Except for short blurb type articles, I almost never duplicate an entire article or column that appears in the press. IÂ’m making an exception here, because this is a message from one of AmericaÂ’s finest on the ever of his unitÂ’s deployment to the field of operation in Iraq.

Guard unit from Houston is ready for duty in Iraq
By COL. MARK N. CAMPSEY

The 72nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) stands ready for duty in Iraq. Over the past two months, we've been in the New Mexico desert preparing for the situation in country.

During our time there, soldiers from the Houston area trained in detainee, convoy and urban operations. The training was some of the most realistic that soldiers in the 72nd IBCT have ever encountered stateside.

Throughout many training lanes, actual Iraqi civilians role-played and mock weapons systems simulated the environment in Iraq. The realism made it easy for our soldiers to stay battle-focused.

Very soon we'll be taking a plane ride into Kuwait. While there, we'll consolidate our personnel and equipment and perform precombat checks and inspections before we go into Iraq.

During the next year, the 72nd brigade headquarters will operate as the Joint Area Support Group-Central (JASG-C) with responsibility for supporting the government of Iraq with administration and security of the International Zone in Baghdad.

The 21 units, to include the 1-141st and 3-141st infantry battalion headquarters, which fall under the 72nd IBCT headquarters, will perform various roles in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, such as security force, detainee, combat and convoy operations. And we're prepared for that.

The assignment extends basic military training. And our soldiers are uniquely qualified for what's ahead due to the combination of their military training and civilian jobs.

In Iraq, our soldiers will be in roles similar to their regular Houston jobs, such as accountants, project managers, engineers, lawyers, contractors, real estate managers, carpenters, law enforcement, city administrators, marketing directors and logistics officers, to name a few.

This range of careers is crucial for success in stability operations. It's the reason why the president specifically called on our citizen soldiers in the Texas Army National Guard.

With the upcoming elections in January, our soldiers will be on the ground during a historic time in Iraq. Currently, 280 political parties have registered to run. For my team, this proves that Iraqis are interested in representative government.

As for the security situation, attacks have slowed down dramatically, but they haven't stopped. In Baghdad, where the 72nd IBCT headquarters will be located, attacks are consistent with February 2004 lows, representing a decrease of more than 95 percent since the surge operations began in June 2007.

An added benefit we have is that our families, the Houston community and surrounding areas continue to give us extraordinary support. As an example, during our deployment ceremony in October the Wal-Mart Corporation presented a large donation to support our soldiers' travel home on their final pass over the Thanksgiving holiday.

It was an exceptionally generous gift. It not only reduced a potential financial burden for some families, it ensured a safe mode of transport for participating soldiers. But the support didn't stop there. Countless other Houston businesses, community organizations and individual citizens have supported us in so many ways.

We are truly grateful to live in such a military-friendly city. That hasn't always been the case for soldiers. However, on behalf of the 72nd IBCT's soldiers and officers brigade, I want to thank you all very much.

I take comfort in the fact that the 72nd IBCT soldiers have the best training, equipment and support by the finest people — their loved ones and the great people of Houston, Texas.

We're ready.

Campsey is commander of the 72nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, based in Houston, Texas.

The thoughts and prayers of this community and a grateful nation with you and the rest of the 72nd, sir.

This is especially true for my wife and I, as one of your officers is numbered among our loved ones – a young man who we first met on one of his first dates with one of my younger colleagues. It has been our privilege to watch as he has become a loving husband, devoted father and exemplary military officer. It will be our privilege to offer support to his family until you return – a privilege that we are proud to share with so many others in this community, and in this nation.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

IÂ’m disappointed that a member of Congress would back away from a true statement at the behest of apologists for Islamist terrorism.

U.S. Rep. Donald Manzullo told WREX-TV in Rockford, Ill., that alleged terrorists imprisoned at the Navy base are "really really mean people whose job it is to kill people, driven by some savage religion."

The Republican lawmaker confirmed Tuesday those words were his. He said he never specified Islam and apologized for any misunderstanding.

However, the terrorist shills from CAIR leaped to the fore, claiming that ManzulloÂ’s statement was defamatory of Islam. They appear less worried, however, about the claims of terrorists that they act in the name of Islam.

Remember – it is the terrorists themselves who make a claim that their acts of murder and mayhem are based upon religious imperatives. If that does not support the claim that they are practitioners of a savage religion, I don’t know what does.

Oh, that's right.

They commit acts of unspeakable barbarism in the name of the Religion of Peace -- and don't you suggest anything different about that religion or they will cut your head off.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

Not very – as exemplified by this catch-and-release story.

A federal judge in Pittsburgh on Tuesday sentenced an illegal immigrant to time served in jail for his 10th illegal entry into the country.

Uziel Jesus Lopez-Jiminez, 28, of Mexico has been deported nine other times between 1998 and 2007, prosecutors said. He was last deported in March, re-entered the country in May or June and was arrested in Beaver County on Aug. 16.

This is one of the folks that Obama wants to legalize – probably with an eye to granting citizenship and Democrat voter registration by 2012.

Just breaking the laws that Americans want enforced.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

To a Christian in the military who made such statements to his superiors?

Captain [Naomi] Surman, [Hassan’s supervisor in the Department of Psychiatry], who was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan with Hasan on Nov. 2 told investigators that Hasan had both social and academic issues in his medical training. She said that on one occasion, Hasan told her she was an infidel who would be “ripped to shreds” and “burn in hell” because she was not Muslim.

Would the individual in question have been counseled to change their attitude and behavior?

Would they have faced disciplinary actions?

Would their career have been ended “for the good of the service”?

I think we can all make a reasonable guess – but Hasan was coddled and kept on, even scheduled to deploy in Iraq where he would be a likely fifth columnist for his fellow Islamists, because it would have been politically incorrect to take any action against a “good Muslim”.

The result was13 dead – 14 if one counts the unborn child of one of the soldiers Hasan gunned down.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Ever since Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his fellow terrorists have been granted a civilian trial in a civilian court, I’ve been asking one very straight-forward question – what happens if one or more of the defendants is found not guilty, or if the charges are dismissed (in my opinion, quite possible on grounds of failure to provide a speedy trial)? Does the Obama Administration release these terrorists? Or does Obama order their continued detention, creating a constitutional crisis in the process by rejecting the authority of the federal courts?

Well, there appears to be an answer coming from Obama’s Democrat allies – and the answer is somewhat akin to the arguments of Third World despots.

According to Democratic Senator Jack Reed, “under basic principles of international law, as long as these individuals pose a threat, they can be detained, and they will.” Come again? You mean if KSM is acquitted he will still be detained? Yes indeed, according to Senator Reed. He will not be released, “because under the principle of preventive detention, which is recognized during hostilities,” we can continue to hold KSM.

Well, now. It seems to me as though President Obama and Attorney General Holder need to be asked whether they agree with Senator Reed. If not — if they believe that the proud, self-confessed mastermind of the deadliest attack in history on the American homeland should be able to walk free if acquitted in this trial — then Obama and Holder should certainly say so. If KSM were acquitted, the president and his attorney general should proclaim from the rooftops that Mohammed is a free man, found innocent in a civilian court of law, and then allow voters to render a judgment on their decision.

If, on the other hand, Obama and Holder agree with Senator Reed, they should state that as well.

The problem is that it does not matter a whit what international law says in the scenario laid out by Reed – taking such actions would unambiguously violate the US Constitution. What’s more, in such a situation we would see established the principle that the mere acquittal of a defendant or dismissal of charges with prejudice is insufficient to guarantee that the Executive Branch will not continue to deprive an individual of their liberty after they have been adjudicated to be innocent. Quite bluntly, the Obama Regime cannot have it both ways – claiming that terrorism is a criminal matter best left to the criminal justice system while at the same time declaring it to be a military/national security matter subject to unreviewable executive discretion when the courts prove inadequate to the task.

Indeed, the only way that ReedÂ’s argument based upon international law works is if one recognizes that the War on Terrorism is, in fact, a war and that combatants (both lawful and unlawful) may legitimately be held without trial or access to civilian courts for the duration of the conflict. It is impossible to argue for some sort of hybrid classification and system that allows for the continued detention of the legally innocent without making their trials nothing more than a sham and a show.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 4 kb.

Council Submissions

• First place with 2 points! – Joshuapundit - Death By A Thousand Cuts
• Second place with 1 1/3 points – Mere Rhetoric - Agitprop-Funding NEA Chief: “Barack Obama Is The Most Powerful Writer Since Julius Caesar
• Third place with 1 point – (Tie*) – Bookworm Room - Watch the Democratic Dominoes Fall
• Third place with 1 point – (Tie*) – The Glittering Eye - Triage
• Third place with 1 point – (Tie*) – The Razor - Suburban Perspective on Rural America
• Fourth place with 2/3 points – Right Truth - A Small Nation
• Fifth place with 1/3 point – Rhymes With Right - Just a reminder - Hasan not the first

Non-Council Submissions

• First place with 2 2/3 points! – Selwyn Duke /American Thinker - Jihad and America, the land that cried sheep
• Second place with 2 1/3 points – Villainous Company - Obama doesnÂ’t “get” the military he commands
• Third place with 1 1/3 points – Tigerhawk - The Myth of American Heroism
• Fourth place with 2/3 points – (T*) – Red County - Tragedy At Ft. Hood
• Fourth place with 1 point(Tie*) – MG Hoft - Wash U Shuts Down Freedom Memorial
• Fifth place with 1/3 points – Danger Room - Is This ChinaÂ’s Anti-Satellite Laser Weapon Site?

Posted by: Greg at 09:50 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 4 kb.

Such as conducting oversight investigations into Executive Branch agencies and departments.

President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to hold off on any investigation of the Fort Hood rampage until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes into the shootings at the Texas Army post, which left 13 people dead.

On an eight-day Asia trip, Obama turned his attention home and pleaded for lawmakers to “resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater.” He said those who died on the nation’s largest Army post deserve justice, not political stagecraft.

“The stakes are far too high,” Obama said in a video and Internet address released by the White House while the president he was flying from Tokyo to Singapore, where Pacific Rim countries were meeting.

Given the fundamentally unserious response of President Obama and his minions to this jihadi assault upon American military personnel on US soil – combined with the unserious response of the president to a jihadi assault upon military personnel on US soil last summer – it seems to me that Congress needs to seriously examine the operation of law enforcement and the military regarding the jihadi threat on our own soil.

But I do have to ask a question – wouldn’t we be hearing shrieks of outrage from Democrats and the media if such obstructionism were engaged in by a president named Bush instead of a Obama? Or does the standard once again differ when now that the unicorn-riding demigod is king, even if that means doing away with checks and balances and separation of powers?

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

During the latter part of the Bush years, I complained about the pace of judicial confirmations. Sadly, the GOP in the Senate is now paying back the Democrats in spades for their obstruction of well-qualified Republican nominees by obstructing Democrat nominees. This is in addition to the delays caused by the failure of the Obama Administration to make timely nominations to fill many judicial vacancies and the focus on other legislative priorities by the Democrat leaders of the Senate.

Despite a solid Democratic majority in the Senate, President Obama is on pace to set a record for the fewest judges confirmed during a president's first year in the White House.

So far, only six of Obama's nominees to the lower federal courts have won approval. By comparison, President George W. Bush had 28 judges confirmed in his first year in office, even though Democrats held a narrow majority for much of the year. President Clinton put 27 new judges on the bench in his first year.

The slow pace of approving judges has gotten little attention while Democrats and Republicans have fought over healthcare, the budget and the economic stimulus bill. In mid-summer, Obama and the Democrats also won confirmation for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

* * *
Nationwide, there are 98 vacancies on the federal bench. Obama has 19 nominees who are awaiting votes in the Senate.

Obama's pace of nominating judges is also slower than previous presidents'.

Still, the obstructionism needs to cease. And so I am back to making a proposal that I made a couple of years ago – an amendment to the Constitution that places a time limit on the Senate’s advice and consent function so as to bring judicial nominees to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor within a reasonable time period. Such an amendment might read something like this one that I cobbled together as a proposal.

PROPOSED JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION AMENDMENT

Section 1 The power to nominate judges to the Supreme Court and all inferior federal courts shall be vested in the President of the United States.

Section 2 Upon the formal submission of the name of a nominee to a judgeship of any federal court to the United States Senate by the President, the Senate shall vote to confirm or not confirm the nominee within 180 days..

Section 3 The Senate may, with a three-fifths vote, extend the time for confirmation by 90 days in order to allow additional inquiry into the fitness of the candidate or in order to permit the Senate to deal with other legislative concerns. Such an extension shall be permitted only one time.

Section 4 The consent of the Senate shall deemed to be given if the Senate fails to reject the nominee within the 180 days mandated under Section 2 of this Article, or within 270 days in the event of an extension of the deadline under Section 3 of this Article.

This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democrat issue. This is an issue of ensuring the proper administration of justice and the filling of judicial vacancies necessary for that purpose.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

Comes from the mouth of a union thug himself.

In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.

Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the cityÂ’s largest municipal union.

Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.

”We’ll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,” Balzano told the council.

Balzano said Saturday he isn’t targeting Boy Scouts. But given the city’s decision in July to lay off 39 SEIU members, Balzano said ”there’s to be no volunteers.” No one except union members may pick up a hoe or shovel, plant a flower or clear a walking path.

Do you see the arrogance literally dripping from Balzano’s words? Citizens have no right to contribute to their community – they merely have the right to pay ever higher taxes in order to make sure the corrupt union bosses like Balzano get their cut from the bloated paychecks of union members.

The time has come for the people of this nation to rise up and insist that there be no more public employee unions, because they clearly are not operating in the public interest. That a union thug like Balzano thinks there will be no consequences to his making such statements is proof of that.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

So I really donÂ’t give a damn if this jihadi pig ever walks again.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused Fort Hood gunman, is paralyzed from the waist down, his lawyer said Friday.

"It appears he won't be able to walk in the future," said Hasan's civilian attorney, retired Army Col. John Galligan.

Hasan also has severe pain in his hands, the attorney said.

HereÂ’s hoping that they lubricate his wheelchair with bacon grease, and that we eventually solve his medical problems via lethal injection. The we can see if his false Allah will cure him when he joins his false prophet in Hell.

Posted by: Greg at 09:28 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

I donÂ’t usually like it when events involving politicians and their staffers results in a change of rules by law enforcement. However, this is a rule change that is long overdue, and which tells the TSA that they have no legitimate grounds to quiz travelers about legal activities.

An angry aide to Rep. Ron Paul, an iPhone and $4,700 in cash have forced the Transportation Security Administration to quietly issue two new rules telling its airport screeners they can only conduct searches related to airplane safety.

* * *

The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers "screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security" and that large amounts of cash don't qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.

"We had been hearing of so many reports of TSA screeners engaging in wide-ranging fishing expeditions for illegal activities," said Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, pointing to reports of officers scanning pill-bottle labels to see whether the passenger was the person who obtained the prescription as one example.

He said screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.

Steve Bierfeldt, the Ron Paul aide in question, was transporting a metal strong box with cash as a part of his duties as head of a Paul-affiliated political group. No illegal activity was alleged, and the only basis for suspicion was that he was carrying the cash. Clearly nothing untoward was going on, but Bierfeldt was still detained and subjected to threats of arrest because he would not explain why he was engaging in the legal activity of carrying the cash.

Frankly, this is in keeping with the experience that I detailed a last spring when my wife and I traveled to visit her dying mother. My mother-in-law gave my wife some old coins, jewelry, and other keepsakes she had accumulated over the years during the visit. While passing through security, my wife and I were extensively quizzed as to why we were carrying the collector coins. In addition, the screener (who had already assaulted my wife in her wheelchair) demanded to know the diagnoses for which my wife had been prescribed certain medications by her neurologist. IÂ’m glad to see these petty goose-steppers reigned in by the government so as to ensure that they do not exceed their lawful mandate.

Posted by: Greg at 09:13 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, you’ve got to hand it to Obama and his Democrat minions – they have managed to forge a new consensus on government run health care. And that consensus is NO, WE DON’T WANT IT!

The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed healthcare debate since Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the healthcare system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in healthcare could or should be this broad.

The meaning of these results is very clear – the American people don’t want what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are selling. And even to the degree that Americans want to ensure that there is some safety net for their fellow citizens in need of medical care that is beyond their means, we are more and more convinced that the proposals coming out of the Democrats fail to address the issue in a manner consistent with our values and wishes.

Posted by: Greg at 08:33 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Could be, according to some numbers crunched by Red State's Moe Lane regarding the House seats seen as competitive next year.

And Lane's analysis of this data? Big GOP gains.

As you can see, there are a lot of Democratic incumbents in districts that typically vote Republican in Presidential elections, and almost no Republican incumbents in districts that vote Democratic. For that matter, something like 72% of the total competitive races are in Republican districtsÂ… which would sound like bad news for the GOP, except that Democratic-held seats make up 75% of both the total and particularly competitive races surveyed by Cook. The midpoint for that list is at R+3; below that point there are 14 GOP districts held by Democrats, and only 7 Democratic ones held by Republicans.

What does that mean, in terms of the 2010 elections? Well, if you assume that every district held by Democrats thatÂ’s at R+4 and above gets flipped, every incumbent between R+3 and D+0 keeps his or her seat, and that every Republican in a Democratic district loses his or her seatÂ… the Democrats lose 31 seats next year. Assume that an incumbent needs to at least break even (i.e., has at least a R or D+0), and the number goes up to 48 seats lost by the Democrats.

As a practical matter, the balance of power would change sharply. With the 31 seat change, we would see the partisan split change from 258 Democrats and 177 Republicans to 227 Democrats and 208 Republicans, which would give Republicans significantly more clout in the House. And if the change goes to the more extreme possibility suggested by Lane, the split nearly reverses, with Republicans holding a 225-210 edge over the Democrats, potentially giving the country a repeat of the 1994 election.

Of course, there is a lot that could happen in the next 12 months, and those events could turn the tables dramatically. But assuming there is not radical shift between now and the 2010 elections, the United States will have a radically different Congress during the second half of Obama's first (and hopefully only) term.

UPDATE: Don Surber points to the possibility of a 6 or 7 seat gain for the GOP in the Senate as well -- not enough for a majority, but certainly enough o allow fo the filibuster of the Obama Agenda.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 844 words, total size 31 kb.

You know -- the people's right to know, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, etc.

Guess it isn't patriotic any more -- at least now that a man who has no understanding of or appreciation for the military is in the Oval Office.

The Obama administration is increasingly exasperated by leaks of national-security-related information and is planning a major effort to root out and punish those responsible, top officials said Thursday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he is “appalled” by a series of leaks surrounding the president’s deliberations about the way forward in Afghanistan and the investigation into last week’s massacre at Fort Hood, Texas.

How long until we see prosecutions and persecutions? And will we see the media turning over names at the demand of the demigod Obama and his minions?

And the Affirmative Action Presidency continues.

H/T Red State

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, illegal immigrants would be covered under this proposal -- a sticking point for conservatives regarding the various incarnations of ObamaCare but a demand for most liberals -- but at least their care would be funded appropriately.

A Democrat congressman from Ohio has introduced innovative legislation that would require foreign countries to reimburse American taxpayers for the exorbitant medical expenses of illegal immigrants.

Appropriately titled, PAYBACK Act (Preventing All Your Bucks from Aiding non-Citizens is Key), the measure would save the U.S. government billions of dollars annually and ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund health care services for illegal immigrants, according to its author, U.S. Representative Zack Space.

Medical bills for illegal aliens would be passed along to their country of origin, according to the proposed law, which was introduced in the House this month. The government would mostly collect by deducting the cost of illegal immigrantsÂ’ healthcare from the foreign aid their home countries would normally get from the U.S.

If the U.S. does not offer foreign assistance the country would get billed for 110% of the medical costs. In the case where illegal immigrants are from nation’s to whom the U.S. owes money, the cost of medically treating their citizens would be reduced from the debt. The money would be applied to strengthening border security. “It is fundamentally unfair and outrageous to foot the bill for immigrants unlawfully in the United States,” said Space, who has represented Ohio’s 18th congressional district since 2007.

Sounds good to me -- send the bill to their country of origin, and require that they pay for the medical care of their citizens who are violating American sovereignty and lw by their mere presence in this country.

Now if they would only add an automatic deportation provision to the plan, it would be perfect. I'm just shocked it is coming from a Democrat.

H/T Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

111,000

That is the number of criminal aliens identified by the federal government by checking data on arrestees in 95 jurisdictions around the country.

Got that -- ONLY 95 JURISDICTIONS

Immigration officials announced today that a fingerprint-based system that screens for suspected illegal immigrants in local jails resulted in the identification of more than 111,000 people classified as “criminal aliens” in its first year.

The Secure Communities program, first launched in October 2008 at the Harris County Jail, uses biometric technology to automatically check the immigration history of all suspects booked into local lockups. The system is now in place in 95 jurisdictions, including Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Jefferson, and Montgomery counties.

The Houston Police Department plans to have the system working in the city jails by the end of the year, city officials said.

Of those, 11,000 were guilty of serious offenses.

And that is just in 95 jurisdictions.

Imagine what will happen when it goes nationwide.

Seems to me that we need to get the machinery of deportation warmed up and in operation -- we need to get rid of an awful lot of those aliens who are simply committing the crimes that Americans won't commit.

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

In 1988, cult leader Fred Phelps was a delegate to the Democrat convention for candidate (later vice president) Al Gore. Over the years, perennial Democrat candidate Phelps has engaged in ever more vile activity in support of his twisted theology. No Republican, and no conservative, has ever embraced him as far as I can tell -- indeed, I can find only condemnation of the Phelps and his family.

So now that the Phred Phlelps Phreaks from his "Westboro Baptist Church" (really a cult composed almost exclusively of his family members) has appeared in front of the ritzy private school attended by the Obama girls and other children of privilege outside of Washington, DC, why are there calls from an anchor from MSNBC for conservatives and Republicans to denounce the protests?

The Westboro Baptist Church is telling the Obama daughters that God is their "enemy."

The Kansas-based far-right church known for its outrageous choices of protest venues picketed outside the private school attended by first daughters Sasha and Malia Obama on Monday morning, and in the process got embroiled in an angry war of words with an MSNBC anchor.

* * *

MSNBC anchor David Shuster described Monday's Westboro church protest as "beyond the pale."

"Hopefully, some of the more rational conservatives/Republicans will condemn this stuff today," he wrote on his Twitter account.

Good grief, even the hacks at Raw Story recognize that these folks are not considered acceptable by those of us on the right -- why can't a supposedly responsible journalist like Shuster?

And, of course, moonbats on the Left have jumped on the Shuster bandwagon.

But interestingly enough, there was silence from the Left when mainstream anti-war liberals engaged in precisely such tactics directed against the children of US military personnel invited to the White House. But then again, Code Pink has been doing such things for years without condemnation from liberals, so why should we expect outrage now at the targeting of children by this mainstream liberal group? Why should we expect an Obama shill like David Shuster to condemn such vile protests, even though he expects conservatives and Republicans to condemn the Westboro cult even after years of such condemnations?

And by the way -- I have long condemned Fred Phelps and his wicked anti-Christ family. Nothing has changed since the last time, except, perhaps, that my revulsion for the group continues to deepen.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

As pointed out by retired Col. Alan West, Nidal Hasan is only the latest home-grown jihadi to attack American troops.

We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding OfficerÂ’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target.
What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing.

And, of course, we could add a great many other terrorist incidents involving Muslims in this country. It wasn’t that long ago that I cataloged several stories that had appeared in the space of 24 hours about newly-convicted jihadis in various parts of the country. A recent investigation spanned the continent from Colorado to New York City, with charges brought against multiple participants. Indeed, we can expect multiple stories each month about would-be terrorists within our country seeking to aid the Islamist cause. Yet somehow, every time, there is a collective expression of shock every time such a story appears, with pious intonations of the P.C. mantra that such individuals are not representative of Islam as a whole and that we must not ask if there is something malignant in Islam that accounts for these cases – even when the perpetrators themselves clearly state that their motivation is their Islamic faith.

Am I saying that all Muslims are terrorists? No, I am not. Am I saying there are no odd ducks in the Christian (or Jewish or Buddhist or . . .) community that act violently and claim a religious justification for their misdeeds? Again, I am not.

But the reality is that there appears to be a higher proportion of such individuals among Muslims, and their propensity towards religiously motivated violence seems to be drawn from the same passages of the Qu’ran and oriented towards the same goal of establishing Islamic supremacy. Doesn’t prudence require that we acknowledge that reality and that our government look more closely at Muslim institutions – whether charities, political organizations, or houses of worship – in attempting to prevent such acts of terror from occurring on our own soil? And does it not require that we investigate more closely those in the Muslim community who have expressed some sympathy with the cause of jihad and those who engage in such religiously motivated violence?

It is now common knowledge that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, like so many of radical Muslims, publicly professed belief in acts of violence against those who Islam defines as infidels. We know that Hasan, like so many radical Muslims, expressed the view that the war on terrorism is in fact a war on Islam. We know that the FBI was aware that Hasan was trying to connect with al-Qaeda. Indeed, there were plenty of signs that Major Hasan was going to “go Muslim” (or, more accurately, “go jihadi”) against his fellow Americans. And yet even now, after the fact, it seems that too many folks in positions of authority would prefer to gloss over that fact and instead express concern for members of the Muslim community rather than the victims of this latest attack and the potential victims of future attacks by radicalised Muslims.

Again, this is not an attack on Muslims as a group. Most are loyal, and the contributions of Muslims in the military and law enforcement are often exemplary. But respect for good Muslims and a desire to embrace the full diversity of our society cannot outweigh the need to provide for security of all. We cannot look away from the problem out of fear of failing to appear “sensitive” enough to a minority religion in our midst. Any other response is nuts.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 690 words, total size 6 kb.

No one favors abuse of the elderly. But when the clear purpose of a statute is twisted to provide special protection that would be unavailable for all, we have a serious constitutional issue.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A judge has ordered animal-rights activists to keep their distance from a 75-year-old furrier because state law protects the businessman from elder abuse by shouting profanities.

Horst Grimm, the owner of Nicholas Ungar Furs, won an order Wednesday requiring four anti-fur activists to stay at least 50 feet away from Grimm and 15 feet away from his downtown Portland store.

Attorneys in the case believe it was the first time state laws to protect the elderly have been used to limit free speech.

Clackamas County Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Jones said both sides presented reasonable arguments. But he said the level of profanity that protesters directed at Grimm clearly violated state law.

The Oregon elder-abuse law prohibits using derogatory names, harassment, coercion, threats, cursing, or intimidation that threatens significant physical or emotional harm to elderly or disabled people.

But wait – aren’t such laws designed to protect the elderly from abuse related to their age and dependency? If so, then this law is clearly being misused here to stop social/political protest that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment – and in doing so does violence not only to the free speech provision of the Constitution, but to the very concept of equal protection of the law as well. After all, younger furriers would not be able to avail themselves of protection from similar abusive treatment by protesters out to destroy their businesses.

That is not to say that I side with the harassers. Surely there are other laws that could be applied here – laws against disorderly conduct, stalking, and harassment that are laws of general application. And if there are not, then it is the province of the Oregon legislature to pass such laws, not of the courts to create novel interpretations of existing statutes to solve a problem that those laws were not designed to address.

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Over anti-gay slurs.

The Chiefs released running back Larry Johnson on Monday, his first day back from a two-week suspension for conduct detrimental to the team.
Johnson called out coach Todd Haley two weeks ago in a Twitter post before using a pair of gay slurs on his Twitter profile and, a day later, to a group of reporters. He missed SundayÂ’s game at Jacksonville, and the suspension cost him about $330,000. He also ended his Chiefs career 74 yards short of the franchise rushing record, set by Priest Holmes.

Now there is plenty of room to argue about whether or not this is the right move for the Kansas City Chiefs organization to make. After all, there are PR and other considerations that go into such a decision, in addition to the on-field issues.

But IÂ’m still mighty disturbed by the decision.

After all, the team and the league were willing to keep him on the payroll when he had earlier issues involving his conduct.

Johnson has been arrested four times since 2003 on various assault charges against women. In 2003, he was arrested for felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor domestic battery for waving a gun at his then-girlfriend, during an argument at his home. The charges were dropped when Johnson agreed to participate in a domestic violence diversion program. In 2005, he was again arrested for assault when a woman accused Johnson of pushing her to the ground, but the case was dropped after the alleged victim failed to appear in court for three different hearings.

His third arrest for assault came on February 24, 2008, after allegedly pushing a woman's head at a nightclub on February 24. On October 10, 2008, Johnson was arrested for the fourth time and charged with one count of non-aggravated assault for allegedly spitting a drink in a woman's face at a Kansas City nightclub on Oct. 11. The woman involved, Ashley Stewart, has since filed a civil suit against Johnson, accusing him of negligence, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In other words, it is acceptable in the NFL for a player to engage in repeated physical assaults against women – acts which are criminal in nature. On the other hand, the uttering (or typing) of the wrong word will end your career if it offends the wrong political pressure group.

But then again, we already knew that – just ask Rush Limbaugh.

I guess it is all just a matter of priorities.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

Some see a contradiction between this report on Ft. Hood murderer Major Nidal Hasan and the picture of the man as a devout Muslim.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan came into the Starz strip club not far from the base at least three times in the past month, the club's general manager, Matthew Jones, told FoxNews.com. Army investigators building their case against Hasan plan to interview Jones soon.

* * *

Hasan's presence at the club paints a starkly different portrait of the alleged killer from that offered by his imam and family members, who have described him as a devout Muslim, and one who had difficulty finding a wife who would wear a head scarf and would pray five times a day.

But is that really at odds with what we know about other devout Muslims who have engaged in acts of jihad against America? I donÂ’t think so. After all, the 9/11 hijackers had a taste for strip clubs and strippers as well.

Call it getting a preview of the promised 72 virgins.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Council Submissions

• First place with 1 2/3 points! – The Glittering Eye - WhatÂ’s A Foreseeable Rate of Taxation?


• Second place with 1 point – (T*) – Joshuapundit - Conservatives Win In NY 23
• Second place with 1 point – (T*) – The Provocateur - Interview With Wade Rathke II


• Second place with 1 point – (T*) – Bookworm Room - Do They Even Listen to Themselves?
• Second place with 1 point – (T*) – Right Truth - Half of all U.S. children will be on food stamps according to study


• Second place with 1 point – (T*) – The Razor - Laws Need Limits
• Second place with 1 point – (T*) – The Colossus of Rhodey - Once again, the Democrats back vote fraud


• Third place with 1/3 points – Mere Rhetoric - The Omri Ceren Show – 2pm PST – Barry Rubin On LebanonÂ’s Crisis And Ours

Non-Council Submissions

• First place with 2 1/3 points! – Black & Right - Comment of the Day


• Second place with 1 2/3 points – The Boston Globe - IslamÂ’s Darwin problem
• Third place with 1 1/3 points – (T*) – E. D. Kain–American Tory - NothingÂ’s ever certain except race and taxes


• Third place with 1 1/3 points – (T*) – Sense of Events - Is Obama a milleniarian without a plan? Does he even need one?
• Fourth place with 1 point – Michael J. Gaynor at Web Commentary - ACORN 8 Supporter Tries to Disparage Michelle Malkin and Anita MonCrief in Halloween Hit Piece


• Fifth place with 2/3 points – New Ledger - George Soros Assautl on the Free Market
• Sixth place with 1/3 points – Big Government - The Public Option Deception

Posted by: Greg at 02:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 5 kb.

Winning Council Submissions

• First place with 1 2/3 points! – Joshuapundit - J Street – A Particularly Nasty Dead End To Be Avoided
• Second place with 1 1/3 point – Bookworm Room - The march of the thought police


• Third place with 1 point – (T*) – The Glittering Eye - Are We Promoting Our Grand Strategy?
• Third place with 1 point – (T*) – Mere Rhetoric - Lefty Meme Congeals: The Real War Is In Pakistan Not Afghanistan


• Fourth place with 1/3 point – Rhymes With Right - And To Think The Average Income Of American Families Dropped By 3.6%

Winning Council Submissions

• First place with 2 points! – JammieWearingFool - Why Is GE Exempt From Government-Ordered Pay Cuts?


• Second place with 1 1/3 point – The Augean Stables - Investigate the investigators: A time to rebuke Goldstone
• Third place with 1 point – Riehl World View - Exclusive: How The NRCC Bungled NY – 23


• Fourth place with 2/3 point – (T*) – Thomas Sowell at Real Clear Politics - Dismantling America
• Fourth place with 2/3 point – (T*) – Daniel W. Drezner - Theory of International Politics and Zombies


• Fifth place with 1/3 point – (T*) – Mercury News - Racial Skirmishes in our Own House
• Fifth place with 1/3 point – (T*) – GMÂ’s Place - Splitting: Fox News and the White House


• Fifth place with 1/3 point – (T*) – The Tygrrrr Express - Why not just kill all conservatives?

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 5 kb.

Sometimes one just needs to get away from the grind. This absence wasn't one of those.

Sometimes personal considerations just pile up and take priority. To a degree, that was the case here.

And sometimes you are just too sick to do anything other than the minimum needed to get through one's daily life. That was the major issue here.

After a long fight against a nasty sinus infection whole trying to work, run an election, and deal with my personal life, I finally feel up to sitting in front of a computer and posting something on the internet. So expect some commentary on recent events to trickle out over the next few hours and days as I get my strength back.

Posted by: Greg at 03:44 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.