HereÂ’s another case where a judge ought to dismiss the charges and sanction the prosecutor.

What started as a version of the schoolyard game of dodge ball has apparently become a legal ordeal for a 12-year-old girl and her family.

Complaints by the parents of a student injured during a game at Hermosa Elementary School prompted authorities to charge Brittney Schneiders with battery.

Five other students also accused of battery stemming from the May 8 playground game opted to take probation, but Brittney Schneiders and her parents refused.

"I don't think I did (commit a crime)," Brittney told NBC4's Mary Parks. "I thought I was just playing a dodge ball game. I never thought it would come up to this level."

For seven years, Schneiders made the honor roll and received good citizenship awards, but the teen soccer star is in a legal mess over a game of "Wall Ball."

"Wall Ball" is a game where a team throws or kicks a ball in an attempt to hit other players.

Schneiders kicked a ball that hit a boy who wore braces, giving him a fat lip.

The district attorney, probation and sheriff's departments agreed with the school that the boy was repeatedly and unnecessarily hit with the ball and they filed charges against the students.

But Brittney's father, Ray Schneiders, believes the law has gone overboard.

"We are not parents who see our princess can do no wrong," Ray Schneiders said. "It is all about power and the manic egos of those who possess and abuse it."

David Hidalgo, supervising deputy district attorney for San Bernardino County, told NBC4 that although it is illegal for his office to discuss specific cases, he notes that there is always the option of community service or a letter of apology to resolve a case.

"When parents refuse to cooperate under those circumstances and they refuse to hold a minor accountable for their criminal conduct and insist they go to court to refute the allegations, then we have no choice," Hidalgo said.

The district attorney's office also is frustrated by not being able to legally and publicly divulge all the facts in the case, Parks reported.

The case is set for trial in March.

Unless there is significantly more to this case than is being reported, it seems to me that you have a well-connected parent and an over-zealous prosecutor out to punish what appears to be a trivial injury.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

The Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights has weighed ln on the controversy over the Mohammad cartoons being republished in the Daily Illini.

February 17, 2006

CARTOON UPSETS UNIV. OF ILLINOIS OFFICIALS

The February 9 edition of the Daily Illini, the student newspaper at the University of Illinois, republished cartoons that made fun of Muhammad. Those responsible for doing so, the editor in chief and the opinions page editor, have now been suspended.

The response of school officials to this incident is the subject of Catholic League president Bill DonohueÂ’s news release:

“Richard Herman, the chancellor of the University of Illinois, is critical of the decision to reprint the anti-Muhammad cartoons. He maintains that a discussion about the controversial Danish cartoons could have taken place without republishing them. He’s right, but that is not the way the university treats anti-Catholic fare on campus.

“In March 1997, the same Urbana-Champaign campus displayed drawings by Michele Blondel that showed red glass vaginas hanging inside European Roman Catholic cathedrals; two of them had red glass holy water cruets with crosses on them. I wrote a letter to the president registering my objections, and received a reply from the chancellor, Michael Aiken.

“Aiken said he regretted that the art ‘disappointed’ me (flat beers disappoint me, not lousy art). He instructed, ‘Most viewers find Blondel’s art to be quite subtle as it invites the viewer to contemplate and reflect on topics as diverse as the body, the church, and architectural and religious symbolism.’ Stupid me—I thought it was Catholic-bashing porn. His closer was precious: ‘The University believes that true intellectual discourse extends not only to written communication but also to the visual.’ Except when Muslims get angry.

“So what’s changed? Do Catholics have to call for beheadings to get respect? How else to explain the condescending response I got, and the sympathetic response afforded Muslims? Similarly, nobody was disciplined for offending Catholics, but two kids have been suspended for offending Muslims!”

Indeed.

And the New York Times has an interesting overview about the case – including the relatively calm response at other Midwestern universities where some or all of the cartoons were published, including my alma mater, Illinois State University.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.

My Aggie buddies will be pleased this story doesn't come from College Station -- it is from Kentucky. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "animal husbandry".

Some Bowling Green, Ky., police officers found more than they bargained for after stopping by a Western Kentucky University fraternity party early Thursday.

The officers discovered a live goat stuffed into a storage room of the Alpha Gamma Rho house with no food or water, standing in its own urine and feces, according to WBKO-TV in Bowling Green.

The authorities cited 19-year-old Trenton Dakota Jackson with a second-degree count of cruelty to animals.

Officials aren't sure why the goat was in the storage room and don't know how long the goat had been held captive. Some of the students told police the goat was going to be used in a hazing ritual.

Brian Peyton, the president of Western's Alpha Gamma Rho chapter, said the goat was brought in as a prank, to make some pledges think they would have to have sex with it, WBKO reported. But Peyton told the TV station that the incident wasnÂ’t related to hazing. He said that nobody actually was going to have sex with the goat, the TV station reported.

The goat was sent to the Warren County Humane Society so it could be examined by a veterinarian.

The fraternity has been ordered to stop all activities during an investigation. Alpha Gamma Rho has been cited for hazing three times since 1996.

The executive director of Alpha Gamma Rho's national organization in Kansas City, Mo., said he's also suspended the fraternity chapter. The organization will send someone to the university to investigate the allegations and cooperate with university officials, director Philip Josephson said.

Insert your fraternity joke here.

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

For me, this is not about Arab or Muslim connections. It is about a much simpler principle – our ports should not be under the control of foreign entities.

The management of major U.S. ports taken over by an Arab-owned company? What was the Bush administration thinking when it allowed such a thing?

That is the question being asked by members of Congress from both parties. Their indignation is aimed at the $6.8 billion purchase by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates, of a firm that handles most operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

At a news conference yesterday, a bipartisan group of seven House and Senate members demanded that an interagency task force on foreign investments, which approved the transaction, examine it more closely. The group contended that although the UAE may have a strongly pro-U.S. government, the country was traversed by some of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers and its banking system has been used by groups affiliated with al Qaeda.

"Our ports are major potential terrorist targets," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.). "I strongly urge the administration to thoroughly investigate this acquisition."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said, "Handing the keys to U.S. strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror."

It really does not matter who is in charge, if they are not Americans. The reality is that these ports are vital national security centers for the United States. It does not matter if the company in charge is the UAE or the UK – there is no guarantee that they will have the interests of the USA at heart.

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Of all the stupid tit-for-tat games, now Iran has changed the name of that favorite breakfast pastry, the Danish, in protest of the Mohammad cartoons.

Iranians love Danish pastries, but when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery they now have to ask for "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad."

Bakeries across the capital were covering up their ads for Danish pastries Thursday after the confectioners' union ordered the name change in retaliation for caricatures of the Muslim prophet published in a Danish newspaper.

"Given the insults by Danish newspapers against the prophet, as of now the name of Danish pastries will give way to 'Rose of Muhammad' pastries," the union said in its order.

"This is a punishment for those who started misusing freedom of expression to insult the sanctities of Islam," said Ahmad Mahmoudi, a cake shop owner in northern Tehran.

Yeah – that will show them.

So letÂ’s go out and buy some newly re-christened Danish cats and Danish carpets.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Houston's Mayor Pro Tem, City Councilman Carol Alvarado, has expalnation for of why she isn't responsible for her staff's looting of the city treasury -- supervising her employees is just too much work.

Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado deflected responsibility Thursday for the $130,000 in improper bonuses some of her employees received, saying she trusted subordinates to oversee payroll administration.

"There is no way that an elected official can police every single iota, every single detail, that goes on in their office," Alvarado said. "My job is to delegate, to hire people, to trust people that will bring forward any types of irregularities."

The four employees, who work in the mayor pro tem office that Alvarado oversees, have been placed on administrative leave pending a police investigation into how they received the extra pay since late 2004. They either declined or couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

Top city officials, including Mayor Bill White, Controller Annise Parker, Finance and Administration Director Judy Gray Johnson and her deputy over payroll, Barbara Glick, also refused to discuss the matter.

If performing basic supervisory duties like ensuring that your employees are not robbing the taxpayers blind is too much work, maybe it is time for you to give up your job as Mayor Pro Tem, Carol -- and to consider resigning from office completely.

And frankly, given your past inattention to detail, I don't see why the people of Houston should continue to place any trust in you at all.

Posted by: Greg at 11:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

You have to wonder if the prior work history of a Dallas candidate for the Texas legislature doesn't give him necessary experience for the job.

A Dallas Democrat seeking election to the Texas House of Representatives has acknowledged that he once worked as a prostitute.

Tom Malin, a salesman and actor, said he no longer works as a prostitute but conceded that his previous life could cost him the nomination in the March 7 Democratic primary.

Besides -- couldn't we just call him an "independent businessman in a personal service industry"?

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

I drove downtown to teach my night class tonight. Wll, trafic was a mess. Why? The festivities have already begun for this year's NBA All-Star Game, taking place over the weekend. This means that I'll get some good blogging in this weekend, as I don't want to go anywhere that is being touched by that madness.

So I'm opening the floodgates and telling you, faithful readers and linkers, to join into my second attempt at a weekend linkfest.

Posted by: Greg at 06:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Of the many Mormons I have known in my life, I can think of none who would not qualify for inclusion of the rubric of “he/she is among the finest people I know.” Whether I think of Tammy, my childhood neighbor and friend who lost her battle to cancer over three decades ago; Betty, who volunteered time to run the base youth group when I was a kid; Beth, one of my high school/college sweethearts; friendly neighborhood commenter and blog-buddy T. F. Sterns; or my Mormon colleagues at school, I cannot ever think of a time that I have questioned the character or integrity of any of these individuals.

That said, I must respectfully say that I do not accept the distinctive tenets of their faith, which I did explore during my college years. Much of my skepticism comes from my own love of history, and my inability to reconcile the contents of LDS scriptures with the historical record as I understand it. I therefore found this article to be striking, especially insofar as it addresses the conflict between revealed knowledge, faith, and the scientific/historical record.

From the time he was a child in Peru, the Mormon Church instilled in Jose A. Loayza the conviction that he and millions of other Native Americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel that reached the New World more than 2,000 years ago.

"We were taught all the blessings of that Hebrew lineage belonged to us and that we were special people," said Loayza, now a Salt Lake City attorney. "It not only made me feel special, but it gave me a sense of transcendental identity, an identity with God."

A few years ago, Loayza said, his faith was shaken and his identity stripped away by DNA evidence showing that the ancestors of American natives came from Asia, not the Middle East.

"I've gone through stages," he said. "Absolutely denial. Utter amazement and surprise. Anger and bitterness."

For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.

For those outside the faith, the depth of the church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.

Critics want the church to admit its mistake and apologize to millions of Native Americans it converted. Church leaders have shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed.

Yet at the same time, the church has subtly promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds with long-standing Mormon teachings.

Now let me say that the rest of the article continues on in a similar vein, and I found it fascinating. At the same time, I found it somewhat one-sided, and were I a member of the LDS church I suspect I might be seriously offended by the stance it takes. The article certainly raises a serious issue, but at the same time, it strikes at sacred things. I don’t doubt that there will be letters to the editor and commentary of LDS blogs (and others) regarding the article, regarding the accuracy of what appeared in the LA Times. I know the LDS Church has already responded.

And that is where I see a critical contrast. We have, over the last few weeks, seen violent convulsions over a dozen editorial cartoons of questionable artistic and journalistic merit, based upon the complaint that they misrepresent the Islamic faith. There have been boycotts, demands for government (or international) censorship, threats, property damage, violence, and killings in response to the alleged blasphemy of depicting Islam’s so-called prophet. I have not, as of this posting, heard news of marauding Mormon mobs in the streets of Salt Lake City protesting the publication of the article.

And therein lies the difference. When one compares the cartoons and the article, it is clear that the LA Times article on the challenge of science to the beliefs of Mormonism touches on the essentials of that faith every bit as seriously as the cartoons do on the essentials of Islam, if not more so. Furthermore, the publication of the LA Times article (which is not necessarily compellingly newsworthy) was a much serious attack on the Mormon faith (if not more so) than the republication of the Danish Mohammad cartoons, which could be seen as essential to understanding the current violence and controversy. Yet the Times chose to run the article on the challenge of science to LDS doctrine, while it refrained from publishing the cartoons. More importantly, the article is likely to offend more people in this country than the Danish cartoons. One has to ask, then, why such decisions were made.

Could it be that the editors of the LA Times know that Mormons, no matter how offended, are unlikely to respond with violence to an unpleasant presentation of their faith? Might it be that a conservative religious group like the LDS church is not subject to the same sort of PC protexction as Islam, with its anti-American radical cachet? I think we all know the answer to those questions.

UPDATE: Interesting interview with the article's author on Hugh Hewitt's show tonight.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Adam's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, Blue Star Chronicles, Everyman Chronicle, Uncooperative Blogger, Right Track, Cao's Blog, Don Surber, NIF, Right Wing Nation, Outside the Beltway, Basil's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, A Tick in the Mind's Eye, Point Five, Bullwinkle, Samantha Burns

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 999 words, total size 8 kb.

Of the many Mormons I have known in my life, I can think of none who would not qualify for inclusion of the rubric of “he/she is among the finest people I know.” Whether I think of Tammy, my childhood neighbor and friend who lost her battle to cancer over three decades ago; Betty, who volunteered time to run the base youth group when I was a kid; Beth, one of my high school/college sweethearts; friendly neighborhood commenter and blog-buddy T. F. Sterns; or my Mormon colleagues at school, I cannot ever think of a time that I have questioned the character or integrity of any of these individuals.

That said, I must respectfully say that I do not accept the distinctive tenets of their faith, which I did explore during my college years. Much of my skepticism comes from my own love of history, and my inability to reconcile the contents of LDS scriptures with the historical record as I understand it. I therefore found this article to be striking, especially insofar as it addresses the conflict between revealed knowledge, faith, and the scientific/historical record.

From the time he was a child in Peru, the Mormon Church instilled in Jose A. Loayza the conviction that he and millions of other Native Americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel that reached the New World more than 2,000 years ago.

"We were taught all the blessings of that Hebrew lineage belonged to us and that we were special people," said Loayza, now a Salt Lake City attorney. "It not only made me feel special, but it gave me a sense of transcendental identity, an identity with God."

A few years ago, Loayza said, his faith was shaken and his identity stripped away by DNA evidence showing that the ancestors of American natives came from Asia, not the Middle East.

"I've gone through stages," he said. "Absolutely denial. Utter amazement and surprise. Anger and bitterness."

For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.

For those outside the faith, the depth of the church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.

Critics want the church to admit its mistake and apologize to millions of Native Americans it converted. Church leaders have shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed.

Yet at the same time, the church has subtly promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds with long-standing Mormon teachings.

Now let me say that the rest of the article continues on in a similar vein, and I found it fascinating. At the same time, I found it somewhat one-sided, and were I a member of the LDS church I suspect I might be seriously offended by the stance it takes. The article certainly raises a serious issue, but at the same time, it strikes at sacred things. I donÂ’t doubt that there will be letters to the editor and commentary of LDS blogs (and others) regarding the article, regarding the accuracy of what appeared in the LA Times. I know the LDS Church has already responded.

And that is where I see a critical contrast. We have, over the last few weeks, seen violent convulsions over a dozen editorial cartoons of questionable artistic and journalistic merit, based upon the complaint that they misrepresent the Islamic faith. There have been boycotts, demands for government (or international) censorship, threats, property damage, violence, and killings in response to the alleged blasphemy of depicting IslamÂ’s so-called prophet. I have not, as of this posting, heard news of marauding Mormon mobs in the streets of Salt Lake City protesting the publication of the article.

And therein lies the difference. When one compares the cartoons and the article, it is clear that the LA Times article on the challenge of science to the beliefs of Mormonism touches on the essentials of that faith every bit as seriously as the cartoons do on the essentials of Islam, if not more so. Furthermore, the publication of the LA Times article (which is not necessarily compellingly newsworthy) was a much serious attack on the Mormon faith (if not more so) than the republication of the Danish Mohammad cartoons, which could be seen as essential to understanding the current violence and controversy. Yet the Times chose to run the article on the challenge of science to LDS doctrine, while it refrained from publishing the cartoons. More importantly, the article is likely to offend more people in this country than the Danish cartoons. One has to ask, then, why such decisions were made.

Could it be that the editors of the LA Times know that Mormons, no matter how offended, are unlikely to respond with violence to an unpleasant presentation of their faith? Might it be that a conservative religious group like the LDS church is not subject to the same sort of PC protexction as Islam, with its anti-American radical cachet? I think we all know the answer to those questions.

UPDATE: Interesting interview with the article's author on Hugh Hewitt's show tonight.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Adam's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, Blue Star Chronicles, Everyman Chronicle, Uncooperative Blogger, Right Track, Cao's Blog, Don Surber, NIF, Right Wing Nation, Outside the Beltway, Basil's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, A Tick in the Mind's Eye, Point Five, Bullwinkle, Samantha Burns

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1009 words, total size 8 kb.

Remember Carol Alvarado, the Houston City Councilwoman who claimed a college degree that had never been awarded? Well, now it seems that some of her staff have claimed bonuses that they have not earned -- to the tune of at least $130,000.

HOUSTON -- Four employees in the office of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado were removed from their jobs Wednesday in connection with improper bonuses totaling $130,000, KPRC Local 2 reported.

Officials said the investigation began after the city's finance director received reports of payroll irregularities.

Office of Inspector General agents and Houston police raided the offices shortly after lunchtime.

The employees were immediately placed on paid administrative leave. Computers were confiscated from the office, and door locks and card keys were changed.

"The matter concerns improper bonuses that were brought to my attention by the director of finance administration (Tuesday) night," Mayor Bill White said. "These were all four employees of the mayor pro tem's office, which is a permanent office within city council, which supports activities of the city council staff."

White said the four city workers apparently shared $130,000 in bonuses, which was far beyond any bonus allowed in city government. He said two workers each took $50,000 by circumventing the entire payroll approval process.

"That's improper. Period," White said. "It's a betrayal of public trust. This isn't our money. It's the public's money. We will follow it through to the full extent of the law."

The employees were making between $40,000 and $75,000.

Criminal charges are expected. More people could be implicated as well.

The mayor said that there was no sign that Alvarado had anything to do with the irregularities.

"I was disturbed to learn of this irregularity that has been reported. I am cooperating completely. I want a very thorough and complete investigation," Alvarado said. "No members of my council district staff are involved with this investigation."

So, Carol, how will you explain this one? Why have you not exercised proper control over your staff?

UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle provides some additional details.

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Do we really need this news story? I mean come on, folks -- the victim is improving.

If the man wounded by
Dick Cheney dies, the vice president could — in theory at least — face criminal charges.

Dallas defense attorney David Finn, who has been a state and a federal prosecutor, said Wednesday that a Texas grand jury could bring a charge of criminally negligent homicide if there is evidence the vice president knew or should have known "there was a substantial or unjustifiable risk that his actions would result in him shooting a fellow hunter."

To indict Cheney, the grand jury would have to conclude that a reasonable person in the vice president's place would say to himself, "I am not pulling the trigger because this other guy might be in front of me," Finn said.

Frankly, this sounds like someone in the media is rooting for Mr. Whittington to kick the bucket.

Posted by: Greg at 04:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Jahan Sadat, the wife of assassinated Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat, calls for press and speech censorship by government in today’s New York Daily News.

Let me be perfectly clear: I am a Muslim, and I am offended by the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. I also am offended and deeply disturbed by the reaction these cartoons have evoked. Being offended by cartoons should never give rise to the destruction of property and the taking of another's life. There is enough violence and killing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Congo, Sudan and in hundreds of American and European cities where crimes occur every day. I have had enough of violence and hate.

Fine so far – though you know there is a “but” coming. Here it is.

The fact is, these cartoons came at the request of a culture editor for a Danish newspaper after he discovered that a writer could not find an illustrator for his book about the Prophet. From this little bit of knowledge, the editor decided, according to his explanation in Time magazine, that the author's problem constituted a violation of free speech and expression. Instead of trying to find out why the writer was having such a difficult time and taking the time to learn why physical renderings of the Prophet are rarely, if ever, found anywhere in the history of Islam (in mosques, in the Koran, or other books about Islam and the Prophet), he decided to launch a war against censorship by staging a contest of sorts among some of Denmark's cartoonists. The result was not open debate; the result was chaos.

Yes – chaos caused not by those who published the cartoons, but instead by the mob that demanded that their beliefs and customs be respected over the beliefs and customs of those who published the cartoons.

Is the publication of sacrilegious cartoons the foolish exercise of a poorly informed editor or a harsh, unwarranted attack against one of the world's three great monotheistic religions? Is the reproduction of these cartoons nearly six months after their original publication a stand for democracy or just another assault on Islam? Is this freedom of expression or expression without responsibility?

You left one out, Mrs. Sadat – is the uproar and violence one more attempt by a barbaric religion and backwards culture to fend of Western modernity and impose itself upon others?

I am not American, but I have been spending half of my time in the U.S. since 1985. I have a home and a career here. Like Americans, I believe in freedom and democracy. I also know that freedom does not come without responsibility. I know that one should not, and cannot, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater just because one is free to do so. Even freedom has its parameters.

And those parameters relate to actual, substantive harm, not hurt feelings or offended sensibilities. The proper response to speech we hate is more speech, not violence or the heavy hand of government censorship, as practiced by your husband’s government upon the state-controlled Egyptian press.

There is no law that says cartoonists cannot draw caricatures. There is no law that says television commentators cannot equate terrorism with Islam. There is no law that says we should not defame the religions of others. But there should be! There should be a law that says reasonable, responsible people of any faith, or no faith for that matter, cannot attack others simply because of their beliefs. There should be a law that requires us to appreciate the cultures and beliefs of our fellow human beings. In fact, there is a law: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto to you. In Islam, we say, "Do for your brother what you want for yourself."

And you and your co-religionists have been doing unto Christians and Jews and the members of other religions in a violent, oppressive manner for centuries. There is no freedom of press, no freedom of speech, and no freedom of religion in most of the Muslim world. Such a system should be attacked, mocked, and ridiculed, as should the associated religion, upon which that system of slavery and oppression is built. For that matter, even your more secular husband kept Islam well enough to oppress the Copts, whose presence in Egypt predates the founding of Islam.

Whether we are in a war of civilization or a clash of culture is a question that cannot be answered, much less discussed, as long as emotions are high and reason is blind. But it is a question we cannot afford to ignore.

Actually, Mrs. Sadat, the answer became clear on 9/11, as Muslims danced in the streets and celebrated Osama bin Ladin and his minions as heroes of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, I would remind you that for there to be a war of civilizations, it takes two. What we have instead is civilization fending off the barbarian hordes as they approach the gates of the city, a cultured people seeking to fend off the coming darkness that civilization’s failure to defeat the barbarians has always brought. The laws you propose do nothing to help fight that battle. Rather, they are an appeasement of the barbarians, and a surrender to them.

I cannot help but note two otehr things that are important here. If the Islamohorde with whom Mrs. Sadat allies herself succeeds, she will soon find herself restricted in speech, dress, and action by the verysort of folks who murdered her husband.

Also, if insults to religious figures are to be banned, one of the first items to be prohibitted will be the Quran, for it is blasphemous in the eyes of Christians due to its rejection of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. As a result, one could argue that the very practice of Islam would becomeillegal in this country -- unless you are demanding special consideration to Muslim sensitivities alone.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, The Real Ugly American

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1020 words, total size 7 kb.

Jahan Sadat, the wife of assassinated Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat, calls for press and speech censorship by government in todayÂ’s New York Daily News.

Let me be perfectly clear: I am a Muslim, and I am offended by the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. I also am offended and deeply disturbed by the reaction these cartoons have evoked. Being offended by cartoons should never give rise to the destruction of property and the taking of another's life. There is enough violence and killing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Congo, Sudan and in hundreds of American and European cities where crimes occur every day. I have had enough of violence and hate.

Fine so far – though you know there is a “but” coming. Here it is.

The fact is, these cartoons came at the request of a culture editor for a Danish newspaper after he discovered that a writer could not find an illustrator for his book about the Prophet. From this little bit of knowledge, the editor decided, according to his explanation in Time magazine, that the author's problem constituted a violation of free speech and expression. Instead of trying to find out why the writer was having such a difficult time and taking the time to learn why physical renderings of the Prophet are rarely, if ever, found anywhere in the history of Islam (in mosques, in the Koran, or other books about Islam and the Prophet), he decided to launch a war against censorship by staging a contest of sorts among some of Denmark's cartoonists. The result was not open debate; the result was chaos.

Yes – chaos caused not by those who published the cartoons, but instead by the mob that demanded that their beliefs and customs be respected over the beliefs and customs of those who published the cartoons.

Is the publication of sacrilegious cartoons the foolish exercise of a poorly informed editor or a harsh, unwarranted attack against one of the world's three great monotheistic religions? Is the reproduction of these cartoons nearly six months after their original publication a stand for democracy or just another assault on Islam? Is this freedom of expression or expression without responsibility?

You left one out, Mrs. Sadat – is the uproar and violence one more attempt by a barbaric religion and backwards culture to fend of Western modernity and impose itself upon others?

I am not American, but I have been spending half of my time in the U.S. since 1985. I have a home and a career here. Like Americans, I believe in freedom and democracy. I also know that freedom does not come without responsibility. I know that one should not, and cannot, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater just because one is free to do so. Even freedom has its parameters.

And those parameters relate to actual, substantive harm, not hurt feelings or offended sensibilities. The proper response to speech we hate is more speech, not violence or the heavy hand of government censorship, as practiced by your husbandÂ’s government upon the state-controlled Egyptian press.

There is no law that says cartoonists cannot draw caricatures. There is no law that says television commentators cannot equate terrorism with Islam. There is no law that says we should not defame the religions of others. But there should be! There should be a law that says reasonable, responsible people of any faith, or no faith for that matter, cannot attack others simply because of their beliefs. There should be a law that requires us to appreciate the cultures and beliefs of our fellow human beings. In fact, there is a law: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto to you. In Islam, we say, "Do for your brother what you want for yourself."

And you and your co-religionists have been doing unto Christians and Jews and the members of other religions in a violent, oppressive manner for centuries. There is no freedom of press, no freedom of speech, and no freedom of religion in most of the Muslim world. Such a system should be attacked, mocked, and ridiculed, as should the associated religion, upon which that system of slavery and oppression is built. For that matter, even your more secular husband kept Islam well enough to oppress the Copts, whose presence in Egypt predates the founding of Islam.

Whether we are in a war of civilization or a clash of culture is a question that cannot be answered, much less discussed, as long as emotions are high and reason is blind. But it is a question we cannot afford to ignore.

Actually, Mrs. Sadat, the answer became clear on 9/11, as Muslims danced in the streets and celebrated Osama bin Ladin and his minions as heroes of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, I would remind you that for there to be a war of civilizations, it takes two. What we have instead is civilization fending off the barbarian hordes as they approach the gates of the city, a cultured people seeking to fend off the coming darkness that civilizationÂ’s failure to defeat the barbarians has always brought. The laws you propose do nothing to help fight that battle. Rather, they are an appeasement of the barbarians, and a surrender to them.

I cannot help but note two otehr things that are important here. If the Islamohorde with whom Mrs. Sadat allies herself succeeds, she will soon find herself restricted in speech, dress, and action by the verysort of folks who murdered her husband.

Also, if insults to religious figures are to be banned, one of the first items to be prohibitted will be the Quran, for it is blasphemous in the eyes of Christians due to its rejection of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. As a result, one could argue that the very practice of Islam would becomeillegal in this country -- unless you are demanding special consideration to Muslim sensitivities alone.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, The Real Ugly American

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1025 words, total size 7 kb.

This really disturbs me. After all, we are not talking about preventing the spread of a communicable disease. Where is the compelling public interest in giving mere government employees access to the medical records of citizens without their consent, absent a threat of passing the disease on to other citizens?

On Jan. 15, New York City began requiring local clinical laboratories to report to the city health department the results of blood sugar tests performed on citizens. The department plans to use the information to improve surveillance for diabetes, which afflicts an estimated one out of eight New Yorkers and to "target interventions." Specifically, if you live in New York and have trouble resisting sweets, your doctor may soon receive a call from the health department suggesting that he or she needs to persuade you to change your lifestyle.

What makes this development so extraordinary in the annals of American public health is that diabetes is not a disease you can catch from, or give to, anyone else. U.S. governments have a long history of imposing quarantines and otherwise restricting the liberties of people suspected of carrying contagious disease. Early in the last century, for example, the very same New York City health department famously exiled Mary Mallon (aka "Typhoid Mary"), along with many other infectious patients, to a tiny island "colony" in the East River
Policies that require the reporting of sexually transmitted diseases to public health authorities similarly derive justification from the threat of contagion. Even recently enacted smoking bans in New York and elsewhere were passed only after the public accepted findings that secondhand smoke poses a serious health threat to others.

But diabetes, though now a fearsome epidemic, is not communicable; nor do the behaviors that lead to the disease (primarily lack of exercise and improper diet) put others at risk of illness. It cannot even be said of diabetics, as is often said of illegal drug users, that their habits foster a life of crime or fund crime syndicates and terrorist networks. So how does it become a matter of public interest that governments monitor the medical records of individual citizens for telltale signs of high blood sugar -- much less that they "target interventions"? Isn't this the ultimate example of the nanny state run amok?

Yes, it is – and all the attempts to justify this intrusion into the medical privacy of individual citizens based upon the need for research data, coordination of medical care, and cost effectiveness fall flat when faced with the simple fact that this goes against the fundamental right to be secure in one’s person and one’s papers and effects. Absent a serious threat to the health of others, there is no legitimate basis for this power grab.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Jeff Jacoby sums up well the point I was trying to make last week.

SUPPOSE THAT in 2005 unknown hoodlums had firebombed 10 gay bookstores and bars in San Francisco, reducing several of them to smoking rubble. It takes no effort to imagine the alarm that would have spread through the Bay Area's gay community or the manhunt that would have been launched to find the attackers. The blasts would have been described everywhere as ''hate crimes," editorial pages would have thundered with condemnation, and public officials would have vowed to crack down on crimes against gays with unprecedented severity.

Suppose that vandals last month had attacked 10 Detroit-area mosques and halal restaurants, leaving behind shattered windows, wrecked furniture, and walls defaced with graffiti. The violence would be national front-page news. On blogs and talk radio, the horrifying outbreak of anti-Muslim bigotry would be Topic No. 1. Bills would be introduced in Congress to increase the penalties for violent ''hate crimes" -- no one would hesitate to call them by that term -- and millions of Americans would rally in solidarity with Detroit's Islamic community.

Fortunately, those sickening scenarios are only hypothetical. Here is one that is not:

In the past two weeks, 10 Baptist churches have been burned in rural Alabama. Five churches in Bibb County -- Ashby Baptist, Rehobeth Baptist, Antioch Baptist, Old Union Baptist, and Pleasant Sabine -- were torched between midnight and 3 a.m. on Feb. 3. Four days later, arsonists destroyed or badly damaged Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church in Greene County, Dancy First Baptist Church in Pickens County, and two churches in Sumter County, Galilee Baptist and Spring Valley Baptist. On Saturday, Beaverton Freewill Baptist Church in northwest Alabama became the 10th house of worship to go up in flames.

Ten arson attacks against 10 churches -- all of them Baptist, all in small Alabama towns, all in the space of eight days: If anything is a hate crime, obviously this is.
Or is it? ''We're looking to make sure this is not a hate crime and that we do everything that we need to do," FBI Special Agent Charles Regan told reporters in Birmingham. Make sure this is not a hate crime? If 10 Brooklyn synagogues went up in flames in a little over a week, wouldn't investigators start from the assumption that the arson was motivated by hatred of Jews? If 10 Cuban-American shops and restaurants in Miami were deliberately burned to the ground, wouldn't the obvious presumption be that anti-Cuban animus was involved?

Apparently Baptist churches are different.

''I don't see any evidence that these fires are hate crimes," Mark Potok, a director of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, told the Los Angeles Times. ''Anti-Christian crimes are exceedingly rare in the South."

But are anti-Christian crimes really that rare? Or are they simply less interesting to the left, which prefers to cast Christians as victimizers, not victims?

A search of the SPLC's website, for example, turns up no references to Jay Scott Ballinger, a self-described Satan worshiper deeply hostile to Christianity, who was sentenced to life in prison for burning 26 churches between 1994 and 1999. Yet if those weren't ''hate crimes," what were they?

Running through the coverage of the latest church burnings is an almost palpable yearning to cast the story in racial terms. ''Federal investigators are looking for two white men for questioning in connection with a string of church fires in central Alabama," began a National Public Radio story on Friday. ''Race may be a factor." In fact, race seems not to be a factor at all -- five of the churches had mostly white congregations, five were largely black. To a media ever ready to expose racism in American culture, the arsonists' lack of regard for skin color must be maddening.

In 1996, a spate of fires in the South was wildly and falsely trumpeted in the media as an eruption of racism. ''We are facing an epidemic of terror," said Deval Patrick, the Clinton administration's assistant attorney general for civil rights. But as it turned out, there was no racist conspiracy. More than a third of the arsonists arrested were black, and more than half the churches burned were white. So perhaps it is progress of a sort that, this time around, the media are keeping in check the urge to cry ''Racism!"

But real progress will come only when we abandon the whole misguided notion of ''hate crimes," which deems certain crimes more deserving of outrage and punishment not because of what the criminal did, but because of the group to which the victim belonged. The burning of a church is a hateful act regardless of the congregants' skin color. That some people bend over backward not to say so is a disgrace.

Thank you, Mr. Jacoby, for saying in much clearer terms the very things I wanted to communicate earlier.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 828 words, total size 5 kb.

Tom DeLay has pretty solid support among Republicans in the 22nd District. His most serious challenger, Tom Campbell runs well-behind the Congressman. Not only that, he is not really known by party activists, for he has not been involved in local Republican affairs.

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, forced onto the political defensive by ethical and legal charges, went on the offensive Tuesday, claiming one of his Republican primary opponents has overstated his GOP credentials.

DeLay's campaign said challenger Tom Campbell, a lawyer, has not been active in local party politics and has not voted regularly in Republican primaries.

"Every day he proves he's nothing more than an outsider who isn't concerned with conservative issues or fighting for the priorities of Texas taxpayers," DeLay campaign manager Chris Homan said of Campbell.

Campbell's campaign countered that no pure GOP insider would dare challenge the powerful DeLay, even if he has been weakened by a Travis County indictment relating to campaign finance and a federal investigation into his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"The fact is that Tom Campbell is like you and me. He is not a career politician like Tom DeLay. He is a citizen politician," said Michael Stanley, Campbell's campaign chairman. "Tom Campbell calls on Tom DeLay to get beyond the negative, immaterial distractions and get back to the real issues that are important to the people of the district."

And that, my friends, is really the problem. Folks in CD22 don’t know who Tom Campbell is, and really do not have a reason to support him. We are being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke when he appeals to us for support. Whatever good qualities he may have are overshadowed by the disturbing vacuum in his Republican record. It is, ultimately, why I endorsed Tom Delay in my capacity as precinct chair – we know who and what we are getting with him, and we have a sound Republican record on which to judge him.

Now you may notice that I am not attacking Tom Campbell. He appears to be a good and honorable man. It is my hope that this race leads him to greater involvement in local GOP affairs, so that he is in a position to run in the future, should Tom DeLay either retire or be forced to resign as a result of the Ronnie Earle witch hunt. Campbell certainly stands out as a better alternative than Democrat Nick Lampson, and is likely superior to independent challenger Steve Stockman. Now is not his time – but the future may be.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

A member of law enforcement died of injuries sustained in the line of duty here in Houston.

An explosives sniffing dog died this morning after falling from a ramp at the George R. Brown Convention Center in downtown Houston.

The dog, Mikey, was part of a U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unit involved in a security sweep of the convention center in preparation for the NBA All-Star game, said Franceska Perot, spokeswoman for ATF.

Perot said about 1:30 a.m. the unit was taking a break and the dog, a Labrador, was being put into the back of a truck when he suddenly bolted and went over the edge of a ramp.

The dog fell about 55 feet to the ground and was taken to a local veterinary clinic where he died. Perot said the dog, used for detecting explosives, may have seen a pigeon and instinct took over and he jumped at the bird.

"This is a highly trained animal but sometimes you can't train the instinct out of them,'' she said.

Dogs like Mikey are a vital part of law enforcement and military operations. It is sad to see him die in this accident.

And let me say that I therefore feel a much greater degree of sorrow over his death than I do over the death of any of the Islamocensors killed in rioting over the Danish cartoons.

Posted by: Greg at 11:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, the trackback system here at Rhymes With Right was down most of the weekend, so my first try at open trackbacks didn't have any links appear until Sunday night around 7:00 PM, Houston time. But they did show up -- and so I'm giving the linkfest thing a try again today.

You know how it works -- you link to this post and send a trackback, and your post will display here. I think I've worked out the issues of displaying trackbacks -- if the Munuvian gods will allow the trackbacks through (I had a problem there for a bit).

So link away -- I won't set a maximum number of items you can link with here, but I would hope that you would consider exercising prudent judgement on the matter. No porn, please, and no advertising -- just interesting stuff.

So get with the program, folks -- link away!

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

Of all the asinine rulings!

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that California must change its lethal injection method for an execution next week, saying the current mix of drugs may constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel said he was concerned inmates are conscious and undergoing extreme pain during execution.

The usual lethal injection method involves giving a sedative, a paralyzing agent and then a heart-stopping drug. Fogel ordered the state to either have an expert present to ensure Michael Morales is unconscious from the sedative, or replace a three-drug mix with a lethal dose of barbiturate.

Morales is scheduled to be executed Feb. 21 for the rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl in San Joaquin County 25 years ago.

His attorneys alleged a mistake in the sedation process might mean he would appear unconscious, but internally would succumb to excruciating pain.

This savage beat, stabbed, and raped a 17-year-old girl, Terri Winchell, 25 years ago. That he is still breathing is unconscionable, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to his victims family and friends, as well as to the taxpayers of the state of California. I frankly don't give a rat's ass if he suffers a little bit as the state of California sends him to Hell.

But judge, you really want a better procedure? Fine -- I've got a suggestion.

Inject lead, 9mm at a time, to the base of the skull until the rabid mutt stops breathing.

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

The editors of the Daily Illini who stood up for press freedom abroad have found out that it may not exist on their own campus

The editor in chief of a student-led newspaper serving the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has been suspended for printing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that, when published in Europe, enraged Muslims and led to violent protests in the Middle East and Asia.

Editor Acton Gorton and his opinions editor, Chuck Prochaska, were relieved of their duties at The Daily Illini on Tuesday while a task force investigates "the internal decision-making and communication" that led to the publishing of the cartoons, according to a statement by the newspaper's publisher and general manager, Mary Cory.

Gorton said he expects to be fired at the conclusion of the investigation, which is expected to take two weeks.

"I pretty much have an idea how this is going to run, and this is a thinly veiled attempt to remove me from my position," said Gorton, a U. of I. senior who took the newspaper's helm Jan. 1. "I am feeling very betrayed, and I feel like the people who I thought were my friends and supporters didn't back me up."

Looks to me like the Islamocensors may win this one, and the rights of Americans will be diminished.

More at Michelle Malkin, including DI contact information and this cache of the original page.

OTHERS WRITING: Stop the ACLU, Slapstick Politics, Right Voices, Super Fun Power Hour, Tearing Down The Wall, Hyscience,, Fullosseous Flap's Dental Blog, Small Town Veteran, ProCynic, Marathon Pundit, Clark Mountain Musings, Independent Christian Voice, Sweet Spirits of Ammonia, Blackfive, Noisy Room, Blogs, Radaractive

Posted by: Greg at 06:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 4 kb.

No more will students in Ohio science classes be taught to think critically or use the scientific method to examine evidence for and against scientific theories. instead, they are to be presented only evidence in support of scientific theories, but not any evidence that may call such theories into doubt.

Why the change from good science education to indoctrination? because some fear that teaching kids to think might lead them to draw conclusions that contradict scientific orthodoxy.

The Ohio school board voted Tuesday to eliminate a passage in the stateÂ’s science standards that critics said opened the door to the teaching of intelligent design.

The Ohio Board of Education decided 11-4 to delete material encouraging students to seek evidence for and against evolution.

The 2002 science standards said students should be able to “describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” The standards included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design.

So the message of the real close-minded fundamentalists to Ohio students is clear -- don't think; accept Darwinist dogma on faith.

Posted by: Greg at 05:58 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Conscience and corporate ethics get trumped by the pro-abortion/contracetion mentality in Massachusetts.

The state pharmacy board ordered Wal-Mart on Tuesday to stock emergency contraception pills at its stores in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts becomes second state to require the world's largest retailer to carry the morning-after pill.

A Wal-Mart spokesman said the company would comply with the directive by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy and is reviewing its nationwide policy on the drug.

"Clearly women's health is a high priority for Wal-Mart," spokesman Dan Fogleman said. "We are actively thinking through the issue."

Wal-Mart now carries the pill only in Illinois, where it is required to do so under state law. The company has said it "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but has refused to elaborate.

The unanimous decision by the pharmacy board comes two weeks after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart for failing to carry the drug in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam's Club stores in Massachusetts.

The women had argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

The morning-after pill provides a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Some abortion opponents believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.

It is not a case of "believes". That is what the drug does.

So I guess that means that in Massachusetts, a woman is the ONLY one with freedom of choice. Others cannot refuse to participate in the distribution of what is nothing less than a human pesticide.

Here's hoping that Wal-mart has the corporate will and financial muscle to fprce the phamacy board to back down -- or, barring that, to shut down every phamacy in Massachusetts and Illinois.

Posted by: Greg at 05:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

It may seem to be a truism, but the Constitution means what it says -- as understood at the time of its adoption. That is an argument that, sadly, has not been in vogue for some time among American liberals, who have come to believe that American courts constitute an ongoing Constitutional Convention that can simply change the Constitution without regard to precedent or the method of amendment outlined in the document itself.

Justice Antonin Scalia had a few choice words for those who hold to the latter view.

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."

"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Boy, is the man ever right on this one. You have to be an idiot to believe that the institutions created by the Constitution have the power to redefine the meaning of the document itself. The notion of evolving standards means that the words of the Constitution mean nothing whatsoever -- or perhaps that the same words mean different things at different times. That notion is absurd.

And for anyone who disagrees, answer this simple question -- how many of you would be willing to take out a mortgage if the bank retained the right to change the terms and conditions at will and with no recourse on your part?

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog

Posted by: Greg at 05:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 4 kb.

This is an unfortunate development.

The 78-year-old Texas lawyer who was shot by Vice President Cheney in a hunting accident suffered a "minor heart attack" this morning after a piece of birdshot moved and lodged in his heart, hospital officials said.

Doctors treating Harry Whittington said the Republican lawyer was moved back into the intensive care unit and will need to remain hospitalized for at least a week

A statement issued later by Cheney's office said the vice president spoke to Whittington around 1:30 p.m., wishing him well and asking if he needed anything.

"The vice president said that he stood ready to assist," the statement said. "Mr. Whittington's spirits were good, but obviously his situation deserves the careful monitoring that his doctors are providing."

"Some of the birdshot appears to have moved and lodged into part of his heart," Peter Banko, an administrator and spokesman for Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital, told reporters outside the Corpus Christi hospital. Banko said the birdshot "caused him to have a minor heart attack."

Asked if the birdshot could move more and endanger Whittington's life, David Blanchard, emergency room chief at the hospital, said: "When birdshot is in your body, there's always the risk they can move. We'll watch very closely for any migration."

He said later, however, that the single BB-like piece of birdshot is "in a fixed position" and is not expected to travel. Blanchard said he and other doctors treating Whittington feel "very strongly that all the other birdshot in him is not problematic." The number of other pieces of birdshot in Whittington's body is not known, he said, but could range anywhere from "more than five" to "less than 150 to 200."

I wish Mr. Whittington a speedy recovery to the best of health.

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, "Celebrities -- what don't they think they know?"

Pamela Anderson is boycotting the Kentucky Derby. The 38-year-old actress, who is an animal rights activist, says her opposition to animal cruelty in all its forms means she can never go back to the famed horse race.

"It makes me want to avoid Kentucky altogether, which is sad because there are so many great people there," Anderson said in a statement released Tuesday by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Anderson, a PETA member who attended the Derby in 2001 and 2003, has been involved in anti-fur ads and a campaign to raise awareness of what she calls abuse of chickens in processing plants that supply poultry to Louisville-based KFC.

"Like most people, I don't want to support cruelty to animals, whether it's forcing horses to race for our amusement or scalding chickens alive for our plate," Anderson said. "We have to be more evolved than this."

Last month, Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher refused Anderson's request to have a bust of KFC founder Colonel Harland Sanders removed from the state Capitol. Fletcher cited Sanders as a state icon and KFC called Anderson's attack a misguided publicity stunt.

You know, Pamela Anderson is simply a bubble-headed, buble-breasted celebrity with an opinion. It isn't based upon anything substantial, but she somehow thinks that the fact she looks marginally good in a swimsuit makes her an expert about things.

But remember -- this is one of those folks who thinks it is a good idea to videotape sex acts with her spouse and leave them lying around where others can get their hands on them. That should tell you all that you need to know about her judgement.

So this may, pass me some white meat and a mint julep on Derby Day.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

I know nothing of the man's politics beyond what is in the story, but I do like this move by one Italian politician.

ROME (Reuters) - Italy's Reform Minister Roberto Calderoli has had T-shirts made emblazoned with cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could embarrass Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government.

Calderoli, a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League party, told Ansa news agency on Tuesday that the West had to stand up against Islamist extremists and offered to hand out T-shirts to anyone who wanted them.

"I have had T-shirts made with the cartoons that have upset Islam and I will start wearing them today," Ansa quoted Calderoli as saying.

He said the T-shirts were not meant to be a provocation but added that he saw no point trying to appease extremists.

"We have to put an end to this story that we can talk to these people. They only want to humiliate people. Full stop. And what are we becoming? The civilization of melted butter?" Calderoli said.

I've said this all along -- while there is an argument to be made that the original decision to print the cartoons was wrong, the violence and threats of violence emanating from the barbaric segment of islam made it incumbant upon me and others to reprint them as a sign of support for free speech. That is the same mesage i hear Calderoli sending with the decision to print and distribute these shirts.

I wonder if they would send one to me in Texas?

Posted by: Greg at 05:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

1 As I am also a member of "The Texas Connection" Blogroll, I decided to check you out. I've been meaning to check out all the bloggers on it, but haven't gotten around to all of them yet.

Good post. This guy does have a point, doesn't he?! I am truly very tired of hearing that all we need to do is "use diplomacy" on these extremist Muslims! If those who think so want to go over there and try it, well then, "good luck" is all I can say to them, except I hope they have settled their estates.

Posted by: Gayle at Tue Feb 14 06:41:01 2006 (tUcby)

2 Ya gotta admire a leader with BALLS...

Posted by: TexasFred at Tue Feb 14 06:48:22 2006 (qX3iX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

There are lots of ways to have fun on the internet, especially when you ar blogging. Some time back, a fellow who goes by the handle of Madfish Willie started a little game on his site -- it involves seeking the world's longest comment thread, composed of people taking movie titles and substituting the word "penis" for one of the words -- resulting in some hillarious (if juvenile) titles.

Well, inspired by that, Beth from My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has decided to do something similar -- only inserting the word "Mohhamad" instead. Call it an act of solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, and a little bit of nose-thumbing at the followers of the Religion of Barbarism who are running amok in response.

My entries have been all the possible variations on the Raders of the Lost Ark/Indiana Jones series -- my personal favorite being "Indiana Jones and the Last Mohammad".

And then there is this little gem over at Jawa Report, taking a popular quote from a Michelle Malkin reader and turning it into the stem for a humorous contest -- I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than. . . " (the original was "go driving with Ted Kennedy."). My best entry is "watch Helen Thomas pole-dancing."

Drop by all of these, and add to the humor/insanity.

Posted by: Greg at 05:41 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, this is serious disregard for the law -- not something private like a supervisor having sexual relations with a subordinate in the workplace and then providing that subordinate with special treatment and encouraging perjured testimony.

Vice President Dick Cheney was hunting illegally – without the required $7 stamp on his license for quail – when he accidentally shot one of his hunting partners, Texas Parks and Wildlife officials said Monday.

And so was Harry Whittington, 78, who was recovering Monday from a shotgun blast to the face, neck and chest.

In its report, the state agency that oversees hunting and fishing said it found that neither Mr. Cheney nor Mr. Whittington had purchased the game bird stamp required to hunt quail in Texas, although both had valid hunting licenses. Both will get warning citations, and there will be no fine or other penalty.

Mr. Cheney's office said Monday he hadn't realized he was lacking the proper stamp and has since sent a $7 check to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

"I don't know how they missed it," said Cheney spokeswoman Jennifer Mayfield. A statement from Mr. Cheney's office said his staff had asked for applicable permits and would "take whatever steps are needed to comply with applicable rules."

Given the response of the MSM, Kossaks and DUers to this story, it is only a matter of time before Congressional Democrats take up the impeachment call.

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are 2006 Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda by The Strata-Sphere, and Wellstoning the King Funeral by The Anchoress.  ANd this link is where you can find the full results of the vote.

Posted by: Greg at 04:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Seems to me that there is less to this story than meets the eye.

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets.

Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, was "alert and doing fine" in a Corpus Christi hospital Sunday after he was shot by Cheney on a ranch in south Texas, said Katharine Armstrong, the property's owner.

He was in stable condition Sunday, said Yvonne Wheeler, spokeswoman for the Christus Spohn Health System in Corpus Christi.

Armstrong in an interview with The Associated Press said Whittington, 78, was mostly injured on his right side, with the pellets hitting his cheek, neck and chest during the incident which occurred late afternoon on Saturday.

She said emergency personnel traveling with Cheney tended to Whittington until the ambulance arrived.

Cheney's spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said the vice president met with Whittington and his wife at the hospital on Sunday. Cheney "was pleased to see that he's doing fine and in good spirits," she said.

* * *

"It broke the skin," [Armstrong] said of the shotgun pellets. "It knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were open. It didn't get in his eyes or anything like that."

"Fortunately, the vice president has got a lot of medical people around him and so they were right there and probably more cautious than we would have been," she said. "The vice president has got an ambulance on call, so the ambulance came."

So we are dealing with really minor injuries here -- though this could have been a much more serious situation had the range been closer.

But what exactly happened?

Armstrong said she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail.

Whittington shot a bird and went to look for it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and discovered a second covey.

Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong said.

"The vice president didn't see him," she continued. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."

In other words, this was not the result of Cheney being unsafe in his conduct -- rather it involved his companion failing to follow standard safety practices in this sort of hunting.

So why the major coverage? Well, I think this indicates why the press has a burr up its ass.

McBride did not comment about why the vice president's office did not tell reporters about the accident until the next day. She referred the question to Armstrong, who could not be reached again Sunday evening.

Why wasn't the press notified? Because this sort of accident is really not a big deal. But when you consider that the MSM wants a press release every time a public figure has a bowel movement, you had to get the obligatory "why weren't we notified" bitching from the press.

Personally, my favorite line has to be this one.

Armstrong, owner of the Armstrong Ranch where the accident occurred, said Whittington was bleeding and Cheney was very apologetic.

One would certainly hope so.

Michelle Malkin quotes this little gem from a reader.

Reader C.T. writes: "I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy ."

Quite true.
UPFATE Great article at the Washington Post, with more details.

OTHER VOICES: Stop the ACLU, Publius Rendevous, Hyscience, Ed Driscoll, Musing Minds, Judeopundit, Suitably Flip, California Yankee, Gina Cobb, Blogs for Bush, Colossus of Rhodey, Kellino, Sister Toldjah, Iowa Voice, And THAT is MY Opinion, RightWinged, Macmind, Small Town Veteran, Joni's Universe, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Homemade Sin, The Big Picture, Martin's Musings, Iowa Voice, Gribbit's World, Jawa Report, Pardon My English, Urban Grounds

Posted by: Greg at 04:04 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 686 words, total size 7 kb.

1 "In other words, this was not the result of Cheney being unsafe in his conduct -- rather it involved his companion failing to follow standard safety practices in this sort of hunting."

Umm, you are obviously not a hunter. The cardinal rule of hunting is that whoever pulls the trigger is responsible for whatever happens. When hunting anything--but especially quail because of their unpredictability--you are responsible for knowing where other people in your party are.

I have hunted in that same area of SE Texas and there is no way a fellow hunter could not be seen if he's wearing the requisite clothing. The mesquite brush is relatively short and any trees around would also be small and spread apart. You can see quite easily.

What probably happened was that he got so focused on the bird, that he ignored everything else in his view. Regardless, unless you deliberately jumped in front of your partner's gun, there is NEVER a scenario where the shooter is not responsible for his actions.

This is clear recklessness on the part of Cheney.

It will be interesting to hear Whittington's rendition of the event. It will also be interesting to read the local police investigation.

Posted by: Kilp at Mon Feb 13 07:35:30 2006 (5Zer4)

2 Ordinarily, I would agree with your statements on hunter safety. But there is information here that leads me to place a large part of the responsibility on Whittington.

If you read the report cited at the beginning of the article,along with the Washington Post article (which is excellent), you will see that Cheney was aware of where everyone in the party was -- or at least where they were supposed to be. It appears that Whittington moved from where he said he would be. While it is not quite "jumping in front of the gun," it is clearly at least as much a case of lack of caution on Whittington's part as on Cheney's part.

Assuming the reports are accurate, Whittington came out of a direction no one was expecting, because he had told his companions where he would be. He then unexpectedly approached from behind, which is a blind spot, coming from lower where he could not be seen to higher ground.

As for you descritpion of the terrain, I have some questions as to its accuracy. SE Texas is a big place, with a variety of flora and fauna. I'm not familiar with the Armstrong Ranch, but I do know that the nearby King Ranch has multiple habitats, most of which do not meet with your description of the terrain. I therefore respectfully question your assertion regarding the area where the incident happened.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Feb 13 08:36:44 2006 (6IgSr)

3 You're right with regard to the variability of terrain in Kenedy County--most of my experience hunting quail has been in Jim Hogg County, which is pretty close.

I base my comments on some of the pictures shown on Fox today--admittedly not the best source of data regarding the local terrain. Judging from the pictures, however, it looked like classic southeast texas Mesquite Blackbrush brush which will have sideoats grama that the birds love to hang out in.

It would help if we knew whether they were hunting for scaled quail or Bobwhite. I would think Bobwhite since it is a bit more prevalent in that area although rare. The Bobwhite loves itself sideoats grama and leatherstem--generally stuff without a bunch of large trees around.

The other reason it seems like it was a lightly-wooded area and, hence, space for better views was because of Armstrong's description. She claimed to be in a vehicle and saw the whole thing transpire,meaning there could not have been a bunch of trees around to obscure her view. This begs another question--if indeed she see Whittington approach Cheney from behind why didn't she yell or something as the covey started flying toward him to alert Cheney?

Regardless, assuming her story is correct this still doesn't get Cheney off the hook. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS KNOW WHERE YOUR HUNTING PARTNER IS BEFORE YOU DISCHARGE YOUR GUN!!! This is hunting safety 101! Because quail hunting is potentially dangerous hunting parties should be small. Normally you hunt quail in pairs. The fact that they had three people with guns should have made them extra-sensitive to the location of each member of the party.

It has been weird that the Cheney's office has not been forthcoming about the circumstances surrounding the expedition--especially how many people were involved. Since he nor his office won't talk to the press about the details and it wasn't until late this afternoon that we learned the name of the third member of the hunting party, it is difficult to piece together what happened.

The fact that Cheney and Pam Willeford aren't talking coupled with the fact that local law enforcement wasn't notified until the next day makes me less than confident in Armstrong's account.

Also, I've been a hunter for 30 years and I have always understood the hunter's credo to be one of accepting individual responsibility. Yes, accidents can happen--although they are EXTREMELY RARE. In the event of an accident, blaming it on the victim--which what Armstrong and the White House have been doing over the past 24 hours--is simply insulting.

In this type of political climate the gun control lobby is going to jump all over this. Essentially, Cheney is emodying the gun control line of argument--i.e. that guns are the problem, rather than irresponsible users.

Posted by: kilp at Mon Feb 13 11:19:24 2006 (5Zer4)

4 An update--I was correct in my speculation regarding the terrain. The Smoking Gun has a copy of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Report on the shooting. They say that the topography was flat, light cover, and it was sunny.

Armstrong's ability to give such an authoritative description, however, remains puzzling.

Posted by: kilp at Tue Feb 14 02:17:55 2006 (/qZ1B)

5 My reading of it is that she was watching the whole thing unfold from the car -- and add to that any discussion with her guests, and she would be in a great position to provide a reasonable account of what happened.

And thanks for the terrain update -- it is appreciated.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Feb 14 03:52:17 2006 (qm26c)

6 It is ALWAYS the fault of the shooter. Don't blame the lawyer on this one. Further, if three people are hunting and one of them drops a bird, the others are obligated to help that hunter retrieve his bird before they start looking for more. But, what do I know. I've only hunted birds for more than 60 years and, unlike our Veep, I have successfully completed a hunter's safety course.

As an aside, I read a post on another site that went like: "What kind of samn fool hunts a lawyer with a shotgun?"

Posted by: clark groseth at Tue Feb 14 09:48:47 2006 (4W7tY)

7 I was told last night that Cheney had been put in charge of a federal program to reduce the number of lawyers in the US.

The source of the joke was one of the lawyers who teaches in the same legal education program that I do.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Feb 14 10:10:51 2006 (fI2Yv)

8 Ok, this is getting weirder--I havent yet seen the entire footage of Cheney's interview with Brit Hume, but I was re-reading one of the early accounts of Katherine Armstrong which makes her viability as a witness extremely suspect.

According to the AP story: "Armstrong said she saw Cheney's security detail running toward the scene. "The first thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem," she told The Associated Press."

Ok, if she actually saw the event transpire, the "first thing that crossed" her mind wouldn't be Cheney's heart problem--but rather the fact that someone was just shot! If she actually just saw Cheney shoot Whittington you would immediately understand the reason his security detail was running toward the scene!

This doesn't wash. She is a discredited witness. It will be interesting to see if Hume actually asks him significant questions, or whether he just gives him a free pass on this.

Posted by: Kilp at Wed Feb 15 09:19:47 2006 (5Zer4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This is most unfortunate, and I condemn it unambiguously and without reservation.

Copenhagen - Unknown assailants defiled the Muslim section of a cemetery near the Danish town of Esbjerg over the weekend, Radio DR reported on Sunday.

Some 25 grave sites were completely destroyed as the attackers smashed or overturned gravestones and trashed plants, DR reported.

Graves in the Christian part of the cemetery remained untouched.

Police said that there was no indication of the attackers' motives or where they came from.

Public life in Denmark has been dominated in recent weeks by the worldwide protests by Muslims over caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that were originally published in the country's Jyllands Posten newspaper last September.

Whoever did this defiles the cause of freedom as practiced in the West -- by behaving in a barbaric manner no different than a member of the Religion of Barbarism.

UPDATEL Quotes from Danish PM at the Washington Post

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

I do not believe that any reasonable person would believe that those illegally in the United States have any rights other than to go back where they came from.

About 400 Latinos concerned about the rights of immigrants who enter the country illegally to work met Saturday in Riverside to fight plans for increased enforcement from Washington and Costa Mesa.

The Mexicano/Latino Leadership Immigration Summit focused mostly on legislation approved in the House of Representatives that would build a fence along parts of the Mexican border.

"We're not terrorists, just hardworking people trying to make a living," said speaker Hector Preciado of the Greenlining Institute, a Northern California public policy and advocacy group.

Participants also mentioned Costa Mesa's decision to allow police to enforce some federal immigration laws and seek deportation of felony suspects. The Orange County Sheriff's Department is working on a similar proposal.

You may be hardworking people, Hector, but you are also lawbreakers. Go back where you came from, and then apply to come here the right way.

Posted by: Greg at 03:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

I've always loved the song, and never even considered teh race issue.

DURHAM, N.H. - A ’70s rock song used to rally fans at University of New Hampshire hockey games for perhaps a decade, “Black Betty,” is no more.

Athletic Director Marty Scarano told the campus newspaper The New Hampshire that the rollicking 1977 song by Ram Jam was banned because it is “theoretically racist.”

The NAACP deemed the Ram Jam version of the old song offensive to black women three decades ago, and UNH has received intermittent complaints about it for years, the Concord Monitor reported yesterday.

Two years ago, a student group that studied diversity at the school said it should be banned. Scarano said a more recent complaint pushed him to outlaw it, but he did not say who complained.

Dominated by repetitive “na-na-na-na-nas,” “bam-ba-lams” and the exclamation “Black Betty!” the song has been played at the starts of the second and third periods of UNH hockey games for more than a decade, according to a school Web site.

I'm offended by the ban -- I guess that means they will have to ban the ban on "Black Betty".

Whoa, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)
Whoa, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)
Black Betty had a child (Bam-ba-Lam)
The damn thing gone wild (Bam-ba-Lam)
She said, "I'm worryin' outta mind" (Bam-ba-Lam)
The damn thing gone blind (Bam-ba-Lam)
I said Oh, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)
Whoa, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)

Oh, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)
Whoa, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)
She really gets me high (Bam-ba-Lam)
You know that's no lie (Bam-ba-Lam)
She's so rock steady (Bam-ba-Lam)
And she's always ready (Bam-ba-Lam)
Whoa, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)
Whoa, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)

Whoa, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)
Whoa, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)
She's from Birmingham (Bam-ba-Lam)
Way down in Alabam' (Bam-ba-Lam)
Well, she's shakin' that thing (Bam-ba-Lam)
Boy, she makes me sing (Bam-ba-Lam)
Whoa, Black Betty (Bam-ba-Lam)
Whoa, Black Betty BAM-BA-LAM

By the way, if anyone bothered to check, the song is the product of that great ofl bluesman, Huddie "Leadbelly" Ledbetter.

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

I love my job. I really do. But I've had jobs I did not love. I've just quit and moved on.

I guess Australians are known to take a different approach.

NASTY boss? Planning to quit? Your fellow Australians expect you to exit with flair.

Like Sean, who was handed a $10 Christmas bonus after achieving the second-highest year-end sales figures at a golf retailer. "I walked up to my boss, tucked the $10 into his shirt pocket and said: 'Look, I know how difficult it was for you for part with this so here, put it towards some petrol or something.' Then I walked out."

Olivia's boss lodged a client's tax return late, incurring a $30 fee from the Tax Office. Her boss wrote to another partner: "Peter, we can recoup this from [the client's] fees." When she resigned she sent a copy of the letter to the auditor.

Anthony swears he knows someone who resigned from his bank job by submitting his resignation written on a banana peel. "I imagine it's still in their files."

Megan worked in a barber shop where the boss kept hitting on her. "One day he asked for a free haircut. He was making suggestive remarks so I put a bald strip down the middle of his head."

Personally, I like the one dealing with reorganizations.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 1 kb.

Jimmy Carter falsely linked Democrat-authorized, politically-motivated, warrantless domestic spying on Dr. & Mrs. King with national-security-imperative listening to terrorist-connected telephone calls that originate outside the US during Mrs. King's funeral this week. It was shameful and wrong of him to do so.

But now we find out that warrantless surveilance for national security purposes was conducted by President Jimmy Carter -- with his personal authorization -- in 1977.

But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.

The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.

In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."

Notice -- that is "inherent authority". Authority which exists as a part of the authority granted each and every president by Article II of the US Constitution, independent of any statute or law. It is power that Congress cannot restrict or eliminate, and that the courts must recognize.

That is why all of the discussion of the FISA law is irrelevant, and the position of the Bush administration is correct.

That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.

The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say FISA guidelines, approved in 1978 when Mr. Carter was president, are the only way the president may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.

Administration officials say the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without warrants in the name of national security. The only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, they argue, is through an amendment to the Constitution.

The administration's view has been shared by previous Democrat administrations, including Mr. Carter's.

I realize that must stick in the craw of a lot of liberals, but the Constitution trumps any statute. Congress cannot limit the constitutional powers delegated to the other two branches by statute, any more than the president can issue an executive order ending a filibuster or preventing the courts from hearing a case. Congress cannot prevent the exercise of such inherent powers of the Executive branch, any more than the Judicial Branch could issue an order prohibiting ta declaration of war or preventing the president from vetoing a bill.

Let's look at what the Carter Administration had to say about FISA.

When Mr. Bell testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while the measure doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."

Did you get that -- the position of the Carter administration was that the FISA law permitted exactly the sort of activity Carter so inapproriately criticized at Mrs. King's funeral. He climbed on to her corpse to deliver a political attack that he knew was false. He condemned activity that he himself engaged in and defended -- and he knew it. That makes him a hypocritical SOB of the first order. Too bad we cannot impeach him retroactively.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters & Powerline.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Stuck On Stupid, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Everyman Chronicles, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 04:07 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 630 words, total size 5 kb.

Do we really need to turn childhood pranks into criminal activity when there is no harm and no intent to do harm?

A 12-year-old Aurora boy who said he brought powdered sugar to school for a science project this week has been charged with a felony for possessing a look-alike drug, Aurora police have confirmed.

The sixth-grade student at Waldo Middle School was also suspended for two weeks from school after showing the bag of powdered sugar to his friends.

The boy, who is not being identified because he is a juvenile, said he brought the bag to school to ask his science teacher if he could run an experiment using sugar.

Two other boys asked if the bag contained cocaine after he showed it to them in the bathroom Wednesday morning, the boy's mother said.

He joked that it was cocaine, before telling them, "just kidding," she said.

Aurora police arrested the boy after a custodian at the school reported the boy's comments. The youngster was taken to the police station and detained, before being released to his parents that afternoon.

So we have a 12-year-old suspended from school and facing criminal charges for. . . behaving like a 12-year-old.

Here's hoping that the prosecutors have more sense than the cops and the school.

Posted by: Greg at 03:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

1 comment3, Buy pamela anderson sex tape
, , No Credit Check Loans For You
, ajppbs, Super Cheap Airplane Tickets Here
, kroy, Paris Hilton Sex Tape Now
, 1748, Lindsay Lohan Sex Tape Real
, ixryf,

Posted by: hhvdks at Sat Feb 21 13:03:28 2009 (Khlcn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Former Congressman Bob Barr spoke at the annual CPAC convention this week. He was, by all accounts, accorded a cool welcome, based in large part on his principled opposition to many of the Bush Administration's tactics in the War On Terror.

"Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights?" Barr beseeched the several hundred conservatives at the Omni Shoreham in Woodley Park. "Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"

Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes."

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.

But that is precisely the strength of the conservative movement, Mr. Scorcinelli -- we allow for dissent and disagreement and are willing to listen to them. The Left takes a different approach, shouting down and silencing those who disagree. Would supporters of the Patriot Act or the war in Iraq be welcome to speak at major liberal events? And we all remember the refusal of the Democrats to allow even a single token pro-lifer, Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, to speak at their convention ON ANY SUBJECT WHATSOEVER (which makes his son's continued affiliation with the Party Of Sucking Dismembered Babies Into A Sink while claiming to be a pro-lifer utterly incomprehensible).

Would Vice President Cheney or Secretary of State Rice get a polite but chilly reception at Yearly Kos or an event sponsored by MoveOn.org? Heck -- would card-carrying liberal Democrat Joe Lieberman get such a reception? I think we all know the answer. And the willingness to tolerate dissent and engage in discussion is part of what makes conservatism a much stronger, attractive (and dare I say it) American ideology than liberalism ever will be.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm offended, and my religious and cultural sensitivities are hurt by this act of intolerance. I think I'll go stone a mosque or burn down a diplomatic building!

Nearly two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops Friday in Kashmir, burning Valentine's Day cards and posters to protest a holiday they say imposes Western values on Muslim youth

No one was hurt in the half-dozen or so incidents, and police cordoned off the area to prevent the women from marching through Srinagar's main shopping district to continue their ransacking.

The women were from the Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat, or Daughters of the Community, Kashmir's only women's separatist group, whose members are also known for their fiercely conservative social views.

"We will not let anyone sell these cards or celebrate Valentine's Day," said Asiya Andrabi, the group's leader, as she held a burning poster in her hand. "These Western gimmicks are corrupting our kids and taking them away from their roots."

She said that the raids were carried out "not to harm anyone but to make them realize that this is against Islam's teachings."

So what you are trying to say, you daughter of a pig, is that everyone must conform to your stilted narrow view of your religion. Failure to comply with your faith will result in acts of violence and vandalism.

Would you care to explain to me why I should have a single ounce of respect for you and your Religion of Violence?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Clark Mountain Musings, Kim Priestap, Queen of all Evil, ZardozZ, Noisy Room, OKIE on the LAM, This isn't writing, Alpine Summit, LeatherPenguin, California Conservative, Sweet Spirits of Ammonia, Maggie's Farm

Posted by: Greg at 06:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 3 kb.

Maybe these boys will get to heaven and find out that they really get a 72-year-old virgin, not 72 virgins.

Indonesian Muslim hard-liners signed a pact saying they were ready to die in defence of the Prophet Muhammad, while others burned tyres in streets amid fresh protests in the world's most populous Muslim nation.

A weekly news magazine issued an apology after reprinting several of the 12 cartoons of the prophet that have triggered sometime violent protests across Indonesia and the rest of the Islamic world.

The cartoons were first published in a Danish paper in September, but have since appeared in papers around the world.

About 175 students at an Islamic boarding school in Surabaya city have signed a pledge saying they are "ready to die" to defend the honour of the prophet, said headmaster Yusuf Muhajir.

Such pledges are traditional in Indonesia, and are considered to be symbolic.

He said the students would demand an apology from any Danish citizens they met in Surabaya, the capital of east Java province, and jokingly said they would be "slapped" if they refused to do so.

Guys -- be offended all you want. Boycott whoever you feel you need to boycott. But violence against someone because of their nationality is unreasonable. Heck, if it were, then Americans would have been justified in acts of violence against random Muslims in the streed in the wake of 9/11. Instead, most of us went out of our way to show courtesy and respect to inocent Muslims. Were we wrong?

What is clear is that you and your co-religionists are certainly making the whole "Religion of Peace" thing look like an untruth.

Posted by: Greg at 06:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.