What do the many professors and intellectuals who have rejected teh former president's recent book know that CarterÂ’s fellow terrorist-loving leftists donÂ’t?

This time it is another Emory University professor, Melvin Konner.

TO: Dr. John Hardman, M.D. Executive Director, The Carter Center

Dear Dr. Hardman,

I am sorry to say that after careful and frankly painful reflection, I have decided not to participate in your group advising President Carter and The Carter Center regarding his recent book on the Middle East conflict. During our telephone conversation on December 11 (perhaps not incidentally my late father's birthday) I spoke from my heart when I agreed to participate; it is not easy for me to lose one of my greatest heroes.

In less than a week since then, events have progressed in such a way as to persuade me that I cannot in good conscience participate in such an effort.

First, President Carter has proved capable of distorting the truth about such meetings and consultations in public remarks following them. In particular, he mischaracterized the meeting he had with the executive committee of the Board of Rabbis of Greater Phoenix, saying he and they had positive interactions and prayed together, when in fact others present stated that the meeting was highly confrontational and that the prayer was merely a pro forma closing invocation. (See "Letters," The New York Times, Dec. 15, 2006, p. A32.) However modest my reputation may be, I will not jeopardize it by participating in a meeting that might subsequently be so starkly misconstrued.

Second, in television interviews I have seen over the past week, President Carter has revealed himself to be so rigid and inflexible in his views that he seems to me no longer capable of dialogue. In an interview with Soledad O'Brien of CNN he failed to address a single one of the criticisms she quoted from various experts in a very serious tone of voice, pointing out that she was not reading the worst of the criticisms; he began laughing inappropriately while she spoke, and when she asked him how he would respond to the criticisms he stated, "With laughter." In a number of interviews I have seen and heard him respond to highly specific questions merely by stating again and again in one form or another, "My book is completely accurate." This rigidity of thought and complete failure to engage criticisms from much greater experts than me about his numerous and serious errors of commission and omission make it clear to me that an attempt by me to advise him would be pointless and counterproductive. In addition, his repeated public insinuations that the Jews control the media and the Congress˜well-worn anti-Semitic slurs that, especially coming from President Carter, present a clear and present danger to American Jews˜are offensive to me beyond what I can politely say.

Third, I am now carefully rereading parts of this very puzzling and problematic book, having read it through once quickly. I am not going to point out again here all the mistakes and misrepresentations pointed out by others (to take just one example, his flat contradiction of the accounts by President Clinton and Dennis Ross of events at Camp David at which they were present and he was not)˜none of which he has answered—nor explain the grotesque distortion caused by his almost completely ignoring Jewish history between ancient times and 1947 (he devotes five lines on page 64 to that millennial tragic story and mentions the Holocaust twice; his "Historical Chronology" at the outset contains nothing˜nothing˜between 1939 and 1947). However, I will call your attention to a sentence on p. 213 that had not stood out for me the first time I read it: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

As someone who has lived his life as a professional reader and writer, I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. This sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger.

I am sure you will now understand why I cannot participate in your group advising President Carter.

However, if I may, I will share this advice to you: If you want The Carter Center to survive and thrive independently in the future, you must take prompt and decisive steps to separate the Center from President Carter's now irrevocably tarnished legacy. You must make it clear on your web site and in appropriately circulated press releases that President Carter does not speak for The Carter Center on the subject of the Middle East conflict or the political role of the American Jewish community. If you do not do this, then President Carter's damage to his own effectiveness as a mediator, not to mention to his reputation and legacy will extend, far more tragically in my view, to The Carter Center and all its activities.

Meanwhile, in my own private and modest public capacity as a university professor and writer, I will work very hard in the foreseeable future to help discredit President Carter's biased, intemperate and inflexible mischaracterizations of the reality of Israel, Palestine, terrorism, and the American Jewish community. I will urge all my colleagues and students to do the same. And, most painfully, I will discourage any connection with The Carter Center until such time as you make perfectly and publicly clear your independence from President Carter on this tragically difficult set of questions, which he has chosen so dangerously to distort and oversimplify.

I emphasize that I have been a decades-long supporter of President Carter and of The Carter Center and have defended him, his legacy, and The Center's work at every possible opportunity. It is a grave loss for me to acknowledge that this will no longer be possible.

I applaud Dr. Konner, whose understanding of Carters books, articles, and statements seem to be in concert with mine (and yes, I have had the chance to read the book fully now), and those of numerous other academics and commentators on this issue.

And I would particularly like to highlight the one statement made in the book that is supportive of the murder of Jews.

: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

No two ways about it – Jimmy is unwilling to tolerate the shedding of even one drop of Arab blood by Israelis seeking to defend themselves from terrorists, but is willing to countenance the continued murder of Jews to bring about the political solution he seeks. If that is not anti-Semitism, the term has no meaning.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1193 words, total size 7 kb.

After all, we are talking about Chicago politicians.

Aldermen said on Tuesday they were upset about one of their fellow alderman's description of the city council.

"Now, we have another element in every one of our campaigns -- this perception that we're all crooks," said Alderman Freddrenna Lyle of the 6th Ward. "Which is the furthest thing from the truth."

On Monday, Alderman Arenda Troutman was arrested on suspicion of bribery. Federal agents said she had accepted a $5,000 bribe. According to government tapes, there are recordings of Troutman saying that, "well, the thing is, most aldermen, most politicians are hos."

Given the history of Chicago politics, this just seems to be an accurate assessment of the nature of the beast.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

A minority of Senators can still prevent a majority from even discussing the public's business -- and the body voted to honor a corrupt, philandering drunk from the minority party by placing him third in line of gubernatorial succession.

The first disgrace was the inability of Senator Dan Patrick to get even a single additional senator to vote in favor of majority rule in the Senate by repealing the "blocker bill" rule.

He came, he spoke, he did not conquer.

Dan Patrick, Houston's fiery star of conservative talk radio, filled the Texas Senate chamber with his booming voice Tuesday, but his words fell flat.

Patrick's fight to kill a long-standing Senate rule requiring a two-thirds vote to debate a bill failed, 30-1.

* * *

For freshman Sen. Patrick, the day was more about challenging tradition than embracing it.

"I expected the vote to be 30-1," he said in an interview. "No one wants to let a rookie freshman change the rules of the Senate. I did not plan on diving into the pool on the first day, not in the deep end."

Patrick campaigned on trying to replace the two-thirds rule with a simple majority vote, a change that he thinks would give Republicans better control of the agenda.

The current Senate makeup is 20 Republicans and 11 Democrats. It takes 21 votes to bring a bill up for debate.

The rule, Patrick told his fellow senators, stifles debate.

"No controversial bill is brought up for honest debate on the floor," he said, adding that people want senators to take a stand on difficult policy matters.

"As long as we have the two-thirds rule, that doesn't happen," he said. "What's wrong with majority rule? It was good enough for Jefferson, for Madison and Monroe. It's not good enough for the Texas Senate?"

Since it was clear from the start that Patrick had no chance of prevailing, he kept his remarks under 10 minutes.

Looks to me like it doesn't really matter that we have nearly 2/3 of the Senate if we can't even get a majority to vote in favor of allowing a majority to talk about the business of the people of the state of Texas. Shame on every last GOP member who sided with Democrats against the people of Texas.

But equally troubling was the decision to honor Senator Mario Gallegos, a Democrat, by making him president pro tem of the Senate.

The Texas Senate's first day began on a far more poignant note, however, as the upper chamber honored recovering alcoholic Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, naming him the Senate's new president pro tempore.

As third in line of succession to the governorship, Gallegos will serve as "Governor for a Day" sometime during the session while Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst are "out of the state."

"For a young man who grew up in the barrio of Houston, this is truly a humbling experience for me," Gallegos said in his acceptance speech, joined on the dais by his wife, Theresa, and mother, Olga.

And that is strangely appropriate, given that Gallegos has been using Mom's address to run for office while living outside his district and carrying on with a stripper. And let's make no mistake -- this was about saving Gallegos from a possible primary challenge from fellow Democrats disgusted with his actions.

Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, lauded the ailing Gallegos for undergoing rehabilitation for alcoholism last spring.

Whitmire told senators he's confident that his "best friend" in the Senate has stopped drinking.

"I've been here long enough to see the human side of state representatives and state senators," Whitmire said. "We're not perfect. Mario's got some issues, but he's the first senator I've been familiar with that recognized his problem, sought help, went public and has been successful with his sobriety."

Whitmire then issued a warning at-large to anyone thinking of challenging Gallegos for his Senate seat: "You mess with Mario Gallegos while he's in recovery, while he's doing well and representing his district, you mess with Mario, and you're messing with me and the rest of this Senate."

Frankly, this is a disgusting show of buddy-buddy politics -- and a disgraceful decision on the part of the Senate.

I don't really ahve much to say about the race for Speaker of the House her in texas. I don't like Craddick and didn't like his challengers, because none of them are right on property tax relief, or on teacher pay and benefits. I just didn't have a dog in this hunt.

But I'm still a bit pleased that Craddick won.

After all, the lefty blogs are howling.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 788 words, total size 5 kb.

Speaking as a Republican who supports the President on Iraq, I want to urge "symbolic votes" and hold significant policy votes on the proposals to cut funds and mandate troop withdrawal from Iraq. After all, the American people deserve substantive debate and substantive votes on substantive policies, not window dressing and political posturing from those who seek surrender and wish to undercut the president and the crusade against Islamofascist jihadis.

Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President BushÂ’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.

Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.

The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.

The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.

In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.

So come on, Democrats, you have teh power -- have the testicular fortitude to use it by voting on actual legislation, not non-binding resolutions, on what we all agree is the defining issue of the day.

Or is it that you lack the will and the courage to actually stand up and be counted when it comes time for a real implementation of your principles -- just like you lack the will to use America's military might to spread freedom and American values abroad in the face of those who seek to destroy both.

Oh, and a closing note -- who chose the picture of harry Reid that makes him look like a plaster saint, complete with halo?

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

It is great to be able to report this bit of good news.

Sen. Tim Johnson's condition has been upgraded from critical to fair, four weeks after he was hospitalized for a brain hemorrhage, his office said yesterday.

The South Dakota Democrat, who was taken to the hospital Dec. 13 and underwent emergency surgery, remains in intensive care.

"The senator continues to make progress," spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said. "The next step would be rehabilitation, and we hope that would happen within the week."

Johnson's office has said that his recovery is expected to take several months. The surgery was done to correct a condition called arteriovenous malformation, which involves tangled arteries.

And as i've said in the past, I don't give a damn about all the political calculations and machinations associated with the senator's illness -- I'm more concerned about his recovery. That matter is significantly more important than any other matter, because Johnson is a fellw human being first, and a politician second.

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney got a needed boost to his presidential effort yesterday -- an infusion of $6.5 million from a 400 person phone-a-thon yesterday. Paul Mirengoff from Power Line reports the following.

Mitt Romney's call-a-thon, "National Call Day," is underway. It's the campaign's first big fundraising event, and involves approximately 400 fundraisers from across the country. I'm told that the Romney people hope they will be able to announce impressive results later today.

Meanwhile, David Frum explains why he thinks Romney has a fighting chance, notwithstanding the presence of heavyweights John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. To Frum, it's about Romney's record of competence and problem-solving, based on "a voracious appetite for data, a willingness to hear contrary opinions and a cool and deliberate decision-making style."

Not a bad single day total -- and indicative that there is a base of support among Republicans unhappy with the other two front-runners.

The bloggers from My Man Mitt live-blogged the event, and have a great photo from the end.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 2 kb.

It looks like Mitt is surging in Florida.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is making Florida a key part of his strategy to challenge front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination for president.

To carry that off, Romney is appealing to the state's influential religious and social conservative community, and building on tacit support from former Gov. Jeb Bush.

Given the popularity of the former governor and First Brother, Romney is in a great position to get the delegates from this key Republican state. And while current governor Charlie Crist is said to lean towards McCain, that could change.

And Romney is certainly building on the Jeb Bush legacy.

Romney, who just left office as Massachusetts governor and announced formation of an exploratory presidential campaign committee, trails both McCain and Giuliani in national polls.

So far, however, he's well ahead of both in building a Florida organization.

His Florida organizing began attracting attention last year when his political action committee, Commonwealth PAC, hired two of Bush's top political operatives: longtime strategist Sally Bradshaw and fundraiser Ann Herberger, a key player in the phenomenal Bush gubernatorial campaign fundraising machine.

Romney has since announced that two other major Bush political backers, former state party Chairman Al Cardenas and former Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings, have joined the PAC's Florida steering committee.

Bush is publicly neutral in the primary for now, but Bradshaw confirmed that he suggested she talk to Romney about the campaign.

Some GOP insiders say Romney has sought to recruit Bush as his running mate. Like the other candidates, Romney covets the fundraising machine built by the Bush family.

Bush has ruled out running for president himself in 2008, but hasn't ruled out a running mate slot. Romney backers wouldn't say whether he's broached the subject with Bush.

I'd certainly wait to see where the poll number of a certain OTHER Bush are before offering Jeb a spot on the ticket, but I think it s fair to say that the former governor is likely to find a Cabinet-level home in any Romney administration.

Unfortunately, there are still those nagging questions about religion. Take this example.

How, the South Carolina Republican activist asked presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, could he square Mormon doctrine with civil rights or monogamy?

Cyndi Mosteller understood that church founder and prophet Joseph Smith taught that black skin was a curse visited upon descendants of Cain. And that a man should be able to take multiple wives.

Romney told her Mormons no longer practice such beliefs. For almost 30 years African-Americans have been in the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church renounced polygamy in 1890.

Mosteller, chairwoman of the Charleston County Republican Party, wasnÂ’t satisfied.

“He’s going to have to defend these positions,” she said, “or reject his faith.”

Such is the dilemma for the former Massachusetts governor and one-time church leader. Even in explaining the modern Mormon church, Romney must persuade voters — particularly evangelicals — that his faith is no threat to theirs.

Frankly, Mosteller is an embarrassment to the GOP. Scratch that -- Mosteller is an embarrassment to the United States. I urge South Carolina (and national) Republicans to repudiate her. Indeed, I urge my readers to contact Cyndi Mosteller to let her know how out of step she is with Republican and American values.

And I say this as someone who has theological problems with the LDS church. I've studied their doctrines and their history, and don't see how anyone who does a critical analysis of either can be a member. And yet, I cannot think of a single Mormon I have ever known who has not been one of the finest, most decent people I've known. By all accounts, even those of his political opponents, I'd find that statement to be applicable to Mitt Romney as well were I to have the opportunity to meet him.

Ultimately, I feel it is important to urge my fellow Republicans -- and fellow Americans -- to give serious consideration to the words of Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention>

We are not electing a theologian-in-chief. We are electing a commander-in-chief."

Judge Romney on his record of achievement and his position on the crucial issues facing America -- not where he worships or does not worship.

UPDATE: I sent my own letter to Ms. Mosteller.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 09:32 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 1282 words, total size 11 kb.

There are few Americans in politics today who I see as having more integrity than Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). His willingness to put the needs of the nation above the needs of his party nearly cost him everything in 2006, but it didn't -- and clearly demonstrates why he would be worthy of a chapter in Profiles in Courage if John F. Kennedy were writing it today rather than a half century ago.

Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman shared his own thoughts on Bush's plan. "We need an increase in troops there now," he asserted before an audience of military experts and academics. "It must be substantial, and it must be sustained."

Lieberman was sworn in last week as the chamber's one and only "independent Democrat," with the emphasis on "independent." On most issues, including big domestic priorities, he expects to vote as he has for the past 18 years, as a loyal Democrat. But on Iraq, Lieberman is more in sync with Bush than are many Republicans. He is a passionate defender of the war as a death struggle against Islamic terrorism.

* * *

One Lieberman trait that particularly rankles Democrats is his abiding loyalty to Bush. A few days after the Wall Street Journal published the senator's op-ed piece, Lieberman lectured at a foreign policy conference. "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years," he said, "and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

The senator was a bit more measured Friday, but his point was clear.

"The president of the United States gets this," Lieberman said. "I think he sees the moment that we are at in the larger war on terrorism and the significance of how we conclude the war in Iraq, how devastating it would be to the Iraqis, to the Middle East, to America if we simply withdrew. He needs our support."

I want to disagree with the author of this article. Liberman is not being loyal to George W. Bush. Rather, he is being loyal to the very American notion that politics ends at the water's edge, and that during time of war we need to fight to victory. Indeed, that is the only appropriate "exit strategy" for the United State in Iraq -- "Win, then bring the troops home."

I'm not a fan of "fusion tickets". I could never vote for John McCain because of his betrayal of the First Amendment. But with that single exception, I will state for the record that I could be quite enthusiastic about a 2008 GOP ticket that showed the true meaning of bipartisanship by including Joe Lieberman in the second slot.

Because after all -- patriotism matters more than party labels.

Posted by: Greg at 08:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

No, not the many political prisoners rotting in Castro's tropical gulags, nor the Cuban people yearning to be free from Communist tyranny.

No, this disgrace to American motherhood, who supports the Cuban dictator, wants freedom for terrorists who want to destroy the United States.

American "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan called for the closure of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as she and other activists arrived here Saturday to draw attention to the nearly 400 terror suspects held at the remote site.

Sheehan is among 12 human rights and anti-war activists who will travel across this Caribbean island next week, arriving at the main gate of the Guantanamo base in eastern Cuba on Thursday -- five years after the first prisoners were flown in.

"Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not afraid of anything," Sheehan said when asked about the possibility of U.S. sanctions for traveling to communist-run Cuba, which remains under an American trade embargo.

"What is more important is the inhumanity that my government is perpetrating at Guantanamo," she told reporters.

Sheehan, 49, of Vacaville, Calif., became an anti-war activist known as the "peace mom" after losing her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq in April 2004.

Gee, Cindy, what a way to honor your son -- seeking freedom for the ideological soulmates of those who killed him!

Posted by: Greg at 05:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Here is a little something for the race-baiters and poverty pimps of the Left (including Bawney Fwank) to consider.

Up here, in the Northern Plains, we just recovered from a Historic event— may I even say a “Weather Event” of “Biblical Proportions” — with a historic blizzard of up to 44″ inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10Â’s of thousands. George Bush did not come.

FEMA did nothing.

No one howled for the government.

No one blamed the government.

No one even uttered an expletive on TV.

Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.

Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.

Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.

CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.

No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.

No one looted.

Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.

Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.

No Larry King, No Bill OÂ’Rielly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Geraldo Rivera.

No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water.

Sent out caravans of SUVÂ’s to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.

The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didnÂ’t ask for a penny.

Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families. Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.

We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.

We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is “Work or Die”.

We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for Â’sittin at homeÂ’ checks.

Even though a Category “5″ blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.

In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the worldÂ’s social problems evaporate.

It does seem that way, at least to me.

I hope this gets passed on.

And as one who had family impacted by this mess and the recent winter storms that left family members in Washington and Oregon blacked-out for days in unseasonably cold weather, I won't even try to argue that the lack of media frenzy, massive federal response and presidential visits was based upon racism, incompetence or lack of concern -- or claim that the weather was a government conspiracy or designed to commit genocide.

H/T The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor & Stupid, Areopagitica, Colossus of Rhodey

UPDATE: Want to bet this doesn't rate a presidential visit, saturation news coverage, or left-wing conspiracy theories about how "the Bush Crime Family and CIA did this to distract from Iraq"?

Posted by: Greg at 06:57 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.

You know, some mistakes are really not acceptable. This is one.

Fortunately, Wolf Blitzer apologized today for this mistake from yesterday's edition of The Situation Room.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: One additional note, I just want to make a correction, an apology, Soledad, for what we did yesterday. In "THE SITUATION ROOM," we had a bad typographical error in one of ourgraphics. We were doing a piece on the hunt for Osama bin Laden in this new year 2007.

Unfortunately there was a graphic, instead of saying where is Osama, it said where is Obama. We want to apologize for that bad typo. We want to also apologize personally to Senator Barack Obama. I'm going to be making a call to him later this morning to offer my personal apology –Soledad.

The KOSsacks are, of course, frothing. They forget who the first national figure was who made that mistake -- fellow Senator Jabba the Drunk Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquidick).

UPDATE -- 1/6/07: Some loony lefties (and some not-so-loony lefties) are still complaining about this obvious typo on CNN. I bet none of them were so upset when this error was made during an appearance by Congress On Racial Equality representative and Republican strategist Niger Innis appeared on MSNBC in 2002.

Then again, many of them probably think this is a fair description of any black Republican.

H/T Crooks & Liars and Raw Story

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 3 kb.

Sort of like Wheaties is the Breakfast of Democrats.

After all, what else do you call a group that votes to supposedly limit lobbyist influence, but then goes to a $1000-a-plate fundraiser full of lobbyists with open checkbooks?

Democrats say they were returned to power in part because of corruption and ethical lapses of the Republican Congress. They promised to clean up the swamp and crack down on lobbyists.

But hours after changing House rules to reduce favors from lobbyists, it was back to business as usual in Washington.

Democrats threw a $1,000-a-person fundraising concert in Washington Thursday night, with Hollywood celebrities, big donors and those lobbyists writing checks to re-elect Democrats.

“Tonight we are having a celebration!” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Democrats are back!”

You see lobbyists are bad -- until they are giving money to the Democrats, at which point they are a vital, indeed essential, part of the political system.

I particularly love this particular laugh line from Queen Nancy's spokeswhoreperson.

Speaker Pelosi's spokesperson says there were only about 200 lobbyists at Thursday night's fundraising concert, and that this still will be the most open, honest Congress ever.

Taking money from lobbyists at Nancy's Place? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

We folks here in CD22 are a conservative bunch -- so of course our new "representative" voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House.

One of only two freshmen in the 34-member Texas delegation, Lampson also praised the importance of the House vote installing Pelosi as the first female speaker in the chamber's history.

He cast that vote with granddaughter Olivia, who turns 2 next month, in his arms.

Yep -- backing that San Francisco liberal certainly is a prime example of representing the beliefs of the people of the district.

It should be a fun two years, cataloging every betrayal of CD22 by the carpetbagger, Nick Lampson.

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that some Democrats want to ensure that the Louisiana Freezer Alligator (Bribus freezeris William-Jeffersonis) remains in Queen Nancy's "ethical swamp".

On the same day that the 110th Democratic-led Congress convenes with a plan to immediately pass lobbyist and ethics reforms, the Congressional Black Caucus Thursday gave a standing ovation to Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who faces an FBI probe into bribery allegations.

"The haters... and negative nabobs...the people who spoke against him couldn't prevail against the people who spoke for him," Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, master of ceremonies for the CBC's celebratory event, said Thursday morning.

I guess racial solidarity trumps integrity for the CDC.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Unless this Massachusetts scumbag has proof of his claim that George W. Bush has committed ethnic cleansing against Americans – and I mean documents or video that prove as much -- he must resign from the House of Representatives in well-deserved disgrace. And if he will not, his colleagues must expel him for such an intolerable statement.

Welcome to the “new tone” in Democrat “bipartisanship”.

H/T Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Jawa Report, Seven Stripes, Gay Patriot

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Three heartbeats from the presidency.

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Robert Byrd

The Democrat Party -- Making America Proud!

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

The Dems now control both Houses of Congress.

The 110th Congress convened Thursday with Democrats in control of both the House and Senate for the first time in a dozen years. "Today we make history. Today we change the direction of our country," exulted Rep. Nancy Pelosi, poised to become the first woman speaker in history.

With her grandchildren joining her for the historic moment, Pelosi beamed as her name was placed in nomination and the party-line roll call commenced.

I cannot help but notice the difference in how the AP treats this power change as opposed to the 1994 shift of partisan control.

Dingell administered the same oath to former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R- Ga., 12 years ago when Republicans seized the House after 40 years of Democratic control _ and he's set to get back his gavel as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Democrats are “in control”; Republicans “seize power”. No bias in that language – none at all.

MORE COVERGE of this national tragedy.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

How, precisely will they do this? By decreasing freedom, of course!

American companies can expect proposals mandating increased wages and health care, a boost in union membership and greater scrutiny of trade agreements, a key Democrat promised Wednesday.

It's all part of the new Democratic congressional majority's agenda to reduce what Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) calls "inequality" that inhibits economic growth.

"Inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. It's necessary in the capitalist system, and I'm a capitalist," Frank said during a speech to the National Press Club. "But we do not have to have a government that reinforces it."

Frank has a definite agenda, though – letting the government tell business how to do business.

Frank was not specific on every proposal, but he said he intends to hold hearings into income disparity and what the government can do about it. He is also proposing a "grand bargain" that will tie trade bills, regulatory relief and other business-friendly legislation to mandates on increased wages, union empowerment and health care coverage.

"Government doesn't have to interfere with the free enterprise system, but we can work along with it to reduce inequality," Frank said.

Of course, everything Frank is proposing does interfere with free enterprise.

Government will tell businesses how much they must pay heir workers and what benefits they must offer. Government will force in unions, even upon workers who don’t want to be a part of them. And government will impose conditions and restrictions upon how they do business.

I believe that is generally called socialism by economists, Barney.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

How, precisely will they do this? By decreasing freedom, of course!

American companies can expect proposals mandating increased wages and health care, a boost in union membership and greater scrutiny of trade agreements, a key Democrat promised Wednesday.

It's all part of the new Democratic congressional majority's agenda to reduce what Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) calls "inequality" that inhibits economic growth.

"Inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. It's necessary in the capitalist system, and I'm a capitalist," Frank said during a speech to the National Press Club. "But we do not have to have a government that reinforces it."

Frank has a definite agenda, though – letting the government tell business how to do business.

Frank was not specific on every proposal, but he said he intends to hold hearings into income disparity and what the government can do about it. He is also proposing a "grand bargain" that will tie trade bills, regulatory relief and other business-friendly legislation to mandates on increased wages, union empowerment and health care coverage.

"Government doesn't have to interfere with the free enterprise system, but we can work along with it to reduce inequality," Frank said.

Of course, everything Frank is proposing does interfere with free enterprise.

Government will tell businesses how much they must pay heir workers and what benefits they must offer. Government will force in unions, even upon workers who donÂ’t want to be a part of them. And government will impose conditions and restrictions upon how they do business.

I believe that is generally called socialism by economists, Barney.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Is Sean Hannity the ascendant voice of American conservatism? Well, it could be, given his increasing talk time.

If 2007 is supposed to be a big year for liberals, conservative voice box Sean Hannity didn't get the memo. The man not only keeps going and going, but he's also growing and growing.

Already heard 2-5 p.m. daily on KPRC 950 AM and 8-9 p.m. on Fox News Channel, Hannity will now appear 8-9 p.m. Sundays starting this weekend on FNC, as well. Unlike his weeknight gig opposite Alan Colmes, he'll host Hannity's America solo.

"What I want to do with this are things I couldn't do on Hannity & Colmes," said the Man Who Loves to Talk. "We're going to have reporters assigned to the show, and we're going to go out and find stories nobody else is covering."

The show will also include, he said, an on-the-street segment, a Sunday "rewind," a two-on-two political debate and a segment called the Hannity Hot Seat.

I do not watch H&C, and rarely listen to his show for more than a few minutes in the afternoon -- but i wish him well.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

is their own constituency.

House Democrats tried to unveil their lobbying reform package today, but their press conference was drowned out by chants from anti-war activists who want Congress to stop funding the Iraq war before taking on other issues.

Led by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier, the protesters chanted "De-escalate, investigate, troops home now" as Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., began outlining the Democrats' plans to ban lobbyist-funded travel and institute other ethics reforms. The press conference was held in the Cannon House Office Building in an area open to the public.

Emanuel finally gave up trying to be heard over the chants, and retreated to a caucus room where Democrats were meeting.

Sheehan says she has nothing against lobbying reform, but she and her fellow anti-war activists want Democrats to know they will keep pressuring Congress to end the war in Iraq.

"We wanted the Democrats to know they're back in power because of the grass roots," Sheehan says.

The anti-war activists held their own Capitol Hill press conference earlier in the day before deciding to attend the lobbying reform press conference as well.

Not that this pathetic woman who has made a career of whoring her dead soldier-son is necessarily in favor of ethics reform.

Before the chanting started, Sheehan got a hug from Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

After all -- Conyers has just owned up to abusing his government-paid staff by using them for personal and campaign purposes.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

The paperwork for the “exploratory committee” has been filed, making it all but official that Mitt Romney will actively pursue the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Wednesday he's taking the first step in a 2008 presidential bid, joining an increasingly crowded field of Republican hopefuls.

"We've filed exploratory papers today, so the process is moving forward on that front," he told reporters Wednesday, his final day in office.

A spokesman for Romney later said the paperwork officially would be filed late Wednesday afternoon in Washington with the Federal Election Commission. The formation of an exploratory committee allows Romney to raise and spend money for a presidential run.

Romney's confirmation of his plans comes after a 10-day period of contemplation during a family vacation in Utah and follows several years in which he acknowledged he was considering a White House run but hadn't made a final decision about pursuing the presidency.

Forming an exploratory committee is the prelude to a full declaration of candidacy for the presidency,

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at what counts as “an unreported independent expenditure or a prohibited corporate expenditure."

In a decision announced Tuesday, the FEC sent an “admonishment letter” to Kirk Shelmerdine Racing. Kirk Shelmerdine, a former pit boss for the late Dale Earnhardt, has been an unsuccessful, underfunded and undersponsored driver. He has never finished higher than 26th.

So back in 2004, in a move perhaps designed to draw some attention to his car, he placed a “Bush-Cheney ’04” decal on his rear quarter panel, which was otherwise unencumbered by advertising. Democratic activist Sydnor Thompson complained to the FEC, and the agency found that Shelmerdine “may have made an unreported independent expenditure or a prohibited corporate expenditure.”

This literally amounts to a ruling that a bumper sticker can count as a regulated contribution, if it is placed on a commercial vehicle. So rather than being permitted to engage in the sort of political speech clearly envisioned by the Founding Fathers when they adopted the First Amendment, we have a pathetic gang of government bureaucrats determining that such political speech violates laws designed to suppress and regulate political speech.

Former FEC commissioner Bradley Smith makes an observation about the placement of the sticker by Shelmerdine – in light of the fact that no one was willing to pay to place a logo or other sponsorship decal on that part of the car, “evidence is strong that the market value of Shelmerdine’s rear quarter panel was approximately $0, give or take $249.”

UPDATE -- 1/3/2007: Ryan Sager makes this pointed observation about how far this absurd ruling could go in allowing the regulation of political speech -- and the danger of just such absurdity.

With this case, the FEC has opened a new and disturbing door. If the agency claims oversight over any endorsement that it sees as valuable, what's next? Celebrities routinely get paid for endorsements. Is a rock star wearing a "Kerry for President" or "Impeach Bush" shirt now fair game?

It seems that, so long as trouble-makers are ready to write up the complaints, the FEC is happy to take any nutball theory for a few spins around the track - no matter how ludicrous the repercussions for free speech in our democracy.

Indeed -- this case proves that "campaign finance reform" has become less about ending corruption than it is about regulating speech and the ability of Americans to freely participate in the American political process.

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Initial reports indicate it was lost by an aide this fall, and leaked to the press by a supporter of another GOP hopeful.

It's clearly laid out in 140 pages of printed text, handwriting and spreadsheets: The top-secret plan for Rudy Giuliani's bid for the White House.

The remarkably detailed dossier sets out the budgets, schedules and fund-raising plans that will underpin the former New York mayor's presidential campaign - as well as his aides' worries that personal and political baggage could scuttle his run.

At the center of his efforts: a massive fund-raising push to bring in at least $100 million this year, with a scramble for at least $25 million in the next three months alone.

The loss of the battle plan is a remarkable breach in the high-stakes game of presidential politics and a potentially disastrous blunder for Giuliani in the early stages of his campaign.

The document also examines the possible skeletons in the Giuliani closet.

One page cites the explicit concern that he might "drop out of [the] race" as a consequence of his potentially "insurmountable" personal and political vulnerabilities.

On the same page is a list of the candidate's central problems in bullet-point form: his private sector business; disgraced former aide Bernard Kerik; his third wife, Judith Nathan Giuliani; "social issues," on which is he is more liberal than most Republicans, and his former wife Donna Hanover.

The concerns appear to be listed as issues for Giuliani law partner Pat Oxford to address and are followed by the central question of the campaign:

Are there "prob[lem]s that are insurmount[able]?" it asks, adding, "Has anyone reviewed with RWG?" Giuliani, whose middle name is William, is referred to throughout the document by his initials.

"All will come out - in worst light," the memo continues. "$100 million against us on this stuff."

The Giuliani campaign has fired back, claiming the document was stolen from an aide's luggage, not mislaid and forgotten.

Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel claimed it was actually pilfered from a piece of airline luggage.

"This wasn't left in a hotel," Mindel told The Associated Press. "This is clearly a dirty trick. The voters are sick and tired of this kind of thing."

Ms. Mindel said that while working on the 2006 campaign trail, a Giuliani aide lost a piece of luggage containing the paper.

"After repeated requests over the course of a few days, the bag was finally returned with the document inside. Because our staffer had custody of this document at all times except for this one occasion, it is clear that the document was removed from the luggage and photocopied," she said.

If that is the case, I am not pleased. This sort of crap is bad for the GOP, and I will not look kindly on anyone involved in stealing the document, if that is what happened.

Regardless, though, the document presents some fascinating insights into the Giuliani machine.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

Another Democrat promise bites the dust.

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

So, when it comes down to a choice between passing their cornerstone legislation and keeping their promise to the American people to operate in a new spirit of bipartisanship and openness, Queen Nancy and her merry band of left-wing jesters are going to allow no GOP input on ethics reform, the minimum wage or other major proposals.

Brian Daly, Queen Nancy's spokeswhoreperson claims that the first 100 hours is not the test of his boss's commitment to bipartisanship in the House.

"The test is not the first 100 hours," he said. "The test is the first six months or the first year. We will do what we promised to do."

No, Brian, you will show that the Democrat commitment to bipartisanship is a sham, and that when it comes down to anything significant, the Democrats will use their power to freeze out the GOP, despite the guarantees of a new tone in Washington.

H/T GOP Bloggers

UPDATE -- 1/3/2007: And now the Washington Post takes the Dems to task for their promise-breaking!

Posted by: Greg at 04:34 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

1

Sounds like sour grapes to me, but lets face it you'd never be happy with anything the left would do. You guys just don't have it in you.

Posted by: Not Dick but Richard at Tue Jan 2 07:58:57 2007 (1HuM5)

2 When and if the Dems do the right thing, I'll be all for it.

The problem is that I rarelyr expect them to do the right thing.

If they were usually going to do the right thing, they'd be Republicans.

And you may notice that I can and do praise and support Dem proposals from time to time. Look around the site for a while and you'll find examples -- including one just below about Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 2 10:15:58 2007 (tCngE)

3 baltimore and convention center and headquarters nasdaq 100 tennis tournament

Posted by: Olgunka-vz at Thu Nov 27 23:37:46 2008 (CtUwW)

4 dog sleds safarilandstore ohio chamber of commerece work at home leads the drew carey show tv tome

Posted by: Larcik-om at Wed Jan 21 06:14:13 2009 (i8CMM)

5 www cute milfs com - sex10 ru - vidiosex - analtube - www easy erotic de -

Posted by: ellaelax-co at Tue May 19 04:34:14 2009 (V7y0K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Or do you plan to prove that my second prediction for 2007 is correct this soon? After all, a senior member has acknowledged responsibility for ethical and criminal violations in his (ab)use of his staff -- how can you allow him the chairmanship of one of the most important committees in the House of Representatives?

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is scheduled to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, but only because he agreed when Pelosi previously made clear that she intended him not to waste time on impeachment proceedings against President Bush. But now we learn that Conyers has his own problems with obeying the law.

There is so much wrong with the Conyers situation that Pelosi shouldnÂ’t have to think twice about nixing ConyersÂ’ chairmanship. Let us look at how the Conyers scandal epitomizes the ethics mess in the House:

First, releasing its report late on Friday before the New Year’s holiday weekend made it clear that the House “Ethics” Committee intended to minimize public understanding of the Conyers scandal. This is classic Washington Establishment manipulation of the news cycle to insulate itself against public accountability.

Second, Conyers responded to the “Ethics” committee by “accepting responsibility” for a “lack of clarity” in asking aides to work on his re-election campaign while on the official payroll instead of going on a campaign staff, as the law requires, and to do personal chores for him. The allegations came from senior staff members, including a former chief of staff, not interns or other short-term aides who might have questionable motives.

Third, the “Ethics” committee report also concerned a second investigation of Conyers from 2003 on allegations that his aides also worked on the Carol Mosely-Braun presidential campaign and JoAnn Watson’s Detroit City Council race. Would Conyers have applied the same slipshod legal standards to his Bush impeachment effort?

Fourth, the Conyers scandal shows it’s still business as usual for the “Ethics” committee. Pelosi should demand that Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., the committee leaders who signed off on the Conyers report, be removed permanently from the panel and barred from leadership of other House panels.

Finally, Pelosi should heed former White House chief of staff and ex-congressman Leon Panetta, who said “you can attack one party for having a lack of ethics, but if any of your own members have problems, it dulls the message with the American people, they begin to put everybody in the same box.” In other words, whenever one member of the House has an ethics problem, it damages the credibility of all members of the House, including most especially its most visible leader, the speaker.

So come on, Nancy -- either get rid of this big-time Democrat alligator in the "ethical swamp" or admit that your promises about ethics reform were nothing but empty, partisan rhetoric designed to scare up a few more votes after Democrats ginned up one more scandal involving the GOP.

And for that matter, make sure you take action against Rahm Emanuel, who left House pages at risk by holding back the Foley emails until their release became politically profitable?

The ball is in your court, Nancy -- act, or prove yourself a liar and a hypocrite.

H/T Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 04:14 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Orbit Downloader, Mercy Medical Center In Canton Oh, Mercy Medical Center In Canton Oh, http://palacios.dragbikecentral.com/ Mercy Medical Center In Canton Oh, 036396,

Posted by: Zackery at Wed Jan 7 02:27:14 2009 (1dCvn)

2 quick download PC games, Mercy Medical Center In Canton Oh, msyjhi,

Posted by: Sterling at Wed Jan 7 02:56:45 2009 (yEwnL)

3 viagra 61527

Posted by: viagra at Tue Mar 3 00:44:26 2009 (E2Rgd)

4 us dept of education, megan fox fhm, :-P, lindsay lohan hot, 938, carmen electra gallery, 661, megan fox fhm, 577861, katy perry sexy, 0419,

Posted by: megan fox fhm at Thu Nov 5 08:44:24 2009 (PZ4uf)

5 meaning of physical education, lindsay lohan hot, gth, holly madison photos, nkg, miley cyrus nude pics, wmu, holly madison photos, 180, miley cyrus nude, 95526,

Posted by: ashley tisdale sex at Fri Nov 6 11:24:43 2009 (CfekM)

6 definition of physical education, miley cyrus pics, hll, megan fox gallery, 462, holly madison pictorial, adm, is jessica biel a lesbian, 2184, jenna jameson anal, =-PPP, holly madison pictorial, =-OOO,

Posted by: jessica alba exposed at Fri Nov 6 14:14:48 2009 (BxfYA)

7 california department of education, ashley tisdale sex, >:-P, megan fox pics, 8], lucy pinder, dep, holly madison pictorial, wsrwh, paris hilton video, ypfcz,

Posted by: paris hilton sex at Sat Nov 7 05:13:11 2009 (0Br1x)

8 QuickBust QuickBust, what is ranitidine prescribed for what is ranitidine prescribed for, is remeron an maoinhibitor is remeron an maoinhibitor, wjat is the drug reminyl used to treat wjat is the drug reminyl used to treat, what is relafen used for? what is relafen used for?,

Posted by: QuickBust at Mon Nov 9 04:49:34 2009 (VUy2/)

9 stop smoking patch strength 22 mg stop smoking patch strength 22 mg, Snoroff Snoroff, soothenol soothenol, dogs kidney disease soloxine dogs kidney disease soloxine, starlix mechanism of action starlix mechanism of action,

Posted by: Ayurveda Stop Smoking at Tue Nov 10 10:11:37 2009 (JQSlG)

10 iowa department of education, lindsay lohan sex tape, 0651, miley cyrus naked, P, nude megan fox, :-DDD, katy perry sexy, 46628, megan fox fhm, oufgj,

Posted by: carmen electra gallery at Wed Nov 18 12:32:45 2009 (Jd7ul)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We're getting saturation news coverage of the event (along with Saddam's execution and Jame brown's funeral) an will see government services shut down on Tuesday, but the state funeral of former President Gerald Ford was not a big draw for government officials. Indeed, not even the current occupant of the Oval office could be troubled to attend.

The military band drilled. Wreaths with white roses hung outside the House and Senate chambers. In the Capitol Rotunda rested the black velvet catafalque that once bore the remains of Abraham Lincoln.

Everything was in place for former President Gerald Ford's state funeral Saturday night — everything, that is, but the statesmen.

•President Bush sent his regrets; he was cutting cedar and riding his bike on his ranch in Texas.
•Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his deputy, Richard Durbin, couldn't make it either; they were on a trip to visit Incan ruins.
•Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a pass, too — as did about 500 of the 535 members of Congress.
Only one Cabinet member — Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez — accepted the invitation, organizers said.

A 6-to-3 majority of the Supreme Court, including Ford's appointee, John Paul Stevens, ruled against attending.

Congressional staffers and Ford family representatives scrambled to find sufficient greeters and honorary pallbearers to join Vice President Dick Cheney and a score of former lawmakers and Ford administration officials.

I'm sorry, but I can only call this a shameful response. The President could and should have cut short the Crawford vacation. Reid and Durbin arguably could have rescheduled the trip south of the border -- they do get CNN in Latin America, so they know about Ford's death.More members of Congress could have made it back, Cabinet officials could have made an effort to return to Washington, and the Supreme Court justice (especially Stevens) could have put in an appearance. There should have been more than 77 official mourners at the Capitol on Saturday night.

After all, this is the state funeral for a former head of state -- shouldn't the current leaders of the United States be in attendance?

Or are we seeing that such funeral rituals are an anachronism in this country?

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 AM | Comments (165) | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 2 kb.

Lest we forget this poor man's situation -- one that transcends politics and cuts to the humanity of each and every individual in the public arena.

U.S. Senator Tim Johnson is spending Thursday, his 60th birthday, sedated in a Washington, D.C. hospital. Family members plan to be at his bedside.

Senator Johnson remains sedated after undergoing emergency surgery two weeks ago for bleeding in the brain. A Johnson spokesman says his family remains optimistic but could not say how long he'll remain under sedation.

The senator has been in critical condition since the surgery. He is sedated to help minimize the swelling of his brain.

Happy birthday, Senator Johnson. may the gift of health be conferred upon you by the good Lord this day -- and may you one day come to know that the prayers of the citizens of the United States are with you.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the recent questions about Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has swirled around the issue of gay rights. Romney once said that eh would be better on gay rights than Se. Ted Kennedy, but has stood strongly against gay marriage since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed it by judicial fiat in 2003.

Romney was recently interviewed by Human Events, and answers two questions on the issue in a way that I believe should clarify his position and reconcile his positions for most conservatives.

And also on the issue of gay marriage, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts today gave you a symbolic victory in terms of scolding some of the lawmakers for their actions. Do you believe the same [skepticism among conservatives] will hold true on gay marriage or will people still critique that 1994 letter and some of the comments you made in that campaign?

No, actually, my view on marriage has been entirely consistent over my political career. And that is that I oppose same-sex marriage. I also oppose civil unions.

There are some people who feel that is inconsistent with also encouraging the elimination of discrimination against gay people as well as others of differences. IÂ’m very much opposed to discrimination. I also recognize that itÂ’s not wise to create a special class and establish new rights for any particular group. But IÂ’m opposed to discrimination.

At the same time, IÂ’m opposed to same-sex marriage. And ever since that feature has become a prominent one in my state, with the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, I have taken every action that I could conceive of within the bounds of the law to defend traditional marriage and to stop same-sex marriage.

You mentioned the decision today of the Supreme Judicial Court. It’s more than symbolic. The Supreme Judicial Court—and this is a battle that my administration took to the court—they said, in fact, that the Legislature must take a vote on a citizens’ petition to have this go before the voters. They must take a vote, and failure to do so would represent a violation of a legislator’s oath of office. That is a very powerful statement, and I believe it gives me a pretty significant degree of confidence that we will see on the ballot in Massachusetts the right of citizens to define marriage. And that’s what I’ve been fighting for now for over two years.

On that same subject, would you accept another endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans if it was offered to you?

Haven’t thought about that. I doubt it’s going to be forthcoming—and in part because for gay Americans of both Republican and Democratic stripe, the issue is now all about marriage. It is not about equality and hiring. Look, I would not discriminate against someone in a hiring position based on their sexual preference. But it’s now about marriage, and I am adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage.

IÂ’ve been to Washington to testify in favor of traditional marriage. IÂ’ve written a letter to every U.S. senator on the topic. IÂ’ve fought same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in every way I could within the bounds of the law. So thatÂ’s not going to make me popular with gay Republicans or gay Democrats. But there are some gay individuals who I know, who are friends of mine, who respect that fact that I believe that traditional marriage is right for the nurturing and development of children, but that I do not want to discriminate against gay people in employment or housing or other parts of their life.

In other words, Romney draws a distinction between marriage and issues of non-discrimination in housing, employment, etc.

IÂ’d argue that this is well within the conservative mainstream. Marriage is fundamentally an institution defined by our society as being between one man and one woman, and the American people have voted to retain that definition every time they have been given the opportunity to do so (with the exception of one poorly drafted proposal this year in Arizona). On the other hand, most Americans find discriminatory practices in employment and housing to be unacceptable and are supportive of efforts to eliminate it in cases of sexual orientation (although some, on libertarian principles, question the legitimacy of government-imposed non-discrimination requirements for any group).

Hopefully this interview and a close examination of RomneyÂ’s record will help to settle the gay issue (as well as the abortion issue) for conservatives and allow Romney to position himself as the best conservative option in 2008.

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 763 words, total size 5 kb.

IÂ’ve long thought that term limits are a bad idea, and have opposed them even when they were one of the staples of conservative ideology. I therefore find one of incoming House Majority Leader Steny HoyerÂ’s pet issues to be heartening.

With Democrats assuming majority power next month, Congress has a fresh opportunity to make things right. The new House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, has proposed a repeal of presidential term limits in every session since 1985. Now he may have the political muscle to get it passed.

In my American government classes, IÂ’ve always described the Twenty-Second Amendment as the GOP-controlled CongressÂ’ method of driving a stake through the heart of FDR and as close to the posthumous treatment of Pope Formosus as we are ever likely to see in American politics. More than Prohibition (a dumb idea that, having made it into the Constitution, was wisely repealed), the two-term limit placed upon presidents is a blot upon the Constitution.

Indeed, I agree with this great American.

"The United States ought to be able to choose for its president anybody it wants, regardless of the number of terms he has served," Dwight Eisenhower said on the eve of his 1956 reelection. "I have got the utmost faith in the long-term common sense of the American people."

Do I fear that the American people might engage in some monumentally stupid act and reelect Bill Clinton (currently one of only two Americans barred from election to the presidency by Amendment XXII)? Not really, for I believe that Senator Hillary Clinton would commit homicide before permitting that. Do I vainly hope for the reelection of George W. Bush for a third term? No, as I have become increasingly disappointed in the policies of the current occupant of the Oval Office since the 2004 election. And while I recognize that because of the Twenty-Second Amendment we were mercifully spared the reelection of Ronald Reagan as he descended into the fog of AlzheimerÂ’s disease, I also acknowledge that his situation is anomalous among recent American presidents, most of whom have remained healthy and active for at least a decade following their time in office.

Ignore the anti-Bush rant that constitutes the first half of Zimmerman’s column – focus on the big issue of restoring the Constitutional order to that established by the Founders.

Posted by: Greg at 06:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

Welcome visitors from FARK.com! Take some time to browse around the rest of the site -- and come back any time.

What do you get when you take a senior congressman with the ability to steer money to favored companies, a former aide to that congressman running a non-profit group, multiple lobbyists for the industry over which the congressman has a big say serving on the board, and big donations from that industry going to the group?

Well, it depends.

If the congressman has an (R) after his name, you get a major scandal and claims of a improprieties and a "culture of corruption" trumpeted throughout the mainstream media. If the congressman has a (D) after his name, you get a story that is more-or-less ignored and published on Christmas Day, when almost no one is paying attention to the news.

Which explains why the story that follows was published on December 25, 2006 in the Washington Post, and accounted for only a couple of short paragraphs in the wire-service reports highlighting denials of wrong-doing rather than possible improprieties.

Oh, and the congressman in question? John Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator from Abscam who has previously been linked to preferential treatment for clients of his brother's lobbying firm and other shady deals.

For a quarter of a century, Carmen Scialabba labored for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), helping parcel out the billions of dollars that came through the House Appropriations Committee, so when the disabled aide needed a favor, Murtha was there.

In 2001, Murtha announced the creation of Scialabba's nonprofit agency for the disabled in Johnstown, Pa. The next year, with Scialabba still on his staff, Murtha secured a half-million dollars for the group, the Pennsylvania Association for Individuals With Disabilities (PAID), and put another $150,000 in the pipeline for 2003, according to appropriations committee records and former committee aides. Since then, the group has helped hundreds of disabled people find work.

But the group serves another function as well. PAID has become a gathering point for defense contractors and lobbyists with business before Murtha's defense appropriations subcommittee, and for Pennsylvania businesses and universities that have thrived on federal money obtained by Murtha.

Lobbyists and corporate officials serve as directors on the nonprofit group's board, where they help raise money and find jobs for Johnstown's disabled workers. Some of those lobbyists have served as intermediaries between the defense contractors and businessmen on the board, and Murtha and his aides.

That arrangement over the years has yielded millions of dollars in federal support for the contractors, businesses and universities, and hundreds of thousands in consulting and lobbying fees to Murtha's favored lobbying shops, according to Federal Election Commission records and lobbying disclosure forms. In turn, many of PAID's directors have kept Murtha's campaigns flush with cash.

What sort of stuff are we talking about? Well, take a look at some of the specific examples.

After PAID's founding, Scialabba approached Kuchera [Bill Kuchera, chief executive of Kuchera Industries of Windber, PA] to get involved. Kuchera jumped, not only joining the group's board but ramping up hiring of disabled workers, who now compose a third of the 200 employees in his company's defense business. The federal government picked up Kuchera's $7 million training bill. This year, Murtha earmarked $1.3 million for Kuchera's chemical and biological weapons detection research.

Kuchera employees donated more than $31,000 to Murtha in the past three election campaigns, according to federal election records. Between 1990 and 2000, contributions totaled $1,000. And congressional lobbying disclosure forms tally $140,000 in payments since 2001 from Kuchera to Ervin Technical Associates, whose chairman is former representative Joseph M. McDade (R-Pa.), a close Murtha ally.

The Kuchera experience is not unique. Ed Washington, another PAID director, hails from MTS Technologies, an Arlington defense contractor that recently secured $8.9 million in federal funds to expand its Johnstown facility. MTS's lobbyist, the PMA Group, has disclosed some $300,000 in fees from the company since 1998. And PMA has returned the favor: Since 1989, the firm's employees have given Murtha $107,500.

Daniel DeVos, an honorary PAID board member, represents Concurrent Technologies, whose employees have lavished Murtha with more than $53,000 in campaign contributions and PMA with $820,000 in fees. That may sound steep, but the rewards have been substantial: a $150 million contract to operate the Navy Metalworking Center; a $4 million contract from the Army to evaluate fuel-cell systems; and $1.7 million for a weapons of mass destruction response laboratory, among others.

Seems like a tidy little system in which the industries are buying access and favors using a charitable group. Isn't that something that the Democrats accused Tom DeLay of doing, claiming it was unethical, or at least had an "appeaance of impropriety"? What about Murtha?

This ought to be the first test case for the Democrats when it comes to dealing with lobbying and ethics reform as Nancy Pelosi seeks to "drain the ethical swamp" and undo the so-called "culture of corruption" that Democrats claim has existed in Congress. But Pelosi, of course, is one of Murtha's biggest supporters and she tried to put him in a senior leadership role. Will she play favorites,or will she keep her word?

Oh, and by the way -- Murtha isn't the only member of Congress who may have improper relations with a PAID director.

Another PAID director, Jim Estep, is a central figure in an investigation of Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), a Murtha ally and fellow member of the Appropriations Committee. Estep heads the West Virginia High-Technology Consortium Foundation and the Institute for Scientific Research, two nonprofit organizations that Mollohan helped set up and has plied with federal funds.

Yes, that is the same Alan Mollohan who is under FBI investigation for using non-profit groups to benefit himself and who lied on financial disclosure forms -- and who got thrown off the Ethics Committee as a result, but who still remains on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, the better to steer contacts to his supporters and his district.

And let me say one thing clearly -- I think efforts to aid disabled individuals are important. I've witnessed first-hand the difficulties that such folks face in finding employment, even when they have the skills to do the job. I believe that organizations that assist the disabled in finding employment and encouraging employers to see past the disabilities serve a truly noble goal. I'm therefore particularly incensed that Murtha and Scialabba chose such an organization to hide their illicit pork machine.

(By the way -- you should see the squealing posts from liberals in the comments over at end of the article -- this article is seen as a betrayal and an outrage)

MORE AT: Eugene David...The One-Minute Pundit, What Happened To My Country?, Common Sense & Wonder, Blog-o-Fascists, Gun Toting Liberal, Bitsblog, Newsbusters.org

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 1140 words, total size 8 kb.

He may be of the wrong party and a carpet-bagger to boot, but I must wish my soon-to-be Congressman, Nick Lampson, a full and speedy recovery following his angioplasty at the hospital just down the road.

U.S. Rep.-elect Nick Lampson underwent an angioplasty procedure to open a blocked vessel in his heart this afternoon and is expected to be discharged from the hospital Saturday.

"He's doing great — laughing and joking about getting out of Christmas shopping," said Lampson family friend Dave Matthiesen, a Houston-based attorney who had just visited with Lampson and his wife in the Congressman's private room at St. John's Hospital. "He's looking forward to getting up to Washington Jan. 4 to begin his term in Congress."

Lampson, D-Stafford, first went to the hospital Thursday night after complaining of illness at a friend's party. Doctors at St. John's Hospital in Nassau Bay ran tests on Lampson that night and today. During a routine angiography test around 3 p.m., doctors confirmed earlier tests that had indicated a blockage in a one vessel and decided to go ahead with the angioplasty.

Cardiologist Ghyath Samman performed the procedure by inserting a wire-mesh stent, placed on a balloon, into Lampson's vessel and inflating it to remove the blockage. Lampson was awake and alert throughout the procedure and is expected to make a full recovery, Samman said.

Samman added that Lampson should follow a low-cholesterol diet, but otherwise the congressman's activities will not be restricted.

Lampson had an angiography test several years ago, but this is the first time he has had an angioplasty procedure, Matthiesen said. The congressman has no other history of heart problems, he said.

"I think he's healthy as a horse," Matthiesen said.

I hope that last statement is true, because I draw a sharp line between political opposition and personal animus. I hope and pray that Lampson will serve out the next two years in Congress in good health.

So get well, Nick -- but understand that I and my fellow Republicans are working to ensure that you will be job-hunting two years from now.

(A little geography FYI for those not from the Houston area -- Christus St. John's hospital is directly across the street from Johnson Space Center, and about half a mile from the hotel where Clara Harris parked an SUV on her cheating husband several years back.)

UPDATE: Does this article from the Houston Chronicle confuse you -- given it was posted at 8:37 PM on Saturday night?

U.S. Rep.-elect Nick Lampson was discharged from the hospital Sunday morning, two days after undergoing an angioplasty procedure to open a blocked vessel in his heart.

Is there information we are not being told? Was Lampson readmitted following his release? Did Chronicle reporter Alexis Grant "phone in" the story hours before it happened? Or is this just sloppy reporting/editting by the local paper,confusing Saturday with Sunday?

Posted by: Greg at 04:48 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

1 more info

Posted by: march madness predictions at Tue Mar 3 06:10:00 2009 (BuiMi)

2 Hi!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, > , SolidWorks 2009, wow, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, iwfvh, Conceptdraw Office, sktk, Autodesk AutoCAD, %), adobe creative suite 3 design, tam,

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Fri May 22 01:42:57 2009 (rdOwg)

3 Gutentak!, microsoft windows vista business, tjyfd, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, siol, Conceptdraw Office, ybmlj, Autodesk AutoCAD, 210, microsoft office xp profession, tnfr, adobe creative suite 3 design, 636138,

Posted by: Chtosmotrish at Fri May 22 14:49:05 2009 (wW9wa)

4 Zdarova!, solidworks 2009 x64, > PP, microsoft windows server 2008, :-OO, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, =-P, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, fdqlg, microsoft office xp profession, vkdbam,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Fri May 22 15:09:52 2009 (mUE89)

5 Hello!, adobe photoshop cs2, 7308, solidworks 2009 x64, 69647, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 8(, Conceptdraw Office, pqrw, Conceptdraw Office, :-]],

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Fri May 22 17:18:27 2009 (ws0kS)

6 Hi!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, :-(((, microsoft windows vista business, %D, solidworks 2009 x64, 8-PPP, adobe acrobat 8 professional, %-DDD, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, 4744, adobe creative suite 3 design, lrbhyo,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 17:40:39 2009 (6Q6E8)

7 Gutentak!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 96187, SolidWorks 2009, >:-(((, adobe photoshop cs2, 434, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, > P, adobe creative suite 3 master, 8-]], adobe creative suite 3 design, jxczp,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Fri May 22 18:01:50 2009 (VpWq4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Since when is it part of the American political tradition to treat the selection of a new Speaker of the House like it is a presidential inauguration -- or a royal coronation?

On a scale associated with presidential inaugurations, Nancy Pelosi is planning four days of celebration surrounding her Jan. 4 swearing-in as the first female speaker of the House. She will return to the blue-collar Baltimore neighborhood where she grew up, attend Mass at the women's college where she studied political science, and dine at the Italian Embassy as Tony Bennett sings "I Left My Heart in San Francisco."

But the hoopla is more than just a party.

Pelosi is grabbing the moment to present herself as the new face of the Democratic Party and to restore the party's image as one hospitable to ethnic minorities, families, religion, the working class and women.

"This is important strategic repositioning," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who teaches political communication and rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania. "Essentially, she's trying to embody the Democratic Party that she would like to offer the nation in 2008."

In her meticulous selection of events and venues during a week when she expects to attract media attention from as far away as Australia, Pelosi is clearly trying to bury the label "San Francisco liberal" that Republicans tried to affix to her during the midterm elections.

" 'San Francisco liberal' is a construct used very effectively for a long time by Republicans," Jamieson said. "It's a little like 'Taxachusetts.' It's telegraphic and very powerful. They haven't been able to get her identified with it because, to this point, a lot of people didn't know who she was. She's trying to position a counterimage before she gets well known."

Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman, said the four-day celebration befits a historic moment in American politics. "We've never had a woman speaker before," Daly said. "This is a big deal."

Now I'll concede that there were two days of Gingrich-oriented activities in 1995, but they were political events filled with speeches and were related to policy and governance, not celebration and revelry. It was a celebration of ideals and ideas, not of Gingrich. Pelosi, on the other hand, is creating NancyFest. maybe that is because the Democrats are bankrupt when it comes to idea.

Posted by: Greg at 04:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

In recent years, career politicians like John McCain have decided that the First Amendment is inconvenient, irrelevant, and obsolete, and have been responsible for numerous laws designed to strangle political participation by anyone other than politicians by seeking to muzzle individuals and groups that might be critical of elected officials or encourage public participation in the political process.

Now one federal appellate court has loosened at least one of those restrictions.

A divided three-judge court ruled yesterday that ads advocating for an issue and mentioning candidates can run during an election, creating a loophole in the law that sought to control the power of big money in elections.

In a 2 to 1 ruling, the court found that the government had no compelling justification to regulate television ads such as the ones Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. broadcast in July 2004, which advocated stopping congressional filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees.

The ads ran when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) was running for reelection and had opposed some of Bush's nominees. The ads made no mention of Feingold's record, instead urging Wisconsin residents to call their senators to express their dissatisfaction.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, joined by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David B. Sentelle, agreed with Wisconsin Right to Life that ads such as theirs merely advocate a position without trying to criticize the record of a particular candidate.

The ads are not targeted "electioneering communications" and should not be burdened by the reporting requirements of the federal campaign finance law, Leon wrote.

The ruling was a key victory for Wisconsin Right to Life, which had sued the Federal Election Commission on the grounds that it had infringed on the group's constitutional right to free speech.

Needless to say, i believe this decision to be a step in the right direction -- though one which is clearly only a baby-step towards restoring political speech to its proper level of constitutional protection. After all, the court in this case clearly failed to apply a relevant portion of the United States Constitution in making this decision.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now I realize that some might find the phrase "no law" ambiguous, arguing that "no law" means "any damn law they please" abridging freedom of speech or the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. However, your average American, both now and at the time the First Amendment was ratified, has always understood that the First Amendment is intended to protect the right of the American people to be involved in the political process and to be free of government limitation and regulation when it comes to such political speech. I'm therefore pleased by this incremental restoration of a fundamental American liberty.

Posted by: Greg at 04:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 4 kb.

I once believed that Jimmy Carter was the most decent -- and least competent -- president of my lifetime. Sadly, only the latter judgment now stands in light of the despicable book he has recently published, a work that can only be labeled as anti-Semitic.

Now we find out a possible motivation -- Jimmy Carter has been beholden to Arab and Muslim money for his personal financial prosperity, as well as the ongoing support of his Carter Center. And these connections date back to the earliest days of his failed presidency.

Between 1976-1977, the Carter family peanut business received a bailout in the form of a $4.6 million, "poorly managed" and highly irregular loan from the National Bank of Georgia (NBG). According to a July 29, 1980 Jack Anderson expose in The Washington Post, the bank's biggest borrower was Mr. Carter, and its chairman at that time was Mr. Carter's confidant, and later his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance.

At that time, Mr. Lance's mismanagement of the NBG got him and the bank into trouble. Agha Hasan Abedi, the Pakistani founder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), known as the bank "which would bribe God," came to Mr. Lance's rescue making him a $100,000-a-year consultant. Abedi then declared: "we would never talk about exploiting his relationship with the president." Next, he introduced Mr. Lance to Saudi billionaire Gaith Pharaon, who fronted for BCCI and the Saudi royal family. In January 1978, Abedi paid off Mr. Lance's $3.5 million debt to the NBG, and Pharaon secretly gained control over the bank.

Mr. Anderson wrote: "Of course, the Saudis remained discretely silent... kept quiet about Carter's irregularities... [and] renegotiated the loan to Carter's advantage."

There is no evidence that the former president received direct payment from the Saudis. But "according to... the bank files, [it] renegotiated the repayment terms... savings... $60,000 for the Carter family... The President owned 62% of the business and therefore was the largest beneficiary." Pharaon later contributed generously to the former president's library and center.

When Mr. Lance introduced Mr. Carter to Abedi, the latter gave $500,000 to help the former president establish his center at Emory University. Later, Abedi contributed more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects. Even after BCCI was indicted — and convicted -— for drug money laundering, Mr. Carter accepted $1.5 million from Abedi, his "good friend."

Such a connection is clearly scandalous, carrying with it an appearance of impropriety if not an actual impropriety in the dealing of preferential treatment to Carter and his family.

And the financial connections continue with the founding and support of the Carter Center.

Carter is a major recipient of aid from the Saudis, for instance. Before his death in 2005, King Fahd was a longtime contributor to the Carter Center and gave Carter several million-dollar donations. In 1993 alone, King Fahd presented Carter with a gift of $7.6 million. And the king was definitely not alone in his largesse. As of 2005, the kingÂ’s high-living nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, has donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center...that we know about.

The Saudi Fund for Development, the kingdomÂ’s leading loan organization and one of the sources of money for all those hardline mosques and madrassahs shows up repeatedly on the Carter centerÂ’s list of supporters. Carter has also taken money from the Bin Laden family - in 2000 he secured a pledge from the bin-Laden family for a $1 million contribution to his center.

Another big source of funds for Carter has been the United Arab Emirates. In 2001, Carter went to Dubai - a country where Jews are not permitted by law, incidentally - to accept the Zayed International Prize for the Environment, named for Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the late UAE sheik and founder of the government funded Zayed Center, the source of some of the most virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda in the world. Among other things, the Zayed Center took a book written by a French author claiming that 9/11 was an inside job by the CIA and the Mossad, translated into Arabic and distributed it throughout the entire Middle East. And the Zayed Center is a prime benefactor and host to Holocaust deniers of all persuasions.

Carter got a $500,000 prize from these people, and when he spoke at the awards ceremony,he gushed that the "award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan al-Nahyan."

Carter still receives an annual personal stipend from the Zayed Center.

Carter's book has been panned by most reviewers -- indeed, the only positive reviews I have read have come to me from my former troll, KKKen Hoop (whose rampant anti-Semitism and general hate-mongering finally got him banned). Carter, of course, complains that this is due to the influence of Israel and Jews in American politics and publishing. Indeed, Carter claims that he is just seeking to promote debate on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians, and that no college or university with a large Jewish enrollment will invite him to speak.

The former complaint, of course, is an anti-Semitic canard of long-standing -- and the latter is a lie.

Which brings us to Alan Dershowitz's piece in today's Boston Globe, challenging Carter on his refusal to debate the issues he raises after being invited to do so by Brandeis University, a school founded by Jews with a high concentration of Jewish students.

When Larry King referred to my review several times to challenge Carter, Carter first said I hadn't read the book and then blustered, "You know, I think it's a waste of my time and yours to quote professor Dershowitz. He's so obviously biased, Larry, and it's not worth my time to waste it on commenting on him." (He never did answer King's questions.)

The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received. He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.

In other words, Carter finds it necessary to resort to lies and slander to discredit his opponents. What he really wants is a free platform to lecture Jews about the evils of the Jews, free from rebuttal by a Jew. I agree with the assessment Dershowitz makes of Carter's refusal of an offer that meets his earlier criteria -- he is a bully who is afraid of anyone who might stand up to him and his lies and distortions.

And I'll take it a step further -- he is afraid that his disgraceful sell-out of an American ally will be exposed, and that the world will see that there is really little difference between his views of Israel and Jews and those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and David Duke.

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 1278 words, total size 8 kb.

As a rule, I don't remove posts. Instead I update them and annotate them and admit to errors and changed opinions.

However, I've never gone quite so far beyond the pale in attacking another blogger -- especially given my later change of heart about the blogger in question as a writer and as a human being. My negative views of a year ago modified over the course of several months to an attitude of respect, and I had reached out to her -- but had never given a thought to taking down this post due to my longstanding policy of not deleting posts. That was a misjudgment on my part.

Debbie recently contacted me expressing her dismay at what I had written and a comment I had not realized had been left here and which should have been deleted due to its content. I deleted the comment, and further discussion has led me to recognize that the post in question should not remain on the blog. Not because it reflects poorly on me, but rather because it reflects poorly on her. Leaving a post of the former sort is appropriate and an exercise in humbling the soul; leaving one of the latter sort is to perpetuate an injustice.

Debbie, you have my apology -- and my respect for the way in which you approached me privately after I had wronged you publicly. I know that my words here are not much, but I offer them to you in a spirit of regret and contrition for the offense I have given.

Posted by: Greg at 08:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 1 kb.

Newsweek offers this interesting insight on the Massachusetts governor.

As a founder of the venture firm Bain Capital, he grew extremely wealthy buying troubled companies and fixing them up for profit. By 1998, he'd concluded he "had enough money" and began looking for another challenge. He found it in Salt Lake City, where the planned 2002 Olympic Games were embroiled in allegations of financial mismanagement and malfeasance. Taking charge, Romney got the Games back on track and sold himself as a Mr. Fix-it when he ran for Massachusetts governor in 2002.

Romney's aides are hoping Republican primary voters will see a pattern: here's a turnaround specialist ready to fix the party, the country and the world. "The idea is to be the fresh perspective," says one adviser, who asked to remain anonymous describing strategy for a still-unannounced campaign. "McCain is yesterday, Giuliani is today, Romney is tomorrow."

But there is also this -- McCain is unpredictable, Giuliani is liberal, and Romney is a conservative. Everyone else is simply irrelevant -- including Newt Gingrich, who simply has too much baggage to possibly win an presidential election.

Posted by: Greg at 08:06 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

I was surprised to receive my first piece of 2008 campaign literature this week.

I guess this makes him The Early Frontrunner.

Don Richardson, for those of you who don't remember, got a whopping 6% of the vote in the special election to fill the remainder of Tom DeLay's unexpired congressional term (Congresswoman Shelley Sekula Gibbs got 62%, Libertarian Bob Smither got 19% and Democrat Nick Lampson was too scared to run against a Republican who was on the ballot) and as a write-in in the general election received .28% (yeah -- that is twenty-eight one-hundredths of a percent, or 428 votes). But he's running again!

I hear that he is showing up at all the county GOP Executive Committee meetings in the district, and that he put in an appearance at Congresswoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs' recent open house in Fort Bend County.

Richardson, of course, has some problems -- including the fact that before this year it had been over a decade since he had voted Republican or participated in a GOP primary. He has yet to file his final FEC report and filed all of his earlier expenditure reports late. There is also the little issue of his having lied to the assembled precinct chairs of CD22 and his seeking a bribe from the RNC.

Needless to say, I won't be supporting Dishonorable Don Richardson.

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Nancy Pelosi is out to upend the Constitution again.

Freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances? Only if you register with the government first, and fill out all the burdensome forms!

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) has pledged to take up a lobbying reform proposal that would impose new regulations on speech by grassroots organizations, while providing a loophole in the rules for large corporations and labor unions.

The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of “grassroots lobbying” and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.

The report would include identifying the organizationÂ’s expenditures, the issues focused on and the members of Congress and other federal officials who are the subject of the advocacy efforts. A separate report would be required for each policy issue the group is active on.

“Right now, grassroots groups don’t have to report at all if they are communicating with the public,” said Dick Dingman of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. “This is an effort that would become a major attack on the 1st Amendment.”

Under the bill, communications aimed at an organization’s members, employees, officers or shareholders would be exempt from the reporting requirement. That would effectively exempt most corporations, trade associations and unions from the reporting requirements—but not most conservative grassroots groups, which frequently are less formally organized.

This bill is aimed directly at you and me, ladies and gentlemen. It is designed to quiet grassroots activists. No doubt the next move will be to apply these same measures to individual activists, including bloggers.

Posted by: Greg at 04:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

From the lips of Michelle Obama, wife of Senator Barack Obama.

"My income is pretty low compared to my peers"

How little is this impoverished waif making?

According to a tax return released by the senator this week, the promotion nearly tripled her income from the hospitals to $316,962 in 2005 from $121,910 in 2004.

By my calculation, she has seen a 260% increase in her earnings in one year -- a year in which the major change in her life was the election of her husband to the Senate. I'll let you make the decision over whether or not that is suspicious.

Oh, by the way -- her earnings in 2004 would have paid the salaries of three teachers in my school district that year, and the 2005 earnings would have paid for nearly eight. So when I hear that she is underpaid, I have very little sympathy for her. -- especially when you consider that the family income in 2005 was $1.7 million, which would pay the salaries of 42 teachers in my district.

And these are the supposed champions of the little people.

H/T American Thinker

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.