November 24, 2006

US Dispatches Colorado AG To Offer Apology For Laws Against Rape, Slavery

I almost glossed over this little snippet in a Washington Times column this morning.

Pandering, whether by bishops or government officials, invites contempt, not respect. Nevertheless, after a Saudi national was convicted in Colorado of keeping an Indonesian nanny as a family slave and sentenced to life in prison, the State Department dispatched the Colorado attorney general to Riyadh last week to apologize to King Abdullah for American justice and the 14th Amendment.

Now one can argue that this is spin on the incident, but I don't think it is.

Let's look at why a state AG was dispatched to justify the trial and conviction of a Saudi citizen on serious charges

The door to the palace swung open and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers found himself being escorted through a room that seemed about 50 yards long.

That room led to a second door and another room about 75 yards long.

At the far end, Suthers could see King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia stand up and begin walking toward him.

They met halfway. Photographers with the Saudi news media recorded the event.

Suthers had flown 19 hours from Denver to Riyadh to meet with the king, the Crown Prince and other Saudi officials at the request of the U.S. ambassador to explain how the U.S. justice system handled the case of Homaidan Al-Turki.

In June, an Arapahoe County jury convicted Al-Turki, son of a prominent Saudi family, on charges of sexually abusing an Indonesian nanny and holding her a virtual captive in his Aurora home. He has been sentenced to 20 years to life in prison, pending an appeal.

The case has become a major story in Saudi Arabia where the media, siding with Al-Turki, have portrayed him as the victim of a judicial system biased against Muslims.

For two days last week, Suthers tried to explain to Saudi leaders and Al-Turki's family how the system treated him fairly throughout his arrest, conviction and appeal.

Suthers feels that the trip did some good, but he encountered several cultural differences that were as vast as some of the palace rooms.

Two examples became apparent right away.

"Under (Saudi) law, to prove a rape case, you need four eyewitnesses," Suthers said during an interview at his office Monday. "And they considered it inconceivable that an Indonesian maid was considered a competent witness in our courts."

Another significant difference is how civil and criminal courts mesh under Saudi law, making it possible for a victim or a victim's family to come to a financial settlement when it involves a criminal matter.

"They didn't understand how that wasn't possible here," Suthers said.

Oh, yes -- the need for four witnesses to a rape. Four male witnesses. For male Muslim witnesses, to be precise. Otherwise the victim is a whore and stoned to death. Ah, the civilized Saudi justice system!

And let us not forget that the perp in this case, refused to express remorse because his actions constituted "traditional Muslim behaviors".

That the Bush Administration, in the form of the State Department, would find it necessary to bring in a state's top prosecutor to explain that rape is considered a crime and slavery is banned by our Constitution is sickening. King Abdullah should have been told that he could settle for an explanation by a low-level legal attache from the embassy -- and the al-Turki family should have been told to go pound sand.

Or maybe they could have taken the approach proposed in this column in the Denver Post.

Surely a brief e-mail could have done the trick and saved taxpayers thousands:

"Guys, you simply can't keep slaves over here ... nope, not even sex slaves."

And while it was the Saudi government that picked up the tab for the trip, I'm still sickened. We don't need to make an apology -- in any sense of the word -- for our laws with regards to these two serious violations of human dignity. That the Saudis would insist upon one speaks volumes.

Posted by: Greg at 09:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 693 words, total size 4 kb.

A Positive Development For The Islamic World

Just as I am critical of Islam, I want to be fair and note any positive developments within that faith. This is one.

A conference of Muslim scholars from around the world declared female circumcision to be contrary to Islam and an attack on women, and called Thursday for those who practice it to be punished.

The conference, organized by the German human rights group TARGET, recommended that governments pass laws to prohibit the tradition and that judicial bodies prosecute those who mutilate female genitals.

"The conference appeals to all Muslims to stop practicing this habit, according to Islam's teachings which prohibit inflicting harm on any human being," the participants said in their final statement.

Egypt's two top Islamic clerics, the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the foremost theological institute in the Sunni Muslim world, and Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, attended the conference, which drew scholars from as far afield as Russia. Tantawi's and Gomaa's edicts are considered binding.

A few more steps like this and we might just see Islam reach the twenty-first century.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

Turks Put Truth On Trial, Demand Pope Lie

These two stories seem to create such a lovely contrast about the relationship between Islam and truth -- even in allegedly secular Turkey.

First, there is this story about converts from Islam to Christianity.

Two men who converted to Christianity went on trial Thursday for allegedly insulting "Turkishness" and inciting religious hatred against Islam, the Anatolia news agency reported.

* * *

Hakan Tastan, 37, and Turan Topal, 46, are accused of making the insults and of inciting hate while allegedly trying to convert other Turks to Christianity. If convicted, the two Turkish men could face up to nine years in prison.

The men were charged under Turkey's Article 301, which has been used to bring charges against dozens of intellectuals — including Nobel Prize-winner Orhan Pamuk.

The law has widely been condemned for severely limiting free expression and European officials have demanded Turkey change it as part of reforms to join the EU.

They also are charged under a law against inciting hatred based on religion.

Prosecutors accuse the two of allegedly telling possible converts that Islam was "a primitive and fabricated" religion and that Turks would remain "barbarians" as long they continued practicing Islam, Anatolia reported.

The prosecutors also accused them of speaking out against the country's compulsory military service, and compiling databases on possible converts.

Tastan and Topal denied the accusations in court.

"I am a Turk, I am a Turkish citizen. I don't accept the accusations of insulting 'Turkishness,'" Anatolia quoted Tastan as telling the court. "I am a Christian, that's true. I explain the Bible ... to people who want to learn. I am innocent."

So let's break it down and examine the nature of the alleged offense.

1) They stated that Islam was untrue, and that it was made up by Muhammad. Not an unreasonable position for a Christian to take, if you think about it. After all, if one believed that Islam were true and revealed by God, one would be intellectually and spiritually compelled to be a Muslim, correct?

2) Let's consider the contemporary evils committed in the name of Islam, and determine whether there is an element of barbarism in the faith. Has the Islamic world particularly advanced beyond barbarism?

3) They criticized conscription -- hardly an unreasonable position, particularly if they are of a Christian sect that takes a more pacifistic approach to Christian theology.

4) The compiled a database of possible converts -- which means they decided to engage in evangelism in a logical, organized manner. Why should this be a crime?

In other words, there is nothing in any of these charges that any reasonable person could consider a crime -- but for speaking the Truth of the Gospel, these men are on trial for offenses against Mosque and State. Taken as a whole, it seems clear that their real offense is apostasy from Islam.

Let's hope that this case is used as the final piece of evidence to end Turkey's chance of becoming part of the EU.

* * *

On the other hand, Muslim Turks are demanding that the Pope tell a lie when he visits Turkey.

Turkey's top Muslim official said on Thursday Pope Benedict should state clearly during a planned visit to Turkey next week he believes Islam, like Christianity, to be a religion of peace.

* * *

"I think the attitude the Pope should take is that neither Islam nor Christianity is a source of violence," said Ali Bardakoglu, who heads Ankara's Directorate General for Religious Affairs which controls Turkish imams and writes their sermons.

"If they ask me if Christianity has been the cause of violence, I would say no, that is not so ... We believe all prophets sent by God, from Moses to Jesus and Mohammad, are messengers of compassion," he told Reuters in an interview.

Violence committed in the name of religion was the fault of fallible and misguided human beings, he said.

"I believe the Pope shares this view and his saying this will be in the interests of all humanity," he said.

And I don't doubt that any failure by Benedict to make a statement that Islam is a religion of peace will be met with riots, arson, beatings bombings and other assorted acts of mayhem committed by Muslims in protest. After all, that has been their response to cartoons and comments that have offended them in the past. While I'll concede that the vast majority of Muslims are good, decent, and peaceful people, there is clearly something in their religion that propagates violence.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 774 words, total size 5 kb.

November 21, 2006

Pass The Class; Fail The Test

I guess I've seen this happen too many times to even feel much sympathy any longer.

Sylvia James hardly considers herself clueless in mathematics. After all, she finished sixth grade with a B-plus in the subject and made the Honor Roll, which she saw as a victory in a challenging year of fraction conversion and decimal placement.

But what happened when she took the state math test?

She flunked it.

I'd come up with a list of reasons that could explain this outcome, but the Washington post already does that for me.

Students and teachers offer an array of explanations for why test scores sometimes fail to match up with grades. Some students don't take the exams seriously. Some freeze up. Still others trip over unfamiliar language. And teachers sometimes are not prepped in what the exams cover, especially when the tests are new. Occasionally, some school officials suspect, classes aren't rigorous enough to prepare students adequately.

How about all of the above. I've got students who don't do well on the sort of standardized tests that are used to test competency by the various states -- heck, my class valedictorian scored lower than me on both the SAT and ACT despite making straight As for four years of high school except in PE. Some kids do come in and just start bubbling -- or put their heads down and take a nap instead of testing. In some cases, teachers have not covered what will be on the test -- in my state, tenth graders take World History but the Social Studies TAKS covers primarily the pre-Civil War American History they took two years before in eighth grade and which I have time to only spend three or four class periods reviewing in the week or so before the test.

And then there is course rigor.I hear stories from teacher friends about what they do -- indeed, what they are required to do -- to keep the grades up and prevent too many students from failing. I've heard about principals walking into faculty meetings and telling teacher that no period may have a failure rate of more than 10% -- and that teachers who exceed that rate had better start polishing up their resumes. I know of one district that requires (in a policy adopted by the school board in open session) teachers to take any late work up until three days before the end of a marking period, and that further requires that any kid who fails a test be permitted to come in and correct it for a grade of 70% (the minimum passing grade) any time during the marking period. Do such grades really reflect learning -- or simply the ability of students to copy late assignments and make better guesses with wrong answers eliminated?

I won't even get in to the question of how some states, like Texas, change standards after the test is taken to ensure that the passing rate (or failing rate) isn't too high -- during the first year of the TAKS test, the test was "re-meaned" and the number of correct answers needed to pass was raised, causing six of my students to fail despite achieving the score that school districts had been told all year constituted a passing grade.

Quite frankly, the current testing regime around the country is a failure. It doesn't show what the government thinks it shows. What needs to be implemented is a set of rigorous start-of-course and end-of-course tests that show where a student begins and ends the school year, and how much actual learning has gone on in between. Otherwise, we have a free-floating measurement that doesn't show what a student learns, and is instead a mere snapshot of where kids are on a given day during the year.

But then again, the two-test strategy might actually reveal something relevant about student learning, rather than serve as a club to use against all of us crappy public school teachers.

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 676 words, total size 4 kb.

GOP Needs To Return To Colorblind Past

After all, the overwhelming majority of the GOP base -- and Americans in general -- are supportive of the philosophy of colorblindness enunciated by one of the greatest members of our party.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

We are ready, willing, and eager to live that philosophy as a nation NOW, as we do in our day to day lives as individual citizens. Unfortunately, a host of racial set-asides, special programs, and affirmative action schemes make that impossible, for government classifies Americans by race and ethnicity for the purpose of distributing benefits to them -- and forces private industry to do the same.

That is why the people of Michigan passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative -- despite opposition by the party establishments of both major parties.

On Election Day, when Michigan easily re-elected a Democratic U.S. senator and governor, a ballot measure to end such programs in college admission and state government hiring and contracting won by an even larger margin.

But virtually every major GOP official and organization, including the gubernatorial candidate, opposed the measure, as did Democratic leaders and candidates.

Yet the proposal won overwhelming support from Republicans and independents, and almost all demographic groups.

But how deep does support run for such a colorblind policy? Pretty deep, if the polling data can be trusted.

The ballot measure won majorities among virtually all demographic groups except blacks, self-described liberals and Democrats. It passed 64-36 percent among whites who were 85 percent of the electorate, and lost 86-14 among blacks, who were 12 percent (roughly the national average) of the electorate.

Other than a 50-50 split among the 15 percent of the electorate with incomes of $15,000-$30,000, the measure carried every income group and every age group.

Interestingly, the only group of voters, when classified by education, among whom it lost was the 16 percent of the Michigan electorate with post-graduate degrees. And it received 49 percent from them.

Do we have the guts to stand up as a party and push for true equality? Do we have the guts to stand up as a party and push for colorblindness? Do we have the guts as a party to truly embrace the notion that distributing benefits and burdens based upon race and ethnicity is morally and constitutionally reprehensible and must end?

Or will we be cowed by those who would call us racists for following such a strategy for equality -- and who would call us racists even if we did not?

The very future of America depends upon our willingness to stand for principle.

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

Show Some Support For The Houston Chronicle!

Come on, folks, its a matter of civic pride for us here in Houston -- get out and vote our local rag the worst paper in the United States!

The folks from PowerLine tell all about their poll -- and list this reason for the Chronicle's nomination.

The Houston Chronicle: A reader who worked for the Chronicle for “quite a while”: “Its main problem is not even its liberalism, which it suffers from, but its vapidity. On top of that, the editor from Hearst Corp. is trying to teach Houstonians how to be proper liberals. The fact that no one ever hears about the newspaper at America’s fourth largest city should tell you a lot.”

Vote here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Watcher's Council Results

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are The March of Folly by Joshuapundit, and Why Intellectuals Love Defeat by TCS Daily.  You can find the full results of the vote over at Watcher of Weasels. 

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

VotesCouncil link
3The March of Folly
Joshuapundit
2The Politics of Iraq
American Future
1  2/3YouÂ’ve Caught the Firetruck. Now What?
The Glittering Eye
1  1/3The Slaughter of the Moderates
Right Wing Nut House
1Don't Cry For Me Bangalore
AbbaGav
2/3How To Disagree Civilly...
The Sundries Shack
2/3Santorum's Daughter
Done With Mirrors
1/3One-Sided Diehl
Soccer Dad
1/3Leftist Bankruptcy in a Time of Abundance
ShrinkWrapped
1/3ItÂ’s Much Too Late to Worry
Gates of Vienna

VotesNon-council link
3  2/3Why Intellectuals Love Defeat
TCS Daily
2  2/3Have You a Daughter?
Reconquista
1Kristallnacht
Zenpundit
1Picking on Islam?
Canker
1A Perfect Storm?
Michael J. Totten
1It's Jerusalem They Want (Chicago edition)
Boker tov, Boulder!
2/3(UPDATE) The Chance for Bi-Partisan Agreement on Iraq Starts to Slip Away
The QandO Blog
1/3Bellwether?
Out of the Race
1/3Defeat for Republicans -- Or for America?
TMHÂ’s Bacon Bits
1/3A New Cabal Rising!
Amarji -- A Heretic's Blog

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 4 kb.

November 20, 2006

Coming Soon To A Fast Food Restaurant Near You?

Will McDonald's go all halal?

McDONALD'S latest bid to attract more customers -- Muslim fast-food lovers -- has caused uproar among customers.
The fast-food chain has introduced halal products at two Melbourne restaurants, significantly boosting sales.

However some non-Muslim customers are furious they were not told their hamburger meat was slaughtered and blessed in accordance with Islamic rules laid down in the Koran.

McDonald's consulted Muslim leaders before introducing halal products at its Brunswick East and St Albans stores.

Halal meat is from animals that have been killed facing Mecca and blessed using the name of Allah.

Brunswick East store assistant manager Nicholas Yacoub said the move had attracted a surge of new customers.

"It has pretty much doubled our sales," Mr Yacoub said.

The store does not tell drive-through customers about the change and has only one small sign inside advertising the move.

Coburg resident Miriam McLennan was stunned to discover the hamburger she bought from the Brunswick East store was blessed.

"Just as a Muslim would not want to eat anything that isn't halal . . . I should have my rights to eat normal, ordinary food that hasn't been blessed," she said.

A Catholic Church spokesman said non-Muslims deserved to know if the food was halal before buying. But he said there was no biblical reason for Christians to avoid halal food.

A McDonald's spokeswoman said customers who did not want halal food should buy from any of its other stores.


As I said this morning on Laura Ingraham's show (I was the first caller of the day), I don't necessarily have a problem with eating halal meat, any more than I do kosher meat. I simply wish to be told that the meat is halal so that I have a choice.

On the other hand, I do understand that there are those who say no -- I Corinthians 10:28 would certainly give them reason to object.

But I have to wonder -- is this the shape of things to come?

mchammeds.jpg

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Romney -- Let The People Vote!

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is seeking to let the people of Massachusetts exercise a right under their state constitution -- the right to vote to amend the state constitution.

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts said on Sunday that he would ask the stateÂ’s highest court to order a question banning same-sex marriage onto the ballot if legislators did not address the issue.

Mr. Romney, a Republican, said he would file a request this week for a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers do not vote on the issue on Jan. 2, the final day of the session.

The governor, an opponent of same-sex marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of same-sex-marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps. Supporters of same-sex marriage staged a protest across the street.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that same-sex marriages were legal. Since then, more than 8,000 same-sex couples have married in the state.

More than 170,000 people have signed a petition in support of the ballot question, which would define marriage as between a man and a woman. Mr. Romney has criticized lawmakers since they refused this month to take up the question during a joint session. They voted instead to recess until Jan. 2, all but killing the measure.

“A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy and substitute a form of what this nation’s founders called tyranny, that is, the imposition of the will of those in power, on the people,” Mr. Romney said. “The issue now before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the Constitution.”

By refusing to do its duty and vote, the Massachusetts legislature has decided that the will of the people -- and the dictates of the Massachusetts Constitution -- don't matter when it comes to the issue of overturning the decision of a rogue court that favored a favorite liberal constituency.

Supporters of homosexual marriage make the following specious argument.

“One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest,” said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a group that supports same-sex marriage. “It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon.”

Actually, Mr. Solomon, that is a fundamental misstatement of the nature of the Constitution -- both state and federal. Perhaps the most basic tenet of constitutionalism is that the people limit government through the use of constitutions -- and that they have the right (to crib from Jefferson) to alter or abolish the governments they establish under them. In failing to take a vote the Massachusetts legislature is exceeding its authority under the state constitution -- forbidding the people as a whole their right to alter that document.

Bravo for governor Romney for his courageous stand in favor of the right of the people to be heard.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 3 kb.

Rangel Plays Politics With Military

The United States military has functioned effectively as an all-volunteer force for three decades. Statistics show that our soldiers today are better educated, and broadly representative of the American population -- and that if anything, whites from the middle class are OVER-REPRESENTED in the armed forces.

But that doesn't stop a certain senior Democrat from claiming that the military is not representative enough -- and from proposing a solution that will make it non-volunteer and filled with less-educated, less qualified, less-motivated soldiers and sailors.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) has long advocated returning to the draft, but his efforts drew little attention during the 12 years that House Democrats were in the minority. Starting in January, however, he will chair the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Yesterday he said "you bet your life" he will renew his drive for a draft.

"I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session," Rangel said on CBS's "Face the Nation." He portrayed the draft, suspended since 1973, as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably and prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft."

And while we are at it, Charlie, how about a proposed amendment to repeal the provision in the Constitution banning involuntary servitude -- because that is what you seek to propose on every single American young person.

UPDATE: Not only does the Dem Leadership oppose the Rangel Draft, but so does the New york Times. The latter shouldn't come as a surprise, though, since they have opposed the draft in most circumstances all the way back to when Lincoln implemented one back during the Civil War. Come to think of it, the Democrat Party opposed that draft as well -- and if they had succeeded in undermining that war effort like they did in Vietnam and are doing in Iraq, Charlie Rangel wouldn't be a Congressman today!

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Gina Cobb, Blogmeister USA, 7.62 mm Justice, Babalu Blog, Public Figures. . . Beware, Hot Air, Not Ready For My Burqa, Nasty Brutish & Short, The Waterglass, Pajamas Media, Conservative Outpost, Stop the ACLU, Urban Grounds, World According To Nick, Tammy Bruce, It Shines For All, StikNStein, Broken Chair, Bill's Bites, Valletta Papers, Captain's Quarters, Church & State, Y.A.C.R.W.B., Blogmeister USA

Posted by: Greg at 02:23 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 5 kb.

November 18, 2006

And The Winner For Absurd Government Regulation Is...

The Powys County Council in the UK, for this humdinger of a regulatory decision.

A SPICY sausage known as the Welsh Dragon will have to be renamed after trading standardsÂ’ officers warned the manufacturers that they could face prosecution because it does not contain dragon.

The sausages will now have to be labelled Welsh Dragon Pork Sausages to avoid any confusion among customers.

Jon Carthew, 45, who makes the sausages, said yesterday that he had not received any complaints about the absence of real dragon meat. He said: “I don’t think any of our customers believe that we use dragon meat in our sausages. We use the word because the dragon is synonymous with Wales.”

His company, the Black Mountains Smokery at Crickhowell, in Powys, turns out 200,000 sausages a year, including the Welsh Dragon, which is made with chili, leak and pork. A Powys County Council spokesman said: “The product was not sufficiently precise to inform a purchaser of the true nature of the food.”

In-frickin'-credible! Consumers might not realize they were not eating actual dragon meat? I don't know how any other government agency in any part of the world could possibly top this one.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

The Real Peace Symbol

Michelle Malkin brings us this photo by Mike Fumento, taken in Iraq at Camp Ramadi. It delivers a profound message about the importance of military might to preserve peace, and the need to stand firm in the face of aggression by our enemies.

fumentopeacesymbol.jpg

And note the quote from George Orwell, whose observation about the nature of security in a free society is spot on. And while I've not been able to find that quote confirmed from any other source, its message is clearly conveyed in this one.

Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

And let us not forget his observation on pacifism, which applies as well to the "Peace Movement today as it did to those who objected to war with Hitler.

Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’.

America must combat the forces of jihadi terror abroad, or we will surely combat it on American shores. May God bless the men and women of the United States military who have volunteered to fight that battle on our behalf, and may He frustrate the plans of those who would do harm to them or their mission.

Posted by: Greg at 08:29 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

What The Democrat "Brain Trust" Thinks About America

Given the celebrity driven nature of Democrat politics these days, perhaps you should consider the profound ideas coming out of their leading political philosophers.

Bill Maher:

How about this: You can own any gun you want, as long as it works on technology developed before 1787. This is what conservatives call "original intent," you can look it up. By candlelight. If Robert Blake wants to allegedly kill another wife, he has to use a musket. Or burn her at the stake, but who has the time?

And how about getting rid of the Electoral College? We don't have to protect the farmer in his sparse state anymore; let the votes count from where the people are. And besides, the farmer is now a huge corporation called Monsanto.

And most of all, let's take a little re-look-see at what you can be impeached for: starting unnecessary wars, yes; having sex, no. Which leads me, OK, one more request for our Constitutional Convention: Get rid of the 22 d Amendment that says you can't run for president more than twice. That was just hatin'. If a guy can win the popular vote, he should be able to run, or that's not democracy -- and there's somebody you might call Mr. Popular named Bill Clinton, and he should be able to run for president in 2008. It'd be worth it, just to see him debate Hillary.

Well, there is one decent idea there -- repealing the 22nd Amendment. But as for the rest, he lacks any semblance of a clue. After all, the entire point of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the citizenry has sufficient firepower to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical. Maher would ensure that the people are effectively disarmed should such a situation ever arise. And, of course, he would never support other "original intent" reversions to 1787 -- like churches endorsing candidates for office or property ownership requirements for voting, not to mention criminal penalties for sodomy or public profanity.

Garrison Keillor:

Let's start at the beginning and redraw the map. First of all, is there a reason for Wyoming to exist as a state? I have often wondered about this. Why give two Senate seats to a half-million dime-store cowboys while California gets two seats for 34 million people? (Wyoming has roughly the population of Sacramento.) It's OK if Wyoming sends somebody with brains and an independent streak, but when they send a couple of Republican hacks, then it makes no sense.

The idea behind the Senate was to create a sheltered body of wise counselors who, because they don't have to shill for money perpetually, can rise above the petty tumult and think noble thoughts and do the right thing in a pinch. Can you think of a time when Wyoming's senators have done this? No, you can't. So let's bite the bullet and make Wyoming a federal protectorate and appoint an overseer. This would be a good assignment for Halliburton. It's done a heck of a job in Iraq, and let's give it Wyoming and, while we're at it, Alaska. A wonderful postcard place, but what have its congressmen done other than grub for federal largesse for Alaska? Change the name to Denali and put Halliburton in charge of it.

While we're at it, let's admit that Utah, Texas and Vermont have never been completely comfortable as part of the United States. They've tried to fit in, but it just isn't working, so let's allow them to pull out and find their own paths. You could attach Nevada to Utah and make a lovely little desert nation out of that, and let Vermont join Canada, and make Texas a republic. Add Oklahoma to it. They really are part of the same thing. This leaves us with 43 states, which we could reduce to 40 by joining Rhode Island and New Hampshire and making Idaho part of Montana and combining North and South Dakota into one state called West Minnesota. It's called consolidation, folks. It goes on all the time in corporate America and also in local school districts, so let's make it work for America.

Now yeah, that would require eliminating participation in democratic government for the people of one state, the violation of constitutional provisions protecting the territorial integrity of states, and a wholesale redefinition of who would serve in the Senate (an idea that isn't half bad and comes later in the article -- maybe their should be ex officio seats for for former presidents and vice presidents). But he admits that his goal is to disenfranchise Republicans by throwing them out of the country and reducing the number of Red States, so what we are seeing is nothing less than a proposal for a coup.

Michael Moore:

Has no ideas. True, he did publish a piece -- but it appears to be plagiarized from this liberal blogger. Proof positive that Moore is not only a liar but also a thief -- and an ungroomed, uncouth one at that. Don Surber rebuts the piece very effectively.

Posted by: Greg at 07:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 863 words, total size 6 kb.

Racial Driscrimination Supporters Seek To Overturn Will Of The People For Equality In Michigan

But in doing so, they need to seek the overturn of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as the recently approved Prop. 2. After all, the ballot initiative took its language straight from that landmark civil rights legislation.

In the wake of a decisive Nov. 7 vote to prohibit race- and gender-based preferences in employment, education and contracting, leaders in government and academia who fought to preserve affirmative action are now hurrying to assess the impact. Officials said the response is likely to start with a court challenge.

Business and civic leaders who opposed the anti-affirmative-action measure are gathered here on Friday to develop a strategy. The University of Michigan Board of Regents is also meeting, with announcements expected soon. At City Hall, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) is drafting an ordinance that would favor companies based in the city, which is more than 80 percent African American

"The voters went to the polls and Proposition 2 passed, and we have to live with it now," said Matt Allen, the mayor's spokesman. "As of December 22, there can be no more gender or race preferences."

The first attempt to block the new law in court was filed soon after the election, although courts have upheld a similar California law.

"There will be both offense lawsuits and defensive lawsuits filed to understand what this actually means for Michigan," said Kary L. Moss, executive director of the Michigan office of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I do think it's necessary for the courts to slow this thing down and . . . interpret some of the language."

But really, how much is there to interpret -- or object to -- in a law that declares that state and local government entities "shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting"?

After all, the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination based upon "any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin". After more than four decades, how can an enactment like the MCRI even be controversial -- unless one supports discrimination or preferences based upon one or more of those categories?

Posted by: Greg at 04:29 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

White Supremacist Teen Gets Life Sentence In Racist Attack

My only objection is that this 18-year-old punk will get a shot at parole when he turns 48. Life ought to mean life -- especially since this scumbag has spent three of the last four years in jail because of race-based assaults on others.

As a fifth-grader, David Henry Tuck had punched and kicked his teacher, leaving the woman with broken glasses and a black eye. A few years later, he beat a man unconscious because of his ethnicity. When a deputy tried to arrest him for that attack, he kicked the officer in the hand.

After listening about the violent past of the 18-year-old, jurors sentenced him Friday to life in prison for beating another teen so severely that the youth still requires medical attention for internal injuries caused when Tuck kicked a plastic pipe into the youth's rectum.

On Thursday, a Harris County jury convicted Tuck of aggravated sexual assault for the April incident, in which a witness said he shouted "white power!" and racist epithets while assaulting the Hispanic youth.

The jury sentenced Tuck to the maximum under the law, including a $10,000 fine. He will be eligible for parole in 30 years. The jury deliberated for less than an hour. It declined to comment afterward, court officials said.

Why the attack? Because the Hispanic victim had allegedly kissed a white girl.

Now some want the Legislature to pass a new "hate crime" law because of this incident. I disagree. It seems pretty clear to me that the statutes that exist right now are more than adequate to deal with such offenses -- just as the legal system adequately dealt with the killers of James Byrd (two death sentences, with life in prison for the third perp for his testimony against his co-defendants). The question comes down to one of the will of prosecutors to pursue the cases with the tools they have -- tools that offer the maximum punishments available under state law for any crime.

Posted by: Greg at 04:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

November 15, 2006

Who Knows More About Iraq?

Abazid or Mutha? Come on, I'm serious -- which one should we be listening to, the commanding general on the ground who believes we can win or an old corrupt congressman who wants to surrender?

The top American military commander for the Middle East said Wednesday that to begin a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq over the next six months would lead to an increase in sectarian killings and hamper efforts to persuade the Iraqi government to make the difficult decisions needed to secure the country.

The commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, made it clear that he did not endorse the phased troop withdrawals being proposed by Democratic lawmakers. Instead, he said the number of troops in Iraq might be increased by a small amount as part of new plans by American commanders to improve the training of the Iraqi Army.

And yes, I recognize that he criticized the Bush Administration for not sending more troops earlier. I agree with him. But the solution isn't to cut and run now.

More from Captain Ed.

Posted by: Greg at 11:48 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Lott Back -- What Were They Thinking!

Even if one accepts (as I do) that Trent Lott was simply paying a courtly compliment to an elderly colleague when he made his poorly received statement regarding Strom Thurmond, rehabilitating the man back into a leadership role simply seems like a bad idea.

Four years after racially impolitic remarks cost him the Senate's top post, Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.) rejoined Congress's leadership ranks yesterday when his Republican colleagues turned to the veteran insider and skilled vote-counter to help them plot their return to majority status.

By a 25 to 24 secret-ballot vote, Lott defeated Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) for the position of minority whip, the party's second-highest post. As expected, GOP senators elected Mitch McConnell (Ky.) as Senate minority leader for the new Congress that will convene in January. But his victory was tempered by Lott's come-from-behind win over Alexander, who was seen as McConnell's and the Bush administration's preferred choice for whip.

An assistant whip might have been acceptable, but certainly not the second-highest GOP slot in the Senate. It just looks bad at a time when we need more new faces in leadership.

But then again, considering the news in the post below this one, perhaps it isn't such a big deal -- if a Kluxer like Robert Byrd can be elevated to a position three heartbeats from the presidency, then certainly we can forgive an awkward statement made to an old man on his birthday.

Posted by: Greg at 11:44 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Dump Boehner -- We Need A Clean Sweep In The House

Jawa Report offers this analysis of what is wrong with John Boehner's position on the issue -- and implicitly supplies a good reason for getting him out of leadership.

* * *

According to Human Events:

10. U.S.-Taiwan Military Ties - Nay

9. United Nations Funding Cap - Nay

8. Religious Freedom for Churches - Nay

7. End Foreign-Language Ballot Mandate - Nay

6. Eliminate Federal Mandate for English Language Assistance - Nay

5. Government Spending Cuts (1%) - Nay

4. Illegal Immigration Residency Extension - Yea

3. Border Security Measures - Nay

2. No Child Left Behind - Yea

1. Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - Yea

Issue summaries here.

Vote for Pence and Shadegg -- Dump Boehner and Blunt.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Three Heartbeats From The Oval Office

Courtesy of the "Party of Civil Rights".

byrd_klan.jpg

Robert Byrd -- the only Klansman serving in the US Senate -- was named President Pro Tempore of the Senate today.

Indeed, I believe every member of the Klueless Klux Klan to serve in the US Senate has been a Democrat. That ought to make you think.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Pelosi Vows To Ignore Constitution (BUMPED)

After all, the US Constitution defines what entities get representation in the House and Senate. Pelosi wants to change that by statute.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the incoming speaker of the House of Representatives, supports District voting rights and is a co-sponsor of legislation that would give Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) a full vote in the House, a spokeswoman said yesterday.

The statement from Pelosi's office clarified her position after heated discussion on Washington Post Radio about her position on the issue. On Thursday, Pelosi said she would change House rules on the first day of the new Democratic-controlled session in January so that Norton could vote on proposed changes but not final approval of legislation on the House floor. That would be a temporary measure, Norton said.

"She wants D.C. to have full voting rights in the House," said Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Pelosi (D-Calif.). "She doesn't co-sponsor many pieces of legislation."

The District of Columbia is not a state. It is therefore ineligible to have a voting representative in Congress --period.

Indeed, there are only three legitimate avenues available to accomplish that end.

The first is to admit the District of Columbia as a state -- which would upset the Founders' desire to not have the nation's capital in any state or other jurisdiction outside of control of the Federal government. In addition, since the District is territory ceded by the state of Maryland for purposes of establishing a capital city, that state would need to grant permission for any such move.

The second would be to amend the Constitution to permit such representation without statehood -- something that I do not see as being possible politically.

The third would be to allow the District of Columbia to be counted as a part of Maryland for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for residents of the District of Columbia to vote in Maryland's Senatorial and Congressional elections.

But the solution proposed at this time is unacceptable from a Constitutional standpoint -- and Pelosi's championing of it bodes ill for the level of respect to be given the Constitution over the next two years.

UPDATE -- 11/15/2006: Here is the contrary argument from the District's Mayor-elect. I still say it takes a Constitutional amendment.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Samantha Burns, third world county, Pirates Cove, Uncooperative Blogger, Wake Up America, Clash of Civilizations, Is It Just Me?, Adam's Blog, Random Yak, Right Nation, Pursuing Holiness, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Sister Toldjah, Stop The ACLU, Amboy Times, Woman Honor Thyself, Church & State, Bullwinkle Blog, Right Wing Nation

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 5 kb.

Murtha: I Am Not A Crook

That is what his statement comes down to -- and is about as believable.

Actually, that isn't quite accurate. What he really seems to have said is that having ethical leadership in Congress isn't nearly as important as surrendering in a war that we are winning.

In his first interview since reportedly calling a Democratic bill on lobbying and ethics "total crap," Rep. John Murtha told "Hardball" host Chris Matthews he meant it was "crap" to deal with ethics problems when there are more serious issues facing the nation such as the war in Iraq.

"It is total crap that we have to deal with an issue like this when weÂ’ve got a war going on and we got all these other issues," Murtha said.

And this is the guy who Pelosi wants in leadership as she allegedly seeks to "clean up Congress." It says everything that needs to be said about Democrat ethics reform.

And by the way -- has any member of the Democrat leadership gone down to Louisiana to campaign against William "$90K in the freezer" Jefferson? If they have, it sure hasn't mate the press -- which makes me reasonably certain that they haven't done it. That is the even bigger sign that all the ethics talk is just that -- talk.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

November 14, 2006

A Lap Dog, Not An Attack Dog

This is going to be just swell -- preemptive surrender on matters political.

Sen. Mel Martinez, who will become the new general chairman of the Republican Party after it lost control of Congress, said on Tuesday he would not be an "attack dog" in the 2008 White House race.

..."One of the things that I made clear as I discussed this job role with the president is I was not going to be an attack dog, and I don't intend to, and I wasn't asked to be one," he told reporters at the White House.

We need a Newt Gingrich in this role -- we are getting a Bob Michel.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Watcher's Council Results

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Irony so Thick You Can Bathe In It by Right Wing Nut House, and The Demand for Perfection by Rants and Raves.  Here is the link to the full results of the vote

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

VotesCouncil link
2Irony so Thick You Can Bathe In It
Right Wing Nut House
1  2/3Why Not Turkey?
American Future
1  2/3Damned Fools
Done With Mirrors
1  1/3Just Saying "No" To Junior R.O.T.C.
The Education Wonks
1Sob Stories and Voter IDs
The Sundries Shack
1Ahmadinejad's Game
Soccer Dad
1A Stale Question: What Will It Take for the French to Rebel?
Gates of Vienna
1/3Weekend Monkey Interviews Senator Kerry
Joshuapundit
1/3The Democrats' Looming Disappointment
ShrinkWrapped

VotesNon-council link
3  1/3The Demand for Perfection
Rants and Raves
2  1/3Discussing the Developing Role of the Media During Times of War
The QandO Blog
1  2/3John Kerry STFU
Ocean Guy
1The Battle for the Middle East.
Iraq the Model
1Hamas in the New York Times
Counterterrorism
2/3Shame on Him
OpinionJournal
2/3Election 2006
Cox & Forkum
1/3The Roast Beef of Old England
The Roast Beef of Old England
1/3Army Times Against Rummy
Electric Venom
1/3Borat Brilliant, Babel Drivel
Minor Fast Days
1/3Keith Ellison, the Wahhabist Choice for Congress
PipeLineNews.org

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 5 kb.

November 13, 2006

Support For Murtha Seen As Undercutting Pelosi's Anti-Corruption Pledge

Even the liberals are questioning how Nancy Pelosi can claim to be a reformer while backing this corrupt bastard for the number two position in the Donk Caucus.

House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of Rep. John P. Murtha's bid for House majority leader set off a furor yesterday on Capitol Hill, with critics charging that she is undercutting her pledge to clean up corruption by backing a veteran lawmaker who they say has repeatedly skirted ethical boundaries.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) directly intervened in the heated contest between Murtha (D-Pa.) and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) on Sunday by circulating a letter to Democratic lawmakers. The letter voiced her support for Murtha and put her prestige on the line in a closely fought leadership battle. Some Democratic lawmakers and watchdog groups say they are baffled that Pelosi would go out of her way to back Murtha's candidacy after pledging to make the new 110th Congress the most ethical and corruption-free in history.

Murtha, a longtime senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, has battled accusations over the years that he has traded federal spending for campaign contributions, that he has abused his post as ranking party member on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, and that he has stood in the way of ethics investigations. Those charges come on top of Murtha's involvement 26 years ago in the FBI's Abscam bribery sting.

"Pelosi's endorsement suggests to me she was interested in the culture of corruption only as a campaign issue and has no real interest in true reform," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a Democratic-leaning group. "It is shocking to me that someone with [Murtha's] ethics problems could be number two in the House leadership."

"People have known about these things for months," said one Democratic House member who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to anger the presumed incoming speaker. "I am sure they are going to become much more important in the next few days."

I love it when they eat their own.

And Murtha's spokesperson says "Just ignore the man behind the curtain!"

Andrew Koneschusky, a spokesman for Murtha, declined to discuss ethics issues, saying: "We are focused on the future. We are focused on electing the best candidate to lead our party and deliver the change the American people want, and that is Jack Murtha. We are looking forward, not backward."

In other words, "Ignore the fact that my boss has a history of corruption that stinks like the NYC Sewer system -- we need to cut-and-run from Iraq at a speed that only John Murtha can reach!"

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 PM | Comments (56) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

Giuliani Prepares Presidential Bid

Like this comes as a surprise to anyone.

The man once dubbed ''America's mayor'' has taken the first step toward becoming America's next president.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican moderate who achieved near-mythic popularity for his handling of the Sept. 11 attacks, filed papers Friday in New York to create the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee Inc. A copy of the document was obtained by The Associated Press.

Creating an exploratory committee does not make Giuliani a declared candidate, but it does mean he intends to travel the country gauging support and preparing for a White House bid.

''Mayor Giuliani has not made a decision yet,'' Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel said in a statement Monday night. ''With the filing of this document, we have taken the necessary legal steps so an organization can be put in place and money can be raised to explore a possible presidential run in 2008.''

We love him. We admir him. But are GOP primary voters willing to put aside differences with Rudy on key issues in order to nominate him? He is so centrist as to go over the line into liberal on a number of issues -- abortion and gay rights among them -- that I think many of them won't be able to hold their nose and vote for him. But he is McCain without the baggage of campaign finance reform -- and his efforts in the days and weeks following 9/11 are undeniably the stuff of legend -- and the great story of our time.

But I'm still backing Mitt.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Mel Martinez For RNC Chair?

Does this mean Karl Rove is getting his way again?

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), a close White House ally and a Cuban American, has agreed to become the next general chairman of the Republican National Committee, GOP officials said. The appointment comes in the wake of an election that yielded shrinking GOP support from Hispanic voters.

Martinez, a first-term senator, will remain in office and serve as the party's chief spokesman and fundraiser heading into the 2008 elections. Mike Duncan, the RNC's current general counsel and a former party treasurer, will manage day-to-day operations and be elected chairman in January, Republican aides said.

* * *

The selection of Martinez was a setback for Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, who last week lost a Senate race and who has expressed interest in the job. GOP officials said it was not coincidental that both Steele and Martinez are minorities who have shown an ability to broaden the party's appeal. Republicans captured 10 percent of the African American vote last week, identical to the 2004 number.

It also does not hurt that Martinez is familiar with Florida, the electoral prize that has been a main arena in recent presidential elections. Martinez won election there in 2004, after resigning as secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make the run.

Martinez earned some national fame in 2000 when, as a top U.S. official, he strenuously argued before Congress and TV cameras that a Cuban boy named Elian Gonzalez should not be forced to return to Cuba. Five years later, he was again on the national stage, this time unintentionally, when a top aide of his was outed as the author of a memo detailing a political strategy for intervening to keep Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman, alive.

The only Hispanic Republican in the Senate, Martinez, 60, is expected to focus mostly on speaking out for GOP candidates, raising money and pushing the party to broaden its reach. Duncan will be the nuts-and-bolts leader. The dual-leadership model is fairly common for modern party committees. It allows high-profile party officials to lend their experience to the committee without being consumed by managing a large organization.

The GOP base -- myself included -- is unhappy with this announcement.

From Malkin.

Oh, well. Michael Steele has been passed up for Sen. Mel Martinez. Yes, a squish on border security is now the RNC chair. Has the GOP learned anything?

From RedState.

Oh, this is simply priceless. With Ken Mehlman retiring, we need a new RNC Chair.

We could have had a promising up-and-comer with a great life story, fantastic political skills, and odds-on-sharps like you wouldn't believe.

We could have had a dirty machine politico, who may make us all cringe a little at what he's willing to countenance, but who is used to the odd knifefight with a K-Bar and a rusty razor, and who could help us work our way back into the majority.

We could have had a lobotomized sea lion, who would at least know to bark to get some kind of fish on command.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the next best thing (by a little) to making Kevin Phillips the new RNC Chair: Bonehead Martinez. Yes, that's right, Bonehead, who with a five-point Bush win in trending-Red Florida at his back, barely managed to beat one of the more anodyne, bland Democrats to run for the Senate outside of Massachusetts; Bonehead, who managed to take a dicey political situation in the Terri Schiavo affair and make himself into a Google search result; Bonehead, who if asked to eat eggs over easy and shave at the same time, would end up with shiny whites and yolk smeared in fork-tine streaks across his face; Bonehead is going to be the RNC Chair.

And if gets better! He's going to multitask!

This was brought to you today by the same morons who griped all last week about do-nothing leadership in the House, only to ... wait for it ... prepare to vote in the same losers!

I'm proud to be a Republican today.

Even the more circumspect Captain Ed is underwhelmed.

I completely agree with the sentiments expressed over at BizzyBlog.

Dear GOP,

As a member of the base you appear to be abandoning, allow me to make two points:

- The current apparent pick is a sitting Senator, and no matter how worthy he may be as a person, putting someone who actually is voting on laws and resolutions (in charge) is inappropriate bordering on irrational.
- Michael Steele ran such a stellar campaign to get as far as he did in the Maryland Senate race. He is a passionate and outstanding spokesperson that who the party could rally around. Frankly, selecting anyone else would be foolish.

I am surely supported by millions of other Republicans BEGGING you to PLEASE select Michael Steele.

There's a poll over at HotAir.

Sorry -- I just don't think we need to have a part time party chair. If Martinez is staying in the Senate (and I think he would be a fool not to do so), then he will have to delegate much of the day-to-day activity to staffers. But the GOP needs full-time nurturing after the debacle that occurred a week ago, with a full-time public face who will not conxstantly be triangulating between his role as a senator, a supporter of the administration, and a party-builder.

And in addition, Michael Steele needs to stay out of the "black slot" in the Cabinet.

UPDATE: The President has announced the Martinez appointment -- before the RNC members even vote on the matter. Seems to me that he is counting on an acclamation. Why don't we start contacting the men and women of the RNC from our states and tell them Mel Martinez is not acceptable -- and demand Michael Steele. If you think it can't happen, just remember the words "Harriet Miers".

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 999 words, total size 7 kb.

November 12, 2006

Pelosi Backs Murtha

So much for moderation and reaching out to the moderate/conservative voters who elected the Blue Dogs.

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) yesterday as the next House majority leader, thereby stepping into a contentious intraparty fight between Murtha and her current deputy, Maryland's Steny H. Hoyer.

The unexpected move signaled the sizable value Pelosi gives to personal loyalty and personality preferences. Hoyer competed with her in 2001 for the post of House minority whip, while Murtha managed her winning campaign. Pelosi has also all but decided she will not name the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) to chair that panel next year, a decision pregnant with personal animus.

Pelosi had been outspoken about her frustration with Murtha's declaration that he would challenge Hoyer, currently the House minority whip, for the majority leader post long before Democrats had secured the majority. Many believed she would remain on the sidelines, just as Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) did earlier this year when three Republicans vied for the post of House majority leader.

But in her first real decision as the incoming speaker, Pelosi said she was swayed by Murtha's early stance for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Her letter of endorsement yesterday made clear that she sees Iraq as the central issue of the next Congress and that she believes a decorated Marine combat veteran at the helm of the House caucus would provide Democrats ammunition in their fight against congressional Republicans and President Bush on the issue.

"I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election. It was surely a dark day for the Bush Administration when you spoke truth to power," she wrote. "Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to lead on these vital issues."

Seems to me that they really are Surrendercrats.

And the decision on Rep. Harman means that the new chair of the Intelligence Committee will be Alcee Hastings -- whose impeachment and removal from his federal judgeship on bribery charges seems not to be an obstacle in Pelosi's eyes, even though she voted for it. So much for fighting the culture of corruption.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | Comments (78) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

Are Democrat Gains In Texas Permanent?

I somehow doubt it – though we will see changes in the areas of strength for both.

Though red-eyed and exhausted from staying up most of Election Night, Amber Moon was ebullient over tasting the first victories of her career in Democratic politics.

The 27-year-old University of Houston graduate began working for Democrats in 2002 and now is the state party's official spokeswoman. The last time Democrats had a major victory in Texas, Moon was 14.

Though they were small in comparison with the gains Democrats made nationally, the changes were noticeable: Democrats swept county races in Dallas and Hays. They narrowed the Republican margin in Harris County. They picked up five seats in the state House on Tuesday, plus one more earlier this year.

They captured the U.S. House seat once held by Republican strongman Tom DeLay, and U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio, is facing a runoff.

"We were very excited about the victories we have," Moon said. "People definitely sense a wind of change, and it's not just a national mood trickling down."
But the big question is whether these gains are a fluke of this one election cycle.
The statewide Republican vote this year was the lowest since 1998. And the top vote-getter of the Democrats' 2006 ticket still received fewer votes than the best-performing loser of the party's 2002 ticket.

Plus, the Democrats still face a Republican Party that is far better financed.

And therein lies the story. The vote for the statewide ticket was down because of a four-way gubernatorial race,and many people not voting down-ballot. Had it been a straight-up race between Chris Bell and Rick Perry, Perry would have handed Bell his head by a margin of at least 20 percentage points – and the other statewide races would have been even more strongly Republican than they were this year. The CD22 race would have turned out different if there had been a Republican on the ballot (Dems won a court fight to prevent that) and the Bonilla race is a runoff because of the redistricting decision this summer and the resultant free-for-all with multiple candidates. Bonilla will likely hold his seat, and CD22 will be Republican again in two years.

But there are changes. Dallas County continued its trend towards the Democrats, with a sweep of local races. Harris County judicial races went for the GOP, but by smaller margins which were probably the result of the drop in straight-party voting this year. And the shift of GOP voters to suburban counties from the urban core in Dallas and Harris are likely to make both Democrat strongholds with a majority of minority voters – but with shrinking populations. In the mean time, the suburban counties are growing and growing Republican.

And then there is the Hispanic vote – and the question of how it ultimately breaks here in Texas. If Republicans can get anywhere near a 50% share, we are likely to remain the majority party. And there is evidence of such a trend.

Carney said Hispanics cannot be counted on as Democratic voters when the new immigrant population begins voting. He said Republicans are reaching out to those potential voters.

He said that is why a decade ago a quarter of the Hispanic voters cast Republican ballots and now it is about 35 percent.

Perry won heavily Hispanic South Texas with 35 percent of the vote.

So what will happen here in Texas? My guess is that we will remain a conservative Republican state, but that races might get more competitive – particularly if the Blue Dogs begin to have significant and long-term influence in the Democrat Party.

Posted by: Greg at 06:24 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

Sex Criminals Students

I’ve got students on probation in my classes. I’ve even got students on parole. But I only know about it if they tell me – and only know what their crime was if they disclose it.

That’s right – as a teacher, I have no right to know that I have students who are felons – even violent felons – in my class room.

There is one exception – convicted sex offenders. But even then, will the local police do their job and notify my school? Will the school do its job and notify me? This article leaves me questioning whether I really know who is in my classroom.

Background checks prevent teachers who are registered sex offenders from working in schools, but no law keeps students with histories of committing sex crimes from sharing history lessons and hot lunches with their classmates in Texas.

That leaves parents in the dark about who might be sitting in the desks next to their children.

No single authority knows how many registered sex offenders are high school students. About 2,400 registered sex offenders are younger than 21, the oldest age allowed for high school students in Texas. About 320 are younger than 17, said Tela Mange of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

But those figures do not likely reflect the actual number of youthful sex offenders. Those who are 17 or 18 can petition the courts to have their cases removed from the registry. Others may have dropped out of school, said Shannon Edwards, a staff attorney with the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.

"It's a very fluid number," said Tom Vinger, a spokesman for the public safety department.

In one recent case in Austin, a teacher was attacked by a student who was already a registered sex offender – one of three in the district. She didn’t know about his status, though it is unclear whether the school knew and withheld the information or whether they were unaware.

One of the major state teacher organizations (we have four – and as a right-to-work state, membership is voluntary) is seeking to ensure that the current law is followed. They are also seeking closer monitoring of those students convicted of violent or sexual crimes.

It's also led at least one teachers' advocacy group to call for stricter monitoring of students with histories of committing violent or sexual crimes.

"In my mind, good public policy dictates that the public and specifically educators be aware when there is a registered sex offender in their midst," said Jeri Stone, executive director of the Texas Classroom Teachers Association.

I agree wholeheartedly – and question why students with histories of sec crime or crime of violence are permitted back in a regular classroom setting. This isn’t me looking to add one more level of punishment, it is me being concerned about the safety of every other student on the campus. Shouldn’t these individuals be in a closely monitored alternative setting where it is less likely that they will have the opportunity to do harm to other students?

Posted by: Greg at 06:21 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Lebanese Government Teetering On The Brink Of Collapse

The only way the government can survive is to keep the terrorists in it – but the terrorists want more influence or they are going to walk.

Cabinet ministers from Hezbollah and an allied party resigned Saturday, a decision that could cost the Western-backed government crucial support from Lebanon's Shiite Muslims.

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said he would not accept the resignations. He has the authority to order the five cabinet ministers to stay on, but it was unclear if his weak government could enforce the demand.

The resignations are not enough to bring down Siniora's government -- eight cabinet ministers must resign for the government to collapse -- but they could cost him support among Shiites, the majority sect in Lebanon, and make it difficult for him to govern.

The ministers of Hezbollah and the allied Amal party resigned because talks on forming a national unity government collapsed hours earlier, Hezbollah said in a statement broadcast by its al-Manar television station. Hezbollah accused the government of insisting on "imposing terms and premature results for negotiations," the TV station said.

Hezbollah, a Shiite militia that is by far the strongest political and military force in Lebanon, has been demanding at least one-third of the seats in the 24-member cabinet for itself and its allies. That would give them veto power over key decisions and the power to bring down the government if they disagreed with a decision.

Lebanon exists because of borders drawn by outsiders in the early 20tth century. As has happened elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa, the resulting borders have placed together groups that are traditional rivals with seriously different interests. The result has been states which are not truly viable entities. Thus Lebanon is a conglomeration of groups that have been unable to live together peacefully for decades. And when militias and terrorist groups hold more sway than the government authorities, then there is little hope for an end to civil strife – or conflict with Israel brought on by terrorist attacks by Hezbollah.

Posted by: Greg at 06:16 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

November 11, 2006

In Honor Of Our Veterans

Today is Veteran's Day.

We owe so much to those who defend us -- men and women who ask so little in return.

Project Valour-IT is a program to supply voice-controlled laptop computers to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand and arm injuries or amputations at home or in military hospitals. Operating laptops by speaking into a microphone, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages from friends and loved ones, surf the 'Net, and communicate with buddies still in the field without having to press a key or move a mouse.

In honor of my father, a retired US Navy officer, I have affiliated myself with Team Navy in this fundraising effort. Please give generously.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

An Interesting Exclusion

The Washington post publishes this piece on race, gender, and presidential politics today -- Is America too Racist for Barack? Too Sexist for Hillary?

The 2006 elections were for the technocrats and the operatives, pitting the Democratic tacticians against the Karl Rove machine. But the next election is already beginning to look quite different: 2008 may be one for the novelists.

Viewers of the election returns late on Tuesday, after all, got an early start on the iconography of the next presidential race. The cable networks' cameras cut between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, thanking her supporters for an overwhelming victory in the New York Senate race, her husband standing pointedly behind, and a smiling Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, giving cautious, professorial analysis to the television viewers. Nobody noted the significance, but it stared us all in the face: The two presumed leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are a woman and an African American.

Their candidacies -- coming after elections resulting in the presumed first female speaker of the House and the second black governor since Reconstruction -- suggest that the next elections may play in ways that are more cultural and symbolic than tactical and political. Are Americans ready to put a black man or a woman in charge of the country? And does the hefty symbolism that Obama and Clinton would bring help one of them more than the other -- in other words, is the country more racist or more sexist?

Of course, this commentary makes some incredible assumptions -- assumptions that need to be challenged.

Does the author, Rolling Stone national affairs correspondent Benjamin Wallace-Wells really believe that a vote against Obama is a vote against blacks? That a vote against Clinton is a vote against women? Is it really his contention that ideas, policies, and ideology don't matter -- that candidates are and should be judges by the color of their skin or the genitalia between their legs, not the content of their character or (just as importantly) the content of their policy statements?

If that is the case, what does Wallace-Wells make of the defeats of Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, and Lynn Swann on election day? Are the voters of Marryland, Ohio, and pennsylvania racists who for having rejected these highly qualified African American Republicans? Or does the presumption of bias only apply to votes against Democrat candidates like Obama, Clinton or (as happened Tuesday in Tennessee) Harold Ford?

And I cannot help but notice that Wallace-Wells gives dismissively short shrift to the possibility of a Secretary of State Condoleezza as a presidential candidate, despite the fact that she currently sits just four heartbeats from the Oval Office. Too bad he doesn't consider the implications of the reservoir of support that exists for Rice among conservative Republicans -- including this conservative white man -- if she would even hint that she were interested in making a presidential run. Nor does he consider that Rice is the name most often heard as a potential Vice Presidential pick in 2008 even if she doesn't seek the nod for the top spot.

Could it be that he, like most left-wingers, believe that membership in the GOP revokes the membership cards of the offender in the black race and the female sex?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Samantha Burns, third world county, Pirates Cove, Uncooperative Blogger, Wake Up America, Clash of Civilizations, Is It Just Me?, Adam's Blog, Random Yak, Right Nation, Pursuing Holiness, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Sister Toldjah, Stop The ACLU, Amboy Times, Woman Honor Thyself, Church & State, Bullwinkle Blog

Posted by: Greg at 04:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 602 words, total size 5 kb.

The Crimes Of Illegal Aliens

A great column today in the Rocky Mountain news, dealing with the issue of crimes committed by illegal aliens -- and not the ones they commit merely because of their immigration status.

What percentage of arrests for DUI offenses in 2005 were illegal aliens? Recall that Justin Goodman of Thornton was killed in 2004 on his motorcycle by an illegal alien driver who had six prior DUI and other driving violations in Boulder and Adams counties. The man had never been referred to ICE for deportation.

Does the Denver city attorney's standing policy of not asking questions in court about the legitimacy of Mexican driver's licenses presented by defendants have any consequences for the law-abiding citizens of Denver? Recall that the man who killed police officer Donnie Young had used an invalid Mexican driver's license to avoid jail in Denver municipal court only three weeks before the slaying.

Why is it that a full year after the Colorado attorney general stated that one- quarter of Colorado's outstanding fugitive homicide warrants are for people who have fled to Mexico, no newspaper has asked how many of the individuals named in the warrants were illegal aliens with prior arrests? (In Los Angeles County, there are more than 400 such fugitive warrants.)

How are sanctuary cities like Durango, Boulder and Denver responding to SB 90, the new state law passed in 2006 to outlaw sanctuary cities? What is ICE doing to respond to SB 90?

If Denver received federal reimbursement for the incarceration of more than 1,100 illegal aliens in 2004, why were only 175 deported when they finished their terms? What subsequent crimes did the other 925 criminal aliens commit?

After the murder of officer Donnie Young in May 2005, the Denver ICE office renewed its routine surveys of the Denver jail population to identify illegal aliens subject to deportation. How many criminal aliens have actually been deported out of the Denver jail since then, compared to prior years when such checks were not being made?

There is a societal cost to our nation's lax immigration policies. Why don't we honestly discuss it and try to solve teh problem? Or will the newly elected Democrats surrender on the border issue like they want to in Iraq?

Posted by: Greg at 03:59 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

Dems To Tear Down The Fence?

That is what this statement clearly implies.

Democrats will look again at the legislation mandating 698 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border and might seek to scrap the plan altogether when they take control of Congress next year.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat, told reporters this week that he expected to "revisit" the issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress.

Never mind that fencing/walls are an important part of border security in urban areas where the proposed electronic monitoring system will be rendered ineffective by the ability to quickly hide in densely populated areas.

In other words, the Democrat solution to border control is erecting billboards that read "Welcome Undocumented Workers!"

H/T Blog From On High

Posted by: Greg at 03:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Dems to Fix AMT

Even though I don't come anywhere near where it would kick in, I'm pleased to see this development -- but have some questions.

Democratic leaders this week vowed to make the alternative minimum tax a centerpiece of next year's budget debate, saying the levy threatens to unfairly increase tax bills for millions of middle-class families by the end of the decade.

The complex and expensive tax was designed to prevent the super-rich from using deductions, credits and other shelters to avoid paying the Internal Revenue Service. But because of rising incomes, the tax is expected to expand to more than 30 million taxpayers in 2010 from 3.8 million mostly well-off households in 2006.

Fixing the AMT has long been a top priority for Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is in line to head the Senate Finance Committee. Last year, Baucus co-authored a bill to repeal the tax with Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), the presumptive chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, this week put fixing the AMT at the top of his agenda, calling it far more urgent than dealing with President Bush's request to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire in 2010.

And yesterday, House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who is campaigning to keep his leadership post, said Democrats will make "fixing the AMT . . . a priority of tax policy next year."

But hold it -- doesn't this mean you are giving tax cut to "wealthy" Americans? Isn't cutting taxes for such folks a blow to the poor? And aren't such cuts irresponsible in a time of war and "skyrocketing" budget deficits? And didn't you folks just campaign against tax cuts, and for repealing (or allowing to expire) the ones implemented by the Bush administration? Why would you do this?

The focus on the AMT is hardly surprising, given that victims of the tax have been concentrated in high-cost urban areas such as Washington, New York and San Francisco -- places that tend to vote Democratic. Rangel, Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the presumptive House speaker, all represent states hit hard by the AMT, which is sometimes called the "blue-state tax." To map states with the highest concentrations of AMT taxpayers is to draw bull's-eyes over California and the Northeastern seaboard.

Oh, I see -- you want to fix a tax that hits the Democrat base. This isn't good tax policy, fairness, or anything else -- it is tinkering with the tax structure to reward your political base, rather than cutting taxes for all Americans like the Bush plan did. And your decision to forgo over $1 trillion over the next decade seems fiscally irresponsible for a party that ran on a platform of reducing budget deficits or getting GOP agreement or other tax increases.

And the utter hypocrisy of this complaint from the top Democrat staffer for the House Ways & Means Committee is so brazen as to almost be beyond belief.

"The real story on the AMT is how it takes back the Bush tax cuts," Buckley said. "For people who are married with children or live in states with income taxes, the tax cuts are temporary unless you fix the AMT."

But wait -- I thought you were the folks who complained that the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible and that people were wrongly being permitted to keep their own the government's money. Why on earth would you object to some Americans not getting them when you have committed yourself to taking those cuts away from all Americans?

Oh, by the way -- who originally supported the Alternative Minimum Tax and insisted that most tax breaks and deductions be taken from those who pay it? I believe it was the Democrats, who insisted that too many folks were not "paying their fair share" when they followed the rules that Congress applied to everyone. It was originally passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 1969, and restructured to its current form by a Democrat Congress in 1978, when it was signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter. And efforts at repeal or reform have been blocked by Democrats, who object to wider tax cuts and changes sought by Republicans -- including the Bush tax cut mentioned above.

If this is going to be the sort of stuff tried by the Democrats for the next two years, i expect that we Republicans will have a lot of fun during that time -- and big celebrations in November 2008.

MORE AT Blog From on High, Moderate Voice, Sandwich Repair Kit, Blue Jersey, Massachusetts Liberal, Althouse, Eschaton, Holy Coast, Public Sphere, Hillbilly White Trash


OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Samantha Burns, third world county, Pirates Cove, Uncooperative Blogger, Wake Up America, Clash of Civilizations, Is It Just Me?, Adam's Blog, Random Yak, Right Nation, Pursuing Holiness, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Sister Toldjah, Stop The ACLU, Amboy Times, Woman Honor Thyself, Church & State, Bullwinkle Blog, Right Wing Nation

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 846 words, total size 8 kb.

November 10, 2006

McCain To Organize Presidential Run -- This Republican Says "NO!"

Sorry, but I would rather see eight years of Hillary Clinton than four of John McCain in the White House.

His party may have taken "a thumpin'," in the words of President Bush, but ABC News has learned that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his political team have decided it's full steam ahead for his 2008 presidential campaign though he has yet to make the final, official decision.

Sources close to McCain say on Wednesday in Phoenix, he and a half dozen of his top aides huddled and decided to proceed more formally with his quest for the White House.

A final decision will come after Christmas.

But there are a few problems.

Moreover, McCain has yet to resolve the problems he's had with the Republican Party's conservative base.

"He has a problem with pro-lifers on judges, he Â… became very hostile to the Second Amendment community and supportive of gun control. He has a problem with the economic conservatives because he's been bad on taxes for six years now," said longtime critic Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, which includes individuals and businesses opposed to higher taxes.

"Conservatives who care about the tax issue are very concerned that he opposed Bush's tax cuts," Norquist said.

Count me among the disaffected.

I cannot imagine supporting any ticket with John McCain on it, short of a joint apparition of Jesus Christ and Ronald Reagan telling me to give him my vote.

I reject him because of the sell-out of President Bush's judicial nominees as a part of the Gang of Fourteen, which he led.

I reject him because he tried to keep veterans who served with John Kerry from speaking out about his Vietnam service.

I reject him because he counts the dishonorable Richard Armitage among his close advisors.

I reject his contempt for the First Amendment -- as demonstrated by his campaign finance "reform" legislation.

I reaffirm my statement in 2005 in which I joined with Patterico in his statement of opposition to John McCain.

The next time John McCain runs for any elective office, I pledge to support his opponent. I will use my blog to encourage others to vote for his opponent.

I am singling him out because of his fascist campaign finance law, which will not stop me in any way from using this blog to oppose John McCain for the rest of his days.

That is my solemn pledge to you.



Anybody But McCain In 2008!

MORE AT GOPBloggers

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Samantha Burns, third world county, Pirates Cove, Uncooperative Blogger, Wake Up America, Clash of Civilizations, Is It Just Me?, Adam's Blog, Random Yak, Right Nation, Pursuing Holiness, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Sister Toldjah, Stop The ACLU, Amboy Times, Woman Honor Thyself, Church & State, Bullwinkle Blog, Right Wing Nation

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 5 kb.

News Omnibus – 11/10/2006

1) A quick reminder of why we need to support Israel – it is the only place in the world (with the exception of the US) where anti-Semitism is not the rule. Even places like England are cesspools of Jew-hatred – and always have been.

2) Of course, it could be worse – at least they are not reenacting Kristallnacht style destruction of Jewish institutions, like they are in France.

3) And speaking of Kristallnacht, will the world ever learn the lesson of that evil night? Or will we continue to allow Jew-hatred to be taught unchallenged by Muslim governments and schools around the world – and by “anti-Zionist” professors in the rest of the world.

4) Which leads us, of course, to the issue of terrorism. In the UK, they are tracking two hundred plots and hundreds of plotters. Care to guess the religion of the overwhelming majority of the terrorists?

5) Illegals can get away with murder in this country – if they are taken into custody by immigration authorities, they may be deported without ever facing charges for the death they cause. If they are not taken into custody by immigration authorities, they often get bail and skip town. We need a new solution – no bail for illegals, and all costs of imprisonment should be reimbursed to the state or federal government from their homeland’s foreign aid allotment.

6) Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. has the genes for this comment about the election results – “I'm Dan Rostenkowski." If he carries his father’s genes for dishonesty and corruption, he might just live up to down to the level set by the original Rosty.

7) To all those who voted Democrat this week – did you feel a draft in the polling place? If so, it was just John Murtha and Charles Rangel killing the all-volunteer military and taking you or your children into military service against their will. Did you know that’s what you would get? If it passes, I hope the president lets it become law without his signature – just so the American people recognize how the Democrats are all about taking away freedom of choice.

8) Speaking of Democrats, Evan Bayh recognizes that his party has no mandate for a liberal agenda.

9) Here’s a congresswoman I think the world of – and hope there is a place for her in the leadership of the GOP. After all, anyone who stands up to the terrorist apologists of CAIR clearly has her head screwed on right.

10) Here’s an interesting First Amendment conundrum – can a school ban on drug paraphernalia and images trump the right of students to wear shirts promoting a ballot initiative favoring medical marijuana?

11) Look at who sees the Democrat victory as a sign America is in retreat – al-Qaeda. Rumsfeld is “fleeing the battlefield” and they plan on blowing up the White House.

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 4 kb.

News Omnibus – 11/10/2006

1) A quick reminder of why we need to support Israel – it is the only place in the world (with the exception of the US) where anti-Semitism is not the rule. Even places like England are cesspools of Jew-hatred – and always have been.

2) Of course, it could be worse – at least they are not reenacting Kristallnacht style destruction of Jewish institutions, like they are in France.

3) And speaking of Kristallnacht, will the world ever learn the lesson of that evil night? Or will we continue to allow Jew-hatred to be taught unchallenged by Muslim governments and schools around the world – and by “anti-Zionist” professors in the rest of the world.

4) Which leads us, of course, to the issue of terrorism. In the UK, they are tracking two hundred plots and hundreds of plotters. Care to guess the religion of the overwhelming majority of the terrorists?

5) Illegals can get away with murder in this country – if they are taken into custody by immigration authorities, they may be deported without ever facing charges for the death they cause. If they are not taken into custody by immigration authorities, they often get bail and skip town. We need a new solution – no bail for illegals, and all costs of imprisonment should be reimbursed to the state or federal government from their homeland’s foreign aid allotment.

6) Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. has the genes for this comment about the election results – “I'm Dan Rostenkowski." If he carries his father’s genes for dishonesty and corruption, he might just live up to down to the level set by the original Rosty.

7) To all those who voted Democrat this week – did you feel a draft in the polling place? If so, it was just John Murtha and Charles Rangel killing the all-volunteer military and taking you or your children into military service against their will. Did you know that’s what you would get? If it passes, I hope the president lets it become law without his signature – just so the American people recognize how the Democrats are all about taking away freedom of choice.

Speaking of Democrats, Evan Bayh recognizes that his party has no mandate for a liberal agenda.

9) Here’s a congresswoman I think the world of – and hope there is a place for her in the leadership of the GOP. After all, anyone who stands up to the terrorist apologists of CAIR clearly has her head screwed on right.

10) Here’s an interesting First Amendment conundrum – can a school ban on drug paraphernalia and images trump the right of students to wear shirts promoting a ballot initiative favoring medical marijuana?

11) Look at who sees the Democrat victory as a sign America is in retreat – al-Qaeda. Rumsfeld is “fleeing the battlefield” and they plan on blowing up the White House.

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 4 kb.

November 09, 2006

Mehlman Out At RNC -- Steele In?

After great work at the head of the RNC, Ken Mehlman has stepped down as head of the GOP.

And his replacement? If all goes as expected (and, for my part, hoped), outgoing Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele will be the new head of the Republican National Committee.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, whose party just lost both chambers of Congress, will leave his position in January, and the post as party chief has been offered to Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.

"It is true," Mr. Mehlman told The Washington Times when asked about reports last night that he would resign. "It's something I decided over the summer. No one told me I needed to. In fact, folks wanted me to stay."

Mr. Mehlman said he "told the White House over the summer it was my decision" to leave the RNC post, "win, lose or draw."

Also last night, Republican officials told The Times that Mr. Steele, who lost his bid for the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, has been sought out to succeed Mr. Mehlman as national party chairman. Those Republican officials said Mr. Steele had not made a decision whether to take the post, as of last night.

Other Republican Party officials said some Republican National Committee (RNC) members, including state party chairmen, have mounted a move to have Mr. Steele succeed Mr. Mehlman.

Word is that Karl Rove would prefer that Steele be made Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, but I oppose that. It is the traditional "black" Cabinet job, and I don't want to see us go back tot he days where serious black leaders within the GOP are shunted that direction by default. Besides, Steele showed what a fighter he is, and we need such a personality at the helm of the national party in the wake of this week's defeats.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin notes this interesting comment from Howard Dean -- and gives us a history flashback.

MORE AT GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

Let The People Vote

The first step in getting gay marriage was to force it on the people through the courts.

The second step is preventing the people from having their say on the matter.

And that is exactly what has happened in Massachusetts, where a parliamentary tactic was used to prevent the people from having a say on the issue.

In a flurry of strategic maneuvering, supporters of same-sex marriage managed to persuade enough legislators to vote to recess a constitutional convention until the afternoon of Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session.

On that day, lawmakers and advocates on both sides said, it appeared likely that the legislature would adjourn without voting on the measure, killing it.

“For all intents and purposes, the debate has ended,” said Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat and the assistant majority leader. “What members are expecting is that the majority of constituents are going to say, ‘Thank you, we’re glad it’s over, we think it has been discussed enough.’ ”

The measure had been expected by both sides to gain easily the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.

If Mr. Rushing really believed that a majority want this matter to be over, he and his colleagues would have sent the measure on to the people, where they could have voted it down. Could it be that they left-leaning legislators know that the people will vote to uphold tradition and what to prevent that at any cost? Given that poll numbers show that a gay marriage ban would likely be adopted by teh electorate even in liberal massachusetts, i think the answer is obvious.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 151 of 249 >>
388kb generated in CPU 0.2046, elapsed 0.8184 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.7407 seconds, 551 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.