This is a revolting development.

One of the world's most prestigious health journals has lashed a fast-growing trend in the United States and Britain for "designer vaginas," the tabloid term for cosmetic surgery to the female genitalia.

The fashion is being driven by commercial and media pressures that exploit women's insecurities and is fraught with unknowns, including a risk to sexual arousal, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) says.

Known as elective genitoplasty, the surgery usually entails shortening or changing the shape of the outer lips, or labia, but may also include reduction in the hood of skin covering the clitoris or shortening the vagina itself.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the practice is spreading fast in the United States as well as in Britain, but the picture is unclear, the BMJ says.

If we in the West are going to continue to decry the genital mutilation of young girls for religious and cultural reasons, how can we countenance the mutilation of women in the developed world for reasons of fashion?

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

If you havenÂ’t met the requirements to graduate, why should you be permitted to walk across the stage at the graduation ceremony?

Students who had been planning to walk across the stage at graduation ceremonies this weekend were instead walking a picket line Thursday morning.

The Trimble Tech High School seniors marched in front of Fort Worth Independent School District headquarters to protest Wednesday's decision by trustees to bar students who failed the TAKS test from commencement exercises.

About a dozen young people, carrying signs and chanting, began picketing at 8:30 a.m. Thursday. They represent the 613 Fort Worth seniors who did not pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills exam.

Take these young ladies.

Crystal Martinez complained that while she finished at the top of her class with a 3.5 grade point average, she is now blocked from graduation by failing the TAKS test.

"We know we're not going to get our diplomas, but we just want to walk across the stage," Martinez said. "That's all we ask for right now."
Classmate Chloe Walker agreed. "I believe that I have at least the right to walk the stage with all my friends," she said. "I made it this far, and I have all my credits I need. I deserve to get my certificate of completion."

Oh, the humanity! They haven’t met the legal requirements for graduation, but they want to get the perks that go with graduation – including a piece of paper that effectively says “Yeah, she showed up.”

And it isnÂ’t like they donÂ’t have a chance to actually get the diploma and graduate.

School officials said non-graduating seniors will have a chance to take the TAKS test again in July. If they pass, they can participate in a separate commencement exercise in August.

You know – whenever they have actually met the standard and accomplished the goal for which the accolade is being offered. Otherwise it is the equivalent of giving holding a wedding reception for a couple just shacking up together. What they do not recognize is that participating in the graduation ceremony is an honor for accomplishment, not a right.

Sadly, there are too many districts that have forgotten the true significance of the ceremony and let those who haven’t met the graduation standards put in a cameo appearance and "walk the stage." I’m glad my district does not. I wonder – is it time for the Texas Legislature to pass legislation to put a stop to this absurd practice?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Here's looking at . . . me!, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Blue Collar Muse, third world county, Allie Is Wired, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, , The Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 5 kb.

When the reporting of good news from Iraq merits its own news coverage, then you know the American people are not being given the whole story by the media.

TIME Magazine's Joe Klein — a longtime critic of President Bush and the Iraq war — writes this week — "There is good news from Iraq."
Klein details progress in Anbar province against Al Qaeda — including some days in which there have been zero effective attacks by insurgents.
He credits alliances between U.S. troops and local tribes — and writes that at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces are seeking similar alliances.

And among the examples are the following.

There is good news from Iraq, believe it or not. It comes from the most unlikely place: Anbar province, home of the Sunni insurgency. The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me—confirming reports from several other sources—that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there." The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters. And, as TIME's Bobby Ghosh has reported, an influential leader of the Sunni insurgency, Harith al-Dari, has turned against al-Qaeda as well. It is possible that al-Qaeda is being rejected like a mismatched liver transplant by the body of the Iraqi insurgency.

None of that is to say that the situation is perfect – nor that everything will be fixed in six months. And there are certainly problems with the current government – but it is a heck of a lot better than the murderous Saddamite regime ever was.

Nd let me say it – I understand the desire to see this war come to an end. Having grown up in a military family and having repeatedly sought a military career during my college years (injuries in a car accident ended that dream), I recognize that war is horrible and produces thousands of deaths in combat that each constitute a monumental individual and national tragedy. I wept the night that the war began, and I have wept over this war every day since then. But my study of history tells me that there is no acceptable substitute for victory in Iraq, and that choosing failure will result in a tragedy that far outstrips the horrors of Cambodia’s killing fields – and will render the sacrifices of the troops a meaningless waste of human life.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.

Here’s a great idea – though the Muslim suggesting it has been labeled as "the latest weapon in the Islamophobe arsenal" for speaking out against Islamist violence and Islamic barbarities contained in sharia law.

We Muslims should publicly show our strong disapproval for the growing number of attacks by Muslims against other faiths and against other Muslims. Let us not even dwell on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali and countless other scenes of carnage. It has been estimated that of the two million refugees fleeing Islamic terror in Iraq, 40% are Christian, and many of them seek a haven in Lebanon, where the Christian population itself has declined by 60%. Even in Turkey, Islamists recently found it necessary to slit the throats of three Christians for publishing Bibles.

Of course, Islamist attacks are not limited to Christians and Jews. Why do we hear no Muslim condemnation of the ongoing slaughter of Buddhists in Thailand by Islamic groups? Why was there silence over the Mumbai train bombings which took the lives of over 200 Hindus in 2006? We must not forget that innocent Muslims, too, are suffering. Indeed, the most common murderers of Muslims are, and have always been, other Muslims. Where is the Muslim outcry over the Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq?

Islamophobia could end when masses of Muslims demonstrate in the streets against videos displaying innocent people being beheaded with the same vigor we employ against airlines, Israel and cartoons of Muhammad. It might cease when Muslims unambiguously and publicly insist that Shariah law should have no binding legal status in free, democratic societies.

It is well past time that Muslims cease using the charge of "Islamophobia" as a tool to intimidate and blackmail those who speak up against suspicious passengers and against those who rightly criticize current Islamic practices and preachings. Instead, Muslims must engage in honest and humble introspection. Muslims should--must--develop strategies to rescue our religion by combating the tyranny of Salafi Islam and its dreadful consequences. Among more important outcomes, this will also put an end to so-called Islamophobia.

In other words, when Islam joins the civilized world, there will be no reason for others to think ill of it. Until that happens, Muslims are not victims of irrational fear by those who believe in human rights and freedom.

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

When you’re a Jew, self-defense will be punished with destruction – so decrees the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"If you think that by bombing and assassinating Palestinian leaders you are preparing ground for new attacks on Lebanon in the summer, I am telling you that you are seriously wrong," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a rally in the city of Isfahan.

"If this year you repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will uproot the Zionist regime."

Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bom, bomb Iran!

After all, the Stone Age would be an improvement.

Posted by: Greg at 12:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Sponsored Post

You know, I've got lots of questions about Lap Band Surgery. I know that one of my colleagues underwent the procedure last year, and she certainly lost lots of weight and has kept it off. I've never really known, though, how it works and what the cost of the procedure is.

That is why I find the concept behind MyLapbBandSurgery.com to be a really interesting one. This website, which has helped thousand of happy patients receive life-saving and lifestyle altering gastric bypass surgery to facilitate weight loss. Indeed, it is a real God-send for folks who don't have the sort of insurance coverage to get the surgery done under their health plan -- and I know that I don't.

Part of the secret is to have the lap band surgery performed in Mexico. Yes, you read that right -- you travel to Mexico and have the surgery done there. This seriously reduces teh cost of the procedure, and puts it within reach of many more patients seeking to lose that excess weight. Of course, many of you reading this might have some serious doubts about going to another country -- especially Mexico, to get surgery done at an inexpensive price. But that does not mean that you are putting yourself at risk. MyLapbBandSurgery.com is affiliated with a reputable hospital and works with licensed, certified physicians to see to it that every surgery is successful and has no problems. Indeed, the team has performed over 48,000 lapband and other gastric bypass surgeries with a success rate of over 98%.

How does it work? You fly into Mexico and are taken to the hospital for your surgery, You spend one night as an in-patient in a private room, and a second ioght in a local hotel before returning to you home. The staff with whom you work all speak English. All materials and procedures meet American standards for care. It is just that everything is so much less expensive in Mexico that you will save thousands of dollars, even with the travel.

So contact MyLapBandSurgery.com for more information, and look at their resource guide to waht you can expect.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey -- abandoning the troops in the field and surrendering to the enemy is a grand old tradition for the Dems, dating back to at least 1864. Fortunately, just like then, there are Republicans to safeguard the nation from Democratic irresponsibility.

Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.

The Senate vote to send the legislation to the president was 80-14. Less than two hours earlier, the House had cleared the measure, 280-142, with Republicans supplying the bulk of the support.

Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats in both houses coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. “This debate will go on,” vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing plans to hold votes by fall on four separate measures seeking a change in course.

Unfortunately, the leading Democrat contenders for the White House showed their unfitness for the position.

Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator.

"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that
President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.

Supporting the troops by abandoning them -- an interesting concept. I guess they are more interested in the nomination that in principle or national security.

Though I will concede that they are not as unfit as John Edwards, who doesn't even recognize that the United States is at war with the forces of Islamist terrorism around the world, and who effectively denies the last 5 1/2 years (the last 15, really) of American history.

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.

Sponsored Post

Years ago, when I was in college, I took a speech class. To be honest, I don't remember much about it -- except for one speech. It was by a guy who sort of looked like Sanjaya from this season's American Idol, and he was talking about the benefits of "self-hypnosis" for purposes of self-improvement. I laughed -- but over two decades later he is the guy I remember.

Well, when I came across this site for hypnosis downloads, I was intrigued, and flashed back to the mid-1980s. What did I find but dozens of programs to help improve people's lives -- all available over the internet. Frankly, i was astounded by the number of programs available to choose from. You can find programs for memory improvement, skill development, ending destructive personal habits, or even to help cope with pain. There are all sorts of possibilities for you.

And what's more, the folks at Instant-Hypnosis.com really want you to try their material. Their offer? Two free hypnosis sessions for you! And since all sessions come with a money-back guarantee, you do not pay a thing for any session with which you are not completely satisfied. That, my friends, is a sign of confidence in one's product, being prepared to give up every penny with the assurance that one's customers will be happy enough enough to stay with the program in the future!

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm sure the Democrats will implement this provision every bit as completely and even-handedly as the ones that they gave Murtha a pass on earlier this week.

Prodded by Democratic leaders and by freshmen elected partly on promises to clean up Washington, the House approved new ethics legislation yesterday that would penalize lawmakers who receive a wide range of favors from special interests, and would require lobbyists to disclose the campaign contributions they collect and deliver to lawmakers.

Party leaders and new lawmakers worked until the day before the vote to sway some longtime members who had balked at the proposals. It took weeks of persuasion by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other key lawmakers to convince recalcitrant Democrats -- among them some members of the speaker's inner circle.

The new proposals, which in the end passed overwhelmingly, would expand the information available about how business is done on Capitol Hill and make it available online. They would provide expanded, more frequent and Internet-accessible reporting of lobbyist-paid contributions and sponsorships, and would for the first time impose prison terms for criminal rule-breakers. They would also require strict new disclosure of "bundled" campaign contributions that lobbyists collect and pass on to lawmakers' campaigns. Yesterday's legislation passed 396 to 22.

"It is absolutely imperative that we break this circle of deceit that exists, that has existed, between lobbyists, their wealthy clients and this legislature," said Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), who helped rally support for the rules. In November, Space won the seat vacated by Republican Robert W. Ney, who had pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

The House in January passed rules banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists. The rules also require sponsors of pet spending projects, known as earmarks, to identify themselves and certify that they have no financial interest in them.

The vote to let Murtha skate, followed by his admission of guilt, makes it clear that this is nothing but window-dressing from the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Sponsored Post

How do you deal with the issue of doing an Online Backup of Oracle files? To be honest, there have always been some problems with this, due to the special nature of the data involved and its critical nature for small businesses. Well, the friendly folks at IBackup have stepped into the breach to help small business owners deal with those special needs Oracle users. You can read all about it over at IBackup.com, where they have a whole array of backup solutions for individuals and businesses. Remember -- lost data means lost information, lost time, and lost business, all things that you cannot afford to waste.

Posted by: Greg at 06:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

I donÂ’t usually post stories like this here. IÂ’ll make an exception for this one.

A horrible accident. That's how investigators are describing a Saginaw fire that killed six people, including five children.

The fire started at around 2:30 this morning in the home at the corner of Waller and South Michigan on the city's west side.

One person, 33 year old Tanesha Watkins was rescued and is in fair condition at Covenant Healthcare.

Her husband, Samuel Watkins, 36, died in the fire, along with his stepchildren. They have been identified as Adam Dupuis, 13, daughters Majesty Price, 8, Destiny Price, 5, Essence Price, 3, and Chad Skinner, 1. His birthday was yesterday.

Here's what happened. Samuel Watkins was cooking in the kitchen when the fire started. Tanesha Watkins awoke when one of her daughters got up to go to the bathroom.

Tanesha smelled the smoke and went to look for the fire. She went to the basement, and was trapped as the flames spread.

She was rescued by two Saginaw County sheriff's deputies, who were waved down by the stepfather.

Saginaw Police Fire Investigator Jason Ball explains what the stepfather did next.
"From what we've learned, there was a fire in the kitchen. The father was made aware of the fire, ran outside, sought help from a sheriff's deputy who was on a traffic stop nearby. The sheriff's deputy reported that he observed the 36-year-old stepfather run into the house, through a wall of smoke and flames, to try to make it to the upstairs where the children and his wife were sleeping."

Such a tragedy is hard to wrap your head around. In this case, these people were the family of one of my fellow teachers. IÂ’d ask that you keep this entire family in prayer at this horrific time, that they may know GodÂ’s love in the midst of their sorrrow, and be comforted with the assurance that those who have died are wrapped in the arms of a loving God. Especially, please pray for Tanesha Watkins as she recovers from her injuries and from the devastation of losing her husband and children in one cruel blow.

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon them. Amen.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, that seems to be the position taken in Colorado, where a Democratic Party official has been acquitted of criminal use of a noxious substance for stuffing dog crap in the mailbox of her congresswoman.

A former Democratic Party activist who left dog feces on the doorstep of U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's Greeley office during last year's 4th Congressional District campaign was found not guilty Wednesday of criminal use of a noxious substance.

A Weld County jury deliberated about two hours before acquitting Kathleen Ensz of the misdemeanor count. Her trial began Tuesday.

Ensz's lawyers never denied that their client left a Musgrave campaign brochure full of feces at the front door of the congresswoman's office. But they argued that Ensz was making a statement protected by free speech - the poop was a symbol of what she thought of Musgrave's politics.

"Her only intention of going over there was to make a political statement that Marilyn Musgrave's politics stink," attorney Shannon D. Lyons said after the verdict.

So letÂ’s get this straight.

Stuffing dog crap in the mailbox is free speech.

Presumably this also means that throwing dog crap at an elected official is free speech, despite my argument that such repulsive and disgusting behavior was criminal conduct, not free speech, back when I originally wrote about this case.

Gee – I can’t wait for Hillary to come to town!

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

You know, when you start applying objective academic standards and not racial preferences, that is what happens.

However, some folks are not happy about the University being forced to follow the Fourteenth Amendment.

Cordelia Martin, a senior at Farmington Hills' Mercy High School, believes Proposal 2 is the leading culprit for her denial.

"If affirmative action would have still been allowed in the admissions process, I think U of M would have considered the odds that I strived to overcome more and taken my racial ethnicity into account," said Martin, who will attend Michigan State University in the fall. She's also a plaintiff in a lawsuit to repeal Proposal 2.

So you see, she’s upset that she was not admitted to the University of Michigan despite her failure to meet the color-blind admissions requirements. As far as she is concerned, she should be judged by the color of her skin and not the content of her character – or the quality of her intellect. Not that she is particularly harmed by this outcome, given her admission to Michigan State University.

Interestingly enough, U-M officials acknowledge that Prop. 2 has resulted in an increase in academic ability.

U-M officials did not comment Wednesday on the diversity of the class. However, they said it should be one of the "most highly qualified and intellectually dynamic ever admitted."

Now if one presumes that the purpose of a university is to educate, and that a top-tier university is supposed to be taking the top-tier intellects, then Prop 2 has done exactly what it is supposed to do.

And if those who donÂ’t measure up lose out to those who do, then what we have is justice, not racism.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Now that Jack Murtha has admitted violating House Ethics Rules, will he receive an appropriate sanction or his misdeeds?

Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania sent a note of apology to Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan Wednesday, the day after a divided House denied Rogers a vote to officially reprimand the powerful senior Democrat.

Murtha apologized for his "outburst" in a handwritten note Rogers received Wednesday morning, the latter's office confirmed. This marks his first acknowledgement of an episode between the two lawmakers on the House floor.

Last week, the powerful Democrat allegedly threatened to deny Rogers any future spending projects in defense bills after the Michigan Republican challenged his earmark request for $23 million to prevent the administration from closing an intelligence gathering facility in his western Pennsylvania district.

Republicans have called the tirade a flagrant abuse of House rules.

Members and aides on both sides of the aisle continued to speculate that Rogers or another Republican will eventually call on the ethics committee to formally investigate last week's flap, even after Tuesday's partyline vote to prevent debate.

However, Tuesday’s vote followed by Wednesday’s apology makes the duplicity of the Democrats really clear – and clarifies that their promises of a new tone were a lie.

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

This is a classic line, one that will have to join Queen SheilaÂ’s many other inane comments as highlights of her pathetic career in public office.

Rep. Jackson Lee also caused a few observers to scratch their heads when she opened her questioning of Goodling this way: “Allow me just to simply begin a series of questions, Ms. Goodling, and I would ask that they — your answers — be as cryptic and as brief as possible, however truthful, because we do have a shortened period of time.”

The woman is an idiot – but since she serves a racially gerrymandered district designed to put an African-American, no matter how incompetent, in Congress, we shouldn’t be surprised that she lives down to the level of Maxine Watters and Cynthia McKinney.

And interestingly enough, it appears that Congressman Keith Ellison may be giving her a run for her money in the idiocy department.

“So you all bypassed a chief of [the Civil Division] and went to somebody who had no experience in management simply because they were a liberal?” Ellison asked Goodling.

“No, not at all,” she answered. “There were other reasons involved in the decision.”

“Now — “

“To clarify, we — “

“No, I don’t need a clarification,” Ellison said. “Thank you, ma’am.”

“Well, I would like to complete my answer.”

“Well, I don’t need an answer.”

Actually, that is probably true. After all, these hearings into the perfectly legal firings of appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President are not about wrong-doing or oversight. Rather, they are about scoring cheap political points with pseudo-scandals and mini-gotchas. As a result, the actual evidence and testimony is irrelevant, for the conclusions were predetermined before the first question was asked. Ellison simply made the mistake of letting the cat out of the bag.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Here's looking at . . . me!, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Blue Collar Muse, third world county, Allie Is Wired, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, , The Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 5 kb.

Hurrah! Provided, of course, it is better than Episodes I-III.

STAR WARS fans will sense a disturbance in the force amid rampant rumours that a new movie set before the prequels is to be announced in LA tomorrow.

The news of the "huge" announcement by Star Wars creator George Lucas comes on the 30th anniversary of the first film.

Chris Brennan, a member of Star Walking Inc - the Australian Star Wars appreciation society, is in LA for the offcial convention Celebration IV at the Los Angeles Covention Centre.

He said the rumours sweeping the venue is that Lucas will announce a new Star Wars movie is in the works.

Reports have been circling among fans and on the internet of a new Star Wars movie or movies set before the recent prequels at the time of Old Republic when the Jedi regained control of the galaxy from the Dark Lords of the Sith.

"He did make a slip in an interview a couple of weeks ago and say something about a forthcoming movie,'' Brennan said.

"The reporter went back to him and said `did you say movie?'

"George said no he didn't say that and tried to cover it up.''

This would be in addition to the live-action television series that has already been announced.

I like the premise of an early history of the Galaxy. However, I wish he would reconsider his earlier decision not to do Episodes VII-IX, set after Return of the Jedi. Given the years that have passed, the original actors might just be old enough to return for their original roles.

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

His sentence seems too short – but maybe he and his fellow eco-terrorists can serve their time at Gitmo.

Declaring that fires set at a police station, an SUV dealership and a tree farm were acts of terrorism, a federal judge Wednesday sentenced a member of a radical environmental group to 13 years in prison.

Stanislas Meyerhoff, 29, has admitted to being a member of a Eugene cell of the Earth Liberation Front known as The Family, which was responsible for more than 20 arson fires from 1996 through 2001 in five Western states that caused $40 million in damage.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken commended Meyerhoff for having the courage to "do the right thing" by giving authorities information about his fellow arsonists after his arrest.

But Aiken said his efforts to save the Earth by setting fires were misguided and cowardly, and contributed to an unfair characterization of others working legally to protect the environment as radicals.

"It was your intent to scare and frighten other people through a very dangerous and psychological act - arson," Aiken told Meyerhoff. "Your actions included elements of terrorism to achieve your goal."

This guy at least recognizes he was wrong – and made a statement that could clearly come from the mouths of most left-wing radicals.

"I was ignorant of history and economy and acted from a faulty and narrow vision as an ordinary bigot," said Meyerhoff, his voice breaking at times.

After all, dissent is not tolerated by the Left – and must be met with violence. After all, that violence is in the service of a higher cause, and those who are its victims deserve it for not kowtowing to the dogma of the Left.

And here is a family member of another convicted domestic eco-terrorist – trying to make the case that burning down buildings (which could kill people, last time I checked) for political purposes is not terrorism. The scary part? The individual making the argument is a former firefighter!

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE -- 5/24/2007: The murdered American hero has been identified.

The American military confirmed today that a body found in the Euphrates River on Wednesday is that of Army Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr., one of three American soldiers seized in an ambush on May 12.

A military official said that the body, which was pulled from the river several miles south of where the attack occurred, had been identified late Wednesday and that the family of Private Anzack, 20, of Torrance, Calif., had been notified.

The discovery brought the first signs of closure to a massive manhunt that has gone on for 11 days, with thousands of American and Iraqi troops searching day and night for the missing soldiers. But for the men and women who lost friends, it was hardly enough.

* * *

Iraqi police officials said the body was partly clothed in an American military uniform and had a tattoo on one arm, bullet wounds and possible signs of torture. Residents said it was found floating in the Euphrates on Wednesday morning, several miles south of the road by the river where the attack occurred.

“Some people from our town — and I was with them — dragged the body from the river,” said Ali Abbas al-Fatlawi, 30, a resident of Musayyib. “We saw the head riddled with bullets, and shots in the left side of the abdomen. His hands were not tied, and he was not blindfolded.”

* * *

American military officials did not confirm the local accounts. A group of soldiers who had been searching near Musayyib this week — and who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the operations — said American troops might have cornered the gunmen, who then killed the soldier and dumped his body as they fled.

The bitter irony here is that only last month, this news report about Private Anzack appeared in the media.

A Torrance family was trying to return to a normal life this week after learning that reports of their son's death in Iraq were incorrect.

Rumors that Joseph Anzack, an Army gunner stationed south of Baghdad, had been killed in Iraq began circulating earlier this week, shocking family members and prompting his high school to put a message on its marquee: In Loving Memory -- Joseph Anzack -- Class of 2005.

Family members were stunned, and none more so than Anzack himself, who called home to make it clear he was, in fact, alive and kicking.

To have to deal with such horror twice in one month boggles the mind.

My deepest sympathy to the Anzack family, and to his comrades in arms. You are in my prayers, and the prayers of every loyal American.

ORIGINAL REPORT- 5/25/2007

It is way too early to tell, but this report does not look good.

Iraqi police found the body of a man who was wearing what appeared to be a U.S. military uniform and had a tattoo on his left hand floating in the Euphrates River south of Baghdad on Wednesday morning, and one Iraqi official said it was one of three missing American soldiers.

The man had been shot in the head and chest, Babil police Capt. Muthana Khalid said. He said Iraqi police turned the body over the U.S. forces.

The report of the body found was confirmed by a senior Iraqi army officer in the Babil area. He told The Associated Press that the body found in the river was that of an American soldier. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

The discovery of the body in Musayyib, about 40 miles south of Baghdad in Babil Province, came as U.S. troops and Iraqi forces continued their massive search for the three soldiers abducted May 12 in an ambush on their patrol near Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad.

The U.S. military said in an e-mail that it was looking into the report, but could not confirm it.

It doesn't take a great leap of faith to reach the conclusion that the terrorists have failed to show the same respect for the rights of their prisoners that the neo-Copperheads in this country and the terrorist-supporters abroad demand that America show captured terrorists.

As i've said in the past, maybe it is time to start treating such folks as pirates.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 750 words, total size 5 kb.

This is the sort of stuff that explains why John Cornyn will be handily reelected to the Senate.

“The question I put to my colleagues is this: Should Congress permanently bar from the U.S. and from receiving any immigration benefit: suspected terrorists, gang members, sex offenders, felony drunk drivers, and other individuals who are a danger to society?,” Sen. Cornyn said. “I hope that every Senator would answer this question with a positive response.”

Go John! Go John! Go John!

H/T Jawa Report, Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

John Edwards can kiss the gay vote goodbye -- or he could if he were comfortable around such people.

Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards's 1998 Senate campaign in North Carolina, does not remember his onetime client very fondly.

In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"

"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."

Maybe we can get registered Democrat Fred Phelps to start showing up outside Edwards campaign events. He can just make his signs read "John Hates Fags".

And Shrum also makes it clear that Pretty-Boy John is an intellectual light-weight with a temperament unsuitable for the White House.

While praising Edwards as a man of "many innate political gifts," Shrum says he hoped the senator wouldn't run for the White House in 2004: "I was coming to believe he wasn't ready; he was a Clinton who hadn't read the books."

When Shrum called to say he had decided to join the presidential campaign of another former client, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Edwards was angry. "I can't believe you would do this to me and my family. I will never, ever forget it, even on my deathbed," he quotes Edwards as saying.

Dumb.

Inexperienced.

Emotionally unstable.

That's John Edwards.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Because after all, the terms are vague and undefined, leaving those potentially accused with no way of knowing if they are in compliance.

The House, eager to do something about record high gasoline prices in advance of the Memorial Day weekend, voted narrowly Wednesday to approve stiff penalties for those found guilty of gasoline price gouging.

The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to go after oil companies, traders or retail operators if they take “unfair advantage” or charge “unconscionably excessive” prices for gasoline and other fuels.

The White House called the measure a form of price controls that could result in fuel shortages. It said President Bush would be urged to veto the legislation should it pass Congress.

Define "unfair advantage" What is an "unconscionably excessive" price for a product? There really is no standard for measuring either -- especially if one is not out to repeal the law of supply and demand (take ECONOMICS 101 at your local community college for details). What next -- Hugo Chavez-style nationalization of oil companies?

Get that veto pen out, Mr. President -- this bill is awful.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Because after all, we've seen such great terroristic efforts put forth by Christians to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, murder those who don't live up to Christian standards, and behead our opponents.

Oh, that's right -- that is Islam, not Christianity.

But you wouldn't know that from the warped, disproportionate moral equivalency drawn by HuffPo writer Max Blumenthal.

Visitors to Mark David Uhl's Myspace page will quickly learn that Uhl is a student at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, that he is a devoted Christian, that his name means "Mighty Warrior" -- and that he likes Will Smith's saccharine tear-up-the-club track, "Switch." Uhl reveals his career ambitions on his page as well: "I will join the Army as an officer after college." Already, Uhl was preparing in Liberty's ROTC program.

Uhl waited until he was offline, however, to reveal his plot to kill the family of itinerant Calvinist provocateur Fred Phelps (famous for their "Fag Troops" rallies outside soldiers' funerals). The Phelpses planned to protest Falwell's funeral, a bizarre stunt designed to highlight Falwell's somehow insufficiently draconian attitude towards homosexuals. Uhl made several bombs and allegedly told a family member he planned to use them to attack the Phelps family.

He was arrested soon after and charged with manufacturing explosives. On the surface, Uhl appears to be the latest version of Virginia Tech rampage killer (and "Richard McBeef" author) Cho Seung-Hui. Indeed, both Uhl and Cho were alienated young men who conceived or carried out campaigns of mass murder on college campuses.

Of course, Blumenthal then goes on to explain how he believes Christianity -- in particular conservative Christianity that actually believes in the Bible, the traditional tenets of the faith, and is supportive of America is responsible for this utterly obscene corruption of everything that Christianity stands for -- and which would have been condemned by Jerry Falwell himself were he still alive.

And I've no doubt that any poll of young Christians (even of the most conservative stripe) would not produce a result that said over a quarter of them believed that murdering civilians in the name of God was acceptable, as a recent poll of American Muslims shows.

And have no doubt -- you won't find a single Christian leader supporting the frightfully wrong actions of Mark David Uhl, and will probably find many actively denouncing them, which again stands in stark contrast to the situation within Islam.

Though I cannot help but note one thing -- I suspect that there are many Americans of any political, religious, or philosophical stripe (myself included) who would have had a difficult time finding a downside and would have shed no tears if Uhl had been successful in taking out the Fred Phelps Klan.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

Yeah, she's a cute little thing with an infectious grin. And yes, she has a powerful voice. So congratulations to this year's winner.

Jordin Sparks, the perky 17-year-old high school student from Glendale, Ariz., won the sixth round of "American Idol" last night, beating out 11 other finalists, including several who were better singers, but none with her winning package of big voice, big smile and teetering-on-womanhood.

Did we mention she's only 17, as the show's three judges reminded viewers at every possible moment in the four-month-long competition? That makes her the youngest "Idol" winner ever.

My problem with the outcome? First, she seems more like a host on the Disney Channel than a real American idol. Second -- does anyone really believe that either of the two finalists was better than Melinda Doolittle, who was eliminated last week? It all feels like the outcome has been scripted for the last few weeks, even up to the surprise elimination of the odds-on favorite to set up a final taht was designed to produce a run-away result.

But regardless, I think we will see at least three hit-makers come out of this season -- and can't help but remind folks that the only winner previous winner who has really left a mark as a successful artist has been Kelly Clarkson, while any number of runners up have seen more success. I do hope that changes.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Because in the end, the birth of a baby is to be celebrated.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a grandfather for the sixth time.

According to the vice president's office, Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, 37, and her longtime partner, Heather Poe, welcomed 8 lbs., 6 oz. Samuel David Cheney into the world at 9:46 this morning at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Now some conservatives did themselves great discredit with negative responses to the announcement of the pregnancy some months ago. Even if one accepts the notion that the best environment for a child is a two-parent family with a married father and mother (and that is my view), and even if one believes that encouraging such families is proper policy, once there is a pregnancy we are morally obliged as a society to give support to th mother and a joyous welcome to the new child among us.

Posted by: Greg at 10:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Sponsored Post
Hey -- we've all seen the dating "reality" shows on television. You know, Joe Millionaire, The Bachelor, and all the rest. Frankly, there isn't a whole lot of reality to the reality that you watch on them -- but lots of folks try to participate. heck, we even had one local teacher on one of the shows recently.

But would YOU want to get into the act? Would you want to win a date with -- perhaps even seduce -- a celebrity? Come on, folks -- be honest.

That's the premise of the new online reality show Seduce a Celeb. It is one of the Free videos at GoFish.com, and features actress Mirelly Taylor, who you have seen on shows like “Las Vegas”, “Punk’d”, and “Numb3rs”. You can submit videos at GoFish.com and try to win yourself a date with the lovely Mirelly, who is a real Latin hottie!

Now I'll be honest -- Mirelly is cute. I suppose that in my younger days I might have even been willing to give this game a shot. But you know what – I think that the next celebrity they bring into this should not be an actor or actress, but instead alone of the hot young country music artists who are just breaking into the industry. Or maybe former reality show contestants – could you imagine this with Sanjaya as the celebrity?

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

A little candor on the immigration bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, speaking to a private gathering of Republican activists last night, called the Senate’s immigration compromise bill a “piece of shit” but said that he had promised President Bush earlier in the day that he would let his teeth be a barrier to such thoughts in public.

Boehner spoke last night at a small reception for the Republican Rapid Responders on Capitol Hill.

“I promised the President today that I wouldn’t say anything bad about … this piece of shit bill,” he said, according to two attendees.

Now if heÂ’ll just start saying this stuff publicly, to keep this piece of shit bill from becoming a piece of shit law!

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 08:44 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a death sentence for the rape of an eight-year-old girl yesterday, setting up a real interesting constitutional challenge.

Louisiana's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a man may be executed for raping an 8-year-old girl, and lawyers say his case may become the test for whether the nation's highest court upholds the death penalty for someone who rapes a child.
Both sides say the sentence for Patrick Kennedy, 42, could expand a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The high court said then that its ruling applied only to adult victims.
Attorney Jelpi Picou, director of the New Orleans-based Capital Appeals Project, said he will ask the Louisiana Supreme Court for a rehearing and, if rejected, will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"As horrid as (rape) is and as harshly as we believe it should be condemned, death is inappropriate in this case," Picou said.
Louisiana law allows the death penalty for the aggravated rape of someone less than 12 years old.
"He's the only person in the United States on death row for non-homicide rape," Picou said.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. Given the 1977 ruling, which effectively held that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution had evolved to prohibit capital punishment for rape, the Louisiana statute and this decision would appear to be in direct contradiction of the controlling legal authority on the matter. However, as we all know, there exists the notion that the Constitution evolves and grows and changes over time, making it a rather fluid standard by which to determine the constitutionality of any state action. Indeed, that 1977 decision itself was a part of a series of “evolving standard” decisions related to the death penalty – for certainly the Framers of the Bill of Rights and those who ratified it did not view capital punishment as something to be reserved for homicide cases alone.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. If one concedes the legitimacy of the 1977 decision, then one must admit that the Constitution grows and changes over time. But if that is the case, then there is no legitimate basis for striking down the Louisiana statute and overruling the Louisiana high court. After all, one can legitimately argue that the Eighth Amendment has evolved again, and now allows capital punishment for some, if not all, sex crimes. After all, society’s attitudes towards and experiences with sex criminals over the last three decades have resulted in an entirely new way of viewing predatory perverts who sexually victimize children. A new consensus has emerged in our society about the need to harshly punish such individuals, and the Louisiana law is one example of that trend (at least six state have similar laws on the books or will shortly). If the standard can evolve and change in a liberal direction to protect violent child abusers from a just punishment, why can it not transform back to the original intent of those who wrote and adopted it? To argue that it cannot is to expose the illegitimacy of the “living Constitution” theory of “evolving standards” – and expose it as nothing more than legislating from the bench to impose liberal dogma that would never be accepted by We the People.

On the other hand, an originalist understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would surely allow the state of Louisiana to impose death as a just punishment for violent pedophiles like Patrick Kennedy – and any other sex criminal as well.

In other words, there is no legitimate reason for the Supreme Court not to overturn the 1977 decision – other than a raw judicial arrogance that places the rights of rapists above justice for their victims.

Interestingly enough, Jonah Goldberg takes on the same philosophical issue in a pair of posts (related to a different context) at NRO’s The Corner.

Posted by: Greg at 08:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 668 words, total size 5 kb.

Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a death sentence for the rape of an eight-year-old girl yesterday, setting up a real interesting constitutional challenge.

Louisiana's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a man may be executed for raping an 8-year-old girl, and lawyers say his case may become the test for whether the nation's highest court upholds the death penalty for someone who rapes a child.
Both sides say the sentence for Patrick Kennedy, 42, could expand a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The high court said then that its ruling applied only to adult victims.
Attorney Jelpi Picou, director of the New Orleans-based Capital Appeals Project, said he will ask the Louisiana Supreme Court for a rehearing and, if rejected, will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"As horrid as (rape) is and as harshly as we believe it should be condemned, death is inappropriate in this case," Picou said.
Louisiana law allows the death penalty for the aggravated rape of someone less than 12 years old.
"He's the only person in the United States on death row for non-homicide rape," Picou said.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. Given the 1977 ruling, which effectively held that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution had evolved to prohibit capital punishment for rape, the Louisiana statute and this decision would appear to be in direct contradiction of the controlling legal authority on the matter. However, as we all know, there exists the notion that the Constitution evolves and grows and changes over time, making it a rather fluid standard by which to determine the constitutionality of any state action. Indeed, that 1977 decision itself was a part of a series of “evolving standard” decisions related to the death penalty – for certainly the Framers of the Bill of Rights and those who ratified it did not view capital punishment as something to be reserved for homicide cases alone.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. If one concedes the legitimacy of the 1977 decision, then one must admit that the Constitution grows and changes over time. But if that is the case, then there is no legitimate basis for striking down the Louisiana statute and overruling the Louisiana high court. After all, one can legitimately argue that the Eighth Amendment has evolved again, and now allows capital punishment for some, if not all, sex crimes. After all, society’s attitudes towards and experiences with sex criminals over the last three decades have resulted in an entirely new way of viewing predatory perverts who sexually victimize children. A new consensus has emerged in our society about the need to harshly punish such individuals, and the Louisiana law is one example of that trend (at least six state have similar laws on the books or will shortly). If the standard can evolve and change in a liberal direction to protect violent child abusers from a just punishment, why can it not transform back to the original intent of those who wrote and adopted it? To argue that it cannot is to expose the illegitimacy of the “living Constitution” theory of “evolving standards” – and expose it as nothing more than legislating from the bench to impose liberal dogma that would never be accepted by We the People.

On the other hand, an originalist understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would surely allow the state of Louisiana to impose death as a just punishment for violent pedophiles like Patrick Kennedy – and any other sex criminal as well.

In other words, there is no legitimate reason for the Supreme Court not to overturn the 1977 decision – other than a raw judicial arrogance that places the rights of rapists above justice for their victims.

Interestingly enough, Jonah Goldberg takes on the same philosophical issue in a pair of posts (related to a different context) at NROÂ’s The Corner.

Posted by: Greg at 08:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 676 words, total size 5 kb.

Liberals tried to make a scandal out of the fact that the president wasnÂ’t wearing a seatbelt while driving on his ranch in Texas.

Guess what – his actions were legal.

President Bush found himself in a flap Tuesday about seat-belt use, a day after a federal agency began a campaign to encourage drivers to buckle up.

Video cameras caught Bush without his seat belt while driving a pickup on his Texas ranch last weekend, giving a tour to NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment in detail on Bush's driving habits but said, "We encourage everybody to wear their seat belts." He noted Bush was driving slowly at his ranch when the incident was taped.

On Monday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began its annual "Click it or Ticket" seat-belt campaign, which runs through June 3.

Bush did not violate Texas law. "On private property, you're not required to wear your seat belt," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. She said "it's fairly common" in the ranchlands of Texas.

Mind you, I’m opposed to the nanny-statism that legally mandates seat belts and motorcycle helmets, and believe such laws should be repealed. That said, I also know the requirements of Texas law – and recognized immediately that there was no scandal here, because all such private farm and ranch roads are exempt under Texas law.

Posted by: Greg at 08:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

But then again, what else is new? Unfortunately, the US and world media seem to be ignoring this new hostage crisis in Iran.

Swiss diplomats seeking to visit Haleh Esfandiari, a leading Iranian-American academic jailed in Iran, have not been given access to her, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars said yesterday.

In addition, Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and lawyer who has taken on Ms. EsfandiariÂ’s defense, confirmed yesterday that two lawyers from her office had been denied permission to visit their client but she said that they would continue their efforts.

Iran announced Monday that Ms. Esfandiari was being accused of trying to foment a velvet revolution there. The Wilson Center and her family had avoided asking the United States or other governments to intervene until she was sent to Evin prison two weeks ago.

The Swiss government, which runs the American Interests Section in Tehran in the absence of diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, requested that a consular official be allowed to visit Ms. Esfandiari but no such visit was granted, Lee H. Hamilton, the director of the Wilson Center in Washington, said at a news conference there.

He said other governments had intervened on Ms. EsfandiariÂ’s behalf since she was jailed on May 8, but declined to say which ones. The Swiss Embassy in Washington referred questions to the State DepartmentÂ’s Office of Iranian Affairs, which said the United States government has made repeated requests about Ms. Esfandiari.

This is just as egregious as the taking of hostages in 1979 by Iranian militants (including, it is believed, the current Iranian president). Will the US government have the guts to take a firm stand against this rogue regime, and demand freedom for this American citizen, backing that demand up with serious action if the proper response is not forthcoming? or will it simply be a replay of Jimmy Carter's weak-kneed response to an act of war by the Islamists n charge there?

I think Senator McCain unintentionally got it right recently

Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb, bomb Iran!

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

The Houston Chronicle is right -- defeating this bill for technical reasons is wrong. However, i'd argue that defeating it because it is a bad idea is a better thing.

One of the most egregious and undignified maneuvers occurred on Monday, when a lawmaker used a minor omission in a bill analysis to waylay legislation at the last minute that would have provided limited protections for journalists seeking to keep their sources confidential.

The bill, titled "The Free Flow of Information Act and sponsored by Houston's Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Democrat, and Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, a Republican, had already passed the Senate and was headed for its final legislative hurdle in the House.

Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, acting on behalf of district attorneys who opposed the law, seized on the insertion of a sentence into the bill by committee counsel that was not referenced in the legislative analysis. As a result, the shield law was ruled out of order. Although its supporters have not yet given up on finding an alternate route to consideration, time is running out.

The bill would provide journalists with protections against being subpoenaed by prosecutors to reveal confidential sources except in limited circumstances. It would also require a court hearing where the evidence and necessity for divulging the information would be weighed by a judge and would set out guidelines for jurists to use in reaching their decision. Thirty-three other states and the District of Columbia have similar statutes.

Sen. Ellis expressed disappointment that the effort to pass the shield law had been undercut by such a trivial objection.

"To fight for so long and to move this bill so far and to have it snatched away on something that is completely nonsubstantive is neither good government, nor good for the people of Texas," he said.

Texas media representatives have argued that a shield law is necessary to make it possible for whistleblowers to share information with journalists without the fear that their identity will later be revealed.

However, this bill really only serves the special interests of Big Media (you know, companies like the Houston Chronicle), as it is pretty clear that corporate media will be the only folks that qualify as reportesr under this bill.

\And as I pointed out yesterday, it is the definitions and exclusions that make such laws either dangerously broad or arbitrarily and capriciously narrow -- and in reality serve no public interest at all.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

NOT! After all, what sovereign country will abide by the decision of some federal court judge? After all, that is what OPEC is. Would NATO have followed the decision of a Soviet court during the height of the Cold War? The members of OPEC will simply keep their quotas and just quit selling oil to the US.

Decrying near-record high gasoline prices, the House voted Tuesday to allow the government to sue OPEC over oil production quotas.

The White House objected, saying that might disrupt supplies and lead to even higher costs at the pump. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is the cartel that accounts for 40 percent of the world's oil production.

"We don't have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of gas," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the bill's chief sponsor, declared, reflecting the frustration lawmakers have felt over their inability to address people's worries about high summer fuel costs.

The measure passed 345-72. A similar bill awaits action in the Senate.

Why don't we deal with the real issues in the gas price crisis and allow for more exploration and drilling in areas closed by law, encourage the building of more refineries and the upgrading of older ones, and do away with all the special blends of gas required by government fiat. Those things would do more to end the upward spike than getting a non-enforceable judgment from a federal court.

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Who knows -- maybe the Democrats will be forced to let the troops win this one if the White House remains firm.

Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package yesterday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.

Bush, who has already vetoed one spending bill with a troop timeline, had threatened to do the same with the next version if it came with such a condition. Democratic leaders had moved ahead anyway, under heavy pressure from liberals who believe that the party won control of Congress in November on the strength of antiwar sentiment. But in the end, Democrats said they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto and could not delay troop funding.

The netroots are, of course, frothing, as are assorted moonbats doing fly-bys on radio and television broadcasts.

I just wish they would remember -- there is no substitute for victory.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

1 rude, wpxxblbi, , dprremxj, 594, usluidui, 8-DDD,

Posted by: Qipwvpfy at Wed Oct 7 14:50:12 2009 (duSQr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I mean, really -- treating lawbreakers like lawbreakers! What could they have been thinking?

By the time he tugged on a pair of jeans and walked toward the living room, he could hear nearby voices shouting. He saw his mother on the couch, being peppered with questions by four immigration agents — questions about her papers, questions about his, questions about two single men who rented rooms from them. In his entire life, all 18 years, Alex had never seen her so close to crying.

In the end, the agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement accepted the proof that Alex and his mother, who has permanent resident status, were legal. The two renters, Roberto and Augustine, were led away in handcuffs, Roberto wearing only his boxer shorts.

Then Ms. Sorto discovered how the agents had apparently entered her apartment; the window of the locked side door, intact the previous night, was now broken.

Even after all the tumult, Ms. Sorto insisted that Alex go to school. Even though it was 8:30, and he had no classes for another hour, she drove him there. He watched her hands quake as she tried to steer. In art class, his favorite, he could not get his pencil to move. All he could think about was what would become of him if his mother were taken away.

Such was the triumph of Operation Cross Check, the federal raid against illegal immigrants that went on for four days last month in this community of about 18,500 people. To the Department of Homeland Security, the operation was a success, catching a convicted sex offender and several welfare cheats among its 49 arrests. In a news release announcing the toll, an immigration enforcement director for Minnesota said, “Our job is to help protect the public from those who commit crimes.”

Yet more than half of those arrested had committed no crime other than being in the United States illegally, doing the jobs at Jennie-O that prop up the local economy. And, as the experience of Alex Sorto demonstrates, the aggressive, invasive style of the sweep instilled lasting fear among WillmarÂ’s 3,000 Hispanics, many of them students born or naturalized in the United States. These young people are the political football in AmericaÂ’s bitter, unresolved battle about immigration.

“All of us are scared,” said Andrea Gallegos, a junior at the high school. “When you go to school, you don’t know if your parents will be there when you come home. I don’t feel safe anywhere — walking to the school bus, walking outside the school building.”

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of all these sob-stories about the poor persecuted border-jumpers and their kin, forced to live with the threat of having the law enforced. What next? Articles about how the children of drug dealers live with the daily threat of their parents being arrested?

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

1 call of duty, Watch free pamela anderson sex tape
, > ,

Posted by: Nick12 at Mon Jan 19 03:43:11 2009 (htE7l)

2 comment2, pamela anderson sex tape
, 3421, Pictures of knock off coach purses
, 58709, Paris Hilton Sex Tape All Kinds
, 313, Groping Train All Kinds
, %[[[, Cheapest no credit check loans
, bhfe,

Posted by: paul at Tue Feb 10 12:20:44 2009 (1f6S3)

3 comment6, Cheapest ray j sex tape
, mstdp, First dirt cheap airline tickets
, ), knock off coach purses
, > ((, Buy kim kardashian sex tape
, iber, Very Short Skirts Photos
, 051,

Posted by: foryou at Fri Feb 20 16:38:08 2009 (BVxme)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sponsored Post

Derek Bok once said, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

Education used to be the way to ensure that you were on the path to making good money. It often still is -- but now it is also the way to making yourself indebted. But you don't have to deal with your debt in ignorant way -- a Student Loan Consolidation Program is an option for many individuals. In fact, you are probably one of those individuals if you are still paying on your college loan debt – especially if that debt is a heavy burden.

And there are lots of programs out there for student loan consolidation, if you know where to look. That is where FinancialAid.com comes into the picture. They offer many programs to help you get that college debt under control and paid off, so that you are running your life, not your student loans. So click on in and take a look -- they can save you money on those student loans! And everybody can certainly stand to have a few extra dollars in their pocket each month – and some programs can make a considerable cut in your monthly payments.

If you need help with student loan debt consolidation, visit FinancialAid.com. You'd be ignorant not to.

Posted by: Greg at 06:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Taxpayers will pick up the legal tabs of the border-jumping immigration criminals seeking their reward of permanent residency for their crimes.

Ken Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), today criticized the immigration bill crafted in secret by Senators led by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Boehm said, "If passed, this bill will make taxpayers pay the legal bills for illegal aliens seeking amnesty. Tucked away on page 317 is a provision that would allow lawyers in the federally-funded legal services program to represent illegal aliens, which they are presently barred from doing."

John Carlisle, NLPC's Director of Policy, said, "Many taxpayers will be chagrined to learn they may soon have to provide a lawyer for illegal aliens who should not be here in the first place. Activist lawyers, illegal aliens and government money are a bad mix."

The federally-funded Legal Services Corporation (LSC) supports s a network of lawyers in hundreds of communities in the country to provide civil (not criminal) day-to-day legal help to poor people. This year, LSC will receive $330 million. Since it was founded in 1974, LSC has received over $6 billion.

The authorizing language states: Section 504(a)(11) of Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321 et seq.) shall not be construed to prevent a recipient of funds under the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996 et seq.) from providing legal assistance directly related to an application for a Z-A visa under subsection (b) or an adjustment of status under subsection (j).

This negates a provision approved by Congress in 1996, with NLPC's input, that prevents LSC-funded lawyers from representing illegal aliens. The restriction was necessary because legal services lawyers have a long history of promoting illegal immigration and showing contempt for the ban on representing illegals.

The proposed amnesty law started bad – now it looks even worse. It must be defeated, and its supporters driven from office.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, first she got the porn stars – now she’s getting the pimps. Will the group mentioned above be next?

First, we learned that adult movie star Jenna Jameson supports Sen. Hillary ClintonÂ’s run for president of the United States.

Now, we learn that another, um, Taboo Titleholder backs the New York senator’s White House ambitions: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, aka, the “D.C. Madam.”

Yeas & Nays tracked down Palfrey following her appearance at Nathans of Georgetown’s “Q&A Cafe” Tuesday (where she told Nathans owner Carol Joynt that she's a “conservative Democrat”) and inquired into the politics of this former escort service owner.

Palfrey admitted that she’s pulling for Hillary in 2008. “I think she’s great,” she said. “She’s bright and articulate.”

IÂ’m sure that Bill is out rounding up support and contributions from such supporters with great vigor.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

I don’t agree with everything that Bob Kerrey has to say in this column – but I do believe that there is significant truth contained within it.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

Well stated and absolutely correct.

But it is this point that is even more essential to Kerrey’s argument – and is the one overlooked by the cut-&-run-&-surrender advocates of today’s neo-Copperhead movement.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."
This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

And that is precisely what those of us who support the war continue to argue – and what maligned patriots like Joe Lieberman have been attacked for saying by those who support a policy of defeat.

American patriots can take only one position. No surrender, no retreat in the War on Terror. IÂ’m proud to count Bob Kerrey among our number.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, once you exempt “the press” from the laws that apply to the rest of us, you then get into the question of who qualifies as a “journalist”. Take this case here.

A lawyer trying to get an Internet writer to testify and turn over notes for a court case says Web bloggers shouldn't have the same rights as mainstream reporters.

Attorney William McCorriston, in a lawsuit brought by landowner James Pflueger over the failure of the Kaloko Dam, claims that Malia Zimmerman of Hawaiireporter.com is a blogger who isn't entitled to withhold her sources of information.

But Zimmerman, an editor and reporter for the Web site, says she is a legitimate journalist, not just some hack who offers half-baked commentary on the news of the day.

"Any journalist who gives their word that they'll protect somebody's information or keep them in confidence, you have to abide by that," Zimmerman said. "It's not the medium you publish in, it's what you do with that information."

Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Gary Chang has ordered Zimmerman to submit to questioning under oath by McCorriston, likely in June. She can refuse to answer questions, but she must explain her reasons for doing so, and the judge would later rule on whether she's justified.

Hawaii does not have a journalist shield law like those enacted in 31 states to protect reporters' rights to keep their sources confidential.

That means there will be two issues for Chang to decide: whether Zimmerman is a bona fide journalist, and whether reporters have a qualified privilege to refuse providing confidential information to lawyers in a civil case.

Now letÂ’s be real honest about this website here -- Hawaiireporter.com posts lots of news, including original content, along with commentary. Zimmermann tries to differentiate herself from bloggers in tone and content and does not consider her site to be a blog. Furthermore, she has worked with major media on stories in the past in her capacity as a journalist covering stories like the one that is at the heart of this matter.

But that really begs the question. In a day and age in which anyone can set up a website and establish themselves as proprietor and publisher of a news/opinion site, does the distinction between blogger and journalist really make sense – or is it purely arbitrary? This leads to the great conflict at the heat of this case involving the newest form of information media.

On the one hand, the plaintiffÂ’s attorney raises the specter of anyone being able to flout a subpoena if bloggers qualify as journalists.

"It seems to me that if a blogger is a journalist, everyone can produce a blog and never be subject to a subpoena," McCorriston said. "Are all bloggers journalists? It's a question that's never been answered anywhere."

On the other hand, if there is some legitimate basis for a reporterÂ’s privilege, why shouldnÂ’t bloggers and internet journalists like Zimmermann qualify?

"She's far more than a blogger. She's got an institutional publication. It just happens to come out on a computer," said Zimmerman's attorney, Jeff Portnoy. "She's not just sitting at home and every couple of days writing a note to people."

One constitutional law professor sees the case as having serious implications.

The courts will have to weigh how press freedom extends to the realm of the Internet, said Jon Van Dyke, a University of Hawaii constitutional law professor.

"How does she differentiate herself from the zillions of other people who use the Internet, posting things on MySpace or whatever?" he asked. "If we're going to give special protection to the press, we should have some idea of who's in it and who's not."

And therein is precisely the heart of the issue – if such a privilege is created, who is in and who is out? How does one differentiate between Zimmermann and A reporter for the New York Times? Between a news and commentary blogger like myself and a “serious journalist” like Robert Novak? Where does one draw the line – and how – without being fully arbitrary in the process?

Frankly, I there can be only two legitimate outcome. Either every blogger qualifies as a journalist/reporter for purposes of press shield laws – or press shield laws must fall on the basis that they do not provide equal protection of the law to all citizens.

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 747 words, total size 5 kb.

Bet he wouldn’t have dared make such comments about Islam – out of fear for his life.

“And it’s easy to start a religion! Watch, I'll do it for you: I had a vision last night! A vision! The Blessed Virgin Mary came to me—I don’t know how she got past the guards—and she told me it’s high time to take the high ground from the Seventh Day Adventists and give it to the 24-hour party people. And what happens in the confessional stays in the confessional. Gay men, don’t say you’re life partners, say you’re a nunnery of two. ‘We weren’t having sex, officer, I was performing a very private Mass, here in my car. I was letting my rod and staff comfort him. Take this and eat of it, [our emphasis] for this is my roommate Barry. And for all those who believe there is a special place for you in Kevin.”

The Catholic League is starting a campaign to protest this blasphemous treatment of those things that Catholics hold sacred. Somehow, though, I doubt the Imus rules will be applied here – and I further doubt that we will see a single act of terrorism committed by Catholics in protest.

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.