Justice Anthony Kennedy LOVES child rapists. Anyone want to guess Justice Kennedy's position on this new law signed yesterday by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal?

SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.

Of course, the chemical castration is not mandatory for the convicts. They may choose to be surgically castrated if they don't want to take the drugs.

I'm pretty sure that Justice Kennedy isn't going to like that at all, Neither will the pedophile-cuddling editors of the New York Times, who have never met a child molester (outside the Catholic clergy) who they didn't like.

And remember folks -- even though Barack Obama says he opposes the decision, he has promised to appoint more justices like the ones in the majority.

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

The McCain campaign has a field day with Barack Obama's opposition to every effort towards alternative energy.

But don't worry -- Barack Obama is prepared to force you to lower your standard of living by increasing taxes on gasoline, thereby raising the price you pay at the pump! After all, he is a typical Democrat -- like these in Virginia.

And remember the words of Michelle Obama -- Barack Obama never allow you to go back to your lives as usual.

Let's not give him that chance.

A vote for McCain is a vote for energy independence.

Posted by: Greg at 01:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Given my support of a lawsuit regarding the release of school district/state run teacher background checks to the public, it might surprise you that I am all in favor of the public being able to do background checks on individuals in their lives. It mainly boiled down to a question of what information could and could not be released – and whether the bar of privacy would be lowered to too great a degree.

But I do believe that we should be able to look into the public information available about those with whom we begin to have some sort of intimate association, whether they are employees, romantic interests, babysitters, teachers, or the parents of children’s playmates. That is where services like those offered at http://www.sentrylink.com are a valuable thing in my book. They allow you to do a Background Check about individuals who have the ability to get inside our normal defenses. They can run a Criminal Background Check for you, just to make sure that you, your family, or your business are not open to any undue risks. Such a Criminal Check will enable you to get access quickly and easily to publicly available information that you might not have the time or knowledge to access. That is not an intrusion into anyone’s privacy – it is actually a prudent step on the part of a wise, safety conscious individual to check out the public domain information to help ensure that you are not being taken in by a dangerous individual.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

One of the stylistic features I have always loved when it comes to interior design is metal work -- especially metal wall art. At Wall Decor and Home Accents, they have a great selection of metal wall art at affordable prices Their site is well-organized and easy to search for just the item you would like, whether you want wall wine racks or a decorative metal wall cross. They also have non-metal wall art as well, including a wonderful selection of architectural pieces.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

But not really bipartisan when Democrats vote in a direction that liberals define as conservative.

A White House-backed spy bill to protect telecommunication companies from billions of dollars in possible privacy lawsuits passed a Senate test vote on Wednesday and headed toward final congressional approval.

On a vote of 80-15, mostly Republican supporters of the bipartisan measure, which would also implement the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. spy laws in decades, easily mustered the 60 needed to clear a Democratic procedural roadblock.

As Ed Morrissey points out over at Hot Air, 48 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted for cloture, while 15 Democrats voted against it. Why is the cloture vote therefore labeled as "mostly Republican", even though Democrats voted 2-1 for cloture and supplied some 40% of the votes for the motion?

But on a more important note, this means the bill will be voted on (and presumably passed) on Friday, and that it should be in the hands of President Bush for his signature by next week.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

For the second time this month, US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has written an opinion which says it doesn't matter what the political branches of government or the US Constitution have to say on a matter -- the Supreme Court knows better and will impose its will on the people of the United States.

The first time was in granting habeas corpus rights to terrorist detainees, despite Congress having acted under its authority in Article III of the Constitution to strip the Supreme Court of any jurisdiction is such cases.

This time it is in a decision that decrees that the sense of the Supreme Court will be the basis for determining when the death penalty may be imposed, not the laws of the states or the US Constitution -- and that the "evolving standard" on the death penalty can only move towards greater restrictions on capital punishment, not the other direction -- and that the rape of an eight-year old is not a sufficiently serious crime to merit the ultimate sanction.

The U.S. Supreme Court made it illegal to execute persons convicted of child-rape in a 5-4 decision Wednesday.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion. The ruling broke on party lines, the liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer siding with Kennedy.

In their decision, the liberal justices ruled that a Louisiana law that sent 43 year-old man named Patrick Kennedy to death row in 2003 for raping his 8-year old stepdaughter was “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The utter constitutional, legal, and moral depravity of Justice Kennedy in this ruling is clear to see for anyone who reads the majority opinion and the dissent. Indeed, Kennedy expresses more concern with the dignity of the child-raping scumbag than he does for the innocent eight-year-old victim in this case.

In his dissent, Justice Alito shreds Kennedy's arguments, ending his analysis of the flaws of the majority opinion with this conclusion.

In summary, the Court holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically rules out the death penalty in even the most extreme cases of child rape even though: (1) This holding is not supported by the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (2) neither Coker nor any other prior precedent commands this result; (3) there are no reliable"objective indicia" of a "national consensus" in support of the CourtÂ’s position; (4) sustaining the constitutionality of the state law before us would not "extend" or "expand" the death penalty; (5) this Court has previously rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment is a one-way ratchet that prohibits legislatures from adopting new capital punishment statutes to meet new problems; (6) the worst child rapists exhibit the epitome of moral depravity; and (7) child rape inflicts grievous injury on victims and on society in general.

Indeed, as in the recent case granting terrorists outside the United States access to federal courts, Kennedy again twists precedent, law, and fact to fit a pre-determined conclusion at odds with all three. This must stop -- and it must stop now.

The American people are really quite outragedabout this. National Review Online analyzes this decision's wrongness. Rush notes the same attitude on Kennedy's part that I did above.

[W]e just have the court deciding, "We're going to decide these political issues. We're going to decide these things." We don't even need a Congress, anymore. We don't even need a president. We'll just take you all of our controversial issues, submit them to the lawyers [and] the Supreme Court decides, and that's it because that's what it has become.

In the United States,Congress has rarely exercised its power to impeach and remove a sitting federal judge. Furthermore, it has been over two centuries since Congress impeached a Supreme Court justice, and in that case the Senate refused to remove him. Even more importantly, mere disagreement with Supreme Court rulings has not been held to be an appropriate cause for impeachment.

Those things noted, I return to the ultimate authority in this case -- the United States Constitution. Article II, Section 4 speaks to the matter as follows.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors.

Furthermore, Article III states that judges (including Supreme Court Justices) shall hold their office during good behavior.

This brings me back to the point at hand -- in these two rulings, Justice Kennedy has demonstrated bad behavior. In both cases, he has placed himself and the Supreme Court above previous court precedent, the laws duly enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and the Constitution itself. As such, he has exceeded his authority in office and promulgated lawless decisions and attempted to make them binding upon the people of the United States and their elected representatives. This is malfeasance in office, pure and simple, engaged in under color of law and authority.

I'd like to urge one or more members of the House of Representatives to file motions for impeachment against Anthony Kennedy. Put each and every Congressman on record right now, four and one-half months before the next election -- do they support allowing the Supreme Court to impose their own extra-constitutional standard rather than that set by the Constitution and the laws enacted by the United States and the several states.

Now some may challenge me, raising the spectre of billboards from decades past urging Congress to "Impeach Earl Warren". The difference here is that while many of the opinions of the Warren Court were controversial and unpopular, it was difficult to argue that they were not grounded in the Constitution -- indeed, the roots of those decisions were buried in the fertile loam that is the text of that guiding document. The same cannot be said of these two most recent judicial monstrosities brought forth by Anthony Kennedy.

I sincerely doubt that the Senate would vote to remove Anthony Kennedy if the House adopted articles of impeachment against the him, but the precedent would serve as a powerful warning against such naked judicial activism.

And in addition, there is a course of action which should be followed by in every state as a result of this ruling. Every state legislature should pass, and every governor should sign, legislation imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child. If even half manage to accomplish this task, it would establish a strong national consensus in favor of the view that "the evolving standards of decency" hold that child rape is viewed by our society as meriting death. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has already vowed to resist this decision.

Oh, and for those of you curious, here is what Justice Kennedy argues does not merit capital punishment in today's ruling. more...

Posted by: Greg at 08:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 2725 words, total size 22 kb.

Now he's dumping Scarlett Johansson!

She said the pair of them had an email relationship.

He says not.

She said Obama had responded to one note about a debate, commenting to her that the questions were "silly."

But speaking to reporters aboard his campaign plane, Obama said the actress doesn't have his personal email address. "She sent one email to Reggie, who forwarded it to me," Obama said, referring to his 26-year-old personal assistant, Reggie Love. "I write saying, 'thank you Scarlett for doing what you do,' and suddenly we have this email relationship"

The Obamateur just lost major cool points. And after all, since he is seeking to be the first second black president (remember, we were told Bill Clinton was the first) despite his utter lack of qualifications for the job, he needs to show America that he at least has the good judgment to do the job.

Take a good look at the decision here, folks. Does it really show good judgment?

On the other hand, I think this shows much better judgment.

Any questions?

H/T Ace

Posted by: Greg at 06:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 2 kb.

Will the "Texas Two-Step" bite the Texas Democrats in the ass?

A local Hillary Clinton supporter has filed a challenge to Texas delegates elected to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Fort Worth lawyer Jason Smith sent a credentials challenge to the Democratic National CommitteeÂ’s rules and bylaws panel last week alleging that the makeup of the Texas delegation is invalid.

The Texas Democratic Party allocated its delegates based partly on the results of the March 4 primary and partly on the results of precinct caucuses held statewide that evening.

That arrangement is counter to a DNC rule that delegate selection must "fairly reflect" the presidential preference of primary voters, Smith said.

So tell me -- with Hillary winning at the polls here in Texas, how does awarding the her 94 delegates while the Obamessiah got 99 delegates begin to "fairly reflect" the preferences of the primary voters?

Simply put, it doesn't -- especially given some of the shenanigans pulled by Obama supporters at precinct caucuses and senatorial district conventions. Seems o me the best solution would be to refuse to seat those delegates chosen through the caucus process, and seat only those reflecting the vote on primary day.

And they already have a precedent -- the stripping of delegates from Florida and Michigan over procedural issues.

Posted by: Greg at 06:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

They always say that the two most dangerous spots in Washington are:

1. Between Chuck Schumer and a microphone; and
   
2. Between Chuck Schumer and a photo op.

NOTE: Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski (center, crushed between the two senators from New York) was not injured in the course of this photo op.

I was also struck by this bit of information in the article about Hillary!'s return to the Senate.

Also yesterday, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a triumphant return to the Senate, where she was greeted by a large group of female interns and exchanged hugs with Democrats.

Hmmm...

"Greeted by a large group of female interns."

Isn't that where a lot of Bill Clinton's problems started?

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess old Ralph thinks Obama should be wearin' a doo-rag and talkin' Ebonics, homey.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

"Talking white?"

Could you imagine if some conservative argued that Obama was some sort of Oreo trying to make himself palatable to white voters by rejecting his blackness? How on earth does Nader get away with this stuff?

On the other hand, we've seen seen that the only difference between Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis is that the latter two were more qualified for the presidency when nominated than Obama is -- and yeah, that he is half African (not African-American -- in the interest of accuracy we have to remember that his father was Kenyan). But it is really just the same old liberalism, repackaged to sell Hopey McChangerson to the American public.

By the way -- I love how Ralph nader attempts to set himself up as the arbiter of authentic blackness.

"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

WTF, Ralph? I'm an anti-Obama conservative, and I find that crap to be offensive. And for what its worth, Ralph, as a Republican descendant of a Union Civil War veteran and having been born a century after the issuance of the Emancipation proclamation, I don't feel any sort of "white guilt".

On a related note, rumor has it that Nader will soon announce his selection of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd as his vice presidential running mate this year.

More At Hot Air, OTB, Protein Wisdom, Suitably Flip

Posted by: Greg at 04:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

From my perspective, there is no way that Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana can avoid vetoing this pay raise for the Louisiana Legislature.

The reformist image of Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered by Republicans a top potential vice-presidential choice, has recently taken a beating after Mr. Jindal refused to veto a sizable pay increase that Louisiana legislators voted for themselves this month.

The increase would more than double the salary of the part-time legislators effective July 8, to $37,500 from $16,800, with considerably more money available once expenses are added in. It has touched a nerve in this impoverished state.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't find that increased legislative salary of $37,500 to be all that outrageous (although a 123% pay raise is galling) -- though I am unsure whether or not the legislature is a year-round entity or only a part time, limited session institution like we have here in Texas. But when you add in the per diem and benefits, this looks really bad. And due to a promise during the campaign, Jindal finds himself in something of a bind on this one.

More confounding to many citizens here than the action by the lawmakers is the inaction of Governor Jindal, who came into office this year with promises to overhaul LouisianaÂ’s reputation for dubious ethics.

During his election campaign, he vowed to prohibit legislative pay raises. Once elected, he quickly pushed through a package of measures increasing the LegislatureÂ’s transparency and stamping out conflicts of interest, basking in the subsequent glow of his image as a youthful Ivy League reformer doing battle in a shady subtropical outpost.

Governor, less than six months ago you were saying that you would veto pay raises. Why haven't you done so on this one? I could understand letting one slide through after you have cleaned up Louisiana government, but you still have a long way to go to accomplish that end.

And if you are afraid that a veto would doom the rest of your legislative agenda, then use the bully pulpit provided you by your office to make the case for that agenda with the people directly. After all, they responded to your ambitious reform agenda during the election -- they can pressure the legislators to do what is correct, not what is personally profitable. Indeed, a string of governors whose leadership failed (or who were as corrupt as the legislature) is precisely why your state is in the mess that it is.

And Governor, this isn't just an issue for the people of Louisiana. For many of us among the GOP base, you have been seen as a great hope for our party's future, and we have been backing you for five or six years, going back to your first run for governor. Your failure to stand strong here will not only damage your effectiveness as a leader and your ability to bring about reform in your state, but also your ability to be that leader for the future that our party needs.

Stand strong, Bobby Jindal -- wield that veto pen like a sword, and then be prepared to get down into the mud and wrestle with the corrupt alligators in the legislature. You can do it -- and you will have the support of the people who elected you AND Republicans nationwide.

And remember, the people might well support you in recalling some of the recalcitrant legislators, Bobby -- or they might recall you if you don't do the right thing here.

UPDATE: Some movement?

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm a member of one of the other teacher organizations here in Texas (we don't have unions per se, and are a right-to-work state), but I am thankful that the ATPE has filed this suit to keep the results of teacher background checks from becoming subject to release under the state's public records laws. Indeed, I'm surprised that the other groups didn't file it along with them.

The Association of Texas Professional Educators filed suit Monday against the Texas attorney general's office and Austin school district to prevent the disclosure of information about the criminal histories of school employees.

Earlier this year, Austin teachers and certain other employees were required by a new state law to submit to fingerprints for national background checks. The suit, filed in Travis County district court, is the latest legal twist in the case of media outlets gathering information under the Texas Public Information Act on what the checks found.

The district said the attorney general's office has ruled that some information that could be used to identify specific employees is public. But the educators group, which represents 112,000 members statewide, says releasing such information could violate privacy rights. The group is fighting to keep identifying information, such as dates of birth, confidential, although the district says as of yet, no media outlets have requested that sort of information.

This isn't a question of "having something to hide", folks. It is a question of having our personal privacy respected to the same degree as our fellow citizens. And the format in which the data was going to be released has the potential to reveal personal information, especially in smaller schools and districts.

And that brings up the larger question. Does the public really have a right to know that a local third grade teacher has a misdemeanor conviction for writing a bad check when she was 19? How about that the local football coach was cited for public intoxication when he was a junior in college? Or what's worse -- what about the teacher who was arrested on suspicion of something or other, but never charged or convicted because they were not guilty? These are lives and reputations we are talking about here -- and matters unrelated to the safety of children.

I hope this is enough to make you understand why so many of my colleagues leave the field with a sense that they are disrespected -- and why so many young people won't consider teaching at all. Low pay, low respect, low support from parents -- and now you want to strip us of our privacy, too? You're going to need to do a lot better in the salary and working condition departments if you are going to do that to us, my friends.

Oh, and for the record -- I've never been arrested or convicted of anything, so I really don't have anything to hide. I don't mind proving that to my district. I do, however, object to having less privacy than other members of the public at large.

Posted by: Greg at 06:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.

Congresswoman Laura Richardson is sort of the gift that keeps on giving.

The latest on the triple-default, single-foreclosure Democratic congresswoman from Long Beach: "Rep. Laura Richardson initially failed to disclose economic interests -- including a loan from a strip club owner -- when she served on the Long Beach City Council, public records show," the Long Beach Press-Telegram reports.

From the Press-Telegram: the loan in question was for $20,000, in 2000, and came from a family trust controlled by Jerry Westlund, who owns the Fantasy Castle strip club in Signal Hill and 13 other strip clubs in seven states. Two years later, Richardson -- who had not yet disclosed the loan -- voted with the council to place Westlund's father on the city's board of examiners. She eventually disclosed the loan in 2004.

It gets more complicated: Westlund tells the newspaper that the 60-month loan, at 15.5% interest, was made to Richardson and her then-husband, Long Beach Police Chief Anthony Batts, but Batts strongly disputes that, and the newspaper reports that only Richardson's name is on public records of the loan.

Now here's the interesting twist -- the loan wasn't called in by Westlund until 2005. Why so long? Well, it seems that the Long Beach police started to raid his business establishment.

What does that say to you, folks?

Am I the only one who thinks that Richardson needs a full rectal exam by both state and federal law enforcement authorities seeking evidence of official corruption?

Too bad the California GOP doesn't even have a candidate running against her this fall.

Posted by: Greg at 06:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Don't you love it when all you have to do is roll tape of your opponent to show why he is unfit for office?

(H/T Hot Air)

Barack repeatedly said he would take public financing. His party is suing John McCain to try to force him to do the same for the primaries. But Barack Obama is now going to chuck that system out the window because it is to his advantage to do so.

Not, mind you, that I support public financing. I don't. But once Obama made the commitment, it seems he is morally obligated to stick with it -- unless the "Change" he is for is changing his own mind.

I do wish, though, that The McCain campaign had used one of the following for background music.

Posted by: Greg at 06:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 2 kb.

There are certain laws that apply to public health -- and when a community group is giving out food in a manner that violates the rules, it should be shut down. Last year there was a food poisoning outbreak in Odessa when the rules weren't enforced, but there is an even bigger uproar now that they are being enforced.

Leaders of the Black Cultural Council say volunteers and the black community felt "humiliated" after two health department food inspectors threatened to put a stop to a Juneteenth celebration over questions about food preparation for 600 free barbecue sandwiches.

Council President Jo Ann Davenport-Littleton said health inspectors told them it was illegal for the group to serve the sandwiches because they were not prepared at the site where they were served.

Gino Solla, the county's top health official, said state law prohibits any food service operation from having food prepared in a private home for public consumption.

"I hate that it happened," Davenport-Littleton said in a story for today's edition of the Odessa American. "I wanted people to go away talking about how great the celebration was this year. All you heard was 'They were going to deny us barbecue. Here we are in modern-day slavery again.' "

I wonder what Jo Ann Davenport-Littlebrain would have said if she and the folks she were feeding got a little modern-day food poisoning?

My guess is Davenport-Littlebrain would be complaining that the health inspectors didn't enforce state health regulations -- based upon their racism, of course.

And when Davenport-Littlebrain and her group got sued and faced a big damage award to those made ill by the tainted food, she would probably argue that the equal application of the law was another case of modern-day slavery.

In other words, Davenport-Littlebrain is part of a long line of grievance-mongers, poverty-pimps, and race-hos who insist upon making even the most neutral of actions an example of insidious racism.

More at Urban Grounds, Malkin.

Posted by: Greg at 05:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

If you are like me, you enjoy watching a good game. In my case, I love football, and enjoy discussing the game. I even blog about the NFL in season. Well, if you are interested in getting some free nfl picks or baseball picks, check out addictsports.com. I know I will when I'm looking for free football picks.

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

She's willing to stand up for what's right for America -- and isn't one of those NIMBY creeps like Teddy Kennedy who is unwilling to have a little personal inconvenience in order to make this country energy independent.

In a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and key members of Congress, Governor Palin stressed the need to enact an energy policy that includes oil and gas production from domestic sources, since failure to enact a sound energy policy is having real-life consequences. The Governor reminded members of Congress that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres. She also assured members that any development would be conducted in a responsible and environmentally safe manner.

Bravo, Governor -- especially for the statistic cited in your letter that the area of drilling would be less than 1/4 the size of Dulles Airport. Or to use a different yardstick, the area is 80% the size of Boston's Logan International Airport in an area nearly three times the size of Massachusetts! In other words, the footprint of the development is miniscule.

Does this help Palin's case to be the GOP VP nominee, or does it hurt it? I'm not sure. On the one hand, it does show her to be a ballsy politician willing to take a stand. On the other hand, John McCain doesn't support drilling in ANWR. In the end, though, I don't think she is a serious candidate right now.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin as a GOP candidate for president in 2012 or 2016? I could see it -- and think that any ticket composed of her and Bobby Jindal would be a winner.

UPDATE: Great interview with Gov. Palin by Larry Kudlow.

Kudlow: Why don’t we just liberate, and decontrol, and deregulate the whole bloody energy business – whether it’s oil, gas, shale, nuclear, coal, natural gas, as well as wind and solar – why don’t we just decontrol, deregulate, go for an America first energy policy? Get independent of Saudi Arabia? America first. Create all of these millions of high paying jobs. Why isn’t anybody talking about that in this race? That’s the natural, Reaganesque thing to do. Isn’t it?

Palin: Yeah absolutely! YouÂ’re hitting the nail right on the head. ThatÂ’s what so many of us normal Americans are asking. The same thing. Why arenÂ’t the candidates talking like that? Where we can secure America and we can be more independent when we talk about energy sources if we could drill domestically.

Here we sent [Energy] Secretary Bodman overseas the other day, and our president had to visit the Saudis a few weeks ago, to ask them to ramp up development. ThatÂ’s nonsense. Not when you know that we have the supplies here. You have the supplies in your sister state called Alaska, where weÂ’re ready, willing and weÂ’re able to pump these supplies of energy, flow them into hungry markets across the U.S. We want it to happen. ItÂ’s Congress holding us back.

A real plan for American energy independence. Go Sarah!

H/T Hot Air, STACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.

John Rosenberg over at Discriminations makes some pointed observations about Barack Obama.

Barack Obama

• opposes school vouchers for poor families but sends his own children to a private school;

• supports “campaign finance reform” but opts out of public financing since he can raise more money privately under the old, presumably corrupt system;

• attests to the centrality of his religious experience in shaping his identity but regards others, who are less privileged and culturally and politically different, as “clinging” to religion;

• promises an end to bitter partisanship even though his own record (what there is of it) is one of the most partisan in the Senate and his opponentÂ’s is one of the most bi-partisan;

• promises to transcend race even though he a) married, sat passively for 20 years in the pews of, and raised his children in a church led by and permeated with a militant afro-centrism that often found expression in parnoid (they invented AIDS to kill us), anti-white (“greedy whites” etc.), hatred of America (AmeriKKKa, etc.), and b) continues to support government programs that benefit some and burden others because of their race.

• claims to face the future “with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations” while, several lines later in the same speech, claiming that his own nomination will be regarded in the future as “the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless Â… the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to healÂ….”

It seems though, that John is "struggling" for the proper word to apply to the Obamessiah, given all these contradictions.

I've got my suggestion -- anybody want to contribute one of their own?

Posted by: Greg at 07:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

That will certainly be acceptable to the anti-gunners supporting this legislation.

Legislation that would make it illegal for holders of a New Jersey handgun-purchaser permit to buy more than one firearm during any calendar month is going before the state assembly on Monday, June 23.

"There's no good reason why anyone would need to purchase large quantities of handguns all at the same time," said Assemblywoman Joan M. Quigley (D-32nd District), a sponsor of Assembly Bill 339, in a news release. "Criminal applications or unrecorded resale are the obvious implications of purchasing handguns in bulk."

Quigley added that passage of the measure -- a similar version of which was approved by the Assembly last year but failed in the state Senate -- "would help curtail gun access by criminal street gangs."

Well, other than that little Bill of Rights thing, they may have a point.

So let's apply their reasoning to the amendment just prior to the one thy seek to undermine.

Let's pass legislation limiting the number of issues any periodical can publish to one per calendar month. Let's similarly limit the number of articles any writer can have published to one a month. Prayer and attendance at religious service. Only once every 20 days. Ditto petitioning the government or engaging in peaceable assembly. After all, there's no good reason anyone would need to write, publish, pray, worship, petition, or assemble all at the same time. Limiting them to one expressive activity each month is therefore a reasonable way of achieving order in our society and preventing the irresponsible exercise of rights by those with nefarious purposes.

Unless, of course, one wishes to be exercise the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them free from interference by the government that is supposed to serve them rather than control them. But then again, limitng the ownership of firearms will certainly make it possible for the servant to become the master -- which is the ultimate goal of the sort of statists who seek to limit or eliminate gun ownership.

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

I've actually ignored MoveOn.org's "Baby Alex" ad, and hadn't thought to comment on it. After all, after being raised by his emasculating mother, lacking any strong male presence as a string of sex partners move in and out of baby-mama's bedroom, I've no doubt that Baby Alex will be wearing mini-skirts and open-towed pumps, saving his cash for sex-change surgery once he finishes his stint in drug rehab -- in other words, the Corps will be even less interested in Alex than he will be in the Corps.

But Bill Kristol's piece today makes an important point about the ad -- and the philosophy behind it.

Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And weÂ’re not entering any such world.

We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he wonÂ’t be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.

But thatÂ’s not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.

The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.

And the sole responsibility of others.

So the ad is not merely a dishonest distortion of John McCain's support for a post-war agreement for a US presence in the Middle East (much like our current arrangements in German, Japan, and Korea). It is an attack on the soldiers who serve and the fitness of the parents who "allow" their adult children to do so.

Which is why I am pleased that Kristol quotes one of my favorite bloggers, Beth from Blue Star Chronicles, who writes movingly of her feelings regarding her son, his service to our country, and the ad that defames both her and her son. I'd like to share her words, in a somewhat longer excerpt that used in the column.

As a mother, I have learned that I have to let my children grow up and make their choices in life, just as I made mine. I respect the choices my children have made and I support them 100%. I am proud of my son. His deployment changed him, but mostly in good ways. He is definitely a man now. He has a self-confidence and personal strength he never had before. That doesnÂ’t mean I wanted him to go to Iraq. It just means that I understand that at some point a mother has to stand aside and allow her son to become a man.

I would rather do it than send my son to do it, but thatÂ’s not how it works. People like moveon.org would rather we surrender and appease than stand up to danger. By doing that, they put our sons in more danger.

Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. SomeoneÂ’s son, somewhere. This commercial makes me angry. What she is saying is that she is not willing to do her part. SheÂ’ll put us all in more danger to hide herself and her child in a corner. I love my son as much as she loves hers. I held him in my lap when he was a baby. I watched him take his first steps and go to school for the first time. I sat with him when he was sick and listened to him when he was confused. I waited in terror the first time he took the car out for a drive by himself.

The hardest thing I have ever done is spend 15 months knowing that he was in imminent danger half-way around the world and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.

This woman should get used to it. ThatÂ’s what its like to raise kids.

I honor the men and women who serve our country in uniform. And I honor the families, too, because I remember all too well what it was like to wait at home while my father served in Vietnam a lifetime ago -- including my mother coming back to the car in front of the post office to find my younger brother and I hysterically crying after hearing casualty reports on the radio at the height of the Tet Offensive. And i condemn the MoveOn.org ad because it insults both groups.

And I'm curious -- given Barack Obama's recent comments about the sorts of ads run by 527s and other surrogate groups, when will we hear him condemn the Baby Alex ad? When will he act to force MoveOn.org to drop the ad, and to rein-in the groups speaking on his behalf? And most importantly, when will he apologize to John McCain, our military personnel, and their families for this despicable ad? I think we all know the answer to that one.

H/T Wake Up America

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 909 words, total size 6 kb.

My guess -- yeah, they will.

Conservative journalist David Freddoso’s “The Case Against Barack Obama” will offer “a comprehensive, factual look at Obama,” according to Regnery Publishing President and Publisher Marjory Ross.

But the book’s subtitle makes clear its perspective: “The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate.”

Ross contends that the mainstream media has offered insufficient scrutiny of Obama and likens the goal of Freddoso’s book to that of “Unfit for Command,” the scathing assessment of Kerry’s war record that rocketed to number one on the New York Times best-seller list.

By highlighting negative aspects of ObamaÂ’s record and background, Ross says, Freddoso may compel others to offer more critical coverage of the Democratic nominee.

“I think it’s critically important that the country gets a clear and honest view of who is running and what they stand for—warts and all,” Ross says. “With ‘Unfit for Command,’ like ‘The Case against Barack Obama,’ we believe the media has whitewashed the candidate.”

Yet for all the attempts to compare this book with "Unfit for Command", I'd have to argue we are looking at something different here. It doesn't appear to be a hit piece per se -- rather, it is an examination of Obama's career and statements on the issues. What on earth is there to object to -- unless you don't like the conclusions that Freddoso draws. But after the lengthy list of anti-Bush books that have been published over the years -- including one long-discredited book that the Left still cites as gospel when it comes to questions of drug use -- on what basis can they object to Freddoso's tome?

And besides, shouldn't we look at candidates critically? Shouldn't we really delve into who they are, their associations, and their platforms? Or are we supposed to accept the words of this particular candidate on faith, without questioning if he has told us the whole truth?

Posted by: Greg at 03:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

I've avoided engaging in the Tim Russert hagiography seen in the media over the last ten days, but I do want to comment on this decision by the folks at NBC News.

Tom Brokaw will replace Tim Russert as moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press” through the November presidential election, the network announced today.

Brokaw, 68, filled in for the first post-Russert week. “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams was the host today, and revealed Russert's interim successor during the broadcast.

NBC News President Steve Capus said: "A lot has been said in recent days about what 'Meet the Press' means to NBC News and to the nation. To have someone of Tom's stature step up and dedicate himself to ensuring its ongoing success is not only a testament to his loyalty to Tim, but his enduring commitment to NBC News and our viewers."

NBCÂ’s plans for a successor to Russert, who died two weeks ago after collapsing at the networkÂ’s Washington bureau, have been the subject of hot speculation. The interim plan gives network executives time to figure out how to preserve the showÂ’s prestige and profitability for the long run.

Frankly, it is the right choice. Love him or hate him, it was always hard not to respect Tom Brokaw. In retirement, he is a voice of reason and something approaching objectivity. In this time of crisis for the network (but not, as some would paint it, for America as a whole), the decision to make him the interim moderator of Meet the Press is a good one. As a known quantity, it signals that there will not be many changes during the run-up tot he presidential election.

There is another reason that this is a good choice. CBS really does not have a successor to Russert waiting in the wings. Chris Matthews? Keith Olbermann? Dan Abrams? Certainly not. Brian Williams? Maybe, but who would take the nightly newscast? By giving themselves six months or longer to consider the best direction, the network will likely be able to preserve the Meet the Press brand. In the end, that isn't just good journalism -- it is also good business.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

Are you a woman who is into clothes? You know, nice clothes by top designers in the latest style? Well if you are, then you need to check out this incredible site that one of my coworkers sent me to pass on to my wife – it is the website at ShopGoldyn.com.

And even better, the site is nicely laid out and easy to navigate. You can shop in at least three different ways that I noticed. Each designer has his/her own separate page for you to peruse, and the clothing available can also be viewed by the type of item you wish to look at, such as French Dresses. And there is also the “Look Book”, which allows you to browse across designers and garments to create just the sort of look that you are seeking. So if you love beautiful clothes, check this site out.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Following on the heels of his successful faith outreach through the endorsements of Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, the Obama campaign today announced the formation of its Axis of Evil Steering Committee. The impetus for the move was today's endorsement of the Democrat hopeful by North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il.

The Chosun Sinbo, the mouthpiece of North Korea’s Japanese front organization Chongryon and often for the North Korean regime itself, has announced its preference for Obama over McCain, whom it calls “a variant of Bush” and “nothing better than a scarecrow of neoconservatives,” which is a bit odd considering that the Bush Administration’s giveaway diplomacy is better for Kim Jong Il than even Clinton’s awful performance.

Given the fact that Chosun Sinbo does not make a move without the approval of the North Korean government, and that such approval would come from the highest levels, this can only be seen as an expression of support for Obama coming from the top leadership of the North Korean regime.

Of course, this is not the first supportive statement from one of the worlds leading tyrants that Obama has received. Moammar Qaddafi recently expressed his support for Obama (and warned that the evil Joooos are going to try to kill him). And Fidel Castro has also expressed his support for the Obamessiah. These respected world leaders have joined with Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas and Columbian terrorist group FARC to express their fervent hopes for an Obama victory in November.

Seems to me that all Barack Obama needs now are the endorsements of Hugo Chavez, Osama bin Laden, and Iran's Mahmoud the Mad to have completed the Perfecta of endorsements by America's major enemies. Add to that the garden variety Marxists and Communists in this country and abroad, and you can see that the man has clearly formed a Revolutionary Democratic People's Coalition of support for his campaign.

H/T Malkin, LGF

Posted by: Greg at 08:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.

Lefties have been questioning John McCain's service and sacrifice during Vietnam. Last week I offered some documentation of the facts.

But here is more, from another one of the heroes, Col. Thomas Kirk, Jr. USAF (Ret.).

On Christmas night 1970, the North Vietnamese moved Kirk into a 45-man cell at the prison Americans POWs dubbed the Hanoi Hilton, where he met McCain. They spent the next four months becoming close friends, talking politics and sharing memories of their college days, and Kirk remembers how McCain's quick wit often lifted the spirits of his fellow POWs.

"He's extremely intelligent and tells the greatest stories in the world," Kirk said. "He could almost be a stand-up comic. He's very funny, the life of the party. He has a wonderful personality."

Even more important, Kirk said: "He's a man of absolute integrity and honor."

Despite devastating injuries, McCain rejected the possibility of early release offered by the North Vietnamese because of his father's status as an admiral.

"He said, 'I will not go unless we all go,'" Kirk said. "I will always admire him for that."

Although let's be honest -- Kirk's modesty doesn't allow him to see himself and his fellow POWs to be heroes.

"Every book about prisoners of war seems to make us into heroes," Kirk said. "I don't think we were heroes. We had the misfortune to be shot down, and the good fortune to survive.

"We were doing what we believed in," he said. "And we were blessed to come home."

Colonel, I admire that modesty, but let me tell you on behalf of a grateful nation that WE consider you, John McCain and the rest of your fellow POWs to be heroes.

And by the way, do you know where Tom Kirk will be on the night that John McCain is nominated to be the candidate of the Republican Party? He will be on the floor of the convention, one of Colorado's delegates to the Republican National Convention. My great hope is that the state's party leaders will allow him to cast the state's convention votes for his comrade in arms.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

So much for his new style of politics. He's playing the same old DNC grievance game as he tells female members of the Congressional Black Caucus to "get over it."

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words — “Get over it.” She found them dismissive, off-putting.

“Don’t use that terminology,” Watson told Obama.

So much for reaching out to the supporters of his major opponent -- the ones who are making noises about jumping ship to John McCain. He's telling them to be good little girls and do what he says -- after all, he's the Obamessiah.

But for the sake of sensitivity to these women, perhaps he can try Bill Clinton's favorite line to outraged women.

H/T Urban Grounds

Posted by: Greg at 07:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

No, not the one in uniform -- that's his partner, Staff Sgt. Charles Shuck. I'm talking Sgt. 1st Class Gabe, the one with the leash and the panting tongue.

In his early years, he was known to wander the streets and howl at the moon. Then, the Army got ahold of him.

His rough and tumble ways behind him, Sgt. 1st Class Gabe, a bomb-sniffing Labrador retriever, is now a top military dog serving on the front lines in Iraq.

To those who rescued Gabe from a Harris County pound three years ago, it's only fitting that he went on to save the lives of others.

Gabe has been a part of over 170 combat patrols, helping to make Iraq a safer place for American, Iraqi, and coalition forces, as well as the Iraqi people as a whole.

Why take the time for this story? Because it allows me to recognize the many Americans serving abroad in defense of our country -- and allows me to remind my readers that there are good dogs waiting for good homes at shelters and with rescue groups around the country. Not all of them are sorts that can sniff out bombs or missing persons -- but they can make your individual life more wonderful by their presence.

Click the link and find a pet near you.

Posted by: Greg at 02:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

By getting the same activist court that thrust gay marriage upon the state to strip the people of their right to undo that act of arrogant judicial activism.

Gay rights advocates asked California's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions.

"This court has recognized that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry and, as of June 16, such couples have been getting married across the state," the petition states.

"Rather than effecting 'no change' in existing California law, the proposed initiative would dramatically change existing law by taking that fundamental right away and inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into our state Constitution."

The people of California know exactly what this amendment would do. It would reinforce the will of the people, who passed a proposition banning gay marriage in 2000. It would make clear to the courts and the legislature of California that the people meant what they said in 2000, and firmly establish that the attempts of the legislature to create gay marriage in defiance of that 2000 vote and the subsequent act of the California Supreme Court to find in the state's Constitution that which the people said was not there have been and are illegitimate usurpations of the power of the people to govern themselves.

Which is, of course, the very reason that these gay rights groups want to make sure that the people are effectively bound and gagged as the gay agenda is imposed upon them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

As Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats block energy independence and increased domestic petroleum production and refining.

Only 12 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress, the lowest percentage in the 35 years that the Gallup Poll has tracked the number.

Americans now view Congress less favorably any of the 14 other American institutions tracked by Gallup, including big business, newspapers and health maintenance organizations.

Even as President Bush’s approval rating languishes at a record low, more than twice as many Americans have confidence in the presidency — 26 percent — than have confidence in Congress.

The Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress since January 2007. It remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party brand will find itself chained to the poor public view of the legislative branch. A recent analysis of ABC News-Washington Post polls found that in April the Democrats held a 24-point lead over President Bush as "the stronger leadership force in Washington." Today, it's a tie.

While Americans have long viewed their local representative more favorably than Congress as a whole, the public's current view of Congress is exceptionally poor. Today's 19 percent approval rating (a different measure than “confidence”) ties the record low of August 2007 and March 1992.

In other words, the Democrats are sinking fast. The American public is finally waking up to the fact that we have an ineffective, do-nothing Congress. That is something that America cannot afford, especially since the solutions they have proposed are higher taxes, higher prices, and higher government spending -- when members are not proposing to nationalize huge sectors of the American economy.

By the way, does anyone notice something about the dates for the low ratings? June, 2008. August, 2007. March, 1992. In all three cases, the both houses of Congress have been controlled by Democrats. Americans seem to instinctively know that there is no reason to have confidence in the leadership of Democrats. Now if they will only go out and vote that way.

UPDATE: Hot Air shows that the the Dems are out of step with the American people when it comes to more drilling, refining, or even the use of more nuclear power. In each area, the American people favor action while the Democrats favor obstruction.

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, the Democrats finally concede that national security is more important than partisan advantage -- or maybe that there is no partisan advantage to their continuing to undermine national security.

The House, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, yesterday approved a sweeping new surveillance law that extends the government's eavesdropping capability and effectively would shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits for cooperating with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Ending a year-long battle with President Bush, the House passed, by a 293 to 129 vote, an overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill provides a legal avenue for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecommunications firms to ward off about 40 lawsuits alleging that they violated customers' privacy by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Before the vote, Bush said the plan, which is expected to clear the Senate next week, would help thwart new terrorist attacks. "It's vital that our intelligence community has the ability to learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they are planning," he said.

In other words, the current legislation means that there is no need for a warrant to listen in on calls from terrorists that pass through American switching stations and servers. This isn't a program of warrantless spying on Americans. After all, the US Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners outside the US -- unless the Supreme Court decides to grant terrorists outside the US more constitutional protection in defiance of all previous precedent.

Now here's where the political calculus does enter into this one -- Barack Obama has previously opposed such a measure. Does he continue to stick with that position, which is the position of the bulk of his far-Left supporters? Or does he again flip-flop (as he has on public financing for his campaign) -- and risk upsetting his base? Seems to me that the Obamateur is screwed either way he goes. And regardless, it shows that the only change that America can expect is in his positions on the issue -- which we therefore cannot believe in from day to day.

UPDATE: Hot Air notes that Obama has come out in favor of the new bill. Like I said above -- change that shows we cannot believe what Obama says from day to day. Stop the ACLU and Wake Up America note that the NetRoots supporters of Obama are in a lather already. I love it when Democrats eat their young!

Posted by: Greg at 02:17 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 4 kb.

I don’t know about you, but I certainly see it as incumbent upon every person to take the time and make the effort to ensure that they and their families have health insurance. Yes, many Americans receive it as a part of a benefit package through their employers, but not everyone. And while it is possible to rely on the government for medical care, this is neither desirable nor ethical to do if one has other options – and there are some good plans out there within the budget of most Americans.

If you don’t currently have health insurance, why not check out what Kaiser Permanente has to offer at http://www.kphealthplans.com? It doesn’t matter if you need a plan for individual or family heath insurance, or whether you are a business owner looking for an affordable group health insurance, plan for your employees KPHealthPlans.com probably has something that will help get you (and your employees) decent insurance. In Georgia, for example, kaiser insurance offers some of the lowest rates around, with flexible and affordable plans that will go a long way in meeting your goals. And this is important – after all, a serious illness without health insurance has consequences for families and individuals that are frightening to contemplate. So take the responsible step and seek health insurance now.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Judicial Activism Run Amok by Wolf Howling, and After the Charge by Miserable Donuts.  Here's your link to the full results of the vote and the vote totals:

Posted by: Greg at 10:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 5 kb.

But I sure would like to go there. Indeed, so much of Europe is filled with history for a person like me who is fascinated with the study of the past. That is one reason I would love to find the time and money to visit the city of Seville in Andalusia. After all, it's history dates back at least to Roman times, with a continuous existence through the time of the Vandals and Visigoths. It was one of the early cities conquered by the Moors when their jihad brought them into the lands of Christian Europe in the early eight century, and remained under Muslim rule until its liberation in 1248 under King Fernando III.

If you visit Seville today, you will find a great variety of site to see. There is the cathedral, built following the Reconquista, as well as the Alcázar, which was begun during the Muslim occupation of the city in the 1100s and was built in various phases over the next 500 years, giving it a striking blend of various cultural influences. The city is also know for its many beautiful parks and gardens, which will by a delight for anyone interested in botany or simply the beauty of a natural setting.

Where does one stay if one visits Seville? There are many options, but I understand that Seville Hotels Destinia offers some real great values if you are seeking cheap hotel reservations in the city. be sure to check out their website at http://destinia.com/hotels/hotels-in-seville/sevilla/spain/europe/805/en.

Posted by: Greg at 09:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

One of the reasons behind the current increase in gas prices has been the stagnation of our nation's refining capacity. Our refineries are already operating at 100%, so it is obvious that we need more refineries, right?

Well, not to Congressman Nick Lampson, (D-TX22). He refused to sign a discharge petition to allow the House of Representatives to even vote on a plan to increase the refinery capacity of the United States. This despite the fact that in the last 30 years America has seen a decrease of 60% in the number of oil refineries in the US, and the disruption of only 5% of current capacity at the time of Hurricane Katrina resulted in a 46 cent per gallon increase in gas prices. What happens when the next storm comes -- or a major fire or explosion disables one of the refineries located here in southeast Texas?

And let's not forget where the American people stand on this matter -- 60% of Americans support increased refinery capacity and domestic oil production. Lampson is clearly opposed.

So to all my fellow voters here in CD22, remember that the next time you fill up your tank -- Nick Lampson and his fellow Democrats don't want to increase America's energy independence in order to decrease gas prices. So for all of Slick Nick's talk about not being a liberal Democrat, Lampson sure does walk the walk of one.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the Left -- in particular in the form of Dan Abrams of radical left mouthpiece MSNBC -- wants to make something of a John McCain quote that it clearly was not.

The quote -- as these folks are presenting it -- is this:

I really didnÂ’t love America until I was deprived of her company."

Here's how Abrams presented it.

The context of that comment -- which McCain has repeatedly used over the years -- is more like this.

HANNITY: — and then I understand you didn’t get any medical help for nine days. You spent two years of this five-and-a-half-year period in solitary confinement. What does that do to a person, to spend that much time in solitary confinement?

MCCAIN: I think it makes you a better person. Obviously, it makes you love America. I really didnÂ’t love America until I was deprived of her company, but probably the most important thing about it, Sean, is that I was privileged to have the opportunity to serve in the company of heroes.

Clearly, this is indicative of something else -- the impact of his time as a prisoner of war upon his his patriotism. Even Abrams pays lip service to that -- but in the service of defending Michelle Obama's comments about never having been proud of America until her husband became a powerful political figure. I don't know about you, but I see the two statements as very different -- one about the privilege of service to one's country, the other about love of becoming one of the privileged. And given Michelle Obama's long string of comments about America being a mean, awful, racist country that needs to be fundamentally changed by her husband's use of force and coercion, I think the more negative interpretation of Michelle's comments are at least reasonable, even if she now wishes to dispel that interpretation.

But McCain's comment is different. Anyone who has been faced with a loss of someone or something dear, only to regain it, understands John McCain's meaning. I can honestly say I did not truly love my wife until 18 months ago, as I stood in a hospital emergency room and was confronted with the possibility that she might not live out the day. The sense of loss -- of the probability that I would have to live the rest of my life without the presence of the woman whose presence I started to take for granted after a decade of marriage -- made me recognize the depths of my love for her in a way I do not believe would have been possible without that experience. McCain's five-and-a-half years deprived of America -- two years of it deprived even of contact with his fellow American prisoners -- can only have amplified his love for this country and the freedom of which he was deprived in her service.

If the American Left had any shame, they would never make the comparison between the comments of John McCain and Michelle Obama. But we all know that the Left knows no shame.

And so let the comparisons continue -- they can only be good for John McCain, and for America as a whole.

H/T Commentary, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 3 kb.

Except this time it isn't New Orleans, according to Spike Lee.

“That’s gonna change, though…gonna be a real Chocolate City!”

* * *

When [film critic Lisa] Kennedy began a question with the phrase, “If Obama’s gonna become president…”, Lee interrupted. “There is no if! It changes everything…it’s gonna be Before Obama, and After Obama. And I’m gonna be at that inauguration, too.”

Chocolate City? I guess that means that when the left says the Obama candidacy isn't about race, that means it is really about race.

However, imagine if such a comment had come out of a Republican -- a white Republican, in particular. There would be outrage. Sort of like the kerfluffle over a disgusting button offered by an outside vendor at last week's Texas GOP convention (of which only four sold -- one to a reporter -- to the roughly 10,000 attendees).

But this is Spike Lee -- a black man of impeccable liberal to radical credentials. It is unlikely that the media will even cover this racially-charged statement and his comments deifying Barack Obama. After all, the "objective media" thinks he's right.

H/T Malkin, Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 04:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.

I suppose we have to exclude the Chicago tribune from that category -- after all, they are giving away Barack Obama paraphernalia as a part of a subscription promotion!

So on my way to Saloon Democrats, I stop by the Walgreens on Clark and Lake. And what do I see just inside the entry? A woman with a bunch of baseball hats and tee-shirts trying to sell subscriptions to the Chicago Tribune.

The deal is, if you sign up for the Chicago Tribune at one dollar a week, you can get one of the hats or teeshirts for free. And what's on the teeshirt? Why "Obama" of course. It wasn't the official campaign logo but it was his name splashed across the white cotton fabric. The only reason I noticed is because the woman called out to everyone entering the store saying they could get a free "Obama" teeshirt if they signed up for the Tribune.

Now, I have nothing against the Chicago Tribune trying to cash in on the success of Barack Obama. Truth is, this is a candidate that makes all of us from the state of Illinois proud.

Now I can't help but point out that there are a fair number of folks in Illinois who are neither proud nor supportive of Barack Obama -- those would be Republicans and Hillary supporters -- but that isn't the point. How can the Chicago Tribune be viewed as a credible, objective news source when it is enticing folks to subscribe by giving away items promoting one candidate for office?

But the scary thing is that the Democrat blogger didn't even see anything wrong with this.

Being a liberal and therefore a believer in the ultimate redemptive nature of human beings, I can only hope that this marketing scheme is a sign that the Chicago Tribune will finally come clean, do the responsible thing, and endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Excuse me? The only way to be "clean" is to support the most liberal (and least qualified) presidential candidate in American history -- a candidate who has broken his word on running a clean campaign by forgoing public financing and refusing to rein-in his supporters while demanding that John McCain do both?

And how can the Left make the argument that the media isn't in the tank for Obama when they are using him in an effort to improve the bottom line? How can anyone expect objective reporting from the paper when it has become a cheering section for the candidate? That should be the biggest concern -- after all, this isn't the Cubs, Sox, Bears, or Bulls on a playoff run, it is a race the presidency.

H/T Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 03:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

As you probably know, we here in Texas CD22 have a Democrat congressman due to Tom DeLay's attempts to game the system for his own personal ego-stroking in 2006. In 2008, Lampson faces a strong opponent in Pete Olson -- so strong that Lampson is looking to dodge the only scheduled debate between the two.

A few days after an announcement that U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson and challenger Pete Olson would meet in a chamber-sponsored debate, Lampson's office has indicated he might not make it.

The Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce had announced 12 days ago that incumbent Democratic District 22 Congressman Lampson and his Republican opponent, Olson, would meet in a chamber-sponsored debate on Oct. 20.

But on Tuesday afternoon, a spokesman from Lampson's office said "at this point the congressman's attendance is just tentative for now."

Only tentative? The Chamber had set the date before Lampson even knew who his opponent would be -- and only after Lampson agreed to the date. Why the change? Why isn't he willing to debate Olson? For that matter, with Olson willing to have multiple debates, why isn't Lampson willing to commit to a debate in Harris County, where 40% of the voters in the district live? Could it be that he knows that the more he is out and about among mixed audiences, the clearer his liberal tendencies will be?

H/T The Next Right

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

But then again, anyone who has listened to the man over the last six months knows that Barack Obama will say anything he has to in order to win the presidency -- even if it means throwing close friends and associates under the bus. So who cares if he has now heaved beneath the wheels the system of public campaign financing that Democrats have long claimed is the last bulwark against the outright purchase of public offices by special interests?

Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

* * *

“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” Mr. Obama said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

Now let's point some things out here.

First, Barack Obama indicated months ago that he would take public funding if his opponent did. John McCain is doing so -- but now Barack Obama is refusing to abide by his pledge. Was Obama lying at the time he made the pledge, or is he simply being a self-serving hypocrite at the very time his own party has filed suit to FORCE McCain to accept public financing?

In addition, what efforts has he made to shut down his own allies and their "smears and attacks" against McCain? You know, things like the despicable MoveOn.org ad featuring the unfit mother and her baby.

Obama, of course, knows that neither he nor McCain have the ability to shut down such ads, either by their parties, 527 groups, or any other source. Exerting such control would be illegal -- making every dollar spent by the organizations in question an illegal campaign contribution by those organizations as coordinated expenditures.

As for lobbyists and corporate interests, Patrick Ruffini shows who is really the benefactor of such money -- and it ain't John McCain.

Frankly, I'd have more respect for Obama's move if he had forthrightly said that he wasn't taking the cash because he could afford not to, having the ability to raise more than he would get from the government. What's more, Id have respect for him if instead of talking about fixing the system, he denounced it as a scam designed to limit the speech of the American people and candidates for the presidency, and declared that we need to "end it, not mend it".

But Obama doesn't believe such things. He fully supports a system of campaign speech regulation and limitation -- for everyone except himself. Barack Obama, you see, is different -- the same rules and standards that apply to everyone else don't apply to him.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 4 kb.

One of the venerable names in the free email business will be coming back -- and will be joined by a new domain, ymail.com -- under a new plan announced by Yahoo.

Rocketmail has been dormant since Yahoo purchased Four11 Corp in 1997, with no new registrations allowed once Yahoo began offering Yahoo email addresses. Ymail is a totally new domain.

Why the change? Because Yahoo has run out of desirable email addresses at its original domain. After all, to sign up now for a yahoo,com address is to get what you want with some random string of numbers attached to the end -- making the addresses difficult to remember. Yahoo clearly hopes that the newly available addresses will increase its share of the freemail market, with its lucrative advertising revenue.

Posted by: Greg at 10:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.