Well, I think so -- if we are going to demand equitable use the definition that the Left uses when talking about these women.

Commentator Ann Coulter's incendiary words about outspoken 9/11 widows have led two state lawmakers to calls for a boycott of her book in the widows' home state of New Jersey.

Assemblywomen Joan M. Quigley, D-Hudson, and Linda Stender, D-Union, on Thursday called on New Jerseyans to stop buying the book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," and for retailers in the state to stop selling it.

"Coulter's vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books. By making these claims, she proved herself worse than those she is attempting to vilify - she is a leach trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others," the two assemblywomen said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Crown Forum, the publisher of Coulter's book, did not immediately return calls for comment Thursday.

Interestingly enough, this case actually involves government officials seeking to silence someone "courageously engaging in free speech," rather than private entities and individuals acting on their own. I would think that this should therefore be much more disturbing to those who defend and lionize the Dixie Chicks (whose tour is likely to be postponed or cancelled due to poor ticket sales), and they should run right out and buy a copy of Ann's book to show their solidarity, just like they did with the Chick's CD.

Oh, that's right.

Only liberals spouting hate-America, hate-Bush rhetoric need to apply for free-speech-martyr status.

And before you ask -- I wish she had toned down her criticism of this small minority of 9/11 family members. It strikes me as a bit harsh.

But then again, if she had done so she wouldn't be Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

We have heard the commercials over the last year – Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn [YOUR NAME HERE] (mother of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan) calls herself “One Tough Grandma” in a series of campaign commercials she has run over the last year, attacking Gov. Rick Perry. Now she wants to run as “Grandma Strayhorn” on the November ballot as a way of boosting her independent bid for governor.

Independent Carole Keeton Strayhorn won political office under her two previous married names, but in this year's race for governor, voters apparently are saying: Strayhorn who?

Strayhorn told supporters in an e-mail this week that is why she wants to solve her name identification problem by appearing on the November ballot as "Grandma" Strayhorn. She has campaigned as "One Tough Grandma" since 1998.

Born Carole Keeton, she won the Austin mayor's office as Carole McClellan. She won statewide elections for railroad commissioner and state comptroller as Carole Keeton Rylander.

But she has remarried since her last election in 1992, exchanging vows with Eddie Strayhorn and picking up a new last name in the process.

"The name change from Rylander to Strayhorn has not completely sunk in with voters (She has never run as Strayhorn)," said the fundraising e-mail.

Strayhorn has six granddaughters. "Once voters are told that Strayhorn is 'One Tough Grandma,' she jumps 10 points in every poll we have taken, and (Gov. Rick) Perry drops," the e-mail said. "No public poll has tested her nickname 'Grandma,' only Strayhorn."

The e-mail says that is why she will appear on the November ballot as Carole Keeton "Grandma" Strayhorn.

Unfortunately, there are two obstacles facing her. The first is that she may not have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot – that has yet to be determined by the Secretary of State’s office. The second is that she doesn’t really meet the criteria for including the nickname.

State law allows the use of a nickname on the ballot if it is a name by which the candidate has been "commonly known for at least three years preceding the election."

"The law doesn't allow you to use a political slogan. So we weren't going to try that," said Strayhorn's campaign manager and son, Brad McClellan. "More people know her as 'grandma' than Strayhorn."

Robert Black, spokesman for Gov. James Richard Perry — aka Rick — said Strayhorn has never run on the ballot as "grandma." He called it a political slogan and a gimmick.

"She ain't my grandma," Black said. "If she was honestly looking for a moniker people would recognize she would put flip-flopper or multiple-party-switcher."

Strayhorn has not used this as a common nickname – you won’t find it in news articles or even her campaign literature. The only place you will find such a reference is in her “One Tough Grandma” ads. I’ve been involved in Texas GOP politics for a decade – I never heard her called that until folks made a derogatory reference to the ads. And it is not like the argument for my using “Greg” instead of “Gregory” on the ballot for precinct chair, or letting the Democrat R. Christopher Bell run as the more familiar Chris Bell or Richard Friedman use his longstanding professional name of Kinky Friedman. On the other hand, if you apply Strayhorn’s argument across the board, you may as well let someone run as John “The Taxpayer’s Friend” Smith.

My guess is that One Tough Grandma will only be permitted to use her legal name.

Posted by: Greg at 09:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

We have heard the commercials over the last year – Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn [YOUR NAME HERE] (mother of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan) calls herself “One Tough Grandma” in a series of campaign commercials she has run over the last year, attacking Gov. Rick Perry. Now she wants to run as “Grandma Strayhorn” on the November ballot as a way of boosting her independent bid for governor.

Independent Carole Keeton Strayhorn won political office under her two previous married names, but in this year's race for governor, voters apparently are saying: Strayhorn who?

Strayhorn told supporters in an e-mail this week that is why she wants to solve her name identification problem by appearing on the November ballot as "Grandma" Strayhorn. She has campaigned as "One Tough Grandma" since 1998.

Born Carole Keeton, she won the Austin mayor's office as Carole McClellan. She won statewide elections for railroad commissioner and state comptroller as Carole Keeton Rylander.

But she has remarried since her last election in 1992, exchanging vows with Eddie Strayhorn and picking up a new last name in the process.

"The name change from Rylander to Strayhorn has not completely sunk in with voters (She has never run as Strayhorn)," said the fundraising e-mail.

Strayhorn has six granddaughters. "Once voters are told that Strayhorn is 'One Tough Grandma,' she jumps 10 points in every poll we have taken, and (Gov. Rick) Perry drops," the e-mail said. "No public poll has tested her nickname 'Grandma,' only Strayhorn."

The e-mail says that is why she will appear on the November ballot as Carole Keeton "Grandma" Strayhorn.

Unfortunately, there are two obstacles facing her. The first is that she may not have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot – that has yet to be determined by the Secretary of State’s office. The second is that she doesn’t really meet the criteria for including the nickname.

State law allows the use of a nickname on the ballot if it is a name by which the candidate has been "commonly known for at least three years preceding the election."

"The law doesn't allow you to use a political slogan. So we weren't going to try that," said Strayhorn's campaign manager and son, Brad McClellan. "More people know her as 'grandma' than Strayhorn."

Robert Black, spokesman for Gov. James Richard Perry — aka Rick — said Strayhorn has never run on the ballot as "grandma." He called it a political slogan and a gimmick.

"She ain't my grandma," Black said. "If she was honestly looking for a moniker people would recognize she would put flip-flopper or multiple-party-switcher."

Strayhorn has not used this as a common nickname – you won’t find it in news articles or even her campaign literature. The only place you will find such a reference is in her “One Tough Grandma” ads. I’ve been involved in Texas GOP politics for a decade – I never heard her called that until folks made a derogatory reference to the ads. And it is not like the argument for my using “Greg” instead of “Gregory” on the ballot for precinct chair, or letting the Democrat R. Christopher Bell run as the more familiar Chris Bell or Richard Friedman use his longstanding professional name of Kinky Friedman. On the other hand, if you apply Strayhorn’s argument across the board, you may as well let someone run as John “The Taxpayer’s Friend” Smith.

My guess is that One Tough Grandma will only be permitted to use her legal name.

Posted by: Greg at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

Two days ahead of his resignation from Congress, the Texas GOP has declared Congressman Tom Delay ineligible to be on the ballot as a candidate for Congress. The reason? He is no longer a resident of Texas.

Texas Republicans took a key official step Wednesday toward replacing U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the November ballot, as the state GOP declared him ineligible to run because he has moved his official residence to Virginia.

Friday is the former House majority leader's last day in Congress.

Republican Party of Texas Chairwoman Tina Benkiser notified Republican county chairs in the 22nd Congressional District that they can begin the process for selecting a new nominee. DeLay's successor as GOP nominee will be selected by a four-member committee of precinct chairs representing each of the counties in the district — Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston and Harris.

County chairs plan to call meetings before the end of the month. Once each of the counties has selected its representative, they will meet to choose the new Republican nominee.

As one of those precinct chairs, I wonder how fast the process will play out. I have been figuring that meetings could not begin until at least Thursday of next week (it takes five days in Harris County to call an emergency meeting) -- but this date allows for a meeting as early as Monday. I'll let you know when I know.

Now I do have one little constitutional quibble here. If Delay has already established himself as a Virginia resident, shouldn't that have caused the automatic forfeiture of office? After all, a congressman does have to be a resident of the state he represents. As a practical matter it is irrelevant, as he will likely cast no votes -- and certainly none where his vote is the deciding matter. But it is an interesting intellectual question to turn over in one's mind.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, dear, the FBI threatened to pick a lock to execute a valid search warrant. Had this been one of our homes or offices, they would have kicked in the damn door.

FBI agents who raided the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) last month threatened to pick the lock on the door after the acting U.S. Capitol Police chief asked them to hold off until a congressional lawyer showed up, according to a document filed in U.S. District Court.

Shortly after that, the FBI agents were let in.

The confrontation with Acting Chief Christopher M. McGaffin was cited in a brief filed by the Office of General Counsel for the House of Representatives as one of irregularities that made the search unconstitutional. Jefferson, the target of a federal bribery probe, has denied wrongdoing.

"The execution of the warrant poses a grave threat to the separation of powers principle that is the very foundation of our government's structure," the motion said.

Excuse me? Do I understand that the Capitol Police interfered with the execution of a lawfully issued search warrant? If so, why was Acting Chief Christopher M. McGaffin not taken into custody after delaying the investigation?

Now we have already established time and again that there is no privilege that grants a congressman the right to conduct criminal activity in a congressional office free from search or investigation. There is no threat to the separation of powers when a federal judge issues a warrant pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to search for evidence of a crime involving a member of Congress. Why are they even making this specious argument?

What I find particularly amusing is this part of the motion.

The motion, which recommends new protocols for congressional search warrants, suggested that the House counsel and Jefferson could have been present during the search to ensure legislative documents protected by the Speech or Debate Clause were not seized.

What? So Jefferson could have engaged in the same sort of actions he did when his home was searched -- moving and hiding relevant documents and lying to FBI agents about the documents he had in his possession? That is a non-starter.

I once had respect for the Capitol Police. However, the last couple of months make me wonder if they really are less competent and more corrupt than your average untrained, unarmed mall cops, between this and the Patrick Kennedy cover-up. Maybe Cynthia McKinney was right to bitch-slap one of them.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

I can’t wait to hear this one – what “honorable explanation” can you have for taking bribes and hiding the marked bills in your freezer?

Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, said Tuesday that there is "an honorable explanation" for the damaging scenario being painted by the federal government in the federal bribery probe targeting him, and he again denied breaking any laws.

Jefferson declined to discuss specifics of the 15-month investigation that has yielded two guilty pleas amid allegations that the congressman accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. Jefferson has not been charged and would not speculate on whether he thought an indictment was coming from the northern Virginia grand jury investigating him.

In a wide-ranging interview late Tuesday in his congressional office, the site last month of an unprecedented FBI search, Jefferson said he has no intention of stepping down and reiterated his plan to seek a ninth term in November.

"When all is said and done, you will see that there is an honorable explanation for everything you are reading about," Jefferson said, remaining relaxed throughout the interview, his feet slung up on a coffee table. "I believe an impartial forum can reach and will reach that same conclusion.

If he believes that, the Democrat culture of corruption must run much deeper – especially in Louisiana – than any of us ever imagined.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Senator, in light of your earlier assertion, is the Pennsylvania Legislature bigoted and un-American?

By a vote of 136-61, which included significant Democratic support, the House approved a proposal that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The bill will likely be voted on in the Senate by the end of the month, a Senate Republican spokesman said.

A constitutional amendment requires passage in the legislature in two consecutive sessions and then approval by voters in a statewide referendum, which could come as early as spring 2007.

We are waiting, Senator, with bated breath.

And are there other issues that you believe it is unAmerican for legislators to debate, or upon which it is un-American for the people to vote?

And why is it that so many Democrats fear democracy in action?

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

And here we kept being told that the GOP was going to lose this safe seat previously held by Duke Cunningham (may he rot in jail forever). Guess not!

A former Republican congressman narrowly beat his Democratic rival early Wednesday for the right to fill the House seat once held by imprisoned Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a race closely watched as a possible early barometer of next fall's vote.

Republican Brian Bilbray emerged victorious after a costly and contentious race against Democrat Francine Busby, a local school board member who ran against Cunningham in 2004.

With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Bilbray had 56,016 votes or 49.5 percent. Busby trailed with 51,202 votes or 45 percent. "I think that we're going back to Washington," Bilbray told a cheering crowd of supporters.

The race _ one of dozens of election contests in eight states _ was viewed by Democrats as an opportunity to capture a solidly Republican district and build momentum on their hopes to capture control of the House.

Even Francine Busby's appeal to illegal aliens to turn out to vote for her and Busby-financed ads for Minuteman-backed candidate William Griffith didn't do the Democrats any good, as busby increased her share of the vote by less than one percent from the primary.

I think that Nancy Pelosi may want to hold off on planning to "redecorate the House".

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Unless the Justice Department can track down some actual quid-pro-quo related to this, I believe that it will be one more blind alley in the continuing DeLay saga.

A registered lobbyist opened a retirement account in the late 1990s for the wife of then-House Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and contributed thousands of dollars to it while also paying her a salary to work for him from her home in Texas, according to sources, documents and DeLay's attorney, Richard Cullen.

The account represents a small portion of the income that DeLay's family received from entities at least partly controlled by lobbyist Edwin A. Buckham. But the disclosure of its origin adds to what was previously known about the benefits DeLay's family received from its association with Buckham, and it brings the total over the past seven years to about half a million dollars.

Buckham was DeLay's chief of staff before he became a lobbyist at the end of 1998, shortly before the account was opened and the flow of funds began. He has come under scrutiny from federal investigators because his lobbying firm received hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue from clients of indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Buckham's financial ties to DeLay's family -- and the retirement account in particular -- have recently attracted the interest of FBI agents and others in the federal task force probing public corruption by lawmakers and lobbyists, according to a source who was questioned in the course of the government's investigation.

Looks damning, doesn't it -- until you realize that the sums in question, received over 7 years, are just about right for the amount of work done by the Congressman's wife and daughter, boh of whom did work for Buckham's company. The sums involved are not outrageous, and are probably normal payments of salary and benefits.

Even the Post makes something of a concession in this regard concerning the retirement account in question.

Cullen said the retirement account was required for Buckham's employees under Internal Revenue Service rules. But investigators are looking at Buckham's role in establishing the account and at whether the lawmaker may have performed official acts in return for any of the income arranged by Buckham, according to the source. DeLay denies any wrongdoing.

Required by the Federal Government. That puts a whole new aspect on it -- and only took them five paragraphs to get to that point. But the Justice Department is looking into it anyway. There is no actual evidence of any wrong-doing on anyone's part, and the payments are legal permitted under House ethics rules and are legal under federal law. And such payments will happen until we make it illegal for spouses and other family members of government officials to be involved in politics or government, or be employed at all.

But that said, I am counting the hours until Delay's departure from office and removal from teh balot happen -- and cannot wait for the selection of the new GOP candidate for the November ballot.

Posted by: Greg at 10:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

Could you support this proposal from Dafydd of Big Lizards -- what he calls the Defense of Marriage Amendment (DMA)?

1. For federal purposes, marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

2. The Constitution of the United States of America shall not be construed to require any state, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as or like a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Now let's consider what this would do -- it would not prevent any state in the union from allowing for homosexual marriage or domestic partnerships that are th functional equivalent. It also would not allow the US Constitution to be misinterpreted (a la Lawrence v. Texas) to require homosexual marriage nationwide or to allow the policy decisions of a state that permitted homosexual marriage to compel recognition of such marriages in any other state under the FUll Faith and Credit Clause. In other words, it would serve to Constitutionalize the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Since the existance of the DOMA is one of the reasons for opposing the FMA, and since many of those opposing the FMA use either federalism or the existance of the DOMA to justify their position, those two arguments become irrelevant.

Unless, of course, those are merely fig-leafs intended to cover their support for homosexual marriage.

And if it is, don't the American people have a right to know?

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

I've yet to see a compelling argument in favor of homosexual marriage.

And I've yet to see a good reason for opposing the marriage Amendment.

But this one, presented by the Rino-ettes from Maine, has to be among the worst.

Maine's two U.S. senators say a constitutional amendment proposed by President Bush to ban same-sex marriage is unnecessary at this time.

Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins responded to Bush's effort Monday to rally support for the proposal being debated in the Senate ahead of a test vote Wednesday in which it is all but certain to go down to defeat.

Snowe restated her belief that the issue was addressed by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions from other states.

"As the Defense of Marriage Act has not been overturned by the courts -- and therefore remains the law of the land -- I believe that an amendment to the Constitution is unnecessary at this time," she said.

Citing the same law, Collins said family and domestic affairs have always been regulated by the states and she saw no reason for change.

"Most states, including Maine, have passed laws declaring that they will not recognize such marriages," Collins said. "Therefore, I will vote against proceeding with the constitutional amendment at this time.

That reasoning would be enough to make me laugh my ass off if it did not enrage me so.

After all, the people of Massachusetts thought they were safe -- but an out-of-control court decided that they were wrong.

One of these days, a federal judge somewhere is going to strike down the DOMA or rule that the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment has gay marriage in their penumbras -- and then the argument will not be about whether or not the amendment is necessary, but about the propriety of "rolling back civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution." You already hear that argument in Massachusetts, where it is deployed against those seeking to amend that state'sconstitution to fix what its top court has damaged.

But I'll toss this question out to the distinguished gentleladies from Maine.

Will they commit to co-sponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment in the event that the DOMA is struck down or a federal judge rules in that the US Constitution contains a right to homosexual marriage?

Or is your argument all a sham?

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

At least that is my interpreteation of Chucky-boy's comments and voting record on anti-terrorism funding.

Sen. Charles Schumer, who has likened $7 million in federal cuts to New York's bioterrorism programs to "rubbing salt in an open wound," voted to cut those programs by 10.4 percent last year, according to Senate records.

Schumer (D-N.Y.) is pressuring Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding to recalculate a new funding formula that disproportionately reduces aid to the state. Schumer, who red-flagged the issue during a news conference Sunday, will take his case directly to Gerberding today.

The proposed cuts could effect operations at city health department labs and environmental-testing programs, although it's possible some or all of the money might be made up through other federal funding, a city official told Newsday.

In December, Schumer didn't object to a unanimous voice vote approving a huge bipartisan spending bill that included $95 million in CDC bioterrorism cuts, largely because the measure also included restorations to student loan cuts and other domestic programs.

"There was 7 billion dollars in that bill, restoring student loans, health care, necessary things - every Democrat voted for it," Schumer said yesterday.

Schumer also voted for a $123 million bioterrorism cut during a preliminary vote on the package that passed 94-3 in October. He was joined by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton both times.

Since Schumer believes that New York City is the center of the universe, he apprently didn't intend for those cuts to come out of NYC's money -- or even from New York state's funding. It was the rest of the country that was supposed to eat the entire financial hit. That does not sound reasonable to me. Of course some of the cuts would have to come from the largest recipients.

Get over it, Senator. The world does not revolve around New York -- or Uranus.

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

You decide.

SUPPOSE that a member of Congress, locked in a tight re-election campaign, hired someone to murder his opponent. The homicide occurred, the congressman paid the murderer for the job, and the congressman then hid the dead body in his office. Does anyone think that it would be a problem for law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant and search the congressman's office, looking for the dead body?

The principle is the same as that in the Jefferson case -- are Congressional offices sactuaries wehre membrs can hide evidence of their criminality with impunity?

The argument that there is something problematic with the execution of a search warrant in Rep. Jefferson's congressional office has absolutely no foundation in the Constitution. As the Supreme Court has noted, Capitol Hill is not a sanctuary for crime. The Constitution does not protect the offices of any member of government from a search executed in accordance with a validly obtained warrant, nor does it forbid the executive branch from obtaining a warrant where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed.

Now I do not agree with most of the rest of the arguments made by Professor Dow -- he tries to make connections to datamining and other issues that are clearly not connected. But his analysis on this one point is clearly correct.

Anyone want to argue to the contrary?

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington Post has great coverage of the ongoing scandal surrounding Rep. William Jefferson (D-Highest Bidder), the poster child for Democrat ethics. It includes a great graphic outlining the degree of corruption.

On May 12, 2005, over dinner with business partner and FBI informant Lori Mody, Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) furtively scrawled the letter "c" on a sheet of paper, and next to it wrote some numbers indicating that he was demanding a much larger personal stake in an African business deal than previously agreed to.

"The 'c' is like for 'children,' " the congressman told Mody, as an FBI tape recorder rolled. "I make a deal for my children. It wouldn't be for me."

I see -- it is all for the children. Well, it takes a village in Africa wired for cable to raise a child, doesn't it? I guess that makes it all OK.

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

As the date for Tom DeLay's resignation approaches, the race to replace him on the ballot is getting tight. Candidates were out in force this weekend at the Texas GOP Convention in San Antonio.

Eight of the candidates vying for the Republican nomination to replace DeLay on the general election ballot for the 22nd Congressional District worked the convention center crowds as if it were a traditional campaign. A select group of party leaders actually will pick the next candidate.

DeLay's successor won't be decided here, but candidates vying for his spot knew this was the best chance to reach out to party activists.

This isn't an ordinary campaign and candidates aren't appealing to regular voters. Instead, they are working the roughly 200 precinct chairs who make up the district and who will elect one representative from each of the district's four counties — Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston and Brazoria — to collectively choose a new GOP candidate for the general election ballot.

Those four people have yet to be chosen.

First, DeLay must provide proof to the party he is ineligible to serve. He will do so by moving his permanent residence from Texas to his Alexandria, Va., condominium.

Eight candidates made the trip to San Antonio — State Reps. Charlie Howard of Sugar Land and Robert Talton of Pasadena, state Sen. Mike Jackson of La Porte, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace, lawyer Tom Campbell, former state executive committee member Tim Turner and retired Air Force major Don Richardson.

My guess is that the most likely picks for the nomination are, in no particular order, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, Charlie Howard, Robert Talton, and the article fails to note appeared at the convention (and spoke to several SD caucuses), Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers. While David Wallace was seen as an early favorite, critical mis-steps on the part fo his campaign and questions about his business history have harmed him among many of us who are involved in the process of selecting a replacement for Delay. The nature of this process, however, is such that we could have a candidate arise out of nowhere once the county electors (AKA the Gang of Four) get together.

At least two of the counties have serious races to fill the elector spot, with grassroots candidates challenging SREC members for the spot. In Harris County, SREC member Kathy Haigler and Precinct Chair Steve Williams are the declared candidates candidates, while SREC member Therese Raia and Precinct Chair Pat Hebert are both seeking the spot. The issue is not a disagreement on principles or candidates. It is over the question of whether the SREC members should be the electors, given that the entire SREC will pick the candidate if the Gang of Four cannot achieve a consensus. All four of these individuals are fine individuals with strong conservative Republican credentials, but I'm personally backing the grassroots movement. Call it a question of avoiding the appearance of "politics as usual". I'm told by multiple sources that Randy Weber is the most likely choice to be the Brazoria County elector. I've heard nothing definitive on the Galveston County slot.

My expectation is that the process will have run its course and a new congressional candidate will have been selected no later than June 30 -- and I suspect several days earlier than that.

Posted by: Greg at 04:23 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.

I couldn't help but be struck by the list of potential committee chairs in the House of Representatives if the Democrats win the House this fall.

It is generally a list of liberal hacks who will work to drag the government well to the left of the American people. I suspect one term with the House of Representatives run by these extremists will be enough to bring the House back into the GOP fold.

But one or two names in particular jumped out at me as exempifying the Democrat Culture of Corruption.

. . . here is Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, in line for the top spot on the Judiciary Committee; Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi on the
Homeland Security Committee; and Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida at the Intelligence Committee.

Please note the two in bold face type. Each of these men has some serious ethical clouds hanging over him.

Conyers has been accused by former aides of misusing his office by turning them into baby sitters for his children. He is the prime sponsor of a resolution that seeks to investigate grounds for possible impeachment of Bush over the war in Iraq.

It is actually much worse than it sounds -- it isn't a case of "watch my kids while they hang out in my office on a day off of school." It is "you will stay here until I come back and get my kids -- whenever that is." Or even, in a couple of cases, "I'm going out of town and I'll be back in a few days -- you will take care of my kids until then."

Yowsuh, Massa Conyers -- we all know that congressional staffers are intended to be a taxpayer-funded nanny service for over-privileged office holders and their spoiled children.

And since the article mentions Conyers has been on an impeachment kick, let's look at Rep. Alcee Hastings over at the Intelligence Committee.

Hastings, a charismatic former federal judge, was impeached and removed from the bench in 1989 for fabricating evidence that secured his acquittal in 1983 on bribery charges.

Impeached and removed from a federal judgeship -- when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate. So there is no question about Hastings being corrupt -- the Democrats have already affirmed that themselves.

Absolutely incredible.

Captain Ed has some interesting insights on this issue as well.

Posted by: Greg at 03:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Let me begin with a truly shocking true story.

Nearly a decade ago, I had a 18-year-old high school senior inform me that her current (THIRD!) pregnancy was the fault of the state of Texas. After all, she had wanted her tubes tied following the birth of her second child (at age 16)-- but Medicaid wouldn't cover it for a female under 21 unless she had three children. It wasn't like she was going to quit having sex with her boyfriend (they lived together at his parent's house, along with their child and her child by another guy, born when she was 14) -- so it was clearly the state's fault.

I couldn't help but think of this young woman when I read this opinion piece from the Washington Post by the anonymous "Dana L.".

The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want. Well, not literally, but let me explain.

I am a 42-year-old happily married mother of two elementary-schoolers. My husband and I both work, and like many couples, we're starved for time together. One Thursday evening this past March, we managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm.

The next morning, after getting my kids off to school, I called my ob/gyn to get a prescription for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill that can prevent a pregnancy -- but only if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. As we're both in our forties, my husband and I had considered our family complete, and we weren't planning to have another child, which is why, as a rule, we use contraception. I wanted to make sure that our momentary lapse didn't result in a pregnancy.

The receptionist, however, informed me that my doctor did not prescribe Plan B. No reason given. Neither did my internist. The midwifery practice I had used could prescribe it, but not over the phone, and there were no more open appointments for the day. The weekend -- and the end of the 72-hour window -- was approaching.

But I needed to meet my kids' school bus and, as I was pretty much out of options -- short of soliciting random Virginia doctors out of the phone book -- I figured I'd take my chances and hope for the best. After all, I'm 42. Isn't it likely my eggs are overripe, anyway? I thought so, especially since my best friend from college has been experiencing agonizing infertility problems at this age.

Weeks later, the two drugstore pregnancy tests I took told a different story. Positive. I couldn't believe it.

Got that. Dana was not responsible enough to use her birth control and was too busy to to bother looking for another doctor or -- lest we put too fine a point on it -- go slumming at the ER, so she made a choice to take risk a pregnancy. So the resulting pregnancy was the fault of. . . the Bush administration!

We then get all the ranting about right-wingers, religion seeping into American politics and government and the difficulty in procuring a feticide. This highly-educated professional woman (she's a lawyer) who made a number of choices that resulted in a pregnancy, like my former student, simply refuses to take responsibility for those choices. She has to find someone else to blame so that she can be the victim in the story.

A decade ago, I responded to my student by telling her that unless she could truthfully claim that a team of Texas Rangers kicked open her door and held her in place while then-Gov george W. Bush personally impregnated her, it was not the state of Texas fault that she was pregnant.

I offer the same response to Dana L. -- unless you can claim that the Secret Service held you down while President George W. Bush personally impregnated you, it is not the Bush administration's fault that you got pregnant and needed to have your unborn child killed.

And remember, Dana, Plan B in your case still would have been an abortion -- so don't kid yourself about what you were seeking.

You just wanted it to be earlier, neater, and easier on your conscience -- the ultimate rejection of responsibility.

UPDATE: I've gotten a couple of emails wanting to know what happened to my former student. About six weeks after our conversation, she delivered a healthy baby boy -- her third child delivered at expense of the taxpayers of the state of texas. And true to its policies, Medicaid paid for her tubes to be immediately tied. I'll let you decide if that was a net loss or net gain for the taxpayers.

Others writing on this piece include Maryland Conservatarian, appletree, Creature of Mad Enthusiasms, Villainous Company, jonquil, Suburban Guerrilla, The Reality-Based Community, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, Stuck on Stupid, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Lil Duck Duck, Third World County, Passionate American, Blue Star Chronicle, 7 Deadly Sins (twice), Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang!

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 858 words, total size 7 kb.

Looks like we will get another load of information about the offenses of William Jefferson (D-$90K Next To The Lime Sherbet).

A federal appeals court judge has ruled that The Times-Picayune should have access to legal paperwork that led to the Aug. 3 raid by federal authorities on the New Orleans home of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, along with his car and the office of his campaign treasurer, Jack Swetland.

The Justice Department has already released similar paperwork laying out its justification for the recent raid of Jefferson's congressional office as part of the same federal inquiry.

Jefferson has not been charged in the case and has denied wrongdoing. Two of his associates have already pleaded guilty to federal charges, acknowledging they were involved in a scheme in which Jefferson sought bribes in exchange for helping an American telecommunications firm do business in Africa.

The Times-Picayune sued last month to make public the materials related to the New Orleans raids -- including the search warrants as well as the affidavits, applications, returns and inventories filed in connection with the warrants -- which had been sealed by court order.

A similar case is pending in a Maryland court regarding materials filed in support of a raid on the Nigerian vice president's house in Potomac. A federal judge has ruled that the materials should be unsealed, but the order was stayed to give Jefferson time to appeal.

Federal investigators have not opposed any of the requests to make the materials public. But Jefferson has objected in each case, saying that unsealing the materials would violate his privacy and deny him the right to a fair trial if he is indicted.

On Friday, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge W. Eugene Davis agreed with the newspaper's position in regard to the materials supporting the local raids, saying that the public's right to know details of the case outweighs Jefferson's interests.

Davis noted that a "substantially identical" affidavit had already been unsealed in Washington, and that details of the federal probe "have been widely reported in the press." In addition, he noted that Jefferson "is a public servant and his conduct in the performance of his official duties is a matter of great public interest."

No doubt we will hear more ranting about the unfairness of subjecting Jefferson to the same laws and procedures as ordinary citizens.

Posted by: Greg at 08:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

This suppression of political speech is something only a fascist, Leftist, or John McCain could love.

Captain's Quarters has been tracking a Canadian campaign finance scandal involving John Volpe, who is seeking the leadership of the Liberal Party.

The Liberals just can't seem to shake their reputation for financing shenanigans, and now it looks like they've decided to enhance it by attempting to silence Volpe's critics. A satirical website, youthforvolpe.ca, attempted to poke fun at Volpe's predicament by posing as a contribution website for civic-minded Canadian youngsters. Not seeing the humor, Volpe reacted by having the website shut down:

It was all the buzz in official Ottawa yesterday -- a hilarious political whodunit in this age of websites, platforms and templates.

Overnight, someone built a website spoofing Liberal leadership candidate Joe Volpe and his acceptance of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from children, including the 11-year-old twins of a former vice-president of a generic drug company.

By early yesterday afternoon, the Volpe team had the website pulled down. ...

Mr. Volpe's campaign had the site shut down without knowing, it seems, who put it up: "Hi Everyone," wrote Brenden Johnstone, who is with the Volpe campaign, in an e-mail to other leadership campaigns. "There has been concern about how the issue of the Volpe donations was reflecting on the leadership race.

"My Office has had the website suspended through CIRA [Canadian Internet Registration Authority] and CDNS [Canadian Domain Name Services] and it will be down as soon as 6 p.m. I think the issue with the website has been dealt with. . . ."

If Volpe's office thinks that pressuring the hosting service to silence his critics will "deal with" the problem, I suspect they have some naivete on the Internet. More than just showing a thin skin, Volpe and his office will likely provoke a torrent of criticism that will dwarf any consideration of questionable contributions. Does the Liberal Party really stand for government officials bullying hosting services into gagging their critics?

CQ notes that Conservative Party blogger Stephen Taylor is doing yeoman's work giving this matter the sort of coverage it deserves.

The censored site has been mirrored here and hereand here.

One has to wonder if Canada qualifies as part of the free world any longer, or if all the jokes about Soviet Kanuckistan are really true.

More coverage of this developing story can be found at Left Wing=Hate, The Daily Bayonet, The New American Citizen, Angry In The Great White North, Slashdot, Pajamas Media, Boing Boing, Little Green Footballs.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 4 kb.

Steve Radack, County Commissioner for Harris County Precinct 3, takes exception to a letter sent by Orlando Sanchez seeking support to fill the ballot vacancy caused by the death of County Treasurer Jack Cato. That normally would not trouble me -- individuals of good will can disagree on such matters.

Unfortunately, both Radack's tone and timing are terrible.

Less than two weeks after the death of County Treasurer Jack Cato, the succession process has gotten ugly.

In a letter to Republican precinct chairs, who will select a nominee to replace Cato on the fall ballot, prospect Orlando Sanchez says he developed a warm and respectful relationship with Cato while running unsuccessfully against him in the March GOP primary.

That's a lie, GOP County Commissioner Steve Radack says in a letter to the same group.

"Don't believe for a second that Sanchez respected Jack Cato," writes Radack, who delivered a eulogy at Cato's memorial service. "Further, he certainly did not have a warm relationship with Jack or his family. As a matter of fact, what Sanchez did was conduct a negative campaign against Jack that was outrageously cruel and unnecessary."

I seem to recall that during the campaign, which ended only three months ago, that Sanchez ran on a platform of bringing in new blood and new vision at the County Treasurer's office, and adopting a more activist stance akin to that of County Assessor/Collector Paul Bettencourt. While there was criticism of style, there was no criticism of Cato personally. Yet Radack, for all intents and purposes, blames Sanchez for Cato's death by making insinuations about the way in which "Sanchez's negative attacks physically affected Jack." Such a statement is beneath contempt.

It seems that what really has Radack's frilly lace panties in a wad is the fact that Sanchez was so disrespectful as to have dared to challenge Cato at all, once all the GOP elected officials in the county decided to endorse each other for reelection. You know -- how dare the people be given a choice?

And more sadly, this arrogant attitude of the elected aristocracy seems to have spilled over into the Cato family, at least as exemplified by the comments of Cato's son, John.

John Cato said he was put off by the substance and timing of Sanchez's letter. He said he disagreed with Sanchez's characterization of his relationship with his father as warm and respectful.

"I don't think it's respectful for a fellow Republican to wage a campaign against an incumbent Republican who had the support of every Republican county official," he said.

In other words, once Jack Cato was elected County Treasurer he was entitled to hold that seat unchallenged forever. Sorry, John, that isn't how it works in countries where there are elections. I'm sure your father knew that. Don't disrespect his memory by implying that he might have believed otherwise.

And while it might be true that all the Republican county government officials endorsed Jack Cato for reelection, that was not true of the the GOP grassroots. More than 250 of the precinct chairs in Harris County endorsed Sanchez in the primary. I don't think he has lost any support there, and so Orlando Sanchez should easily become the replacement candidate on the ballot.

But then comes this insidious comment from the Radack letter (which I received in yesterday's mail), insinuating that those of us who support Orlando Sanchez are somehow "sheep" being led by one or two unnamed office holders. I find that strange, since the only office holder I've been contacted by is Radack himself, trying to shepherd me away from a candidate I've been supporting for the last five months.

One or two of our office holders believe that most precinct chairman are like sheep and they are your shepherds.

Too bad that Radack doesn't have the personal integrity to name those office holders. But then again, I'm not surprised -- this is the same Steve Radack who took $900,000 in consulting fees from Sueba USA over a seven year period when the company did business with or had business before the very Harris County Commissioner's Court on which he serves. Integrity is simply not a part of Radack's personal make up.

Angered as I was by Radack's letter, I wrote a quick email to the commissioner -- but decided to hold it pending a cooling-off period. Discovering that the letter is circulating at the state GOP convention in San Antonio, and that Radack has spoken to the press about it, I decided to send it this morning. I'll share it with you here.

Commissioner Radack:

I was most disappointed to receive your letter dated May 31, 2006 regarding Orlando Sanchez. Such a blatant act of character assassination merits nothing other than contempt in my eyes. Given your history of using public office to unethically enrich yourself personally, I view it as the equivalent of the local prostitute complaining about the sexual morality of kids these days.

I liked and respected Jack Cato and honor his many accomplishments as treasurer; however I saw his age and health as making it unlikely that he would complete his term -- a concern which has been sadly confirmed by recent events. I endorsed Orlando Sanchez in the March primary because I thought he was the best candidate to direct the office of treasurer in the future. I continue to believe that Orlando Sanchez is our best candidate for the office of county treasurer, and in light of the vacancy on the ballot have endorsed the former councilman to replace Jack Cato on the general election ballot

My endorsement was not given because I am any politician's "sheep" -- it is because not only have my concerns of this spring have been confirmed, but because I believe the office of County Treasurer can and should be made into a "bully pulpit" of the sort Paul Bettencourt has created in the Assessor/Collector's office. We certainly haven't seen much in the way of leadership out of the Commissioner's Court -- until now, when you appear in a guise that gives new meaning to the term "shepherd's crook". Needless to say, you have in no way changed my mind.

I do hope my meaning is clear to Commissioner Radack.

UPDATE: PinkDome has a different perspective

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, Stuck on Stupid, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Lil Duck Duck, Third World County, Passionate American, Blue Star Chronicle, 7 Deadly Sins (twice), Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang!

Posted by: Greg at 03:10 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1102 words, total size 8 kb.

New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi was renominated for his office by New York Democrats on Tuesday. After his commencement speech at Queens College today, he may need to be concerned about going to jail, after seeming to call for the assassination of President George W. Bush.

State Comptroller Alan Hevesi publicly apologized Thursday for a "beyond dumb" remark about "putting a bullet between the president's eyes."

Hevesi hastily called a mea culpa press conference hours after putting his foot in his mouth at the Queens College commencement.

The Queens College media relations office said it had videotaped the commencement but could not immediately provide a copy of the tape or a transcript.

At the press conference, a contrite Hevesi repeated what he recalled saying in the speech. The comptroller said he was merely trying to convey that Sen. Charles Schumer has strength and courage to stand up to the president.

"I apologize to the president of the United States" as well as to Schumer, said Hevesi. "I am not a person of violence."

"I am apologizing as abjectly as I can. There is no excuse for it. It was beyond dumb."

Hevesi said he hadn't been in touch with the White House but he hoped his apology reached President Bush.

Hevesi also called his comments "remarkably stupid" and "incredibly moronic."

"I do speak extemporaneously," he said. "And I've never said anything like this."

Dare I suggest that if this is the. . . uhhhh. . . caliber of candidate put forward by the Democrats, then we need to work hard to ensure they don't have a shot at winning.

H/T Michelle Malkin

MORE AT: Sister Toldjah, Strata-Sphere, It Shines For All, Plains Feeder, Political Pit Bull, NJ Blog, Darleen's Place, Urban Grounds

Posted by: Greg at 08:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 3 kb.

Here’s hoping that an ethics complaint is immediately filed against Harry Reid, whose office still won’t admit that he breached ethics restrictions by taking free boxing tickets while legislation on regulation the sport was pending before the Senate – but then vows that he won’t do it again.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid learned that what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas after all. A day after The Associated Press reported Reid accepted free ringside seats to boxing matches from a Nevada agency trying to influence him on federal boxing legislation, the senator offered his own ethics justification to a home state audience in Las Vegas.

And he vowed to keep taking such gifts.

But Reid's comments Tuesday quickly reached Washington, where several ethics experts concluded the Senate leader had misstated the Senate rules to his constituents.

Within hours of being questioned by AP about the ethics experts' assertions, Reid's office abruptly reversed course and acknowledged Wednesday night he had misspoken about the ethics rules.

The Senate leader also has decided not to take free boxing seats in the future even though he still believes it was ethical to do so in 2004 and 2005, Reid's office said.

"In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Interestingly enough, it appears that prior to becoming the Democrat leader in the Senate, Reid always paid for his boxing tickets – and accepted none free until there was pending legislation on possible federal regulation of boxing. Even if one concedes that there was no actual quid pro quo or actual violation of the Senate ethics regulations, this action does breach the catch-all regulation that requires Senators not act in a manner that gives the appearance of impropriety.

And this certainly does appear improper.

And I like this comment from the spokesperson for a watchdog group.

Ellen Miller, head of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group studying the ethics and inner workings of Congress, said Reid's comments in Las Vegas should make voters suspicious.

"Any time a politician starts parsing language and telling different stories, you have to assume they may have something to be ashamed of," Miller said.

And to all you Democrats out there – would you accept such conduct or rationalizations from a Republican?

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

It appears that certain members of Congress are forgetting that the laws apply to them -- and are willing to make illegitimate use of the Constitution to harrass members of the other two co-equal branches of government for doing their constiutionally mandated duty in the William Jefferson case.

Let's start with Rep. Darrell Issa.

One lawmaker on the Judiciary Committee said GonzalesÂ’ refusal to explain why he authorized the search may be grounds for impeachment by Congress.

“All options have to be left open,” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told reporters after the hearing. Gonzales must “explain to our satisfaction how this is not going to happen again or how it was somehow justified.”

Issa said at the hearing that Congress has the power to impeach Gonzales and U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who issued the search warrant. He said that if Sensenbrenner had raised the impeachment possibility, “more members would quickly be here.”

So, Darrell, let's look at this closely. The Constitution requires that an individual be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors to merit impeachment and removal from office. Where is that standard met?

Does the issuance of a valid search warrant, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, constitute a high crime or misdemeanor? If not, then there is no basis for impeaching Judge Hogan.

Furthermore, doing so would be, to borrow the words of Speaker Hastert, "in violation of the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers. . . and the practice of the last 219 years." Even if one accepts the argument that the issuance of the warrant was wrong (and I do not), it has never been the practice that judges are impeached and removed because Congress disagrees with their official actions or decisions. John Marshall was not impeached after Marbury v. Madison, despite near universal opposition by Congress. Roger Taney was not impeached for the horrendous decision in the Dred Scot case, even though it led the United States into the Civil War. For all the talk of impeaching Earl Warren and other members of the Warren Court, no reasonable individual took such calls seriously or saw them as more than grandstanding. Harry Blackmun and William Brennan remained on the Court despite the constitutional attrocity that is Roe v. Wade, and no justice was removed for the decisions in the Kelo case, Roper v. Simmons, or Lawrence v. Texas, all of which are clearly decided wrongly and are much more clearly in opposition to the text of the Constitution. No lower court judge has ever been removed for a wrongly decided case or a warrant later found to be based upon incorrect principles -- why start with this one, unless it is to intimidate the Judicial Branch and inhibit it from the full and free exercise of its constitutionally derived powers -- in other words, to tamper with the separation of powers?

And as for the impeachment of Attorney General Gonzales, I again ask for a constitutioanl basis for such actions? Is the request for a warrant after ten months of stone-walling by Congressman Jefferson truly a high crime or midemenaor? After all, let's consider the situation.

The videotaped $100,000 bribery happened in July 2005—fully ten months ago.

Of that cash, $90,000 was seized from Jefferson's freezer on August 3, 2005. (And as my Corner post last night noted, the Justice department revealed on Tuesday that there is evidence Jefferson tried to obstruct that search).

On the same day, August 3, 2005, the Justice Department served a grand-jury subpoena on Jefferson. It is reasonable to infer, since Justice got the search warrant for the residence at the same time, that Justice appreciated the significant difference between searching a congressman’s home and searching his congressional office—even though, in truth, a legitimate speech-and-debate claim could apply to either equally. Plainly, out of deference to Congress, Justice proceeded by subpoena as to evidentiary items in Jefferson’s office in hopes that it would be unnecessary to take the more provocative step of seeking a judicial search warrant.

Other subpoenas apparently followed in the late summer of 2005, to both Jefferson and his chief of staff. Speaker Hastert, according to a memorandum filed by the Justice department on Tuesday, was notified about the subpoenas by Jefferson on September 15, 2005, and again on November 18, 2005. The Justice department has been trying to get production on those subpoenas ever since—to no avail.

Meanwhile, in January 2006—five months ago—Brent Pfeffer, once a congressional aide of Jefferson’s, publicly pled guilty in federal court to bribing and conspiring to bribe Jefferson. While this does not seem to have stirred Congress, a federal judge just last week thought it was sufficiently serious to merit a sentence of eight years in federal prison.

And just a few weeks ago, in early May, Vernon Jackson, the president and CEO of the company at the heart of the bribery scheme, pled guilty to paying Jefferson $400,000 in bribes. He has yet to be sentenced (and, like Pfeffer, is said to be cooperating in the investigation).

Seems to me that there has been a great deal of deference shown to Jefferson as a member of the House of Representatives -- deference that would not be accorded to any citizen, and deference which is clearly not required by the Constitution. Why then impeach Gonzales, unless one wishes to contend that the ordinary function of the law and the Constitution does not apply to members of the Legislative Branch, and that diligent and even-handed enforcement of the law is therefore an impeachable offense. That would, of course, also intrude upon Executive Branch prerogatives under the Constitution -- and violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

As for Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who I usually respect, his hearings and proposals are clearly over the top.

The chairman, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, called the search "profoundly disturbing."

Mr. Sensenbrenner also said he planned a legislative response to the search on May 20 of the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana. The bill would be patterned on a law limiting searches of news media offices.

"I think this law will help the Justice Department get it right next time because they didn't get it right this time," Mr. Sensenbrenner said as his committee heard from legal experts and a former lawmaker.

Excuse me, sir, but they did get it right -- they applied to a federal judge for a warrant and executed teh warrant as they would any other. They even set up special procedures, monitored by the court, for ensuring that no privileged material was used in the investigation. In short, the joint effort of the two other constitutional branches of government have determined that the search was within the scope of the Constitution, and any legislation would be a gross violation of constitutional principle of the separation of powers, which you claim to be concerned about.

Oh, and there is this little matter.

The House intends to summon Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, before the Judiciary Committee to justify its search of a Congressional office, the panel chairman said Tuesday.

By all means, subpoena them. I'm sure they will be more than willing to appear -- in 10 months, which is the amount of time that Congresman Jefferson has refused to turn over subpoenaed documents to the FBI. After all, we wouldn't want to make it appear that you folks believe that the legislative branch is tampering witht he separation of powers or trying to impose its supremacy on a co-equal branch of government, would we?

Ultimately, this mess is headed for the Supreme Court because members of Congress are seeking to establish a principle that does not exist anywhere in the Constitution -- the freedom from subpoena, search warrants, and criminal investigation.

And when they lose, with these congresscritters start mouthing off about impeaching Supreme Court justices for decisions they dislike -- again, upsetting the Constitutional principle of separation of powers and overturning 219 years of practice?

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1362 words, total size 9 kb.

It seems that a Canadian university is conducting a Star Chamber proceeding against one of its professors -- because of what he has posted on his personal website hosted on a non-university server. Why? Because a homosexual activist does not like it.

A Cape Breton University (CBU) professor is the target of a human rights complaint by a homosexual student. Comments posted by the professor at his private web site critical of the Anglican Church of Canada for its permissive and condoning stand in relation to same-sex "marriage" are the cause of the complaint.

History Professor David Mullan wrote to his local Anglican bishop in 2004, criticizing the trend: "When Anglicanism in some manner recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate 'lifestyle' for Christians, it will become a church in schism," he charged.

On February 20, homosexual CBU student Shane Wallis, who also co-ordinates the campus' Sexual Diversity Office, lodged a formal human rights complaint with the University. In an e-mail response to Wallis' charge of a human rights offence, Wallis stated in his complaint that Mullan responded that "homosexuality is a repudiation of nature and the apotheosis of unbridled desire."

Please note that in this instance, "sexual diversity" means "anything except monogamous heterosexuality" -- and that while Shane Wallis may believe in "sexual diversity", he does not believe in intellectual diversity. After all, his complaint is based upon the expression of views and beliefs that contradict his own.

What is more, the university has adopted a procedure that repudiates basic human and civil rights.

From Professor Mullan's web site it can be seen that, because the University has acknowledged that the proceedings of a CBU human rights tribunal may be used against him in a court of law, he has declined to participate in complaint hearings. He has, however, challenged both Wallis and the University to acknowledge his free speech rights as a Canadian.

"I have a Human Rights complaint against me, as a result of two letters to my former Anglican bishop placed on my private website and a reply I sent Shane Wallis in response to an unsolicited email," Professor Mullan explains on his web site.

"I met yesterday morning (in April) with the Human Rights Officer. At that time I asked her whether anything I said in the process might be used against me in court. Today, after legal consultation, she replied that yes, it could be. I immediately told her that I would not participate in the process. I told her also in our meeting that I find that the requirement that I give evidence, effectively incriminating myself (rather like the Tudor Court of Star Chamber and the ex officio oath) when asked for it is in my judgement a violation of the common law, and of my rights as a free-born Englishman. The procedure is a farce, and if pushed I will sue the institution for violating my civil rights."

"The process can never be fair until these conditions are altered, and until the complainant stands under potential judgement for entering a frivolous complaint," he adds. "No one in his right mind would participate in this without incurring the fees of a solicitor, and when found innocent, someone needs to re-imburse the defendant."

What is more, Wallis filed a second complaint because Mullan had the integrity to go public with this attempt to suppress his fundamental human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It would appear that the recently discovered right to not be offended, right to not be challenged in one's beliefs, and right to screw anything you want are being used to trump those rights. The complaint about breaking confidentiality is apparantly based upon the newly discovered "right to do secretly what no one would stand for publicly" -- for the proceeding has no right to remain silent, and any and all involuntarily coerced statements made in the proceedings may be used against the speaker in a court of law. Again, basic human rights are not a consideration at Cape Breton University.

When i was young, Canada was a free country -- or so it appeared when I visited there. When did that change?

Oh, and by the way, I wrote Shane Wallis the following email. I hope he is man enough to respond.

Shane--

How is it that you have come to the conclusion that your own personal weaknesses and inadequacies are a legitimate basis for suppressing the human rights of individuals to hold religious beliefs and to express them publicly?

Did your university teach you the fascist view that only government-approved thoughts, beliefs, and opinions may be expressed in public, or was did you learn that elsewhere?

Why do you fear views which differ from your own? Is it a fear of diversity, or a recognition of the weakness and inadequacies of your own beliefs?

By the way, my questions have nothing to do with your sexual practices or personal relationships -- they have to do with fundamental questions of human rights enshrined in the founding charters of free societies. I hope you'll take a moment and respond.

Regards
Greg
AKA Rhymes With Right
www.rhymeswithright.mu.nu

To Dr. Mullan, I offer my prayers and best wishes as he fights the good fight for freedom in Canada. And I remind him that America is still free -- though the sodomy lobby is would certainly like to make it less so.

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 913 words, total size 6 kb.

More on the raid on William Jefferson's Congressional office.

First, it appears that Jefferson was not merely refusing to cooperate, but was actively covering up evidence of criminal conduct.

The Justice Department yesterday vigorously defended the recent weekend raid of Rep. William J. Jefferson's Capitol Hill office as part of a bribery investigation, asserting that the Democratic lawmaker attempted to hide documents from FBI agents while they were searching his New Orleans home last August.

The government questioned in a 34-page motion filed in U.S. District Court here whether it could have obtained all the materials it had sought in a subpoena if it had not launched the surprise raid on Jefferson's congressional office May 20. According to the government filing, an FBI agent caught Jefferson slipping documents into a blue bag in the living room of his New Orleans home during a search.

"It is my belief that when Congressman Jefferson placed documents into the blue bag, he was attempting to conceal documents that were relevant to the investigation," FBI agent Stacey E. Kent of New Orleans stated in an affidavit that was part of the government's court submission. The document was filed in response to Jefferson's lawsuit demanding that the government return to him documents seized during the raid on his Capitol Hill office 11 days ago.

* * *

Last Aug. 3, FBI agents searched Jefferson's New Orleans home while the congressman and family members were present. Kent said she was assigned to watch Jefferson and his family during the search, according to her affidavit accompanying the government motion yesterday.

She said she observed him looking at several pieces of paper on a table. At one point, she said, he asked to see a copy of the subpoena.

"After a copy had been brought to him and he reviewed it, I observed Congressman Jefferson then take the subpoena and the documents he had been reading earlier and place them together under his elbow on the kitchen table."

At one point, she said, he moved to the living room, which had just been searched, and sat on a recliner. While sitting, he slipped the subpoena and the documents into a blue bag that he knew had already been searched, Kent's affidavit said.

"After several minutes, I approached Congressman Jefferson and told him that I needed to look at the documents that he had placed into the bag," the agent stated. "Congressman Jefferson told me the documents were subpoenas."

He finally pulled out the documents that were from a B.K. Son. The search warrant had asked for all communications between Jefferson and Son, the affidavit said. Son is the chief technology officer of iGate.

is it any wonder that Jefferson was not notified, and that those who might help with his obstruction of the investigation were not allowed in the office during the search?

And another group has weighed in on the legality of the search. And once again, the smart money is with the Justice Department in holding that the Speech and Debate Clause is not an absolute shield for criminal congresscritters.

A legal watchdog group insists that the FBI's recent raid of Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson's office was perfectly legal, despite the subsequent complaints about the raid by both Republican and Democratic leaders of the House.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is there immunity from investigation for members of Congress. It just isn't there," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. "There is nothing there that says that they can't be subject to the same type of investigatory processes as every other American. They're American citizens."

* * *

... Boehm accused Hastert and Pelosi of "making an argument that they know does not exist."

"They can't point to a single court case. They can't point to any section or clause of the Constitution. And so when I say they're making the argument in bad faith, it's in bad faith because it's not there," Boehm told Cybercast News Service.

* * *

... Boehm argued that members of Congress deserve to be treated in the same manner as anyone else who might have broken the law.

"I think the American public is entitled to know that members of Congress who break the law are going to be investigated and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," he said. "And when Republican and Democratic leaders try to stop that they're sending a message and the message is: we're above the law. And that's the wrong message."

Well said!

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

WELCOME HOUSTON CHRONICLE READERS -- I WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T LINK THIS POST INSTEAD

Back in 2000, we were told that Repulicans had "rioted" when they banged on doors in a successful attempt to make sure that all valid presidential ballots were accurately and publicly counted, as required by Florida law. Liberals said this was a bad thing.

Now we have liberals attempting to interfere with the transport of military equipment to a combat zone during time of war. I find this situation and the response quite disturbing.

Police fired pepper spray as about 150 anti-war protesters tried to enter the Port of Olympia as part of ongoing demonstrations against the shipment of Army equipment to Iraq.

Protesters chanted "Out of Olympia, Out of Iraq" as they rocked a chain-link gate to the port late Monday, and at least three tried to use wooden boards to pry the gate open, The Olympian newspaper reported. A 50-ton piece of equipment was moved to reinforce the gate on the other side.

Police and sheriff's deputies clad in riot gear fired at least four rounds of pepper spray in an hour after asking the demonstrators several times to stop, authorities said. No one was arrested, but paramedics were dispatched to treat some activists.

By the definition promulgated by liberals, this was not a non-violent demonstration -- it was a riot. Furthermore, it was an act of sedition, if not outright treason.

But I would like to express my disappointment with the use of pepper spray against these "activists". It was an inappropriate choice.

The better choice would have been M-16s -- as befits any enemy of America.

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 3 kb.

Whatever will the folks from MoveOn and other hard-Left groups have to say about this development?

DON'T LOOK now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback — and not among the Republicans who have made it famous but in the Democratic Party.

A host of pundits and young national security experts associated with the party are calling for a return to the Cold War precepts of President Truman to wage a war against terror that New Republic Editor Peter Beinart, in the title of his provocative new book, calls "The Good Fight."

The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute, whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty." Beinart's book is subtitled "Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

This new crop of liberal hawks calls for expanding the existing war against terrorism, beefing up the military and promoting democracy around the globe while avoiding the anti-civil liberties excesses of the Bush administration. They support a U.S. government that would seek multilateral consensus before acting abroad, but one that is not scared to use force when necessary.

Perhaps such developments explain the left-wing attacks on folks like Joe Lieberman -- if they can remove leading Democrats with a sane view of foreign policy in favor of those supported by KOSsacks and DUmmies, this movement can be stopped.

But if the neo-con movement in the Democrat party succeeds, it could be the beginning of the next great party reallignement in American politics.

Posted by: Greg at 05:21 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

You've got to love it when Democrats excuse behavior in themselves that they wouldn't accept in their political opponents.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

He defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the bill and was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's No. 1 businesses," he told The Associated Press.

"I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.

So tell me, Senator, how these tickets differ from the golf trips that the Democrats have called part of a "culture of corruption" when Republicans accepted them.

And we cannot, of course, overlook the different courses of action taken by teh two Republicans who accepted tickets.

Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.

In other words, you took the tickets, McCain paid for them, and Ensign had already taken himself out of the debate becasue of family connections. Whose behavior was most ethical, Senator ?

And whose clients were you meeting with and doing favors for?

In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid broadly defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him.

"I'm not Goodie two shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.

Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.

The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff's partners, firm and clients.

Reid said he viewed the two official meetings and the fundraiser as a single event. "I think it all was one, the way I look at it," he said.

One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid's office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.

Five days earlier, Reid met with Ayoob and the Sac & Fox tribe of Iowa for about 15 minutes to discuss at least two legislative requests. Reid's office said the senator never acted on those requests.

And strikingly enough, what did they get in return?

A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study Ayoob was lobbying for. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.

Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.

AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff's partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.

Certainly looks like a quid pro quo to me -- and what do Senate rules say about appearances?

Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations.

In other words, under Senate rules you are DIRTY! After all, it sure looks like there was a connection between your official actions and the fundraising event and donations. What would you be saying -- indeed, what have you said -- about Republicans in precisely that situation? I think we all know the answer.

Posted by: Greg at 05:05 AM | Comments (115) | Add Comment
Post contains 798 words, total size 5 kb.

I never realized what a sleazy character William Jefferson is -- I've been so busy focussing on the current dust-up over bribe-taking that I never looked into his background. Interestingly enough, no less than the New York Times has trotted out a litany of dirt stretching back a couple of decades. And the sad thing is that Jefferson, had he stuck to an ethical path, would be a superb role model to hold up to my students coming out of a poor background.

Representative William J. Jefferson has always liked to talk about growing up in an impoverished farm community, picking cotton for $3 a day and hitting the books hard enough to win his ticket out — a scholarship to Harvard Law School.

* * *

Mr. Jefferson was raised, along with eight brothers and sisters, on a small farm in northeast Louisiana, where, he said earlier this year, "our whole life revolved around that cotton field." His father left school after second grade, and his mother attended only through eighth grade.

As a child, Mr. Jefferson was such a good shot, his father once said, that when it came time to bag dinner, "if I wanted one rabbit, I'd give him one shell; and if I needed two rabbits, I'd give him two."

After he graduated from Southern University in Baton Rouge in 1969, Mr. Jefferson has said, he won his mother's blessing to go to Harvard Law School — she had never heard of it — only by explaining that it had been John F. Kennedy's college.

I've got kids who come from families like that -- kids whose families do migrant farm work during the summer, kids who work after school to make sure there is food on the table for the rest of the family. William Jefferson ought to be an example to them of how to succeed -- except he fell into stuff like this.

His rental business — which leased television sets and other appliances to people who could not afford to buy them — appeared on the delinquent list in a city sales-tax scandal in the 1980's. And a day after he was elected to Congress in 1990, the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was trying to clean up the mess from the collapse of savings institutions, sued him for $160,000 over an apartment-building loan on which he had quit making payments. He later settled the suit, with friends saying his investments had been hurt by a faltering economy.

Tax-cheat, gouger of the poor, slum-lord, deadbeat -- I suppose even some of that could be forgiven, overlooked, or explained. He was trying to serve his community, and he got in over his head. Not that anyone would buy such an argument if he were a Republican -- look at how the Democrats have gone after Michael Steele over personal financial issues not nearly so severe.

And then we get this, after he became the go-to guy for doing business in Africa during the Clinton administration. From that point forward, his dealings with companies seeking business opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa became more convoluted -- and much more shady.

Mr. Jefferson also became known as a strong advocate of freer trade and made at least nine trips to Africa to promote it, including one with President Clinton. He championed a 2000 law that extended trade benefits to sub-Saharan Africa. "Africa is a reservoir of opportunities for American businesses," he said then.

Over the years, Mr. Jefferson has received campaign contributions and free travel from individuals and companies seeking business in Africa, including iGate.

Campaign finance records show he received a $1,000 contribution as early as 2001 from Vernon L. Jackson, the chief executive of iGate, which makes technology to transmit high-speed Internet service across the wires used in some African nations. Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty this month to bribing Mr. Jefferson with more than $400,000 in cash and millions of shares of iGate stock.

Government documents show that Mr. Jackson told the F.B.I. that when he met Mr. Jefferson in late 2000, the congressman voluntarily helped promote iGate's products — a normal and legitimate action for a government official involved in trade issues. But according to the F.B.I. documents, in early 2001, the congressman's actions became improper when he said he would continue to use his influence on iGate's behalf only if Mr. Jackson made payments to a company, the ANJ Group, run by the Jefferson family. The iGate payments were disguised as consulting fees, the F.B.I. said.

Mr. Jefferson says these were private business dealings that had nothing to do with his work on the House committee.

But as part of a 2003 deal to distribute iGate's products, a Nigerian company, Netlink Digital Television, agreed to pay the congressman $5 per subscriber, the F.B.I. affidavit said, "in return for Jefferson's official assistance if the deal was successful."

House records show that in February 2004, Mr. Jefferson led a business delegation to Nigeria and Cameroon as a co-chairman of the Congressional Nigeria Caucus and the Africa Trade and Investment Caucus. The trip, which cost $16,313, according to the records, was paid for in part by iGate.

In 2005, the F.B.I. said, Mr. Jefferson wrote to the vice presidents of Nigeria and Ghana, and traveled to Ghana, seeking approval for iGate projects. Within a week after returning, the F.B.I. said, Mr. Jefferson used his influence to help a Virginia woman, Lori Modi, who had invested $3.5 million in the Nigeria project. He introduced her to officials at the Export-Import Bank of the United States and urged them to provide financing for the project.

But by then, Ms. Modi had asked the F.B.I. to investigate the deal.

Investigators said that in negotiating the deals, Mr. Jefferson had often cited his desire to provide for his five daughters, three of whom also have degrees from Harvard Law School.

From December 2004 through June 2005, the F.B.I. said in its affidavit, Mr. Jefferson increased his demands for equity in one Nigerian company, to 30 percent, to be split among his daughters. He also told an investor that one of his daughters had to be retained to do legal work, according to documents in the case.

Then, on July 30, 2005, when Mr. Jefferson met Ms. Modi at a Ritz-Carlton hotel, the F.B.I. said it supplied her with a briefcase with $100,000 in marked bills. Mr. Jefferson had told her the money would be needed to bribe Nigerian officials, the affidavit said.

As the F.B.I.'s video cameras zoomed in on him, the bureau said, Mr. Jefferson drove off with the briefcase on the seat of his Lincoln Town Car. And when agents raided his home four days later, $90,000 of the money turned up again, in the kitchen freezer.

Which leads us, of course, to the current crisis, sparked by Jefferson's refusal to cooperate with investigators or to turn over subpoenaed documents. From a position of great promise, Jefferson has fallen prey to his own baser instincts. I cannot help but see similarities to Duke Cunningham in Jefferson's fall.

Ed Lasky of American Thinker sees this article very differently.

* * *

I would also like to point to the interesting work of two bloggers -- A.J. Strata and Mac Ranger. Both have looked at this case and found another interesting angle -- the Clinton Administration connection to Jefferson. Who seems to be the prominent individual who may have played a major role in the development of Jefferson's African connections and portfolio? Joe Wilson -- Bush-basher and proven liar. Maybe his dishonesty goes even further.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Conservative Cat, Sed Vitae, Mark My Words, Stop the ACLU, Stuck on Stupid, Basil's Blog, Committe of Correspondence, NIF, Right Wing Nation

Posted by: Greg at 02:47 AM | Comments (116) | Add Comment
Post contains 1298 words, total size 9 kb.

At last -- a GOP leader willing to come out and state the obvious (updated) about the search of William Jefferson's office!

In a break with his counterparts in the House, the Senate's leader said today the FBI was within its right to search the office of a congressman under investigation in a bribery case.

"No House member, no senator, nobody in government should be above the law of the land, period," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

* * *

"I don't think it abused separation of powers," Frist said on "Fox News Sunday.

"I think there's allegations of criminal activity, and the American people need to have the law enforced."

Even Dick Durbin came close to stating a similar conclusion.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said there needs to be "hard look" at whether the FBI violated the Constitution. But he said the FBI has raided judge's chambers before, so there is precedent for crossing branches of government for searches.

He also said he wasn't sure the "speech and debate" protections in Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution were violated, as some of have argued.

That section states that members of Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

"I'm not sure that you can stretch it to apply to this situation," Durbin said. "In the next several weeks, we ought to take a hard look at it. I'm not going to rule it in or out at this moment."

Yeah, he wants to keep it around as a possible election year issue if the focus groups indicate that it might make a difference in November -- but since he notes that law enforcement has historically used search warrants to search the offices of judges, he can't really make the case for a violation of separation of powers. -- and his words effectively concede that.

So it is time for the leadership of the House of Representatives to quit demagoguing this issue -- and for the Presidnet to rescind his sequestration of the evidence against Jefferson and end the obstruction of the investigation of this crooked congressman.

UPDATE: Looks like Wyoming Congresswoman Barbara Cubin has broken with House leadership on this matter.

“Nobody in this country is above the law, especially those elected to create our laws,” she said. “They should, if anything, be held to a higher standard. They should not expect their congressional offices to be treated as a safe haven to store incriminating documents or illegal products such as drugs or stolen goods."

"With all due respect to my colleagues, criticizing the executive and judicial branches of our government for fully investigating a member of Congress suspected of criminal wrongdoing sends the wrong message and reflects poorly upon all of Congress,” she added. “Alleged corruption and crimes in both the private and public sector must be fully investigated, and those found guilty must face a fitting punishment. Members of Congress are no exception.”

In an interview, Cubin also disagreed with the calls for the government to immediately return all documents.

"As long as the constituents’ privacy is protected, I think that they ought to be able to look at whatever evidence there is in his office that he may have broken the law,” she said.

She explained that the leadershipÂ’s protests could further erode the publicÂ’s already skeptical view of Congress.

“What isn’t acceptable is that there’s a perception out in the country that members of Congress think that they are above the law, because they’re not above the law,” she said. “I think for the most part they don’t believe they are either. But just the perception that that is so, is not acceptable.”

She added that lawmakers do need to protect constituentsÂ’ private communications with their offices.

“They ought to be assured their private information will be kept private, but to think that the authorities shouldn’t be able to go into our offices in the pursuit of an investigation of criminal wrongdoing, I think it just sets us apart, and we ought not to be set apart,” she added.

Cubin acknowledged the significance of the fact that such a raid has never happened in U.S. history.

“I think we have to guard overzealous prosecution,” she said. “But members of Congress have to know that they have to abide by the laws of this land just like anyone else.”

And furthermore, the Wyoming Republican notes that the particular facts of this case make it clear that the warrant and search were appropriate.

Also, I came across this article by Robert F. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law.

But as the Supreme Court observed in the 1972 case of U.S. v. Brewster, the clause was never intended to immunize corrupt legislators who violate felony bribery statutes--laws that have expressly applied to members of Congress for more than 150 years. In Brewster, the court noted the clause was not written "to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility," adding: "Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator."

Such behavior is therefore not protected by the Constitution. The purpose of the Speech or Debate Clause was to protect the integrity of the legislative process, and the court noted that bribery, "perhaps even more than Executive power," would "gravely undermine legislative integrity and defeat the right of the public to honest representation."

A dozen years ago, I testified before the House Committee on Administration on this same basic issue. Newt Gingrich and other reformers were trying to bring Congress under the same ethics laws it had imposed upon the rest of the country, and some indignant legislators seemed confident that the laws were not supposed to apply to them. The hearing was held in a small room in a part of the Capitol Building off-limits to the public, with exactly enough chairs for members, staff and the three witnesses.

Two members of the public who managed to make their way to the room were turned away on the grounds that there was "no room" for public observers.

Critics of the Gingrich proposal did not hear what they wanted. Some seemed genuinely shocked when I informed them that, in Federalist No. 57, James Madison noted one of the constraints in the Constitution to prevent legislators from enacting "oppressive measures" was that "they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

Indeed. Let's get away from the notion of Congressional Aristocracy.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1191 words, total size 8 kb.

It looks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller, along with a number of their senior aides, made the president back down from a criminally stupid decision this week -- even though he still made the wrong one.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday.

Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.

The potential showdown was averted Thursday when President Bush ordered the evidence to be sealed for 45 days to give Congress and the Justice Department a chance to work out a deal.

Unfortunately, even the decision to seal the evidence pending "negotiations" was the wrong one, and indicates the fundamental weakness of George W. Bush at this time.Bush surrendered the authority of two branches of government at the invocation of a non-existant privilege of the third. And unfiortunately, this has only emboldened Congressional leaders in both houses to be more defiant.

On Friday, Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he had been meeting with Senate counsel to explore potential procedures and had given Mr. Frist a memorandum on a possible approach.

"The Justice Department is going to have to look at what we put in place and agree to it," Mr. Lott said. "I hope we can work it out."

But he said, "I am perfectly willing to get it on with the administration and take it right to the Supreme Court if they want to argue over it."

So much for cooling down the situation so that sides did not become entrenched. Lott is implicitly denying the clear constitutional mandates of the the Executive Brabch to see that the laws are faithfully executed and the Judicial Branch to issue warrants for searches under the Fourth Amendment. In effect, the Congressional position is that, unlike the rest of America and contrary to the clear language of the Constitution, it will decide when and if valid subpoenas and warrants may be executed. Seems to me that these clowns are looking at them selves as the Imperial Legislative Branch.

It seems, though, that the obscene obstruction of justice ordered by the President was motivated by politics.

"If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "

However, Lott's position makes it clear that the corrosive situation still exists. And having rewarded Hastert, who now concedes that the warrant was lawfully issued and that the FBI therefore had the authority to conduct the search of Jefferson's office.

House leaders conceded Friday that FBI agents with a court-issued warrant can legally search a congressman's office, but they said they want procedures established after agents with a court warrant took over a lawmaker's office last week.

* * *

In an editorial in USA Today on Friday, Hastert said he and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have directed House lawyers "to develop reasonable protocols and procedures that will make it possible for the FBI to go into congressional offices to constitutionally execute a search warrant."

So even though there is consensus on the fact that the Jefferson search was legal, the FBI and Justice Department are to be shackled for totally speciousreasons -- just to save the working relationship between Congress and the White House.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 5 kb.

Unless we start seeing a sharp reversal in conduct, I'm done with George W. Bush. This isn't about politics -- it is about the proper stewardship of the laws and the Constitution. I'm disgusted by his intervention in the Jefferson case.

President Bush personally ordered the Justice Department today to seal records seized from the Capitol Hill office of a Democratic congressman, marking a remarkable intervention by the nation's chief executive into an ongoing criminal probe of alleged corruption.

The order culminates an escalating constitutional confrontation between the Justice Department and the House of Representatives, where lawmakers have demanded that the FBI return items seized during a Saturday night raid of the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).

In a six-paragraph statement, Bush said he issued the order to give the Justice Department and angry lawmakers more time to work out an agreement on how to resolve the conflict. The materials, which have been described in court filings as two boxes of documents and copies of computer files, will be held by Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who is not involved in the Jefferson probe, Bush's statement said.

"Our government has not faced such a dilemma in more than two centuries," Bush said. "Yet after days of discussions, it is clear these differences will require more time to be worked out."

I'm willing to forgive policy differences --but this is a case of allowing a spurious claim of Congressional privilege to trump the enforcement of a duly issued search warrant in a felony case. There is nothing here to negotiate and mediate, and this decision indicates that we have a Chief Executive too weak-kneed to allow the Executive and Judicial branches to carry out their Constitutional perogatives lest it imperil his chances of legislative success --even at the cost of permitting public corruption to continue unabated. This is not to say that I will not side with George W. Bush when I believe him to be right, but rather that I will no longer extend to him the presumption that he is right, nor the level of support that I would ordinarily extend to a president of my party. I think this is that big a deal.

Is our existance as a Constitutional Republic firmly rooted in the rule of law at an end?

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Sister Toldjah, Pro Cynic, The Anchoress, Webloggin, Blue Crab Boulevard, Strata-Sphere, Kitty Litter, GOPBloggers, Blogs for Bush, Irish Pennants

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, the Courts have spoken on this matter a number of times, and the Washington Post does an excellent job of summing the matter up for us.

The Speech and Debate Clause, contained in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, says that members of the House and Senate "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

It was meant to safeguard the independence of Congress against executive branch intimidation, of the kind the Founders had witnessed under King George III's colonial governors, and harassment from private lawsuits.

Over the years, however, some lawmakers invoked the clause to shield corrupt activities. Given the clause's exception for serious crimes, the Supreme Court has had to define the scope of its protections.

In a series of cases during the 1960s and '70s, the court drew a protective line around papers, speeches and activities that are "essential" to legislative acts or the motives behind them, such as floor statements or committee reports. But it declined to protect anything not closely connected to legislative work, such as remarks to the press or constituent newsletters.

In 1972, for example, the court ruled that the Speech and Debate Clause could not shield Sen. Daniel B. Brewster (D-Md.) from prosecution for accepting a bribe in exchange for his promise to vote a certain way on postage rate legislation. (Brewster pleaded no contest to the charge.)

That same year, the court ruled that a Senate aide, though covered by the Speech and Debate Clause, had to respond to a grand jury subpoena to answer questions about whether Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) had violated federal law by arranging for a private book publisher to print the Pentagon Papers. (The Justice Department later dropped the case.)

In 1979, the court ruled that Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) could be sued for defamation by a scientist whose work he had mocked in a news release and newsletter.

But it also ruled in a separate case that the government could not use a House member's past votes or speeches as evidence of his motive for committing an alleged offense.

And a federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that the Justice Department was not entitled to look through the telephone records of a member of Congress.

So generally speaking, the protections afforded Congress by the Speech and Debate clause are pretty narrow -- and do not extend to shielding corruption from investigation and prosecution.

A ccouple of law professors also weigh in on the matter.

"An official legislative act is immune, but interference with anything beyond that" is not covered by the constitutional provision that shields Congress from executive and judicial branch interference, said Michael J. Glennon, a former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who teaches at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The precise materials sought in the raid were blacked out in a publicly released copy of the search warrant, but Jefferson (D-La.) said in a court filing yesterday that FBI agents took two boxes of documents and copied computer hard drives.

Both the search warrant for Jefferson's office and the raid to execute it were unprecedented in the 219-year history of the Constitution. In that sense, they violated an interbranch understanding rooted in the separation of powers -- and, indeed, in the events of 1642, when King Charles I burst into Parliament and attempted to arrest five members of the House of Commons, triggering the English Civil War.

But the taboo against searching congressional offices was a matter of tradition, not black-letter constitutional law.

"It's really a matter of etiquette," said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale University. "I don't see any constitutional principle here."

But that is precisely teh issue here -- there is no violation of the Constitution. Custom has decreed that the Executive branch take a less confrontational appoach to such investigations -- but in this case, there has been teh violation of another custom, namely that a member cooperate with the investigation, which Jeferson and his lawyers have refused to do. Thus the Judicial Branch has weighed in and found probable cause for a warrant to be issued -- and left open room for Jefferson to challenge the search of the office and the seizure of any and all materials, exactly as is the right of any other citizen.

And I'd like to comment upon the responses of Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi.

"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi said in a rare joint statement.

As noted above, they are clearly wrong in their characterization of the actions of the Justice Department. There is clearly no basis for demanding the return of these materials to Jefferson on the basis of any Constitutional provision, nor does "custom" constitute a basis for the laws not being enforced.

Furthermore, I am appalled by the weakness of this portion of their statement.

Once the papers are returned, "Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights," the statement said.

Unfortunately, that assertion ignores the history of this case. Sure, he "can and should" cooperate. But the reality is that he has not cooperated, and is unlikely to do so in the future if the past is truly prologue in this case. And Hastert and Pelosi have no means to enforce Jefferson's cooperation with the investigation -- that power only lies in the hands of the Executive and Judicial branches working together in the request for and issuance of a search warrant and its execution, which we saw over the weekend.

I applaud the position of the justice Department on this matter.

A Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations, said after the Hastert-Pelosi joint statement was released that "the department will not agree to any arrangement or demand that would harm or hurt an ongoing law enforcement investigation."

"We are in discussions with them on something that would preserve law enforcement interests while also allaying their institutional concerns," the official said. "But our position is that we did it legally and we did it lawfully, and we're not going to back away from that."

In other words, compliance with the mandates of the Constitution are sufficient safeguard, and claims of some sort of Congressional immunity from the Constitution are rejected.

By the way, the Congresscrook in question, Louisiana Representative William Jefferson (D-$90,000 in the freezer) is making use of the one legitimate remedy available to him -- he is challenging the warrant in court.

Jefferson challenged the weekend raid in a motion filed yesterday in federal court. The motion sought the return of the documents and "immediate relief," including that the FBI and Justice Department stop reviewing seized items; that the materials be sequestered in a locked, secure place; and that the FBI raid team file a report with the court detailing which documents were reviewed and what was done to sequester the documents.

The motion was filed with Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who signed the Saturday-night search warrant.

This is the appropriate venue for resolving the issue at hand, not the political arena or a congressional hearing room.

I paricularly like the summary of the case history contained in the Washington Post article. Be sure to read it.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Free Constitution, Blue Star Chronicles, Bacon Bits, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1329 words, total size 9 kb.

I was sure there was an explanation for it – and the Washington Post supplies that explanation.

Justice Department and FBI officials yesterday vigorously defended a weekend raid on the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), arguing that the unprecedented tactic was necessary because Jefferson and his attorneys had refused to comply with a subpoena for documents issued more nine months ago in a bribery investigation.

So after months of stonewalling by Jefferson and his lawyers, law enforcement availed itself of the legal and constitutional processes that it is permitted to use to root investigate criminal activities. Rather than follow the historical customs regarding investigations of corrupt lawmakers by cooperating with law enforcement, it was Jefferson who violated those practices by claiming a level of privilege that does not exist – congressional immunity from investigation in public corruption cases. Duke Cunningham didn’t claim that, nor has Congressman Ney. Tom DeLay has turned over whole file-cabinets of information to prosecutors down here in Texas – even voluntarily waiving the statute of limitations so that the political hack in Austin could have sufficient time to trump up charges – but William Jefferson won’t even comply with a lawful subpoena. Somebody please explain to me how it is the FBI and Justice Department that are acting in an unreasonable fashion.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with the overweening arrogance of powerful public figures who do not believe that the law applies to them. In that case, I long for the resulting decision of the Supreme Court – one which will either reaffirm that the rule of law applies to elected officials, or which will announce the demise of the American Republic and the necessity of replacing the current system which conforms with our nation’s founding principles.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

I was sure there was an explanation for it – and the Washington Post supplies that explanation.

Justice Department and FBI officials yesterday vigorously defended a weekend raid on the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), arguing that the unprecedented tactic was necessary because Jefferson and his attorneys had refused to comply with a subpoena for documents issued more nine months ago in a bribery investigation.

So after months of stonewalling by Jefferson and his lawyers, law enforcement availed itself of the legal and constitutional processes that it is permitted to use to root investigate criminal activities. Rather than follow the historical customs regarding investigations of corrupt lawmakers by cooperating with law enforcement, it was Jefferson who violated those practices by claiming a level of privilege that does not exist – congressional immunity from investigation in public corruption cases. Duke Cunningham didn’t claim that, nor has Congressman Ney. Tom DeLay has turned over whole file-cabinets of information to prosecutors down here in Texas – even voluntarily waiving the statute of limitations so that the political hack in Austin could have sufficient time to trump up charges – but William Jefferson won’t even comply with a lawful subpoena. Somebody please explain to me how it is the FBI and Justice Department that are acting in an unreasonable fashion.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with the overweening arrogance of powerful public figures who do not believe that the law applies to them. In that case, I long for the resulting decision of the Supreme Court – one which will either reaffirm that the rule of law applies to elected officials, or which will announce the demise of the American Republic and the necessity of replacing the current system which conforms with our nation’s founding principles.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

To read this article, that is precisely the claim that is being put forward by members of both bodies from both sides of the aisle.

An unusual FBI raid of a Democratic congressman's office over the weekend prompted complaints yesterday from leaders in both parties, who said the tactic was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), who is at the center of a 14-month investigation for allegedly accepting bribes for promoting business ventures in Africa, also held a news conference in which he denied any wrongdoing and denounced the raid on his office as an "outrageous intrusion." Jefferson, who has not been charged, vowed to seek reelection in November.

"There are two sides to every story; there are certainly two sides to this story," he said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained."

The Saturday raid of Jefferson's quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building posed a new political dilemma for the leaders of both parties, who felt compelled to protest his treatment while condemning any wrongdoing by the lawmaker.

The dilemma was complicated by new details contained in an 83-page affidavit unsealed on Sunday, including allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.

So what is the problem that some folks are pointing to here? Is there one at all? IÂ’ll let some of them tell you. Some are elected officials, some are former staffers, and some are legal scholars.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation" but that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

* * *

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."

Well, if we were going to deal with issues of historical precedent, then Jefferson would be cooperating with the investigation. He isn't, prompting the more adversarial approach.

Legal experts are divided on the issue.

Many legal experts and defense lawyers agreed with Gingrich. Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor who served as solicitor and deputy general counsel of the House for 11 years, called the raid "an intimidating tactic that has never before been used against the legislative branch."

"The Framers, who were familiar with King George III's disdain for their colonial legislatures, would turn over in their graves," Tiefer said.

Washington defense lawyer Stanley M. Brand, a former general counsel for the House who has represented numerous lawmakers accused of wrongdoing, also questioned the government's strategy.

"This is really an over-the-top move, and it could create some real blow-back problems for them in the courts," he said.

But Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general in the Bush administration who is now a Georgetown University law professor, said that "the raid on his offices itself does not define a constitutional issue."

The constitutional privilege for lawmakers does not "expand to insulate everything that goes on in a congressional office, especially if there's allegations of abuse of process or bribery," Dinh said. ". . . The fine line is whether or not it relates to a legislative process or not, not whether they've raided his office."

So what constitutional provision are they referring to that they believe gives Jefferson immunity from the same laws that apply to every other American? It is found in Article I, Section 6, Clause i.

Article I, Section 6, Clause i The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. (italics added)

Now letÂ’s break this down.

The FBI had a valid warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate, authorizing the search under the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. The limits placed upon the agents conducting the search were meticulously designed to keep from interfering with any privileged materials. So far, we are seeing actions in conformity with the Constitution, and special deference being given based upon the respect due a co-equal branch of government.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asked about the search, said he understands the concerns raised about FBI agents raiding a congressional office.
"I will admit that these were unusual steps that were taken in response to an unusual set of circumstances," Gonzales said.

The search warrant affidavit spells out special procedures put in place to ensure the search did not infringe on privileged material. The procedures include use of a "filter team" of prosecutors and FBI agents unconnected to the investigation. They would review any seized items or documents and determine whether the documents are privileged and therefore immune from the search warrant.

If the status of a document is in doubt, the filter team will give the documents to a judge for a definitive ruling before giving them to case prosecutors, according to the affidavit.

There is the question of whether these charges can be brought while Congress is in session. In light of the fact that the matter at hand (accepting bribes) is a felony, Representative Jefferson is subject to indictment, arrest, and trial while Congress is in session. Such charges and arrest are therefore clearly contemplated and permitted by the Founders – and therefore an investigation is equally permissible. And in light of historical precedent, the investigation and bringing of charges are accepted practice.

What is more, the search is for materials related to an alleged felony, not words in a speech or a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. It is not JeffersonÂ’s words, but his actions, that led to this search, and a search of his offices is a legitimate exercise of police powers to the degree that his action (accepting a bribe) may have impacted the operations of his Congressional office. Again, given the meticulous procedures put in place when the warrant was issued, there can be no legitimate question regarding the respect shown for the co-equal legislative branch. Not only is this not a case of the Executive and legislative branches operating outside of their proper spheres, it is a case of them operating within those spheres to serve as a check and balance upon Congress.

Nothing in Article I, Section 6, Clause i can be legitimately interpreted to apply to the current situation – nor can this provision of the Constitution be held to exempt the criminal conduct of a lawmaker from the ordinary operation of the law in this situation. I therefore find the outrage expressed at this search to be specious in nature, premised not upon the text of the Constitution itself but rather upon the belief that the separation of powers confers a degree of immunity beyond that which the blueprint of American government provides.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1390 words, total size 9 kb.

The Houston area was shocked yesterday by the loss of one of its more colorful characters. County Treasurer Jack Cato passed away during heart surgery at the age of 70.

Harris County Treasurer Jack Cato, a former award-winning newsman and Houston police spokesman, died Monday of heart failure while undergoing tests at St. Luke's Hospital for a heart condition. He was 70.

Cato had served as county treasurer since 1999 and had defeated former city councilman and mayoral candidate Orlando Sanchez in the Republican primary in March.

He was expected to breeze into a third term as county treasurer in the November general election.

As he had in every venture he had sought, his friends said, Cato endeared himself to those around him.

Jack Cato is survived by his wife, Shirley; his sons, Chris and John; and seven grandchildren. They have my prayers and deepest sympathies at this time.

His is an obituary filled with colorful stories of his days as a reporter and editor here in Houston. Let me offer some samples.

As famous for his news scoops as his idiosyncrasies, Cato reigned in the world populated by cops and cop reporters — the once dark and dirty underbelly of Houston.

He was stabbed in the back while covering the 1978 Moody Park riot and then gave an interview while being examined in a hospital shortly afterward.

Cato was as famous for showing the scar from his stab wound — he once auctioned off a look at a fundraiser — as he was for the actual stabbing.

Mass murderer Elmer Wayne Henley confessed in a call to his mother on Cato's car phone.

He once stopped a fleeing drug suspect with a gun-shaped hand and a firm shout to halt.

When he was refused the name of a heart-transplant patient, he donned surgical scrubs and took a look at the man's medical chart. In 1976, he tried to get one of his employees at Houston News Service to sneak into a Harris County morgue and get a picture of Howard Hughes.

"He was more concerned with getting the story than anything else — that was Cato," said Phil Archer, a KPRC reporter who got his start in the news business from Cato. "Cato was the last of that era, the two-fisted, cigar-smoking cop beat reporter."

He got into politics in the late 1990s, and was elected to two terms as county treasurer. He faced a strong challenger in this year's primary, and beat him handily. I'll concede I endorsed that challenger, but only because I had been hearing rumors of health probmems for some time and had become concerned about whether or not Jack was still up to the job. Sadly, it appears that he was not, though his death yesterday did come as a bolt out of the blue to many of us involved in Harris County politics.

Cato's death leaves a vacant office to be filled and a new candidate to be named for the November election.

The Harris County Commissioners Court will meet to appoint Cato's successor through the November general election. The Harris County Republican executive committee will then name a replacement for the November ballot.

I'm sure I'll start hearing about potential replacements soon, since my job as precinct chair makes me part of the executive committee. I hope that the potential candidates at least wait until after the funeral before they start seeking to take Jack's place.

But I knw that whoever follows him in office and on the ballot will be no where near the stuff of legends that Jack Cato was.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.

Now here's a shocker for you!

Elections Are Crux Of GOP's Strategy

Elections are always the first consideration for a political party -- they are the very reason they exist. Even more than governmance, political parties are concerned with achieving and maintaing power so that they can hold and exercise teh power of governance.

Confronting the worst poll numbers seen in the West Wing since his father went down to defeat, President Bush and his team are focusing on the fall midterm elections as the best chance to salvage his presidency and are building a campaign strategy around tax cuts, immigration and national security.

Modern history offers no precedent of a president climbing from a hole as deep as the one Bush finds himself in, and White House strategists have concluded that no staff shake-up or other quick fix will alter their trajectory. In the sixth year of his tenure, they said, Bush cannot easily change the minds of voters whose impressions are fully formed.

And so short of some event outside their direct control -- such as a dramatic turnaround in Iraq or the capture of Osama bin Laden -- Bush advisers have turned to the election as the most important chance to rewrite the troubled narrative of his presidency and allow him to recover enough to govern his last two years, Republican strategists said. With that in mind, Bush last week called on the National Guard to help stop illegal immigrants, signed tax-cut legislation and headlined three party fundraisers.

In other words, the President and other political leaders int he GOP are doing what politicians do -- keeping an eye firmly on the elections so that they can continue to wield the powers of elective office.

Duh.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

But if this were, for example, Tom DeLay and not Democrat Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), it would be plastered on the front page of every newspaper in america as more evidence of a "culture of corruption" in the GOP.

But it is just business as usual for a Louisiana Democrat.

More than a dozen FBI agents raided the Capitol Hill office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) last night, searching for documents related to an ongoing public corruption investigation, a government official said.

As many as 15 agents wearing business suits began searching the office in the Rayburn House Office Building about 7:15 p.m. and were expected to continue possibly into the afternoon today, the official said shortly before 4 a.m.

Debbie Weierman, an FBI spokeswoman, said that "the search was conducted this evening in conjunction with an ongoing FBI public corruption investigation."

Portions of the search warrant are expected to be unsealed later today.

Jefferson's lawyer is, in typical defense attorney form, outraged.

Robert Trout, Jefferson's attorney, complained that FBI agents refused to allow him or the general counsel of the House to witness the search.

"The government's actions in obtaining a search warrant to search the offices of a United States Congressman were outrageous," Trout said in a statement, the Associated Press reported. "There were no exigent circumstances necessitating this action. The government knew that the documents were being appropriately preserved while proper procedures were being followed. We are dismayed by this action. The documents weren't going anywhere and the prosecutors knew it."

Yeah. Sure. Isn't this the guy who got a rescue craft and emergency personnel to take him to his home in the days following Hurricane Katrina to remove material from his home -- material that included a laptop computer, briefcases, and boxes of documents that may well be related to the case? Do you want to assure us again that nothing would have happened to the material sought in the warrant if it had not been immediately executed?

And let's not forget this little tidbit from teh end of the story.

The investigation became public on Aug. 3 when FBI agents raided Jefferson's homes in New Orleans and Northeast Washington, where they found about $90,000 in cash in his freezer, law enforcement sources have said.

They also raided five other locations, including the Kentucky and New Jersey offices of iGate Inc., which has become central to the investigation.

I say again -- why isn't this story getting the play that DeLay, Ney, and Cunningham get> Because William Jefferson is black, Democrat, and from teh corrupt state of Louisiana, so nothing better is expected of him. Ethics rules and laws apply to Republicns only.

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Stop the ACLU, Expose the Left, and No Agenda.

UPDATE: GatewayPundit notes that the FBI caught Jefferson on tape taking a $100,000 bribe. Instapundit reminds us of an earlier Jefferson indiscretion -- is the cash linked to the bribe in question? Additional news coverage at these sites.

Posted by: Greg at 04:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 4 kb.

Proof positive that not only is New Orleans the dumbest place to build a city in the United States, but that it is also the dumbest city in the United States.

Voters here endorsed the leadership of incumbent Mayor C. Ray Nagin Saturday, narrowly approving his reelection bid even though his term was marked by the apocalyptic chaos of Hurricane Katrina, his controversial "chocolate city" remarks and the stalled recovery.

Nagin overcame a strong challenge by Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, the scion of a politically powerful clan, who outspent him by large margins.

Many here, such as City Council President Oliver Thomas, considered Nagin's victory the "biggest upset ever." With all precincts reporting, Nagin had 52.3 percent, or 59,460 votes, to Landrieu's 47.7 percent, or 54,131 votes.

The vote split largely along racial lines. Nagin won by getting the support of about 80 percent of black voters and about 20 percent of white votes, according to election analyst Greg Rigamer.

Many here called the election a pivotal moment in city history. Scores of voters arrived after a five-hour bus trip from Houston. Some emerged from cramped FEMA trailers parked in otherwise abandoned neighborhoods. And even those who came from the comfort of houses untouched by the flooding said the only issues that mattered were the hurricane and its aftermath.

Let's remember some simple facts. It was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who failed to order an evacuation. It was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who failed to order those school buses to be used for evacuation purposes. And it was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who decided the SuperDome and Convention Center would be fantastic places to keep folks for the duration of the storm and beyond. But for some reason, the people of New Orleans want to keep their incompetent mayor around for another term. No doubt we will soon hear that this is george Bush's fault, just like all the failures of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco.

As far as this Houston area resident is concerned, I hope that all those folks who traveled by bus from our area stay in New Orleans -- the crime rate in the area dropped significantly as they crossed the county line, and the collective IQ of texas was raised when they crossed they crossed the Sabine River into Louisiana.

Here's hoping that the people of the "chocolate city" realize that they will be getting it up the "Hershey highway" as long as they continue to select the sort of corrupt and incompetent officials that are legion in Louisiana.

More At Stop the ACLU">Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 06:02 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.