Here's hoping they never have to try this.

NASA officials revealed a new plan on Thursday that might allow a last-ditch effort to save a damaged space shuttle by guiding it back to Earth without astronauts aboard.

The system, which could be used if astronauts were forced to abandon the shuttle and take refuge in the International Space Station, makes use of a 28-foot-long braided cable, weighing about five pounds, that can be attached to various control boxes on the shuttle. It would allow flight controllers on the ground to activate systems that previously had to be switched on by members of the shuttle crew, including power units, landing gear and drag chutes.

I'd love to know the odds of a successful landing in such a situation -- then I'd plunk down a C-note in Vegas, figuring that could retire on the winnings if the shuttle did make it to landing relatively intact.

Posted by: Greg at 06:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

Texas Democrats plumbed the depths to reach a new low with the nomination of Barbara Radnofsky, a precinct chair who could not even carry her own county in the primary, to challenge Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Senate race.

If you need evidence that they scraped the bottom of the barrel, just look at this response in a recent interview over at MyDD.

Singer: Final question. If there's one message that you could send out to the progressive blogosphere, to the Netroots, what would that message be?

Radnofsky: I guess the bottom line that God's gift to the Senate is sitting in Houston right now having won 60 percent of the vote in the runoff and raised more than a million dollars and spent less than that to win two statewide races, her first two statewide races.

Yeah, you read that right -- "God's gift to the Senate"! Is it just me, or is that not a bit much?

I'm curious -- when will the demands start that Ms. Radnofsky quit injecting religion into the race? When will the condemnations of her exclusion of atheists, Satanists, and other unGodly members of the Democrat coalition begin? Will Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the ACLU sue to get her removed from the ballot over the church/state conflict implicit in having "God's gift" in the race? And what of the dangers of allowing theolibs to grasp the reins of political power to impose their religious will on the rest of us?

Enquiring minds want to know!

(Hat Tip: Texas Safety Forum)

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, Third World County, Dumb Ox, Basil's Blog, Cao's Blog, Woman Honor Thyself

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 3 kb.

Republican precinct chairs from the Harris County protion of CD22 met to pick our representative to the Congressional District Executive Committee that wil (hopefully) meet to select a candidate to replace Tom DeLay on the November ballot. As one of the participants in the meeting, I have got to comment on the Chronicle's coverage of the meeting.

Despite a continuing legal dispute over the process, Harris County Republicans chose on Thursday their representative on the committee that will select a nominee to replace former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

"Why wouldn't we proceed if time is of the essence?" asked Harris County Republican Party Chair Jared Woodfill. "Given the fact that the election is approaching, it's important we do everything as quickly as possible within the confines of the law."

And the reality is that there is absolutely noting in the law which prevented us from acting tonight. The TRO the Democrats obtained a couple of weeks ago expired last week, and so we were legally free to act. Yes, there are still questions about what the federal court will do (and what will happen regarding the appeals that will no doubt follow), but no one is adversely impacted by this gathering. At worst, it was all wasted motion on our part.

We all began gathering at about 6:00 at the courthouse in Webster, not far from the Johnson Space Center. By the time we began the meeting, we actually had an amazing 41 our of 45 precinct chairs in attendance -- a phenomenal rate that will likely never be duplicated for any gathering of precinct chairs in the county. After a little tussle over the agenda -- some of us wanted to include a straw poll to publicly express the sense of the body on who the candidate should be even though it would be binding, but were defeated -- we headed straight into the election of our representative.

We had two candidates seeking the position, Kathy Haigler and Steve Williams. While Kathy is a charming lady and has been my friend for as long as i have been active in the Harris County GOP, I was backing Steve. Why? Not just because I consider him to be a man of great integrity and keen insight, but because I preferred more of a grassroots candidate and felt that having an SREC member as our delegate smacked of insider politics and created the appearance of a conflict-of-interest since the SREC will pick the candidate if the District Executive Committee should fail to do so (which is quite unlikely, I'll concede).

Votes were cast, and I was appointed by Steve to serve as his observer as teh votes were counted. I was. . . disappointed by the margin of victory, as i expected it to be relatively close.

Harris County Republicans selected Kathy Haigler, a precinct chair in Deer Park who is on the State Republican Executive Committee, as their committee representative.

She has not stated a preference among at least nine Republicans seeking the nomination.

Or at least not publicly -- Kathy has not really made a secret of her personal preference, but I will respect her decision not to divulge it and refrain from posting it here. Besides, she voluntarily made a public committment to accept the guidance of the precinct chairs on the matter. After the meeting adjourned, Kathy distributed ballots for an unofficial straw poll which allowed us to rank the declared candidates. The ballots will be tabulated at a later date, after the absent chairs have been given the chance to vote as well. We will see what the results will be after the other counties have selected their representatives next week.

Democrats, of course, are spinning away on this one.

Cris Feldman, an attorney for the Democrats, questioned the Harris County party's decision to go forward.

"It would appear not to be the wisest to do, in light of the court's statements," he said. "The court seemed pretty clear that the process wasn't to go forward until a ruling was handed down."

Where I grew up, that is called a lie. By allowing the TRO to expire, Judge Sparks made it pretty clear that it was accptable for the process to go forward. If it wasn't, he would have continued the restraining order until after he had ruled on the case. He didn't, so it was OK. And after all, with Fort Bend not meeting until July 6 and Galveston and Brazoria not doing so until the following night, the earliest a candidate could be selected by the District Executive Committee would be be around July 15 -- a date that almost certainly falls after the date that Judge Slade will decide the case.

One thing which should be noted about the meeting was the level of grassroots support shown by one candidate for the congressional nomination, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, a local physician. There is strong support for her among the precinct chairs in Harris County, and at least half of the members of the public who came to observe the proceedings were wearing Shelley stickers or shirts. I endorsed her back in April, and I still believe that Shelley has the best chance of winning in November. I just have to hope that the District Executive Committee listens to the voice of the people in this regard.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, Third World County, Dumb Ox, Basil's Blog, Cao's Blog, Woman Honor Thyself

Posted by: Greg at 07:09 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 932 words, total size 6 kb.

Q: Why not?
A: NY Times.

Looks to me like Ted Olson has picked the worst time to lobby for the creation of a statute protecting a “reporter’s privilege”.

Journalists reporting on high-profile legal or political controversies cannot function effectively without offering some measure of confidentiality to their sources. Their ability to do so yields substantial benefits to the public in the form of stories that might otherwise never be written about corruption, misfeasance and abuse of power. A person with information about wrongdoing is often vulnerable to retaliation if exposed as an informant.

Yet it has become almost routine for journalists to be slapped with subpoenas seeking the identity of their sources when their reports make it into print or onto the air. From the Valerie Plame imbroglio and the Wen Ho Lee investigation to the use of steroids by professional baseball players, it is now de rigueur to round up the reporters, haul them before a court, and threaten them with heavy fines and jail sentences if they don't cough up names and details concerning their sources.

And so the solution , according to Olson, is to place reporters above the law by permitting them to withhold evidence that any other citizen would be required to divulge. But donÂ’t dare call it that, Olson says.

Reporters do not expect to be above the law. But they should be accorded some protection so that they can perform their public service in ensuring the free flow of information and exposing fraud, dishonesty and improper conduct without being exposed to an unanticipated jail sentence. A free society depends on access to information and on a free and robust press willing to dig out the truth and spread it around. This requires some ability to deal from time to time with sources who, for one reason or another, require the capacity to speak freely but anonymously.

But unfortunately we have seen in the last few months too many cases of the “Paper of Record” decides to put secret information related to the prosecution of the Crusade Against Jihadi Terror on the front page. It then cloaks its provision of aid and comfort to the enemy by wrapping itself in the First Amendment, despite the fact that such treason is clearly not protected by the Amendment. After all, Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally, and Ezra Pound were all acting in a journalistic role when they made their infamous broadcasts – two went to prison and the third to an asylum.

Sorry, Ted, I admire and respect you – but disagree on this point.

And IÂ’m sad to see you shilling for the very entities that serve as intelligence agencies for jihadi sine like those who murdered Barbara.

Posted by: Greg at 09:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

The arrogance of some Muslims is galling, as they seek special protection for their false religion.

The incitement to hatred of Islam should be considered a crime against humanity, TurkeyÂ’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a speech before the Council of Europe in Strasbourg yesterday.

“Just as anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity, so should Islamophobia be regarded,” Erdogan said. Erdogan warned against the growing phobia against Islam and foreigners in the world in which “we Muslims feel increasingly under siege.”

Excuse me! Muslims feel under siege? Seems to me it is the rest of us, who are being shot at, blown up, beheaded, or having planes crashed into our buildings who ought to be feeling under siege by Islam, not the other way around. And I will point out to you that anti-Semitism is not treated as a crime against humanity – indeed, if the Caliphate were ever re-established we would see mullahs declaring anti-Semitism to be the national sport, if the current level of active anti-Semitism among Muslims is any indication.

But beyond that we are back to the Mohammad Cartoon flap again.

Referring to the row over blasphemous cartoons that were originally printed in a Danish newspaper, he said freedom of expression should not be confused with the freedom to insult.

The row showed not only a “lack of respect for religious convictions,” but was also a sign of a “growing and dangerous polarization between the Western and Islamic world.” The Turkish prime minister called on Western countries to integrate the Muslims living among them to a much greater degree.

“With a (Muslim) population of between 10 and 25 percent in Europe’s largest cities, it is important to follow a policy of social integration to ensure a peaceful coexistence,” Erdogan said. This was a “great challenge” that could, however, be overcome “with the joint efforts of the host countries and Muslim communities.”

So what you are saying is that the presence of Muslims in Christian countries requires submission of those countries to dhimmi status. Not a chance. Indeed, the path of social integration that must be taken here in the West ought to be to mandate that Muslims in the West conform to Western values of liberty of speech, press, and religion – and that Muslims elsewhere recognize the human rights of the non-Muslims in their midst.

And the rights of religious minorities in Turkey (the most “liberal” and “secular” of Muslim countries) was a topic Prime Minister Erdogan sought to avoid at all costs.

Erdogan did not deal with questions from members of the European Parliament about the protection of human rights and religious minorities within Turkey. The parliamentary session of the Council of Europe was debating a decision on freedom of expression and religious tolerance in connection with ErdoganÂ’s visit.

Yeah, that would have meant admitting that “secular” Turkey still enforces many of the practices of dhimmitude against its non-Muslim minority.

Indeed, perhaps we need to deal with the issue of whether or not Islam, as it currently exists, is a crime against humanity.

Posted by: Greg at 09:30 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

What can I say -- when the Democrats want the US military to cut-&-run faster than the terrorists do, that should say something about their level of concern for US security.

Eleven Sunni insurgent groups have offered to halt attacks on the U.S.-led military if the Iraqi government and President Bush set a two-year timetable for withdrawing all foreign troops from the country, insurgent and government officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The demand is part of a broad offer from the groups, who operate north of Baghdad in the heavily Sunni Arab provinces of Salahuddin and Diyala. Although much of the fighting has been to the west, those provinces have become increasingly violent and the attacks there have regularly crippled oil and commerce routes.

The groups do not include the powerful Islamic Army in Iraq, Muhammad Army and the Mujahedeen Shura Council, the umbrella label for eight militant groups including al-Qaida in Iraq. But the new offer comes at a time when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is reaching out to militant Sunnis, including a new amnesty plan for insurgent fighters.

Now what this means is that the terrorists killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will give the US until mid 2008 to get out -- but every Democrat plan has American forces leaving Iraq (without completing the mission) by Secember 2007 or sooner.

That is certainly some contrast -- the enemy supports a longer period for withdrawal than the (dis)loyal opposition in our own Congress.

MORE AT Decision '08, Independent Sources

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Following international law and rules of fundamental decency has done nothing to stop the murder.

Israeli forces arrested nearly one-third of the Hamas-led Palestinian Cabinet and 20 lawmakers early Thursday and pressed their incursion into Gaza, responding to the abduction of one of its soldiers.

* * *

Adding to the tension, a Palestinian militant group said it killed an 18-year-old Jewish settler kidnapped in the West Bank. Israeli security officials said Eliahu Asheri's body was found buried near Ramallah. They said he was shot in the head, apparently soon after he was abducted on Sunday.

I have begun to wonder if perhaps these officials should be returned to the Terrorstinian Anarchy in precisely the same condition as Eliahu Ashen was found by the Israelis.

After all, civilized behavior has not worked to stop the terror, despite incredible concessions.

Maybe it is time to try some massive retaliation.

MORE AT Strata-spehre, Alamo Nation, Stop the ACLU, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 2 kb.

And I do call it a victory for Texas, despite the 5-4 majority deciding against the boundaries of CD23. It affirms that the 2003 redistricting was legal and that the use of partisan criteria in redistricting is not invalid. Even with regard to the CD23 boundaries, the slim majority had to engage in the unusual tactic of overturning a finding of fact when a simple analysis of the district based upon law and precedent failed to find a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.

And for those of you who cannot read, that means that the redistricting plan met every CONSTITUTIONAL challenge, and the loss came on questions of statutory interpretation, not bad intent.

The result of this is likely to be the redrawing of district lines in two or three districts in the largely empty southwestern part of the state. Indeed, this may well be seen as a net-loss for minorities, given that the likely result will be a reduction in the number of seats over which Hispanics have control of the outcome. So congratulations, amigos, you just shot yourselves in the huevos!

Not that LULAC sees it that way.

"We see this as a very major victory for the Latino community, which is the main reason we were in this case," said attorney Rolando Rios, who represented the League of United Latin American Citizens. "Latinos are responsible for the fastest growth in Texas and the state of Texas refused to give us another district."

But that raises an interesting question – how do we deal with the fact that drawing lines with an eye towards partisan advantage has racial/ethnic implications? The majority effectively conceded that the goal was not racial or ethnic discrimination, but bringing electoral outcomes into line with the partisan preferences of voters. In seeking to preserve the seat of a (Hispanic) GOP incumbent, lines were drawn for partisan advantage – but the result was the removal of Democrats of a particular ethnic group (the region is overwhelmingly Hispanic) and their replacement with white Republicans. Must every change now be made in a race-conscious manner, even if the goal has nothing to do with race?

The exact impact and the timetable are still up in the air.

Experts were still poring over the 130-page opinion to determine how Texas will have to remedy the deficiencies. But each party in the litigation is expected to return to the original panel of three federal judges in Texas with their suggested solutions. And new primaries could be ordered for any district that is substantially altered.

Nina Perales, the lawyer for Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which challenged the map, pronounced the decision historic for Latino voters in particular. She said the decision confirms that lawmakers cannot "roll over minority voting rights" to protect incumbents or promote partisan gains.

She said there is no way to predict how many districts might be affected by the ripple effect of fixing District 23.

I think that Ms. Perales' statement is a bit overblown. Having found the boundaries of 31 districts to be acceptable (well, 30, given the implications of the statements about CD25), the solution should not involve major surgery to the map. In all probability, the solution will involve putting Laredo back into CD23 and shifting a number of low-population counties into neighboring districts to compensate. After all, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot makes a crucial point.

"Today, the United States Supreme Court conclusively rejected broad challenges to the Texas congressional redistricting plan," he said in a written statement. "Although one district must be partially redrawn, the overall contours of the map adopted by the Texas Legislature were affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court."

The immediate impact here in Texas is important. I agree with this unfriendly commentator from Dallas.

However, the bottom line in Wednesday's decision is that virtually all of the districts drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature will remain in place until the next census. That virtually guarantees the GOP will be able to retain close to the 21-11 margin it gained when they were implemented two years ago.

It also means that those GOP-controlled districts would be the starting point when the post-2010 Legislature considers the issue after the next census. Barring an unexpected Democratic capture of at least one legislative house and the governorship, or both legislative houses, the GOP will be able to keep its majority for the ensuing decade.

Ultimately, of course, Democrats hope that changing population trends, mainly the rising Hispanic population, will translate at the polls into the votes that will enable them to reduce or eliminate Republican majorities.

But just as Democrats were able to maintain their hold on many congressional districts after the state started to trend Republican, the GOP probably will be able to do so until its veteran incumbents retire and a transformed population elects different representatives.

While those demographic changes trend Democrat, that may not even help them. After all, if the growth of Hispanic population is primarily in urban areas, it may serve to create districts which, like majority black districts in many parts of the country, are 70% or more minority due to population density. It also presumes that these ethnic groups will remain serfs on the Democrat manor-- and I do not believe that the competing interests of Hispanic and Affrican-American communities will allow for the sort of long-term political alliance necessary for Democrat hegemony to permanently reassert itself in this state.

UPDATE: I got a nasty email from someone about -- *yawn* -- "racist neo-klan rethugs" disenfranchising minorities and violating the Constitution. However I suggest those who hold such beliefs to go back and re-read (or probably read for the first time) the Kennedy opinion. It seems pretty clear that the division of Laredo to preserve a Republicn incumbent would have been perfectly acceptable had the residents of Laredo been white Democrats and not Hispanic ones. It is only the statutory scheme set up in the VRA that gave special consideration to these Democrats based upon their race, even if race was not the major factor in the drawing of the line. Would you like to talk about equal protection of the law -- or is that an outmoded concept for you?

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1115 words, total size 8 kb.

If you take beta blockers for blood pressure, it is important that you raise this issue on your nect visit. I know I will.

Two million Britons are to be taken off blood pressure drugs after studies showed they increase the risk of strokes, heart attacks and diabetes.

From today, beta blockers will no longer routinely be prescribed for high blood pressure.

The dramatic change in guidance follows evidence that the drugs taken daily by millions of Britons are only half as effective at stopping strokes than a host of newer pills.

Beta blockers such as atenolol also raise the risk of stroke and of developing diabetes, compared with other blood pressure tablets.

I'm on one of the medications mentioned later in the article. I'm not happy about the findings about the family of drugs.

Studies have shown that beta blockers are only half as effective at stopping strokes as other blood pressure treatments.

Last year, a study of 20,000 patients showed that treatment with beta blockers cut the risk of stroke by 20 per cent, compared to no treatment at all.

In contrast, the newer treatments prevent 40 per cent of strokes and 15 per cent more heart attacks.

Patients on beta blockers are also up to 30 per cent more likely to develop diabetes.

Beta blockers such as atenolol, bisoprolol and metoprolol also have worse side effects, including fatigue, loss of libido and impotence.

Professor Bryan Williams, who helped draw up the new guidelines, said: 'For the majority of patients, we no longer recommend beta blockers as a first line option for treatment.

Now the question that I'm curious about is financial -- given the benefits of covering the newer, better medications, will insurance companies move these drugs to a lower co-pay tier so as to lower their overall costs of treating patients, saving both them and patients money in the long run.

'They are less effective at controlling blood pressure, less effective at preventing events (strokes and heart problems) and they are more likely than other treatments to increase the risk of developing diabetes.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

Signing statements issued by presidents have been around for a long time, indicating the how a president understands a particular piece of legislation and dictating how he will have his subordinates in the Executive Branch enforce a new law. President Bush has made great use of them, in an attempt to mold both current practice and future court decisions to conform with his view of the statute and the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the use of this power irritates ersatz Republican Arlen Specter (RINO-PA).

Senators on the Judiciary Committee accused President Bush of an "unprecedented" and "astonishing" power grab on Tuesday for making use of a device that gave him the authority to revise or ignore more than 750 laws enacted since he became president.

By using what are known as signing statements, memorandums issued with legislation as he signs it, the president has reserved the right to not enforce any laws he thinks violate the Constitution or national security, or that impair foreign relations.

A lawyer for the White House said that Mr. Bush was only doing his duty to uphold the Constitution. But Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, characterized the president's actions as a declaration that he "will do as he pleases," without regard to the laws passed by Congress.

So I guess that Specter wants the president to enforce laws he believes to be unconstitutional, thereby violating his oath to uphold that grand document? I suppose that also means that the senator wants the president to accept illegitimate restrictions on his constitutional authority passed by an over-reaching Congress, thereby forfeiting the Executive Branch's role as a co-equal branch of government.

I like the explanation put forward by the administration in support of the signing statements.

Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, said the statements were "not an abuse of power."

Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has the responsibility to make sure the Constitution is upheld. He uses signing statements, she argued, to "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional. And he reserves the right, she said, only to raise questions about a law "that could in some unknown future application" be declared unconstitutional.

"It is often not at all the situation that the president doesn't intend to enact the bill," Ms. Boardman said.

Now persoanlly, I would prefer that the president have made use of the veto pen in many of these cases -- but in doing so, he would have been forced to veto bills that were clearly in the national interest with minor provisions that extend too far. By giving creating an Executive history to go witht he Legislative history, it may be that the Judiciary will interpret such provisions in a manner that saves them from being found constitutionally infirm.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

I am quite gratified to see that the Senate stepped back from sending this silly amendment to the states.

A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.

The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

It represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.

Now that has to be among the dumbest arguments ever made -- because that "national monumnent in cloth" is a piece of private property. As I said in my piece over at Homeland Stupidity, there is a fundamental problem with prohibitting an individual from destroying/desecrating an item that they own.

Yes, I know that men and women have fought and died under that flag — but that flag was not what they were defending. They were defending this soil, this people, and the freedoms enshrined in our founding documents. At best, the flag serves only as a representation of those things. And so while flag-burning may be offensive and enraging — I’d personally like to beat the crap out of anyone who does it within my reach — banning it protects nothing of significance but does undermine very basic freedoms.

After all, if they can prevent you from disrespecting the flag you bought for $9.95 at Wal-Mart, what other items of personal property do they wish to make you hold sacred?

Now I tend to suport most of the rest of the "American Values Agnda" being promoted by the GOP this summer, but find this particular item to be ill-conceived and based upon an emotional response to an act which has less significance than some would give it. And besides, as John over at Whatever pointed out last year, enforcing such a ban would be pretty near impossible.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 PM | Comments (168) | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

America fell under the sway of the Islamists?

Jeff Jacoby offers a review of Prayers for the Assassin, one of the best books I’ve read this year.

Life in an Islamist United States would be largely unfree and intolerant, if the experience of countries where radical Muslims have achieved power -- Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan -- is any guide. But what would that mean in American terms? That's the question a remarkable new novel sets out to answer.

Prayers for the Assassin, Robert Ferrigno's latest thriller, is set 35 years in the future, when most of the United States has been transformed into the Islamic Republic of America. Under the new regime, America is a country in which university professors can lose their jobs for being "insufficiently Islamic," cellphone cameras are illegal, and men can only dream of "loud music, cold beer, and coed beaches." There is still a Super Bowl, but the cheerleaders are all men. Mt. Rushmore still exists, but the presidential faces on it have been blown up.

Some of you may remember my post from earlier this year, in which I was role-playing a candidate for president of the Islamic States of America. It was related to this book – and through your assistance, I won an autographed copy as one of those who successfully beat my computer-run opponents.

I join with Jacoby in urging you to read this book.

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

America fell under the sway of the Islamists?

Jeff Jacoby offers a review of Prayers for the Assassin, one of the best books IÂ’ve read this year.

Life in an Islamist United States would be largely unfree and intolerant, if the experience of countries where radical Muslims have achieved power -- Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan -- is any guide. But what would that mean in American terms? That's the question a remarkable new novel sets out to answer.

Prayers for the Assassin, Robert Ferrigno's latest thriller, is set 35 years in the future, when most of the United States has been transformed into the Islamic Republic of America. Under the new regime, America is a country in which university professors can lose their jobs for being "insufficiently Islamic," cellphone cameras are illegal, and men can only dream of "loud music, cold beer, and coed beaches." There is still a Super Bowl, but the cheerleaders are all men. Mt. Rushmore still exists, but the presidential faces on it have been blown up.

Some of you may remember my post from earlier this year, in which I was role-playing a candidate for president of the Islamic States of America. It was related to this book – and through your assistance, I won an autographed copy as one of those who successfully beat my computer-run opponents.

I join with Jacoby in urging you to read this book.

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

YesterdayÂ’s proceedings in the court of Judge Sam Slade raise some interesting questions in the ongoing saga of the CD22 race. There are also some intriguing possibilities.

First, there is the question of DeLayÂ’s residence.

DeLay testified in federal court that he has registered to vote in Virginia and that he cast a ballot in that state's recent primary. He said he has a Virginia driver's license, has state tax withheld in Virginia and lives in a condominium in Alexandria, Va.

DeLay acknowledged that he spent the weekend at his home in Sugar Land, near Houston, but testified that his wife is devoted to helping abused and neglected children and that she is continuing that work in the Houston area.

By any legitimate standard, it is clear that DeLay has made himself a resident of the state of Texas. He lives there, votes there, pays taxes there, and has declared his official residence to be there on several official documents, including a driverÂ’s license. He has now stated that he is a resident of Virginia under oath in a court of law. That should establish his ineligibility to the satisfaction of the court.

However, there is this statement from the judge yesterday.

A federal judge hearing a ballot dispute Monday involving former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay said he thinks that DeLay withdrew from the November election, indicating potential trouble for Republicans who want to name a replacement candidate.
"He is not going to participate in the election and he withdrew," said U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who did not issue an official ruling after a daylong trial regarding DeLay's status as the GOP nominee for the 22nd Congressional District.

If this is a withdrawal, then theoretically there can be no replacement candidate on the ballot. But left unanswered is the possibility that DeLay has withdrawn AND rendered himself ineligible. If that is the case, what provision of state law applies?

The second issue is what happens if this ruling goes against the GOP. I see three possibilities. The first, of course, would be that Tom DeLay could reestablish residency between now and Election Day, reentering the race as a candidate. This would be one logical outcome of the Democrat argument that DeLay cannot be determined to be ineligible before Election Day.
But the other option is more interesting, and contained in one of the GOP arguments in court yesterday.

Attorneys for the Republican Party of Texas say GOP voters would be hurt if his name appears on the ballot because DeLay wouldn't be the guy filling the seat if he won. A special election would have to be called if that scenario played out.

In such a scenario, the GOP would urge voters to select DeLay, with a view towards defeating Lampson and creating the need for a special election to fill the seat. But would enough voters be willing to go along with such a plan?

The third, and least likely, option would be to throw GOP support to Libertarian candidate Bob Smither, with the goal of making him the first Libertarian Congressman – and of making him the first Libertarian ex-Congressman after the 2008 election.

And we won't even get into the implications of the upcoming Supreme Court decision (most likely to be handed down on Thursday morning) regarding the challenge to the off-year redistricting plan here in Texas.

As you can see, this means that even after the Harris County precinct chairs from CD22 meet on Thursday, there is still a lot of interesting stuff that could happen.

Posted by: Greg at 09:08 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

I really didn't need this image of Senator Joe Biden in my head.

“I’d rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep,” he said.

But I would have to agree with you, Senator.

I would rather have you home -- *shudder* -- making love to your wife -- *shudder* -- than being President of the United States.

Though I don't care where your kids are or what they are doing at the time.

Posted by: Greg at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

President Bush offered a defense of a secret program to track terrorists after that secrecy was blown by journalists more concerned about headlines than national security.

"What we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said in an angry tone as he leaned forward in his chair and wagged his finger. "And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America."

Bush denied overstepping his bounds by not seeking court or congressional approval for the program in the nearly five years since it was established following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "What we were doing was the right thing," he said. "Congress was aware of it, and we were within the law to do so."

The program operated under the provisions of both the Patriot act and financial surveilance legislation signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. Not even the Times has offered serious questions regarding its legality, but simply placed th "public's right to know" above the "public's right to safety".

That has not, however, stopped some Democrat extremists from engaging in irresponsible innuendo about the program.

Critics said Bush was trying to divert attention from his own actions. Bush, Cheney and other Republicans "have adopted a shoot-the-messenger strategy by attacking the newspaper that revealed the existence of the secret bank surveillance program rather than answering the disturbing questions that those reports raise about possible violations of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. privacy laws," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

Markey, who has served in Congress since 1976, voted in favor of both pieces of legislation that authorized this sort of surveillance.

Vice President Cheney offered a principled denunciation of the Times for its unprincipled actions.

"Some of the press, in particular the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs," Cheney said at a Republican fundraiser in Nebraska.

Referring to the NSA program, he added: "What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they've been rewarded for it, for example, in the case of the terrorist surveillance program, by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalism. I think that is a disgrace."

Each new national security blockbuster story has served to make America les safe, yet has resulted in professional accolades for the reporters involved. It ultimately boils down to a simple question -- does the right to freedom of the press carry with it a responsibility to exercise restraint in the interest of public safety? The Supreme Court once recognized the the publication of vital national security information could be limited by the government -- and in that case Rep Peter King's suggestion of investigation of the treasonous activities of the New York Times might be in order.

Interestingly enough, members of the media are not at all pleased that some might question their patriotism, motives, or right to publish sensitive secret data. I guess they don't feel that our right to free speech is nearly as important as their right to freedom of the press. I'm sure they were unhappy about Tony Snow's defense of the First Amendment which raised the need for the press to exercise restraint.

"It's not designed to have a chilling effect," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "If the New York Times wants a spirited debate about it, it's got it. But certainly nobody is going to deny First Amendment rights. But the New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know, in some cases, might overwrite somebody's right to live."

Indeed, how many lives have and will be lost due to the publication decisions of the New York Times?

Captain Ed notes that this program is exactly in line with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Here's what the 9/11 Commission recommended (page 382):

I wonder -- do Sulzberger, Keller, and the rest of the Times staff play poker with all cards face up?

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 848 words, total size 6 kb.

While I could not attend tonight's Executive Committee meeting due to a last minute family emergency, I am reliably informed of the that the two open ballot positions have been filled.

Replacing the late Jack Cato on the ballot for County Treasurer will be Orlando Sanchez, who took handily won the balloting among the precinct chairs. This was despite heavy last-minute campaigning by Harris County GOP Treasurer Larry Hicks, who seemed to have the support of a lot of the party leadership types. Orlando, on the other hand, was definitely the favorite of the grassroots.

The race for the nomination for judge of the 80th District Court had a number of nominees, and required a run-off to fill. It ultimately came down to a contest between Judge Lynn Bradshaw-Hull and former HISD School Board President Jeff Shadwick. The nomination went to Bradshaw-Hull, despite heavy support from the party leadership, including Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill, Shadwick's employer at the law firm of Woodfill & Pressler. I'm disappointed that my choice, former 80th District Court Judge Scott Link (who left the bench four years ago due to a pair of serious illnesses in his immediate family) did not get the nomination, as he was clearly the candidate in the best position to take the reins of the court.

The striking thing in both cases is that there seems to be a disconnect between the precinct chairs and the county leadership. Given that we are rapidly approaching Thursday's meeting of Harris County precinct chairs from CD22, I would not be surprised to see the leadership's candidate for elector (and, implicitly, the leadership's preferred congressional candidate, another member of the law firm of Woodfill & Pressler) face a stiffer than expected challenge from the grassroots element of the party that has become tired of being told to "follow the leaders".

Posted by: Greg at 03:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Courtesy, of course, of our "allies" the Saudis.

Jeddah, Jun. 26, 2006 (CNA) - Two Ethiopian and two Eritrean Christians have been arrested and incarcerated in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for conducting prayers in their home.

The Compass Direct news agency reported that the religious police, called Muttawa, armed with wooden clubs, broke into a private residence in Jeddah two weeks ago and arrested the four Christians - the four remain in prison.

More than 100 Eritrean, Ethiopian and Filipino Christians were gathered in the house when the Muttawa arrested the four group leaders: Mekbeb Telahun, Fekre Gebremedhin, Dawit Uqbay and Masai Wendewesen. The few Christians in Saudi Arabia are mostly migrant workers.

The government of Saudi Arabia forbids the practice of any religion other than the fundamentalist Wahhabite version of Islam. It prohibits building places of worship, churches, or chapels. Any public expressions of faith, such as carrying a Bible, a crucifix, or rosary beads, and praying in public are forbidden.

Given the history of Islamic terror in this country and elsewhere, I think we have more to fear from granting Muslims rights in our country than the Saudis do granting Christians such freedom. Yet somehow our Muslims never get around to demanding that their brothers in faith give Christians the same sort of respect that they get here in the Christian West.

Their silence is deafening.

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are The Iraqi Insurgency Has No Central Command by The Glittering Eye, and The Jihadi Network's Fatal Flaw by The American Thinker. 

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

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Homeland Stupidity.

My first post is up, talking about the proposed flag burning amendment.

It may be akin to heresy, but I just donÂ’t think we need an amendment against flag-burning. And my reason has nothing to do with the rarity of the practice or the sanctity of the First Amendment. Rather, my opposition has to do with the question of property rights.

Unfortunately, some in Congress donÂ’t see it that way.

Drop by the site and read the rest!

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 PM | Comments (133) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ve seen a lot of dumb editorials in a lot of newspapers over the years – but this one in today’s Houston Chronicle has to be among the worst.

JOLTING the leadership of their own party, Texas Republicans in the U.S. House helped block a vote on renewing a key section of the Voting Rights Act. Though the White House, leaders of both parties and a Republican-led committee all supported the bill, the Texans claimed it wrongly singled out this state and was, in any case, unneeded.

The Texans were half right.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act, much of which is permanent, choked off the Jim Crow laws that kept minorities from voting.

So to clarify, the refusal to renew this “key section” of the Voting Rights Act does not eliminate the law itself, simply one section that its authors intended to end in 1970 – and which did not, in its original form, even include Texas as a state requiring preclearance. Only with the addition of non-English ballots in 1975 did the measure include Texas among the states with a preclearance requirement. Indeed, calling this a "key provision" is nonsense, given the sunset provision.

Section 5, which is up for renewal, made states with histories of voter discrimination get federal "preclearance" for any changes in their voting law. Texas is one of those states.

There was good reason to subject Texas to federal review. Civil rights lawyers would wrestle down one assault on rights — a poll tax, or a literacy rule, or a morals test — only to see Dixiecrats dream up a new one.

In other words, we are subject to this requirement because the Democrats were out to keep minorities from voting. Given that Texans have grown up politically and expelled the Democrats from most positions of governmental authority, it seems like we have made good progress to eliminating the source of the discrimination. Texas has, dare I say it, decisively moved away from its history of racial intolerance by rejecting the party of slavery segregation, and vote suppression and embraced the party of emancipation, enfranchisement, and equality.

Section 5 switched the burden of defending voter rights from civil rights workers to the federal government. Today, the rule is especially useful at the local level, where council members and others might not be sensitive to a law or procedure that would have an adverse impact on racial minorities.

Would you care to offer some examples?

When the Voting Rights Act was passed, it was easy to spot attempts to disenfranchise minority voters. Most took place in the South. In recent years, though, attacks on voter rights and access to polling places have erupted all over the map. In the last presidential election, some of the most egregious violations occurred in Florida and Ohio — states largely exempt from Section 5.

Actually, nobody had documented even a single attempt to disenfranchise minority voters in Florida, for all the heated rhetoric to the contrary. And in Ohio, black voters voted at a higher rate than white voters during the 2004 presidential election.

In an ideal world, the proposal of some Texas Republicans would indeed be law. The preclearance rule would apply to everyone. In reality, as the Texas delegation well knows, any such amendment to the Voting Rights Act would be a poison pill and prevent renewal.

States now exempt from Section 5 would furiously resist any attempt to rope them in, and administering universal application would be nearly impossible.

In other words, equal protection of the law for every citizen of every state is an unrealistic goal, and therefore it is wrong for Republicans to demand it. It is even wrong to suggest that data from the 2004 election be used to determine which states need special scrutiny – we need to continue using data almost as old as I am from the 1964 presidential election, because other states will object to changes that might subject their practices to scrutiny. Rather than attacking courageous Texas Republicans for standing on solid principle, you should be chiding those who refuse to embrace the proposed change out or political self-interest. But that would mean venturing away from the "Democrat good, Republican bad" meme that often colors the Chronicle's editorial (and nesw) pages.

The Texas lawmakers' second argument, unlike the first, is indefensible:

"I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore," asserts the optimistic U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock. Really? The controversial redistricting of Texas congressional districts (deemed objectionable by the Justice Department's career lawyers) and recent attempts by the Legislature to require voter IDs suggest otherwise.

Yes, the careerists found the plan objectionable – but the courts did not. Furthermore, the major criticism of the plan has always been that its goal was partisan advantage, not racial discrimination. In fact, it created more majority-minority districts that existed under the previous plan imposed by a federal court -- so it is the Democrats that are seeking the sort of retrogression that the Voting Rights Act is meant to prevent.

If Carter and his like-minded colleagues think Texas has outgrown the need for voter protection, there's a good way to get out of Section 5 coverage. Embedded in the Voting Rights Act is a measure that lets states prove they no longer deserve preclearance. Texas has never tried to make that case.

Unfortunately, the provision asks that states prove a negative. That is, of course, impossible – rather like asking you to prove that you do not still beat your wife or abuse your children. The use of newer data (say from 2000 and 2004) rather than the 42-year–old data from the 1964 Johnson/Goldwater presidential contest would indicate where real problems with racial disparities exist today, rather than the current system which continually seeks to exorcise the ghosts of elections past. The newer data would decisively prove whether or not a problem exists.

House Republicans say they want to maximize justice in Texas. If they dropped their attack on the Voting Rights Act and worked to show Texas no longer discriminates, they would achieve their goal. Minority voters would continue to be protected by federal oversight — until the state provides the welcome proof that federal oversight is unneeded.

Dead wrong – let’s instead allow the wisdom of the law's authors to prevail and permit Section 5 to expire as they intended. Either that, or re-write it so that it covers every state, or at least the states with demonstrable current disparities. To do otherwise is foolish symbolism which fails to adequately protect the rights of any American.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1107 words, total size 7 kb.

That is where the US population should be by fall.

The U.S. population is on target to hit 300 million this fall and it's a good bet the milestone baby — or immigrant — will be Hispanic.

No one will know for sure because the date and time will be just an estimate.

But Latinos — immigrants and those born in this country — are driving the population growth. They accounted for almost half the increase last year, more than any other ethnic or racial group. White non-Hispanics, who make up about two-thirds of the population, accounted for less than one-fifth of the increase.

Of course that has been the biggest percentage of the population increase -- in the last 30 years we have allowed 20-25 million illegal aliens to jump the border. We gave amnesty in 1986, and are promising to do so again. And as I can attest from observing my students and their behavior, they are a population with a high fertility rate and they start having chilren young -- looking at my female former students who are taking summer school this year, there are no less than eight who are either currently pregnant or already mothers out of around 150 girls I've taught over the last two years. Every one of them is Hispanic. And in the last couple of years I have noticed that I am teaching the fourth, fifth, or sixth child of many Hispanic families.

Please note that I am not making comments critical of the Hispanic community (well -- maybe the teen pregnancy comment is a bit critical), but merely noting the trends I am seeing in my school, which hasseen a 20% increase in enrollment in the last six years.

So when 300,000,000 comes this fall, of course I expect him or her to be Hispanic. That is where the trends have been headed for years.

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

One of the resons that our nation's immigration laws get violated are situations like these, in which bureaucratic regulations make it nearly imposible to adjust the status of those on temporary visas who wish to stay in the US -- even if they have married US citizens and have become productive members of their communities.

And in this article, we find that students in two schools could lose excellent teachers. The problem is that they came to this country on cultural exchange visas that require they return to their home country for two years.

Most foreigners who marry U.S. citizens while on a visitor visa can adjust their status without leaving the country. But if they overstay a J-1 visa -- the three-year kind Chamorro has -- they must leave the United States to apply for a family member visa even if they marry a citizen, said Michael Defensor, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

On rare occasions, the U.S. grants waivers -- for example, if the return home would constitute extreme hardship to the family. Chamorro has argued that her husband, a freelance photographer, would suffer hardship in Colombia because of the country's high crime rate and poor pay for photographers. But Defensor said an extreme hardship would have to be something such as a medical condition that cannot be treated in the home country or a situation where a person's life would be in danger.

Chamorro came to the United States through the North Carolina-based Visiting International Faculty Program, which brings teachers from around the world to work in U.S. schools for up to three years. Teachers with the program sign a pledge to return to their country for at least two years afterward.

Most return to their countries within three years, said Ned Glascock, a spokesman for the program. "The idea is that teachers and others who qualify come for three years to teach about their cultures and then return home and share everything they've learned," he said. "The cultural exchange goes full circle, and they become cultural ambassadors for our country."

Since the program began in 1987, it has brought 7,000 teachers to the United States, he said, adding that "99.9 percent" of them have returned to their countries. "We're very clear with our teachers that it's not a program that's intended as a means of immigration to the United States," he said.

And i agree with the program and its rationale -- but the reality is that there are some people in that program who do marry US citizens. It is not a large number, and the requirement that these couples split or relocate abroad is draconian, given the myriad methods for adjusting the status of other immigrants -- including amnesty programs for illegal aliens.

Besides, at a time when teachers in math and science are at critical shortage levels, what are we doing sending back qualified ones who want to stay?

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

Bribes, acts of violence, and threats to cut off access to government programs -- all of those have reappeared in this year's Mexican election.

Half of the 4,400 voters interviewed by Alianza Civica said social programs in their areas were being used to benefit supporters of political parties. The study's findings indicate that vote-buying and coercion are likely to increase this week, in the final days before the election.

There has been almost no effort to prosecute public officials for vote-buying or coercion. The Center for Higher Study of Social Anthropology, which last week re-released a report it first presented in April, recommended increasing voter education and referring cases of vote-buying to law enforcement authorities.

"In a democracy," Aguayo said, "you have to fight for democracy every day."

Actually, the same problem exists in this country. There is a long history of one party using acts of violence and intimidation, vote-buying, and access to government programs to coerce voters. In Mexico it is the socialist/communits inspired PRI -- in the US it is the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

I haven't blogged today. I'm not going to blog beyond this post. I'm feeling like this, to be honest.

Chandler: I just don't want to be one of those guys that's in his office until twelve o'clock at night worrying about the WENUS.

Rachel: The... the WENUS?

Chandler: Weekly Estimated Net Usage Systems. It's a processing term.

Rachel: Oh, that WENUS.

I've spent too much time worrying about how my blog looks, how much traffic I'm getting, and whether I am interesting/topical enough.

So I'm taking the day off for me, my Darling Democrat, and the Apolitical Pooch.

I'll post tomorrow.

In the mean time, one of the two mentioned above wants her belly rubbed. I'll leave it to your imagination which it is.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Malkin posted some WWII posters supporting the war effort. I picked one from a collection of posters I've used with my classes, and so offer my Photoshopped contribution to the condemnation of those who care more about the next big scoop than national security.

'Nuff said.

OTHER EFFORTS AT: NCASDco Sanctuary, Bookworm Room, Darleen's Place, Plains Feeder, Solomonia, A Tic In The Mind's Eye, MVRWC, Mind In The Qatar, Blogs of War, California Conservative, Stuck On Stupid, Super Fun Power Hour, Right Voices, Jo's Cafe, Slapstick Politics, Stop The ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 04:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 2 kb.

That is, after all, what it comes down to in this editorial -- the Administration used legislation passed by a Democrat Congress and Signed By Democrat Jimmy Carter, as well as the Patriot Act, to monitor financial transactions by terrorists.

Investigators will probably need to monitor the flow of money to and from suspected terrorists and listen in on their phone conversations for decades to come. No one wants that to stop, but if America is going to continue to be America, these efforts need to be done under a clear and coherent set of rules, with the oversight of Congress and the courts.

The problem with this statement is that there is a coherent set of rules in place. As the LA Times reluctantly conceded yesterday, the subpoenas are authorized under long-standing federal law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. So it seems that authority that everyone felt was acceptable in the hands of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton is somehow dangerous and a threat to American society when used by George W. Bush -- because he is actually using that power to track down enemies of America, not mere criminals.

It is still September 10 in the world of the NY Times. Perhaps they can schedule a breakfast meeting tomorrow at Windows on the World, to gain some perspective on the seriousness of the terrorist threat.

Also -- an excellent discussion of SWIFT can be found at SCSU Scholars. Gay Patriot has a superb exposition of the willingness of the NY Times to undercut American security in order to attack George W. Bush. NewsBusters notes this Mort Kondracke gem.

it's as though the New York Times thinks that somehow if the government, if the Bush administration is doing it, it's worse than something al-Qaeda might do to the United States, that we've got more to fear from our own government than we do from terrorist attacks.

Go back and read my excerpt from today's NY Times editorial and tell me that Kondracke didn't peg it exactly.

I also recommend the following superb posts to my readers:

Captain's Quarters -- ACLU, Right On Schedule, in which Ed points out"

anyone operating within the US banking system -- at least at those facilities insured by the FDIC and FSLIC -- the government has access to data on individual banking customers whenever it wants to access it. Any institution insured by the federal government has to give federal regulators access to their records during any extensive examination. Not only that, but since most accounts pay interest, the IRS also gets all of the information on these accounts, including taxpayer numbers and other private information.

However, in this case, the Swift project targeted only those people already indentified as terrorists or terrorist financiers, and the focus was on international transactions. The government brought in outside auditors to ensure that the information requested remained within the boundaries of their power. Most of all, George Bush told us on a number of occasions that the United States would track these transactions around the world to find terrorists and their enablers. The project itself has never been a secret; only the methods used remained clandestine.

Instapundit, who opines as follows:

When big companies dump toxic waste into rivers to enrich themselves, they're criticized by the press. But this is the same kind of thing -- self-serving profiteering at the public's expense.

Stop the ACLU -- ACLU Says Government Spying on Bank Records is Further Abuse of Power. which notes the ACLU's rejection of its own historic respect for national security.

There is probably no other time that a proper balance between civil liberties and national security becomes more important than in wartime. During times of war, sometimes unusual responses are implemented, often requiring suspension of certain liberties. Of course war opens the opportunity for abuse by governments, and the ACLU are right to watch for them. However, the ACLU in its absolutist perception of freedom, only worries about one side of the equation, civil liberties. It pays no attention to the national security side of things, not only ignoring it, but working against it.

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.” SOURCE

UPDATE: Even the Washington Post> agrees this is legal and proper.

For one thing, it appears to be legal. The government is receiving large volumes of data detailing financial transfers from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a Belgium-based consortium that acts as a kind of messenger service for banks around the world, electronically notifying banks of transactions other banks are attempting to complete. The government, if it develops suspicions about a person, can search the system for any transactions that person may have engaged in. While customer banking data are generally private under federal law, the statute does not appear to cover the society, which isn't a bank and doesn't have individual customers. What's more, a different law gives the president broad powers in a national emergency situation to investigate, or even prohibit, certain financial transactions.

It is also the sort of information the government should be examining in any effort to frustrate terrorist financing and develop leads about who is funding whom. While such data can certainly be misused, records of overseas financial transfers are less sensitive from a privacy point of view than, say, the contents of phone calls or e-mails. And some safeguards appear to be in place to make sure the information is not misused. The department receives the material under a subpoena, Treasury officials emphasized yesterday. SWIFT's representatives audit all searches, as does an outside auditing firm. Unlike a data-mining operation, where analysts try to identify high-risk individuals using patterns and trends embedded in huge data sets, analysts here are searching for transactions involving individuals about whom they already have suspicions.

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Jo's Cafe, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Third World County, Dumb Ox, Is It Just Me?, Blue Star Chronicles, Chaotic Synaptic Activity, Selective Amnesia, Stuck On Stupid, Dan Mancini, Stop The ACLU, Right Wing Nation, Wizbang, Basil's Blog, Uncooperative blogger, GM's Corner, The Amboy Times, Woman Honor Thyself, Leaning Straight Up, Assorted Babble

Posted by: Greg at 02:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1218 words, total size 11 kb.

After the Democrats followed a policy of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" during her husband's scandal-filled administration, I don't see where Lady Macbeth has any room criticizing her political opponents for supporting the policies of the President.

One day after suffering a pair of defeats on the Senate floor, Democratic leaders argued yesterday that their internal divisions over Iraq will help push the country toward a change in policy and accused Republicans of blindly following President Bush on a path that has been disastrous for the nation.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said Democrats emerged from this week's Senate debate more united than critics contend around a policy aimed at forcing the new Iraqi government to take responsibility for suppressing the insurgency. Party unity is important, she said, but not as valuable as an open debate about how best to change course.

"We're not blindly united like the other side is, where they are like the three monkeys -- 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil,' " she told reporters after a speech to the Democratic group NDN. "They're not going to say anything negative about the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense or anybody else. I think that's irresponsible. It's negligent."

Perjury. Rape. Sexual harassment Abuse of FBI files. Firing civil service employees on trumped up charges to give contracts to family members. Abuse of the Justice Department to file false criminal charges. Cattle futures. Illegal fundraising. Illegal technology transfers. The list could continue for pages, but somehow the Democrats managed to ignore every single one of these crimes in their lockstep celebration of the most corrupt President in American history.

And now his wife dares criticize her political opponents for supporting George W. Bush in his efforts to wipe out jihadi terrorism. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven!

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

In light of the expiration of the TRO preventing the selection of a replacement for Tom DeLay for the November ballot, the process is moving forward. Harris County precinct chairs in CD22 received this tonight.

DATE: Friday, June 23, 2006

TO: Precinct Chairmen in Harris County

Whose Precincts Lie Within TX Congressional District 22

FROM: Jared Woodfill, County Chairman

RE: URGENT

NOTICE OF MEETING

TO ELECT DISTRICT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

RELATED TO NOMINEE FOR TEXAS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 22

As you know, Congressman Tom DeLay is no longer eligible to be the Republican nominee for Texas Congressional District 22 in the November 2006 General Election. Thus, this will serve as notice of a meeting to be held as follows:

Date: Thursday, June 29, 2006

Time: 7:00 p.m. (Registration will begin at 6:00 p.m.)

Location: Judge Louie Ditta's Courtroom @ 16603 Buccaneer, Houston TX 77062

(2nd Floor, Rm. 20

For the purpose of electing one (1) member to the district executive committee that, in turn, will elect a new Republican nominee for Texas Congressional District 22 for the November 2006 General Election ballot.

As you may also know, the district executive committee is comprised of one (1) member from each of the four (4) counties that are within Texas Congressional District 22, specifically Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, and Harris counties. The precinct chairmen within each of those counties whose precinct is also within Texas Congressional District 22 will meet to elect one of their own to represent them on the district executive committee. For our county, this meeting will be held as set forth in this notice. Once elected, the district executive committee will then meet to elect our new Republican nominee for this congressional district.

The Harris County Republican Party states that an emergency exists by reason of the delays on the process caused by recent litigation, thus requiring the timing of this meeting. Given the importance of this matter, I look forward to your attendance at the meeting.

(End of Call)

This means that we will select someone next week, barring a new restraining order. That should also mean the selection of a new candidate within two weeks of the meetings in the four counties involved.

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

I realize that it will always be 9/10/2001 for members of the mainstream press -- especially the upper-crust like the NY Times. After all, they seem to have forgotten the demands that the US government do something-- anything -- to track down terrorists in the wake of the worst terror attacks to have ever taken place on American soil.

Now they want to criticize efforts to hunt down and root out the terrorists -- and to publish more classified material on the front page of their papers.

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

Hidden, of course, because publicizing the program would make it useless to investigators and aid terrorists in covering their tracks.

Oh, and by the way -- the program is conducted under the authority of legislation signed by Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago.

Under the program, Treasury issues a new subpoena once a month, and SWIFT turns over huge amounts of electronic financial data, according to Stuart Levey, the department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. The administrative subpoenas are issued under authority granted in the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

So this is not some rogue program dreamed up by Karl Rove in a Machiavellian attempt to undermine the privacy of Americans -- it exists because a Democrat house and Democrat Senate passed legislation that was signed by a Democrat president for the good of American national security. But I guess the press thinks it knows better what the security needs of the United States are -- or is it the security needs of the terrorists that they are concerned about?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Media Blog, Protein Wisdom, Small Town Veteran, Dental Blog, Webblogin, Hard Starboard, All Things Beautiful, Rolling Bones, Homemade Sin, PoliPundit, Politics of CP

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 4 kb.

Those of us who support the war in Iraq are heartbroken with every casualty report, but recognize that there is a military imperative for remaining in the region. Those who argue that the war was a mistake have no excuse for asking troops to remain thee -- and are, in fact, making proposals that by their own criteria ask soldiers to die for nothing, as pointed out by Powerline.

My friend Bob Cunningham makes an excellent point about the utter incoherence of the Kerry/Kennedy/Boxer cut-and-run proposal:

The line that made John Kerry famous, said in connection with the Vietnam War, was: "How can you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?"

It is, of course, the reason he was not able to say that his Iraq War Resolution vote was a mistake during the 2004 campaign --- because then he'd be hoist on his own petard and have to have called for withdrawal....

But he's not off the hook now...his proposal(s) call for withdrawal...but not for 6 months or a year!...How many U.S. deaths will there be between now and his deadlines(s)?...several hundred based on recent history....this is the very basis for his proposal(s) in the first place!!...so what is really saying? ....... ISN'T HE ASKING THEM ALL TO DIE FOR ---- WHAT HE SAYS!! ---- IS A MISTAKE??!!!

Or maybe he just wants them all to stay in barracks pending "redeployment"?....in that case...why bother with the 6 month - 12 month deadline?

So it's either incoherent --- just further exposure of the utter fecklessness of the left --- or else it is fundamentally dishonest and in a way that is particularly apposite for John Kerry...

Or both. Kerry and his confederates changed the withdrawal deadline from the end of 2006 to July 2007. Presumably this means that more American servicemen would be killed in combat. What was the rationale for the change? What will be accomplished by July 2007 that couldn't be accomplished by December 2006? But if something is being accomplished, why are we withdrawing? If nothing is being accomplished, why not get out now?

It is impossible to take the Democrats seriously.

What more can be said -- either the Democrats believe that Iraq is a mistake that requires an immediate cut-&-run to prevent the useless spilling or American blood, or they are playing politics with the deployment of the American military and the security of this nation. After all, how can they ask American soldiers to continue to die for another 18 months for a what they believe to be a mistake?

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 PM | Comments (181) | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have taken a group of homegrown jihadis into custody.

Seven people are in custody after a sweep by law enforcement authorities in connection with an alleged plot against targets that may have included the Sears Tower, officials told CNN.

Officials said no weapons or bomb-making materials had been found in the searches in the Miami area by FBI and state and local law enforcement officials. The city is under no imminent threat, according to the FBI.

Law enforcement sources told CNN that the arrests disrupted what may have been the early stages of a domestic terrorist plot to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois, the FBI building in Miami, and possibly other targets.

Now for those (invariably on the Left) who object that the lack of bomb-making material indicates there was no threat, I'd like to ask -- would you feel the same way if this were a group of anti-abortion zealots arrested for plotting clinic bombings (a much more rare phenomenon)? Especially if there wre known targets.

What sort of things were observed that led to these arrests?

Neighbors who lived nearby said young men, who appeared to be in their teens and 20s, slept in the warehouse, running what looked like a militaristic group. They appeared brainwashed, some said.

"They would come out late at night and exercise," said Tashawn Rose, 29. "It seemed like a military boot camp that they were working on there. They would come out and stand guard."

The law enforcement official told The Associated Press the seven were mainly Americans with no apparent ties to al-Qaida or other foreign terrorist organizations. He spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the news conferences.

"There is no imminent threat to Miami or any other area because of these operations," said Richard Kolko, spokesman for FBI headquarters in Washington. He declined further comment.

Residents living near the warehouse said the men taken into custody described themselves as Muslims and had tried to recruit young people to join their group. Rose said they tried to recruit her younger brother and nephew for a karate class.

Sounds like a real group of loons -- but also very similar o the group arrested in Canada. I wonder if we won't be let in on some connection to the Canadian group later today.

Captain Ed points to this local report from Miami.

A man who lives across the street from the warehouse where the search warrant was served described the suspects as an unusual group of men, almost cultist, who wore military-style clothes and kept to themselves.

''They reminded me a lot of the followers of Yahweh Ben Yahweh,'' he said, referring to a cult that flourished in Miami's Liberty City in the 1980s and spawned a reign of terror in the neighborhood.

''They have like a purpose or something,'' said the man, who would not give his name for fear of retribution.

The 12 to 15 men in their 20's and 30s appeared to be from Haiti and from the Bahamas.

''I bet they've gone across the water'' he said, believing some had escaped the federal agents.

I wonder if these folks have already been run to ground.

Michell Malkin points out that this is not the first such group arrestd here in the US. Hugh Hewitt provides a good round-up from around the blogosphere.

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

And most interesting of all is the fact that it was the normally squishy David Souter who wrote the toughly worded decision of the court.

The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a blow to some longtime illegal residents, upholding the deportation of a Mexican man who lived in the United States for 20 years.

By an 8-1 vote, justices said that Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, who was deported several times from the 1970s to 1981, is subject to a 1996 law Congress passed to streamline the legal process for expelling aliens who have been deported at least once before and returned.

After his last deportation in 1981, Fernandez-Vargas returned to the United States, fathered a child, started a trucking company in Utah and eventually married his longtime companion, a U.S. citizen.

But by the time he applied for legal status _ after his marriage in 2001 _ Congress had passed the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which revoked the right to appeal to an immigration judge an order of removal.

Fernandez-Vargas was sent back to Mexico in 2004, and wanted to return to his family in the United States. He argued that the 1996 law should not be applied to him because he last entered America more than a decade before Congress passed the statute.

"Fernandez-Vargas continued to violate the law by remaining in this country day after day and ... the United States was entitled to bring that continuing violation to an end," Justice David Souter wrote in the decision.

One more sign that we can round up illegals and send them back – if our elected officials have the will to do so.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

And so they are seeking to increase the taxes of everyone making over $45,000 a year – what most of us would still define as middle class.

Memo to Minnesota: Some of our wealthiest residents think state government needs more money and say they're willing to pay the bill.

More than 200 wealthy Minnesotans signed a full-page ad that appears in the Star Tribune today asking the state to raise $2 billion for various initiatives by increasing the state's tax burden for high-salary earners.

"We need to invest more in our future," said Joel Kramer, former publisher of the Star Tribune and founder of think tank Growth and Justice that organized the "Invest for Real Prosperity" fiscal strategy.

The new money should be used to improve educational opportunities, provide affordable health care and fund transportation needs, Kramer said. His group has argued for several years that the state's wealthiest residents should pay higher taxes to fund needed government programs.

Business leaders Jim Pohlad of Marquette Financial Company, Richard McFarland, retired CEO of Dain Rauscher, and Lee Lynch, former CEO of Carmichael Lynch, were also key contributors to the current proposal that would make those earning more than $275,000 pay the state an additional 2 cents in taxes for every dollar earned. That would be an additional $6,000 in taxes for someone earning $300,000.

State taxes for anyone making less than $45,000 would not increase and the rates would vary for everyone in between. Kramer said he hopes the ad will create public interest and discussion, perhaps leading to legislative action. He also acknowledged that even if the tax increase was approved, it would take "some faith in government" to trust that the money would be appropriated according to the group's requests.

I’ll tell you what needs to happen – Minnesota needs to follow a number of other states in enacting a “Tax Me More” fund for those who feel like they need to be taxed more. But if Minnesota does so, it will likely experience the same thing as those other states – those who claim to be under-taxed won’t put their money where their mouth is by ponying up the “excess personal wealth” that they think rightly belongs to the government and not themselves. Apparently they believe that it is everyone else – but not themselves – who is undertaxed.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Let’s face it – Helen Thomas is an ugly woman with an ugly personality.

A congressman in Iowa has apologized for disparaging comments he made about a veteran White House correspondent, according to a Local 6 News report.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa was talking about the death of terrorist leader Musab al-Zarqawi when he mentioned reporter Helen Thomas.

"There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he's at," King said about al-Zarqawi. "And if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas."
A representative for King said he has apologized to Thomas.

Let’s all be honest here – in our heart of hearts, we all hope that al-Zarqawi found something like what King suggested, or worse.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Citizens in Houston have announced a petition drive to put a measure on the ballot ending the de facto sanctuary policy for illegal immigrants.

The heated national debate on immigration may give a boost to the Houston group that wants local police to help crack down on illegal immigrants, but getting the proposition on the ballot still won't be easy.

"It is a lot of effort and takes a lot of volunteers to mount a campaign like this," said Bruce Hotze, who has helped organize several successful petition drives but so far is not involved in this one. "It can be done."

On Tuesday, a new group called Protect Our Citizens announced a petition drive to require a citywide November vote on the contentious issue of whether to allow city police to question people about their immigration status.

Even with the recent spotlight on immigration issues, getting the necessary 20,000 signatures from registered Houston voters by Sept. 1 will take organization, volunteers and money, analysts said.

"It's doable," said University of Houston political scientist and pollster Richard Murray. "They'd have to hit the ground running."

Protect Our Citizens director Mary Williams said the group is doing that. It was contacted Wednesday by several community leaders and residents who wanted to help with the project, she said.

"It's a very basic grass-roots type of reaction," Williams said.

Petition supporters want to change a Houston police order, which they call a "sanctuary policy," that prohibits officers from seeking information about the immigration status of people they encounter, and from detaining anyone solely for being in the country illegally.

It is time to pull up the welcome mat for illegals in Houston.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

But will the mere discovery of WMDs be sufficient to get opponents of the war to admit that there were WMDs in Iraq?

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

I think it is clear that most of us understand -- it is instead a question of certain partisans choosing to ignore these weapons for political purposes. After all, there have been reports in the press repeatedly since 2003 that have indicated the discovery of these small caches of WMDs -- which are then routinely ignored by the opponents of the war, who continue with their zombie-like monotone mantra of "Bush lied, people died."

And while it may be that these weapons were not, at the time of discovery, operational, it is clear that Saddam repeatedly lied about having destroyed all of his WMDs following the Gulf War, as required by the UN.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

Move over Hardee's ThickBurger -- this is the new heart attack on a bun.

A hundred bucks might buy you more than six dozen burgers from McDonald's, but the swanky Old Homestead Steakhouse will sell you one brawny beef sandwich for the same price.

Boca Raton Mayor Steven Abrams could barely speak between bites as he devoured the 20-ounce, $100 hamburger billed as the "beluga caviar of sandwiches."

"Heaven on a bun," restaurant owner Marc Sherry said.

The burger debuted Tuesday at the restaurant in the Boca Raton Resort and Club, where a membership costs $40,000 and an additional $3,600 a year.

"We've never had a hamburger on our menu here so we really wanted to go to the extreme," Sherry said, calling it "the most decadent burger in the world."

At about 5 1/2 inches across and 2 1/2 inches thick, the mound of meat is comprised of beef from three continents — American prime beef, Japanese Kobe and Argentine cattle.

The bill for one burger, with garnishing that includes organic greens, exotic mushrooms and tomatoes, comes out to $124.50 with tax and an 18 percent tip included. The restaurant will donate $10 from each sale to the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

And yes, I realize you can get bigger burgers elsewhere -- I was referring to the price-tag as the source of the cardiac arrest.

Posted by: Greg at 10:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

It pains me to type those words. Having grown up in a military family, I would like to believe that each and every soldier is a hero in uniform, flawlessly following the rules and orders laid out for them.

But having grown up surrounded by sailors and Marines, I know that isn't the case. I still remember the night that my father got a telephone call telling him that two sailors from his command were dead and a third was in critical condition at a local hospital -- because one of the dead sailors had shot his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend in a jealous rage. The ultimate result of an act of impassioned rage was three dead sailors. All the training in the world cannot stop someone from going off half-cocked -- we are still dealing with human beings who will sometimes choose to do evil.

Which brings us to these charges.

Seven Marines and one Navy corpsman have been charged with murder and kidnapping in connection with the April death of an Iraqi man in a small village west of Baghdad, Marine Corps officials announced yesterday.

The corps said that the eight sought out Hashim Ibrahim Awad in his Hamdaniyah home, dragged him into the street, bound his hands and feet, and shot him during a late-night operation, according to Marine criminal-charge sheets released yesterday. The troops are members of a fire team with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. It is unclear what motivated the attack.

After an investigation, charges have been brought and a trial will be held. These servicement will be given the opportunity to show their evidence, while the government will be given the opportunity to prove their guilt. When criminal behavior is believed to have taken place, we bring charges and provide the accused with due process. THAT IS HOW AMERICANS DO THINGS.

What are they accused of having done?

Officials here disclosed little information about the case itself. But earlier this month, Marine officials and members of Congress who had been briefed on the case said the eight men appeared to have dragged a 52-year-old Iraqi man from his house in the town of Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad, on April 26, and shot him without provocation.

They said the marines had then placed a shovel and bomb components near the man's body to make it seem that he had been digging a hole for a roadside explosive, and also placed an AK-47 near his body.

I do not begin to claim knowledge of the truth of these charges. I do, however, have faith in the system under which they have been charged and under which they will be tried. It works -- I've seen it work.

There are those out there who are kicking up a fuss about these charges, claiming that they should not have been brought and that American servicement should not be punished for any action they commit in the theater of war. That goes against every American tradition -- and would make us no better than the jihadis we fight. We punish those of our troops who commit inhuman acts against the laws of war and civilized society -- it is our jihadi enemy who glorifies and rewards such barbarism.

And to those who argue that this prosecution is a sham and that the charges are a result of a PC desire to appease the Left, the media, or the "world community", I offer this suggestion -- you are showing the same sort of contempt for our nation's military that those groups do on a daily basis, and you are saying that the US military and US government deserve exactly the sort of scorn those unworthies heap upon them. In short, you have become the very thing you claim to hate.

UPDATE: I particularly like this analysis.

Gary Solis, a professor of the law of war at Georgetown University, said it is unfortunate that the cases have surfaced at the same time, because they provide an impression of a military run amok in Iraq. He said that fatal mistakes are common in war, and that the key to these investigations will probably be to determine whether the troops planned the alleged attacks.

"Where is the line? The line is premeditation," Solis said of wartime killings. "If you make a mistake, you're not going to be investigated. The only guys that have to be worried are those that have thought about doing it and then do it."

In other words, it really comes down to the question of whether or not these guys made a conscious decision to go out and kill an innocent man not engaged in hostile actions. If they did, that is MURDER and they merit harsh punishment -- at least if one holds to American values and not those of the jihadis.

MORE AT Confessions of a Pilgrim, A Tale of Two Cultures, Blue Star Chronicles, A Lady's Ruminations, Blogs of War, Stop the ACLU, California Conservative, Michelle Malkin, Cao's Blog

Posted by: Greg at 04:37 PM | Comments (115) | Add Comment
Post contains 847 words, total size 6 kb.

If this is representative of mainstream Episcopal theology, I'd have to say that the Episcopal Church USA is a post-Christian denomination.

While addressing a morning Eucharist at the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop-elect Katherine Jefferts Schori declared, "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation. And you and I are His children."

With Jefferts Schori as the leader-to-be of the Episcopal Chuch, it seems that the church will move beyond gender-inclusive language to transgender-inclusive language.

Yesterday however, the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops refused to even consider a resolution that would affirm the exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ as "the only name by which any person may be saved." The Rev. Canon Eugene McDowell of the Diocese of North Carolina explained, "This type of language was used in 1920s and 1930s to alienate the type of people who were executed. It was called the Holocaust."

Perhaps Episcopalians would be more receptive of a resolution affirming the supreme transexuality of Jesus.

So let me see if I have this straight (forgive the exclusive language) -- the ECUSA will not affirm a fundamental point of the historic Christian faith contained in Scripture, but it will fiddle around with Jesus' genitals. How can a Christian actually stay a member?

UPDATE: More in The Times of London.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.