What do you have to say about the race for the GOP nomination in 2008?

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

I've hesitated to write on last night's address to the nation on Iraq. to be honest, I have some reservations about the message -- that we must commit more troops to Iraq in order to secure that nation and complete the task begun in 2003. Indeed, I wept last night, just as I did when the war began. I wept for those who have died, for those who will yet die, and for all who will be wounded as a part of this effort to help the Iraqi people secure the blessings of liberty that they, and all people, deserve as a part of the common birthright of humanity.

On to the news coverage.

This speech was a departure from earlier speeches on the war, as noted by the Washington Post.

President Bush appealed directly to the American people last night to support a renewed campaign to pacify Iraq, calling for an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to help the beleaguered Iraqi government regain control of Baghdad while warning that he would not support an "open-ended" U.S. commitment.

In a widely anticipated nationally televised address, Bush stood in the library of the White House and soberly said he had pursued a flawed strategy and acknowledged for the first time that he had not sent enough troops to provide security for Iraqi civilians. He described the situation in Iraq as "unacceptable" to the American people and to himself.

Not only that, but the speech represents a tactical shift for the President's war policy, one that may not be popular with the American people.

President Bush embraced a major tactical shift on Wednesday evening in the war in Iraq when he declared that the only way to quell sectarian violence there was to send more than 20,000 additional American troops into combat.

Yet in defying mounting pressure to begin troop withdrawals, the president reiterated his argument that the consequences of failure in Iraq were so high that the United States could not afford to lose.

Sadly, I am forced to concur with that assessment. Failure in Iraq is unacceptable. Indeed, failure in Iraq would be worse than the failure in Vietnam, which resulted in untold deaths and the political subjugation of our former allies. Failure in Iraq would likely result in another oppressive sharia mullah-ocracy like we see in Iran -- which would only be further emboldened to develop its nuclear programs and seek to establish hegemony in the region. We owe it to the millions of Iraqis who have sought to establish a vibrant democracy to continue to assist them in achieving that goal.

And yet this commitment is not open-ended or without limits. Iraq must make concrete steps to assuming more responsibility for its domestic and international security. That is the beauty of this plan -- the increase in American assistance will help them reach establish control, while the benchmarks and timetables will make this a deployment of short duration. And let me be clear -- these 21,500 troops need to be out of Iraq before Christmas, with a clear plan for redeploying the rest in place and ready to begin by that time as well.

But let me remind my anti-war friends that even once the troops are gone, we must stand by our Iraqi allies and be prepared to offer them other assistance as needed in the future. We must not repeat April, 1975.

The full text of the address is below the fold. more...

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 3539 words, total size 22 kb.

Once again, it is because of Jimmy Carter's current book. And mind you, these are folks that are Carter associates making the criticism, not his political enemies.

The text of the letter is as follows.

Dear President Carter,

As members of the Board of Councilors each one of us has been proud to be associated with the Carter Center in its noble struggle to repair the world. However, in light of the publication of your latest book Palestine; Peace Not Apartheid and your subsequent comments made in promoting the book, we can no longer in good conscience continue to serve the Center as members of the Board of Councilors.

In its work in conflict resolution the Carter Center has always played the useful and constructive role of honest broker and mediator between warring parties. In your book, which portrays the conflict between Israel and her neighbors as a purely one-sided affair with Israel holding all of the responsibility for resolving the conflict, you have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side.

The facts in dealing with the conflict are these: There are two national narratives contesting one piece of land. The Israelis, through deed and public comment, have consistently spoken of a desire to live in peace and make territorial compromise to achieve this status. The Palestinian side has consistently resorted to acts of terror as a national expression and elected parties endorsing the use of terror, the rejection of territorial compromise and of Israel's right to exist. Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during your own presidency when they snubbed your efforts.

Your book has confused opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity and force for change with partisan advocacy. Furthermore the comments you have made the past few weeks insinuating that there is a monolith of Jewish power in America are most disturbing and must be addressed by us. In our great country where freedom of expression is basic bedrock you have suddenly proclaimed that Americans cannot express their opinion on matters in the Middle East for fear of retribution from the "Jewish Lobby" In condemning the Jews of America you also condemn Christians and others for their support of Israel. Is any interest group to be penalized for participating in the free and open political process that is America? Your book and recent comments suggest you seem to think so.

In the past you would inject yourself into this world to moderate between the two sides in the pursuit of peace and as a result you earned our admiration and support. Now you repeatedly make false claims. You wrote that UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that "Israel must withdraw from territories" (p. 3 , but you know the word "must" in fact is not in the resolution. You said that since Mahmoud Abbas has been in office there have been no peace discussions. That is wrong. You wrote that Yassir Arafat told you in 1990 that, "The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel" (p. 62). Given that their Charter, which explicitly calls for Israel's destruction, was not revised until the late 1990s, how could you even write such a claim as if it were credible?

You denied on Denver radio on December 12 that Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyah said he would never accept or negotiate with Israel. However the BBC monitoring service reported just the opposite. In fact Haniyah said: "We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihadist movement until Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are liberated. When presented with this fact you said, "No he didn't say that, no he did not do that, I did not hear that." These are not points of opinion, these are points of fact.

And finally, it is a disturbing statement to write: "that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." In this sentence you clearly suggest that you are condoning violence against Israelis until they do certain things (p.213). Your use of the word "Apartheid," regardless of your disclaimers, has already energized white supremacist groups who thrive on asserting Jewish control of government and foreign policy, an insinuation you made in your OPED to the LA Times on December 8, 2006: "For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts." According to Web site monitoring by the Anti-Defamation League, U.S. white supremacists have enthusiastically embraced your suggestion that the Israel lobby stifles debate in this country, saying it confirms Jewish control of government and foreign policy as well as and the inherently "evil" nature of Jews. If you doubt the support you are giving and receiving, please refer to: [http://www.adl.org]

From there you can get to the postings of four different White Supremacist organizations that both support and make use of the contents of your book and what you have said in public.

As a result it seems that you have turned to a world of advocacy, including even malicious advocacy. We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support. Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center effective immediately.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Counstitution, the following are signatories to the letter.

1. Alan R. Abrams, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Servidyne, Inc., an Atlanta-based company serving the needs of commercial customers in the hospitality, industrial, corporate and institutional real estate markets.

2. Steve Berman, managing partner, OA Development, an Atlanta based real estate developer company.

3. Michael Coles, chairman of Minneapolis-based Caribou Coffee Co., the country's No. 2 coffeehouse chain.

4. Doug Hertz, president & CEO, United Distributors, a privately held Atlanta beverage distribution business.

5. Jonathan Golden, Partner and Chairman, Arnall, Golden, Gregory LLP, an Atlanta law firm.

6. Barbara Babbit Kaufman, author; formerly of Chapter 11 Books as its founder.

7. Liane Levetan, former state senator and DeKalb CEO.

8. Jeff Levy, Chairman and CEO of Atlanta-based PrDigital Media and its parent company, Biltmore Communications. PrDigital provides high density residential and commercial properties with a complete suite of broadband services.

9. Leon Novak, principal, The Trilogy Group, a full-service provider of commercial real estate services based in Atlanta.

10. Gail Solomon, Georgia Dome executive services manager.

11. Cathey Steinberg, Executive Director of the Juvenile Justice Fund, former state Consumers' Insurance Advocate and former state Senator.

12. Steve Selig, President and Chairman of the Board of Selig Enterprises. Has been in the commercial real estate field and employed with Selig Enterprises for over 35 years. He is also the Chairman of the Board of AAA Parking, a Selig subsidiary.

13. William B. Schwartz, Jr. was the U.S. Ambassador to The Bahamas from 1977-1981 during the Carter Administration.

14. William B. Schwartz III, formerly senior wealth management professional at Offitbank, an arm of Wachovia, Rockefeller & Co.

Again, I'd argue that Carter's book and recent statements are functionally, if not intentionally, anti-Semitic in nature -- a conclusion I came to after my recently-banned Holocaust-denying troll began promoting Carter's work as proof that Israel and the Jews were a malignant force in the world.

Additional coverage may be found here.

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1280 words, total size 8 kb.

I'm waiting for the international condemnation of this statement by Islamic organizations and prominent Muslims.

SHEIK Taj Din al-Hilali has ridiculed his adopted country on Egyptian television, dismissing the furore over his insults to women and defence of gang rapists while claiming Muslims had more right to live in Australia than the descendants of convicts.

The latest outburst by Australia's chief Muslim cleric came during an interview as he enjoyed what was meant to be a self-imposed exile in the Middle East to duck the national outrage he sparked late last year.

But rather than douse the controversy, which divided Muslim Australia and further strained relations with the broader community, the imam of Sydney's Lakemba Mosque has inflamed it.

"The Western people are the biggest liars and oppressors and especially the English race," the Mufti of Australia said in Arabic during the extensive interview in Eqypt, his birthplace. "The Anglo-Saxons who arrived in Australia arrived in shackles. We paid for passports from our own pockets. We have a right in Australia more than they have."

Remember -- this is the same guy who said rape victims were pieces of meat who deserved to be assaulted by innocent Muslim boys who they tempted by dressing immodestly. Indeed, he compared them to pieces of meat left out where they could be consumed by animals.

Of course I doubt there will be any serious criticism of the latest round of comments, because it is really reflective of the history of Islam as a whole -- one in which Muslims seek and impose a regime under which they have greater rights than followers of any other religion wherever they go, reducing native populations to dhimmi status.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Not that I believe that professional sports franchises ought to be able to loot the public coffers for new facilities, but I don't believe that the federal government has any place interfering in the decision of non-essential entertainment businesses choosing where to set up shop.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation today aimed at blocking the 49ers from leaving San Francisco by giving National Football League owners the right to vote on all franchise moves.

The measure, called the Football Fan Protection Act, would require an anti-trust law exemption.

Baseball has a much broader anti-trust exemption and has had only one franchise move, the switch of the Montreal Expos to Washington, D.C., in the past 25 years. In a similar period, the NFL has had seven franchise moves, Feinstein noted, including the Raiders, who moved from Oakland to Los Angeles and then back again in search of the best stadium deal.

Feinstein, a Democrat who was mayor of San Francisco when Candlestick Park was remodeled for the 49ers, was furious last November when she learned that the team's owners, John and Denise York, had broken off talks with Mayor Gavin Newsom over a new stadium at Candlestick Point and were instead undertaking negotiations with Santa Clara on a new South Bay stadium.

"This legislation is designed to slow the movement of NFL teams and prevent communities from suffering the financial and intangible costs of these moves," Feinstein said. "Our football teams are more than just businesses. They are a common denominator that cuts across class, race and gender to bond the people of a city. They are a key component of a city's culture and identity."

Imagine if she actually gave a damn about keeping major employers from moving rather than something as trivial as a sports franchise -- and I say that as a season ticket-holder for our local team.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Durbin on American troops fighting the Crusade Against Islamofascism -- January 10, 2007

We are not winning in Iraq, despite the courage and immense sacrifice of our military.

Durban on American troops fighting the Crusade Against Islamofascism -- June 15, 2005

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

So which is it, Senator Durbin? Are our troops the equivalent of the worst regimes of the twentieth century, or are they courageous patriots making great sacrifices on behalf of the United States?

Posted by: Greg at 03:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Indeed, this analogy is much more revealing about Ted Kennedy and his fellow cut-and-runners than it is about the President today -- or in 1967.

In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy.

I'm sorry -- I always believe that during time of war the nation and its leaders are SUPPOSED TO BE obsessed with victory. And while I will agree that the Johnson Administration grew divorced from rational policy, that was because it was too connected with ephemeral public opinion and was unwilling to do the things necessary to secure the victory we were achieving militarily.

Instead, it is obvious that Kennedy and company are obsessed with ensuring that we lose the war in Iraq, just as like they were forty years ago. Even though the United States was winning in Vietnam by any objective measure, a certain segment of the American populace lost their will and demanded defeat at any price.

And the lessons of April, 1975, show us the next step will be by Kennedy & Co., as we abandon our allies to defeat and destruction at the hands of an enemy that has the will to win and is not troubled by "public opinion".

Confirming, of course, that the United States is a paper tiger, unwilling and unable to fight a sustained conflict despite its technological and numerical superiority.

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

From NROÂ’s The Corner

Torture in Egypt [Michael Rubin]

In a November 15, 2006 Corner post, I linked to a video posted on an Egyptian website showing the Egyptian police sodomizing a dissident with a stick while he screamed in agony. The Egyptian Courts have now ruled on the caseÂ… and have thrown the dissident in prison for “resisting authority.”  Because the White House remains silent, all Egyptians are left with are images like this and this.

I guess Arabs torturing Arabs is not nearly so troubling to the Arab street and world sensitivities as the less serious incidents at Abu Ghraib -- acts that America punished rather than condoned.

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 2 kb.

What do the many professors and intellectuals who have rejected teh former president's recent book know that CarterÂ’s fellow terrorist-loving leftists donÂ’t?

This time it is another Emory University professor, Melvin Konner.

TO: Dr. John Hardman, M.D. Executive Director, The Carter Center

Dear Dr. Hardman,

I am sorry to say that after careful and frankly painful reflection, I have decided not to participate in your group advising President Carter and The Carter Center regarding his recent book on the Middle East conflict. During our telephone conversation on December 11 (perhaps not incidentally my late father's birthday) I spoke from my heart when I agreed to participate; it is not easy for me to lose one of my greatest heroes.

In less than a week since then, events have progressed in such a way as to persuade me that I cannot in good conscience participate in such an effort.

First, President Carter has proved capable of distorting the truth about such meetings and consultations in public remarks following them. In particular, he mischaracterized the meeting he had with the executive committee of the Board of Rabbis of Greater Phoenix, saying he and they had positive interactions and prayed together, when in fact others present stated that the meeting was highly confrontational and that the prayer was merely a pro forma closing invocation. (See "Letters," The New York Times, Dec. 15, 2006, p. A32.) However modest my reputation may be, I will not jeopardize it by participating in a meeting that might subsequently be so starkly misconstrued.

Second, in television interviews I have seen over the past week, President Carter has revealed himself to be so rigid and inflexible in his views that he seems to me no longer capable of dialogue. In an interview with Soledad O'Brien of CNN he failed to address a single one of the criticisms she quoted from various experts in a very serious tone of voice, pointing out that she was not reading the worst of the criticisms; he began laughing inappropriately while she spoke, and when she asked him how he would respond to the criticisms he stated, "With laughter." In a number of interviews I have seen and heard him respond to highly specific questions merely by stating again and again in one form or another, "My book is completely accurate." This rigidity of thought and complete failure to engage criticisms from much greater experts than me about his numerous and serious errors of commission and omission make it clear to me that an attempt by me to advise him would be pointless and counterproductive. In addition, his repeated public insinuations that the Jews control the media and the Congress˜well-worn anti-Semitic slurs that, especially coming from President Carter, present a clear and present danger to American Jews˜are offensive to me beyond what I can politely say.

Third, I am now carefully rereading parts of this very puzzling and problematic book, having read it through once quickly. I am not going to point out again here all the mistakes and misrepresentations pointed out by others (to take just one example, his flat contradiction of the accounts by President Clinton and Dennis Ross of events at Camp David at which they were present and he was not)˜none of which he has answered—nor explain the grotesque distortion caused by his almost completely ignoring Jewish history between ancient times and 1947 (he devotes five lines on page 64 to that millennial tragic story and mentions the Holocaust twice; his "Historical Chronology" at the outset contains nothing˜nothing˜between 1939 and 1947). However, I will call your attention to a sentence on p. 213 that had not stood out for me the first time I read it: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

As someone who has lived his life as a professional reader and writer, I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. This sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger.

I am sure you will now understand why I cannot participate in your group advising President Carter.

However, if I may, I will share this advice to you: If you want The Carter Center to survive and thrive independently in the future, you must take prompt and decisive steps to separate the Center from President Carter's now irrevocably tarnished legacy. You must make it clear on your web site and in appropriately circulated press releases that President Carter does not speak for The Carter Center on the subject of the Middle East conflict or the political role of the American Jewish community. If you do not do this, then President Carter's damage to his own effectiveness as a mediator, not to mention to his reputation and legacy will extend, far more tragically in my view, to The Carter Center and all its activities.

Meanwhile, in my own private and modest public capacity as a university professor and writer, I will work very hard in the foreseeable future to help discredit President Carter's biased, intemperate and inflexible mischaracterizations of the reality of Israel, Palestine, terrorism, and the American Jewish community. I will urge all my colleagues and students to do the same. And, most painfully, I will discourage any connection with The Carter Center until such time as you make perfectly and publicly clear your independence from President Carter on this tragically difficult set of questions, which he has chosen so dangerously to distort and oversimplify.

I emphasize that I have been a decades-long supporter of President Carter and of The Carter Center and have defended him, his legacy, and The Center's work at every possible opportunity. It is a grave loss for me to acknowledge that this will no longer be possible.

I applaud Dr. Konner, whose understanding of Carters books, articles, and statements seem to be in concert with mine (and yes, I have had the chance to read the book fully now), and those of numerous other academics and commentators on this issue.

And I would particularly like to highlight the one statement made in the book that is supportive of the murder of Jews.

: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

No two ways about it – Jimmy is unwilling to tolerate the shedding of even one drop of Arab blood by Israelis seeking to defend themselves from terrorists, but is willing to countenance the continued murder of Jews to bring about the political solution he seeks. If that is not anti-Semitism, the term has no meaning.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1193 words, total size 7 kb.

From the Border Patrol

The US Customs and Border Protection Office of Congressional Affairs has received several calls asking for more information regarding an incursion by armed individuals last week in Arizona. Below is a summary of the event. Please let me know if you require additional information.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2007, A National Guard Unit manning a observation post near Sasabe, AZ observed several armed men advancing on their location. The men were observed wearing ballistic vests and carrying automatic weapons. The National Guardsmen reported the situation to Border Patrol via handheld radio and satellite phone. One of the subjects approached the observation post and came within 20 yards of the site. Following standard operating procedure, the national Guardsmen slowly retreated to their vehicle and drove approximately 200 yards away from the site. A CBP air asset arrived on scene within minutes and flew over the area assessing the risk. Five Border Patrol ground Agents were on-site within 10 minutes of the initial call. The ground agents and the air asset tracked the subjects back into Mexico. The CBP air asset continued to provide an aerial platform to look for possible threats from the Mexico side of the border. The CBP air asset did not enter Mexican airspace. Nothing was disturbed or taken from the observation post. Contrary to several media reports, the National Guard members were armed at the time of the encounter

Joe Westmoreland
Office of Congressional Affairs
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
202-344-2852

If they are going to retreat, then why do we have the Border Patrol or National Guard there at all?

H/T Lone Star Times

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, we are talking about Chicago politicians.

Aldermen said on Tuesday they were upset about one of their fellow alderman's description of the city council.

"Now, we have another element in every one of our campaigns -- this perception that we're all crooks," said Alderman Freddrenna Lyle of the 6th Ward. "Which is the furthest thing from the truth."

On Monday, Alderman Arenda Troutman was arrested on suspicion of bribery. Federal agents said she had accepted a $5,000 bribe. According to government tapes, there are recordings of Troutman saying that, "well, the thing is, most aldermen, most politicians are hos."

Given the history of Chicago politics, this just seems to be an accurate assessment of the nature of the beast.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

So much for believing that Keith Ellison might be a loyal American or have any grounding in reality.

Rep. Keith Ellison has been named to the House Judiciary Committee, a panel that has oversight over issues such as civil liberties, immigration and courts.

In a prepared statement, Ellison, D-Minn., called the selection an honor and privilege.

"I look forward to pursuing a progressive agenda in the committee, including the restoration of American citizen's civil liberties that have come under increasing attack over the past six years," said Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress.

Ellison, a freshman lawmaker, said this week he'd like to see a ban on racial profiling, an issue that could come up in the Judiciary Committee.

Notice that phrase -- "progressive action". That means "regressive action" to the pre-9/11 status quo when it comes to detecting and preventing terrorist activity.

It also seems to me that Ellison is a liar in that there has been no attack on civil liberties in this country, and that there is nothing that needs be restored.

On the other hand, he is more than willing to help his fellow Muslims escape detection when they try to engage in terrorist acts.

What a guy – brought to you by the Democrat Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

Some sentences are sufficient to make one stop in your tracks and just gape.

A hermaphrodite who is accused of theft, criminal impersonation and bond violations in 2000 and 2004 has been found competent to stand trial.

But if one reads the story, it turns out that both the sentence and the headline are wrong – the perp is not a hermaphrodite, but a man pretending to be a woman. Therefore I’d have to argue that “sick freak” is a better descriptor.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Loyal Americans would think that this is a good thing.

The suspected al-Qaeda militant who planned the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa was killed in an American airstrike in Somalia, an official said Wednesday.

"I have received a report from the American side chronicling the targets and list of damage," Abdirizak Hassan, the Somali president's chief of staff, told The Associated Press. "One of the items they were claiming was that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is dead." ...

Mohammed allegedly planned the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 225 people.

He is also suspected of planning the car bombing of a beach resort in Kenya and the near simultaneous attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner in 2002. Ten Kenyans and three Israelis were killed in the blast at the hotel, 12 miles north of Mombasa. The missiles missed the airliner.

Which may, of course, explain these responses from the unAmerican Left.
First at TalkLeft.

...do we just believe we can go anywhere in the world and kill people because they might be al-Qaida followers?

Hell yes – and we need to do it more often and better. After all, terrorists are hostis humani generis -- the enemies of all mankind. Kill them where ever and when ever we can find them.

And then, of course, from the moonbats over at Kos.

The notion that we have any idea of whatever structure something called "al Qaeda" may have, sufficient to be able to ID who's in charge of what, is laughable. The idea that some notional "our man in Modagishu", ever alert for these key al Qaeda operatives that our expertise has identified, and probably circulates packs of playing cards with their pictures, spotted our intended target and dogged his footsteps to the Kenyan border to call in this airstrike, is ludicrous. I doubt that even the con men in charge of the whole operation believe that they have any idea who or what may have been at ground zero of those smoking holes. The only thing one can be confident of from this report, is that there would be no report were there not a need for some positive news of progress in the GWOT on the eve of Our Leader's inspiring speech outlining the Glorious Way Forward. Onward, to ever more and larger smoking holes, in ever more countries! The brown people will get the message sooner or later.

* * *

I have been a keen observer of the US political scene my entire adult life, and I wouldn't have any idea who in the Republican political machine to send the AC-130s after, or any confidence that knocking off any or all of them would improve the world, despite an utter confidence that they have fucked up the world mightily.

Yep, that’s right – al-Qaeda is morally superior to the GOP, and there are so many of us that are appropriate targets that this asshat wouldn’t know which of us to kill first. And sadly, such comments are typical of the latter day left in this country – who interestingly enough, seem blissfully unconcerned about the fact that most of the victims of this jihadi scumbag were, to use the words of the KOSsack, “brown people”, and that the US served up justice on their behalf as well as that of our own country.

At what point does what passes for “liberalism” today become aid and comfort to the enemy?

H/T CaptainÂ’s Quarters & Jawa Report

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 4 kb.

A minority of Senators can still prevent a majority from even discussing the public's business -- and the body voted to honor a corrupt, philandering drunk from the minority party by placing him third in line of gubernatorial succession.

The first disgrace was the inability of Senator Dan Patrick to get even a single additional senator to vote in favor of majority rule in the Senate by repealing the "blocker bill" rule.

He came, he spoke, he did not conquer.

Dan Patrick, Houston's fiery star of conservative talk radio, filled the Texas Senate chamber with his booming voice Tuesday, but his words fell flat.

Patrick's fight to kill a long-standing Senate rule requiring a two-thirds vote to debate a bill failed, 30-1.

* * *

For freshman Sen. Patrick, the day was more about challenging tradition than embracing it.

"I expected the vote to be 30-1," he said in an interview. "No one wants to let a rookie freshman change the rules of the Senate. I did not plan on diving into the pool on the first day, not in the deep end."

Patrick campaigned on trying to replace the two-thirds rule with a simple majority vote, a change that he thinks would give Republicans better control of the agenda.

The current Senate makeup is 20 Republicans and 11 Democrats. It takes 21 votes to bring a bill up for debate.

The rule, Patrick told his fellow senators, stifles debate.

"No controversial bill is brought up for honest debate on the floor," he said, adding that people want senators to take a stand on difficult policy matters.

"As long as we have the two-thirds rule, that doesn't happen," he said. "What's wrong with majority rule? It was good enough for Jefferson, for Madison and Monroe. It's not good enough for the Texas Senate?"

Since it was clear from the start that Patrick had no chance of prevailing, he kept his remarks under 10 minutes.

Looks to me like it doesn't really matter that we have nearly 2/3 of the Senate if we can't even get a majority to vote in favor of allowing a majority to talk about the business of the people of the state of Texas. Shame on every last GOP member who sided with Democrats against the people of Texas.

But equally troubling was the decision to honor Senator Mario Gallegos, a Democrat, by making him president pro tem of the Senate.

The Texas Senate's first day began on a far more poignant note, however, as the upper chamber honored recovering alcoholic Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, naming him the Senate's new president pro tempore.

As third in line of succession to the governorship, Gallegos will serve as "Governor for a Day" sometime during the session while Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst are "out of the state."

"For a young man who grew up in the barrio of Houston, this is truly a humbling experience for me," Gallegos said in his acceptance speech, joined on the dais by his wife, Theresa, and mother, Olga.

And that is strangely appropriate, given that Gallegos has been using Mom's address to run for office while living outside his district and carrying on with a stripper. And let's make no mistake -- this was about saving Gallegos from a possible primary challenge from fellow Democrats disgusted with his actions.

Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, lauded the ailing Gallegos for undergoing rehabilitation for alcoholism last spring.

Whitmire told senators he's confident that his "best friend" in the Senate has stopped drinking.

"I've been here long enough to see the human side of state representatives and state senators," Whitmire said. "We're not perfect. Mario's got some issues, but he's the first senator I've been familiar with that recognized his problem, sought help, went public and has been successful with his sobriety."

Whitmire then issued a warning at-large to anyone thinking of challenging Gallegos for his Senate seat: "You mess with Mario Gallegos while he's in recovery, while he's doing well and representing his district, you mess with Mario, and you're messing with me and the rest of this Senate."

Frankly, this is a disgusting show of buddy-buddy politics -- and a disgraceful decision on the part of the Senate.

I don't really ahve much to say about the race for Speaker of the House her in texas. I don't like Craddick and didn't like his challengers, because none of them are right on property tax relief, or on teacher pay and benefits. I just didn't have a dog in this hunt.

But I'm still a bit pleased that Craddick won.

After all, the lefty blogs are howling.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 788 words, total size 5 kb.

Speaking as a Republican who supports the President on Iraq, I want to urge "symbolic votes" and hold significant policy votes on the proposals to cut funds and mandate troop withdrawal from Iraq. After all, the American people deserve substantive debate and substantive votes on substantive policies, not window dressing and political posturing from those who seek surrender and wish to undercut the president and the crusade against Islamofascist jihadis.

Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President BushÂ’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.

Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.

The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.

The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.

In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.

So come on, Democrats, you have teh power -- have the testicular fortitude to use it by voting on actual legislation, not non-binding resolutions, on what we all agree is the defining issue of the day.

Or is it that you lack the will and the courage to actually stand up and be counted when it comes time for a real implementation of your principles -- just like you lack the will to use America's military might to spread freedom and American values abroad in the face of those who seek to destroy both.

Oh, and a closing note -- who chose the picture of harry Reid that makes him look like a plaster saint, complete with halo?

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Because after all, placing the George W. Bush Presidential Library people might become confused if the school is associated with something other than the promotion of Bush Derangement Syndrome and left-wing ideas in the classroom.

Intimates of President Bush have singled out Southern Methodist University as the likely site of his presidential library, but faculty members, complaining of being bypassed, are raising sharp questions about the schoolÂ’s identification with his presidency.

In a meeting Tuesday, faculty members complained of a lack of consultation over the emerging agreement and all but demanded answers from the universityÂ’s president, R. Gerald Turner, on the relationship that would develop between the university and the library.

“There’s been a lack of transparency from the beginning,” said Tony Pederson of the journalism faculty, urging the university’s administration “to be more forthcoming with detailed information.”

Cal Jillson, a political science professor, called for “more rounded information” because, he said, “this train is leaving.” He said there could be a final decision on the library before the end of the month.

Rhonda Blair, the president of the faculty senate who convened the meeting even though many professors were still away on winter break, said she would pass on the questions to Dr. Turner on Wednesday.

The session grew out of the uproar after an op-ed article in the student newspaper, The Daily Campus, by two professors at the universityÂ’s Perkins School of Theology complaining about the library selection process.

One history prof wants to know what it would take for the University to "walk away from the deal. Frankly, I don't care -- I would urge the site selection committee to walk away from the SMU location. Either Baylor or the university of Dallas would be a better choice -- or the committee could take a step towards raising one of our local institutions, the University of Houston, to the first-tier status it deserves among state universities here in Texas by placing the presidential library in the largest city in the state.

Frankly, if SMU profs don't like the political implications of locating the Bush 43 library on their campus, the library should go somewhere it would be appreciated.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

It is great to be able to report this bit of good news.

Sen. Tim Johnson's condition has been upgraded from critical to fair, four weeks after he was hospitalized for a brain hemorrhage, his office said yesterday.

The South Dakota Democrat, who was taken to the hospital Dec. 13 and underwent emergency surgery, remains in intensive care.

"The senator continues to make progress," spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said. "The next step would be rehabilitation, and we hope that would happen within the week."

Johnson's office has said that his recovery is expected to take several months. The surgery was done to correct a condition called arteriovenous malformation, which involves tangled arteries.

And as i've said in the past, I don't give a damn about all the political calculations and machinations associated with the senator's illness -- I'm more concerned about his recovery. That matter is significantly more important than any other matter, because Johnson is a fellw human being first, and a politician second.

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess the Nazis in the administration and Islamo-Fascists in the Muslim Student Association are working together at Pace University to silence a campus Jewish organization -- and to target them with a police investigation if they dare to show a Double Minus Bad film at a meeting.

Pace University administrators threatened to sic the cops on a Jewish-student club if it went ahead with plans to screen a critically acclaimed film about radical Islam, the head of the group charged yesterday.

Michael Abdurakhmanov, president of Pace Hillel, said two deans warned that showing the documentary film would implicate club members as suspects in two hate crimes involving the desecration of the Koran at the university's lower-Manhattan campus last fall.

In addition, Abdurakhmanov said an assistant dean physically restrained him as he attempted to defend the film and his group in a meeting with administrators.
"The message was pretty clear, if you show this film, you're going to incriminate yourself," Abdurakhmanov said.

Now Pace is where someone desecrated a couple of Korans last fall – and partially for that reason the group was forbidden to show the film in October after Muslim students complained. Now the administration is threatening to investigate the group and its members if the film, Obsession, is shown, on the argument that the “anti-Islamic” film implicates the group in the desecrations. Interestingly enough, the university is not nearly so interested in investigating Muslims over the appearance of swastikas around campus.

Abdurakhmanov, a 20-year-old psychology major from Brooklyn, said neither he nor any member of his club had reason to believe they were suspects in the Koran incidents until the dean of students, Marijo Russell O'Grady, suggested it.

"Her words were if you show this film, the police will be looking into your records further," Abdurakhmanov said.

Maybe there is a need to start investigating the Muslim group that is objecting to the film. After all, their objection to the showing (and the free speech rights of Hillel) would seem to implicate it and its members in the anti-Semitic activities that have occurred on campus. In addition, an objection to a documentary about terrorist groups would appear to implicate the Muslim Student Association and its members in terrorist activities.

At least if you follow the logic of Pace administrators .

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney got a needed boost to his presidential effort yesterday -- an infusion of $6.5 million from a 400 person phone-a-thon yesterday. Paul Mirengoff from Power Line reports the following.

Mitt Romney's call-a-thon, "National Call Day," is underway. It's the campaign's first big fundraising event, and involves approximately 400 fundraisers from across the country. I'm told that the Romney people hope they will be able to announce impressive results later today.

Meanwhile, David Frum explains why he thinks Romney has a fighting chance, notwithstanding the presence of heavyweights John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. To Frum, it's about Romney's record of competence and problem-solving, based on "a voracious appetite for data, a willingness to hear contrary opinions and a cool and deliberate decision-making style."

Not a bad single day total -- and indicative that there is a base of support among Republicans unhappy with the other two front-runners.

The bloggers from My Man Mitt live-blogged the event, and have a great photo from the end.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 2 kb.

Are the many buffalo roaming the Great Plains really buffalo? It turns out that not many are pure bison bison, but are instead hybrids.

“The majority of public herds have some level of hybridization with cattle,” said Kyran Kunkel, a World Wildlife Federation biologist who is doing the sampling. “You can’t see any difference visually. But we don’t know what the long-term ecological or biological impacts would be.”

American bison, which teetered on the edge of extinction more than a century ago, are one of the first and perhaps greatest conservation successes, but there is an asterisk next to their species: while bison were being nursed back to viable populations, ranchers who owned them crossed them with cattle.

By the late 19th century, tens of millions of American bison had been reduced to fewer than 1,000, with two dozen or so in Yellowstone National Park, and another 250 in Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada. The balance of the animals were owned by cattle ranchers who wanted to preserve them.

“They purposely crossed bison with domestic cattle to make a better beef animal,” which they called cattelo, said James Derr, a geneticist at the Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine. “Bison did better in harsh conditions and are more resistant to parasites and native viral diseases.” (Bison do not contract Texas fever, for example, which afflicts cattle.)

Over time, cattle genes have spread into many of the remaining herds of American bison. Since the late 1990s, Dr. Derr and his graduate students have traveled to public and private bison herds around the country, taking blood samples. They have concluded that the vast majority of the 300,000 or so bison in the United States are hybrids, though they look like pure bison. Fewer than 10,000 bison are genetically uncontaminated.

The research has led to the stark realization that the battle for the long-term preservation of wild bison is not over.

Though cattle genes in affected bison herds make up less than 1 percent of the bison genome, their presence could create serious consequences like weaker disease resistance. “Hybridization makes it hard to predict and hard to manage because their immune response can be all over the place,” Dr. Derr said.

As a result, scientists are working to preserve the pure strain and restore it to the wild in viable quantities. Indeed, only about 3% of currently extant buffalo are not hybrids (that translates to roughly 10,000), and so we are still a long way from preserving this great national treasure, once hunted nearly to extinction.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

The great moai (stone statues) on Easter Island are one of the most recognizable symbols in the world. Scientists have worked diligently to restore them and to study the culture that produced them, but today there is a conflict -- what should the balance be between those two tasks. Should every moai be restored, or should the overwhelming majority be left in situ and buried or toppled, or should each and every one of them be brought back to its original state?

For local people, though, they also present a problem: what should be done about the hundreds of other stone icons scattered around the island, many of them damaged or still embedded in the ground?

Commercial and political interests, as well as some archaeologists, would like nothing better than to restore more — or perhaps eventually all — of the moai, as the statues are known. But many residents of Rapa Nui, the Polynesian name for Easter Island that is favored here, regard that possibility with a mixture of suspicion and dread.

“We don’t want to become an archaeological theme park, a Disney World of moai,” Pedro Edmunds Paoa, the mayor of Hanga Roa, the island’s largest settlement, said in an interview. “If we are going to keep on restoring moai there has to be a good reason to do so.”

The repaired and re-erected moai on display to visitors at the most popular half-dozen or so sites around Easter Island amount to fewer than 50. But estimates of the total number unearthed on the island have now climbed to more than 900 and keep growing as excavations continue, with nearly half of that total found at the hillside quarry at Rano Raraku, where the islandÂ’s original inhabitants mined and carved the statues out of compressed volcanic ash.

“Having so many is both a blessing and a curse,” said Jo Anne Van Tilburg, an American archaeologist who has worked here since 1982 and is the director of the Easter Island Statue Project. “Some are already lost, of course, but because there are so many, decisions are going to have to be made about which ones to save.”

Many of the islandÂ’s 3,800 residents argue that the moai already restored are sufficient to ensure a constant flow of tourists, the islandÂ’s main source of income. Tourism here zoomed to more than 45,000 visitors in 2005 from 6,000 in 1990 as airline flights have increased, but the influx is viewed as a mixed blessing because it has resulted in strains on public services and natural resources.

To restore even more statues, local critics argue, would only divert scarce resources from other scientific work that could reveal more about the culture that existed here for 1,000 years before the Dutch landed on Easter Sunday of 1722.

Let's put it in context -- the island is three times the size of Manhattan, and has 20,000 archeological sites. Much of the island has been declared to be off-limits to development, meaning that 80% of the land is uselesss to the 3800 inhabitants of the island.

And there is the economic question -- the restoration and maintenance of all 900 moai would cost somewhere int eh neighborhood of half a billion dollars. And given that many of the restored maoi have deteriorated due to renewed exposure to the elements, the question exists on how to best preserve these great stone faces.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 4 kb.

The New York Times may have deteriorated as a source for news about current events, but still does a fine job of covering news about the ancient past and developments in the field of archeology. Thus we find this excellent article on plans to preserve the mortuary complex of the Second Dynasty's King Khasekhemwy, which dates to around 2780 BC.

Now, in an ambitious effort to preserve this ruin, archaeologists, engineers and teams of artisans and laborers are shoring up the walls and gates of Shunet el-Zebib, ravaged by time and the elements and in danger of imminent collapse.

Officials of the project said in recent interviews that the work over the last two years had been slow and careful, but was at least halfway completed. More than 250,000 mud bricks, made on the scene from an ancient recipe, have been laid to build up the high walls. It has cost $1 million, and an equal amount is being raised to finish the job.

“We are not trying to restore the original structure, producing a kind of Walt Disney thing,” said David O’Connor, an Egyptologist at the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University. “We are preserving and stabilizing it as it is in a way that reflects its nearly 5,000-year history.”

Dr. OÂ’Connor, director of the preservation work, has conducted excavations at Abydos that have exposed the ruins of eight such enclosures. He suspects there are one or two others yet to be discovered.

British archaeologists investigating the site more than a century ago described the enclosures as fortresses, but more recent excavations, particularly at the one dedicated to Khasekhemwy, revealed the association with royal mortuary practices. Even so, owing to a dearth of inscriptions, archaeologists remain largely in the dark as to just what went on inside these centers to memorialize the king in afterlife.

We still have more questions and answers about these mortuary complexes that date back nearly 5000 to the dawn of human civilization. And to offer you some context, these structures were already over 14 centuries old during the reign of Tutankhamen, and are about two centuries older than the Great Pyramid on the plain at Giza. While preservation of Khasekhemwy's temple will be expensive, the cost of allowing it to further deteriorate is incomprehensible in terms of the heritage of humanity.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Here's a "Dog Bites Man" story for you.

Democrats not ruling out higher taxes for rich

Since when is this news? This headline could have been written virtually any time, in any situation, in my lifetime.

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

The US has gone after al-Qaeda targets in Somalia today, in a stark reminder that our terrorist enemies will never receive safe harbor (unless the Democrats cut off funds to seek and destroy them).

A U.S. Air Force gunship has conducted a strike against suspected members of al Qaeda in Somalia, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports exclusively.

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reports. Those terror attacks killed more than 200 people.

The AC-130 gunship is capable of firing thousands of rounds per second, and sources say a lot of bodies were seen on the ground after the strike, but there is as yet, no confirmation of the identities.

The gunship flew from its base in Dijibouti down to the southern tip of Somalia, Martin reports, where the al Qaeda operatives had fled after being chased out of the capital of Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops backed by the United States.

This is good news, and a reminder of why we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And besides, as we say down here in Texas -- some folks just need killing.

Posted by: Greg at 01:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

It isnÂ’t corporate censorship so much as it is consumer preference. This article explains the situation rather clearly.

Locally, none of the three major country stations say they have a ban on Dixie Chicks music — but they also haven't played the group's music in years.

"We don't really have an official policy," said Mark Wilson, programming director at Cat Country 100. "We basically play the songs that test well and unfortunately, their songs just don't test well."

This goes not only for new music, but also the group's old hits — songs that used to top every country station's playlist.

"We didn't really ban them per se, but like most of the other country stations, the hate scores on the music they put out has come out so high that it makes it impossible to play them," said Mark Phillips, programming head at Gator Country 101.9. "They had a bunch of great songs that tested power gold — that's our top oldies category — and when you take out all those songs at once, it leaves a giant vacuum in your music library."

Quite frankly, the girls pissed off a lot of country music fans with their rhetoric about the president and their subsequent whining about non-existent censorship and insulting comments directed at country music fans. The result is that they produce a strongly negative reaction from a sizable segment of the audience – and the desire to hear their more pleasant early work is simply not that great on the part of the rest of the audience. And let’s face it – if 1 out of 4 (or even 1 out of 10) listeners will turn the station because a group is played, that is deadly to a station’s ratings and profit margin. On the other hand, most listeners are not so anxious to hear the Dixie Chicks that they will leave a station because they are not played. Thus, it is merely economic common sense not to play them.

And that is no more censorship than the decision of the local R&B station to not put Alan Jackson into their rotation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 AM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Aw, c'mahn, Greg! Those poor Chicks -- they are victims of right-wing censorship! We should mandate that all those who bought their pre-anti Bush comment CDs buy their newest CDs, too. This will "eradicate" said censorship!

Posted by: Hube at Mon Jan 8 12:03:55 2007 (p2uDb)

2 There is more to the story than meets the eye.

The below link is an Article published by Radio & Records. It highlights the lengths of deception the chicks have gone to to try and convince people that their rights were somehow violated and that people conspired against them. In all actuality, it is the chicks who conspired against the American people.

http://pdf.rronline.com/Cou/COU-20060619-3150.pdf?


If you read the article, you will see the chicks had major support from a major country station. They wanted to be seen as "rock", so they lied and lied and lied about being "not being played".

Posted by: Beansox at Mon Jan 8 12:10:33 2007 (gFtE6)

3 The fact is that most radio stations have censored the Dixie Chicks, including my local country station.

I requested Not Ready to Make Nice on my local station and it was never played. Not because of negative comments, I was the first one to comment about it, but because they wanted to continue to ban them, just like they did when Natalie first made her comment.

I was in contact with another country station (outside of my listening area) who pulled the Chicks single because of 30 (thirty) negative comments. He used those reactions to determine what the audience wanted and didn't want to hear.

Know how many listeners he catered to?

Nearly half a million.

Thirty people dictated the audience reaction of 500,000 listeners. Is that fair, or censorship?

30 people certainly isn't a sizable share of that market, yet it was enough to have the Chicks banned from the radio.

Why, because of their "abhorrent political views" (a quote in an interview with him about the Chicks).

His audience had nothing to do with whether or not the Chicks were played, it was his political views that determined that.

There is much more to this than the country audience. Radio corporations banned them because those corporations have close ties to the Bush administration. Local DJ's used their own political views to determine what the audience listened to. An organized effort by a ultra-conservative website to request the Chicks be silenced from the airwaves.

Or the simple fact that the country industry was upset that the Chicks were "Not Ready to Make Nice".

I was one of those who turned the station because the Chicks were NOT played, as I have done with most country radio stations. They lost me as a very loyal listener to their station, and I may never support them again.

And I owned all of their old CD's and bought the new CD, but the only mandate I was under was my love of the music and the band. I tried to eradicate the censorship with my purchases and concert tickets, but the continued bans on their music, tour and movie promotions have hurt them, financially and emotionally.

And Beansox, for someone who clearly doesn't like this band, why do you worry about them so much? I see your negative posts everywhere......

You really seem to have quite a fascination for this band.....

The Chicks wanted nothing to do with the country industry after the horrible way it treated the them. They didn't lie about anything.

Posted by: A Dixie Chicks Fan at Tue Jan 9 07:45:39 2007 (40hco)

4 so you think that 30 people isnt enough to not play them, but your 1 request is enough to keep playing them?

get a fricken grip!

"I see your negative posts everywhere......"
why thank you! *takes a bow*


"They didn't lie about anything."
Obviosuly you didnt read the article I posted, or you too are liar.

Posted by: Beansox at Tue Jan 9 08:05:18 2007 (gFtE6)

5 "I was in contact with another country station (outside of my listening area)"

Why on earth would you want to have a say in what listeners of a station you cant hear have to listen to?

Posted by: Beansox at Tue Jan 9 08:09:02 2007 (gFtE6)

6 "but the continued bans on their music, tour and movie promotions have hurt them, financially and emotionally"

no ban was ever placed on thier music, tour, or movie. last time i checked, the were still making music, still touring, and still promoting their movie.


Why do chicks and their fans lie so much?

Posted by: Beansox at Tue Jan 9 08:16:55 2007 (gFtE6)

7 Both of our local stations pulled the group in response to listener complaints in 2003 -- and have made actually held call-ins to see about bringing them back. In every case, the response from the listeners has been negative. Tell me -- is that corporate censorship or is it listener preference, fan?

Similarly, was it corporate censorship or audience choice that forced the cancellation of the Houston concert by th Chicks after poor ticket sales.

I, for one, was ready and willing to welcome them back to the air -- until they insulted country fans in their interviews at the time the new CD was released.

But then again, I guess that the fan who posted thinks it is great that the Chicks "aren't ready to make nice" but demands that everyone else do so despite their own right to express political and social sentiments.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 9 12:42:04 2007 (udLR9)

8
I agree! Country music fans are mostly an intolerant conservative lot, no surprise there. Fact is the Dixie Chicks newest album is probably their best music yet and is recognized as one of the top albums of 2006, pick up a copy, listen, and enrich your life. If not - your loss.

Posted by: TEX at Tue Jan 9 19:47:05 2007 (2l9Nz)

9 And of course, "TEX" (or should i say "Natalie"), such rhetoric is certainly going to propel country fans back into the arms of your band.

And you know what -- I'm sure some of the neo-Nazi skinhead metal bands are making some great music, but I'm not going to subsidize them or their message, either. I suppose that makes me an intolerant conservative in your book -- I believe it makes me a wise consumer who spends his dollars in conformity with his personal values.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 9 22:45:22 2007 (NNYG0)

10 Notice Tex's email addy

info@dixiechicks.com

Posted by: beansox at Wed Jan 10 12:23:54 2007 (gFtE6)

11 Hence my suggestion that we are dealing with a poster whose name is really Natalie.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jan 10 13:40:30 2007 (tapAJ)

12 No rhetoric, just the plain truth. We don’t care anymore if country radio plays us or not. We don’t care anymore if you or country fans don’t like us. I believe we have made that point quite clear this past year. We decided early 2005 to go a different musical direction. Our 2006 album "Taking the Long Way" and "Accidents & Accusations" tour were both successful. Bluntly - we are unapologetic to your disappointment.

Posted by: TEX at Thu Jan 11 01:16:26 2007 (LDqr5)

13 I guess I did peg this one -- I do have Natalie here!

But I love the twisted logic here -- Natalie and her fans complain the band is being "censored" by country radio, but by her own admission they are not shooting for a country audience anymore!

So let me get this straight -- you aren't country, but it is wrong for country stations not to play your music and for country fans not to buy your records. That is rich!

Well, Natalie, let me clue you in -- i was one of the folks who called stations trying to get them to play you in 2003 after your juvenile political statements. I was one of the folks who argued you had a right to your opinion. The only reason I didn't buy tickets for your show that summer was my liberal Democrat wife's request that I not spend that much money on concert tickets, since we hoped you would make a return engagement to RodeoHouston in 2004 (we were at the 2002 show).

And even though I have trashed your political views since then, I anticipated the release of your new album -- right up until you attacked country fans and country music (when you made it clear you don't believe in free speech for anyone except yourself and your supporters). It is why folks stayed away from your concerts in droves, forcing all those cancellations and postponements -- something that hardly makes it possible to claim your tour was a success or that you had "given up" on the country market since your biggest failures were in cities closely tied to country music.

But hey, i wish you well -- if you can find an audience for your message, go for it. Just recognize that those of us who won't be part of that audience are not small-minded or intolerant -- we have simply decided to go a different direction, one that is in keeping with our beliefs and values, and one that you certainly ought to respect just as much as you demand we respect your decision to do the same.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 01:46:58 2007 (dXDzr)

14 Hey Gnat, how come you went on STAR 98.7 and lied to the station and listeners about not getting played on an station ins Los Angeles when KZLA (country) had you in heavy in rotation and even had their staff go on CNN to defend you?

How come you lied to everyone about not canceling any concerts, even thought you knew at the time you were canceling 14?

How come you have yet to witdraw your names from the country categories at the Grammy's?


How come you requested RIAA certify your album for 2X platinum even though you are 250K short of that benchmark?


How come you have no integrity?

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 03:59:36 2007 (gFtE6)

15 Beansox the DC are less than 140K away from selling 2 million. This is a typical process. Toby Keith's latest was certified platinum by the time it sold 600K. The Killers were recently certified and they are at 700K.

Posted by: Bill451 at Thu Jan 11 04:35:25 2007 (ZSgVm)

16 very well bill. when are they going to remove their names from the country categories?

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 04:37:31 2007 (gFtE6)

17 Another thing bill, TOTW was aruond the 850K mark in sales, they declined to have that certified as platinum, so why is it so important for TTLW to be certified for 2? Just more spin on their part to paint the album a success when it it really isnt.

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 04:40:28 2007 (gFtE6)

18 Good question Beanstock about the live cd. The cd has actually sold about 960K. I can't tell you why it isn't platinum - maybe a million copies haven't been shipped?

As for them being removed from country - they can claim they aren't country but they are and the new cd, while it has rock elements, is still very country - more so than most country groups today.

Any way you slice, they are a great band - country or rock

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 05:09:54 2007 (ZSgVm)

19 I guess removing their names from the country genre they campaign would require integrity, and that is something they just dont have!

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 06:01:01 2007 (gFtE6)

20 I guess removing their names from the country genre they campaign against would require integrity, and that is something they just dont have!

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 06:01:17 2007 (gFtE6)

21 At first Boston country station WKLB (which has done well lately in the 12 + over ratings) said they wouldn't take the Chicks off the air but more recently their PD has said that most of WKLB's listeners have a strong negative opinion of the Chicks, and thus the station doesn't air too many of their songs anymore. When the Chicks turned away from country (for some reason, they're still in the country CD section at Borders) and called their fans a bunch of ig'nant rednecks, that may have been why
public opinion turned.

And in my opinion, the "Not Ready to Make Nice"
song was a whiny bunch of crap that deserved to
bomb. The parody of it on MAD TV (see it on YouTube), "I Will Never Apologize", was much
better.

Posted by: raccoonradio at Thu Jan 11 06:08:29 2007 (X3/Ix)

22 NRTMN was a fantastic song and brilliantly written. Had the song been written without the context of the incident in your mind, you probably would have enjoyed the song.

And let's refresh memories, it was the country audience that turned on the Chicks well before the Chicks gave you guys the finger.

Posted by: BILL451 at Thu Jan 11 06:29:55 2007 (ZSgVm)

23 Sorry, Bill, it really is pretty whiny -- and would be even outside of the specific context. Indeed, it would be nothing more than a "B-side" track were it not for the controversy.

And yes, the country audience did "turn on" the band -- because a large segment of that audience rejected their political message, their choice of forum for expressing it, and their subsequent arrogance in presuming that they had a right to be free from criticism or commercial consequences. Indeed, it was the latter factor -- and their decision to try to paint themselves as victims -- that permanently alienated many of us.

And remember -- the band has not been in any way censored. No government official has forbidden them to perform in concert, not law prevents them from recording or marketing their music, and no decree forbids their music from being played on the public airwaves. What happened was that they alienated their fan-base, and they have had to live with teh consequences of their decision to do so.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 07:16:44 2007 (2YNli)

24 Is anyone suprised my questions have yet to be answered? Im not, as it requires honesty and courage.

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 09:23:40 2007 (gFtE6)

25 Rhymes, while I support your right to your opinion, I respectfully disagree, most notably with your assertion that the Chicks haven't been censored in any way. Yes, the are still free to speak out, haven't been jailed, etc.. they have been railed against by corporate entities, the free republic, etc.. they have been threatened, stations have been threatened with either pull them or we'll withdraw advertising, etc.. So, in a sense they have certainly had their free speech toyed with. If you can't speak out against governement for fear of being blacklisted or threatend,then it's not really free speech.

In the end, it doesn't much matter. They have alienated a large portion of their fan base and the Chicks simply have a smaller audience. And as long as the continue to produce stellar records such as Taking the Long Way, they will maintain the audience. I'm sorry you are no longer a fan because you are really missing out on, what in my opinion, is their best record yet.

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 11:10:25 2007 (ZSgVm)

26 If the chicks are against boycotting, then why back in Ocotber of of 2004, right before the election, did they post a meesage on their website asking anyone whould listen to use the same tactics to get Stolen Honor taken off the air?

"http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/19/123011.shtml"

"The Chicks punctuate their alert by saying, "during the past week there has been a massive backlash, and Sinclair is on the defensive. They are on the ropes and we need you to help us keep them there."


They even provided a link to encourage people to join the boycott...

http://freepress.net/music/

The result?

"Dear Media Reformer,

Thanks to you, Sinclair bowed to massive public pressure. After a deluge of phone calls, emails, boycotts and threatened lawsuits....(excerpt)
Sincerely,
Robert McChesney
Free Press "



Seems to me they dont have ANY problem using the tacits they continue to whine about, against others.

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 11:25:16 2007 (gFtE6)

27 Here is the link bill, I wouldnt want you just to take my word for it.

http://www.freepress.net/action/archive.php?id=10

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 11:33:33 2007 (gFtE6)

28 Beansox, you got me there. Although, you and I have had this discussion in the past and you know that I disagreed with the Chicks on those tactics. Just because I'm a Chicks fan doesn't mean I support everything they do. I believe they were wrong for inciting that type of boycott just as I believe you and other were wrong for your organized boycott.

It was more disappointing coming from the Chicks because they just went through a similiar situation and didn't like it - very hypocritical. I will certainly give you that.

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 11:36:01 2007 (ZSgVm)

29 But when you financially support them (if i remember correctly, you said you bought more than one copy of TTLW *ducks for cover*)going to concerts, paying to see their fauxcumentary, you are indeed supporting everything they do.

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 11:41:04 2007 (gFtE6)

30 But bill, I can't help but notice that your statement effectively concedes my point -- that the only folks you and the girls in the band believe they are the only folks who have a right to freedom of speech.

You claim the have been "railed against" by certain entities and individuals. Where I grew up, that is freedom of speech.

People have threatened boycotts if their music is played -- again, an act of speech and freedom of association long recognized as a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.

And yes, words do have consequences in a free society -- just look at the response to the recent racist rant by Seinfeld's Michael Richards. The man likely no longer has a career left, and has been banned by certain comedy clubs for what he said on stage. Have his rights been toyed with? Is his right to freedom of speech somehow diminished? Or are we simply seeing the reality that speech invites more speech, and that controversial speech may provoke a strong reaction?

I guess what I am saying is that I'll have some sympathy for the plight of the Dixie Chicks when they find themselves taken into custody by the FBI -- not when they complain that the working class folks of America are not willing to shell-out $15 for a CD or $50 for concert tickets to feed the lifestyle and bank accounts of a threesome of wealthy, over-privileged entertainers.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 11:49:05 2007 (AT+mw)

31 Beansox,

I did buy more than one copy (two copies to be exact - you know the story behind it), saw them in concert but sadly haven't seen the documentary.

I will continue to support them as long as the music continues to be topnotch.

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 12:08:47 2007 (ZSgVm)

32 LOL.. i know why you bought the copies...that why i threw in there!


You think the music will still be top notch when they have to cut back on promotional costs because they lost 70+% of their fans base and can no longer afford to outsourse the creative process to topnotch artists?

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 12:25:07 2007 (gFtE6)

33 Rhymes I have nothing against freespeech for you or any one else. I'm a huge proponent of freespeech, I think Beansox can attest to that. What I am against is organized boycotts and threats of derailing careers unless you speak or think like everyone else. Additionally, had the DC said the same thing about Clinton they would be hailed as heroes. Very hypocritical.

If you, as an individual, don't want to support the Chicks, fine, don't. The Chicks have said the same thing. If you know longer like them for their views, so be it. But having an oranized boycott that threatens radio stations with pulling of advertisers, etc.., it's a bit far. What it does is sparks fear in others to keep silenced. That works nicely in China or Korea but this is still America.

As a side note, I'm a Republican and I disagreed with Ms. Maine's statement.

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 12:37:14 2007 (ZSgVm)

34 I have to wonder, Bill -- would you say the same thing about the concerted action taken in the 1960s to end segregation and guarantee civil rights? You know, "Hey, you are welcome to oppose segregation, but organized boycotts against segregated stores, lunch counters and bus lines is a bit much!"

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 12:57:49 2007 (44XVi)

35 Please, don't you find the issue of segregation much different than one woman saying she doesn't care of the president? Obviously fighting for every man/woman/child to be equal is different that one off the cuff comment. It is no comparison and can't be treated as such.

Natalie's comment was so minute that it shouldn't have had the impact it did. It still amazes me that a little ol' country singer from Texas had this much power to scare people into rallying against her.

Again, for her comment, you, as a fan/non fan, have every right to say "hey, I don't like her views and I'm not going to support her" but the tactics and threats and everything that went with it was over the top.

Posted by: bill451 at Fri Jan 12 04:11:14 2007 (ZSgVm)

36 bill... there is nothing little about her. stop with the nonsense! DOH!

And people didnt jsut rally against her for what she said, it goes much deeper than that. People were ready to move on... the chicks? not so much, as you can clearly see from their marketing campaign for this latest album. They wanted to beat people over the head with their politics and then declare they were somehow beyond reproach because they are "financially set" (natalies words not mine) "celebritites".

What they found out is that most people just find them completely unlikeable and that trait overshadows their music. So as long the chicks continue to campaign against conservatives, and I refer you back to TEX's post, by calling them names, they can expect to met with resistance and all that it entails.

Posted by: Beansox at Fri Jan 12 04:37:49 2007 (gFtE6)

37 The funniest part of this is that many of the top 10 superstar country artists (concert revenue, album sales, you name it) are left-leaning politically.

Tim McGraw? Democrat. Actually quite outspoken. Featured in Esquire. Lauded as potential governor by Bill Clinton. Country superstar.

Faith Hill? Outspoken "loony lefty" (that is to say, she criticized President Bush).

Johnny Cash? "Left of center," and that's being as conservative as possible.

Kenny Chesney? Democrat, from what I can glean from your brethren over at Free Republic.

Keith Urban? Pretty clearly left of center.

Not just stars, but elite superstars, all.

Using hindsight, it seems the real culprit here was the mood of the country when the Chicks spoke up. McGraw could probably bash the President daily now with no effect at all!

Either way, the Chicks themselves had the #3 selling country album of 2006. So...yeah. Let the country stations do whatever their little hearts desire.

Me? I think that if you don't listen to nonpolitical music because of the artists' politics are to be laughed at. This is coming from a liberal with Toby Keith on his iPod.

Posted by: dan at Sat Jan 13 07:46:42 2007 (aPL79)

38 that should read: "you are to be laughed at."

Posted by: dan at Sat Jan 13 07:57:08 2007 (aPL79)

39 And dan, for what it is worth, in the last three years I have spent my money to attend concerts by Chesney and Urban, and would consider attending one by Tim McGraw. I'd skip Faith Hill (whose shows I've attended in the past) because I don't like her musical direction the last four or five years. And i would kill to be able to see Johnny Cash one last time.

By the way, I own albums by all, and would consider purchasing more in the future, politics be damned.

The Dixie Chicks, though, fall into a special category -- their arrogant insistence that no one criticize them and attempt to paint themselves as victims is what offends me. And their whiny single grates on my nerves.

Also please note that while they are classed as "country", their airplay was on non-country stations and their sales were to a decidedly non-country audience. They themselves claim to have moved beyond the country market -- but they are somehow still classified as country. To say, therefore, that they "had the #3 selling country album of 2006" is somewhat disingenuous -- and the response to their concert tour in traditional country bastions bears that out.

When the Dixie Chicks decide that they are ready to make nice with the country music audience, apologize to country fans for their insulting comments about country fans and the country music industry, and get back to making good country music rather than political music, I'll consider buying another Dixie Chicks album or attending another Dixie Chicks concert.

Instead I'll be going to see many of these artists during a three week period in February and March during
RodeoHouston -- because I love their music and don't care about their politics.

By the way, the ones my wife and I are seeing are GEORGE STRAIT, REBA McENTIRE, CLAY WALKER, JOSH TURNER, GRETCHEN WILSON, ALAN JACKSON, PAT GREEN, SUGARLAND, RASCAL FLATTS, DIERKS BENTLEY, and BROOKS & DUNN -- at least a couple of whom the Dixie Chicks said they don't want to share CD players or iPods with their music. And please note -- we've left out the two artists most closely connected to conservative politics, because our goal is to be entertained.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 13 08:13:33 2007 (9uOV3)

40 It's a chicken-and-egg thing. The slams of the country fans came after the fans, as Maines has said, "turned on [us] in a day." As I said, I suspect it was a sort of perfect storm of political climate and bashing by the mainstream media that sunk them, and made the country fans react.

But I simply can't defend the fans for what they did to the Chicks after the intial tame comment -- which resulted in death threats! Now that it's an all-out war, with the Chicks firing at the fans, well, sure, you can be upset. But they didn't start the fire.

As for their sales being to a decidedly non-country audience: Do you have any numbers on that? I'd be interested. Probably hard to gauge. Surely their sales to pop audiences are higher--but so is the #1 act in all of music, Rascal Flatts. Yet they are still classified as country, and no one questions it.

Sounds like a good show in Houston. For the record, there are just a couple songs I can't listen to because I take them personally. The big one is Daryl Worley's "Have You Forgotten," because it unambiguously implies that liberals think we should "not worry about bin Laden," which is despicable and makes my blood boil when I hear it. If it were "don't worry about Hussein," that would be based in truth.

Posted by: dan at Sat Jan 13 08:44:44 2007 (aPL79)

41 But here's the deal -- they made those comments on foreign soil as we prepared for an imminent war with high public support. Had Natalie Mains even acknowledged that there was a better time, place, and manner to express the same ideas, I think she would have killed off the ugly response in an instant. Indeed, I didn't find her comments all that outrageous -- but then again, I hear similar sentiments expressed by my wife on a daily basis.

And I'll agree that death threats are out of bounds -- but I understand that Toby Keith and Daryl Worley get similar comments without engaging in the sort of histrionics the Dixie Chicks have. Sadly, it goes with the territory if you are a celebrity entering the political fray -- which is a truly unfortunate comment on a small fringe of looney-toons in our society.

By the way -- if you find yourself here in Houston during rodeo season some year, let me know -- we'll take in a show -- and in the game of Bulls vs. Cowboys, this former Chicagoan transplanted to Texas always picks the Bulls!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 13 09:23:19 2007 (9uOV3)

42 Just to be clear, you've got two Dans commenting now. Must be your lucky day.

I tend to be amused by those who get themselves worked up by the politics of stars. The best living author is Mark Helprin, but his politics are moonbat rightwing nonsense. Doesn't make his novels any less compelling, though.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Jan 13 10:07:39 2007 (IU21y)

43 I noticed that -- and my invite goes out to both of you Dans, as well as the other commenters on the thread (well, except for the Dixie Chicks Fan -- too much of a moonbat).

hexck. if TEX/Natalie comes down, I'd even be willing to take in a show with her -- but hope she would spring for luxury box tickets for us.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 13 10:51:02 2007 (tCngE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At least in the state of Georgia.

The Georgia Supreme Court has upheld the identity fraud conviction of an illegal immigrant from Mexico who used the name and Social Security number of a Georgia man to get a job at a poultry plant.

In a unanimous decision released Monday, the justices said Georgia's identity theft law is not unconstitutionally vague, nor is it pre-empted by federal law.

The high court found that Nohe Gomes Hernandez ``misappropriated the Social Security number of Jason Smith,'' and that he ``then used this misappropriated number to obtain a Social Security card and a California driver's license in Smith's name'' so he could get a job at a northeast Georgia poultry plant.

Hernandez was sentenced in April to two years in prison after a jury found him guilty of violating the ID theft law.

Hernandez' attorney had argued that Hernandez' actions were not covered by the state law, which was created to keep people from stealing others' personal information and using it to pillage bank accounts or run up credit card bills. The defense contended that Hernandez did not take any money or resources from Smith.

Authorities learned about the case when the real Jason Smith, from Danielsville, Ga., applied for a $600 tax refund, but the Internal Revenue Service said he owed $12,000 in back taxes.

When Smith inquired further, he found that the IRS had him working two jobs, including the Harrison Poultry plant, where he never worked.

More states need to adopt laws modeled on the Georgia statute and begin using it to prosecute the border-jumping immigration criminals in our midst. Hopefully Texas will be one of them.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

No, that isn’t my practice when I go fishing – that is the nature of US policy towards illegal immigration according to a new study.

Illegal immigrants who were caught but released in the United States may have been re-arrested as many as six times, Justice Department data released Monday indicates.

The findings by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine are based on a sampling of 100 illegal immigrants arrested by local and state authorities in 2004, the latest complete data available. They show that 73 of the 100 immigrants were arrested, collectively, 429 times — ranging from traffic tickets to weapons and drug charges.

Fine's office said its audit could not conclude precisely how many of the 262,105 illegal immigrants charged with criminal histories that year had been re-arrested. "But if this data is indicative of the full population of 262,105 criminal histories, the rate at which released criminal aliens are re-arrested is extremely high," the audit noted.

Before we do any sort of amnesty, we clearly need to step up the enforcement end of things so that we don’t have releases of individuals with a half-dozen criminal violations.

But then again, maybe I’m wrong – perhaps we need these hard-working criminals to commit the crimes that Americans won’t commit.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

No, that isn’t my practice when I go fishing – that is the nature of US policy towards illegal immigration according to a new study.

Illegal immigrants who were caught but released in the United States may have been re-arrested as many as six times, Justice Department data released Monday indicates.

The findings by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine are based on a sampling of 100 illegal immigrants arrested by local and state authorities in 2004, the latest complete data available. They show that 73 of the 100 immigrants were arrested, collectively, 429 times — ranging from traffic tickets to weapons and drug charges.

Fine's office said its audit could not conclude precisely how many of the 262,105 illegal immigrants charged with criminal histories that year had been re-arrested. "But if this data is indicative of the full population of 262,105 criminal histories, the rate at which released criminal aliens are re-arrested is extremely high," the audit noted.

Before we do any sort of amnesty, we clearly need to step up the enforcement end of things so that we donÂ’t have releases of individuals with a half-dozen criminal violations.

But then again, maybe I’m wrong – perhaps we need these hard-working criminals to commit the crimes that Americans won’t commit.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

And you wonder why that nation builds a security cordon to prevent murderous attacks upon its people. Read about what happened to these two Israeli teens last summer -- and how they are fighting for justice.

Last June, Hadass and Emunah were standing on the side of Highway 60 at the Rechelim junction near Shilo, Israel, waiting for a southbound ride to take them toward Jerusalem. While they awaited their ride, three conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Muslims stopped and attempted to kidnap the two girls.

Providentially - I employ the word deliberately here - an IDF officer happened to come along at that time. The officer interfered in the kidnapping, radioing for backup. The conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Muslims left the scene in a big hurry, but were caught a short distance away without incident when local law enforcement personnel erected a few strategically-placed road blocks.

Investigators later learned that graves had already been dug by the conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Muslim terrorists to contain the bodies of the two girls. After treatment at a Jerusalem hospital, the two young ladies are back with their friends at school.

Now they want justice. But during the intervening months that have elapsed since the attempted kidnapping last year, all weapons-trading charges have been dropped against the three conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Muslim terrorists, along with accusations that they were involved in assisting in conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Muslim terrorism. Only the attempted kidnapping charges remain.

So Haddass has spoken out, demanding justice.

Please remember all the preparations that went into this crime - the daring, the instructions, the way they obtained weapons, rented a car, recruited people, and they even dug a grave! They dug a grave for my friend Emunah and me - everything was ready! And so they set out.

There were a few problems: one of the men quit, the car broke down, but they were determined to murder. They passed by the bus stop where we were sitting, Emunah and I, and then they decided that we were good targets for being murdered.

Why? Because we are weak and can't protect ourselves; they are contemptible murderers who seek out the weak....

So they made two U-turns and came to us. They just didn't realize that G-d loves us.... Does anyone here think that after they serve their punishment, they will be good people? Not at all; they will try to murder again.

My uncle, Kobi Zaga, may G-d avenge his blood, was murdered on a Sabbath night two and a half years ago by a murderer who had been released just two days earlier from Israeli prison. He couldn't hold himself back! These terrorists are murderers, and whoever releases them are their partners in murder....

There is no moral basis for supporting terrorist murderers -- nor is there a moral basis for ever allowing them the opportunity to return to civilized society where they can victimize more innocents. Let the words of young Hadass be a rminder to you of that fact -- and a warning of what could come to this country if we don't remain vigilant, steadfast and resolute in the War on Terror.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 3 kb.

Today the Houston Chronicle praises retired Chairman of te Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili for his NY Times column on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In the last six years, U.S. service members have been barraged with poor decisions made in Washington. They were fed false pretexts, left understaffed and shipped into a conflict with no endgame. Yet at least one unnecessary burden — the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gay orientation — is a relic of the Clinton administration. Now one of the original defenders of that policy is leading the charge to end the policy and the damage it does to the military.

Retired Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Bill Clinton, said last week in a New York Times opinion piece that the time to end antigay discrimination in the military is nearing. It was a pathbreaking act of leadership that should embolden other military leaders who agree with him to speak out, too.

Fair enough -- but almost a full week after the original column appeared on January 2.

Indeed, I wrote about it (favorably) that day.

What took the Chronicle so long? And why hasn't the paper sought to reprint the column that it thinks is worthy of editorial comment?

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

H/T The Pine Blog

Posted by: Greg at 03:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

It looks like Mitt is surging in Florida.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is making Florida a key part of his strategy to challenge front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination for president.

To carry that off, Romney is appealing to the state's influential religious and social conservative community, and building on tacit support from former Gov. Jeb Bush.

Given the popularity of the former governor and First Brother, Romney is in a great position to get the delegates from this key Republican state. And while current governor Charlie Crist is said to lean towards McCain, that could change.

And Romney is certainly building on the Jeb Bush legacy.

Romney, who just left office as Massachusetts governor and announced formation of an exploratory presidential campaign committee, trails both McCain and Giuliani in national polls.

So far, however, he's well ahead of both in building a Florida organization.

His Florida organizing began attracting attention last year when his political action committee, Commonwealth PAC, hired two of Bush's top political operatives: longtime strategist Sally Bradshaw and fundraiser Ann Herberger, a key player in the phenomenal Bush gubernatorial campaign fundraising machine.

Romney has since announced that two other major Bush political backers, former state party Chairman Al Cardenas and former Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings, have joined the PAC's Florida steering committee.

Bush is publicly neutral in the primary for now, but Bradshaw confirmed that he suggested she talk to Romney about the campaign.

Some GOP insiders say Romney has sought to recruit Bush as his running mate. Like the other candidates, Romney covets the fundraising machine built by the Bush family.

Bush has ruled out running for president himself in 2008, but hasn't ruled out a running mate slot. Romney backers wouldn't say whether he's broached the subject with Bush.

I'd certainly wait to see where the poll number of a certain OTHER Bush are before offering Jeb a spot on the ticket, but I think it s fair to say that the former governor is likely to find a Cabinet-level home in any Romney administration.

Unfortunately, there are still those nagging questions about religion. Take this example.

How, the South Carolina Republican activist asked presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, could he square Mormon doctrine with civil rights or monogamy?

Cyndi Mosteller understood that church founder and prophet Joseph Smith taught that black skin was a curse visited upon descendants of Cain. And that a man should be able to take multiple wives.

Romney told her Mormons no longer practice such beliefs. For almost 30 years African-Americans have been in the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church renounced polygamy in 1890.

Mosteller, chairwoman of the Charleston County Republican Party, wasnÂ’t satisfied.

“He’s going to have to defend these positions,” she said, “or reject his faith.”

Such is the dilemma for the former Massachusetts governor and one-time church leader. Even in explaining the modern Mormon church, Romney must persuade voters — particularly evangelicals — that his faith is no threat to theirs.

Frankly, Mosteller is an embarrassment to the GOP. Scratch that -- Mosteller is an embarrassment to the United States. I urge South Carolina (and national) Republicans to repudiate her. Indeed, I urge my readers to contact Cyndi Mosteller to let her know how out of step she is with Republican and American values.

And I say this as someone who has theological problems with the LDS church. I've studied their doctrines and their history, and don't see how anyone who does a critical analysis of either can be a member. And yet, I cannot think of a single Mormon I have ever known who has not been one of the finest, most decent people I've known. By all accounts, even those of his political opponents, I'd find that statement to be applicable to Mitt Romney as well were I to have the opportunity to meet him.

Ultimately, I feel it is important to urge my fellow Republicans -- and fellow Americans -- to give serious consideration to the words of Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention>

We are not electing a theologian-in-chief. We are electing a commander-in-chief."

Judge Romney on his record of achievement and his position on the crucial issues facing America -- not where he worships or does not worship.

UPDATE: I sent my own letter to Ms. Mosteller.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 09:32 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 1282 words, total size 11 kb.

Newsweek profiles Duke Rape Frame-Up Case defendant Reade Seligmann in its current issue. It is a remarkable piece in so many ways, but i am particularly struck by this tidbit of information near the end of the article.

"I always believed that the truth will trump everything," he says. "I have to believe that." He'd already planned to go to law school, but now, he says, it's gotten personal: he wants to become a criminal defense lawyer.

This experience would be sufficient to make even the most optimistic person cynical, but it hasn't cone so with this young man. Instead, it has given him a purpose --to ensure that no other defendant gets violated in the way he has by rogue DA Mike Nifong. Maybe that will be a positive outcome of this travesty of justice.

Posted by: Greg at 08:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

There are few college sports programs I dislike more than the University of Southern California. I'll root against them in virtually any game in which their opponent isn't Michigan, Michigan State, or any team from the state of Florida (especially Miami).

But today my heart is broken for the Trojans and their fans following the senseless death of their incredible young kicker, Mario Danelo.

Police said there was no evidence pointing to suicide in the death of Southern California kicker Mario Danelo, whose body was found about 120 feet down a rocky cliff.

"I have no indication per se that it was a criminal event," Lt. David Pierson, commanding officer of the LAPD Harbor Division detectives, told the Los Angeles Times. "But we exhaust all leads to ensure that we're making the right categorization of the case."

Pierson said investigators had information that Danelo was out with friends Friday night and that he was last seen around midnight. His body was found Saturday afternoon near Point Fermin lighthouse in the city's San Pedro section.

Pierson said police had no information as to whether Danelo had been drinking and that there was no evidence he committed suicide. Martha Garcia of the Los Angeles Police Department said the body showed signs of traumatic injuries.

I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of the loss being experienced by the Danelo family at this time, and my prayers are with them. May God reach out and comfort them in this time of tragedy.

Posted by: Greg at 08:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

There are few Americans in politics today who I see as having more integrity than Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). His willingness to put the needs of the nation above the needs of his party nearly cost him everything in 2006, but it didn't -- and clearly demonstrates why he would be worthy of a chapter in Profiles in Courage if John F. Kennedy were writing it today rather than a half century ago.

Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman shared his own thoughts on Bush's plan. "We need an increase in troops there now," he asserted before an audience of military experts and academics. "It must be substantial, and it must be sustained."

Lieberman was sworn in last week as the chamber's one and only "independent Democrat," with the emphasis on "independent." On most issues, including big domestic priorities, he expects to vote as he has for the past 18 years, as a loyal Democrat. But on Iraq, Lieberman is more in sync with Bush than are many Republicans. He is a passionate defender of the war as a death struggle against Islamic terrorism.

* * *

One Lieberman trait that particularly rankles Democrats is his abiding loyalty to Bush. A few days after the Wall Street Journal published the senator's op-ed piece, Lieberman lectured at a foreign policy conference. "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years," he said, "and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

The senator was a bit more measured Friday, but his point was clear.

"The president of the United States gets this," Lieberman said. "I think he sees the moment that we are at in the larger war on terrorism and the significance of how we conclude the war in Iraq, how devastating it would be to the Iraqis, to the Middle East, to America if we simply withdrew. He needs our support."

I want to disagree with the author of this article. Liberman is not being loyal to George W. Bush. Rather, he is being loyal to the very American notion that politics ends at the water's edge, and that during time of war we need to fight to victory. Indeed, that is the only appropriate "exit strategy" for the United State in Iraq -- "Win, then bring the troops home."

I'm not a fan of "fusion tickets". I could never vote for John McCain because of his betrayal of the First Amendment. But with that single exception, I will state for the record that I could be quite enthusiastic about a 2008 GOP ticket that showed the true meaning of bipartisanship by including Joe Lieberman in the second slot.

Because after all -- patriotism matters more than party labels.

Posted by: Greg at 08:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

This may turn out to be a "win-win" discovery for everyone -- a relatively easy to acquire source of stem cells that doesn't require the taking of human lives!

Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb and produced a variety of tissue types from these cells — sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research.

Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone.

"Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," said Dr. Anthony Atala, head of Wake Forest's regenerative medicine institute and senior researcher on the project.

It took Atala's team some seven years of research to determine the cells they found were truly stem cells that "can be used to produce a broad range of cells that may be valuable for therapy."

Now this development likely means that we don't have to deal with the issue of cloned embryos or aborted babies being used for "spare parts" by ghouls claiming to be scientists. It means that much of the promise that allegedly exists in fetal stem cell research can be achieved without complicity in the abortion holocaust. (and I say "allegedly exists" because the most promising results have come from adult, not fetal, stem cell research).

Of course, some of the ghouls insist that they have to keep killing babies to achieve progress.

Dr. George Daley, a Harvard University stem cell researcher, said that finding raises the possibility that someday expectant parents can freeze amnio stem cells for future tissue replacement in a sick child without fear of immune rejection.

Nonetheless, Daley said the discovery shouldn't be used as a replacement for human embryonic stem cell research.

"While they are fascinating subjects of study in their own right, they are not a substitute for human embryonic stem cells, which allow scientists to address a host of other interesting questions in early human development," said Daley, who began work last year to clone human embryos to produce stem cells.

Dr. Mengele -- Dr. Daley calling for you on line one.

Posted by: Greg at 08:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

No, not the many political prisoners rotting in Castro's tropical gulags, nor the Cuban people yearning to be free from Communist tyranny.

No, this disgrace to American motherhood, who supports the Cuban dictator, wants freedom for terrorists who want to destroy the United States.

American "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan called for the closure of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as she and other activists arrived here Saturday to draw attention to the nearly 400 terror suspects held at the remote site.

Sheehan is among 12 human rights and anti-war activists who will travel across this Caribbean island next week, arriving at the main gate of the Guantanamo base in eastern Cuba on Thursday -- five years after the first prisoners were flown in.

"Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not afraid of anything," Sheehan said when asked about the possibility of U.S. sanctions for traveling to communist-run Cuba, which remains under an American trade embargo.

"What is more important is the inhumanity that my government is perpetrating at Guantanamo," she told reporters.

Sheehan, 49, of Vacaville, Calif., became an anti-war activist known as the "peace mom" after losing her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq in April 2004.

Gee, Cindy, what a way to honor your son -- seeking freedom for the ideological soulmates of those who killed him!

Posted by: Greg at 05:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Religion and Politics: Intolerance Is Growing by Right Wing Nut House, and The Blogosphere at War by The Belmont Club.  Here is where you can find the full results of the vote. 

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Posted by: Greg at 05:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 4 kb.

Down here in Houston, Mayor Bill White wants to do something about the proliferation of convenience store robberies and killings over the last several years -- particularly jumping in 2006. He's forming a "task force".

A new task force will study ways to combat crime at Houston convenience stores, where last year at least four clerks were shot to death during robberies.

City leaders on Friday announced the creation of the group, which will include store owners, security consultants, gasoline company representatives and community members. The effort is the latest initiative by the city to reduce crime.

Abdul Khan, who was robbed twice last year at the Seven Evening Food Store in southwest Houston, including a daytime robbery by two men who held him and several customers at gunpoint, welcomed the announcement.

"Before, it was quiet and peaceful — the customers came in and were kind. Then, last year, we were robbed twice," Khan said.

In announcing the formation of the task force, Mayor Bill White said, "We're doing this because we want to protect our stores, their employees and customers. We wanted some of the best minds in the business to help us with strategies to prevent crime and not just to react to it."

Members of the Task Force on Convenience Store Security will study convenience stores' surveillance technologies, building codes, management processes and law enforcement procedures.

Based on an analysis of those findings, the group then will make recommendations to the mayor on improving safety, as well as suggestions for more crime prevention measures.

Mr. Mayor, here is a better way of dealing with such crimes -- one that is quick, effective, and sure to discourage the criminal element. It seems to have worked in this Las Vegas case.

A convenience store manager shot and killed a robbery suspect and injured another Friday after the men entered his North Las Vegas store and took the manager and several customers hostage.

The two suspects held up the American Mini Market at 2564 Las Vegas Blvd. North on Friday afternoon, North Las Vegas police said. Then, the robbery suspects bound the store manager and several customers using zip ties and tried to rob them, police said.

The manager, whose name was not released, escaped from the ties and retrieved a gun stashed inside the store. Shortly after 2 p.m., the manager exchanged "a bunch" of shots with the suspects, North Las Vegas police spokesman Tim Bedwell said.

Both of the suspects were hit with gunfire.

One of suspects stumbled out of the store and died in the parking lot, Bedwell said. The other, whose name also was not released, was hit in the lower extremities and fled on foot, leaving a trail of blood, he said.

The suspect was caught by police and taken to University Medical Center, where he was treated for injuries that were not life-threatening, Bedwell said. Police said the man could be charged with robbery and murder once he recovers from his wounds. Under Nevada law, a suspect in a felony crime in which a person dies can be charged with murder even if their actions didn't directly cause the death.

No one else was injured in the shooting.

"This is how we like these incidents to end up," Bedwell said.

Ideally, this is how more should end -- with the robbers dead on the floor at the hands of their intended victims.

I'd love to know how many of the dead clerks here in Houston had a firearm within reach, so that they could defend themselves from the violent predators who took their lives. I'd love to know how many of the robbery victims were armed to protect themselves from the thugs who terrorized them. My guess is that the answer is "not nearly enough.

Some would argue that my solution would make for a more violent society. I disagree. Indeed, I'd argue that the implementation of my proposal would make for a safer society, one in which the crime rate goes down because the cowardly criminal element recognizes the likelihood of being on the receiving end of a lethal injection of 9mm of lead.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Adam's Blog, 123Beta, stickNstein, Amboy Times, Faultline USA, The Hill Chronicles, Digger's Realm, Jo's Cafe, Rightwing Guy, Gulf Coast hurricane Tracker, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, Random Yak, Samantha Burns, Third World County, Perri Nelson, Pirate's Cove, Stuck On Stupid, Dumb Ox, Faultline USA, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Voices, Uncooperative Blogger, The World According to Carl, Outside the Beltway, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, Pink Flamingo, stickNstein, Rightwing Guy, Conservative Cat

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 801 words, total size 8 kb.