Are the Democrats so short of credible folks to occupy newly vacated Senate seats that they will turn to not merely one, but instead two, members of the Kennedy clan to fill them?

Is Chris Kennedy, the son of the late, great U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, a possible entrant on the list to fill Presidentelect Barack Obama's Senate seat?

• • To wit: Sneed hears Kennedy's name has been wafted into the inner circle of Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, who would be the guy who chooses Obama's replacement if Gov. Blagojevich resigns.

• • Quoth Dem politico Jay Doherty, a Kennedy confidant: "It would give Pat Quinn the answer to the puzzle before him if he becomes governor."

• • The upshot: Word is Kennedy, who is also the nephew of Sen. Ted Kennedy, a major Obama supporter, is likely to accept if asked.

• • Hmmm: Wouldn't that be something: An offspring of the legendary Kennedy line as a senator from Illinois? Stay tuned.

Like his cousin Caroline (often mentioned as a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton), Chris Kennedy has no significant credentials for the office besides his name and has never held elective office. But what the heck -- who needs experience if you are a Kennedy?

Posted by: Greg at 03:11 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

As you all know, I am not a fan of the folks at Daily Kos. I consider it a cesspool of the worst that liberalism has to offer -- hate, profanity, and anti-Americanism.

That said, I can't help but be struck by this diary about Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's effort to do an end-run around the Illinois Constitution's impeachment provisions by having the Illinois Supreme Court declare Gov. Rod Blagojevich unfit for office. It mirrors my own thoughts on the matter, which I had been planning to write about tonight.

The Illinois Attorney General is trying to stage a Thai-style coup this weekend. I know that Blagojevich is an asshole and should leave office forthwith, but even if it's technically legal, having the Supreme Court remove him without due process is antidemocratic and the wrong way to go about it.

The constitutions of the several states are all based on the same principles of the Federal one, three coequal branches providing checks and balances. While this is less efficient than the parliamentary system, where the chairman of committee of the legislature has near dictatorial powers for a time (see Canada), the removal of an elected executive by members of an unelected branch without due process is nothing more than a coup d'etat and anti-democratic. I have no brief for Blagojevich and what he did, but this way of getting rid of him is profoundly wrong.

the law in question was about the Governor being in coma or being so physically damaged that CANNOT physically do his job. This is not the case here. Blagojevich may be a felonious asshole, but to some extent, so are the other 49 governors, Look at Sarah Palin, for example, or Jennifer Granholm, who is only slightly more popular than Blagojevich. Just because Blago got caught doesn't mean the Supreme Court can get rid of him without due process. If he was in a coma or in the hospital heavily sedated, means he couldn't object, and in the latter case, he could probably get his job back as soon he was well enough to ask for it. OR could he?

Of course, the diarist does make a small mistake -- in Illinois the judicial branch is elected. However, the reality is that removal of an executive who has not been convicted of a crime is the sole province of either the voters (refusal to reelect) or the legislative branch (impeachment). The incapacity provision is clearly intended to cover a physical or mental illness, not political corruption. A quick check of the Illinois Constitution makes it clear where the power to remove a corrupt governor lies:

ARTICLE IV SECTION 14. IMPEACHMENT
The House of Representatives has the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of the members elected, to impeach Executive and Judicial
officers. Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, or affirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgment shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer,
whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.

Given that it is a bedrock principle of our system that members of one branch may not delegate their constitutional prerogatives to officers of another branch, it is obvious that the Madigan gambit is in violation of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.

Why, then, is Madigan making this effort? While one could infer that she is doing so out of concern for good government, consider a couple of points. First, Madigan is seen as atop candidate for governor in the next election. This effort would burnish her image in advance of the election. Second, Madigan's father, the Speaker of the Illinois House, is a Blagojevich enemy who would be spared the need to impeach a governor of his own party by this move. And third, there is currently the incentive for Blagojevich to rat out any legislator who votes for impeachment or conviction, so this provides cover for a host of grateful Illinois pols.

Sadly, We the People have become less concerned to constitutional niceties when they get in the way of what we want done. Here's hoping that there are enough judges on the Illinois Supreme Court who still recognize that a constitution is more than just a piece of paper to be ignored when it suits them. Impeachment, not removal for unfitness, is the proper outcome. It is so simple that even a Kossack can see it.

UPDATE: Not precisely on this point, but Darren makes a point that is certainly tangential to one of mine in this post about how Republics degenerate.

UPDATE 2: Althouse offers a much more detailed explanation of what is wrong with this move by Madigan from a constitutional viewpoint.

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 858 words, total size 6 kb.

An apparent arson attack has caused major damage to Barack Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ.

Fire officials are investigating a suspicious blaze at one of the biggest churches in Chicago. The pastor is estimating damage at more than $1 million.No one was injured in the fire at Trinity United Church of Christ, which started late Friday. About a half dozen church members were in the building doing crafts when the fire began but were able to get out safely after the building's fire alarm sounded, a church spokesman said.

"This fire is definitely suspicious," said Central Mat-Su Fire Chief James Steele.

Needless to say, this is a political attack by hate-filled Rethugliklans out to silence the prophetic voice of the black church and intimidate Barack Obama and his fellow progressive Christians. The Leftosphere is aflame in outrage, demanding action that includes the silencing of "hate radio" that obviously created the climate for such an attack

Oh.

I'm sorry.

The version of the story I received was apparently flawed.

Different church. Different city. Different state. Different major politician.

Fire officials are investigating a suspicious blaze at one of the biggest churches in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The pastor is estimating damage at more than $1 million.No one was injured in the fire at the Wasilla Bible Church, which started late Friday. About a half dozen church members were in the building doing crafts when the fire began but were able to get out safely after the building's fire alarm sounded, pastor Larry Kroon said.

"This fire is definitely suspicious," said Central Mat-Su Fire Chief James Steele.

The church, located off the Parks Highway on the north end of town, is one of the biggest in the Valley with a typical Sunday service drawing up to a 1,000 people.

Several well-known Valley residents attend the church, including Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Wes Keller, R-Wasilla.

Well, I expect that we won't be hearing any liberal outrage on this one -- and probably a fair amount of liberal gloating. In the mean time, conservative blogs are maintaining a calm tone, though the question obviously must be asked as to whether or not the arson was politically motivated (especially since we were told by liberals that the teachings of Palin's church were quite relevant to her fitness for office, while those of Obama''s church and pastor were merely a racist distraction).

What is shocking is that anyone would torch a church -- especially when there are people inside. But since this is a predominantly white church, I somehow suspect that there will be no assumption that this is a hate crime -- even though we have seen the repeated targeting of evangelical churches by liberal groups since the passage of California's Prop 8 and WBC has hosted at least one conference promoting the "ex-gay" movement.

And as for a possible Palin connection, i can't help but note the unique level of venom directed against her by the media and her political opponents (as bad or worse than that directed at George W. Bush, and with less reason). Heck, when a woman's political opponents (like Andrew Sullivan) go so far as to question the maternity of one of her children, I won't put anything past them.

Which leads, of course, to another question -- given that Andrew Sullivan is on sabbatical right now, can anyone verify his whereabouts at the time of the fire?

H/T Ace, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

It does rather look like it, given this story.

As Gov. Rod Blagojevich was trying to pick IllinoisÂ’ next U.S. senator, businessmen with ties to both the governor and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. discussed raising at least $1 million for BlagojevichÂ’s campaign as a way to encourage him to pick Jackson for the job, the Tribune has learned.

Blagojevich made an appearance at an Oct. 31 luncheon meeting at the India House restaurant in Schaumburg sponsored by Oak Brook businessman Raghuveer Nayak, a major Blagojevich supporter who also has fundraising and business ties to the Jackson family, according to several attendees and public records.

Two businessmen who attended the meeting and spoke to the Tribune on the condition of anonymity said that Nayak and Blagojevich aide Rajinder Bedi privately told many of the more than two dozen attendees the fundraising effort was aimed at supporting JacksonÂ’s bid for the Senate.

Among the attendees was a Blagojevich fundraiser already under scrutiny by federal investigators, Joliet pharmacist Harish Bhatt.

Isn’t this all remarkably coincidental? And doesn’t it harmonize better with the evidence offered by Patrick Fitzgerald than the story told by the young congressman at his press conference? Interestingly enough, though, the major go-between in this case isn’t daddy, the well-know shakedown artist Rev. Jesse Jackson. Instead it was another Jackson son, Jonathan. I guess this shows that the apple does not fall far from the tree – though in this instance the elder Jackson was wise enough to stay away from the fire so as not to get burned.

Posted by: Greg at 02:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

While I think that Obama and company have handled the entire Blagojevich matter incorrectly (and probably dishonestly), I must applaud the course of action taken by one member of his team.

Emanuel turned testy and declined to talk with a reporter who approached him Thursday at Chicago City Hall, where he was watching his children perform in a concert. The Chicago Sun-Times reporter pressed him to comment about whether he was the emissary named in the criminal complaint.

“You’re wasting your time,” Emanuel said. “I’m not going to say a word to you. I’m going to do this with my children. Don’t do that. I’m a father. I have two kids. I’m not going to do it.”

When pressed for comment, he said, “I’m not as capable as you. I’m going to be a father. I’m allowed to be a father,” and he pushed the reporter’s digital recorder away.

Now I realize that the press has the right to ask questions, and I fully support their doing so. That said, there is an appropriate time, place, and manner for doing so – and the Sun-Times reporter chose the wrong one. There was absolutely nothing asked that could not have waited until after the Emanuel kids sang at that concert – and Emanuel was pretty gentle in how he rebuffed the reporter in question. Every public official has a private life and is entitled to a bit of family/personal time, and Emanuel was drawing a healthy line to guarantee that he would get to be a Dad. What’s not to respect there?

And given Rahm’s reputation, I’m actually amazed there weren’t a few curse words – which I would have been hard-pressed to condemn under the circumstances.

H/T Hot Air, Protein Wisdom

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s face it – even in a year in which Republicans were at a distinct disadvantage, Democrat Senatorial candidate Rick Noriega never stood a chance. Only rarely did he even have a close showing in the polls, and the final couple of months showed him to be generally fading in most polls. Except for the most blind partisans, no one expected Noriega to best Senator John Cornyn. It was no wonder, then, that the national Democrats dropped Noriega from their list of races to focus on during the waning days of the campaign – they knew he could not win.

Well, now we’ve got Hispanic Democrats here in Texas up in arms over that decision – and angry that it appears that Democrats are going to focus upon viable candidates who happen to be Anglo in 2010 and beyond.

Two prominent Hispanic Democratic officials from Texas harshly criticized an arm of their national party today for skipping over the state when it provided funding muscle for U.S. Senate candidates across the country.

State Sens. Mario Gallegos of Houston and Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio objected to the fact that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee collected contributions from Texans — $1.1 million at an event in San Antonio, for instance — without sending any to the campaign of outgoing state legislator Rick Noriega of Houston.

Noriega lost the Senate race in November to Republican incumbent John Cornyn, who raised $10 million during the campaign to $4 million for Noriega, according to federal records.

The Democratic committee's decision to spend the money outside Texas "is shameful and disgraceful, and we will do everything we can to prevent this disrespect from happening again," the two state senators wrote.

"For the face of the U.S. Senate to represent the true face of America, we must all work together to invest in quality candidates such as Rick Noriega, not take a walk when our candidate is not a member of the millionaires' club," they added.

Sorry, folks, but while Noriega is an honorable man, he did not represent the views of Texas. After all, this is a state that went strongly for John McCain, and Cornyn won with similar numbers. Why, pray tell, would one expect a Democrat running on the same old liberal platform to do any better, especially when he publicly associated with the dregs of the Left over at Daily Kos?

And the other comments in the article, are Gallegos and Van de Putte suggesting that Democrats should back minority candidates rather than candidates who are more likely to win?

Posted by: Greg at 03:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

I agree with David Frum -- letÂ’s not overlook this corrupt Democrat just because of the ruckus in BarackÂ’s backyard.

The House ethics committee voted on Tuesday to expand its investigation into Representative Charles B. Rangel to examine his role in preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company whose chief executive pledged $1 million to a City College of New York project that will bear the congressmanÂ’s name.

Interestingly enough, Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to stand by Rangel – just as she did recently defeated Corruptocrat Congresscritter William Jefferson. I guess draining the swamp is taking a backseat to feathering her nest – and that of her party.

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

By now so much has been said about the Blagojevich indictment and the sleazy deeds that led to the charges that there is little left to say. What I will note is that the alleged misdeeds are even shocking to me, who cut his teeth on Illinois politics before moving to Texas.

The 76-page criminal complaint reveals a governor who no longer wanted his job and badly wanted cash – and quickly realized that the chance to name Obama’s successor was the answer to both of those problems. He and his aides spoke in expansive – and often profane – terms of replacing Obama as a naked act of political horse-trading, something to be maximized for as much personal gain as possible for Blagojevich, the complaint says.

And it isn’t just the Senate seat issue – there was the attempt to shake down a children’s hospital and the effort to get journalists fired as a condition of approving a deal on Wrigley Field. And he certainly worked to keep it all in the family, trying to ensure that his wife also got some lucrative plums in the process. Simply unbelievable – even by Chicago standards.

Too bad that the press and prosecutor acted to make sure that the American people knew nothing of this corruption before the election – because like it or not, it does reflect poorly upon Barack Obama, whose entire career is based upon connections to many of the very same players that are a part of the Blagojevich sleaze machine. Unless we are to conclude that Obama is the only virgin in the brothel, I think it is reasonable to believe there is more than meets the eye here.

I’m also curious – what actions will be taken regarding Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. AKA “Senate Candidate No. 5”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

It is his name – he should use it proudly.

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.

And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama.

The manÂ’s name is Barack Hussein Obama. Why should he shrink from using it? Indeed, one of the silliest controversies of the election season was over whether or not the use of that middle name constituted a vicious hate attack on the then-candidate. This move by the new president should settle that question once and for all.

As for the speech, I’ve commented on what he should say and where he should say it in a previous post. All I will say in addition to those earlier words is that the only “reboot” needed in the speech is a metaphorical one applied to the rumps of followers of Islam. Mutual respect and goodwill are wonderful – but not if they mean the sacrifice of fundamental American values like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion around the world. To the degree that Islam is an obstacle to the spreading of those values around the world, there can be no mutual respect – and to the degree that the followers of Islam use terror and violence to oppose such freedom, there can be no goodwill.

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

I realize that the explosive charges against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich are overshadowing everything else about his time as governor – but one recent action of his raises a question in my mind.

On Monday, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich held a quickly organized press conference at the plant and vowed to ask a federal court to enforce federal guidelines. He also said the state would sever business dealings with Bank of America until the Republic matter is resolved. "It's a natural thing to step up to help workers when there's a situation like they're facing now," Blagojevich said. "This is the right thing to do, this is the just thing to do."

I’m curious – just how far is the state of Illinois willing to go here? What exactly does it mean to “sever business dealings with Bank of America”? Will the state REALLY stop doing business with B of A? I mean completely, such as refusing to cash checks drawn on accounts with Bank of America customers? Or does it mean something less? And if the state isn’t willing to make the associated sacrifice (foregoing the funds drawn on Bank of America), how willing is it to REALLY do the right thing?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

I donÂ’t know that Kathleen Parker will succeed in mollifying her many conservative critics (including me) with her most recent column, but she does make a good point that I believe bears repeating.

How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one's values, but let reason inform one's public arguments.

It is, I would have to say, a quite valid position – and one to which I personally subscribe. As long as arguments are presented in strictly theological terms, conservatives ought to lose any argument on public policy. Indeed, that is why I am often embarrassed by some of the language in the Texas GOP platform – not because I disagree with the sentiments expressed, but because such a document ought to be a reasoned outline of policy positions rather than a profession of faith.

Take, for example, abortion, which Parker uses to illustrate her position.

They might take a cue from Nat Hentoff, a self-described Jewish-atheist, who has written as eloquently as anyone about the "indivisibility of life" and the slippery slope down which abortion leads.
He uses logic and reason to argue that being pro-life, rather than resolving the religious question of ensoulment, is really a necessary barrier against selective killing, such as when someone else decides it's your time to die.

Even during my days studying for the priesthood, I never made the argument against abortion from a theological point of view. After all, such an argument is easily dismissed with the statement “I believe differently.” The moral argument, however, that a human being exists from conception is difficult to dispute scientifically – and the self-evident importance of defending innocent human life is something that brings most abortion supporters up short. But the moment someone trots out Biblical passages about God knowing us in our mother’s womb, the argument instead becomes one of religious freedom that is difficult to win. The same sort of thing applies in the gay marriage debate as well, which is why the folks who opposed Prop 8 are now actively appealing to religious bigotry in their efforts to overturn a ballot measure supported by virtually every demographic segment in the state of California.

But most importantly, the issue that needs to be dealt with is one of perception, as Parker notes. As long as GOP is seen as a party dominated by one segment of religious believers, the party will alienate many sympathetic to conservative and libertarian political philosophy. That doesn’t mean repudiating the values many of us draw from our faith, but instead requires that we present them in a way that are palatable to our fellow citizens. And I say that as a conservative who is unapologetically Christian – but who is certainly not a Christian Conservative.

But Kathleen – loose the oogedy-boogedy thing. It seems condescending and offensive to me, especially since you can’t particularly explain what you mean by it. Admit you were wrong, apologize, clarify what you meant, and move on – most of us are more than willing to forgive you if you do.

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Personally, I hope that the Supreme Court takes the case and expedites it -- because I believe that the result would be the confirmation of my long-standing position on the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack ObamaÂ’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of ObamaÂ’s election.

Not because I want to deny Obama the presidency. I don’t – and have not since the election returns came in a month ago. Rather, I wish to definitively confirm the legitimacy of his election so that those who continue to claim differently will be exposed as the crackpots they are.

Of course, Obama should simply moot the whole thing by directing the state to release certified copies of the original vault version, filed in 1961, of his birth certificate. I remain mystified why he has not done so.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 02:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Now I have no use for the British Nationalist Party – indeed, I agree with the assessment of Sting and The Police regarding its so many of its members.

Billy's joined the National Front
He always was (just) a little runt
He's got his hand in the air with the other cunts
You've got to humanise yourself.

That said, IÂ’m always disturbed when those engaged in legal political activity are fired or blacklisted for that activity, whether by the Left or the Right. ThatÂ’s why I find this news report from the UK to be somewhat troubling -- and in keeping with the stated goals of too many on the Left in this country.

TalkSport radio said this morning that it will "no longer use" chat show presenter Rod Lucas, who covered late night shifts for the station earlier this year, after he was listed among more than 12,000 BNP supporters on an internet blog posted on Sunday night.

His name and contact details were included alongside his profession: 'media: radio/TV production'.

* * *

Lucas, a Sony Award winner who once worked for Radio One, had eulogised on his website how much he had enjoyed working for his "favourite" radio station, but this morning TalkSport bosses were swift to distance themselves from him.
A spokesman said: 'We won't be using him again. We had no knowledge of his association with the British National Party.'

Now why would I shed any tears over this sort of action against members of a party that verges on fascist in its outlook? How about because you would never see similar actions taken against folks who were members of far-Left groups. Indeed, doing the same to Communists and Socialists would be seen as the creation of a blacklist and would be deplored internationally by the liberal intelegentsia.

And lest you think this couldnÂ’t happen here, consider the blacklist being developed by members of the gay Gestapo following the passage of CaliforniaÂ’s Proposition 8 earlier this month.

So keep in mind the old piece by Martin Niemöller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

And so in the case of Rod Lucas, as well as of those targetted for their support of a ballot initiative approved by a majority of Californians, those of us who love liberty (of every political point of view)need to speak out – not to mention talk radio hosts targetted for censorship under some resurrection of the so-called Fairness Doctrine – because we are potentially next on the list.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

You know, I used to think that Ronnie Earle was the most out of control prosecutor in the history of the state of Texas. Clearly, that title actually belongs to Juan Angel Guerra, who has created a bizarre new legal theory to get an indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney in a rather unusual case.

Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have been indicted on state charges involving federal prisons in a South Texas county that has been a source of bizarre legal and political battles under the outgoing prosecutor.
The indictment returned Monday has not yet been signed by the presiding judge, and no action can be taken until that happens.

And I’d argue that no reputable judge should sign the thing – which is proof that a DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he so desires. After all, consider what Cheney’s involvement in the case actually is – as well as the fact that many of those indicted are actually connected to recently resolved legal charges against Guerra himself, leading one to believe this case is more about settling political scores than doing actual justice.

Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees because of his link to the prison companies.

Got that – Cheney’s connection to the alleged assaults is based upon his investment portfolio, not anything he actually did. Are you sure that every company you own stock in as a part of your 401(k) plan is squeaky clean? If it isn’t, Guerra’s theory would allow you to be charged personally for criminal conspiracy as well as any alleged criminal activity. That is a standard that stretches the boundaries of criminal culpability to the breaking point.

The rest of the charges seem equally as bogus – and in any event the charges seem to be outside the jurisdiction of Guerra’s office, since these sort of public corruption charges ordinarily belong to the Travis County DA’s office in Austin, where not even the hand-picked liberal successor of the loony Ronnie Earle would consider bringing charges. Besides, the charges in question relate to activities at a federal facility, raising the question of whether or not a state prosecutor, grand jury, or court has jurisdiction.

Hopefully these charges will be quickly dismissed – and Guerra will be quickly disbarred and/or quickly committed to a psychiatric facility.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.

I long ago affirmed that I believe Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, born in Hawaii in 1961. Simply put, I find it implausible that there would be a conspiracy, dating back nearly five decades, to cover up the details surrounding the birth of a mixed-race child of obscure parentage – or that such a conspiracy could be maintained in the face of his growing celebrity and political success. The question of Barack Obama’s place of birth, however, remains alive in some segments of the body politic. Witness this challenge to the man’s election.

A former opponent of Barack Obama's has come back to haunt him over questions regarding Obama's citizenship.

According to a press release from the American Independent Party, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and other members of the party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided to prove Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States.

Really, there is only one way to kill off this silly conspiracy theory. It is, obviously, the release of a certified copy of the original certificate of live birth issued/filed in 1961 when Obama was born. We have the word of the Republican governor of Hawaii that the document exists and does prove that Obama was born in the United States – why not allow the American public to see it? After all, there really can be no argument that there is an expectation of privacy on his part – consider the amount of information about him in the public domain, including material released to the media and general public by his campaigns. The release of the birth certificate would serve to eliminate any and all doubt about his birthplace and citizenship – and would clearly affirm his eligibility for the high office to which he has been elected.

So why does Barack Obama, arguably the most public figure in the world, insist upon keeping this scrap of paper under lock and key? Is there something in the record that would prove to be embarrassing to his long-dead parents? Or is it indicative of a fundamental contempt for the American peopleÂ’s right to be assured that their president does meet the constitutional requirements for the office to which he was elected? Or maybe he just wants to let this conspiracy theory alive in order to distract from something else.

But if he really has the good of the country at heart, Barack Obama ought to authorize and expedite the immediate release of the original document due to the historic nature of the event it documents.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

For the fawning of the media regarding Barack Obama, his wife, his daughters, and all things Obama.

But I understand it – especially if one considers that the media has been in the tank for Obama all along.

However, I think that Salon has reached a new low.

After all, do we really need a piece about the new First LadyÂ’s ass?

Closing question – when will we hear feminists complain about the objectification of an accomplished professional woman (and she is) by the mainstream media?

H/T Hot Air, NewsBusters

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

And I’ll be honest – I don’t necessarily disagree with the criticism Matthews puts forward of the possible selection of the former First Lady, former presidential candidate and sitting US Senator as Secretary of State.

During the ride to DC, Matthews awoke from his nap. A fellow passenger asked him, "What's the news tomorrow?" - to which Matthews loudly started talking about President-elect Barack Obama possibly picking Hillary as his secretary of state.

"I don't understand it," Matthews bellowed. "Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She'll just use it to build her power base. It's Machiavellian. And then we'll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn't want drama. He's already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He'll have even more drama with her.

"She's just a soap opera. If he doesn't pick her, everyone will say she's been dissed again, we'll have to live through that again."

For more reasons to oppose Hillary as Secretary of State, check out this list from HarperÂ’s:

1. Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new “Clinton Doctrine” of foreign policy.




2. It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.




3. Her husband is a walking conflict of interest. Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. BillÂ’s personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.




4. The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.

5. And the strongest strike of all against Hillary as secretary of stateÂ… look at who endorses her.

I am curious, though – how will Matthews’ impromptu dig at Hillary Clinton impact his potential Senate bid in 2010? Will it lead to Clintonista’s seeking revenge? Will Obamatrons rallying to him – or to their opposing Matthews due to his public questioning of The One’s wisdom?

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 4 kb.

What he says:

Ayers called Republicans' portrayal of him, particularly by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a "profoundly dishonest narrative" and called the "creation of me as a fearsome person" as entirely false.

"Somehow I've been violent," he said. "Somehow I've killed people. All of it false."

Ayers has previously admitted he participated in the 1970 bombings of New York Police Department headquarters, of the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. Ayers, as part of a group called the Weathermen, claimed responsibility for 12 bombings.

And the historical record is pretty clear on that matter. The Weather Underground was a violent organization, one which engaged in acts of terrorism, and one which killed and injured innocent people to further its goals. Whatever tenuous statements of regret he may have put forward in recent years, it is impossible to conclude anything other than that William Ayers is a terrorist and a liar, whatever other contributions he may have made over the last three decades.

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

We’ve heard eight years of “Bush is a fascist” and “Chimpy McHitler” comments coming from left-wingers. Heck, the same charges were directed against Bush 41 and Ronald Reagan – all without much evidence to support them.

So why the outrage from the ultra-leftists at Mother Jones over the scheduling of a conservative author on a conservative radio show where he intends to draw parallels between Obama and Hitler?

[Radio talker Michael] Savage is not breaking new ground by scheduling [author Hilmar] von Campe as a guest. But it's a signal the say-anything right is not dumping the Obama-as-Hitler argument. Von Campe, according to his publisher, will contend that the recent election is somehow comparable to Hitler's power grab. Will this stuff play even to the GOP base? (Forget about convincing independents with such rhetoric.) This sort of talk, if it becomes widespread in the months and years ahead, is more likely to separate the brimming-with-resentment conservatives from more responsible Republicans--which certainly won't make the GOP's repair job any easier. But politics aside, the continued use of this hysterical rhetoric raises this question: do these agitators who liken the historic 2008 election to Hitler's putsch hate America?

Oddly enough, Mother Jones magazine and its writers never got around to expressing this sort of concern over the rhetoric of the Left over the last eight years. Now, when someone who actually lived through the Nazi era in Germany talks about what he sees as parallels, they call such comparisons “hysterical rhetoric” and declare that the speakers “hate America”. That’s rich – after eight years of rhetoric that at times violently attacked America’s elected leaders, they now question the patriotism of those who would raise the same sorts of questions about Barack Obama!

I guess that the folks at Mother Jones now believe that dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism – slavish worship of Obama is. Draw your own conclusions about the level of hypocrisy such a change constitutes, as well as any historical parallels to the cults of personality surrounding national and international socialist dictators of the twentieth century.

UPDATE: RightWingNews takes note of this phenomenon.

UPDATE 2: Looks like Joy Behar is now questioning the patriotism of those of us who would dare to put Barack Obama down. Gee, is she wanting to establish an affirmative action standard for our first black president? Or has she broken out Mo Dowd's presidential kneepads?

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

If a GOP president-elect selected one of Sirhan SirhanÂ’s lawyers for an important role on his White House? I think we all know that there would have been a serious shit-storm over such a choice.

So why is President-elect Hopey McChangerson not facing significant criticism for his choice of Gregory Craig to be his White House Counsel? Indeed, why has that aspect of his career, among others, been ignored by the press.

Gregory B. Craig, a well-known Washington lawyer who quarterbacked President Bill ClintonÂ’s impeachment defense, has been chosen White House counsel by President-elect Barack Obama, according to Democratic officials.

Interestingly enough, the story that follows doesnÂ’t note some of his less-proud professional activities (and it is hard to get less proud than successfully defending an admitted perjurer from perjury charges):

• Elian GonzalezÂ’s father - Craig represented the father who demanded the return of his son after his estranged wife died trying to take Elian to freedom. Most people saw this as a thinly-veiled publicity stunt from Fidel Castro, attempting to embarrass the US. The dispute got resolved when Janet Reno ordered an armed assault on the house where ElianÂ’s family in the US provided him a home.


• John Hinckley, Jr - Craig presented and won the insanity defense that allows Ronald ReaganÂ’s would-be assassin to spend weekends with his family now.


• Kofi Annan - The former Secretary-General of the UN hired Craig to defend his interests in the Volcker Commission probe of the Oil-for-Food scandal, which put billions of dollars into Saddam HusseinÂ’s pockets while providing cash for AnnanÂ’s son, his deputies, and some allege Annan himself.


• Pedro Gonzalez Pinzon - A Panamanian legislator wanted for murdering an American soldier in 1992. The Dallas Morning News demanded that Obama force Craig to drop the case during the campaign, but no report of whether he did is easily available.

So not only does Obama have a history of associating with terrorists and racial extremists, he is now giving positions to those who work to send children back to Communist tyranny, free presidential assassins, protect corrupt international bureaucrats who helped fund dictators and keep from justice the murderer of an American soldier. But then again, perhaps those earlier associations should have told us what sort of ethical standards we would see in Bamalot.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

We are now two weeks after the election, but remain two months from the inauguration of our new president-elect. And as it usually does when we see a change of administrations, the wait seems unacceptably long. Ought it change?

That is the premise of USA Today publisher Al NeuharthÂ’s post on his blog.

No lame-duck president can do anything meaningful after the successor is elected. The time is spent figuring out things like how many presidential pardons to issue, many to convicted political pals. Bill Clinton issued more than 200 pardons from the November 2000 election until his departure on Jan. 20, 2001.

Most presidents-elect know what they want to do about major issues or whom to appoint to major offices by the time they are elected or soon thereafter.
That's why we should move the president's inauguration up to the first Tuesday in December, one month after the election. The new Congress should have its schedule moved from early January to early December. That would allow a few weeks before the holidays to get urgent business done.

Now I think that Neuharth has a point – this length of time seems incredibly long. But this ignores, of course, some of the problems we have seen in just the last couple of elections. For example, the 2000 election ran on for several weeks due to litigation – and as of today, the state of Missouri still has not determined the winner of its electoral votes. And if one looks at the state of Minnesota, where a recount is likely to continue into mid-December in its Senatorial race, one can see where a more extended interregnum might be desirable.

Could you imagine the difficulties caused if we had only four weeks until Inauguration Day but a six week delay in counting and certifying the vote due to a close election? This would make the Bush v. Gore legal issues look like mere speed bumps. In the absence of an electoral vote majority for either candidate, would the race be thrown to the House of Representatives to decide? Would the Speaker of the House become President , either temporarily or permanently? Or would the inauguration be delayed, pending the outcome of the disputed state or states? And regardless, would the shortened period have the effect of hamstringing the new president due to the lack of preparation time he or she would have to prepare after the winner was determined? All of these questions need to be answered before shortening the interregnum, as extended as it may be.

Indeed, even under the best of situations this time is important for a new president. Neuharth himself offers these alternate voices:

"I've been involved in every transition since 1960, and I can attest that Barack Obama will need every one of the 77 days the Constitution gives him to be ready to move into the Oval Office on Jan. 20."

Stephen Hess, author of What Do We Do Now? A Workbook for the President-elect

"If we had a parliamentary system, this proposal would work. Because we don't, it won't. Ten weeks is barely enough to do the minimum needed to get started."

William A. Galston, senior fellow, Brookings Institution, and former adviser to President Clinton

In other words, those who have been actively involved in the process recognize that the current time between election and inauguration is important for facilitating the transition. So unless we seek much more serious alterations to our system (such as GalstonÂ’s parliamentary musings), we are left with keeping an extended transition rather than one that is rushed and hurried.

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 607 words, total size 4 kb.

One more example of how "pro-choice" folks really only support a single choice -- and devalue choices other than the choice to kill.

A roomful of academics erupted in angry boos Tuesday morning after political analyst Michael Barone said journalists trashed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republicans' vice presidential nominee, because "she did not abort her Down syndrome baby."

* * *

Barone was speaking at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, to the 121st annual meeting of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, which calls itself the nationÂ’s oldest higher-education association.

“The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby," Barone said, according to accounts by attendees. "They wanted her to kill that child. ... I'm talking about my media colleagues with whom I've worked for 35 years.”

Barone, a popular speaker on the paid lecture circuit, is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and principal coauthor of “The Almanac of American Politics."

Now Barone has come back and claimed that his statement was a joke -- but I don't see where one could find anything even remotely funny in what said. Indeed, his words seem to confirm what we saw in the days following the Alaska governor's selection as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. After all, there were repeated sexist attacks against Palin questioning her fitness as a mother for accepting McCain's invitation, including questions about her decision to have her special needs child (when they weren't questioning if she is actually the baby's mother) and whether Trig was being used as a prop. Such coverage is very consistent with Barone's claim -- so discerning folks must conclude that Barone was revealing an inconvenient truth about the lack of objectivity in our "objective media", not making a joke that fell flat.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

I know there is a term for what is being tried here by the folks who opposed Prop 8 -- let's see if we can come up with it.

Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.

Scott Eckern was not available for comment Monday as the revelation has gained stunning momentum on the blogosphere. The California Musical Theatre produces the Music Circus, presents Broadway Sacramento, and recently opened "Forever Plaid" at the capital's newest performing venue, the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

Richard Lewis, the organization's executive producer, said the board of directors will conduct an emergency meeting on the matter this afternoon. He said it was too early to tell how this would affect Eckern's 25-year employment with California Musical Theatre.

Let's see -- setting up a boycott of individuals because of their legal political activity, with a goal of making them unemployable. Don't liberals call such tactics "McCarthyism" when it is used against those on the Left? Aren't the victims of such blacklisting treated as heroes when they are Communists, socialists, and other sorts of liberals? Indeed, wouldn't these same forces of "tolerance" be up in arms if it were the pro-Prop 8 forces boycotting and seeking the firing of opponents of traditional marriage? I guess they only object to hypocrisy in their opponents -- hypocrisy in the name of pro-gay tolerance is OK in their book.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Now I am not one of those who goes around arguing that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. For one, that argument doesn’t really fit with my eschatology. But beyond that, I don’t find it to be spiritually fruitful to sit around trying to identify candidates for “The Beast” or “The False Prophet” from Revelation.

But if I see many more articles like this one, I might have to reconsider that view.

Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope. Barack Obama never talks about how people see him: I'm not the one making history, he said every chance he got. You are. Yet as he looked out Tuesday night through the bulletproof glass, in a park named for a Civil War general, he had to see the truth on people's faces. We are the ones we've been waiting for, he liked to say, but people were waiting for him, waiting for someone to finish what a King began.

Oh good grief. It is more of the Obamolatry that we have seen throughout the campaign, now metastasized into worshipful prose.

Keep trying to deify the man, and youÂ’ll simply encourage religious believers to flip to the final book of the Bible. And that will be too bad, because this machine politician from one of the most politically corrupt places in America might be able to rise to the challenge of being an above average President if you donÂ’t load him down with expectations he canÂ’t meet and speculations he doesnÂ’t deserve.

H/T NewsBusters

Posted by: Greg at 02:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Two leading contenders are out there, looking to be the next chairman of the GOP. One, Newt Gingrich, was the brains of the 1994 GOP takeover of congress. The other, Michael Steele, is one of the “young Turks” of the party, a member of a new generation of leaders who many see as the future of the GOP.

A behind-the-scenes battle to take the reins of the Republican National Committee is taking off between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.

Neither man will acknowledge his interest in the post, but Republicans close to each are burning up the phone lines and firing off e-mails to fellow party members in an effort to oust RNC Chairman Mike Duncan in the wake of the second consecutive drubbing of Republican candidates at the polls.

A bevy of backers for each man, neither of whom is an RNC member, say the committee needs a leader who can formulate a counter-agenda to President-elect Barack Obama's administration and articulate it on the national stage.

Personally, I back Steele for the post. Not because of his race, though I won’t deny that it is a plus in the age of Obama when the GOP desperately needs to reach out to minorities. Rather, we are a party that does need to look forward rather than backwards – and while the GOP owes Gingrich a debt of gratitude and would gain much by tapping into his intellect, selecting Steele would be a move into a new era rather than an attempt to return to an earler one.

Oh, and whatever happens, we need to reject this choice. As I stated repeatedly during the primaries, Huckabee is not a direction that I want to see the party take.

H/T Hot Air

UPDATE: Looks like Newt will endorse Steele and work with him in charting a course for the GOP -- precisely what I suggested above.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Now there is an attempt – a dishonest one, in my opinion – to blame Sarah Palin for death threats against Barack Obama. Some are resurrecting discredited claims of “a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling ‘terrorist’ and ‘kill him’” as examples of her misdeeds – despite the fact that the original source about the connection between Palin and the threats seems to go nowhere near that conclusion and makes a connection that seems rather tenuous.

Lest you think this sort of report and connection is mere coincidence, let me offer a parallel – the Oklahoma City Bombing of 1995. That terrible act of violence was used and abused by liberals in the media and in public office in an attempt to quash conservative rhetoric that they claimed – quite incorrectly – was somehow responsible for that reprehensible act of terrorism. No less than Bill Clinton attempted to tag radio talkers like Rush Limbaugh and the newly elected GOP majority in Congress with responsibility. And I’d argue that we are seeing the same sort of effort today, in an attempt to delegitimize and suppress conservative criticism and dissent in the wake of Obama’s electoral victory and in advance of his assuming office. Criticism, we will likely hear, endangers the life of the nation’s first black President and must be delegitimized and eliminated. Indeed, the new refrain of the Left will be not that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” but that “dissent is incitement to murder.”

So let me speak clearly today, before this effort is in full swing. While I did not vote Barack Obama, I hope he has a successful presidency that leaves this country a better place than when his term begins. I wish him long life, and pray that he will see his two beautiful daughters marry and give him many grandchildren – and that he sees great-grandchildren and perhaps even the generation or two beyond. I hope that he gets to grow old with his wife Michelle, who he obviously loves. No person who loves this country should wish for anything less.

However, none of those wishes ought to supersede a fervent commitment to the First Amendment. The life of Barack Obama, or any president, is not more important than the right of Americans to engage in political speech free from government restraint. And if I as an individual am given a choice between that inalienable right and the life of any chief executive, I regret to say that the elected official loses every single time. Men and women have died for over two centuries to protect the liberties contained in the Constitution at the direction of many different presidents – as commander-in-chief, the holder of the presidency must accept that there is some element of risk to be taken in order to uphold his (or, one day, her) solemn oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” – risk that comes from some individual drawing an illegitimate conclusion from the constitutionally protected political speech of Americans who disagree with his policy.

Should Americans speak in a manner that is responsible and temperate? Yes, they should. Should due consideration be given to the reasonably foreseeable results of one’s words? Again, the answer is yes. But to assign culpability to the speakers of legitimate political criticism (even if their rhetoric might be judged to be over-heated by some) for the actions of violent extremists is not merely an attack upon one’s opponents with illegitimate charges, it is no less than an assault upon the First Amendment itself and the bedrock principle it contains that every citizen has the right to speak out on matters of public concern. And as our nation has seen more than once, our system of government can survive the death of a president – what it cannot survive is the actual negation of an essential liberty of the citizenry in order to protect a president from the hypothetical violence of the extreme and the unstable.

And the key, of course, is that threats are never acceptable. I’ve stated that frequently here, even as I’ve defended the right of some truly awful human beings to engage in contemptible speech. But our founders intended that political speech be robust, boisterous and loud – one need only consider the elections of 1796 and 1800 (between such revered men as Jefferson and Adams) to recognize that attempts to silence even the most extreme political speech is not just dangerous – it is un-American and contrary to the intent of those who gave life and breath to the American experiment of liberty.

Posted by: Greg at 04:19 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 784 words, total size 5 kb.

But apparently because his words in private matched his words in public – he didn’t want to be the VP nominee.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has emerged as one of the hottest names in national Republican circles since John McCain's defeat last week, was never vetted as a vice presidential pick, according to sources close to the Pelican State chief executive.

Jindal was approached by McCain forces to gauge his interest in the vice presidency and told them he was not interested in being vetted due to his desire to continue on with his current job, to which he was elected just one year ago.

Now were folks concerned about other issues? Sure, as they should have been. After all, the McCain campaign was a mess from pretty early on in the process, and Jindal would have been nuts to jump into the fray, as much as some of us wanted him. And being a decade younger than Obama wouldn’t have helped in the experience department – despite his much more impressive resume.

Probably the best thing about his decision to remove himself from contention in the veepstakes is that it kept him from being subjected to the sort of obscene process engaged in by the media this year in an attempt to destroy any individual who might stand in the way of Barack Obama, as well as the back-biting that has followed in the days since the McCain defeat. In my view, this may serve to put him in a better place than Sarah Paling for 2012 – like it or not, she has become something of a latter-day Dan Quayle in the wake of this campaign.

And for my fellow junkies already waiting for our first fix of the 2012 campaign, here is some interesting information.

Posted by: Greg at 04:08 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

When one reads this announcement coming out of his official website as President-Elect, that is the only conclusion to be drawn.

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

In other words, the right to a free public education that is guaranteed to our children in most state constitutions will be out the window, replaced with a program of involuntary servitude that must be complied with in order to receive the privilege of a public education. Membership in the Obama Youth program will be compulsory, and the sorts of “community service” mandated will no doupt be of the politically correct variety.

My guess is that the next step will be to require those retirees to “volunteer” as a condition of receiving their Social Security benefits – especially once the Obama Administration has nationalized their 401(k) accounts.

And so the slide towards tyrranny begins.

Heil Obama!

H/T Gateway Pundit, Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 2 kb.

When it comes right down to it, that is exactly what this video shows.

Now wait one minute here. The camera crew and reporter were in a public place, seeking information about the abuse of government resources by this public officiam for purposes of partisan politics – a matter of public concern directly related to her performance of her job. Now she has every right to offer a “no comment” or refuse to answer the questions (probably a good idea while she is under investigation), but for her to attempt to use the police in the manner she did is inconsistent with the First Amendment – something she is sworn to uphold (though her actions in regars to Joe the Plumber show her to already be foresworn). And for the police to attempt to get journalists engaged in lawful activity in a public place to cease their news-gathering activities at the behest of a public official is reminiscent of your run-of-the-mill police state or banana republic, not the worlds greatest democracy and the beacon of liberty for people around the world.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

As I mentioned yesterday, I go to great lengths to be non-partisan in my discussion of elections. Indeed, my students didn’t know who I voted for until Wednesday, so concerned was I with there being even an inference of politicizing my classroom – and fully 1/3 of them believed I was voting for Obama while another 1/3 weren’t sure where my loyalties lay. So when I see something like this video of the class of Fayetteville, NC teacher Diantha Harris, I become absolutely livid.

Partial transcript:
Harris:We want to talk about the presidential election. I want to ask you, who are you pulling for? Raise your hand.

Student: Obama.

Harris: You pullin for Obama. Who you pullin for?

Student: Obama.

Harris:Any of you pullin for John McCain? ThatÂ’s fine, say him as well.

Student: Obama.

Student: Obama.

[Cathy, the daughter of an American soldier answers McCain.]

Harris:John, oh lord, John McCain.
Oh Jesus, John McCain.
Ok, now I wanna axe you somethin.
Why are you pullin for John McCain? ItÂ’s ok, but why are you pullin for John McCain?

Cathy: I thinks itÂ’s because my parents are going for him too.

Harris: Ok, your parents are going for him. Why are you pullin for Ba-RACK. Barack.

Student: I just want a black president sometimes.

Harris: Ok, you want a black president.

Student: The reason why I want Barack Obama is because heÂ’s making good changes in the good country and stuff like that.

Harris: So, heÂ’s making good changes for our country. Now can you tell me just a little bit more, like what type of changes?
Like not having big fights between Iraq and having soldiers killed.
So in other words, Barack is going to end that war in Iraq. What do you all know about that war in Iraq?

[Harris addresses Cathy] Talk, cause yo daddy in the military. Talk. ItÂ’s a senseless war! And by the way, Cathy, the person that youÂ’re picking for president said that our troops could stay in Iraq for another hundred years if they need to!

[Camera pans to Cathy, in near tears.]

Harris: So that means that your daddy could stay in the military for another hundred years!

My heart absolutely ached watching that video. First, it is positively immoral to do such a thing to a child. Secondly, I was a victim of such abuse more than once as the child of a naval officer during and after the Vietnam War (in particular, IÂ’ll never forget my psychology teacher telling me during class that my father was a war criminal for having fought in Vietnam) and I know just how deep such wounds go. That this unprofessional scoundrel was willing do this to a child on camera is evidence of just how evil she is in the classroom when the cameras are not there.

Now there are those who want to see this despicable bitch fired from her job and her certification revoked. I suppose I would have to agree, though I do not think the punishment fits the crime. Diantha Harris really deserves something much more severe, given that she is morally no different than teachers who sexually abuse their students.

Express your opinion to the members of the school board where Diantha Harris teaches.

KimberlyPFisher@aol.com,

GregWest@nc.rr.com,

MacWilliams@nc.rr.com,

hfarrior@nc.rr.com,

LaHuffman@nc.rr.com">DLaHuffman@nc.rr.com,

fkbarragan@nc.rr.com,

Royalme@nc.rr.com,

MackyH@nc.rr.com,

LolaW@ccs.k12.nc.us,

MicheleCain@ccs.k12.nc.us

Here’s what the superintendent has to say. It will be interesting to see what is deemed “appropriate action”. We want more than “just words, just speeches.”

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, for years we on the conservative side of the aisle have noted that liberals seem to believe that “change” – especially constitutional change – is only permitted in a single direction, namely to the left. Never before, however, have I seen a liberal politician or writer explicitly state that position, as Glen Greenwald does in Slate.

It's one thing for a state to decide in advance not to allow same-sex marriages. It's another thing entirely to watch a state strip a targeted group of citizens of the already vested right to marry.

Put differently, GreenwaldÂ’s position is that conservatives must win every time in order to prevail on an issue, while liberals only need to succeed once to make their preferred policy irrevocable. In effect, he has taken the position that liberalism always prevails, the people be damned.

Want more proof? Take a look at his proposed solution to the “problem” of the people of 30 states having voted to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their state constitutions.

With their newly minted control over the White House and Congress, Democrats can easily provide a vital (if not complete) antidote to Proposition 8: repeal of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (.pdf). Enacted in 1996, DOMA's principal effects are two-fold: (1) it explicitly prohibits the Federal Government and all federal agencies from extending any federal marriage-based benefits, privileges and rights to same-sex couples [Section 3]; and (2) it authorizes states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states [Section 2].

In other words, screw the overwhelming majority of Americans – the Democrats should use their raw political power to impose the legal recognition of gay marriage upon all 50 states, even though the overwhelming majority of states have rejected it. A single state, or any foreign nation, will be able to override the will of the people of any state on the issue of gay marriage. Sounds like tyrrany to me.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

There is a great piece over at RedState from Dan McLaughlin. While I find most of his points to be correct, I believe the most important one is the one he lists as number 7.

(7) Prioritize: More on this later, but Obama and the Congressional Democrats are going to have a long list of issues they want to press, and we can't stop all of them. The GOP needs to divide issues into four buckets:

• a. Things we are prepared to go to the mat to stop

• b. Things we want to force the Democrats to commit themselves to so we can take the dispute to the voters

• c. Things, however modest, we actually think we can accomplish even with the Democrats in power

• d. Things we want to propose as positive agenda items even knowing they'll go nowhere, to lay out our own roadmap for the future.

What goes in each of these categories? LetÂ’s consider that for a bit. IÂ’ll make a few suggestions, and you feel free to chime in with your own.

I’d argue that the first category should include illegal immigration amnesty and cuts in national defense that endanger our national security. I’d like to include “drill here, drill now” here as well, but we simply lack the votes to stop the reimposition of the offshore drilling ban by executive order once Obama becomes president in January.

That means we have to put the development of our domestic petroleum resources in the second category, as a part of a comprehensive T. Boone Pickens style energy program. After all, the GOP isn’t the party of “drill only” – it is the party of “drill and”. Social issues belong here as well, such as abortion and gay marriage. We cannot do anything about them – and perhaps may not be able to do so in the future – but we should present them as a contrast with the Democrats.

That leads to the third category. Here I would put preserving at least a portion of the Bush tax cuts. Obama promised no tax increases for those making below $250K. LetÂ’s hold him and his party to that by proposing and introducing legislation that at least preserves the lower end of the Bush tax cuts that lowered the taxes of those of us in the middle class. Maybe also try to preserve the reduction in the death tax. Those ought to be popular measures on which we can pick off enough Democrats to get them passed.

As for the fourth category, IÂ’d suggest something akin to the Contract with America. It would, of course, need to differ due to the times in which we find ourselves, but letÂ’s get that statement of principles out there and begin to present those ideas to the people. That should help in 2010, provided we field a strong candidate in every House district and for every open Senate seat, one who supports this statement of principles. LetÂ’s build one and begin again the task of becoming an American majority again.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like some poor working stiffs are getting stiffed by The Man. What will President-elect Barack Obama do to punish such plutocratic malefactors?

Probably nothing – after all, it is Obama's campaign that has failed to pay workers as promised.

Lines were long and tempers flared Wednesday not to vote but to get paid for canvassing for Barack Obama. Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown to control the crowd.

The line was long and the crowd was angry at times.

"I want my money today! It's my money. I want it right now!" yelled one former campaign worker.

A former spokesman for the Obama campaign said 375 people were hired as part of the Vote Corps program and said people signed up to work three-hour shifts at a time. Three hours of canvassing got workers a $30 pre-paid Visa card.

The workers showed up to get their cards Wednesday morning at 10:00 am.

"There was a note on the door saying 1:00 pm and then at 1:20 pm everybody was like why is nobody here. They just got here and they're trying to get it organized," said Heather Richards, a former campaign worker.

* * *

"Still that's not right. I'm disappointed. I'm glad for the president, but I'm disappointed in this system," said Diane Jefferson, temporary campaign worker.
"It should have been $480. It's $230," said Imani Sankofa.

"They gave us $10 an hour. So we added it. I added up all the hours so it was supposed to be at least $120. All I get is $90," said Charles Martin.

"I worked nine hours a day for 4 days and got paid half of what I should have earned," said Randall Waldon.

Well, my dear Democrat friends, get used to it – you are about to find out that all the goodies promised you by Barack Obama are going to be a long time coming – if they ever come. You are just the first Americans to experience the sort of hope and change his administration will bring.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

So big, in fact, that the calendar will have to be dated from ObamaÂ’s inauguration.

You talk about historians, there's going to be BB and AB. BB is everything that happened before Barack. AB is everything that's going to happen in this country and the world after Barack. It's a defining moment. BB and AB.

So got that, folks? We’ll be doing away with that whole BC/AD system – and with the Muslim calendar of dating things from the time of the Hajj (can I get a fatwa?). For that matter, the traditional calendars of the Jews and the Hindus will be gone to. So prepare for the beginning of a new era. Spike Lee has spoken!

Sort of gets one singing a little tune.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m not ready to sign on to the Sarah Palin in 2012 bandwagon (I’m leaning towards Bobby Jindal at this early date), but I am more than willing to lend my support to this effort. After all, undercutting your ticket before the campaign is over is dishonorable – especially when you are getting paid to support and promote it.

RedState is pleased to announce it is engaging in a special project: Operation Leper.

We're tracking down all the people from the McCain campaign now whispering smears against Governor Palin to Carl Cameron and others. Michelle Malkin has the details.
We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you'll see us go to war against those candidates.

It is our expressed intention to make these few people political lepers.
They'll just have to be stuck at CBS with Katie's failed ratings.

Initial list:

1. Nichole Wallace
2. Steve Schmidt
3. Mark McKinnon

When the insiders are more concerned about protecting their own reputations with the press than they are about winning the election, it is the duty of loyal Republicans to see that they are unemployable on the GOP side of the aisle.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | Comments (136) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, NewsBusters has it from Chris Matthews. I donÂ’t think this statement could be any more clear.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that –

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

* * *

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Now let me see if I’ve got this correct – the job of a reporter/commentator for the MSM is to make sure that the Obama Administration is successful? Really?

I’d love for Chris Matthews (he of the tingly leg) to tell me to whether it was his job to see to it that the Bush Administration was successful? Wouldn’t that have helped the country? Didn’t his biased coverage – and the strenuous effort of certain MSM outlets to undercut George W. Bush even before he was inaugurated – constituted a failure of Matthews and the rest of the MSM to do its job?

Or does Matthews personally (or his employers) get to decide what presidents are permitted to be successful and which should be targeted for failure, and therefore slant the coverage accordingly?

Does such a position not undermine the notion of an independent, objective media that we are regularly told is supposed to exist in this nation? Indeed, doesnÂ’t MatthewsÂ’ position actually demonstrate that those of us who have claimed that the MSM has a bias were correct in our assessment?

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, Wall Street sees economic disaster under the new president.

One day after rallying as Americans went to the polls, stocks dropped amid more evidence that the economy is stumbling badly.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had surged 305 points on Election Day, fell 486.01 points, or 5.1%, to 9139.27. The loss marked the biggest one-day loss for blue chips since Oct. 22 and lowest close since Oct. 29 after a week of relative optimism. The industrials are down 31% for the year.

HeÂ’s not even been sworn in yet, and heÂ’s already caused serious economic disruption. Just imagine what his policies will do to the economy once he has a chance to implement them.

I guess that after four years of being in the pocket of Freddie and Fannie, I can be sure that the next four years will lead to Barack Obama being remembered as the worst economic president since Hoover.

Posted by: Greg at 10:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2 words, total size 1 kb.

I, along with all people of goodwill, offer my sincere condolences to Barack Obama upon hearing this sad news.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's grandmother died of cancer, he said in a statement on Monday, a little more than a week after he interrupted the White House campaign to say goodbye to her in Hawaii.

"It is with great sadness that we announce that our grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, has died peacefully after a battle with cancer," Obama said in a joint statement with his sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng. "She was the cornerstone of our family, and a woman of extraordinary accomplishment, strength and humility."

Dunham, 86, helped raise Obama from the age of 10 while his mother was working in Indonesia, and Obama took an emotional 22-hour trip to Hawaii to visit her on October 23 and 24.

I lost my dear grandmother four years ago, shortly after starting my blog. I still grieve. We lost my mother-in-law this spring, and that loss remains very fresh with both my wife and I. I can therefore feel nothing but compassion for a candidate who I unashamedly reject as unfit for office, but in whom I recognize our common humanity. May he and his family know God's comfort at this time.

But let me make a small observation about this story, and what we will not see in its wake.

We will not see any conservative or Republican website of any import suggest that Madelyn Dunham died of anything other than natural causes. In particular, we will not find any bloggers for national publications suggesting that Mrs. Dunham's death was staged by or assisted by the Obama campaign for her grandson's political advantage. Indeed, his loss will be treated with the respect it deserves.

Contrast that with the continued conspiracy theories of the Left regarding Sarah palin's most recent pregnancy and whether or not she is the mother of her youngest child, Trig. Nor will any comedy show suggest that Michelle Obama secretly did the old woman in, as SNL suggested that Todd Palin was the actual father of Bristol Palin's unborn child.

But then again, decency is a staple of the Right -- it is notoriously lacking on the Left.

More At Malkin, Hot Air, Hugh Hewitt

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

A lot of hay has been made over this quote from barrack Obama.

“...just to take a, sort of a realist perspective...there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

Now I could pile on to Obama, and it would be easy. I won’t, though, because I can think of a perfect example in which the Court did exactly that in the midst of WWII – the famous flag salute case, WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE (319 U.S. 624). Consider this “money quote” from the decision, which is exactly the sort of thing that Obama is talking about.

As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, n to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemiesose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

Indeed, one can reasonably presume that this is the sort of judicial notice to which Obama was referring. The sort of political conformity that the mandatory flag salute required was eerily similar to that required by the Hitler regime, even if more benignly intended. Similarly, the internment of citizens by the Roosevelt administration based upon race and ethnicity in the name of national security did bear a parallel to the much more extreme actions of the Nazis.

Unfortunately for supporters of Obama, other recently disclose Obama quotes signal a dangerous propensity to disregard the text of the Constitution in favor of some other, extra-constitutional scheme designed to dispossess citizens of their property for purposes of redistribution. That is where we need to focus, not upon this relatively benign statement.

Posted by: Greg at 09:21 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

1 yxawfglx bmczhiyphnnt 4655

Posted by: Nszibsno at Sat Feb 7 05:00:09 2009 (gd5hN)

2 , pwddlonr, gcqstf, llggbdnj, aommy, ziotgmiz, > D,

Posted by: Tnxweway at Mon May 18 09:17:54 2009 (Lj/Hr)

3 1d, vinvckbx, 966719, bmhrtxmg, %-PPP, boonvdfm, vzae,

Posted by: Byqyjptl at Wed Oct 7 09:25:34 2009 (KjAmN)

4 warhol, sujcumas, wpqmn, cfxcmiof, >:-[[, npeellwf, 14755,

Posted by: Nmccucom at Wed Oct 7 14:43:52 2009 (RSZ4t)

Hide Comments | Add Comment