I may be about to make myself the most unpopular guy in the blogosphere with this post. I may even be accused of defending the indefensible. But I'm taken aback by the untoward celebration of a decision that imperils the free speech rights of Americans, even though the folks who lost this case are among the most despicable to slither from beneath a rock in the last several decades.

I'm talking, of course, about the nearly $11 million in damages a jury awarded to the father of a Marine killed in the war, against the Fred Phelps Klan for picketing the funeral with their usual array of disgusting signs and offensive chants, songs, and slogans.

A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict against a fundamentalist church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.

Albert Snyder sued the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The federal jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.

Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."

So let's be clear about the goal of this suit -- it was to punish speech conducted in a public place, speech that is fully protected by the Constitution, on the grounds that it is hurtful, offensive, and outrageous. That troubles me very deeply, and it is my profound hope that the decision is thrown out on appeal as incompatible with the First Amendment.

And what is particularly disturbing to me is that folks who are usually supportive of freedom of speech are celebrating this decision against these loons.

I already see the next suit -- filed by some pro-abortion woman against picketers in front of the local abortion clinic After all, doesn't she have the right to seek medical care unharassed, without her privacy being invaded and emotional damage intentionally inflicted? Or a couple of summers back when local Democrats picketed the home of SwiftVets' John O'Neill on his daughter's wedding day -- I could see a suit being filed to suppress that speech, which I found disturbing but recognize as constitutionally protected.

So you see, it isn't that I carry a brief for the Fred Phelps Klan and their cult -- I don't. It is just that I worry about the First Amendment implications of allowing civil damages for legal, constitutionally protected speech in a public place on these grounds. Imposing civil damages for hurt feelings threatens our essential liberties. It isn't Fred Phelps whose speech I want to see protected -- it is everyone else's.

A similar question is raised at The Liberty Papers.

UPDATE: For those who object to the time and place (a public street proximate to a funeral), let me ask this question. If instead of a soldier this had been the funeral of a KKK member, and instead of the Phelps Cult it had been the a local black church or the NAACP proclaiming that God Hates Racists, would you view the judgment rendered in this case acceptable or appropriate? If not, are you seeking to punish the method used or the message you despise?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 658 words, total size 8 kb.

When noose was found on the door of a black professor, there was national outrage and campus protests. Will we get the same level of outrage in this case, over an incident in the same building? Or will Columbia University prove that it is the hotbed of anti-Semitism that it has been accused of being in recent years?

A swastika was found spray-painted on a Jewish professorÂ’s office door yesterday morning at Teachers College at Columbia University, the second time in less than a month that one of the collegeÂ’s professors has been the target of bias.

The professor, Elizabeth Midlarsky, a clinical psychologist who has done studies on the Holocaust, said the collegeÂ’s associate provost called to notify her of the swastika. Ms. Midlarsky said it was actually the third time in recent weeks that she had been the target of bias.

On Oct. 17, she said, she found an anti-Semitic flier in her mailbox at work. She said she found two more copies of the same flier in her mailbox on Oct. 24. She said she reported those incidents to Columbia officials.

“I see this as an attack of extreme hate and extreme cowardice by someone trying to make a point,” Dr. Midlarsky said yesterday. The police said they had no suspects.

The school employs scholars who deny the legitimacy of Israel -- including one that denies Jews ever occupied the area that is today Israel. Students have been harassed and belittled by professors because of their Jewish faith and Israeli citizenship. Will this act of anti-Semitism be treated as seriously as the incident of racism a couple of weeks back? Or are some groups more equal than others at Columbia?

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Most of us have jobs that allow our employers to assign us where we are needed. I know that I could go to school today and find myself transferred without consultation to a different school teaching a different subject, based upon district needs. So why shouldn't diplomats be required to take diplomatic posts that the country needs filled?

Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department's decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."

In a contentious hour-long "town hall meeting" called to explain the step, these workers peppered the official who signed the order with often hostile complaints about the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam. Announced last week, it will require some diplomats — under threat of dismissal — to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying provinces.

Many expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to serve in a war zone, where the embassy staff is largely confined to the so-called "Green Zone," and the safety outside the area is uncertain while a review of the department's use of private security contractors to protect its staff is under way.

Cowards.

Sorry, you signed up to serve your country where needed, not to sip tea and munch brie at embassy functions in DC or the tonier capitals of the world. You may not like the thought of going to Iraq, but it is where our country needs you. After all, you are a part of the Foreign SERVICE -- and that is service to the country, not service to one's own ego.

If you don't like the assignments, quit -- see if you can get on at a think-tank, or perhaps even get a job in the private sector.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

November 13, 2007

Mark that date on your calendar – especially if you are having a harder time remembering things like dates.

ItÂ’s National Memory Screening Day, a day set aside to raise awareness AlzheimerÂ’s Disease and related illnesses. By participating in one of these free screenings, you may be able to detect the onset of AlzheimerÂ’s, which can help you get earlier treatment and prepare you to fight the disease. Early detection is important when you have a disease like AlzheimerÂ’s, because the earlier it is detected, the better the treatment options available. Better treatment can make the overall quality of life better.

Folks who are older or who have noticed problems with memory ought to take advantage of a free memory screening near you. To find the closest location to get the confidential test, simply consult the website at NationalMemoryScreening.org. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If you do have AlzheimerÂ’s or another disease like it, treatment can help you fight off the debilitating symptoms as long as possible, allowing you to live a full and complete life. After all, treatment to preserve quality of life is key.

Alzheimer’s Disease is a devastating illness, but with early detection and treatment, it can be fought off for years while maintaining a good quality of life. Get screened now – for your sake, and the sake of those you love.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. Why, then, are some Democrat presidential candidates opposed to saying so? Could it be Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, joining 29 other Democrats and 47 Republicans as the Senate OKÂ’d the non-binding statement.

Her vote triggered a fusillade of criticism from her rivals, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who portrayed the vote as something Bush might exploit to justify an attack on Iran.

“She shouldn’t have done it, because what she’s done is given this president with his history the first step in the authority to move (militarily) on Iran,” Edwards told reporters last Friday in Boone, Iowa.

He hammered at that theme again in Tuesday night’s debate, charging that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution “looks literally like it was written by the neo-cons…. It literally gave Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted.”

Calling terrorists terrorists. A bad thing, if you are a Democrat -- because you believe that George W. Bush is worse. Nice to know whose side you are on, Senators.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

My wife and I are still using the same bedroom furniture we bought when we got married. It is serviceable, but we really do need to update to something more permanent. We have been looking around to see what is available that wonÂ’t break the bank. After all, we want a bedroom that will be especially comfortable, given her medical issues, and a change of scenery is also important to us, trying to make the place just a bit more stylish in the hopes of giving it a little more hominess. We at least need to consider new Headboards for the two bedrooms with beds in them.

Among other places, I've been looking at the Fashion Bed Group sets online at Home and Bedroom and have found some inexpensively priced groups that would help give our home a new feel. They are beautiful, good quality and within our budget! There are several that would be great in our bedroom, including one with a sleigh bed like my wife has always wanted.

I also looked at a couple of the daybeds from Hillsdale Furniture that are featured on the website. We have an extra bedroom we could turn into a sitting room/television room right next to our bedroom, and it would be good for visitors -- or for me for those nights when she either cannot sleep or needs to not have me shaking the bed.

Have I found the perfect furniture solution yet? No – but I’ll keep on looking.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

The church is an ugly, non-functional building only three decades old. The religious group that worships there wants to demolish it and replace it with a structure that actually serves the needs of the congregation. The city wants to stop them, declaring the non-functional eyesore to be "historic" -- because it is a non-functional eyesore.

Two blocks from the White House, there is a concrete fortress that looks like a top-secret government installation. Set back on a barren plaza frequented mainly by homeless men in search of a restroom, the building faces 16th Street NW with dirty, rough, blank walls. Amazingly, this building is a church -- probably the city's most unfriendly and depressing piece of spiritual architecture.

The District government proposes to declare this atrocity a historic landmark.

Never mind that the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, is only 36 years old, and its members never liked the design. Never mind that when it was built, then-Washington Post architecture critic Wolf von Eckardt called it "rude and disorderly," a brutal, uncivilized and inappropriate intrusion on the approach to the White House. Never mind that the Dupont Circle neighborhood commission recently voted unanimously to oppose historic status for the church. Never mind that Christian Science is a declining denomination that has cut its staff and budget by nearly half and is selling off some of its most valuable properties. Never mind that this downtown congregation's few dozen members want to raze the concrete pillbox and replace its 400-seat sanctuary with a new, more intimate home.

"It is always with reluctance, and fairly rarely, that we recommend a designation over an owner's objection," says a staff report from the city's Historic Preservation Office to be presented today to the preservation review board. But that's exactly what the city now proposes to do, freezing plans by a developer to create a mixed-use building that could include a small church for the Christian Scientists.

It seems that the building is an example of a style known as Brutalism. It is a virtual model of the style. Therefore, the city wants to keep it around, over the objections of pretty near everybody. Property rights be damned -- government knows best!

If you ever want to know why such historical designations should be opposed and the restrictions that go with them be invalidated, this is the poster case. Read the rest of the article to see how the whims of a few are used to engage in an uncompensated taking of property by government.

Posted by: Greg at 10:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

My wife is an absolute fanatic about greeting cards -- both the physical ones and the sort that get sent online. She particularly loves the online cards by Jacquie Martin, because they are beautiful, intricate, and different. Indeed, she got excited a couple of years ago when she saw her first one, sent by a friend. It was a beautiful Christmas scene -- this one, in fact.

Over the years, E-Cards from JacquieLawson.com have become internet classics. For only $10 a year, you can get access to all her cards and send them to friends and family to show them how much you care. After all, these cards really are the very best.

Posted by: Greg at 06:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

We have an election coming up next week, related to ballot propositions on the state, county, and local levels.

Looking them over, IÂ’d like to offer the following positions for your consideration.

STATE OF TEXAS

Amendment 1

Clarifies in law the legislatureÂ’s transfer of Angelo State University from Texas State University System to Texas Tech University System.

Yes – a technical correction

Amendment 2

Issues $500 million general obligation bonds for student loans

Yes – reluctantly. We need to restore tuition caps

Amendment 3

Limits the ad valorem tax on a homestead to the most recent market value or a 10 percent increase from the value of last yearÂ’s appraisal.

Yes – while it fails to go far enough in capping property taxes, that is no reason for not taking the incremental step.

Amendment 4

Authorizes up to $1 billion in bonds from the state general revenues for maintenance, repair and construction projects

Yes – too many projects have been delayed too long, and must be completed in the short term. The Battleship Texas project and the law enforcement provisions alone are reason enough to pass.

Amendment 5

Allows cities under 10,000 to vote to authorize the city to enter agreements encouraging revitalization programs by deferring ad valorem taxes

Yes

Amendment 6

Exempts ad valorem tax on one vehicle used for both professional and personal use

Yes

Amendment 7

Allows the government to sell property acquired through eminent domain back to the previous owner at the price paid by the government in acquiring the land

Yes – though it should be mandatory in those cases in which projects are cancelled.

Amendment 8

Clarifies and alters procedures related to making and using home equity loans

Yes – but this proves that there are things in the Texas Constitution that don’t need to be there

Amendment 9

Allows legislature to exempt totally disabled veteranÂ’s homesteads from ad valorem taxes and changes the method for determining the amount of a disabled veteranÂ’s exemption

Yes

Amendment 10

Eliminates the authority for the office of inspector of hides and animals

Yes – since the office is no longer in existence

Amendment 11

Requires a record vote on any final passage of a piece of legislation except local bills, and assures Internet access to those votes

Yes – a good government bill, though the local bills should not be exempt

Amendment 12

Authorizes Texas Transportation Commission to issue $5 billion in bonds for highway improvement projects

No – let’s rein-in the Trans Texas Corridor

Amendment 13

Authorizes the denial of bail to a person who violates certain court orders in misdemeanor family violence cases.

Yes

Amendment 14

Permits judges reaching mandatory retirement age to finish their terms

Yes – though we ought to be eliminating the retirement age completely

Amendment 15

Establishes the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizes state to issue up to $3 billion in bonds from the general revenue for research

No Recommendation – I’m still struggling with this one

Amendment 16

Allows Texas Water Development Board to issue up to $250 million in additional bonds for clean water in economically distressed areas

Yes

HARRIS COUNTY

Proposition 1

The issuance of $190,000,000 Harris County road bonds and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

Yes

Proposition 2

The issuance of $95,000,000 Harris County park bonds and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

No

Proposition 3

The issuance of $195,000,000 Harris County bonds for a central processing and adult detention center and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

Yes

Proposition 4

The issuance of $80,000,000 harris county bonds for a medical examiner's forensic center and the levying of the tax in payment thereof

Yes

Proposition 5

The issuance of $70,000,000 Harris County bonds for a family law center and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

Yes

PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY

Proposition

The issuance of $250,000,000 Port of Houston Authority bonds for port improvements (including related transportation facilities, security facilities and environmental enhancements) to provide economic development and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

No -- and may I add HELL NO! Privatize the Port.

CITY OF SEABROOK

Proposition

In accordance with Texas law and Section 5.21 of the Charter of the City of Seabrook, Texas, shall the City Council of the City of Seabrook, Texas be authorized to issue bonds of the City in the amount of $2,500,000 maturing serially or otherwise at such times as may be fixed by the City Council not to exceed 40 years from their date or dates and bearing interest at any rate or rates, either fixed, variable or floating, according to any clearly stated formula, calculation or method not exceeding the maximum interest now or hereafter authorized by law as shall be determined within the discretion of the City Council at the time of issuance, and to levy a tax upon all taxable property in the City sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds, and to provide a sinking fund for the payment of the bonds as they mature, for the purpose of making permanent public park improvements as follows: the Pine Gully Enhancement Project located at 502 Pine Gully, Seabrook, Texas, including acquisition of approximately 8.433 acres of property immediately north of Pine Gully Park, construction and improvement of such property, all as more specifically described in Resolution 2007-14, and all matters necessary or incidental thereto.

Yes

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 912 words, total size 6 kb.

Seems to me that this judge has just injected himself and his courtroom into the middle of a political campaign in a very inappropriate way..

The straight-and-narrow proceedings of federal court took a striking political detour yesterday during a hearing in Camden for six men accused in a terror plot against Fort Dix.

The U.S. district judge presiding over a pretrial hearing for the group known as the "Fort Dix Six" threw sharp words from the bench when shown a campaign flyer being circulated by Republicans vying for state legislative seats in Burlington County.

The flyer, which was entered into evidence because of its potential impact on jurors, implies that Democratic Assembly hopeful Tracy Riley is a terrorist sympathizer.

The reason? Her husband, Michael Riley, is defending one of the men accused in the alleged plot to gun down soldiers at Fort Dix, the Army base in Burlington County. One of the men is expected to enter a guilty plea today.

Judge Robert B. Kugler, who examined the flyer for its impact on potential jurors, did little to conceal his shock.

"Wow," Kugler said, inspecting the mailer that Riley had handed him. "I had heard this was going on. . . . It's pretty despicable stuff, honestly."

When I was a seminarian, the brother of my moral theology professor was representing Jeff Dahmer, and Fr. Pat pointedly reminded us that ensuring that a clientÂ’s rights and interests are protected is appropriate to the degree that one neither lies to undercut justice nor acts to become enmeshed in the clientÂ’s crimes (like Lynn Stewart did). After all, no sane person would have argued that my professorÂ’s brother was condoning or supporting murder or cannibalism by representing his client.

Now I’m not going to get into the propriety of the ad – after all, if we are going to continue to follow the misguided policy of treating terrorists as criminals rather than enemies of the state, we are going to have to afford them the right to an attorney. It is a part of our system, and an attorney for a terrorist is no more responsible for his client’s crimes than is the attorney for a murderer or a child molester. Based upon this belief, I know that as a candidate I would not have signed off on this campaign flyer for that very reason.

That said, I don’t believe that the issue of the flyer should have been dealt with in the manner it was, especially not in open court. The attorney in question, the husband of the candidate opposed in the flyer, expressed concern about contamination of the jury pool. It was his job to raise the issue. But for the judge to make the comments that he did from the bench – in particular, the attack from the bench on one of the candidates supported by this campaign literature – seems to me to have crossed a line into inappropriate political involvement by a judge. By making said criticism from the bench, he implicitly endorsed the defense attorney’s wife. Such criticism should not have been made at all. As such, Judge Kugler ought to be sanctioned for unethical conduct.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, , third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 5 kb.

I’ve said it every time folks complain taxes are too low, or that they don’t deserve a newly implemented tax cut – they don’t need to keep that cash they feel isn’t rightfully theirs. And so I offer this suggestion to the latest “I’m not taxed enough” whiner – Warren Buffett.

The United States' second-richest man has delivered a blunt message to the Bush administration: he wants to pay more tax.

Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the "Sage of Omaha", has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic; I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed."

An analysis of his arguments shows that he wants to treat capital gains like income and wants social security contributions to be unlimited. That this would grind the economy to a screeching halt is overlooked by Buffett, but that is neither here nor there to the billionaire.

The thing is, though, that Buffett can already overcome the horrors of being undertaxed. As columnist and blogger Don Surber points out, he can diverst himself of his excess wealth quite easily. All he has to do is cut a check and mail it in.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D17
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Put your money where your mouth is, Warren – determine what you should pay and then actually pay it. Otherwise you lack any and all moral authority to call for higher taxes for other Americans.

Posted by: Greg at 09:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

If this keeps up, there wonÂ’t be enough dead soldiers for the eventual Democrat nominee to stand on when declaring defeat in Iraq.

The number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq is headed for the lowest level in more than a year and a half and the fifth consecutive monthly decline.

Twenty-seven Americans have been killed in action in October, with one day left in the month, Pentagon records show. That would be the lowest monthly level since March 2006, when 27 servicemembers died in hostile action, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Pentagon reports.

The total number of U.S. deaths, including accidents, in October so far is 35, records show.

A new strategy, backed up by 30,000 more U.S. servicemembers, has led to a decline in violence and weakened al-Qaeda, commanders say. The U.S. military started building combat outposts and moving troops outside major bases earlier this year in an attempt to provide more security.

That strategy led to higher U.S. casualties in the spring, as the new troops moved into areas that had been insurgent sanctuaries. Combat deaths in April and May were the highest for a two-month period since the war started in March 2003, records show.

More recently, casualties have declined as security has been established. "I think we've turned the corner," Brig. Gen. John Campbell, an assistant commander for the U.S. division in Baghdad, said Tuesday in an interview from Iraq.

The Surge is working. Victory will happen, if we stick with the strategy and support the Iraqis. That means, though, that we canÂ’t elect a candidate who is counting on American defeat as a path to electoral success.

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

It really is the height of hypocrisy for certain Democrats to demand that a nominee for a Cabinet slot declare before confirmation something that Congress lacks the courage to legislate itself.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said late Monday that unless Michael Mukasey defines waterboarding as torture, he won't vote to confirm the attorney general nominee.

Biden said he is waiting on a response from Mukasey to a letter he and all the Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee members sent last week asking the nominee to clarify answers he gave about waterboading during his confirmation hearing earlier this month. The presidential candidate indicated that he considers Mukasey's responses to lawmakers' questions at the hearing evasive at best.

"I think Judge Mukasey's comments on waterboarding were outrageous, especially given that he's seeking the job of attorney general," Biden told FOX News. "Anyone who thinks that waterboarding is not torture, is not fit — and will not have my support — to be attorney general."

Well, Senator, I personally think that any member of the Senate who insists that waterboarding is torture but has not introduced legislation to make it unambiguously illegal under American law is not fit to be a member of the Senate – and certainly not to be President. After all, it is the province of the legislative branch to make the practice illegal under American law. Why not be man enough to take the lead, sir, so that the question is settled?

UPDATE: Again yesterday, there was more piling on from Democrats, who won't act to put their view unambiguously into law. Is it political grandstanding on their part, or simply their own moral cowardice?

Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey told Senate Democrats yesterday that a kind of simulated drowning known as waterboarding is "repugnant to me," but he said he does not know whether the interrogation tactic violates U.S. laws against torture.

Mukasey's uncertainty about the method's legality has raised new questions about the success of his nomination. It seemed a sure thing just two weeks ago, as Democrats joined Republicans in predicting his easy confirmation to succeed the embattled Alberto R. Gonzales.

* * *

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary panel's chairman, reacted with blunt dissatisfaction, saying in a statement yesterday that he will continue to delay any vote on Mukasey until the nominee answers more questions from lawmakers. "I remain very concerned that Judge Mukasey finds himself unable to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and below the standards and values of the United States," he said.

But Leahy, who said last week that "my vote would depend on him answering that question," stopped short of declaring he will oppose the nomination. Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), also issued a statement criticizing Mukasey but did not say whether he would vote no.

"We asked Judge Mukasey a simple and straightforward question: Is waterboarding illegal?" Durbin said. "While this question has been answered clearly by many others . . . Judge Mukasey spent four pages responding and still didn't provide an answer."

Senator Durbin, why don't you introduce legislation to make it clear that waterboarding is illegal? Could it be that you know it is an effective tactic, one that has produced hard intelligence in the past and will in the future, intelligence that has safeguarded the American people? Could it be that you don't want your name attached to any measure that takes this effective technique off the table when American lives are at stake? What about you, Senator Leahy -- same questions.

Either act legislatively on waterboarding, Senators, or shut up about it and let the confirmation vote proceed.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, , third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 677 words, total size 6 kb.

I agree with the New York Times here -- Congress needs to act to make it easier for those who have helped the US in Afghanistan and Iraq enter the US legally.

Congress has finally pried open AmericaÂ’s door to Iraqis and Afghans who have served this country at great risk. Congress needs to go a lot further, adding more visa slots and approving resettlement benefits that would allow these people to grab the lifeline the United States has been far too slow to offer.

Translators, interpreters and thousands of others have aided American troops and diplomats — and have become targets for militants. Under current American law, 500 Iraqis and Afghans per year who have worked for the United States armed forces for a year, may obtain special immigrant visas.

I remember 1975 very well, when I was a kid on Guam. I watched refugees stream into the temporary camps around the island as Saigon fell to the Communists, with planes landing on the runway only a mile from my house at NAS Agana. Many of these were Embassy employees and their families, or others who would be seen as collaborators by the Communists -- and countless others were left behind. We must not allow such a situation to happen ever again, where those who help us are abandoned.

There is legislation for a 10-fold increase in the number of people admitted from these countries. Congress should support it -- especially if Democrats are preparing to abandon Iraq as part of their policy of surrender and defeat in the face of victory.

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

I have to agree with this bit of advice being offered to my favorite presidential candidate -- don't try to equate Mormonism and Christianity.

As Mitt Romney scours the South for endorsements from evangelical leaders, he is getting some unusual advice on how to explain his Mormon faith: Don't try to be one of us.

``I told him, you cannot equate Mormonism with Christianity; you cannot say, `I am a Christian just like you,''' said Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, which is scheduled to hold the first primary among the Southern states. ``If he does that, every Baptist preacher in the South is going to have to go to the pulpit on Sunday and explain the differences.''

This advice, which reflects the views of many Southern Baptists and other evangelicals, makes Romney's co-religionists bristle. ``The fact that we are Christians is non-negotiable,'' said Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

What you have here is a twofold problem. On one level, you have the theological issue of how to classify Mormonism. Most Christians, and certainly most evangelicals, would struggle with classifying the LDS Church as within the pale of orthodoxy due to its distinctive theology and additional scriptural claims. There is serious room for theological discussion, but not in the context of a presidential campaign. Romney needs to dismiss the issue, regardless of the adamant claims of LDS authorities that Mormons are Christians. It just isn't relevant to Romney's needs as a candidate.

Besides, that issue isn't relevant to the presidential campaign. What Romney needs to do is focus on the shared values and policies, as well as his independence from official church control. That should be easy to do, given both the social conservative stance taken by the LDS Church and its long-standing history of recognizing the political independence of the Mormon faithful, including officeholders. But Romney needs to act soon on this issue, lest it continue to be a distraction.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, , third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 4 kb.

Sponsored Post

Looking for a Mexican vacation get-away? IÂ’ve got an idea for you. Imagine a place overlooking the Sea of Cortez, sucking up the sunÂ’s rays in Sonora.

Places like that are the specialty of the folks at Oceano-Rentals.com, where you can book your very own Rocky Point condo rental with luxury beach-front accommodations.

Think about it -- a beautiful Santa Fe style house with every amenity. They have it. Or maybe a townhouse near the beach. You can get it. Or perhaps a condo with an ocean view. You can reserve it right now.

And even better, you are dealing with a US-based company when you make arrangements with all transactions conducted in American funds, so there is no worry about exchange rates. You can pick up your keys at their American office and continue your driving to Mexico -- it is right on your way through Arizona, only an hour from the border.

Posted by: Greg at 10:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Those who disagree with him are not merely wrong, they are mentally ill!

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush's mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III.

"I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board on Tuesday. "There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact."

Kucinich, known for his liberal views, trails far behind the leading candidates in most Democratic polls. He was in Philadelphia for a debate at Drexel University.

So I guess the next step is for Kucinich to insist that the President of the United States be subject to forced mental health treatment until he adopts policies more to the Ohio congressman's liking. I believe that was the tactic favored in the Soviet Union for many years -- but Kucinich is so far left that he probably finds nothing wrong with that.

Of course, there are those who think that Kucinich is as lacking in intellectual and political stature as he is in physical stature -- and one look at his website makes it clear that he might well have personal expertise in mental illness. After all, he thinks he is a serious presidential candidate, which is among the most delusional beliefs I've ever heard of.

Posted by: Greg at 09:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

You can find some great online deals with big companies. Such deals can really leave you with extra cash in your pocket if you shop around, especially if you make use of online coupons and discount codes to make your dollar stretch even farther.

Of course, there are some businesses that I have no problem using online. For example, I think that ProFlowers.com would be quite capable of delivering their current featured coupon item without too much difficulty, and with good quality control. IÂ’m quite certain that if I use ProFlowers coupons I will get a great product that the person receiving them and I will be happy with. I've never been disappointed with ProFlowers.com -- and the only time I had a problem, they sent my mom a superior replacement item to my mother.

Similarly, clothing items are usually safe to purchase if they come from a big company that you know. My wife likes to buy from certain stores that she knows, because she knows how their clothes fit. For her, Lillian Vernon coupons help her expand her wardrobe at a bargain price.

In the end, of course, it comes down to finding companies that you know are reputable and have a quality product – just like when you deal with the brick and mortar stores.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Is it just me, or does this sound like an attempt by Barney Frank to impose an ex post facto liability burden on companies involved in subprime mortgages?

But the losses at Merrill and Countrywide show that the market economy is working as it's supposed to. Companies that made overly risky decisions are having to pay for them, and to adjust their business models accordingly. Over the long run, everyone should be better off as firms learn from the subprime mistake.

The question is whether market discipline is enough, or whether government needs to reinforce it. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is working on a comprehensive bill that would impose legal liability on the "securitizers" of mortgage debt. Mr. Frank's proposal would let borrowers sue issuers of bonds that are backed by "no doc" mortgages or other products that do not meet "minimum standards for reasonable ability to pay." To those who suggest that this would chill the mortgage-backed securities market, Mr. Frank notes that the proposed penalties are not unduly onerous. The most a borrower could sue for would be cancellation of a loan and court costs; there are "safe harbor" provisions for securitizers who generally follow sound practices or offer to settle with a borrower out of court. And Mr. Frank candidly replies that, given the recent excesses, the market could use a little chilling.

Now let's consider this. The legislation would make actions that were legal and proper at the time the occurred a form of fraud today -- and allow those who knowingly and willingly entered into contracts sue to cancel their debts. I recognize that these are civil, not criminal penalties, but doesn't this seem to be at odds with our constitutional heritage -- imposing liability where none existed before? I hold no brief for the mortgage industry, but do shudder to think of the implications of this legislation.

Posted by: Greg at 09:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Folks who spend a lot of time outside in the great outdoors need to be concerned about having the proper footwear to use while exploring. But where can you find good hunting boots or hiking boots? How about MetBoots.com? At their site, you can always find a wide range of quality footwear to protect your when soaking up the great wide-open spaces. And just as important, the prices are great and every order of over a hundred dollars is sent out with no shipping charges! So if you are looking for some good boots to take care of your feet while hunting or hiking, look no further than MetBoots.com!

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Frankly, Hillary Clinton lacks the basic qualifications to be President. She has never led anything of any significance, and her best known “accomplishments” were her failed health care plan, her questionable trading in cattle futures, and her smearing of those who correctly pointed to her husbands misdeeds as being part of a “vast right wing conspiracy”.

But now she and her campaign are upset over a single word.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney said last night that electing Hillary Clinton is akin to putting an “intern” in the job - a potentially loaded statement where a Clinton presidency is concerned.
In remarks that drew immediate fire from the Clinton camp, Romney said on Fox’s “Hannity and Colmes” last night, “She’s never had the occasion of being in the private sector, running a business, or, for that matter, running a state or a city. She hasn’t run anything, and the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern.”

Frankly, Clinton may be a decent lawyer, but she has no management experience of the sort that would qualify her for the leadership of AmericaÂ’s executive branch. ThatÂ’s not to say that a single term legislator is unqualified for the office, but the junior Senator from New YorkÂ’s record is pretty sparse, and indicates no aptitude for the presidency.

Besides – if Hillary had been competent enough to do the jobk of an intern, the nation might have been spared the indignity of her husband’s impeachment.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

It amazes me the things folks will steal to make a dishonest buck.

Unprecedented copper thefts have spurred a crackdown to stop the damage, as at least 16 states have passed or proposed new laws, and businesses have boosted security and offered bounties for information on the thieves.

The crackdown comes as losses to businesses hover around $1 billion, the U.S. Department of Energy reports, and as escalating thefts have disrupted the flow of electricity, slowed construction projects and knocked out irrigation networks crucial to commercial farms.

Seizing on rising worldwide demand and surging value for the popular metal — up from 80 cents per pound in 2003 to about $3.50 this year — thieves sell stolen copper for millions of dollars in cash, state and federal authorities say.

"We're trying to do everything possible to fight this epidemic," says Adam Grant, spokesman at Nevada Power, where copper thefts have more than doubled since last year. "It's crazy."

My favorite law? One in Washington State that immunizes those from whom copper is being stolen from liability for injuries to the thieves. This puts me in mind of something that happened about 20 years ago. I recall there being a big market in vintage bricks, often taken from old, abandoned buildings. One guy in St. Louis was killed when a building collapsed while he was removing bricks from a wall. Seems he decided to start on the first floor and work his way upÂ…

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

In the last 50 years, every federal tax cut has produced increased revenue for the federal government. Repeated observation has shown that the connection exists, as surely as the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer, or consumption of alcohol and intoxication. ThatÂ’s why it is almost inexplicable that certain liberal writers have been out to debunk the connection between tax cuts and increased revenue.

As the Democrats prepare to attempt one of the largest tax increases in American history, their allies in the press corps are softening the ground with a campaign against the ideological underpinnings of the Bush tax cuts. People can debate any particular tax increase or tax cut. But the left-wing side of this debate is rolling out a new argument. In publicity material for a new book, "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked By Crackpot Economics," the author, Jonathan Chait, puts it this way: "The notion that tax cuts can cause revenue to rise, though now embraced by every leading Republican politician, is rejected by even the most conservative economists."

On the Web site of the New Yorker, the magazine's financial page columnist, James Surowiecki, writes, "The supply-side argument that, in the United States, tax-rate cuts pay for themselves — that, after cutting taxes, the government actually ends up with more revenue — has little or no support within the mainstream economic profession, and no hard empirical data to back it up." He likens it to "saying that the best way to treat sick people is to bleed them to let out the evil spirits."

Messrs. Chait and Surowiecki are playing fast and loose with the facts. The first few pages of Mr. Chait's book are packed with the names of economists who back supply side ideas — Arthur Laffer of the Laffer Curve, who has been on the faculties of Pepperdine, the Southern California, and Chicago; Robert Mundell, the 1999 Nobel Laureate who is a professor of economics at Columbia; Martin Feldstein of Harvard; Lawrence Lindsey, who was an associate professor at Harvard from 1984 to 1989; and Glenn Hubbard of Columbia.

Now the two authors are correct in their statement that not every tax cut will increase revenue. There is a point, which I do not see us as having reached yet, at which revenue will decline – otherwise a tax rate of 0% would produce infinite revenue. But to dismiss the idea that tax cuts produce more revenue as flawed is fundamentally wrong. But much like Al Gore does on the global warming issue, the two writers seek to define anyone who disagrees with them as being “outside the mainstream”, despite the fact that it is demonstrably untrue and also irrelevant. After all, truth is rarely determined by a majority vote.

The Sun then goes on to point out that the various GOP tax cuts have invariably been accompanied by increased revenues. That is empirical data, which the pro-tax Left attempts to explain away as the vagaries of the business cycle. Interestingly enough, though, the two phenomena seem to correlate so strongly that it is impossible to ignore the connection and dismiss it as mere coincidence.

But it is the conclusion that interests me the most.

Even framing the issue as primarily about government revenue, however, concedes the terms of the debate to the left-wingers — as The Great Bartley comprehended. No doubt crucial government activities need to be funded. But as the political season wears on, the candidates — and the journalists who follow them — will come into contact with more and more voters who when they think of "revenue" don't first think of the government's bottom line, but of their own household's. You don't need a Ph.D. or a seat on the faculty of an Ivy League university to know that tax cuts let individuals keep more of the money they have earned, allowing them to spend it as they see fit, rather than as some bureaucrat or lobbyist-influenced politician wants to spend it.

The right way for politicians to approach these issues is by putting the individual's wallet ahead of Washington's, an approach that puts property rights and incentives for hard work and growth ahead of government revenues. Understanding incentives has always been a key to the supply-side argument. It's good politics and good economics. While the Party's deep thinkers of today may dismiss it as hoodwinking, hijacking, crackpottery, or evil spirits, there was a time the Democrats were on the right side of the issue. Ask JFK. Our own prediction is that to the extent the tax issue drives the debate in 2008 — and we think it will be a big factor, though not the only one — the key point won't be which candidate wins the votes of the economics faculties, but which one can show voters he or she understands it's their money, and Washington should take as little as it possibly can.

Indeed, the assumption of Chait, Surowiecki and their ilk is that they begin with the assumption that your income is a government resource, and that the government should get first dibs on it. The reality, however, is different – we have a moral right to every penny of our income, though we relinquish a portion of it for NECESSARY government programs. That does not mean every idea proposed by the latest pandering politician seeking votes.

Posted by: Greg at 04:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 912 words, total size 6 kb.

Squirrels safe to eat again in New Jersey

They go on to say this is good news for local Indians and those who like squirrel meat – and bad news for the squirrels.

Posted by: Greg at 04:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Now I've indicated multiple times in the past that I am a Romney supporter. I've also indicated that I find his religion to be irrelevant to the issue of his fitness for office. So I agree, at least in part, with this column written by Martin Frost for FoxNews.

Sometimes things happen in American politics that make no sense at all. We are experiencing just one of those moments in the 2008 presidential campaign.

I thought that the concept of a religious test for public office in our country was put to bed once and for all when John Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected president in 1960 and Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was nominated for vice president in 2000.

Now we have a candidate with a record of accomplishment, Mitt Romney, who is consistently lagging in the polls with the most credible reason being that significant numbers of Republican primary voters will not support him because of his Mormon religion.

When voters, particularly in the South, are asked to identify candidates that they would not support for president under any circumstances, Romney leads the list. Romney is rejected as a potential presidential candidate in this type polling more often than other polarizing figures such as Rudy Giuliani. It has become increasingly clear that many conservative voters will not support an otherwise qualified candidate who happens to be a Mormon.

As a Democrat, I wouldnÂ’t vote for Romney in the general election if he is nominated by the Republican Party. But IÂ’ll be damned if I can understand why he should be disqualified from seeking his partyÂ’s nomination because of his religion. This makes no logical sense in the worldÂ’s greatest democracy in the 21st century.

The question is, how many of those opposed to Mitt Romney are really opposed to him based upon his religion. In my experience, that number seems smaller thatn some in the media might like to make it. Pressed a little harder, most individuals who raise the Mormon issue will come back to questions about Romney's past positions on important issues, and wonder if he is really conservative enough. The religious issue simply becomes the tipping point for them, the one on which the question of shared values becomes decisive.

Now I think that such individuals are wrong -- but I don't think religious issues are necessarily irrelevant in making political choices. While I'll gladly vote for any Christian or Jew who supports my views on major issues, even I have a tipping point -- I don't know that I could bring myself to vote for an individual, for example, who was a Satanist, because our value systems would be too greatly at odds. Is that a wholly rational position, one consistent with my stated beliefs on religion and elections? Maybe not, but then I've never met anyone who was wholly consistent on the values they espouse.

There are those who will argue that the Constitution forbids religious tests for office. They are right, but they ignore what that restriction really means. That provision restricts government itself from requiring or forbidding certain beliefs or practices, but does not extend to the sanctity of the voting booth and the individual's weighing of a candidate's relative merits for office.

Now for all I find myself unable to accept Mormon religious doctrines (and I have studied them, having once been painfully smitten with a Mormon girl who would allow our relationship to progress no further unless I converted) and the historical roots of that faith, I have rarely met a Mormon whose fundamental decency I have doubted. That gives me a certain confidence that Romney's values and mine are congruent, even if not identical. It is why I can support his candidacy for president with a clear conscience, and why I can urge my fellow Americans (of whom my fellow Republicans are but one subset) to support him for the presidency in 2008.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 661 words, total size 4 kb.

Good grief -- have we so few issues of importance in the field of civil rights ad race relations that so-called "civil rights leaders" (all-to-often merely racial grievance mongers) are reduced to protesting something as absurd as this.

Nobody got shot, but Vice President Cheney still fired up controversy Monday when he went hunting at a private club that hangs the Confederate flag.

A Daily News photographer captured the 3-by-5 foot Dixie flag affixed to a door in the garage of the Clove Valley Gun and Rod Club in upstate Union Vale, N.Y.

"It's appalling for the VP to be at a private club displaying the flag of lynching, hate and murder," said the Rev. Al Sharpton. "It's the epitome of an insult."

Sharpton demanded Cheney distance himself from the exclusive club where the Stars and Bars was flown, and said he might hold a prayer vigil there.

I'm curious -- how many folks, including club members, even knew that the thing was there before the picture was taken? Probably not many. If Al Sharpton is going to try to make a cause celebre out of this, it proves that the racial climate in this country even better than I had believed.

Indeed, if a flag in a garage and the six felonious thugs from Jena are the worst offenses the racial grievance mongers can muster, then I'd argue it is time to zero-out the civil rights division of the Department of Justice -- its work is done.

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

From The Campaign Spot at NRO.

This Would Be Awesome: Ted Olson for Virginia Senate Seat?

IÂ’m hearing rumblings that high-ranking Republicans want to coax former Solicitor General Ted Olson to run against Mark Warner in next yearÂ’s Virginia Senate raceÂ…

And it might still leave him in contention for a future Supreme Court seat – one which is richly deserved.

Posted by: Greg at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Because after all, we wouldnÂ’t want to make those breaking the law feel uncomfortable, stigmatized or unwelcome.

One of the toughest state laws targeting illegal immigrants takes effect Thursday in Oklahoma, prompting efforts by immigrants trying to block it and work by state agencies to comply.

The law makes it a felony to transport or shelter illegal immigrants. Businesses, which are barred by federal law from hiring illegal immigrants, can be sued by a legal worker who is displaced by an illegal one.

The measure denies illegal immigrants certain public benefits such as rental assistance and fuel subsidies.

"It's clearly one of the most restrictive policies" in the country, says Cecilia Muñoz of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.

Muñoz says she's particularly concerned about a provision that gives local police the authority to check immigration status. Such policies create fear among all Hispanics, including those in the country legally, and may contribute to discrimination, she says.

On Thursday, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders filed its second lawsuit against the measure. The group says it is unconstitutional because immigration is a federal, not state, responsibility.

IÂ’m particularly troubled by their attempt to block the provision allowing legal workers to sue employers of illegal immigrants. After all, according to the advocates for the border jumpers, those folks are only doing the jobs Americans wonÂ’t do. Could it be that they are afraid of being proved wrong when there is a flood of lawsuits from American citizens who want jobs but are being undercut by those with no legal right to be in (much less work in) the United States?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 3 kb.

Heck, the real news would be if she wasnÂ’t voting Republican.

Sorry, sister: Laura Bush says experience as First Lady may count, but she won't vote for Hillary Clinton just to see the first female President.
Putting party over gender pride yesterday, Bush said she wasn't at all conflicted over opposing the first woman with a real chance to break the marble ceiling.

"It doesn't matter to me - I hope it doesn't matter to other people," the First Lady said. "I hope that people will choose the candidate that they think really has the views that they want.

"I'll be supporting the Republican," Bush added on "Fox News Sunday."

Republican wife of a sitting Republican president gets asked of she is going to vote for a Democrat in the upcoming election. What do you think she would say? The question itself is asinine.

Posted by: Greg at 09:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are The MSM's Rush Limbaugh Horror Story by Bookworm Room, and Resistance Is Futile by Michael Yon.  Here is a link to the full results of the vote.  :

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 5 kb.

Found in this magnificent quote from Mark Steyn.

"If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it. Fantasy is a by-product of security: it's the difference between hanging upside down in your dominatrix's bondage parlor after work on Friday and enduring the real thing for years on end in Saddam's prisons."

Exactly.

And similarly, if the Bush Administration were truly the fascist regime the anti-war crowd keeps claiming it is, those making the claim would have long since been imprisoned or executed for the audacity of their claims.

H/T Right Wing News

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Dare I state that I don't care that he was detained, searched and inconvenienced? It happens to average Americans every day.

BRITAIN'S first Muslim minister said he was "deeply disappointed" yesterday after being detained at a US airport where his hand luggage was tested for traces of explosive materials.

Shahid Malik, the MP for Dewsbury and an international development minister, was returning to Heathrow after meetings and talks on tackling terrorism, when he was stopped at Dulles Airport near Washington yesterday morning.

He was searched and detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - the department whose representatives he had been meeting on his visit.

You, sir, at least fit the profile of a terrorist. We regularly see nuns and Medal of Honor winners searched at random as a condition of air travel. Why should you be treated any different? And if, as you claim, all of those getting the special search that day were Muslims, it appears that someone may have been awake to the fact that Muslims are the folks who have been committing the bulk of terrorist activity over the last 20 years or so.

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

The great Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban in 201. It was a great loss for the cultural heritage of all humanity. Roger Cohen reflects on that loss today, following a recent visit to the site.

People still speak of the Buddhas as if they were there. The Buddhas are visited and debated. A “Buddha road” just opened. It boasts the first paved surface in Afghanistan’s majestic central highlands and stretches all of a half-mile.

But the 1,500-year-old Buddhas of Bamiyan are gone, of course, replaced by two gashes in the reddish-brown cliff. They were destroyed in March 2001 by the Taliban in their quest to rid the country of the “gods of the infidels.” The fanatical soldiers of Islam blasted the ancient treasures to fragments.

“It is easier to destroy than to build,” Mawlawi Qudratullah Jamal, then the Taliban information minister, noted on March 3, 2001. True enough, but few in New York or elsewhere listened.

Memory, however, is another matter. It is stubborn and volatile and hard to eradicate. The keyhole-like niches in the rock face are charged. Absence is presence. The visitor is drawn into the void as if summoned, not by vacancy, but by the towering Buddhas themselves.

Cohen clearly intends this to be a call for peace, but I think that the quote from Mawlawi Qudratullah shows the problem we face in the current conflict. Our enemy thinks nothing of destruction for destruction's sake, to the point that bombarding Buddhas or flying planes into buildings, not to mention engaging in terrorists bombings and beheadings, are not only not unthinkable but are instead second nature to them. We are faced, then, with new barbarians whose goal is nothing less than the destruction of our society, and we must continue to stand against them or allow them to succeed due to a pacifism born of laziness. Our society has been one of of great building in every field of endeavor. What lasting contribution to the world has our enemy built in the last six centuries?

Cohen ends by noting that fear is not the answer. He is right -- but neither is surrender to the forces of evil that would engulf us in a tidal wave of destruction.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

Never mind that it could play into the same sort of frenzy set off by false reports of flushed Qurans.

A Muslim inmate says prisoners around the country are regularly mistreated by their jailers because of religious faith. The Supreme Court is considering his case Monday.

The issue in the inmate's lawsuit is whether he can sue prison officials for allegedly confiscating two copies of his Quran and his prayer rug.

Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali, a convicted murderer, says the books and rug are among the personal items that have been missing since 2003, when he was moved from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to a facility at Inez, Ky.

Muslim inmates have been subjected to "very hard times and bad treatment" at the hands of federal, state and local prison employees because of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Ali says in court papers.

Ali is serving a sentence of 20 years to life in prison for committing first-degree murder in the District of Columbia.

So we know the true nature of the guy making the complaint -- he is a cold-blooded killer. I guess that doesn't stand in the way of his being a good Muslim, does it? Religion of Peace and all that.

Ali says the items he turned over to prison officers in Atlanta for shipment never arrived at Inez.

In the Supreme Court, the question is whether federal prison officials qualify as law enforcement officers and are therefore exempt from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946. The statute bars liability claims against law enforcement officers involved in detaining property. Two lower federal courts ruled against Ali.

Besides the two copies of the Quran and the prayer rug, Ali is missing stamps and other personal items worth $177 that he says weren't sent along to Big Sandy penitentiary in Kentucky.

Gee, growing up my family moved at six times -- and every time, something got lost in transit. My complete medical records for the first six years of my life were lost by the Department of Defense when they were shipped from Naval Hospital Balboa to Naval Hospital Bethesda, though the rest of the family records arrived just fine. Sounds like the same thing here. But I guess you can get more press claiming confiscation than simple loss.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 2 kb.

A new site dealing with the threat of Islamic terrorism has opened -- Kafir Canada.

If the first major post (second overall) is any indication, the site will become an important one in the fight against those who would do violence against us in the name of the Muslim faith, as well as those who object to efforts to combat Islamic terrorism. Provided, of course, the Canadian government doesn't try to shut it down for speaking the truth.

Posted by: Greg at 08:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

As they try to force workers at one company to pay for union representation they don't want.

Unite (Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees) has been trying to wedge a foot in the door at Cintas since 2003. Unable to get enough worker support to force an election, Unite wants to skip the customary secret-ballot and force 17,000 Cintas workers to join the union and pay dues. But Cintas and its workers have said no thanks.

"What they're asking for is they want me to agree to put all of our people in a union without giving them a chance to vote for themselves," said CEO Scott Farmer, after the shareholders meeting on Tuesday. "Our position is that our employees have a right to say yes - but they also have a right to say no."

So Unite has resorted to desperate attacks on the Cincinnati-based uniform company.

Unite copied license numbers from Cintas workers in Pennsylvania, to snoop in personal information and harass them at home. The union has been ordered to pay the workers $2,500 each. Unite also published a false press release that caused Cintas stock to drop $300 million, according to a defamation suit by Cintas that is going to trial in Warren County court.

"For four-and-a-half years now our people have heard it all," Farmer said. "The union is not going anywhere, but I consider it a failed campaign."

For every "sweatshop" accusation from Unite, there are dozens of Cintas workers who like their jobs and want no part of a union. Many have signed petitions asking Unite to stop harassing them.

If a business engaged in such tactics to stop their workers from unionizing, they would be subject to criminal and civil penalties. If that business engaged in such tactics to break an existing union, they would be subject to criminal and civil penalties. When will unions be subject to the same sort of penalties -- and when will our government quit coddling the union thugs and seeking legislation to force workers into unions they don't want?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Lost Paradise, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 6 kb.

I think this really sums the matter up quite nicely, since the Democrats seem to believe that we have enough extra cash around to "insure" the health of every single American and any illegal alien able to sneak across the border.

The first fallacy should be obvious to anyone. The government does not have any extra money! In fact, our government owes $9 trillion, give or take a few billion. That is what we call the national debt, but really, it is not owed by the government; it is owed by you and me. Every time some politician gets another bright idea to give away a million dollars here or $250,000 there, it comes out of your pocket. DonÂ’t just believe me; ask your pocket.

The second fallacy may be more subtle. What is being called “health insurance” by the politicians is nothing of the sort. As we have already established, insurance is a financial gamble where you put money at risk on the chance that you will reap a reward later. Notice the word “risk.” But the only one assuming any risk in the “feel-good” version of insurance being proposed by Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the gang is the American taxpayer. What they are talking about is “free health care,” not insurance. But it is only free for the sick person; instead of them paying for their own care, you and I pay for it.

* * *

Which brings us to the unstated third fallacy of the health-care debate, the one which is pivotal and sadly which is accepted as truth by the vast majority of people. It is this: If there is something that is good for me, I am entitled to it, whether I can afford it or not.

Put more simply:

1) We can't afford it.
2) It is socialism, not insurance.
3) It isn't a right.

Interestingly enough, medical care used to be affordable for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Then the government got involved in paying for it for those who couldn't? The result? Prices went up to the level that health insurance became a necessity for everyone else -- which drove costs still higher. After all, when you have to document every aspirin in triplicate and submit the paperwork to get reimbursed, that pill that costs a penny to buy does start to cost $4 to administer..

Posted by: Greg at 04:08 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 2 kb.

I hold a certain ambivalence towards the death penalty. On the one hand, I have deep concern over its use upon the innocent. At the same time, I recognize that some crimes are, by their very nature, so heinous that no other penalty is adequate to express society's outrage. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that some offenders -- and not just murderers -- clearly forfeit the presumption of a right to life by the very nature of their crimes.

And that is where I come to this case, which transfixed the nation this summer, and the community of faith that struggles to deal with it.

The United Methodist Church here is the kind of politically active place where parishioners take to the pulpit to discuss poverty in El Salvador and refugees living in Meriden. But few issues engage its passions as much as the death penalty.

The last three pastors were opponents of capital punishment. Church-sponsored adult education classes promote the idea of “restorative justice,” advocating rehabilitation over punishment. Two years ago, congregants attended midnight vigils outside the prison where Connecticut executed a prisoner for the first time in 45 years.

The problem, of course, with the whole "restorative justice" concept is that there is no real way of making whole the victims and the community in certain cases. And that is precisely the problem in the case at hand.

So it might have been expected that United Methodist congregants would speak out forcefully when a brutal triple murder here in July led to tough new policies against violent criminals across the state and a pledge from prosecutors to seek capital punishment against the defendants.

But the congregation has been largely quiet, not out of indifference, but anguish: the victims were popular and active members of the church — Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and her two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. On July 23, two men broke into the family’s home. Mrs. Hawke-Petit was strangled and her daughters died in a fire that the police say was set by the intruders.

The killings have not just stunned the congregation, they have spurred quiet debate about how it should respond to the crime and whether it should publicly oppose the punishment that may follow. It has also caused a few to reassess how they feel about the punishment.

Yeah -- the liberal "principle" at work here gets really hard to stand by when it hits too close to home. All of a sudden one is forced to reexamine what one believes when the hard, cold reality and unspeakable evil intrudes. Sure, ideas like "restorative justice" sound great in theory -- especially when one talks about property crime -- but it doesn't work when you have three dead loved ones to deal with. They are not going to be restored.

At the heart of the debate are questions about how Mrs. Hawke-PetitÂ’s husband, William, who survived the attack, feels about the death penalty. The indications are conflicting. Sensitive to his grief, many of the churchÂ’s most ardent capital punishment opponents have been hesitant to speak against the capital charges brought against two parolees charged with the killings, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes.

“I’m treading lightly out of respect for the Petit family,” said the church’s pastor, the Rev. Stephen E. Volpe, a death penalty opponent. “I do not feel we, in this church, ought to make this tragedy the rallying cry for anything at this point.”

Yeah -- but if this was some other family from some other church, would you be more than willing to do so? If so, then that is either a sign that you are unwilling to stand by your principles when they are inconvenient, or that you know that they are wrong but unwilling to own up to that reality. After all, if you really believe that your position is coming out of the Gospel, then you need to proclaim it when it is hard, not just when it is easy -- unless it is less about the Gospel and more about a political agenda sugar-coated with a veneer of religion.

At the same time, there is a widespread belief that Mrs. Hawke-Petit was opposed to capital punishment. Having her killers put to death would be the last thing she would want, many say.

“It’d be so dishonoring to her life to do anything violent in her name,” said Carolyn Hardin Engelhardt, a church member who is the director of the ministry resource center at Yale Divinity School Library. “That’s not the kind of person she was.”

At least two church members say they think that Mrs. Hawke-Petit endorsed an anti-death-penalty document known as a Declaration of Life. The declaration states a personÂ’s opposition to capital punishment and asks that prosecutors, in the event of the personÂ’s own death in a capital crime, do not seek the death penalty. The documents have been signed by thousands of people, including Mario M. Cuomo, the former governor of New York, and Martin Sheen, the actor.

“She was a nurse and she would not cause harm to anyone,” said Lucy Earley, a congregant who notarized at least a dozen declarations during an appeal at the church and said she thought Mrs. Hawke-Petit’s was among them.

Declarations of Life are often kept with a personÂ’s will or other important papers; sometimes they are filed with registries. But it could not be independently determined whether Mrs. Hawke-Petit had signed one. Although the familyÂ’s home was heavily damaged in the fire and no independent copies have surfaced, death penalty opponents both inside and outside the church have kept trying to find one. A clear indication that Mrs. Hawke-Petit rejected capital punishment could help them mobilize, they say, not only in the Cheshire case but also on behalf of the nine people on ConnecticutÂ’s death row in Somers.

The opponents also say that a signed declaration by Mrs. Hawke-Petit opposing capital punishment could help counter the public outrage to the killings — outrage that has pressured state officials to suspend parole for violent criminals.

I'm about to make a really terrible sounding statement -- the views of Jennifer Hawke-Petit (or her daughters, or her surviving husband and other family members) on the death penalty are at best tangentially relevant to the eventual sentence given in this case. When prosecuted, the case will not be prosecuted in her name -- it will be prosecuted in the name of the people of the state of Connecticut, recognizing that the offense committed was not just against her and her family, but also against society as a whole. Indeed, the question is what do the people of Connecticut view as an appropriate punishment for the horrific events that took place this summer -- views quite clearly expressed in support of the death penalty.

But I put a different question to those anti-death penalty ideologues who urge that the victim's views should be the overriding factor in determining the sentence for murder -- if a victim left behind some clear demand for the execution of their murderers, would you be equally passionate in demanding that execution be the only option at sentencing? If their clearly articulated religious views supported the death penalty, would you insist that they be the guiding force in this case? Or would you argue, in typical liberal fashion, that your views are so much more compassionate and humane and advance than theirs and that your views must therefore override the wishes of the victim? You don't need to answer -- we already know.

Still, if proof of Mrs. Hawke-PetitÂ’s sentiments did surface, it would have little standing in court, lawyers and prosecutors say.

“Our job is to enforce the law no matter who the victim is or what the victim’s religious beliefs are,” said John A. Connelly, a veteran prosecutor in Waterbury who is not involved in the Cheshire case. “If you started imposing the death penalty based on what the victim’s family felt, it would truly become arbitrary and capricious.”

Michael Dearington, the state’s attorney who is prosecuting the suspects in the Petit killings, said he did not know whether Mrs. Hawke-Petit had signed a Declaration of Life. Asked if he knew Dr. Petit’s views on the death penalty, he replied, “I have a no comment on that.”

Interestingly enough, the article goes on to indicate that Dr. Petit is in support of the death penalty in this case. That creates an interesting problem for those who talk about "restorative justice", because it appears that the one surviving victim may have a very different view of what it will take for justice to be done. And while there is an anecdote regarding the use of the Prayer of St. Francis at the memorial service for his murdered family, and his struggle with the word pardon, let us not forget that forgiveness and justice are not mutually exclusive concepts in the Christian tradition, or in the American legal system.

I'm going to stop the fisking at this point. I do so for two reasons.

1) Much of the rest of the article constitutes a rehashing of the same issues raised earlier. and a focus on some genuinely good and decent works of the congregation. Frankly, I admire much of what is reported here, and do not doubt the people of the congregation are men and women of faith seeking to follow the Gospel. While I disagree with them on some points (in particular the death penalty issue), I respect them and mean nothing in the way of disrespect for them in anything I have written.

2) It hits too close to home. Jennifer Hawke-Petit, you see, was a friend of my wife's when they were growing up in Pennsylvania. She attended the couple's wedding, and the baptism of Hayley, their oldest daughter. She worked for Jennifer Hawke-Petit's father for a time. The events of this summer caused much anguish around our home, and much talk the victims and their families. I choose to honor those things revealed by not speaking of them more publicly in this forum.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Lost Paradise, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1803 words, total size 14 kb.

Question: When can you direct a racial slur at a minority politician?

Answer: When he's a Republican, and you can get a fellow minority to say it.

Noting that Jindal, 36, chose the nickname Bobby in place of his given name, Piyush, as a toddler and converted from Hinduism to Christianity in high school, some have accused him of being a "potato": brown on the outside, white on the inside.

Shameful. Absolutely shameful. And no more acceptable than the "Is Obama black enough" meme of a few weeks back.

Jindal's crime, other than conservatism and Christianity, seems to be encapsulated in this view of the America.

“People want to make everything about race. The only colors that matter here are red, white and blue."

Why won't the media -- and too many Americans of minority ethnicities -- begin to embrace the views of one of the great men of twentieth century America?

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today....

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

Bobby Jindal has embraced that vision. The voters of Louisiana have embraced that vision. The Republican Party has embraced that vision. When will the press, the ethnic and racial grievance mongers, and the Left embrace that vision?

Posted by: Greg at 03:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

Tell me you don't find this funny.

And that it is not revealing of a great deal about the lawyer making the argument.

The first jury trial Mrs. Clinton handled on her own, for instance, concerned the rear end of a rat in a can of pork and beans. She represented the cannery, and she argued that there had been no real harm, as the plaintiff did not actually eat the rat. “Besides,” she wrote in her autobiography, describing her client’s position, “the rodent parts which had been sterilized might be considered edible in certain parts of the world.”

The jury seemed to buy her argument, more or less, as it awarded only token damages. But no one was particularly happy about the case or her performance. Her former partner, Webster L. Hubbell, told one of her biographers that she was “amazingly nervous” in speaking to the jury.

Tell me, friends, doesn't that sound like precisely the sort of argument that she would make in favor of socialized medicine?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Lost Paradise, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 5 kb.