clinton has filed an application to be reinstated until the committee takes some action in the case.
However, Mr. Ligon said such applications are routinely approved. "The presumption fairly would be that reinstatement should be granted unless some good cause could be shown why it should not," he said. Mr. Ligon said any request from Mr. Clinton would be sent by fax or mail to a seven-member committee panel, which usually acts promptly. "We can generally get a turnaround within a week to 10 days," the bar official said.
But he might have a problem being admitted to the bar in other parts of the country.
While there appears to be little standing in the way of Mr. Clinton's reinstatement to the Arkansas bar, rules for admission in New York and Washington could pose a challenge to him quickly joining those bars. Admission by reciprocity to the New York bar requires that an applicant show that he or she has spent five of the last seven years working as a lawyer.A former official with the New York Board of Law Examiners, James Fuller, said the rule is enforced strictly. "I don't know what they'd say about the presidency - if that qualified. I'd doubt it," Mr. Fuller said.
A similar rule would appear to dictate a five-year delay in Mr. Clinton's admission to the bar in the nation's capital, chiefly because he took the bar examination so long ago.
Mr. Clinton, who graduated from Yale Law School in 1973, has spent only a few years practicing law. He served as attorney general of Arkansas from 1977 to 1979. He also worked at a Little Rock law firm from 1980 to 1982, between stints as governor.
Mr. Gillers noted that at any point Mr. Clinton could try to gain admission to the New York or Washington bars by taking the bar examination. Like other bar applicants, he would also have to demonstrate good moral character.
Well, that should be sufficient to stop him from practicing in either of those places. After all, adultery and perjury both demonstrate a lack of good moral character.
Posted by: Greg at
12:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.
Israel's Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition by Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. citizen who spied for Israel, to be declared a Prisoner of Zion.The status Pollard requested would have required the Israeli government to do all it can to get him released. Pollard, 51, is incarcerated at a federal prison in Butner, N.C.
Israel, which has pressed the issue of releasing Pollard with the U.S. administration, has refused in the past to assign him that status, originally created for Jewish activists imprisoned in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 80s.
The Supreme Court rejected the petition on technical grounds, saying Pollard didn't qualify for that status under Israel's compensation law.Pollard was a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy when he copied and gave to his Israeli handlers enough classified documents to fill a walk-in closet.
He was caught in November 1985 and arrested after unsuccessfully seeking refuge at the Israeli Embassy. He was sentenced to life in prison, and has spent the past 20 years in a series of U.S. correctional facilities.
Pollard and his backers should be ashamed.
And Pollard should never take another breath of air as a free man.
Unfortunately, he is due for release in 2015.
Posted by: Greg at
12:46 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.
Israel's Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition by Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. citizen who spied for Israel, to be declared a Prisoner of Zion.The status Pollard requested would have required the Israeli government to do all it can to get him released. Pollard, 51, is incarcerated at a federal prison in Butner, N.C.
Israel, which has pressed the issue of releasing Pollard with the U.S. administration, has refused in the past to assign him that status, originally created for Jewish activists imprisoned in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 80s.
The Supreme Court rejected the petition on technical grounds, saying Pollard didn't qualify for that status under Israel's compensation law.Pollard was a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy when he copied and gave to his Israeli handlers enough classified documents to fill a walk-in closet.
He was caught in November 1985 and arrested after unsuccessfully seeking refuge at the Israeli Embassy. He was sentenced to life in prison, and has spent the past 20 years in a series of U.S. correctional facilities.
Pollard and his backers should be ashamed.
And Pollard should never take another breath of air as a free man.
Unfortunately, he is due for release in 2015.
Posted by: Greg at
12:46 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.
The U.S. Border Patrol has warned agents in Arizona of incursions into the United States by Mexican soldiers "trained to escape, evade and counterambush" if detected -- a scenario Mexico denied yesterday.The warning to Border Patrol agents in Tucson, Ariz., comes after increased sightings of what authorities described as heavily armed Mexican military units on the U.S. side of the border. The warning asks the agents to report the size, activity, location, time and equipment of any units observed.
It also cautions agents to keep "a low profile," to use "cover and concealment" in approaching the Mexican units, to employ "shadows and camouflage" to conceal themselves and to "stay as quiet as possible."
Border Patrol spokesman Salvador Zamora confirmed that a "military incursion" warning was given to Tucson agents, but said it was designed to inform them how to react to any sightings of military and foreign police in this country and how to properly document any incursion.
Mr. Zamora added that although incursions by the Mexican military do occur, they usually have taken place in areas of the border "not marked by monuments or signs." He said U.S. military units also have crossed mistakenly into Mexico.
Is it time for US border agents – or perhaps military personnel – to shoot to kill when confronted with invading military forces? Will we defend our sovereignty as we did in the 1840s and 1010s, or will we simply let foreign troops cross our frontier with impunity?
Posted by: Greg at
12:44 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.
January 16, 2006
Last night the state of California delivered justice to a white man. Only 200 protesters showed -- and not one of them a celebrity from Hollywood.
California executed its oldest death row inmate early Tuesday despite arguments from prisoner advocates that condemning a blind and wheelchair-bound inmate in his 70s violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.Clarence Ray Allen, whose 76th birthday was Monday, was pronounced dead at 12:38 a.m. at San Quentin State Prison. He became the second-oldest inmate put to death nationally since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976.
Allen, who was blind and mostly deaf, suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row, was assisted into the death chamber by four large correctional officers and lifted out of his wheelchair.
His lawyers had raised two claims never before endorsed by the high court: that executing a frail old man would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the 23 years he spent on death row were unconstitutionally cruel as well.
The high court rejected his requests for a stay of execution about 10 hours before he was to be put to death. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen clemency Friday.
Allen went to prison for having his teenage son's 17-year-old girlfriend murdered for fear she would tell police about a grocery-store burglary. While behind bars, he tried to have witnesses in the case wiped out, prosecutors said. He was sentenced to death in 1982 for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders.
"Allen deserves capital punishment because he was already serving a life sentence for murder when he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system," state prosecutor Ward Campbell said.
Agreed -- and his age is irrelevant, given his abuse of the judicial system to outlive extend his life longer than the lifespan of his 17-year-old victim.
And where wre the celebrities?
At the Golden Globes
I guess the execution of a white guy doesn't offend their PC sensibilities enough to stop the party.
Posted by: Greg at
11:35 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.
So when faced with the Democrats backing out of a deal on a vote on Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, what happens? Leahy lies and Specter folds like a house of cards.
The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee reached an agreement yesterday evening to wait until next Tuesday to vote on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.The agreement alters the schedule announced Friday, during the final moments of Alito's week-long confirmation hearings, by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who said he would conduct the panel's vote today. His announcement sparked a quarrel with the panel's ranking Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who said he would seek a delay. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) vowed that a vote in the full Senate, which has final say over all judicial candidates chosen by the president, would take place by the end of the week.
In the end, Specter and Frist essentially acknowledged the prerogative Democrats have under Senate rules to postpone any committee decision for one week. GOP leaders grumbled that Democrats had reneged on an earlier agreement about when the Alito vote would take place -- an agreement that Democrats denied ever existed.
Why the delay? because the Democrats are seeking partisan advantage in advance of the State of the Union address.
Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year.
Add to that the need to kowtow to the liberal interest groups to which the Democrats are beholden.
Democrats said they wanted to give senators time to observe a three-day holiday weekend without coming back to face an immediate vote. At the same time, they came under pressure from outside interest groups that want as much time as possible to try to rally public opposition to the nomination.
Like I said the other day -- an agreement with Democrats is not worth a fart in a hurricane.
Posted by: Greg at
08:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."²
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania.Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
Posted by: Greg at
05:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.
"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin said as he and other city leaders commemorated Martin Luther King Day. "Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."
Or what about this comment?
"We ask black people ... It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," Nagin said Monday. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."
God wants a "chocolate New Orleans"?
But those comments don't come from the right, religious or otherwise. They come from the incompetent Ray Nagin, Mayor of New Orleans.
Where is the liberal outrage?
Naw -- I didn't really think we would hear any.
After all, Nagin is a black Democrat. That will earn him a pass.
UPDATE: Looks like Ray is channeling Dr. King as well.
Nagin described an imaginary conversation with King, the late civil rights leader."I said, 'What is it going to take for us to move on and live your dream and make it a reality?' He said, 'I don't think that we need to pay attention any more as much about other folks and racists on the other side.' He said, 'The thing we need to focus on as a community -- black folks I'm talking about -- is ourselves.' "
Nagin said he also asked: "Why is black-on-black crime such an issue? Why do our young men hate each other so much that they look their brother in the face and they will take a gun and kill him in cold blood?"
The reply, Nagin said, was "We as a people need to fix ourselves first."
Nagin also said King would have been dismayed with black leaders who are "most of the time tearing each other down publicly for the delight of many."
MORE FROM Texas Fred, On Message from Wagner Communications, Macsmind, Booker Rising, Independent Conservative, Narcissistic Views, American Daughter, Its a Paul World, RightWinged, Large Bill, Debbie Schlussel, Political Teen, A Blog For All, LaShawn Barber, Michelle Malkin, reverse-vampyr, Faith at the Front, Sundries Shack, Right Track, Jawa Report, Dread Pundit Bluto, Publius Rendevous, Pundit Guy, Right Voices, California Conservative, Captains' Quarters, Sister Toldjah, Slobokan, Six24, Capitol Region People, Kirbside Musings, Brutally Honest, The Nose On Your Face, Woody's News, The Dick List
Posted by: Greg at
01:39 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 6 kb.
Nope -- only the Washington Times noticed.
But Michael Steele does lead both Kweisi Mfume and Ben Cardin in polling on the race to replace retiring Democrat fossil Paul Sarbanes in the US Senate.
Maryland is proving to be another state to watch in an election year many have predicted will see nationwide gains for Democrats.In November, Rasmussen Reports observed that just two months after Hurricane Katrina and in the midst of welling controversy over Iraq, the GOP was at a political low point. We also duly noted the good news for the party: the election was still a year away. Now, in blue-state Maryland, the Republicans are making progress in the contests for both governor and senator.
The Senate race got interesting as soon as Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes announced his retirement last March. It soon seemed Democrats had the edge. By July, Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin led Lt. Governor Michael Steele by five points in our poll. Steele, however, was seven points ahead of former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume.
By November, Steele was neck-and-neck with Mfume, but Cardin had widened his lead over Steele to 49% to 41%. Yet since that time, the number of voters with an unfavorable opinion of Steele has fallen from 33% to 25% and the Republican candidate has pulled ahead of both Democrats. He now leads Cardin 45% to 40% and Mfume 45% to 38%.
Steele has increased his support among black voters in a square-off with Mfume. While the latter still wins most of the African-American vote, Steele's share has jumped from 17% in November to 31%.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of all voters now view Mfume favorably, a five-point decline.
It is unusual for a Republican to be so competitive in such a solidly "Blue" state such as Maryland. Election 2004 confirmed that geography rules in contests for the U.S. Senate.
Eight Senate seats changed from one party to the other. Six of the eight were Republican victories in Red States. One was a Democratic victory in the very Blue State of Illinois. The exception that proves the rule was Colorado where Attorney General Ken Salazar narrowly defeated Republican businessman Pete Coors.
A Republican victory in Maryland would be even more of a surprise. Adding to the intensity of the race, the election of 46 year old Steele could have lasting impact on the balance of power in the Senate.
The poll has some good news for Maryland Democrats, though: the election is still almost ten months away.
Clear progress by Steele over his rivals is a major story, given the Democrat dirty tricks and racist rhetoric that has accompanied this race. But somehow the story seems to have slipped through the cracks here.
Why am I not surprised?
MORE AT GOPBloggers
, Powerline, Hedgehog Report (twice), Blue State Conservatives, Richie I, The Political Teen, Matty N's Blog, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, Going to the Mat
PAST COVERAGE OF MARYLAND SENATE RACE:
Washington Post Tries To Silence Discussion Of Racism
Dean WonÂ’t Condemn Racism
Black Dems Call Racial Abuse of Blacks Acceptable – If They Are Republicans
Racists Alter Photos Of Prominent Black Republicans -- Race Hos Silent
Steele For Senate
Racist Congressman Slurs White Voters
Steele For Maryland!
Sarbanes Retiring -- Who Will Replace Him?
Posted by: Greg at
02:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 5 kb.
U.S. tally of wounded drops 26%
After all, that isn't the picture the press has spent the last year painting. It has, in fact, painted the opposite -- American troops under siege taking heavier casualties.
But what is the real story?
The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq fell by more than a quarter in 2005 from a year earlier, Pentagon records show. Military officials call that a sign that insurgent attacks have declined in the face of elections and stronger Iraqi security forces.
The wuestion is, will the press report thisinformation widely? And will the Cut-&-Run Party acknowledge this and quit calling the mission in Iraq a failure?
Posted by: Greg at
02:11 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.
January 15, 2006
AN ISLAMIC campaign group has called for a Catholic primary school to be based on the Muslim faith.The Campaign for Muslim Schools said 90 per cent of pupils at St Albert's Primary, in the Pollokshields area of Glasgow, are Muslim, yet children are having to take part in Catholic rituals like saying the Lord's Prayer and attending mass.
Osama Saeed, co-ordinator of the alliance of Glasgow's main mosques and Muslim organisations, said he could see no reason why the main faith of the school should not change.
He said: "Clearly the parents of that area find a faith school, even if it is of another denomination, preferable to a secular one. But surely it should be possible for them to have one that is relevant to their own faith.
"To move towards this would be a fantastic example of good faith - in more ways than one - on the part of the Church."
The call came just days after Scotland's most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, sparked controversy by stating that Scotland's core faith was Christianity and that other faiths should recognise they were "living in Scotland as a Christian country". A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland was not available for comment tonight.
Listen up, Osama -- it is a Catholic school. If you want a Muslim school, go out and start one of your own. Don't demand that some other religious body show you some "good faith" by apostasizing to your false religion. You are one arrogant bastard, and I suggest you remember that you ae in a predominantly Christian country where you have rights that no Christian would ever be allowed in a country dominated by Islam.
And to the bishops of Scotland, might I suggest that you get a herd of these and turn them loose in the school yard of every Catholic school in the country?
Then again, perhaps what Osama and the Campaign for Muslim Schools need are a visit from a few Scots like this one, voicing their opposition to dhimmitude of the type that Osama and the rest propose.
You know -- just to remind them that Christians, not Muslims, control Christian institutions.
Posted by: Greg at
05:31 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.
In Monday's edition of the NEW YORK SUN, reporter Brian McGuire and contributor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., break the first look at the long-anticipated report from Independent Counsel David Barrett, whose investigation lasted 10 year and cost taxpayers $23 million.The SUN outlines the report's details surrounding the alleged illicit activity and cover up that involving former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros before and during his time in the Clinton Administration.
The Sun reveals that the Barrett report connects the dots that allege that senior officials of the Clinton Administration hindered investigations by the IRS in both Texas and Washington, as well as the investigations of a grand jury examining the independent counsel's evidence.
The full report, more than 400 pages line, with more than 100 pages of redacted material, hits the street on Thursday morning at 9 am.
Democrats in the House and Senate have been fighting for months to block the release of the report and keep the 100 pages of highly damaging redacted material from ever seeing the light of day.
As I've said before, we paid for it, we should see it all. Surely the Democrats don't feel they have anything to lose if we find out what went on during the Clinton Administration, do they?
UPDATE: HERE'S THE ARTICLE.
MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Six24, Stuck On Stupid, Scottish Right, Macsmind, Bujutsu Blogger, Evil Conservative, Generation WHY?, Right from the Right, Pelican Post, Hot Talk, Kellino.
Posted by: Greg at
05:13 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Greg at
05:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
Prior to 2007, the Islamists had seen no alternative but to wage war against their enemies by means of terrorism. From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, craved a more serious weapon than strapped-on explosives. His decision to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons programme was intended to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia: the power to defy the United States; the power to obliterate America's closest regional ally.Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's ambitions. The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006. The United States, they argued, was perfectly placed to carry out such strikes. It had the bases in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. It had the intelligence proving Iran's contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But the President was advised by his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Not just European opinion but American opinion was strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.
Americans did not want to increase their military commitments overseas; they wanted to reduce them. Europeans did not want to hear that Iran was about to build its own WMD. Even if Ahmad-inejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.
So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.
Only one man might have stiffened President Bush's resolve in the crisis: not Tony Blair, he had wrecked his domestic credibility over Iraq and was in any case on the point of retirement - Ariel Sharon. Yet he had been struck down by a stroke as the Iranian crisis came to a head. With Israel leaderless, Ahmadinejad had a free hand.
As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. Perhaps, some said, Ahmadinejad was only sabre-rattling because his domestic position was so weak. Perhaps his political rivals in the Iranian clergy were on the point of getting rid of him. In that case, the last thing the West should do was to take a tough line; that would only bolster Ahmadinejad by inflaming Iranian popular feeling. So in Washington and in London people crossed their fingers, hoping for the deus ex machina of a home-grown regime change in Teheran.
This gave the Iranians all the time they needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz. The dream of nuclear non-proliferation, already interrupted by Israel, Pakistan and India, was definitively shattered. Now Teheran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel-Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Teheran.
The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.
The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.
Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened.
Do we want this to be the history learned by our children's children's children? Isn't the restrained use of conventional weapons against a rogue regime a better option than nuclear war?
Based upon my study of history, I see many of the same parallels that Ferguson does. We must not allow our desir for true peace to prompt us to accept a counterfeit one that leads to a bigger, more destructive war.
Hat Tip: Ace of Spades, Link Mecca, Protein Wisdom, Relapsed Catholic, American Future, Craig Meister
Posted by: Greg at
03:58 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 878 words, total size 6 kb.
At least that is the lesson drawn by Rod Eastman, whose daughter's fiancee, Tom Ap Rhys Pryce, was murdered by violent thugs who stole all his valuables and then murdered him.
In a bitter denunciation of the lack of police officers on the beat and the lenience of the courts, Rod Eastman said it was better to risk arrest for carrying an offensive weapon than risk being murdered by muggers.Mr Eastman launched his attack on 'this lawless society' as he comforted his daughter Adele, who was still struggling to come to terms with her fiance's brutal killing just yards from their North London home. "If you value your life and you want to protect yourself on the streets then the only way is to carry a weapon," said 58-year-old Mr Eastman, an electrical engineer who lives in Bishop's Nympton, Devon.
In an impassioned outburst sure to cause concern to police, Mr Eastman said: "The truth is that street crime is rampant. More and more people are becoming personally affected by violent assaults.
"If police catch you carrying a weapon you could be arrested and prosecuted. But isn't that better than being unable to protect yourself and losing your life? The police can't be everywhere and the sentences handed down by the courts are often far too lenient."
How many more lives must be lost before politicians recognize that laws banning weapons do nothing more than disarm victims, making the streets safer for malevolent thugs out to harm the innocent?
Posted by: Greg at
03:18 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.
January 14, 2006
Honor the greatest president of the twentieth century on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his inauguration. It may seem like yesterday, but this Friday marks a quarter-century since that momentous event that changed the world.
I'm joining in -- will you?
Posted by: Greg at
02:18 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.
We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.
We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.
But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.
As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.
Signed,
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Powerline
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!
Greg, Rhymes With Right
Posted by: Greg at
02:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 3 kb.
The Washington Times is reporting that Leahy says the delay is needed because members are going places to participate in Martin Luther King Day events.
Senate Democrats yesterday moved to stall the increasingly inevitable confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., despite a good-faith understanding not to do so.Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said panel Democrats did not want to vote Tuesday, as per a November agreement with Republicans, citing Monday's Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday.
"I have been told that a number of our members are going to be home for Martin Luther King events this weekend, will not be back on time on Tuesday, and so they will exercise their rights," Mr. Leahy said yesterday.
Mr. Leahy did not mention any "extraordinary" circumstances that under the agreement he reached with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, would have allowed a vote schedule change. The deal also calls for a full Senate vote on the nominee Friday.
Excuse me, but wasn't this holiday already on the calendar at the time the vote was scheduled? Didn't everyone know about it and plan accordingly?
The real reason for the delay can be found here.
Democrats say they won't be ready Tuesday to vote on his nomination, since Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has called on party members to hold off making a decision until after a Wednesday meeting.
Notice that, despite the agreement made months ago, the Democrat leadership scheduled this new meeting AFTER the scheduled vote, forcing a delay. The goal is clearly to prevent the president from noting that he has gotten two superlative legal minds confirmed to the Supreme Court.
I guess this is definitive proof that agreements with Democrats aren't worth a fart in a hurricane.
MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers, The Young Conservatives, Musing Minds
Posted by: Greg at
02:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.
Or at least that is the goal of San Francisco abortion advocates, who are seeking to limit supporters of the dignity of human life to nothing more than "the right to remain silent".
Bay Area abortion-rights activists say a Roman Catholic group's advertisements on hundreds of BART trains and in scores of stations -- attacking the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision and asking "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" -- have gone too far in a region known for its progressive politics.Many of the ads have been torn down or defaced since the campaign began three weeks ago.
"I think every woman has noticed them,'' said Suzanne "Sam" Joi, a member of Code Pink, a social justice and anti-war group. "I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''
Well, you ignorant baby-killing leftist, it could be because the First Amendment applies to words and viewpoints that don't meet with your approval. If you have a right to run ads advocating your pro-terrorist, anti-American agenda, then the Respect Life Ministry of the Diocese of Oakland can run its ads questioning whether the current state of the law on abortion is outside of the mainstream.
Linton Johnson, a spokesperson for BART, puts it very well.
"We're not in the business of censorship and don't believe a government agency should be in the business of censorship,'' Johnson said. "It shouldn't be up to a government official to determine whose opinion is right and whose is wrong.''
What is so offensive about the ads? Are they offensive at all? You decide.
The campaign features two ads, each slickly produced and featuring a blurry photograph of a woman against a turquoise background. One ad, headlined "9 months" in large letters, features nine months of a calendar and reads: "Because of Roe vs. Wade, this is the amount of time the Supreme Court says it's legal to have an abortion."The other contains the message: "The Supreme Court says you can choose: after the heart starts beating, after its arms and legs appear, after all organs are present, after the sex is apparent, after it sucks its thumb, after it responds to sounds, after it could survive outside the womb.''
Both ads conclude with the tagline "Abortion: Have we gone too far?'' and the name and Web site address (www.secondlookproject.org) for the Second Look Project, an effort sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which created the campaign and unveiled it on Washington's Metro subway system a year ago.
In other words, we are not talking about pictures of dismembered fetuses here. We are talking about very mild political speech.
The rhgetoric of opponents is shrill, heated, and hysterical.
Abortion-rights activists are responding differently, calling the ads misleading, manipulative and part of an effort to undermine the pro-choice movement in the Bay Area."They're calling for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, which will lead to the slaughter of women,'' said Elizabeth Creely of the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights, referring to fears of unsafe, back-alley abortions if the procedure were illegal. "The Catholic Church is very strong here and is working hard to erode reproductive rights.''
Actually, it will lead to states and Congress to pass laws regulating or restricting abortion, but likely not outlawing it in most places. And as far as the "slaughter of women" you are bleating about, Ms. Creely, the number will be quite small compared to the number of babies slaughtered annually in the name of "choice".
But thank you for clarifying matters for us, ladies -- you want a right explicitly protected by the Constitution to be sacrificed in the name of one that was alien to that document before a group of rogue judges created it in 1973.
MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Phoblographer, Intergalactic Jester, GeMatt's Place, Paul's Word, W.C. Varones Blog, Cvstos Fidei, Vern Beachy's Raves, Say Anything, Right Side Redux, Beachhouse, Beetle Beat.
Posted by: Greg at
09:51 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 6 kb.
So why the silence on this intrusion of religious leaders into public policy issues? Could it be that their alleged "principles" don't extend to include religious leaders who urge LIBERAL positions.
Declaring that the United States was at a crossroads in Iraq, the nation's Roman Catholic bishops said Thursday the time had come to withdraw U.S. troops as fast as responsibly possible and to hand control of the country to Iraqis."Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only as long as it takes for a responsible transition, leaving sooner than later," said Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of Orlando, Fla., speaking for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Wenski, chairman of the bishops Committee on International Policy, said recent statements by the Bush administration that troop levels would be reduced were not enough. He said the U.S. must send an unmistakable signal that the goal was not to occupy Iraq "for an indeterminate period," but to help Iraqis assume full control of their government.
The eight-page statement, in the works for months and delivered to the White House and members of Congress on Thursday, was candid in its assessment of the war, which U.S. bishops and the late pope, John Paul II, had opposed from the start.
Now I've checked the homepage for Americans United For Separation of Church and State and found nary a mention of this statement on Iraq. American Atheists is also silent, though they have plenty to say on Abramoff. I cannot find a mention at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The ACLU trashes Judge Alito but not the bishops. Dito the anti-religion activists at People For the American Way. I wonder why they are all "silent as a church mouse" on the issue.
I think we all know what would have happened if, for example, the Southern Baptist leadership had issued a statement supporting the war. And we remember what happened when some bishops acted to stop the sacrilege of John Kerry receiving communion.
But since this statement coincides with the opinions of the Leftist elite, they'll let this one slide.
Posted by: Greg at
09:14 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 438 words, total size 3 kb.
A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.“Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,” says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
“The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.”
The research paper is part of a controversial $150,000 polygamy project, launched a year ago and paid for by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada.
Expect this to become a mainstream Leftist cause in this country within about six months -- the logical extension of the demand for court-imposed homosexual marriage.
Posted by: Greg at
07:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.
LAST year set dangerous precedents for investigative journalism in the United States. Reporters for print and electronic media were hauled into court in matters both civil and criminal. One of those cases involved an investigation into who outed covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, which led to grand jury appearances by a Who's Who of national journalists.While some of the media's legal difficulties in Plamegate sprang from questionable decisions by reporters and their editors in handling confidential sources, prosecutors clearly have gone after news reporters in hopes of building their cases against suspects. That's why state District Judge Mark Kent Ellis' decision, which went against the trend, should be welcomed by those who believe a free press is essential to American democracy.
Harris County consumer fraud division chief Russell Turbeville had subpoenaed KPRC TV (Channel 2) to produce unaired video compiled during reporting on home loan fraud and a dog consignment business. Houston television stations have routinely provided police and prosecutors with crime-related video that aired in news reports but have declined to provide either outtakes or video compiled for stories that were never broadcast.
KPRC's lawyer argued that if a prosecutor was given sweeping access to unaired material, it would disrupt news-gathering and allow a district attorney to intrude any time he thought a reporter might have information he wanted. KPRC officials offered to allow prosecutors to view the unedited tape and take notes, but Turbeville insisted that tapes he hadn't seen were essential to building a fraud case.
A similar scenario also could haunt print and radio reporters. Law enforcement officials could seek to acquire notes or tapes reporters created while working on stories never aired or published. If reporters become reluctant to interview law enforcement officials for fear of disclosing stories in progress, the public will know less about police and prosecutors' actions and policies.
In a partial victory for the television station, Judge Ellis ruled last week that KPRC did not have to release video compiled for a story that was not aired. He did allow the prosecutor to get some unaired footage edited from two other reports that were broadcast.
Ellis indicated he is concerned about the erosion of media independence: "Ever since the Constitution was issued, it's been chipped away at. I'm sympathetic with the needs of a press to be free."
In order to cultivate and protect sources with information the public needs to know, reporters cannot be made to act as surrogate police investigators who can be hauled into court any time a district attorney gets the urge. Rather than trying to piggyback on KPRC's work, prosecutors should cut down on their TV watching and go back to building their cases the old fashioned way.
The only problem is that the entire editorial rests upon a flawed understanding of the First Amendment and the rights of a free press -- not to mention the rights and the obligations of citizens in general.
You see, the editorialist starts with the assumption that the media is some sort of sacred institution, with journalists being priests devoted to some higher calling than other mere citizens. But the MSM are nto endowed with special rights, and professional journalists are entitled to no more privileges under the First Amendment than any other citizen.
For example, I write this wonderful blog you read. I consider myself to be a citizen jurnalist/commentator. Suppose I uncover information about criminal conduct but do not use it -- will I be shielded under the "Free Press" provisions of the First Amendment? We all know the answer there -- refuse to testify or turn over evidence under subpoena and I will go to jail. But were I a "professional journalist", a member of the "working press", and there is suddenly a claim of immunity. Why the difference? Don't reporters have the same obligations to follow the law as otehr citizens?
What I am trying to point out is that the First Amendment belongs to the people, not the media. It confers no special privileges upon the press that are not conferred upon all Americans generally -- and certainly not the privilege to obstruct justice and withhold evidence. For the media to seek such a privilege and the courts to recognize it is not just wrong-- it is unAmerican.
Posted by: Greg at
04:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 758 words, total size 5 kb.
With regard to Murtha's injuries, Marine Corps records indicate the following.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 12, 2002, reported that "Marine Corps casualty records show that Murtha was injured in 'hostile' actions near Danang, Vietnam, on March 22, 1967, and May 7, 1967."In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation," the Post-Gazette reported.
On the other hand, Murtha has told the story a bit differently at different times.
But an Oct. 26, 1994, article in the Herald-Standard quoted Murtha as describing two different injuries."I was wounded in the arm with shrapnel from a bullet that hit the motor mount of a helicopter. In the other, my knee was banged up and my arm was banged up when a helicopter was shot down from a very few feet," Murtha told the Herald-Standard.
A June 1, 1967 report in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat quoted a letter that the newspaper indicated was sent by Murtha to his wife that same year. The letter apparently detailed yet another version of how Murtha qualified for one of his Purple Hearts. According to the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Murtha's injuries involved his being "struck in the ankle" by a "shot that ricocheted off the helicopter."
So which is it? Was Murtha actually wounded. or was he part of the John Kerry "Bactine and BandAid Brigade"? The actions of Murtha's own congressman in 1968 -- who Murtha replaced after his death in 1973 -- seem to indicate that the injuries were not severe.
However, another source, World War II Navy veteran Harry M. Fox, previously indicated that Murtha in 1968 personally asked Fox's boss, then-U.S. Rep. John Saylor (R-Pa.), for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor's office determined that Murtha lacked sufficient evidence of wounds. Murtha later challenged Saylor for his House seat in 1968 and lost. Fox said he personally viewed Murtha's military records in 1968 as Saylor's aide.
Given that congressional offices are usuall more than willing to go to bat for constituents in such cases, it strikes me that the questions raised are certainly legitimate ones. And please notice that those who are questioning Murtha's veracity here are veterans themselves who also served with distinction.
Which leads us to the other question -- was Murtha dirty in the Abscam case, in which he was an unindicted coconspirator?
As for the Abscam case, consider this response to the offer of a $50,000 bribe.
But, a videotape of a Jan. 7, 1980 Abscam-related meeting involving Murtha shows that the congressman's rejection of the offered bribe was less than definite. "I'm not interested. I'm sorry," Murtha told the FBI agent, but added that he meant "at this point."You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't," Murtha said on the FBI videotape.
In other wors, Murtha did not reject the bribe, he just deferred it.
So how did he avoid prosecution and censure? By cutting a deal.
Interestingly enough, it appears that the decision not to have Murth face ethics charges caused dissension within the committee staff, and resulted in at least one resignation.
A July 30, 1981, article in the Washington Post quoted a committee source as saying that several allegations of misconduct against Murtha were rejected on a "near party-line vote." Since the panel was made up of six Democrats and six Republicans, seven votes were needed to file any charges.***
Just hours after the July 1981 House Ethic Committee vote sparing Murtha from charges, E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., special counsel for the panel's Abscam investigation, abruptly resigned. At the time, Prettyman refused to discuss with the press his reasons for stepping down.
When contacted by Cybercast News Service regarding the investigation, Prettyman called the Murtha situation "very interesting," but declined further comment, citing the need to maintain attorney-client privilege.
Similarly, when Prettyman was interviewed by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 1990, the former special counsel declined to comment on why he had resigned. But when pressed on whether the resignation was due to the Ethics Committee's vote on Murtha, Prettyman said that would be "a logical conclusion."
In other words, the lead investigator felt that charges were warranted, and that the evidence was such that he should resign in the face of the committee's decision not to hold Murtha accountable for his involvement in the Abscam corruption.
One member of the committee at the time even recognizes that he was wrong to support Murtha at the time.
So, why doesn't the media cover Murtha's dirty record? Could it be bias?
And why do they attack the messenger instead?
UPDATE -- 1/16/06: CNSNews editor-in-chief David Thibault responds to liberal whiners.
The amazing response from the Left to the two articles Cybercast News Service published on Friday, Jan. 13, regarding the military and political record of U.S. Rep. John Murtha leaves me wondering whether the Democratic Party and its liberal followers are paranoid or just plain mean.First, let me say to the Lefties out there who will read this -- it's unfair that the authors of the articles, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer Marc Morano and Staff Writer Randy Hall are being pounded so viciously on your liberal blogs. These two terrific journalists, who by the way can handle anything you can dish out, were assigned to the stories and did their jobs very well. But, don't blame them. Blame me. I assigned the stories. Nobody else suggested the idea. Nobody else twisted my arm.
If I read the blogs, and by now you know that I have, I'm amazed at the circle of friends and conspirators that I have suddenly developed over the last three days. Judging by the Left's paranoid rants, I'm about to get an invitation to a White House State Dinner, where I'll be able to regale my best bud Karl Rove about my latest journalistic efforts, before attending to my private chat with President Bush about who to target next for a "hit job."
But the problem -- well it's only a problem if you subscribe to this conspiratorial nonsense -- is that I've never met, spoken on the telephone or exchanged emails with Karl Rove. He doesn't know me from a hole in the wall. I haven't spoken with President Bush since he was the governor of Texas and I was a television reporter for the Republican National Committee following him around in Amarillo more than ten years ago. And I'm pretty sure the president doesn't remember me.
I am, however, impressed that our news organization has been recognized by the likes of U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, who labeled our articles on Murtha "despicable." This raises a crucial question for Ms. Pelosi and the Left, regarding our news coverage. They can take their best shot because we can take the hit. But can they say the same thing?
Posted by: Greg at
04:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1214 words, total size 8 kb.
A nonpartisan organization that reviews political ads for accuracy said Friday that a controversial commercial rejected by Houston TV stations after being labeled false by Rep. Tom DeLay's campaign is vaguely worded but contains nothing definitively false."We find that DeLay's lawyer mischaracterized what the ad said, and that the ad contains nothing that is strictly false," said Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "The worst we can say of the ad is that its ambiguous wording" could mislead viewers about the details of DeLay's interactions with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to corruption charges and is cooperating with a federal investigation of lawmakers and their aides.
The review came after a lawyer for DeLay's re-election campaign, Don McGahn, this week contacted four Houston television stations that had sold airtime for the ad. McGahn called the spot "reckless, malicious and false" and hinted that the stations could face legal trouble if they ran it. They didn't.
so what do the involved groups say?
With Factcheck.org's analysis in hand, the sponsoring groups are now encouraging Houston residents to contact the stations — KTRK (Channel 13), KRIV (Channel 26), KHOU (Channel 11) and KPRC (Channel 2) — and demand that they air the ad, which has appeared on cable stations in Houston and on the Internet.The spot "contains important information about what Tom DeLay does in Washington and we think people in Houston need to know," said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of the Public Campaign Action Fund. The stations either did not return calls seeking comment or, when reached, declined to speak about the ad on Friday.
Posted by: Greg at
03:59 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.
67 queries taking 0.5378 seconds, 290 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
