It appears that certain members of Congress are forgetting that the laws apply to them -- and are willing to make illegitimate use of the Constitution to harrass members of the other two co-equal branches of government for doing their constiutionally mandated duty in the William Jefferson case.

Let's start with Rep. Darrell Issa.

One lawmaker on the Judiciary Committee said GonzalesÂ’ refusal to explain why he authorized the search may be grounds for impeachment by Congress.

“All options have to be left open,” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told reporters after the hearing. Gonzales must “explain to our satisfaction how this is not going to happen again or how it was somehow justified.”

Issa said at the hearing that Congress has the power to impeach Gonzales and U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who issued the search warrant. He said that if Sensenbrenner had raised the impeachment possibility, “more members would quickly be here.”

So, Darrell, let's look at this closely. The Constitution requires that an individual be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors to merit impeachment and removal from office. Where is that standard met?

Does the issuance of a valid search warrant, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, constitute a high crime or misdemeanor? If not, then there is no basis for impeaching Judge Hogan.

Furthermore, doing so would be, to borrow the words of Speaker Hastert, "in violation of the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers. . . and the practice of the last 219 years." Even if one accepts the argument that the issuance of the warrant was wrong (and I do not), it has never been the practice that judges are impeached and removed because Congress disagrees with their official actions or decisions. John Marshall was not impeached after Marbury v. Madison, despite near universal opposition by Congress. Roger Taney was not impeached for the horrendous decision in the Dred Scot case, even though it led the United States into the Civil War. For all the talk of impeaching Earl Warren and other members of the Warren Court, no reasonable individual took such calls seriously or saw them as more than grandstanding. Harry Blackmun and William Brennan remained on the Court despite the constitutional attrocity that is Roe v. Wade, and no justice was removed for the decisions in the Kelo case, Roper v. Simmons, or Lawrence v. Texas, all of which are clearly decided wrongly and are much more clearly in opposition to the text of the Constitution. No lower court judge has ever been removed for a wrongly decided case or a warrant later found to be based upon incorrect principles -- why start with this one, unless it is to intimidate the Judicial Branch and inhibit it from the full and free exercise of its constitutionally derived powers -- in other words, to tamper with the separation of powers?

And as for the impeachment of Attorney General Gonzales, I again ask for a constitutioanl basis for such actions? Is the request for a warrant after ten months of stone-walling by Congressman Jefferson truly a high crime or midemenaor? After all, let's consider the situation.

The videotaped $100,000 bribery happened in July 2005—fully ten months ago.

Of that cash, $90,000 was seized from Jefferson's freezer on August 3, 2005. (And as my Corner post last night noted, the Justice department revealed on Tuesday that there is evidence Jefferson tried to obstruct that search).

On the same day, August 3, 2005, the Justice Department served a grand-jury subpoena on Jefferson. It is reasonable to infer, since Justice got the search warrant for the residence at the same time, that Justice appreciated the significant difference between searching a congressman’s home and searching his congressional office—even though, in truth, a legitimate speech-and-debate claim could apply to either equally. Plainly, out of deference to Congress, Justice proceeded by subpoena as to evidentiary items in Jefferson’s office in hopes that it would be unnecessary to take the more provocative step of seeking a judicial search warrant.

Other subpoenas apparently followed in the late summer of 2005, to both Jefferson and his chief of staff. Speaker Hastert, according to a memorandum filed by the Justice department on Tuesday, was notified about the subpoenas by Jefferson on September 15, 2005, and again on November 18, 2005. The Justice department has been trying to get production on those subpoenas ever since—to no avail.

Meanwhile, in January 2006—five months ago—Brent Pfeffer, once a congressional aide of Jefferson’s, publicly pled guilty in federal court to bribing and conspiring to bribe Jefferson. While this does not seem to have stirred Congress, a federal judge just last week thought it was sufficiently serious to merit a sentence of eight years in federal prison.

And just a few weeks ago, in early May, Vernon Jackson, the president and CEO of the company at the heart of the bribery scheme, pled guilty to paying Jefferson $400,000 in bribes. He has yet to be sentenced (and, like Pfeffer, is said to be cooperating in the investigation).

Seems to me that there has been a great deal of deference shown to Jefferson as a member of the House of Representatives -- deference that would not be accorded to any citizen, and deference which is clearly not required by the Constitution. Why then impeach Gonzales, unless one wishes to contend that the ordinary function of the law and the Constitution does not apply to members of the Legislative Branch, and that diligent and even-handed enforcement of the law is therefore an impeachable offense. That would, of course, also intrude upon Executive Branch prerogatives under the Constitution -- and violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

As for Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who I usually respect, his hearings and proposals are clearly over the top.

The chairman, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, called the search "profoundly disturbing."

Mr. Sensenbrenner also said he planned a legislative response to the search on May 20 of the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana. The bill would be patterned on a law limiting searches of news media offices.

"I think this law will help the Justice Department get it right next time because they didn't get it right this time," Mr. Sensenbrenner said as his committee heard from legal experts and a former lawmaker.

Excuse me, sir, but they did get it right -- they applied to a federal judge for a warrant and executed teh warrant as they would any other. They even set up special procedures, monitored by the court, for ensuring that no privileged material was used in the investigation. In short, the joint effort of the two other constitutional branches of government have determined that the search was within the scope of the Constitution, and any legislation would be a gross violation of constitutional principle of the separation of powers, which you claim to be concerned about.

Oh, and there is this little matter.

The House intends to summon Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, before the Judiciary Committee to justify its search of a Congressional office, the panel chairman said Tuesday.

By all means, subpoena them. I'm sure they will be more than willing to appear -- in 10 months, which is the amount of time that Congresman Jefferson has refused to turn over subpoenaed documents to the FBI. After all, we wouldn't want to make it appear that you folks believe that the legislative branch is tampering witht he separation of powers or trying to impose its supremacy on a co-equal branch of government, would we?

Ultimately, this mess is headed for the Supreme Court because members of Congress are seeking to establish a principle that does not exist anywhere in the Constitution -- the freedom from subpoena, search warrants, and criminal investigation.

And when they lose, with these congresscritters start mouthing off about impeaching Supreme Court justices for decisions they dislike -- again, upsetting the Constitutional principle of separation of powers and overturning 219 years of practice?

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1362 words, total size 9 kb.

I got into a discussion tonight with some folks on a mailing list. It began about drops in traffic over Memorial Day -- which most of us had.

The one paarticipant posted the following somewhat discouraged comment.

OK, if next week isn't 100 views per day, I'm quitting.

(Please go visit Indian Cowboy -- he's a libertarian blogger who comments on politics, society, and science, based upon what I've seen.)

I then decided to post some blogging tips -- for what they are worth, since I am hardly one of the folks who reaches stratospheric numbers, though I have built up a small following over the last two years (the blogiversary is rapidly approaching!)

Here's what came up with, after being prodded to take my initial list of six and expand it to seven. One blogger even inspired me to make my little email into a post, which she has linked. (She also has her own, as does her friend Maureen.)

Seven Tips For Building Blog Traffic

1) Blog daily, and at a consistent time. That gets folks into the habit of looking at your site every day.

2) Become an expert. Make yourself a "go-to-guy" on certain issues. I did on the Abdul Rahman case earlier this year, and have written a lot on William Jefferson. School censorship cases are also a topic that I often write on.

3) Find out what is hot and blog on it. I try to blog on at least one article from RealClearPolitics' Buzztracker section each day. I also like the Washington Post as a source for articles, because they have a link to Technorati with their articles.

4) Be interesting; be yourself. Duh!

5) Don't be afraid or ashamed to be provocative.

6) Trackback to other bloggers writing on the same article. Trackback to bloggers you admire. Trackback to open trackback posts/linkfests.

7) Join blogging alliances/groups that you find compatible.

I've discovered that they can all use a little elaboration, so here are my notes on my seven tips.

1) I tend to post at two times during the day. The first is in the early morning, before I go to school.start my day. The second is within an hour or two of my returning home. My traffic spikes when folks get to work (be honest -- how many of you check blogs while at work) and when they come home -- or at least after dinner.

2) Go with what you know, or what interests you. I didn't choose the Rahman story, it sort of chose me. I wrote because it mattered to me, and people responded -- including one newspaper in India, where a columnist spent half his space on blogs about the Rahman story writing about my blog and my take on the story.

3) Is it being a bit of a traffic whore? Maybe -- but then again, I don't blog on a story unless it appeals to me. If the same wire service story appears on 100 different newspaper websites, why shouldn't I link to washingtonpost.com instead of the Podunk Farm News? And those Buzztracker stories are the major ones that I would be inclined to write about anyway -- it is just a question of where my link goes to, the New York Times or the Pine Gulch Gazette? Use what you can to attract those hits -- your content is what will ultimately keep them.

4) Keep it real -- let yourself, your insignts, and your beliefs come through. And even be willing to admit your mistakes. By the way, remember that these folks you debate with can become your online friends, even if you disagree with them.

5) Go out on a limb. State a far out opinion. Make an outlandish statement or two. Such things make people think, or shout, or laugh -- and can make them come back.

6) But always make sure that you reference them somehow -- whether via a quote, a hat tip, or an acknowledgement that they are writing too. It is the polite thing to do, and may get them new readers from your site at the same time you get new readers from theirs.

7) Hey -- you need friends and allies out there in the cold, hard blogospheric world. Find a blogroll or three to join that shares your interests or outlook.

Well, I hope that helps.

Also -- for more on this topic, visit these two posts at Pro Blogger -- he has just written on the topic and has beau-coup links to different folks writing about building blogs.

Happy Blogging!

Posted by: Greg at 04:08 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 771 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Another thing I'll add to this is: Keep on writing. You never know when some bit of junk from your ancient archives is suddenly going to become relevant again.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at Wed May 31 16:22:28 2006 (FVbj6)

2 Thanks for your experienced voice in this entry. I appreciate the contribution to the "Seven Habits" project. It started out in an effort to help new homeschool bloggers and has grown beyond my imagination. Your participation will help others find their own voice in the blogosphere.

I had to leave my secondary blogsite address to be able to comment.

Maureen

Posted by: Maureen at Wed May 31 23:40:59 2006 (zLxNX)

3 lol, I was joking. I've actually been quite pleased (if impatient) with the steady growth my blog has seen. Considering I only started doing it with anything resembling regularity in march (it's been up before that, though), it's done pretty good.

Thanks for the tips, though. They're a concise and clear statement of the stuff you seem to see all over the place. The buzztracker tip was particularly nice (never seen it anywhere else). I'm less topical than most, so I don't know if I'll use it all that often, but very very cool none the less.

Posted by: IndianCowboy at Thu Jun 1 06:55:39 2006 (xV6tD)

4 Hey, I'm glad to hear that I took you wrong. I was just concerned that a good blogger was getting discouraged and might leave because of it.

You have an interesting take on the world, and subjects I would not consider writing about. As such, you broaden my world.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 1 07:07:52 2006 (bvbce)

5 as a future mental health professional, I'd have to take a good hard look at myself if I decided to leave because of my (lack of) visitors.

I really do appreciate your linkage though. Means a lot that you'd think highly enough of me to bother.

Posted by: IndianCowboy at Thu Jun 1 07:59:34 2006 (xV6tD)

6 So, does this mean I can take the opportunity to advertise my blog, which I started all of a week ago? http://bigbadwolfsblog.blogspot.com Or that of my blog-mama? http://warts-n-all.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Ryan at Thu Jun 1 10:08:50 2006 (2wfEd)

7 Hey -- a little blog-flogging is perfectly acceptable to me on this thread!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 1 10:51:21 2006 (Sh9W1)

8 Reflections on Effective Blogging...

Thank you for the soul fodder.

Warmly,
Ann V.

Posted by: HolyExperience at Thu Jun 1 11:25:46 2006 (xx693)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It seems that a Canadian university is conducting a Star Chamber proceeding against one of its professors -- because of what he has posted on his personal website hosted on a non-university server. Why? Because a homosexual activist does not like it.

A Cape Breton University (CBU) professor is the target of a human rights complaint by a homosexual student. Comments posted by the professor at his private web site critical of the Anglican Church of Canada for its permissive and condoning stand in relation to same-sex "marriage" are the cause of the complaint.

History Professor David Mullan wrote to his local Anglican bishop in 2004, criticizing the trend: "When Anglicanism in some manner recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate 'lifestyle' for Christians, it will become a church in schism," he charged.

On February 20, homosexual CBU student Shane Wallis, who also co-ordinates the campus' Sexual Diversity Office, lodged a formal human rights complaint with the University. In an e-mail response to Wallis' charge of a human rights offence, Wallis stated in his complaint that Mullan responded that "homosexuality is a repudiation of nature and the apotheosis of unbridled desire."

Please note that in this instance, "sexual diversity" means "anything except monogamous heterosexuality" -- and that while Shane Wallis may believe in "sexual diversity", he does not believe in intellectual diversity. After all, his complaint is based upon the expression of views and beliefs that contradict his own.

What is more, the university has adopted a procedure that repudiates basic human and civil rights.

From Professor Mullan's web site it can be seen that, because the University has acknowledged that the proceedings of a CBU human rights tribunal may be used against him in a court of law, he has declined to participate in complaint hearings. He has, however, challenged both Wallis and the University to acknowledge his free speech rights as a Canadian.

"I have a Human Rights complaint against me, as a result of two letters to my former Anglican bishop placed on my private website and a reply I sent Shane Wallis in response to an unsolicited email," Professor Mullan explains on his web site.

"I met yesterday morning (in April) with the Human Rights Officer. At that time I asked her whether anything I said in the process might be used against me in court. Today, after legal consultation, she replied that yes, it could be. I immediately told her that I would not participate in the process. I told her also in our meeting that I find that the requirement that I give evidence, effectively incriminating myself (rather like the Tudor Court of Star Chamber and the ex officio oath) when asked for it is in my judgement a violation of the common law, and of my rights as a free-born Englishman. The procedure is a farce, and if pushed I will sue the institution for violating my civil rights."

"The process can never be fair until these conditions are altered, and until the complainant stands under potential judgement for entering a frivolous complaint," he adds. "No one in his right mind would participate in this without incurring the fees of a solicitor, and when found innocent, someone needs to re-imburse the defendant."

What is more, Wallis filed a second complaint because Mullan had the integrity to go public with this attempt to suppress his fundamental human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It would appear that the recently discovered right to not be offended, right to not be challenged in one's beliefs, and right to screw anything you want are being used to trump those rights. The complaint about breaking confidentiality is apparantly based upon the newly discovered "right to do secretly what no one would stand for publicly" -- for the proceeding has no right to remain silent, and any and all involuntarily coerced statements made in the proceedings may be used against the speaker in a court of law. Again, basic human rights are not a consideration at Cape Breton University.

When i was young, Canada was a free country -- or so it appeared when I visited there. When did that change?

Oh, and by the way, I wrote Shane Wallis the following email. I hope he is man enough to respond.

Shane--

How is it that you have come to the conclusion that your own personal weaknesses and inadequacies are a legitimate basis for suppressing the human rights of individuals to hold religious beliefs and to express them publicly?

Did your university teach you the fascist view that only government-approved thoughts, beliefs, and opinions may be expressed in public, or was did you learn that elsewhere?

Why do you fear views which differ from your own? Is it a fear of diversity, or a recognition of the weakness and inadequacies of your own beliefs?

By the way, my questions have nothing to do with your sexual practices or personal relationships -- they have to do with fundamental questions of human rights enshrined in the founding charters of free societies. I hope you'll take a moment and respond.

Regards
Greg
AKA Rhymes With Right
www.rhymeswithright.mu.nu

To Dr. Mullan, I offer my prayers and best wishes as he fights the good fight for freedom in Canada. And I remind him that America is still free -- though the sodomy lobby is would certainly like to make it less so.

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 913 words, total size 6 kb.

Howard Dean has intimated that Christians and Jews who believe actually believe what Scripture says about homosexuality are bigots.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean claims to be reaching out to red-state voters, but yesterday, he suggested that opponents of homosexual "marriage" are bigots.

Mr. Dean was responding to news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, plans to bring to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual "marriage."

"At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party's failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue," said Mr. Dean, using the abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.

"It is not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible," Mr. Dean said.

Excuse me, sir, but who is the bigot here -- those who sincerely hold to moral and religious beliefs that date back thousands of years, or those seek to cow those believers into silence? Who is the hatemonger -- a majority that believes that marriage is and should be limited to one man and one woman and seeks to enact those beliefs democratically, or members of the minority who seek to impose alternate beliefs through the courts?

The answer should be obvious.

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Even as the Terrorstinians demand money from the United States to fund their Hamas government, their media insults our nation and our most important symbols.

This American has a response -- a firm rejection of the Terrorstinian assault upon my nation's symbol and the insult to our people. I've worked up a little response for you, camel-boy -- and it does not involve censoring you, rioting, or threatening your life.

Let the fatwas fly, my friend, for I fear you not -- nor do I respect you and your malignant beliefs.

We will not give into terrorist demands for submission. We will not give into jihadi demands for dhimmitude. America will pursue them until the last jihadi terrorist lies dead in a pool of his own blood and awakes in the bowels of Hell.

(H/T Tel-Chai Nation)

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 2 kb.

More on the raid on William Jefferson's Congressional office.

First, it appears that Jefferson was not merely refusing to cooperate, but was actively covering up evidence of criminal conduct.

The Justice Department yesterday vigorously defended the recent weekend raid of Rep. William J. Jefferson's Capitol Hill office as part of a bribery investigation, asserting that the Democratic lawmaker attempted to hide documents from FBI agents while they were searching his New Orleans home last August.

The government questioned in a 34-page motion filed in U.S. District Court here whether it could have obtained all the materials it had sought in a subpoena if it had not launched the surprise raid on Jefferson's congressional office May 20. According to the government filing, an FBI agent caught Jefferson slipping documents into a blue bag in the living room of his New Orleans home during a search.

"It is my belief that when Congressman Jefferson placed documents into the blue bag, he was attempting to conceal documents that were relevant to the investigation," FBI agent Stacey E. Kent of New Orleans stated in an affidavit that was part of the government's court submission. The document was filed in response to Jefferson's lawsuit demanding that the government return to him documents seized during the raid on his Capitol Hill office 11 days ago.

* * *

Last Aug. 3, FBI agents searched Jefferson's New Orleans home while the congressman and family members were present. Kent said she was assigned to watch Jefferson and his family during the search, according to her affidavit accompanying the government motion yesterday.

She said she observed him looking at several pieces of paper on a table. At one point, she said, he asked to see a copy of the subpoena.

"After a copy had been brought to him and he reviewed it, I observed Congressman Jefferson then take the subpoena and the documents he had been reading earlier and place them together under his elbow on the kitchen table."

At one point, she said, he moved to the living room, which had just been searched, and sat on a recliner. While sitting, he slipped the subpoena and the documents into a blue bag that he knew had already been searched, Kent's affidavit said.

"After several minutes, I approached Congressman Jefferson and told him that I needed to look at the documents that he had placed into the bag," the agent stated. "Congressman Jefferson told me the documents were subpoenas."

He finally pulled out the documents that were from a B.K. Son. The search warrant had asked for all communications between Jefferson and Son, the affidavit said. Son is the chief technology officer of iGate.

is it any wonder that Jefferson was not notified, and that those who might help with his obstruction of the investigation were not allowed in the office during the search?

And another group has weighed in on the legality of the search. And once again, the smart money is with the Justice Department in holding that the Speech and Debate Clause is not an absolute shield for criminal congresscritters.

A legal watchdog group insists that the FBI's recent raid of Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson's office was perfectly legal, despite the subsequent complaints about the raid by both Republican and Democratic leaders of the House.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is there immunity from investigation for members of Congress. It just isn't there," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. "There is nothing there that says that they can't be subject to the same type of investigatory processes as every other American. They're American citizens."

* * *

... Boehm accused Hastert and Pelosi of "making an argument that they know does not exist."

"They can't point to a single court case. They can't point to any section or clause of the Constitution. And so when I say they're making the argument in bad faith, it's in bad faith because it's not there," Boehm told Cybercast News Service.

* * *

... Boehm argued that members of Congress deserve to be treated in the same manner as anyone else who might have broken the law.

"I think the American public is entitled to know that members of Congress who break the law are going to be investigated and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," he said. "And when Republican and Democratic leaders try to stop that they're sending a message and the message is: we're above the law. And that's the wrong message."

Well said!

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

You may remember my story of evacuating during Hurricane Rita last fall. It looks like the state has made arrangements to deal with a major issue during that stressful time -- the lack of fuel along the highway.

Some gas stations will let motorists pump for free if their fuel tanks run low during a hurricane evacuation, state officials said Tuesday.

The free fueling plan comes after thousands of cars were left abandoned on the side of highways during Hurricane Rita last year, when more than 3 million people evacuated the Houston area and jammed roads for hours.

Most stations along evacuation routes ran out of gas, making fuel availability a priority in the state's revamped evacuation plan.

Motorists won't be allowed to fill their tanks completely and only vehicles with little fuel remaining will be given access to the free pumps, said Jenniffier Hawes, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Drivers looking to top off will be sent to pay at other stations, she said.

"It's going to be expeditious," Hawes said. "We don't want a lack of financial resources to leave someone stranded."

The free gas will be available at stations located at 50-mile intervals on evacuation routes, she said. Valero, Shell, Exxon Mobil and Marathon are the stations providing the free fuel.

Now, will they have provisions to get the needed fuel to the stations along the route?

And will they contra-flow the traffic early enough to get everyone out of Houston if the big one heads our way again?

Posted by: Greg at 09:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm the last one to think that a kicking a teacher is appropriate behavior -- but this strikes me as a bit of an over-reaction.

A 6-year-old special education student who kicked a Naples teacher's aide and spent several hous in juvenile jail is facing felony battery charges.

Her mother, however, wants to know why the case has gone so far.

Takovia Allen suffers from behavioral problems and attends a special class at Lely Elementary in Naples.

According to an arrest report, on May 2, a teacher was trying to line up students to go to music class. Takovia refused to go and kicked the teacher's aide in the ankle.

After a discussion among school officials and two law enforcement officials called to the school, the girl was arrested.

Takovia was taken to juvenile jail and held there for several hours before being released to her mother.

She is being charged with battery on a public education employee.

It's possible she will enter a program that includes counseling. If she completes the program successfully the charges could be dropped.

Is a six-year-old really able to formulate the level of intent necessary to commit a FELONY?????

I know the goal is to get the kid counseling (which may or may not really be necessary), but i think the method used here is heavey-handed.

Posted by: Greg at 09:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess the loons had it all wrong!

Conspiracy theorists, beware: That aluminum foil beanie—headwear believed, since at least the 1950s, to stop brain-control rays—may make it easier for The Man to read your mind, according to Massachusetts Institute of Technology grad students. Inspired by fringe beliefs that invasive radio signals can probe citizens’ thoughts and that wearing foil on your head may fend them off, an experiment by four Ph.D. candidates found that certain key frequencies—owned by the Feds, naturally—are actually enhanced by such “protection.”

(H/T Dr. Sanity)

Posted by: Greg at 08:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

And now time for our Wednesday linkfest and open trackback carnival!

You know the rules -- link back to this post with your best/favorite current posts. I won't limit your number of posts, but instead ask you to exercise prudent judgement about how many you send.

Some folks have told me they have problems trackbacking to this site. If this is the case, please use the Wizbang Standalone Trackback Pinger to establish the link.

And, of course, don't forget the big three rules.

No Spam. No Porn. No Problem.

OTHER OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 04:27 AM | Comments (89) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Does this finally settle matter for the Euro-trash who have maligned one of the greatest athletes of our era?

Dutch investigators cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, and blamed anti-doping authorities for misconduct in dealing with the American cyclist.

A 132-page report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by the World Anti-Doping Agency and to consider ''appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations.''

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that six of Armstrong's urine samples from 1999, when he won the first of his record seven-straight Tour titles, came back positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO when they were retested in 2004.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied using banned substances.

The International Cycling Union appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman last October to investigate the handling of urine tests from the 1999 Tour by the French national anti-doping laboratory, known by its French acronym LNDD.

Vrijman said Wednesday his report ''exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France.''

Now we know that Armstrong accomplished his feats without artificial enhancement.

We also know that a bunch of flaccid Frenchies have again shown their national character -- No Courage, No Class.

And we confirm this simple truth -- we grow 'em bigger and better in Texas.

Posted by: Greg at 04:16 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Well here we are, a weak-and-a-half after the search of Rep. William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office -- and the Houston Chronicle has finally deigned to weigh in on the issue. Most major media outlets have long since spoken on the matter, as have most of us political bloggers -- but the Chronicle acted with all deliberate speed and waited to say a word until now.

But to their credit, they do get it right.

The law, in its majestic equality,"Anatole France wrote, "forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." Under the same principle, however, when an influential member of Congress is suspected of taking bribes, the law grants no immunity from court-approved investigation and, if warranted, prosecution.

The Constitution does grant members of Congress protection from arbitrary arrest while they are at or on their way to and from the Capitol. In the same passage, however, it withdraws such protection in cases of treason or other felonies.

The FBI's recent raid on the congressional office of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson was the first of its kind, but the blame for its necessity rests solely with Jefferson. The congressman from New Orleans refused to comply with a lawful subpoena for certain of his papers, saying he should not be forced to incriminate himself. Agreed, but he has no grounds to object if law enforcement officers, equipped with a court-approved warrant, do the job for him.

Haven't I been saying the same thing since the search?

I wonder what took them so long -- other than figuring out how to gratuitously slam Bush on an unrelated issue in the editorial even as they praise the work of his administration.

Posted by: Greg at 03:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Ever wonder how many bricks were delivered to Congress (the Senate in particular) during the recent debate over immigration? Or about what happened to them once they arrived?

Well, here are your answers.

If the impact was notable, so were the logistical difficulties, particularly given the mail screening and other protective measures put into effect at the Capitol after the anthrax attacks of 2001.

Initially, organizers of the Send-a-Brick Project encouraged people to send bricks on their own, and Ms. Heffron said things had gone relatively smoothly.

But many people, she said, preferred that the organization itself send the bricks and an accompanying letter to selected lawmakers.

The project will do it for an $11.95 fee. So when 2,000 individually boxed bricks showed up at once, Senate officials balked, threatening to force the group to pay postage to have each delivered to its intended recipient. The dispute left the bricks stacked up until an agreement to distribute them was worked out.

"We received them and we delivered them to all the addressees," said a spokeswoman for the office of the Senate sergeant-at-arms.

As the bricks landed in Congressional mailrooms and cramped offices, the effort was applauded in some offices but drew a bemused response elsewhere.

"Given the approval ratings of Congress these days, I guess we should all be grateful the bricks are coming through the mail, not the window," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana.

The senders of the bricks were encouraged to add a letter telling lawmakers that the brick represented a start on building a border wall.

Many could not resist putting their own message on the bricks. "No Amnesty," said a typical one, referring to a contested Senate plan to allow some illegal immigrants to qualify eventually for citizenship. "Stop the Invasion, Build a Wall," said another brick painted like a flag and shown on the group's Web site at www.send-a-brick.com.

Besides the border fence, the group supports technology improvements for border security, added money and personnel for the Border Patrol and an enhanced security presence in general on the southern border.

The brick effort was scheduled to wind down this week, though the organization encouraged people to continue if they desired.

On Tuesday, representatives of the architect of the Capitol collected bricks from lawmakers' offices and stacked them on loading docks with plans to donate them to a nonprofit group.

This is actually a pretty fun article -- though it shows just how out of contact some of our legislators really are.

Posted by: Greg at 03:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

And about time!

Roger Clemens and the Astros have officially reached an agreement, according to a person in the negotiations who told the Chronicle. A press conference will be announced shortly.

Clemens, whose 341 career victories are more than any person alive, went 18-4 with a 2.98 ERA in 2004 while winning the National League Cy Young Award, extending his record Cy Young collection to seven.

After helping the Astros to the National League Championship Series in 2004, he was 13-8 with a major-league best 1.87 ERA last season while helping the Astros reach the franchiseÂ’s first World Series. Although Clemens flirted with Boston and the Rangers, his former Astros teammates laughed and cautioned that heÂ’d return to Houston.

ClemensÂ’ signing should bolster the club.

“It will add a boost to the team,” ace Roy Oswalt said. “Any time you get a guy like that in the rotation, it would be great.

"We have to have a spark, and hopefully he will give it to us.”

Catcher Brad Ausmus was pleased.

“I think it’s a huge boost to our pitching staff,” Ausmus said. “Why? That’s a stupid question. He’s a horse. He’s probably the best pitcher in the history of the game. He’s the type of guy that for a full season you can count on for 200 innings.

Astros owner Drayton McLane negotiated deep into Tuesday night with Roger ClemensÂ’ agents, and he headed to Houston early Wednesday morning.

“We worked on it last night, so that’s why I’m going to Houston right now,” McLane said as he boarded his private airplane in Temple. “We’ve worked to try to get this thing done.”

McLane has been optimistic for weeks, and he has made definite progress with ClemensÂ’ agents, Randy and Alan Hendricks.

And while we are bringing back the old guys -- what shape is Nolan Ryan's arm in?

After all, the Astros are already 6.5 games behind the St. Louis Cardinals.

UPDATE: If you do the math, Clemens will get $14 million for four months in the majors.

Roger Clemens and the Astros have officially reached an agreement, according to a person in the negotiations who told the Chronicle. A press conference is set for 11 a.m. to announce the signing.

The deal is a pro-rated $22 million agreement, a major league record for a pitcher. Clemens will start at Class A Lexington, then go to Class AA Corpus Christi, followed by a trip to Class AAA Round Round before landing in Houston on June 22, Clemens' agent Randy Hendricks said today.

UPDATE 2: My earlier source on the prorated contract seems to have been wrong. These are the correct figures.

When he is added to the major league roster, he gets a one-year contract worth $22,000,022 -- his uniform number is 22. Because he won't be playing the full season, he gets only a prorated percentage of that, which would come to about $12.25 million if he rejoins Houston in late June. The tentative goal is to have him start against the Minnesota Twins on June 22 -- if he's put on the big league roster on that day, he would earn $12,632,307.

Posted by: Greg at 03:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

In oh-so-liberal San Francisco, the right to choose to have an abortion is sacred.

So is the right to choose to commit sodomy with a person of your same sex.

But taking a JROTC class in high school -- such a choice must NOT be allowed!

Or at least that is the direction things are headed.

Let's hope that the School Board listens to the wise opinion of the Argus.

THE San Francisco Board of Education is going too far in its latest plan to consider giving the boot to Junior ROTC at city high schools.

The board of education says it's taking the action in response to the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which requires gay service members to conceal their sexuality.

This is just the latest in a long history of actions that have given the city an anti-military reputation, and we think it's time for city officials to cool it on the rhetoric. It's getting old and the sons and daughters of California and San Francisco who serve their nation in times of need deserve better.

Sentiment against the Iraq war is high and it can be tempting to make headlines by taking out frustrations on the military. City officials need to keep in mind — both with regard to the ROTC program and to other issues — that the war is a policy issue; it's not the fault of the ROTC program, military recruiters or the brave men and women who serve.

But there's a more important issue than whether the board is being unfair to the military. It's the some 1,600 students enrolled in the program who could end up being hurt the most.

They now earn physical education credits and learn discipline through the JROTC and each of them is in the program because they want to be. When board members vote in June, they should keep those students in mind.

My guess, though, is that this opinion will be ignored.

After all, this is San Francisco we are talking about, where something as trivial as the good of students can never be allowed to trump a far-left political statement.

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

WELCOME HOUSTON CHRONICLE READERS -- I WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T LINK THIS POST INSTEAD

Back in 2000, we were told that Repulicans had "rioted" when they banged on doors in a successful attempt to make sure that all valid presidential ballots were accurately and publicly counted, as required by Florida law. Liberals said this was a bad thing.

Now we have liberals attempting to interfere with the transport of military equipment to a combat zone during time of war. I find this situation and the response quite disturbing.

Police fired pepper spray as about 150 anti-war protesters tried to enter the Port of Olympia as part of ongoing demonstrations against the shipment of Army equipment to Iraq.

Protesters chanted "Out of Olympia, Out of Iraq" as they rocked a chain-link gate to the port late Monday, and at least three tried to use wooden boards to pry the gate open, The Olympian newspaper reported. A 50-ton piece of equipment was moved to reinforce the gate on the other side.

Police and sheriff's deputies clad in riot gear fired at least four rounds of pepper spray in an hour after asking the demonstrators several times to stop, authorities said. No one was arrested, but paramedics were dispatched to treat some activists.

By the definition promulgated by liberals, this was not a non-violent demonstration -- it was a riot. Furthermore, it was an act of sedition, if not outright treason.

But I would like to express my disappointment with the use of pepper spray against these "activists". It was an inappropriate choice.

The better choice would have been M-16s -- as befits any enemy of America.

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 3 kb.

My Darling Democrat paused while flipping channels during a commercial.

How sad!

Am I the only one who thinks she looks like Brando in drag?

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

And no, we are not talking about folks with a GED -- we are talking about folks who have not met any sort of graduation requirement at all.

It is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland idea. If you do not finish high school, head straight for college.

But many colleges — public and private, two-year and four-year — will accept students who have not graduated from high school or earned equivalency degrees.

And in an era of stubbornly elevated high school dropout rates, the chance to enter college through the back door is attracting growing interest among students without high school diplomas.

That growth is fueling a debate over whether the students should be in college at all and whether state financial aid should pay their way. In New York, the issue flared in a budget battle this spring.

They are students like April Pointer, 23, of New City, N.Y., a part-time telemarketer who majors in psychology at Rockland Community College, whose main campus is in Suffern, N.Y. Ms. Pointer failed science her senior year of high school and did not finish summer school.

But to her father's amazement, last year she was accepted at Rockland, part of the State University of New York.

"He asked, 'Don't you have to have a high school diploma to go to college?' " she said. "I was like, 'No, not anymore.' "

As a high school teacher, this worries me. No, not because of job security issues, but because it seems to devalue even further the worth of a high school diploma I realize that there is no stopping private schools from doing what they want to do regarding admission to college, but it seems to me that there should at least be a minimum standard for admission to public colleges and universities. I'm sure that many of these students are part of the group that need significant amounts of remediation when they arrive on campus.

And then there is the question of giving these students financial aid. Should we be offering financial assistance to those who di not even make full use of the "free" (not really, given the taxpayer burden, but free to them) educational opportunities thaty had on the high school level?

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Let Us Make Them All Welcome by Gates of Vienna, and The Essential President Bush by The Anchoress. 

Here is where you can find the full results of the vote.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at their Memorial Day Tribute. Make sure you have a barfbag ready.

Shame!

Posted by: Greg at 06:41 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Now I have made my views clear on what should happen to those responsible for the incident at Haditha, if media reports are accurate. But I agree very much with the approach advocated by General Peter Pace, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the need for the investigation so be completed and truials to be conducted.

The chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday "it would be premature for me to judge" the outcome of a Pentagon investigation into the killing of as many as a dozen Iraqi civilians by Marines.

But at the same time, Marine Gen. Peter Pace said he believes its critically important to make the point that if certain service members are responsible for an atrocity there, they "have not performed their duty the way that 99.9 percent of their fellow Marines have."

Interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show" as the nation observed Memorial Day honoring men and women lost in war, Pace pledged that "we'll get to the bottom of the investigation and take the appropriate action."

On the other hand, John Murtha is crying crocodile tears about the incident undermining the war effort.

Murtha, a former Marine and a prominent critic of Bush administration policies in Iraq, repeated his view that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily and needs political solutions, which he said were damaged by such incidents involving the U.S.

"This is the kind of war you have to win the hearts and minds of the people," he said. "And we're set back every time something like this happens. This is worse than Abu Ghraib."

Good grief! He sounds like an old whore decrying the loose sexual morality of today's women. He has been undermining the war effort for months, and did so again yesterday -- but he expresses concern that the incident could hurt our nation's work in Iraq!

And, of course, he indicts the very folks who are investigating the incident for covering it up -- I guess he wanted summary court martials without investigations or the opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. In other words, he favors less due process for our troops than he does for those who fight against them. Just standard political talking-points for the anti-American Left.

Let the process work, Congressman -- we can have any necessary firing squads after a thorough investigation and full and fair trials for those accused. In the mean time, shut up -- because right now you are doing as much to undermine our troops and their mission this Memorial Day as anything that happened in Haditha.

UPDATE: How about if we let a Marine who has served on the front lines in Iraq and faced false charges speak to this issue.

A year ago I was charged with two counts of premeditated murder and with other war crimes related to my service in Iraq. My wife and mother sat in a Camp Lejeune courtroom for five days while prosecutors painted me as a monster; then autopsy evidence blew their case out of the water, and the Marine Corps dropped all charges against me ["Marine Officer Cleared in Killing of Two Iraqis," news story, May 27, 2005].

So I know something about rushing to judgment, which is why I am so disturbed by the remarks of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) regarding the Haditha incident ["Death Toll Rises in Haditha Attack, GOP Leader Says," news story, May 20]. Mr. Murtha said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

In the United States, we have a civil and military court system that relies on an investigatory and judicial process to make determinations based on evidence. The system is not served by such grand pronouncements of horror and guilt without the accuser even having read the investigative report.

Mr. Murtha's position is particularly suspect when he is quoted by news services as saying that the strain of deployment "has caused them [the Marines] to crack in situations like this." Not only is he certain of the Marines' guilt but he claims to know the cause, which he conveniently attributes to a policy he opposes.

Members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq need more than Mr. Murtha's pseudo-sympathy. They need leaders to stand with them even in the hardest of times. Let the courts decide if these Marines are guilty. They haven't even been charged with a crime yet, so it is premature to presume their guilt -- unless that presumption is tied to a political motive.

ILARIO PANTANO

Jacksonville, N.C.

The writer served as a Marine enlisted man in the Persian Gulf War and most recently as a platoon commander in Iraq.

But then again, when has the Left ever let little matters like guilt, innocence, or trials get in the way of their propaganda points?

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Conservative Cat, Sed Vitae, Mark My Words, Stop the ACLU, Stuck on Stupid, Basil's Blog, Committe of Correspondence, NIF, Right Wing Nation

Posted by: Greg at 05:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 827 words, total size 6 kb.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education has been considering a boycott of Israeli academics who refuse to denounce Israel and support the Terrorstinian entity controlled by Hamas, Hizbollah, and Fatah.

Sadly, decency failed, and the resolution passed.

The 69,000-member National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) voted to boycott Israeli academic professionals and institutions of higher learning unless they “dissociate themselves” from Israel’s “apartheid policy” in Judea and Samaria.

The reactions to the decision were swift.

The British government at once released a statement condemning the move In an effort to contain the damage. A statement by Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Lord Triesman, the UK expressed its regrets and called the decision “counterproductive and retrograde”. Triesman was careful, however, to add, “We also recognize the independence of the NATFHE”.

Triesman served as deputy general secretary of the union in 1984. He also served as general secretary for the Association of University Teachers (AUT) trade union from 1993 to 2001.

Israel Education Minister Yuli Tamir slammed the NATFHE on the vote. She had already spoken last week with the British minister for higher education and asked him to step in to prevent the boycott. “The decision to boycott academic institutions is a move worthy of condemnation and revulsion,” she said. “Those who are implementing this boycott are harming academia’s freedom and turning it into a tool for political forces.”

In an appeal to the international community, NRP Knesset member Zevulun Orlev wrote to parliament members in Britain, France and Germany to demand they join with Israel in condemning the action. Orlev, chairman of the Knesset Science Committee, told his European counterparts, “This is a test of the free world. We expect you to condemn this anti-Semitic and racist decision and to help institutions of higher education in your countries tighten their cooperation with science, technology and higher education institutes in Israel.”

Professor Yehezkiel Teler, Vice Chairman of the Higher Education Council called the decision an echo of the Nazi boycott prior to World War II. “Now Britain is politicizing academia, in opposition to every academic value accepted in the world,” he said. “This will come back on them like a boomerang,” he predicted.

Haifa University, represented by its president, Aharon Ben Ze’ev also slammed the decision as a political move unbefitting an academic organization. “Any attempt to create ties between politics and academic research is simply McCarthyism,” he said.

Professor Yosef Yeshurun, the rector at Bar Ilan University, called the decision “negative”. He added that it “destroys bridges instead of building them”.

* * *

There were actually two motions which were voted on, both making reference to political issues involving relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The first called upon the NATFHE membership to help aid, protect and support PA institutions and universities, and to maintain ties with the PA. The first vote also accused Britain of “scandalous incitement” against Hamas, according to the Ynet news service report.

The second motion called for the boycott against “Israel’s persistent apartheid policy”. The new security fence was cited as part of the “apartheid policy”. In addition, the union leveled accusations of discriminatory practices in the education system.

Both motions were approved in a vote of 106 to 71 with 21 abstentions. In addition to boycotting Israeli institutions and academic professionals, union members will also no longer submit articles to Israeli research journals.

The group confirmed its anti-Semitism by failing to offer even a single word of condemnation directed at the campaign of murder conducted by Terrorstinian groups against innocent Israeli citizens. Perhaps at the next convention they will adopt a national student dress code requiring that members wear brown shirts and greet each other with a click of the heels and a straight-arm salute. It would be consistent with their resolution this year.

This boycott is reeks to high heaven.

I therefore renew my earlier statement about the proper response to this action by the NATFHE.

In the event this resolution passes, the United States needs to implement a policy of denying visas to all members of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education "who do not publicly dissociate themselves from" the group's anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist policies.

This is material support of terrorism, and it must not be permitted to stand.

MORE AT: Arkopolo, PaleoJudaica, Dutchblog Israel, Western Resistance, Solomonia, Adloyada, Freunde der offenen Gesellschaft, Step-by-Step, Engage, EclectEcon, Zionism on the Web, Gates of Vienna

Posted by: Greg at 05:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 764 words, total size 6 kb.

Could scenes like this one make the difference in this fall's Maryland senatorial race?

Richmond Myrick, the principal of Largo High School, is a registered Democrat in overwhelmingly Democratic Prince George's County next to Washington, D.C. He has not been active politically and is not recorded as having made any contributions to candidates for federal office. Yet recently, he stood in the parking lot of Prince George's Community College adjoining his school to introduce Republican Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, whom he has endorsed for the U.S. Senate.

Myrick is African American, as are most students at Largo High. So is Steele. If enough non-political blacks follow Myrick's course, Steele will become the first black Republican elected to the Senate in 32 years. That is the Democrats' worst nightmare. Democratic dominance in Maryland has been based on maintaining a hammerlock over the state's substantial African- American vote. Steele threatens that domination.

* * *

I asked Myrick why he had endorsed Steele. ''He came to school, not just for a brief visit, but spent the whole day,'' the principal told me. ''He showed he cared about the students and teachers.'' What about Cardin? ''He hasn't been here,'' said Myrick. When I asked if he even knew who the veteran congressman was, he said he did not.

And like many Republicans, Steele is more than willing to cricize President Bush on policy issues, and to disagree with his handling of situations. The Republican Party thereby shows itself to be a big tent that does not demand nearly the ideological conformity of the Democrat Party, which has been driven for years by liberal special interst groups and is now being hounded to become even more ideologically liberal by groups like MoveOn. That makes Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, and Lynn Swann potential bright spots for Republicans this fall, if African-American voters turn out for a new generation of leaders who have an (r) after their names.

Posted by: Greg at 05:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Whatever will the folks from MoveOn and other hard-Left groups have to say about this development?

DON'T LOOK now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback — and not among the Republicans who have made it famous but in the Democratic Party.

A host of pundits and young national security experts associated with the party are calling for a return to the Cold War precepts of President Truman to wage a war against terror that New Republic Editor Peter Beinart, in the title of his provocative new book, calls "The Good Fight."

The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute, whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty." Beinart's book is subtitled "Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

This new crop of liberal hawks calls for expanding the existing war against terrorism, beefing up the military and promoting democracy around the globe while avoiding the anti-civil liberties excesses of the Bush administration. They support a U.S. government that would seek multilateral consensus before acting abroad, but one that is not scared to use force when necessary.

Perhaps such developments explain the left-wing attacks on folks like Joe Lieberman -- if they can remove leading Democrats with a sane view of foreign policy in favor of those supported by KOSsacks and DUmmies, this movement can be stopped.

But if the neo-con movement in the Democrat party succeeds, it could be the beginning of the next great party reallignement in American politics.

Posted by: Greg at 05:21 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

You've got to love it when Democrats excuse behavior in themselves that they wouldn't accept in their political opponents.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

He defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the bill and was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's No. 1 businesses," he told The Associated Press.

"I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.

So tell me, Senator, how these tickets differ from the golf trips that the Democrats have called part of a "culture of corruption" when Republicans accepted them.

And we cannot, of course, overlook the different courses of action taken by teh two Republicans who accepted tickets.

Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.

In other words, you took the tickets, McCain paid for them, and Ensign had already taken himself out of the debate becasue of family connections. Whose behavior was most ethical, Senator ?

And whose clients were you meeting with and doing favors for?

In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid broadly defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him.

"I'm not Goodie two shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.

Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.

The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff's partners, firm and clients.

Reid said he viewed the two official meetings and the fundraiser as a single event. "I think it all was one, the way I look at it," he said.

One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid's office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.

Five days earlier, Reid met with Ayoob and the Sac & Fox tribe of Iowa for about 15 minutes to discuss at least two legislative requests. Reid's office said the senator never acted on those requests.

And strikingly enough, what did they get in return?

A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study Ayoob was lobbying for. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.

Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.

AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff's partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.

Certainly looks like a quid pro quo to me -- and what do Senate rules say about appearances?

Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations.

In other words, under Senate rules you are DIRTY! After all, it sure looks like there was a connection between your official actions and the fundraising event and donations. What would you be saying -- indeed, what have you said -- about Republicans in precisely that situation? I think we all know the answer.

Posted by: Greg at 05:05 AM | Comments (115) | Add Comment
Post contains 798 words, total size 5 kb.

I never realized what a sleazy character William Jefferson is -- I've been so busy focussing on the current dust-up over bribe-taking that I never looked into his background. Interestingly enough, no less than the New York Times has trotted out a litany of dirt stretching back a couple of decades. And the sad thing is that Jefferson, had he stuck to an ethical path, would be a superb role model to hold up to my students coming out of a poor background.

Representative William J. Jefferson has always liked to talk about growing up in an impoverished farm community, picking cotton for $3 a day and hitting the books hard enough to win his ticket out — a scholarship to Harvard Law School.

* * *

Mr. Jefferson was raised, along with eight brothers and sisters, on a small farm in northeast Louisiana, where, he said earlier this year, "our whole life revolved around that cotton field." His father left school after second grade, and his mother attended only through eighth grade.

As a child, Mr. Jefferson was such a good shot, his father once said, that when it came time to bag dinner, "if I wanted one rabbit, I'd give him one shell; and if I needed two rabbits, I'd give him two."

After he graduated from Southern University in Baton Rouge in 1969, Mr. Jefferson has said, he won his mother's blessing to go to Harvard Law School — she had never heard of it — only by explaining that it had been John F. Kennedy's college.

I've got kids who come from families like that -- kids whose families do migrant farm work during the summer, kids who work after school to make sure there is food on the table for the rest of the family. William Jefferson ought to be an example to them of how to succeed -- except he fell into stuff like this.

His rental business — which leased television sets and other appliances to people who could not afford to buy them — appeared on the delinquent list in a city sales-tax scandal in the 1980's. And a day after he was elected to Congress in 1990, the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was trying to clean up the mess from the collapse of savings institutions, sued him for $160,000 over an apartment-building loan on which he had quit making payments. He later settled the suit, with friends saying his investments had been hurt by a faltering economy.

Tax-cheat, gouger of the poor, slum-lord, deadbeat -- I suppose even some of that could be forgiven, overlooked, or explained. He was trying to serve his community, and he got in over his head. Not that anyone would buy such an argument if he were a Republican -- look at how the Democrats have gone after Michael Steele over personal financial issues not nearly so severe.

And then we get this, after he became the go-to guy for doing business in Africa during the Clinton administration. From that point forward, his dealings with companies seeking business opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa became more convoluted -- and much more shady.

Mr. Jefferson also became known as a strong advocate of freer trade and made at least nine trips to Africa to promote it, including one with President Clinton. He championed a 2000 law that extended trade benefits to sub-Saharan Africa. "Africa is a reservoir of opportunities for American businesses," he said then.

Over the years, Mr. Jefferson has received campaign contributions and free travel from individuals and companies seeking business in Africa, including iGate.

Campaign finance records show he received a $1,000 contribution as early as 2001 from Vernon L. Jackson, the chief executive of iGate, which makes technology to transmit high-speed Internet service across the wires used in some African nations. Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty this month to bribing Mr. Jefferson with more than $400,000 in cash and millions of shares of iGate stock.

Government documents show that Mr. Jackson told the F.B.I. that when he met Mr. Jefferson in late 2000, the congressman voluntarily helped promote iGate's products — a normal and legitimate action for a government official involved in trade issues. But according to the F.B.I. documents, in early 2001, the congressman's actions became improper when he said he would continue to use his influence on iGate's behalf only if Mr. Jackson made payments to a company, the ANJ Group, run by the Jefferson family. The iGate payments were disguised as consulting fees, the F.B.I. said.

Mr. Jefferson says these were private business dealings that had nothing to do with his work on the House committee.

But as part of a 2003 deal to distribute iGate's products, a Nigerian company, Netlink Digital Television, agreed to pay the congressman $5 per subscriber, the F.B.I. affidavit said, "in return for Jefferson's official assistance if the deal was successful."

House records show that in February 2004, Mr. Jefferson led a business delegation to Nigeria and Cameroon as a co-chairman of the Congressional Nigeria Caucus and the Africa Trade and Investment Caucus. The trip, which cost $16,313, according to the records, was paid for in part by iGate.

In 2005, the F.B.I. said, Mr. Jefferson wrote to the vice presidents of Nigeria and Ghana, and traveled to Ghana, seeking approval for iGate projects. Within a week after returning, the F.B.I. said, Mr. Jefferson used his influence to help a Virginia woman, Lori Modi, who had invested $3.5 million in the Nigeria project. He introduced her to officials at the Export-Import Bank of the United States and urged them to provide financing for the project.

But by then, Ms. Modi had asked the F.B.I. to investigate the deal.

Investigators said that in negotiating the deals, Mr. Jefferson had often cited his desire to provide for his five daughters, three of whom also have degrees from Harvard Law School.

From December 2004 through June 2005, the F.B.I. said in its affidavit, Mr. Jefferson increased his demands for equity in one Nigerian company, to 30 percent, to be split among his daughters. He also told an investor that one of his daughters had to be retained to do legal work, according to documents in the case.

Then, on July 30, 2005, when Mr. Jefferson met Ms. Modi at a Ritz-Carlton hotel, the F.B.I. said it supplied her with a briefcase with $100,000 in marked bills. Mr. Jefferson had told her the money would be needed to bribe Nigerian officials, the affidavit said.

As the F.B.I.'s video cameras zoomed in on him, the bureau said, Mr. Jefferson drove off with the briefcase on the seat of his Lincoln Town Car. And when agents raided his home four days later, $90,000 of the money turned up again, in the kitchen freezer.

Which leads us, of course, to the current crisis, sparked by Jefferson's refusal to cooperate with investigators or to turn over subpoenaed documents. From a position of great promise, Jefferson has fallen prey to his own baser instincts. I cannot help but see similarities to Duke Cunningham in Jefferson's fall.

Ed Lasky of American Thinker sees this article very differently.

* * *

I would also like to point to the interesting work of two bloggers -- A.J. Strata and Mac Ranger. Both have looked at this case and found another interesting angle -- the Clinton Administration connection to Jefferson. Who seems to be the prominent individual who may have played a major role in the development of Jefferson's African connections and portfolio? Joe Wilson -- Bush-basher and proven liar. Maybe his dishonesty goes even further.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Conservative Cat, Sed Vitae, Mark My Words, Stop the ACLU, Stuck on Stupid, Basil's Blog, Committe of Correspondence, NIF, Right Wing Nation

Posted by: Greg at 02:47 AM | Comments (116) | Add Comment
Post contains 1298 words, total size 9 kb.

As most folks who read here know, I studied for the priesthood when I was younger. While problems with certain aspects of Catholic theology have led me to leave the Church, I still hold a great love and respect for Catholicism and find great spiritual inspiration and comfort in the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is why I find pastoral failures like this one to be so shocking and saddening.

The situation also calls to mind the observation of one of my seminary professors made the observation (pre-9/11 by nearly a decade) that the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with the terrorist.

At a small Catholic church in Huntington Beach, the pressing moral question comes to this: Does kneeling at the wrong time during worship make you a sinner?

Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin," Father Martin Tran, pastor at St. Mary's by the Sea, told his flock in a recent church bulletin. The Diocese of Orange backs Tran's anti-kneeling edict.

Though told by the pastor and the archdiocese to stand during certain parts of the liturgy, a third of the congregation still gets on its knees every Sunday.

"Kneeling is an act of adoration," said Judith M. Clark, 68, one of at least 55 parishioners who have received letters from church leaders urging them to get off their knees or quit St. Mary's and the Diocese of Orange. "You almost automatically kneel because you're so used to it. Now the priest says we should stand, but we all just ignore him."

The debate is being played out in at least a dozen parishes nationwide.

Since at least the 7th century, Catholics have been kneeling after the Agnus Dei, the point during Mass when the priest holds up the chalice and consecrated bread and says, "Behold the lamb of God." But four years ago, the Vatican revised its instructions, allowing bishops to decide at some points in the Mass whether their flocks should get on their knees. "The faithful kneel Â… unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise," says Rome's book of instructions. Since then, some churches have been built without kneelers.

In other words, either kneeling or standing is an appropriate posture during worship according to no less than the Vatican. Unfortunately, liberal liturgists insist otherwise, and have been tinkering away with this and other parts of the liturgy. Looks like they got to Bishop Tod D. Brown. And unfortunately, there is no negoiation.

Angered by the anti-kneeling edict, a group calling itself Save Saint Mary's began distributing leaflets calling for its return outside church each Sunday.

Tran responded in the church bulletin with a series of strident weekly statements condemning what he called "despising the authority of the local bishop" by refusing his orders to stand, and calling the disobedience a mortal sin, considered the worst kind of offense, usually reserved for acts such as murder.

Tran sent letters to 55 kneeling parishioners "inviting" them to leave the parish and the diocese for, among other things, "creating misleading confusion, division and chaos in the parish by intentional disobedience and opposition to the current liturgical norms."

Father Joe Fenton, spokesman for the Diocese of Orange, said the diocese supports Tran's view that disobeying the anti-kneeling edict is a mortal sin. "That's Father Tran's interpretation, and he's the pastor," he said. "We stand behind Father Tran."

Now when I was in the seminary, I was often told that there was a need to be "pastoral". That meant letting the local politician who was adamantly pro-abortion receive communion despite his support for exterminating unborn life, because we couldn't really judge what was in his heart. It meant accepting the active homosexuals at the altar and permitting them to receive communion, because we could not judge their relationship with God. In short, it meant accepting all manner of buffet-line Christianity. It even meant reassigning Fr. Bob to a new parish after he got caught buggering the altar boys, and not supervising him or telling his new parishioners about his proclivities.

But somehow, following 14 centuries of liturgical tradition has been decreed "mortal sin" by a pastor and is supported by a bishop. Those who wish to follow that tradition are just one step shy of excommunication, and have already been told they are bound for hell for daring to cross the pastor and bishop. Where, exactly, is the "pastoral" practice in that?

I have to tell you -- there is nothing pastoral about it. And I must state that Father Tran and Bishop Brown are nothing short of little Phariseess (Luke 11:39-54) and anti-Christs (though neither is THE Anti-Christ -- note the capitalization) driving the faithful away from the Church with petty legalisms (note the word "petty") that have nothing to do with the essentials of the Christian faith.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

Let them be anathema.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

Posted by: Greg at 12:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 850 words, total size 6 kb.

I do not believe the position taken by this editorial on the attempts to expel a high school student for his off-campus blogging.

In effect, it argues against freedom of speech and press for students -- and does not consider the implications of its position.

Here is the scary part of the editorial.

On the other hand, should the school — which cannot comment on individual disciplinary cases — sit idle while one of its students humiliates it online? Certainly in the post-Columbine era, school officials have to be quick to react to any perceived threat. But does criticism, whether warranted or not, necessarily convey a threat?

We think the school was right in suspending the student over the posts. Disciplinary action should be considered for anyone crossing the line with inappropriate language verbally or in print, at school or in the workplace. Standards have to be maintained.

Hold on -- is it the position of the Herald News that government entities may act to punish speakers or writers that "humiliate" it? Does this mean that a critical editorial in the Herald News or an article that casts government in an unflattering light could be grounds for official action against the newspaper -- perhaps an arrest and criminal charges? Do such words, which "humiliate" government, render them outside the protection of the First Amendment?

And then there is the other issue -- one that shows that the editorialist does not understand the situation at all. This is not a case of inappropiate language being used in the workplace or school. The blog was written and posted outside of school from a private computer in the student's home. There is no "at school" nexus -- except for the fact that the kid was writing about school. Is it the position of the Herald News that speech about governement entities has no First Amendment protection, regardless of wher it occurs? Sounds to me like the sort of stuff that saw John Peter Zenger tried by colonial authorities in the 1730s -- he libeled the government and its officials by printing unflattering information about them, and the fact that the information was true constituted an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. Such attrocities were part of the reason for the adoption of the First Amendment.

Now I'm curious about something -- would the editorialist be taking the same position on the punishment of this student if the basis were a letter to the editor or guest column that appeared in its own pages? How about if it were comments quoted by one of its reporters in an article? How about an appearance on tlevision or radio? In short, does the Herald news feel that the medium of communication is what confers protection, not the words?

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

It is according to Paul Richard, who opines that modern artistic style has failed to in its effort to adequately memorialize American heroes -- and that with it, we have lost some sense of truly memorializing those we claim to honor.

Remember, tomorrow's Memorial Day. That's what it's for, remembering.

The holiday's gone blurry. Now it's mostly fun (ballgames, setting up the barbecue, another day off work), but it used to be for focused recollections of the dead.

Not the dead in general, the dead in sharp particular. Half a million soldiers had died in the Civil War. When the rites were first observed in 1866, there were plenty to recall.

Each spring at the end of May, their graves were strewn with flowers, their faces brought to mind. This was deeply serious business. The fallen mustn't be forgotten. We used words like "the fallen" then. That seriousness bred art. That art would shape the country's look, and Washington's especially. Vast amounts of money, artistry and effort would be expended on its making. The beauty of the art would illumine its high purpose -- to immortalize remembrance. Strewn flowers weren't enough. The fallen would be given stone-and-metal monuments impervious to time.

Washington is filled with them. If you want to get Memorial Day, look around at the memorials. They're victors' monuments. They put generals on pedestals, and dead presidents above them. Washington's memorials share a certain style. Their statues aren't just portraits, though they're often that, as well; they're personified ideals. Their bronze laurel wreaths and eagles, and Greco-Roman lions, say: The past approves of us. They're insistently high-minded, august.

They represent an art movement, now dead. For a long time their architects and artists, their stone-carvers and bronze-founders got better and better. For a long time their elevated style got nobler and nobler. Then, suddenly, it died.

It died a poignant death -- at the peak of its accomplishment, just when it got great. We know the date exactly. Memorial sculpture's greatness left Washington forever on the 30th of May, Memorial Day, 1922.

I would tend to agree. While the stark black walls of the meorial to those who died in Vietnam are moving, the statuary additions are not. Other, more recent monuments and memorials are somehow lacking. And with that loss of purpose and definition, has come a loss of memory.

Jefferson standing, purposeless -- he should be seated, writing the mrvelous words that surround him in the Jefferson Memorial. Roosevelt -- ill-defined. Will we fail with the national commemoration of Dr. King?

Or put differently, can we, as a people, recover our capacity for historical memory?

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 447 words, total size 3 kb.

George McGovern has always appeared to be one of the dying breed of socialist dinosaurs. But even he understands enough about politics to get what the problem is with the current attacks on Wal-Mart.

It can be galling to hear companies argue that they have to cut wages and benefits for hourly workers — even as they reward top executives with millions of dollars in stock options. The chief executive of Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the company's average worker takes home about $10 an hour. But let's assume that the chief executive got 27 cents instead of $27 million, and that Wal-Mart distributed the savings to its hourly workers. They would each receive a bonus of less than $20. It's not executive pay that has created this new world.

I understand the attraction of asking business — the perceived "deep pockets" — to shoulder more of the responsibility for social welfare. But there are plenty of businesses that don't have deep pockets. Many large corporations operate with razor-thin profit margins as competitors, both foreign and domestic, attract consumers by offering lower prices.

The current frenzy over Wal-Mart is instructive. Its size is unprecedented. Yet for all its billions in profit, it still amounts to less than four cents on the dollar. Raise the cost of employing people, and the company will eliminate jobs. Its business model only works on low prices, which require low labor costs. Whether that is fair or not is a debate for another time. It is instructive, however, that consumers continue to enjoy these low prices and that thousands of applicants continue to apply for those jobs.

Now notice that statistic -- Wal-Mart has only a 4% profit margin. Raise costs, and either prices will go up or jobs will go down -- or both.

Now McGovern uses that to support socialized medicine, an increasingly progressive tax rate, and more transfer payments. He is, of course, wrong on those issues, not recognizing that such policies ultimately fail wherever tehy are tried. But the essentially capitalistic notion he supports regarding Wal-Mart is correct, and i praise him for that.

Posted by: Greg at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

At last -- a GOP leader willing to come out and state the obvious (updated) about the search of William Jefferson's office!

In a break with his counterparts in the House, the Senate's leader said today the FBI was within its right to search the office of a congressman under investigation in a bribery case.

"No House member, no senator, nobody in government should be above the law of the land, period," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

* * *

"I don't think it abused separation of powers," Frist said on "Fox News Sunday.

"I think there's allegations of criminal activity, and the American people need to have the law enforced."

Even Dick Durbin came close to stating a similar conclusion.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said there needs to be "hard look" at whether the FBI violated the Constitution. But he said the FBI has raided judge's chambers before, so there is precedent for crossing branches of government for searches.

He also said he wasn't sure the "speech and debate" protections in Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution were violated, as some of have argued.

That section states that members of Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

"I'm not sure that you can stretch it to apply to this situation," Durbin said. "In the next several weeks, we ought to take a hard look at it. I'm not going to rule it in or out at this moment."

Yeah, he wants to keep it around as a possible election year issue if the focus groups indicate that it might make a difference in November -- but since he notes that law enforcement has historically used search warrants to search the offices of judges, he can't really make the case for a violation of separation of powers. -- and his words effectively concede that.

So it is time for the leadership of the House of Representatives to quit demagoguing this issue -- and for the Presidnet to rescind his sequestration of the evidence against Jefferson and end the obstruction of the investigation of this crooked congressman.

UPDATE: Looks like Wyoming Congresswoman Barbara Cubin has broken with House leadership on this matter.

“Nobody in this country is above the law, especially those elected to create our laws,” she said. “They should, if anything, be held to a higher standard. They should not expect their congressional offices to be treated as a safe haven to store incriminating documents or illegal products such as drugs or stolen goods."

"With all due respect to my colleagues, criticizing the executive and judicial branches of our government for fully investigating a member of Congress suspected of criminal wrongdoing sends the wrong message and reflects poorly upon all of Congress,” she added. “Alleged corruption and crimes in both the private and public sector must be fully investigated, and those found guilty must face a fitting punishment. Members of Congress are no exception.”

In an interview, Cubin also disagreed with the calls for the government to immediately return all documents.

"As long as the constituents’ privacy is protected, I think that they ought to be able to look at whatever evidence there is in his office that he may have broken the law,” she said.

She explained that the leadershipÂ’s protests could further erode the publicÂ’s already skeptical view of Congress.

“What isn’t acceptable is that there’s a perception out in the country that members of Congress think that they are above the law, because they’re not above the law,” she said. “I think for the most part they don’t believe they are either. But just the perception that that is so, is not acceptable.”

She added that lawmakers do need to protect constituentsÂ’ private communications with their offices.

“They ought to be assured their private information will be kept private, but to think that the authorities shouldn’t be able to go into our offices in the pursuit of an investigation of criminal wrongdoing, I think it just sets us apart, and we ought not to be set apart,” she added.

Cubin acknowledged the significance of the fact that such a raid has never happened in U.S. history.

“I think we have to guard overzealous prosecution,” she said. “But members of Congress have to know that they have to abide by the laws of this land just like anyone else.”

And furthermore, the Wyoming Republican notes that the particular facts of this case make it clear that the warrant and search were appropriate.

Also, I came across this article by Robert F. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law.

But as the Supreme Court observed in the 1972 case of U.S. v. Brewster, the clause was never intended to immunize corrupt legislators who violate felony bribery statutes--laws that have expressly applied to members of Congress for more than 150 years. In Brewster, the court noted the clause was not written "to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility," adding: "Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator."

Such behavior is therefore not protected by the Constitution. The purpose of the Speech or Debate Clause was to protect the integrity of the legislative process, and the court noted that bribery, "perhaps even more than Executive power," would "gravely undermine legislative integrity and defeat the right of the public to honest representation."

A dozen years ago, I testified before the House Committee on Administration on this same basic issue. Newt Gingrich and other reformers were trying to bring Congress under the same ethics laws it had imposed upon the rest of the country, and some indignant legislators seemed confident that the laws were not supposed to apply to them. The hearing was held in a small room in a part of the Capitol Building off-limits to the public, with exactly enough chairs for members, staff and the three witnesses.

Two members of the public who managed to make their way to the room were turned away on the grounds that there was "no room" for public observers.

Critics of the Gingrich proposal did not hear what they wanted. Some seemed genuinely shocked when I informed them that, in Federalist No. 57, James Madison noted one of the constraints in the Constitution to prevent legislators from enacting "oppressive measures" was that "they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

Indeed. Let's get away from the notion of Congressional Aristocracy.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1191 words, total size 8 kb.

That is what I'm getting from this post over at Euphoric Reality. Here are some of the elements the new "immigration bill" includes, according to Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector.

*The bill supposedly would protect American workers by ensuring that new immigrants would not take away jobs. However, the bill's definition of ''United States worker'' includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless.

*It extends the Davis-Bacon Act's requirement for the payment of ''prevailing wage'' to all temporary guest workers. That puts them ahead of Americans, who have this protection only on federal job sites.

*Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be ''terminated from employment by any employer ... except for just cause.'' In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.

Now what that means is that foreign workers admitted under the guest-worker provisions won't just get "jobs that Americans won't do" -- they potentially can get jobs that Americans want to do, if the employer prefers to hire foreign workers. It guarantees them the "prevailing wage" -- usually the union scale, while not guaranteein American workers that wage. Furthermore, it eliminates the "at will" employment provisions of most state laws in relation to these foreign workers -- meaning that they have a level of job security denied American citizens. So let's see here -- equal rights to American jobs, higher wages guaranteed, and more job security than American workers have. Remind me whose county this is again, and who the members of the US Senate represent?

Kate O'Beirne and Mickey Kaus have more.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

If this is accurate, I believe that firing squads are in order.

A four-man team of United States Marines led the killing rampage in the Iraqi town of Haditha which resulted in the deaths of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, military investigators believe.

The troops went from house to house shooting their occupants after a roadside bomb killed one of their comrades, an internal US military report, which may be completed as early as this week, is expected to conclude. Some of the victims were killed, execution style, by shots to the head.

Shock at the full extent of the killing, reported by The Sunday Telegraph last weekend, has been compounded by photographs taken by a marine intelligence team which show bullet wounds to the upper bodies of the victims, who included several women and six children, some shot in the head and some in the back.

One US government official said the pictures showed that marines from Camp Pendleton "suffered a total breakdown in morality and leadership, with tragic results", according to yesterday's Los Angeles Times.

As horrific as these charges are, let one thing be clear -- even if true, such misconduct in no way reflects upon the justification of the war or the propriety of continuing to fight the Jihadi terrorists wherever they may be found.

MORE AT: Hugh Hewitt, Hot Air, Captain's Quarters, Little Green Footballs, Confederate Yankee, Big Lizards, Michelle Malkin, Flopping Aces, Small Town Veteran, Strategic Outlook Institute, Iowa Voice, Sister Toldjah, Red Hot Cuppa Politics, Threading Water, Right Wing Nut House, Carry On America

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 4 kb.

It looks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller, along with a number of their senior aides, made the president back down from a criminally stupid decision this week -- even though he still made the wrong one.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday.

Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.

The potential showdown was averted Thursday when President Bush ordered the evidence to be sealed for 45 days to give Congress and the Justice Department a chance to work out a deal.

Unfortunately, even the decision to seal the evidence pending "negotiations" was the wrong one, and indicates the fundamental weakness of George W. Bush at this time.Bush surrendered the authority of two branches of government at the invocation of a non-existant privilege of the third. And unfiortunately, this has only emboldened Congressional leaders in both houses to be more defiant.

On Friday, Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he had been meeting with Senate counsel to explore potential procedures and had given Mr. Frist a memorandum on a possible approach.

"The Justice Department is going to have to look at what we put in place and agree to it," Mr. Lott said. "I hope we can work it out."

But he said, "I am perfectly willing to get it on with the administration and take it right to the Supreme Court if they want to argue over it."

So much for cooling down the situation so that sides did not become entrenched. Lott is implicitly denying the clear constitutional mandates of the the Executive Brabch to see that the laws are faithfully executed and the Judicial Branch to issue warrants for searches under the Fourth Amendment. In effect, the Congressional position is that, unlike the rest of America and contrary to the clear language of the Constitution, it will decide when and if valid subpoenas and warrants may be executed. Seems to me that these clowns are looking at them selves as the Imperial Legislative Branch.

It seems, though, that the obscene obstruction of justice ordered by the President was motivated by politics.

"If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "

However, Lott's position makes it clear that the corrosive situation still exists. And having rewarded Hastert, who now concedes that the warrant was lawfully issued and that the FBI therefore had the authority to conduct the search of Jefferson's office.

House leaders conceded Friday that FBI agents with a court-issued warrant can legally search a congressman's office, but they said they want procedures established after agents with a court warrant took over a lawmaker's office last week.

* * *

In an editorial in USA Today on Friday, Hastert said he and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have directed House lawyers "to develop reasonable protocols and procedures that will make it possible for the FBI to go into congressional offices to constitutionally execute a search warrant."

So even though there is consensus on the fact that the Jefferson search was legal, the FBI and Justice Department are to be shackled for totally speciousreasons -- just to save the working relationship between Congress and the White House.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 5 kb.

Something like this happened at my university about 20 years ago.

A student advertising campaign that "just went bad" left an indelible -- and apparently unintended -- mark on downtown Portland and the Pearl District.

Three Art Institute of Portland students said they thought they were using spray chalk when they laid down a couple dozen markings on sidewalks aimed at drawing attention to a fundraising concert for the Oregon Food Bank.

Turns out the spray cans contained indelible paint, not chalk.

"We thought it would wash away," said Jody Desimone, one of the students. The students had completed much of their project Wednesday night before they learned that the spray cans contained paint.

Desimone, Jessie Grav and Carina Close also learned that the unauthorized markings on public property amounted to graffiti, which can be prosecuted as criminal mischief.

The paint was applied on sidewalks in the South Park Blocks, Waterfront Park, Old Town and the Pearl. The markings included stencils of Oregon landmarks, such as Mount Hood, and a large phone number and Web address.

"We didn't think putting it on sidewalks was illegal," Grav said.

OOPS!

The College Democrats, left-wing losers that they were (they couldn't muster a dozen members, while the College Republicns had well over 100 active members) did something like this at Illinois State when I was there.

They decided to do the "Shadows of Nuclear War" deal, painting outlines of human bodies on sidewalks and buildings around campus to simulate the shadows left at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They even set up a booth in the Student Center with a flier explaining their deeds.

Imagine their shock when they discovered that a water-based exterior house paint doesn't wash off with a garden hose. They never considered the possibility that a good old acrylic latex paint might be sort of permanent.

I understand that it cost them every cent in their treasury, their recognition as a student organization, and some serious disciplinary action against the individuals involved.

Part of me hopes that these students are shown a little more mercy.

Posted by: Greg at 08:32 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

Michelle Malkin has details on this shocking provision of the Senate immigration bill, as well as the granting of amnesty to everyone who can walk, run, crawl, jump, fly or swim into the USA.

Does the Senate immigration bill essentially give Mexico veto power over our border fences? Hearing this from several readers and sources. Reader Greg writes:

Senator Cornyn gave Lou Dobbs a statement saying the last-minute Amendment SA 41[8]8 says Mexico must be consulted before any fence is constructed.

From F/R thread:

I heard this on Sean Hannity's Fox Radio broadcast a short while ago and just now on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN:

Arlen Specter, according to Congressman John Kyl of Arizona, slipped a provision into the Immigration Bill the Senate passed today requiring the U.S. to consult with Mexico BEFORE building a wall in any area along the border.

I'm checking into it. If anyone has more specific info, please send along. Update: It's Dem Sen. Chris Dodd's amendment included in Specter's manager's package that passed.

The Senate by Cboldt blog reports:

UPDATE @ 17:16 - Senator Specter notes that the managers package is ready for a vote, he says that it (the package) makes making sausage look good. Senator Kyl asks to speak for one minute on the managers amendment. He says it has been in busy negotiations, right up until now. Federal, state and local entities in the US would be required to consult with Mexican government before building a wall. I predict this amendment, S.Amdt.4188, will pass. Off to find the language that Senator Kyl referred to.

UPDATE @ 17:23 - Found it. Senator Dodd talked against a fence on May 18, and his S.Amdt.4089 contains the following language:

(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.--Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.

UPDATE @ 17:40 - Bonus prediction (the managers' amendment), now four for four. Senator Frist voted against the managers' amendment, for what it's worth.

S.Amdt.4188 - Specter: Managers' amendment, a collection of amendments, including Dodd's S.Amdt.4089 that requires local, state and federal governments to consult with Mexican counterpart authorities before commencing new construction, was PASSED on a 56 - 41 vote.

Republicans who voted for the Mexican consultation requirement:

Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Chafee, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Graham, Hagel, Lugar, Feingold, Collins, McCain, Specter, Stevens, Warner, Martinez, Murkowski, Snowe and Voinovich

Dems who voted against:

Lincoln

Let's hope the House of Representatives stands tough -- but based upon recent actions related to the Jefferson case, I'm not hopeful.

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 4 kb.

Or at least for 10 days, until I start teaching Summer School.

* * *

And now time for our linkfest and open trackback carnival!

You know the rules -- link back to this post with your best/favorite current posts. I won't limit your number of posts, but instead ask you to exercise prudent judgement about how many you send.

Some folks have tols me they have problems trackbacking to this site. If this is the case, please use the Wizbang Standalone Trackback Pinger to establish the link.

And, of course, don't forget the big three rules.

No Spam. No Porn. No Problem.

OTHER OPEN TRACKBACKS: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog

Posted by: Greg at 02:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Simply saying what much of the Left thinks -- about not only Tony Blair, but George W. Bush as well.

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

I'll agree with the characterization of Galloway by one of his fellow MPs.

The Labour MP Stephen Pound, a persistent critic of Mr Galloway during previous controversies, told The Sun that the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in east London was "disgraceful and truly twisted".

He said: "These comments take my breath away. Every time you think he can't sink any lower he goes and stuns you again. It's reprehensible to say it would be justified for a suicide bomber to assassinate anyone."

I guess we shouldn't be surprised -- Galloway was on Saddam's payroll. And given how the Left in both the US and UK have tried to justify "understand" 9/11 and 7/7 as the "entirely logical and explicable" response of Muslims to US policy on israel and British involvement in the War on Jihadi Terrorists, there is absolutely nothing to be surprised about here.

(H/T: Captain's Quarters)

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Unless we start seeing a sharp reversal in conduct, I'm done with George W. Bush. This isn't about politics -- it is about the proper stewardship of the laws and the Constitution. I'm disgusted by his intervention in the Jefferson case.

President Bush personally ordered the Justice Department today to seal records seized from the Capitol Hill office of a Democratic congressman, marking a remarkable intervention by the nation's chief executive into an ongoing criminal probe of alleged corruption.

The order culminates an escalating constitutional confrontation between the Justice Department and the House of Representatives, where lawmakers have demanded that the FBI return items seized during a Saturday night raid of the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).

In a six-paragraph statement, Bush said he issued the order to give the Justice Department and angry lawmakers more time to work out an agreement on how to resolve the conflict. The materials, which have been described in court filings as two boxes of documents and copies of computer files, will be held by Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who is not involved in the Jefferson probe, Bush's statement said.

"Our government has not faced such a dilemma in more than two centuries," Bush said. "Yet after days of discussions, it is clear these differences will require more time to be worked out."

I'm willing to forgive policy differences --but this is a case of allowing a spurious claim of Congressional privilege to trump the enforcement of a duly issued search warrant in a felony case. There is nothing here to negotiate and mediate, and this decision indicates that we have a Chief Executive too weak-kneed to allow the Executive and Judicial branches to carry out their Constitutional perogatives lest it imperil his chances of legislative success --even at the cost of permitting public corruption to continue unabated. This is not to say that I will not side with George W. Bush when I believe him to be right, but rather that I will no longer extend to him the presumption that he is right, nor the level of support that I would ordinarily extend to a president of my party. I think this is that big a deal.

Is our existance as a Constitutional Republic firmly rooted in the rule of law at an end?

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Sister Toldjah, Pro Cynic, The Anchoress, Webloggin, Blue Crab Boulevard, Strata-Sphere, Kitty Litter, GOPBloggers, Blogs for Bush, Irish Pennants

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 5 kb.