I briefly noted last night that Senator Larry Craig is considering not leaving the Senate at this time. What has led to this situation, only three days after he announced his resignation plans?

A telephone call Craig received last week from Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., urging him to consider fighting for his seat is affecting CraigÂ’s decision to reconsider his resignation, Smith said.

“It was a little more cut and dried a few days ago,” Smith said. “There weren’t many options. He was basically going to have to step aside. Now, there’s a little more to it.”

On Tuesday, Specter, senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested CraigÂ’s GOP colleagues who pressured him last week to resign should re-examine the facts surrounding his arrest June 11.

“The more people take a look at the situation, there may well be second thoughts,” said Specter, a former prosecutor. If Craig had not pleaded guilty in August to a reduced charge and instead demanded a trial, “I believe he would have been exonerated,” Specter said.

Now I happen to agree with Specter's position on the charges. I fail to see how any of Craig's actions constitute criminal activity. He wasn't caught having sex through a "glory-hole" -- he was, if the flirting, if the accusations are true.

The problem in my book is how he handled the situation after he was arrested. The guilty plea (which he now wants vacated) and the attempt to deceive eveyone by hiding the incident indicates a lack of integrity. Simple question -- is Larry Craig trustworthy?

And I think this bears directly on that issue. It comes from a voicemail message left to an individual identified as "Billy" while Craig was traveling to Saturday's announcement.

"Having all of that, we've reshaped my statement a little bit to say, 'It is my intent to resign on September 30,' " Craig says in the voice-mail message. Whiting confirmed that it was Craig's voice.

Craig told his confidant -- whom he identifies as "Billy" -- that Specter would be speaking out on his behalf, and he urged Billy to go before the cameras and make a strong statement as well.

"I'm willing to fight. I've got quality people out there fighting in my defense, and that this thing could take a new turn," Craig said.

Clearly, Larry Craig was out to deceive and mislead everyone as to his real intentions.

Had Larry Craig not made that statement Saturday, I likely would have supported him in his decision to stay on in the Senate. I could have accepted teh desire to keep the incident and the guilty plea secret. But his bait-and-switch move makes it quite clear to me that Larry Craig has no place in the US Senate -- and no place in the GOP.

Indeed, this move shows that Michelle Malkin's characterization of Larry Craig was accurate.

Lying crapweasel.

Posted by: Greg at 09:57 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 4 kb.

Sponsored Post

I'll be honest -- I never thought much about mortgage before I bought my house. I knew they were secured loans with the money guaranteed by the house itself, but never about the ins and outs of getting one. Today I hear about too many folks who are not good credit risks who got unsuitable loans, and are losing their shirts because of adjustable rates or outrageous payments.

Frankly, I'm glad I'm not looking for a house today or seeking to refinance because I am locked in at a very good rate that I've found I cannot beat. However, I keep hearing about folks getting a bad credit mortgage to try to reduce payments on their home. Others have begun to seek some sort of mortgage payment protection in case adjustable rates increase or unfortunate circumstances cost them a job or otherwise make paying the mortgage untenable.

Posted by: Greg at 06:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

You screwed up at every turn, Larry -- you just need to stand by your statement from Saturday.

Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening.

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," said Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital.

"We're still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight—and stay in the Senate."

Just go away with what little dignity you have left.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

I never thought we'd find a member of the Kennedy family with lower ethical standards than Senator Teddy the Hutt (D-Chappaquidick).

Now we find out his son does.

Maybe he needs it to pay his rehab bill.

Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy said Tuesday he's not returning $6,600 in donations he got from Norman Hsu, a prominent Democratic donor whose criminal past was recently revealed.

Several top Democrats, including 2008 presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Kennedy's father, Sen. Edward Kennedy, have said they will return Hsu's donations or give them to charity.

Rep. Kennedy will keep the money because there is no indication that Hsu's contributions to him were illegal, according to his chief of staff, Adam Brand.

"We are complying with all applicable (Federal Election Commission) rules and regulations with regards to campaign contributions," Brand said. "If something changes with respect to those rules, we'll take appropriate action."

Let's see -- a felon on the lam give you money and is suspected of illegal campaign activities, but you see nothing wrong with keeping the cash?

What was your position on Abramoff donations to those not accused of wrongdoing, Congressman?

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

Q: Who said this?

"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."

A: Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)

And the Democrats want to claim that conservatives want to mingle religion and politics?

Wouldn't you love to hear this one expanded upon by this latter-day Balaam's ass?

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll be honest – I don't like what Mike Rogers does. I believe it is dangerous and, indeed, at least as hypocritical as the things he exposes. And yes, I still hold a grudge over the harm he did to an old family friend, Congressman Ed Schrock, a couple of years back.

On the other hand, when a student needed legal assistance when faced with discrimination based upon his sexual orientation, Rogers was gracious in his willingness to direct the young man to resources and organizations.

So I'll be honest – I've got mixed emotions about the man. But I cannot deny that he has promoted himself into a power position in the blogosphere.

Rogers, sitting on a club chair in his Northwest Washington apartment, is basking in the attention. For three years now, he's been a feared one-man machine, "outing," he says, nearly three dozen senior political and congressional staffers, White House aides and, most damagingly, Congress members on his blog. On Capitol Hill, a typical phone call from Rogers -- "Are you gay?" he'd ask -- is "a call from Satan himself," says a former high-ranking congressional staffer whose name is on the list.

Rogers reasons that there's justice behind his tactics -- "odious," "outrageous" and "over-the-line" as they might seem to his detractors.

In Rogers's mind, if you're against gay rights in your public life and you live a secret homosexual life, all bets are off.

The problem, of course, is that Rogers is every bit as much of a fundamentalist "true believer" as some of those he attacks. And his actions are based upon a rather arrogant assumption – that homosexuals must share a certain set of political and social beliefs to be entitled to what the gay community claims for itself – the right to sexual privacy, and to be let alone.

So if a gay politician who opposes gay marriage (or a gay staffer for such a politician) – or the extension of hate crimes legislation to include crimes against homosexuals – is "anti-gay" and a hypocrite. Under this theory, one's sexual orientation must be the guiding factor in one's political and moral beliefs. And failure to at all times live up to these beliefs – what the Christian faith would call sin – is in his eyes "plain, hate-filled hypocrisy."

And therein lies my problem with Mike Rogers. It is the hypocrisy that permeates his activity. He does not out "friendly" closeted homosexuals, so it is clear that a more solidly pro-gay Mark Foley, for example, could have actually followed the route of former Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds and engaged in sex acts with a page safe from any possibility of Rogers would have acted against him. Instead, a series of creepy emails were sufficient for Rogers and others to tear the Florida Republican down last year (though they held the emails for nearly a year to ensure maximum political damage to the GOP, proving that they didn't give a damn about the pages).

But more to the point, Rogers seeks to use the very prejudices he claims to want eradicated to destroy those who do not hew to his agenda. In that, he is the equivalent of the kapos in the concentration camp, or a southern black who would cooperate with the Klan. And just as such morally corrupt individuals may have thought their actions were acceptable, history has judged them harshly, as I believe it will ultimately judge Rogers and his ilk harshly.

After all, this is the many who tried to get one blogger fired for daring to criticize his outing campaign, and temporarily got another's site shut down with false accusations against him. In that, Rogers is very much what those bloggers labeled him – a gay terrorist (or at least a gay McCarthyite), not a gay activist.

MORE EXCELLENT COMMENTARY AT Patterico.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 723 words, total size 7 kb.

George W. Bush nearly had a chance to correct one of his father's biggest mistakes.

Unfortunately, friends persuaded David Souter to stay on the Supreme Court.

According to Jeffrey Toobin's new book on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter nearly resigned in the wake of Bush v. Gore, so distraught was he over the decision that effectively ended the Florida recount and installed George W. Bush as president.

In "The Nine," which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, "David Souter alone was shattered," at times weeping when he thought of the case. "For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice," Toobin continues. "That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same."

Sadly, what we see here is that we have an emotionally unstable individual on the Supreme Court. Would that there were some way to remove him for the good of America.

Posted by: Greg at 12:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

I've always liked, or at least respected, Phyllis Schlafly. Her record on conservative issues is one to be admired. However, she has gotten herself caught up in the North American Union conspiracist nonsense, and today produced a column that is quite sad in its nuttiness.

The three-nation summit at Montebello, Quebec, was held behind closed doors, well guarded behind an intimidating fence and plenty of police, but the news conference that followed on Aug. 21 revealed more than the three heads of state had planned.

President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon all refused to deny that the Security and Prosperity Partnership is a stepping stone toward a North American Union.

The $64,000 question was posed by Fox News reporter Bret Baier. He asked all three heads of state, "Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union?"

Their response was positively sensational. Not one denied that SPP is leading to a North American Union. The White House transcript of the news conference allows us to assume that the elites of the three countries are, indeed, moving toward North American integration.

Bush insulted the questioner and those who want an answer by accusing them of believing in a "conspiracy." Bush twice said he was "amused" by such speculation, but as Queen Victoria of England famously said, "We are not amused."

Instead of addressing the crux of the question about plans to integrate the three North American countries, Bush resorted to ridicule. He sneered at his critics as "comical," and accused them of engaging in "political scare tactics" and wanting "to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples."

Harper and Calderon were equally dismissive of the notion.

Somehow, in the mind of Phyllis, ridiculing the ridiculous confirms its truth. But the reality is that there is no North American Union in the offing, simply a continuation of the principles contained in NAFTA. Indeed, the creation of the so-called NAU would require both treaties and Constitutional amendments that would never pass.

So settle down, Phyllis, and the rest of you folks – the NAU black helicopters are not coming to get you. You are dismissed.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

In the battle between environmentalism and public safety, it seems that some folks don't care about human life.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife has set up traps for a bear that attacked a bicyclist on Sunday, and officials say the bear will likely be killed.

But people who live near Banner Forest Heritage Park say the animal did nothing wrong.

Anthony Blasioli, 51, was biking with his two dogs alongside him when he encountered the bear Sunday morning.

The bear charged at the man, cutting his arms, back and neck before he managed to get away. He's being treated at a Tacoma hospital and was listed in satisfactory condition.

Officials think the bear may have been defending its cubs, and that is what has area residents protesting plans to kill the animal.

"It's mean, it's cruel, it's bad," said Mike Leathers. "We're in their territory. The bear and her cubs need to be relocated."

Fish and Wildlife Sgt. Duane Makoviney it's very rare for a bear to attack a human, and they have no choice but to euthanize it.

"It could have been worse. We could have a fatality here and we certainly don't want that to happen," he said.

The bear attacked a person.

Put it down.

The safety of people trumps warm fuzzy gfeelings about a vicious animal.

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.

Today's WaPo has an excellent piece on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe today.

Hatred of Jews has reached new heights in Europe and many points south and east of the old continent. Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain. None of us are Jewish or active in the unending debates on the Israeli-Palestinian question.

Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British citizens -- there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a third are observant -- that is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation. Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions.

Frankly, I think it would be interesting to see a study similar to McShane's carried out in this country today. There has been a steady rise in the anti-Semitic rhetoric on the Left today, as best shown on websites like Kos and DU. On college campuses around the country, anti-Semitic rhetoric is a staple of anti-Israel protest -- but opposition to the brutal face of Islam shown daily by the jihadis is treated as religious intolerance and Americans are urged to "abandon their stereotypes". The Israel lobby is painted as anti-American by some -- while unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism related cases are treated as respected voices of moderation.

Indeed, not only is it time to examine the anti-Semitism running rampant in America, it is also time to closely examine the philo-Islamism that threatens to undermine our struggle against the forces of jihadi terror.

Posted by: Greg at 09:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

On the Democrat side, it looks like the DNC can start printing up the Hillary! posters. But among Republicans, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the party's candidates.

Interviews with dozens of Republicans across the country this Labor Day weekend found that despite the already lengthy campaign, which started almost a year ago, many candidates have made either no impression or a negative one, and many voters are still chewing over their options.

Now this doesn't trouble me terribly -- historically, presidential nomination fights are usually just beginning at this point, and I think many Republicans are simply not making a decision yet. Sure, we have been in campaign mode for some time now, but as recently as six months ago none of us had any idea that there would be a Fred Thompson candidacy. A year ago, it looked like a Giuliani/McCain race. Today we see things still up for grabs because voters are taking their time.

If things stay as they are, though, this could lead to something very interesting -- a convention that actually means something as the ticket is hammered out in Minneapolis. This would bring about excitement among the American populace, and show that the voice of the people is being heard.

Besides -- any GOP candidates stock wil rise in the face of a Democrat ticket headed by Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Greg at 09:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 1 kb.

Sponsored Post

As this teacher is all too aware, summer is over. But on the bright side, that means it is time for the summer clearance sale at OnlineDiscountmart.com -- which means great savings on home and yard decor. But even better, that means that the Halloween Decorations are coming in fast, and you can snatch up yours before they sell out! Remember, OnlineDiscountMart.com has all of your home and garden decoration needs. Make sure you check them out.

Posted by: Greg at 09:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, no one can argue that a day care center is a military target.

A Palestinian rocket exploded Monday next to a day care center crowded with toddlers in southern Israel, sparking anger and panic in the frequently targeted town of Sderot and bringing warnings of retribution from Israeli leaders.

No one was hurt, but the blast and the panic underlined Israel's ineffectiveness in the face of the primitive rockets, which fall daily despite frequent Israeli airstrikes and occasional ground offensives.

Terrified mothers rushed to comfort their screaming babies, schoolchildren ran for cover, and angry parents said they wouldn't send their children back to school until they get classrooms outside town.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pledged to provide "better security for the residents," indicating he would step up the Israeli offensive against Palestinian militants.

"We will not limit ourselves in regards to targeting the rocket launchers and those who dispatch them," Olmert said at a news conference in Jerusalem. "The instruction given to the army is to destroy every 'Qassam' rocket launcher and anyone who is involved in their launching against the residents of Israel."

The people of Sderot have been under siege for some time now, as the Terrorstinians continue to bombard this civilian community with Qassam rockets. The international community has remained silent, despite teh fact that these attacks violate every norm of international law.

Olmert's new policy is the minimum step that should be taken in the face of continued attacks upon the civilian population of Israel.

Posted by: Greg at 09:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Sponsored Post

You folks know me, and that politics is one of the great passions of my life. I look forward to election season the way in a way that some of my friends think is a little bit weird -- but let's just say that I consider this fall to be sort of the equivalent to Spring Training for baseball.

But where do you go to find a community of fellow political junkies, ready for teh campaigns to really begin to heat up? Where do you go to find fellow supporters of your preferred candidates, but also your political opponents to argue with? Why not try the 2008 Presidential Election Forum, where boards are open and waiting for discussion of every candidate and every issue.

What is the purpose of the 2008 Presidential Election Forum? Well, to identify the issues that are most important to American voters in the upcoming election, and the candidates who resonate with those voters. It is also a place to take the temperature of the users of the internet – sort of neutral forum for multipartisan discussion. It isn’t like the big sites, where one side or the other dominates because of the host’s perspective – this is really meant to be a forum for all comers.

You know, dialogue.

What a concept.

Posted by: Greg at 06:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at the Cloaca Maxima of the internet, KOSsacks wail and gnash their teeth about the President's visit to Iraq.

I was particularly shocked by this comment, who clearly suffers from both BDS and Mother Sheehan's Disease.

My son will be leaving for Iraq in December. He actually believes that he is doing a good thing. It not only saddens me what is happening to so many people, but to also watch my son change overnight from intelligent to indoctrinated.

This craziness has gone on too long!

Supporting the troops my ass!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 3 kb.

I mean, on the heels of the Hsu problem, now there is another dirty donor to the Clinton campaign.

Sant S. Chatwal, an Indian American businessman, has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns, even as he battled governments on two continents to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens.

The founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers" while they press to raise record amounts.

Chatwal's case reached from his native India to New York City. The IRS pursued him for approximately $4 million in unpaid business taxes, while New York state placed a lien seeking more than $5 million in taxes. He forfeited a building to New York City on which he was delinquent on property taxes and was sued by federal regulators seeking to recoup millions of dollars in loans from a failed bank where he served as a director.

Across the ocean, three Indian banks forced him into U.S. bankruptcy, and he was charged with bank fraud. He was out on bond when he showed up in India in 2001 during a visit by his longtime friend Bill Clinton.

Yet none of the legal and financial woes -- occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents -- raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation. Chatwal recently said he plans to help raise $5 million from Indian Americans for Clinton's presidential bid.

But none of this caused any concern to the Clinton campaign. I guess they just have low standards -- or maybe, like Hsu, Chatwal was really trying to buy a Marc Rich-style pardon and the Clintons knew it.

Of course, John Edwards has had problems, too.

Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) faced such questions last week when federal prosecutors in Michigan indicted Geoffrey Fieger, the lawyer famous for defending assisted-suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, accusing him of channeling $127,000 in illegal contributions into Edwards's 2004 presidential campaign. Edwards's aides said, and prosecutors confirmed, that the activity was concealed from Edwards and that the candidate cooperated once he learned of problems.

As has Obama.

Similarly, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) gave to charity more than $30,000 in donations from Illinois fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his associates after Rezko was indicted in a federal corruption case. "We do our best to go through the hundreds of thousands of people who give to make sure there aren't problems," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. "I wouldn't say it's a perfect process, but we are as vigilant as possible."

But the bulk of the dirty money seems to be headed to Hillary. Could this be a case of (jail)birds of a feather flocking together?

More At Captain's Quarters.

Posted by: Greg at 05:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.

And takes the whole national security/defense team with him. How's that for a display of confidence in the troops and the Surge?

President Bush greeted his war commanders with salutes Monday during a surprise visit to a U.S. air base in Iraq's Anbar province.

Air Force One touched down at Al Asad Air Base at 3:43 p.m. (7:43 a.m. EDT) under a blazing sun.

The White House said the base was chosen because of the "remarkable turnaround" in the mostly Sunni region west of Baghdad.

Bush plans to eat dinner with U.S. troops and to meet with top military commanders, the U.S. ambassador, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and provincial tribal leaders.

Bush has hailed Anbar as a success, citing the U.S. military's alliance with tribal leaders in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.

Marine commanders on the ground told Bush that "morale is high," despite long troop rotations.

The president was expected to deliver televised remarks from the base at about 12:30 ET.

* * *

Also joining Bush on the Iraq visit are U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, a senior White House official said.

Jules Crittenden has a great roundup of the news of the visit. And i do wish that the President would take up the suggestion of a visit to Fallujah or Ramadi. Not only our troops, but the Iraqi people need the sign of support that such a visit would be.

Captain Ed offers this analysis.

How will this affect the debate on Iraq here in the US? It will show that more of Iraq has been secured in a rather dramatic fashion. A year ago, a presidential visit to Anbar would have been a ludicrous suggestion. His meetings with tribal leaders may have been even more ludicrous regardless of whether they occurred in Anbar or Baghdad. It cuts through the filters of conventional wisdom and media narratives to make a rather bold point about the progress since the start of the surge.

More importantly, how does this affect politics inside Iraq? By meeting with Maliki, Bush can assuage some hurt feelings over calls for Maliki's ouster by Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. However, his meetings with tribal leaders will demonstrate that the US will be willing to work with a broad range of political leadership, a move that should send a message to Maliki. It will be a recognition of tribal leaders who have chosen political engagement rather than terrorist support, which will strengthen the momentum towards political reform.

It's a smart move in all directions. Bush has once again shown the relevance and the power of the presidency, and he chose the best possible time for this demonstration.

He is exactly right in this -- as the Petraeus report looms on the horizon, it is important that the President see what is going on in Iraq, just like the many members of Congress who have visited over the last few weeks -- most of them expressing confidence in the troops and the mission after their return.

In addition, could you imagine the response of the leftards who are now frothing over this visit if President Bush had not broken his journey to Australia with a stop in Iraq? We'd be hearing that he is a coward, that he doesn't care about the troops, and that Iraq isn't really safe. Instead they are angry that he did stop to visit. it must be great having BDS -- no matter what W does, you can always use it as a reason to hate him!

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 613 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I thought President Bush visit was terrific.
Furthermore the media did not point out the President Bush did not wear a flap jacket or an other protective garment.
A great leader is President Bush!

Posted by: Vincent at Tue Sep 4 02:19:02 2007 (fTfVs)

2 comment2, Short Skirt Gallery Online
, publ, whole life insurance
, %[[[, very short skirts
, 184774, transparent bikini
, 4452, Gas Powered Scooters Pictures
, > ,

Posted by: claussberg at Wed Feb 11 21:25:04 2009 (gDU3s)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A number of Dem congresscritters seem to think so.

Many of the Democratic congressmen who ousted Republicans in marginal House districts last year privately express concern about the impact on their re-election prospects if Hillary Clinton is nominated for president.

Because of the strong possibility that Clinton indeed will be the party's candidate, these congressmen will not openly express their fears. But they dread her impact from the top of the ticket.

Clinton's opponents don't raise the question in public. But there is such underground talk in Iowa, the state opening the battle for convention delegates, questioning her ''electability.''

The prospect of another Clinton in the White House will fire up the GOP base. After all, we still hold Billzebubba in contempt, and the nation is still paying for his foreign policy failures. The Clinton team clearly does not deserve a second chance.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

According to this analysis, it most certainly does.

Does denying Florida delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention violate Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act? This Section essentially requires the U.S. Department of Justice to review - before it becomes operational - any change in any law, regulation, standard or procedure that might adversely affect minority voting rights in a covered jurisdiction like the Sunshine State. This "pre-clearance" process makes those advocating the change prove their proposed action will not have the effect of leaving minority voters worse off in terms of voting strength. Until recently, Florida's minority voters had the power to help choose the next Democratic presidential nominee. Historically, these citizens are overwhelmingly Democrat and have used the party's quadrennial presidential primary to express their view on which individual should be the occupant of the Oval Office. But recently, the Florida State Legislature pushed-up the date of the Democratic presidential primary. In turn, the rules and by-laws committee of the Democratic National Committee voted last month to strip the Sunshine state of it's 2008 convention delegates for violating the agreed-to national primary schedule. Assuming this decision is backed by the full DNC membership, it will be an unprecedented dilution of minority voting in the Democrats presidential primary system, in terms of Florida or any state, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act 42 years ago.

As they say in the law, this is Res ipsa loquitur: "The thing speaks for itself." Assuming neither Florida or the DNC backs down, the state's minority citizens will be subjected to the ultimate voter dilution. But what change is to blame, in terms of the Voting Rights Act? Taking away the Sunshine state's convention delegates punishes the wrong people: the voters, including millions of minority citizens protected by the most storied civil rights law passed by the Congress in American history.

According to this analysis, the Justice Department could order either the state or the DNC to give way on this one. And in one persuasive part of the essay, the author notes that since the decision to move the primary disenfranchised nobody (and was rationally related to increasing voter turnout by connecting it to another election) while the decision to strip Florida delegated explicitly disenfranchises voters, the easiest action would be to require the DNC to overturn its decision.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

It seems that treatment might just be in the offing.

Who knows -- maybe their delusions can be gone by election time.

Standard treatment for jihadism, however, will remain the high-velocity injection of lead, 5.56 mm at a time.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

For those in the mission field, travel is a big deal. How does one travel from one's home to the place where one has been called by God? How does one make it home? Most travel agencies and airlines are not set up to help with the special needs of missionary travel, with its low budget and pressing time constraints.

Golden Rule Travel is a company that specializes in assisting missionaries with their travel needs. For over 20 years, the company has been making travel arrangements for missionaries, their families, and people traveling abroad for international adoptions. To judge from the many testimonials on their site, they do a fantastic job. Not only that, but they go the extra mile to aid those who travel with them. Golden Rule offers a special toll-free number to its customers to receive assistance with their travel needs in the event of problems.

Posted by: Greg at 08:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Kudos to Neptunus Lex for this great PhotoShop of everyone's favorite Islamist.

I guess he missed the memo.

On the other hand, I give Lex two thumbs up!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:05 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 2 kb.

OK, ladies, here it is -- HerFabLife-Your one-stop lifestyle guide to all things fabulous!. HerFabLife is a social lifestyle community for women who are up with all the latest trends and interested in the latest styles and the best places to eat, drink, shop and relax. HerFabLife even provides you with information about upcoming entertainment events in your area. best of all, ladies, you can even add your own content to the site, making you part of a fabulous social network. So drop by HerFablife.com and see what they have to offer you!

Posted by: Greg at 06:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

For those of you who think that government-paid and managed healthcare would be great, consider the power that bureaucrats would have under John Edwards' plan.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal healthcare proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

''It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,'' he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. ``If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.''

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat ''the first trace of problem.'' Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory healthcare plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

''The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death,'' he said.

Got that. The government will decide when you MUST see the doctor.

So yes, ladies, you get that Pap smear and mammogram -- in fact, you MUST get that Pap smear and mammogram. And I'll be REQUIRED to see the podiatrist to check out my feet since I'm diabetic. No longer will Americans be responsible for their medical decisions -- some bureaucrat will tell you what doctors visits you need to make, and presumably when and where you have to go.

No telling what the penalty will be for not keeping to the governmentally-dictated medical regime.

I don't know about you, but it appears that the only decision that the government won't be intruding upon is the liberal sacrament of abortion -- after all, they tell us that's a medical decision to be made between patient and doctor.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters, Don Surber and Liberty Papers, Betsy's Page, RWN, Poliblog

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, that's what the London Times is claiming is in the offing.

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the IraniansÂ’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

Frankly, I don't buy the argument -- and I think the article is much to speculative to believe that it is accurate.

besides, I think Israel is more likely to do the job than we are.

Meanwhile, over at the Cloaca Maxima of the Internet AKA Daily Kos, there is this piece of excrement floating around.

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

* * *

I asked her about the attack, how limited and so forth.

"I donÂ’t think itÂ’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

Somehow, I think this is all a load of crap.

If false, I think this qualifies as a violation of Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 § 2388 of the US Code, to wit:

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; . . .

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Of course, if this information is true we have the possibility of treason and espionage charges being brought, as well as a host of charges under the UCMJ against the person who disclosed the information to the KOSsack in question.

Here's hoping that the investigations have already begun. I know at least one bloggger has made a report to the Office of Naval Intelligence. Seems like a prudent step to me.

More At Confederate Yankee, Neptunus Lex and Stop the ACLU

UPDATE: Here's something even more insane than the Kos piece mentioned above (which even Kos himself seems to have disavowed -- and now pulled from his site).

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 697 words, total size 6 kb.

Ask any teacher -- a good substitute is worth his or her weight in diamonds and gold. And when retired teachers come back into the classroom as substitutes, they are usually the ones you want to get.

Especially since qualifications to work as a substitute are even lower than the pay for the work.

Qualifications for substitutes vary from system to system, with some requiring a bachelor's degree and others only a minimum number of college credits. The pay also varies, from about $75 a day to $103 for retired teachers.

My district does require some college to substitute -- a whole 30 hours of college credit. In other words, you can have kids who graduated the previous year coming back as substitutes if they took a couple of summer school classes and AP or dual-credit during their high school career. Fortunately, the district tries to keep them out of the high schools.

And don't fool yourself -- substitutes are a big expense for a district. Mine spent $1.7 million on subs last year -- for a variety of reasons, ranging from personal days and conferences to illnesses and maternity leave. And as it was, there were still classes that were covered by administrators, teacher, and even secretaries if there was no substitute available through our system.

Probably the best news I've gotten is that one of my recently retired colleagues is coming back as a substitute after a year of retirement. I know I will fight to schedule him into my class if i know in advance that I will be out of school.

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Just to remind you what savages run the Terrorstinian Anarchy.

Hamas gunmen opened fire on their own supporters Saturday, killing a teenager at a protest on the Gaza-Egypt border, hospital officials said.

Tens of thousands of flag-waving Hamas supporters gathered at the Rafah border crossing with Egypt to demand it be reopened. The border, Gaza's only gateway to Egypt, has been shut since Hamas' bloody takeover of the Gaza Strip in June.

Hamas gunmen guarding the border fired in the air as hundreds of protesters tried to rush the border terminal and go into Egypt.

A 17-year-old was shot in the head and later pronounced dead, medics said. Seven others were trampled or wounded by gunfire.

I'm truly beginning to believe that there are some people who cannot run their own affairs -- and the Terrorstinians are clearly among them. Given tehm a state of their own? You must be kidding!

Posted by: Greg at 03:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Will this decision put those two states in the GOP column in November of 2008?

The Democratic candidates have signed a pledge that would forbid them from campaigning in states such as Michigan and Florida that have sought to move their presidential primaries into January 2008.

Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the four states that had been designated by the Democratic National Committee to hold early primaries, demanded in letters Friday that the candidates not participate in the early primaries of other states. The candidates either had to sign the pledge or risk annoying officials in those key states.

Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, signed the pledge within hours on Friday. By yesterday, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, had joined them.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton's campaign said in a statement. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

The best thing for the GOP to do at this point is to step aside and announce that it will not penalize the early states at the convention. It would then be very important for the GOP candidates to actively campaign in Michigan and Florida, indicating that they actually value the voice of the people of those states. That is part of a strategy for electoral victory in 2008 -- because after all, would you vote for any presidential candidate so beholden to special interests that he or she would refuse to even ask for your vote?

And while I agree with the NY Times that something needs to be done to rationalize the process, disenfranchising and ignoring voters is not the way to do so.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 03:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Frankly, I think it is way too soon for a book like this to be published. Such reflections are more appropriate after a president's term ends, now with 16 months left in his presidency.

But there is a quote that some folks are making great fun of in the BDS-afflicted left-o-sphere that I think illustrates something quite interesting about the nature of the modern presidency.

Then he said, "We'll have a nice place in Dallas," where he will be running what he called "a fantastic Freedom Institute" promoting democracy around the world. But he added, "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

Now the leftards have been having fun with that three-word "fantastic Freedom Institute" excerpt (wouldn't you like to see the whole quote -- I bet it is significantly more substantive), what strikes me is the latter part of that paragraph.

I think the quote illustrates something very important -- the presidency, for all its power and perks, is a gilded prison. It strips the ability to be normal from the occupant of the Oval Office.

How many of you can decide that you want to make an impromptu road-trip on the weekend because you are bored or stressed? Probably all of you. What you see in Bush's statement is his yearning to be able to do exactly that.

I live here in Houston. I'm a teacher, not anyone of great social importance. And yet I see George & Barbara Bush at community events on a regular basis. They have a freedom to come and go as they choose that they lacked for the dozen years of his Vice Presidency and especially his Presidency. I believe their son is looking forward to that.

Some will argue that Bush's weakness is being exposed here. I'd argue that we are getting a glimpse of his humanity in a way that we have never seen the humanity of a president before.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

And in the process ignores why such commemorations remain important to us as a nation.

Again it comes, for the sixth time now — 2,191 days after that awful morning — falling for the first time on a Tuesday, the same day of the week.

Again there will be the public tributes, the tightly scripted memorial events, the reflex news coverage, the souvenir peddlers.

Is all of it necessary, at the same decibel level — still?

Each year, murmuring about Sept. 11 fatigue arises, a weariness of reliving a day that everyone wishes had never happened. It began before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack. By now, though, many people feel that the collective commemorations, publicly staged, are excessive and vacant, even annoying.

“I may sound callous, but doesn’t grieving have a shelf life?” said Charlene Correia, 57, a nursing supervisor from Acushnet, Mass. “We’re very sorry and mournful that people died, but there are living people. Let’s wind it down.”

Some people prefer to see things condensed to perhaps a moment of silence that morning and an end to the rituals like the long recitation of the names of the dead at ground zero.

But many others bristle at such talk, especially those who lost relatives on that day.

The article goes on to compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, Fort Sumter, and even a maritime fire that killed nearly 1100 people in New York harbor. In doing so, I believe the article mises the point.

The events of September 11 still resonate for three reasons.

First, they are the event that we mark in our minds as the beginning of the current war between the United States and jihadi terrorists. As such, the horrific events of that day serve as a pointed reminder of why we fight -- indeed, of why we must fight -- the Islamist foe. The Confederacy is dead and buried. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany have been defeated and emerged as valued allies. But this latter day enemy is still at war with us, in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and dozens of cities and town where planned terrorist plots have been thwarted. Commemorations of that day's horror keep us focused on what we are up against, and the price of failing to be vigilant and prepared.

Second, 9/11 is an event different than any other in American history. America has been attacked by foreign enemies in the past -- but never has that attack been so directly aimed at our civilian population using the ordinary elements of our daily lives. Like it or not, Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor are fundamentally different because they were military attacks upon military forces at military installations -- and I've often argued that the reason the attack upon the Pentagon resonates differently with Americans is not merely a question of numbers, but also of our recognition that our military personnel have signed up to face America's enemies while office workers and janitors in a skyscraper have not.

Lastly, we lived those events with an immediacy that we did not, indeed could not, live any other event in American history. Television, radio, and the internet placed every single one of us at Ground Zero immediately We remained there for days There is a psychic connection nationwide that no other event in American history to this point can match. While some are ready to move on, a great many of us still feel an attachment to the events of September 11 and those who died that day.

Is it time to scale things back? I don't think so, and I don't know when it will be.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters & Right Wing Nut House

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

Sponsored Post

At age twelve, I knocked out one of my front teeth. It was reimplanted, but remained a source of constant trouble well into adulthood, when it had to be surgically extracted. My dentist decided the best option for me at that point was a bridge to replace the empty spot that would be left in the middle of my smile.

In hindsight, I wish I had explored dental implants as an alternative to having two other teeth shaved down so that they could anchor that bridge. Wouldn't it have been so much better for me to have one replacement tooth, anchored in place to the bone, to replace the damaged tooth and fill the hole it left? It would certainly be better not to need special cleaning devices and a lower likelihood of future complications.

If you are interested in dental implants, check out DentalImplants.com to find a dentist who can help you make the best decision about your mouth.

Posted by: Greg at 08:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are NYT: Analogies Are Meaningless (Unless They Favor the Left) by Big Lizards, and Like a Suppository, Only a Bit Stronger by The Dissident Frogman.  Here are the full results of the vote:

Posted by: Greg at 07:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 5 kb.

Sponsored Post

One of the common causes of vision problems for older adults is macular degeneration (AMD), which occurs when deposits are made on a weakened retina, causing blurring and color changes in the central area of one's field of vision.

Once it begins, it is hard to stop, and few effective treatments exist for the condition. But there are steps that one can take to help prevent macular degeneration. Vitamins for eye health prevent visual impairment from AMD, reducing the risk for the disease by 70% and even slow the progression of the disease by 25%. This is significant for retaining healthy vision in old age. If you are at risk for AMD, you need to take steps now to help preserve your vision. more...

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.

I can only assume that the Democrats will start a little housecleaning of their own.

Bruce at GayPatriot offers some suggestions.

These are in the order of importance based on the damage they have done to the Congress and our nation as a whole.

1 - Jay Rockefeller. For illegally leaking classified intelligence material to the news media due to his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Such acts constitute treason in a time of war.

2 - Nancy Pelosi. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For conducting illegal foreign policy with a sworn enemy of the United States (Syria).

3 - Harry Reid. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition.

4 - John Murtha. For slandering the United States Marines in a time of war for accusing them of murder and rape in the Haditha incident where no charges were filed at the time, and where now most all charges have been dropped, and by all military investigatory accounts — no crimes were committed.

5 - Ted Kennedy. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For violating Senate ethics rules by serving in the US Senate for 30 years following his drunk driving murder of a young woman.

6 - Dick Durbin. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For slandering the US military in a time of war by equating them with Nazi storm troopers.

7 - William Jefferson. For blatant corruption in office and abuse of power during the Katrina disaster.

Might I add Patrick Kennedy for his DUI incident, Patrick Leahy for leaking classified documents and getting a US operative killed, and Dianne Feinstein for steering contracts to her hubby's firms.

Feel free to add more.

UPDATE: Some additional observations from Gateway Pundit.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

I hate the University of Michigan -- so this story makes me very happy.

What was supposed to be a tuneup turned into a stunner: Appalachian State 34, No. 5 Michigan 32. Julian Rauch's 24-yard field goal with 26 seconds left put the Mountaineers ahead of the Wolverines and Corey Lynch's blocked field goal in the final seconds sealed one of college football's biggest upsets.

The two-time defending champions from former Division I-AA were ahead of the nation's winningest program 28-14 late in the second quarter, then their storybook afternoon seemed to unravel late in the fourth quarter.

Mike Hart's 54-yard run put the Wolverines ahead—for the first time since early in the second quarter—with 4:36 left.

One snap after the go-ahead touchdown, Brandent Englemon intercepted an errant pass, but the Wolverines couldn't capitalize and had their first of two field goals blocked.

Appalachian State drove 69 yards without a timeout in 1:11 to set up the go-ahead kick, but it still wasn't over.

Chad Henne threw a 46-yard pass to Mario Manningham, giving Michigan the ball at Appalachian State's 20 with 6 seconds left.

Lynch blocked the kick and returned it to the other end of the field as the final seconds ticked off, and his teammates rushed across the field to pile on Lynch as the coaching staff and cheerleaders jumped with joy.

Appalachian State has won 15 straight games, the longest streak in the nation.

Hurrah for the Mountaineers!

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

And if the decision in Avery Doninger's case is upheld down the road, it appears that this ruling will effectively mean that no student has First Amendment rights to speak on any matter related to school at any time or in any place free from the heavy hand of censorship and punishment by the school administration.

Avery Doninger may have been off campus when she wrote an Internet post calling officials in her Burlington school district a derogatory name.

But school officials were within their rights when they punished her for the comment as if she had made it on campus, a federal judge ruled Friday, because Doninger's writing related to school and was likely to be read by other students.

U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz's ruling marked the court's first stance on a lawsuit that Doninger's mother, Lauren, filed against two officials in the Region 10 school district after Avery Doninger, then 16, was prohibited from seeking re-election as secretary for her class at Lewis S. Mills High School in May. Punishing Avery Doninger for the comment - she called school officials "douchbags" (sic) in her Internet blog - violated her right to free speech, the Doningers argued.

Friday's ruling didn't decide the case, but resolved a request by Doninger's attorney for an injunction to allow Avery Doninger to run for class secretary. Kravitz's ruling denying the request noted that Doninger had not shown "substantial likelihood" that she would succeed in challenging the constitutional validity of her punishment.

But Kravitz's ruling also foreshadowed a case involving far more than a misspelled insult posted on the Internet. It concerns what kind of expression schools can regulate, whether schools can sanction behavior outside school, and just what can be considered on- or off-campus in the Internet age.

"The whole issue of blogs and off-campus e-mails is coming to the fore. Courts themselves are kind of feeling their way along," Kravitz said in court Friday. "These are difficult issues."

Now as one commentator notes, the Courant article is not completely accurate in its characterization of this decision, because this decision dealt with the issue of a pretrial injunction rather than the actual merits of the case. However, it does show that the judge is initially predisposed to rule in favor of the district based upon an initial presentation and examination of the facts at hand.

But let's consider the judge's opinion itself (34 pages long, yet miraculously issued a mere 45 minutes after closing arguments!).

In the opinion, Judge Kravitz states that the internet presents new challenges for school administrators, and that the courts have yet to fully shape the boundaries of school authority when it relates to the Internet. But in his recitation of the facts of the case, Judge Kravitz makes one important factual concession that shows his decision to be wrong.

Avery, J.E., P.A., and T.F. decided to send an email to various taxpayers, informing them of the situation and requesting that they contact the school superintendent, Paula Schwartz, in the LMHS central office to demand that Jamfest be held in the auditorium on April 28.

This email, which urges the public to contact public officials on a matter related to the operation of a public school, clearly qualifies as political speech. And given that Avery's later posting on her LiveJournal site reproduced the email in its entirety, it is virtually impossible to argue that the LiveJournal post does not similarly constitute political speech -- and it is that post which was used as the basis to prevent Avery from seeking reelection to her class officer position AND which later led the school to refuse to count write-in votes for her and to attempt to hide the ballots and the vote tally when repeated FOIA requests were made for them.

Now the judge conflates the standards found in the Morse and Fraser cases to argue that the school's action is justified in this case because the speech was disrespectful, uncivil, and potentially disruptive (despite the fact it took place away from school, the judge ruled that Internet speech can be treated as on-campus speech if any member of the school community can read it). But in doing so, he ignores Justice Alito's concurring opinion in the Morse case, which essentially controls and limits the reach of school authority in cases of political speech.

I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that. . . (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue. . . .

As such, the most recent Supreme Court decision regarding student speech, which Judge Kravitz uses to permit the school to take action against Avery Doninger, clearly prohibits the school from doing so. And given that the standard in Tinker requires the speech to cause a substantial disruption before it can be suppressed, A side-by-side reading of the two decisions must lead to the conclusion that the school's actions were wrong.

As for the application of the Fraser standard, it needs to be remembered that the lewd sexual language in that case occurred in a middle school auditorium, before a captive audience of students. No one can maintain that the facts here are even remotely similar. Calling an administrator a "douchbag" on a webpage might be uncivil, rude, and (arguably) inappropriate, but no one who does not voluntarily access the page is exposed to that message -- and it is possible to prevent any disruption caused by blocking the page from the school computers. The facts simply do not fit with the Fraser precedent.

In light of that analysis, I'd go further. Judge Kravitz cites a series of cases in which courts have held that students have no right to participate in extracurricular activities. While I am generally in agreement with him, I think the reasonable application of the Tinker and Morse standards is necessary here. If, in fact, students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, and if schools may not restrict political speech, then it is absurd to argue that a student might be banned from extracurricular activities for their speech on political or social issues. No rational legal scholar would argue, for example, that the Tinker children could not be suspended or expelled for the black armbands but could be denied a place in the school band, on an athletic team, or in student government for that same anti-war speech. No judge would rule that an administrator could bar a student who maintained a blog that commented against abortion or in favor of gay rights from membership on the debate team or the chess club. And more to the point, it would be seen as frighteningly un-American if a school district were to impose an extracurricular ban upon students who maintained a website opposing a school bond issue.

And quite frankly, the judge probably needs to consider the Supreme Court ruling in Cohens v. California as well. If the word "fuck" is protected speech in a political context, it is impossible to argue that "douchbag" (or its correctly spelled version) does not maintain similar protected status -- especially given that no action was taken against a student who posted a comment on the blog referring to the district superintendent BY NAME as a "dirty whore".

Another issue to consider is the fact that Judge Kravitz has ruled that speech on the Internet can be considered on-campus speech if it relates to school and students can see it at any time, including while at home using their privately-owned computers. This treats the Internet in a manner different from any other media, and essentially exempts it from First Amendment protection. I seriously doubt, for example, that Judge Kravitz would have ruled that Julia's use of the word "douchbag" on a picket picket-sign on a public sidewalk in front of the administration building during a protest of the cancellation of Jamfest could be treated as on-campus speech, even if students passing by on vehicles saw the sign. Similarly, were the protest covered by the news media, photos or video of such a sign in the press coverage could not convert her speech into an on-campus disruption of the educational process. Neither would placing signs in her yard, posters in public places, or an ad in the local newspaper. And were she to write a column on the issue that appeared in the press -- perhaps in a local alternative newspaper -- I cannot imagine any judge declaring her use of the word "douchbag" to be on-campus speech merely because a fellow student could read it. On what legitimate basis does the judge treat the Internet differently and place it beyond First Amendment protection under Tinker, Fraser, and Morse?

At this point, the only individuals directly harmed by this decision are Avery Doninger and the students who wrote her name in during the class election (incidentally, she won the office according to a tally of the ballots when they were eventually obtained under the states FOIA). And yet the speech of every student in her school is chilled by the decision allowing even a temporary victory to the officious administrative douchebags who chose to make an example out of her for her exercise of her First Amendment rights in her home using her own computer outside of school hours. But the potential for damage to the First Amendment rights of every American student is even greater. Judge Kravitz's decision must be overturned.

UPDATE: I've been in touch with Avery's mom, and she assures me that they are appealing to the Second Circuit. However, the pursuit of this lawsuit is a financial drain. Would you consider helping out?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1705 words, total size 13 kb.

According to reports, Senator Larry Craig will resign from the Senate today.

Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, plans to resign his seat on Saturday after Republican leaders put intense pressure on him to leave in the aftermath of an undercover sex sting, Republican Party officials said Friday.

Through intermediaries and unusually harsh public statements and actions, party officials made it clear they wanted Mr. Craig to quit before Congress returned from its summer recess next week, hoping to quickly conclude an embarrassing episode that threatened to complicate an already difficult election cycle for Senate Republicans.

Republican Party officials said Friday evening that they had been notified of Mr. CraigÂ’s intention to give up his seat as of Sept. 30 and that Gov. C. L. Otter, a Republican, would name a replacement.

Let me say for the record -- Craig's resignation is probably a good thing, and I think it should be immediate, not effective in a month. That said, I think it is necessary only because of Craig's poor choices in handling his arrest in an airport restroom.

Craig should not have entered a guilty plea to any charge -- at most, he should have entered a nolo contendere or Alford plea. In addition, as Captain Ed points out, there is a serious question as to whether any conduct Craig engaged in constitutes criminal activity and whether the plea was coerced with political threats. Indeed, does the mere act of seeking gay sex constitute criminal activity in the post Lawrence v. Texas world, where consensual sodomy has been held to be a constitutional right? This is especially true if, as in this case, there was no exchange of money, no indecent exposure, and no actual sexual contact in a public place. Are shoe-bumping and hand gestures actually barred under disorderly conduct statutes?

This is not to say that I approve of Larry Craig's actions in that lavatory, if he was, in fact, seeking sex. I just wonder where the crime is -- and how homosexual activist groups can stand by and not argue that arrests such as this one are legally wrong. Is the greater hypocrisy being a homosexual or bisexual opposed to homosexual marriage, homosexuals in the military, and the inclusion of homosexuals in hate-crime laws, or in objecting to the criminalization of homosexual activity but remaining silent while a political opponent faces criminal charges that in other circumstances you would argue are legally and constitutionally dubious? I'd argue it is the latter.

And let me add that while I oppose homosexual marriage and certainly reject the notion that the 14th Amendment or any other provision of the US Constitution or the constitutions of any state that requires homosexual marriage, that does not indicate an antipathy toward gay individuals -- I simply believe that the authors of any of those documents had any intention of legalizing that which they all condemned. And while I reject the holding in Lawrence v. Texas as flawed, I personally stand with the view expressed by Justice Thomas that laws like the statute struck down in that case should not be on the books because of the nonsensical restriction on individual liberty they impose -- but they do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. And while I oppose including homosexuals under hate-crime laws, it is because I oppose the very notion of hate-crime laws and believe that such statutes undermine the notion of equal protection of the law and potentially impact First Amendment rights if used to restrict so-called "hate speech". But as I have said in the past, I am fully supportive of removing any restriction on military service based upon sexual orientation, and I have see no reason to legally restrict individuals from any profession based upon their sexual orientation.

And as for the issue of homosexuals holding public office, I have no objection to it. I have supported candidates I have known to be gay in the past, and will do so in the future. All other things being equal, I'd be supportive of keeping Larry Craig in office as an open homosexual. But the pattern of conduct -- especially in the face of the investigation into his activities by the largest newspaper in his home state -- shows a profound lack of discretion and judgment. That, my friends, is why Larry Craig has been so damaged by this incident, and why he needs to leave the Senate.

Early speculation has already begun about Craig's eventual replacement in the Senate.

A slightly different perspective at The Van Der Galiën Gazette.

UPDATE: Craig has announced his resignation, effective September 30.

Early word is that Idaho Gov. Butch Otter will appoint former governor and current Lt. Gov. Jim Risch as Craig's successor

If Jim Risch becomes the U.S. Senate's newest member, expect him to hit the ground running.

"I don't see him sitting around and saying, ‘I better learn the ropes here and take it easy and see how things are going,'" said Albertson College of Idaho political science professor Jasper LiCalzi.

"It will be interesting to watch him in a different legislative body," Boise State University professor emeritus Jim Weatherby said. "He's been so effective in the state Legislature, but he goes in as senator No. 100, as an appointed senator.

"But knowing Jim Risch, he is going to make the most of it."

Sources told reporters Friday that Gov. Butch Otter had chosen Risch, a fellow Republican, to succeed Sen. Larry Craig, who is expected to resign this morning. An Otter spokesman said that wasn't true, but Risch makes a lot of sense to Statehouse watchers like LiCalzi and Weatherby.

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Amy Proctor

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1032 words, total size 10 kb.

Absolutely shocking.

The Social Security Administration cannot start sending out letters to employers next week that carry with them more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, a federal judge ruled Friday.

Ruling on a lawsuit by the nation's largest federation of labor unions against the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the so-called "no-match" letters from going out as planned starting Tuesday.

The AFL-CIO lawsuit, filed this week, claims that new Department of Homeland Security rules outlined in accompanying letters threaten to violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers. Chesney said the court needs "breathing room" before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.

She set the next hearing on the matter for Oct. 1.

Excuse me -- you are required to have a valid SSN to work. Such letters have been sent for years, but employers have ignored them. How is making the penalty stiffer a violation of anyone's right -- except the right of illegal aliens to work illegally, and the right of employers to break the law by employing them?

Posted by: Greg at 04:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Mike Nifong again gets off too easy.

Embattled former district attorney Mike Nifong was held in criminal contempt of court and sentenced to one day in jail Friday for his actions in the flawed Duke lacrosse team rape case.

Nifong must report to jail September 7, Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III said.

The judge said Nifong's withholding of DNA evidence from defense attorneys was an affront to the integrity of the judicial system.

The evidence potentially would have cleared the three lacrosse players of sexual assault charges months before North Carolina's attorney general dropped them in April.

The players initially were accused of raping an exotic dancer during a party last year.

The specific evidence Nifong was accused of withholding was that DNA profiles found on the alleged rape victim were from unidentified males, but did not match any of the 46 lacrosse team members.

He also was accused of telling the court in a September 22 hearing that a lab report contained complete information on DNA test results, when it omitted that information.

Given that the entire investigation and prosecution was a travesty, designed to boost Nifong's election campaign rather than achieve justice, a one-day sentence is absurdly short.

Instead, Nifong needs to be imprisoned for the exact length of time each of these young men was forced to bear these false accusations -- with the time to be served consecutively.

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage if any mainstream publication were to publish an article like this about any racial or ethnic group?

A new working paper from economists Victor Lavy of Hebrew University and Analía Schlosser of Princeton attempts to unpick the peer effects associated with gender, using data on nearly half a million students passing through Israel's school system in the 1990s. They compared consecutive year groups passing through the same school, figuring that if one year's group was 55 percent boys and the next year's was 55 percent girls, that difference was very likely to be random and thus susceptible to meaningful number crunching.

Their answer chimes perfectly with the conventional wisdom: Boys benefit from being in a classroom with girls, but girls do not benefit from being in a classroom with boys. What is interesting about Lavy and Schlosser's work is that it uses survey data provided by the children to work out what is causing the effects. The survey questions ask, for example, about violence in school, respect for teachers, classroom distractions, and relations among students.

Boys pollute the educational system, it seems, for a number of unmysterious reasons: They wear down teachers, disrupt classes, and ruin the atmosphere for everyone. And more boys are worse than fewer boys, not because they egg each other on but simply because more of them can cause more trouble in total.

One could, using the same sort of evidence, make similar claims regarding racially-mixed educations. A look at disciplinary records and academic performance data would likely bear that out. But is that a basis for advocating a return to racially segregated education? No -- and indeed, it has been the basis for arguing that there is a crisis in schools and that more resources need to be devoted to making sure that minorities do better in school and that steps be taken to end the "bias" in discipline.

And then there is this little gem at the end.

A social planner might thus conclude that all education should be single-sex. The difficulty is to combine this perspective with the principle of parental choice. I have the answer: a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting girls' education with their testosterone-fuelled little monsters. The money could go toward hiring extra teachers—and riot police.

Again, could you imagine the outrage if someone were to write an argument arguing that there should be a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting whites' education with their Spanish and Ebonics speaking little gang-bangers? But in this case, the silence will be deafening.

I guess you just have to choose the right target for your bigotry.

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.