Remind these folks that the power to pardon is a presidential prerogative established by the Constitution – and that their advice and consent is neither required nor desired.

The Senate's top Democrats challenged President Bush on Tuesday to rule out a pardon for I. Lewis Libby, a former top White House aide who faces trial on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in the CIA leak case.

"We also urge you to state publicly whether anyone in the White House - including White House counsel Harriet Miers or Vice President Cheney - has already discussed the possibility of a pardon with Mr. Libby," added the letter, signed by Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and three other members of the leadership.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to rule out a pardon when asked about the issue by reporters before Democrats sent their letter. "I'm not going to discuss an ongoing legal proceeding. And I'm not going to speculate about any matters relating to it," he said.

At a news conference, Reid launched an extraordinary attack on Cheney, whom he said had been involved in the "manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq" as well as "leaking classified information to discredit White House critics."
He challenged the president in personal terms, urging him to "avoid falling in the footsteps of his father who pardoned six men, some were convicted, some were indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal."

I’ll half agree with Half-Truth Harry Reid on this matter. The President does need to learn from his father. But the lesson needs to be that he should not give in to Democrat demands – for if he does, their attacks will continue and they will add criticism of his weakness to his list of faults.

And Mr. President, I urge you to pardon Scooter Libby – on November 5, 2008, as the final votes are counted for the election of your successor. Do not leave this loyal American twisting in the wind for a manufactured crime that resulted from an investigation of a legal activity.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Who are the feminists – those who stand up for the dignity of women, or those who make the claim but defend their oppression by backwards cultures in the name of “diversity”?

EACH time Germaine Greer visits Australia - such as last week when she turned up at the University of Sydney to receive her honorary doctorate - one is reminded how Western feminists have dropped the ball on what really matters on the feminist front.

Greer's feminism is the worst example of Western indulgence.
It's not so much what she says that matters - for it's all rather farcical these days - but what she and other so-called feminists do not say that betrays how feminism has lost its way.

On Friday Greer told her audience: "The intellect is a little bit like sexual ability: use it or you lose it." True enough and nice work if you can get it. But hardly cutting-edge feminism at work there.

Back in late 2002, Greer was back on the soapbox in Australia lambasting the medical profession for imposing unnecessary medical tests on women, such as pap smears and mammograms.
When asked about the impending war in Iraq, Greer suggested that women protest by dressing up in burkas. Go girl! Don the preferred garb of Islamic oppression to protest against what exactly? The continued oppression of women in countries such as Iraq?

Last Friday while Greer was preaching about the importance of knowledge for knowledge's sake, in New York another feminist was delivering a more sobering message. Last week Mukhtaran Mai, a 33-year-old Pakistani woman, collected an award for "her incredible courage and optimism in the face of terrible violence".

Mai was gang-raped by five men on the order of a Pakistani tribal council in 2002 as punishment for her brother's alleged love affair with a woman from another tribe. This illiterate and working-class young woman then did the unthinkable. She took her grievance to court.

A near impossible task in Pakistan where Hudood laws - a series of Islamic decrees applied in conjunction with the country's secular laws - mean that if a woman is raped, a conviction requires four adult male witnesses or the rapist confessing. If sex is held to be consensual, the woman can be charged with zina - extramarital sex - illegal under Hudood laws. In Mai's case, the five rapists were duly acquitted. While the Pakistan Supreme Court has suspended those acquittals, it remains to be seen whether the perpetrators will be punished.

When Mai received $US2500 ($3400) in compensation from the Government for her ordeal, she immediately used that money to build a school for young girls. Through a translator this shy young woman, dressed in a headscarf and flowing robes, told her glittering New York audience that her goal was to end oppression through education. Spot the feminist. Mai or Greer?

Really – one mouths meaningless platitudes against the West, while the other steps up on behalf of women. Why aren’t the feminists cheering the destruction of patriarchal systems of oppression in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, that’s right – to do so would require taking a positive view of America – and conservative Americans in particular.

And then there is this Australian atrocity.

Who can forget the footage of the Chief Justice from the Northern Territory descending on the Yarralin community. He took his courtroom to the indigenous community to sentence a 55-year-old Yarralin man for bashing and raping a 14-year-old girl.

The anal rape of a crying, screaming child saw the man go to prison for just one month because the girl was promised to the man under customary indigenous law. And who were the leading critics of this case? Chris Ellison (a white man), Warren Mundine (a black man) and a few indigenous women. But where was the white feminist outcry?

Now had this been a Catholic priest, these same feminists would have been outraged. But let it be someone following the morally corrupt and backwards social customs of an ethnic minority commit such a crime and the white feminist matriarchs stand mute. After all, they would argue, who are we to judge. Their “blowin’ in the wind” values make it impossible for them to label wrong as wrong when the perpetrator has a higher VQ (Victimization Quotient) than they do. After all, that would make them oppressors – and so they remain mute in the face of the violent sexual assault of a child.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 5 kb.

There are nine proposed constitutional amendments on the Texas ballot today. Here is my take on them.

Prop 1 – Creating a rail relocation and improvement fund.

NO – This is a private sector responsibility, not something that is the responsibility of the government.

Prop 2 – Defining marriage as one man and one woman.

YES – This keeps Texas from becoming Massachusetts.

Prop 3 – Declaring certain economic development programs don’t create government debt.

NO – The courts are at work on this one, which is really a fix for one program near Austin – let the case resolve the issue before acting.

Prop 4 – Denies bail for accused felons who have already broken the condition of their bail.

YES – Duh!

Prop 5 – Allowing the legislature determine the interest rate that constitutes usury in commercial loans.

YES – This would allow for Texas banks to make commercial loans to Texas companies in a fashion competitive with out of state banks.

Prop 6 – Adding members to the State Judicial Conduct Commission.

YES – This gives representation to one more type of judge governed by the Commission, and to an additional citizen. Seems reasonable to me.

Prop 7 – Authorizing reverse mortgages.

YES – This will allow for better financial planning by older Texans, and allow them to make use of the value of their primary asset – their home.

Prop 8 – Relinquishing state claims to certain land due to a surveying error.

YES – An error was made some 170 years ago in a survey. It went unnoticed until a couple of years ago. Any state claim would be little more than theft, given that everyone has relied on a common understanding of the lines that predates the erroneous survey.

Prop 9 – Staggering terms of members of regional mobility authority board members.

YES – While I’d rather see these unelected government agencies abolished, staggering the terms seems reasonable. After all, we saw a power grab here in Houston several years ago by a former mayor. This would prevent such a mess.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

There are nine proposed constitutional amendments on the Texas ballot today. Here is my take on them.

Prop 1 – Creating a rail relocation and improvement fund.

NO – This is a private sector responsibility, not something that is the responsibility of the government.

Prop 2 – Defining marriage as one man and one woman.

YES – This keeps Texas from becoming Massachusetts.

Prop 3 – Declaring certain economic development programs don’t create government debt.

NO – The courts are at work on this one, which is really a fix for one program near Austin – let the case resolve the issue before acting.

Prop 4 – Denies bail for accused felons who have already broken the condition of their bail.

YES – Duh!

Prop 5 – Allowing the legislature determine the interest rate that constitutes usury in commercial loans.

YES – This would allow for Texas banks to make commercial loans to Texas companies in a fashion competitive with out of state banks.

Prop 6 – Adding members to the State Judicial Conduct Commission.

YES – This gives representation to one more type of judge governed by the Commission, and to an additional citizen. Seems reasonable to me.

Prop 7 – Authorizing reverse mortgages.

YES – This will allow for better financial planning by older Texans, and allow them to make use of the value of their primary asset – their home.

Prop 8 – Relinquishing state claims to certain land due to a surveying error.

YES – An error was made some 170 years ago in a survey. It went unnoticed until a couple of years ago. Any state claim would be little more than theft, given that everyone has relied on a common understanding of the lines that predates the erroneous survey.

Prop 9 – Staggering terms of members of regional mobility authority board members.

YES – While I’d rather see these unelected government agencies abolished, staggering the terms seems reasonable. After all, we saw a power grab here in Houston several years ago by a former mayor. This would prevent such a mess.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washingtn Post's story on the shutdown of a lawfirm run by an outspoken activist in favor of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and economic rights illustrates just how far the People's Republic of China needs to progress before it can be considered a civilized nation.

Judicial authorities in Beijing have shut down the law firm of a prominent civil rights lawyer after he refused to withdraw an open letter urging President Hu Jintao to respect freedom of religion and stop persecuting members of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement.

Gao Zhisheng, among the most daring of a generation of self-trained lawyers who have been pushing the Chinese government to obey its own laws, said that the Beijing Bureau of Justice ordered his firm suspended for one year on Friday. The move came just hours after he filed an appeal on behalf of an underground Protestant pastor accused of illegally printing Bibles and other Christian literature.

According to Gao, the government said the firm was being suspended because it had failed to register with the authorities after moving into a new office this year. But he said the action followed his refusal to renounce the open letter to Hu and withdraw from politically sensitive cases as demanded by officials during a series of recent meetings.

Gao said that his firm notified the government when it moved but that officials refused to let the firm register at the new address.

"We're very angry," Gao said by phone Saturday. "By doing this, the Chinese Communist Party is demonstrating it defies all laws, human and divine. They are saying that anyone who believes in law, who criticizes the political system, who exposes crimes against the people, will be targeted."

You've got to love it -- the government will not allow the registration, and then shuts them down for failing to register. And the real offense? Supporting the right of a pastor to minister to those in his flock and to print religious material without government interfrence. Despite alleged reforms in the legal system and supposed relaxation of religious persecution, it is clear that nothing substantive has really changed in Red China.

Gao, of course, has done a bit more than that. he has also investigated other acts of religious persecution -- including those directed at Falun Gong

In an Oct. 18 letter addressed to Hu and Premier Wen Jiabao that he posted on the Internet and distributed widely by e-mail, Gao described several cases he had investigated involving Falun Gong practitioners who have been detained, sent to labor camps and tortured. In one case, he said, a man was hanged from overhead pipes until his legs rotted.

In another case, he said, police tracked down and arrested a practitioner, a college sophomore, after he posted a note on the Internet announcing his resignation from the Communist Youth League.

Under the direction of Hu's predecessor, Jiang Zemin, the Chinese government in July 1999 banned Falun Gong as an "evil cult" and has all but crushed it in an often violent campaign involving the arrests of thousands of people. As practitioners have been released from labor camps in recent years, Gao said, the government has renewed its brutal campaign.

"The persecution of Falun Gong compatriots by some local officials has already reached the point where they are doing whatever they please," Gao wrote in the open letter. "We cannot accept these brazenly inhumane, savage atrocities to occur in the society of mankind in the 21st century."

"This evil catastrophe did not begin with you, but the catastrophe has continued while you two have led the government," he told Hu and Wen.

Gao also urged the government to accept that a revival of religious faith in China was inevitable. In addition to working on behalf of Falun Gong members, Gao is one of several lawyers who have volunteered to defend Cai Zhuohua, the pastor of a house church in Beijing who has been jailed on charges of "illegal business practices" for printing and distributing hundreds of thousands of Bibles. The Bush administration has expressed concern about Cai, who was arrested with several other Christian figures in September 2004.

Gao has also drawn official ire for backing an impeachment case against a village chief and to prosecute a suit regarding the illegal seizure of $1 billion in oil wells from private investors.

Human rights in china is not a religious issue -- it is a moral and humanitarian issue. I'd like to encourage bloggers of all political stripes to become involved in speaking out on behalf of the oppressed Chinese people . And I would also like to encourage teh Bush administration to impose all possible sanctions upon the Communist tyrrants of Beijing, so that one day Red China might be Free China.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 809 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I can not understand how we can give the Red Chinese nation most favored nation status. While they threaten Taiwan just for existing, have consistantly trampled on basic civil rights of their own people. They have aimed missles at our country guided by technology they have stolen from us.
In the mean time Cuba is due for changes, Castro is not going to live forever. Shouldn't we open up trade just a little with the Cubans. With trade comes dialog and an exchange of ideas. It hasn't worked at all in China, but the one place it might work we have tightened trade rather than loosen it.

Yeah, its true... Its the really about the cigars

Posted by: Liberty at Sun Nov 6 06:38:24 2005 (fbUHM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Well, doesn't it always, if you consider how rarely the Washington Post agrees with election results coming out of my state.

Now, though, the Post wants to use teh DeLay case to tell us how to select judges.

Most states have some form of an elected judiciary, but the Texas system is particularly bad: All judges are selected through partisan elections. As then-Chief Justice Tom Phillips, a Republican, said in 2003, "Our partisan, high-dollar judicial selection system has diminished public confidence in our courts, damaged our reputation throughout the country and around the world, and discouraged able lawyers from pursuing a judicial career." The dispute over who will hear the DeLay case is a symptom of a larger problem.

Yeah, we can't have the peole picking judges -- it might give everyone the idea that the judicial branch is answerable to the people and not the other way around! Our system allows the people to serve as a check upon an out-of-control judiciary in a way that the people of , for example, Massachusetts cannot. Wrong-headed decisions may stand, but wrong-headed judges do not.

And as far as the quote form our former chief justice is concerned, he is pretty much alone in taking that position. I was at a meeting a couple of years ago at which he tried to push a non-partisan plan for electing judges for endorsement by a Republican group -- and was soundly rejected because it would taken power away from the people.

What the Post doesn't consider in this case is that we had a relatively unique situation -- a partisan prosecutor on a political vendetta against a leader of the opposing party, being heard by a judge who had in the past stated that he could not be impartial against a defendant whose opponents he had supported financially and who had made larger contributions to an organization that had actively opposed the current defendant. The totality of circumstances made it quite clear that the judges impartiality was subject to serious question. The subsequent challenge by the prosecution was merely a tit-for-tat by an unethical prosecutor who even admitted in his motion that he did not really believe the judge to have a conflict of interest.

No, there is nothing wrong with the current judicial system in Texas -- at least nothing that cannot be solved by dismissing all charges against Tom DeLay and disbarring Ronnie Earle and any of his staff involved in the bringing of the current charges.

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Gary Hart says we are moving towards theocracy.

America risks becoming a theocracy because of the religious right's sway over politics, former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart warned Thursday in a talk in Denver.

At a lunch at the Oxford Hotel sponsored by the Denver Forum, the Democrat touched on his faith journey, took a few jabs at the Bush administration's foreign policy and reassured the audience that it's all right to be a liberal.

Hart, the author of some 15 books, was touting a slim new volume, "God and Caesar in America: An Essay on Religion and Politics."

"The language of politics in the last 10 years has more heavily gravitated toward faith and values," Hart said. "He who controls the definition controls the debate."

To illustrate the shift in religion's role in politics, Hart told of how conservative Protestants worried in the 1960s that President Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, would let the Vatican call the shots. In 2005, the Bush White House sought to reassure evangelicals that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was one of them.

Imagine, Hart said, the reaction if the Kennedy White House had sounded out the pope about a high-court nominee.

"Guess who would have gone up in orbit?" he said. "The religious right in America."

Well, there is an itty-bitty difference here. The pope is a foreigner and the head of state of a foreign country. The evangelicals in question are American citizens and voters. Is its hart’s contention that religious voters – at least one who are part of the so-called “religious right” – have no place being involved in the American political system?

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Gary Hart says we are moving towards theocracy.

America risks becoming a theocracy because of the religious right's sway over politics, former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart warned Thursday in a talk in Denver.

At a lunch at the Oxford Hotel sponsored by the Denver Forum, the Democrat touched on his faith journey, took a few jabs at the Bush administration's foreign policy and reassured the audience that it's all right to be a liberal.

Hart, the author of some 15 books, was touting a slim new volume, "God and Caesar in America: An Essay on Religion and Politics."

"The language of politics in the last 10 years has more heavily gravitated toward faith and values," Hart said. "He who controls the definition controls the debate."

To illustrate the shift in religion's role in politics, Hart told of how conservative Protestants worried in the 1960s that President Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, would let the Vatican call the shots. In 2005, the Bush White House sought to reassure evangelicals that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was one of them.

Imagine, Hart said, the reaction if the Kennedy White House had sounded out the pope about a high-court nominee.

"Guess who would have gone up in orbit?" he said. "The religious right in America."

Well, there is an itty-bitty difference here. The pope is a foreigner and the head of state of a foreign country. The evangelicals in question are American citizens and voters. Is its hart’s contention that religious voters – at least one who are part of the so-called “religious right” – have no place being involved in the American political system?

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

When will the congresscritters realize that the First Amendment gives special protection to political speech? Not soon, I guess, as the House of Representatives refused to pass a measure ensuring the political speech on the internet remains as free as the Founders intended political speech to be.

Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign-finance law, the House decided yesterday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.

The House voted 225-182 for H.R 1606, which would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.
The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign-finance law that banned unlimited “soft-money” contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.

“This is a major unraveling of the law,” Meehan said. At a time when Washington is again being tainted by scandal, including the CIA leak case, “it opens up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process.”

Actually, Marty, the internet politicking of the last few years has shown how more and freer speech can shed light on matters of public importance, and challenge the corruption that exists within the major parties and MSM.

Those who are more concerned about Constitutional principle than “political corruption” (freely expressed political opinions that threaten the interests of entrenched incumbents) see matters differently.

The billÂ’s sponsor, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said the federal government should encourage, rather than fetter, a phenomenon that was bringing more Americans into the political process.

“The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet,” he said. “The Internet is the new town square, and campaign-finance regulations are not appropriate there.”

Without his legislation, Hensarling said, “I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate’s press release to an e-mail list.”

Bloggers from liberal and conservative perspectives made similar predictions at a hearing on the subject in September. “Rather than deal with the red tape of regulation and the risk of legal problems, they will fall silent on all issues of politics,” said Michael J. Krempasky, director of the Web site RedState.org.

Some clearly will fall silent. Others, including this site, will continue to write and publish what we believe until we are silenced by the FECÂ’s jackbooted thugs. They will be prying this keyboard from my cold, dead fingers.

Posted by: Greg at 02:33 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Did Diddy run afoul of federal election law with his “Vote or Die” campaign last year?

A formal complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission Thursday claims Sean "Diddy" Combs violated federal law during the U.S. presidential campaign.

The National Legal and Policy Center, NPLC, claims Diddy violated the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Internal Revenue Service Code, when he rallied support of Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, AllHipHop.com reported.

The NLPC alleges a Detroit rally conducted by Diddy's non-profit group, Citizen Change, included speeches from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick urging the crowd to oust President Bush from office.

The complaint asks the FEC to investigate whether Diddy used his company's corporate funds to illegally support Citizen Change.

The complaint also alleges Diddy may have used his "Vote or Die" campaign as a commercial endeavor to make money for his clothing line.

Combs was not available for comment.

Non-partisan activities are supposed to remain non-partisan. Non-profit groups are not supposed to be about making a profit. As a result, I have to say these questions are worth asking – though I have to admire the man for his efforts o get people out to vote.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

When is a black man not a black man? When he dares to think for himself, using his brain and not his skin.

Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

But then again, when havenÂ’t the elites of the Left seen an independent, successful black man stepping into their world as an equal -- or a superior -- to be a threat?

And then there is this bit on Dr. Condoleezza Rice – note how her intellect and accomplishments are seen as diminishing and negating her blackness.

The dominant personality in the Bush Cabinet is the ultimate meritocrat, Condoleezza Rice, a black woman from Alabama who rose to the top of American life in an A student's bubble that kept her from the harsher realities of race.

Raised in the Democrat-segregated South, deprived of a friend by the bomb of a Klansman, and often one of a handful of blacks in the many fields in which she has excelled, Rice’s striving and succeeding are viewed by liberals as a sign of her disconnectedness from the great mass of American blacks. After all, in their book the only real Negro is a downtrodden Negro. Excellence is just “acting white”.

Well, there you have it. Not only do they all look alike to the lamestream media, but they all think alike, too.

Posted by: Greg at 04:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, racism is this year’s black in politics – as long as it is directed at uppity black men and women who think for themselves and don’t subscribe to the identity politics of the Democrat Party.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mfume, a long-time Uncle Tom for the Party of Slavery and Segregation is thereby arguing that such racial slurs disguised as political commentary are appropriate if the speaker believes them to be the truth.

Similarly, at least one Democrat Aunt Jemima from the Maryland House of Delegates resorted to slave imagery to describe the politics of Lt. Gov Steele.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Gee, Salima, which is less in the best interests of blacks – conservative politics or the notion that thinking and believing differently from the majority is harmful to blacks? Is following the crowd a black virtue, or will it take independent thought and independent action to help the black community advance. In short, do you endorse the freedom to think, speak, and believe as one sees fit, or do you demand the slavery of conformity?

And there is, of course, the racial abuse of Lt. Gov. Steele by Steppin’ Fetchit Gilliard.

But then again, why should we be surprised that the prominent blacks in the Democrat Party are trotted out to sling the slurs for their liberal overseers? They serve the role of slave catchers, punishing those who seek to escape the liberal plantation to discourage others from thinking about freedom.

Oh, and by the way – if you take offense at this satirical piece which makes use of these repulsive racist terms as a means of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left, please give me one logical, principled reason why their use by the groveling Democratic House Negroes is acceptable but mine is not?

UPDATE -- Well, Mfume seems to be trying to parse his statements in such a way as to condemn that which he yesterday approved -- but other top Dems in Maryland think racial slurs are fine and dandy.

Posted by: Greg at 04:24 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, racism is this year’s black in politics – as long as it is directed at uppity black men and women who think for themselves and don’t subscribe to the identity politics of the Democrat Party.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mfume, a long-time Uncle Tom for the Party of Slavery and Segregation is thereby arguing that such racial slurs disguised as political commentary are appropriate if the speaker believes them to be the truth.

Similarly, at least one Democrat Aunt Jemima from the Maryland House of Delegates resorted to slave imagery to describe the politics of Lt. Gov Steele.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Gee, Salima, which is less in the best interests of blacks – conservative politics or the notion that thinking and believing differently from the majority is harmful to blacks? Is following the crowd a black virtue, or will it take independent thought and independent action to help the black community advance. In short, do you endorse the freedom to think, speak, and believe as one sees fit, or do you demand the slavery of conformity?

And there is, of course, the racial abuse of Lt. Gov. Steele by SteppinÂ’ Fetchit Gilliard.

But then again, why should we be surprised that the prominent blacks in the Democrat Party are trotted out to sling the slurs for their liberal overseers? They serve the role of slave catchers, punishing those who seek to escape the liberal plantation to discourage others from thinking about freedom.

Oh, and by the way – if you take offense at this satirical piece which makes use of these repulsive racist terms as a means of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left, please give me one logical, principled reason why their use by the groveling Democratic House Negroes is acceptable but mine is not?

UPDATE -- Well, Mfume seems to be trying to parse his statements in such a way as to condemn that which he yesterday approved -- but other top Dems in Maryland think racial slurs are fine and dandy.

Posted by: Greg at 04:24 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

I think it should be clear after reading this article.

As Detroit lays off hundreds of civil servants, city Clerk Jackie L. Currie has used taxpayer dollars to hire a friend as a $1,000-per-week adviser to help her handle allegations of tainted absentee ballots, the city's director of elections testified Tuesday.

I canÂ’t even begin to summarize the corruption found in CurrieÂ’s office. You must read it to believe it.

Posted by: Greg at 04:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

DonÂ’t you love it when someone mischaracterizes a dispute.

The Blagojevich administration said Tuesday it's guns vs. police when lawmakers decide this week whether to support the governor's veto of three controversial gun measures.

"There isn't really any middle ground on this issue," State Police Director Larry Trent said at a Statehouse news conference. "You either stand with the gun lobby or you stand with law enforcement."

IÂ’ll agree there is no middle ground, but I must dispute how Trent characterizes the conflict.

IÂ’d argue that either you stand with law-abiding citizens who believe in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution or you stand with proto-fascist government officials who donÂ’t.

I guess we know which camp Mr. Trent falls into – and should be worried that he will be armed regardless of the outcome of this vote, while supporters of the Constitution may be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.

Posted by: Greg at 04:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, we see the foes of equal opportunity and non-discrimination pimping the corpse of Rosa Parks to score cheap political points. Today’s guilty party? One United Michigan, an group opposed to ending racial discrimination in government programs and college admissions.

After a Michigan appeals court ordered that a proposed state constitutional amendment to end affirmative action in college admissions be placed on the ballot for consideration by Michigan voters, the spokesman for One United Michigan dragged out the dead woman and sexed her up for the press.

"The irony is that in the week when the country is paying tribute to Rosa Parks, this is an effort to turn Michigan civil rights efforts back to pre-1950 levels," said David Waymire, spokesman for One United Michigan, a coalition of business, labor, religious and political groups opposed to the plan.

No, the irony is that you would use the occasion of the death of a woman who fought for a society in which the government did not distribute benefits based upon race as a tool for promoting the distribution of government benefits based upon race.

You used the unburied body of this heroine for civil rights to argue that blacks and other minorities are incapable of competing intellectually and academically against whites.

You turned the concept of civil rights for all into “government gimmes” for the few of the right hue.

After all, affirmative action judges based upon the color of one’s skin rather than the content of one’s character or the merit of one’s skills and abilities. And your position is nothing less than an affirmation of the old, pre-1950 belief that blacks just don’t have the same level of talent, skill, and ability to compete with white folks.

Frankly, Mr. Waymire, you disgust me, for your position is no different than that of the KKK. And that you would use Rosa Parks to promote such offends me even more.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

Once again, we see the foes of equal opportunity and non-discrimination pimping the corpse of Rosa Parks to score cheap political points. TodayÂ’s guilty party? One United Michigan, an group opposed to ending racial discrimination in government programs and college admissions.

After a Michigan appeals court ordered that a proposed state constitutional amendment to end affirmative action in college admissions be placed on the ballot for consideration by Michigan voters, the spokesman for One United Michigan dragged out the dead woman and sexed her up for the press.

"The irony is that in the week when the country is paying tribute to Rosa Parks, this is an effort to turn Michigan civil rights efforts back to pre-1950 levels," said David Waymire, spokesman for One United Michigan, a coalition of business, labor, religious and political groups opposed to the plan.

No, the irony is that you would use the occasion of the death of a woman who fought for a society in which the government did not distribute benefits based upon race as a tool for promoting the distribution of government benefits based upon race.

You used the unburied body of this heroine for civil rights to argue that blacks and other minorities are incapable of competing intellectually and academically against whites.

You turned the concept of civil rights for all into “government gimmes” for the few of the right hue.

After all, affirmative action judges based upon the color of oneÂ’s skin rather than the content of oneÂ’s character or the merit of oneÂ’s skills and abilities. And your position is nothing less than an affirmation of the old, pre-1950 belief that blacks just donÂ’t have the same level of talent, skill, and ability to compete with white folks.

Frankly, Mr. Waymire, you disgust me, for your position is no different than that of the KKK. And that you would use Rosa Parks to promote such offends me even more.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess I should not be surprised that Jesse Jacksonhas jumped up on top of Rosa Parks’ corpse along with Chucky Schumer to pimp the deceased civil rights pioneer's corpse. After all, this is the lowlife who built a career on the lie that he held the dying Martin Luther King in his arms and who wiped blood from the railing of the Lorraine Hotel on his shirt to give himself “street cred” on that awful April day.

Take his latest column in the Chicago Sun-Times.

There are those who will honor her now in the morning while working to overturn her legacy in the afternoon. President Bush honored her and then nominated Samuel Alito, a states' rights, strict-constructionist throwback to a bygone age, to the Supreme Court. Alito is a "favorite" of the conservative right wing in the nation that has stood on the opposite side of history from Rosa Parks. His legal foundation is clearly adverse to civil rights, women's right to self-determination and labor. He has even earned himself the nickname "Scalito," after Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's most radical reactionary.

To truly honor Rosa Parks, we urge three simple steps: First, support Rep. Jesse Jackson's (D-Ill.) bill to place a permanent statue of Rosa Parks in the Great Hall of Congress. Give Rosa a chance to stare down the champions of slavery and segregation that line those halls. Second, Congress must pass the extension of the Voting Rights Act, the key provisions of which will expire in 2007. Finally, the Senate must stand up against those judicial nominees who would turn their backs on equal opportunity for all. We cannot afford to go back to the age when the law worked against equal rights.

Really, Jesse? Last time I checked, it was the GOP that stood foursquare in favor of civil rights while it was your Slave-ocrat Party that supported Jim Crow. States rights is a legitimate constitutional principle that was abused by Democrats to deny rights to blacks; that does not make it illegitimate in a host of other areas. And as far as Alito being “adverse to civil rights, women’s rights to self-determination and labor”, please offer some concrete, indisputable details rather than vague accusations.

As for your three simplistic steps, I see only one that has merit – the Rosa Parks statue. The termination of the VRA provisions is a long-delayed part of that landmark piece of legislation which will do nothing to harm voting rights but will make the laws of the US apply equally in all states. And to deny this highly qualified and thoughtful jurist a place on the nation’s highest court would be a travesty which would disgrace ms. Parks, not honor her or her legacy.

Actually Jesse, let me point out that Ms. Parks was an honorable, honest woman who lived a life that was unquestionably exemplary. Perhaps the best way of honoring her is for a lying, cheating, stealing adulterer like yourself to retire from public life and to live out your life in a penitential fashion doing more good for others than for yourself.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Dan Froomkin is arguing that a cover-up worked in the Plame-Wilson case. And one of his big complaints? The standard that Patrick Fitzgerald used to investigate teh case and to seek indictments.

Just because a lot of the things Fitzgerald discovered evidently fell short of his very conservative prosecutorial standards -- they weren't out-and-out, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt crimes -- doesn't mean they were up to the standards the public reasonably expects from its White House.

Yep -- that little "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard seems to have gotten in the way of the indictments and the release of confidential information. Froomkin demands that there be a sliming of everyone involved with the publication of the truth about Valerie Plame -- that she was a CIA employee (not currently operating under cover) who decided to feather her husband's nest (and thereby her own) by recommending him for an assignement for which he was not competent, and that her husband repeatedly lied about his wife's role in obtaining that appointment for him, about the data he had access to, and the CIA's conclusion about the reliability of his conclusions.

In other words, Dan Froomkin wants those who told the truth to the American people (Rove and Libby) punished and driven from Washington -- and those who lied (Wilson and Plame) held up as heroes. Why? Because Froomkin wants to see the War on Islamic terror undermined by any means necessary. It may not quite rise to the level of treason as set forth in Article III, but this column certainly qualifies as sedition in time of war.

And if this means using an investigation by a prosecutor for political purposes, thereby uundermining the credibility of the justice system, then Dionne is willing to sacrifice the integrity of an entire branch of government to bring down another.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby today.

Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted today by a federal grand jury after a nearly two-year investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

Capping a week of political turmoil in Washington, Libby promptly resigned and left the White House. He expressed confidence that eventually he would be "totally exonerated," and both Cheney and President Bush praised his talent and dedication. "Obviously, today is a sad day for me and my family," Libby said in a statement.

***

Libby, 55, was indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. The five-count indictment charges that he lied to FBI agents and to the federal grand jury about how and when he learned classified information about the employment of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and disclosed that information to three journalists. If convicted on all counts, Libby faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine.

What today's indictment of Scooter Libby seems to establish is the following.

1) The so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame broke no law -- most likely because the individuals involved did not know that she was operating under cover.

2) The problem with special prosecutors is that they are like a knight-errant roaming to countryside looking for a worng to right. The result is that they find it necessary to bring some sort of charge to justify their investigation. There has to be a better way.

3) Laws on perjury and false statements need to be made much more clear, so that a mere error does not become the basis of criminal charges.

4) When summoned to testify before a grand jury, take the Fifth. When invited to talk to investigators, refuse. The exercise of one's constitutional right to avoid making incriminating statements is perfectly legitimate when your words are going to be combed over looking for the slightest inconsistency, no matter how unintended.

But let me state this for the record -- if it can be shown that Libby or anyone else intentionally lied to or misled investigators, the full sanction of the law should fall on them. Too bad that the Democrats don't support this principle when the liar is one of their own.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.

Why is it that a liberal blogger and a liberal newspaper both published altered photos of prominent black Republicans designed to play upon the lowest of racist stereotypes? Could it be a bit of racist intolerance for those who dared to stray off the plantation?

I found out about the first while making my daily pass through GOPBloggers.

Liberal Racists...

If you haven't seen it already, click here to see what kind of disgusting tactics liberal will go to when they are running scared...

The link will take you to a post full of racial slurs directed at Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland -- and a photo doctored by the racist who owns the site, Steve Gilliard, to make Lt. Gov. Steele appear to be a character from a minstrel show or an episode of Amos 'n' Andy. Gilliard offers the old "I'm black -- you can't criticize me for my racism" defense. Sorry, Steve, but I will follow the teachings of Dr. King and judge you not by the color of your skin but by the content of your character. -- and I find that character to be lacking indeed. That you find it necessary to engage in race-based insults against a man for daring to disagree with your ideology shows just how low you will go to fellate the folks who run the Slavocrat Party that has kept you and your people down for a couple of centuries.

Captain Ed also offers analysis.

And then there is the USA Today incident. Michelle Malkin goes into great detail in a couple of posts, as does Lone Star Times. Suffice it to say that the altered photo gave Dr. Rice glowing eyes that could be described as those of a wild animal or a demon. Malkin posts these analyses of the doctored photo.

The doctored photo of Condi Rice has been removed from USA Today's website with this editor's note:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

More photog feedback from Brad:

I am a professional photographer and have used Photoshop on a daily basis for many years. This malicious retouch of Condi's image is not only intentional, but must have cleared the photo director as well. In other words as a collaborative effort or a wink and a nod.

I don't believe the eye treatment could be the result of over-sharpening alone, but probably involved some heavy handed levels or curve adjustment as well, and the eyes had been isolated from the rest of the image by selection or masking.

And Jason R...

USA Today's explanation is bull. I've been working with Photoshop professionally for years and I don't buy it. If I was editing the image and simply sharpened and lightened her face a bit as they explain, I would hit Command-Z just as fast as I could if my result looked anything like theirs. Trust me, it's both amateurish and deliberate.

And reader KC...

Very interesting explanation from USA Today - what's also semi-comical is that they're in a tight spot as I would most of us would think brightening and sharpening a picture of Condi's ethnic background could also be construed as being racist.

Frankly, the newspaper's explanation just does not make any sense. It would take specific intent to make the eyes appear that way -- and if, by some outlandish chance, the result was unintentional, the decision to run the doctored photo was not. After all, it isn't like the effect is subtle or only in the eye of the beholder. Editor and Publisher has an interesting article that hews to the USA Today party line.

Interestingly enough, the professional Negros are silent. I've not been able to locate a word of outrage from Jesse, Al, or Louis, nor from any of the other swarm of folks who appear any time they can imagine a racial slight or slur. I wonder what the possible reason could be.

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 760 words, total size 5 kb.

Lt. Governor Michael Steele struck just the right note as he announced his bid for the GOP nomination for US Senator from Maryland.

"Too many in Washington today are not working toward that common goal of growth and freedom and an equal opportunity for every individual," Steele noted. "Instead, too many on the left have their feet set in the concrete of old fears, old divisions and the old ways of government.

"And no people can prosper when its leaders believe the route to empowerment lies not in the advancement of the individual, but in the promotion of an opportunistic government," he added. "We can do better."

Imagine that – focusing on individual ability and merit rather than tribalistic groupings based upon group membership. Why, that could tear down the traditional ties that bind minorities to the Democrat Party.

Who is Michael Steele? What sort of man is he? IÂ’d argue he is in the mold of Condoleeza Rice. The Washington Post includes this bit of biographical information.

The grandson of sharecroppers whose father died an alcoholic and whose stepfather drove a taxi, Steele directed the first portion of his speech to his mother, Maebell Turner, who watched from the front row.

"My mom worked 45 years in a laundromat making minimum wage and still managed to put her kids through parochial school," he said. "She never took a penny of public assistance because, as she put it, she didn't want government raising her kids."

Steele graduated from Archbishop Carroll High School, a D.C. Catholic school, determined to enter the priesthood. After college, he wore the white robe of an Augustinian monk for about a year.

During that time, "I discerned and I believe God revealed to me" that the priesthood was not his calling, Steele said in a 2002 interview. He earned a law degree at Georgetown University in 1991.

In short, Michael Steele started at the bottom and worked his way to the top, relying on faith and his own ability. That is a message that is needed in our country today – one which I hope resonates with Marylanders of all races, ethnicities, and religions.

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

Joe Wilson does not understand his own actions and the White House response to them.

As more of an observer than an actor in the Beltway drama, Wilson said, he has no sense of the case's lingering effect on the Bush presidency or its historical significance. But, he said, the people he has met around the country understand why it's important — that it's not right for the White House to go after individuals who disagree with the government.

Uh, that is not quite what happened here, Mr. Ambassador. You did not merely disagree with the government – you called the President of the United States and his closest associates liars. You made specific representations regarding how you came to have this knowledge. What happened then is what is called a “response” – and included both evidence that your representations wee incorrect and questions as to the accuracy of your statements and your reliability as a source. That is a pretty standard part of the political process – heck, it is a pretty standard part of life.

One of the issues broached was how you came to be sent to Africa in the first place. The evidence shows that you were selected because of your family ties to one of those involved in making the selection – namely your wife. That goes to your qualifications – especially since you claimed to have gotten the mission in another fashion. You made factual claims that have been demonstrated to be false. Is it your contention, sir, that no government official had the right to “go after” you on these matters? Are you so arrogant as to claim a right to have the last word on the issue of the Nigerian uranium?

Now you are calling this matter a “civil rights issue”. I’d like to point out, sir, that no one prevented you from speaking or writing on your alleged findings. But you have no civil right to remain uncontradicted by those you attacked, and any claim to the contrary is indicative of your desire to see the rights of others to speak – whether they are government officials or journalists -- sharply curtailed.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

As a supporter of Proposition 2 here in Texas, I have to say that I am NOT happy to have these clowns holding a rally to support my side of the issue.

The city has given permission of the Ku Klux Klan to hold a rally on Saturday, November 5. The group says they want to have a pro-family values rally in front of City Hall that afternoon to get voters to vote against gay marriage.

The city has reserved the Austin City Hall's south plaza on Lavaca and Cesar Chavez from 1-3 pm on Saturday, November 5.

Well, this just goes to show that even the most evil and immoral of groups can get things right from time to time. And as much as I would prefer that they not rally, I will defend their right to do so under the First Amendment.

I guess my biggest concern comes from this communique from the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

In an e-mail to the city for permission, a representative for the American White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan wrote: "Our speech will not be inflammatory, but we all know the reputation of the name of the KKK, so we expect anti-Klan demonstrators to be there who may become violent. We certainly don't want any of our people hurt nor any city officials. We just want to come and encourage people to vote for Christian Family Values and against legalized homosexual marriage in the state of Texas."

Given recent events in Toledo, and given the nature of some of the folks on the other side of the issue, I fear violence.

And to the members of the Klan, let me say that I do not believe you know a thing about Christ or Christian values -- if you did, you would not be cross-burning degenerates.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

As a Texas Republican living in Tom Delay's district, I know that sounds funny. I am, however, tired of seeing district lines drawn to minimize competitive elections. Gerrymandering of districts to favor one party or another may be legal, but it is not right -- no matter which party is guilty.

Modern redistricting is a travesty. Politicians, using powerful computers, design districts that all but guarantee victory to one side or another. Sure, voters can go through the motions on Election Day, but few races are more than fictions. Sometimes the process is rigged to protect incumbents, sometimes to oust them, but maximizing competition and voter choice is never the goal when politicians get to draw the districts in which they or their friends will run. The result contributes to political polarization, since heavily Democratic districts tend to elect people far more liberal than average while heavily Republican districts tend to elect people far more conservative.

Really, I want to see elections in which the issues are being discussed and a choice is offered. I want to see an end to 96% reelection rates in Congress.I'm tired of one member of my household -- be it me or my wife, a partisan Democrat -- going into every election cycle knowing that there is no hope of electing a candidate to office becasue the lines were drawn to prevent it. Frankly, I want democracy to have a chance of working.

Both sides play the gerrymandering game -- and have since nearly the founding of our nation. But two centuries is enough. Slay the gerrymander.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

I always love it when the Left plays games with numbers. Take this example regarding polling data on affirmative action found in today's Detroit News.

But a January poll suggests a slim majority of Michigan voters support a ban on affirmative action in admissions and state hiring. A Detroit News poll conducted Jan. 7-12 of 400 registered voters found 64 percent of respondents favored a ban on affirmative action; 23 percent were opposed.

Now let's see here -- nearly two out of every three Michigan voters want to end affirmative action, and fewer than one in four want to keep it. Where I come from, that is not a "slim majority". In any election, those numbers would be considered a landslide.

Could we be seeing an example of "agenda driven math"?

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Many of us on the right side of the blogosphere have been speaking out against the Miers nomination. For a variety of reasons, we feel she does not merit elevation to the Suprem Court. Now N.Z. Bear of The Truth Laid Bear has made if possible for supporters and opponents to speak clearly on the issue, and to link together to be counted.

Why do I oppose this nomination? Let me offer you a series of links which explain.
The Miers Nomination
Miers And Gay Rights
ShouldnÂ’t She Already Have This?
George W. Bush Is Clearly Delusional
EJ Dionne And Religious Tests
Is Miers Really The Best?
One More Voice Against Miers
I Am Unalterably Opposed
Mr. President -- Withdraw Miers Nomination
I Take Exception To Your taking Exception, Senator

If you read closely, you will see that my objections are not based upon her gender, her religion, or her failure to graduate from an Ivy league school. I do not question her skill as a lawyer. What I do have concerns about is Ms. Miers' lack of writings and speeches that indicate she is intimately familiar with the Constitutional issues of the day. She may be a first-rate intellect, but she does not have the right sort of experience for this particular position -- one that has a lifetime tenure. Given the lack of clarity as to what sort of judge she will be, I feel there is insufficient reason to support this nomination.

For that reason, I oppose the Miers nomination and hope for her withdrawal, or eventual rejection by the Senate.

(A great post from Confederate Yankee)

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Howard Dean has supplied us with more proof that he is delusional -- he seems to be completely unaware of the Clinton-era cesspool of corruption.

The Bush White House is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history since President Warren G. Harding's, said Howard Dean during his first visit to Maine as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dean's comments Saturday came as top White House advisers are being investigated for their roles in the outing of a CIA operative and Tom DeLay, the former second-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, faces conspiracy and money-laundering charges.

"The first thing we're going to do is we're going to have ethics come back to Washington again," said Dean, the keynote speaker at Saturday night's annual fundraising dinner for the Maine Democratic Party at the Lewiston Armory.

To deal with the "culture of corruption," Dean said, there needs to be an ethics code in Congress and stronger campaign finance laws.

Would that code of ethics include no leaking of classified information that got someone killed? If so, then goodbye Senator Leahy.

Would it include the elimination of those who leave innocent women to drown while they go to sleep off the evening of drinking and plot a cover-up? Hasta la vista, Teddy.

How about those who allow their home to be used to run a prostitution service? Tho-long, Barney.

Perjury? Buh-bye, Mrs. Clinton.

I could go on, but you see the point.

More at Blogs for Bush, robwestcott, and In The Bullpen.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

For those on the Left -- especially those in the black community who discount her blackness because she dares to espuse conservative principles -- this should serve as a reminder that Condoleezza Rice knows well just how far the nation has come as part of the struggle for civil rights, and exactly which people were and are the real enemies of African-Americans.

Forty-two years after the church bombing that killed four little girls and inflamed the civil rights movement, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped honor them Saturday by recalling one of the victims as a friend with whom she played with dolls and sang in musicals.

On the second day of a trip to highlight the civil rights era as an example for countries struggling to achieve democracy, Ms. Rice and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain visited the 16th Street Baptist Church, where the bombings occurred, and watched as plaques honoring the girls were unveiled.

"As God would have it, they were at Sunday school when America experienced homegrown terrorists of the worst sort," Ms. Rice said in an emotional ceremony at a park across the street from the church, which was bombed in 1963. In her speech, she sought to connect her childhood in the segregated South to her work as the first African-American woman to be the nation's top diplomat.

"It was meant to shatter our spirit," she said of the bombing. "It was meant to say that we shouldn't rise up. Just a few weeks after Dr. Martin Luther King said, 'I have a dream,' it was meant to tell us that, no, we didn't have a dream, and that dream was going to be denied."

For listeners, particularly Mr. Straw and visiting Britons, the ceremony was a reminder of how much had changed since the city of Ms. Rice's birth was known as "Bombingham," when it was inconceivable that someone from her tight-knit, middle-class, churchgoing community could rise to such prominence.

Four little girls were murdered that day, by those who would stand in the way of the dream of freedom and equality that was and is at the heart of what it means to be an American. They were Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair.

"Denise was my friend," Ms. Rice said. "We played together, we sang together in little musicals. We were children together, and we played with dolls. And that picture of Denise with the dolls will always be near and dear to my heart."

And I would argue that contributions made to this country by Dr. Condoleezza Rice stands as one of the great memorials to her friend -- and to all who sacrificed and died so that she could rise to the place she is today. Those who dishonor her dishonor them and that cause.

And would someone please get the editors at the New York Times a copy of their own stylebook -- given that the Secretary of State has an earned doctorate, it is inappropriate to refer to her as "Ms. Rice".

(UPDATE: Gene Robinson of the Washington Post writes a different sort of view about Rice's visit to Alabama.)

Posted by: Greg at 06:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 3 kb.

Look what Quinnipac found in New Jersey. People think that the Democrats are corrupt.

Most of you think corruption in government is a serious problem in New Jersey. According to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University, 92 percent of you think itÂ’s a serious problem in this state.

But more people think Democrats are the most corrupt according to the findings of the Quinnipiac poll. Half of the people responding to the poll said they associate government corruption to the Democratic Party. Is it no wonder?

Democrats like Bob Torricelli, Jim McGreevey, Charles Kushner, Gary Taffet, Paul Levinsohn, Roger Chugh, David DÂ’Amiano, Golan Cipel, William Watley, Lesly Devereaux, Robert Janiszewski and Anthony Impreveduto head up the long list of recent Democrats caught in a long run of scandals tied to corruption in recent years.

Oh donÂ’t think Republicans are immune, but only 22 percent of respondents in the polls said they associate corruption to the GOP.

That is interesting data, days away from a gubernatorial election.

Oh thereÂ’s no doubt about it. Corruption is a serious problem in the Garden State and its growing like a weed.

There is a very telling aspect to the Quinnipiac poll - Forrester wins in the eyes of voters as a person who is part of the solution in ridding the state of corruption.

Bad news for Corzine. More people - 43 percent - think Corzine is part of the problem when it comes to corruption, while 42 percent think he can solve the problem.

The old teeter totter is in play.

More people are convinced Forrester can solve the stateÂ’s problems. Forrester continues to win the confidence of voters in the poll as the man who can tackle out-of-control property taxes. Forrester continues to win the confidence of voters in the poll as the man who can tackle corruption.

The upshot of this? Expect a Forrester win on November 8.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

The Donks are all up in arm over the leak in the Plame/Wilson Affair and want prosecution of anyone they fantasize was involved -- even invoke the word "treason" despite the fact that no actions defined as treason under Article III of the Constitution are alleged.

But what about the OTHER leak in that happened -- the one the anti-American Bush-hating Let revels in and does not want investigated. The one that FItzgeralsd seems to have ignored.

You know. This one.

But there was another big leak that no one seems to care about: the leak of the CIA's referral to the Justice Department concerning the Plame matter. That second disclosure, perhaps even more than the initial leak, set off the chain of events that resulted in the naming of a special prosecutor and finds us now anticipating indictments of senior White House officials.

Some additional relevant details: The CIA referral to the Justice Department was classified, an intelligence source tells The Weekly Standard. Anyone who disclosed the existence of the referral and described its contents broke the law. The agency, however, has thus far refused to send a referral to the Justice Department that could result in an investigation into the source and effects of that leak. Why? An intelligence source tells The Weekly Standard that there are limits--of time and manpower--to how many such referrals the CIA can make. Perhaps. But there's another possible explanation: The second leak came from the CIA itself, and lawyers there are reluctant to call for an investigation for fear of what such an investigation might reveal.

On Friday, September 26, 2003, NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC's Alex Johnson broke a big story on the MSNBC website. "The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman's husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush's since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned."

So if we are going to investigate leaks of classified material related to the CIA, let's investigate. Call Mitchell and Johnson before teh grand jury and jail them if they refuse to divulge their sources. Call every CIA employee who has ever been within 50 feet of the referral. Let's find out who the leakers are and prosecute them -- and anyone who withholds information or makes a false statement -- and (to use Joe Wilson's colorful phrase) "frog-march them " out of Langley before the waiting media.

Or, as I suspect, out of the Wilson residence.

And since the Left seems to think that leaks in this case constitute treason, let's make that the charge. After all, the Left really is out to help America's enemies.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

Carol Alvarado was elected to Houston City Council in 2001. Since Houston elections are officially non-partisan, I won't tag her with a party label -- but I will note she is a former staffer for Congressman Gene Green (D-Houston).

She claimed to have a bachelor's degree in political science, awarded in 1992.

Guess what -- she didn't. In fact, the degree appears to have awarded much more recently. Like since her opponent exposed the fact that she had not graduated -- as of Thursday, October 20, 2005.

Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado on Friday received a college degree she has claimed for years, after clearing up what she called a "technical oversight" that had kept her a step from the sheepskin.

The councilwoman said she believed she had a degree until her November election opponent released University of Houston documents showing she did not graduate.

Late Friday afternoon, however, in response to a Houston Chronicle request under the Texas Open Records Act, the university released "directory information" showing that Carol Ann Alvarado was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science.

It did not give a date for the degree, and a university spokesman and one of its lawyers said the school was prohibited from providing additional information under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

"We are limited by FERPA as to what information we can provide the public, the media, anyone," said UH spokesman Eric Gerber.

Alvarado said she would provide the university a release allowing it to hand out additional information, but that was not possible by close of business Friday.

"I acknowledged earlier today that there had been a technical oversight, and after talking to them this afternoon, it's been resolved," Alvarado said.

In voter's guide information submitted to the Chronicle when she first ran for City Council in 2001, 2003 and this year, Alvarado says she attended UH from 1987 to 1992 and received her degree. Her City Council Web site and campaign literature also list the degree.

Alvarado's District I opponent, lawyer John Parras, said Friday he began looking into Alvarado's educational credentials after an anonymous tipster left a message on his campaign office phone that she had not graduated.

"As a lawyer, I decided to investigate and share the information with my campaign supporters. I personally went to UH to get written verification," said Parras. "I was shocked when I learned that it was true."

The UH verification documents, dated Thursday, say that Alvarado attended the college of social sciences from 1987 through 1992. "The student intends to pursue a degree, however has not yet formally declared a major and degree objective," the document states, adding it reflected Alvarado's academic record as of Thursday.

In other words, Alvarado has falsely claimed to be a college graduate for years.

But I have an additional question. How is it that Alvarado was awarded a degree at this late date? Most colleges and universities require that degrees be earned within a specific timeframe. Students are also required to meet the requirements of the program that existed when they started their academic work (or at some other point during their academic career). Course credits are generally held to be "stale" after a certain point, and no longer count towards graduation. Were rules bent or broken on behalf of a local political figure?

Let's look at the rules as they are written now at UH.

Some of the current rules at UH are as follows:

1. A catalog more than seven years old shall not be used.

So tell me -- was Alvarado's degree awarded under the old catalog or the new catalog? Does she have the appropriate credits to meet the current graduation requirements? Or was she allowed to graduate using the old degree requirements -- in violation of this published policy?

2. The programs of students who interrupt their enrollment at the University of Houston for more than 13 months shall be governed by the catalog in effect at the time of the students' reentrance to the university. For these purposes, enrollment is defined as registration for and successful completion of at least one three-semester-hour course during a semester or summer session. Students forced to withdraw for adequate cause before completion of a course may petition the dean of the college of their major for a waiver of this provision at the time of withdrawal.

It is clear that Alvarado could not have met this requirement in less than 24 hours, as it would have been impossible for her to enroll in and complete a 3-hour semester course in that time. Furthermore, there can be no waiver because she did not make the request when she ceased attending UH in 1992 -- and there would have been no adequate cause for granting one.

It would therefore appear that Alvarado's degree -- obviously awarded on October 21, 2005 -- was awarded fraudulently and in violation of University regulations published in the school's catalog and on its own website. Furthermore, it is likely that the awarding of the degree violates state law, given the fact that UH is a state university and the awarding of degrees by post-secondary institutions (both public and private) are highly regulated by the state of Texas.

It sounds to me like there is a need for an investigation of the falsification of records that underlies the irregular awarding of this fake degree by the University of Houston to Carol Alvarado.

And Houston voters, please take note -- she has been lying to you for years. Don't let her get away with it any longer.

UPDATE: At least two local Democrats have tried to spin this one in a way that minimizes the importance of this case of academic fraud and resume padding. Greg of Greg's Opinion (good name for a blogger and a blog, if I may say) tries to argue that following the rules and completing the degree requirements to graduate was not that important at the time he and Alvarado attended UH, so claiming a degree one did not earn is no big deal. Dos Centavos implies that bringing up the failure of Alvarado to complete all requirements for her degree and then deceiving the public for over a decade is really nothing more than a racist move to discredit the accomplisment of Latinos. I wonder if they would feel the way if this were Tom DeLay's degree that were in question?

UPDATE -- 10/25/05: Alvarado's opponent, John Parras, still wants her resignation, UH Regent Morgan Dunn O'Connor wants the political influence question investigated, but Mayor Bill White still backs her.)

(10/22/05 -- I'm linking this to several "Open Trackback" posts around the web. Welcome to visitors from Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, MacStansbury, Cafe Oregano, Basil's Blog, Adam's Blog, Mudville Gazette, Publius Rendevous, Obligatory Anecdotes, Indepundit, The Political Teen, TMH's Bacon Bits, Vince Aut Morire, Two Babes and a Brain, Point Five, and My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.)

Posted by: Greg at 04:11 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1176 words, total size 9 kb.

The Washington Post has a pair of great letters today about the potential for FEC destruction of blogs like this one.

The first is from Jerry Berman, President of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

The Post is right to be concerned about a proposed campaign finance bill that exempts Internet communications from the spending limits and other rules that apply in the "offline" world ["Cyber Loophole," editorial, Oct. 11]. The scenario of a deep-pocketed donor making an end run around federal spending limits by funding a candidate's Internet advertising operation is certainly possible.

But the solution the editorial offered -- leaving it to the Federal Election Commission to apply campaign finance laws to the Internet -- is a blunderbuss that will squelch political speech by individuals spending little or no money. The FEC lacks the authority to adequately protect small online speakers while regulating big money

online.

The Internet is the most powerful tool for political discourse since the printing press. If the FEC is forced to apply existing law, ordinary individuals will be subjected to reporting requirements and other burdens suited to organized (and usually well-heeled) political operations. How many will abandon their valuable discourse to avoid running afoul of federal law?

Congress has no choice but to get involved. New federal rules should be crafted to address abuses by big money while protecting the rights of individuals to use the Internet to its fullest potential.

JERRY BERMAN
President
Center for Democracy and Technology
Washington

Now my only problem with Berman's letter is that it seems to accept the notion that political speech is exempt from First Amendment protection -- you know, that "Congress shall make no law" thing that comes right at the beginning of the Bill of Rights. Frankly, who cares if some wealthy individual uses his money to buy ads for the candidate of his choice. That is, after all, how it is supposed to work -- the unfettered marketplace of ideas.

The other comes from Adam C. Bonin, who is the attorney for Atrios and Kos -- two voices I believe to be wrong much of the time but which I would still prefer not to see squelched (heck -- the Daily Kos and its commenters are one of the most powerful arguments in favor of conservatism out htere).

It would be wonderful if the Federal Election Commission could, as The Post hopes, rewrite its regulations to protect the free-speech rights of bloggers and to subject Internet advertising to the rules that govern other media.

Unfortunately, since my clients (prominent liberal bloggers) testified before the FEC in June, the commission has dropped to five members and now seems incapable of forming a consensus on these issues. Moreover, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has recommended that the president replace as many as four commissioners whose terms are expiring with pro-regulation allies.

As the 2006 primaries approach, it is questionable whether a newly constituted FEC will have the time or expertise to enact the regulations The Post seeks.

A blanket exemption of the Internet from the definition of public communications, on the other hand, would preserve the flourishing status quo. In 2004 a vibrant blogosphere empowered millions of citizens to influence national politics, leveling the effect of wealth on the electoral process. The low costs of entry, ease of use and infinite bandwidth of the Internet stand as a counterweight to political action committees and other entrenched interests. This citizen participation, however, would be chilled by poorly drafted or complex regulations designed to thwart a threat that remains theoretical.

A temporary exemption would allow Congress and the FEC to determine what problems may require intervention as the medium grows. In the meantime, why rush to regulate for 2006 that which caused no problem in 2004?

ADAM C. BONIN
Philadelphia

I'm in much closer agreement here, though I am again disturbed by the fact that Bonin still accepts the notion that Congress can and should be regulating political speech at all.

Like I said -- I agree with the position taken by these guys tha thte FEC should keep its hands of the Internet as we approach the 2006 elections. However, what part of "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" do these men fail to understand?

I'll say it right now -- I'm blogging in 2006, and right on through 2008 and beyond. The First Amendment is my authority to do so. I'll stop only if jailed -- or if the federal government so thoroughly exceeds its delegated powers that it finds a way to keep me off the a government-censored Internet.

At which point the Second Amendment comes into play, as intended by the Founders.

Posted by: Greg at 03:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 785 words, total size 5 kb.

Senator John Cornyn is upset about comments made by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter regarding Harriet Miers, her lack of qualifications for the Supreme Court, and her incomplete and inadequate response to the questions sent to her by the committee.

Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee and a former judge, took exception on Friday to comments by Senator Arlen Specter, the committee chairman, that Harriet E. Miers, the Supreme Court nominee, needed a "crash course on constitutional law."

Mr. Cornyn, on Capitol Hill with a group of lawyers from Texas who support her confirmation, said, "I personally find that not only false but condescending and really inappropriate."

He did not name Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, but referred to "this myth that some have propagated about this nominee that somehow she needs to take time off to cram, to get prepared or to essentially take Constitutional Law 101."

In an interview, Mr. Specter said Mr. Cornyn was "entitled to his opinion."

If you had told me a year ago that I would side with Specter against my own senator on the issue of a Bush Supreme Court nominee, I would have busted a gut laughing. But now I find myself in precisely such a situation -- watching Specter defending the integrity of the SUpreme Court and the Constitution while my own senator -- a many who I respect and eagerly campaigned for in 2002 because of his judicial experience and support for proper constitutional principles -- is backing the president's appointment of an underqualified crony to the highest court in the land.

John -- this long-time GOP activist takes exception to your taking exception to the criticism of Harriet Miers. The time has long passed for you (and the president) to quit standing up for Ms. Miers simply because she is your friend. I had expected better of you.

Posted by: Greg at 03:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

Democrats and the Media have been waiting for the "perp walk" of Congressman Tom Delay.

And he scammed them all.

Instead of goint to be booked in Austin or in his hometown of Sugarland, DeLay went instead to the Harris County Jail and had himself booked at that facility -- which was perfedtly legal under the law.

That left the reporters with nothing to cover, since they were in Fort Bend County while the deed was done in the heart of Houston!

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's booking photograph on conspiracy and money-laundering charges Thursday looked more like a campaign glossy than the mug shot of someone accused of felonies preparing to make his first court appearance.

DeLay wears a suit and a winning smile. There are no height hash marks in the background, no numbers across the chest of the Sugar Land Republican.

It is a picture that looks as if it could have been taken in any driver's license or passport office in Texas, rather than the Harris County Sheriff's Office. For one thing, the sheriff's office no longer uses number slates. Fingerprints are inkless, too. And DeLay brought a politician's charm to a serious situation.

"We've had people smile even though it's a booking photo, but we certainly don't tell people to smile," said spokesman Lt. John Martin. "That's entirely up to them."

Maneuvering over DeLay's booking and the public images it would produce was the latest rumble in three weeks of hardball legal activity mixed with public relations.

DeLay's lawyers have tried to make Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle look like an inept and unethical partisan prosecutor while Earle demanded that DeLay be treated like a common criminal before coming to court today.

And Tom, that is a fantastic picture. I agree with political scientist larry Sabato, who says you could use this on campaign material. I've met you a number of times over the years, and have never seen you look so good or smile so wide. If the Democrats want to use that shot for political puroses, they will really have to doctor it up.

Posted by: Greg at 05:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Don't you love it when some member of the Left displays multiple hypocrisies in one piece of writing? Here's a new entry in the "how hypocritical can I be" sweepstakes. It also qualifies as one of the most hateful pieces I've read of late, outside of comments at DU, Kos or AmericaBlog.

Who are you to judge? Who are you to say that the more than slightly creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th child yes that's right 16 kids and try not to cringe in phantom vaginal pain when you say it, who are you to say Michelle Duggar is not more than a little unhinged and sad and lost?

And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling husband -- whose name is, of course, Jim Bob and he's hankerin' to be a Republican senator and try not to wince in sociopolitical pain when you say that -- isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants more! Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the hell is wrong with you people?"

But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this bizarre Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable people with alarmingly bad hair, the kids ranging in ages from 1 to 17, worse than those nuked Smurfs in that UNICEF commercial and worse than all the horrific rubble in Pakistan and worse than the cluster-bomb nightmare that is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise having a child as they suck the skin from each other's Scientological faces and even worse than that huge 13-foot python which ate that six-foot alligator and then exploded.

It's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. Or is it?

Is it wrong to notice how all the Duggar kids' names start with the letter J (Jeremiah and Josiah and Jedediah and Jesus, someone please stop them), and that if you study the above photo (or the even more disturbing family Web site) too closely you will become rashy and depressed and you will crave large quantities of alcohol and loud aggressive music to deflect the creeping feeling that this planet is devolving faster than you can suck the contents from a large bong? But I'm not judging.

I have a friend who used to co-babysit (yes, it required two sitters) for a family of 10 kids, and she reports that they were, almost without fail, manic and hyper and bewildered and attention deprived in the worst way, half of them addicted to prescription meds to calm their neglected nerves and the other half bound for years of therapy due to complete loss of having the slightest clue as to who they actually were, lost in the family crowd, just another blank, needy face at the table. Is this the guaranteed affliction for every child of very large families? Of course not. But I'm guessing it's more common than you imagine.

What's more, after the 10th kid popped out, the family doctor essentially prohibited the baby-addicted mother from having any more offspring, considering the pummeling endured by her various matronly systems, and it's actually painful to imagine the logistics, the toll on Michelle Duggar's body, the ravages it has endured to give birth to roughly one child per year for nearly two decades, and you cannot help but wonder about her body and its various biological and sexual ... no, no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that.
Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to offset the damage?

Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who, along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers? Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?

Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy joyous thing?
You already know why. It is the Biggest Reason of All. Children are, after all, God's little gifts. Kids are little blessings from the Lord, the Almighty's own screaming spitballs of joy. Hell, Jim Bob said so himself, when asked if the couple would soon be going for a 17th rug rat: "We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." This is what he actually said. And God did not strike him dead on the spot.

Let us be clear: I don't care what sort of God you believe in, it's a safe bet that hysterical breeding does not top her list of desirables. God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests. We already have three billion humans on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a day. Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in abject poverty. We are burning through the planet's resources faster than a Republican can eat an endangered caribou stew. Note to Michelle Duggar: If God wanted you to have a massive pile of children, she'd have given your uterus a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Stop it now.

Ah, but this is America, yes? People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their families if they can afford it and if it's within the law and so long as they aren't gay or deviant or happily flouting Good Christian Values, right? Shouldn't they? Hell, gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they either lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people.

No, no one says that. That would be mean.

So let's consider this.

We have a supposedly "pro-choice" individual daring to object to the reproductive choices made by a woman and praising a doctor in another case who "essentially prohibited the baby-addicted mother from having any more offspring". Tell me, where are your pro-choice ethics, Mark -- especially since you are a man,, which makes you ineligible to even comment on a woman's reproductive choices according to the feminists?

We have religious bigotry shining through. After all, you repeatedly hit at the religious beliefs of the "homophobic neo-Christians" who have large families. What, you object to people living out their religious beliefs, and seek to enforce your own? Your intolerance is shining through, you hypocritical liberal! Especially when you have the audacity to inform them of what the God they believe in wants of them -- I thought that telling others what God wants was a no-no in the non-judgmental Leftist handbook.

And, of course, there are the gratuitous comments about the race of the family, as well as the politics, the insults about the parenting skills and even the gratuitous comments about the children having names that start with the letter J.

But I know you cannot help yourself -- because far from being open-minded and non-judgmental, liberals are usually among the most judgmental people in the world, judging those who dare to disagree with them as evil, selfish, hateful and mean-spirited. Unfortunately, such terms tend to be much more reflective of the liberal mindset, as you have demonstrated today.

And certainly the columnist who wrote the above is among the most judgmental SOBs in the Liberal fold.

Posted by: Greg at 03:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1582 words, total size 9 kb.

One ignorant Leftie commenter has accused me of racist stereotyping for daring to suggest that the riot in Toledo over the weekend was the work of black gangs.

Well guess what – the police in Toledo think so, too!

In the days leading up to the scheduled neo-Nazi rally in North Toledo, police gathered intelligence that gang members would be present and do something if they had the opportunity.

No specifics were mentioned, but police prepared for retaliation by gang members and their associates. They didn't plan for people to turn on the police.
"The intelligence indicated they were calling a peace among themselves and [would] show a unified front. They felt the Nazis were challenging them," police Deputy Chief Derrick Diggs said. "Why they looted, I can't answer that."
Police are still sorting through who was involved in the riot that followed a planned National Socialist Movement rally, which was canceled before it even started. Authorities have arrested 119 people since the riot, including some for violating the citywide curfew that was in effect until yesterday.

More arrests could follow as police view video taken by the department and from some businesses. They will review video from police vehicles and are asking the public and the media for any video footage they have.

While not everyone involved in the riot was a gang member, those who were gang members came from all over the city, authorities said. Various gang colors were seen on the streets.

So, does anyone want to speculate on the likelihood that said moonbat will offer me an apology? I’m willing to bet that the odds are about ZERO – and that he will accuse the police of racism for suggesting that these gangs, composed mostly of black males, even exist.

And notice, please, that the gangs cooperated for the specific purpose of violating the civil rights of a group that wanted to engage in constitutionally protected speech in a public place. Will any of the rioters face charges for these violations of the civil rights of the Nazis, as a gang of whites would if they tried to prevent a rally and march by black groups? Again, the odds are probably somewhere around ZERO.

And lest anyone complain that I am taking the side of the Nazis here, let me be very explicit. Nazis are scum – they are among the lowest of the low and I denounce them and their message. But in the end, they still have the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Those who conspired to violate those rights are even lower than the Nazis, and deserve harsh punishment for their un-American activities.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

I have to disagree with the call by Jack Kemp, one of the heroes of my youth, to renew certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 2007.

It is important that Congress renew all three provisions that are set to expire: Section 5, which requires federal approval for proposed changes in voting or election procedures in areas with a history of discrimination; Section 203, which requires some jurisdictions to provide assistance in other languages to voters who are not literate or fluent in English; and the portions of Sections 6-9 of the Act that authorize the federal government to send federal election examiners and observers to certain jurisdictions covered by Section 5, where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls.

Now some of you may ask how I could possibly object to these provisions. The answer is a simple and commonsense one. These provisions do not apply equally across the United States, but rather are applicable to only some parts of the country. In addition, some of the provisions interfere with state and local powers in a manner which is constitutionally suspect.

Take, for example, Section 5 of the Act, which requires federal approval for changes in voting and election procedures. This extra step takes away decisions on what voting machines to use or how to draw local election lines from those on the local level and ultimately vests those decisions with the Department of Justice. These are, however, ultimately state matters, not federal issues.
This even creates situations in which there is federal involvement in local annexation decisions. Some thirty years ago, the city of Houston was required to fundamentally alter its form of government because it annexed an area slated for increased commercial and residential development – on the basis that this economic decision increased the white population and was therefore detrimental to black political participation. Less than a decade ago, another annexation required the creation of a 50-mile long district connected by bayous and drainage ditches so as to not overwhelm a contiguous minority district with white voters who might (only might) elect a white instead of a black or Hispanic city council member. Neither of the annexations was about race – both were about increased property taxes. Had the same sort of annexation taken place in another part of the country – say in Seattle – the federal government would have had no role in directing what was fundamentally a local decision. Four decades after the passage of this temporary solution to a critical problem, it is time to let the remedy expire as the authors of the legislation intended – or to expand the provision to subject the entire country to federal oversight. The latter would, of course, be one more nail in the coffin of federalism and states' rights, and so is not particularly appealing to those of us who still believe in the US Constitution.

Similarly, the provisions of Section 6-9 that authorize federal examiners and observers need to either be dropped or expanded to cover the entire nation. Significant acts of minority voter intimidation are rare – and they are just as likely to exist in areas not covered by Sections 6-9. Either provide protection nationwide, or cease imposing the burden on areas where discrimination was common four decades ago but where it is no more likely today than in other parts of the country. And might I also suggest that federal authority be expanded to include intimidation of citizens by ideologically motivated liberals, as was frequently documented during the 2004 election campaign? After all, civil rights violations are just as severe if they are based upon ideology as they are when based upon race.

As far as the question of interpreters goes, I have no problem with the requirement as it is written – but believe it should be modified to allow for mechanical/technological solutions to the problem of non-English speaking and illiterate voters. I’m the election judge in my precinct, and our voting machines include both written and spoken (via headphones) versions of the ballot in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Is a live interpreter really necessary in such a situation? I do not believe so – but the VRA as currently written requires a warm body be present.

Besides, even if the entire Voting Rights Act were to be repealed, there are still powerful tools available to those who would seek to protect the voting rights of every citizen. They are the very provisions of the US Constitution that expand and guarantee the franchise, and they need no special legislation that discriminates against certain parts of the country.

So I am sorry, but I have to disagree with my college hero – the man who I supported and campaigned for with all my heart in the 1988 race for the GOP nomination – on the issue of rubber stamping the renewal of these few provisions of the Voting Rights Act that were designed as temporary measures that expired with the passage of time. Let them expire, or fix them to meet the realities of the present day.

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 867 words, total size 6 kb.

Sounds like someone at the Department of Homeland Security is interested in seeing the nationÂ’s immigration laws enforced. And even better, it is a guy with a bit of authority!

The head of the federal Homeland Security department says he wants to end the "catch and release" policy that has let tens of thousands of non-Mexican illegal immigrants stay in the U-S.

Michael Chertoff says every single illegal alien caught should be returned to their home country - no exceptions.

Chertoff made the statement this morning at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting called to discuss immigration reform measures now before Congress.

Chertoff said nearly 900-thousand Mexicans caught entering U-S every year are returned immediately to Mexico, but only 20-thousand of 160-thousand aliens from other countries were sent home last year. The rest were let go because there's no jail space.

If we take care of the “catch-and-release” policy, maybe we will start to get a handle on the immigration problems that exist. Who knows – maybe we will even stat to get rid of some of the illegal aliens already here.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Ronnie Earle's case was so weak that he tried to coerce a misdemeanor plea deal from Tom DeLay, according to DeLay's attorney in documents filed today in advance of DeLay's first court appearance.

"Before the first indictment you tried to coerce a guilty plea from Tom DeLay for a misdemeanor, stating the alternative was indictment for a felony which would require his stepping down as majority leader of the United States House of Representatives," DeGuerin wrote.

"He turned you down flat so you had him indicted, in spite of advice from others in your office that Tom DeLay had not committed any crime," the lawyer contended.

This sure makes it seem like Earle's filing was less about the evidence thanit was about his anger over being rebuffed by DeLay.

THe filings also include requests for the following:

- A speedy trial, because the indictments "have already had adverse collateral consequences including the temporary loss of Tom DeLay's leadership position in the United States Congress and an unknown effect on the upcoming (March 2006) primary election."

- Dismissal of the indictments because, he contended, they failed to allege any act or omission by DeLay and improperly joined two offenses.

- Separation of DeLay's case from that of two political associates, because DeLay wants a speedy trial while the associates are pursuing appeals that would delay their cases.

Good Luck, Tom -- we here in District 22 are backing you on this one.

Posted by: Greg at 12:09 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.