I realize, of course, that the New York Times doesn't have any respect for any provision of any Constitution other than one clause of the First Amendment, but in this case it also betrays such a fundamental ignorance of the law and the constitution of the State of Texas as to be laughable.

Texas is infamous for the cavalier way that it applies the death penalty. Still, the case of Charles Hood, who is scheduled to be executed on Wednesday is especially appalling. Mr. HoodÂ’s lawyers have presented evidence that during his trial, the judge was having an affair with the prosecutor. Gov. Rick Perry should grant Mr. Hood a temporary reprieve, and if the reports of the affair are correct, Mr. Hood must be given a new trial.

Only one minor problem there, NY Times editors -- Rick Perry cannot do that in the way you want him to.

You see, the governor does not have that sort of power here in Texas. Call it a remnant of the days of Reconstruction where the power to grant pardons, reprieves, and commutations was so abused by one of the incumbents that the 1876 state constitution effectively removed that power from the governor. For Perry to grand more than a 30-day reprieve, it would require an affirmative vote of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. At best, Perry can grant Hood a single 30-day reprieve -- after which the execution proceeds with no further gubernatorial intervention possible, absent a recommendation from the Board.

But there is one other minor detail -- the romance issue was apparently raised before, and not seen as grounds for overturning the conviction due to the lack of evidence of any inappropriate conduct or rulings that prejudiced Hood's right to a fair trial. That was the ruling of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which this week dismissed an attempt by Hood to raise the issue again (Oh, yeah -- NYT doesn't mention the fair trial issue has already been adjudicated against Hood). I guess that in this case the folks in New York don't really care about that whole separation of powers thing.

Oh, and by the way -- want the best example of how little respect the folks at the Times have for the unambiguous language of the Constitution? It is right here.

We believe the death penalty is, in all cases, unconstitutional and wrong.

However, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution explicitly permits capital punishment. Unless we are to accept the argument that a part of the Bill of Rights itself is unconstitutional, their entire stance against the death penalty is based upon the belief that the opinions of the Editorial Staff, not the text of the Constitution, is (or ought to be) the Supreme Law of the Land.

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

Debunking almost all of them -- and putting a few others in context in a way that makes things appear not only not scandalous, but downright reasonable.
Here are a couple of examples from this excellent blog post.

17. yes, she did fire the public safety guy — but he said in the Anchorage paper that, for the record, she never, and no one else in her administration ever, tried to make him fire her ex-brother-in-law
18. and yes, the state trooper (her sister’s ex-husband) she was worried about did: tase her 10 year old nephew; drive his state patrol car while drinking or drunk; did threaten to “bring her down”; and did threaten to murder her father and sister if they dared to get an attorney to help with the divorce.
19. yes, the state trooper was suspended when he was put under a court protective order
20. no, the trooper wasnÂ’t fired
21. yes, she did fire the Wasilla Chief of Police as Mayor; yes, it was because he was lying to the City Council.

* * *

26. yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldnÂ’t; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasnÂ’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues; no, the librarian wasnÂ’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents; yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of police mentioned above; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute

The list is really comprehensive, folks, and doesn't spare her Palin where there is truth to the rumor -- but the ones where there is truth are generally either so trivial as to be irrelevant to the campaign or proof that she may be -- the horrors -- a human being like the rest of us.

My one suggestion for Charlie, though, is that he provide the links he says he has to back his information. he isn't consistent about hit -- but what he has written jibes generally with the press accounts I've read.

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 2 kb.

More to the point, he lied about how his wife and daughter died.

Since his vice presidential nomination, Joe Biden's 2007 statement that a "guy who allegedly ... drank his lunch" and drove the truck that struck and killed his first wife and daughter has gained national media traction.

Alcohol didn't play a role in the 1972 crash, investigators found. But as recently as last week, the syndicated TV show Inside Edition aired a clip from 2001 of Biden describing the accident to an audience at the University of Delaware and saying the truck driver "stopped to drink instead of drive."

The senator's statements don't jibe with news and law enforcement reports from the time, which cleared driver Curtis C. Dunn, who died in 1999, of wrongdoing.

So what we have here is a bald-faced lie in an attempt to drum up sympathy and votes -- and perhaps obscure the fact that investigators indicated that the accident may well have been caused by Neilia Biden's own negligent driving. One of the things that the official reports reject is the notion that Dunn was driving drunk.

What's more, Joe Biden knows it. He has for at least seven years, and likely for 36 years. How do we know he knows? Because the family raised this issue with him the last time he made this false statement in public, back in 2001.

After reading a News Journal account of Biden's 2001 speech at UD, Hamill sent Biden a letter on behalf of her father. The newspaper story included Biden's description of getting the call that his wife and daughter had died, but not his comments about Dunn.

Hamill said her note to the senator described how Dunn was affected by the accident.

Printed on the senator's letter head and dated Oct. 11, 2001, the response from Biden reads:

"I apologize for taking so long to acknowledge your thoughtful and heartfelt note," Biden wrote. "All that I can say is I am sorry for all of us and please know that neither I nor my sons feel any animosity whatsoever."

One could argue that the failure to dispute the Dunn family's claims indicates his implicit acceptance of their validity. Even if one does not want to go that far, it is clear that Biden should have known that there was serious question about his account of the incident, and that he ought to more fully research the issue before making the claim again.

And besides, there is plenty of documentary evidence that Mr. Dunn was cleared of any wrong-doing in the accident.

Apparently Biden lacked the decency to do so. But then again, we've all known that Biden is "integrity challenged" for a couple of decades now. But that the Obama campaign did not catch this matter earlier raises serious questions into the opposition research and vice presidential vetting conducted on Joe Biden. For that matter, it also raises questions about the willingness of the press to look into family issues that Biden has referred to on the campaign trail and used to solicit votes. After all, doesn't this relapse into dishonesty and cynical abuse of his family call for the same sort of hard-hitting coverage as Bristol Palin's pregnancy? Where the hell is Andrew Sullivan on this one?

How much longer can this dishonest man continue as the Democrat's candidate for Vice President? And what does his selection say about the judgment of Barack Obama?

H/T Malkin

UPDATE: Reading through the comments at the N-J, I came across this one that is striking.

I remember the 1972 accident well.I knew the Bidens then as they shopped in the butcher shop where I worked at that time. Let me make something very clear here. The accident happened at Tim's Corner & Limestone Road. Mrs Biden had a stop sign. Mr Dunn, traveling on Limestone Road, did NOT have any stop sign or any other traffic signal. He had the right of way. The speed limit on Limestone Road was 50 MPH. Mrs Biden either ran the stop sign or pulled away from the stop sign without looking or seeing the oncoming truck.

Those involved with altering the facts of this tragic event should be ashamed. My heart goes out to Mr Dunn's family that something like this is reported as "news". I'm sure there wasn't a day in his life (may he rest in peace) that he did not think of the accident. A car pulled directly in front of him and there was nothing he could have done to prevent what happened.

In other words, not only would this have been a situation in which Mr. Dunn was not at fault, the conclusion has to be that Mrs. Biden either didn't look, didn't see, or didn't care that the truck was coming and had right-of-way. Which means, of course, that the accident was most likely due to her own negligence or error. I understand that this may be an uncomfortable reality for the Senator to acknowledge, but for him to peddle the lie that Dunn was drunk -- especially after being told it was untrue -- is reprehensible and inexcusable.

And remember that the investigation, which was headed by an official who was a friend and neighbor of the Bidens, concluded there was no evidence that Dunn "was speeding, drinking or driving a truck with faulty brakes." Under the circumstances (a politically connected associate of a newly-elected senator investigating the death of the senator's wife), it is safe to conclude that no evidence against Dunn would have been overlooked, and that any evidence of wrong-doing on his part would have been used as grounds to file charges against him in a wreck that killed the wife and child of a senior elected official.

Also, while some may argue that this is an unfair attack on Senator Biden's family, I'd argue that it is a reasonable examination of Senator Biden's integrity. Regardless of the cause of the accident, I still feel an aching compassion for the man over the loss of two precious lives. But his pain is no excuse for bending the truth to the breaking point in his public statements -- while he is welcome to believe what he wants in the privacy of his own heart to deal with the anguish over a tragedy that must always be with him, he has no right to make public accusations that inflict pain today upon the family of a man who was cleared of wrongdoing and can no longer defend himself from such charges.

UPDATE 9/9/2008: MVRC is commenting on the story now. Her questions:

1. If Sarah Palin had this kind of “memory lapse” or told this kind of whopper, how likely would it be that she would get away with it?

2. BidenÂ’s sons were in the vehicle. They were in the hospital for weeks. He took his oath of office at their hospital bed. From then until they got out, he left them alone at the hospital to go to DC to do the senator thing. How is PalinÂ’s bringing her family to DC any worse?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, No Apology, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Dollar Traveler, Shadowscope, , Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Pet's Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1269 words, total size 10 kb.

Voters around Texas have consistently said that they don't want Chris Bell serving in any public office. His response? Take a page from the Barack Obama handbook and seek to kick the only other Democrat candidate off the ballot in his state senate race so that the district's Democrats don't have any other choice!

Democrat Chris Bell filed suit in state district court Thursday, seeking to remove an opponent from the ballot in the Nov. 4 special election for the District 17 state Senate seat.

Bell's campaign contends that Stephanie E. Simmons, an attorney from Missouri City who filed as a Democrat just before the filing period ended on Friday, is a "phantom" candidate planted by Republicans seeking to siphon Democratic votes from Bell.

Bell's best chance of winning the seat, previously held by Republican Kyle Janek, is to win outright on Nov. 4. Until Simmons filed, he was the only Democrat in the race.

And he need Simmons off the ballot, because his only real chance of winning is to somehow eke out 50% of the vote on election day. Otherwise he is in a runoff with a Republican, and ANY Republican will beat him in such a runoff. After all, he currently has only 34% of the vote according to polling data his campaign cites -- and removing Simmons will boost him a few points. Add in a high turnout on election day (which he hopes will favor Obama and the Democrats), and he might be able to scratch his way to 50% plus 1, but only if Democrats have no other alternative. In a runoff, though, united Republicans will get a solid 60% in this district, given that Bell's presumed flood of Obama voters won't turn out for a squirrelly white guy already rejected by Democrat primary voters for Congress and the general populace of the state of Texas in the 2006 gubernatorial race.

I've got a great idea for a bumper sticker for the Bell campaign:

Chris Bell
Pro-Choice On Abortion
No Choice On Election Day

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

It must suck to be Barack Obama, and see your lead go up in smoke.

A poll released today by CBS News reports that Barack Obama's post-Democratic convention bounce has been erased — and that for the first time, John McCain has drawn even with his Democratic opponent in the network's poll.

Only hours before McCain accepts his party's nomination in what will likely be the most-viewed moment thus far of his presidential bid, the race is knotted at 42 percent apiece, with 12 percent of voters stating that they are undecided, according to CBS. Obama was ahead 48 percent to 40 percent by CBSÂ’ measure following the Democratic convention.

Other polls have failed to show the same tightening of the race found by CBS. Neither the Gallup or Rasmussen daily tracking polls have registered a significant drop in ObamaÂ’s support from his post-convention bounce numbers. The Gallup tracking poll, for example, still has Obama ahead of McCain 49 percent to 42 percent.

CBS’s findings from Monday to Wednesday — covering the early days of the Republican convention — is particularly noteworthy because generally Obama runs stronger in the CBS poll than in other surveys.

That last paragraphy is why I bothered with this story. This poll is the one he usually does best in, and it now shows the race knotted. Is it an outlier? Or a harbinger of where the rest will go in the next few days?

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like two American political figures gut cut-rate sentences yesterday for offenses which deserved more jail time.

First, in Detroit.

Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick pleaded guilty to felony charges here on Thursday and agreed to resign from office and serve 120 days in jail, ending eight months of political turmoil but also opening a new era of uncertainty for the city.

Uncertainty? Yeah -- the city's two top officials can't contain their personal animosity in public, and many of the members of the city council are under federal investigation for offenses even more serious than those against Kilpatrick. That city clearly needs a wholesale leadership change.

Too bad, though, that Kilpatrick wll escape the full penalty for all his offenses -- and will be able to run for office in a few years when his five years of probation ends.

On the other hand, an old acquaintance of mine from my college days is getting a cut-rate sentence for cooperating with the feds -- something I am not happy about.

Jack Abramoff, the powerhouse Washington lobbyist who admitted running a wide-ranging corruption scheme that ensnared lawmakers, Capitol Hill aides and government officials, yesterday received a reduced sentence of four years in prison because of his cooperation with federal investigators.

Again, and as I've said in the past, I object. Public corruption cases deserve full punishment, not "get out of jail early" cards.

And yes, it looks like a problem may be about to arise here in Houston.

Harris County Commissioner Jerry Eversole said Thursday that he expects to be forced from office by an FBI investigation into corruption allegations that appears to be centering on the design of his home by a prominent retired architect.

The Precinct 4 commissioner said FBI agents have interviewed many of his friends, some as recently as this week. He said he expects to be called in for questioning soon and would not be surprised to be indicted, though he insists he is innocent.

"I guarantee they can take that information that they've got and the friends that they've talked to and they can make a case on me," said Eversole, who volunteered the update regarding the investigation when asked about recommended ethics changes at the county. "That's why I say my days are numbered. There's no doubt about it."

And while that isn't quite an admission of guilt, I think it is sufficient grounds for me to make this Harris County Republican precinct chair to make the following demand of the Republican county commissioner -- RESIGN NOW, JERRY! I'll reserve judgment, though, on the matter of jail time.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

I think many Americans were touched last night by an image from the Republican convention. It is one that was frighteningly all-American -- but also controversial, with some saying the reality it represents being reason enough for Palin being rejected as Vice President, and why she should not be on it at all. I refer, of course, to the fact that Sarah Palin is the mother five not-entirely-perfect children, and that she is somehow a bad parent for seeking this office -- or even for being the Governor of Alaska.

I've held the image above in my heart even as I've struggled with how to refute that charge, with where I could look for an example from history to either disprove it or demonstrate its inherent sexism. And as I did so, a disturbing image popped into my head -- one that could only have sprung into the mind of a student of history.

Now some of you may not see the connection, and others may mistake what I mean by connecting last night's events with an American tragedy four decades ago. But consider the picture that the tragic event shown above deprived us of -- Senator Robert Francis Kennedy accepting the nomination of the 1968 convention in Chicago (either for president or vice president -- contrary to popular history he had not locked up the former and may have had to settle for the latter on a ticket with Hubert Humphrey), his arm around his visibly pregnant wife as the couple was surrounded by their TEN beautiful children under the age of 18 (as well as his niece and nephew, the children of his murdered brother).

Think about it -- rather than the stark shades of black and gray and white that depict the end of what many Democrats would describe as the Golden Age of American liberalism, we would have had an amazing technicolor celebration of what was seen as the model American Catholic family (though we now know that was merely a facade).

And no one would have dreamed of asking any form of the Sarah Palin question about Bobby Kennedy:

1. Was he selfish to seek this office?
   
2. Would he short change his brood to serve America?
   
3. Would he fall short as president because of his obligations as a parent?
   
4. Was he just plain a bad father because he didn't wait until they were older to run -- say 1984 or 1988?

That leads me to ask the obvious question -- why not? There are only two honest answers, either partisan bias or naked sexism. After all, the major difference in circumstance here is that Kennedy was a male liberal Democrat, and Palin is a female conservative Republican.

Personally, I'd argue that it is a lot of both, with sexism being the larger component. Consider the attempts to find nude Sarah Palin photos or pictures of Sarah Palin in a bikini. Has there been a comparable search for similar photos of Barack Obama or Joe Biden in order to discredit them-- and would anyone seriously argue that this picture of Obama on his recent vacation somehow makes him morally unfit for office?

Of course, given that there has been no serious effort to discredit Senator McCain with similar photos, we must be led to the conclusion that much of the opposition to Palin is based upon her gender.

And that my friends, is something we as Americans need to firmly and forthrightly reject. Too bad that the icons of feminism and so-called leaders on behalf of women's rights cannot be bothered to speak out against a return to the most egregious of sexual double standards at the same time they shrilly denounce Palin as unfit for office on the basis of ideology. Why can't they take the time to demand that their side hold a woman to the same standard they would hold a man of their own party?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 775 words, total size 7 kb.

And that isn't just the GOP talking -- it is the take of academics and Democrat political pros.

Sarah Palin found some unlikely allies Wednesday as leading academics and even former top aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed the Republican charge that John McCainÂ’s running mate has been subject to a sexist double standard by the news media and Democrats.

Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.

“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

After all, have we heard that Barack is a bad dad for running for office with two small (and adorable) little girls back at home -- especially given Michelle Obama's presence out on the campaign trail with him? That isn't an issue for anyone -- but suddenly is when the candidate in question is a woman. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to draw the obvious conclusion.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm going to be the exception on the conservative side of the blogosphere. I'm not going to analyze the speech given last night by Sarah Palin. Let's just say that virtually everybody but the hyper-partisans on the other side agrees she did a phenomenal job.

Which is why the criticism that Michell Malkin reports is so galling.

Right on cue, the Beltway snobs dumped on Gov. Sarah Palin’s brilliantly crafted and delivered speech tonight by immediately pointing out that the speech was “written for her.”

What officeholder — from mayors to the President — doesn’t have speeches written for them?

First, how dare anyone criticize the use of speechwriters as long as Barack "Deval Patrick" Obama and Joe "Neil Kinnock/John Kennedy/Robert Kennedy/Hubert Humphrey" Biden are running on the Democrat ticket.

Second, the use of speechwriters is standard practice. Even such signature words as "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" were, in part, the product of the speechwriter's pen. Why, now that a woman is using one, is it suddenly a problem? Could it be one more example of the double standard raising its head again when a qualified, competent woman raises her head above the crowd?

UPDATE: Just found this interesting take on speechwriters. I can't say I agree with the comparison -- especially since, like ghostwriters for books, their use is broadly accepted and widely disclosed.

And it looks like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (which my spellchecker keeps appropriately trying to change to "Madcow") objects to the standard practice of including phonetic spellings in teleprompter texts. Heck, when I preach (every now ant then) I use phonetic spellings in my text for words that I might trip over or misread. It isn't a sign of stupidity -- it is a common tool to prevent mistakes.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

The press really is in the tank for Obama. How else can one characterize this request?

Sen. John McCain's top campaign strategist accused the news media Tuesday of being "on a mission to destroy" Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by displaying "a level of viciousness and scurrilousness" in pursuing questions about her personal life.

In an extraordinary and emotional interview, Steve Schmidt said his campaign feels "under siege" by wave after wave of news inquiries that have questioned whether Palin is really the mother of a 4-month-old baby, whether her amniotic fluid had been tested and whether she would submit to a DNA test to establish the child's parentage.

Of all the audacity! Could you imagine the outrage if folks started asking for DNA tests to prove that Barack is the father of the children Michelle Obama claims are his? Or perhaps an exhumation of the infant killed with Joe Biden's first wife in 1972, just to make sure that she was really the Senator's child and put to rest the speculation that the entire accident was a set-up to get rid of an unfaithful wife and her love-child?

Of course, there is no actual question as to the parentage of the Obama children, or of the faithfulness and paternity of the two Bidens who died so tragically in 1972. But then again, there was and is no legitimate reason to believe that Trig Palin is not the child of Sarah and Todd Palin -- and all three requests ought to be considered beyond the realm of decency. Any so-called journalist who would make such requests, and any media outlet that employs them, have sunk from objectivity into baseless scandal-mongering. That it was presumed appropriate to seek such information from the Palins is a sign of how partisan our "objective media" has become.

But it isn't the first time we've hat such a situation this year, with the press being so partisan that it failed in its proper role. After all, there were serious questions raised about Barack Obama's citizenship this year, including the filing of a federal lawsuit on the matter. For some reason the media never bothered to seriously pursue questions about Barack Obama's birth certificate -- and that had a direct bearing on his eligibility for the office he seeks. Seems to me we still have not seen the ORIGINAL document signed by the physicians in 1961 -- will the press get cracking on that story?

After all, if they have time for something so outlandish and irrelevant as a request for DNA tests, wouldn't it be reasonable for them to obtain a public record that is relevant to the constitutional qualifications of one of the candidates for the job?

[NOTE: For the record, I'm not questioning Obama's citizenship -- I've written on that matter before. I'm just pointing out the clear double standard at work in the media.]

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

Let’s be honest here – I’m not a particular fan of the woman, and I hate The View.

That said, she “gets it” on the Bristol Palin pregnancy.

God bless this woman for sticking with her kid. Because there are a lot of kids out there who get tossed out, thrown away, who are on their own. And so I tip my hat, and IÂ’m a pro-choice person. I tip my hat. My kid made her decision to have her baby. WasnÂ’t the choice that I would have liked her to make at 15, maybe not. But, you know, it worked out. Thank you God.

Now I’ll be real here – Goldberg isn’t going to cast a vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. But she sees what so many of us see – there is a right way and a wrong way for parents to handle a teenage pregnancy, and the Palins are doing it the right way.

I work with teenagers every day. Every year I have a bunch of pregnant girls in my classes, and also fathers-to-be. I don’t condone the actions that got them there, but I do my best to give them all the love and support I can. I’ve done the same with students who have aborted – some of whom think they were correct, and some of whom come to realize they were tragically wrong. And as an aside to Goldberg’s colleague Joy Behar – my students are have been 80-90% minority, and the proportion of those pregnant has reflected those numbers. It is called compassion. It is called love.

Good people, including those raised with conservative moral values, make bad choices and find themselves living with unintended consequences of those choices (not “punishment”, Barack). It is the obligation of the rest of the good people in the world to lend them our support when that happens. And the first line of support has to be the family – even when those teens went against the values which their parents tried to teach them and which they failed to live up to.

Interestingly enough, we know from her own life’s story that Whoopi didn’t do a particularly good job of dealing with just such a situation in her family. Maybe that makes her better equipped to comment than some of the “perfect people” in the media, the liberal blogosphere, and in public office who consider these two young people “fair game” in an effort to get Bristol’s mother.

But in the end, it isn’t about politics. It is about meeting our fellow human beings where they are when they are dealing with the difficulties that are a part of the human condition dating back to the Garden of Eden (be it a literal or metaphorical place). Sadly, large chunks of our society haven’t done a good job with that in the last week – and has then had the audacity to sit in judgment of those who have.

Posted by: Greg at 09:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.

After being greeted by his running mate and her family upon his arrival in the Twin Cities, W3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs">who did John McCain spend the most time talking to?

McCain flew into the Twin Cities, arriving about noon at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. He was met on the tarmac by among others his wife, Cindy, and Palin and her family.

That included Palin's pregnant teenage daughter, Bristol, and father-to-be Levi Johnston. McCain gave Bristol numerous hugs, patted Johnston on the arm and spoke with the couple longer than any of the others in the greeting line.

Having grown up in a Navy family, knowing men like John McCain (including one of his fellow POWs), I can guess that the conversation was one of fatherly/grandfatherly advice to the young couple – and his offer of support to the two of them in what is an unimaginably difficult time when they have found themselves attacked in an unconscionable way by the indecent liberal and media hordes. He's been on the receiving end of such attacks many times before, and he knows that things will get better.

Call it an act of compassion by a man who could have just as easily dispensed with it and garnered neither notice nor criticism.

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

I’m a voracious reader, but am very picky on what I add to my personal library. Usually I’ll pick up a particularly interesting history book, a work of political science (not current politics – political science), or some escapist science fiction that earned a place in my heart on first read.

But I am committed to buy one book, as soon as it is published, even without reading it or looking at the reviews.

ItÂ’s title? W3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU7EaDiaMDCiUT">"The Jewel of Medina."

A historical novel about the prophet Muhammad and his child bride that was pulled by Random House over concerns it would anger Muslims has been sold to another publisher, the author said Wednesday.

"We do have a U.S. publisher," Sherry Jones, of Spokane, told The Associated Press in an e-mail Wednesday. "We can announce that, but not the name until they announce it."

Jones' agent, Natasha Kern, said a publisher for "The Jewel of Medina" in the United States and the United Kingdom will be announced later Wednesday.
Jones said her debut novel will be published in October, two months after it was to have been published by Random House Publishing Group.

Random House caved in after pressure was brought to bear by a feminist Middle Eastern Studdies professer from University of Texas orchestrated a campaign against the work, leading Random House to conclude that the threat of violence was too great to justify the bookÂ’s publication. That act of cowardice was a disgrace to the publishing world, and to the notion that there should be a free exchange of ideas in the world. Instead, fear of the fanatical knuckle-draggers who murdered Theo van Gogh, hounded Salman Rushdie into endless exile, and rioted over a bunch of cartoons from Denmark was grounds for silencing the authorÂ’s voice.

I donÂ’t know if IÂ’ll like the book. I donÂ’t know if IÂ’ll read it all. But I will buy it.

After all, it is important to stand up to the forces of darkness that would impose the mores of seventh-century Arabia on the civilized world.

UPDATE: And the British publisher is -- Gibson Square, a small British publisher. They say the first run will be only 20K. I hope they are ready for a second run, given the interest the book has generated among friends of freedom in the English-speaking world. The US Publisher will be announced next week.

Posted by: Greg at 08:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like the little pissant from Pyongyang is at it again.

North Korea, after halting the disassembly of a key nuclear center, is now putting the facility back together in violation of the United States' conditions for improved diplomatic relations between the countries, U.S. officials told FOX News on Tuesday.

The motive isn't clear but sources say North Koreans likely are reassembling nuclear facilities at Yongbyon partly to protest the United States' delay in taking the country off its list of terror-sponsoring nations.

"They've been threatening this move for some time," one U.S. official told FOX News, adding that until now the threats were seen as merely a way for North Korean officials "to express their anger."

I’ve got to wonder what they are going to want this time – and if they will again be rewarded.

Posted by: Greg at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

There are few people in the media I despise as much as Dr. Laura Schlessinger. My wife and I will sometimes listen to the harpy in the car and ask in stunned amazement why anyone would ever be willing to put the answer to any significant life decision in her hands. Often times I feel a need to shower after discovering I agree with her on some point or another.

And IÂ’m especially struck that this mother who has worked in private practice or on the air during virtually every moment of her childÂ’s life would take this position.

I am extremely disappointed in the choice of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican Party.

* * *

I’m stunned - couldn’t the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain? I realize his advisors probably didn’t want a “mature” woman, as the Democrats keep harping on his age. But really, what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?

She then goes on, at the end of the column, to darkly hint that Palin is a neglectful parent.

Schlessinger represents the worst sort of double-standard moralizing tradition in America. You know, just like the liberals who claim a woman can achieve anything – right up until the moment one actually appears on the verge of actually doing it. They make a great pair.

Especially since they despise each other – even as they take the same position for the same hypocritical reasons.

Posted by: Greg at 09:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’m always pleased to see stories like this one.

A homeowner who saw his wife threatened at gunpoint by an intruder wrested the gun from the man, killed him and wounded another intruder, police said.

The incident happened early today after two men kicked open the front door of the couple's home in this Fort Worth suburb.

Keith and Kellie Hoehn told police the men burst into their house and one of them pointed a shotgun at Mrs. Hoehn's head. She brushed the barrel aside, and a struggle ensued.

The husband got control of the gun and shot both men. The man who survived is being treated at a Fort Worth hospital.

I’ll be honest – the only problem I see here is that one of them is still breathing, and likely being treated in that hospital at taxpayer expense.

HereÂ’s hoping that the story is widely publicized and has a salutary effect.

Posted by: Greg at 09:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

I’m curious – if you increase funding for a program three-fold million, how can any honest person call it a cut?

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

Interestingly enough, the money cut was part of what appears to be a block grant for all Covenant House programs, no anything specific to teen mothers. But more to the point, it left intact close to 80% of the funding as she cut the overall spending in the bill by $268 million. And this was not a cut in operating funds – this was a cut in a grant for capital improvements as Covenant House moved its facilities to another location. And what had Covenant House received in the 2006 and 2007 budgets? It was given $1.2 million and $1.3 million dollar by the state. So Palin’s cut meant that the 2008 funding was MERELY TRIPLED INSTEAD OF QUADRUPLED.

How bloated was this particular budget bill? Well, one of the Democrats in the legislature complained at the time that Palin didnÂ’t cut enough.

But Anchorage Democratic Rep. Mike Doogan said legislators were in "sort of your classic feeding frenzy" in putting the capital budget together.
"It's smaller now that she's done some vetoing, but I still think it's too big," Doogan said.

Yeah, you saw that one right – those were the words of a Democrat.
In other words, what we are seeing here is a cheap shot with extra spin following a responsible action by an executive charged with overseeing state spending. And we can be sure that there will be no such criticism of either candidate on the Democrat ticket – after all, neither of them has any experience as an executive, while both of them are known for their success at bringing home the pork.

Or maybe it is just bad math -- you know, becausethey think 1.3*3 is subtraction because the answer is less than 5.

H/T NRO, Malkin, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 09:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

1 comment5, Knock Off Designer Purses Photos
, > , dirt cheap airline tickets
, zrylb, Cheap Cigarettes Here
, :-(, web cam sex
, 920763, Mortgage Rates Predictions Here
, 77442,

Posted by: rimshot at Sat Feb 14 06:57:54 2009 (SRGMS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Was Amy Carter preggers while her born-again daddy was in the Oval Office? Will one or both of the Obama girls get knocked up while their dad is president, if he serves two terms?

Statistically, one or more of those scenarios seems likely, followed by a quiet abortion, according to this piece.

Is Sarah Palin the first nominee on a major-party presidential ticket whose daughter got pregnant out of wedlock? Or is she just the first whose daughter didn't get an abortion?

The reason you're reading about Bristol Palin's pregnancy is that she's taking it to term. If she had aborted it, you'd never have known. Which raises the question: How many other daughters of nominees have gotten knocked up without your knowledge?

The article in question then goes on to do a bunch of statistical calculations that raises just such questions as I've posed above.

It points out that the only reason we even know about Bristo Palinl's pregnancy is that she has chosen to carry the baby to term.

But still avoids the major issue in the entire furor surrounding Bristol's pregnancy -- that it is a private family matter, and really not the public's business.

And the other question as well -- why hasn't Bristol Palin been shown the sort of respect for presidential children that was expected of the press during the Clinton and Carter Administrations?

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, over the weekend there were claims that Sarah Palin was the member of a fringe third party in Alaska, the Alaska Independence Party.

Unfortunately for those out to destroy Palin by any means necessary, the records demonstrate that to have been false.

So the new angle on the story is that her husband, Todd, was a member.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials.

Which leads to the following question -- who cares?

Last time I checked, Todd Palin wasn't going to be on the ballot. Whats more, last time I checked, the right to associate politically is not limited to being a Democrat or a Republican, but extends to a whole host of peaceful political activity.

Indeed, this one reeks of something akin to what the Left would call McCarthyism -- with the significant difference that the Communist threat was real, while the Alaska Independence Party seems like a pretty harmless group advocating smaller government and more local control.

And as a life-long Republican married to a registered Democrat, I'm the first to tell you that it is simply impossible for anyone in a marriage of equals to control their spouses political behavior.

Besides -- given a choice between a candidate married to a political crank and a candidate who is long-time buddies with a unrepentant terrorist, I'll take the former.

UPDATE": Will the media retract the story?

Probably not – even though the source of the original claim admits error and documentary evidence disproves the initial claim.

The chairwoman of an Alaskan political party that advocates a vote on the stateÂ’s secession from the union said Tuesday that she had been mistaken when she said Gov. Sarah Palin was a member of the group.
* * *

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify.

Want to bet we donÂ’t see front page retractions to correct the mistake, despite the fact that the story was highlighted by many in the media? And want to be that many on the Left ignore the correction, and continue to propagate the false claim about her membership?

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

Yep, Barney Frank has hit a new low, even for a guy who put his gay hooker on his congressional payroll and got away with allowing the boy toy to run other gay hookers out of his Capitol Hill home.

Now he says that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is fair game -- because Sarah Palin has mentioned she has children.

Rep. Barney Frank is among the first Democrats to publicly say Alaska Gov. Sarah PalinÂ’s family background, including the pregnancy of her unwed teenage daughter, should be fair game for campaign discussion.

"TheyÂ’re the ones that made an issue of her family," Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Well, this proves two things.

1) When Democrats insist that children of candidates are off limits, that only means the children of Democrats. Children of Republicans are always fair game.

2) Barack Obama is such an ineffectual leader that his own call to leave Bristol Palin alone is ignored even by the leadership of his own party. If he can't lead the Democrats, how can he lead the nation?

More At Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

Want to take one guess where the AP places the blame for the Palin smears? In part on the Obama campaign -- and they name names.

Obama advisers and surrogates have also linked Palin to conservative former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. An Associated Press story from Alaska, dated July 17, 1999, states that Palin, then the mayor of the small town of Wasilla, was wearing a Buchanan button during a Buchanan visit to Alaska.

The Miami Herald this week quoted an e-mail from Obama Florida spokesman Mark Bubriski that stated: “Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer.”

The McCain campaign says Palin supported Steve ForbesÂ’ campaign in 1999.

So, what will Obama do about the spreading of false stories by one of his own spokespeople. Will he do the honorable thing and get rid of him? Or will he keep the guy on -- cause that's how they do things in Chicago.

Oh, and about that last snippy line in the story which notes "the McCain campaign says" Palin supported Forbes? As I pointed out Saturday, SO DOES AN ASSOCIATED PRESS STORY FROM THE TIME. Are the AP reporters implying that the AP is not a reliable source?

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.

She's a conservative woman.

She's a believing Christian.

And she prays in public -- horrendous, outrageous prayers like this:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

I guess praying for the troops and our nation's leaders makes one unqualified for high office in this country. I guess believing that God blesses America and has a special plan for our nation is seen as outside the mainstream by liberals.

This, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable:
center>>

H/T STACLU

UPDATE: Looks like Newsweek is into the act, subjecting Palin's church membership to the type of scrutiny that they were loathe to impose upon Obama's -- despite the fact that the beliefs of the churches she has attended are significantly less controversial (and significantly more orthodox) that those preached at Trinity UCC. It would appear that they even want to make baptismal theology an issue.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

Much delayed due to my lack of diligence, here are the results of the most recent vote of the Watcher's Council.

The Council winner was The Razor with "Russia - The New Cold War."

The Non-Council winner was Michael Totten/Middle East Journal with "The Truth About Russia In Georgia."

The full results can be seen here.

Congratulations to the winners, and hearty thanks to all participants.

Posted by: Greg at 09:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Since we are going to ask about family issues, this seems much more serious than a pregnant teenager.

A son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show.

Where is the wall-to-wall coverage of this story? After all, can we have a VP with family connections to a couple of fraudsters? You know, especially after Biden voted to help his son's employer, MBNA, rather than abstaining due to the conflict of interest. Yet it was buried on page 9 of the Washington Post, which had six major stories about Palin.

H/T Darleen's Place

UPDATE: Blogs for Victory raises some other issues in Obama's vetting of Biden -- since the vetting process is now the the issue for the press and the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

That is the conclusion that at least one blogger is drawing from Sarah Palin's past history, when she decided against running for US Senate in 2004 because one of her children objected.

BeldarBlog shares this tidbit from Kaylene Johnson's biography of the VP nominee, Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down:

In 2004, friends and supporters urged Sarah to challenge Lisa Murkowski. [By then,] Sarah had made a name for herself as a reformer, and supporters thought she had a good chance of winning. So, Sarah approached her family to discuss the possibility. Like all of her decisions, the decision had to be unanimous.

"People don't believe me, but it's true. It had to be a family decision," she said. Todd was up for a move to Washington, D.C. and the girls were on board as well. But son Track, in his early teens, was becoming aware of the contentiousness of a political battle. He valued his privacy, and felt uncomfortable in the limelight. "Track did not want me to run, and he was adamant about it. He had to bless me," Sarah said. "If he had said at the time 'This is great,' I would have done it."

Hmmmmm -- the kids were given a voice in that decision in 2004, and one actually vetoed a run that would have put her in the Senate at the same time as Barack Obama. In 2006, the whole family was on board with the gubernatorial run. This would certainly lead to speculation about the acceptance of McCain's offer to be his running might -- was the subject broached at some point early in the process? It seems likely, based upon Palin family history.

But that aside, I can't help but note the sexism of those who question Sarah Palin's decision to accept John McCain's invitation to join him on the ticket. After all, would we even be having a discussion of "is the candidate a good parent" if McCain had selected a man with a special needs child and a pregnant teen? I don't think so.

Indeed, one of the most admirable things I find in the biography ofDemocrat VP candidate Senator Joe Biden (and i do find some admirable things) was his decision to assume his Senate seat after the death of his wife and daughter and serious injury of his sons following that tragic accident after his victory in 1972. He made a valid choice to serve teh people of his state while bearing the burden of single father. I would never stand by and let anyone question that choice -- just as I will continue to defend Sarah Palin's choice today.

After all, I hold her to the same standard as a male candidate, not a higher one. Too bad the mouth-frothing left won't do the same.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

It's called Chrome, and is available for Windows machines starting today.

Google Inc. is releasing its own Web browser in a long-anticipated move aimed at countering the dominance of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer and ensuring easy access to its market-leading search engine.

The Mountain View-based company took the unusual step of announcing its latest product on the Labor Day holiday after it prematurely sent out a comic book drawn up to herald the new browser's arrival.

The free browser, called "Chrome," is supposed to be available for downloading Tuesday in more than 100 countries for computers running on Microsoft's Windows operating system. Google said it's still working on versions compatible with Apple Inc.'s Mac computer and the Linux operating system.

Sounds interesting, though I still love my Firefox. But I wonder -- will Google's new offering be able to shake IE's status as teh most commonly used web browser?

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

It's hard out there for an Islamist terrorist.

SUSPECTED Taliban militants arrested by Australian special forces in Afghanistan have been detained in "dog pens" in actions that have left Australian Muslim groups outraged and prompted a protest from the Afghan ambassador in Canberra.

The empty dog pens were used to hold overnight four suspected Taliban insurgents who were arrested in a raid by special forces soldiers on April 29.

The raid - in response to the fatal shooting two days earlier of Sydney-based commando Lance Corporal Jason Marks - resulted in allegations of mistreatment of Afghan prisoners.

An army inquiry last week rejected those claims, saying they were not supported by medical evidence.

But Colonel David Connery, appointed by the deputy chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant General David Hurley, to examine the charges, found evidence of "cultural misunderstandings" and noted "the use of the former dog pens".

You know, I'm disturbed by their having done this. It just isn't right. It is positively inhumane.

I mean, they might need to use those pens for dogs at some future point. And your average dog is much more clean, better smelling, and better behaved than your average Islamist terrorist scum.

Oh, and those protesting Muslims? Screw 'em.

H/T RightPulse

Posted by: Greg at 09:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Breaking News, reported by Gateway Pundit.

The bus I was riding was hit with cement bags that the anarchists were throwing off the overpasses onto the interstate. The anarchists missed the bus in front of us and nailed our bus with a direct hit.

The police had us slow down and then sent us under the interstate overpass when we were attacked.

No deaths, no injuries -- but this sort of activity could have easily resulted in multiple injuries and deaths. It constitutes nothing less than attempted murder.

I'm sure more will follow.

UPDATE: More has -- an attack on a delegation entering the convention site. And a riot broke out near the convention. Too bad the delegates are deprived of their Second Amendment rights while these terrorists abuse the First Amendment.

UPDATE 2: They apparently attacked a group of Cub Scouts, too.

Posted by: Greg at 08:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Let the floodgates open.

John Coale, a prominent Washington lawyer, husband of Fox TV host Greta Van Susteren and a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, announced today that he was supporting John McCain for president. Coale, who traveled with Sen. Clinton, President Clinton and her family through out the primary season, complained of sexism, and said the Democratic Party is "being taken over by the moveon.org types" in an exclusive interview with Newsweek.com's Tammy Haddad.

There is also a tidbit about Hillary's borther meeting with McCain campaign surrogates. Could it be that there is something brewing in that direction?

Look out, Barry, the PUMAs are going to doom your sorry butt!

Posted by: Greg at 07:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Proof once again that the Houston Chronicle isn't a real newspaper doing real reporting.

Compare the article from the Chronicle to the article from the New York Post.

Interestingly enough, the Chronicle reporters managed to leave out this little tidbit from Irreverend Wright.

“This ordinary boy [Obama] just might be the first president in the history of the United States to have a black woman sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania legally,” Wright said, referring to Michelle Obama, in a sermon at the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in Houston.

Nah, nothing controversial about that. Nothing outrageous there. Let's leave it out of the article -- it doesn't reflect at all on Wright's message or the iconic black congregation that hosted him.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 04:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the most disgusting attacks on Sarah Palin and her family was the accusation that she is not really the mother of little Trig, but that she is actually his grandmother and she (her family, her staff, her doctors, the hospital personnel, news media, and who knows who else) were covering up the pregnancy of her oldest daughter.

It wasn't just the KOSsacks and DUmmies who were involved -- allegedly respectable folks like Andrew Sullivan were repeating the story, to the point it got picked up by the Times of London. Not only that, but reliably "pro-choice" commentators like Sullivan and Alan Colmes even decided it was within their purview to question her choices regarding pre-natal care, intruding in what they always claim is a supposedly sacred space between a woman and her doctor.

Well, let's settle the pregnancy question for you right now.

Fits pretty well with this entry from a non-political blog site, dated last April.

So, can we now start getting retractions from all the liberals making such scurrilous charges? Will The Atlantic fire Andy Sullivan and FoxNews can Alan Colmes? After all, there was NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support the claims that came from the sewers of the left-wing blogosphere.

Funny -- wasn't it just a few weeks ago that we were told we couldn't "attack" the family members of the candidates, not even for the words they said in stump speeches they were giving as a surrogate for the candidate himself. Does that rule only apply to Michelle Obama -- but not Bristol Palin, whose only "misdeed" here was being her mother's daughter?

And remember -- this claim involved libeling a young woman who is not a public figure. I'm hoping to see some lawsuits fly here.

UPDATE 1: Someone at Daily Kos tries to debunk the fake story -- KOSsacks want that story deleted, but not the original libel of Sarah and Bristol Palin.

UPDATE 2: Some folks will note that the stamp on the original flickr photo is March 19, 2005, and that this means the photo is a fraud. There are some problems with this argument:
1. Palin was not pregnant in 2005.
2. Palin was not in office in 2005, and so would not have been interviewed in that location in 2005.
3. The camera in question was not released to the public until July, 2005 -- and its year setting defaults to 2005.

Best explanation -- the photo was taken March 19, 2008 (or thereabouts), and the year had not been properly reset by the user.

Lots of coverage around the net on the hateful anti-woman tactics of the deranged left of the blogosphere.

UPDATE 3: Well, one story ends, another begins -- Trig can't be Bristol's baby because she is five months pregnant now.

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.

The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.

Want to bet that this doesn't satisfy the liberals, who will now demand a Taliban-style stoning of young Bristol for getting pregnant -- while those of us who are Christians will accept that the couple made a series of poor choices and are taking responsibility for them.

UPDATE 4: Bravo to the folks at Jawa Report for this gem:

Obama Camp Of Course Will Respect Bristol Palin

Lets see how "progressive" the liberals actually are. They can't condemn Bristol or the lovely Sarah when the great Barach has proudly and repeatedly described his mother "as a teenage mother, a single mother, a mother who worked, went to school and raised children at the same time."

It would be the height of hypocrisy for the leftards to make an issue of Bristol's pregnancy.

After all, Obama's parents got married after his mother was pregnant with Barack.

But given that the Left already attacked Bristol Palin and her mother with a completely unsupported (and now indusputably false) rumor already, I wouldn't be holding my breath for restraint now. Certainly the KOSsack commenters aren't showing much -- they are already playing the "litle slut" and "unfit mother" cards, as well as the "ignorant fundie" card. And Andrew Sullivan is still peddling the Trig is Bristol's kid story (no link -- he's lost his credibility).

UPDATE 5: How have conservative bloggers handled this story? Supportive of the Palins, especially Bristol. The most touching comes from Ed Morrissey of Hot Air:

Allahpundit has a great thread on the announcement from the Palins that their eldest daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant.  Coincidentally, my daughter-in-law is at about the same point in her second pregnancy, and our second granddaughter will join our family at the end of the year.  When our first granddaughter, the Little Admiral, joined us, it was in a similar situation that Bristol and her fiancé now face.

The rest is quite moving -- you really do have to read it all. Morrissey touched me for two reasons:

• First his nod to those, like my wife and I, who will never have the joyful experience of having a child of our own. We who have found ourselves faced with miscarriages and infertility know that the birth of a baby in not a tragedy, but is instead a cause for joy.
  
• Second, because seventy-five years ago this past May, a young couple got married in their parish church in Rhode Island under similar circumstances. My mother, who will celebrate her 75th birthday next month, was born five months later. I thank God daily that all this happened four decades before Roe v. Wade.

Now will you tell me which side is tolerant and which is intolerant?

UPDATE 6: Gee, a sensible piece on the subject in Time.

UPDATE 7: I guess the Democrat faithful aren't listening to Barack Obama on this one -- John Cobarruvias, president of Houston's Bay Area New Democrats, KOSsack and NASA employee recently suspended for 180 days for illegal campaign and fundraising activity on behalf of Democrat state representative candidate Sherrie Matula, has decided to post this little gem on his site. Apparently even Democrat elected officials like John don't care that Obama says the kids are off limits.

Posted by: Greg at 04:06 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 1167 words, total size 10 kb.

1 laemv wyfc berpfg

Posted by: ovulation at Thu Dec 25 07:05:07 2008 (qnB7q)

2 rfiq

Posted by: springfield nj route 22 electronics at Thu Dec 25 23:21:14 2008 (wmbVm)

3 lbejrsp gvobumh vksem

Posted by: christmas at Fri Dec 26 01:51:24 2008 (nwnOL)

4 gmhanc ljtwqny

Posted by: christmas at Fri Dec 26 16:38:31 2008 (7KZm0)

5 scwj mxntue

Posted by: christmas at Fri Dec 26 20:12:55 2008 (aJtMA)

6 qxloj haygm spclzin nujwo

Posted by: of at Thu Jan 8 05:42:48 2009 (vKMII)

7 trmsaxf zfya

Posted by: of at Thu Jan 8 09:12:45 2009 (AxkoG)

8 eqlzn wxmlo tdheg

Posted by: hand painted jewelry box at Sun Jan 11 03:41:32 2009 (d/2tC)

9 egzpsr lvarudn lrgmnui

Posted by: bikini sexy woman at Tue Jan 13 03:55:11 2009 (cIXnk)

10 sxfnp rihw fxoklp maik

Posted by: texas hookah bar at Tue Jan 13 23:33:37 2009 (C4LcL)

11 wdjzgm lzof

Posted by: scrapbooking cricket at Wed Jan 14 00:15:26 2009 (1KUne)

12 bcfre ukjfio odcuvsk

Posted by: lucky ladys charms at Thu Jan 15 03:27:51 2009 (jLQb5)

13 lauxk zciv zgceuop

Posted by: nebraska state laws concerning divorce at Fri Jan 16 00:56:09 2009 (FCbW2)

14 ndyv bgsay rnohpvx ajrpfyc

Posted by: buttonwood park - toledo ohio at Fri Jan 16 02:43:34 2009 (FD1/Q)

15 xfbku tmnkfvz ujqolb

Posted by: obama at Sat Jan 17 07:44:25 2009 (llndi)

16 bomi

Posted by: nanosun energy from sun at Mon Feb 9 05:23:35 2009 (AHeQi)

17 fsqpec

Posted by: in at Tue Feb 10 01:15:36 2009 (q6guD)

18 hrqi creb

Posted by: alaska at Tue Feb 10 02:12:59 2009 (lgTeA)

19 nctpak lcdtf lqfk

Posted by: kitchen at Tue Feb 10 02:38:39 2009 (pgvTf)

20 ipyb rtfkpwl mrbhk kmwub

Posted by: country at Tue Feb 10 05:07:15 2009 (mZyUI)

21 efzahs ufjb hevpqaw qblwrn

Posted by: cedar at Tue Feb 10 08:48:36 2009 (aes/f)

22 qsdyrtw rvbzpj wjdrces

Posted by: cheap at Tue Feb 10 09:57:44 2009 (srPnC)

23 gqixc sduwtv

Posted by: supplies at Tue Feb 10 12:20:38 2009 (lIINV)

24 rsnypc

Posted by: siding at Tue Feb 10 12:46:42 2009 (/Li+y)

25 kwepb nxau

Posted by: tips at Tue Feb 10 13:41:36 2009 (mPQWB)

26 ioax gicd

Posted by: hairstyles at Wed Feb 11 10:29:26 2009 (0CgJ5)

27 frznasi jezvr qsmwyx qzjm

Posted by: tv at Wed Feb 11 10:45:42 2009 (OprUy)

28 pywqm wpsejlz rguxwq bjxta

Posted by: short at Wed Feb 11 13:57:28 2009 (uWSEh)

29 rqyeb niusyxw gvnh zvxpd

Posted by: home at Wed Feb 11 23:19:15 2009 (866pc)

30 pjomdg

Posted by: cheap at Thu Feb 12 00:38:27 2009 (eH14w)

31 lvbsgeo hlbys qugxaid

Posted by: car cleaning domain thefreedictionary.co at Thu Feb 12 10:47:55 2009 (ZL0Ne)

32 uxwvpja

Posted by: cleaning jacuzzi bath tub at Thu Feb 12 11:02:34 2009 (4o97I)

33 lkzwyv

Posted by: how at Fri Feb 13 04:34:16 2009 (oHeaM)

34 pvkax

Posted by: bedroom at Fri Feb 13 04:49:12 2009 (hbTeW)

35 sdkv

Posted by: assistance at Fri Feb 13 06:41:56 2009 (tN34R)

36 qogs

Posted by: outdoor at Fri Feb 13 07:46:53 2009 (ltWVq)

37 zwtfg yrvuoqh dqgip

Posted by: of at Fri Feb 13 10:45:02 2009 (9BaFn)

38 jvmeb vjbra raublmf

Posted by: outdoor at Fri Feb 13 11:29:40 2009 (ejsq+)

39 gmin zjlqyxv lbvycij qktjn

Posted by: sears at Thu Feb 19 00:26:37 2009 (1ZXzB)

40 vayrhi

Posted by: fiber at Tue Feb 24 10:39:39 2009 (UXtGs)

41 uhfirb

Posted by: class ideas for scrapbooking at Wed Mar 4 00:05:21 2009 (eCdk0)

42 onbq sdqmr hvmy

Posted by: stickers scrapbooking catalogs at Wed Mar 4 00:14:09 2009 (+k9v2)

43 Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me buy elavil online, jysjvn, avandia, prior, glucophage, ^o, lasix online, dark, flomax, kpajko, But I think this one is good.

Posted by: URL at Fri May 22 02:32:27 2009 (dvuRs)

44 Cool, buy zetia online, metropolitan, buy zovirax online, endless, buy elavil, horrible, buy avandia online, theoretical, norvasc, important, You should have done this long time ago.

Posted by: Home at Fri May 22 03:55:22 2009 (XOkZI)

45 Your post seem a little cynical, how come ? buy avandia online, royal, buy lasix, intermediate, zovirax online, rxaggeu, buy norvasc, static, imitrex online, njfaomc, Keep us posted and good luck!!

Posted by: Go at Fri May 22 04:47:32 2009 (XOkZI)

46 let go to blogging avandia, ukyclqv, flomax, aiuxtyy, zovirax online, ocpaxps, lasix, wgpikk, imitrex online, valuable, Keep it up!

Posted by: Visit at Fri May 22 04:50:45 2009 (aiqtT)

47 Is it? I don't think so. glucophage online, rldwjt, buy zetia online, anxious, buy lasix online, amused, buy elavil online, excited, buy flomax online, alone, Please let us know.

Posted by: Homepage at Fri May 22 10:50:31 2009 (XOkZI)

48 Oh yeah. discount acomplia, lpqkpo, cheap lamisil, lpqkpo, zithromax, puny, nexium, namcam, cheap celebrex, hbdmupa, Awesome! Good feeling to be all done!

Posted by: Home at Fri May 22 11:35:44 2009 (aiqtT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We get to see another example of the civilized customs of the Religion of Peace.

A Pakistani lawmaker defended a decision by northwestern tribesmen to bury five women alive because they wanted to choose their own husbands, telling stunned members of Parliament to spare him their outrage.

"These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them," Israr Ullah Zehri, who represents Baluchistan province, told The Associated Press Saturday.

"Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."

The women, three of whom were teenagers, were first shot and then thrown into a ditch.

They were still breathing as mud was shoveled over their bodies, according to media reports, which said their only "crime" was that they wished to marry men of their own choosing.

Such honor killings are common in all Islamic societies -- and regularly take place in western countries (including the US) in order to uphold Islamic teachings on the submissiveness of women.

Of course, it isn't just women they want to submit to be submissive. We non-Muslims are supposed to submit to Islam, too.

Councillors have been ordered not to eat during town hall meetings while Muslim colleagues fast during the holy month of Ramadan.

All elected members at Left-wing Tower Hamlets Council in East London have been sent an email asking them to follow strict Islamic fasting during September no matter what their faith.

As well as restricting food and drink until after sunset, the authority's leaders have decided to reduce the number of meetings throughout the month so they do not clash with the requirements of Ramadan.

Here's hoping that the non-Muslim councilors show up with ham and bacon sandwiches as a pointed reminder that non-Muslims are not bound by the requirements of Islam.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Now these are the same folks who argue that Obama's preacher screaming "God damn America" doesn't matter, and that the publication of terrorist propaganda in his church's newsletter shouldn't reflect poorly on him. But somehow they want to make these statements into something that should cause someone to look askance at Sarah Palin.

Mike Rose, senior pastor at Juneau Christian Center

• From an April 27, 2008 sermon: “If you really want to know where you came from and happen to believe the word of God that you are not a descendant of a chimpanzee, this is what the word of God says. I believe this version.”
  
• From a July 8, 2007 sermon: “Those that die without Christ have a horrible, horrible surprise.”
  
• From a July 28, 2007 sermon: “Do you believe weÂ’re in the last days? After listening to Newt Gingrich and the prime minister of Israel and a number of others at our gathering, I became convinced, and I have been convinced for some time. We are living in the last days. These are incredible times to live in.”

Now let's consider Pastor Rose's statements.

The first, on evolution, isn't one that troubles me even though I think it is wrong. Within Christianity, there is a healthy range of opinion on the issue of human origins, from out-and-out creationism to various forms of Intelligent Design to unquestioning acceptance of evolution with the Genesis accounts being seen as an allegory. Indeed, Pastor Rose's position is what Christians generally have accepted for most of the history of Christianity, and so I'm not terribly troubled -- even though I consider him to be wrong. And especially since Palin has clearly stated her support for teaching evolution, this does not reflect upon her in any significant way.

The second shouldn't surprise anyone. This is a pretty standard interpretation of the words of Christ himself -- "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” And while theological debate exists on what (if any) provisions God makes for those who have never heard the Gospel preached, I'm not familiar with any orthodox Christian body that denies this essential truth of Christianity. Why this would be seen as scandalous by the writers is beyond me.

The third? We Christians are called to always be prepared for the return of Christ. The Bible offers clues as to what that will look like -- but also tells us that no one knows the day or the hour. I don't find the kind of speculation Rose engages in to be theologically or spiritually fruitful -- but I fail to see how such a belief would disqualify someone from holding public office.

David Pepper, senior pastor at Church on the Rock:

• From an November 25, 2007 sermon: “The purpose for the United States isÂ… to glorify God. This nation is a Christian nation.”
  
• From an October 28, 2007 sermon: “God will not be mocked. I donÂ’t care what the ACLU says. God will not be mocked. I donÂ’t care what atheists say. God will not be mocked. I donÂ’t care whatÂ’s going on in the nation today with so much horrific rebellion and sin and things that take place. God will not be mocked. Judgment Day is coming. Where do you stand?”
  
• From an October 28, 2007 sermon: “Just giving in a little bit is a disastrous thingÂ…You canÂ’t serve both man and God. It is one or the other.”

Okay, let's look at the highlighted quotes from Pastor Pepper.

I'll break the first one in half. After all, Scripture clearly tells us that the purpose of all creation is to glorify God, so no one should find that part troubling. The second part, about America as a Christian nation, again should not be terribly troubling -- it recognizes the reality that from the very founding of the earliest Spanish, French, British colonies upon this continent, America has been a nation with an over-whelmingly Christian heritage, made up overwhelmingly of Christians. Our heritage is springs from the Judeo-Christian tradition contained in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Our heritage is not Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist -- America is historically,culturally and religiously, if not constitutionally, a Christian nation.

The second one should not even raise an eyebrow. "God will not be mocked." Judgment Day is coming." You call that controversial and extreme? You would have to be an absolute ninny with no knowledge of Christian theology to be taken aback by a preacher saying such things.

The third should be even less surprising. For a Christian, God comes first. Duh.

So I have to ask a question. Why highlight these quotes as in any way controversial? What is the agenda here?

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 813 words, total size 5 kb.