Thanks to Blogs for Victory for highlighting the sort of folks Mike Huckabee sees as a vital part of his campaign.

The Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, has been garnering attention in the media with his surge in political polls. However, a campaign stop this Sunday by Huckabee at a mega-church whose pastor sees Hitler as linked to the Catholic Church, could soon steal the spotlight.

According to Mike HuckabeeÂ’s campaign website, the controversial stop at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas will take place this Sunday, December 23. He will speak at the church's two Sunday services at 8:30 and 11:00 a.m.

Hagee is clearly a hate-monger of the worst sort. He not only peddles theological opposition to Catholicism (which is fine), but he actually resorts to historical lies to support his position (witness, for example, his comments on the Church and Hitler -- both Pius XI and Pius XII spoke out against Hitler repeatedly). If Huckabeast wants to court such folks -- who use the same rhetoric about Catholicism that the KKK did for generations -- then he is more than welcome to do so. But it is incumbent upon every decent Republican to condemn him for doing so. There is no place for such bigots and bigotry in the Republican Party.

Posted by: Greg at 05:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

George Romney did, in fact, march with Dr. King.

Shirley Basore, 72, says she was sitting in the hairdresser’s chair in wealthy Grosse Pointe, Mich., back in 1963 when a rumpus started and she discovered that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and her governor, George Romney, were marching for civil rights — right past the window.

With the cape still around her neck, Basore went outside and joined the parade.

“They were hand in hand,” recalled Basore, a former high-school English teacher. “They led the march. We all swung our hands, and they held their hands up above everybody else’s.”

And, of course, there is the press coverage that the Romney campaign has suppled.

No, Mitt Romney was not there -- though no doubt he attended other civil rights events with his father, to whom he was very close. But if this is what constitutes a "scandal" in Romney's background, there is truly a level of desperation among those who are seeking to discredit him. Why not focus on significant misdeeds like can be found in the past of Giuliani and Huckabee rather than a somewhat hyperbolic statement on Mitt's part regarding events that happened 40 years ago?

Posted by: Greg at 03:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 2 kb.

This could be the big story of the political season -- and explain the solicitations that keep showing up in my email.

Fred ThompsonÂ’s plan is simple: Get on a bus and haul around to some 50 Iowa towns and cities between now and Jan. 3.

ItÂ’s the only option he has.

Thompson has little money left in bank and has had to slash his television presence here to a level well below that of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. His cash crunch is so severe that heÂ’s even had to freeze his direct mail plan.

So now, for the next two weeks before the caucuses, he'll be largely living off the land.

As I look at things, Fred Thompson OUGHT TO BE one of the top three candidates in the race. He OUGHT TO BE drawing support away from Rudy and McCain. But he never has managed to do so at a significant level, because he never really got the campaign off the ground. He is great in debates. he is great in person. But while everyone else was out on the campaign trail, Thompson has been significantly less active on every front.

This leads me to two conclusions.

1) Fred Thompson's only hope is a strong finish in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Second in any one of them would be great, but lower than third in more than one of them should drive a stake through the heart of his campaign.

2) Fred;s major asset now is that he is the ideal vice presidential candidate on any ticket except for McCain's (two Senators is a bad idea, though the Dems might do it). After all, Fred Thompson is the second choice of most Republicans, including this one. He effectively balances the ticket ideologically and/or geographically.

Six months ago, I suspected that I was standing inches from the next President of the United States when he flew into Houston. Now I'm pretty sure that he will max-out at Vice President.

Posted by: Greg at 02:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Mitt and Rudy are essentially tied, with Huckabee within the margin of error of the two front-runners.

After holding a double-digit advantage over his nearest rivals just six weeks ago, the former New York City mayor now is tied nationally with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 20% among Republicans, just slightly ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 17% and Arizona Sen. John McCain at 14%. Other polls show Mr. Giuliani's lead shrinking in Florida, one of the states he has built his strategy around.

With the poll's margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.1 percentage points, that puts Mr. Huckabee, who had only single-digit support in the previous poll in early November, within striking distance of the leaders. Mr. Romney's national support also has nearly doubled.

On the other hand, Huckabee leads in Iowa, so that could really shake matters up going into New Hampshire and South Carolina. And in a shift that may bode well for Romney, voters are now more concerned about the economy than about Iraq -- and Mitt's business experience will be a plus for him there.

My guess -- we may see a floor fight at the GOP convention, and a brokered ticket. My question is whether the resulting publicity will be a positive or negative thing for the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.

I first wrote about this in October -- but it seems that Ron Paul is still holding on to that racist cash, despite his fund raising success. I guess that there is no contributor odious enough to be rejected -- so expect Ron Paul to solicit cash from Michale Jackson, OJ Simpson, and Drew Peterson.

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

Why is this a big deal? Aside from the fact that it tells us a great deal about Ron Paul's (lack of) ethics and morality, he has recently accused patriotic Christians of being fascists. How much credibility can he have on that score when he takes money from an actual fascist and refuses to divest himself of it? Seems to me that fascism in America already wears a Ron Paul for President button.

No one suggests that Ron Paul screen his donors -- but when he knows that he is getting cash from such a source, he has no business keeping it. And as I've suggested, Ron Paul does not need to return the money to Black -- give it to a charitable organization that Paul supports that is absolutely antithetical to Black's views, such as the US Holocaust Museum or the Congress on Racial Equality.

Lone Star Times, which first broke this story, has another possible revelation about Ron Paul's ties to Nazis, racists, and other scummy types.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters, Hot Air, Stop The ACLU, FullosseousFlapÂ’s Dental Blog, Liberal Values, The Liberty Papers, Kevin McCulloch

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, Adam's Blog, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Wolf Pangloss, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:32 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 5 kb.

Because if there were an actual demand for them, there would be no need for this legislation.

After a year of partisan combat and legislative stalemate, President Bush and Democratic congressional leaders came together yesterday for a holiday season consensus as they enacted legislation to promote energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) joined Bush for their first bill-signing ceremony with him since Democrats took over Congress in January, using the occasion to look past the disputes that marked a year of divided government.

* * *

The new law increases the fuel-efficiency standards for passenger vehicles for the first time since 1975, requiring new cars to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 instead of the 25 mpg now required. It also requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels by 2022, a fivefold increase over the current standard, to reduce the dependence on oil. And it includes new rules and incentives to encourage greater efficiency in light bulbs and buildings.

Americans have shown time and again with their checkbooks that they want bigger, more heavily powered vehicles. Increasing the fleet standards will likely require that the automobile manufacturers produce more small vehicles with less powerful engines. And we know that such vehicles are, by and large, less safe for drivers and passengers than the larger, heavier vehicles.

And for the record, I don't drive an SUV -- I drive a smaller vehicle that meets the 35 MPG standard (or at least comes close). I do so by choice.

When will the crew in Washington read Adam Smith?

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

I can understand that a politician may vote "present" on some legislation -- usually of little consequence -- when he is undecided. But Obama used it to avoid "NO" votes on politically sensitive yet popular legislation. Where is the leadership on that?

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

The picture that emerges is of a legislator who was a follower much of the time rather than a leader -- and who lacked the courage of his convictions when confronted with tough votes. That isn't leadership for change -- it is political cowardice.

Remember, you don't get to vote "PRESENT" as president.

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

I like Tom Tancredo, and am in general agreement with him on immigration issues. That said, I never saw him as a serious candidate for the presidency.

Neither did anyone else. Tancredo is withdrawing from the race today.

Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, whose forceful opposition to illegal immigration vaulted him to national prominence, plans to announce he is abandoning his long-shot bid for the presidency, a person close to Tancredo said Wednesday.

The five-term Colorado congressman planned to make the announcement at a news conference in Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday, the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Tancredo or his campaign.

Tancredo's campaign would only say he planned a "major announcement" Thursday.

The interesting question will be where he throws his miniscule support. Having seen one of the founders of the Minutemen endorse Huckabee, will he go that direction? Or will he instead go for one of the other candidates? And given the fact that the Tancredo campaign never really took off, does it matter as more than a symbolic gesture?

Expect to see Tancredo compete for the Senate seat being vacated by Wayne Allard.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

Americans have made it pretty clear that they are against redefining marriage to be anything but one man and one woman. But it seems that John Edwards isn’t too concerned with what the American people thing – he wants to appeal to the left side of the Democrat base.

John Edwards said yesterday that if elected president, he would try to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton, and do away with the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military.

After a star-studded campaign event in this small town's opera house, the former North Carolina senator said the law known as DOMA is "discriminatory."

"I think we should get rid of DOMA; I think DOMA was a mistake from the beginning, and discriminatory, and so I will do everything in my power as president to do that," the Democratic candidate said in a three-minute meeting with reporters.

Asked by The Washington Times why the act is discriminatory, he bristled, then said: "I think it's discriminatory against gay and lesbian couples, that's what's discriminatory about it."

An Edwards staffer ended the press conference one minute later.

Interesting, isn’t it, that the staff made sure that Edwards didn’t do himself any additional damage there. After all, he pretty clearly revealed his contempt for the majority of Americans, including the majority of his own party. And while I think he is correct with his assessment of “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a nonsensical policy (see the great piece by my friends at GayPatriot on the topic), the gay marriage issue is different. When the American people have spoken at the polls, they have made it clear that the overwhelming majority of us oppose the redefinition of marriage away from its traditional definition as one man and one woman. We need a Federal Marriage Amendment now to stop a radical ideologue from overturning the will of the people on this matter.

Posted by: Greg at 01:07 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, that is what one poll tells us.

A new InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll out of Iowa shows John Edwards leaping from third to first place in Iowa, and the GOP field ever-tightening, as the Jan. 3 caucuses approach.

The Democratic poll, taken from Dec. 16-17 of 977 Democrats who said they intend to participate in the caucuses, showed Edwards with 30 percent, followed by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton with 26 percent and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with 24 percent.

The poll, which is an automated survey taken overnight, suggests the former North Carolina senator - who has been steadily trumpeting his anti-special interest, populist message - is resonating in Iowa. Other recent polls showed Obama overtaking Clinton, and Edwards stuck in third.

But maybe not, folks, when you look at who is most likely to turn out for the caucus.

However, when the InsiderAdvantage pollÂ’s sample group was narrowed to 633 Democrats most likely to caucus, Obama retained a 1-point lead. That poll gave Obama 27 percent, Edwards 26 percent and Clinton 24 percent. The tighter sample group had a margin of error of 3 percent, while the broader group had a margin of error of 2 percent.

In other words, Iowa is a toss-up for the Dems.

And for the GOP, too, with the same sort of mixed results depending on what your sample looks like.

On the Republican side, the broader poll of 835 voters who intend to caucus showed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with 28 percent, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 25 percent. When the screen was tightened to 418 likely caucus-goers, the race flipped: Romney took 28 percent and Huckabee took 25 percent. The poll is a reversal from recent surveys showing Huckabee leading Romney by double digits.

The tighter sample group had a margin of error of 5 percent, while the broader group had a margin of error of 3 percent.

The short answer is that, two weeks out, we have a statistical tie in both parties. That means that Iowa belongs to anyone -- and with it, the (temporary) title of front-runner for the nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE: Bill Clinton lied!

In a statement sent to CNN Tuesday afternoon, former President Bush’s chief of staff Jean Becker said that he “wholeheartedly supports the President of the United States, including his foreign policy. He has never discussed an ‘around-the-world-mission’ with either former President Bill Clinton or Sen. Clinton, nor does he think such a mission is warranted since he is proud of the role America continues to play around the world as the beacon of hope for freedom and democracy.

“President Bush is excited about several of the excellent Republican candidates running for president, and looks forward to discussing their candidacy once the Republican nominee is determined.”

I’m curious – did Billzebubba and Hildebeast get the approval of former President George H. W. Bush to associate his name and prestige with their insult directed at his son, the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president — Bush's son, George W. Bush.

"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.

IÂ’m willing to bet that the appropriation of the name and reputation of the father to damage the son was done without the knowledge, much less the permission, of the father. It is a thoroughly disgusting, classless act. But it is also typical the unscrupulous manner in which the ClintonÂ’s operate. After all, they are both very skilled liars.

Posted by: Greg at 12:09 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, what else do you call a candidate who implies that patriotic Christians to be fascists (other than a contender for the Democrat nomination)?

Screw you, Congressman. You are no Christian. You are no patriot. You are, however, a disgrace to the state of Texas and to the nation as a whole.

These words will be remembered by every Christian in your district, and will be used to guarantee that not only will you fail to win the presidency, but you will lose your congressional seat as well.

And by the way – I won’t vote for Huckabee any more than I would vote for Ron Paul.

Yeah, I understand that he is quoting Sinclair Lewis – but since Ron Paul has adopted it as his own, I’m glad to treat it as such. By the way – nice use of the words of a socialist to impugn the faith and patriotism of your political opponents, you pathetic demagogue.

More At Stop The ACLU, Right on the Right

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ron Paul did not speak out against those who are patriotic Christians. He said three things in response to the question of what he thought of the use a cross backdrop in a campaign add: He said that a religious banner can be part of the rise of a totalitarian state. He said he would not use a religious banner in his campaign. He said he would not claim he was the only candidate who was Christian. There was no indication of any implication that patriotic Christians were fascists. I encourage you to review the video and appologize. Both Paul and Huckabee are Christian men who love this country. There is no reason to make up nonsense about either. We might disagree with the policies of one or both, but that should make no difference.

Posted by: Thomas at Tue Dec 18 12:08:24 2007 (QOb6u)

2 I viewed it, reviewed it, and stand by my assertion. Ron Paul is a disgrace for using that quote -- and is clearly neither a Christian nor a patriot based upon his decision to do so.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 18 12:16:08 2007 (fP6C2)

3 As is frequently the case, folks don't understand what Paul is saying. Paul is NOT saying Christians are fascists, lol. He is saying that those who would bring fascism to this country will do so waving a flag and bearing a cross. It's one thing to state your religion. It's another to campaign on it. Why? Because nationalism and religion are powerful emotional motivators. History is replete with examples of totalitarians and tyrants who rise to power by invoking nationalism and/or religion. This was one of the reasons the founding fathers of this country made separation of church and state a strong theme within the Constitution, since many who came to America to flee religious persecution of Government mandated religion.

Posted by: Dave at Tue Dec 18 13:56:08 2007 (mF4b5)

4 However the question he was asked was what he thought of the Huckabee ad, not how America will become a fascist state. His response was to throw out a quote from a socialiist that the Left likes to use against patriotic Christians involved in politics. The implication is clear -- he agrees with the left that patriotic Christians are fascists.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 18 22:38:31 2007 (fP6C2)

5 The point of the quote "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" is NOT to call Christians fascists, but to point out that it is the perversion of goodwill and the abuse of the impure that is dangerous. Men of impure intent can and will sieze on Christianity as an avenue to power. Men of good will can and will often do things with good intent that cause terrible results. These two forces can come together through the twin forces of religion and nationalism - and that is what is being warned of. He is clearly warning against the improper use of religion to rally for non-religious matters. The President's office is neither religious nor irreligious. It is not the office of Cultural Arbiter. The President has no such authority and nor should the office be granted such.

Posted by: N. Pannbacker at Wed Dec 19 04:28:24 2007 (v9mGb)

6 And if he had been asked about such an issue, it would have been a great answer. He was, however, asked what he thought about the Huckabee ad. He immediately labels those who use the cross and flag as fascists, just like the social-ist Sinclair Lewis did. No one suggests that the presidency carries with it a role of religious or cultural arbiter, so don't go off on some half-baked explanation of "that's what he really meant". Once again, Ron Paul disgraced himself, his office, the state of Texas, and the United States with his comments.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 19 06:04:16 2007 (Wa7Lr)

7 Closed mindedness was the cause of many wars Mr Rhymes. You need to look more closely at WHY he used that quote. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who had never been exposed to any religion in the first place? Big call, but imagine how the bias and fallback and justification in the name of religion would just fade away. It would all be in the name of the people as a WHOLE. None of this segregated bullshit.

Posted by: Mr. Gorwitz at Thu Dec 20 13:54:15 2007 (jcig0)

8 I can vote for an atheist just as easily as a fellow Christian -- provided they are right on the issues. Given that Ron Paul is wrong on them, he will not get my vote -- and I'll drive two miles south and campaign on behalf of a good Republican who is working to replace him in Congress, Chris Peden. As for you, it is clear that you are as much an anti-religious bigot I've ever encountered. Your words drip the same sort of hatred that Ron Paul's did when he quoted Lewis -- and that his neo-Nazi supportsrs have dripped when they've posted here. I hiope you and Ron are proud of the filth you associate with.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 20 15:48:36 2007 (fP6C2)

9 Not hatred sir, just dissapointment. It seems that religion provides a fallback. Don't you see? Excuses to justify actions. How many presidents have you heard rally 'In Gods Name...' or 'God Bless America...'. I'm open to the fact that yes we live in a free country that allows its citizens to choose a religion of their liking. But when I see your comment attacking Ron Paul for merely referencing chritianity for metaphorical purposes - it does force me to express concern about radicalism and the fact your condemning a man who is as a respectul Chritian as you may be just stamps you as cornered, blind and unfair. In your eyes I may seem anit-religeous, and I respect the fact that you believe in a faith ,but at least I wont feel the need to turn my back on somebody just because they come from a different veiw or religion. I'm allowed to do this because I'm with no faith that claims that doing so would be in the favour of ones faith. Now I've suggested you're blind, cornered and unfair. Merely just opinions with no personal attack inclined. The fact you labelled me an anti-religeous biggot and implied my mouth drips like a vampire with hatred is almost winning my point for me.

Posted by: Mr. Gorwitz at Fri Dec 21 04:31:52 2007 (yg1RK)

10 No, Mr. Gorwitz, I did not imply you were like a vampire -- a snake would be a more apt analogy. And my religion commands me to love my neighbor, even when my neighbor holds to a different faith, so your assessment of me (and most believers in Christ) is dead wrong and based on either hatred or willful ignorance. And while you may not like it, the use of that quote in the context of that question is nothing but a statement that anyone patriotic Christian is a fascist -- and a sign that Ron Paul is neither a patriot nor a Christian. And you may consider yourself as having won the debate because someone exposed you for what you are, but that simply proves how deluded you are by a sense of self-righteousness that is based in your own unwarranted high opinion of yourself due to your hate-mongering disbelief.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 21 10:40:29 2007 (fP6C2)

11 Good moning!, buy autocad, myvd, adobe creative for mac, 43537, buy microsoft office 2007, xiyp,

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Wed May 20 08:11:14 2009 (zQolw)

12 Hi!, adobe creative for mac, =-OOO, buy adobe acrobat, =], buy microsoft office 2007, dgdms,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Wed May 20 09:07:12 2009 (qKgq1)

13 Good moning!, buy adobe acrobat, =]]], adobe creative for mac, sdaea, buy microsoft office 2007, %PP,

Posted by: Titinka at Wed May 20 10:14:53 2009 (OHFqP)

14 Gutentak!, buy autocad, > , buy adobe acrobat, > DD, adobe creative for mac, zneuzn,

Posted by: Chtosmotrish at Wed May 20 10:57:45 2009 (9x+f4)

15 Zdarova!, buy autocad, 518710, buy adobe acrobat, 43853, buy microsoft office 2007, :-DDD,

Posted by: Chtosmotrish at Wed May 20 11:19:00 2009 (/CGhN)

16 Good moning!, buy autocad, frhh, buy adobe acrobat, icoyx, buy microsoft office 2007, :-O,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Wed May 20 12:41:59 2009 (+0lbb)

17 Hello!, adobe creative for mac, ), buy adobe acrobat, 8PPP, buy microsoft office 2007, =PPP,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Wed May 20 14:22:26 2009 (0pIkV)

18 Good moning!, buy autocad, 66174, buy adobe acrobat, :[[, adobe creative for mac, uai,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Wed May 20 14:43:33 2009 (pjmnY)

19 Good moning!, buy autocad, ggtss, buy adobe acrobat, :-)), adobe creative for mac, > ,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Wed May 20 16:06:11 2009 (8YHnC)

20 Hello!, solidworks 2009 x64, 456, microsoft windows server 2008, 1520, solidworks 2009 x64, 8(((, adobe creative suite 3 master, %-(((, Autodesk AutoCAD, jsv,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Thu May 21 21:19:55 2009 (/5MYG)

21 Privet!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, wqr, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, lsetk, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 148, g data internet security 2008, >:]], microsoft office xp profession, 507904,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Thu May 21 22:15:15 2009 (mnqZG)

22 Good moning!, solidworks 2009 x64, 8-D, microsoft windows server 2008, rfzaex, Autodesk 3ds Max, 530018, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, >:-D, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, rhbxno, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, :-),

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Thu May 21 22:41:45 2009 (SJW4T)

23 Hello!, SolidWorks 2009, otr, microsoft windows server 2008, qkyyf, solidworks 2009 x64, npn, Conceptdraw Office, 32487, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, yaf, adobe creative suite 3 design, agoeu,

Posted by: Titinka at Thu May 21 23:35:03 2009 (Phjjz)

24 Hi!, microsoft windows server 2008, ftco, solidworks 2009 x64, >:-OO, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, 8O, microsoft office xp profession, =-]], autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, jtpi,

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Fri May 22 00:27:28 2009 (I3c/M)

25 Privet!, autodesk autocad 2008, 0194, adobe photoshop cs2, 991925, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, tumx, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, wlcqk, Autodesk AutoCAD, :-D,

Posted by: Pisinka at Fri May 22 00:53:30 2009 (iOOQt)

26 Hello!, adobe photoshop cs2, , Autodesk 3ds Max, %-PP, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, dimc, g data internet security 2008, 8OOO, Conceptdraw Office, rqspz, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, :OOO,

Posted by: Pisinka at Fri May 22 01:43:05 2009 (03uxI)

27 Good moning!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 249545, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, yhpknq, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, nguyq, Autodesk AutoCAD, kni, adobe creative suite 3 design, sst,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Fri May 22 02:25:42 2009 (oAXGI)

28 Good moning!, solidworks 2009 x64, =DDD, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, dakqh, g data internet security 2008, krxb, Conceptdraw Office, 0608, Autodesk AutoCAD, > , adobe creative suite 3 design, :-(((,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Fri May 22 03:52:34 2009 (mUE89)

29 Gutentak!, adobe photoshop cs2, 8-P, solidworks 2009 x64, 613272, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, 2288, microsoft office xp profession, xlicej, adobe creative suite 3 design, 8-[[[,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Fri May 22 04:35:42 2009 (I3c/M)

30 Zdarova!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, hxfdq, solidworks 2009 x64, %-[[[, microsoft windows vista business, >:-OOO, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, evw, microsoft office xp profession, 8P, Autodesk AutoCAD, iqwc,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Fri May 22 07:39:07 2009 (6lb3A)

31 Zdarova!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 225663, Autodesk 3ds Max, 830, adobe acrobat 8 professional, pms, Conceptdraw Office, 7820, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, powcd,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Fri May 22 08:01:53 2009 (Vbxc3)

32 Gutentak!, SolidWorks 2009, gvwjb, adobe photoshop cs2, gsq, solidworks 2009 x64, yatf, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, rpv, Conceptdraw Office, >:-[[[,

Posted by: Titinka at Fri May 22 09:08:26 2009 (/5MYG)

33 Gutentak!, microsoft windows server 2008, nbxgy, microsoft windows vista business, mtukc, adobe photoshop cs2, tpgkyk, solidworks 2009 x64, >:-[[[, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, 169, g data internet security 2008, 55025,

Posted by: Chtosmotrish at Fri May 22 10:15:24 2009 (ocneN)

34 Good moning!, adobe photoshop cs2, 28638, solidworks 2009 x64, zvgfum, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 2741, microsoft office xp profession, 0267, adobe creative suite 3 design, 8PPP,

Posted by: Pisinka at Fri May 22 10:58:24 2009 (ZlPQS)

35 Hello!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, %-DD, microsoft windows vista business, 581962, Autodesk 3ds Max, nehi, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, ozakyd, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, 54719, microsoft office xp profession, 286211,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Fri May 22 11:20:54 2009 (0Jwqn)

36 Hi!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 214063, Autodesk 3ds Max, :-P, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, ngp, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, fvlji, Conceptdraw Office, =),

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Fri May 22 14:28:23 2009 (Zf3sG)

37 Hi!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 932516, solidworks 2009 x64, 8-((, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 1504, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, ilah, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, ppklv, Autodesk AutoCAD, frw,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 14:49:05 2009 (hx4AX)

38 Privet!, autodesk autocad 2008, :]]], Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 5001, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, 307155, Conceptdraw Office, cvbh, microsoft office xp profession, coey,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 15:51:49 2009 (oAXGI)

39 Privet!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, P, solidworks 2009 x64, :-PP, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, esb, g data internet security 2008, 321, adobe creative suite 3 master, 362, microsoft office xp profession, 8-DDD,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Fri May 22 16:13:58 2009 (BKjEO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Over the issue of retroactive immunity for telecom companies that cooperated with anti-terrorism efforts -- despite strong bipartisan support for that element of the bill.

By 76 to 10, with Democrats divided, the Senate voted to advance the bill for consideration. A measure to block it, which was led by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut fell short, as those who wanted the bill to reach the floor got 16 votes more than the 60 needed to achieve that goal.

The margin was 76-10. How then, could it fail?

Only if the extremist-beholden Democrat "leadership" pulls the bill from consideration.

Amid deep and growing divisions among Senate Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) last night abruptly withdrew legislation that would have changed surveillance law and granted the nation's telecommunications companies retroactive immunity from lawsuits charging they had violated privacy rights.

Democratic leaders had hoped to complete an overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before recessing for the year, since the current law governing the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program is set to expire in early February. But in the face of more than a dozen amendments to the bill and guerrilla tactics from its opponents, Reid surprised his colleagues when he announced there would not be enough time to finish the job.

"Everyone feels it would be in the best interest of the Senate if we take a look at this when we come back," Reid said, acknowledging the time crunch he faces in the "last hours" of this congressional session and the hefty number of agenda items remaining.

"Everyone"? Would that include all 78 members of the Senate who voted in favor of telecom immunity, or only "everyone" among the 10 who opposed it?

After the January return, there will be only two weeks to adopt a new FISA bill. Are Dems willing to (again) endanger American national security for partisan purposes?

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

No, not the message -- with which I am in essential agreement.

No, I'm talking about the rather bizarre lighting and framing of the shot. Shouldn't it be the Christmas tree, not the window frame, that is illuminated?

Unless, of course, one is seeking to send a not-so-subliminal sumliminal message.

Who'd have thought, though, that we would ever reach a day in America that a commercial wishing people a Merry Christmas -- and explicitly reminding us that it is CHRISTmas -- would be somehow controversial. The message is dead-on correct. But the cheap lighting gimmick really goes a bit too far.

More Commentary at Captain's Quarters, Blogs for Victory, Andrew Sullivan (twice), Stumper

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm really troubled that the theological issues of Mormonism keep being raised in the media. Especially when Romney has spoken publicly about this one before.

ormer Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today that he wept with relief when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormon church, announced a 1978 revelation that the priesthood would no longer be denied to persons of African descent.

RomneyÂ’s eyes appeared to fill with tears as he discussed the emotional subject during a high-stakes appearance that he handled with no major blunders.

“I was anxious to see a change in my church,” said the Republican presidential candidate, appearing for the full hour just two weeks ahead of the crucial Iowa caucuses.

“I can remember when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from — I think it was law school, but I was driving home — going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio and I pulled over and literally wept.

“Even to this day, it’s emotional,” Romney went on.

“And so it’s very deep and fundamental in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that in the eyes of God, every individual was merited the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter and I had no question that African Americans and blacks generally would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons.”

Moderator Tim Russert asked if “it was wrong for your faith to exclude them for as long as it did.”

“I told you exactly where I stand,” Romney said. “My view is that there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God. And I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.”

Enough with the Inquisition, folks -- Romney is a faithful Mormon, but he is not responsible for all the positions taken by that faith in its history. And for that matter, he was not in a position to do anything about that policy -- which the LDS Church held to be a matter of divine revelation and teaches was changed by divine revelation.

But if we are going to engage in theological grillings of candidates, let's start right now. When will we see Mike Huckabee grilled about the much more malignant racism that prevailed int eh Southern Baptist Convention for most of his adult life? When will Obama be called to account for the black-supremacist views of his pastor that are being propagated right now?

It is time for this crap to stop. We are electing a president, not a pastor.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

All joking aside, I really don't know how important an endorsement by Joe Lieberman will be for John McCain.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), who was on the national Democratic ticket in 2000, will cross the aisle to endorse Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) tomorrow, Republican sources said.

The two will appear together on Fox News on Monday, then at an 8 a.m. town hall meeting in Hillsborough, N.H. They will talk with reporters after the meeting. McCain is also scheduled to appear on NBC's "Today" program.

The move, which will help cultivate McCain's moderate status, is an effort to draw attention to the McCain campaign, which needs a splash. Otherwise, it does not make sense for McCain because it will only remind core Republicans why they distrust him.

I have to agree with that assessment. When push comes to shove, Lieberman is the last of the Scoop Jackson Democrats. His endorsement would make great sense in the fall, if McCain were the nominee. But how does the endorsement of a liberal Democrat really help John McCain in the GOP primary, unless it manages to pull in new voters to the GOP process -- something unlikely to happen in large enough numbers to get make the negatives among the GOP base go away.

And I say this as someone who admires Joe Lieberman and would love to see more like him in the Democrat party.

What this endorsement does do, however, is make McCain a viable GOP VP choice -- but then again, he already was. Or, as an extreme long-shot option, it creates the possibility of a McCain-Lieberman independent run that would draw from the political center. After all, if Americans are really so disillusioned with the direction being taken by both parties this year, such a bi-partisan ticket could draw centrist voters.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Don Surber raises an interesting point about the treasure trove of endorsements received by John McCain today.

McCain picks up endorsements from the Des Moines Register, Boston Globe and Joe Lieberman. When will he get one from a Republican?

Indeed.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

If you support conservative judicial appointees, there can be only one choice for President in 2008. That choice is Mitt Romney -- who just got the gold-seal of endorsements from the expert on conservative judicial philosophy, Robert Bork.

Joining Romney for President, Judge Bork said, "Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today's endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. He knows firsthand how the judicial branch can profoundly affect the future course of a state and a nation. I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."

Judge Bork continued, "Our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination, and Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation. I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States.

Can we really trust pro-choice Rudy to appoint conservative judges. Given McCain's involvement in the Gang of 14, can we really trust him to fight to get such judges confirmed? And can we trust Mike Huckabee at all? And for all the work that Fred Thompson has done on behalf of conservative judges, Judge Bork still endorsed Mitt Romney for President. I think that clearly says it all in terms of where those of us who support a conservative, constitutionally literate and limited judiciary need to cast our votes.

Posted by: Greg at 03:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 3 kb.

Push polling is a sleazy tactic. Why am I not surprised that Mike Huckabee supporters are doing it?

"It was a series of questions that you would associate with a push poll," Campbell said, referring to the negative campaigning technique of pretending to be a pollster gathering information from voters when really the intention is to spread negative information about a rival.

The automated machine, which identified itself as being with Common Sense Issues, threw Campbell questions about whether he'd be less likely to support McCain if he knew the Arizona senator opposed a federal amendment to ban same sex marriage, or that he'd hurt the anti-abortion-rights cause by leading the charge for campaign finance reform.

Campbell said the call ended before he could even find a pen to start taking notes on what was being said, once he realized he was in the midst of some shady campaign tactics.

Earlier this month Common Sense Issues -- which is affiliated with supporters of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- set up an organization called Trust Huckabee, which began making calls in Iowa praising Huckabee and disparaging Huckabee's opponents.

Huckabee, of course, denies any involvement in the calls (because if he or his campaign were involved, it would be a violation of federal election law against coordinating activity between campaigns and "independent" groups). But this pro-Huckabee group seems particularly intent upon smearing anybody who is not Mike Huckabee, the second-worst candidate in the GOP race (I can finally join with all the Ron PauLunatics in saying "Ron Paul is #1!"), having previously targeted other candidates.

For his party, Huckabee denounced those calls by the group earlier this month, but since the calls continue, so he clearly lacks sufficient moral authority with his supporters to be an effective leader. After all, if his supporters won't heed his words, what is there to make us think that anyone else will? He'd be even less effective on the world stage as president than Jimmy Carter -- another weak leader whose only discernible qualification seemed to be his Christian faith.

Posted by: Greg at 03:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

And don't most serial killers, sex offenders, and other sociopathic personalities first display a streak of animal cruelty?

As Mike Huckabee gains in the polls, the former Arkansas governor is finding that his record in office is getting more scrutiny. One issue likely to get attention is his handling of a sensitive family matter: allegations that one of his sons was involved in the hanging of a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp in 1998. The incident led to the dismissal of David Huckabee, then 17, from his job as a counselor at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, Ark. It also prompted the local prosecuting attorney— bombarded with complaints generated by a national animal-rights group—to write a letter to the Arkansas state police seeking help investigating whether David and another teenager had violated state animal-cruelty laws. The state police never granted the request, and no charges were ever filed. But John Bailey, then the director of Arkansas's state police, tells NEWSWEEK that Governor Huckabee's chief of staff and personal lawyer both leaned on him to write a letter officially denying the local prosecutor's request. Bailey, a career officer who had been appointed chief by Huckabee's Democratic predecessor, said he viewed the lawyer's intervention as improper and terminated the conversation. Seven months later, he was called into Huckabee's office and fired. "I've lost confidence in your ability to do your job," Bailey says Huckabee told him. One reason Huckabee cited was "I couldn't get you to help me with my son when I had that problem," according to Bailey. "Without question, [Huckabee] was making a conscious attempt to keep the state police from investigating his son," says I. C. Smith, the former FBI chief in Little Rock, who worked closely with Bailey and called him a "courageous" and "very solid" professional.

Pretty sick stuff on the part of Huckabee's son -- and Daddy's actions are almost Clintonesque in nature. It must be something about Arkansas governors from Hope, believing that the law is for other people, and that those who cross you should be fired from their jobs and otherwise destroyed.

Huckabee dismisses the accusation as coming from a "bitter ex-employee". Then again, happy current and former employees are usually not the ones who blow the whistle on corruption, are they?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, sTIX bLOG, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, nuke's, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, The Yankee Sailor, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 6 kb.

Sounds like a bad vaudeville routine.

Partner 1: Al Sharpton is so corrupt...

Partner 2: How corrupt is he?

With a hidden FBI camera rolling inside a New York hotel suite in 2003, an unsuspecting Rev. Al Sharpton, Democratic candidate for president, spoke candidly.

Sharpton offered to help Philadelphia fund-raiser Ronald A. White win a multimillion-dollar business deal, if White helped him raise $50,000 for politics.

White offered $25,000. "If you bring my guys up on this hedge fund, and I have the right conversation," White said, "I'll give you what you need."

"Cool," Sharpton said.

The Inquirer obtained an account of the May 9, 2003, conversation, which was recorded as part of the Philadelphia City Hall corruption case. The tape helped spark a separate inquiry into Sharpton's 2004 campaign and his civil-rights organization, the National Action Network. The FBI-IRS probe resurfaced publicly Wednesday, when Sharpton aides received subpoenas.

And you have to love Sharpton's response, which amounts to "It ain't illegal 'cuz I'm not a public official."

Well, maybe -- but it certainly reeks of corruption, the very kind a that liberals have complained about for years when it comes to cozy relationships between campaign donors and Republicans (but wait -- isn't it usually Democrats who get caught doing this?).

Posted by: Greg at 04:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's begin with this caveat: No system for casting and counting votes is fool-proof or fraud-proof. For that reason, I take the comments by Ohio's secretary of state with a grain of salt. That said, she raises an important point.

All five voting systems used in Ohio, a state whose electoral votes narrowly swung two elections toward President Bush, have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election, a report commissioned by the stateÂ’s top elections official has found.

“It was worse than I anticipated,” the official, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, said of the report. “I had hoped that perhaps one system would test superior to the others.”

At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers.

Ms. Brunner proposed replacing all of the stateÂ’s voting machines, including the touch-screen ones used in more than 50 of OhioÂ’s 88 counties. She wants all counties to use optical scan machines that read and electronically record paper ballots that are filled in manually by voters.

When the eSlate system was adopted here in Harris County, I strongly urged against it. I wanted to see an optical scanner system adopted because of the paper trail it would provide. That said, I figure that if I can trust an ATM with my money, I can also trust a system like the one we have and like those they have in Ohio.

"But," some will object, "doesn't this show that the machines can be tampered with?"

Yeah, it does.

But if the conditions are what I suspect they were, the test itself was essentially meaningless. The testers would have been given unlimited access to and time with the equipment, access to schematics and source code, and would not have faced any of the other security methods imposed by elections officials. These are not conditions that anyone tampering with election results is likely to face.

And let's not forget that there are ways to game an optical scanner system. You can still program the software to miscount votes. You can still add fake voters to the rolls or vote folks who were not at the polls. Ballots can still be tampered with after they are cast. In other words, optical scanners have many of the same flaws as both the paperless systems and the punch card system used in much of the country prior to the 2000 fiasco in Florida. No system is perfect.

Indeed, the only real safeguard of an election is the integrity of those who are involved in the process of running the election, from state officials to county and city elections officials to those of us who actually operate the polling places on Election Day. And so while I explicitly endorse a change to optical scanners, I am under no illusion that erroneous vote counts or outright election fraud can ever be completely eliminated until we can figure out a way to eliminate human fallibility and mankind's sinful nature from the equation.

Posted by: Greg at 03:29 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.

Because even though the Democrats have a vested interest in a terrorist victory in Iraq, they don't want to explicitly give further aid and comfort to the enemy right now.

The Democratic-led Congress authorized more Iraq war spending on Friday, sending President Bush a defense bill requiring no change in strategy after failing again to impose a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals.

The defense policy bill, approved 90-3 by the Senate, also expanded the size of the U.S. Army and set conditions on the Bush administrationÂ’s plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.

The measure already had passed the House and now goes to Bush, who is expected to sign it into law. It authorizes Pentagon programs expected to cost $506.9 billion during fiscal 2008, which began in October.

Now the next big issue is whether or not the Congress will actually appropriate the money they just authorized. What an absurd system! This means that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jon Murtha and the rest of the Surrender At Any Cost Caucus can once again act on behalf of al-Qaeda to ensure the defeat of American forces in Iraq.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

On October 2, 2007, the House passed a resolution by a vote of 376-0. In it, the House of Representatives

"recognize[d] the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world" and "acknowledge[d] the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and convey[ed] its respect to Muslims," as well as commending those who reject hatred.

On October 29, 2007, the House passed a resolution by a vote of 358-0. In this resolution, the House of Representatives

"in order to demonstrate support for Indian Americans and the Indian Diaspora throughout the world, recognize[d] Diwali as an important festival."

And on December 11, 2007 the House passed a resolution by a vote of 372-9. In it, the House of Representatives

recognize[d] "the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world" and acknowledge[d] "the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith."

Are you as scandalized as I am by those nine votes against Christmas by members of the United States House of Representatives -- each of whom had voted in favor of at least one of those two previous resolutions? Why do these nine individuals disrespect Christmas and Christianity? Why do they refuse to give equal treatment to the faith of the overwhelming majority of Americans even as they profess their respect for the religion of America's Islamist enemies at a time when terrorists are killing innocents around the world in the name of that religion?

The nine Members voting NO were Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) (FL), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). Let's take action to make it clear that the Christian majority of this country demands at least the same amount of respect that they are willing to give the non-Christian minority. And let's hang this one around the collective neck of the Democrat Party.

And while some are outraged that there were individuals who simply voted "Present", I'm not. There are principled reasons for doing so, and many more (I believe of both parties) voted present on the prior two resolutions. But to vote against a resolution honoring Christianity that was nearly identical to one honoring Islam or Hinduism is a sign of hatred and bigotry, not of sign of a principled support of the non-constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

H/T Stop The ACLU, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Jo's Cafe, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Church and State, Ace of Spades HQ, Slapstick Politics, The Steel Deal

Posted by: Greg at 11:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 4 kb.

Michael Medved makes a good case for it.

He conforms perfectly to all four rules – he’s a well-known, nationally respected figure, hardly a fresh face; he’s a septuagenarian candidate who won’t be plotting his own future races; he’s a Washington insider (and easily the most influential single Senator of the last twenty years) who certainly qualifies as a hard-wired insider; he’s run for president twice, maintaining his dignity and integrity on both occasions; and his selection hardly qualifies as a “stunt” choice meant to grab votes in some sub-group (Episcopalian war-heroes hardly count as a contested voting block).

Some may object to the idea of McCain as a running mate because his record (particularly on campaign finance reform and immigration) won’t match the position of the nominee. Aside from the fact that he’s changed emphasis on the issues (he scarcely speaks about campaign financing and now insists on “border security first” regarding immigration reform) history shows that issues disagreements never hurt a ticket. No one looks closely at a Veep candidate’s position papers because it’s obvious that he won’t be shaping policy. Kennedy and Johnson, Reagan and Bush, Gore and Lieberman all disagreed on crucial issues, but media and voters ultimately ignored those disputes – especially after the Vice Presidential candidate inevitably (and appropriately) signified that he would follow the President’s lead.

Given the non-existent foreign policy and defense experience of the three front-runners (Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani) a McCain choice would be particularly necessary – sorry, Rudy, serving as New York City Mayor and responding to local destruction doesn’t truly amount to leadership on foreign affairs (however admirable it might be). Moreover, McCain’s home state, Arizona (where he remains hugely popular), will be a major battleground in ’08 – Democrats know that no Republican can win without it. McCain’s continuing popularity and credibility in the Hispanic community might also reduce the hemorrhaging of GOP Latino support due to strident anti-immigrant posturing by all major candidates. Moreover, on the abortion issue that inspires and engages so many Republicans, McCain’s unwavering pro-life record would help to solidify the candidacy of either Romney or Rudy if they selected him for the ticket.

I’ve said in the past that I have serious problems with McCain because of both his immigration record and, especially, his record on freedom of speech. I’ve even said I would not vote for him. But this would be the single exception – McCain as the vice presidential candidate. Not necessarily my first choice, but certainly a reasonable one.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

The leading voice of the conservative movement for the last half-century says it loud and clear -- Mitt Romney is the bet standard-bearer for the GOP in 2008.

Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

* * *

More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President BushÂ’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.

Indeed, this is why I have supported Romney for months -- he is a real conservative who will pull us back to the right direction politically. And as a businessman, he also is keenly aware of the negative impact of government upon the economy. And most importantly, he avoids the drawbacks of each of the other four major candidates in terms of dividing the base or having too much personal baggage to be a effective candidate for our nation's chief executive. Three of those four are men I deeply admire and believe ought to have a place in a Romney Administration. Indeed, two of those three (McCain and Thompson) would make excellent picks for Vice President, while the third is the obvious choice for either Attorney General or Homeland Security secretary.

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

There is no place for Mike Huckabee in my GOP -- not after this move to play to and promote religious bigotry in order to undermine an opponent.

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

The article, to be published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, says Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a religion but doesn't know much about it. His rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is a member of the Mormon church, which is known officially as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.

A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by this move. By raising the question, Huckabee is proposing to do the exact opposite of what Mitt Romney argued for last week. Rather than promoting religious tolerance, Huckabee wants to impose a narrow religious test for any candidate for office -- and has shown that he cannot be president for all Americans. Indeed, I would expect a defeat on the order of that suffered by the GOP in 1964 when Barry Goldwater was thoroughly drubbed by Lyndon Johnson -- except without planting the seeds of future victory as Goldwater did.

And let's be quite clear -- the New York Times doesn't do favors for Republican candidates. It doesn't give them free rein to write a piece for publication unless there is something in it for the advancement of the New York Times' agenda. What Huckabee has done here is shown himself to be a narrow-minded little bigot, just like the Left wants to portray all religious Americans to be.

Let me say it -- Mike Huckabee will be the death of the GOP built by Ronald Reagan. And I will not vote for him for President, based upon this misguided action alone. Indeed, the prospect of "President Huckabee" will lead me to give serious consideration to voting for "President McKinney". After all, could she really be any more divisive?

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

Losing these seats would have been bad -- but holding on to them both in as strong a fashion as the party has could be a sign that Republican support is not so weak as one might have thought.

Republicans retained control of two Congressional seats Tuesday in special elections in Ohio and Virginia, thwarting Democratic efforts to expand their control in the House. The elections were held to complete the terms of members of the House who had died.

In Virginia, Robert J. Wittman, a first-term Republican state legislator, easily defeated the Democratic candidate, Philip Forgit, a teacher. Mr. Wittman will complete the term of Jo Ann Davis, who had represented a southeastern Virginia district for seven years. Ms. Davis died of breast cancer in October.

In Ohio, Robert E. Latta, a Republican state representative, defeated Robin Weirauch, a Democrat who was making her third run. Mr. Latta will replace Paul E. Gillmor, who died in a fall in September. Mr. Gillmor was first elected in a northwest Ohio district in 1988.

Two chances to snatch safe seats from the GOP. Two failures.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

What can I say about this one?

Republican Eric Story is seeking to unseat Democrat Gene Green in Texas Congressional District 29 after a strong showing in a long-shot race in 2006.

And I think he may have a reasonable chance this time.

After all, even the Democrats think he is a decent, honorable guy who is worthy of being elected to and holding a position of public trust.

How do we know this? Easy -- Harris County Democrats sent Eric Story a letter, seeking to recruit him to be Precinct Chair and Election Judge in his home precinct.

Yeah, that's right -- the Democrats want him in office in their own party!

So either they are acknowledging that that Eric Story is precisely the sort of man that Texans need in office.

Or they are in such disarray that they don't know their butts from a hole in the ground.

Either way, why vote Democrat?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 3 kb.

Mitt Romney is taking on Mike Huckabee with a new television ad in Iowa.

His shot at the Republican presidential nomination in jeopardy, Mitt Romney will begin running a TV ad against Iowa front-runner Mike Huckabee on illegal immigration starting Tuesday while weighing how much negative campaigning he can add to the methodical plan he's followed all year.

The ad says the former governors have a lot in common — but not on illegal immigration, an important issue in Iowa, which will lead off nomination voting with its caucuses on Jan. 3.

"Mitt Romney stood up, and vetoed in-state tuition for illegal aliens, opposed driver's licenses for illegals," the ad says. "Mike Huckabee? Supported in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants. Huckabee even supported taxpayer-funded college scholarships for illegal aliens."

"On immigration, the choice matters," the ad ends.

With Huckabee surging in Iowa — and showing strength nationally as well — Romney offers positive as well as negative words on his rival.

"Two former governors. Two good family men. Both pro-life. Both support a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage," the ad says — then it focuses on what it says are stark differences on illegal immigration.

Romney's campaign characterized the "contrast ad" — the first in which he names a rival — as a reaction to Huckabee's own new TV commercial in which he touts his immigration proposal.

Some will call this a negative ad. But if contrasting your position on an issue with those of your opponent constitutes negativity, I say bring on even more. After all, what are we supposed to be talking about if not the issues? On what basis should we decide our candidate if not upon their records and proposed policies?

Let's face it -- this ad is not destructive, is not insulting, and is in the best tradition of American political debate and dialogue. Romney should be applauded for taking the high here, rather than criticized for "going negative".

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

If these numbers are correct, we could see Democrats slugging it out for the nomination as surely as the GOP will be.

With just slightly more than three weeks until the first nominating contest, three new MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon polls show that the Democratic contest isnÂ’t just a dead heat in Iowa -- itÂ’s also tied in New Hampshire and South Carolina. In Iowa, Clinton has the lead over Obama, 27%-25% (although thatÂ’s within the pollÂ’s 5% margin of error), while Edwards comes in third at 21%. In New Hampshire, itÂ’s Clinton 30%, Obama 27%, and Edwards 10%. And in South Carolina, itÂ’s Clinton 28%, Obama 25%, and Edwards 18%. To borrow a sports analogy, the impressive underdog (Obama) has tied it up in the fourth quarter after trailing the once-seemingly invincible favorite (Clinton) for most of the contest. ItÂ’s now anybodyÂ’s game.

The question is, how badly will a failure to run away with it in these states hurt Hillary Clinton?

And with the splintered vote on the GOP side of the race, some are arguing that we may see an old-fashioned brokered convention That might not be a bad thing. After all, the excitement would buy news coverage and the attention of the nation.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

I hate to see an innocent man railroaded by a rogue prosecutor.

I have confidence in such cases that justice will prevail.

But in this instance, I understand why Scooter Libby is going to end his quest for justice with the stain on his honor still legally in place.

Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is no longer appealing his conviction in the CIA leak case, a tacit recognition that continuing his legal fight might only make things worse.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of perjury and obstruction but President Bush commuted his 30-month prison sentence in July. As a convicted felon, Libby will lose his law license and, in some states, cannot vote.

He might have had a chance to avoid those consequences had he won on appeal, but at a new trial his commutation would be meaningless and Libby would again face potential prison time.

"We remain firmly convinced of Mr. Libby's innocence," attorney Theodore Wells said Monday. "However, the realities were, that after five years of government service by Mr. Libby and several years of defending against this case, the burden on Mr. Libby and his young family of continuing to pursue his complete vindication are too great to ask them to bear."

And therein lies the problem. Prior to the commutation (which I opposed), Libby had good reason to fight. After all, he was facing jail time in addition to the fine and the legal disabilities imposed upon him as a convicted felon.

Unfortunately, a successful appeal would result only in a new trial -- and the commutation would become meaningless. Following a new trial, Libby could again face the prospect of years behind bars. For that reason, Libby is probably correct in dropping his appeal in favor of a sure thing rather than taking the risk inherent in another roll of the dice at trial. Here's hoping that at some point justice is done in this case and Scooter Libby is pardoned.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Hopefully this comment will burst the bubble of the folks who support Mike Huckabee.

GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said Sunday he wonÂ’t run from his statement 15 years ago that AIDS patients should have been isolated.

Huckabee acknowledged the prevailing scientific view then, and since, that the virus that causes AIDS is not spread through casual contact, but said that was not certain. He cited revelations in 1991 that a dentist had infected a patient in an extraordinary case that highlighted the risk of infection through contact with blood or bodily fluids.

“I still believe this today,” he said in a broadcast interview, that “we were acting more out of political correctness” in responding to the AIDS crisis. “I don’t run from it, I don’t recant it,” he said of his position in 1992. Yet he said he would state his view differently in retrospect.

Huckabee, as a Senate candidate that year, told The Associated Press that “we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague” if the federal government was going to deal with the spread of the disease effectively. “It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents,” he said then.

And here's my problem with that statement -- it flies in the face of what we know today. One could still -- barely -- take the silly position taken by Huckabee at the time. Now we know, unambiguously so, that his position is wrong. We don't need to intern AIDS patients in some sort of concentration camp. And while isolation might be advisable for some few individuals in this country who willfully spread their disease, we are pretty clear on the concept that such individuals are few and far between.

I'd almost been willing to see Mike Huckabee on the GOP ticket, despite my misgivings about another tax-raising governor from Hope, Arkansas being permitted in the same zip code as the White House. Not now -- not at all.

H/T The Liberty Papers

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Adeline and Hazel, , third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, , The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Phastidio.net, , Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, Wolf Pangloss, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 6 kb.

Wouldn't an answer consistent with Scripture and his denomination be a bit less than surprising?

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, surging in Iowa polls in the Republican presidential race, wrote on a questionnaire while running for U.S. Senate in 1992 that homosexuality is "aberrant" and "sinful."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk," Huckabee wrote in the questionnaire for The Associated Press, which reported the answer on Saturday.

I guess I'm surprised that anybody is surprised. Believing homosexual activity to be sinful is pretty mainstream thinking among Christians -- at least among those who still grant some level of authority to the Bible -- and so why woulndn't he hold such a view. As for "aberrant" and "unnatural", when one considers that the primary purpose of sexual conduct is reproduction, one can certainly make a case for both of those terms as fitting homosexuality. They may be a bit strong to have put on that questionnaire, but that doesn't make the beliefs particularly shocking to me. it is really pretty mainstream Baptist teaching, and to expect Huckabee to hold anything different is indicative of lazy thinking.

Then there is this.

In another answer that could damage his standing in the presidential race, Huckabee wrote on the questionnaire that AIDS research was receiving an unfair amount of federal money. Instead, he said celebrities should pay for the research themselves.

"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote, according to the AP.

"An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."

Frankly, I find this answer to be even less troubling than the first. I've always been struck by the hypocrisy of super-rich celebrities insisting that the government tax the common man more to pay for their pet causes while giving little more than pocket change for these same causes. And such celebrities and their pressure does warp our spending priorities -- given the number of men afflicted with prostate cancer and the number of women who suffer from breast cancer, is the research funding roughly equivalent on a per-patient basis? No, because one of those diseases has celebrity spokespeople pushing for greater spending on research, while the other does not. The same argument could be made regarding AIDS, and I believe that is the one Huckabee is making in that statement.

More troubling is this one.

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.... It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

That one does sound much more harsh -- though he is making a point that many folks did in 1992, when this was written. We've historically quarantined folks with such deadly communicable illnesses -- typhoid, tuberculosis, and other deadly diseases. The difference, of course, is that AIDS is less communicable and transmission can be avoided through simple precautions. A dear friend has been HIV-positive for over two decades and continues to be in great health -- and not one of us straight men and women who are his friends have contracted the virus because he and we are all conscious of what to do to avoid transmission.

This survey may be a difficult one for Huckabee to overcome, though I can't help but wonder if his views have shifted at all over time. It would be really interesting to hear his answers to the second two questions again, as i expect some evolution may have happened after a decade as governor.

Posted by: Greg at 08:16 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 4 kb.

Senior members of the House lack "big sticks" for following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's failed leadership.

Pelosi proves she can't play with the big dogs by her response.

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proves that he has no balls with his response.

“To tell you the truth, I’ve been really busy the last 24 hours,” Pelosi said. “How can I say this with the dignity of the office that I hold, and especially the dignity of the office that the vice president holds? It’s so beneath the dignity of his office — and mine — that I don’t even want to address it.”

Of course, the repeated slams she and her colleagues have made at the President and Vice President are somehow fully within the dignity of their offices, under this theory. Right!

And Harry Reid's response is just pathetic.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not comment on the remark but said in a Politico interview that “someone I was with said that” the comment sounded sexist.

I guess those testicles must be in a blind trust -- he certainly isn't using them if he refuses to take a position himself or acknowledge he agrees with the comment he just quoted. What a loser!

Posted by: Greg at 04:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

Andrew Sullivan highlights an Iowa newspaper commentary that deals with a provocative question.

National reporters have been calling and the most common question is 'What is wrong with the Clinton campaign?'

The answer, which Sullivan quotes at length, is pretty obvious. The problem is Hillary Clinton. She doesn't believe in anything. She doesn't stand for anything.

Let me correct that -- she does believe in and stand for one thing. The election of Hillary Clinton, who she believes deserves to be president by some notion of divine right of first ladies. After all, if she were Hillary Rodham Smith, would she even be a blip on the political radar screen?

Posted by: Greg at 04:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, the probability of an American in victory results in Democrats deciding to cut and run.

This time, though, their decision to choose a policy of retreat and surrender is a good thing.

it means our troops will have what they need to win the war.

House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.

In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.

If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to reject.

Of course, I can't help but notice that the Democrats insist upon more pork as a condition of allowing American national security to be served. Who is exercising fiscal restraint in Washington? Not the Democrats -- and their constituencies who prefer defeat to victory.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

See Sheila.

See Sheila spin.

Spin, Sheila, spin.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee told a House committee Thursday that her proposal to slash prison time for older, nonviolent federal inmates was not intended to benefit child pornographers or white-collar criminals.

"This is not a bill to give comfort to the Jack Abramoffs of the world," the Houston Democrat said Thursday at a hearing before a House Judiciary subcommittee. Abramoff, a former Washington lobbyist, pleaded guilty in January of 2006 to charges of conspiring to bribe members of Congress.

Jackson Lee criticized the Houston Chronicle for its "interpretation" of her bill in an article on Thursday.

The Chronicle reported that the measure, as originally written, could result in the early release of white-collar felons such as Abramoff, Houston oilman Oscar Wyatt and former Enron executives Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew Fastow.

"This is not an effort to focus on certain heinous crimes," Jackson Lee said. "It is an effort to address the question of recidivism, bring crime down and make our communities safer."

Notice, of course, that she doesn't deny that the reduction of the sentences in question will happen under her legislation. She simply doesn't "intend" for these perpetrators of "heinous" crimes to benefit.

She neglects to consider, however, that every crime is "heinous" to the victims of that crime.

Spin Sheila!

Spin Sheila!

Spin Sheila!

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

A bit over a month ago, I described the problem faced by the congregation of the Third Church of Christ, Scientist in Washington, DC this way.

The church is an ugly, non-functional building only three decades old. The religious group that worships there wants to demolish it and replace it with a structure that actually serves the needs of the congregation. The city wants to stop them, declaring the non-functional eyesore to be "historic" -- because it is a non-functional eyesore.

Now it should be clear to anyone that any such action by the city would be not merely unreasonable, but also impose a substantial burden upon the ability of these believers to use their property for worship. It should be obvious that so drastic an action by the city would constitute a "taking" of the property by any definition of the word. But that doesn't matter to the city's Historic Preservation Review Board. They awarded the building "historic" status despite the vocal objections of the congregation.

But the arrogance of the board is particularly shocking.

Tersh Boasberg, the board's chairman, said during the hearing that the board would not address First Amendment issues in its consideration of the church's architecture. Instead, he said, the board would base its ruling on the significance of the design.

Translation: We won't let little things like the Constitution get in the way of a decision that we have already made. We are just going to go through the motions of engaging in a little bit of brutalism ourselves, and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights will be no obstacle.

Of course, I have no problem with designating a structure historical. but when sucha designation carries with it restrictions on use of the property that does not impact other property owners on an equal basis, you have a taking in a very real sense -- and that should be compensated. And when, like in this case, the designation renders the property unusable by the owners, the proper solution is for the government to buy the property from the owner AT THE PRICE SET BY THE OWNER.

After all, if the building is so significant, so priceless, there is no legitimate argument that the people as a whole, whose interest is supposedly benefited by preserving this building as-is, should jointly bear the burden of maintaining the building in that state. And if the preservation of the building is not a fit expenditure of the public treasury, imposing exactly that burden on a single individual or entity is unjustifiable.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Upon the completion of Governor Mitt Romney's speech in College Station, my dear wife sent me an email that set the tone for our discussion tonight.

His speech is/was extremely boring, like listening to you lecture

Indeed, I suspect that the reason I liked the speech so much is that it so clearly reflected my thoughts and so wonderfully incorporated history, political science, and theology into one wonderful mosaic. It is what i would have liked to say were i given the opportunity. I join with Hugh Hewitt in saying that I view it as "magnificent".

Of course, I'm going to begin by agreeing with one point made in Christopher Hutchins' generally wrong-headed column -- the choice of a venue with the Presidential Seal on the podium and a background of flags was quite clever.

But more generally, I think the choice of the Sam Adams anecdote was a good one -- my view on religion and political candidates is that I want a man (or woman) why has good character and some form of piety that keeps him grounded in something larger than himself. I don't have to agree with the theological particulars of that religious faith, and indeed do not particularly find it necessary to inquire too deeply into such things. But I do look for the works that have grown from that faith -- and I see them in the life and career of Mitt Romney, which is why I endorsed him early and have not transferred that allegiance.

I could turn this post into a collection of excerpts, in effect fisking the speech, but I won't. I will, however, point to one weakness of the speech and one problem that it could never solve.

In terms of the weakness, I believe it was the profession of faith in Jesus Christ. And while he acknowledged the difference in theological stances taken by the LDS Church and the bulk of Christianity, I think that can almost be seen as a bit disingenuous due to the wide gulf between Mormon teachings and mainstream Christological positions of th Catholics, Orthodox, and protestant traditions. As was noted by David Frum at National Review today, if it is legitimate for Romney to answer that Jesus Question, what other Jesus Questions would it be legitimate to put to him?

Now I think this speech may have raised the comfort level of one group of folks who objected to Romney's candidacy on religious grounds. That would be those who held to the belief that a member of a hierarchical religion might find themselves the religious leaders. That was the JFK question in 1960, and is the Romney question today.

But there are others, objecting on a different basis, who were not and could not have been comforted by today's speech. For such folks, the issue is one of the degree to which they find the religious beliefs reasonable, even if they reject them. Examining the whole spectrum of religious belief, the question becomes one of how reasonable you find the beliefs of the candidate. The question regarding Mitt Romney then becomes "Is Mormonism more like Catholicism, or more like Scientology, in terms of how reasonable I find their beliefs?" For those people, there really is no changing their mind short of convincing them that Mormonism is reasonable -- and for the very reasons that Governor Romney pointed out, doing so would be inappropriate in the context of a presidential campaign.

No candidate can be all things to all people. However, I believe that Romney was very much what he needed to be today.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Pet Haven Blog, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, CommonSenseAmerica, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 3208 words, total size 22 kb.