Straight from the horses mouth. I find this to be almost beyond belief, in light of some the speculation that has surrounded his plans since last fall.

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, denying rumors of his retirement, said Thursday he will continue heading the court as long his health permits. "I'm not about to announce my retirement," he told The Associated Press.

ADVERTISEMENT

"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," Rehnquist, 80, and ailing with thyroid cancer, said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press. "I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."

Rehnquist released the statement hours after being released from an Arlington, Va., hospital after being treated for two days with a fever.

What does this mean? Is the thyroid cancer responding well to the chemotherapy? Does the Chief Justice simply want to "gut it out" for as long as he can? Will we have a sad spectable like the final year of Justice William O. Douglas, with a justice too ill to remain on the court trying to hang on just a little bit longer (not that Rehnquist apears to be in anything approaching the condition of Douglas, whose stroke had left him severely impaired) and vacilating from day to day about retiring?

Chief Justice Rehnquist has long been a hero of mine. I wish him well. I wish him a long life. May God grant him the wisdom to know when he needs to leave the Court.

Posted by: Greg at 02:18 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Bruce Sanford, a Washington DC based First Amendment lawyer, helped draft the law that Joe Wilson and the rest of the truth-impaired Left keep claiming that Karl Rove broke. What does he think about the current situation? CNN reporter Kyra Phillips asked him.

PHILLIPS: Well, aside from maybe partisan politics, looking strictly at the law that you drafted, do you see any evidence, according to this law, any evidence of any criminal wrongdoing?

SANFORD: No, I think it's pretty clear that what Karl Rove said to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper doesn't even come close to the kind of knowing violation that is required by the act. Really, the act really requires an intent to harm national security, and that certainly can't be said in these circumstances, I think.

PHILLIPS: All right. Now, we've heard a lot about the act, but let's look at it, actually read this portion of Section 421 of the act:

"... knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent, and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States ..."

So in other words, what you're saying, the reason there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing is because Karl Rove didn't do anything wrong because he didn't know that Plame was covert.

SANFORD: That's pretty clear from the notes, the e-mails that Time magazine released to the grand jury that [White House political adviser] Karl Rove said that [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's wife -- he didn't even use her name -- but Wilson's wife "apparently works" at the CIA.

It seems to me there's a substantial question whether she qualifies as the kind of covert agent that was envisioned by the act. There are very tight requirements for that.

And there is a substantial doubt whether the agency was taking the kind of affirmative measures to conceal her identity that the act talks about.

As Sanford notes later on, the CIA made no effort to stop the Novak column. So there was obviously no affirmative attempt to keep her identity concealed. That means the law was not broken, because she was not covered.

But then again, what does Sanford know? He just wrote the law

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

I would love an originalist or a textualist nominated to the Supreme Court. I'll even take a garden variety strict constructionist if necessary. But I find this notion to be totally unacceptable.

A coalition of conservative activists armed with petitions Wednesday encouraged President Bush to nominate former Alabama chief justice Roy Moore to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Putting Moore on the bench "could bring about a turning point in our jurisprudence and in our culture, back to biblical morality and forward to a restoration of the constitutional design and system of liberty set forth by America's founding fathers," said Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus.

Phillips, a three-time nominee for president by the Constitution Party, said Moore best represents the type of judge Bush has said he prefers, one who would strictly interpret the law according to the U.S. Constitution.

Roy Moore disgraced the bench. His conduct led to his impeachment and removal from one court, and his slanderous lies since his removal show him to be a man of no character at all. He is, dare I say it, no-account white trash. I oppose this absurd proposal from the fringe, and I oppose his proposed run for governor of Alabama.

Those of us in the mainstream of the conservative movement -- the real mainstream, not the moderate/liberal RINO regions defined as mainstream by the Left -- would never abide by such an appointment, and would support the rejection of Roy Moore as unfit. Not that I have any reason to worry that such an appointment is forthcoming.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich committed $10 million in tax dollars to stem cell research via executive oder following the defeat bills establishing such a program during the legislative session. I won't get into the stem cell debate here, but I will raise the issue of Blagojevich's response to critics.

"It's the right thing to do, and however you get there is immaterial."

I hope that scares the hell out of you.

In a constitutional system, the means are as important as the ends.

Your goal may be noble, sir -- though I disagree with it -- but your method for achieving that goal is wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

The KKK is a terrorist group.

So were/are the Black Panthers.

The Minutemen are the equivalent of a Neighborhood Watch, reporting suspicious activity to the proper law enforcement officials for action.

There have been no reports of criminal activity -- much less violent criminal activity -- by the Minutemen.

So why does Houston City Councilman Adrian Garcia make this utterly absurd and slanderous statment?

Garcia, a former Houston police officer, said HPD would monitor the Minutemen "as they would the KKK, as they would the Black Panthers."

So a peaceful group with a political agenda that engages in legal activities will be treated as terrorists by the city of Houston. Where is the ACLU ? Doesn't this constitute a violation of the civil liberties of the Minutemen?

By the way, Archbishop Fiorenza Councilmen Quan and Garcia, Mr. Rubio and all the rest of you folks who are speaking out in support of immigration criminals, you do not speak for the majority of Houstonians -- particularly not those in neighborhoods infested with these lawbreakers. Even the local birdcage liner fish wrapper daily newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, notes as much.

Though polling has shown Houstonians support the diversity brought by immigration, Rice University sociologist Stephen Klineberg said the city's residents are ambivalent about illegal immigration.

The day laborers the Minutemen plan to monitor are particularly unpopular in some neighborhoods. Residents and business owners complain of the crime and trash associated with the men gathering on dozens of corners across Houston. The city has tried to solve the problem by supporting the creation of day-labor centers.

In other words, the border jumpers are not welcome in Houston -- and we want you to quit using taxpayer's money to assist the immigration criminals in continuing their lawbreaking ways.

Posted by: Greg at 05:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Tell me that the man doesn't sound like a raving idiot here.

The four senators who met with President Bush at the White House Tuesday morning discussed a number of potential Supreme Court nominees, but Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he thinks they've agreed not to name those names.

"We have a long ways to go," Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters after the breakfast meeting at the White House. He said President Bush has hundreds or thousands of names to go through and "he didn't give us any names."

Nevertheless, Reid added, "There were a lot of names discussed at the meeting, of which we're not going to talk about any of those names. I think that's an agreement that we have, and we'll stick by that."

So the president didn't name any names, but you discussed the names in the meeting. But you won't talk about them now because you may have made an agreement to keep the names that were not given but were discussed -- but you aren't really sure if you agreed not to talk about the names that were not named but were discussed.

Uhhhhh... right.

However, acting true to form, there was this detail from another participant in the meting.

[The names of women and Hispanics did come up, Sen. Patrick Leahy later told Fox News.]

This would be the same Senator Patrick Leahy whose leaking of classified material in the past has caused deaths.

Posted by: Greg at 07:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

It is an interesting coincidence that two of the judges mentioned as likely successors to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor are women named Edith who currently serve on the Fifth Circuit Court. They are Judge Edith Hollan Jones and Judge Edith Brown Clement. Professor Hadley Arkes comments on the merits of these two fine candidates.

Edith Jones has the sharper definition as a conservative, tagged as pro-life in her perspective, and she is bound to draw the heaviest fire. Joy Clement, in contrast, would be a harder target: Her own specialty was in maritime law; she has not dealt, in her opinions, with the hot-button issues of abortion and gay rights; and she has stirred no controversies in her writings or in her speeches off the bench. She would be the most disarming nominee, and it would be a challenge even for Ralph Neas or Moveon.org to paint her as an ogre who could scare the populace. The main unease would come in the family of conservatives: If people donÂ’t know her personally, they will suspect another Souter or Kennedy. For they have seen the hazard in relying on the assurances given even by the most reliable conservatives, who claim they can vouch for the nominee.

I would vouch for Joy Clement myself, and I would vouch for Edith Jones. But as I commend Joy Clement, I open myself to these searching questions from friends who have suffered the lessons of experience: If we know little, really, about her philosophy or jural principles, how do know that she will not alter when she is suddenly showered with acclaim from the law schools at Harvard and Columbia? Will she not be lured as she is praised in measures ever grander, as a jurist of high rank, as she “grows” with each step ever more “moderate” and liberal? Those who commend her face the risk of joining the ranks of those who offered assurance on Kennedy and Souter, and lost forevermore their credibility.

But even more unsettling than that, the willingness to go with the candidate without a crisp, philosophic definition may mark the willingness to act, once again, within the framework defined by the other side: It begins with the reluctance to admit that we have ever discussed the matter of abortion with this candidate, or that she has any settled views on the subject. In other words, it begins with the premise that the right to abortion is firmly anchored as an orthodoxy; that those who would question it are unwilling to admit in public that they bear any such threatening doubts. The willingness to accept premises of that kind, as the framework for confirmation, may account for a Republican party that has brought forth as jurists the team of Stevens, OÂ’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.

If the administration finally comes forth with the name of Edith Jones, that will be taken as the clear sign of a willingness to break from those debilitating premises that signal, in advance, the eagerness to back away from an argument. But on the other hand, Edith Clement may be the stealth candidate who, for once, delivers to the other side the jolt of an unwelcome surprise. She may be the disarming candidate who truly disarms before she goes on to do the most important work that a conservative jurist at this moment can do

In other words, Judge Jones would be a candidate with a clearly defined philosophy who would be a direct challenge to those on the lLeft who do not want a "conservative extremist" (as defined by the Left, meaning not a supporter of Roe), while Judge Clement would be an easier candidate to get by the Left but might be a more difficult candidate to sell to the Right because of her lack of a clear public position on the issue of abortion.

Professor Arkes also points out that there is an additional, symbolic reason for replacing O'Connor with a conservative woman.

When the Court begins to explain again the grounds for protecting children in the womb, that account may produce a more lasting resonance if the explanation comes from a woman. At the same time, we could only run the risk of feeding the worst clichés in our politics if the only woman on the Court was Ruth Ginsberg, and if the Voice of the Woman on the Court spoke only in the accents of the Left. The commentators who have been clamoring these days for “balance” on the Court have not exactly been clamoring for a balance between women. And yet it would be no descent into a low politics to show that a woman’s perspective may express itself in an attachment to the moral tradition and to a conservative jurisprudence.

I agree. To let an ultra-liberal former ACLU attorney be perceived as the "voice of women" on the court is a political mistake. Worry about making that precedent setting appointment of a Hispanic later -- select a good conservative woman now. And I'll be happy to take either Edith.

Posted by: Greg at 06:18 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 854 words, total size 5 kb.

This story is absolutely mind-blowing. The meeting that took place today in Houston absolutely shocks the conscience. At the risk of giving offense, the only parallel I can think of would be a meeting of local and federal law enforcement to make sure that the Klan and other racists were kept safe from the Freedom Riders during freedom summer. After all, those involved in this meeting clearly view those who would see our nation's border secured, sovereignty respected, and laws enforced as being (to borrow a phrase from the racists of the Civil Rights era) "outside agitators" seeking to stir up trouble.

The Minutemen, a group of American citizens opposed to immigration crime, are planning on monitoring the activities of immigration criminals and those who hire them this October here in Houston because local law enforcemnt have been ordered to do nothing that might frighten the border jumpers. There have already been the expected whining and threats against the Minutemen emanating from the supporters of border jumping. Naturally, the local law enforcement establishment is gearing up -- to harrass the patriotic Americans and aid and abet the immigration criminals and their employers and supporters co-conspirators.

Law enforcement officials in Houston began meeting today to discuss strategies for keeping the peace when the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps sends observers to the city in October to patrol for illegal immigrants.

"The city of Houston is a very diverse city," said Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt. "There is a great deal of harmony here, and we are not going to stand by and let some outside agency or organization come in and disrupt that harmony. We will do whatever is necessary to keep the peace in the city of Houston."

The Minutemen, a civilian organization initially set up to patrol the Mexican border, has announced plans to send observers to watch day laborers and videotape them.

At the same time, immigration rights organizations have announced that they will form an organization to counteract them.

Excuseme, Chief Hurtt -- these are going to be men and women with cameras, notebooks, and radios. What trouble are you expecting of them, given their history of non-violence? Are you planning on allowing the immigration criminals and their co-conspirators to walk away scot-free from violent actions against American citizens engaged in legal activity, while arresting and harrassing the non-violent citizens? What exactly is your problem with American citizens coming to Houston and protesting violations of American laws and sovereignty?

Of course, a certain politician with a small brain, big mouth, and bigger ego was instrumental in calling this meeting and establishing its direction.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who organized today's meeting of law enforcement officials, said she is concerned that the Minutemen's plans to expand their activities to a diverse city like Houston could become confrontational.

"I will say, as a member of Congress, I do not claim the Minutemen are criminals," said Jackson Lee, D-Houston. "I do claim they are acting in an unauthorized way and may be characterized even as militia. When that occurs in a population, what you have is a mixture of confrontation that makes the jobs of these law enforcement indivudals more difficult."

After all, Queen Sheila has previously demanded that the Minutemen be told they are not welcome in the state of Texas.

Unfortuantely, this conspiracy to violate the rights of American citizens is not limited to local law enforcement. Representatives of the federal government were also present to help plan for the suppression of the rights of those opposed to immigration crime. Note, please, that the local head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement attended this meeting, which is designed to ensure that immigration criminals are permitted to continue breaking immigration laws in the face of opposition by American citizens.

Other law enforcement officials meeting today included Harris County constables, Russell Robinson, assistant special agent in charge for the FBI in Houston, and Scot Hatfield, assistant special agent in charge for the Bureau of Immigration of Customs Enforcement in Houston.

"I think collectively we can come up with a solution to this problem as it becomes a problem," said Robinson.

Of course, there was the routine assurance that the law enforcement agencies will make sure that everyone's rights are respected.

Harris County Precinct 6 constable Victor Trevino said law enforcement will be on hand to protect everyone's rights.

"I think what is important for us is to keep the peace," he said. "And we have to ensure our community that we will be there to respond for them."

In context, though, this was nothing short of a pungent load of steaming crap. The entire purpose of the meeting was to deal with the "problem" of American citizens opposing crime, not the actual criminal activity of the border jumpers and their employers and supporters co-conspirators. Rather than devote their manpower to cleaning up even a fraction of the estimated 400,000 immigration criminals in the Houston area, they are instead seeking to hinder those who call attention to the problem. No wonder 10% of the local population is composed of immigration criminals, and more stream across the border every day. Those who should be acting to uphold the law would prefer to hinder those who call attention to the problem and the willful negligence of those who are charged with protecting the border and enforcing the law.

Posted by: Greg at 05:45 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 910 words, total size 6 kb.

Law-abiding American citizens have been threatened by groups supporting illegal immigrants, who are seeking city and state action to prevent these citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. On the other hand, these groups, along with Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza, have conspired to provide suport to the immigration criminals.

The local Catholic archbishop and immigrant rights activists want to roll up the welcome mat before the Minutemen arrive to patrol for illegal immigrants in Houston.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, an organization working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, announced this week that it would send observers to watch day laborers in Houston beginning in October. Previous plans called for placing patrols only along the Mexican border.

But Archbishop Joseph A. Fiorenza said the Minutemen would not be welcome in Houston.

"We stand against any attempts of outsiders to come into Houston to abuse and intimidate our immigrant communities," Fiorenza said in a statement issued Friday.

Separately, immigrant rights organizations announced that they would fight fire with fire by forming an organization to counteract the Minutemen.

"For every Minuteman patrolling, we will have at least 10 people patrolling them," said Maria Jimenez, a longtime local activist now associated with the Central American Resource Center, or CRECEN.

Of course, it is the right of every American to travel anywhere they want in this country. On the other hand, these border-jumping immigration criminals have no right to be in Houston or anywhere else in the United States. For these groups and individuals to support the criminals and seek to exclude the citizens is obscene and sinful. And speaking as a Houstonian, I would like to tell Archbishop Fiorenza that the border jumpers are the outsiders who are unwelcome in our community.

What is more, the anti-American snakes are peddling the same old "vigilante" lies that we heard before the peaceful Minuteman activity in Arizona.

Some of the immigrants say they worry about the potential for violence. At the CRECEN news conference, representatives noted that many Latin Americans have had bad experiences with vigilantes back home, and they drew direct parallels with the Minutemen.

"In the countries we come from, these groups outside the law are known as death squads" or paramilitaries, Aguiluz said.

As is well-documented, not a single arrest or act of violence was committed by those involved in the Arizona border monitoring activity. The Minutemen were, in fact, responsible for getting medical aid for a number of distressed border jumpers, in addition to helping to raise the number of apprehensions by the Border Patrol in the region. The group functioned in the same manner as a neighborhood watch. To compare them to "death squads" is obscene.

Speaking as a Houstonian, I support the planned Minuteman action in Houston. Furhtermore, I condemn Archbishop Fiorenza and the cretins from CRECEN for their defamation of the Minutemen. It is you who are unwelcome in Houston.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.

I nearly had a stroke when I came across the opening paragraph of E.J. Dionne's column today.

Should a temporary majority of 50.7 percent have control over the entire United States government? Should 49.3 percent of Americans have no influence over the nation's trajectory for the next generation?

Translation: "Should the mere fact that the people of the United States have elected a Republican President, a Republican majority to the Senate and a Republican majority to the House of Representatives give the Republicans the right to govern? Does the fact that in 2006, 2008, and every other even-numbered year brings the American people the opportunity to set a new course and vote differently than they have in the last several elections mean that the winners of those past elections should not be permitted to govern? Does the hope that the American people might eventually come to their senses and start voting for liberals again be sufficient reason to deny the President and the Senate majority their Constitutional perogatives today?"

Now for those of you who think may be spinning the words of Mr. Dionne in an unfair and unreasonable light, let me offer this additional excerpt to you.

Consider that since 1992 the Republican presidential vote has averaged only 44 percent and the vote for Republican House candidates has averaged roughly 48 percent. In 2004, with large margins in some of the largest states, Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate received nearly 5 million more votes than their Republican opponents.

Bu, of course, such cummulative results are not how the system works, and that they are therefore irrelevant? One could, of course point out that only two Democratpresidential candidates since the death of Franklin Roosevelt have received a majority of the presidential votes cast -- Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter -- and the Democrat candidate has averaged only 46.14% of the vote during that period. In the last 10 presidential elections, the Democrat candidate has averaged 44.56% with only one achieving a majority (Carter, with a mere 50.1 wedged between a pair of GOP landslides). The last five presidential races have seen not a single Democrat win a majority of the vote, and they have averaged only 46.89% of the total vote. As for the Senate, since the 1980 election the American people have given the Democrats a Senate majority only four times -- and not at all since the 1994 election. It would appear to me that the current configuration of government is more than a mere temporary phenomenon. Rather, it seems to be part of a broader realignment of American politics. One might wonder, however, why it is that Dionne had no problem with the ideologically left-wng appointments of Breyer and Ginsburg by Clinton -- but I suspect we all know the answer.

Now do I believe that principled opponents of an eventual Bush Supreme Court nominee ought to be ignored? No, I do not. However, it is clear that most of the left-wing groups already girding for battle are not doing so based upon principle. They are proclaiming their opposition to the eventual nominee before he or she is even named by the President. In light of the obstructionist tactics of the Democrats over the last four years, it is clear that the issue is raw politics, not principle.

And given that George W. Bush was elected after campaigning on a clear platform of nominating a certain type of judge, it strikes me as a betrayal of the will of the American electorate for there to be any sort of nominee put forth other than one with a judicial philosophy that tends towards strict constructionism in the originalist or textualist mode.

Update -- Further interesting commentary from Right Wing Nut House, Mandelinople, Discriminations, The Shape of Days,.

Posted by: Greg at 08:31 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 640 words, total size 4 kb.

Remember how the Houston Police Department ordered officers not to engage in any activities that might frighten or disturb the immigration criminals who have jumped the border illegally? Well, it looks like the Minutemen are going to do the cops' job for them.

The Minutemen are coming to Houston.

Leaders of the controversial group dedicated to stopping the flow of illegal immigration said they will patrol the streets of the Bayou City beginning in October, as part of a campaign that will extend north from the Mexican border. Houston volunteers will gather near day labor centers and corners where immigrant workers solicit work, in an effort to draw critical attention to the city's hands-off policy toward illegal immigrants.

"We will be videotaping the (day laborers) and we will be videotaping the contractors who pick them up," said Bill Parmley, a Goliad County landowner who heads the Texas chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. The Minutemen will only observe to draw attention to the problem and will not attempt to make arrests, he said.

The city and the Chronicle, of course, don't like the fact that American citizens want American law enforced.

It was not immediately clear what reaction the Minuteman effort would have in greater Houston, which is home to an estimated 350,000 to 400,000 illegal immigrants, according to demographers. Polling finds Houstonians generally support immigration.

Nearly 60 percent of Houstonians do not think illegal immigrants are a major cause of unemployment in the area, and 67 percent think the diversity brought by immigration is a good thing, according to recent data from the Houston Area Survey, annual studies conducted by Rice University sociologist Stephen Klineberg.

I'll say it right now -- this Hustonian welcomes the Minutemen, and wants to see them successfully identify the immigration criminals and the businesses that illegally employ them. I want to see the border-jumpers deported, and the employers prosecuted. And if I can help in any way, I am interested in being a part of the program.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

Debra Saunders documents the ethical lapses of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in her column today.

* As the Washington Post reported, last week Pelosi filed delinquent reports for three trips she herself accepted from outside sponsors. The biggie was a week-long 1999 trip to Taiwan, paid for by the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce. The tab for Pelosi and her husband: about $8,000.

* A senior aide to Pelosi, Eddie Charmaine Manansala, went on a $9,887 trip in 2004 sponsored by the same Korea-U.S. Exchange Council as sponsored DeLay's excursion -- then failed to file the mandated paperwork until a reporter asked about the trip.

* [The] Federal Election Commission fined her after Team Pelosi created a second political action committee to skirt a $5,000 gift limit. "The main reason for the creation of the second PAC, frankly, was to give twice as much dollars," her treasurer, Leo McCarthy, told Roll Call.

Add to that the fact that in the last five years Democrats took 3, 458 privately funded trips while GOP representatives took only 2,666 and you see that if such trips pose the ethical problem that Pelosi and the Democrats claim they do, then it is the minority Democrat party with an ethics problem.

Posted by: Greg at 03:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

A woman was murdered because of her race. The perp admits that his actions were based upon the victim's race -- and even claims she was not an innocent victim because of her race. Sounds like it meets all the criteria to me. Or does it, because the perp is black and the victim is white?

A homeless black man told police on videotape that he was fighting a race war and killed a 56-year-old woman at a Westchester County mall last week because she was white.

The man, Phillip Grant, 43, appeared in shackles and a bulletproof vest in a White Plains courtroom for a felony hearing Tuesday. In the 45-minute videotape played during the hearing, Grant told police "all I knew was she had blond hair and blue eyes and she had to die."

He claimed Connie Russo Carriero "was not an innocent victim because she was white."

Carriero, a legal secretary and mother of two grown children, was stabbed to death while walking to her car at the Galleria Mall parking garage. She was buried Tuesday.

Grant, a convicted rapist, was charged with second-degree murder and weapon possession in the knife attack. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 25 years to life in prison.

Now down in New York City, a couple of white guys are facing hate crime charges for beating a couple of black guys who came into their neighborhood in search of a car to steal. But up in Westchester County, enhanced charges won't be filed against a black man who admits a clear racial motivation. What happened to equal protection of the law? Do hate crime laws apply only to crimes committed by whites against minorities, but not the other way around?

Posted by: Greg at 03:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

"Do not bother the wetbacks"

Those are the orders given to the police here in Houston after a meeting between police officials and pro-border-jumper groups here in Houston. It seems that a couple of police officers responding to a trespassing call had photographed a group of day laborers in order to document their presence in the event they again trespassed on the property. This upset the men, who are in the country illegally, and let to complaints by community groups.

The Houston Police Department has instructed officers not to photograph illegal immigrants seeking day jobs, after an incident last month prompted an outcry from an immigrant rights group.
ADVERTISEMENT

Houston police Capt. Juan Trevino made the pledge to 400 people who attended a meeting Tuesday night organized by The Metropolitan Organization, an interfaith grass-roots political action group.

Trevino said that "an isolated handful of officers" took immigrants' photographs after a business owner on North Shepherd recently complained that they "were walking on private property."

Addressing the TMO gathering in Spanish and English, Trevino said that the Houston police department will work with the organization to encourage immigrant workers to seek work at the east side day labor center.

"We have initiated a policy where, at this time, we are instructing all officers that they cannot photograph any of the day laborers that are currently out in the field," Trevino said.

So let's get this straight. City policy already states that police cannot inquire about immigration status, and cannot report border-jumpers to the INS. Now they cannot even engage in reasonable steps to document their property crimes, and must direct them to a day labor center where they can illegally obtain work.

Am I the only one who sees the absurdity in this? I thought the police were supposed to support and uphold the law, not facilitate breaking it.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

Houston Chronicle financial columnist Shannon Buggs adds her voice to those calling for eminent domain reform in light of the Kelo decision. She uses her own home as an example of the type of situation in which a city might override the hopes and dreams of homeowners for the benefit of a private developer.

My Inner Loop home is a block away from urban blight.

To the west are duplexes and fourplexes in various states of disrepair, home to renters with little means to improve their housing situation.

My home also is a block away from urban renewal.

To the east are well-maintained, owner-occupied single-family homes, a renovated two-story that sold for more than $250,000 and a new house built on a long-vacant lot.

My husband and I decided to invest our money, time and energy in our neighborhood, with an optimistic attitude.

The blight to the west was a growth opportunity, not a sign of encroaching decay.

The stability to the east was proof that the neighborhood could and would grow in value.

All we would have to do was update and maintain our home, pay our mortgage and taxes and keep the property as long as we wanted it.

That's the wealth-building strategy known as the American Dream. But now I'm not so sure if my neighbors and I — or any other American not living in a high-priced enclave or an upscale suburb — will be able to fulfill our dream.

Yeah, that's right -- the American dream is dead. Or at least on life support until some developer decides to play Michael Schiavo with your plans for the future.

But Buggs notes that here in Texas there is a likely solution, in the form of a proposed state Constitutional amendment under consideration during the special session of the state legislature. Assuming it is adopted, the measure will be put before the people of Texas in November. Buggs offers some specifics for improving what is already a good idea.

By not setting standards for how municipalities determine what is blight and economic development, the Supreme Court is telling us to trust our elected officials.

That's a nice idea in concept, but a bad one in practice.

We, the people, need to make sure our voices drown out those of developers in the discussions about this ruling.

Bills in the Texas Legislature calling for a constitutional amendment prohibiting eminent domain from being used for the primary purpose of economic development are scheduled for hearings Tuesday and Wednesday.

If a bill passes in the special session, voters will then get their say in the Nov. 8 election.

Giving us a chance to voice our opinion on this issue through a vote is a good start.

The Legislature could also make sure that when economic development is cited as a secondary reason for taking land, governments:

•Only use it to reverse and retard blight.

•Define blight using statistically sound measurements.

•Submit economic development plans to citizens for comments before making commitments to developers.

•Include in economic development plans an analysis of how the people whose land is being taken will or will not benefit from the changes.

A majority of the Supreme Court may not have wanted to tell elected local officials what to do when they exercise their right to use eminent domain, but it is each citizen's duty to do just that.

Well done, Shannon. Here's hoping the folks up in Austin take these suggestions and incorporate them into legislation. And those of you in other states, push for them to be passed into law there, too. After all, any taking for economic development should have to meet an objective standard before it can be approved. And the people must be given a voice in determining that the change is one that we find acceptable.

After all, it will be our homes taken, our money used to do it, and it will be all done in our names. It is only right that such actions have our approval.

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

I've written about the flawed Kelo decision several times recently, but have been particularly concerned about the threat to property rights when I have done so. But I have also had another concern, one related to economics and the nature of the real estate market. Unfortunately, I feel I lack the expertise in the latter to do a good job discussing the former, and so I have held off doing so pending some research time. And then I woke up this morning and saw my very concern addressed in the Houston Chronicle by a local developer, Mark A. Anawaty. As he notes correctly, the Kelo decision effectively does away with the notion of "market value". Heck, it even raises the question of whether or not "just compensation" survives Kelo.

Maybe because I live in this world daily in my business of trying to acquire property for private development, I think the decision has a soft underbelly in another area that hasn't been much discussed. The decision may likely erode the distinction between two core concepts in real estate development — just compensation and true market value.

Eminent domain robs property owners of the premium we optimistic developers are often willing to pay in true arm's length negotiations. It exchanges this market test for the notion of just compensation which, if it were just, theoretically wouldn't be so regularly fought over in the courts. Why pay the market price when a politically connected developer can rely on eminent domain?

After all, if governemnt can step into the picture and end the notion that real estate is worth "market value" (what a willing buyer and willing seller agree to by mutual consent for their mutual benefit), instead substituting some nebulous concept of "just compensation", then real estate no longer has a real market value in the development market. And I will be very clear on this -- I'm willing to take significantly less for my house if it will become the home of a family with a couple of kids than I would ever consider taking from a developer who wants to tear down my home and build a grocery store, bank, or gas station -- or even one wanting to put up million-dollar McMansions. After all, the relative values to the buyer differ in each of those scenarios, and it is my right to take full advantage of such differences. That is, after all, the very essence of the market. But instead we now have a willing buyer and an unwilling seller who is forced to accept a price he does not want for property he does not wish to sell.

That leads us back to the question of "just compensation", which I've dealt with in elsewhere. Who decides what constitutes just compensation? Why, the government, which acts as the buyer in this transaction. Imagine the fun I could have had four years ago if I, as the willing buyer, had been able to select my house and set a more-or-less non-negotiable price for it, whether or not the owner had any interest at selling, regardless of price! I can think of a number of places in the area that I would have been glad to purchase instead of my current house (which suits my needs very well) -- an extra 1000 square feet, with a larger yard on the lake or the bay might have been a bit more desirable for my wife and I had we simply been able to walk in and giver the owner notice to vacate the property in return for the price we felt was just. While eminent domain actions do offer the option of challenging the level of comensation, the goal is often to get a low-ball figure accepted. After all, how many of us have the ability to pursue the matter in court against the relatively unlimited funds available to governmement can then add value to it by changing the zoning and re-selling it to the developer at a higher price -- therefore taking for itself profit that morally belongs to the owner to whom was paid "just compensation"!

And then there is the question of competition. When government subsidizes a project -- especially when it becomes a partner in the project -- it has the effect of squeezing out competitive ventures.

Hampered by low investment returns in the stock market and buoyed by rising real estate values across the nation, ambitious officials (some elected, some not) are eager to shape the world according to their vision by making what they view as fail-safe investments in real estate. The growth in the number of requests for proposals from municipalities and economic development groups across the country has been exponential in the past three years.

This is all coming at a time when many long-term real estate professionals believe many land uses are nearing the peaks of their cycles.

These well-intentioned groups have supported public-private partnerships without fully appreciating the potential conflicts and risks that encouraging public entities to cross the line into the private sector can bring — even in the most thoughtful, well-executed plans.

As a private developer I can't help wonder about a conflict such as the following hypothetical: Ambitious City X teams up with grateful Developer Y to design a mixed-use project for a blighted area. Of course, the plans take a while because the project must be fully vetted with numerous city departments. Market cycles get missed, or the end product is not what the market desires — the proverbial design by committee — and only a portion of the project attracts tenants.

Meanwhile, Private Developer Z has an anchor tenant and wants to start her more desirable building in the same market area.

Will the city feel compelled to allow a competitive product in the marketplace?

Will the city subsidize the rents in its project, thus usurping Developer Z's ability to lease the remainder of her project?

These public subsidies serve to make private development less appealing to those not working in partnership with governemnt. And why shouldn't this be the case? The government is taking money from the private developer in the form of taxes and giving it to the competition, in effect forcing the private developer to comete against himself while realizing none of the benefits of the subsidized development!

No, Kelo is a disaster for many reasons. We need to slay this beast on the state level, assuming there is not a national solution to it.

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1087 words, total size 7 kb.

Last night, while lecturing my class of aspiring paralegals on the judicial branch, we talked about Supreme Court vacancies. I pointed out that I had expected to have one earlier in the week, and that I saw every reason for there to be one by the end of the course (July 14), if not by the time they have their next test (July 5). I noted that it was very likely that we might be surprised by the announcement -- and pointed out that there have been rumblings that Justice O'Connor might be the retiree. Little did I know that it would be only a bi more than tweleve hours before that very scenario would come to pass.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search), the first woman to serve on the nation's highest court, submitted a letter of retirement to President Bush on Friday, setting the stage for a contentious battle over her replacement.

O'Connor — who often provided the deciding, or swing, vote in Supreme Court decisions — will step down from the bench upon the appointment of her successor.

"It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms," O'Connor wrote in the one-paragraph resignation letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."

She told the president and associates that she wanted to spend more time with her family. Her husband has been in failing health in recent years.

On one level, I am sorry to see her leave the bench. As a moderate/conservative justice, she has more often voted in ways I have liked than in ways I have disliked. When she has written opinions, they have been good with flashes of brilliance. My major complaint, though, is that I never felt like she was operating out of a sense of legal principle, in the manner of justices like Scalia and Thomas, or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I could never locate that nugget of core belief within her jurisprudence that separates a great justice (Story or Douglas, for example) from one who is merely good.

As to the question of who should replace Justice O'Connor, I have some thoughts. While there will be pressure to appoint a woman to replace her, I don't know that keeping hers reserved as a "woman's seat" is necessarily an overriding considerationg. I expect that we may see another minority -- perhaps Judge Garza of the Fifth Circuit -- placed on the court instead. If this is to remain a "woman's seat", look for the nomination of Judge Edith Brown Clement or Judge Edith Hollan Jones of the Fifth Circuit. I think the long filibuster of two highly qualified appellate judges, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, make them impossible nominees right now. Don't be surprised, though, if a US Senator is nominated, as they generally are easily confirmed by their colleagues. Definitely out, though, is Alberto Gonzales, as the GOP base is agaainst him.

I'm guessing a nomination will come in about a week -- and possibly two, if the Chief Justice decides to follow O'Connor's lead in departing the Court at this time.

Posted by: Greg at 06:47 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

I used to be a big fan of Bob Geldof. I liked his music, and I admired his activism on behalf of the poorest of the poor. I didn't always agree with him, but I found what he was doing to be worthy of admiration. That is why I find this decision regarding the (misguided) Live8 concert to be so shocking to the conscience.

Collecting food for the homeless and hungry is taking a back seat to poverty in Africa as organizers for Saturday's Live 8 concert ban charities from collecting donations at the event.

Organizers have said local fundraising could "dilute the focus" of the concerts, which includes encouraging the world's G8 leaders to eliminate the debt currently owed by African countries.

"That decision came right from Sir Bob Geldof, himself," said Live 8 spokeswoman Katherine Holmes, referring to the Irish rocker fronting the Live 8 concerts.

No, we cannot let there be any effort to actually help the homeless and the hungry -- that would imply that individuals and not just governments have a responsibility to take action on their behalf. Not only that, it would detract from the focus -- that you show your caring and concern more by going to a concert than by actually doing something for another human being.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

I understand Planned Parenthood not being charged in this case -- after all, they did the absolute minimum required of them by law. While it might have been desirable for them to take the extra step and actually verify that this little girl had given them the number for a parent rather than the adult who was raping her, such fundamental decency is not required under the law. Instead, they unwittingly facilitated the statutory rape of a 14-year-old.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters announced today that no criminal charges will be filed against Planned Parenthood over an abortion it performed on a 14-year-old girl on March 30, 2004.

Questions about the legality of the abortion came up after the girl's family filed a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court earlier this year alleging the abortion was performed without parental notification as required by law.

An investigation by Deters' staff found that the girl provided the incorrect phone number for notification. Instead of giving the agency her parent's phone number, she gave officials the telephone number of her 21-year-old boyfriend, the father of her unborn child.

"Apparently they made no effort to confirm to whom they were speaking when they placed their call to notify the parents," Deters said. "They did the minimum they could under the existing law."

Now I am curious about something else, though. Aren't doctors, nuses, and other staff of medical facilities mandatory reporters under the child abuse laws of the state of Ohio? If not, why has this case not produced an outcry from the public toplace upon them the same obligation that teachers and other professionals in a position to become aware of abuse have?

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

I've wondered why the two boys (I will not dignify them with the title of "men") in this incident haven't been charged with a hate crime. After all, their crime was based upon antipathy towards the victims based upon their actual or perceived national origin, as indicated by an American flag flying from the front of their homes.

Those guys didn't set fire to flags they owned in some sort of symbolic gesture. They burned flags that were someone else's private property, something with a value to the owners that goes beyond the cost of the cloth.

But far worse than that, some of those flags were on poles attached to the owners' homes.

Burning those flags goes way beyond expressing contempt in a petty-criminal sort of way. It is a chillingly dangerous and invasive act.

That makes this less like stupid kiddie-acting-up-anarchism and way too much like the real thing. It is a serious crime.

It is also just like the Ku Klux Klan burning a cross on someone's lawn to terrorize a family or an entire community. The damage isn't just to the wood, and it isn't a crime because of the symbol that was destroyed. The damage is the fear it creates for people in their own homes.

Aren't we told that the reason for hate crime laws is the impact of the crime that goes beyond the impact on the victim personally? Well, we have that here -- won't folks be afraid to express their pride in their country for fear that some creting is going to use that symbol of pride to burn the house down around their ears?

Or is a hate crime a hate crime only when it is expressing hate against the "right" people?

UPDATE: I had not seen this story when I wrote the above post.

A white teenager was charged with a hate crime Thursday for allegedly beating a black man with a baseball bat in the Howard Beach section of Queens, the site of an infamous racial confrontation two decades ago.

Police said Nicholas Minucci, 19, confessed to the Wednesday attack, which left the victim in critical condition with multiple skull fractures and a bruised kidney.

Minucci was charged with assault as a hate crime punishable by a minimum of eight years in prison as well as robbery and criminal weapon possession. Police also arrested a suspected accomplice, 21-year-old Anthony Ench, who was to be charged Friday with assault as a hate crime, authorities said.

A third companion surrendered to police and was being described as a witness.

Minucci's attorney, Lori Zeno, said the victim, Glenn Moore, 22, had tried to rob Minucci and threatened him with a screwdriver. Police said they did not believe Minucci's account.

Police said Moore and two other black men were walking in Howard Beach early Wednesday when they were attacked by three white men. One of Moore's friends said he was intending to steal a car, but Moore was not aware of the plan, officials said.

Prosecutors said Moore's assailants hurled racial slurs and allegedly told him, "That is what you get when you try to rob white boys."

Hate crime? Possibly -- but there appears that there could be an addiional angle of a possible crime by the victim or the group that he was with. I'll be watching how this plays out in the days and weeks ahead.

But again I'll ask the quyestion -- why is this a hate crime, but acts of arson committed against folks for flying an American flag not a hate crime?

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh, wait -- they are only Democrats. It's not as if the convicted vote-cheats are Republican or anything like that.

A federal jury on Wednesday found five East St. Louis Democrats guilty of vote fraud.

The defendants were found guilty on all counts following a four-week trial in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis.

Four of the defendants -- Jessie Lewis, Sheila Thomas, Yvette Johnson and former city official Kelvin Ellis -- were found guilty of conspiracy to commit election fraud and election fraud.

Democratic Party boss and former City Councilman Charlie Powell was found guilty of one county of conspiracy to commit election fraud.

The five were charged with paying voters up to $10 a vote to vote for Democratic candidates during the Nov. 2 general election.

The jury deliberated about five and a half hours before returning the verdicts.

"This is a wake-up call for East St. Louis," said juror LaMont Reed Jr. of East St. Louis. "I've seen this corruption all my life."

Judge G. Patrick Murphy, who presided over the trial, will set a sentencing date later.

Now when will we hear anything about this PROVEN vote fraud from Howard Dean, Michael Moore, MoveOn.Org, or any other members of the liberal cabal?

Will it be "never", or will it be later than that?

Posted by: Greg at 04:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

The spectre of the government throwing reporters into jail rightly strikes fear into the hearts of freedom–lovers everywhere. After all, that is one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship. But not every jailing of a journalist is a bad thing – nor does it offend the First Amendment for a reporter to be held to the exact same standards and requirements of every other citizen. A recent USA Today column puts it well.

Another problem is that claims of privilege turn the press into a privileged class. If ordinary people witness a crime, they have to talk about it. If they participate in a crime — say, by receiving classified documents — they have to say where they got them. Journalists want to be treated differently, but the First Amendment doesn't create that sort of privilege. Nor should we.

The author, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds himself, is precisely right. While the First Amendment clearly protects the right to freedom of the press, that does not create a special privilege for some sanctified class known as “journalists”. Reporters are, in the end, subject to the exact same laws as every other American. What next – a claim for exemption from laws against speeding because they are rushing to cover a breaking story? A total exemption from libel laws on the grounds that the potential liability that arises from inaccurate reports inhibits the reporting of the news?

I can’t help but think back a couple of decades to my college days. The editorial staff of a campus newspaper went out for a night of heavy underage drinking at the local bars. Several of them drank to excess. On their way home, while crossing the railroad tracks, they decided to play chicken with the 11:30 Amtrak. Five jumped – and the chronically-depressed alcoholic who wrote wonderful satires about campus life embraced the train like a long-desired lover. When the police arrived, his five companions refused to give statements to the police – claiming that as journalists it would compromise their ability to cover the death of their colleague, as well as the (never-to-be-written) feature on under-age drinking in local bars. Any other person making such a claim would have been charged with obstruction.

Now the reporters in the Plame case could, of course, make a Constitutional claim to avoid testifying. They could cite their rights under the Fifth Amendment to not incriminate themselves. After all, they are possibly going to have to admit their role in a criminal enterprise. But doing that would require them to concede that they did something wrong, something criminal. They want to avoid doing so at all costs, for that conflicts with their self-images as paladins out to forthrightly expose the truth. But what they are really out to do is cover up the truth for their own personal convenience.

Reynolds also points out the problem with creating a reporter’s privilege.

Many people who support these privileges say that they would be limited to “real” journalists. But who decides when a journalist is real? If the government decides, isn't that like licensing the press, something the First Amendment was designed to prevent? And if journalists decide, isn't that likely to lead to a closed-shop, guild mentality at exactly the moment when citizen journalism by non-professionals is taking off? All sorts of people are reporting news via Web logs and the Internet. Shouldn't they be entitled to the same privilege?

Press freedom is for everyone, not just professionals. James Madison wrote about “freedom in the use of the press,” making clear that the First Amendment is for everyone who publishes, not just members of the professional-media guild.

Do we really want the government determining who is – and who is not – a journalist? Do we really want to give some bureaucrat the power to grant – or deny – a citizen the full rights guaranteed under the “free press” clause of the First Amendment? Because that will be precisely what will happen when government gets to decide that some folks are “journalists” and have greater rights than other citizens. Let's not create a royalty to whom the rules do not apply.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 698 words, total size 4 kb.

The spectre of the government throwing reporters into jail rightly strikes fear into the hearts of freedom–lovers everywhere. After all, that is one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship. But not every jailing of a journalist is a bad thing – nor does it offend the First Amendment for a reporter to be held to the exact same standards and requirements of every other citizen. A recent USA Today column puts it well.

Another problem is that claims of privilege turn the press into a privileged class. If ordinary people witness a crime, they have to talk about it. If they participate in a crime — say, by receiving classified documents — they have to say where they got them. Journalists want to be treated differently, but the First Amendment doesn't create that sort of privilege. Nor should we.

The author, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds himself, is precisely right. While the First Amendment clearly protects the right to freedom of the press, that does not create a special privilege for some sanctified class known as “journalists”. Reporters are, in the end, subject to the exact same laws as every other American. What next – a claim for exemption from laws against speeding because they are rushing to cover a breaking story? A total exemption from libel laws on the grounds that the potential liability that arises from inaccurate reports inhibits the reporting of the news?

I can’t help but think back a couple of decades to my college days. The editorial staff of a campus newspaper went out for a night of heavy underage drinking at the local bars. Several of them drank to excess. On their way home, while crossing the railroad tracks, they decided to play chicken with the 11:30 Amtrak. Five jumped – and the chronically-depressed alcoholic who wrote wonderful satires about campus life embraced the train like a long-desired lover. When the police arrived, his five companions refused to give statements to the police – claiming that as journalists it would compromise their ability to cover the death of their colleague, as well as the (never-to-be-written) feature on under-age drinking in local bars. Any other person making such a claim would have been charged with obstruction.

Now the reporters in the Plame case could, of course, make a Constitutional claim to avoid testifying. They could cite their rights under the Fifth Amendment to not incriminate themselves. After all, they are possibly going to have to admit their role in a criminal enterprise. But doing that would require them to concede that they did something wrong, something criminal. They want to avoid doing so at all costs, for that conflicts with their self-images as paladins out to forthrightly expose the truth. But what they are really out to do is cover up the truth for their own personal convenience.

Reynolds also points out the problem with creating a reporterÂ’s privilege.

Many people who support these privileges say that they would be limited to “real” journalists. But who decides when a journalist is real? If the government decides, isn't that like licensing the press, something the First Amendment was designed to prevent? And if journalists decide, isn't that likely to lead to a closed-shop, guild mentality at exactly the moment when citizen journalism by non-professionals is taking off? All sorts of people are reporting news via Web logs and the Internet. Shouldn't they be entitled to the same privilege?

Press freedom is for everyone, not just professionals. James Madison wrote about “freedom in the use of the press,” making clear that the First Amendment is for everyone who publishes, not just members of the professional-media guild.

Do we really want the government determining who is – and who is not – a journalist? Do we really want to give some bureaucrat the power to grant – or deny – a citizen the full rights guaranteed under the “free press” clause of the First Amendment? Because that will be precisely what will happen when government gets to decide that some folks are “journalists” and have greater rights than other citizens. Let's not create a royalty to whom the rules do not apply.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 4 kb.

Hopefully we will see more suits of this kind -- and citizen success -- in this post-Kelo world. I mean if the government is going to say that your land is “only” worth $14,000 when it takes it but then turns around and sells it for over four times as much, they clearly were in error on the market value of the property.

In May 2004, the city's Redevelopment Agency, a state-approved board, was granted a court order to employ eminent domain - the government's right to seize property - for Shennett's lot.

Last week, Shennett said he learned for the first time in January that his property had been taken. The city sent him letters in 2004, but Shennett says he never got them.

During a hearing on the matter in Superior Court last week, a judge ruled that Shennett was never properly informed and that the commissioners who approved the $14,730 compensation price for the property must meet again and allow Shennett to get his own appraisal.

The Redevelopment Agency, meanwhile, sold the property to Wayne Asset Management of Kinnelon for $60,000 in December.

Despite the discrepancy in price, which has been a source of contention, the city has the right to pay Shennett less for the property than what it was sold for, said William Ward, a Florham Park attorney with the firm Carlin and Ward, which specializes in eminent domain cases.

The city claims that the difference is due to a zoning change that went through in order to enable the development, and that the law therefore allows it to pay Mr. Shennett the value at the time they seized it from him – prior to its own actions that allowed itself to see a 300% increase in value. In other words, the city artificially kept the value down through zoning. Once it found a buyer for the land, it acted to jack the price up to what the new buyer was willing to pay – and as the owner, it received the benefit of the new market value.

Oh, and did I neglect to include a bit about the developer.

In the meantime, Wayne Asset is building a new house on Shennett's property.

Wayne Asset is run by Wayne Alston, a former city councilman who in 1992 was charged by federal authorities with taking $6,000 in bribes from a city landlord and paying himself $15,000 in bonuses from state funds.

But a mistrial allowed Alston to plead guilty to a lesser charge, and he was sentenced to five months in prison and a year of supervised release

Dirty politician, getting favirs from (and giving them to?) his buddies who are still on the council.

Shame!

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

Hopefully we will see more suits of this kind -- and citizen success -- in this post-Kelo world. I mean if the government is going to say that your land is “only” worth $14,000 when it takes it but then turns around and sells it for over four times as much, they clearly were in error on the market value of the property.

In May 2004, the city's Redevelopment Agency, a state-approved board, was granted a court order to employ eminent domain - the government's right to seize property - for Shennett's lot.

Last week, Shennett said he learned for the first time in January that his property had been taken. The city sent him letters in 2004, but Shennett says he never got them.

During a hearing on the matter in Superior Court last week, a judge ruled that Shennett was never properly informed and that the commissioners who approved the $14,730 compensation price for the property must meet again and allow Shennett to get his own appraisal.

The Redevelopment Agency, meanwhile, sold the property to Wayne Asset Management of Kinnelon for $60,000 in December.

Despite the discrepancy in price, which has been a source of contention, the city has the right to pay Shennett less for the property than what it was sold for, said William Ward, a Florham Park attorney with the firm Carlin and Ward, which specializes in eminent domain cases.

The city claims that the difference is due to a zoning change that went through in order to enable the development, and that the law therefore allows it to pay Mr. Shennett the value at the time they seized it from him – prior to its own actions that allowed itself to see a 300% increase in value. In other words, the city artificially kept the value down through zoning. Once it found a buyer for the land, it acted to jack the price up to what the new buyer was willing to pay – and as the owner, it received the benefit of the new market value.

Oh, and did I neglect to include a bit about the developer.

In the meantime, Wayne Asset is building a new house on Shennett's property.

Wayne Asset is run by Wayne Alston, a former city councilman who in 1992 was charged by federal authorities with taking $6,000 in bribes from a city landlord and paying himself $15,000 in bonuses from state funds.

But a mistrial allowed Alston to plead guilty to a lesser charge, and he was sentenced to five months in prison and a year of supervised release

Dirty politician, getting favirs from (and giving them to?) his buddies who are still on the council.

Shame!

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

There is continued progress towards the development of a new Iraqi Constitution. Maybe this will be the breakthrough they need to undercut the terrorist "insurgency".

In a meeting with a group of Sunni and Shiite leaders, the cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, outlined a proposal that would scrap the system used in the January election, according to a secular Shiite political leader, Abdul Aziz al-Yasiri, who was at the meeting. The election had a huge turnout by Shiites and Kurds but was mostly boycotted by Sunni Arabs.

Such a change would need to be written into Iraq's new constitution, which parliamentarians are drafting for an Aug. 15 deadline. Although there has been little public talk about what form elections might take under the constitution, Ayatollah Sistani has been highly influential in Iraq's nascent political system.
Under the proposal, voters in national elections would select leaders from each of the 19 provinces instead of choosing from a single country-wide list, as they did in January. The new system would essentially set aside a number of seats for Sunnis roughly proportionate to their numbers in the population, ensuring that no matter how low the Sunni turnout, they would be guaranteed seats.

Now some folks are saying this should have been done from the beginning, and I donÂ’t disagree. Where I do disagree is the notion that it was the fault of the US and the provisional government. Sunnis boycotted the election under threat of terrorism from the so-called insurgents. Their poor showing was therefore their own fault

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

Edward Whelan makes this observation over at National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog.

Justice Souter and his four colleagues who joined his majority opinion in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case evidently get their understanding of this country from the New York Times op-ed page. Consider this bizarre closing to an argument section that aims to refute Justice ScaliaÂ’s dissent:

“

ublic discourse at the present time certainly raises no doubt about the value of the interpretative approach invoked for 60 years now. We are centuries away from the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre and the treatment of heretics in early Massachusetts, but the divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable. This is no time to deny the prudence of understanding the Establishment Clause to require the Government to stay neutral on religious belief . . . .”

If the Court is going to rest its ruling in part on prudential (i.e., policy) reasons like this, it would be helpful if it would tell us what the dickens its references to “public discourse” and “the divisiveness of religion in current public life” are supposed to mean. Is the Court giving anti-religious forces the equivalent of a heckler’s veto? Or does it seriously believe that we are in even the remotest danger of a modern-day St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre?

Who gets to decide what religious expressions are too divisive to be permitted? Will it be based upon the reasonable judgment of the average citizen? Or will it instead be based upon the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the most overly sensitive religion-haters and member of minority faiths? After all, we have already seen where the so-called “reasonable man” standard was jettisoned in sexual harassment cases in favor of a “reasonable woman” standard – which quickly evolved to be the easily-offended woman standard. Will such notions lead to yet another layer of PC “sensitivity” being imposed in place of the actual, original understanding of the Establishment Clause as it was written by the Framers?

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

In a move that surprised absolutely no one, Kay Bailey Hutchison today announced her intent to run for a third Senate term.

Hutchison's re-election announcement was anticlimactic, coming 10 days after she sent word via a press release on a Friday evening that she wouldn't run against Perry.

About 200 supporters gathered to hear Hutchison speak Monday at an aviation museum next to Love Field. The 61-year-old senator said she wanted to stay in Washington to work on federal issues such as homeland security and tax relief and to move up the Senate GOP leadership ladder.

And Kay has established herself as a serious force in Washington, and can be expected to move up the ladder in Senate leadership. Who knows -- the day might not be far off when she holds one of the higher offices held by a certain former Texas senator named Johnson -- be that Senate Majority Leader, Vice President, or even President.

Hutchison had vowed to serve only two full, six-year terms. She said Monday that she still supports term limits but would not bind herself unless senators from other states also left after two terms.

I agree with Hutchison's reasoning here. It is not good for the state to abide by term limits not accepted by all. Not that I am a term limit fan -- far from it, as I believe them to be antithetical to good government. Just look at cities like Houston, which limit city offeceholders.

Frankly, I find this to be a good thing for Texas, and a better thing for the Texas GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Newsday columnist Less Brains Les Payne wrote one of the more outrageous pieces of race-baiting hate-mongery that I've ever encountered. And to do it, he has to tarnish a victory for racial justice over the hatred of the KKK.

The conviction of the 80-year-old Mississippi racist for a 41-year-old murder reminds us that the new Republican Party, the GOP that gave us Nixon, Ford and Reagan, Bush 41 and his unspeakable son, rode into power on the backs of the Ku Klux Klan.

This triple murder in June 1964, to sum up for the attention-deficient, hastened the passing of the first Civil Rights Act in July of the same year. By promising blacks the vote, this act stampeded white Southerners into the arms of the national GOP and provided the margin needed to dominate Congress and the White House. These party-switchers would, of course, demand their pound of flesh and along the way, pay homage to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan who made it all possible.

The Civil Rights Act was first introduced by President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated before its enactment. This historic reform prescribed the initiation of equal rights for blacks in voting, education, public accommodations, union membership and in federally assisted programs. Passage of the law fell to President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was a protege of Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia, who led the filibuster against it, declaring: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure ...which would ... bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our states."

After signing the bill into law, Johnson reportedly told close associates that "I am afraid we have lost the South for a hundred years."

Payne, of course, forgets the minor detail that the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed precisely because the GOP threw its weight behind the laws that brought about equality for blacks, while the Democrats took the credit for the passage of the legislation that its own Klan-ridden party could never have passed alone. Furthermore, he fails to acknowledge that those who came over to the GOP at the time left behind an equal number of colleagues who continued to oppose civil rights from inside the Democrat party, while the GOP remained a fundamentally pro-civil rights party -- as it is to this day.

Payne also fails to not ethat the only member of Congress with a history of KKK involvement is Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a Klan organizer, recruiter, and supporter. The "Conscience of the Senate's" recent autobiography still fails to deal forthrightly with facts that are on the historical record regarding his relationship with the KKK years after he quit. On the other hand, whenever a Klansman pokes his head above the hedges in the GOP, he is quickly repudiated by the party -- as can be seen with the GOP response to David Duke. But somehow it is the GOP, in Payne's view, that pays homage to the Klan.

So what has the recent conviction of Klansman Edgar Ray Killen in Philadelphia, Miss., to do with the modern GOP? More than the party would openly admit.

The white South as a touchstone for success has not been lost on the GOP. It was no accident that Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 presidential campaign by trekking to Philadelphia in search of symbol and Mississippi blessings. It was at this terrible place, so sacred then to Cowboy Reagan, that, on the night of June 21, 1964, the Klan abducted and murdered Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner.

Actually, I'll argue it is very much an accident that the campaign began in that place. I've read the transcript of that day's speech (I cannot find it on the web, though) -- it doesn't speak to issues of race or civil rights at all. Here is a key chunk of it, the section that uses the dreaded term "states rights".

What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state's rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.

As you can see, this is not an appeal to themes of race and racism, but rather to the hallmark of Reagan's campaign -- reducing governemnt and decentralizing federal power. Those are themes that resonated tehn and resonate now, but which are clearly race neutral. And while folks like Payne make much of the Philadelphia speech, they do not often have the integrity to mention that the next speech he gave was one devoted to the traditional Republican theme of support for civil rights -- at the convention of the National Urban League.

Les Payne wants to paint every southern Republican -- including those of us transplanted here from northern locales -- as unreconstructed Confederates, night-riding Klansmen, and black-hating Dixiecrats. He is wrong, for the GOP continues to support the principles of equal opportunity that have always animated it. What his column does show is that he is animated with the very racial bias that he thinks propels us.

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 918 words, total size 6 kb.

Will Franklin over at WILLisms has put together a photographic display of notable quotes from our favorite Democrats. Drop in for a quick look.

Posted by: Greg at 05:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't like the proposed amendment to ban flag desecration, and I oppose it. To some that makes me a ahte-America-first-liberal sort of guy -- but that isn't it at all, as many of you have read my condemnations of the America-hating Left (and Right) over the last year. Rather, I am concerned about what will be held to constitute desecration (how about a flag patch on the seat of a pair of pants, or anywhere on Michael moore's body?), and the fact that other much more powerful symbols of this country (the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence) are not covered. And yes, I am concerned about the slippery slope that will exist (not might -- will) if we start tinkering with the bedrock principles of the First Amendment -- heck, it is already hard enough to get Congress and the courts to respect them as it is, as we have seen in cases permitting the regulation of political speech in the name of "campaign finance reform".

Mark Steyn, though, has an interesting take on the matter.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 04:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 664 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like at least one Texas town had a vested interest in Kelo coming out as it did -- and is wasting no time to make its move to seize the property of two businesses in order to give to another, all in the name of economic development.

With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.

Over the years, Freeport's lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.

"This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city," City Manager Ron Bottoms said.

Lee Cameron, director of the city's Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city's downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs. He said three hotels, two of which have "high interest," have contacted the city about building near the marina.

"It's all dependent on the marina," Cameron said. "Without the marina, (the hotels) aren't interested. With the marina, (the hotels) think it's a home run."

Posted by: Greg at 04:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 5 kb.

Over at PrisonPlanet.com, Alex Jones has the truly horrific details of the abuse perpetrated by New London officials against those residents whose attempts retain their own property were rebuffed by the liberal majority of the Supreme Court yesterday.

These include;

- An insulting offer of $60,000 from the government on a home worth $215,000.

- Unannounced visits to Cristofaro's elderly parent's home demanding they sign a contract to hand over their property.

- Intimidating and harassing phone calls at all hours of the day.

- Parking bulldozers and wrecking balls outside the houses pointing at the property with threats of "your house is next."

- Revving the engines of the bulldozers outside the houses in the early morning hours of the morning.

- Cristofaro's mother becoming distraught and suffering a heart attack after being served with condemnation papers that said she no longer owned her property and had ninety days to leave.

- A death bed plea from a 93-year-old resident begging "what about my house, what about my house?" The man had been living in his home for 80 years. The contractors would park construction vehicles on his property, make his house literally shake and would, Waco-style, shine bright floodlights into his home as his blind wife cowered in fear.

- A threat to charge residents back rent if they lost the case, effectively meaning the homeowners will have to pay the city to be kicked out of their own homes. One resident, William von Winkle, would owe the city $200,000 in back rent.

- When the Supreme Court decision was made on Thursday, the city had police cruisers and a fire truck casing the neighborhood because they feared the residents would riot. "What were they planning on doing? Hosing us down?" stated Cristofaro.

- Real Estate agents paid by the government to force residents to sign contracts to hand over their homes were on an $8,000 commission to get the signatures by any means possible.

- William von Winkle's apartment tenants were forcibly evicted and locked out from their homes in the early morning hours during winter with snow on the ground, before the city even owned the property. Von Winkle had to break back into his own apartment block to prevent his tenants from freezing to death.

In other words, "We made you an offer -- you cannot refuse."

(Via Random & Politically Incorrect Thoughts!

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

All the discussion of the Kelo case has put me in mind of a use of eminent domain down here in Houston that led to the demise of an internationally known store that was over 130-years-old. Now please note that this is a "pure" eminent domain case, dealing with highway expansion that is a true "public use". But the effects were just as devastating, because the deck was stacked and the state held all the cards.

Western-style clothier Stelzig of Texas has possessed the grit of an Alamo defender for more than 130 years, withstanding floods, the Great Depression, recessions and even a bit of cowboy backlash.

By the end of this year, though, the country's oldest Western store could ride off into the sunset, shutting its doors for good. It's a case of Houston's massive highway system gobbling up the retail landscape.

The state acquired the company's land via eminent domain for the West Loop construction project, but the settlement amount for the property is still in dispute. A panel of special commissioners, which sets the amount, ruled in July that the Stelzigs should be paid more than $4.7 million. The state is contesting that ruling.

Until the store gets that money in hand, owners say, they can't buy new property for relocation or build a new store . The state says they must vacate by Dec. 31.

Hardly a storybook ending for a family-owned business spanning five generations, serving everyone from foreign dignitaries to American presidents, oil barons and pop icons to your everyday urban cowboy.

Leo Stelzig Jr. said he thought he found a permanent home for the business his grandfather founded when it relocated to the Galleria-area location from downtown about 18 years ago.

"Then the state comes along and says they're taking it," Stelzig said. "It's not a choice. That puts you in the position where you have to vamonos. And that's terrible."

The odds of the store reopening in the future are remote. "It's pretty slim," Stelzig said. "When you liquidate inventory, furniture and fixtures, that's pretty tough."

"We don't want to quit doing business," his daughter, Frances Stelzig-Butler, chimed in.

The Stelzig property is needed for the $80.97 million road reconstruction project. The contract was awarded by the Texas Department of Transportation in July and work is scheduled to begin in January, says Janelle Gbur, spokeswoman for TxDOT.

Yeah, that's right -- the state didn't like what its own panel decided, so they took the matter to court, which meant that the family got nothing while the state got immediate possession of the property. I've never seen any resolution to the case, so I can only presume that the family is still waiting to be paid for land over which thhousands drive daily.

No doubt we will see plenty of this as communities engage in eminent domain for economic development -- "Take this low-ball offer or we will take the house with no compensation while we tie the matter up in court for the next few years." With a home being the major investment of most Americans, and a small business being the sole source of income for many an entrepreneur, what choice will the victims have? Can you afford to wait for two or three or five years, paying a lawyer and a new mortgage, while a judge or jury decide what you should be paid for a major asset that the government has already confiscated and is already using? Can you afford to wait out the appeals process if you or the state are still not satisfied? I know I can't, and I suspect the same is true of most Americans.

Now there is a mini-happy-ending to this story, but one which strikes me as bittersweet. Stelzig of Texas did get a resurrection of sorts this past year -- as part of a shop at Bush Intercontinental Airport. But gone are the days when it was a thriving business that had customers from around the world and a distinguished place in the fashion world.

Posted by: Greg at 06:06 PM | Comments (78) | Add Comment
Post contains 694 words, total size 5 kb.

Will Democrats and other leftists deny the accuracy of Karl RoveÂ’s words as applied to MoveOn.Org and its ilk?

The story began with a man who has received little attention in the controversy, a young film student named David Pickering. Visiting his parents' home in Brooklyn on September 11, 2001, Pickering immediately began to worry about the consequences of U.S. retaliation for the terrorist attacks. "It was this incredible moment in which all doors were opened and the world was seeming to come together," Pickering told me in an interview for my book, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. "I had this feeling that it would be a shame if that were spoiled by a spirit of vengeance."

The next day, September 12, Pickering wrote a petition calling on President Bush to use "moderation and restraint" in responding to 9/11 and "to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."

At the same time, Pariser, who had graduated from college the year before and was working at a liberal nonprofit organization in Massachusetts, was writing a similar petition, which he put on a website he created called 9-11peace.org. Pariser noticed Pickering's work and e-mailed him to suggest that they merge their sites. Pickering agreed, and 9-11peace.org featured a petition which read:
We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . .

Meanwhile, across the country in Berkeley, California, MoveOn founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades were writing an anti-war petition of their own. Entitled "Justice, not Terror," it read, in full: "Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists' hands."

As they staked out their own anti-war position, Blades and Boyd were also following the progress of 9-11peace.org. In a September 2004 interview for The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, I asked Blades how she had come to know Pariser. "It was after 9/11," she told me. "He put out a message similar in results to the one we had, basically an e-mail petition asking for restraint. It went viral on an international scale. . . . Eli's petition grew to half a million in half a week. Peter [Schurman, the executive director of MoveOn] contacted him because he figured he probably needed some help. We did provide him with some assistance, and we started working together on other issues and eventually merged." In the end, their shared opposition to U.S.-military retaliation for the September 11 attacks brought Pariser and MoveOn together. (For his part, David Pickering moved to Paris to attend film school.)

Critics have suggested that at the very least, Rove's "liberals" charge was overbroad. That's a fair criticism. But as far as MoveOn is concerned, Rove's words were accurate and fair.

The shoe fits – wear it.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 4 kb.

IÂ’ve read a lot of great stuff on the Kelo decision, which effectively gutted the above clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. The best analysis seems to be that of Professor Stephen Bainbridge.

Unfortunately, the requirement to pay fair market value is a grossly inadequate safeguard on government power for two reasons. First, it fails to take into account the subjective valuations placed on the New London property by people whose families have lived on the land, in at least one case, for a 100 years. In other words, the government now will be able to seize land at a price considerably below the reservation price of the owners. Indeed, as Will Collier explained:

"... the price even a willing seller would be able to get from his property just took a huge hit. All a developer has to do now is make a lowball offer and threaten to involve a bought-and-paid-for politician to take the property away if the owner doesn't acquiesce."

Second, unlike the prototypical eminent domain case, in which the land is seized to build, say, a school or road, in this case the city is using eminent domain to seize property that will then be turned over to a private developer. If this new development increases the value of the property, all of that value will be captured by the new owner, rather than the forced sellers. As a result, the city will have made itself richer (through higher taxes), and the developer richer, while leaving the forced sellers poorer in both subjective and objective senses.

Justice O'Connor's dissent makes the point eloquently:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random."

"The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

After news of Napoleon's victory in the Battle of Austerlitz was conveyed to British Prime Minister William Pitt, Pitt pointed to a map of Europe and said: "Roll up the map; it will not be wanted these ten years." In light of the Supreme Court's decision to side with New London, we might just as well roll up the Takings Clause of the Bill of Rights, because we won't need it any longer.

Indeed, not only have the justices declared that we do not need the Takings Clause any longer, but they have indeed taken it, eviscerated it, and left its carcass to rot in the sun, for we have now seen the principle of eminent domain expanded far beyond the concept of public use and the revitalization of truly blighted and decayed areas to include the destruction of viable middle class communities.

UPDATE -- Great blog with a good proposed constitutional amendment.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

How else can you interpret this conclusion from today’s editorial on the Kelo case?

Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

In other words, property rights be damned – be happy the government is giving you anything when they throw you out of your home for the benefit of someone else.

UPDATE: I had no idea how right I was when I wrote this -- the NY Times itself has screwed the little guy in an "eminent domain for economic development case" that allowed it to get the land for its new headquarters from an unwilling seller. And they updated the original editorial surreptitiously to include an acknowledgement of this fact in the editorial after it was published. Good going to Lawroark at Protect Homes, Not Flags.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

How else can you interpret this conclusion from todayÂ’s editorial on the Kelo case?

Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

In other words, property rights be damned – be happy the government is giving you anything when they throw you out of your home for the benefit of someone else.

UPDATE: I had no idea how right I was when I wrote this -- the NY Times itself has screwed the little guy in an "eminent domain for economic development case" that allowed it to get the land for its new headquarters from an unwilling seller. And they updated the original editorial surreptitiously to include an acknowledgement of this fact in the editorial after it was published. Good going to Lawroark at Protect Homes, Not Flags.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

Howard Dean lied about the contents of his party’s report on the Ohio election this past year. Who says so? One of the authors, and the Democrat official in charge of election in one of the counties he cited as proof of intent to suppress minority voter turnout.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean tried to claim that the report nonetheless backed up charges that there was widespread "voter suppression" in Ohio involving long lines at polls due to a misallocation of voting machines and unlawful voter identification requirements.

Mr. Dean also indicated that the report backed up his belief that Republicans actively worked to suppress black voter turnout. "It's been widely reported over the past several years that Republicans do target African-Americans for voter suppression," he told reporters. "It's very clear here while there was no massive vote fraud, and I concur with the conclusion -- it's also clear that there was massive voter suppression."

But Mr. Dean's statement landed him in hot water when a scholar involved in writing the DNC report, Cornell University Professor Walter Mebane Jr., explained to the media that while the report had found numerous irregularities, it could not determine whether there was any partisan intent behind them. He also noted that county election boards in Ohio, which determine the distribution of voting machines, are bipartisan. Mr. Dean then had to return to the microphones to revise his remarks: "While we certainly couldn't draw a proven conclusion that this was willful, it certainly has the appearance of impropriety."

But William Anthony, a Democrat who is chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party in Ohio's capital of Columbus, rejects any suggestion of voter suppression. "Most of the precincts that stayed open late because of long lines were in the suburbs," he told the Columbus Dispatch last November. Mr. Anthony, who is also chair of the Franklin County elections board, acknowledged that the high turnout and a ballot that involved more than 100 choices for some voters did create lines, but added that he was offended by allegations from "a band of conspiracy theorists" that voter suppression had occurred. "I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" That, in turn, raises the question: Why do Democrats like Mr. Dean persist in inciting racial tensions with wildly exaggerated claims that black voters are being disenfranchised?

Howard Dean – do you not realize that every time you and your fellow Democrats lie about voter fraud and vote suppression, you undermine the public’s confidence in the electoral system of this country? Do you not realize that doing so will serve to further alienate voters from the process? And do you not realize that, in the end, your partisan falsehoods will undermine support for the government of our country? I will ask the question, sir – why do you hate America?

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

Howard Dean lied about the contents of his partyÂ’s report on the Ohio election this past year. Who says so? One of the authors, and the Democrat official in charge of election in one of the counties he cited as proof of intent to suppress minority voter turnout.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean tried to claim that the report nonetheless backed up charges that there was widespread "voter suppression" in Ohio involving long lines at polls due to a misallocation of voting machines and unlawful voter identification requirements.

Mr. Dean also indicated that the report backed up his belief that Republicans actively worked to suppress black voter turnout. "It's been widely reported over the past several years that Republicans do target African-Americans for voter suppression," he told reporters. "It's very clear here while there was no massive vote fraud, and I concur with the conclusion -- it's also clear that there was massive voter suppression."

But Mr. Dean's statement landed him in hot water when a scholar involved in writing the DNC report, Cornell University Professor Walter Mebane Jr., explained to the media that while the report had found numerous irregularities, it could not determine whether there was any partisan intent behind them. He also noted that county election boards in Ohio, which determine the distribution of voting machines, are bipartisan. Mr. Dean then had to return to the microphones to revise his remarks: "While we certainly couldn't draw a proven conclusion that this was willful, it certainly has the appearance of impropriety."

But William Anthony, a Democrat who is chairman of the Franklin County Democratic Party in Ohio's capital of Columbus, rejects any suggestion of voter suppression. "Most of the precincts that stayed open late because of long lines were in the suburbs," he told the Columbus Dispatch last November. Mr. Anthony, who is also chair of the Franklin County elections board, acknowledged that the high turnout and a ballot that involved more than 100 choices for some voters did create lines, but added that he was offended by allegations from "a band of conspiracy theorists" that voter suppression had occurred. "I am a black man. Why would I sit there and disenfranchise voters in my own community?" That, in turn, raises the question: Why do Democrats like Mr. Dean persist in inciting racial tensions with wildly exaggerated claims that black voters are being disenfranchised?

Howard Dean – do you not realize that every time you and your fellow Democrats lie about voter fraud and vote suppression, you undermine the public’s confidence in the electoral system of this country? Do you not realize that doing so will serve to further alienate voters from the process? And do you not realize that, in the end, your partisan falsehoods will undermine support for the government of our country? I will ask the question, sir – why do you hate America?

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.