June 30, 2008
Now if you are looking for a place to learn to scuba dive, you really ought to find a school that offers lessons taught by certified professionals. What's more, you should consider the reputation of the program. And you can find good programs just about anywhere -- including scuba diving lessons Arizona!
Where would you scuba dive in the middle of the desert? How about some of the many scenic lakes that exist in Arizona? Or for that matter, why not travel with Ultimate Dive and Travel to some of the great dive spots like Fiji, Truk, Honduras, or even California's Channel Islands or the Bahamas if you are not looking for a trip halfway around the world. Ultimate Dive and Travel is also a great source for equipment sales and repair, as well as scuba diving lessons Scottsdale. Like any reputable dive school, their instructors are PADI and SSI qualified. And with a decade of experience and a reputation for professionalism, you can feel confident in trusting them with your equipment and your safety.
Posted by: Greg at
11:30 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday he will never question others' patriotism during the race and blames his own "carelessness" for some criticism of him so far. Obama sought to reassure voters about his commitment to the country, choosing the aptly named town of Independence as his backdrop.
Oh, really?
Then what was this comment?
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a [flag] pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see the attack on the patriotism of a whole lot of people -- after all, you are indicating that you are a true patriot, and that those who wear a flag pin are phony patriots.
I guess this means you've made another flip-flop, Senator. Do you think you could make up your mind?
Posted by: Greg at
09:47 AM
| Comments (353)
| Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.
On this day in 1865, a military tribunal convicted seven men and a woman involved in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Four of the eight were later hanged by the U.S. Army at the Washington Navy Yard.
On the other hand, today they are not considered to be good enough for jihadis captured in the field while violating the Geneva Convention's rules for combatants.
And remember -- these folks were all US citizens apprehended, held, tried and executed withing the continental United States.
Thanks for the reminder, Michael -- and I loved your book.
Posted by: Greg at
09:39 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.
A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two suspected burglars he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall.The decision to clear Horn of wrongdoing came two weeks after the grand jury began considering evidence in the case, including Horn's testimony last week.
Horn, a 62-year-old retiree, became the focus of an intense public debate after the Nov. 14 shootings. Many supporters praised him as a hero for using deadly force to protect property, while others dismissed him as a killer who should have heeded a 911 operator's instructions to stay in his house and wait for police.
One of the key details in the case?
Pasadena police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said a few weeks after the shooting that a plainclothes detective had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He said the detective saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.It appeared that neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present, Corbett said.
"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (getaway driver). He ducked at one point."
When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.
Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.
"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."
What really needs to be looked into here is why the cop sat in front of the house watching rather than confronting the robbers. The city council in Pasadena may need to investigate that -- and do a thorough housecleaning.
My hope is that the next move is a lawsuit against the families of Diego Ortiz and Hernando Riascos Torres, seeking recovery of all legal fees that have been incurred by Mr. Horn -- and restitution for the good ammunition that Joe Horn had to use on these thieving illegal aliens who died as a result of their own felonious conduct.
Great commentary on this decision here.
Posted by: Greg at
07:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.
Gov. Bobby Jindal announced today that he has vetoed the legislative pay raise.After days of saying he would not reject the unpopular measure, Jindal said this morning that he had changed his mind.
"I thank the people for their voice and their attention," Jindal said of the public outcry against the raise. "I am going to need your help to move this state forward. ... The voters have demanded change. . . . I made a mistake by staying out if it" originally.
Jindal said that legislators "are going to be angry I broke my word to them" by promising to stay out of the pay raise issue. "Let them direct their anger to me and not the people of this state," Jindal said.
It isn't always the right thing to follow the majority voice of the people -- but this time it certainly is. The more I found out about this bill, the more I personally recognized it was not just a bad idea to break that campaign promise, but that the increase was bad public policy. After all, this is a part-time legislature with benefits and a per diem that made their total compensation package quite generous to begin with -- a $21,000 increase in their base pay (something like 123%) was clearly inappropriate.
H/T Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
05:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.
"Once again the federal government has it backwards," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, a former state judge and prosecutor. "It is a waste of time if we don't go after the business owners who are knowingly hiring illegals."If we eliminate the illegal job opportunities, we can start to eliminate the problem."
Unfortunately, only 75 owners and mangers were arrested in conjunction with these raids -- and prosecutions are much more difficult to undertake than they are for the illegal workers.
Seems to me that this is one more reason to require electronic verification of employability -- so that we can begin prosecuting the major players who take jobs from Americans to give them to illegal aliens.
Posted by: Greg at
04:48 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.
McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days.Surprising many Republican insiders, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is at the top of the vice presidential prospect list for John McCain. But lack of personal chemistry could derail the pick.
“Romney as favorite” is the hot buzz in Republican circles, and top party advisers said the case is compelling.
Campaign insiders say McCain plans to name his running mate very shortly after Barack Obama does, as part of what one campaign planner called a “bounce-mitigation strategy.”
A major factor in this is the ability of Romney to raise money. He's got a base that hasn't been tapped yet by McCain, and it is very possible that Romeny is the only guy who can get at it.
Unfortunately, there is still bad blood between McCain and Romney dating back to the primary season. That could yet derail this pick.
In the end, I agree with Hugh Hewitt, who was also a Romney supporter during the primary.
No matter who the selection turns out to be, I'd prefer a nominee announcement sooner rather than as part of a "mitigation bounce" strategy as outlined by Mike. Every day as the veep allows the nominee to make four or five appearances on the trail, generating enthusiasm and contributions, especially if the nominee is throwing hard punches at Obama. 30 or 60 days of extra effort is too much of an advantage to keep on the shelf pending an Obama selection.
We need a pick sooner rather than later -- and not simply a reactive choice following Obama's selection.
Posted by: Greg at
04:26 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
In most states, inmates win back their voting rights as soon as they are released from prison or when they complete parole or probation. One big reason that does not happen in Florida is that state law requires felons to first make restitution to their victims. And until their voting rights are restored, former prisoners are barred from scores of state-regulated occupations for which the restoration of voting rights is listed as a condition of employment.Quite apart from the fact that it is undemocratic to bar people from the voting booth because they owe money, the system is transparently counterproductive since it prevents people from landing the jobs they will need to make restitution. Denying ex-offenders a chance to make an honest living is a sure way to drive them back to jail.
The system also requires extensive and unnecessary background checks before voting rights can be restored for some applicants, making it hard to reduce the backlog. Florida could clear up that backlog in a hurry, treat all ex-offenders fairly and enhance democracy by automatically restoring voting rights to inmates who have completed their sentences.
That last line is the real kicker -- that is precisely what the law requires -- that the full sentence, including restitution to the victims, be completed before voting rights are restored. But therein lies the problem -- the editors of the New York Times don't recognize the restorative justice portion of the sentence to be a part of the sentence.
But I'll tell you what. I'm willing to go along with the New York Times on this one -- provided they are also willing to support the restoration of Second Amendment rights at the same time. After all, it seems highly improper to deny these folks the right and the means to defend themselves with a gun if we entrust them with the ballot -- which I fully believe to be much more powerful force than any pistol.
Posted by: Greg at
04:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.
While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.
What do the numbers show?
On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.
Now am I accusing Senator Obama of invidious sex discrimination against women in his office? No, I'm not. But I cannot help but notice that when it comes right down to it, Senator John McCain offers more opportunities for women, promotes them to higher level positions, and pays them better. Seems to me that he puts into practice hat liberal Democrats often preach but fail to implement.
Over at Hot Air it is pointed out that Obama has 18 more staffers than McCain, with nearly $1 million dollars in extra payroll expenses -- despite the fact that he chairs no committees and has no significant legislative accomplishments during his half a term in the Senate, while a senior senator like McCain gets by on a smaller staff and a smaller budget. I wonder why?
Posted by: Greg at
03:55 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.
This is especially true because hearing loss is rarely a temporary phenomenon. Not only is it a major inconvenience and disruption of a variety of everyday activities, it can also be a serious financial burden to treat that hearing loss. Just consider the cost of hearing aids, testing and doctor visits – those add up really quickly. And they are not one-time costs – they will be repeated by the individual for the rest of their lives. Not only that, but a hearing loss can change person’s ability to be employed in their chosen field of work. Quite bluntly, there are many jobs that cannot be safely performed by a person who has difficulty hearing.
If you suspect a work-related hearing loss, consulting an experienced hearing loss lawyer is the best way to proceed. That lawyer will help you evaluate whether the workplace was the cause for the hearing loss and if it is reasonable to pursue that hearing loss claim in court or through the workmanÂ’s compensation process.
Posted by: Greg at
02:42 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.
PP, 
D, 
((, 
)), | Votes | Council link |
|---|---|
| 2 2/3 | South Africa's Neville Chamberlain The Razor |
| 2 | The Whole Shebaa-ng Soccer Dad |
| 1 2/3 | More Quincy Done With Mirrors |
| 1 1/3 | Dick Morris Gets One Right Hillbilly White Trash |
| 1 1/3 | Warped Joshuapundit |
| 2/3 | My ANWR Photo Gallery Cheat Seeking Missiles |
| 1/3 | Left Continues Denigration of McCain's Military Service, POW Heroism Rhymes With Right |
| 1/3 | Gay Pride Week Bookworm Room |
| 1/3 | And on the Seventh Day, He Rested Wolf Howling |
| Votes | Non-council link |
|---|---|
| 2 | Why You Should Apologize -- Ineffectively and Dishonestly -- For What You Didn't Do Classical Values |
| 1 2/3 | The Unconscious Roots of Media Bias ShrinkWrapped |
| 1 1/3 | Big Gains in Iraq? Abu Muqawama |
| 1 1/3 | Obama's Lack of Ordinary Modesty American Thinker |
| 1 | An Almost Unfathomable Ignorance of History Brits At Their Best |
| 1 | The Card Stop the ACLU |
| 1 | Alcoholism Progression Dean's World |
| 1 | Is There A Pattern Here? If So, Is There A Name For It? Discriminations |
| 1/3 | "Declaring Independence from a 'Broken System' By Breaking a Promise..." [UPDATED] AmbivaBlog |
| 1/3 | Building Walls Shira bat Sarah |
Posted by: Greg at
02:26 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 4 kb.
Well, the gameÂ’s creators have a contest to celebrate the release of Dungeon Runner. This 'Pimp Your Gnome' contest allows you to create your own gnome, pimped out to the max. Do it well and you can win a copy of the game and a $350 Best Buy card!
How do you win? First, visit your local craft of garden supply store and buy yourself a gnome – you know, one of those little guys like the one you see in commercials for that online travel company. Next, dress him up in a way that makes hi the “King of Bling”! Make him a pimp, a thug, or just a fat-cat gnome – have some fun with it. Jewels, clothes, accessories – do it all!
But then comes the fun part. You next have to some pictures of your pimped-out gnome from at least 2 angles and post them at the site. Even better, you can get extra points if you post pictures with people admiring your gnome or by being dressed as a gnome in a public place like a mall or something. In other words, there is great fun to be had!
By the way, I did download the game, and was impressed. Good graphics, reasonable adventure opportunities for you to roleplay, and even some good interaction with others. If you are a big-time online gamer, you will enjoy – and probably get a laugh as your Bling Gnome produces his new cash for you. And you get to see some of the pimped-out gnomes entered by others – varying from hip-hop to pimp-daddy to some that are really out of this world.
Posted by: Greg at
01:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 3 kb.
This bit from Wesley Clark's Face the Nation interview today is absolutely astounding -- and indicative of the fact that Clark has ceased to be a patriot, and instead become a partisan whore.
SCHIEFFER: Well, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war, he was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy, he's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, `I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?'
So never mind three decades of military service, nor a quarter century of experience in Congress. because John McCain has never ordered anyone into combat, he is really unqualified to be president.
Oh, and Clark's candidate, Hopey McChangerson, who not only has two decades less congressional experience than John McCain, no military experience, and no executive experience at all?
Gen. CLARK: But Barack is not--he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements, he's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.
Oh, I see, he lacks the credentials to be president, but he has "other strengths". He's a pretty boy who gives a good speech and shows such good judgment that he hangs out with domestic terrorists, anti-American polemicists, and corrupt businessmen. That might qualify him for office in the Illinois legislature -- maybe even to be mayor of Chicago -- but certainly not President of the United States!
Oh, and exactly how respectful is Wesley Clark of John McCain's military service? I think this line sums it up nicely, when taken in conjunction with Clark's denigration of McCain's time as a squadron commander.
Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Yep -- highly respectful words there, Wesley. That shows quite well how much you honor that time as a POW.
Seems to me that what you really deserve is something like this.
I personally like the response by the McCain campaign.
Brian Rogers, of the McCain campaign, was quick to hit back in a release: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right. But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is, he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."
Interesting, isn't it, that Barack Obama is neither man enough to make such an attack himself, nor decent enough to denounce this sort of attack himself. I guess this lets him have both sides of the issue -- sort of like on guns, religion, campaign finance, FISA, and most every other issue.
Blogs for Victory sums this one up quite well.
![clark[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/clark[1].jpg)
CLOSING QUESTION: Will Barack Obama add Wesley Clark to the list of those thrown under the bus, or will this attack move him to the head of the VP list?
UPDATE: Over at Q and O, McQ asks the following question about the relative qualifications of the two remaining presidential candidates.
But here's a question: if the willingness to fight for your country, put your life on the line and suffer the brutality McCain suffered as a POW doesn't make the cut as far as qualifications go, how far below that does a "community organizer" show up on the list of non-qualifications?
UPDATE 2: Looks like that weasel John Aravosis has decided to renew his campaign of attacking John McCain's military service with a post entitled "Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?"
I wonder if he would consider it fair game to ask the question "Honestly, besides picking up a live hand grenade while waiting for a beer, what did Max Cleland do to excel in the military?" After all, he was one of the folks who argued that it was illegitimate to even question Cleland's record on defense issues in 2002 -- how dare he actually denigrate McCain's service.
And I wish to associate myself with this post written by Robbie at Urban Grounds about Aravosis and his disgusting post.
The Next Right/Blog, P.I. documents the depths of the depravity of Aravosis' commenters, too.
UPDATE 3: Newsbusters points out that this isn't the first time Clark has made this sort of comment while acting as an Obama surrogate.
Greetings to visitors from Right Wing News.
UPDATE 4: Blackfive reminds us that Wesley Clark's judgment was so bad that he was fired from his job as Supreme Commander of NATO because he personally almost provoked a war with Russia -- something that every other American commander managed to avoid for 40 years. Speaks to the judgment issue for me -- both Clark's and Obama's.
But at least Wesley Clark got to exchange hats with war criminal Ratko Mladic!
UPDATE 5: LGF points out that the KOSsacks are at it now. I guess we see what Obama's new style of politics is -- and reminds me of why I love Kathryn Jean Lopez so very much.
And GayPatriotWest points out that even Andrew Sullivan is condemning Clark -- though he doesn't see the very real difference between this and the questions raised by some of John Kerry's fellow Swift boat vets in 2004.
UPDATE 6: Confederate Yankee actually finds an honest Obama supporter (and campaign cash bundler) who comes right out and says what Barack and his surrogates really mean when they talk about McCain's military service -- Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin.
"I wouldn't characterize anybody who fought in Vietnam as a war hero."
Or at least not anyone who fought on the American side -- and we know her position on today's soldiers as well, given her providing material assistance to the enemy during time of war.
He also links to this piece by NRO's Jim Geraghty, noting that Wesley Clark is the SEVENTH prominent Democrat supporting Barack Obama to engage in this sort of attack on John McCain.
Newsbusters notices the media's refusal to give the attacks on McCain's service the coverage they deserve.
UPDATE 7: Obama rejects Clark's comment -- in a very tepid manner.
MORE AT Neptunus Lex, STACLU, Gateway Pundit, Ace of Spades, Sister Toldjah, In From the Cold, Joshuapundit, America's Election HQ, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, , The Amboy Times, Beagle Scout - Support the No More Excuses Energy Act, Democrat=Socialist, third world county, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, Stageleft, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Nuke's News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
03:27 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1410 words, total size 15 kb.
June 29, 2008
Why no banner headline, and no stop-the-hate marches led by folks like Al Sharpton?
Oh, I see -- the victims were Jews, and the perpetrators were black. The story doesn't fit the template -- but it would have been national news if the kids had been black, Muslim, or Hispanic and the perpetrators had been white.
But since it wasn't, no harm, no foul in the eyes of the civil rights establishment and the liberal media.
Fortunately, hate-crime charges are pending against the perps. How long until Sharpton and company are out protesting against that decision?
H/T Atlas Shrugs
Posted by: Greg at
02:27 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.
A Win by McCain Could Push a Split Court to Right
But then again, the article isn't any more balanced.
A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.
Notice -- a victory for McCain pushes the Court to the right -- but a victory for Obama "would probably mean preserving the. . . balanced status quo."
Yeah. Right. Sure.
While I'll concede the two most likely retirements are liberals Stevens and Ginsburg, does anyone really believe that Obama would appoint a successor in the mold of Scalia or Thomas if one of those two were to unexpectedly die? No, we'd get another doctrinaire liberal on the court, pushing it firmly to the Left -- even as the majority of the American people find the Court to be in balance too liberal.
Posted by: Greg at
02:13 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.
That’s why I appreciated it a couple of years back when a friend signed me up for the Beer of the month club. Yeah, you read that right – each month for a year I got the Beer of the month (actually four different beers) shipped to me, allowing me to indulge my taste for something a little out of the ordinary. Talk about your gift that keeps on giving! A whole year of beer, including brands that I generally would not be able to get easily in my area. What a gift for the beer lover you know.
And if you don’t know anyone who would be interested in Beer clubs, there are also clubs for connoisseurs of fine cigars (not my thing) and wines. And for the Chicago boy a long way from home, there is even pizza club – three specialty pizzas from Chicago each month! Surely you know someone who would enjoy a membership – whether for a full year, or for a shorter term. To learn more visit http://www.greatclubs.com/ for more information.
Posted by: Greg at
01:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.
June 28, 2008
When you're poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you're rich, it's hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It's a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.
The only problem is that the actual story, as revealed in the second paragraph of the story, is a little different. It seems that there is a reason that the tax bills have not been paid by the bank that manages the trust on Cindy McCain's behalf.
San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response. County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain's trust, were returned by the post office. According to a McCain campaign aide, who requested anonymity when discussing a private matter, an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain's lives in the condo, and the bank that manages the trust has not been receiving tax bills on the property. Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42. County officials say the trust still owes an additional $1,742 for this year, an amount that is overdue and will go into default July 1. Told of the outstanding $1,742, the aide said: "The trust has paid all bills shown owing as of today and will pay all other bills due."
Gee -- that does rather make a great deal of difference, doesn't it? The US Postal Service has been returning the bills to San Diego County, which has not made any particular effort to get in contact with the bank or Mrs. McCain about the matter. And unlike a little blurb at HuffPo implies (even cutting that detail out of their Newsweek excerpt along with the bit about the bills being returned by the post office), this isn't some sybaritic retreat for the super-wealthy -- it is the residence of an elderly family member of Mrs. McCain's. Yeah, that's right -- Cindy McCain is making sure that her aunt has a roof over her head and is well cared for.
What happened when the matter was brought to Cindy McCain's attention? The bills she was given were paid -- though there still seems to be an outstanding balance that will no doubt be taken care of on Monday, probably relating to this year's bill and some penalties on the back taxes, I would suspect.
So while this is a nice attempt to create a scandal, it really isn't one. But I'm sure that the feral pigs at Kos and DU, as well as the rest of the fever swamp that is the Leftosphere, will try to gin up a controversy over it anyway.
More At Hot Air, The Moderate Voice, OTB, The Other McCain
Posted by: Greg at
04:20 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.
Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.
With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.
The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.
Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.
I'm sorry, people -- this is cult-like behavior. What next? Tattooing the name across your forehead? You sound like a bunch of followers of the Manson family or some fringe religious group that begs for money on the street corner and survives by dumpster diving.
However, Sweetness and Light reports that this might not be much of a phenomenon at all -- and that based upon a quick search of Google, the buzz is more about the New York Times writing about the phenomenon rather than any grassroots movement to do this.
Posted by: Greg at
03:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.
This is Thursday.
Dear Readers,I have just been informed that three anti-obama blogs have been locked up by Blogger.
I myself have had posting locked up since June 3. I am lucky though, I can post but I have to use word verification until blogger "reviews" my blog. It seems that blogger has to check to see if I am not a spam blog or "bot".
I suspect that the vicious Barack Obama campaign is behind all of this. They want to turn America into a Marxist state. These people are nothing short of evil bastards. It is my guess they have reported our blogs en masse as "bots" or "spam blogs". My God, may this evil bastard and his vicious campaign sycophants never ever be in charge of this country!
Followed by more nefarious action on Friday.
My own blogger "unblock request" was completed for the third time again this morning. It was completed the first time on June 3 and the "verification" that it was listed mysteriously disappeared on June 17. I filled it out again on June 17. The "verification" for that request was gone this morning. So I have submitted the "request" again. I would say it's pretty safe to assume that Blogger isn't going to do this "review" and, if I dont' check to see if the "verification" is there every single day, it can disappear arbitrarily. I think it's pretty safe to say that Blogger is never going to "review" my blog and that in a few weeks this "verification" will also "disappear" and I will have to resubmit the request again. Since I can honestly say that the word verification I have to go through to write a post is horrendous and the worst I have ever seen. Sometimes I have to try a half dozen times. I no longer have "autosave," so everytime I want to save my work, I have to verify and then "save as draft". Then I have to reopen the post and go through the same process to save or publish. Blogger just isn't worth it. I am lucky next to the people below though, who have been COMPLETELY blocked from posting. Frankly I am tired of being toyed with by Obama people and Blogger. Therefore I will stay with blogger till the "four days" is up for the other bloggers who have been completely blocked and then I am permamently moving.
Now one PUMA blog shut down would be nothing. Even two or three would not draw attention. But six in one night? Seems mighty suspicious -- especially since there seems to be some buzz among Obama bloggers that there has been an organized effort to get this done. And given that the liberal wing of the Democrats has always been pro-censorship -- consider their efforts to reimpose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in an effort to make sure that conservative talk radio is severely curtailed.
Why raise this issue now? Because I can imagine a similar effort against pro-McCain blogs come September and October. These people have no scruples against silencing members of their own party -- why would they respect the free speech rights of members of the GOP?
Just a little FYI on who has been hit.
A list of Anti-Obama blogs locked up as spam in the past 36 hoursLocked Out:
Old location: http://bluelyon.blogspot.com/
New Location: http://bluelyon.wordpress.com/
Locked Out:
Old Location: http://nobamablog.blogspot.com/
New location: http://nobamablog.wordpress.com/
Locked Out:
http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/ (no alternate blog listed as yet)
Locked Out:
Old Location: http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com/
This blogger has moved to her own domain at Hillary Or Bust.com
The Hillary or Bust site also lists the following additional blogs have been unfairly locked:
Locked Out:
Old Site: http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com/
New Site: http://nativeamericansagainstobama.wordpress.com/
Locked Out:
Old Site: http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com/
New Site:http://mccaindemocrats.wordpress.com/
Locked out:
Old Site: http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/
New Site: http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/
Locked Out:
Old Site: http://comealongway.blogspot.com/
New Site: http://comealongway.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Greg at
02:29 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 713 words, total size 6 kb.
On his final full day at Microsoft Corp., Bill Gates went on stage to reminisce with his longtime friend Steve Ballmer, and neither man could hold back tears as Ballmer handed Gates a large scrapbook as a farewell present.Gates, who is stepping back to focus on his philanthropy, sat with CEO Ballmer in a Microsoft conference room and meandered through moments in Microsoft's history. They stopped to get in a few good digs at IBM Corp., whose first personal computers were loaded with Microsoft's DOS operating system before IBM adopted its own operating software and their relations strained.
Frankly, I see this as a good thing. After all, as long as Bill gates remains the driving force at Microsoft, there is really only a single ultimate source of the vision for the company. On the other hand, this change could spur more and better ideas from the company that now dominates the software world.
And let us have no doubt about the importance of Bill gates.
I'm sitting at a computer using a Microsoft operating system, a Microsoft office suite, and at least one peripheral that is a Microsoft product. There is literally nothing I do on this computer that does not intimately involve Microsoft products -- and that is true of most computers in the country. Not bad for a college drop-out.
Posted by: Greg at
05:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.
"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.
Let me say for the record -- if he wants my support, Barack Obama can kiss my ass, too. And even then, he won't get it.
But I love the reaction of come of the anonymous sources in this article.
"You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.
Why the hell can't he talk like that about Obama? You friggin' Democrats have spoken far worse about the President of the United States for 7 1/2 years -- if you can do that, why can't Bill Clinton speak in such a manner about the unqualified flip-flopper your party is about to nominate, especially if he does not actually support the man's candidacy?
Other Perspectives At Cannonfire, Buck Naked Politics, Gateway Pundit, Political Byline, Baldilocks, The Other McCain, Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
05:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.
That is why debt consolidation programs are an option worth considering. Yes, you can get a loan, but there are also professionals who can provide you with various strategies for paying off that debt through debt consolidation loans or other strategies. Such Credit Card Debt Consolidation programs can help you preserve your credit rating and get out of debt more quickly.
What are some of these options? There is always the standard debt consolidation loan. You get one large loan that will cover those debts and start making payments over 36 to 48 months (though some might run larger if you are really in debt). Then you simply pay on that one loan while avoiding the bad spending habits that got you into debt in the first place. It might not be a bad idea to seek credit counseling as a part of the plan.
You can also negotiate new repayment terms with your creditors. They want their money and they are usually willing to work with you to make that happen. You can often do this yourself, or you might seek professional help with this.
Then there are debt settlement options for you. These are something that you rarely can do yourself, so you almost certainly need professional help on this one. 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. You might take a credit rating hit, but it isn’t as ugly as the blot of a bankruptcy on your record.
Posted by: Greg at
12:41 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.
June 27, 2008
Barack Obama has won over more than half of Hillary Rodham Clinton's former supporters, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll that finds party loyalty trumping hard feelings less than three weeks after their bruising Democratic presidential contest ended.
Like that is a surprise? No one doubted that Barack Obama would eventually get over half the supporters of Hillary Clinton. After all, a lot of them are like my favorite Democrat -- they think that Obama is under-qualified and something of a phony, but they could no more vote for the Republican nominee than they could disown their own grandmothers. That has never been at issue.
The problem for Obama was always that some 20-25% of Clinton supporters indicated that they could not support him. That loss -- about 10-15% of the Democrat base -- would be critical in November. Being at 50%, then, really doesn't matter. He needs to be at 90-95%.
And he isn't. According to the survey, 23% of Clinton supporters favor John McCain, and 16% are undecided. Good God Almighty! He has lost (at least for now) 4 out of 10 Clinton supporters -- which if the election were held today would quite possibly mean that 15% of Democrats would be voting for John McCain.
And those Clinton supporters are not enthusiastic about him, nor do they find him qualified for the office. Indeed, only 25% of Clinton supporters view Obama as experienced enough to be president, which drops to 5% among that 40% of Clinton voters not supporting him.
What does this mean? Obama isn't the lock some people think he is -- and he might be forced to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate to secure the Democrat base.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, third world county, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Nuke's News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
04:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 4 kb.
McCain, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, edged out Obama on national security issues. When asked who “would best protect the U.S. against terrorism,” 53% of respondents chose McCain to just 33% for Obama. And nearly half, 48% to Obama’s 38%, trusted McCain to handle the war in Iraq, though 57% said they believed the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq and 56% said they would like to see the troops brought home within the next two years.
Only 1/3 of Americans believe Barack Obama is the best candidate to protect America against the threat of the jihadi horde, while over half believe the best choice is John McCain. Americans even think that McCain is the better choice to handle the war. And since national security is Job 1 for a president, that bodes well for John McCain.
Maybe that explains why most national polls show McCain within 5 points of Barack Obama -- and why the electoral college totals are stacking up so very close as well for McCain when one looks at the state-by-state numbers.
Posted by: Greg at
03:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
Rick Noriega -- Daily Kos Diarist
Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Rick Noriega said Tuesday that America should not try "to drill our way out of this problem" of soaring gasoline prices but instead rely on Iraqi oil and alternative energy sources.
* * * In a speech before taking questions, Noriega asked, "Why should we tap into what finite resources we have left versus using the enormous reserves we're sitting on in Iraq?"
Needless to say, Noriega has taken shots from Senator John Cornyn and others for his asinine proposal to make America more dependent on foreign oil -- and in particular foreign oil from an area that Noriega believes is completely out of control.
To which Noriega's press spokesperson offered this priceless response.
"This is a five second soundbite, not a serious proposal."
Translation -- Rick Noriega doesn't have proposal for energy independence. And this is the guy who thinks he ought to be a US Senator? You've got to be kidding me!
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT
Posted by: Greg at
03:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 3 kb.
After all, they had evidence of much closer linkages between Rezko and Barack Obama -- and approval from the judge to use it.
And then they didn't.
Newly unsealed documents show that prosecutors sought to call witnesses to testify about Rezko's ties to Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.The Illinois senator was the recipient of "straw" campaign contributions made by others on behalf of Rezko -- money that Obama has since given to charities.
The documents indicate that prosecutors considered offering witnesses to explore why Rezko used others to contribute to Obama and also to Blagojevich, and U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled that they could. But they did not end up offering any such testimony during the trial.
"Witnesses will testify that Rezko was a long-standing supporter and fund-raiser of Barack Obama," prosecutors wrote.
Later, St. Eve ruled that Obama references would be allowed into the trial, but prosecutors apparently opted not to invoke Obama's name.
Seems to me that the feds had evidence of serious wrong-doing on the part of a major Obama supporter and Obama's campaign -- and yet it was not invoked at the trial. Could it be because of Democrat attempts to argue that any charges against Democrat politicians are evidence of the politicization of the Justice Department? Or were there threats of retribution against the lawyers involved in the case should the Democrats win this fall.
There ought to be an investigation of this stuff -- but since Obama is a Democrat and the Democrats control congress, there won't be. Expect massive file shredding to be ordered at the Justice Department and the office of the US Attorney in Chicago on January 20, 2009 if Barack Obama wins the presidency. After all, it wouldn't do to leave around evidence that could trigger another investigation like that against Bill Clinton, would it.
Posted by: Greg at
02:09 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
June 26, 2008
In a ruling handed down only moments ago, the justices affirmed the decision of a lower court holding that the Second Amendment does confer an individual right to keep and bar arms, striking down a Washington, DC law that virtually forbade the legal ownership of firearms -- and which required that those which were permitted be stored disassembled.
The decision, which was 5-4, was written by Justice Scalia. The usual liberal foursome (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer) dissented against the clear language of the Constitution -- and actually argue that there is no Constitutional right to possess (much less use) a weapon to defend oneself.
Some interesting notes:
1. How Appealing notes that Scalia cites no fewer than THREE law review articles written by noted legal blogger Professor Eugene Volokh. Congratulations, sir! Lot's of great analysis from Volokh and his co-bloggers at his blawg, too.
2. AP notes that the decision goes even further in protecting Second Amendment rights than proposed by the Bush Administration.
3. This quote from the majority is troubling:
On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”
Hmmm... a selective incorporation question. Could it be that the decision would have gone the other way if the law had been enacted by a state rather than the District of Columbia government, which is merely a creation of Congress? Eugene Volokh suggests that is not the case, noting that Cruikshank was later partially overturned as taking too restrictive a view on selective incorporation (with regard to the First Amendment) and that the other nineteenth century cases may therefore be similarly flawed as precedent because of their reliance on Cruikshank, which is seen by many as a monumentally bad decision.
4. Hube notes that at least one news source declared this to be "a narrow, 5-4 ruling". Oddly enough, "narrow" was not used by the same paper to describe yesterday's 5-4 ruling in favor of child rapists.
5. Confederate Yankee notes that there is already a call to assassinate Justice Scalia in a comment by lefty gay blogger David Eherenstein over at Crooks and Liars.
![2612797213_5bf830192d[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/2612797213_5bf830192d[1].jpg)
As of 10:46 am Central time, no other commenter has objected. I've emailed the FBI and Secret Service about the matter -- hope David has fun in federal prison.
6. John McCain notes that Barack Obama refused to sign on to a bipartisan amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment. That makes Obama's efforts to distance himself from last year's campaign statement on the issue a bit hard to believe -- unless you are an Obama true believer to begin with.
OTHERS BLOGGING: Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Ace (twice), Urban Grounds, Dirt From Texas, Big Lizards, Hillbilly White Trash, Megan McArdle, JoshuaPundit, Wold Howling
Posted by: Greg at
06:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 582 words, total size 6 kb.
And now I have to respect the hell out of the guy for taking action on violence against women -- in the middle of a show, no less.
Country singer Tim McGraw hauled a rowdy fan out of the audience and up onto the stage during his Washington concert on Tuesday.Video shot by a fan at the concert shows McGraw shouting "Get rid of this guy," summoning security and helping arriving crew members to haul him onstage. When the heavyset fan moves toward McGraw, the singer threatens him with a cocked fist as he's hauled away.
McGraw's rep said, "While Tim was performing at the White River Amphitheater in Auburn, Wash., last night, he watched a man rush to the front of the stage. This overly aggressive fan attacked a female fan and Tim witnessed this incident.
"Tim called for security, but when they could not respond quick enough Tim and several crew members removed the fan from the audience where he was then turned over to the local authorities."
I may disagree on some political things with McGraw, but I certainly do admire him taking action in this case. My question -- why didn't the fans around this creep act to defend the woman from her assailant?
Posted by: Greg at
02:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.
SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.
Of course, the chemical castration is not mandatory for the convicts. They may choose to be surgically castrated if they don't want to take the drugs.
I'm pretty sure that Justice Kennedy isn't going to like that at all, Neither will the pedophile-cuddling editors of the New York Times, who have never met a child molester (outside the Catholic clergy) who they didn't like.
And remember folks -- even though Barack Obama says he opposes the decision, he has promised to appoint more justices like the ones in the majority.
Posted by: Greg at
01:47 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.
But don't worry -- Barack Obama is prepared to force you to lower your standard of living by increasing taxes on gasoline, thereby raising the price you pay at the pump! After all, he is a typical Democrat -- like these in Virginia.
And remember the words of Michelle Obama -- Barack Obama never allow you to go back to your lives as usual.
Let's not give him that chance.
A vote for McCain is a vote for energy independence.
Posted by: Greg at
01:29 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.
But I do believe that we should be able to look into the public information available about those with whom we begin to have some sort of intimate association, whether they are employees, romantic interests, babysitters, teachers, or the parents of children’s playmates. That is where services like those offered at http://www.sentrylink.com are a valuable thing in my book. They allow you to do a Background Check about individuals who have the ability to get inside our normal defenses. They can run a Criminal Background Check for you, just to make sure that you, your family, or your business are not open to any undue risks. Such a Criminal Check will enable you to get access quickly and easily to publicly available information that you might not have the time or knowledge to access. That is not an intrusion into anyone’s privacy – it is actually a prudent step on the part of a wise, safety conscious individual to check out the public domain information to help ensure that you are not being taken in by a dangerous individual.
Posted by: Greg at
12:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.
June 25, 2008
Posted by: Greg at
11:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.
June 26, 2008
A White House-backed spy bill to protect telecommunication companies from billions of dollars in possible privacy lawsuits passed a Senate test vote on Wednesday and headed toward final congressional approval.On a vote of 80-15, mostly Republican supporters of the bipartisan measure, which would also implement the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. spy laws in decades, easily mustered the 60 needed to clear a Democratic procedural roadblock.
As Ed Morrissey points out over at Hot Air, 48 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted for cloture, while 15 Democrats voted against it. Why is the cloture vote therefore labeled as "mostly Republican", even though Democrats voted 2-1 for cloture and supplied some 40% of the votes for the motion?
But on a more important note, this means the bill will be voted on (and presumably passed) on Friday, and that it should be in the hands of President Bush for his signature by next week.
Posted by: Greg at
12:33 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.
June 25, 2008
The first time was in granting habeas corpus rights to terrorist detainees, despite Congress having acted under its authority in Article III of the Constitution to strip the Supreme Court of any jurisdiction is such cases.
This time it is in a decision that decrees that the sense of the Supreme Court will be the basis for determining when the death penalty may be imposed, not the laws of the states or the US Constitution -- and that the "evolving standard" on the death penalty can only move towards greater restrictions on capital punishment, not the other direction -- and that the rape of an eight-year old is not a sufficiently serious crime to merit the ultimate sanction.
The U.S. Supreme Court made it illegal to execute persons convicted of child-rape in a 5-4 decision Wednesday."The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion. The ruling broke on party lines, the liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer siding with Kennedy.
In their decision, the liberal justices ruled that a Louisiana law that sent 43 year-old man named Patrick Kennedy to death row in 2003 for raping his 8-year old stepdaughter was “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The utter constitutional, legal, and moral depravity of Justice Kennedy in this ruling is clear to see for anyone who reads the majority opinion and the dissent. Indeed, Kennedy expresses more concern with the dignity of the child-raping scumbag than he does for the innocent eight-year-old victim in this case.
In his dissent, Justice Alito shreds Kennedy's arguments, ending his analysis of the flaws of the majority opinion with this conclusion.
In summary, the Court holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically rules out the death penalty in even the most extreme cases of child rape even though: (1) This holding is not supported by the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (2) neither Coker nor any other prior precedent commands this result; (3) there are no reliable"objective indicia" of a "national consensus" in support of the CourtÂ’s position; (4) sustaining the constitutionality of the state law before us would not "extend" or "expand" the death penalty; (5) this Court has previously rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment is a one-way ratchet that prohibits legislatures from adopting new capital punishment statutes to meet new problems; (6) the worst child rapists exhibit the epitome of moral depravity; and (7) child rape inflicts grievous injury on victims and on society in general.
Indeed, as in the recent case granting terrorists outside the United States access to federal courts, Kennedy again twists precedent, law, and fact to fit a pre-determined conclusion at odds with all three. This must stop -- and it must stop now.
The American people are really quite outragedabout this. National Review Online analyzes this decision's wrongness. Rush notes the same attitude on Kennedy's part that I did above.
[W]e just have the court deciding, "We're going to decide these political issues. We're going to decide these things." We don't even need a Congress, anymore. We don't even need a president. We'll just take you all of our controversial issues, submit them to the lawyers [and] the Supreme Court decides, and that's it because that's what it has become.
In the United States,Congress has rarely exercised its power to impeach and remove a sitting federal judge. Furthermore, it has been over two centuries since Congress impeached a Supreme Court justice, and in that case the Senate refused to remove him. Even more importantly, mere disagreement with Supreme Court rulings has not been held to be an appropriate cause for impeachment.
Those things noted, I return to the ultimate authority in this case -- the United States Constitution. Article II, Section 4 speaks to the matter as follows.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors.
Furthermore, Article III states that judges (including Supreme Court Justices) shall hold their office during good behavior.
This brings me back to the point at hand -- in these two rulings, Justice Kennedy has demonstrated bad behavior. In both cases, he has placed himself and the Supreme Court above previous court precedent, the laws duly enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and the Constitution itself. As such, he has exceeded his authority in office and promulgated lawless decisions and attempted to make them binding upon the people of the United States and their elected representatives. This is malfeasance in office, pure and simple, engaged in under color of law and authority.
I'd like to urge one or more members of the House of Representatives to file motions for impeachment against Anthony Kennedy. Put each and every Congressman on record right now, four and one-half months before the next election -- do they support allowing the Supreme Court to impose their own extra-constitutional standard rather than that set by the Constitution and the laws enacted by the United States and the several states.
Now some may challenge me, raising the spectre of billboards from decades past urging Congress to "Impeach Earl Warren". The difference here is that while many of the opinions of the Warren Court were controversial and unpopular, it was difficult to argue that they were not grounded in the Constitution -- indeed, the roots of those decisions were buried in the fertile loam that is the text of that guiding document. The same cannot be said of these two most recent judicial monstrosities brought forth by Anthony Kennedy.
I sincerely doubt that the Senate would vote to remove Anthony Kennedy if the House adopted articles of impeachment against the him, but the precedent would serve as a powerful warning against such naked judicial activism.
And in addition, there is a course of action which should be followed by in every state as a result of this ruling. Every state legislature should pass, and every governor should sign, legislation imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child. If even half manage to accomplish this task, it would establish a strong national consensus in favor of the view that "the evolving standards of decency" hold that child rape is viewed by our society as meriting death. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has already vowed to resist this decision.
Oh, and for those of you curious, here is what Justice Kennedy argues does not merit capital punishment in today's ruling. more...
Posted by: Greg at
08:26 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2725 words, total size 22 kb.
She said the pair of them had an email relationship.
He says not.
She said Obama had responded to one note about a debate, commenting to her that the questions were "silly."But speaking to reporters aboard his campaign plane, Obama said the actress doesn't have his personal email address. "She sent one email to Reggie, who forwarded it to me," Obama said, referring to his 26-year-old personal assistant, Reggie Love. "I write saying, 'thank you Scarlett for doing what you do,' and suddenly we have this email relationship"
The Obamateur just lost major cool points. And after all, since he is seeking to be the first second black president (remember, we were told Bill Clinton was the first) despite his utter lack of qualifications for the job, he needs to show America that he at least has the good judgment to do the job.
Take a good look at the decision here, folks. Does it really show good judgment?
![scarlett_johansson_red[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/scarlett_johansson_red[1].jpg)
On the other hand, I think this shows much better judgment.
![cindy_mccain_4.15.08-thumb[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/cindy_mccain_4.15.08-thumb[1].jpg)
Any questions?
H/T Ace
Posted by: Greg at
06:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 2 kb.
A local Hillary Clinton supporter has filed a challenge to Texas delegates elected to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.Fort Worth lawyer Jason Smith sent a credentials challenge to the Democratic National CommitteeÂ’s rules and bylaws panel last week alleging that the makeup of the Texas delegation is invalid.
The Texas Democratic Party allocated its delegates based partly on the results of the March 4 primary and partly on the results of precinct caucuses held statewide that evening.
That arrangement is counter to a DNC rule that delegate selection must "fairly reflect" the presidential preference of primary voters, Smith said.
So tell me -- with Hillary winning at the polls here in Texas, how does awarding the her 94 delegates while the Obamessiah got 99 delegates begin to "fairly reflect" the preferences of the primary voters?
Simply put, it doesn't -- especially given some of the shenanigans pulled by Obama supporters at precinct caucuses and senatorial district conventions. Seems o me the best solution would be to refuse to seat those delegates chosen through the caucus process, and seat only those reflecting the vote on primary day.
And they already have a precedent -- the stripping of delegates from Florida and Michigan over procedural issues.
Posted by: Greg at
06:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
- Between Chuck Schumer and a microphone; and
- Between Chuck Schumer and a photo op.
I suppose that explains this picture from today's New York Post.
![news008[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/news008[1].jpg)
NOTE: Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski (center, crushed between the two senators from New York) was not injured in the course of this photo op.
I was also struck by this bit of information in the article about Hillary!'s return to the Senate.
Also yesterday, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a triumphant return to the Senate, where she was greeted by a large group of female interns and exchanged hugs with Democrats.
Hmmm...
"Greeted by a large group of female interns."
Isn't that where a lot of Bill Clinton's problems started?
Posted by: Greg at
05:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.
"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."
"Talking white?"
Could you imagine if some conservative argued that Obama was some sort of Oreo trying to make himself palatable to white voters by rejecting his blackness? How on earth does Nader get away with this stuff?
On the other hand, we've seen seen that the only difference between Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis is that the latter two were more qualified for the presidency when nominated than Obama is -- and yeah, that he is half African (not African-American -- in the interest of accuracy we have to remember that his father was Kenyan). But it is really just the same old liberalism, repackaged to sell Hopey McChangerson to the American public.
By the way -- I love how Ralph nader attempts to set himself up as the arbiter of authentic blackness.
"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."
WTF, Ralph? I'm an anti-Obama conservative, and I find that crap to be offensive. And for what its worth, Ralph, as a Republican descendant of a Union Civil War veteran and having been born a century after the issuance of the Emancipation proclamation, I don't feel any sort of "white guilt".
On a related note, rumor has it that Nader will soon announce his selection of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd as his vice presidential running mate this year.
More At Hot Air, OTB, Protein Wisdom, Suitably Flip
Posted by: Greg at
04:39 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.
The reformist image of Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered by Republicans a top potential vice-presidential choice, has recently taken a beating after Mr. Jindal refused to veto a sizable pay increase that Louisiana legislators voted for themselves this month.The increase would more than double the salary of the part-time legislators effective July 8, to $37,500 from $16,800, with considerably more money available once expenses are added in. It has touched a nerve in this impoverished state.
Now I don't know about you, but I don't find that increased legislative salary of $37,500 to be all that outrageous (although a 123% pay raise is galling) -- though I am unsure whether or not the legislature is a year-round entity or only a part time, limited session institution like we have here in Texas. But when you add in the per diem and benefits, this looks really bad. And due to a promise during the campaign, Jindal finds himself in something of a bind on this one.
More confounding to many citizens here than the action by the lawmakers is the inaction of Governor Jindal, who came into office this year with promises to overhaul LouisianaÂ’s reputation for dubious ethics.During his election campaign, he vowed to prohibit legislative pay raises. Once elected, he quickly pushed through a package of measures increasing the LegislatureÂ’s transparency and stamping out conflicts of interest, basking in the subsequent glow of his image as a youthful Ivy League reformer doing battle in a shady subtropical outpost.
Governor, less than six months ago you were saying that you would veto pay raises. Why haven't you done so on this one? I could understand letting one slide through after you have cleaned up Louisiana government, but you still have a long way to go to accomplish that end.
And if you are afraid that a veto would doom the rest of your legislative agenda, then use the bully pulpit provided you by your office to make the case for that agenda with the people directly. After all, they responded to your ambitious reform agenda during the election -- they can pressure the legislators to do what is correct, not what is personally profitable. Indeed, a string of governors whose leadership failed (or who were as corrupt as the legislature) is precisely why your state is in the mess that it is.
And Governor, this isn't just an issue for the people of Louisiana. For many of us among the GOP base, you have been seen as a great hope for our party's future, and we have been backing you for five or six years, going back to your first run for governor. Your failure to stand strong here will not only damage your effectiveness as a leader and your ability to bring about reform in your state, but also your ability to be that leader for the future that our party needs.
Stand strong, Bobby Jindal -- wield that veto pen like a sword, and then be prepared to get down into the mud and wrestle with the corrupt alligators in the legislature. You can do it -- and you will have the support of the people who elected you AND Republicans nationwide.
And remember, the people might well support you in recalling some of the recalcitrant legislators, Bobby -- or they might recall you if you don't do the right thing here.
UPDATE: Some movement?
H/T Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
03:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.
June 24, 2008
The Association of Texas Professional Educators filed suit Monday against the Texas attorney general's office and Austin school district to prevent the disclosure of information about the criminal histories of school employees.Earlier this year, Austin teachers and certain other employees were required by a new state law to submit to fingerprints for national background checks. The suit, filed in Travis County district court, is the latest legal twist in the case of media outlets gathering information under the Texas Public Information Act on what the checks found.
The district said the attorney general's office has ruled that some information that could be used to identify specific employees is public. But the educators group, which represents 112,000 members statewide, says releasing such information could violate privacy rights. The group is fighting to keep identifying information, such as dates of birth, confidential, although the district says as of yet, no media outlets have requested that sort of information.
This isn't a question of "having something to hide", folks. It is a question of having our personal privacy respected to the same degree as our fellow citizens. And the format in which the data was going to be released has the potential to reveal personal information, especially in smaller schools and districts.
And that brings up the larger question. Does the public really have a right to know that a local third grade teacher has a misdemeanor conviction for writing a bad check when she was 19? How about that the local football coach was cited for public intoxication when he was a junior in college? Or what's worse -- what about the teacher who was arrested on suspicion of something or other, but never charged or convicted because they were not guilty? These are lives and reputations we are talking about here -- and matters unrelated to the safety of children.
I hope this is enough to make you understand why so many of my colleagues leave the field with a sense that they are disrespected -- and why so many young people won't consider teaching at all. Low pay, low respect, low support from parents -- and now you want to strip us of our privacy, too? You're going to need to do a lot better in the salary and working condition departments if you are going to do that to us, my friends.
Oh, and for the record -- I've never been arrested or convicted of anything, so I really don't have anything to hide. I don't mind proving that to my district. I do, however, object to having less privacy than other members of the public at large.
Posted by: Greg at
06:53 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.
75 queries taking 0.6984 seconds, 747 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
