Heart disease is a subject that has always interested me. After all, there is a history of heart disease in my family -- I lost both grandfathers to heart attacks, and Mom has had a heart condition for as long as i can remember. That's why I find the site at HeartLibrary.com to be interesting -- it provides information o n heart health, including topics likeatrial fibrillation and other serious heart-related medical conditions. I encourage you to check them out -- for the sake of your heart.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Just in time for Memorial Day, a little bit of "patriotic fervor" from the fine folks who want to see America lose in Iraq.

If you refuse to vote for Obama, why are you asking others to sacrifice for your decision?

If you're going to help McCain get elected, you need to take responsibility for your actions. This election is bigger than you. It's bigger than Barack Obama. It's bigger than Hillary Clinton. Lives will be saved or lost depending on who is elected in November, and if you're going to willfully help prolong the war, it's time to do the honorable thing and enlist.

Click here to locate a U.S. Army recruiter in your area.

Don't worry, you'll still be able to get election results from Baghdad, and you'll still be able to "sit this one out" under the comfort of a mortar attack. And yes, I'm sure hearing about an Obama defeat will seem all the more sweet when you're laying in the choking aftermath of an IED explosion with a piece of half-melted plastic burning a hole into your intestines. I'm sure you'll be comforted by the knowledge that history had no place for President Obama when you're staring at the empty space where your leg used to be. And certainly, I'm sure the crippling terror of post-traumatic stress disorder will be nowhere as severe as the disingenuous "concern" you'll suffer over debunked Rezko conspiracy theories and the excited ramblings of a liberation theologian. Of course, those already serving will not get the same perverse comfort from their sacrifice, so there's no excuse for not taking on this burden yourself. If you truly believe that Obama should not be president, if you truly believe there is no greater pain than seeing a primary opponent win the general election, then this sacrifice can only be considered a modest price for your convictions.

In other words, refusing to vote for Barack Obama means that you merit death or serious bodily injury -- and military service is a punishment for political crimes against the Obamessiah, not an honorable choice by those who love America.

On the other hand, these scumbags believe that the greatest service you can do for America is vote for an inexperienced, short-tempered, historically ignorant liberal candidate who will give our troops the order to retreat in dishonor and surrender to the enemy so that they can impose an obscurantist seventh-century theology in Iraq and -- eventually -- around the world.

H/T LGF

UPDATE 5/26/2008: Having had a little sunlight shed on them, these cockroaches have scattered for darkness -- and the piece quoted above has been taken down by the KOSsacks.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Pink Flamngo, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 6 kb.

I realize that as a British journalist, there are some things that Rod Liddle just can't say in print. But still, I'm struck by what he left out in the name of political correctness in the words that follow.

You would think that by now Allah’s message might be getting through. Time after time Muslim fanatics attempt to wreak devastation in Britain – and succeed only in blowing themselves up, or setting themselves on fire, or their explosives refuse to do the decent thing and explode – while we infidel cockroaches look on in bemusement, quite unharmed.

If you were a devout believer, you might put two and two together and begin to suspect that Allah doesnÂ’t entirely approve of blowing British people to bits. He would much rather his jihadis stayed at home and watched the Eurovision Song Contest, or did a spot of gardening, or took the dog for a walk.

It is presumptuous of me to second-guess AllahÂ’s thought processes, of course. But then quite a few incendiary Muslim clerics insisted that the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami was down to Allah being a bit peeved at the state of the world and unleashing his righteous watery vengeance upon it. To which you might reply that it was very odd of Him, then, to single out a devoutly Muslim country, Indonesia, for the brunt of the carnage. Maybe He just missed.

* * *

I suppose that many years hence the terrible destruction of the twin towers will still be lodged in our minds, the image of the buildings crumpling, the video of Osama Bin Laden sniggering in his cave. But a similarly iconic image would be of the moron Richard Reid trying desperately to set his training shoe on fire on a plane, having forgotten to bring a lighter. They are either extraordinarily useless or Allah has got it in for them.

What is missing? How about the possibility that Allah is a malevolent false god who is having his butt kicked by the ever-righteous Yahweh? That would explain why the followers of Muhammad's malignant message have been able to carry off so few significant terrorist attack against non-Muslims since 9/11.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

Get this legislation out of conference committee and sent on to the President for his signature immediately. After all, it is the least we can do to help foreign-born US troops receive the American citizenship they have earned.

Ms. Mikulski also introduced the Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, which was sponsored in the House by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.). The bill allows the DHS to use fingerprints taken by the Defense Department of every new service member in the citizenship process; previously, service members were not allowed to use their military fingerprints for that purpose. Ms. Mikulski's bill, among other things, also requires that the necessary background check for citizenship be completed within 180 days after an application is filed by a service member. An application must be filed within two years after a non-U.S. citizen enters military service.

The House passed the Citizenship Assistance Act last fall, and it sailed through the Senate in March; the bill is now tied up in conference. Lawmakers should quickly sign off on the bill and send it along to President Bush, who should sign it. It would be a fitting tribute to Kendell Frederick and a well-deserved reward to the thousands of others like him who don the uniform of their adopted country.

These soldiers are men and women who have served America proudly -- we should show our pride in them by making the process to citizenship as smooth as possible for them.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

It is a rather interesting question raised by this article in the Houston Chronicle.

With American motorists struggling to pay record-high gasoline prices, a debate rages in the halls of Congress and across the Oil Patch over the role speculators may be playing in driving up oil prices.

Crude prices have rocketed nearly $70 a barrel in the past year. Some energy experts suggest speculation could account for $20 to $30 of that run-up.

Desperate to help angry constituents, lawmakers have been scrambling to find solutions. They have voted to close the so-called Enron loophole by regulating electronic trading, and they've given the Federal Trade Commission more authority to guard against market manipulation.

Now some energy and trading experts are calling on lawmakers to focus on the pension funds, endowments and other institutional investors — including the University of Texas and the state's teacher retirement system — that have poured billions of dollars into the commodities futures market in the last few years. The trend has exacerbated the crude price run-up, these analysts say.

Institutional investors' interest in oil "is accelerating and emboldening the price rise," said Mark Lapolla of Sixth Man Research, an Atlanta-based financial research firm. "We just can't quantify it."

I'll be honest -- according to the article, my pension fund has $4.4 billion dollars invested in commodities -- and the limits placed on speculators under federal law don't apply to it or other institutional investors. And with Pension funds buying almost as much oil on the market as China does, that has to have an impact on prices.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

In 1943, an American company that distributed Nazi and Japanese propaganda on behalf of supporters of the enemy regimes would not have been politely asked by a US Senator to reconsider -- it would have been summarily shuttered by the government and its owners prosecuted under statutes that banned aiding the enemy. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the New York Times would have wholeheartedly supported such a move.

My how things change. Today it has condemned the last pro-American Democrat in Washington as a "would-be censor" for seeking to prevent an American company -- YouTube (which regularly pulls down anti-jihadi videos because of complaints by Muslim groups) -- from hosting and distributing pro-terrorist Islamist videos while our troops are engaged in combat against these forces who would impose Muhammad's malignant message upon the world by force.

The Internet is simply a means of communication, like the telephone, but that has not prevented attempts to demonize it — the latest being the ludicrous claim that the Internet promotes terrorism.

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is trying to pressure YouTube to pull down videos he does not like, and a recent Senate report and a bill pending in Congress also raise the specter of censorship. It is important for online speech to be protected against these assaults.

Mr. Lieberman recently demanded that YouTube take down hundreds of videos produced by Islamist terrorist organizations or their supporters. YouTube reviewed the videos to determine whether they violated its guidelines, which prohibit hate speech and graphic or gratuitous violence. It took down 80 videos, but left others up. Mr. Lieberman said that was “not enough,” and demanded that more come down.

Earlier this month, the Senate homeland security committee, which is led by Mr. Lieberman, issued a report titled “Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.” The report identified the Internet as “one of the primary drivers” of the terrorist threat to the United States.

All of this comes against the backdrop of a troubling Congressional antiterrorism bill that also focuses on the Internet. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which passed the House last year by a 404-to-6 vote, would establish a commission to study the terrorist threat and propose legislation. The bill, which the Senate has not acted on, has a finding that the Internet promotes radicalization and terrorism.

In other words, it is now official -- the New York Times has come out in favor of putting seditions, even treasonous, speech ahead of national security in time of war. Those who oppose treason are the enemy; traitors, enemies abroad, and those who distribute their words in America and around the world are latter-day heroes working to preserve free speech -- despite the fact that free speech is one of the very things that the Islamists are committed to destroying (along with Jews like the Sulzbergers, who own the NY Times). Unbelievable!

Closing question -- has this editorial finally crossed the line that will allow the government to make the NY Times register as an agent of al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups?

More At Right Wing News

Posted by: Greg at 12:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 534 words, total size 4 kb.

Personally, I believe in withdrawing from membership in the UN and expelling every last vestige of the corrupt organization from the United States -- and converting the headquarters building to a crackhouse, where it will serve a higher purpose than it does now as a haven for dictators, tyrants and kleptocrats to proclaim their moral superiority over the free nations of the world.

That said, though, Barack Obama has talked a great deal about not "going it alone" in his foreign policy and supporting "multilateralism". But he has enunciated a policy on Iran that violates no fewer than THREE resolutions passed by the UN Security Council!

Before starting his unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that he Islamic Republic president does not like? Or, would Obama act in defiance of the UN, thus further weakening the authority of the Security Council?

The preconditions that Ahmadinejad does not like and Obama promises to ignore were not set by President George W Bush.

They were decided after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported the Islamic Republic to be in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and, acting in accordance with its charter, referred the issue to the Security Council.

Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions that Ahmadinejad does not like.

In other words, Barack Obama's proposed policies towards Iran would be "go it alone" foreign policy out of sync with world opinion -- and therefore out of sync with the foreign policy proposals of Barack Obama himself! Indeed, the policy of the current administration towards Iran is the one which has been achieved through multilateral diplomacy and international consensus.

I guess that sort of proves -- for the umpteenth time -- that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is talking about, and is unfit for any the Presidency.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

And you wonder why the IDF ends up killing civilians when they retaliate against terrorist attacks? Do you think stuff like this could have something to do with it?

IDF soldiers uncovered missiles and anti-tank rocket launchers in a Gaza schoolyard in late Thursday. The anti-tank missile launcher and a stack of missiles were found at a school in Sajaiya, in northern Gaza, during routine counter-terrorism operations.

Want proof? Here it is.

Soldiers display some of the anti-tank missiles and launcher.
(Israel News Photo: IDF)

Soldiers near the school's basketball court examine the rocket launcher during the operation.
(Israel News Photo: IDF)

Closeup of anti-tank rockets
(Israel News Photo: IDF)

The cowards of Hamas and Fatah -- like most terrorists -- like to hide behind innocents to protect their own sorry hides. Then they squeal like stuck pigs when one of their human shields is killed.

Posted by: Greg at 09:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 2 kb.

When I was five-years-old, America the Democrats were locked in a brutal three-way fight for the presidential nomination during the first week of June, at the time of the California primary.

Bobby Kennedy won that primary -- and only minutes after his victory speech to a crowd of cheering supporters, was gunned down by a Palestinian gunman over American policy towards Israel.

Like it or not, that victory and the murder of the charismatic young Senator are forever intertwined in the memories of those who lived at that time -- including those of us who were young children. We cannot conceive of the one without referencing the other.

And so I understand precisely what came out of the mouth of Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday -- and am truly angry at the attempts of many on the Left and the Right to make more of it than it really is.

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Obama's camp immediately fired back.

"Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," Obama campaign spokesman said in a statement.

Clinton made her comments at a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader's editorial board while campaigning in South Dakota, where she complained that, "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa."

She didn't call for Obama's assassination, she didn't predict Obama's assassination -- she made a very pointed historical reference to a specific historical event. Not only that, she made a reference that Barack Obama, as a member of my generation, should have immediately understood and identified with from his childhood -- except, of course, that he was being raised outside of the country and (as has been repeatedly documented and is attested to in his own autobiography) educated as a Muslim at foreign schools.

I'm sorry she bothered to apologize for it -- there was nothing there to apologize for. I wish she would have come back and made it quite clear that this is one more example of a hysterical response from a candidate who takes offense at anything that even begins to smack of criticism. It is simply one more example of how Barack Obama is unfit for the presidency.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 503 words, total size 6 kb.

I've stayed out of the discussion of Congresswoman Laura Richardson, who abandoned her half-million dollar second home to foreclosure so she could use her tax-free state legislative per-diem to fund her congressional campaign rather than her mortgage. But hey, at least she skipped out on her property taxes and utility bills as well, so she wasn't just ripping off her mortgage lender -- she was stealing from every utility user and taxpayer in Sacramento as well, which makes her an equal opportunity crook.

Now she is whining that the bank screwed her by foreclosing!

California Rep. Laura Richardson claimed Friday that her Sacramento home was sold into foreclosure without her knowledge and contrary to an agreement with her lender.

She said she is like any other American suffering in the mortgage crisis and wants to testify to Congress about her experience as lawmakers craft a foreclosure-prevention bill.

In a lengthy interview Friday night with The Associated Press, the Southern California Democrat struck back against several days of negative publicity over reports she defaulted on her mortgage, allowing the house to be sold at auction.

What is particularly galling is this line of argument.

"I'm Laura Richardson. I'm an American, I'm a single woman who had four employment changes in less than four months," Richardson said. "I had to figure out just like every other American how I could restructure the obligations that I had with the income I had."

Excuse me, that is a bunch of bullshit! "Four employment changes in four months"? Yeah, by choice so you could run for Congress, which included the choice to stiff everyone except your campaign committee, and then cast a vote in favor of legislation giving irresponsible (and in your case, fraud-inclined) borrowers to renege on the terms of their mortgages so as to get more favorable treatment than those of us who didn't borrow more than we could afford to pay back.

Frankly, I'm appalled by the ethical ugliness of her voting on legislation which would materially impact her financial obligations -- even if it doesn't technically violate House rules, it stinks to high heavens.

This dirty Dem needs to be run out of Congress by her constituents -- too bad she doesn't even have a Republican opponent in the fall.

UPDATE: Holy crap! This dirty Dem defaulted on THREE properties, not just one, so that she could loan her campaign money that was supposed to go to pay her mortgages. Her response when confronted about the fact that she has defaulted on three homes when she makes so much more than the average American?

"The average American is not responsible for maintaining several households."

It really is urgent that the voters of her district arrange for her to need to maintain only one household -- especially since she complains that Congress offers no per diem for living expenses in Washington DC, nor does it pay for moving expenses.

H/T Patterico, LA Land

Posted by: Greg at 06:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 4 kb.

Hot town! Summer in the city. And I don’t know about you, but for me “the city” will always be Chicago, given the amount of fun I had there in my younger years. It is just too cool of a town to not spend a couple of days exploring.

And I used to love summer in Chicago. There was almost always baseball in town – Cubs and Sox, my friends, so you can see the best players from both leagues! And then there are the many great restaurants for you to visit -- pizza at Uno’s or Due’s, ethnic cuisine in one of Chicago’s many neighborhoods, or the experience that is Ed Debevic’s, And don’t forget the many summer festivals! I’d be in the city pretty near every weekend!

Are you interested in finding the best things to do in Chicago this summer? Why not sign up for the eNewsletter from Trusted Tours & Attractions? They will email you with great ideas for a summer trip to San Francisco, things to do in Atlanta or sightseeing toursin one of the other great cities in which they do business. Then you can purchase your tickets on their website.

Best of all, if you sign up for Trusted TravelÂ’s eNewsletter at their sign-up page before May 31, you could win a $150 iTunes gift card!

Posted by: Greg at 05:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that even the staffers of some Democrats can't keep their hands out of the petty cash -- and their elected official bosses can't be bothered to run their office in a transparent enough manner to make catching the crooks easy.

Authorities are investigating whether a former executive assistant in the U.S. House misappropriated thousands of dollars to finance a vacation and personal items, as part of a widening effort to determine whether congressional accounts are inadequately monitored, according to two sources familiar with the inquiry.

At issue in the ongoing probe by the House inspector general is the role of a former assistant to Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is not yet complete. The aide, whom Sanchez says was dismissed, reimbursed the lawmaker by nearly $10,000 around the same time that her work for Sanchez ended, according to congressional records.

Caroline Valdez made a series of four unusual payments to her boss's office at the end of 2006, according to disbursement books maintained by the clerk of the House. Two of those transactions were labeled "reimb: payment error." Valdez did not respond to several cellphone messages seeking comment.

The reimbursements to Sanchez came during a financial quarter when the lawmaker placed three staffers -- including her scheduler and legislative director -- temporarily on the House payroll of her sister, fellow California Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D), records show.

Now what is really interesting is the little payroll game being played by the Sanchez sisters. It looks pretty dirty to me, just on the face of it. I sure hope the House is looking closely at that series of financial transactions as well -- but they probably aren't, because the Democrats have decided that only Republicans are corrupt and deserving of Ethics Committee action being taken against them. After all, William Jefferson is still sitting there as an honored member of the House, close to Nancy Pelosi and supported by the Congressional Black Racists Caucus.

Oh, by the way -- did you catch the media attention to the bookkeeping scandal involving a staffer for Democrats Harman and Abercrombie, in which a staffer for the pair pleaded guilty to federal crimes AND agreed to cooperate in an investigation of Congressional staffers and payrolls (of Democrats, no doubt) being used to do campaign work on behalf of members? Probably not -- since it involved Democrat Corruption, the press doesn't consider it to be particularly newsworthy and gave it little coverage -- after all, it isn't like we are less than six months from an election in which we the people need to know if our (Democrat) representatives are behaving in an honest, honorable, and ethical fashion.

Posted by: Greg at 02:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

I started my blog on a whim just about four years ago, seeking to pay tribute to a hero of mine on his death. I soon found it to be a daily part of my life – sometimes obsessively so – and something I have tried to keep alive and vigorous in many different ways. Well, four templates and two hosts later, I am on the verge of another major change in design and platform, so have been considering how to make my site more user friendly and how to keep traffic coming in and regular readers happy.

Well, I’ve recently had it suggested to me that there might be a way to make my blog more attractive and marketable – and a better way to keep up with traffic statistics. This would involve working with the folks at Zookoda. What is Zookoda? It is an email marketing application designed specifically for bloggers like me -- and many of my readers. Its major feature is that it enables us bloggers to send a daily, weekly or monthly summary of our latest blog posts directly to the email of folks who choose to subscribe to our newsletter. And the price is right, folks – it is FREE!

What does Zookoda offer in the way of services? Well, it allows us loggers to do the following:

1. Manage email newsletter subscribers.
2. Enhance the blog with custom newsletter subscription forms.
3. Design eye-catching newsletters to match the blog design.
4. Schedule recurring broadcasts for each day, week or month.
5. View real-time open, bounce, click and unsubscribe reports.
6. Access mobile users by emailing blog content in text format.

Now are all of these things important? Yeah, they are, some more than others. But to be able to lure back readers through emails is a great thing, trumping even the “older technology of the RSS feed. I’m going to give Zookoda some serious consideration as I prepare to launch what I hope to be a new and improved RWR in the near future.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 3 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Republicans Ponder The Abyss by Wolf Howling, and Blog For Human Rights -- May 15th, 2008 by The Whited Sepulchre.  Here is where you can find the full results of the vote and the full tallies of all votes cast:

Well, I tied for second this week, and can't say that I'm too upset. After all, the winning entry from my lupine pal was pretty insightful, and I'm always impressed by the writings of Soccer Dad. It is an honor just to be among them.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 5 kb.

There are a lot of folks out there carrying around a lot of debt. Sometimes, though, making all those payments becomes a hassle – especially if you are trying to pay on multiple credit cards. Wouldn’t it be a great thing to be able to make one payment – and at a lower interest rate?

That is where debt consolidation can enter the picture. Yes, you can get a loan, but you can also get in touch with debt consolidators who can provide you with various strategies for paying off that debt through debt consolidation loans or other strategies. All of these can help you preserve your credit rating and get out of debt more quickly.

What are some of these options? Well, as I mentioned before, there is always the standard debt consolidation loan. You get one large loan that will cover your unsecured debt and start making payments over a number of months – often 36 or 48 months, though some might run larger if you are really in debt. Then you simply pay on that one loan while avoiding the sort of spending habits that got you into your predicament in the first place. Sometimes credit counseling might be a part of the plan.

You can also negotiate new repayment options with your creditors. They want their money back – and they are willing to work with you to make that happen. Believe it or not, you can often do this yourself. Similarly, there are companies that will do this for you.

Then there are debt settlement options for you – something that you rarely can do yourself and almost certainly need professional help to accomplishment. The companies that negotiate settlements for you can often reduce what you owe to “pennies on the dollar” – cutting your amount owed by half or more.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm not a big fan of "the Soup", but my wife watches it and so I will often join her.

Tonight, though, they outdid themselves on this little parody.

Make that Two!

TWO!

Two spoofs in one!

Posted by: Greg at 03:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't think of any other way of viewing it when she sits in committee and begins openly suggesting a government takeover of an entire industry that doesn't produce the results the way she wants.

Interesting, isn't it, that the ignorant witch doesn't even know the proper term for what violation of the US Constitution that she is proposing. She just knows that her dictator buddy Hugo Chavez did it in Venezuela, and that we should follow his lead into the glorious world of socialism pioneered by Castro and the USSR!

What she was intent upon ignoring, though, was the essential point being made right before she launched into her stuttering Marxist tirade -- that the problem we are facing comes, in part, from policies that she and her fellow politicians have set that discourage and prohibit the production of domestic oil that we know exists. She'd rather destroy the capitalist decision than see real energy independence in this country -- seeking to repeal the law of supply and demand rather than the laws that hobble domestic oil production.

Let's just say that if she and her cronies attempt to seize the means of production from the hands of private owners, it will be time for the American people to "alter or abolish" the government that tries to do so. And I know just what treatment that those government officials who seek to act in such an outrageously unconstitutional and unAmerican manner will deserve.

Mussolini

Saddam

Ceausescu

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 5 kb.

In other word, there is a word for all those folks who voted for Democrats in 2006 -- SUCKERS!

Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has been a fairly undistinguished member of the House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century. He is a career member of the Financial Services Committee who has made little or no name for himself since his first electoral victory, and has maintained incumbency through the funneling of pork back to his district. Even his Wikipedia entry says that Kanjorski "usually plays behind-the-scenes roles in the advocacy or defeat of legislation and steers appropriations money toward improving the infrastructure and economic needs of his district."

Never one to stand out in a crowd outside of his own district if he could help it up until now, Rep. Kanjorski's public life may be about to change in a major way very, very quickly, and for a very big reason.

You see, Paul Kanjorski has an honesty problem.

More specifically, Paul Kanjorski's problem is that he was publicly honest about the intentional dishonesty of Congressional Democrats (and Democrat candidates) in the run-up to the 2006 election -- particularly with regard to the War in Iraq.

Watch the video below (a transcript follows):

Here's the transcript:

"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."

In other words, we lied to you and had no intention of actually stopping the war. You folks are a bunch of ignorant rubes if you believed us -- and we'll screw you again if we get the chance. We'd rather have the war as an issue than solve what we claim is a problem.

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.

After 3 1/2 years using the same cell phones, my wife and I decided to get new phones. Looking to get them free, we went with the biggest name among "free cell phone" sites to save money. Bad deal -- they sent me a RAZR that didn't work right, and then didn't want to replace it in a timely fashion.

And frankly, I've not been happy with the phone. I'd rather have one that is simple to use and which included a full keyboard for texting. For instance, if I look at verizon cellphones I find a reasonably priced Blackberry. Or if I wanted to try something different, I could get Samsung Instinct with its touch screen keyboard. Or I could stick with my provider and just look at the AT&T Cell Phones to find the phone I want. And since we share a plan, my wife and I would need to consider the best cell phone family plans to make sure we don't overpay. But the key is to get the best in cell phones -- so I'll definitely look at BestInCellPhones.com next time around.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Perhaps sometimes -- but in this case, where it could endanger American troops, I wonder if a higher degree of sourcing might be morally necessary.

Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

But — unlike al-Sadr's anti-American broadsides — the Iranian-born al-Sistani has displayed extreme caution with anything that could imperil the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The two met Thursday at the elderly cleric's base in the city of Najaf south of Baghdad.

So far, al-Sistani's fatwas have been limited to a handful of people. They also were issued verbally and in private — rather than a blanket proclamation to the general Shiite population — according to three prominent Shiite officials in regular contact with al-Sistani as well as two followers who received the edicts in Najaf.

All spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Now let's look at this. There have been no public statements from al-Sistani. We don't REALLY know what the content of these verbal statements has been. And no one is willing to talk on the record. What we have, then , is anonymous hearsay with an AP reporter telling us "Trust me -- it's all true!" I'm sorry, but that strikes me as insufficient when we are talking about a story that could put the lives of American troops in danger by spreading claims that religious authorities are authorizing armed resistance against American forces in Iraq -- and in the midst of an election year in which the war is an issue.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

If you are thinking about planning a special even, you must send out invitations of some sort. And in all honesty, what would be nicer than printed invitations? Whether it is a formal occasion like a wedding, or something less formal like a birthday party, beautifully printed invitations are sure to impress. You can even print up thank you notes to send out to those who have been kind enough to give you gifts. No matter what, VistaPrint is able to help you find the right materials based on your style and preferences.

Of course, VistaPrint also offers an incredible selection of printing services including business cards, checks and stamps. Whenever you order their products, you can customize them to suit your needs. You can also buy magnetic signs for use on your vehicles -- fully customized to your satisfaction.

VistaPrint always has a great special for you for you. As a part of their latest promo VistaPrint is offering you the chance to get 250 business cards for free! And let's be honest, friends -- you really can't beat free, can you?

So, if you need are in need of virtually any kind of printing services, you really need to check out VistaPrint first because they can usually offer you a deal that beats the competition. And since they are also offering you the chance to score free products, youÂ’d be crazy not to take a look.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

So far, there has been only one, something that contrasts with the early pattern of the Roberts Court. But with only half the cases decided and many high-profile cases yet to come, will there be more? Or has the addition of two more top-flight legal minds helped to swing more liberal justices to conservative opinions?

Something is happening, clearly. The question is what. The caveats against drawing any hard conclusions at this stage are obvious. For one thing, the term is functionally only half over, with 35 cases down and 32 to come. And it is common for the hardest-fought decisions to come at the very end. The District of Columbia gun control case, the latest case on the rights of the Guantánamo detainees and a case on whether the death penalty is a constitutional punishment for raping a child are yet to be decided.

Still, there is a clear pattern in the cases the court has already decided this term. The court upheld KentuckyÂ’s method of execution by lethal injection by a vote of 7 to 2. It upheld IndianaÂ’s law requiring photo identification at the polls by a vote of 6 to 3. The justices voted 7 to 2 on Monday to uphold the latest federal effort to curb trade in child pornography.

All were major cases, all plausible candidates for 5-to-4 outcomes. All were government victories, hardly surprising coming from a conservative court. But even Justice John Paul Stevens, the leader of the courtÂ’s beleaguered liberal bloc, voted with the majority in all three cases. The surprise was that the government side won each so handily.

It would be too simplistic an explanation to say that the liberal justices, at least some of them, have simply given up. Something deeper seems to be at work. Each of those three cases might have received a harder-edged, more conclusively conservative treatment at the hands of the same five-member majority that controlled the last term.

Instead, the lethal injection and voter ID decisions hewed closely to the facts of each case. KentuckyÂ’s lethal injection protocol passed muster, but the court left open the possibility that another stateÂ’s practice might not. The voter ID challenge reached the court on a nonexistent record, so perhaps a stronger case could be made at a later time. Justice Antonin ScaliaÂ’s majority opinion in the child pornography case construed the statute so narrowly as to allay the First Amendment concerns of Justices Stevens and Breyer and win their full concurrence.

So perhaps there was a bit of movement on both sides — not simple liberal capitulation, but liberals using their limited leverage to exact some modest concessions as the price of helping the conservatives avoid another parade of 5-to-4 decisions.

I'd argue there is some truth to the last point. That said, though, the justices have produced opinions that are undeniably conservative, but well-grounded in precedent. And it is the stability of the law (consistent with the dictates of the Constitution, of course) that has been a point of importance for both sides in their recent discussion of the role of the court. If the justices have found a way to accomplish that end, it bodes well for the nation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 549 words, total size 3 kb.

Do you like the idea of shopping via your computer? If you do, might I suggest a site on the net that I recently came across? It offers a great range and variety of items for you, from household products to stuff you need around the office.

Seriously -- it seems like they have anything a person could reasonably want. It seems to me that if you are going to try to buy on the web there cannot be a more helpful site than Dealtime.Co.UK and its seemingly endless supply of products.

What are some of the things you can get? How about computers and digital cameras? Or maybe you are looking for new appliances. If you want it, tehy probably have it -- so drop in and check it our!

Posted by: Greg at 09:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

I carry no brief for Rod Parsley – I have some major theological disagreements with him over a variety of issues. But he is not particularly wrong in his assessment of Islam – and he is not John McCain’s spiritual adviser, long-term or otherwise.

Despite his call for the U.S. to win the "hearts and minds of the Islamic world," Sen. John McCain recruited the support of an evangelical minister who describes Islam as "anti-Christ" and Mohammed as "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil."

McCain sought the support of Pastor Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio at a critical time in his campaign in February, when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was continuing to draw substantial support from the Christian right.

LetÂ’s just take those two statements quoted above -- bearing in mind that Islam, unlike the other major world religions, began centuries AFTER Christianity and in clear rebuttal/rejection of Christianity..

“Anti-Christ.” I’d argue that the statement is accurate. After all, Islam explicitly rejects the claim of Christianity that Jesus is the eternally pre-existent second person of the Trinity. The Jesus of Islam is not divine, and is instead merely a prophet – in other words, NOT the Messiah (Hebrew) or Christ (Greek). If you reject that tenet of Christianity you are anti-Christ, no matter how much respect you claim to “respect and honor” Jesus. Indeed, by Christian standards you have committed blasphemy.

And if Islam does hold this blasphemous, heretical teaching regarding Jesus as an essential and central , there is ample ground for arguing that Islam is a religion based upon a spiritually evil premise – and that as its original exponent, Muhammad is “the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil”. After all, by Christian standards Muhammad is a false prophet – and for a Christian to make a claim like Parsley’s should not be shocking at all. Frankly, I believe we should hear it spoken more frequently from the pulpits of Christian churches.

Now there are other Parsley quotes that appear in the article. I won’t analyze or defend them all – I think my point is made above. This is a tempest in a teapot – and quite different from that created by Jeremiah Wright and his comments that stray well-beyond the bounds of Christian teaching and which are often grounded in outright lies.

And yes, I know that McCain today dumped John Hagee -- another fundamentalist preacher whose theology I find disturbing -- over outlandish statements that appear outlandish at first blush. I won't go into an analysis of them here other than to note that there is Old Testament precedent for God making use of the deeds of the wicked (Nebuchadnezzar, for example) in order to carry out his greater purpose. Instead, I will just point to my friend over at JoshuaPundit for a truly inspired defense of Hagee's statements from the perspective of an Israeli Jew a Jewish blogger on the West Coast (I don't know why I thought he was Israeli).

Posted by: Greg at 12:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 4 kb.

I can accept that an organization giving a grant for research can control when and if the research is published.

But grant money controlling the speech of the entire university -- including over the terms of the agreement itself? That goes too far.

On campuses nationwide, professors and administrators have passionately debated whether their universities should accept money for research from tobacco companies. But not at Virginia Commonwealth University, a public institution in Richmond, Va.

That is largely because hardly any faculty members or students there know that there is something to debate — a contract with extremely restrictive terms that the university signed in 2006 to do research for Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest tobacco company and a unit of Altria Group.

The contract bars professors from publishing the results of their studies, or even talking about them, without Philip Morris’s permission. If “a third party,” including news organizations, asks about the agreement, university officials have to decline to comment and tell the company. Nearly all patent and other intellectual property rights go to the company, not the university or its professors.

“There is restrictive language in here,” said Francis L. Macrina, Virginia Commonwealth’s vice president for research, who acknowledged that many of the provisions violated the university’s guidelines for industry-sponsored research. “In the end, it was language we thought we could agree to. It’s a balancing act.”

Excuse me, but the public has a right to know about agreements made by a public university. It has a right to expect -- indeed demand -- candor and disclosure from the officials of the school. And to allow for a complete gag on all researchers is intolerable.

And most frightening is the contention by Phillip Morris that the company has similar contracts with other universities. The company will not, however, disclose how many or which ones. If they are public institutions, that is simply unacceptable.

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

It looks like three potential vice presidential candidates are meeting with John McCain to informally make their case. All are "names", and all offer some interesting potential benefits.

Senator John McCain is planning to meet this weekend with at least three potential Republican running mates at a gathering at his ranch in Arizona, suggesting that he is stepping up his search for a vice president now that the Democratic contest appears basically decided, according to Republicans familiar with Mr. McCainÂ’s plans.

Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a one-time rival for the Republican nomination, have all accepted invitations to visit with Mr. McCain at his ranch in Sedona, these Republicans said.

After a week of campaigning, Mr. McCain is heading home on Friday for three days without a public schedule. His campaign described this as a social weekend that would include a number of couples, and — as has been its policy it declined to discuss any aspect of the vice presidential search.

“We don’t talk about the V.P. selection process,” said Steve Schmidt a senior adviser.

In addition to Mr. Crist, Mr. Jindal and Mr. Romney, Mr. McCainÂ’s guest list includes some of top his political counselors, among them Charlie Black, a senior strategist, and Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, his frequent traveling companion and probably his closest colleague in the Senate.

If the gathering does not involve actual interviews, as some of Mr. McCainÂ’s associates said Wednesday, it will provide Mr. McCain with a chance to know some potential running mates in a social context. Mr. McCain is known as a social and gregarious candidate and senator, and his associates said personal chemistry would be a key consideration in his choice.

As I look at the threesome, I find myself ready to reject one out of hand. Bobby Jindal, for all my high regard for him, doesn't strike me as the right choice in 2008. At 38, his youth might be a negative for some voters. In addition, he has been governor for less than a year, and still has many promises to keep in Louisiana -- promises which will leap-frog him to the head of the pack in a future election year if he is successful in carrying them out.

That leaves Crist and Romney. Of the two, I think that Romney is the obvious choice. Crist doesn't help McCain win Florida (I think he has it locked up after the way Democrats have treated the state's voters this year) , so he doesn't have that to support him. Romney, on the other hand, has a national base and the ability to help with fundraising in a way that Crist does not. The only problem with him is that he may have another race to run -- he could conceivably take on John Kerry this fall for US Senate, or take a run for the Kennedy senate seat in a special election if the ailing senator resigns sooner rather than later. Where does he do the GOP the most good.

Two other interesting notes -- it is significant that Mike Huckabee is not at this little gathering. Does this signify he is out of the veepstakes? In addition, the presence of Lindsay Graham is ominous. I don't doubt that he is going to be the go-to person in terms of vetting the eventual selection. Could he be this year's Dick Cheney -- recommending himself for the position? if that happens, it would be a disaster. Graham has seen his stock drop among conservatives in the last couple of years, and his selection would be a poison pill that many could not swallow

Posted by: Greg at 10:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 625 words, total size 4 kb.

The question of judges is one of the biggest reasons I back John McCain this year, despite my strong criticism in the past. A lot of other conservatives are doing so on the same basis.

Prominent conservatives and activists are indicating they will put aside their differences with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and rally their supporters to his side because of one issue: federal judgeships.

In big gatherings and small, in e-mails and one-on-one conversations, conservative opinion leaders fear a Democratic president, especially Sen. Barack Obama, will use the presidential power to appoint federal judges who will remove references to God and religious symbols from public places.

They predict the incoming president likely will fill more vacancies on the federal bench over the next four years than at any time in recent memory, giving a Democratic administration the power to shape the courts to reflect a liberal worldview.

* * *

ACLU general counsel Peter J. Ferrara, a former Reagan White House aide, said, "McCain said he'd appoint people like [Supreme Court Chief Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Samuel] Alito. Obama is saying he'd name people like [Justices Ruth Bader] Ginsberg and [David] Souter."

So as you can see, there are some seriously different views out there on Supreme Court nominees. Which would you prefer – Justice Janice Rogers Brown, or this?

It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one.

Obama and Clinton have wound up agreeing on nearly every major issue during the campaign; at the end of the day, they share many orthodoxies. Unless the Supreme Court were to get mired in minuscule details of what constitutes universal health care, Obama could assume that he'd be pleased with most Clinton votes, certainly on major issues such as abortion.

Obama could also appreciate Clinton's undeniably keen mind. Even Clinton detractors have noted her remarkable mental skills; she would be equal to any legal or intellectual challenge she would face as a justice. The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government.

If Obama were to promise Clinton the first court vacancy, her supporters would actually have a stronger incentive to support him for president than they would if she were going to be vice president. Given the Supreme Court's delicate liberal-conservative balance, she would play a major role in charting the country's future; there is no guarantee that a Clinton vice presidency would achieve such importance.

Think about it, friends – Hillary Rodham Clinton on the US Supreme Court for the next couple of decades. Doesn’t that notion leave your stomach churning? After all, she clearly has no interest in upholding precedent or exercising any interest in judicial restraint if she doesn’t like the ideological outcome of a case – and like Earl Warren, this natural-born politician would be a phenomenal arm-twister in pursuit of a majority. Would you like to bet that 5-4 decisions would peachy to all the liberals when she cobbled together a majority?

Posted by: Greg at 09:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm not a fan of Pat Buchanan. I flip the channel or change the station when I hear his voice or see his face. And I certainly don't read his column unless someone directs me to it because of specific content.

This is one of those cases -- and ought to be sufficient grounds for my fellow conservatives to excommunicate him from the movement.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement. ..."

Again, Bush has made a hash of history.

Appeasement is the name given to what Neville Chamberlain did at Munich in September 1938. Rather than fight Germany in another great war -- to keep 3.5 million Germans under a Czech rule they despised -- he agreed to their peaceful transfer to German rule. With these Germans went the lands their ancestors had lived upon for centuries, German Bohemia, or the Sudetenland.

Chamberlain's negotiated deal with Hitler averted a European war -- at the expense of the Czech nation. That was appeasement.

German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson's 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.

Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.

But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland. If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.

From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.

The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.

Pat Buchanan is clearly more than an idiot in this column -- he is one who is deluded in his thinking. It is quite clear from Mein Kampf and Nazi campaign rhetoric that Hitler had a plan for expansion that went well-beyond the "recovery" of land that was inhabited by ethnic Germans. It was undeniable that the evils of the Final Solution have their roots not in the intransigence of Poland in the face of militaristic threats by Germany, but in a deeper seated hatred of the Jews. After all, the Nuremberg laws and other restrictions of Jews predated the invasion of Poland by years, and are clearly presaged in Hitler's earlier writing. For that matter, the spring of 1939 had seen the blitzkrieg into parts of Czechoslovakia which Hitler had promised to leave unmolested only a few months before. One has to at a minimum be ignorant of the historical record to make the claims that Buchanan does in his column.

But we all know that Buchanan is not ignorant of History.

No, for Buchanan to praise the appeasement of Hitler and condemn those who stood up to him is clearly based in something else -- either an antipathy to the Jews (a charge we've heard against him before) or an anti-Communism run so deep that even Hitler can be rehabilitated in the name of that cause. Indeed, i find myself looking for a proposal that the British and French would have done better to ally with Hitler to attack Stalin in 1938 & 1939, despite the fact that the most acute threat to European security was the Nazi regime and not the Red Menace.

So let me make it clear -- Pat Buchanan has clearly moved beyond the pale of conservatism, into that shadowy realm of right-wing authoritarianism which circles around to meet its left-wing siblings of socialism, communism, and fascism. He has therefore earned a place of shame with Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times

H/T Gateway Pundit, One Jerusalem, Below the Beltway, Soccer Dad

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 752 words, total size 5 kb.

In today's paper, the New York Times laments a Supreme Court ruling that in its opinion criminalizes speech that ought to be protected by the First Amendment. In doing so, the editors would give safe harbor to pedophiles and others who sexually prey upon children.

The Supreme Court upheld a law on Monday that sweeps too broadly in its attempt to ban child pornography, which is repellent and illegal. Those who traffic in it must be punished, but this law is drawn in a way that also criminalizes speech that should be protected by the First Amendment.

* * *

This time, the court upheld the law by a 7-to-2 vote. That creates a bizarre contradiction. Fake child pornography is protected, but marketing fake child pornography is not. As Justice David Souter noted in dissent, it makes no sense to criminalize proposing to sell items that are themselves constitutionally protected.

It may seem hard to muster much concern about the speech at issue here. But the implications go beyond child pornography. As Justice Souter reminds us, it is an important principle in the court’s political speech and sedition cases that speech cannot be banned based on bad intent, only on a “realistic, factual assessment of harm.”

If the court had struck down the offensive parts of the law, the damage to child-pornography prosecutions would be minimal. The harm of weakening the protections of free speech is far more substantial.

As I noted the when commenting on the decision, what it actually does is take the common-sense position that the attempted sale of child pornography (even if the claim by the seller is fraudulent) is within the bounds of the Constitution -- just as it would be reasonable to punish a guy working a street corner selling crack even if he was in fact lying to his buyers and selling a product made entirely of such legal products as baby powder and corn starch.

And oddly enough, despite its deference to Souter's citation of precedent in political speech cases, it is interesting to note that the new York Times is no friend to freedom of speech in that area. Its editorial pages regularly seek to regulate political discourse to an ever greater degree in the interest of rooting out what it considers to be speech with a bad motive or bad impact, despite the historical fact that the Founders intended to give political speech (not pornography that exploits children) the highest level of First Amendment protection.

So to summarize the position of the New York Times-- speech falsely promoting kiddie porn should have full protection under the Constitution, but that directed at influencing the political process ought to be reined in or gagged. It seems pretty clear where their priorities lie.

Posted by: Greg at 09:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

According to Matrouk al-Faleh, a professor of political science at King Saud University in Riyadh, the Saudi government regularly violates its own laws regarding arrest and imprisonment of its citizens without charges and permitting them access to legal counsel.

On Monday, al-Faleh was arrested without charge and held without access to either his family or a lawyer.

An outspoken critic of the Saudi government who was previously jailed for calling for greater democracy has been arrested, his wife said Tuesday.

Matrouk al-Faleh, a professor of political science at King Saud University in Riyadh, the capital, was detained Monday after he left for work, said his wife, Jamila al-Ukla. Over the past year, Faleh has accused the Interior Ministry of disregarding laws that ban arrests without charge and guarantee the right to counsel.

An Interior Ministry spokesman was unavailable for comment on Faleh's arrest.

This is not the first time he has run afoul of the Saudi government -- he served 18 months for criticizing the political structure of the kingdom and encouraging reforms back in 2004. Even after a royal pardon, al-Faleh remains forbidden to leave the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This arrest amply demonstrates the reason for that prohibition -- it makes it easy to continue the campaign of repression against him. And indeed, the arrest follows his posting of a strong critique of the Saudi government on Sunday, making it quite clear what the arrest is truly about.

Posted by: Greg at 09:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

I fully expect to see the first suit under this legislation laughed out of court by the judge who hears it -- and the nations sued to give the US the proverbial bird if it isn't. After all, the sovereignty of OPEC members would certainly trump the ability of an American judge to claim jurisdiction over the decisions of the oil ministers of foreign countries.

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto.

The legislation also creates a Justice Department task force to aggressively investigate gasoline price gouging and energy market manipulation.

"This bill guarantees that oil prices will reflect supply and demand economic rules, instead of wildly speculative and perhaps illegal activities," said Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, who sponsored the legislation.

The lawmaker said Americans "are at the mercy" of OPEC for how much they pay for gasoline, which this week hit a record average of $3.79 a gallon.

Frankly, a judgment requiring various OPEC members to increase production is likely to have as much impact upon the policies of those nations as judgments from their courts requiring America to increase its foreign aid budget or reduce defense spending. In other words, it is worthless, even as the Pelosi Petroleum Premium goes higher by the day -- $80 a barrel since Nancy Pelosi assumed the Speaker's chair.

Similarly, the "anti-gouging" measures will be ineffective as well -- after all, we found after the 2005 gas price spike that the Democrats insisted needed investigating was based upon supply and production factors, NOT illegal activity. I expect that any such investigation now will have the same result -- unless the deck is stacked in an effort to produce a sufficient number of scalps, regardless of actual guilt.

But what is also notable is what this bill does not contain -- any measures to actually secure energy independence or boost American production. We are the world's third-largest oil producer -- and we are sitting on untapped reserves in the ANWR and off-shore near California, Florida, and Virginia. Not only were no incentives offered to drill in those areas, but they remain off-limits by federal law, even as the Pelosi Petroleum Premium increases. No end to the ethanol mandate or boutique fuel requirements, either, which means that gas prices will continue to move higher due to Congressional and regulatory mandates. Nor are there other measures designed to wean us off of foreign oil -- or to move to alternative fuel sources.

So what am I saying? This bill is a farce, and th promised relief from high gas prices is a sham. I guess the Democrats think Americans are fools if they believe that such an absurd piece of legislation will placate us.

Posted by: Greg at 09:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 3 kb.

This is not good medical news at all -- especially as I hear suggestions that this sort of tumor often has a survival rate of only 1-5 years, depending upon location, stage, and the exact form of cancer in question. Having watched my uncle successfully battle cancer over this past year, and waiting with our church family as one of our younger men is in the final stages of a fast-growing malignancy, I cannot feel anything but the deepest compassion for Senator Kennedy, even as I reject his politics.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy was diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumor Tuesday in what could be the grim final chapter in a life marked by exhilarating triumph and shattering tragedy. Some experts gave the liberal lion less than a year to live.

Doctors discovered the tumor after the 76-year-old senator and sole surviving son of America's most storied political family suffered a seizure over the weekend. The diagnosis cast a pall over Capitol Hill, where the Massachusetts Democrat has served since 1962, and came as a shock to a family all too accustomed to sudden, calamitous news.

This news calls into question the Senator's political future as well -- the tumor is in a part of the brain that controls motor skills and language. And while this is not the time for political speculation, it is difficult to see how Kennedy can remain an effective force in the Senate for much longer if the prospect are as grim as reported.

Again, I return to my theme from over the weekend -- politics do not even rise to the level of the secondary at this moment. All that any decent individual can do is offer their heart-felt prayers and best wishes to Senator Kennedy and his family at this time, and hope that he is indeed one of those who beats the odds that are facing him.

Posted by: Greg at 08:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

We've all heard the stories -- someone gets the personal information of a neighbor or co-worker and obtains loans, credit cards, and even mortgages in their names, only to default on it all. The result -- an innocent victim stuck with mounds of paperwork as they attempt to undo the damage, if they ever can. And after all, that credit rating and personal reputation is all any of us really have -- especially if we would like to own a home or buy a new car.

And it can happen to you. Only a few weeks ago I received a phone call from a major department store with which I have a credit card. It seemed that someone else was trying to open a new account in my name. Their fraud protection system caught the attempt -- but imagine the problems if it had not.

That is where life lock enters the picture. They work to protect your identity from theft, and offer up to $1 million in protection to make your life right if someone does manage to circumvent their efforts to lock down your information. So check them out today to see how you can benefit from their services.

Posted by: Greg at 07:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, these are some young men who will have a great teacher.

Craig Biggio found it difficult to peel off his uniform after the final game of a 20-year career with the Astros last fall. Now he will have the opportunity to wear another uniform.

Biggio, perhaps the most popular player in Astros history, will be named today as baseball coach at St. Thomas High School, said several people close to the situation.

Biggio's oldest son, Conor, is a football and baseball player for the Eagles, who won a state title in baseball this month. Biggio helped coach the Eagles in football and baseball after his playing career ended.

St. Thomas, a private school on Memorial Drive, will introduce Biggio as its baseball coach and former Rice University quarterback Donald Hollas as its football coach to the students at an afternoon assembly.

Neither Mike Netzel, who will be introduced as the new athletic director at St. Thomas, nor Biggio could be reached for comment.

Biggio was always a class act while here in Houston, and is revered in a way that few athletes ever experience. That he has chosen to give back to the community in this way is a model that I hope we see more athletes take to heart.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

In a decision that appears to be rooted in common sense, common decency, and decades of historical precedent, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that made it clear that promoting child pornography is not constitutionally protected speech.

And while some offer slippery-slope arguments about classic literature and artistic movies, the reality is that both the law and the opinions make it clear that attempts to ban non-pornographic works of artistic merit will not fly.

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld an expansive federal law that punishes people who peddle or seek child pornography, saying Congress's remedy for a growing problem on the Internet does not violate free-speech guarantees.

In its 7 to 2 vote, the court also concluded that the law that criminalized "pandering" of real or purported child pornography online or through the mail is not unconstitutionally vague.

The majority dismissed what it called "fanciful hypotheticals" that the law might make movie reviewers or even unsuspecting grandparents subject to its standards.

"We hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

He said that "child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens," and that the law was "carefully crafted" to respond to child pornography "proliferating through the new medium of the Internet."

I don't see where most Americans with a moral compass would have any objection to this ruling, given that it simply criminalizes speech that is directed at engaging in illegal conduct. Change "child pornography" to "heroin" and see if you would find the logic of the ruling offensive.

But what I found striking in the coverage is the way in which some MSM sources were more interested in offering the pro-kiddie porn view before actually delving into the court's ruling.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Proving once again that he is unfit for any office, Barack Obama yesterday declared another area of discussion off-limits in this presidential election. In this case it is the outlandish comments made by his wife on the campaign trail while acting as his surrogate.

Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife."

Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.

"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."

He called the strategy "low class."

Well, Barack, you and your trashy-ass America-hating wife would certainly know low class.

And as my friend Robbie pointed out on his website, you seem to have spent a lot of time putting topics off-limits for discussion during this campaign in addition to your Michelle.

We’re not allowed to call him Hussein — even though it’s his Allah-given name.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his father.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his mother, or his grandmother either.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his Kenyan cousin.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his terrorist friends.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his shady real-estate dealings.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his ties to the Nation of Islam.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his (lack of) patriotism.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his prior drug use.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his Muslim upbringing in Indonesia.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about the radical Islamic terrorists who support his candidacy.

WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his white-folk and America hatinÂ’ reverend.

And since Michelle has declared off-limits anything that "doesn't help my children" (read that "anything that doesn't show Senator Obama in the purest Obamessiah light), it seems like there is a lot that the Obamas are afraid to let the American people talk about.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

In Sunday’s Seattle Times, Bill Knudson wrote a wonderful piece about two heroes. One of these heroes was his father – whose grave he recently visited in the American Cemetery at Normandy.

But last March, I had an experience that literally took my breath away and brought uncontrollable tears to my eyes. After 64 years, four months and 14 days, I finally got to meet my birth dad, Bill Cuthbert, whose final resting place is Plot D, Row 14, Grave 42 at the American Cemetery at Normandy, just above Omaha Beach, in Colleville-sur-Mer, France.

A dear friend, Dave Iverson, , and I made a long pilgrimage through the French countryside to a spot that the word "beautiful" does not even begin to describe — the American Cemetery at Normandy. In its 172.5 acres are 9,387 headstones, including 9,238 Latin crosses, 149 Stars of David, three Medal of Honor crosses, 38 sets of brothers, the grave of Teddy Roosevelt Jr. — and a cross with my dad's name on it:

William B. Cuthbert,
Second Lieutenant,
U.S. Army Air Forces,
Service # 0-687930
713th Bomber Squadron,
448th Bomber Group,
Awards: Air Medal /
Purple Heart
Died April 20, 1944

The cemetery grounds, given to America by the French government, include a white marble reception building, several statues, a small chapel and a reflecting pool that flows into the grounds. The grass and shrubs are so well manicured, you would have thought the head groundskeeper at The Masters had cared for them. The white marble crosses that stretch across the grounds are placed so that from any angle — north, south, east or west — they form perfect lines, as if the brave fighting men who reside there will be in formation forever.

The tribute to KnudsonÂ’s father is quite moving, and I encourage you to read it. I really cannot do justice to the experience that Knudson describes.

But you may wonder – where is the second hero? Interestingly enough, he is found at the beginning of the piece. We never learn his name, but Knudson reveals his heroism early in the article.

"Bill, your dad is not your real dad; he is your stepdad. Your real dad's name is Bill Cuthbert. You are named after him; he was killed in the Second World War. He was a navigator on a B-24 bomber and his plane was shot down over France on April 20, 1944, when you were just about 6 months old. He is buried in the American Cemetery in Normandy, France. Then your stepdad and I met in late 1945 and we were married in 1946. That is also the same year that he adopted you and we made a commitment to raise you as our son together."

Suffice to say, this hit me like a ton of bricks. Initially, I was sort of mad that she would keep this from me all these years. But then, as I began to reflect on it all, I started to realize what an amazing thing my stepdad had done.

In so many different situations, men take on the task of raising another manÂ’s child. Most, as did KnudsonÂ’s stepfather, make no distinction between these children and any other children they might have. And while their heroism and sacrifice is of a different order and magnitude than that of those who give their very lives for their country, it is still a particular sort of heroism that we ought to recognize and honor.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess that the reality is that scientists studying global warming just don’t know what they are talking about. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that they told us to expect more and bigger hurricanes due to global warming – but now they are telling us to expect fewer, with only a moderate increase in intensity.

Hurricanes and tropical storms will become less frequent by the end of the century as a result of climate change, US researchers have suggested.

But the scientists added their data also showed that there would be a "modest increase" in the intensity of these extreme weather events.

The findings are at odds with some other studies, which forecast a greater number of hurricanes in a warmer world.

The researchers' results appear in the journal Nature Geoscience.

That is precisely the problem with the high priests of global warming. They don’t know what they are talking about – any outcome to any question is proof of global warming to them.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess when you are trying to cash in on fraudulent scientific claims, making some fraudulent claims yourself isnÂ’t that big a deal.

Cars promoted as eco-friendly were criticised yesterday for pumping out up to 56 per cent more carbon dioxide than the manufacturers claim.

Three models, including the Honda Civic hybrid, performed so badly in tests that their environmental claims were dismissed as a gimmick.

A further five vehicles, including VolkswagenÂ’s Polo BlueMotion, hailed as BritainÂ’s greenest car when it was claimed that it emitted less than 100 grams of CO2 per km (g/km), failed to match the claims made by their makers.

Road tests were carried out by Auto Express magazine, which accused manufacturers of attempting to cash in on concerns about global warming.

In other words, your carbon footprint is bigger than you think when you drive the hybrids – so I guess you’ll have to buy some of Al Gore’s carbon indulgences anyway.

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Could you imagine the same thing being done if the offense had been the desecration of a Bible?

The commander of United States troops in Baghdad asked local leaders and tribal sheiks this weekend for their forgiveness after the discovery that a soldier had used a Koran for target practice at a shooting range.

Responding to an episode ripe with the potential to stoke unrest, the commander, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, held a meeting Saturday with Iraqi leaders.

“I come before you here seeking your forgiveness,” General Hammond said at the meeting, in remarks carried by CNN. “In the most humble manner, I look in your eyes today and I say, please forgive me and my soldiers.”

General Hammond also read a letter of apology from the soldier, who was not identified. “I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together,” the general read from the letter.

Another American officer kissed a Koran and gave it to the tribal leaders, according to news agency reports.

So now we've got American military personnel kissing the Koran as a part of their duties? Where's the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? Where are all those mutts who have been complaining that Christians in the military are just too Christian? What is their opinion of this Koran kissing -- and is it the same as it would be if we were talking about a Bible?

UPDATE: 5/19/2008, 18:34 -- Interestingly enough, not one of them has offered a word on the issue, whether to support or condemn this action. Interesting, isn't it, that they just can't muster their standard hostility to official government endorsement of religion.

Posted by: Greg at 10:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.