Property tax cuts and appraisal caps have been big issues in Texas. They were, in fact, a major issue in Dan PatrickÂ’s stunning SD7 victory in the 4-way race for the GOP nomination. But will they be part of Governor Rick PerryÂ’s proposal for the special session on education that begins in a week?

For the fifth time in two years, Gov. Rick Perry is asking legislators to cut school property taxes, but something is missing, so far, in his election-year effort to keep a 2002 campaign pledge.

Facing a Texas Supreme Court order and a June 1 deadline to fix the school funding system, Perry isn't proposing lower limits on how homes are appraised, or valued, for tax purposes, a key factor in escalating property taxes.

In recent years, the governor repeatedly had called for lower appraisal caps or revenue limits on local governments, arguing that without them reductions in property tax rates soon would be eroded by rising property values.

He says he still supports the caps but doesn't want legislators, when they convene April 17, to be distracted by other controversies until they address the court order, which doesn't require action on property appraisals.

Appraisal limits may be debated anyway, with the possibility that Perry eventually will add them to the session's agenda, and they may be more controversial than ever.

I’ll say it flat-out – failure to include them in the proposal, and failure to aggressively seek to have them put in place, will get this broken-glass Republican voter thinking Kinky thoughts on election day in November. Is that clear, Governor Perry?

Posted by: Greg at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

So much for the notion that the troops do not support the mission – rather than leaving the military, they are reenlisting.

Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal.

The Army was 15% ahead of its re-enlistment goal of 34,668 for the first six months of fiscal year 2006, which ended March 31. More than 39,900 soldiers had re-enlisted, according to figures scheduled to be released today by the Army.

Strong retention has helped the Army offset recruiting that has failed to meet its targets as the war in Iraq has made it harder to attract new soldiers. The Army fell 8% short of its goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, although it is exceeding its goal this year. Army recruiting figures for the first half of the year are to be released today.

The Army has met or exceeded its goals for retention for the past five years, records show. It was 8% over its goal for 2005, and 7% ahead of its targets for 2004. The number of re-enlistments has exceeded the Army's goal by a larger margin each year since 2001.

Soldiers like the Army, “and the war is not causing people to leave,” says Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman. Through March, 2,325 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq; 1,593 were Army soldiers.

The Pentagon announced in March that each of the armed forces was on track to meet its retention goal for the year.

So much for those members of the Hate-America Left who claim to speak on behalf of the troops – for the troops are repudiating them by their choice to stay i

Posted by: Greg at 09:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Tell that to the American citizens who lost their jobs in this story.

An Alabama employment agency that sent 70 laborers and construction workers to job sites in that state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina says the men were sent home after just two weeks on the job by employers who told them "the Mexicans had arrived" and were willing to work for less.

Linda Swope, who operates Complete Employment Services Inc. in Mobile, Ala., told The Washington Times last week that the workers -- whom she described as U.S. citizens, residents of Alabama and predominantly black -- had been "urgently requested" by contractors hired to rebuild and clear devastated areas of the state, but were told to leave three job sites when the foreign workers showed up.

"After Katrina, our company had 70 workers on the job the first day, but the companies decided they didn't need them anymore because the Mexicans had arrived," Mrs. Swope said. "I assure you it is not true that Americans don't want to work.

"We had been told that 270 jobs might be available, and we could have filled every one of them with men from this area, most of whom lost their jobs because of the hurricane," she said. "When we told the guys they would not be needed, they actually cried ... and we cried with them. This is a shame."

Mrs. Swope said employment agencies throughout Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi faced similar problems, when thousands of men from Mexico and several Central and South American countries -- many in crowded buses and trucks -- came into the three states after Katrina, looking for employment and willing to work for less money.

And no doubt the jobs here are being funded with the dollars of US taxpayers -- dollars which are being shipped back to Mexico and other parts of Latin America.

Because you see, there really are not many "jobs Americans won't do". The problem is that illegal labor undercuts American wages and fattens the bottom line of greedy, unethical employers.

We need employer sanctions now -- to save American jobs for Americans.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, wouldn't a lot of illegals be found at these rallies? Turn loose the folks charged with getting rid of illegals at a time and place where we know there will be many illegals -- we could make a good start to removing the law breakers.

In churches, shops and sidewalks across the Washington region yesterday, thousands of people bustled in preparation for a rally that immigration advocates say could be a pivotal moment for Latinos and other groups seeking to demonstrate their political clout.

Organizers of the National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice -- or La Marcha , as some volunteers are calling it -- said it could draw as many as 180,000 people to the Mall and hundreds of thousands more in nearly 100 cities nationwide.

Although no one knows for certain how many people will show up at the D.C. rally, the event has the potential to complicate the afternoon rush hour.

This afternoon, scores of buses will begin moving protesters from throughout the region to the District. CASA of Maryland, an immigrant rights group, has arranged for more than 40 buses to take them to Seventh Street NW between Madison and Jefferson drives. Fifteen additional buses will run a loop six times between CASA's Silver Spring office and the Takoma Metro station and are expected to carry about 5,000 people, said Kim Propeack, advocacy director for CASA.

Mexicanos Sin Fronteras, a D.C.-based immigrant rights group, will send about 20 buses from Virginia to Meridian Hill Park in the Adams Morgan area, said Farah Fosse of the Latino Economic Development Corp., a local organizer.

There, the participants will join neighborhood residents in a march down 16th and 15th streets NW to the Mall. Police plan to temporarily close some streets along the way.

If they want to step out and demand rights and citizenship, we should impose upon them a basic duty -- following the laws of the United States.

Would that the will existed to start today.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

I WON! I WON!

Ahem! Sorry for the burst of spontaneous gloating. I simply have not won before, though I have come close. once or twice.

Without further ado, here is the regular Watcher's Council post.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Immigration Protests By High School Students by Rhymes With Right (That's me, folks!), and On the Return of History by American Digest. 

The full results of the vote are available at Watcher of Weasels.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

At least it is if you look at the scientific data.

It stopped in 1997.

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

I grew up in the 1970s, when the threat we were warned about was global cooling.

Could it be that we are just seeing normal fluctuations over a typical ecological cycle?

Posted by: Greg at 08:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

A wholesome, healthy, Godly message -- no wonder the Board of Supervisors in Sodom-by-the-Bay were so threatened.

DETROIT -- Tens of thousands of teenagers were urged to enlist in a war against a culture that popularizes sex, drugs and violence during an evangelical Christian youth rally Saturday at Ford Field. The event, called Battle Cry, was part modern revival meeting and part rock 'n' roll concert.

Ron Luce, an author, Christian broadcaster and a member of a federal anti-drug abuse commission appointed by President Bush, urged the teens to abstain from sex until they are married, refrain from using drugs and alcohol and withstand the seductions of modern, popular culture.

"I organized a bunch of people from Central Michigan University and we just said, 'Hey, let's go serve the Lord,' " said Mark Morsehead, a freshman from White Lake. "And I was like, 'Well, I want to give back and show them God's love.' So that's why I'm here."

The rock 'n' roll -- including performances by a U2 sound-alike called Delirious, from England, who blasted Christian lyrics throughout the cavernous stadium -- was juxtaposed with Luce's lengthy condemnation of MTV, which he said bombards teens with messages encouraging them to engage in sexual activity.

"I want to encourage you to focus on how is it that you can make your voice heard in this culture," Luce said.

"We want you to understand: You don't have to let your generation be manipulated and molded by the worldliness that is so prevalent."

Well, Jesus said we would be reviled for his name's sake, and that some would find his message foolish.

Posted by: Greg at 08:16 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

As the son of a Vietnam vet, this rings quite true to me.

On Thursday, March 30, I was in the Atlanta airport returning to Tallahassee from Washington.

When I landed, I proceeded to my gate, E-35, for the 2:30 p.m. flight home.

As I was walking down terminal E, I saw many of our soldiers who had been home for a two-week break and were now returning to Iraq. I spoke with them and thanked them for their service.

When I arrived at my gate, I noticed there were at least 20 more heroes sitting at gate E-35 waiting for their flight to return to Iraq. I walked over there and started speaking to most of these men and women.

I met a captain from Virginia who was returning to Mosul, Iraq, to serve another six months.

He was a young captain, and told me he appreciated that I thanked the younger troops for their service, because it meant a lot to them to hear that from civilians. I told him it was my honor to do so.

I spoke to most of these courageous men and women, joked with them about their laptops and told them that when I was in the military, we had typewriters.

They laughed at that!

As I waved goodbye to them and walked across the hall to my gate, I thought about how brave and how committed they are to completing the mission they have been asked to.

My heart goes out to our soldiers. I get so emotional because they are young and fully dedicated to completing their mission. (I also got mad because I noticed that most passengers simply walked past the soldiers without saying "thank you" or even a simple hello or welcome home.)

I then thought how lucky America is to have heroes like these serving our country. These are truly future leaders of our country in every sector — business, government, etc.

It wasn't long before they announced that my flight was boarding, and as I was in line, I placed my head down and asked our Father in heaven to help these soldiers complete their mission so they can rejoin their families soon. When I handed the airline attendant my ticket, she looked at my eyes and asked me if I was OK. I answered I was fine; just those "old allergies" had come.

Please, wherever you are and wherever you see our troops, thank them, talk with them — no matter how you feel about the issues or no matter how busy you are. These young men and women are our heroes and they deserve our respect and affection.

Thank you.

Amen.

Posted by: Greg at 08:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

I'd just like to take a moment to point out this article about Tom DeLay that I found tonight when I bounced through the Washington Post website. It talks about something that, if you ever meet the man, you will quickly learn is of incredible importance to him. And it is one of those things for which Tom DeLay is rarely recognized by his opponents, who find it necessary to paint him as a cold-hearted evil SOB.

With its white rail fence, long entry drive, and landscaped lawns surrounding large brick houses, Rio Bend looks like many of the neighborhoods springing up in the exurbs southwest of Houston. But the 13 adults and 26 children who have moved in since summer of last year are part of a novel experiment in foster care -- built with money from the fundraising operation of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and his wife's drive to change child welfare policy.

Rio Bend, still under construction, is the only subdivision in the United States designed for each home to be filled with a foster family.

The 10 girls and 16 boys living here so far share the damaging histories of youngsters throughout Texas and the nation's overburdened foster care systems: neglect, beatings, sexual abuse, psychiatric disorders and the added trauma of moving from place to place. This nascent community is to provide a permanent place to live until they become self-reliant adults: a family-like environment with a strong Christian presence that erases the stigma of being a foster child because every kid here is one.

When he resigned from Congress last week engulfed in legal and political troubles, DeLay said that one of his main goals is to finish building Rio Bend -- and to use it as a role model to transform foster care around the country. His wife, Christine, is the hands-on board chairwoman of the nonprofit corporation, Oaks at Rio Bend Inc.

The ideas behind Rio Bend shatter the orthodoxy of both the right and the left about child welfare. The DeLays' belief in long-term foster homes departs from mainstream thinking that foster children should be reunited with a parent or adopted. Christine DeLay said she is "not big on family reunification" and that teenagers, the focus of Rio Bend, seldom get adopted.

The experiment unfolding here also breaks away from the idea of foster care as mainly a government responsibility. Although the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services remains legally responsible for the children here and pays their foster parents a stipend, the neighborhood is being built entirely with private money -- $8.9 million so far, $7.3 million of it raised through a controversial charity affiliated with DeLay. The foster parents pay a small rent, $450 a month, that is pooled to pay for extras not covered by the state.

Among the issues Tom DeLay worked on during his career in the House of Representatives were those related foster care and adoption. Now that he is leaving Congress, expect to see him do more of that -- and for him to be more public about those issues.

And ask yourself this -- how many other Washington big-wigs care about those issues and have been foster parents themselves?

Posted by: Greg at 02:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 559 words, total size 3 kb.

A young college student in a major American city is struck by a car and dies while fleeing a mob shouting racial slurs. Sounds like it should be a big story, with national coverage, doesn't it.

Not in this case.

A 20-year-old college student who was struck and killed by a car last week in Harlem was chased into a busy road while fleeing a group of young men during what may have been a bias attack, the authorities said yesterday.

The death of the student, Broderick Hehman of Manhattan, a junior at New York University, was ruled a homicide by the city medical examiner, who found that while the direct cause was head trauma, Mr. Hehman had been fleeing assailants when he was struck, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner said yesterday.

On April 1, Mr. Hehman darted into the intersection at 125th Street and Park Avenue, where he was hit by a silver Mercedes-Benz, the police said. A witness, a homeless man named David Jones who sells used goods at the intersection, said that just before the collision, he saw a group of men trying to attack the student. Mr. Hehman died on Tuesday.

So what we have here is a pack of jackals preying on a lone individual, which results in his death. what do the police think happened?

Investigators have two theories concerning the killing, a law enforcement official said yesterday: that about eight young men, some of them teenagers, were trying to rob Mr. Hehman; or that the group, at least one among them using a racial epithet, singled him out because he was white.

Oh, he was white. No need to make this a front page story or highlight the racial angle to the story -- bury the story inside the paper and bury the race of the victim at the end of the story. Don't mention the race of the perpetrators at all. After all, it isn't like this was a gang of white guys chasing a black man into traffic -- that would be news! But the New York Times certainly couldn't present facts that might make some members of a minority community look bad -- that would be a horrid act of racism. Heck, I'm surprised that the paper has not editorialized that Broderick Hehman was guilty of racism for fleeing for his life and getting killed in the process. After all, they are a bunch of head-up-the-butt liberals over there.

Fortunately, the New York Post has the decency to pursue the story a little further (link courtesy of Modern Tribalist).

The NYPD hate-crimes unit is probing a report that a white NYU student killed by a car in Harlem was fleeing a gang of black teenagers screaming "Get whitey!" sources said yesterday.

* * *

The sources said Hehman might have been targeted as a soft mark for robbers after the teenage gang spotted the caring urban-studies major handing pocket change to a wheelchair- bound man near the corner of 125th Street and Park Avenue Saturday night.

The gang of youths, some of them as young as 11, had been smoking pot inside a nearby Popeye's fast-food eatery at 8:30 p.m. when they spotted Hehman walking by and then stopping to help the handicapped man.

An anonymous caller later tipped the CrimeStoppers hot line that a group of youths screamed, "Get Whitey!" and ran toward him.

Witnesses said Hehman fled into traffic against the light and was hit by a Mercedes-Benz traveling east on 125th Street.

This case does, as is pointed out elsewhere int he article, have an eerie symetry with the 1986 Howard Beach case, in which a black man was killed when pursued into traffic by a racial slur shouting teen. Interestingly enough, the New York Times covered that case extensively and ont he front page, clearly and prominently noting the race of both the victim and attackers.

But then again, that story fit the MSM frame of reference that prevails at the Times and among other major media outlets. This one does not.

UPDATE -- 4/9/06: Michelle Malkin has picked up on this story this afternoon. She adds a couple of imporant details.

First, arrests have been made.

Police said they arrested four teenage boys on Saturday night in the death of a college student who was struck by a car in Harlem earlier this month.

Authorities said they believe the suspects chased the victim, John Broderick Hehman, 20, into the busy street.

Hehman was struck by a silver Mercedes on East 125th Street near Park Avenue on April 1. He died three days later.

Hassan Mayfield and Andre Johnson, both 15, face second-degree murder and attempted robbery charges. Charges are still pending against the two other suspects, who police said are 13 years old.

Because the suspects are black and the victim was white, some activists are pushing police to pursue the case as a hate crime.

"If the reports are accurate, then one of the people in the group said: 'Get the white boy.' That's a hate crime," said Norman Siegel, a civil rights attorney.

Will the authorities have the integrity -- and the testicular fortitude -- to apply the law in an even-handed way, charging these killers witha hate crime? And will they take the appropriate stepps to have the two younger kids animals charged and tried as adults?

Second, the New York Post has picked up on issue of the silence of the MSM and the racial activists like Al Sharpton on what at first glance appears to be a racial killing that parallels one of New Yorks most celebrated -- and horrific -- cases of white on black violence.

Despite its eerie resemblance to the 1986 Howard Beach affair, this incident has all but passed unnoticed.

Back in '86, a gang of white thugs chased Michael Griffith, a black man, onto the busy Belt Parkway - where he, too, was killed by a car. The outrageous act inflamed racial passions across the city.

Last year, when another black man was beaten by several white thugs from Howard Beach, the city again took notice.

Al Sharpton & Co. saw to that.

So, Howard Beach, big headlines.

Harlem, hardly any headlines at all.

Could it be because this time the gang was black and the victim white?

Obviously, the police have to take their time as they make their case, but the silence in the media - relative to the other two cases - is stunning.

Eyewitness accounts say Hehman had stopped to give a homeless man a dollar. One thug allegedly approached, asking, "Where's our dollar?"

Another yelled, "Get the white boy!" or "Get whitey!" The gang chased him.

* * *

Meanwhile, while we have never particularly cared for the concept of "hate" crimes, the fact is that the statutes must be enforced as written.

A little public protest from Al Sharpton and his merry pranksters would go a long way toward making their reflexive "outrage" when the shoe is on the other foot a bit more credible.

Even if they don't really mean it.

MORE AT Jason E. High, Ed Driscoll, Church of the Painful Truth, Wall Street Cafe, Florida Cracker, The Cotillion, A Mom and Her Blog

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Stop the ACLU, Right Wing Nation, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Wizbang, Bullwinkle Blog, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Uncooperative Blogger, Samantha Burns, Stuck on Stupid, Voteswagon, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Outside the Beltway, Conservative Cat, Third World Country

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1257 words, total size 9 kb.

Or will the culture of corruption in that has run rampant among the Donks for generations be allowed to continue unabated?

The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) today disclosed that it filed a 500-page Complaint on February 28 with the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia detailing hundreds of ethics law violations by Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV).

Rep. Mollohan is the ranking member of the House ethics committee and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee. The Wall Street Journal this morning carried a front-page story about the case.

The lengthy complaint followed a nine-month investigation by NLPC, the ethics group that also broke the Boeing procurement scandal in 2003. NLPC alleged financial conflicts of interest by former Air Force official Darleen Druyun in negotiating the lease of refueling tanker aircraft. Ms. Druyun and Boeing CFO Michael Sears eventually served prison terms, and Boeing CEO Phil Condit resigned.

Would the Democrats have stood by for Tom DeLay serving on the Ethics Committee? We all know the answer -- so will they apply the same standard to one of their own?

What is the problem?

The Wall Street Journal leads today with a piece on Rep. Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), the Democratic ranking member on the House Ethics Committee. Mollohan, also a member of the Appropriations Committee, has earmarked millions in funds for non-profits run by his business partner and some campaign contributors.

The Journal reports that Mollohan is now under investigation, and if this release by the National Legal and Policy Center has any validity, he may have been understating his assets in his congressional disclosure forms over a nine year period. NLPC claims to have conducted a nine-month investigation into Mollohan's finances, triggered by the unusual rise in his net worth since 2000.

"When Mollohan failed to disclose an asset we would document his ownership interest with a deed, Uniform Commercial Code filing or other public record," reads a statement by NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm. "In all, we documented over 250 misrepresentations and omissions. ... The real issue here is not whether Mollohan systematically was hiding financial and real estate assets and grossly misrepresenting their value. He was. The real issue is why he was hiding those assets."

Sounds rather serious to me -- perhaps he needs to get off the Appropriations Committee, too.

Oh, and I love this little tidbit at the end of the Human Events piece.

Currently, the three congressmen who appear most likely to be indicted are Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), William Jefferson (D-La.), and Bob Ney (R-Ohio). Add Mollohan to that list, and it could become difficult for Democrats to campaign on the "Republican Culture of Corruption" that has laced their rhetoric for months now.

I wonder -- how much attention with the MSM pay to these charges?

H/T No Agenda & GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 01:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, he is a liberal – and a Democrat candidate for the legislature. Why would they possibly want to fire him for professional misconduct?

An eighth-grade science teacher, who is a Democratic candidate for state office, won't face suspension for showing students a derogatory, profanity-filled Internet film about the president.

Limestone County Superintendent Barry Carroll said Thursday that he talked with West Limestone High School teacher Steve White about showing the film.
"It's a personnel matter, and it's been handled," Carroll said. "Both I and Principal Stan Davis discussed the matter with him. He's not on suspension or anything like that."

Carroll would not specify how he handled it.

White has qualified to run for District 4 state representative, which includes portions of Limestone and Morgan counties.

A personnel matter? Well I suppose it was, but it should have been handled much more severely. Consider what he showed to a captive audience of middle school students.

The video by Filmstripinternational.com opens with the words "American Civics Volume II" and shows black and white clips of war and what appears to be the Great Depression.

It refers to a country at war, the poor getting poorer and jobs moving overseas. Then it shows a color photo of President Bush with a profane caption.

That upset some parents, who complained to school officials about the content of the clips featuring Bush, members of his administration and his supporters.

Other captions, some containing profanity, are shown under photos of Texas Rep. Tom DeLay, Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The band Big Jim's Ego performs the film's song. As images of Bush's administration scroll across the screen, the song says:

And I know there are those people,
Who say they never are to blame;
And that's not my modus operandi,
I don't play that game.
And then there are some people, who claim the sun shines out their behind
And it's oh so hard to get them to change their mind;
And I've given up trying.

Carroll said White did not give a reason for showing the film. Carroll said the incident occurred before spring break.

Somebody, please, explain to me a sound educational reason for showing a profane political propaganda piece in a middle school level science classroom. I mean, I only have a decade of experience teaching on the high school level (half of it teaching social studies courses) and a nearly a decade teaching government on the college level, so I may lack the training and level of expertise to understand the valid educational objective that the film would accomplish in an eighth grade science setting . IÂ’ve not been able to think of one -- not even for my high school history classroom.

In light of the clear abuse of his position, I think termination is in order. And if the school board does not quickly intervene in this situation, I believe that the voters should see to it that they also are removed from any position of influence in the school district.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin writes on this topic today -- and the article she links to points to some interesting details about this clown's "science" class. This isn't the first time he has turned the topic to politics -- or imposed his views on students.

[Parent Christy] Jackson said she is disturbed by both the political message and the obscenities in the video. “I don’t see what that has to do with science,” she said.

According to her son and his friends, she said, discussion in WhiteÂ’s science class often turns to politics.

“I know of one instance where my son was told he couldn’t leave the room without saying, ‘John Kerry rocks,’” she said. “I think my son is entitled to his opinion, just like (his teacher) is. I don’t think any issue should be forced on my son.”

I'm sorry, but such conduct by a teacher is outrageous! He certainly out-did Jay Bennish by a country mile. Imposing a statement of political loyalty upon a student in any class -- much less a science class -- is not simply unprofessional, but also unAmerican.

Oh, and about the content of the video in question -- this additional article includes some furhter explanation of the objectional contents.

The video clip, which can be viewed at Filmstripinternational.com, shows a slideshow of images accompanied by a song called “A—hole.” The slides show President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration. Words are typed on each image; a photo of bush in college bears the caption “A ‘bad apple’ in college.” A scene showing Rice said she was shopping for shoes after the “levee broke.”

The word a—hole is sung nine times and shown on screen 11 times; the s-word is used once and someone is shown “flipping a bird” once.

In.

Eighth.

Grade.

Science.

Class.

How on earth can this be defended -- and how can a reprimand possibly be sufficient?

Oh -- don't overlook these previous actions by the panty-waist superintendent, Dr. Barry Carroll.

On Dec. 14, Carroll immediately suspended and then recommended that board members fire a school bus driver accused of using a vulgarity aboard the bus. The board did not terminate the driver.

In August of 2004, Carroll removed Internet access for teachers and students from county schools to prevent misuse and protect students. A few months later, access was returned to those faculty and staff who signed Internet use agreements and stated they would not access the Internet for personal use. Students only have access to Internet sites that are pre-approved by teachers.

A single vulgar statement was grounds for terminating a bus driver back in December, according to Carroll -- but 21 vulgar words and an obscene hand gesture in the classroom merits only a stern talking-to for a teacher. Seems to me that he has a warped notion of appropriate professional conduct. And givent hat the material in question would have been barred to the students under district policy -- and that accessing the video from school could in no way be deemed as a part of White's professional duties (remember -- he teaches science), it appears that Carroll is unwilling to enforce district policies in a fair and even-handed way when the out-of-control employee is a politically-connected left-winger. I'd have to argue that not only does Steve White merit termination, but that Dr. Carroll needs to go as well. And if I lived in the area, I'd look askance at the school board, too, for letting this situation be handled in such a manner.

UPDATED HERE -- 4/11/06 & HERE

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, SpunkyHomeSchool, Right Wing Nation, AListReview, J Rob's House of Opinion, Church and State, HoodaThunk?, Freedom for Some, Freedom Folks, Once More Into The Breach, Daily Musings, Moonbattery, Brutally Honest, Aldaynet, Right Voices, Independent Conservative, Expose the Left, Michelle Malkin (again), Media Crunch, Church and State (again), Skilletfan, Mike's America, Strata-Sphere

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Stop the ACLU, Right Wing Nation, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Wizbang, Bullwinkle Blog, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Uncooperative Blogger, Samantha Burns, Stuck on Stupid, Voteswagon, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Outside the Beltway, Conservative Cat, Third World Country

Posted by: Greg at 12:34 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1225 words, total size 11 kb.

You have to feel bad for Patrrick Fitzgerald. If what he just filed is true, then the entire notion that there was a crime committed in the Plame case likely goes right out the window.

President Bush authorized White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, according to a federal prosecutor's account of Libby's testimony to a grand jury.

The court filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time places Bush and Vice President Cheney at the heart of what Libby testified was an exceptional and deliberate leak of material designed to buttress the administration's claim that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. The information was contained in the National Intelligence Estimate, one of the most closely held CIA analyses of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war.

Fitzgerald said Libby's disclosure took place as the result of "a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate" claims made in a July 2003 newspaper article by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was hired by the CIA to evaluate whether Iraq sought nuclear material in Niger. Wilson wrote that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

The White House did not challenge the prosecutor's account of Bush's and Cheney's role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday. Both Bush and Cheney have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, but the details of what they told him are unknown. Fitzgerald's new account is based on Libby's grand jury testimony that Cheney told him Bush had authorized the declassification and disclosure of some of the information.

Because after all -- as Commander in Chief, who has the ultimate authority to declassify information? President George W. Bush. And since it has long been established that he similarly authorized Vice President Dick Cheney to declassify information, any disclosures they authorized would be legal.

I guess Fitmas ain't coming for the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers after all

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

The Gnostics were a heretical sect of Christians whose views were ultimately repudiated by mainstream Christianity in the early days of the Church. One of the many Gnostic texts known only from obscure references in other works was the so-called "Gospel of Judas". Well, that book has been found in Egypt, translated, and is available to those who wish to know more about the beliefs of the Gnostics and other groups which flourished and died out in the early days of Christianity.

An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so.

Though some theologians have hypothesized this, scholars who have studied the new-found text said, this is the first time an ancient document defends the idea.

The discovery in the desert of Egypt of the leather-bound papyrus manuscript, and now its translation, was announced by the National Geographic Society at a news conference in Washington. The 26-page Judas text is said to be a copy in Coptic, made around A. D. 300, of the original Gospel of Judas, written in Greek the century before.

Terry Garcia, an executive vice president of the geographic society, said the manuscript, or codex, is considered by scholars and scientists to be the most significant ancient, nonbiblical text to be found in the past 60 years.

Analyses by various experts in the field of ancient documents confirm that the codex is real, and its contents are fit with the Gnostic world-view.

The most revealing passages in the Judas manuscript begins, "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover."

The account goes on to relate that Jesus refers to the other disciples, telling Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." By that, scholars familiar with Gnostic thinking said, Jesus meant that by helping him get rid of his physical flesh, Judas will act to liberate the true spiritual self or divine being within Jesus.

The codex, known as the Codex Tchacos (after the purchaser of the manuscript) was discovered in the 1970s, but only recently became available to scholars.

As pointed out in the Washington Post, the Gnostic work clearly sets itself at odds with the mainstream of Christianity. Only the initiated are let into the secret knowledge (Greek gnosis) which truly elevates one spiritually to the true worship of the true God.

The other apostles pray to a lesser God, Jesus says, and reveals to Judas the "mysteries of the kingdom" of the true God. He asks Judas to help him return to the kingdom, but to do so, Judas must help him abandon his mortal flesh: "You will sacrifice the man that clothes me," Jesus tells Judas, and acknowledges that Judas "will be cursed by the other generations."

Having studied some of the Gnostic writings from Nag Hammaddi during my seminary days, I'll be curious to read this translation and see how the Gnostic "Gospel of Judas" fits with other Gnostic works.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 571 words, total size 4 kb.

If homosexual groups have time to complain about this, they really have nothing to complain about in American society.

The Dodge Caliber's "Anything but Cute" advertising campaign featuring a fairy in one television spot is anything but funny to some in the gay community.

Some viewers and gay rights supporters have complained the Chrysler Group commercial -- dubbed "Too Tough" and featuring a fluttering fairy zapping buildings and trains into cuter-looking gingerbread houses and toy trains -- is offensive and borders on homophobic.

The fairy is unsuccessful at transforming a black Caliber and is mocked by a male passer-by walking a dog. "Silly little fairy," he says.

As retribution, the fairy turns the pedestrian's button-down shirt and jeans attire into white shorts and a polo shirt draped with a preppy sweater. His black dog leash becomes four pink ones connected to Pomeranians. The suggestion, some say, is the man was turned into a homosexual.

"It directly finds humor with the term fairy, referring not just to the type that flies around with a magic wand, but also the universally recognizable gay stereotype of an effeminate gay man," the Commercial Closet said in an online review of the ad. The Internet-based group monitors marketing tactics that could be offensive to gays and lesbians.

I like the response from Chrysler spokesperson Suraya Bliss.

"We were pretty surprised that there are individuals that are making the conclusion that sexual orientation can be determined by the type of clothes you wear and the type of dog that you're walking," Bliss said.

"Are they suggesting that men that wear colored shirts are gay Â… or that all gay men dress alike? What we would ask someone to do is look at the ad for what it is," she said. "The ad is about the Dodge Caliber, which is a small car that stands apart from the competition because of its aggressive styling, styling that's anything but cute -- the tagline for the campaign."

IÂ’ve heard it said that when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like a nail. I guess when the only thing that matters to you is sexual orientation, everything looks like a slur.

Linked To Debbie Schlussel

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

A week later, this arrogant sack of crap finally apologizes.

"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said in brief remarks on the House floor. "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."

But only after this.

No more he-grabbed-she-slapped -- whether U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney should be charged over a confrontation with Capitol Police last week will be decided by a grand jury, perhaps as soon as next week, said federal law enforcement sources familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have decided to present the case, and the grand jury will begin hearing testimony Thursday, the two sources said.

Senior congressional sources said that two House staff members -- Troy Phillips, an aide to Rep. Sam Farr, D-California, and Lisa Subrize, executive assistant to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Michigan -- have been subpoenaed to testify.

The Justice Department and the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, which is handling the case, refused to comment.

Which was preceded by this and this.

As U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Georgia, faces possible criminal charges for a Wednesday altercation with a Capitol Police officer, one of her lawyers said Friday that the real issues were "sex, race and Ms. McKinney's progressiveness."

In a news conference featuring actor Danny Glover and singer Harry Belafonte, McKinney said she would be exonerated and that "this whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female, black congresswoman."

* * *

During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."

Myart said McKinney would seek a criminal investigation against the officer, and a civil lawsuit against both the officer and the Capitol Police is being explored.

Sorry, Cynthia – you made this about the integrity of the Capitol Hill Police. That force will be vindicated – and you will pay the price for your arrogant, criminal behavior.

IÂ’m personally hoping for a felony charge, and at least as much jail time as Martha Stewart got.

And hopefully this ethics complaint will result in harsh sanctions against McKinney.

Soon-to-retire Rep. Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) said today he would file an ethics complaint against Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.) for striking a Capitol Police officer should no other House member do so first.

DeLayÂ’s comments came during a wide-ranging interview at his Capitol Hill office with reporters, including HUMAN EVENTS Editor Terry Jeffrey.

“If nobody in this House files an ethics charge, I am,” DeLay said in response to a question about McKinney. “Her behavior is outrageous. And it’s not the only time.”

DeLay was asked if he supported the Capitol PoliceÂ’s actions following the incident with McKinney, which took place last week when she bypassed a metal detector and a police officer stopped her.

“You bet,” he said.

“It’s outrageous behavior,” he said about McKinney. “Had it been Tom DeLay, the Ethics Committee would have met the next day.”

Which was exactly my point the other day. WonÂ’t it be poetic justice that DeLayÂ’s final act will be to uphold the honor and dignity of the House of Representatives.

UPDATE: Looks like McKinney isn’t too contrite – she has hired a bodyguard who intimidates reporters.

[E]ven as McKinney appeared to be trying to put the issue to rest, a bodyguard she hired – reportedly a former Georgia state trooper – was raising another furor when he threatened a television reporter trying to interview McKinney outside the Capitol just minutes before she appeared on the House floor.

When the reporter from Cox Broadcasting tried to ask McKinney about the grand jury, the bodyguard told him, "I'm going to put your ass in jail. I'm a police officer," a videotape of the incident shows.

Her Majesty The Congresswoman doesn’t have to speak to the press – but her retainers are out of line making threats they cannot carry out in an attempt to stop the exercise of Constitutional rights. Last time I checked, that was a violation of civil rights.

UPDATE 2: Gee, not only was there a threat against the reporter, but Her Majesty The Congresswoman's thug-for-hire actually laid hands on the reporter -- on camera, no less!

As she was heading into the U.S. Capitol to apologize for a run-in with a police officer, a bodyguard for Rep. Cynthia McKinney shoved a reporter for Channel 2 Action News.

Reporter Scott MacFarlane was trying to question McKinney as she entered the Capitol.

As the group moved across the Capitol grounds McKinney's bodyguard tried to block access to the congresswoman.

At one point the unidentified bodyguard and MacFarlane bumped into each other.

The bodyguard then shoved the reporter telling him, "I'm going to put your ass in jail."

When asked if he worked for the Capitol Police the bodyguard responded, "I work for Ms. McKinney." On the tape of the incident you can hear the man say that he wasn't a Capitol police officer but that, "I am a police officer." McKinney's office is now saying that the man was not a police officer, but a driver for the congresswoman.

The Capitol Police Criminal Investigative Department is investigating the incident and trying to determine who the man is.

MacFarlane says he believes that he and the bodyguard were both equal parties when they intially collided. MacFarlane says the bodyguard did give him a shove after the initial contact as they approached the Capitol steps, but that he does not begrudge him for that.

Seems to me that there could be grounds for assault charges against the bodyguard as well. Maybe he and Cynthia could share a cell.

(H/T Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE 2: At least one Congressional Black Caucus loon is defending Crazy Cindy.

"I feel there is some racial profiling in this case," said Georgia state Rep. Tyrone L. Brooks Sr. (D), who has known McKinney for 30 years and was her campaign manager from 1992 to 2002. "Believe me, I know in my travels through the government buildings, I know my white colleagues are treated differently from me."

Because, of course, white folks without credentials are routinely allowed to skip the security procedures -- right, Tyrone? Or is it just that when presented with the choice between a simple, non-racial, no-conspiratorial explanation and an explanation involving racism, poverty pimps and race 'ho's always play the race card.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1117 words, total size 8 kb.

Magistrate Judge Mark A. Lewis starts each day on the bench with the Pledge of Allegiance. He has since 9/11.

That practice troubled at least one shyster lawyer in his courtroom, who demanded hat the judge recuse himself for doing so.

The judge rightly refused.

And then came an unethical act by the lawyer.

n a letter dated March 17, Atlanta-based attorney Donald A. Weissman, who is representing the defendant, told Lewis he objected to beginning court with "a public declaration of national loyalty."

He asked Lewis to stop the practice or recuse himself from the case.

In an order dated March 30, Lewis said reciting the pledge is not "mandatory, requested or required" for people in the courtroom, and ruled that Weissman's request had no basis.

The next day, during a hearing in open court with television cameras rolling, Weissman handed Lewis a copy of an official complaint he filed with the state Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Once the complaint was filed in court, Lewis was "ethically required" to remove himself from the case, Gwinnett Chief Magistrate Warren Davis said.

"It's always just good form to recuse," Lewis said Wednesday.

In other words, the lawyer objects to having the case presided over by a judge loyal to the United States. When the judge refused to be cowed by his arrogant demand, Weissman staged a PR stunt intended to force Judge Lewis off the case.

This complaint needs to be dismissed forthwith by the Judicial Qualifications Commission – and actions then need to be taken to disbar Weissman for this stunt.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Magistrate Judge Mark A. Lewis starts each day on the bench with the Pledge of Allegiance. He has since 9/11.

That practice troubled at least one shyster lawyer in his courtroom, who demanded hat the judge recuse himself for doing so.

The judge rightly refused.

And then came an unethical act by the lawyer.

[I]n a letter dated March 17, Atlanta-based attorney Donald A. Weissman, who is representing the defendant, told Lewis he objected to beginning court with "a public declaration of national loyalty."

He asked Lewis to stop the practice or recuse himself from the case.

In an order dated March 30, Lewis said reciting the pledge is not "mandatory, requested or required" for people in the courtroom, and ruled that Weissman's request had no basis.

The next day, during a hearing in open court with television cameras rolling, Weissman handed Lewis a copy of an official complaint he filed with the state Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Once the complaint was filed in court, Lewis was "ethically required" to remove himself from the case, Gwinnett Chief Magistrate Warren Davis said.

"It's always just good form to recuse," Lewis said Wednesday.

In other words, the lawyer objects to having the case presided over by a judge loyal to the United States. When the judge refused to be cowed by his arrogant demand, Weissman staged a PR stunt intended to force Judge Lewis off the case.

This complaint needs to be dismissed forthwith by the Judicial Qualifications Commission – and actions then need to be taken to disbar Weissman for this stunt.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

In their never-ending search for a Tom DeLay scandal, the Houston Chronicle is reporting as news the retirement benefits that Tom DeLay will receive after he retires from Congress – benefits that he paid in for and which are subject to the same rules as other federal employees.

When he resigns in a few months, U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay immediately will be eligible for a congressional pension of nearly $67,000 a year.
The Sugar Land Republican, who will turn 59 on Saturday, would get a total of about $1.3 million in pension payouts in the next 20 years alone. DeLay also will be eligible to participate in the health plan available to all federal retirees.

His pension would be unaffected by any conviction on the campaign finance charges he faces in Travis County or any charges rising from the congressional lobbying scandal in which two of his former aides, and former ally and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, have pleaded guilty.

DeLay has not been charged with a crime in the Washington case and denies wrongdoing there and in Texas.

Notice – the same health plan as other retirees.

And let us not that there is no reason that he should lose his pension in case of conviction -- any more tha someone should lose their Social Security check because of a conviction. after all, consider the information below. Here are the nitty-gritty details.

DeLay and other members of Congress first elected in 1984 are covered automatically under the Federal Employees Retirement System, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Congressional pensions, like those of other federal employees, are financed through a combination of employee and government contributions.

Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service.

The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary.

Members of Congress get $165,200 per year. As majority leader last year, DeLay was paid at annual rate of $180,100.

In other words, no special treatment for Tom DeLay. The rules are the same for everyone. And since he paid into the system (which functions like Social Security), he is entitled to a payout upon retirement -- regardless of any (hypothetical) conviction.

But since this is Tom DeLay, it sure is easy to make it SOUND scandalous.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

This headline clearly is designed to elicit sympathy for this poor teenager.

Irving shooting victim, 16, could face charges

But then you read the article.

From what I see here, there is no shooting victim. Instead, there is a lucky criminal.

A Dallas County grand jury will likely decide whether a 16-year-old boy shot in Irving on Wednesday should face criminal charges for attempting to rob a 45-year-old man at gunpoint.

Irving police spokesman Officer David Tull said the teenager approached the 45-year-old man in the parking lot of an apartment complex in the 9400 block of E. Valley Ranch at about 9 p.m. Wednesday. Police did not release either personÂ’s name Thursday.

The man was talking on his cell phone in a parked pick-up truck when the teen wielded a gun and demanded the phone and the manÂ’s wallet. The man told the boy he was reaching for his wallet, but instead grabbed his gun, which was next to him. The man then pushed the boyÂ’s arm up and simultaneously shot him, Officer Tull said.

The teen, who was struck in the chest, spun around and then fled on foot. Fearing he may return, the man in the truck drove off and then called police.

The 16-year-old was taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital where he was listed in serious condition Thursday. Police said the bullet entered his upper chest and exited out the left side of his back. When police arrived at the scene, the teen did not have a gun on him but police later recovered one about an hour later.

Let's see -- attempt to rob someone at gunpoint, and you are somehow a "victim"? Not a chance, folks!

And i'll be honest -- i find the closing sentence sort of disturbing.

The man in the truck will likely not face charges, Officer Tull said.

Probably will not be charged? Seems like ther e is no basis to do anything other than award him a medal and a gift certificate for some time at the local shooting range so that if there is a "next time" he drops the perp so he cannot run off.

UPDATE: Seems they have updated teh headline -- no doubt due to reader outrage.

It now reads as follows.

Police: Irving teen was attempting robbery when shot

Much better.

Posted by: Greg at 09:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

Could this be the solution?

Senate Republicans reached agreement last night on a compromise immigration measure that they believe will garner enough bipartisan support to break through a parliamentary impasse that has stymied progress on a high-stakes border security bill for two weeks.

Under the agreement, the Senate would allow undocumented workers a path to lawful employment and citizenship if they could prove -- through work stubs, utility bills or other documents -- that they have been in the country for five years. To attain citizenship, those immigrants would have to pay a $2,000 penalty, back taxes, learn English, undergo a criminal background check and remain working for 11 years.

Those who have been here a shorter time would have to return to one of 16 designated ports of entry, such as El Paso, Tex., and apply for a new form of temporary work visa for low-skilled and unskilled workers. An additional provision still under consideration would disqualify illegal immigrants who have been in the country less than two years.

Like it or not, sending all the illegals back would be impossible -- we lack the will and the means. After all, what do you do with someone who has been in this country for 15 years and who has three US citizen children? What do you do with folks who are married to US citizens? This plan recognizes the different levels of ties that have developed within the illegal immigrant population -- differences I see on a daily basis at my school -- and tries to use them. to make reasonable distinctions.

I may not like the amnesty provisions of this (or any other) bill, but I recognize that there is a realistic need for some accommodation of those who have been here hte longest.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Democrats in Maryland -- and nationally -- are running scared over the possibility that Michael Steele might draw significant support from the black community in Maryland.

An internal document prepared by a top Democratic strategist warns that a majority of African American voters in Maryland are open to supporting Republican Senate candidate Michael S. Steele and advises the party not to wait to "knock Steele down."

The 37-page report says a sizable segment of likely black voters -- as much as 44 percent -- would readily abandon their historic Democratic allegiances "after hearing Steele's messaging."

"Governor Ehrlich and [Lt. Gov.] Michael Steele have a clear ability to break through the Democratic stronghold among African American voters in Maryland," says the March 27 report by Cornell Belcher, polling consultant for the Democratic National Committee, which bases its findings on a survey of 489 black voters in Maryland conducted last month.

The report, given to The Washington Post this week, drills into a topic that has emerged as a key focus of this year's U.S. Senate contest in Maryland: race.

Why is that? Simple -- the message of the GOP is one that resonates with the values of many African-Americans in this country. After all, the black community shares many of the bedrock values of the more conservaitve element of the white population of this country -- and the younger generation of African-Americans is beginning to adopt a "what have you done for me lately" attitude that weakens historuical ties to the Democrats and opens the door to the message of the GOP. The presence of black faces on the GOP ticket -- embraced with enthusiasm by the mainstream of the party -- creates an opportunity for the GOP message to be heard.

Some question this poll's results.

If the findings of the poll are correct, they paint a somewhat different vision of the black electorate from what has been commonly understood to this point, said David Bositis, a senior research associate at the D.C.-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Bositis said nothing in his research suggests that an African American Republican will be able to grab a significant segment of the black vote.

The DNC survey finds that 22 percent of black voters support Steele when matched against a "generic" Democrat.

"There's just no way it's that high," Bositis said, noting that Steele's performance among black voters in the 2002 election did not approach that number. "If he was that much of a draw then it's doubtful he would only have received 13 percent of the black vote."

Yes, that is true -- but in 2002 he did not have four years in office as a popular statewide officeholder. There was no track record of openness to African-Americans on the part of a GOP administrationin Annapolis. The situation is very different than it was four years ago.

The recommendation in this Democrat report? Attack Steele early, often, and intensely.

Steele focused on two aspects of the document: the finding that a high percentage of black voters have connected with his message and the recommendation that the Democrats attack him early.

"Voters need to know they're trying to make me into something I'm not," Steele said.

He deflected questions about a potential vulnerability exposed in the report. A message that resonated with black voters identified Steele as "George W. Bush's hand-picked candidate," the survey found. It's a message Democrats have tried to exploit. Even as Walker discussed the findings, he pointed to a photograph hanging in his office -- it shows Steele and Bush arm in arm.

But I have to wonder if that very message does not have the potential to backfire -- by highlighting that the GOP message of inclusiveness. After all, if a black man like Steele has risen to the top on his merits in the GOP without the appeal to the same tired rhetoric of race-baiting that so many black politicians have used (paging Cynthia McKinney!), then the presidential connection could help.

LINK TO: GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 676 words, total size 4 kb.

I supposedly got about 450 hits yesterday -- and abruptly stopped receiving traffic at 21:50:49. Is this a sign that I've been abandoned -- or is the tracking software down?

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

First he called for censure -- now he is backing homosexual marriage.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a prospective 2008 presidential candidate, said yesterday that he thinks bans on same-sex marriages have no place in the nation's laws.

Feingold said in an interview that he was motivated to state his position on one of the most divisive social issues in the country after being asked at a town hall meeting Sunday about a pending amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.

Feingold called the amendment "a mean-spirited attempt" to single out gay men and lesbians for discrimination and said he would vote against it. But he went further, announcing that he favors legalizing same-sex marriages.

That puts him at odds with many prominent Democratic politicians who support gay rights but not same-sex marriage. Should Feingold decide to run for the party's presidential nomination in 2008, his position would put him to the left of many likely rivals.

"Obviously, it's a very difficult issue and evokes a lot of emotions," Feingold said in a telephone interview yesterday. "I think it's something ultimately that people throughout the country will accept, but it's not an easy issue." He accused the Bush White House and the Republican Party of using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue "to hurt Democrats who are against discrimination."

Gee, Russ, every time the people have been permitted to speak on the issue, they have opposed homosexual marriage. The level of opposition has been somewhere on the order of 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 Your position may get you the votes of the out-of-touch Left in the Democrat party, effectively getting you the nomination. But your position will not play well in Peoria -- or most of the rest of the country.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

What else could you call it if you face criminal penalties for being too poor to purchase mandatory health insurance?

The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill Tuesday that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.

Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

Romney said the bill, modeled on the state's policy of requiring auto insurance, is intended to end an era in which 550,000 people go without insurance and their hospital and doctor visits are paid for in part with public funds.

"We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance," Romney said in an interview. "And cars are a lot less expensive than people."

Tuesday's votes approving the bill -- 154 to 2 in the House and 37 to 0 in the Senate -- were the culmination of two years of politicking and several months of backroom negotiations, as rival health-care plans from Romney and the two Democrat-led chambers were hammered into one.

So I guess the option for the truy poor in Massachusetts will be to leave the state or stop living, won't it. Because that is the fundamental difference between car insurance and health insurance -- you can avoid the car insurance requirement by not having a car, but the only way to avoid the health insurance requirement is by dying or moving. How progressive!

And as I read this article, this will be enforced in a manner that only those who follow the law and file state income tax returns or who provide truthful identifying information at hospitals will face penalties. I guess that means our our illegal alien friends will skate, while needy Americans are penalized for relying on their government for assistance when facing hard times.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.

If these charges are true, I'd welcome the possibility of him getting a death sentence. Unfortunately, we are too "enlightened" to give it to him.

The deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security was arrested last night on charges that he used the Internet to seduce an undercover Florida sheriff's detective who he thought was a 14-year-old girl, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said.

Brian J. Doyle, 55, was arrested at his Silver Spring home at 7:45 p.m. and charged with seven counts of using a computer to seduce a child and 16 counts of transmitting harmful materials to a minor, according to a sheriff's office statement.

Agents with the department's Inspector General's Office, the U.S. Secret Service, the Montgomery County police and the Polk County Sheriff's Office served a search warrant and seized his home computer and other materials, the statement said.

Doyle was online at the time awaiting what he thought was a nude image of a girl who had lymphoma, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said in an interview with Fox News' "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren." "We wanted to make sure he was using that computer and talking to detectives at the time of the arrest," Judd said.

What is almost as disturbing is his breach of agency security, disclosing phone numbers and other information to his intended victim -- who he believed to be a child.

However, I'm not particularly disturbed that this is the second DHS official arrested on kiddie sex charges -- if one accepts the notion that 1% of the public falls into this category of sick freaks, then it was bound to happen. We've seen it with clergy, teachers, and other groups. Why not Homeland Security Department employees?

UPDATE: You know, even a liberal like Dana gets things right sometimes.

UPDATE 2: Here's an interesting bit of information on this mutt -- he's a registered Democrat and former employee of Time Magazine.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are A Slap in the Face by Right Wing Nut House, and Open Letter To Reformist Muslims by Unwilling Self-Negation. 

The full results of the vote may be found here.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

We ought to prohibit all political participation by aliens -- no contributions, no lobbying, no demonstrations.

We ought to deny all aliens employment in this country, until and unless it can be demonstrated that no American will take a given job. No foreigners -- or even naturalized citizens -- should be permitted to hold any position as military officers, American-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

Immigrants, even after naturalization, should be prohibitted from holding elective or appointed office -- or serving as members of clergy.

Property rights should be severely restricted for immigrants, denying them ownership of real property or concessions for mineral exploration and production.

All aliens engaged in illegal conduct -- including immigration offenses -- should be subject to apprehension and citizen's arrest by any American.

Any and all foreigners -- even those in the United States legally -- should be subject to immediate expulsion by the executive branch without due process and without recourse to the courts.

By now, of course, readers must be horrified, and must be wondering if I have gone insane. After all, how could I possibly conceive of such laws, much less suggest implementing them agains these poor, defenseless immigrants streamingover the border from mexico -- good people who just want to work?

Easy -- these are identical to elements of the MEXICAN CONSTITUTION related to the rights of immigrants and limitations upon them. These restrictions are pointed out by the Center for Immigration Security in their new report, Mexico's Glass House.

For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:

* Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.

* Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."

* Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

* Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.

In accordance with Article 130, immigrants - even legal ones - may not become members of the clergy, either.

* Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."

* Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right!

* The Mexican constitution states that foreigners - not just illegal immigrants - may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

Hey, if these provisions are good enough for Mexico to enforce against poor innocent foreigners just looking for work and a better life, then certainly the government of Presidente Pendejo Vincente Fox cannot object to the enforcement of similar provisions in this country -- much less our own significantly less draconian immigration laws.

Round 'em up! Ship 'em back! Rawhide!

(H/T Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE: Over at Colossus of Rhodey, there is a lot more information on just how much Mexico restricts foreigners.

It's worth noting the chutzpah it takes for an illegal immigrant to join a protest which claims illegals have a right to stay, live and work in the U.S. Maybe these illegals, especially Mexicans, ought to consider how their own country treats illegal immigrants, particularly from Central America:

Mexico’s own immigration policies are the exact opposite of what it relentlessly advocates in the United States. Its entry permits favor scientists, technicians, teachers of underrepresented disciplines, and others likely to contribute to “national progress.” Immigrants may only enter through established ports and at designated times. Anyone not presenting the proper documentation and health certificates won’t get in; the transportation company that brought him must pay his return costs. Foreigners who do not “strictly comply” with the entry conditions will face deportation. Steve Royster, who worked in the American consulate in Mexico from 1999 to 2001, presided over several deportations of Americans who had overstayed their visas. “They were given a choice: accept deportation or go to jail,” he says.

Providing full college tuition or all-expenses-paid secondary and primary education for illegal American students in Mexico? Unthinkable. Until recently, U.S.-born children of Mexican parents weren’t even allowed to enroll in Mexican public schools, reserved for Mexican citizens only. The parents would have to bribe officials for Mexican birth certificates for their kids. (The 1998 change in the Mexican constitution to allow dual nationality now makes enrollment by U.S.-born Mexicans possible.) “We’re not friendly with immigrants; that’s a big difference with the speech we have here with American schools,” admits a Mexican diplomat.

MexicoÂ’s border police have reportedly engaged in rapes, robberies, and beatings of illegal aliens from Central and South America on their way to the U.S. Yet compared with the extensive immigrant-advocacy network in the U.S., few pressure groups exist in Mexico to protest such treatment. If Americans run afoul of MexicoÂ’s border police, watch out. In 1996, the Mexican police beat and shot in the back a teenage American girl who had led them on a high-speed chase in Tijuana.No one in the U.S. or Mexico raised a fuss, at least publicly.

Contrast that incident with another that occurred in the U.S. a few months earlier. A vanload of Mexican illegals in California had fled from the border patrol and the Riverside County deputies, throwing metal bars and beer cans at their pursuers and sideswiping cars to divert attention. When the van stopped, the deputies caught two of the fleeing occupants and beat them. Mexico’s foreign ministry turned the beating into an international human rights incident, attributing it to “discriminatory attitudes that lead to institutional violence.” Mexican diplomats formally protested to state and federal officials, and helped the two beaten Mexicans file multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the deputies and Riverside County.

More of the duplicitous, hypocritcal "Do as we say, not as we do" attitude towards the rights of foreigners, legal or not, down in Mexico. Isn't it time that we insist upon playing by the same rules as they do, rather than becoming the safety valve for all of Mexico's social and economic problems?

MORE AT Publius Rendevous, Wall Street Cafe, Conservative Outpost, Iowa Voice, Queen of All Evil, RTOYAMM, Don Singleton, Gringoman, Noisy Room

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1305 words, total size 10 kb.

BREAKING!

If the currently breaking report form Chris Matthews is correct, my congressman, former house Majority leader Tom Delay, is withdrawing from the race for CD22 based upon falling poll numbers and recent guilty pleas by former staffers. It is unknown at this time wheter this means he will be facing additional (federal?) charges, or whetehr is is simply a case of the man taking the honorable way out following his betrayal by subordinates.

BREAKING!

UPDATE 1: CNN is confirming the Chris Matthews report.

What does this mean? First, obviously, it means that Tom Delay will be out at the end of this term in January. It also means that we will have to find a replacement candidate for CD22. I'm not sure what the process is -- but I have every reason to believe that I am a part of it as a precinct chair in the district. I'll post more as I know more.

I will say this much -- the DeLay campaign has not issued any statement as of this time, not even to those of us who have formally and publicly endorsed him.

UPDATE 2:

This from a local source in Fort Bend Ccunty.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC and CNN both have reported that U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay will announce Tuesday that he has decided not to seek re-election and is quitting the race.

DeLay campaign staffers could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday night.

“He basically looked at the polling,” Matthews said of a conversation he had with DeLay. “He said the (negative) trend continued. He said he expected to take a beating all summer” on news about developments in the Jack Abramoff scandal and the Texas indictments DeLay faces.

Matthews said DeLay told him he felt he had a 50-50 chance of winning re-election, “but he said another Republican could walk into that district.” – More as it develops –

This from RedState

Just breaking on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country".

Tom DeLay just phoned Chris Matthews to give him the scoop that DeLay will be announcing tomorrow that he's dropping out of his Texas congressional race and will be leaving Congress.

Apparently, Rep. DeLay felt that he couldn't overcome the downward trends in the polls, his numbers weren't improving and likely wouldn't improve with the various scandals surrounding him, and he felt his chance of winning was no better than 50/50.

DeLay also felt another Republican candidate would walk into the job, and so he fell on his sword.

I'd agree with the assessment of the posibilities of another Republican -- but which one. Certainly not Steve Stockman, who has been circulating petitions for an independent run and has already lost to Nick Lampson in the past. I'll put out my feelers shortly and try to find something out.

UPDATE 3: Holy Crap -- this is definitely real

Time Magazine has an interview with DeLay.

Rep. Tom DeLay, whose iron hold on the House Republicans melted as a lobbying corruption scandal engulfed the Capitol, told TIME that he will not seek reelection and will leave Congress within months. Taking defiant swipes at "the left" and the press, he said he feels "liberated" and vowed to pursue an aggressive speaking and organizing campaign aimed at promoting foster care, Republican candidates and a closer connection between religion and government.

"I'm going to announce tomorrow that I'm not running for reelection and that I'm going to leave Congress," DeLay, who turns 59 on Saturday, said during a 90-minute interview on Monday. "I'm very much at peace with it." He notified President Bush in the afternoon. DeLay and his wife, Christine, said they had been prepared to fight, but that he decided last Wednesday, after months of prayer and contemplation, to spare his suburban Houston district the mudfest to come. "This had become a referendum on me," he said. "So it's better for me to step aside and let it be a referendum on ideas, Republican values and what's important for this district."

And there is more.

"I'm a realist. I've been around awhile. I can evaluate political situations," DeLay told TIME at his kitchen table in Sugar Land, a former sugar plantation in suburban Houston. Bluebonnets are blooming along the highways. "I feel that I could have won the race. I just felt like I didn't want to risk the seat and that I can do more on the outside of the House than I can on the inside right now. I want to continue to fight for the conservative cause. I want to continue to work for a Republican majority."

Asked if he had done anything illegal or immoral in public office, DeLay replied curtly, "No." Asked if he'd done anything immoral, he said with a laugh, "We're all sinners." Asked what he would do differently, he said, "Nothing." He denied having failed to adequately supervise members of his staff, even though two of his former aides have pleaded guilty to committing crimes while on his staff. "Two people violated my trust over 21 years," he said. "I guarantee you if other offices were under the scrutiny I've been under in the last 10 years, with the Democrat Party announcing that they're going to destroy me, destroy my reputation, and that's how they're going to get rid of me, I guarantee you you're going to find, out of hundreds of people, somebody that's probably done something wrong."

DeLay brushed off the torrent of investigative news articles questioning the funding behind the golf, private planes and resort hotels that marked his travel at home and abroad. He even accepted a plane from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco to go to his arraignment. "There's nothing wrong with it," he said. "They had a plane available. My schedule was such that I couldn't do it commercially — that I had to get up there and then get back and do my job. And that's the only plane that was available at the time."

"You can't prove to me one thing that I have done for my own personal gain," he added. "Yes, I play golf. I'm very proud of the fact that I play golf. It's the only thing that I do for myself. And when you go to a country and you're there for seven days and you take an afternoon off to play golf, what does the national media write? All about the golf, not about the meeting that went to. I'm not ashamed of anything I've done. I've never done anything in my political career for my own personal gain. You can look at my bank account and my house to understand that."

I tend to agree with that assessment of the accusations against Tom DeLay, and still expect him to be cleared.

And the interesting thing is that Tom DeLay might not be sticking out the rest of the term.

Putting the best face on the poll taken by his campaign, DeLay said it gave him "a little bit better than a 50/50 chance of winning reelection." Asked if that didn't mean that he could lose, he replied, "Could have. There's no reason to risk a seat. This is a very strong Republican district. It's obvious to me that anybody but me running here will overwhelmingly win the seat."

DeLay said he is likely to leave by the end of May, depending on the Congressional schedule and finishing his work on a couple of issues. He said he will change his legal residence to his condominium in Alexandria, Va., from his modest two-story home on a golf course here in the 22nd District of Texas. "I become ineligible to run for election if I'm not a resident of the state of Texas," he said, turning election law to his purposes for perhaps on last time. State Republican officials will then be able to name another Republican candidate to face Democrat Nick Lampson, a former House members who lost his seat in a redistricting engineered by DeLay.

This also leaves me wondering if I do have a role in selecting the replacement candidate, since the discussion is about state party leaders selecting the candidate. I can tell you that folks will not be happy about having overwhelmingly renominated him and then having a substitute who was not picked locally.

UPDATE 4:: Drudge picks up on tthe Time interview, and understands, as I do, that DeLay is going to leave office sooner rather than later.

In Exclusive First Interview with TIME's Mike Allen, Delay Says He Feels 'Liberated' And Vowed to Pursue Aggressive Speaking and Organizing Campaign Aimed at Promoting Foster Care, Republican Candidates and Closer Connection Between Religion and Government

New York - Rep. Tom DeLay, whose iron hold on the House Republicans melted as a lobbying corruption scandal engulfed the Capitol, told TIME on Monday that he will not seek reelection and will leave Congress within months. Taking defiant swipes at “the left” and the press, he said he feels “liberated” and vowed to pursue an aggressive speaking and organizing campaign aimed at promoting foster care, Republican candidates and a closer connection between religion and government.

(Via GOPBloggers and Blogs for Bush)

UPDATE 5: Michelle Malkin offers a bit of a round-up of information on the impending resignation.

She references Bruce Armstrong regarding the withdrawal/resignation issue -- but what i find interesting is his recap of the scandal news.

In recent months, two of DeLay's former staff members have pled guilty to charges related to former DC lobbyist and power broker Jack Abramoff. A story in today's San Jose Mercury News details the plea deal involving Tom Rudy, DeLay's former deputy chief of staff, who pled guilty last Friday to a conspiracy charge. The Mercury News story reports that Rudy has implicated his direct boss, former chief of staff Ed Buckham.

Last November, former DeLay press secretary Michael Scanlon, who went on to partner with Abramoff in the lobbying business, pled guilty to bribery charges. Neither Scanlon nor Rudy are believed to have directly implicated DeLay in criminal activity.

This seems to me to indicate that this is a political move, not a pre-indictment/guilty plea move. That certainly makes sense, given some of the Time magazine interview in which he talks about future plans.

Michelle also references this article in the Galveston Daily News. Again, I find this more interesting because of the information on the process for selecting DeLay's replacement than I am by the comments on his leaving the race and the House, which are essentially the same as the Time magazine article.

DeLay said he planned to move to a house he has in Virginia near Washington, D.C. By doing so, he would no longer be eligible to run for Congress in Texas.

With the primary already past, party leaders will have to select a candidate to run against Lampson, Libertarian Bob Smither and perhaps former Republican congressman Steve Stockman running as an independent.

DeLay said that decision would be up to the Texas GOPÂ’s executive committee.

“I should not play the role to play kingmaker,” said DeLay, who first was elected to public office as a Texas House member in 1978.

Whoever is tapped will get his support, DeLay said, and that candidate will win because LampsonÂ’s No. 1 issue will be gone.

“I imagine that this is the worst news he could get,” said DeLay. “He is going to have to tell people what he is for.”

DeLayÂ’s exit also robs Democrats of a handy target for national attacks on the Republican Party and may take the national spin off the race.

“I would assume, being the realist I am that Mr. Lampson is going to have a hard time keeping this a national race,” DeLay said.

Yeah, I suppose this is true, but a big part of the equation is going to be who the candidate who replaces him turns out to be. The DeLay loyalsists -- the many folks who have had signs out in the since before the primary race -- will back whoever the choice is. But will we be able to draw back the 1/3 of GOP primary voters who were disenchanted enough with Tom DeLay to vote for one of his opponents -- either the pair of non-entities or Tom Campbell (the relative unknown). Will Tom Campbell's showing be enough to get him the nod as a replacement candidate? Or will we have some other candidate arise. For example, what about Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, whose former legislative district sits right in the heart of CD22 (he was a resident of my old precinct, before I moved to my new one)? Would he consider re-establishing residence in CD22 to make a run against lampson, or would he prefer to stay with the "sure thing" reelection to his current post? I havew no doubt that he could get the support of the state-level folks in the GOP. Those are the first two names to jump into my head at this moment -- I'm sure there are several legislators, county officials, and even local folks giving a run some thought. Heck, I even took a moment to fantasize!

UPDATE 6: The Washington Post checks in -- and includes this assessment.

DeLay became arguably the most effective whip in modern House history. He corralled Republicans into a lock-step discipline that blocked much of former President Bill Clinton's agenda in the 1990s, engineered the impeachment of Clinton -- the first time a sitting president had been impeached in over 100 years -- and later turned the House into President Bush's firewall against Senate Republican dissent.

Beyond those legislative accomplishments, DeLay worked to turn Washington's lobbying and business community into a bulwark of Republican support, dispensing legislative favors to those who played along. He was admonished by the House Ethics Committee in 1999 for retaliating against a trade association that hired a Democrat.

The question is, of course, whether these accomplishments will outlive the congressional career of Tom Delay.

Powerline offers this assessment.

It's too bad, I think. DeLay was an effective leader, albeit too liberal in recent years. It's possible, of course, that he did something wrong along the way. But there is no evidence of that in the public domain; as I've often said, the politically-inspired prosection of DeLay by Travis County's discredited DA, Ronnie Earle, is a bad joke. As far as we can tell at the moment, DeLay appears to be yet another victim of the Democrats' politics of personal destruction--the only politics they know.

Too liberal? That may be the only time you see such an assessment.

UPDATE 7: At last, the blogger I have been waiting for -- Chris Elam of Texas Safety Forum. He has the obligatory "DeLay Quits" piece, but more importantly has a longer piece on the replacement process and current handicapping.

SREC Can Pick a Replacement Candidate

Are what my early reports say... Conflicting reports say that County Chairs could be doing it.

Who could that replacement candidate be?

Feel free to add to this list...

State Sen. Kyle Janek
Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace
Second-Place finisher Tom Campbell

Remember, Congressmen DO NOT have to live in their district. Its entirely possible that we could see a Metro Houston area replacement candidate.

PLUS.... plus... its very important to remember... we do not yet know if Tom is stepping down RIGHT NOW, or going to serve out the rest of his term. FNC is reporting that he will step down in Late Spring.

Can you say special election?

And if that turns out to be the case, what would happen in the search for a replacement candidate for the November ballot?

We'll know definite names soon, I promise.

UPDATE: I'm hearing that the special election is almost certainly what we are facing. Kronberg reports the following...

Here is what we hear from independent Texas sources. Tom Delay will resign, probably by the end of the week in order to allow the Governor to call a special election. The presumptive favorite is David Wallace, Mayor of Sugarland.

That's Sugar Land, Harvey. Two words.

Given the connections Chris and his dad have as part of their campaign work in Fort Bend County, I suspect that he has great sources. However, I really hope he is wrong on the David Wallace tip -- I think that would alienate those of us on the east side of the district -- folks who used to be part of Lampson's old district. It would be beneficial to get someone with a connection to this side of the district to shore up GOP support in what could, potentially be Lampson territory.

UPDATE 8: Fort Bend County GOP Chair Eric Thode makes the following comment over at Chris Elam's website, outlining the process that will follow.

There are two processes in play. One is withdrawal from the ballot. Two is resignation from the seat.

According to DeLay's staff, the official withdrawal will occur once residency has been established in another state, which will allow the CD 22 District Committee to replace DeLay on the ballot. Based on my conversation with Secretary of State staff, the Committee will be comprised of the County Chairs from Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston and Brazoria; plus one Precinct Chair from CD 22 in each of those counties. This individual would be selected by their peers from CD 22 in the respective counties.

Part two is the resignation, which according to DeLay staff will not occur until June or July. At that point, the Governor can choose to hold a special election on one of Texas' predetermined election dates, or decide not to hold a Special Election. Essentially, there could be two simultaneous elections...the November General Election for the 2007-2008 term of Congress and a Special Election for the final few months of DeLay's current term.

Needless to say, it's all up to Congressman DeLay when these two processes actually start and this could all change tomorrow.

FYI: In order for a May Special Election to occur, DeLay must resign before April 7, which at this point, he says he does not plan to do.

As for the candidates you mention, there are two good choices....Janek and Wallace. Although Campbell is a nice guy, he has no chance at all.

Hmmmmm.... Interesiting.

And I have to agree with the assessment of Tom Campbell's chances -- and obviously he had not seen my comment on jerry Patterson, given that our time stamps are only 3 minutes apart and his comment was a very long one.

UPDATE 9: More from Chris Elam.

First, he notes that Tom Campbell and Dave Wallace have both declared their candidacies. Will either of them (Wallace, more likely than Campbell) scare off other challengers?

Second, he takes Eric Thode's comment and gives it a separate posting of its own on TSF.

UPDATE 10: Delay Vs. World has several posts

UPDATE 11: Elam reports two additional names in the hopper to replace DeLay -- State Representative Charlie Howard and Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers -- though it is unlikely both would enter, due to similar support bases.

UPDATE 12: The Houston Chronicle is reporting a number of names that had not yet surfaced.

Familiar and lesser-known political names emerged tonight as possible contenders for the congressional seat being vacated by Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay.

Those who acknowledged interest in the seat or were mentioned as contenders included Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, state Rep. Robert Talton, Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs and former State District Judge John Devine.

Harris County Republican Party Chairman Jared Woodfill said he started receiving calls from interested officials within minutes of hearing the news of DeLay's decision.

"Numerous people have called me inquiring about the seat," he said.

Other phones also were ringing as politicians gauged potential support or heard from backers.

Eckels would have to move to the district, Sekula-Gibbs is part of the scandal-tainted Houston City Council, and Devine lost his last race for office (he left the bench to run for state rep). On the plus side, Sekula-Gibbs is from the part of the district that is "Lampson Territory" by virtue of having been a part of Nick's old district. What is interesting is that these are the first Harris County candidates I've heard mentioned.

Update 13: I was about to go to bed when I came across this bit of information -- it explains why DeLay is going to move out of state rather than simply withdraw.

With news that Tom DeLay is withdrawing from his House reelection contest, the question is what happens now in his race. It appears that the following is the applicable Texas law (putting aside any caselaw that might affect interpretation of these chapters):

Under Texas Election code section 1.005(7), DeLay was running in a 'General election for state and county officers' [, which] means the general election at which officers of the federal, state, and county governments are elected." Section 145.031 et. seq. set forth the rules for "a candidate who is a political party's nominee in the general election for state and county officers except a candidate for president or vice-president of the United States." DeLay is the party's nominee in a general election for state and county officers and he's not a candidate for president or vice president, so these rules apply.

Under 145.032, DeLay can withdraw because it is more than 74 days before election day. If he withdraws, under section 145.035, his name is omitted from the ballot. Under section 145.036, the political party's executive committee can only fill a vacancy under limited circumstances (such as catastrophic illness), none of which seem to apply to DeLay. So this route does not look like it would work for DeLay.

Instead, reports suggest he will move from Texas, thereby becoming ineligible to serve. (See section 145.003 on declaration of ineligibility.) If he is "ineligible" rather than "withdraws," section 145.036 gives the party the right to name a candidate to fill the vacancy.

There are also rumors that the governor could call a special election. Under 204.021, "An unexpired term in the office of United States representative may be filled only by a special election in the same manner as provided by Chapter 203 for the legislature, except that Section 203.013 does not apply." (203.013 sets forth a timetable for the election.) Chapter 203 sets forth the requirement of a special election, the requirement of a majority vote (meaning a runoff will be necessary if no candidate gets a majority of the vote), etc. But this would only apply to the unexpired term. There's this provision that appears to allow a replacement to run for the full term, but only if the vacancy occurs after the general election. So even if the governor calls a special election that chooses someone to serve out the rest of DeLay's current term, that does not appear to affect the nomination rules for the upcoming general election.

Well, that clarifies a lot of what is going on. It also makes timing quite relevant.

UPDATE 14: As one of the let-down DeLay supporters, I rather like the response to the news over at JackLewis.net.

In other words he's letting the political gangsters on the left win, thereby empowering them. When more thugs like Ronnie Earle make false charges against other Republicans, we can thank DeLay for sending the message that such tactics can work.

Whatever happened to refusing to capitulate to terrorists?

Indeed -- does this further embolden the Democrats, who have no platform other than the destruction of the President and other Republicans?

OTHER BLOGGERSON THE RIGHT (I won't link the left-wing bilge on this one) checking in are Wizbang, Ed Driscoll, bRight & Early, Tech in Black (a DeLay relative?), Political Pit Bull, Captain's Quarters, The Markum Report, Pardon My English, Riehl World View, BlogHOUSTON, LoneStar Times, Rossputin, Unpartisan, Lakeshore Laments, Outside the Beltway, Texas Rainmaker, Gateway Pundit, Rolling Barrage, Big Lizards

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 4007 words, total size 28 kb.

Don't worry about that time stamp -- it is really about 10:00 AM Houston time.

Just got off the phone with the Darling Democrat -- she was moved to a private room last night, and the staff are commenting how much better her lungs sound. There are still concerns about heart-rate and blood-pressure, but if all they want to do is have her sita nd wait while they figure out what is going on, we are going to suggest that we do that at home rather than in a hospital room.

Besides, the Apolitical Pooch is getting really tired of the excess crate time, and wants her mother home ASAP.

UPDATE: As of 1730 Houston time, my beloved is at home and resting comfortably, under the tender ministrations of the Apolitical Pooch.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Of course, it was his racism I was criticizing, so John Aravosis (or one of his buddies) kicked me off the site.

It all had to do with this little piece of trash that he posted approvingly.

I posted the following reaction to the racist piece of filth.

Great racist cartoon, John. Has virtually every negative black stereotype promoted by the Democrats for decades. I'm sure that Senator Byrd has already called you to express his enthusiastic approval. Did he make you a Kleagle Skout?

I'm curious -- what would you say if a Republican posted such a cartoon of a black leftist on a website? Let me guess -- you would be declaring it proof positive of the racist roots of the Republican party (which freed the slaves and brought them civil rights by amending the Constitution over Democrat objections).

I then ran out to get my wife some medication that one of the specialists from the hospital called in to Walgreens. Since I didn't find the response there, so figured I must have hit preview instead. I reposted the comment, , hit reload about a minute later to see that it had posted correctly, and found a message that I was banned.

I guess the truth -- about both the DemoKlan Senator from West Virginia (enthusiastically supported by Aravosis) and the white silk-sheet wearing Aravosis himself hit just a little too close to home.

I wear that ban as a source of great pride -- opposition to racism is at the heart of my principles. I guess they aren't for Mr. Aravosis.

Posted by: Greg at 02:49 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms has been diagnosed with vascular dementia -- a condition that is in many wys similar to Alzheimers disease.

Former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, in increasingly poor health before and since he left office three years ago, has vascular dementia and has moved into a convalescent center near his home, his wife said.

"He has his good days and his bad days," Dot Helms, told The News & Observer for a story Sunday. "He still sees friends. Company is good for him. He is still signing books. But he is not able to conduct any business or make any speeches."

The 84-year-old Republican has been slowed by illnesses including a bone disorder, prostate cancer and heart problems. As his career neared its end, he made his way through the Capitol on a motorized scooter. He decided against seeking a sixth term and left Congress in January 2003.

Vascular dementia is considered one of the most common types of dementia in aging people, with symptoms that may appear similar to those caused by Alzheimer's disease, according to the Memory and Aging Center at the University of California-San Francisco.

Helms' last major public appearance was in September, when he was honored by a group of conservatives in Washington.

Helms' wife of 63 years said that she and friends visit him daily, and that he hopes to resume going to church.

"His manners are always intact," Dot Helms said. "He is very gracious when people come to see him. He is his same self in a lot of ways. He just doesn't always remember."

So what we have here is a major personal tragedy, and a family taking the tragedy and using it to bring the disease into wider attention -- quite similar to the Reagan family's decision with the Ronald Reagan's long struggle with Alzheimers. This decision by the Helms family is a courageous one by a decent man and his family.

Which is, of course, why you get responses loke this from left-wing low-lifes.

it's just too easy

so I'm not even going to say anything other than to include this link:

Jesse Helms has dementia.

and

Hands up, those of you who feel ANY surprise whatsoever. Anyone?...

and

Jesse Helms has dementia

I have no idea why this is being presented as news, anyone with North Carolina connections has known this for years.

Then there is this.

Former Republican Sen. Jesse Helms has dementia. He left Congress in January of 2003. If he had not been a conservative Republican he might have got it treated sooner. It is hard to tell if someone just has dementia or if they are a right wing Republican.

I'm sure we will get similar classy responses from the KOSsacks and the DUmmies in a very short time, along with the rest of the left-wing hate squad.

UPDATE: The DUmmies have made a start.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.

I cannot believe that the Chicago Tribune would even consider printing this.

A Muslim's conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law, contrary to the claims in the case of Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan.

While there is long-established doctrine that apostasy is punishable by death, that has also long been questioned by Islamic criminal justice scholars, including this writer.

There are 1.4 billion Muslims who live in more than 140 countries. They constitute the great majority in 53 countries that declare themselves to be Muslim states. Most of these states have constitutions that guarantee freedom of religion, as does the Afghani constitution. Most of these states have criminal codes that do not include apostasy as a crime. Among them are: Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey.

Other Muslim countries, however, criminalize apostasy on the basis of doctrinal constructs established in the 7th and 8th Centuries, which have been mildly questioned over the years or simply sidestepped. States that recognize it as a crime punishable by death include Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. However, there are no known cases in recent times in which someone charged with apostasy in these countries has been put to death.

Which means, of course, that Islamic law DOES recognize that apostasy is a crime to be punished by death -- but that the penalty has not been recently applied, has not been announced to the public when applied or -- as often happens -- has been applied by a lynch mob rather than a court.

In other words, the entire article is a falsehood from start to finish.

UPDATE: JAmes Arlandson refutes the argument made in the Tribune quite effectively. And let's not forget the position of these Afghan religious leaders. I would have to say that the position taken in the Tribune piece is a minority one -- and that of a small minority at that.

Posted by: Greg at 03:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 3 kb.

I mean, isn't a "Yes" vote an act of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States? Fortunately, we have some real Americans in Wisconsin who are trying to support the troops and the President rather than undercut them on behalf of the terrorists.

Supporters of the war in Iraq drove laps around the state Capitol Saturday afternoon, honking horns and revving engines as they urged voters to turn down a referendum asking whether President Bush should pull U.S. troops out immediately.

A caravan of vehicles, escorted by about a half-dozen leather-clad members of the U.S. Military Vets Motorcycle Club, circled the Capitol for about half an hour.

The vehicles were decked out with American flags and signs that read "Vote No To Cut and Run." Across the rear window of one car someone had written "Choose Victory." About 20 supporters cheered from the sidewalks.

"I consider it a betrayal," said Jake Kraschnewski, a 22-year-old University of Wisconsin-Madison student from Burlington who spent a year in Iraq as a Marine reservist. He stood on the sidewalk holding a "Vote No To Cut and Run" sign.

Voters in Madison and 30 other Wisconsin cities, villages and towns will go to the polls Tuesday to decide referendums that ask whether Bush should bring American troops home now. Peace activists pushed to have the questions placed on the ballots, even though the referendums have no bearing on federal policy.

This really pisses me off.

UPDATE: Blogs for Bush has an interesting piece on the issue of treason on their site today. It is the third of a series of posts on dissent and treason. I cannot say that I agree with all of Mark's conclusions, but I do find them rather interesting.

UPDATE 2 -- 4/5/06: Treason accomplished.

Posted by: Greg at 03:04 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

I saw this headline this morning.

Poll: Most Open to Letting Immigrants Stay

But then comes the story.

A slim majority of Americans are open to allowing undocumented workers to obtain some sort of temporary legal status to remain in the United States, with stronger support for the idea among Democrats, younger adults and more educated Americans, a new poll finds.

Overall, 56 percent of Americans favor offering illegal immigrants a shot at some kind of legal status; roughly two-thirds of those ages 18-34 like the idea and an equal share of those with a college education agree, the AP-Ipsos survey found.

Ahhhh... a slim majority. Not "Most" -- a bit more than half. A majority to be sure -- but not "Most" any ore than it would be correct to say that "Most Americans Voted For Bush In 2004".

So what is it -- sloppy work or intentional inaccuracy?

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.