The latest attempt to intimidate those who support letting the people speak on homosexual marriage is coming from a faux-church in Florida.

A Florida church launched a campaign this week to identify supporters of a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage by publishing the names and addresses of 400,000 Florida residents in 60 counties.

The Internet campaign by Christ Church of Peace, a nondenominational church in Jacksonville, has been denounced by groups that support a state ballot initiative that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Gary Debusk, pastor of Christ Church of Peace, said the church began the ''Know Thy Neighbor'' effort Monday to encourage dialogue and prevent voter-signature fraud. As the head of a congregation that supports same-sex marriage, Debusk said he also wanted to add a new perspective to a debate that he said has been dominated largely by religious conservatives. ''It's time for another voice that is Christian to be heard,'' he said.

The problem is that their voice is not a Christian one -- it speaks in a manner that is antithetical to the clear message of the bible.

And I do like this point, made by supporters of traditional marriage.

Christian groups such as the Fort Lauderdale-based Center for Reclaiming America and the Florida Family Policy Council have denounced the Web site as a misguided effort to intimidate activists.

''It's a gross invasion of people's privacy,'' said John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, an offshoot of James Dobson's national Christian conservative group Focus on the Family.

Stemberger argued that, if Christian conservatives published the names and addresses of gay-rights activists, they would likely be condemned as hatemongers.

''A lot of people would be outraged and say it's a hateful, un-Christian gesture,'' he said.

I'd have to agree -- and would like to remind folks that the Klan and other groups sought public records back in teh 1950s and 1960s so that folks could "Know Thy Neighbor" if they were supporters of the civil rights movement. Such methods are not designed to foster dialogue -- they are designed to intimidate, harrass, and target those with whom the sponsors disagree.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like they were all against the war in Iraq -- until, when offered a chance to do something about it, the were for it.

Bravo to Investor's Business Daily for calling them on it.

Democrats have relentlessly called, or implied their support, for a pullout. But when they get a chance to bring troops home, they don't back up the talk. Perhaps they should sit out the rest of the war in silence.

Democratic senators had their first chance last week to force the administration to surrender, uh, pull the troops from Iraq. The Senate considered a resolution Thursday that would have brought U.S. soldiers home by the end of the year.

The debate was described by one reporter as "bitter and sometimes raucous." This might make one think that, in a Senate that is nearly evenly split between the parties, the vote would be close.

The result? By a 93-6 margin, the idea was rejected. So much for all the fuss.

The six votes in favor of withdrawal were, of course, cast by Democrats. But a large majority of Senate Democrats — 37 of them — are forever on the record as voting to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.

What happened to all the heated rhetoric about the war being a blunder and the need to retreat from the "quagmire"? Is it confined to those six who supported a pullout: Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Barbara Boxer of California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Tom Harkin of Iowa?

Maybe real Democratic opposition to the war is found only in the House, where on Friday congressmen voted to stay in Iraq by a margin of 256-153. All but four of those "nay" votes came from Democrats.

Yet 42 Democrats supported it along with 214 Republicans. As pundit Robert Novak noted, that's a significant defection for a party in an election year. The observation that Democrats voted based on what they figure will give them their best chances in the upcoming elections is no more cynical than casting a vote for just that reason.

Last fall, House Democrats had a chance to force an immediate pullout from Iraq soon after decorated Vietnam War veteran John Murtha, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, began to mouth off about bringing troops home.

But they voted in large numbers against retreat. The final tally was 403-3. Is there a resolution short of one that says the sky is blue that could get so close to having unanimous support in this — seemingly — divided House?

So why must Democrats talk so much about pulling out of Iraq when they refuse to follow through on their rhetoric? Are they so politically reflexive against the Bush war that they can't control their tongues even as they know that staying the course in Iraq is necessary?

The Democrats have muttered about Republicans baiting them with loaded legislation. Thursday's House bill, for instance, included language about winning the war on terror and protecting "freedom from the terrorist adversary." How, they ask, could they vote against that even when they oppose the primary provision of the resolution — the rejection of a forced timetable for a pullout?

Well, Kerry says he is writing his own withdrawal plan legislation that could be introduced this week. We're eager to see what kind of support his bill will get — and which of his Democratic colleagues will actually vote for retreat after voting against it.

The obvious answer to why the Senate Democrats (and 1/5 of the hHouse Democrats) failed to vote their rhetoric -- no courage, no convictions. And as a result, no victory in the fall.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.

Just got this in the mail a few minutes ago.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 16, 2006
Contact: Gretchen Essell
(512) 477-9821

CD 22 Lawsuit Moved to Federal Court

AUSTIN — In response to the frivolous lawsuit filed last week by Democrats regarding the Texas Congressional District 22 race, the Republican Party of Texas has removed the case to federal court.

“Democrats cannot have their cake and eat it too,” said Republican Party of Texas Chairman Tina Benkiser. “If Democrat plaintiff trial lawyers want to raise federal issues under the U.S. Constitution, they cannot then seek to have them decided in the liberal state court of their choice.”

Last week upon receiving public records of Congressman Tom DeLayÂ’s recent move to Virginia, Chairman Benkiser declared DeLay ineligible to run for reelection in Texas on the November general ballot. Two days later, Democrats, as usual, ran to court attempting to win there what they cannot win at the ballot box.

Rather than filing in the correct court, Democrats conveniently chose to file in the liberal 201st District Court in Austin. The state judge granted a temporary restraining order to keep Republicans from following the legal process set forth in the Texas Election Code to replace Congressman DeLay on the November general election ballot.

“Republicans want to ensure that voters in Congressional District 22 are given a choice of candidates in the fall,” said Benkiser. “They deserve a chance for a conservative voice in Congress, and we are confident that they will have one.”

###

Paid for by the Republican Party of Texas
900 Congress Avenue, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78701.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

My only question is why the one-week delay?

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Left-winnger Larry Johnson tends to be wrong about . . . well, damn near everything. You know, the potential threat of al-Queda to America, the certainty of a Rove indictment, the heroism and electablity of John Kerry. You know, the utterly erroneous nature of every word from his mouth or his keyboard.

Well, he really went off the deep end in this post.

Karl is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out. It would be one thing if his vile tactics were simply mere smears of politicians like Kerry and Murtha. They are big boys and should be able to defend themselves quite ably against this turd.

Johnson has since sent the original words into blogospheric oblivion, but enough others have taken them down that the unexpurgated original will live in infamy.

To Mr. Johnson, I offer this simple message.

Have you no decency, Mr. Johnson? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

We know you have no honesty, based upon your stuffing your initial, even more despicible words down the memory-hole. At least Ann Coulter has the integrity to stand by hers, while you seek to cover up your vile utterances.

Mr. Johnson's evil and cowardice are utterly beyond belief.

(H/T Protein Wisdom)

Posted by: Greg at 06:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Last night we all heard that the House Democrats had voted to remove Rep. William Jefferson from the powerful House Ways and means Committee. However, that is not the case. The media may present it that way, but are forced to acknowledge the truth once they get into the heart of the story.

Democrats voted last night to strip Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.) of a plum committee assignment while he is embroiled in a federal bribery investigation.

The 99 to 58 vote followed weeks of public and private wrangling, as Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sought to take a strong election-year stance on ethics, while Jefferson's allies -- mainly fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- protested that he was being singled out for unfair treatment.

Jefferson left immediately after voting and said he would spend the evening considering his next move.

"I'm just going to go to my office," Jefferson said. "I'm just going to wait and see."

Now it sounds like the Democrat Caucus has actually done something about corruption in their midst. But surprise, surprise -- look at the next paragraph.

If he refuses to step aside from the Ways and Means Committee, as urged by the Democratic Caucus, the next step would be a vote on the House floor to remove him from the prestigious committee. Even his allies want to avoid that.

Hold on just one minute. I thought they had stripped Jefferson of the committee assignment. But this clearly indicates that they have done no such thing. Instead, the Democrat Caucus has voted to ASK Jefferson, pretty please with sugar, whipped cream, and a cherry on top, to quit the committee. Jefferson can refuse -- and then it goes to a vote of the whole House, not just the Democrats. It would require the cooperation of the GOP to remove jefferson.

And I hope that they refuse to go along with this attempt by Pelosi & Co. to cover their asses. The Republican leadership should refuse to act on the measure until such time as the House Democrats get their act in order and write some rules that deal with disqualification of members from committee assignements. After all, Rep. Alan Mollohan left the Ethics Committee under a cloud -- but still remains on the even more powerful Appropriations Committee, a position which he has been accused of using to enrich himself and business associates. What standards are the Democrats using to determine which members will be forced off of committees, and which will be permitted to stay? Also, which committees do the Democrats consider exempt from ethical scrutiny, and which require removal?

UPDATE: Well, the full House removed Jefferson from Ways & Means. Shows how much influence I have.

Posted by: Greg at 04:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

Many of us have grave moral concerns about the methods used to harvest fetal stem cells for medical research. The creation of human life in order to snuff it out for purposes of scientific research is both ghoulish and morally repugnant in our eyes. And yet many of us also believe the research itself is of vital importance -- in my case out of a heartfelt desire to see my wife's illness arrested and reversed. Folks like me cling to the hope that research on adult stem cells will produce treatments and cures -- and agonize over the moral questions raised by fetal stem cell research.

And so it is with great joy and hope that I post this information.

Stem cell scientists in the United Kingdom are reporting today a gene discovery that suggests a way to take adult cells back to an embryonic state -- a discovery that could help treat diseases without relying on controversial human embryonic stem cells or cloning.

The ultimate goal would be to use a patient's own cells as the starting material for a new kind of regenerative medicine. But scientists insisted that they will need to use embryonic cells for the foreseeable future to perfect the new techniques.

A team led by Austin Smith at the University of Edinburgh's Institute for Stem Cell Research published the latest results online in the journal Nature. The study used mouse cells to investigate the critical role of one gene in the process by which a stem cell, when fused to a more specialized adult stem cell found in the brain, reprograms the brain cell into a primitive state.

Reprogramming adult cells to give them this core trait of an embryonic stem cell could dramatically reshape both the science and politics of the stem cell field, which is fraught with controversy because the embryonic stem cells require the destruction of human embryos.

For example, reprogramming could make it possible to generate from a patient's skin cells customized cells of other types that had been destroyed by spinal cord injury or diseases such as Parkinson's or diabetes. Self-renewing lines of human cells also might be used to study how genetic diseases come about and how treatments could affect the disease process.

Smith said in an interview that reprogramming could take at least another year of experimental work to be well understood. Yet it no longer seems the deep mystery it was before the latest studies, which reveal the role of a gene known as "nanog."

Smith called nanog "the key gene in the process."

"We thought this was something that would take us a very long time to work out, but now this changes from being a black box to something we can work to understand," he said.

May this research be fruitful and produce results that avoid the moral concerns that current methods raise.

UPDATE: Tammy Bruce writes on this topic here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

Why this issue is even controversial has always been beyond me. And I was frankly pleased to see Kentucky act to ensure that its students learned about a common scholarly practice -- the use of BCE and CE instead of BC and CE by some scholars.

Unfortunately, the best educational practice -- teaching all sides of the issue -- has been unanimously repealed by the State Board of Education.

The state school board, with six new members, on Wednesday changed its answer on a history question that had turned into an emotional religious debate.

The reconfigured board, with six new appointments by Gov. Ernie Fletcher, reversed a decision two months earlier that would have taught students about a new way to describe historic dates traditionally identified as B.C. or A.D.

Those designations carry religious overtones because they stand for Before Christ, and Anno Domini — Latin for "in the year of the Lord."

The board's April 11 decision to adopt curriculum changes that included teaching the designations of B.C.E. for Before Common Era and C.E. or Common Era, had drawn criticism from some activist ministers and religious groups. Some conservative Christians complained the change was an attempt to sterilize a reference to Christ.

"It's part of a larger effort to expunge religious references in our culture," said Martin Cothran, a policy analyst at The Family Foundation, a conservative group based in Lexington. "I think it's not something that's coming from regular people. It's coming from certain other sectors of our society who think that we ought not to talk about religion in our public life."

Frankly, I view Mr. Cothran to be an utter jackass for making such a statement. It is about preparing students for college level work, where they will almost certainly be exposed to scholarly works which use the alternative dating system. Indeed, the areas in which the alternative designations are most likely to be found are scholarly works dealing with Biblical archaeology and scripture studies! Why? Out of respect for the many Jewish scholars (and small number of Muslim scholars) who work in those fields.

I teach the issue in my classroom within the first day or two of the beginning of the school year. I point out that multiple dating systems have existed throughout history and that some are used today. I note that the dating system we use in our society contains an affirmation of faith -- and that an alternative designation is sometimes used by scholars. I also note that the abbreviation may legitimately be rendered as either the "Chrisitan Era" or the "Common Etra", but that either alternative still revolves around the traditional rendering of the date of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I then ask that they be consistent in their use of one or the other system -- and that my personal choice is the traditional BC/AD, but that either choice is 100% correct. I then move on -- usually to a quick review of longitude and latitude, having spent (at most) 15 minutes on the calendar issue.

This really is not a substantive issue -- I cannot understand the need for state-mandated ignorance of such a minor issue.

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

If the legislature won't give us appraisal caps and spending limits, then I guess it is up to private citizens to ask the courts to enforce a proision of the Texas Constitution that has lain dormant ever since it was passed 28 years ago.

A Houston taxpayer group said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that legislative leaders have repeatedly violated a state spending limit in the Texas Constitution.

Edd Hendee, executive director of Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes, sued Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker Tom Craddick, Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and the Legislative Budget Board.

"The limitations in the constitution need to be defended against Republican leadership that has fallen intoxicatingly into this habit of spending more money than the constitution allows," said Hendee, a restaurant owner and a KSEV radio talk-show host.

He is asking the court to enforce a provision approved by Texas voters in 1978. The section states that the growth in appropriations shall not exceed the growth in the state's economy.

The lawsuit, filed in Travis County state district court, alleges the Legislative Budget Board has used artificially robust estimates of economic growth to justify high spending limits. The board, made up of Dewhurst, Craddick and other legislative leaders, develops recommendations for state agency appropriations.

Hendee wants a judge to declare the recently passed school finance appropriations unconstitutional. The Legislature spent nearly half of the state's $8.2 billion surplus to cover initial property tax cuts, a teacher pay raise and new high school spending.

CLOUT has been critical of a new state business tax enacted to help pay for property tax cuts.

Now the attack on the school funding plan concerns me, as it could lead to the closure of Texas schools if granted. But I do believe that the proper outcome would be some sort of constraints upon the state spending, in accordance with the state Constitution.

A copy of the suit may be found here.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Last fall, only three Democrats were willing to go on record in support of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq -- even as they cheered such a proposal from Cut-'n'-Run Murtha. Now that they are running on a platform of withdrawal, will the Democrats come out and oppose a resolution calling for America to stay the course in Iraq?

Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq, the House today will embark on its first extended debate on the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the war on terrorism.

In the wake of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death and President Bush's surprise trip to Baghdad, Republican leaders are moving quickly to capitalize on good news and trying to force Democrats on the defensive. Bush continued his own campaign with a morning news conference and a White House meeting with congressional leaders from both parties, while House leaders strategized on today's 10-hour debate.

A memo from House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) urged House Republican members Tuesday to make the debate "a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats." After Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was booed this week by liberal activists for her failure to resolutely oppose the war, Republicans hope to present a united front that highlights the fractures in the Democratic Party.

"As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democratic Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world," Boehner wrote.

This is a daring strategy -- there are some Republicans who are critical of Administration policy in Iraq. But as a whole, the GOP is uspportive of President Bush and the troops in the field, while the rhetoric of the Democrats has not been. Are they willing to put their money where their moutg is -- especially at a time when they claim their views represent the true feelings of the American people? I bet not -- especially because my conversations with folks indicate that even though frustration witht he Iraq war is common, few people really disagree with the policy.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

They don't want the US governemt looking too closely at mosques and Islamic groups to find terrorist connections -- but they do want a full investigation of a video of a Marine singing a repulsive song.

A Marine seen in an Internet video singing about killing members

Cpl. Joshua Belile, 23, apologized and said the song was not tied in any way to allegations that Marines killed 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha last year.

"It's a song that I made up and it was nothing more than something supposed to be funny, based off a catchy line of a movie," he said in Wednesday's Daily News of Jacksonville.

In the four-minute video called "Hadji Girl," a singer who appears to be a Marine tells a cheering audience about gunning down members of an Iraqi woman's family after they confront him with automatic weapons.

Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, said Wednesday the Marine Corps was looking into the matter. "The video, which was posted anonymously, is clearly inappropriate and contrary to the high standards expected of all Marines," she said in a statement.

Clearly, the song is in poor taste. Arguably, it merits some sort of disciplinary action. But it is not that big a deal -- such musical forays against the enemy have been a part of militry culture probably since at least the time of the Babylonian Empire. The spreading of the song on the internet is unfortunate, but hardly an attrocity that needs serious investigation.

But you wouldn't know that from the response of thes folks.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on the Pentagon and Congress to investigate a music video posted on the Internet that seems to show U.S. Marines cheering a song that glorifies the killing of Iraqi civilians.

CAIR said the four-minute video, called "hadji girl," purports to be a "marine in iraq singing a song about hadji." (A "Hajji" is a person who has made the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, but the term has often been used as a pejorative by U.S. troops in Iraq.) The song, posted online in March, tells of a U.S. Marine's encounter with an Iraqi woman. It has been viewed by almost 50,000 people.

Those priorities sem pretty clear -- don't investigate Muslims for terrorism, investigate mean and insensitive words against us.

F

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Call it a sign of the leftward drift of the Democrats -- 2000 Donk Veep Candidate Joe Lieberman is locked in a tight primary race and may run for reelection as an independent.

Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, warily watching his primary challenger advance in the polls, must soon decide whether to start collecting signatures for a possible independent bid this November.

Lieberman's campaign contends that it's focused only on winning the Aug. 8 primary, but the Democrat has not ruled out petitioning his way onto the November ballot as part of a backup plan to secure a fourth term in the Senate.

"I am not going to close out any options," the senator recently told reporters.

Lieberman has until Aug. 9 — the day after the Democratic primary — to collect 7,500 signatures from registered voters to gain a spot on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate.

But any effort to gather signatures before the primary would be a sign of weakness, indicating that Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000, fears that he could lose to businessman Ned Lamont. The effort also would rile Democrats who already question Lieberman's party loyalty and his perceived closeness to President Bush.

The senator has been a strong backer of the Iraq war.

Lieberman's opponent is closing in the polls -- liberal bloggers cite a poll that shows the race to be down to a six-point margin between the two candidates. At the same time, polls of general election voters show huge support for Lieberman, with nearly 60% of all voters in Connecticutt backing the incumbent.

What does this development mean for the future of both parties? Are we looking at a fluke, at a realignment of the electorate, or a fluke? Only time will tell.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

A police report has been filed by Jennifer Gratz, Executive Director of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, alleging she was threatened by a leader of By Any Means Necessary, a pro-racial discrimination organization opposing the MCRI.

An official with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which is pushing for an end to race-based affirmative action policies, has accused a member of an opposition group of threatening her with a knife.

MCRI Executive Director Jennifer Gratz on Tuesday filed a report with the Detroit Police accusing Luke Massie, national chairman of the activist group By Any Means Necessary, of displaying the knife during a confrontation. She said the incident happened Monday morning outside of a Michigan Civil Rights Commission meeting in the State building on West Grand Boulevard.

Massie contends it didn't happen at all.

"I won't be intimidated," Gratz said today. "It was a clear attempt to threaten and intimidate."

The initial police report, which has been assigned to an investigator, says Gratz told officers Massie had a knife in his right pants pocket and toyed with it, said Detroit Police Sgt. Omar Feliciano.

Gratz said Massie pulled the knife halfway out of his pants but did not draw its blade.

In light of the history of violence by BAMN in an attempt to prevent the people of Michigan from grafting elements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act into the Michigan Constitution, it strikes me that the charge is probably well-founded.

Posted by: Greg at 01:16 PM | Comments (57) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like this kid and his parents are going to need to teach his school district a little lesson about the First Amendment and relevant Supreme Court decisions related to the student rights.

In the ongoing attempt to punish a student for blogging (chronicled here and here), the Plainfield School Board "magnanimously" decided not to expel a 17-year-old student for posts on his Xanga site that referenced the Columbine massacre.

Unfortunately, the Board did remove the student from Plainfield South High School for the fall semester and place him in the district's alternative school.

PLAINFIELD — A teen's Internet rants against his high school bought him no less than a semester in an alternative school.

The 17-year-old student claimed in his personal blog site that he felt "threatened" by district staff and that the Columbine killers went on the murderous rampage because they were bullied.

If he follows the rules, he will be able to return back to Plainfield South High School second semester, said his mom who, in an effort to protect her son, didn't want her name used.

The Plainfield School Board "deliberated very carefully and had a very good discussion prior to rendering a decision" Monday night, said Superintendent John Harper, who couldn't comment further on the student disciplinary matter due to state and federal laws.

On Tuesday, a school administrator called the mother with the board's decision. The mother said during the expulsion hearing the school district painted a picture of her son as someone who was dangerous.

In reality, she said he was just venting on his blog site about how he felt when the school disciplined his friends for what they posted on their Xanga sites.

"(School staff) kept saying he wanted people to die. He didn't threaten a single person," she said about the expulsion hearing that lasted about 4½ hours last month.

The mother said her son told the hearing officer, "I did not say I was going to be the Columbine student."

She claimed what her son was trying to say was that the school would upset the wrong person and they would have another Columbine on their hands. However, the school staff told her that is not how they interpreted it, she said.

She feels that the board's decision is unfair.

"This is wrong. He did not threaten anyone. It was written from a home computer on home time," she said. "He didn't mention anyone's name. He didn't mention the school. He never made a direct threat."

Carl Buck, the student's attorney, did not return phone calls. But last month, he said the district was taking away the student's education for exercising his freedom of speech.

Now I cannot help but be troubled by this development, even though the board did not expel the student in question. If allowed to stand, this sets a startling precedent -- that speech on the internet is subject to a lower standard of First Amendment protection than speech in other media. It also allows schools a shocking level of control over students away from school.

Consider this -- the district is considering adopting a policy that reads as follows. I'll look at the current situation in light of its terms, because it seems to indicate teh mindset of the district authorities.

"While the district respects rights to freedom of expression under the First Amendment, students may be disciplined for Web site postings that materially and substantially disrupt the educational process or constitutes threats which endanger the health, safety and well-being of district or staff members."

This policy looks pretty reasonable until you dig into it.

First, it is limited to internet postings. These same words would not have been actionable under this policy had a student spoken them on a talk-radio call, uttered them in a television interview, or had them published in a newspaper or magazine. Were these other media included, there would be outrage on the part of free speech and press advocates around the nation. Indeed, the district would recognize that it was crossing into a constitutional quicksand were it to try to implement such restrictions on other forms of dissemination of such speech. That is why there is the specific limit in the policy. The target is therefore medium -- one which the district finds threatening because it is unfiltered by call-screeners or editors -- and the student is simply a convenient scapegoat.

Secondly, how can the words of a student on a website which cannot be accessed from school and which were posted from home, "materially and substantially disrupt the educational process" absent a bona fide threat or some other school-related nexus (posting test answers or instructions for hacking the district server, etc)? The actions of the school administration makes it abundantly clear that there was no bona fide threat discerned -- they did not contact law enforcement to report the alleged threat, which is would be the standard protocol if there were any reason to believe that the young man was contemplating acts of violence at school.

Third, the idea that these words constitute "threats which endanger the health, safety and well-being of district or staff members" is absurd. Who was threatened? What impact did it have on their well-being? Nobody and none, as demonstrated by the inaction of the school. Had this been a true threat which constituted a problem, the police should have been notified. More importantly, the student should not have been permitted to return to the Plainfield South to attend his regular classes during the last few weeks of the school year if his words or actions constituted a threat to the well-being of any individual. Oh, and I cannot help but notice who the district leaves out of the policy. A threat to the safety and well-being of other studetns is not included in the policy -- so I can only presume that the real "offense" being targetted by the policy is an adolescent failing to show proper respect and deferrence to teachers and administrators outside of school hours. In this case, the offense is a failure to kow-tow to a couple of pompous administrators who sought to regulate off-campus, after-school speech that is beyond the legitimate reach of public officials under the First Amendment.

And therein lies my concern. In the watershed decision on the civil liberties of students, Tinker v. Des Moines, the majority held that students do not shed their civil liberties at the schoolhouse gate. Implicit in this position is the understanding that students do, in fact, have those civil liberties away from school. That notion is meaningless if a school can act to punish a student based upon the exercise of one of those civil liberties away from school and outside of school hours. It is my sincere hope that the student and his family pursue this matter in court, for I believe they have a strong case that will define the parameters of protected student speech on the internet, and the degree to which school authorities may intrude into the after-school activities of students.

I've only encountered one post on the district's decision at this time. McKreck over at Occidentality offers a perspective that is somewhat more sympathetic to the school district, though he agrees that the decision was incorrect.

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1229 words, total size 8 kb.

Even the trashiest of white trash have some standards, in my experience. And those standards appear to be significantly above those of Britney Spears.

Britney Spears' "Eeewww!" factor is apparently on the rise. The pregnant pop tart did more than just pick up a few pink thongs at the Victoria's Secret in Mission Viejo, Calif. According to Us Weekly, she got down on the floor next to the cash register and changed 9-month-old Sean Preston's dirty diaper. "Britney then tried to hand it to an employee," says a source. "The salesperson wouldn't take it."

Speaking for the vast majority of American, I have a quick message for the talentless pop-star.

The world does not revolve around Uranus, honey – or around the anus of any children you see fit to spawn.

Buy some couth, buy some class -- hell, just buy some common sense and common decency.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember George Soros? Well, a French Court has upheld his conviction on insider trading charges.

George Soros's bid to overturn an insider-trading conviction has been rejected by France's highest appeals court, ending the billionaire's fight to erase a legal stain on his 40-year investing career.

The Court of Cassation, the tribunal of last resort in France, ended its review of a March 2005 judgment that Soros broke insider-trading laws when he bought Societe Generale SA shares in 1988 with the knowledge that the bank might be a takeover target. The Hungary-born financier has been fighting the case for 17 years.

``The court did not respond to one of our key arguments concerning the fact that the length of the proceedings didn't allow Mr. Soros to have a fair trial,'' said Ron Soffer, one of Soros's lawyers.

The verdict came as the 75-year-old former financier turned his attention from his investing career to political and charitable activities. Soros had been ordered to pay back 2.2 million euros ($2.8 million) in gains. That amount will now be reviewed, Soffer said.

The 2005 Paris appeals court ruling upheld a 2002 conviction by a first-instance tribunal. The judges rejected Soros's contention that he didn't consider the information that led him to buy Societe Generale shares to be confidential. The French government sold Societe Generale in June 1987 at 407 French francs a share. A year later, after a stock market crash, the shares had fallen to 260 francs.

I wonder – will the final adjudication of this financial scandal lead Democrats and other American Leftists to return donations from Soros and organizations under his control? Or will such disassociation from financial corruption be considered inappropriate by Democrats – though they would scream from it if the case involved a Republican donor?

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

The AMA is at it again – and your doctor may be looking to pick your pocket, or have the government do it.

Millions of upper-income Americans refuse to buy health insurance because they're young and healthy and figure they don't need it.

But now the American Medical Association wants to force them to buy coverage.

At its annual meeting in Chicago on Tuesday, the nation's largest doctors' group called for mandatory health insurance for anyone who makes more than five times the poverty level. That works out to $49,000 for an individual and $100,000 for a family of four.

No one would go to jail for refusing to buy coverage. The AMA instead suggested using the tax code to force compliance. There would be incentives such as tax credits for people who buy insurance and higher taxes for those who don't.

Of the 46 million uninsured Americans, about 5 million, or 11 percent, make more than five times the poverty level. The AMA said these people burden the health care system when they incur catastrophic medical bills they can't afford to pay. The cost gets passed on to those who largely pay for the health care system: taxpayers, employers and the insured.

"Society should not be penalized by the potential costly medical treatments of those uninsured who can afford to purchase health insurance coverage," an AMA report said.

Now I think it is stupid not to have health insurance. I cannot imagine doing without, but I understand that others may decide differently. That is a case of the free market at work. And we all know that mandatory health insurance will push prices higher, as companies have less incentive to compete for business.

On the other hand, the AMA doesnÂ’t want to take any action here.

Delegates defeated a resolution calling for price controls on prescription drugs.

Supporters of the resolution said drug companies make "excessive profits" and pay millions of dollars in salaries and perks to executives. Price controls would make drugs more affordable, they said.

But opponents said price controls would violate the AMA's long-standing support of free-market competition.

After all, that might cut the freebies that doctors get from those drug companies. That must be the free market they are concerned about.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 2 kb.

This column certainly should open some eyes about the “low Negro tolerance” of the Democrat Party in Michigan.

Some Democrats in Michigan have a distorted view of affirmative action. It's one thing to advocate giving minorities an opportunity. It's another thing to actually practice it.

Just recently some hard-core members of the party told me that any opposition to Gov. Jennifer Granholm in November is also a vote for the anti-affirmative action ballot measure known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

In other words, Democrats are the only people who support equal rights for people of color in Michigan. I don't think so.

I mean, let’s look at the Michigan Democrats, aside from a few black officials from safe districts.

The Democratic Party is probably the biggest hypocrite when it comes to giving African-Americans opportunities to develop politically.

Let's look at its track record in Michigan. When Granholm came into office, she tried to appoint Melvin Butch Hollowell as the chairman of the Democratic Party of Michigan. Guess what? Mark Brewer, backed by the United Auto Workers, refused to step aside. Hollowell was given a title of co-chair with no power. Brewer controlled the finances and all of the hirings.

How many African-Americans and other people of color hold positions of power in the Michigan Democratic Party? How many black consultant firms has Brewer hired? I am not talking about subcontracting jobs. When was the last time we've seen a black campaign manager managing a Democratic candidate for statewide office in Michigan? Never.

What's makes Granholm campaign manager Howard Edelson qualified for the job? I know at least five African-American political strategists who have more experience and are more battle-tested. They weren't even consulted or asked to apply. What job do blacks occupy every election for the Democratic Party? Let me see. Hmmmm, field coordinator.

A few months ago, a well-known African-American Democrat asked the governor about the attorney general position. She told him to run for secretary of state. Is that the only statewide position that blacks can run for as a Democrat? Until African-American voters break the cycle of dependency, we will continue to be an afterthought.

It is the Democrats who gladly let blacks onto the lowest rung of the ladder – and then keep them there. But when well-qualified black conservatives are raised tohigh office by Republicans, we ehar about tokenism and how such folks are not “really” black – and the term “Uncle Tom” gets trotted out soon afterward.

Republicans freed the slaves. Republicans were responsible for the passage of most civil rights legislation in this country’s history. And Republicans continue to seek to put forward well-qualified African –American candidates for office, while Democrats play Jim Crow games.

So would someone explain to me why the party that has always promoted slavery, segregation, and racial division is seen as the friend of African Americans?

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

This column certainly should open some eyes about the “low Negro tolerance” of the Democrat Party in Michigan.

Some Democrats in Michigan have a distorted view of affirmative action. It's one thing to advocate giving minorities an opportunity. It's another thing to actually practice it.

Just recently some hard-core members of the party told me that any opposition to Gov. Jennifer Granholm in November is also a vote for the anti-affirmative action ballot measure known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

In other words, Democrats are the only people who support equal rights for people of color in Michigan. I don't think so.

I mean, letÂ’s look at the Michigan Democrats, aside from a few black officials from safe districts.

The Democratic Party is probably the biggest hypocrite when it comes to giving African-Americans opportunities to develop politically.

Let's look at its track record in Michigan. When Granholm came into office, she tried to appoint Melvin Butch Hollowell as the chairman of the Democratic Party of Michigan. Guess what? Mark Brewer, backed by the United Auto Workers, refused to step aside. Hollowell was given a title of co-chair with no power. Brewer controlled the finances and all of the hirings.

How many African-Americans and other people of color hold positions of power in the Michigan Democratic Party? How many black consultant firms has Brewer hired? I am not talking about subcontracting jobs. When was the last time we've seen a black campaign manager managing a Democratic candidate for statewide office in Michigan? Never.

What's makes Granholm campaign manager Howard Edelson qualified for the job? I know at least five African-American political strategists who have more experience and are more battle-tested. They weren't even consulted or asked to apply. What job do blacks occupy every election for the Democratic Party? Let me see. Hmmmm, field coordinator.

A few months ago, a well-known African-American Democrat asked the governor about the attorney general position. She told him to run for secretary of state. Is that the only statewide position that blacks can run for as a Democrat? Until African-American voters break the cycle of dependency, we will continue to be an afterthought.

It is the Democrats who gladly let blacks onto the lowest rung of the ladder – and then keep them there. But when well-qualified black conservatives are raised tohigh office by Republicans, we ehar about tokenism and how such folks are not “really” black – and the term “Uncle Tom” gets trotted out soon afterward.

Republicans freed the slaves. Republicans were responsible for the passage of most civil rights legislation in this country’s history. And Republicans continue to seek to put forward well-qualified African –American candidates for office, while Democrats play Jim Crow games.

So would someone explain to me why the party that has always promoted slavery, segregation, and racial division is seen as the friend of African Americans?

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

But US Muslims are still complaining that law enforcement dares to give their communities heightened scrutiny, even though there are terrorist groups within.

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities are discovering new home-grown cells of Islamist radicals in the United States that draw inspiration and moral support from al Qaeda, officials said on Tuesday.

Like local terrorism cells that have recently come to light in Canada and Europe, officials said the groups are comprised of disaffected young men in their teens and 20s who rely on the Internet to try to organize and plan potential attacks on the U.S. homeland.

Concern about attacks inside the United States gathered pace after the arrest earlier this month in Canada of 17 men -- all Canadian citizens or residents -- accused of planning al Qaeda-inspired attacks across densely populated southern Ontario.

Scott Redd, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said in a written statement to the Senate that the emergence of home-grown terrorist groups is posing "real challenges" for U.S. authorities despite law enforcement successes at disrupting potential attacks.

"We are grappling with a whole new set of questions: what forces give rise to this violent ideology in immigrant communities that may appear otherwise to be quite well assimilated? ... What signs should we be looking for to try to draw early warning of potential problems?" the statement said.

In later oral testimony, Redd said home-grown cells were a new domestic phenomenon for which the FBI and law enforcement agencies had no "baseline" for measuring the scale of the problem.

Redd declined to discuss details with senators in public but cited recent arrests of terrorism suspects in California and Georgia.

"That's three in a little over a year, and there are obviously other investigations ongoing," Redd told the committee.

The problem seems to be endemic to the Muslim community. That is not a statement based upon hate or bias -- it is based upon the facts that are presenting themselves. That means there is an obvious need to give greater scrutiny to and devote more resourses to investigating Muslim individuals and groups.

These terrorist cells are not appearing at St. Bridget's Catholic Church, Beth Israel Synagogue, or the local Hindu orBuddhist temples. They are being found in mosques and other Muslim groups. They are generally composed of young Muslim men. So lets look at those most likely to be terrorists, and do so openly and unapologetically.

And if the Muslim community wants the heightened scrutiny to stop, they can drop a dime on each and every individual who they see exhibiting the militant tendencies that are signs of potential involvement in such activities. And if they cannot bring themselves to do that, then they had better get used to heightened scrutiny of every Muslim.

After all, we are in a fight for national and cultural survival. This is no time to worry about the sensitivities of those whose communities are rife with terrorists.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.

The number is astounding -- $1.4 billion in fraud related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The government doled out as much as $1.4 billion in bogus assistance to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and was hoodwinked to pay for season football tickets, a tropical vacation and even a divorce lawyer, congressional investigators have found.

Prison inmates, a supposed victim who used a New Orleans cemetery for a home address, and a person who spent 70 days at a Hawaiian hotel were able to wrongly get taxpayer help, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Agents from the investigative arm of Congress went undercover to expose the ease of receiving disaster expense checks from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The GAO concluded that as much as 16 percent of the billions of dollars in FEMA aid to individuals after the two hurricanes was unwarranted.

The findings are detailed in testimony that is scheduled to be delivered at a hearing today by the House Homeland Security subcommittee on investigations.

To dramatize the problem, the GAO provided lawmakers with a copy of a $2,358 U.S. Treasury check for rental assistance that an undercover agent got using a bogus address. The money was paid even after FEMA learned from its inspector that the undercover applicant did not live at the address.

"This is an assault on the American taxpayer," said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), chairman of the subcommittee that will conduct the hearing. "Prosecutors from the federal level down should be looking at prosecuting these crimes and putting the criminals who committed them in jail for a long time."

It also pisses me off. Many folks impacted by the hurricanes who were insured and/or who applied for FEMA money following the hurricanes were denied compensation for damages that were considered to be not serious enough to meet the requirements for assistance, even if those expenses were in the $2000-3000 range. In the mean time, government debit cards for those amounts were being issued so that folks could go to strip clubs or buy designer clothes. It seems to me that such disaster programs need to be fixed.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

A contested race for president and an upset victory by a relative outsider. What will it signify?

The Southern Baptist Convention elected Frank Page its new president Tuesday, choosing a pastor who had said that it would take a "miracle" for him to win and heralding a new direction for the denomination.

Page's surprising win over two higher-profile candidates follows years of tightly scripted politics and intolerance for internal dissent. He called his victory evidence that Southern Baptists believe "we could do together a lot more and a lot better than what we can do separately."

"I'm a little taken aback by this," Page said. "Because I have not been known across the nation, ... I truly believe (the election) is God's people saying we want to see broadened involvement."

Winning just over 50 percent of the vote on the first ballot, Page bested Ronnie Floyd, a megachurch pastor from Springdale, Ark., and Jerry Sutton, pastor at Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tenn., and currently the SBC's first vice president.

The 53-year-old Page is pastor at First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., a small, upstate community north of Greenville. During his campaign, he emphasized the importance of giving to the Southern Baptists' cooperative program, in which autonomous congregations pool money to fund overseas and domestic missions. That seemed to strike a chord with delegates to the SBC's annual meeting.

In the years since moderates stopped participating in SBC politics, candidates for the SBC presidency have typically run unopposed or faced only token opposition. But this year, concerns about stagnating memberships, declining baptism rates and the future of the cooperative program led to the first contested presidential race in recent memory.

Johnny Hunt, a pastor from Woodstock, Ga., was the leadership's choice for president but unexpectedly dropped out of the race in late April. He was replaced by Floyd, head of the First Baptist Church in Springdale, Ark., and the nearby Church at Pinnacle Hills.

Then Page entered the race, leading a group that criticized the low levels of cooperative program giving at Floyd's churches. Page's church, by contrast, gives 12 percent of its undesignated offerings to the program.

Many smaller Southern Baptist congregations see the cooperative program as a crucial collective effort for the denomination and the best way for them to carry out influential missionary and evangelistic work.

Rallying around Page were a group of younger pastors and others who have felt marginalized by an older generation that led the conservative takeover of the SBC in the 1970s and 1980s. Some have dissented on theological issues like whether strict Calvinists and charismatic Christians should be welcome in the denomination, while at least one has been reprimanded for airing concerns on his Internet blog.

The fundamentalist takeover that happened three decades ago revitalized the SBC, but created serious rifts within the denomination. Will this upset victory be the beginning of a new direction for the largest Protestant group in the United States, or will it merely be a brief interlude between traditionalist leaders?

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

Before my Darling Democrat got sick, she and I used to volunteer as ushers at Stages Theater in Houston. One of the highlights was the annual "Tamalalia" show put on by a local theater troupe, "Infernal Bridegroom Productions". Imagine my surprise to find them featured on the homepage of the New York Times this morning.

HOUSTON, June 13 — The punk-rock club where Infernal Bridegroom Productions stages its shows is in a rough neighborhood, far from this city's velvet-curtained theater district. So it is not surprising that the troupe's latest offering, "Speeding Motorcycle," is equally far from some of the traditional fare offered at the city's more conventional sites.

An original rock opera, "Speeding Motorcycle" consists entirely of songs by Daniel Johnston, a musician and artist whose childlike and hallucinatory work chronicles his mental illness.

"We have stranger tastes than the norm," said Anthony Barilla, Infernal Bridegroom's artistic director. The company's founder, Jason Nodler, wrote and directed "Speeding Motorcycle," which features several actors playing the role of Joe Boxer, a man who has lost his mind after being rejected by the woman he loves. Flat-top, plasticine headgear gives the impression that the crowns of their heads have been chopped off, leaving a black, felt-lined nothingness inside. Captain America and Casper the Friendly Ghost make cameo appearances. The score, meanwhile, ricochets from toe-tapping, feel-good songs to discordant, despairing dirges, a reflection of Mr. Johnston's bipolar disorder.

This unusual production has won over critics. Everett Evans wrote in The Houston Chronicle last week that " 'Speeding Motorcycle' should be the cult hit of Houston's summer."

I've not seen this show, but i will tell you that the productions put on by this group are always entertaining if. . . unusual. So if you find yourself in Houston, i encourage you to look them up and get tickets to "Speeding Motorcycle", or whatever production they are doing when you are here. You will not be disappointed.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Some time back, I blogged about Operation Valour-IT, which was a project to supply our wounded servicemen and women with specialized laptops to enable them to access the internet and other technology that you and I take for granted.

Well, the initial goals have been met, but the kitty needs to be refilled.

Please help if you can.

H/T Truth Laid Bear & Jawa Report -- and all these fine establishments.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

How else can you respond to an assertion of omniscience like this?

'If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America'...

So, unless Dean is admitting to receiving illegally leaked grand jury testimony, we can only conclude that he is claiming to be divinely omniscient. After all, how can Dean know what indictments might have been handed down? How can he know the state of Karl Rove’s souls and what sins he has committed?

And in light of this, I’d like to know when the “separation of church and state” folks will be filing suit to have this deity removed from any position of influence in the Democrat Party?

Click these for more on the scandal that wasn't.

Posted by: Greg at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.

How else can you respond to an assertion of omniscience like this?

'If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America'...

So, unless Dean is admitting to receiving illegally leaked grand jury testimony, we can only conclude that he is claiming to be divinely omniscient. After all, how can Dean know what indictments might have been handed down? How can he know the state of Karl RoveÂ’s souls and what sins he has committed?

And in light of this, I’d like to know when the “separation of church and state” folks will be filing suit to have this deity removed from any position of influence in the Democrat Party?

Click these for more on the scandal that wasn't.

Posted by: Greg at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

Are these grants really for women and minorities only?

Harvard University will expand child-care and academic grants to support female and minority faculty and staff as they climb the ladder at the prestigious school, university officials plan to announce today.

The plan outlines the first steps that Harvard will take to spend the more than $50 million that president Lawrence H. Summers pledged about a year ago to improve the climate for women on campus. Summers caused a furor last year by speculating about women's aptitude for science. That episode, coupled with complaints about his management style, led to his resignation, effective June 30.

The episode also led to two task forces, a flurry of recommendations, and a new position, a senior vice provost for faculty development and diversity. The office of Evelynn M. Hammonds will release its first annual report today.

Hammonds said in a telephone interview yesterday that Harvard will spend $7.5 million on child care and grants to help faculty and staff meet the demands of work and family.

Sounds to me like unequal treatment creating a hostile environment and unequal playing field based upon race and gender.

Posted by: Greg at 09:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

An Israeli court has granted permission for the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin to have a child with his wife through artificial insemination.

Personally, I don’t think such terrorist pigs (and Yigal Amir is every bit the terrorist al-Zarqawi was) should be permitted to pass on their foul genetic code, but that isn’t the why I’m writing. Instead, I want to know about this curious claim made by Amir regarding his role in a plot to smuggle sperm out of his prison so that his wife could become pregnant.

In March, Amir was sentenced to 30 days without any visitors and 14 days without telephone calls and fined NIS 100 after prison officers caught him trying to smuggle sperm samples to his wife.

The Israel Prison Service had already said that in principle it would allow Amir and Trimbobler to have a child by artificial insemination, although it twice warned him not to give samples before the process had been arranged.

After Amir had denied participating in the smuggling attempt, the Prisons Authority showed him tapes from jail security cameras that clearly documented the incident. Upon seeing the tapes, Amir withdrew his request for the second hearing.

Denied participating in the smuggling attempt. Then where did the. . . uhhhh. . . sample come from? That is a purely academic question on my part – I have no interest in seeing whatever is on the tapes that “documented the incident.”

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

An Israeli court has granted permission for the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin to have a child with his wife through artificial insemination.

Personally, I donÂ’t think such terrorist pigs (and Yigal Amir is every bit the terrorist al-Zarqawi was) should be permitted to pass on their foul genetic code, but that isnÂ’t the why IÂ’m writing. Instead, I want to know about this curious claim made by Amir regarding his role in a plot to smuggle sperm out of his prison so that his wife could become pregnant.

In March, Amir was sentenced to 30 days without any visitors and 14 days without telephone calls and fined NIS 100 after prison officers caught him trying to smuggle sperm samples to his wife.

The Israel Prison Service had already said that in principle it would allow Amir and Trimbobler to have a child by artificial insemination, although it twice warned him not to give samples before the process had been arranged.

After Amir had denied participating in the smuggling attempt, the Prisons Authority showed him tapes from jail security cameras that clearly documented the incident. Upon seeing the tapes, Amir withdrew his request for the second hearing.

Denied participating in the smuggling attempt. Then where did the. . . uhhhh. . . sample come from? That is a purely academic question on my part – I have no interest in seeing whatever is on the tapes that “documented the incident.”

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Of all the absurd historical analogies offered by jihadi terrorists and their supporters, this one from jihad-apologist Tariq Ramadan takes the cake.

A LEADING Muslim scholar yesterday said anti-Islamic feeling in Europe was beginning to resemble anti-Semitism prior to the Second World War.

"My feeling is that what we heard in the 1920s and 1930s about the Jews is coming back about the Muslims," said Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss academic who heads the European Muslim Network.

Professor Ramadan made headlines after authorities in the United States cited security reasons for revoking a visa to travel there in 2004.

He is a critic of the US role in Iraq, but says he is a moderate who opposes terrorism and does not support Islamic extremism.

Well yes, professor, the two situations are exactly the same. After all, there were Jews worldwide strapping on suicide belts and murdering innocents in the name of their violent death-cult.

Oh, wait – no there weren’t.

I guess that makes anti-Semitism an irrational hatred, while anti-Islamic views are a rational response to the attempt to destroy western civilization undertaken by the jihadi swine you support with such nonsense.

Posted by: Greg at 09:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

One more indicator of the extent of the Democrat culture of corruption.

The embattled securities class-action law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman received some political backing last week with the release of a statement signed by four Democrats from the House of Representatives condemning last month's indictment in Los Angeles of the firm on criminal charges.

"The Justice Department's crusade against trial lawyers, the first line in the average citizen's protection against corporate greed, has taken a new low in the indictment of an entire leading law firm in the plaintiffs' bar," said the statement.

The statement was signed by three representatives from New York - Charles Rangel, Carolyn McCarthy and Gary Ackerman - and Robert Wexler from Florida. One of the founders of the law firm, Melvyn Weiss, is a high-profile fund-raiser for the Democratic Party.

The Dems are are clearly behind these class-action crooks. And it is, of course, the usual liberal suspects.

Posted by: Greg at 09:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Just last week, the Democrats beat back the repeal of the death tax by claiming that we needed the revenue. They like to tell us that the economy is weak – and that the weakness is due to GOP policies.

If that is true, explain these statistics.

The CBO forecast in May that the 2006 deficit could fall as low as $300 billion. Michael Englund, chief economist of Action Economics, has long expected a deficit of about $270 billion this year. Now he thinks there's a chance the "remarkable strength in receipts" will push the deficit even lower.

With the economy topping $13 trillion this year, a $270 billion deficit would equal less than 2.1% of GDP, easily beating the president's 2.25% goal. Bush made his vow when the White House had a dour 2004 deficit forecast of 4.5% of GDP, or $521 billion. The actual '04 deficit came in at $412 billion, or 3.5% of GDP, before falling to $318 billion, or 2.6% of GDP, in 2005.

A CBO analysis last week noted that withheld individual income and payroll taxes are up 7.6% from a year ago, with the gains picking up in recent months.

Not only that, but the richest Americans are paying an ever-increasing share of taxes.

Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes, presidential adviser Karl Rove recently said. That's up from 40.5% — despite Bush's tax cuts.

The result is that President Bush may meet the goal of reducing the post-9/11 budget deficit to $150 billion this year – ahead of his promised FY 2009 target.

Posted by: Greg at 09:09 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Someone posted a comment that contains identifying information about the accuser in the Duke Rape Case.

I'm not a fan of rape shield laws, as I believe they stigmatize those accused without subjecting the accuser to the same sort of public scrutiny that the accused must face. But at the same time, I have some concerns about the sort of information that was posted.

So, folks, what do you think -- should it stay or should it go?

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Personally, I oppose the passage of an amendment to the Constitution banning flag-burning. I consider it to be a case of using a Trident missle to kill a mosquito. But that said, I am not at all troubled by the possibility that it may finally get enough votes to go to the states for possible ratification.

Sometime between now and the Fourth of July, the Senate plans to revisit what over the course of 17 years has become a seasonal rite of patriotism on Capitol Hill: a vote on whether to amend the Constitution to ban protesters from burning the American flag.

Each time, the arguments on both sides are passionate. Each time, the support needed to move ahead with an amendment falls short.

But this year could be different, as two important trends cross paths.

For one, proponents of the amendment appear to have more support than ever in the Senate. They say they are within one vote of the two-thirds majority they need. The House already has backed the amendment. A majority of Americans say they support a flag amendment, and over time all 50 states have passed some form of resolution urging Congress to act.

"We believe once the amendment moves off of Capitol Hill it will be the swiftest-ratified amendment in the history of the nation," said Marty Justis of Indianapolis, a Navy veteran and executive director of the Citizens' Flag Alliance, which for years has led the campaign. He and other supporters will be back on Capitol Hill on Wednesday -- Flag Day -- trying to round up and lock in support.

At the same time, some polling indicates Americans' once-robust support for a flag amendment is waning and could be tough to recapture for many years if it slips below 50 percent. That has amendment opponents -- a mix of liberals, free-speech activists and conservatives who believe the Constitution should never or almost never be amended -- determined to stave off Senate passage.

"This is very generational -- basically, if this doesn't pass the next Congress or two, it's a dying issue," said Terri Ann Schroeder, a senior lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the amendment as an infringement on free speech.

There has been a call for this amendment for many years. It has strong support. Let's see what the states do with it, in response to the will of the people. I'll be out campaigning against it. But if it passes, it will be in response to the will of the American people -- and that is not a bad thing, in my book.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

It used to be an article of faith among the all-knowing doubters of Scripture that the story of Uriah the Hittite was proof of the errancy of the Bible. After all, they said, the Hittites did not exist. Until archaeologists discovered the Hittite Empire in Turkey.

Now we find another proof of a civilization that doubters claimed did not exist -- an organized Edomite society in the Holly Land itself.

In biblical lore, Edom was the implacable adversary and menacing neighbor of the Israelites. The Edomites lived south of the Dead Sea and east of the desolate rift valley known as Wadi Arabah, and from time to time they had to be dealt with by force, notably by the likes of Kings David and Solomon.

Today, the Edomites are again in the thick of combat — of the scholarly kind. The conflict is heated and protracted, as is often the case with issues related to the reliability of the Bible as history.

Chronology is at the crux of the debate. Exactly when did the nomadic tribes of Edom become an organized society with the might to threaten Israel? Were David and Solomon really kings of a state with growing power in the 10th century B.C.? Had writers of the Bible magnified the stature of the two societies at such an early time in history?

An international team of archaeologists has recorded radiocarbon dates that they say show the tribes of Edom may have indeed come together in a cohesive society as early as the 12th century B.C., certainly by the 10th. The evidence was found in the ruins of a large copper-processing center and fortress at Khirbat en-Nahas, in the lowlands of what was Edom and is now part of Jordan.

Thomas E. Levy, a leader of the excavations, said in an interview last week that the findings there and at abandoned mines elsewhere in the region demonstrated that the Edomites had developed a complex state much earlier than previously thought.

Dr. Levy, an archaeologist at the University of California, San Diego, said the research had yielded not only the first high-precision dates in the region, but also such telling artifacts as scarabs, ceramics, metal arrowheads, hammers, grinding stones and slag heaps. Radiocarbon analysis of charred wood, grain and fruit in several sediment layers revealed two major phases of copper processing, first in the 12th and 11th centuries, later in the 10th and 9th.

Khirbat en-Nahas is 30 miles from the Dead Sea and 30 miles north of Petra, Jordan's most famous archaeological site. The name means "ruins of copper" in Arabic. One of the first ancient occupation sites in the Edomite lowlands to be intensively investigated, the ruins of its buildings and grounds spread over 24 acres, and the fortifications enclose an area 240 by 240 feet.

"Only a complex society such as a paramount chiefdom or primitive kingdom would have the organizational know-how to produce copper metal on such an industrial scale," Dr. Levy concluded.

Now I will be the first to concede that the archaeological evidence does not prove scrptural inspiration or inerrancy -- but it does show once again that the Bible provides a faithful testimony to historical facts.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like Fitzmas hasw bee cancelled, Lefties!

The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.

For months Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Mr. Rove's standing as Mr. Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Mr. Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

The decision not to pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.

In other words, all this investigation and only one peripheral indictment that does not deal with the actual leak of information. And you morons complained about the Clinton investigations by Ken Starr, which produced many indictments and saw Clinton cutting a deal to avoid prosecution.

So tell me -- when will we get an investigation and prosecution of Joe Wilson for his lies about his trip to Niger and his perjury before Congress?

Click these for more on the scandal that wasn't.

Posted by: Greg at 11:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 3 kb.

Michael Newdow, the militant atheist, has lost a round in court regarding the use of the motto "In God We Trust" on our coinage.

A federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit from an atheist who said having the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and dollar bills violated his First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said the minted words amounted to a secular national slogan that did not trample on Michael Newdow's avowed religious views.

Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, also is engaged in an ongoing effort to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned from public schools because it contains the words "under God."

* * *

Newdow's "In God We Trust" lawsuit targeted Congress and several federal officials, claiming that by making money with the phrase on it the government was establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state.

The phrase "excludes people who don't believe in God," he claimed.

Damrell disagreed, citing a 9th Circuit decision from 1970 that concluded the four words were a national motto that had "nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."

Newdow said Monday he would appeal.

Now this should be interesting -- the Ninth Circuit will have to overturn its own precedent to decide in his favor. Not that such an outcome is inconceivable, given the overturning of long-standing precedents by other courts to reach decisions favorable to consensual sodomy, homosexual marriage, and other pet notions of the Left. This will end up in the Supreme Court -- and if previous precedents hold, Newdow and his suit wil get rejecected.

MORE AT Right on the Left Coast, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Personally, I consider anyone who doesn't wear a helmet on a motorcycle to be an idiot. And when you make the money that Ben Roethlisberger does, one would hope that he would have the sense not to take the chances involved in riding one with a bare head -- and that the Steelers would have included a helment requirement/motorcycle ban in his contract.

That is what makes this accident particularly nonsensical.

Steelers star Ben Roethlisberger, the youngest quarterback to lead a team to the Super Bowl championship, broke his jaw and nose in a motorcycle crash Monday in which he was not wearing a helmet.

Roethlisberger was in serious but stable condition, Dr. Larry Jones, chief of trauma at Mercy Hospital said before surgery.

The player's agent, Leigh Steinberg, described the injuries to The Associated Press and said he did not know if there was further damage.

"He was talking to me before he left for the operating room," Jones said. "He's coherent. He's making sense. He knows what happened. He knows where he is. From that standpoint, he's very stable."

Roethlisberger's mother, Brenda, was crying as she arrived at the hospital.

That's a damn scary thing for anyone, but especially for a franchise player like Roethliaberger. Fortunately, early reports are encouraging.

The accident itself sounds horrifying.

Roethlisberger was on his black 2005 Suzuki Hayabusa -- the company calls it the world's fastest bike for legal street riding _ and heading toward an intersection on the edge of downtown. A Chrysler New Yorker traveling in the opposite direction took a left turn and collided with the motorcycle, and Roethlisberger was thrown, police said.

The other car was driven by a 62-year-old woman, police said. They didn't immediately release her name and no charges were filed.

Witness Sandra Ford was waiting at a bus stop when she said she saw the motorcycle approach. Seconds later, she said she heard a crash, saw the motorcyclist in the air and ran toward the crash scene.

"He wasn't moving and I was afraid that he had died. ... He wasn't really speaking. He seemed dazed but he was resisting the effort to make him stay down," said Ford, who didn't realize the motorcyclist was Roethlisberger.

Ben, I may be a Houston Texans fan -- but I wish you well. Recover quickly and completely.

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

One of the local radio stations ran a fundraising drive to supply parts to armor Humvees in Iraq. Well guess what -- the armor may have done as much (if not more) harm as good.

Thousands of pounds of armor added to military Humvees, intended to protect U.S. troops, have made the vehicles more likely to roll over, killing and injuring soldiers in Iraq, a newspaper reported.

"I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," said Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert told the Dayton Daily News for Sunday editions.

Since the start of the war, Congress and the Army have spent tens of millions of dollars on armor for the Humvee fleet in Iraq, the newspaper reported Sunday.

That armor -- much of it installed on the M1114 Humvee built at the Armor Holdings Inc. plant north of Cincinnati, Ohio -- has shielded soldiers from harm.

But serious accidents involving the M1114 have increased as the war has progressed, and the accidents were much more likely to be rollovers than those of other Humvee models, the newspaper reported.

Do we need to replace this workhorse of the US military with a more stable platform?

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm hearing a lot -- especially, though not exclusively, from pundits opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment -- that religious conservatives are not merely disappointed in the failure of the FMA to pass, but are angry at the White House and the GOP leadership for not placing a higher priority on promoting the amendment.

Take this example.

Last week's Senate vote on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage—along with President Bush's televised endorsement of the measure—were seen as part of a Republican campaign to mollify its restive conservative base before the midterm elections. But for many conservative Christian activists, the White House did not do enough to build support for the Marriage Protection Amendment, either in the Senate or in the public, before it ultimately failed last week.

Some conservatives say they're puzzled by Bush, who appears genuinely enthusiastic about the issue in his public statements but has nonetheless treated it as a low priority in his second term. "The president gave great comments the other day," says Tom McClusky, chief lobbyist for the Family Research Council, a top conservative advocacy group. "Yet if he truly believed the [gay marriage] threat is there, we are disappointed that he did not do more or even equal to what he did last time."

That is all true, but not very realistic, from where I sit. The reality is that the situation today is very different from two years ago, and the president simply lacks the political capital to spend on an amendment that was doomed to fail in Congress. Scandal, dissension, Katrina, gas prices and the prolonged War on Terror have sapped the popularity of George W. Bush, and there are simply more pressing issues to fight. What's more, I believe that religious conservatives (I'm not one, though I am both conservative and religious) are implicitly aware of this situation, even if some of their leaders have a tunnel vision focussed on social issues.

Take James Dobson as an example.

While publicly praising Bush for supporting the amendment, conservative evangelical activists have also vented frustrations. In a radio interview last week with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson asked what the president was doing to win support for the amendment, which required a two-thirds majority to pass the Senate. "Is he working the hill?" Dobson inquired. "Is he calling?"

When Snow responded that he didn't know, Dobson cut him off. "That's unfortunate," he snapped. "Because when Lyndon Johnson wanted the civil rights legislation, he didn't have the votes...and he made it happen.... He used the bully pulpit to make it happen. President Bush has not done that yet."

What Dobson overlooks is that Johnson had something that Bush does not -- a loyal opposition that was, in fact, more supportive of his position on civil rights than Johnson's Democrat Party. In addition, Johnson needed merely a majority to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and other legislation of that era, while Bush needs a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to pass the FMA. Why waste political capital reaching for an unreachable goal? It does not matter that every marriage-related proposition put before the people in the last few years has passed by landslide proportions when the Democrats are committed to acting contrary to the will of the people as expressed by the people at the ballot box.

There are those who talk of social conservatives walking away from the GOP. But I must ask where they would go. To the Democrats, who label them bigoted, hate-filled, and unAmerican for their support of traditional marriage? To a third party that lacks the critical mass to play more than the spoiler's role on the national stage? Or back into the wilderness of pious apoliticism, with the clear understanding that secularist America will go to Hell in it own red, white, and blue handbasket?

Like it or not, the last three decades have seen the fortunes of the GOP and the Religious Right bound more and more tightly together. In a number of states, it is that faction of the party that is ascendant. To surrender that influence over the agenda of the GOP would be to consigne the Federal Marriage Amendment -- and much of the rest of the social conservative platform -- to irrelevancy and oblivion.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 739 words, total size 5 kb.

Decent Americans have to be disgusted when they read stories like this one -- and have to recognize which political party remains the seat of racism in America.

A group of black and Hispanic elected officials from Brooklyn are scheduled to meet this morning to devise strategies to keep a white candidate from winning a Congressional seat of historical significance in black politics.

It is not the first such meeting of these officials, nor is it likely to be the last. That there are talks so steeped in ethnicity indicates that race is not just one of the issues in determining who will succeed Representative Major R. Owens. It seems to be the dominant one.

Mr. Owens, a veteran of more than two decades in Congress who turns 70 this month, is not running for re-election. The black and Hispanic officials gathering today are discussing how to prevent David Yassky, a white city councilman from Brooklyn Heights, from winning a seat that once belonged to Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman elected to Congress.

Mr. Yassky, a former law professor, has collected as much in campaign contributions as his rivals combined, more than $800,000 at the time of the last campaign finance filing.

And his three black opponents in the Democratic primary — as well as many black and Hispanic officials throughout the borough — have become increasingly agitated by the possibility that blacks would split their vote, allowing him to win.

Today's meeting, which was called by City Councilman Albert Vann, a Brooklyn Democrat, will focus in part on whether one or two of the three black candidates might be willing to drop out of the campaign.

Two weeks ago, a fourth black candidate, Assemblyman N. Nick Perry, announced that he was withdrawing from the Congressional campaign and running instead for re-election. He said one reason was to reduce the number of black candidates and make it harder for Mr. Yassky to succeed.

In other words, they want the winner of this election to be judged by the color of his skin, not the content of his character.

Now why this racist strategy to keep the seat in black hands? Well, it goes back to the history of the district.

As a result of a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, several predominantly black neighborhoods of Brooklyn were consolidated into the 12th Congressional District. In 1968 it elected Ms. Chisholm, who in 1972 sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Mr. Owens succeeded her in 1983.

The district lines were later shifted, and much of the 12th District was incorporated into what is now the 11th.

"We want to see if there is a way that we might unite behind one black candidate in the race, as opposed to several black candidates running along with Yassky," said Assemblywoman Annette Robinson, an organizer of the meeting. "We're going to try to work this out, reminding the candidates that people have fought for this district to be a Voting Rights district."

Uh. . . excuse me? Do you really mean to imply, madam Assemblywoman, that someone's voting rights would have been violated if a white candidate wins in this congressional district? I thought that the purpose of the Voting Rights Act was to end racial discrimination in voting, and to make sure that blacks could have meaningful participation in the electoral process. Nothing I have ever read has indicated that it was supposed to Jim Crow the election process, posting "No Whites Allowed" on certain electoral districts.

I want to know where the public outcry is -- you know, the howls of outrage that would follow if a group of white political leaders were to conspire to prevent a popular black candidate from winning an election.

And I hope the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is taking careful note of this meeting so as to prepare to prosecute every public official and community leader who participates.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 665 words, total size 4 kb.