Well, the Courts have spoken on this matter a number of times, and the Washington Post does an excellent job of summing the matter up for us.

The Speech and Debate Clause, contained in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, says that members of the House and Senate "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."

It was meant to safeguard the independence of Congress against executive branch intimidation, of the kind the Founders had witnessed under King George III's colonial governors, and harassment from private lawsuits.

Over the years, however, some lawmakers invoked the clause to shield corrupt activities. Given the clause's exception for serious crimes, the Supreme Court has had to define the scope of its protections.

In a series of cases during the 1960s and '70s, the court drew a protective line around papers, speeches and activities that are "essential" to legislative acts or the motives behind them, such as floor statements or committee reports. But it declined to protect anything not closely connected to legislative work, such as remarks to the press or constituent newsletters.

In 1972, for example, the court ruled that the Speech and Debate Clause could not shield Sen. Daniel B. Brewster (D-Md.) from prosecution for accepting a bribe in exchange for his promise to vote a certain way on postage rate legislation. (Brewster pleaded no contest to the charge.)

That same year, the court ruled that a Senate aide, though covered by the Speech and Debate Clause, had to respond to a grand jury subpoena to answer questions about whether Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) had violated federal law by arranging for a private book publisher to print the Pentagon Papers. (The Justice Department later dropped the case.)

In 1979, the court ruled that Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) could be sued for defamation by a scientist whose work he had mocked in a news release and newsletter.

But it also ruled in a separate case that the government could not use a House member's past votes or speeches as evidence of his motive for committing an alleged offense.

And a federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that the Justice Department was not entitled to look through the telephone records of a member of Congress.

So generally speaking, the protections afforded Congress by the Speech and Debate clause are pretty narrow -- and do not extend to shielding corruption from investigation and prosecution.

A ccouple of law professors also weigh in on the matter.

"An official legislative act is immune, but interference with anything beyond that" is not covered by the constitutional provision that shields Congress from executive and judicial branch interference, said Michael J. Glennon, a former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who teaches at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The precise materials sought in the raid were blacked out in a publicly released copy of the search warrant, but Jefferson (D-La.) said in a court filing yesterday that FBI agents took two boxes of documents and copied computer hard drives.

Both the search warrant for Jefferson's office and the raid to execute it were unprecedented in the 219-year history of the Constitution. In that sense, they violated an interbranch understanding rooted in the separation of powers -- and, indeed, in the events of 1642, when King Charles I burst into Parliament and attempted to arrest five members of the House of Commons, triggering the English Civil War.

But the taboo against searching congressional offices was a matter of tradition, not black-letter constitutional law.

"It's really a matter of etiquette," said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale University. "I don't see any constitutional principle here."

But that is precisely teh issue here -- there is no violation of the Constitution. Custom has decreed that the Executive branch take a less confrontational appoach to such investigations -- but in this case, there has been teh violation of another custom, namely that a member cooperate with the investigation, which Jeferson and his lawyers have refused to do. Thus the Judicial Branch has weighed in and found probable cause for a warrant to be issued -- and left open room for Jefferson to challenge the search of the office and the seizure of any and all materials, exactly as is the right of any other citizen.

And I'd like to comment upon the responses of Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi.

"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi said in a rare joint statement.

As noted above, they are clearly wrong in their characterization of the actions of the Justice Department. There is clearly no basis for demanding the return of these materials to Jefferson on the basis of any Constitutional provision, nor does "custom" constitute a basis for the laws not being enforced.

Furthermore, I am appalled by the weakness of this portion of their statement.

Once the papers are returned, "Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights," the statement said.

Unfortunately, that assertion ignores the history of this case. Sure, he "can and should" cooperate. But the reality is that he has not cooperated, and is unlikely to do so in the future if the past is truly prologue in this case. And Hastert and Pelosi have no means to enforce Jefferson's cooperation with the investigation -- that power only lies in the hands of the Executive and Judicial branches working together in the request for and issuance of a search warrant and its execution, which we saw over the weekend.

I applaud the position of the justice Department on this matter.

A Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations, said after the Hastert-Pelosi joint statement was released that "the department will not agree to any arrangement or demand that would harm or hurt an ongoing law enforcement investigation."

"We are in discussions with them on something that would preserve law enforcement interests while also allaying their institutional concerns," the official said. "But our position is that we did it legally and we did it lawfully, and we're not going to back away from that."

In other words, compliance with the mandates of the Constitution are sufficient safeguard, and claims of some sort of Congressional immunity from the Constitution are rejected.

By the way, the Congresscrook in question, Louisiana Representative William Jefferson (D-$90,000 in the freezer) is making use of the one legitimate remedy available to him -- he is challenging the warrant in court.

Jefferson challenged the weekend raid in a motion filed yesterday in federal court. The motion sought the return of the documents and "immediate relief," including that the FBI and Justice Department stop reviewing seized items; that the materials be sequestered in a locked, secure place; and that the FBI raid team file a report with the court detailing which documents were reviewed and what was done to sequester the documents.

The motion was filed with Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who signed the Saturday-night search warrant.

This is the appropriate venue for resolving the issue at hand, not the political arena or a congressional hearing room.

I paricularly like the summary of the case history contained in the Washington Post article. Be sure to read it.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Free Constitution, Blue Star Chronicles, Bacon Bits, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1329 words, total size 9 kb.

Did I miss the announcement that Tinker v. DesMoines had been overturned? This school district certainly acts as if it had -- to the point that even the exercise of student speech off campus is forbidden and punished if it relates to school.

A 17-year-old high school student who posted comments online about Plainfield School District 202 is facing expulsion because of his blog, his attorney said.

After serving a 10-day suspension over his posting on Xanga.com, the teen is scheduled for a hearing Thursday on the matter, attorney Carl Buck said. The student is back in school but could be expelled and sent to an alternative school, Buck said.

"They are trying to terminate his educational rights," he said. "Neither the parents, student or I believe this warrants expulsion. This seems pretty aggressive for the kind of [posting] we are talking about here."

Now I'm the first to accept that certain sorts of off-campus speech can be grounds for discipline, but what are we talking about in this case? Fortunately, we can judge for ourselves.

On May 1, the student posted a letter to Plainfield School District on his blog site on www.xanga.com , telling off the district, using vulgar words and saying he could put whatever he wanted on his site.

On a second post on May 2, without mentioning the school the student wrote:

"I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... did you stop to think that maybe this will make parents angry that you are bullying their children around? did you ever stop to think that maybe now you really are going to have a threat on your hands now that you have just pissed off kids for voicing their opinions? Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied.

In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. We voiced our opinions. You are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it."

Now I don't see a threat there. Do you? I don't see anything that merits a suspension, much less expulsion. What is the theory upon which this district is taking disciplinary action against this young man, since it is off campus speech on his own time from his own home, on a website that cannot be accesed from the school?

In a written statement, officials said they don't monitor student Web sites or look up postings unless they create a disturbance at school.

"When a posting creates a disturbance to the educational environment or threatens the safety and security of students or staff members, it is the responsibility of the school district to look into the matter," the statement said.

"The district respects the 1st Amendment rights of our students, but not all words can be categorized as protected speech."

Now that is a mighty broad criteria for monitoring and exerting control upon off-campus activity outside of school hours. I don't know what was in his friend's blog that led to his being disciplined and censored, but it is irrelevant to the action being taken against him. He voiced a pretty clear First Amendment argument from a libertarian perspective in the initial post on May 1 (LANGUAGE ALERT).

dear plainfield school district 202:

i know you read this. and you suck. suspend me or what ever you would like to do. but this is my fuckin web site and i can put what ever i want on it. kinda goes with the first amendment. by suspending kyle again for his xanga you guys are pathetic and totally irrational. first amendment you fucks. freedom of speech. and who the fuck are you to say what some one can do from there own personal computer. one more thing kiss my ass.

edit: this one is for you, and yes i have drank it and yes it was delicious!(come get me)

His argument, while less articulate than I would like to see and too profanity-laced, is really quite straight-forward. Outside of school, students have First Amendment rights which must be respected by government officials -- and since they do not "surrender those rights at the schoolhouse gate" it is beyond the scope of school authorities to punish or prohibit that speech except in the most dire of circumstances. I don't see where this even begins to qualify as such a circumstance.

And the second post, which does refer to sanctions being imposed against students for posting about drug and alcohol use at student parties (the paper above editted that out) is probably wrong in asserting that the school has no authority to punish descriptions of illegal activity by students -- but they have that authority only to the degree that students are partcipating in extracurricular activities, and the punuishments can only extend to removal from those activities. But his reflection on bullying is dead on, as is his observation about the possibility of public backlash cause by the extension of school authority beyond the school building and school day and into student homes. His comment on Columbine is hardly sufficient to qualify as a threat, and without a threat there can be no reasonable basis for action.

Now the administration does claim the authority to punish a wide area of speech -- and I am frankly frightened by the scope of their claimed authority.

[Superintendent John] Harper said school districts across the state are having to deal with policy issues regarding Web sites like www.xanga.com . Many area schools, like Plainfield School District, are creating new guidelines for their student handbooks for next school year.

"Kids don't realize that if there is a connection with the school or has a potential of creating a disturbance to the school, they can be disciplined for it and they don't appreciate the personal threat to them for posting information on the Internet," Harper said. "It is our responsibility to educate kids and help them work through some of these issues."

Harper said students need to understand that the First Amendment does not give them "absolute authority to say whatever they want to say in any situation.

"The First Amendment doesn't give an individual the right to scream 'Fire' in a crowded theater and say that is protected by First Amendment rights," Harper said.

"Certainly things that are insulting to a school administrator or to a teacher are protected by the First Amendment rights," Harper continued. "We are looking at safety issues, potential disturbances to the school environment. Those are parameters, those are criteria we will look at when it comes to the issue.

"If we do have a student using inappropriate language on a Web site it is not our business. If they write obscenities in regards to one of our staff members that is grossly obscene, we feel that we would have the right to take action in that kind of case," Harper said.

I'm flabbergasted. First, he trots out the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy -- but then seems to extend it to any speech that the school dislikes on the basis that it could cause a disruption. Does this include a letter to the editor about the school? Would it include an interview by a television station? How about a call to a local talk radio station about events at school. It seem that the definition of "disruption" is "anything that paints the school in a bad light." And while there may be some extreme instances in which a school could act against a student who was grossly disrespectful to a teacher or administrator, it would probably have to be so extreme as to violate provisions of criminal or civil law before the school could act on such speech if it was engaged in off campus. So while Harper claims that he isn't out to control all off campus speech (ore even all off campus internet speech), I think the clear implication of his statement is that the school claims jurisdiction ofver all student speech which comes to its attention, whether it is speech at school or speech away from school.

Schools are supposed to prepare our students for life in a free and democratic society, one in which government is limited and citizens have broad rights to speak and write as they see fit, even if it criticizes or offends public officials. I therefore urge the Plainfield district to rethink its gross abrogation of the constitutional liberties of its students.

And I urge the student, who goes by the handle Heckler3672bro, to write a thank you note to Superintendent Harper and his building administrators for the college scholarship money that he will be receiving from the district following the conclusion of his lawsuit against the district.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Free Constitution, Blue Star Chronicles, Bacon Bits, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1551 words, total size 10 kb.

This could be interesting.

Could Gov. Jeb Bush's future be in football instead of politics?

While U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has publicly flirted with the idea of becoming the next commissioner of the National Football League, Bush has been privately approached to gauge his interest in the job.
Bush, who spends his Sundays each fall watching pro football, acknowledged Tuesday that the NFL job was broached during a recent meeting with Patrick Rooney Sr., owner of the Palm Beach Kennel Club.

Rooney is the brother of Dan Rooney, who owns the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers and co-chairs the NFL's search committee looking for a replacement for Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

And let's be honest -- it gives him a rather public position from which to build popularity for a run for president in 2012 or 2016.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a clear abuse of his authority.

A Chicago Police officer is accused of arresting a traffic control aide for jaywalking last week in retaliation for ticketing his vehicle for being illegally parked, authorities said Tuesday.

The female traffic aide slapped a parking ticket on the officer's personal vehicle last Thursday afternoon in the 700 block of North Michigan, said Monique Bond, a police spokeswoman.

The uniformed foot patrol officer was on duty and responding to a call for service, Bond said. "On his return at about 12:15 p.m., he noticed a ticket on his vehicle," she said. "He asked the traffic control aide to 'non-suit' the ticket."
The woman, a supervising traffic control aide, says she told the officer she could not void it, according to Bond.

The officer allegedly handcuffed the woman, arrested her for jaywalking and brought her to the Near North District at 1160 N. Larrabee. The district commander intervened, and the woman was released without being charged, Bond said.

The Chicago Police Department has opened an internal investigation into the officer's behavior after the aide complained that she was the victim of "injury and retaliation," Bond said.

It is obvious that this is a case of retaliation. The ticket was issued by the traffic control aide because the private vehicle was parked illegally. Once the ticket was issued, she could not void it out. The cop didn’t want to follow the departmental procedure for dealing with a ticket issued in such a situation, and so he decided to flex his muscle and make life difficult for this woman who was doing exactly what her job required – ticketing illegally parked cars.

Such actions are unprofessional and smack of a perverse lawlessness on the part of the Chicago Police Department – because this cop is still on the street, despite being under investigation.

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 PM | Comments (147) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

I was sure there was an explanation for it – and the Washington Post supplies that explanation.

Justice Department and FBI officials yesterday vigorously defended a weekend raid on the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), arguing that the unprecedented tactic was necessary because Jefferson and his attorneys had refused to comply with a subpoena for documents issued more nine months ago in a bribery investigation.

So after months of stonewalling by Jefferson and his lawyers, law enforcement availed itself of the legal and constitutional processes that it is permitted to use to root investigate criminal activities. Rather than follow the historical customs regarding investigations of corrupt lawmakers by cooperating with law enforcement, it was Jefferson who violated those practices by claiming a level of privilege that does not exist – congressional immunity from investigation in public corruption cases. Duke Cunningham didn’t claim that, nor has Congressman Ney. Tom DeLay has turned over whole file-cabinets of information to prosecutors down here in Texas – even voluntarily waiving the statute of limitations so that the political hack in Austin could have sufficient time to trump up charges – but William Jefferson won’t even comply with a lawful subpoena. Somebody please explain to me how it is the FBI and Justice Department that are acting in an unreasonable fashion.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with the overweening arrogance of powerful public figures who do not believe that the law applies to them. In that case, I long for the resulting decision of the Supreme Court – one which will either reaffirm that the rule of law applies to elected officials, or which will announce the demise of the American Republic and the necessity of replacing the current system which conforms with our nation’s founding principles.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

I was sure there was an explanation for it – and the Washington Post supplies that explanation.

Justice Department and FBI officials yesterday vigorously defended a weekend raid on the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), arguing that the unprecedented tactic was necessary because Jefferson and his attorneys had refused to comply with a subpoena for documents issued more nine months ago in a bribery investigation.

So after months of stonewalling by Jefferson and his lawyers, law enforcement availed itself of the legal and constitutional processes that it is permitted to use to root investigate criminal activities. Rather than follow the historical customs regarding investigations of corrupt lawmakers by cooperating with law enforcement, it was Jefferson who violated those practices by claiming a level of privilege that does not exist – congressional immunity from investigation in public corruption cases. Duke Cunningham didn’t claim that, nor has Congressman Ney. Tom DeLay has turned over whole file-cabinets of information to prosecutors down here in Texas – even voluntarily waiving the statute of limitations so that the political hack in Austin could have sufficient time to trump up charges – but William Jefferson won’t even comply with a lawful subpoena. Somebody please explain to me how it is the FBI and Justice Department that are acting in an unreasonable fashion.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with the overweening arrogance of powerful public figures who do not believe that the law applies to them. In that case, I long for the resulting decision of the Supreme Court – one which will either reaffirm that the rule of law applies to elected officials, or which will announce the demise of the American Republic and the necessity of replacing the current system which conforms with our nation’s founding principles.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, I give my final finals of the school year today, and will shove the last student out the door by 11:00. Except for the exams for these two classes, my grades are done and will be submitted by noon.

This has been a rough year -- our 10th graders have been a difficult bunch this year, not just in my eyes but in the eyes of teachers with even more experience than I have. Katrina kids, Rita, my wife's hospitalization, the murder of one student's brother (a former student), the trial of another stuident's brother for a different murder, some unpleasant personalities... it hasn't been an easy year.

I'll miss some of the kids, but will be glad to see others go. I hear that this year's ninth graders are a more pleasant, more serious group of kids than we have sen in several years. I think I need them.

* * *

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.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

To read this article, that is precisely the claim that is being put forward by members of both bodies from both sides of the aisle.

An unusual FBI raid of a Democratic congressman's office over the weekend prompted complaints yesterday from leaders in both parties, who said the tactic was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), who is at the center of a 14-month investigation for allegedly accepting bribes for promoting business ventures in Africa, also held a news conference in which he denied any wrongdoing and denounced the raid on his office as an "outrageous intrusion." Jefferson, who has not been charged, vowed to seek reelection in November.

"There are two sides to every story; there are certainly two sides to this story," he said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained."

The Saturday raid of Jefferson's quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building posed a new political dilemma for the leaders of both parties, who felt compelled to protest his treatment while condemning any wrongdoing by the lawmaker.

The dilemma was complicated by new details contained in an 83-page affidavit unsealed on Sunday, including allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.

So what is the problem that some folks are pointing to here? Is there one at all? IÂ’ll let some of them tell you. Some are elected officials, some are former staffers, and some are legal scholars.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation" but that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

* * *

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."

Well, if we were going to deal with issues of historical precedent, then Jefferson would be cooperating with the investigation. He isn't, prompting the more adversarial approach.

Legal experts are divided on the issue.

Many legal experts and defense lawyers agreed with Gingrich. Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor who served as solicitor and deputy general counsel of the House for 11 years, called the raid "an intimidating tactic that has never before been used against the legislative branch."

"The Framers, who were familiar with King George III's disdain for their colonial legislatures, would turn over in their graves," Tiefer said.

Washington defense lawyer Stanley M. Brand, a former general counsel for the House who has represented numerous lawmakers accused of wrongdoing, also questioned the government's strategy.

"This is really an over-the-top move, and it could create some real blow-back problems for them in the courts," he said.

But Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general in the Bush administration who is now a Georgetown University law professor, said that "the raid on his offices itself does not define a constitutional issue."

The constitutional privilege for lawmakers does not "expand to insulate everything that goes on in a congressional office, especially if there's allegations of abuse of process or bribery," Dinh said. ". . . The fine line is whether or not it relates to a legislative process or not, not whether they've raided his office."

So what constitutional provision are they referring to that they believe gives Jefferson immunity from the same laws that apply to every other American? It is found in Article I, Section 6, Clause i.

Article I, Section 6, Clause i The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They 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. (italics added)

Now letÂ’s break this down.

The FBI had a valid warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate, authorizing the search under the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. The limits placed upon the agents conducting the search were meticulously designed to keep from interfering with any privileged materials. So far, we are seeing actions in conformity with the Constitution, and special deference being given based upon the respect due a co-equal branch of government.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asked about the search, said he understands the concerns raised about FBI agents raiding a congressional office.
"I will admit that these were unusual steps that were taken in response to an unusual set of circumstances," Gonzales said.

The search warrant affidavit spells out special procedures put in place to ensure the search did not infringe on privileged material. The procedures include use of a "filter team" of prosecutors and FBI agents unconnected to the investigation. They would review any seized items or documents and determine whether the documents are privileged and therefore immune from the search warrant.

If the status of a document is in doubt, the filter team will give the documents to a judge for a definitive ruling before giving them to case prosecutors, according to the affidavit.

There is the question of whether these charges can be brought while Congress is in session. In light of the fact that the matter at hand (accepting bribes) is a felony, Representative Jefferson is subject to indictment, arrest, and trial while Congress is in session. Such charges and arrest are therefore clearly contemplated and permitted by the Founders – and therefore an investigation is equally permissible. And in light of historical precedent, the investigation and bringing of charges are accepted practice.

What is more, the search is for materials related to an alleged felony, not words in a speech or a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. It is not JeffersonÂ’s words, but his actions, that led to this search, and a search of his offices is a legitimate exercise of police powers to the degree that his action (accepting a bribe) may have impacted the operations of his Congressional office. Again, given the meticulous procedures put in place when the warrant was issued, there can be no legitimate question regarding the respect shown for the co-equal legislative branch. Not only is this not a case of the Executive and legislative branches operating outside of their proper spheres, it is a case of them operating within those spheres to serve as a check and balance upon Congress.

Nothing in Article I, Section 6, Clause i can be legitimately interpreted to apply to the current situation – nor can this provision of the Constitution be held to exempt the criminal conduct of a lawmaker from the ordinary operation of the law in this situation. I therefore find the outrage expressed at this search to be specious in nature, premised not upon the text of the Constitution itself but rather upon the belief that the separation of powers confers a degree of immunity beyond that which the blueprint of American government provides.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1390 words, total size 9 kb.

Who were these noble Romans, and why are they buried together, not cremated?

Archaeologists exploring one of Rome's oldest catacombs are baffled by neat piles of more than 1,000 skeletons dressed in elegant togas.

The macabre find emerged as teams of historians slowly picked their way through the complex network of underground burial chambers, which stretch for miles under the city.

They say the tomb, which has been dated to the first century AD, is the first known example of a "mass burial".

The archaeologists are unable to explain why so many apparently upper-class Romans - who would normally have been cremated - were buried in the same spot, apparently at the same time.

Forensic tests are being carried out to try to establish whether the Romans suffered violent deaths, or were victims of an undocumented epidemic or natural disaster.

There are dozens of catacombs beneath the ancient city, some dating back 2,000 years and many used as burial places by early Christians. Others were used as secret places of worship to avoid persecution.

The Vatican's Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology is overseeing the dig. Its chief inspector of catacombs, Raffaella Giuliani, said: "This is the earliest example of such a mass burial. Usually two or three bodies at the most were put into holes dug out of the rock in the catacombs, but in these case we have several rooms filled with skeletons.

"They are placed one on top of the other and not in a disorderly fashion. They have been carefully buried, with dignity, but the puzzle is why so many at a time?"

The skeletons were dressed in fine robes, many containing gold thread, and wrapped in sheets covered with lime, as was common in early Christian burials.
The discovery was made at the Catacomb of SS Peter and Marcellinus on the ancient Via Labicana in south-east Rome.

Miss Giuliani said there was no obvious sign that violence was the cause. "We are trying to establish whether the skeletons were buried there following some form of epidemic or natural disaster.

It is possible they could have been persecuted and killed by the Romans and then buried there by fellow Christians - we just don't know."

The Vatican will officially present the discovery next month, along with officials from the University of Bordeaux who had been involved in the excavations.

The mysteries of history continue to be exposed and deciphered. I look forward to learning more in the months and years ahead.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

After defending the deletion of the national moto, “In God We Trust”, from a photo of a nickel on the cover of an elementary school year, district officials in Keller ISD have reversed course and admitted that there would have been no violation of the law or district policy had the censorship not happened.

Keller school district officials are hoping to clear up a flap over a school yearbook cover by issuing an apology to parents.

A letter from Superintendent James Veitenheimer was sent Monday to parents of students at Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville. The same letter was e-mailed over the weekend, officials said.

The superintendent said "we would like to express our regrets for any distress" resulting from the cover photo of the newly minted Liberty Nickel without the words "In God We Trust."

* * *
District officials said the photo could have been used in its entirety without violating district policy.

"While it is always easy to look back on campus decisions in hindsight and agree that a different decision could have been made, our principals often find themselves on the front lines of issues regarding the separation of church and state," Dr. Veitenheimer's letter said. "In most of these cases, school administrators find themselves making decisions that are not going to please all parties involved.

"Unfortunately, the decision at Liberty Elementary School fell into this category," the letter said.

This was the sort of decision that any competent administrator could have made without too much trouble – the censorship of incidental references to religion is not necessary, especially when it comes to reproducing works of art or US currency and there is no intent to engage in religious proselytism. And if he was not sure, a quick call to the district’s lawyer could have settled the matter.

But he principal decided to knuckle under to the PC urgings of a couple of parents, and the district decided to be “sensitive” by shielding kids from exposure to the same coinage they bring to school to buy their lunches. What cowardice!

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess we can’t have folks at a Catholic speaker express Catholic teachings at a Catholic university – it might be offensive.

A spring term that began with controversy at the University of St. Thomas ended the same way Saturday when a student used part of his commencement address to admonish people he considered "selfish," including women who use birth control.

The remarks by Ben Kessler, a well-known student recently honored by peers and faculty as Tommie of the Year, led to catcalls and boos during commencement at the Catholic university in St. Paul. Others booed those who were booing. Some students walked out on their own graduation ceremony.

Buzz about the incident dominated post-graduation parties, spread throughout the community and sparked a flurry of e-mails. By Monday, there were scattered requests to strip Kessler of his Tommie of the Year award and questions about why St. Thomas officials didn't try to pull the plug on Kessler's speech as the crowd's unhappiness intensified.

"He definitely ruined the day for pretty much everyone in the audience," said Darin Aus, who was awarded his bachelor's degree Saturday and stayed for the entire ceremony. "He made people mad enough to leave their own graduation."

Kessler, a celebrated football player with a deep Catholic faith, apologized Monday in a written statement distributed by the university.

"Instead of providing hope to all, I offended some by my words and by my decision to speak those words at commencement," he wrote.

He was unavailable for comment beyond the statement.

The university's president, the Rev. Dennis Dease, also expressed regret "that graduates and their families and guests were offended by Mr. Kessler's remarks." Dease said he told Kessler it was inappropriate for him to use commencement to express his opinions.

The problem is, what he said didn’t just express his opinions – they also expressed the teachings of Catholic Church.

I guess Father Dennis Dease is one of those priests who doesnÂ’t think the last four popes should have expressed their opinions on the issue of birth control, either.

I guess this is jus one more example of folks thinking that the expression of conservative or traditional or Christian viewpoints on a college campus is wrong, while the expression of secular liberalism is to be celebrated.

Even if the venue is a school allegedly founded and operating on Christian values.

I, for one, applaud Ben Kessler for standing up for Catholic teachings at a Catholic school – even if the administrators are too lukewarm in their faith to do so.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

As a teacher, I find this case of “mission creep” by one Illinois school board to be a bit disturbing.

Illegal or inappropriate blogging or social behavior over the Internet is now a violation of District 128's student code of conduct at both Libertyville and Vernon Hills High Schools and can lead to denial of extracurricular student privileges.

The board of education of Community High School District 128 approved the revision Monday night without dissent before a packed house of media, parents and students at Vernon Hills High School. It is one of the first such school board policies in Illinois to address some of the risque social mores students frequently encounter when surfing Internet blogs and various Web sites designed to attract children.

Like many other schools, the district requires a certain standard of conduct from students in order to participate in athletics, fine arts or extracurricular activities. Signatures from both a student and parent bind them to honor the Student Code of Conduct. Nearly 80 percent of the district's 3,200 students are involved in one or more of these extracurricular activities.

The newly amended policy approved Monday night consists of a simple sentence. It reads: "Maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."

Now letÂ’s look at some potential problems here.

“Being identified on” someone’s website is now an offense, based entirely on what the other content is found on the site. Now this is entirely beyond one’s control – and this policy does not make an exception for “being identified on” a site when one is in no way connected with the illegal or inappropriate behavior depicted elsewhere on the site.

The definition of “inappropriate” is frighteningly vague. Does this mean the expression of opinions and positions not endorsed by the school administration is now the basis for disciplinary action if those officials consider such dissent to be “inappropriate”? What about discussions of and reflections upon experiences at school – comments on the personalities of teachers and classmates, or criticism of the quality of the education being received? Are such comments “inappropriate” blogging? Since I went to high school just a couple of miles down the road from Libertyville High School and also spent my seminary years in the area, I know that many folks might consider the legal possession and use of firearms by a minor to be “inappropriate” – would pictures of a student with his legal firearms be considered “inappropriate”? I won’t even get into the question of profane language or the sort of provocative photos some photos some ditzy teens post on MySpace or Facebook. Are these really school issues – even as regards extracurricular activities? After all, these restrictions clearly have the potential to implicate the First Amendment.

So I’ll throw this one out to you folks – what do you think on this issue? Is the board up in Libertyville making good policy, or is it crossing a line into a place where school boards ought not go?

Posted by: Greg at 11:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The school board is making an attempt to get parents off their backs. I would assume blogs are blocked with the school system's filter so the posting would have to be done at home. This is a parent issue. Parents should know what their kids are doing on the internet. Mine are 21 and 13 and I look at their sites all the time. If there is something I don't feel should be there they yank it off. However, I don't quite control my 21 year like I used to. My paralegal background tells me this new policy will be heavily challenged and might not make it.

Posted by: elementaryhistoryteacher at Thu May 25 10:03:31 2006 (rY4T2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Houston area was shocked yesterday by the loss of one of its more colorful characters. County Treasurer Jack Cato passed away during heart surgery at the age of 70.

Harris County Treasurer Jack Cato, a former award-winning newsman and Houston police spokesman, died Monday of heart failure while undergoing tests at St. Luke's Hospital for a heart condition. He was 70.

Cato had served as county treasurer since 1999 and had defeated former city councilman and mayoral candidate Orlando Sanchez in the Republican primary in March.

He was expected to breeze into a third term as county treasurer in the November general election.

As he had in every venture he had sought, his friends said, Cato endeared himself to those around him.

Jack Cato is survived by his wife, Shirley; his sons, Chris and John; and seven grandchildren. They have my prayers and deepest sympathies at this time.

His is an obituary filled with colorful stories of his days as a reporter and editor here in Houston. Let me offer some samples.

As famous for his news scoops as his idiosyncrasies, Cato reigned in the world populated by cops and cop reporters — the once dark and dirty underbelly of Houston.

He was stabbed in the back while covering the 1978 Moody Park riot and then gave an interview while being examined in a hospital shortly afterward.

Cato was as famous for showing the scar from his stab wound — he once auctioned off a look at a fundraiser — as he was for the actual stabbing.

Mass murderer Elmer Wayne Henley confessed in a call to his mother on Cato's car phone.

He once stopped a fleeing drug suspect with a gun-shaped hand and a firm shout to halt.

When he was refused the name of a heart-transplant patient, he donned surgical scrubs and took a look at the man's medical chart. In 1976, he tried to get one of his employees at Houston News Service to sneak into a Harris County morgue and get a picture of Howard Hughes.

"He was more concerned with getting the story than anything else — that was Cato," said Phil Archer, a KPRC reporter who got his start in the news business from Cato. "Cato was the last of that era, the two-fisted, cigar-smoking cop beat reporter."

He got into politics in the late 1990s, and was elected to two terms as county treasurer. He faced a strong challenger in this year's primary, and beat him handily. I'll concede I endorsed that challenger, but only because I had been hearing rumors of health probmems for some time and had become concerned about whether or not Jack was still up to the job. Sadly, it appears that he was not, though his death yesterday did come as a bolt out of the blue to many of us involved in Harris County politics.

Cato's death leaves a vacant office to be filled and a new candidate to be named for the November election.

The Harris County Commissioners Court will meet to appoint Cato's successor through the November general election. The Harris County Republican executive committee will then name a replacement for the November ballot.

I'm sure I'll start hearing about potential replacements soon, since my job as precinct chair makes me part of the executive committee. I hope that the potential candidates at least wait until after the funeral before they start seeking to take Jack's place.

But I knw that whoever follows him in office and on the ballot will be no where near the stuff of legends that Jack Cato was.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Public Virtue by Done With Mirrors, and You Dissin' My God! by Vox Poplar Is Right About Everything & Don't You Forget It!. 

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

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

UPDATE -- 5/25/2006: KIM CONTACTED ME A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE LAST COUPLE DAYS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION AND AN APOLOGY FOR HER SEEMING THREATS IN THE EMAILS. I'LL TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE, AND PRESUME THAT SHE IS SINCERE IN HER STATEMENT THAT SHE JUST WANTED MY cc: REPLIES TO STOP AND DIDN'T REALIZE HOW SERIOUSLY I WOULD TAKE HER WORDS. IN THE COURSE OF THIS MOST RECENT EXCHANGE, SHE SHOWED A LEVEL OF CLASS, DISCERNMENT, AND HUMILITY THAT SPEAKS WELL OF HER, AND LEADS ME TO BELIEVE I MAY HAVE MISJUDGED HER. IN RETURN, I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I MAY NOT HAVE DEALT WITH HER IN THE BEST FASHION AT ANY TIME SINCE SHE ARRIVED HERE. I'VE UNBANNED HER, AND HOPE THAT THIS WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF A HEALTHEIR AND MORE RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION.

Remember Kim, the arrogant spoiled child who irritated most everyone on the Ashley Reeves comment thread. Well, she decided to email me tonight, despite my specific request that she make no more contact with me.

I'll share the email thread with you.

From: Lycansshadow@aol.com Mailed-By: aol.com
To: rhymeswithright@gmail.com
Date: May 22, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Hey!

Please disable all of my contact links on the Ashley Reeves blog.
Thanks,
-Kim

From: Greg Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: "Lycansshadow@aol.com"
Date: May 22, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Hey!

You are in no position to make such a demand -- and I don't have the time to do so. You put them there, you will have to live with them.

From: Lycansshadow@aol.com Mailed-By: aol.com
To: rhymeswithright@gmail.com
Date: May 22, 2006 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Hey!

Dude, what's your problem? I didn't do anything to you. I don't know if you're embarrassed that you were bested by someone so young, or just jealous that someone so young has that ability, and I don't particularly care. Bottom line is I made a polite request that you disable links so that complete strangers would quit telling me how great, or not great, I am. I know it wouldn't take long, so quit with the"I don't have time" thing.
Do it, don't do it, whatever. It's just e-mails, either way. But I suggest you learn the difference between a request and a demand, and quit taking your dissatisfaction with life out on me.

From: Greg Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: "Lycansshadow@aol.com"
Date: May 22, 2006 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Hey!

GET LOST.

And by the way -- you were requested to make no more contact with me. You violated that. I will be forwarding your emails to AOL and Yahoo, requesting that they terminate your accounts.

Regards,
Greg


From: Lycansshadow@aol.com Mailed-By: aol.com
To: rhymeswithright@gmail.com
Date: May 22, 2006 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Hey!

Could you be more of an Idiot? Like AOL is really going to lose 30 bucks a month because some balding, middle-aged nobody can't handle a kid hitting a little too close to the mark. R-ight...

From: Greg Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: abuse@yahoo.com, abuse@aol.com
Cc: barelymuggle2@yahoo.com, lycansshadow@aol.com
Date: May 22, 2006 11:55 PM
Subject: Fwd: Hey!

On May 14, at 3:37 PM, this individual was requested to cease all contact with me. She has not. Please take appropriate action to terminate her account for violation of terms of service.

From: Greg Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: abuse@aol.com, abuse@yahoo.com
Cc: barelymuggle2@yahoo.com, lycansshadow@aol.com
Date: May 22, 2006 11:57 PM
Subject: Fwd: Hey!

On May 14, at 3:37 PM, this individual was requested to cease all contact with me. She has not. Please take appropriate action to terminate her account for violation of terms of service.

From: Lycansshadow@aol.com Mailed-By: aol.com
To: rhymeswithright@gmail.com
Date: May 23, 2006 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Hey!

Like I said Could you be more of an idiot? What does that prove other than you enjoy wasting time typing things noone will probably ever read and if they do, won't care about. Geez, man, get a life, and quit e-mailing me, you perv.

From: Greg Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: abuse@aol.com, abuse@yahoo.com
Cc: barelymuggle2@yahoo.com, lycansshadow@aol.com
Date: May 23, 2006 12:05 AM
Subject: Fwd: Hey!

On May 14, at 3:37 PM, this individual was requested to cease all contact with me. She has not. Please take appropriate action to terminate her account for violation of terms of service.

From: Lycansshadow@aol.com Mailed-By: aol.com
To: rhymeswithright@gmail.com
Date: May 23, 2006 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: Hey!

I would quit e-mailing me if I were you. I'm about to tag you as a sexual predator. (who else e-mails teens girls in the middle of the night? Sicko).

From: Greg Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: abuse@aol.com, abuse@yahoo.com
Date: May 23, 2006 12:09 AM
Subject: Fwd: Hey!

On May 14, at 3:37 PM, this individual was requested to cease all contact with me. She has not. Please take appropriate action to terminate her account for violation of terms of service.

So you see, the little bitch is a stone-cold liar. She spread lies about the victim of a horrific assault, and now she wants to spread lies about me for daring to report her for being an abusive annoyance. For all her talk of having high morals, she is more than willing to make shit up if it suits her purpose. She is even willing to make a particular accusation that would cost me my career, my home, my marriage and my reputation -- because I dare to write to AOL and Yahoo about her and forward courtesy copies to her. These emails have no sexual content, and merely state a fact documented elsewhere on this website.

Why am I posting this? Self defense, so that the whole world knows that this child, who was more than willing to leave her email address here when she commented, is now threatening to make a false accusation about me because she isn't getting her way. I'm heading that off by documenting the threat for the whole world to see, because I won't stand by and allow such an accusation to be made falsely.

Oh, and by the way, Kim -- you still are not welcome to post comments on my site -- and any attempt to do so will generate further reports to AOL and Yahoo.

Posted by: Greg at 05:33 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1031 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Good job on posting up the e-mail. Were some of your "responses" fabricated, all of them, or what?

I have to say "thanks" at least to you for defending my comment in a previous thread (read: flame war). I was quickly jumped on for being a friend of Kim or being Kim herself.

The only thing I agreed with Kim on, was that it should be questioned why such a young girl was with an older guy. Or should I put it the other way around? What was an older guy doing with a high school girl? Defaming her by labeling the girl as a pregnant teen was overboard, so much that the mother had to defend her against the media.

Back to this e-mail debacle. Kim has no reason, nor obligation (besides personal respect) to cease e-mailing you. That's easily fixed with spam-filtering or a blocked e-mail. She *did* make a polite initial request (assuming all of the correspondence above is legitimate) which in no way seemed like a "demand."

I don't think she's in any position to be reported to AOL for abuse, as she wasn't abusing anything. She finally grasped for some form of defense by threatening to label you as a "sicko", after you supposedly e-mailed abuse@aol.com.

You put up with enough crap from teens at school, I'm sure, so I'd recommend just blocking the girl, and leaving her comments up.

You've already wasted enough time as it with her. (On a side note, any chance of allowing my blog, http://www.smarterspam[dot]com/wordpress/ to not get picked up by the spam filter for "spam[dot]com" ?)

Posted by: Eric Clemmons at Tue May 23 03:13:10 2006 (+LgAZ)

2 A couple of issues here.

1) I've tried to block her, but cannot get that done without blocking all of AOL. She was requested not to post here, and continued to do so -- and she was requested not to contact me in the future after her abusive comments here. I merely followed up on my previous promises of action -- and she became progressively more abusive as she found she would not get her way. Quite frankly, I believe she displayed her true character with the threat she made -- and anyway, if I'm a perve for sending her a courtesy copy of my emails to her ISP, then she would have to be a slutty little twit (should that be an "a" instead of an "i"?) who is pursuing an older man who doesn't want to be bothered.

2) All emails are legitimate -- I'll forward them all to you if you want confirmation of that fact. I'm rather offended by your questioning their validity. After all, cut-and-paste isn't that hard.

3) As for your blog, I've forwarded the request on to the fellow who runs all the mu.nu blogs. For whatever reason, nothing has happened to fix the situation.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 23 09:57:16 2006 (fI2Yv)

3 Whoa whoa, buddy! Take it easy I'm on your side! And yes, it's "twat", not "twit." It's a common mistake.

I believe you in that they were valid, it's just that the statement:
"now she wants to spread lies about me for daring to report her for being an abusive annoyance" threw me off on whether she fabricated some of the e-mails to make you seem more corrosive.

Posted by: Eric Clemmons at Tue May 23 13:45:42 2006 (569m5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We’ve been hearing for some time now about the howls of protest at Boston College over the graduation speech by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Well guess what – the protests were small and Condi received a standing ovation from most of those in attendance.

A few students turned their backs but more stood to applaud as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received an honorary degree and addressed graduates at Boston College on Monday.

After weeks of turmoil and anti-war protests over Rice's invitation to address the Catholic school, Rice told graduates that their education comes with responsibilities.

She drew scattered applause when she discussed what she called a "commitment to reason," or an obligation to test and challenge their own views.

"There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion and holding it passionately," Rice said, "but at those times when you are absolutely sure you're right, go find someone who disagrees."

About 50 students stood with their backs toward the stage as Rice was introduced to give her commencement speech, but they were quickly drowned out by a standing ovation.

A half-dozen signs that said "Not in my name" were held in the air by students, who sat down by the time Rice started to speak. One banner that said "BC honors lies and torture" was held on the side of the stadium, away from where the students were sitting.

Other students cheered Rice, and an Internet broadcast of the ceremony included a shot of a student, talking on his cell phone, with an "I Like Condi" button pinned to his graduation cap.

I think the Secretary of State put it well when she commented on the potential for protest before the graduation itself.

"People have the right to protest, but I hope when they protest they realize also that people now have a right to protest in Baghdad and Kabul, and that's a very big breakthrough for the international community," Rice said Monday before the BC commencement.

"I think it's just fine for people to protest as long as they do so in a way that doesn't try to have a monopoly on the conversation," Rice told WBZ-AM in an interview. "Others have right to say what they think as well."

I think those who attended today’s graduation showed they understand the values of America in their response to her speech. We can listen to those with whom we disagree with respect, and honor their right to express their thoughts and views. There is a time and a place for speak dissenting words, and a manner for appropriately expressing opposition to the views of another. It seems that the students of Boston College understand that, even as the graduates of New York’s New School proved that they missed that part of their education with their uncouth reception of Senator John McCain – and their own school’s president, former Senator Bob Kerrey.

Posted by: Greg at 04:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 4 kb.

Let’s be clear about this – I support the marketing of Merck’s new vaccine, Gardasil. If I had a daughter, I would have her vaccinated as a precaution against cervical cancer. But I draw the line at the notion of making a vaccination against a disease that is 100% sexually transmitted mandatory for admission to public schools.

The drugmaker's efforts to educate Christian groups while touting the vaccine's top selling point -- prevention of cervical cancer -- helped win them over.

But Merck may ultimately find itself at loggerheads with those same groups as it seeks to make the vaccine mandatory for school admission, a step considered key for widespread acceptance and one that many of the groups oppose.

The vaccine, known as Gardasil, with an estimated $2 billion U.S. market potential, targets four types of sexually transmitted human papilloma virus, or HPV, which is believed to cause more than 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and 90 percent of genital warts.

"We don't think it should be made mandatory for school attendance," said Peter Sprigg, vice president of policy at the Family Research Council, who attended the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel meeting on Thursday.

That view is shared by evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family.
"We support the widespread availability of the vaccine, but we do oppose the mandatory vaccination for entry to public school," said Linda Klepacki, an analyst for sexual health for the group.

For Gardasil to be widely adopted, Merck must first win FDA approval. Then, it must garner widespread backing from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices -- a group that advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunization standards. Both Merck and analysts deem widespread backing likely.

States would then consider whether it should be included in the list of vaccinations required for school admission.

And I do draw the line there. Cervical cancer and genital warts are not transmitted via casual contact. No child is going to catch the human papilloma virus just by sitting in the same classroom with and breathing the same air as a child who has the virus – or even either of the resulting conditions. There is simply no way to make the sort of public health argument that exists for requiring other childhood vaccines as a condition for being allowed into school – unless you want to argue that there is rampant sex taking place in the hallways and classrooms of America, and that this vaccination is the means of preventing the uncontrolled spread of the conditions in question. But if that argument is to be made, then there is a much bigger issue surrounding public education that needs be addressed much more quickly.

Frankly, requiring Gardasil would be no different than requiring Norplant of all female students. After all, the means of transmission for the condition to be prevented is identical, and the “exposure” to the risk of transmission is identically likely to happen outside of school as the means of transmission of genital warts and cervical cancer. Pregnancy, like the human papilloma virus, isn’t being transmitted through the air, in the drinking water, or via toilet seats. The very concept of state-mandated birth control shocks the conscience – why doesn’t state-mandated STD-preventatives cause the same outrage?

I teach high school. I know there are many health needs that go unaddressed among my students. We try to take care of some of them through school breakfast and lunch programs, through school-based health clinics (which are not, contrary to some claims, all about birth control and abortion), and through various health screenings. But we donÂ’t mandate a good breakfast, force-feed kids a healthy lunch, or require anything but the most minimal medical care or diagnostic testing. We donÂ’t even require a flu shot, despite the fact that a classroom is a swirling, seething culture of viruses and bacteria during certain times of the yearThat isnÂ’t our mission. Neither is this, and the advocates of mandatory Gardasil are just setting up one more big-government nanny-state intrusion into family decision-making on child-rearing issues.

And by the way, don’t forget that making the vaccine mandatory will also give Merck $2 billion in mandatory profits every year for the foreseeable future. So is this really about public health – or private profits?

Posted by: Greg at 04:20 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 724 words, total size 5 kb.

1 You called it perfectly: private profits. Somebody has something to gain if this became mandatory.

I could've sworn my school in Crosby required us to have flu shots. Or maybe I just had bad parents

What many fail to realize is that by immunizing children to threats that are typical of an unhealthy lifestyle, they're legitimizing that unhealthy lifestyle.

Imagine what would happen in San Francisco (where an estimated 1 in every 4 males has HIV), if a shot would prevent you from contracting HIV after a romp in the bath house? Unprotected sex would spread (even more so) like crazy.

What happens whenever a parent (not parents, since more and more kids come home to an empty house, since their single parent is still working) hands a condom to their son or daughter and says, "I don't want you having sex, but if you do, be safe."

Having gone to school with several of these kids, it does nothing but to legitimize casual sex amongst middle/high-schoolers.

I'm all for mandatory vaccinations when the public health is at risk, especially in schools. However, the line, as Greg mentioned so well, is whether it's caught casually from an airborne substance, or sexually from some deviant.

Expect shots like this to become mandatory, because it seems that our beloved government endorses a lifestyle of one night stands for teenagers instead of a lifestyle of self-respect and control.

Posted by: Eric Clemmons at Tue May 23 03:28:10 2006 (+LgAZ)

2 Stating that giving children this vaccination is going to automatically make them want to go out and have unprotected, free loving, orgies is not only ridiculous, it's childish to even aruge. Come on, there has NEVER been any evidence that supports this notion that just because teenagers or people hear, think, and learn about sex there going to desire it and need it right away. With the commonality of HPV in society and the fataliies of cervical cancer (even if that may be the sexually active part of society) I'd hope that people would be more concerned with protecting their children from this virus. The fact of the matter is, whether anyone likes it or not, people are going to engage in sexual activity. I guess what people may actually be worried about is they are losing a valuable scare tactic for abstinence. Don't worry people, you've still got pregnancy, AIDS, Syphillis, and a variety of other things you can use. You don't have to lose sleep. I'm sure the medical industry will slow down that cure for AIDS to make sure you've still got something to use (if you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic).
What I am trying to say is grow up. Merck is probably going to make some money, yeah? That's how American society works right? And going by your arguement, that this virus doesn't float on air, if children aren't engaging in sexual activity, then you've got nothing to worry about right? You won't lose face at the PTA and your child will be less likely to develop cervical cancer or genital warts in the long run. Why not eh?

Posted by: Heidi at Sun Jun 4 11:20:38 2006 (BJYNn)

3 Heidi -- did you even read what I wrote?

I nowhere made an argument that there would be "unprotected, free loving, orgies" if gardasil were made available, or even mandated, for young girls. Nice straw man (or should I call this one a "straw woman").

So might I suggest that you grow up, Heidi -- you discreditted the entire rest of your argument by using that crap.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 4 11:34:03 2006 (E9VZb)

4 And Heidi -- if that pathetic rant is the best you can do, it speaks poorly of the quality of education available at Oregon State University.

By the way, did you note my introductory comment that I would choose to have my child receive Gardasil if my wife and I could have children? Did you notice that my only objection was to making it mandatory as a condition of getting an education? Did you notice that mine was the "pro-choice" argument?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 4 11:37:25 2006 (E9VZb)

5 Apologies for the "free loving...blah" I was basically responding to the commenter before me... I should have been more specific. You slapped me on the hand enough, thanks.

Posted by: Heidi at Sun Jun 4 12:11:21 2006 (BJYNn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

I've have no desire to ignore employers -- and neither do any of the other conservative bloggers I know.

Just once, I'd like to see a corporate executive whose company has knowingly hired illegal immigrants doing the perp walk for his offenses --- handcuffed, disgraced, chaperoned by law enforcement officials as cameras record his every tentative step. For just a few days, I'd like to see the conservative blogosphere roasting the textile mill managers and onion field owners who routinely make a mockery of immigration law with a wink and a nod at forged documents.

I don’t disagree up to this point – and have seen many of my fellow bloggers make exactly that point. We would like to see much greater enforcement of employer sanctions. In fact, one reason we don’t like the amnesty proposals set out by the hug-a-wetback crowd is because we recall that the last time there was an amnesty (back in 1986), the feds quickly dropped all pretense of employer sanctions once the amnesty was in place. Indeed, that simply opened the floodgates, as more and more illegals came with the certainty (confirmed by current rhetoric) that another amnesty would come once critical mass was reached. We don’t blame these folks for wanting to come to America – we blame their governments for pushing them north and or government for doing so little to stem their tidal flow.

That is why I am outraged by the next part of this column.

Business executives remain a core Republican constituency, so it's unlikely they'll end up facing criminal charges for illegal hiring. Besides, darker-hued Mexicans and Guatemalans seem to make more inviting targets than middle-aged white men.

From time to time, I've suggested that the most inflammatory rhetoric swirling at the fringes of the illegal immigration debate is born not of legitimate concern about overwhelmed social services but rather out of an old-fashioned xenophobia that cannot accept "the other." That suggestion is usually greeted with denunciations from critics who claim they merely want the nation to enforce its laws.

So why is there so little criticism of business executives who routinely flout the law? Why has the legislation endorsed by law-and-order Republicans emphasized border security but slighted workplace enforcement?

Are there some xenophobes out there? Yeah – but most are much more concerned about law and order than the Latin Peril. While many of us are concerned about the displacement of America’s culture, history, and language, we are more concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. And the Sensenbrenner bill (supported by most conservative bloggers) did include harsh sanctions against employers – it is the Senate bill and the President’s proposal, both trashed as harsh by the liberals, that fails to substantially address the demand side of the illegal immigration equation.

So while Cynthia Tucker wants to make it about race, for most conservatives it is not. I guess it is just her reflexive liberalism requiring that anything involving conservatives ultimately come back to our presumed racistsexisthomophobicfascist tendencies. Too bad she cannot move past that crap and stay on point, for she has a good one.

She is, after all, right when she notes the failure of government to act to stop employers from hiring illegals.

The more promising solution lies in cutting off the flow of jobs. If a few business executives were imprisoned for illegal hiring, the practice would experience a sudden drop in popularity. And if our southern neighbors come to understand that there is no work available for undocumented workers, fewer --- far fewer --- will try to sneak into this country.

The technology required to implement a nationwide system for instant verification of Social Security numbers would be much cheaper and more reliable than the motion detectors, dirigibles, unmanned predator drones and other high-dollar gizmos that Homeland Security wants to buy for the southern border. It would work as easily and quickly as an instant credit check. With such a system, business owners could be required to verify employment status; they'd lose the ruse of forged documents. But Congress has not appropriated funds to develop a nationwide verification tool.

Nor has it made any effort to remove the myopic regulations that hinder workplace enforcement. For example, the Social Security Administration is able to identify companies that routinely employ lots of workers using fake numbers. But by law, Social Security is forbidden from forwarding the names of those companies to Homeland Security.

Don't think this useless system results from mere oversight or incompetence. The dysfunctional hodgepodge of regulations is preferred by the GOP, its business constituency and more than a few middle-class Americans, who benefit from cheap labor. Sure, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has started to do a few high-profile raids of factories and fields certain to yield undocumented laborers. But those raids will wither away after November.

I cannot disagree with a word she says on the matter. We have the technology, but not the will to use it. Let’s send Congress and this administration the message that it is time to take real steps against employers of illegals.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 915 words, total size 6 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

I've have no desire to ignore employers -- and neither do any of the other conservative bloggers I know.

Just once, I'd like to see a corporate executive whose company has knowingly hired illegal immigrants doing the perp walk for his offenses --- handcuffed, disgraced, chaperoned by law enforcement officials as cameras record his every tentative step. For just a few days, I'd like to see the conservative blogosphere roasting the textile mill managers and onion field owners who routinely make a mockery of immigration law with a wink and a nod at forged documents.

I don’t disagree up to this point – and have seen many of my fellow bloggers make exactly that point. We would like to see much greater enforcement of employer sanctions. In fact, one reason we don’t like the amnesty proposals set out by the hug-a-wetback crowd is because we recall that the last time there was an amnesty (back in 1986), the feds quickly dropped all pretense of employer sanctions once the amnesty was in place. Indeed, that simply opened the floodgates, as more and more illegals came with the certainty (confirmed by current rhetoric) that another amnesty would come once critical mass was reached. We don’t blame these folks for wanting to come to America – we blame their governments for pushing them north and or government for doing so little to stem their tidal flow.

That is why I am outraged by the next part of this column.

Business executives remain a core Republican constituency, so it's unlikely they'll end up facing criminal charges for illegal hiring. Besides, darker-hued Mexicans and Guatemalans seem to make more inviting targets than middle-aged white men.

From time to time, I've suggested that the most inflammatory rhetoric swirling at the fringes of the illegal immigration debate is born not of legitimate concern about overwhelmed social services but rather out of an old-fashioned xenophobia that cannot accept "the other." That suggestion is usually greeted with denunciations from critics who claim they merely want the nation to enforce its laws.

So why is there so little criticism of business executives who routinely flout the law? Why has the legislation endorsed by law-and-order Republicans emphasized border security but slighted workplace enforcement?

Are there some xenophobes out there? Yeah – but most are much more concerned about law and order than the Latin Peril. While many of us are concerned about the displacement of America’s culture, history, and language, we are more concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. And the Sensenbrenner bill (supported by most conservative bloggers) did include harsh sanctions against employers – it is the Senate bill and the President’s proposal, both trashed as harsh by the liberals, that fails to substantially address the demand side of the illegal immigration equation.

So while Cynthia Tucker wants to make it about race, for most conservatives it is not. I guess it is just her reflexive liberalism requiring that anything involving conservatives ultimately come back to our presumed racistsexisthomophobicfascist tendencies. Too bad she cannot move past that crap and stay on point, for she has a good one.

She is, after all, right when she notes the failure of government to act to stop employers from hiring illegals.

The more promising solution lies in cutting off the flow of jobs. If a few business executives were imprisoned for illegal hiring, the practice would experience a sudden drop in popularity. And if our southern neighbors come to understand that there is no work available for undocumented workers, fewer --- far fewer --- will try to sneak into this country.

The technology required to implement a nationwide system for instant verification of Social Security numbers would be much cheaper and more reliable than the motion detectors, dirigibles, unmanned predator drones and other high-dollar gizmos that Homeland Security wants to buy for the southern border. It would work as easily and quickly as an instant credit check. With such a system, business owners could be required to verify employment status; they'd lose the ruse of forged documents. But Congress has not appropriated funds to develop a nationwide verification tool.

Nor has it made any effort to remove the myopic regulations that hinder workplace enforcement. For example, the Social Security Administration is able to identify companies that routinely employ lots of workers using fake numbers. But by law, Social Security is forbidden from forwarding the names of those companies to Homeland Security.

Don't think this useless system results from mere oversight or incompetence. The dysfunctional hodgepodge of regulations is preferred by the GOP, its business constituency and more than a few middle-class Americans, who benefit from cheap labor. Sure, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has started to do a few high-profile raids of factories and fields certain to yield undocumented laborers. But those raids will wither away after November.

I cannot disagree with a word she says on the matter. We have the technology, but not the will to use it. LetÂ’s send Congress and this administration the message that it is time to take real steps against employers of illegals.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 921 words, total size 6 kb.

I didnÂ’t think that the separationist absurdity could go any further, we get this bizarre action from a Texas principal.

A Keller school district parent said political correctness has run amok at her daughter's elementary school, where the principal chose to omit the words "In God We Trust" from an oversize coin depicted on the yearbook cover.

Janet Travis, principal of Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville, wanted to avoid offending students of different religions, a district spokesman said. Students were given stickers with the words that could be affixed to the book if they so chose.

What exactly was it about this image that was so offensive – after all, each and every student probably has at least one of these in a pocket or piggy bank – and the school probably gives tehm as change.

Officials chose an image of an enlarged nickel for the yearbook cover because this is Liberty Elementary's first year and because the nickel has a new design this year.

The nickel design features President Jefferson and the word Liberty in cursive, with the words "In God We Trust" along the right edge.

Keller administrators agreed with the decision, which Travis made in conjunction with a school parents group, district spokesman Jason Meyer said. District policy states, in part: "The District shall take no action respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."

Principals must strive to remain neutral regarding religion, Meyer said.

Oh, please! An accurate depiction of United States coinage has now been deemed to be offensive by school officials in Keller, Texas. That is nuts!
The ACLU, of course, thinks this is just great.

Michael Linz, a Dallas attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the district's move was appropriate, sensitive and constitutional.

"Sometimes administrators and schools are really caught trying to make appropriate decisions with respect to people's views. Someone is always going to complain," he said. "I think that the school administrators were drawing the appropriate line by trying not to offend others."

Presumably this clown would find it appropriate to forbid carrying US currency on campus, for fear that some little kid might spy the dreaded “G word” on a coin or bill.

Common sense will not, of course, ever be permitted to prevail – after all, that isn’t “sensitive”.

Posted by: Greg at 04:16 PM | Comments (85) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

You have to admire this valedictorian.

When graduating senior Jed Michal told his classmates Sunday to treat each day as though it were their last, he spoke from experience.

The leukemia patient gave his valedictorian's speech via teleconference from his hospital room at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, where he is recovering from a bone-marrow transplant.

"Everything we are and become is not what happens to us — it's what we do with the hand life deals us," said Michal, 19, as he faced a televised image of his classmates back home in Colorado. "Live each day as if it is your last. After all, it may very well be."

Fighting leukemia for more than two years, Michal underwent the transplant a week ago, using marrow from his 25-year-old brother. He became valedictorian of his class of 19 students at Flagler High School in east Colorado despite missing nearly his entire junior year due to his illness.

He hopes to leave the hospital next month, move back to Colorado this fall and begin studying agricultural business at Colorado State University in January.

IÂ’m already willing to bet that this young man will fulfill his wildest dreams.

Congratulations, Jed.

Posted by: Greg at 04:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Now here's a shocker for you!

Elections Are Crux Of GOP's Strategy

Elections are always the first consideration for a political party -- they are the very reason they exist. Even more than governmance, political parties are concerned with achieving and maintaing power so that they can hold and exercise teh power of governance.

Confronting the worst poll numbers seen in the West Wing since his father went down to defeat, President Bush and his team are focusing on the fall midterm elections as the best chance to salvage his presidency and are building a campaign strategy around tax cuts, immigration and national security.

Modern history offers no precedent of a president climbing from a hole as deep as the one Bush finds himself in, and White House strategists have concluded that no staff shake-up or other quick fix will alter their trajectory. In the sixth year of his tenure, they said, Bush cannot easily change the minds of voters whose impressions are fully formed.

And so short of some event outside their direct control -- such as a dramatic turnaround in Iraq or the capture of Osama bin Laden -- Bush advisers have turned to the election as the most important chance to rewrite the troubled narrative of his presidency and allow him to recover enough to govern his last two years, Republican strategists said. With that in mind, Bush last week called on the National Guard to help stop illegal immigrants, signed tax-cut legislation and headlined three party fundraisers.

In other words, the President and other political leaders int he GOP are doing what politicians do -- keeping an eye firmly on the elections so that they can continue to wield the powers of elective office.

Duh.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

I'd love to say this is beyond belief -- but give Madonna's penchant for the outrageous (including sex with a saint's statue come to life in her "Like a Prayer" video two decades ago), I'm not surprised.

MADONNA kicked off her new Confessions world tour in Los Angeles on Saturday – and showed it will be her most controversial routine ever.

As my snap shows, at one point Madge appears hanging from a cross, which is sure to stoke up a backlash from Christians.

Maybe I'll have some respect for her blasphemous tendencies when she insults the Islamic beliefs, teachings, and symbols.

Oh, that's right -- that won't happen.

Muslims would kill her -- Christians will only criticize her and create lots of publicity for the tour and album.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | Comments (64) | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

Just so you know what sort of swine we are dealing with here -- the jihadis are funding their cause by kidnapping and selling Christian children.

A SENIOR member of an Islamic organisation linked to Al-Qaeda is funding his activities through the kidnapping of Christian children who are sold into slavery in Pakistan.

The Sunday Times has established that Gul Khan, a wealthy militant who uses the base of Jamaat-ud Daawa (JUD) near Lahore, is behind a cruel trade in boys aged six to 12.

They are abducted from remote Christian villages in the Punjab and fetch nearly £1,000 each from buyers who consign them to a life of misery in domestic servitude or in the sex trade.

Khan was exposed in a sting organised by American and Pakistani missionaries who decided to save 20 such boys and return them to their homes. Using a secret camera, they filmed him accepting $28,500 (£15,000) from a Pakistani missionary posing as a businessman who said he wanted to set up an operation in which the boys would beg for cash on the streets.

Khan was observed driving from the meeting with a knapsack full of cash to the JUD headquarters at Muridke, near Lahore.

The base was funded by Osama Bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda leader, in the late 1990s and the JUDÂ’s assets were frozen last month by the US Treasury after it was designated a terrorist organisation.

Sweet Jesus -- sounds like the sort of stuff perpetrated by the Ottomans against Anatolian Christians for centuries, in East Africa to supply slaves to the Muslim wold. The slave trade has been wiped out in civilized parts of the globe, but still continues -- licitly and illicitly -- in the Muslim world.

This evil perpetrated by the jihadi swine is beyond comprehension -- but not without Koranic precedent or sanction by the hadith and by sharia law. After all, non-Muslims have very few rights that a Muslim is bound to respect in the Islamic tradition followed by these scum.

Thank God for the actions of those brave Christian missionaries -- already living under the threat of death for preaching the gospel in the Islamic world -- for acting to save these boys and expose those who would violate human rights in the name of their malignant theology.

But why do I suspect that this horror will be ignored in the rest of the Western media? And I suspect that the usual apologists for Jihadi Islam will accuse those of us who point to this attrocity of being "inflammatory" and "hateful" -- just as they always do.

MORE AT: Jawa Report, The Western Seminarian, Isaac Schrödinger, ninme, Right Wing Nation, Preemptive Karma, Clarity & Resolve, Blue Crab Boulevard, American Thinker, E.L. Frederick, Bullwinkle Blog, Western Resistance, Jihad Watch, Dvorak Uncensored, Daily Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 03:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 4 kb.

I'll be honest -- I enjoyed listening to the Dixie Chicks, but I joined the boycott when they started all the anti-Bush trash-talk. Yes, they had a right to take the position they took -- but I have every right to express my disapproval by refusing to buy their product.

Well, they are at it again, hoping to turn their bush Derangement Syndrome into commercial success. But I don't think this is the way to go.

The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines apologized for disrespecting President Bush during a London concert in 2003. But now, she's taking it back.

"I don't feel that way anymore," she told Time magazine for its issue hitting newsstands Monday. "I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever."

And we should take your views into consideration because...?

But probably the most significant reason I won't buy their new CD has nothing to do with Natalie's politics -- it has to do with this statement.

For band member Martie Maguire, the controversy was a blessing in disguise.

"I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," Maguire said. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do."

Well, I wouldn't want to limit you by contributing to your commercial success. I'll stick with Reba, Kenny Chesney, and a few old Chris LeDoux CDs. But thanks for making it clear that you aren't interested in those of us who helped build your career in the early days. We'll pass those sentiments on to country radio stations around the country.

Posted by: Greg at 02:18 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's treat Mexicans like Mexico treats Americans and other foreigners.

Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies "xenophobic," Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory.

In the United States, only two posts — the presidency and vice presidency — are reserved for the native born.

In Mexico, non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens.

Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans."

Recently the Mexican government has gone even further. Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges.

Mexico's Interior Department — which recommended the bans as part of "model" city statutes it distributed to local officials — could cite no basis for extending the bans to local posts.

One more reason to close the southern border and deport the immigration criminals who stream in from Mexico.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

This US diplomat is undercutting the immigration policies of the United States. As such, US Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza needs to be fired by the President -- or Congress needs to act to force his resignation.

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza described building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border as un-American in a speech to the University of Texas at Austin graduating class Saturday night.

"Simply building walls does not speak America to me," said Garza, a former Texas railroad commissioner and a close friend to President Bush. "I know we can be both a welcoming society and a secure and lawful one."

Congress currently is debating proposals for building fences as a means of controlling illegal immigration. President Bush, who has opposed fences in the past, this week endorsed a limited fence-building proposal for Arizona and California.

The Chonicle calls his speech "a message of tolerance for the millions of Latin American immigrants who have poured into the United States in recent years". That is a miccharacterization. Garza's speech was nothing less than an apologia for law-breaking and border-jumping by those who disrespect our country, and a call for more of the same. As such, Tony Garza does not speak for the overwhelming majority of Americans -- and if President Bush does not wish to further alienate the American people, he needs to fire his old friend immediately, for it is his message that is truly un-American.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Liberal Wrong Wing, Business of America is Business, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 3 kb.

A gullible subset of the world's population has embraced Dan Brown's fictional work, The DaVinci Code, and the underlying conspiracy theory most notably expounded in the pseudo-historical work, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The idea is that there are secret descendants of jesus living among us, and that the Catholic Church has been hiding this from the followers of Christ for centuries. It is all a load of bullcrap, of course, but thre exist enough fools to believe such tripe.

Well, here is another flaw with the hypothesis -- there would not be some small group of descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene hidden away. Instead, most of us would have the Son of God popping up on our family tree. Not because we are particularly special, but because of the geometric progression that goes along with geneaology.

This absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the workings of ancestry. People may have just a few descendants in the two or three generations after they lived, but, after that, the number of descendants explodes. For a population to remain the same size, every adult has to have an average of two children who grow to adulthood and have children. So the number of descendants for the average person grows exponentially — two children, four grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren, and so on. In just 10 generations — roughly 250 years — an average person can have more than 1,000 descendants.

Of course, no one is average. Some people have lots of children; some have none. But over time the fecund and the barren balance each other out. Also, a person's descendants eventually start having children with each other. That slows the rate of growth of a person's descendants, but usually not much, at least in the short term.

It's virtually impossible to "manage" a genealogical lineage so that a person has a limited number of descendants. The lineage would quickly go extinct in the occasional generation in which all of a person's descendants do not have children (or their children die). And a managed lineage inevitably would "leak" — someone would begin having children at a normal pace, and the usual process of growth would commence.

In real genealogies, a person's descendants either peter out within a few generations or begin to grow exponentially. That's why people who came to America on the Mayflower now have thousands of descendants. People who lived just a few centuries earlier have many millions of descendants.

So what about the possibility that Jesus and mary Magdalene had kids, as per Dan Brown?

The same observations would apply to Jesus, although we'll never know if he really had children.

But let's assume that he did, and that he also had a lower than average number of descendants — say 500 in the year AD 250. Where would they have lived?

Those centuries were a time of great ferment in the Roman Empire. Although most of Jesus' descendants probably would have lived in the Middle East, at least a few would have moved as far away as modern-day Italy and central Asia (whether as soldiers, traders or slaves).

Many of these individuals also would have had 500 to 1,000 descendants 250 years later. And these tens of thousands of descendants of Jesus likely would have been scattered along trade routes from western Europe to southern Africa to eastern Asia. After another 250 years, Jesus would have had millions of descendants. Repeat that cycle five more times and the whole world begins to fill up with descendants of Jesus.

Essentially, whether you have descendants is an all-or-nothing proposition in the long run, as two co-authors and I showed in an article in the scientific journal Nature a couple of years ago. If a person has four or five grandchildren, that person will almost certainly be an ancestor of the entire world population two or three millenniums from now. And if a person lived longer than two or three millenniums ago, that person is either an ancestor of everyone living today or of no one living today.

The idea that we all could be descended from Jesus takes some getting used to. After all, if we're all descended from Jesus, and Jesus is the son of God, that's a pretty illustrious bloodline.

But don't let it go to your head. You're also descended from Pontius Pilate and Judas, as long as they produced the requisite four or five grandchildren.

Every time we elect a new president, we learn that he is the descendant of some British monarch's bastard child. The genes of Ghengis Khan are said to have been passed on to much of today's population through his multitude of offspring (to paraphrase Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the khan."). So if you aren't descended from Christ, and I'm not descended from Christ, nobody is descended from Christ.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Liberal Wrong Wing, Business of America is Business, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 842 words, total size 6 kb.

But if this were, for example, Tom DeLay and not Democrat Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), it would be plastered on the front page of every newspaper in america as more evidence of a "culture of corruption" in the GOP.

But it is just business as usual for a Louisiana Democrat.

More than a dozen FBI agents raided the Capitol Hill office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) last night, searching for documents related to an ongoing public corruption investigation, a government official said.

As many as 15 agents wearing business suits began searching the office in the Rayburn House Office Building about 7:15 p.m. and were expected to continue possibly into the afternoon today, the official said shortly before 4 a.m.

Debbie Weierman, an FBI spokeswoman, said that "the search was conducted this evening in conjunction with an ongoing FBI public corruption investigation."

Portions of the search warrant are expected to be unsealed later today.

Jefferson's lawyer is, in typical defense attorney form, outraged.

Robert Trout, Jefferson's attorney, complained that FBI agents refused to allow him or the general counsel of the House to witness the search.

"The government's actions in obtaining a search warrant to search the offices of a United States Congressman were outrageous," Trout said in a statement, the Associated Press reported. "There were no exigent circumstances necessitating this action. The government knew that the documents were being appropriately preserved while proper procedures were being followed. We are dismayed by this action. The documents weren't going anywhere and the prosecutors knew it."

Yeah. Sure. Isn't this the guy who got a rescue craft and emergency personnel to take him to his home in the days following Hurricane Katrina to remove material from his home -- material that included a laptop computer, briefcases, and boxes of documents that may well be related to the case? Do you want to assure us again that nothing would have happened to the material sought in the warrant if it had not been immediately executed?

And let's not forget this little tidbit from teh end of the story.

The investigation became public on Aug. 3 when FBI agents raided Jefferson's homes in New Orleans and Northeast Washington, where they found about $90,000 in cash in his freezer, law enforcement sources have said.

They also raided five other locations, including the Kentucky and New Jersey offices of iGate Inc., which has become central to the investigation.

I say again -- why isn't this story getting the play that DeLay, Ney, and Cunningham get> Because William Jefferson is black, Democrat, and from teh corrupt state of Louisiana, so nothing better is expected of him. Ethics rules and laws apply to Republicns only.

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Stop the ACLU, Expose the Left, and No Agenda.

UPDATE: GatewayPundit notes that the FBI caught Jefferson on tape taking a $100,000 bribe. Instapundit reminds us of an earlier Jefferson indiscretion -- is the cash linked to the bribe in question? Additional news coverage at these sites.

Posted by: Greg at 04:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 4 kb.

Proof positive that not only is New Orleans the dumbest place to build a city in the United States, but that it is also the dumbest city in the United States.

Voters here endorsed the leadership of incumbent Mayor C. Ray Nagin Saturday, narrowly approving his reelection bid even though his term was marked by the apocalyptic chaos of Hurricane Katrina, his controversial "chocolate city" remarks and the stalled recovery.

Nagin overcame a strong challenge by Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, the scion of a politically powerful clan, who outspent him by large margins.

Many here, such as City Council President Oliver Thomas, considered Nagin's victory the "biggest upset ever." With all precincts reporting, Nagin had 52.3 percent, or 59,460 votes, to Landrieu's 47.7 percent, or 54,131 votes.

The vote split largely along racial lines. Nagin won by getting the support of about 80 percent of black voters and about 20 percent of white votes, according to election analyst Greg Rigamer.

Many here called the election a pivotal moment in city history. Scores of voters arrived after a five-hour bus trip from Houston. Some emerged from cramped FEMA trailers parked in otherwise abandoned neighborhoods. And even those who came from the comfort of houses untouched by the flooding said the only issues that mattered were the hurricane and its aftermath.

Let's remember some simple facts. It was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who failed to order an evacuation. It was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who failed to order those school buses to be used for evacuation purposes. And it was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who decided the SuperDome and Convention Center would be fantastic places to keep folks for the duration of the storm and beyond. But for some reason, the people of New Orleans want to keep their incompetent mayor around for another term. No doubt we will soon hear that this is george Bush's fault, just like all the failures of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco.

As far as this Houston area resident is concerned, I hope that all those folks who traveled by bus from our area stay in New Orleans -- the crime rate in the area dropped significantly as they crossed the county line, and the collective IQ of texas was raised when they crossed they crossed the Sabine River into Louisiana.

Here's hoping that the people of the "chocolate city" realize that they will be getting it up the "Hershey highway" as long as they continue to select the sort of corrupt and incompetent officials that are legion in Louisiana.

More At Stop the ACLU">Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 06:02 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

When babe Ruth hit 714 homers in his career, the only "artificial enhancements" he used to stimulate his success were booze and hookers. Barry Bonds is the steroid king. That makes the milestone he has reached illegitimate in this fan's eyes. Number 714 simply does not count -- and his records and accolades should be expunged once the BALCO investigation is over. The number 714 should be deemed an achievement legitimately reached by Babe Ruth alone.

he agonizing wait is over for Barry Bonds. He and the Babe are even at 714.

Bonds tied Babe Ruth for second place on the career home run list Saturday, ending a nine-game homerless stretch with a shot into the first deck of the elevated stands in right-center during San FranciscoÂ’s 4-2, 10-inning victory over the Oakland Athletics.

“This is a great accomplishment because of Babe Ruth and what he brought to the game of baseball and his legacy in the game of baseball,” Bonds said. “This and a World Series ring to me would be the ultimate. He changed the game of baseball. ... It’s just great to be in the same class.”

No, Barry, you are not in the same class as Ruth, Aaron, and Mays. You are in a no-class all your own.

Posted by: Greg at 05:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE: I've been Insta-lanched! Welcome visitors from Instapundit. Thanks, Glenn.

Following much wrangling, the Iraqis have their own government, the result of free and fair elections.

Iraq's parliament swore in its full-term prime minister and his cabinet Saturday, a political milestone U.S. leaders hope will allow a new government to begin solving the country's problems and lead to the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops.

But the formation of the new government, anticipated for over five months since national elections were held Dec. 15, was marred by the new prime minister's inability to fill the top two positions in his government and the walkout of several Sunni Arab politicians who felt they had been spurned in the negotiations over cabinet posts.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that he would run the Interior Ministry himself for a week, and that one of his deputies, Salam al-Zubaie, would temporarily fill the Defense Ministry. In the meantime, he will try to find a permanent replacement for those powerful posts, which control the country's police and army.

Yeah, that's right, we cannot talk about what is right with the situation -- we have to talk about what is wrong. Discussing the successes that led to this day isn't nearly as much fun as raining on this ever-so-significant parade.

And then, of course, we will soon be treated to the bleatings of those intrepid Leftists who view this as a bad thing because, after all, anything that smacks of a Bush success is bad for the world. Better that there be victories for the jihadi terrorists than for the President of the United States and the Iraqi people.

Posted by: Greg at 08:15 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Proving once again that members of the press consider themselves a royal priesthood not subject to the laws that apply to non-journalists, The Houston Chronicle is demanding that a press shield law be passed by Congress.

Thanks to federal prosecutors probing a grand jury leak in the BALCO investigation of steroid use by professional baseball players in California, the secretary of state can add the names of San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wade to that long list of journalists threatened by potential imprisonment.

The pair's stories and subsequent book, Game of Shadows, exposed the scope of steroid use by athletes, forced major league baseball to institute reforms to prevent their continued use, and won the praise of the sport's highest-ranking fan, President George W. Bush.

Yet U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Houston Chronicle editorial board on Friday he approved the issuance of subpoenas that would force the journalists and their paper to identify confidential sources and produce any grand jury transcripts in their possession.

* * *

Unfortunately, such attempts by law enforcement to compel journalists' testimony and pry open their notebooks and computers are becoming all too frequent. According to the Newspaper Association of America, more than 30 reporters have been pressured by authorities in the last two years to divulge information for investigations, creating a national atmosphere that makes investigative reporting more difficult and whistleblowers more fearful about talking to journalists. When that happens, both good journalism and good government are endangered.

It's appropriate that this week a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, a long-sought federal shield law to protect journalists and their employers from being forced in most cases to reveal confidential sources. It also would prevent authorities from mining telephone, Internet and other communications data to identify journalist contacts. The only exceptions would be threats to national security or the physical safety of the public.

"We believe the legislation establishes important ground rules for confidential sources and reporters," said Newspaper Association of America President and CEO John F. Sturm. "It is a very positive step toward safeguarding the free flow of information to the public."

Such a law would provide for American journalists the kind of freedom to do their jobs that Secretary Rice so eloquently espoused for their foreign counterparts. Those words ring hollow if they are not accompanied by the same concern and concrete actions to protect journalists at home as well.

I say NO -- in fact, I say HELL NO!

What the Chronicle demands is nothing less than a press exemption from the obligations that apply to every citizen. You know -- the obligation to provide information and material subpoenaed by a court, to testify truthfully before a grand jury or in a trial, and to not traffic is stolen or illicitly obtained documents. They seek to exempt the press from law enforcemnt tactics which are regularly and legitimately applied against citizens in every other walk of life. The seek to make journalists -- as defined by the obsolescent media elite -- a class apart from the rest of citizens. I find the notion of estalishing a journalistic aristocracy to be repugnant.

The press often speaks piously of "the public's right to know." Let's not give them the capacity to keep the public in the dark in situations that any other citizen would be required to speak.

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 582 words, total size 4 kb.

Debates can turn ugly during a hotly contested campaign -- and so can other joint appearances by candidates. When such things happen within a party, that can be a sign that there will be difficulty rallying the troops around the eventual nominee.

That may be the case in Virginia.

The two men vying for the Democratic nomination in Virginia's U.S. Senate race angrily accused each other of being disloyal to their party in a bitter exchange Friday during their first face-to-face meeting of the primary campaign.

Former lobbyist Harris Miller and former Navy secretary James Webb clashed during the taping of what was billed as a casual conversation for "On the Record," a Norfolk television show that will air Sunday morning. The exchange started calmly, with both taking potshots at the man each wants to face in the fall, incumbent Republican Sen. George Allen.

But the conversation quickly turned nasty, with Miller questioning Webb's partisan "values" and Webb noting that Miller had been called by some people "the antichrist of outsourcing." It ended at an impromptu news conference after the taping, with a visibly frustrated Webb telling Miller to "shut your mouth."

The two went after each other on questions of party loyalty -- Webb's support for Republicans in 2000 and Miller's history of campaign contributions to senior Republicans.

The antipathy that had until Friday been reserved for news releases and quiet remarks by campaign aides became personal slams moments into the taping as Miller questioned Webb's support for Republicans during the 2000 election.

"When we were fighting in the trenches to defeat George Bush and George Allen in 2000, you weren't just voting for them, you were endorsing them," Miller said, ignoring the question of the show's host, Joel Rubin.

Webb quickly accused Miller of making inappropriate campaign contributions to senior Republicans in the Congress.

"Why did you donate money to [U.S. House of Representatives Speaker] Dennis Hastert? I've never given money to a Republican in my life," Webb said.

They both claim they will support the other in the general election. But you have to wonder -- will it be an active support? Or will we see the loser retire from the field and offer nothing beyond a few polite words of endorsement at the state convention?

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

WhatÂ’s Ray got to say?

Submit your entry today!

* * *

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 LINKFESTS: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Liberal Wrong Wing, Business of America is Business, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:15 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 2 kb.

Why on earth would anyone object to declaring English the national language of the United States?

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a proposal to make English the official language "racist" on the Senate floor yesterday.

"This amendment is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish," the Democrat said during the already tense debate over immigration reform.

Moments later, the Senate approved the measure on a 63-34 vote. Virtually all Republicans were joined by 11 Democrats to approve the largely symbolic amendment. Immediately following that vote, the Senate approved a second amendment, declaring on a 58-39 vote that English is the "common and unifying language."

Racist? To declare the major language of the Unite4d States to be the national language? Hardly – and they ought to go the next step, to make it the official language, ending voting and other government services in languages other than English. It would be suppoted by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

A poll by Zogby International earlier this year found that 84 percent of Americans say English should be the official language of government operations. The same poll found that 77 percent of Hispanics agree.

And it's a bipartisan issue, according to the poll, which found that 92 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Democrats approve making English the country's official language.

Reid, of course, is an imbecile, who is trying to score votes from the supporters of illegal immigration. What he does not want to acknowledge is that those who come to this country and wish to make themselves successful and productive need to speak English to do so.

Posted by: Greg at 04:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

In an attempt to overcome fundamental laws of economics, the City of Chicago has taken action to make the nation’s most competitive retailers a little less so. The result will be higher prices, fewer jobs, and a decrease in shopping choices for Chicago residents – but hey, they’re gonna stick it to WalMart!

With a nudge from organized labor, 33 aldermen have signed on to a groundbreaking ordinance that would make Chicago the nation's first major city to establish a wage and benefit standard for "big box" retailers.

On Thursday, they got an earful from the other side: business leaders and an impoverished and retail-starved West Side community that's about to become home to Chicago's first and only Wal-Mart.

They argued that the minimum wage standard is the exclusive purview of the General Assembly, and that making demands that apply only to the largest retailers would violate the constitutional guarantee to equal protection.

They further contended that nowhere in the United States is there a living wage ordinance that applies exclusively to retailing giants, and that passing one here would put Chicago at a competitive disadvantage.

* * *

Introduced by Ald. Joe Moore (49th), it would apply to both newly built and existing stores with at least 75,000 square feet of space owned by companies with $1 billion in annual gross revenues. They would be required to pay any employee who works more than five hours a week a "living wage" of at least $10 an hour, along with $3 an hour in benefits.

There is, of course, a simple solution available to WalMart, Target, and other large retailers who might be considering the possibility of doing business in Chicago – locate outside the city limits, in one of the many suburbs that are interwoven along the edge of (often nearly surrounded by) the city itself. Then just suck all the business and cash out of the city while giving a major tax-revenue boost to the county and the suburbs – leaving Chicago a desiccated husk of a once great city with no retail base to meet the needs of the city’s poorest residents – they can buy the higher priced goods of smaller stores with their welfare checks, or their checks from the WalMart located just on the other side of the city limits.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Liberal Wrong Wing, Business of America is Business, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

If you ain’t a Muslim in Iran, you will have to wear specially marked clothing to make you stand out. Think “Yellow Stars” in Nazi-occupied Europe.

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

Not that such badges of dhimmitude are really of Nazi origin – Hitler took the idea from an old Muslim practice.

Posted by: Greg at 04:53 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

That is my reaction to the vote in the House of Representative to keep the ban on off-shore drilling for oil during this time of shortage.

The House late Thursday rejected an attempt to end the quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling that has been in effect for 85 percent of the country's coastal waters from Alaska to New England despite arguments that new supplies are needed to lower energy costs.

Lawmakers from Florida and California, who led the fight to continue the drilling moratorium, said they feared energy projects as close as three miles from shore could jeopardize multibillion-dollar tourism industries in their states.
"People don't go to visit the coasts of Florida or the coast of California to watch oil wells," Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said.

Down here in Texas, we have plenty of wells off-shore – wells that contribute to the current supply of oil. If California, Florida, and other coastal states refuse to help the US establish energy independence, then they clearly have no moral right to the oil produced by the very sort of well they reject along their own coast lines.

Posted by: Greg at 04:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm curious -- has this twerp ever objected to any other vote being held in this location? Or are we seeing a simple case of grandstanding by a wannabe presidential candidate fromt he far left? I doubt it -- but Russ Feingold is better known for his publicity seeking than his fidelity to the Constitution (see McCain Feingold for the classic example of his infidelity to our nation's founding document).

Certainly his confrontation with Arlen Specter is a classic.

A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Frankly, I can't believe in the arrogance expressed by Feingold, whose lack of fidelity to the Constitution may only be matched by his lack of fidelity to his marriage vows.

Specter noted that the choice of locations was realy a side issue.

Among Feingold's objections was Specter's decision to hold the vote in the President's Room, where access by the general public is restricted, instead of in the panel's usual home in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Specter later said he would have been willing to hold the session in the usual room had he thought doing so would change votes.

In addition, Specter noted that he voted to send the proposed amendment to the floor because it deserves debate, not because he supports it -- in fact, he does not. I guess he just has the intellectual honesty to allow people to discuss the issues -- something Feingold's previous opposition to unfettered political speech proves he fears.

And what is the text of the amendment?

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In other words, it recognizes the cultural beliefs and practices of the overwhelming majority of Americans and makes them a part of our Constitutional system, preserving them from renegade judges imposing their will in place of the will of the people.

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.