So quit complaining that the Bush administration is violating your human rights. it isn't.

Instead, turn your shrill rhetoric to where it belongs -- the real oppressive dictators of the world.

You know, like in Burma.

It was about as simple and uncomplicated as shooting demonstrators in the streets. Embarrassed by smuggled video and photographs that showed their people rising up against them, the generals who run Myanmar simply switched off the Internet.

Until Friday television screens and newspapers abroad were flooded with scenes of tens of thousands of red-robed monks in the streets and of chaos and violence as the junta stamped out the biggest popular uprising there in two decades.

But then the images, text messages and postings stopped, shut down by generals who belatedly grasped the power of the Internet to jeopardize their crackdown.

“Finally they realized that this was their biggest enemy, and they took it down,” said Aung Zaw, editor of an exile magazine based in Thailand called The Irrawaddy, whose Web site has been a leading source of information in recent weeks. The site has been attacked by a virus whose timing raises the possibility that the military government has a few skilled hackers in its ranks.

The efficiency of this latest, technological, crackdown raises the question whether the vaunted role of the Internet in undermining repression can stand up to a determined and ruthless government — or whether Myanmar, already isolated from the world, can ride out a prolonged shutdown more easily than most countries.

OpenNet Initiative, which tracks Internet censorship, has documented signs that in recent years several governments — including those of Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — have closed off Internet access, or at least opposition Web sites, during periods preceding elections or times of intense protests.

You folks are free to spout your ignorant, ill-informed criticism of the American government with no censorship and no oppression -- indeed, you are aided by the very government that you claim oppresses you and violates your rights. Burma, on the other hand, is the face of oppression in the world, along with Darfur and other repressive, murderous regimes (sort of like Iraq used to be). Focus there, not here, and your words might seem to be more than simply self-indulgent whimperings by self-centered losers.

Oh, and I have to ask -- where are the human shields to protect the people of Burma? Or do they only get deployed to protect the enemies of America?

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

I consider the man to be something of a joke when it comes to his intervention on behalf of repressive regimes and his support for terrorists against Israel, but former US President Jimmy Carter got one right here.

Former President Jimmy Carter confronted Sudanese security services on a visit to Darfur Wednesday, shouting "You don't have the power to stop me!" at some who blocked him from meeting refugees of the conflict.

The 83-year-old Carter wanted to visit a refugee camp in South Darfur but the U.N. mission in Sudan deemed that too dangerous. Instead, he agreed to fly to the World Food Program compound in the North Darfur town of Kabkabiya, where he was supposed to meet with refugees, many of whom were chased from their homes by militias and government forces.

But none of the refugees showed up and Carter decided to walk into the town, a volatile stronghold of the pro-government janjaweed militia, to meet refugees too frightened to attend the meeting at the compound.

He was able to make it to a school where he met with one tribal representative and was preparing to go further into town when Sudanese security officers stopped him.

"You can't go. It's not on the program!" the local security chief, who only gave his first name as Omar, yelled at Carter, who is in Darfur as part of a delegation of respected international figures known as "The Elders."

"We're going to anyway!" an angry Carter retorted as a crowd began to gather. "You don't have the power to stop me."

Actually, Carter was wrong there -- they had the power to stop him, but not the moral authority to do so. I'm sure that the Secret Service would have done its damnedest to protect him from these thugs.

Frankly, I remain appalled by the weak response to Darfur by the world community. Hopefully this incident will spur some to action.

But I wonder -- if this were George W. Bush after his presidency, would the Left be so willing to praise him, or would we hear complaints about arrogance and potentially sparking international incidents.?

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

But please understand -- they don't support terrorism.

Egypt's government is paying for the legal representation of a college student who authorities say was found with pipe bombs near a Navy base, an attorney said Wednesday.

Attorney John Fitzgibbons told a judge he was in talks with the Egyptian embassy in Washington and likely will be hired to represent suspended University of South Florida student Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed.

Ahmed el-Qawassni, an official in Egypt's foreign ministry, said the government is closely monitoring the case and confirmed that an attorney is being hired for Mohamed, who was born in Kuwait to Egyptian parents.

"We are responsible for the sons of Egypt abroad with no exception," el-Qawassni said.

Mohamed, 24, and another USF student, Youssef Samir Megahed, 21, are charged with carrying explosive materials across state lines.

Mohamed also is charged with distributing information relating to explosives, destructive devices and weapons of mass destruction. Authorities allege he made an Internet video showing how to use remote-controlled toys to detonate terrorist bombs.

Yeah, he was arrested with explosives, left writings indicating his support for terrorism, and even posted a terrorist-advocating video on YouTube that included bomb-making instructions -- but he isn't a terrorist.

And since the Egyptian government is responsible for "the sons of Egypt" abroad, let's assess them for any damage done to US interests by Egyptian-born terrorists.

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

It appears there are still jury problems in the trial of the terrorist-supporting Holy Land Foundation.

The Dallas trial of a charity accused of financing Middle Eastern terrorists took a twist Wednesday when jurors indicated that a member of the panel was refusing to vote.

Jurors in the case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development were called back into the courtroom of U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish, who told panelists they had a duty to try to reach a decision.

The judge ordered jurors to resume their deliberations, which were in their ninth full day after a two-month trial.

This seems to be a major problem to me, and if you actually have a juror refusing to deliberate, that individual should be removed from the panel OR a mistrial declared and a new trial set. That the judge has failed to do so is troubling.

Frankly, I'm surprised this story didn't receive more coverage nationally -- but want to commend the Dallas Morning News for providing better coverage than the wire report above.

Posted by: Greg at 09:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

At one time, the New York Times was known as the paper of record for any significant event. Its coverage of the current brouhaha over Rush Limbaugh makes it clear just how far its standards have descended.

Having abandoned for now their effort to force President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrats are not giving ground against a lesser nemesis: Rush Limbaugh.

With the help of liberal advocacy groups, the Democrats in Congress are turning Mr. Limbaugh’s insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” into the latest war of words over the war.

A resolution introduced by 20 Democrats urges the House to condemn the “unwarranted slur” made by Mr. Limbaugh, though it does not condemn the broadcaster himself.

Right there is the problem. Nowhere in this article is there any indication that the reporter, Carl Hulse, has even gone back and examined the unedited transcripts and audio of the show in question. Indeed, he takes at face value the partisan claims of Media Matters and the Democrats that Limbaugh did, in fact, call any anti-war veteran a “phony soldier”. The only problem, of course, is that Rush Limbaugh did not say that, and one would assume that journalistic ethics, not to mention common decency would require that this be noted somewhere in the article. It isn’t – and indeed, the article dismisses Limbaugh’s defense of himself.

There is even an interesting spin by Media Matters included in the article, one that is contradicted by the transcript itself.

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. “I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,” he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. LimbaughÂ’s first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. LimbaughÂ’s remarks be repudiated.

That is true – almost. In that transcript, it is clearly about two minutes before Limbaugh explains the reference to “phony soldiers”. And while he does only talk about one, Jesse Macbeth, though his case is one of a number in which fake vets have lied about serving, or actual vets have been documented to have lied about events. I'd argue that both groups qualify as phonies, wouldn't you?

But look at what Limbaugh said.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

So it is clear that Rush is referring back to a previous show on another day to make a reference. Given that much of LimbaughÂ’s audience listens daily, it is likely that they knew what he was referring to. In addition, the Jesse Macbeth story had been in the news only days before, and a reasonably well-informed audience like LimbaughÂ’s would have been aware of it. But even setting all that aside, the article is so slanted that it is not even funny.

But while we are on the topic of LimbaughÂ’s comments and the controversy surrounding them, let me note a few things.

1) I find it very interesting that Harry Reid and company will not come off the Senate floor to make these comments. Could it be that they know their statements are false – and so recklessly false as to enable Limbaugh to meet the standard for succeeding in a suit for defamation? Are they, in fact, hiding behind the Speech or Debate Clause of Article I to engage in speech that would be legally actionable if engaged in outside the Senate Chamber?

2) Why wouldn’t many of these same individuals condemn the infamous MoveOn.Org “Betray Us” ad, which accused General Petraeus of treason?

3) Is it only conservative broadcasters that these Senators are prepared to condemn? Will these same individuals condemn these comments from their fellow Democrat politicians (including signers of the Reid letter about Limbaugh)?

While Limbaugh exposed the left's exploitation of a phony, the likes of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., are free to slander the Marines who defended themselves against a jihadist ambush in the Iraqi town of Haditha, claiming they had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Sounds like the phony charges Macbeth made, doesn't it?

No one has been found guilty in the Haditha incident, and there has been no proof of innocent civilians being murdered. Several of the Marines have been found innocent as the case has unraveled. But is Murtha condemned by his colleagues or asked to apologize?

Sen. John Kerry once told Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "there is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women . . . ." This was a more modest reprise of his post-Vietnam charges that U.S. troops had raped, tortured and pillaged in the tradition of Genghis Khan.

Then there's the famous utterance by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., after the incident at Saddam's Abu Ghraib prison: "We now learn that Saddam's torture chamber (has) reopened under new management."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., once said of our prisoner of war camp at Guantanamo that "describing what Americans had done to prisoners under our control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by the Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings."

I guess, of course, that attacks on our soldiers, their patriotism, and their decency are just fine – as long as they come from liberals and are aimed at ensuring our defeat in Iraq and the swift implementation of a cut-and-run strategy. So while it is impossible to call our servicemen and women in Iraq "phony soldiers", it is clear that the signers of this letter (along with Media Matters and NY Times reporter Carl Hulse) are phony patriots.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1464 words, total size 11 kb.

Well, at least she won't shove it down our throats...

H/T Gary McCoy, via Townhall.com

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 2 kb.

Twenty-five years ago, my father was intimately involved in arranging college credit for advanced technical training completed by sailors at Service School Command Great lakes and other Navy training programs around the country. It therefore warms my heart to see this bit of news about the expansion of a similar program in the Army.

The Army plans to offer accredited college credit hours for its training programs with enough offerings that a soldier could retire with a bachelor's degree.

The program is called the College of the American Soldier and is viewed as a recruitment tool as the Army seeks to expand its force.

With the offering, the Army will be able to tell recruits to come in to learn a skill and to obtain an education, said Lt. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, who outlined the program during a breakfast meeting Tuesday with reporters.

Freakley is head of Army Accession Command, which is responsible for recruiting and the initial training of soldiers. He said the Army is working with colleges to gets its training programs accredited, and hopes to begin the program in February.

Under it, every new recruit in basic training will have the option of obtaining a technical certification in a skill such as welding or potentially 17 hours of college credit in leadership, first aid and other areas, he said.

"The idea would be, by the time you are a staff sergeant, somewhere between six and 10 years in the Army, you're going to have your associate's degree," Freakley said.

Soldiers who attend the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy could get 45 hours of credit because they have to write and take classes in areas such as literature and public speaking, he said. Those who retire as a master sergeant or sergeant major could have a bachelor's degree through the program, he said.

My only questions -- who will issue this degree, and will these credits be accepted for transfer by colleges and universities? The program my father was involved in creating actually counted these courses for college credit through several different schools, and were accepted as a part of their degree programs. Will these be captive credits that will only earn you a degree through the College of the American Soldier, or will you be able to get out with that associate's degree and transfer to Podunk State College, Big State University or Prestigious East Coast University?

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

One can argue whether or not there should be a moratorium on carrying out death sentences by lethal injection pending a Supreme Court decision. However, there is unquestionably only one way for this to happen under the laws and constitution of the State of Texas.

This is it.

Signaling an indefinite halt to executions in Texas, the stateÂ’s highest criminal appeals court late Tuesday stayed the lethal injection of a 28-year-old Honduran man who was scheduled to be put to death Wednesday.

The reprieve by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was granted a week after the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a form of lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment barred under the Eighth Amendment. On Thursday, the Supreme Court stepped in to halt a planned execution in Texas at the last minute, and though many legal experts interpreted that as a signal for all states to wait for a final ruling on lethal injection before any further executions, Texas officials said they planned to move ahead with more.

As a result, TuesdayÂ’s ruling by the Texas court was seen as a sign that judges in the nationÂ’s leading death penalty state were taking guidance from the Supreme Court and putting off imminent executions.

The Texas court order gave state authorities up to 30 days to explain in legal papers why the execution of the inmate, Heliberto Chi, should proceed. With responses then certain from defense lawyers, the effect of the order was to put off the execution for months, lawyers said.

Some want the governor to implement such a moratorium. Under state law and the state constitution, he cannot do so. His powers to delay or prevent an execution are incredibly limited (as I have been pointing out since George W. Bush ran for President in 2000, the Texas governor has weakest pardon and reprieve power in the 50 states). That puts the ball into the hands of the courts.

But I also urge Rick Perry to take another action that is within his power, one that would settle the question of lethal injection here in Texas.

Rick Perry is correct in not acting in this case. If a moratorium is truly necessary, he ought to call the legislature back into session to consider one -- and perhaps also legislation restoring either hanging or the firing squad as the form of execution in Texas, rendering moot the need for a moratorium at all.

After all, those two methods are unquestionably acceptable under the Eighth Amendment -- for they were in use when the Amendment was adopted, and clearly contemplated as acceptable by the Founders.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 5 kb.

Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has clearly decided it is "Do unto others -- in spades -- after they have done unto you."

Fred Thompson has a folksy, good old boy persona on the stump, but it may not last much longer.

When I asked him if he is an 11th Commandment man — Never speak ill of a fellow Republican — he responded, “I am more of a 12th Commandment man: Don’t speak ill of them until they speak ill of me. And then really speak ill of them.”

Now that seems reasonable, on its face. however, I hope that is tempered with the realization that too harsh an attack on his GOP rivals could damage the eventual nominee fatally, exposing weaknesses that will resonate with the electorate and give an opening to the eventual Democrat nominee.

After all, there was this Democrat named Al Gore in 1988 -- he raised challenged Michael Dukakis on a furlough program for state inmates and a prisoner named Willie Horton.

And the rest is history.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Does anyone else find this mildly disturbing?

They give them nicknames, worry when they signal for help and sometimes even treat them like a trusted pet.

A new study shows how deeply some Roomba owners become attached to the robotic vacuum and suggests there's a measure of public readiness to accept robots in the house — even flawed ones.

"They're more willing to work with a robot that does have issues because they really, really like it," said Beki Grinter, an associate professor at Georgia Tech's College of Computing. "It sort of begins to address more concerns: If we can design things that are somewhat emotionally engaging, it doesn't have to be as reliable."

People -- it is a vacuum. It isn't a pet. It isn't alive, and it doesn't have feelings. What is your problem?

More to the point -- what next? Are you willing to accept a less reliable car because of your emotional attachment to it? How about a less reliable computer, microwave, or television? We all know that wouldn't be the case. So why accept a less reliable vacuum because it is cute or different?

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Politico calls it a "battle of soundbites", but i call it using history to prove one's point.

You know -- actually appealing to facts.

In the battle of sound bites over President Bush’s expected veto of the children’s health insurance bill, the White House position boils down to this: Beware, beware — it’s the first step toward federalized health care.

Nonsense, say supporters from both sides of the aisle , who swear they would never vote for a bill that was the proverbial camelÂ’s nose under a tent on government-run health care.

But a look back at the fine print of the 1993 “Hillarycare” debacle shows there may be a grain of truth in the Republican suspicions — and also demonstrates that the GOP believes there is still significant political power to be mined from one of the Clinton administration’s greatest political and tactical failures.

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didnÂ’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

In principle, I don't have a problem with a plan for state insurance for low-income children without insurance -- though I dislike the federal involvement. But given the continuous efforts to expand it, with an obvious goal of making the government the insurer of all children, I see the dangers of such programs expanding well-beyond their stated goal. After all -- since when has $83,000 been "low-income"?

Posted by: Greg at 09:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

It is really too bad that John shut down the Bay Area Houston website last week -- I'd love to get his take on this story.

A meeting behind a church with $10,000 cash changing hands, five-figure gifts for a city councilman's "birthday party" and a mistress funneling bribes through a sham consulting company were among details spelled out Monday in a federal indictment alleging corruption at Dallas City Hall.

The 166-page indictment accuses state Rep. Terri Hodge, D-Dallas, and former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill of extortion and bribery in soliciting and taking payments from affordable housing developers.

Former City Councilman James Fantroy was indicted separately on a charge that he embezzled more than $5,000 from traditionally black Paul Quinn College, where he was a director and treasurer of a program that received federal money.

In all, 16 people were indicted following an FBI-led public corruption probe that burst into view more than two years ago when agents raided city offices.

Hodge, Hill and others are accused of taking tens of thousands of dollars from real estate developer Brian Potashnik in exchange for helping his company obtain federal tax credits for low-income housing projects in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

The fact that the party affiliation of all but one of these individuals is left off this story is troublesome, but no matter -- I'm shocked that Rep. Hodge was identified by party. Democrats rarely get so labeled --pr at least not early enough in the story for people to pay attention to it.

But here is my question -- when will the "good government" folks of the Left, the ones who want to highlight every hint of scandal around a Republican and demand that they be disciplined, expelled, or forced to resign, insist that Rep. Terri Hodge must leave the Texas House immediately?

Or are they going to do a William Jefferson, and insist that we wait for the charges to be resolved in a court of law before anyone says she is guilty and must surrender her seat?

In other words, will Texas Democrats practice a little affirmative action and treat her differently than Tom DeLay because she is a black, female Democrat?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Urban Grounds, Riehl World View, Don Surber

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Wake Up America, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 5 kb.

Tawana Brawley.

Crystal Gail Mangum.

Anita Hill.

Each used false accusations of sexual improprieties to attack and destroy men. Each has been shown to be a liar.

But since she is a liberal icon, Anita Hill has gotten space in the New York Times to continue to spread her lies about Justice Clarence Thomas. Her claims were not credible in 1991 -- they remain beyond belief in 2007.

ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence ThomasÂ’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I stand by my testimony.

Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.

But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.

Anita Hill claims that "[a] number of independent authors" have supported her. The problem is that none of those authors can be particularly viewed as unbiased or non-partisan. The witnesses on her behalf were decidedly unpersuasive -- indeed, I remember watching the hearings with an anti-Thomas Democrat whose response to their testimony was to turn to me and admit that he was convinced following their testimony that Clarence Thomas was innocent.

The sort of false charges that Anita Hill made were sensational enough in 1991 that the media was more than willing to be complicit in them. But since them, we have heard Tawna Brawley recant her charges of sexual abuse against powerful men, and watched as Crysta Gail Mangum used sexually loaded charges to falsely smear young men at Duke. Anita Hill, sadly, is cut from the same cloth. But in each case, liberals have been willing to take the word of an accuser, even when the evidence is against them.

The time has come for Anita Hill to realize that her 15 minutes are up -- and that it is morally wrong for her to seek to revictimize the man whose reputation she sullied in order to gain another quarter hour.

MORE AT Power Line, Sister Toldjah, Colossus of Rhodey, Don Surber, American Mind, Captain's Quarters, OnDeadline, Neptunus Lex, Macsmind

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, Wake Up America, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 5 kb.

After all -- this simply proves that the American people are ignorant of the financial realities of their preferred option in Iraq, and probably don't really know what they want or what is needed in Iraq in the first place.

There is broader public agreement on how Congress should approach war funding. About a quarter of adults want Congress to fund fully the administration's $190 billion request; seven in 10 want the proposed allocation reduced, with 46 percent wanting it cut sharply or entirely. About seven in 10 independents want Congress to cut back funds allocated for the war effort, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats; 46 percent of Republicans agree.

OK, so that means that the people want a sharp reduction in the number of troops in Iraq and a quick retreat from the field without victory -- right?

At the same time, there is no consensus about the pace of any U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. In July, nearly six in 10 said they wanted to decrease the number of troops there, but now a slim majority, 52 percent, think Bush's plan for removing some troops by next summer is either the right pace for withdrawal (38 percent) or too hasty (12 percent would like a slower reduction, and 2 percent want no force reduction). Fewer people (43 percent) want a quicker exit.

So what the American people think the President's plans are about right or even too quick to bring troops home.

But then there is this.

Overall, 55 percent of Americans want congressional Democrats to do more to challenge the president's Iraq policies, while a third think the Democrats have gone too far.

Which I suppose could be interpreted as support for the pell-mell retreat that the Left has been advocating for the last year, with a great skeedaddle from Iraq with America's tail tucked between her legs.

So how do we reconcile these three results? My answer -- we have to recognize that the American people don't understand what it costs to keep the war going in a manner that accords with their wish, which seem to be victory. After all, it is pretty clear that the President's plan is about right int he eyes of most Americans -- but that they don't like the price tag for it. Unfortunately, this indicates that the American people really don't know what it costs to keep an operation like this one going -- and trying to do it on the cheap would be disastrous. That first set of numbers is therefore irrelevant if one is to accept the second set of numbers as valid.

And what of the third set of numbers? I'd argue that it shows that the American people want the Congress to keep up the pressure on the Administration to remember that this cannot be an open-ended commitment, and that we ultimately do need to draw down our forces in Iraq.

But then again, that is already the position of the Bush administration -- though you generally would not know it from the media coverage that has been given.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 3 kb.

What is it with these major Democrat Party donors? Seems like they all have major corruption problems. So much for the claim that the Dems are the party of clean government -- this case would clearly make them the party of trading with the enemy.

In an unexpected midtrial reversal, Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr., the Texas oilman accused of corrupting the United NationÂ’s oil-for-food program, pleaded guilty today to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal kickbacks to Saddam HusseinÂ’s regime in 2001 to gain access to lucrative Iraqi oil contracts.

Mr. WyattÂ’s guilty plea came without warning this morning, on the 14th day of his trial in United States District Court in Manhattan, and it arrived before federal prosecutors had even finished presenting their case.

Under an agreement with the government, Mr. Wyatt pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The sentence he receives is likely to be between 18 and 24 months in prison, rather than the potential maximum of 70 years he could have faced if convicted on all five counts of the indictment.

This sudden change of mind was somewhat startling, not only because it came as the prosecution was about to rest its case, but also because Mr. Wyatt, a former drill-bit salesman, had proclaimed his innocence almost from the moment he was first arrested two years ago at his home in River Oaks, Houstons most exclusive residential district.

After rising before Judge Denny Chin to admit his guilt today, Mr. Wyatt, a plain-spoken octogenerian, embraced his wife, Lynn, a doyenne of the Houston social scene who is known for her philanthropic work and for her taste for haute couture.

Somehow, the New York Times missed the Democrat connection -- something that wouldn't have happened if Wyatt's donations had trended Republican. But for your information, here is a list of his contributions -- and I should remind you that Wyatt's wife matched these donations as well out of the couple's community property, so you should probably double the amounts. But a 3 or 4-to-1 disparity in favor of the Democrats is hardly worth noting, right?

The donations over the years include, to Democrats:

$1,000 to Bill Clinton
$3,900 to Hillary Clinton
$2,300 to Bill Richardson
$150,000 DNC
$101,000 DCCC
$60,000 DSCC
$2,000 to Texas Democratic Party
$500 Democratic Party of Harris County
$2,000 to Ted Kennedy
$500 to Joe Kennedy
$1,000 to Sheila Jackson Lee
$5,000 to Martin Frost.
$2,000 to Dick Gephardt
$1,000 to Jeff Bingaman
$1,000 to Lee Hamilton
$4,000 to Nick Lampson
$2,000 to Bob Kerrey
$1,000 to Jim Turner
$7,000 to Tom Daschle
$2,000 to Henry Gonzalez
$2,000 to Chris John
$1,000 to Chris Bell
$7,000 to Ken Bentsen
$1,000 to John Glenn
$4,000 to Greg Laughlin
$1,000 to John Bryant
$1,000 to Joe Biden
$1,000 to Scott Baesler
$1,000 to Leonard Boswell
$2,000 to Bob Graham
$1,000 to Max Sandlin
$1,000 to Ed Bernstein
$1,000 to Bill Sarpalius
$1,000 to Tim Johnson
$500 to Charles Sanders
$1,000 to Dick Zimmer
$7,500 to Gene Greene
$1,000 to Joel Hyatt
$5,000 to John Dingell
$4,300 to Jay Rockefeller
$1,000 to Richard Romero
$1,000 to Kent Conrad
$1,000 to Jim Mattox
$1,000 to Joe Lieberman
$2,000 to John Breaux

Donations to Republicans include:

$100,000 RNC
$5,000 NRSC
$5,000 Americans for a Republican Majority
$1,000 to Larry Craig
$1,000 to Don Nickles
$1,000 to Richard Shelby
$1,000 to Bob Bennett
$1,000 to Michael Huffington
$1,000 to James Hansen
$1,000 to John Isakson
$2,000 to Jim DeMint
$2,000 to Pete Domenici
$3,000 to Kay Hutchison
$3,000 to Jack Fields
$2,000 to Bob Dole
$2,000 to Phil Gramm
$4,600 to John Cornyn
$2,000 to Al DÂ’Amato
$3,000 to John McCain

And let us note that, even while under indictment, Democrats are taking donations -- on June 1, Jay Rockefeller took $2300 from Wyatt. I guess being indicted for trading with the enemy isn't all that big a deal.

H/T Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 677 words, total size 4 kb.

Does this mean that the economic crisis that has been predicted is over? Or that it was never really a crisis at all? That is what we have to ask as the Dow soars to a new high.

Stock markets rallied into record territory today as investors bought back into the banking and housing sectors, a sign that Wall Street could see an end to the summerÂ’s subprime housing woes and a lower risk of recession.

The Dow Jones industrial average opened the fourth quarter by soaring more than 200 points at one point, putting the index well above its previous high set in July. At the close, the Dow was up 191.92 points, or 1.4 percent, at 14,087.55. The Standard and PoorÂ’s 500-stock index rose 1.3 percent to 1,547.04, trading just beneath record levels, and the Nasdaq rose 1.5 percent, to 2,740.99.

The advances came as Citigroup and UBS, two of the worldÂ’s largest banks, predicted steep declines in third-quarter earnings and announced billions of dollars in losses and write-downs related to subprime mortgage-backed securities and loans.

“When I got in this morning I would have bet quite a bit of money that we would be going the other way today,” said Joseph Brusuelas, the chief United States economist at IdeaGlobal.

But the profit warnings eased some investorsÂ’ anxiety about the long-term effects of the subprime collapse, analysts said, leaving Wall Street with a sense that the worst of the fallout from the summerÂ’s credit crisis had passed.

“The market believes that the crisis is over,” said William Rhodes, the chief investment strategist of Rhodes Analytics, a market research firm. “Whatever problems emerged last quarter are last quarter’s problems. They’re over, that’s it, they’re done. So let’s move onto the next thing.”

So rather than a meltdown, it appears we were really dealing with a readjustment. If this continues, the subprime mortgage "crisis" will have run its course in a matter of weeks, not the months and years that some analysts predicted.

Posted by: Greg at 09:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

The human rights tragedy continuing in Burma appears to be worse than imagined.

Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

Mr Win, who spoke out as a Swedish diplomat predicted that the revolt has failed, said he fled when he was ordered to take part in a massacre of holy men. He has now reached the border with Thailand.

We always hear “Never Again!”

And yet the world allows it to happen again.

Posted by: Greg at 09:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Terrorists, thatÂ’s who.

On a video posted to YouTube.com this summer, a man speaking Egyptian-accented Arabic instructed viewers how to convert a remote-controlled toy car into a bomb detonator.

The 12-minute lesson was referenced on the popular video-sharing Web site under the search terms "detonator from a distance," "suiciders" and "martyrdoms."

A detonator could "save one who wants to be a martyr for another day, another battle," the man told viewers, according to federal prosecutors.

Last month, authorities identified the instructor as Mohamed Ahmed, 24, a graduate engineering student at the University of South Florida. An Egyptian national, he'd been stopped for speeding in South Carolina on Aug. 4, then arrested with a fellow student for allegedly carrying four pipe bombs in the trunk.

This is one of the folks that CAIR has declared to be innocent of all charges and the subject of persecution by the US government. However, this video showing Ahmed makes it pretty clear that he is a terrorist.

Posted by: Greg at 09:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Which will no doubt lead to more denials of success from the anti-war crowd.

Deaths among American forces and Iraqi civilians fell dramatically last month to their lowest levels in more than a year, according to figures compiled by the U.S. military, the Iraqi government and The Associated Press.

The decline signaled a U.S. success in bringing down violence in Baghdad and surrounding regions since Washington completed its infusion of 30,000 more troops on June 15.

A total of 64 American forces died in September — the lowest monthly toll since July 2006.

The decline in Iraqi civilian deaths was even more dramatic, falling from 1,975 in August to 922 last month, a decline of 53.3 percent. The breakdown in September was 844 civilians and 78 police and Iraqi soldiers, according to Iraq's ministries of Health, Interior and Defense.

In August, AP figures showed 1,809 civilians and 155 police and Iraqi soldiers were killed in sectarian violence.

The civilian death toll has not been so low since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.

I know that there are folks out there who will do their best to downplay this good news – but when you consider that success in Iraq undermines their political agenda, why should we expect anything else?

Posted by: Greg at 09:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.