Look who is seeking to make money off of her grief and notoriety. I wonder what this does to her unassailable moral authority.

There are moments in history when the courageous actions of one individual act to galvanize a movement – whether for civil rights, women's rights, pro-democracy, or against a war.

The summer of 2005 will forever be remembered with one mother's vigil for her lost son at President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Cindy Sheehan has re-energized the nation's anti-war movement with her unflagging desire to meet with the president to ask: “What is the noble cause for which my son died in Iraq?”

Cindy Sheehan has become a national symbol of the powerless confronting the powerful, of a mother mourning the loss of her child and seeking answers from the nation's commander-in-chief, the man who made the case for the war in which her son lost his life.

Sheehan's activism has not ended with the president returning to Washington after his vacation. She is now involved in public speaking to groups around the country: one mother with one voice and one mission – to find a way to bring our troops home and spare other parents the grief of losing a child in an unjust war.

For additional information on Cindy Sheehan and her public speaking availability, visit www.speakingmatters.org.

I guess the “personal matters” she needed o deal with when she abandoned her bus caravan last month might have been arranging for a lucrative public speaking contract.

UPDATE: Look at this shameless grave robber's latest outrageous comment.

George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.

Incredible!

(Hat Tip -- StrataSphere, Bogus Gold, Combs Spouts Off, California Conservative, and Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

So, Gov. Blagojevich, would you care to explain this allegation? Did you attempt to steer state contracts those who agreed to make donations to your campaign?

Blagojevich said he had "no knowledge whatsoever" about any pension deals being traded for contributions to his campaign. "Absolutely not," the governor said. "I know nothing about any of that."

Cari's 17-page plea offers no indication he ever spoke directly to Blagojevich or anybody from his political fund-raising operation, but the document laid out a broad "fund-raising strategy" outlined to Cari by Levine. Levine told Cari that he and Blagojevich's two fund-raisers would "not let an Illinois public pension fund . . . invest in a private equity fund" unless that firm hired a consultant they chose, and that consultant agreed to make "certain political or charitable contributions."

Blagojevich was not specifically named in the Cari plea, which referred to him as "Public Official A." Sources confirmed to the Chicago Sun-Times that the governor is Official A. The administration said it had no idea who Official A is.

Top Blagojevich fund-raisers Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Christopher G. Kelly were referred to in the plea as "two close associates" of the governor who helped him "pick law firms, investment banking firms and consultants that would help Public Official A." The Sun-Times confirmed their identities through the same sources.

Blagojevich, Kelly and Rezko have not been charged with any wrongdoing. Attempts to reach Kelly and Rezko were unsuccessful.

Also Thursday, former teacher pension board outside counsel Steven Loren, 50, pleaded guilty to tax-related charges tied to the alleged scheme. Both Cari and Loren are cooperating with prosecutors.

The scheme outlined in Cari's plea deal is similar to allegations raised earlier this year by Blagojevich's estranged father-in-law, Chicago Ald. Richard Mell (33rd), who accused Kelly of orchestrating appointments to state boards and commissions in exchange for contributions to Blagojevich

Why is it that “Public Official A” Blagojevich is getting a pass from the national media for actual corruption involving the diversion of funds into his campaign coffers, while House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is being tarred by allegations that relate to accounting questions and technical definitions? Could it be that the reason relates to the letters R & D, not the letter A?

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

Look what the GOP has found in the state of New Jersey.

At a news conference in Trenton, Republican officials said their analysis found:

# 54,601 people were registered in more than one county, and 4,397 appeared to have voted twice in the 2004 presidential election.

# 170,558 people were registered to vote in New Jersey as well as other states. Of those, 90,025 voted in New Jersey last year, and 6,572 appeared to have voted in two states.

# 4,755 individuals listed in county records as deceased also were listed as voting last year.

Voting from the grave has long been the stuff of Jersey lore, especially in Hudson County. But the GOP analysis found matches between the lists of the dead and the lists of the voting in all 21 counties around the state.

The highest number, 609, was found in heavily populated Bergen County. Monmouth (450), Camden (430), Essex (354) and Union (325) all had more than Hudson, which tied with Morris at 298.

How serious do the Democrats take documentation of such voter irregularities?

Richard McGrath, spokesman for the Democratic State Committee, reacted skeptically. "If the Republican Party conducted the investigation, it's safe to assume the facts and figures are wrong and the findings are suspect," he said.

Given that response, it is safe to assume that the fraud benefits the Democrats and they will fight solving the problem tooth-and-nail.

America, it is time to ask a pointed question.

How much more evidence is necessary to force a complete purge of the voter rolls, the implementation of mandatory photo identification on election day, and other common-sense voting reforms in this country?

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

They may have tried to shut her down, but one woman with courage and a message managed to upstage the anti-American thugs of MoveOn.org who wanted to prevent her from exercising the freedom of speech that they demanded for themselves.

Clarice McMillan, of Alexandria, Va., was standing about 25 feet behind the MoveOn.org protesters holding a small, hand-written sign that read, "Support the president and love the people." She had been there for only a few minutes when she was confronted by a screaming MoveOn.org supporter.

"Damn you! Supporting the president's great, but supporting the people and the Constitution is more important," the unidentified woman screamed at McMillan. "The Constitution and the babies who died is [sic] more important than any president and you know that in your heart."

Another MoveOn.org supporter pulled the now crying woman away, telling her, "Don't make this the event." Other protesters criticized members of the media for videotaping the confrontation and interviewing McMillan, who said she understood the verbal assault.

"Well, she was upset. She was just upset. It's okay, I can understand that people get emotional," McMillan said. "I want the people to get help, but I don't think this is the time for blame and criticism or the time for MoveOn.org to take advantage of this."

MoveOn.org supporters continued to heckle members of the press and interrupt McMillan as she explained why she lodged her one-woman counter-protest.

Bravo, Ms. McMillan. You are proof that one person speaking the truth can overcome the lies of a mob.

Posted by: Greg at 02:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

Should running for office and being certified the winner make you liable for the legal fees of someone who challenges the results?

The results of last year's House District 12 election are finally complete. Justice lost.

Acting on a court order, the Lake County sheriff on Aug. 31 confiscated the $543.60 from Rick Jore's checking accounts at Community Bank in Ronan. The bank took the remaining $25 in his account as its fee for the transaction. The rest goes to the Meloy-Trieweiler law firm in Helena, the firm that represented the Democratic candidate who won the Nov. 2 election with an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The worst of Jore's punishment is yet to come. An Aug. 25 order from state District Court Judge Kim Christopher of Polson directs Sheriff Bill Barron to collect from Jore a total of $15,663.56 - plus 10 percent interest dating to June 16. Finding but a fraction of that amount in Jore's bank accounts, the sheriff now is supposed to seize $15,119.96 worth of Jore's personal property, moving on to his house or land after that if necessary. For his trouble, the sheriff will collect a final $60 as his fee for taking Jore's money and property.

What did Jore do to earn such a penalty?

Nothing. He broke no law. He violated nobody's rights. He neglected no duty. All he did was run for public office, for a seat in the Montana House of Representatives.

Jore ran as the Constitution Party candidate in a three-way race against Republican Jack Cross and Democrat Jeanne Windham. Lake County election officials initially declared the election a tie between Jore and Windham, with Cross trailing a distant third. However a handful of ballots counted for Jore were challenged by Windham and the Democrats. And for good reason: Several ballots marked for Jore also had marks adjacent to Cross' name. County election judges somehow divined the voters' intention in those cases to be to vote for Jore. With the election ending in an apparent tie, the governor got to appoint the winner. She picked Jore. A voter and Democratic proxy named Anita Big Spring appealed to the state Supreme Court.

All Jore did was respond to the lawsuit and argue that hte results should stand -- and he therefore was assessed the legal fees of the folks who challenged the outcome -- even though he is accused of nothing other than having been declared the winner. That outcome is sick.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

In a move strikingly similar to those taken against civil rights activists by racists during the 1950s and 1960s, a pair of homosexual activists in Massachusetts is seeking to intimidate citizens of Massachusetts who want to sign petitions for a proposal to ban homosexual marriages and civil unions in Massachusetts.

``I have the fight in me now, and if people I know, or that I support, or that I do business with are on that list, I might not support them or their philanthropies or their businesses,'' said Tom Lang, who launched knowthyneighbor.org with his spouse, Alex Westerhoff.

Lang, 42, said he and Westerhoff, 36, are only providing via the Internet public information that any citizen could obtain at the secretary of state's office. But anti-gay marriage activists are outraged.

``We think that it is intimidation by no other name,'' said Kristian Mineau, whose name was listed as one of the first 30 signers of the petition. Mineau said he will explore the rights of people who have signed or plan to sign the petition.

``Certainly it raises my concerns. This is the first I have heard of it,'' said Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Mineau and his wife are listed on the site, along with their address. Also listed: former Mayor Raymond L. Flynn; Dover Selectwoman Kathleen W. Weld and her husband, Walter Weld; and Richard W. Richardson, spokesman for the Black Ministerial Alliance.

This strikes at the heart of public participation in the electoral process. It is also more than a little reminiscent of tactics by the Democrat Party and other racist groups in the South to get the membership rolls of the NAACP and other groups made public so that the public could know which neighbors to harass and which businesses to boycott.

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Several years ago, California voters passed Proposition 22, establishing that marriage in the state of California is between one man and one woman. There was a vote of more than 60% in favor of the proposition, so one cannot even argue that it represented a slim majority imposing its will on the state -- the vote was overwhelming.

On Monday, the California Assembly gave the people of California the finger by passing legislation that runs directly contrary to the express wish of the people.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated he will veto the bill.

Schwarzenegger's spokeswoman defended the governor's position, saying he continues to back gay rights, including domestic partnership programs that grant same-sex couples most of the rights enjoyed by married couples. She noted that in 2000 California's voters expressed their views on the marriage issue, passing by more than 60 percent Proposition 22, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Why does Arnold take this position? It might have something to do with the California Constitution (bold mine).

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 10.

(a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.

(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

(d) Prior to circulation of an initiative or referendum petition for signatures, a copy shall be submitted to the Attorney General who shall prepare a title and summary of the measure as provided by law.

(e) The Legislature shall provide the manner in which petitions shall be circulated, presented, and certified, and measures submitted to the electors.

Since the recently passed legislation has the effect of repealing Proposition 22, a vote of the people is required. However, the legislation does not provide for the constitutionally mandated vote, and is therefore in direct defiance of the California Constitution. One has to recognize this legislation as totally flawed, regardless of one's position on the issue of homosexual marriage. That mandates support for the veto.

Supporters of the legislation, of course, don't want a little thing like constitutional law to get in the way of getting what they want. Take this argument.

The legislature didn't "derail" any vote. Proposition 22 was not voted on by the current California populace. Many of those who voted on Prop 22 are now dead, massive amounts of new voters have entered the pool and in the 5 years since that legislation passed many voters have changed their mind (according to polling data). It is the new California voting population who decided (AFTER Prop 22) that these current politicians (the ones who passed the equality bill) were fit to represent them. Now these politicians have done what they were elected to do and if anybody is "derailing" the will of the CURRENT voting population of California it is Schwarzenegger.

Unfortunately for the owner of that blog, it makes as much sense to argue that as it does to argue that Congress could reinstitute slavery without repealing the Thirteenth Amendment, since they represent the will of the people today and the Thirteenth Amendment represents the will of the people 140 years ago. Any rational person recognizes the flaw in both the posters original argument and the hypothetical I put forth -- both situations would ignore the process mandated by the respective constitutions to take the course of action in question.

Of course, many supporters of homosexual marriage are not anywhere near as intellectual as my old friend dolphin is. Take this example (heck, take the whole thread) from Americablog, where there is outrage that Maria has not forced Arnold to sign the bill.

The Arnold is a Nazi Whore with a wife that loves his fame and money. She sold out her principles when she married this 8 inch 2 around uncut salami that gets more action than the Deli cold cut Of The DAy. Don't think for a minute he isn't available for influential men and wealthy ladies who love nothing more than to get serviced by the German Stud Meister. His body and brain have turned to mush and he can't comprehed that Sheldon et.al.will dump him in a heart beat, once they have used him on the gay marriage thing. He's not the darling of the radical right wing. He's a flabby slob that will never be returned to office, no matter who he diddles. It's over for him. He's sold himself to the highest bidder, slavik accent and all. Besides, he's not Sheldon's type, Mitt Romney is.

Much of the rest of the thread is the same, by the way, unless it gets cleaned up. And they say that conservatives are the hateful folks. Is it any wonder that we do not take them seriously?.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 896 words, total size 6 kb.

The people of Californian passed a Defense of Marriage Act in 2000. It recognizes marriage as being between one man and one woman, and nothing else. Under the California Constitution, there is only one way to for that to be overturned (other than by an over-reaching court decision) -- the people have to vote to repeal it.

Enter the California Assembly, which yesterday voted to permit homosexual marriage. The will of the people is apparently not a consideration to this extremely gerrymandered body, which is willing to set aside a popular vote and the California Constitution when they find it expedient.

I think this quote sums it up best.

"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," countered Jay LaSuer, his Republican counterpart from La Mesa.

The issue here is not even the nature of marriage.

The issue is whether government dictates to the people, or people dictate to the government. Is government the servant or the master.

Quite bluntly, if this is allowed to stand, the very notion of government of the people, by the people, for the people will have perished in California.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

I’m sorry, but this has to be the most absurd demand for an apology since someone used the word “niggardly”.

The Gary branch of the NAACP wants an apology from Bureau of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Joel Silverman for "offensive and disrespectful" comments he made during a recent public hearing.

Silverman referred to members of a mostly black audience Aug. 17 as having a "city mentality," which many took as a racial remark.

"When you mention the term 'city mentality' to an audience consisting mainly of African-Americans, they're not thinking city mentality means 'regional.' They're thinking you mean the N-word mentality. That was a perception problem," said Tammi Davis, president of the National Association fro the Advancement of Colored People.

Davis has sent a letter to Gov. Mitch Daniels requesting a formal apology and suggesting that Silverman attend sensitivity training.

Now wait – the NAACP even admits that the problem was the perception of the audience, not the words of the of the official. So why does he need to be sensitized? Shouldn’t it be those who are misperceiving the message who get reeducated?

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe I'm wrong to gloat over this misfortune that has befallen these limousine liberals, but a couple of stock & bond socialists like John Kerry and his wife Teresa do sort of bring it upon themselves. How many second's living expenses will this expropriateion take from them?

state governor allied to leftist President Hugo Chavez has ordered Venezuelan troops to seize an abandoned tomato-processing plant owned by the H.J. Heinz Co., a state official said Monday.

The plant in the eastern state of Monagas still belongs to Heinz but hasn't been used for years, said Angelica Rivero, a spokeswoman for the governor.

"The governor decided to seize the plant so it can be protected from looters and later be put to use," Rivero said.

Monagas Gov. Jose Gregorio Briceno told the state-run Bolivarian News Agency the plant changed hands several times under previous governments before Heinz purchased it in 1997 and later ceased operations.

Debbie Foster, a spokeswoman for the Pittsburgh-based food company, said the plant had not been used for eight to 10 years but gave no other comment.

Officials were expected to expropriate the plant, a move that would require the Venezuelan National Assembly to declare the property to be of "public interest." It wasn't immediately clear whether soldiers were posted at the plant Monday.

Chavez, a close ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro who says he supports socialism, has said the government may expropriate the property of companies whose factories are idle or partially paralyzed in order to put them back to work.

One nearby town, Caicara, suffered because of the actions of the "transnational monopoly," Briceno told the state news agency, known by its Spanish initials ABN.

"At that time I was mayor of that town and I felt impotent, my hands tied, as 30 million kilos (66 million pounds) of tomatoes ... were produced, and the closing of the business led the farm workers to go broke," Briceno told ABN.

Who wants to bet that the Kerrys demand "special assistance" from the State Department?

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Found on Americablog:

How do we get all the bush people out of this country's government ? I can not believe there is anyone in this country that still supports him. Anyone in government who does should be voted out of office. Until then any more harm he has in mind to do to this country, the congress should not allow to happen. There have to be some republicans that still are honest enough to help stop his policys, and tax cuts. They are so busy getting the spin and talking points going. These were, and are citizens of this country, we can not let those who have brought this mis-handling of help, to now start spinning out of it. I used to be so proud of America, I want to be again.

snobird | 09.03.05 - 2:38 pm | #

Do you believe this guy was ever proud of America?

Posted by: Greg at 07:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems that Paul Krugman just can't admit that George W. Bush won the 2000 election fair and square.

None of this has any bearing on my original point, which was not that the outcome would have been different if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened - the Florida Supreme Court had not, in fact, called for a full statewide manual recount - but that the recorded vote was so close that, when you combine that fact with the effects of vote suppression and ballot design, it becomes reasonably clear that the voters of Florida, as well as those of the United States as a whole, tried to choose Mr. Gore.

1) The only vote suppression in Florida in 2000 was by the Gore camp, making sure that members of the military could not get their absentee ballots counted.

2) The problem with "ballot design" seems never to have been a problemin Illinois, where the butterfly layout used in Palm Beach was used for the last several decades -- and which subsequent studies showed could be accurately voted by a four year old.

But we don;t want mere facts to get in the way of Paul writing his column, do we?

Posted by: Greg at 07:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

The Cindy Sheehan "It's All About Me" Tour made an appearance in Houston on Thursday, as the city was ramping up its efforts to help our fellow citizens whose lives were disrupted by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

She and her fellow-travellers showed up at the offices of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to demand (not request -- demand) an immediate meeting while the Delay and his staff were working to secure the resources necessary to care for the many people in need of shelter, food, and medical care.

I wouldn't usually include a politician's press release or campaign mailing in my blog -- certainly not a whole one, at any rate. And I've had my own disagrements with DeLay, who is my congressman, and I've expressed those on this blog and its predecessor, as well as in letters and calls to DeLay's office. But i think this statement needs to stand on its own, for it sums up Sheehan's narcissistic arrogance quite well.

So I offer for your consideration this statement from the Tom DeLay Congressional Committee.

WeÂ’ve all heard about Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war mother who camped out in Crawford demanding to meet with the President.

Yesterday Ms. Sheehan crossed the line. While our community worked tirelessly to care and prepare for thousands of evacuees from the hurricane Katrina disaster, Ms. Sheehan renewed her attacks on the President and specifically targeted Congressman Tom DeLay.

As Congressman DeLay was working to rally federal resources to help with disaster recovery efforts, Ms. Sheehan and her media-seeking crew “made an appearance?” at the Congressman’s Stafford office demanding a meeting.

Without the slightest bit of concern for the refugees, the disaster efforts that are underway, and the sheer scope of the task in front of our community, Sheehan and her group stated, “We’ve come a long way, and we want a meeting before we leave tonight.”

Right now, there is a critical need for water, food and basic necessities across the entire Gulf Coast, including in the Greater Houston Area where more than 25,000 refugees are receiving aid and shelter.

Congressman DeLayÂ’s offices are working day and night to help lend support to the relief effort. Thousands of volunteers have pitched in and Houstonians are opening their hearts and wallets to care for the masses leaving Louisiana.

Ms. Sheehan and MoveOn.orgÂ’s media stunts show a complete lack of respect for our community, the tragedy we are coping with, and it serve as further evidence of how little they care for anything but their own agenda.

We felt a little background information was in order as a reminder of what this agenda is really about and how bizarre their message is:

•Sheehan says America is “not worth dying for.”

“George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,” [Sheehan] said tearing up a bit. “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.” (SFSU Hosts A Terrorist, www.frontpagemag.com, 5/2/05)

•Cindy Sheehan attacks moms who support the War on Terror.

Sheehan calls mothers who have lost children in Iraq and still support President Bush “the continue ‘the murder and mayhem’ moms”. (Cindy Sheehan’s blog, 8/27/05)

Sheehan blames America for the problems in Iraq “We caused these problems. America caused these problems.”

•Sheehan alleges the War on Terror is one big Israeli conspiracy.

“. . . my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel.” (Letter to ABC’s Nightline, 3/15/05)

Sheehan is backed by - and has become the tool of - MoveOn.org, professional protestors, and radical PR gurus.

* In the 2004 Presidential campaign, she appeared in MoveOn.org ads attacking President Bush. (www.moveonpac.org)

* Sheehan has developed media savvy with assistance from the national public relations firm Fenton Communications, which has also worked with Moveon.org... (Houston Chronicle, 8/11/05)

* And Lisa Fithian, “a veteran of the Seattle WTO riots and scores of other protests [has] been with Sheehan from the start” helping her coordinate her protest in Crawford and upcoming bus tour. (National Review, 8/29/05) http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200508290901.asp

Cindy Sheehan and the MoveOn.org road show is focused on attacking the President, undermining the gallant efforts of our troops overseas, and taking back Congress for the Democrats. This has been their agenda since the 2004 Presidential election and no hurricane disaster effort is going to cause them to let up.

I've only clipped a link to an NPR clip and the final few sentences at the end that discuss DeLay's probable Democrat opponent. But I do think that her actions here in houston make quite clear that her actions are more about Cindy Sheehan than they are about what is good for the United States, otherwise she would have cancelled the multiple Houston stops of her "Honk If You {heart} al-Zarqawi" caravan.

UPDATE: CINDY CUTS AND RUNS -- I guess her 'personal business is more important than either helpin with the hurricane relief in the region where she is travelling or the anti-American goals of her travelling snake-oil show.

Posted by: Greg at 02:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 853 words, total size 6 kb.

What would you do if your wife cheated on you and became pregnant by another man? What if they conspired to keep the secret from you for decades? This is the interesting question raised by a New Jersey case.

A man who found out 30 years after his youngest child's birth that he was not the father had the right to sue the biological father for nearly $110,000, the cost of raising the child, an appeals court ruled yesterday.

In the first ruling to extend a statutory deadline in a paternity case, the appellate panel said the man could collect the money even though he missed the deadline under New Jersey's Parentage Act by eight years. The court said it made sense because the biological father, along with the duped man's wife, never told him he was not the boy's father.

The attorney for the biological father said his client had not decided whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"The court has finally shed light on the parameters of the Parentage Act and what it covers and how far it can go," said the attorney, Scott Bocker. "Unfortunately, I don't necessarily agree with everything they said, but ... they have the say in how the statute is interpreted."

Family court expert John Paone Jr. called it "a groundbreaking case."

"There is no precedent in New Jersey where a parent has been compelled to pay child support more than 15 years after the emancipation of a child," said Paone, who has been practicing family law for more than 20 years.

Paone said he does not expect the ruling to be applied widely.

"I still think it's going to be the rare case that the biological father knows he's the father and participates in the fraud," Paone said. "The facts of this case call out for a remedy you don't normally see in the court."

In a 30-page opinion that does not reveal the identities of either man, the mother or the son, the appeals court upheld a nearly $110,000 award granted by a Morris County judge in 2003.

Under the state's Parentage Act, an action to determine paternity could be filed up until the child in question turns 23. But the man who raised the boy did not find out until 1999 -- when the child was 30 -- that his ex-wife had had an affair with his friend in the late 1960s and had gotten pregnant. She gave birth to a son in 1969, and as a friend of the family, the biological father, identified in the ruling as P.J.S. Jr., agreed to be the boy's godfather, the decision said.

Ten years after the child was born, the couple divorced, but the plaintiff, R.A.C., paid child support and kept a relationship with all three of his children.

Now ordinarily I would be troubled by the statute of limitations question. But there is a long-standing legal doctrine – one which I believe dates back to common law -- which the courts have applied to this situation.

The biological father, however, appealed on the grounds the Paternity Act does not allow lawsuits to be filed after the child turns 23.
But the appeals court said just as murderers who avoid detection for years before they are caught can be sued for wrongful death long after the statute of limitation, so too can a duped man sue for child support from a biological father.

The doctrine of equitable tolling, as it is called, "applies to prevent a statute of limitations from being used as a sword by a defendant whose conduct contributed to the expiration of the statutory period," the decision said.

"Here, not only defendant but also B.E.C., the mother of the child, concealed the true facts of D.C.'s parentage from plaintiff. The duplicity was enhanced by defendant's agreement to serve as godfather for the child," the judges said.

In all honesty, I do not know if I would ever have sued in a case like this, but I respect the plaintiff’s right to do so.

I wonder, though, if the ultimate solution to the problem of paternity fraud might be to require paternity tests at birth. What do you folks think?

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 716 words, total size 4 kb.

What would you do if your wife cheated on you and became pregnant by another man? What if they conspired to keep the secret from you for decades? This is the interesting question raised by a New Jersey case.

A man who found out 30 years after his youngest child's birth that he was not the father had the right to sue the biological father for nearly $110,000, the cost of raising the child, an appeals court ruled yesterday.

In the first ruling to extend a statutory deadline in a paternity case, the appellate panel said the man could collect the money even though he missed the deadline under New Jersey's Parentage Act by eight years. The court said it made sense because the biological father, along with the duped man's wife, never told him he was not the boy's father.

The attorney for the biological father said his client had not decided whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"The court has finally shed light on the parameters of the Parentage Act and what it covers and how far it can go," said the attorney, Scott Bocker. "Unfortunately, I don't necessarily agree with everything they said, but ... they have the say in how the statute is interpreted."

Family court expert John Paone Jr. called it "a groundbreaking case."

"There is no precedent in New Jersey where a parent has been compelled to pay child support more than 15 years after the emancipation of a child," said Paone, who has been practicing family law for more than 20 years.

Paone said he does not expect the ruling to be applied widely.

"I still think it's going to be the rare case that the biological father knows he's the father and participates in the fraud," Paone said. "The facts of this case call out for a remedy you don't normally see in the court."

In a 30-page opinion that does not reveal the identities of either man, the mother or the son, the appeals court upheld a nearly $110,000 award granted by a Morris County judge in 2003.

Under the state's Parentage Act, an action to determine paternity could be filed up until the child in question turns 23. But the man who raised the boy did not find out until 1999 -- when the child was 30 -- that his ex-wife had had an affair with his friend in the late 1960s and had gotten pregnant. She gave birth to a son in 1969, and as a friend of the family, the biological father, identified in the ruling as P.J.S. Jr., agreed to be the boy's godfather, the decision said.

Ten years after the child was born, the couple divorced, but the plaintiff, R.A.C., paid child support and kept a relationship with all three of his children.

Now ordinarily I would be troubled by the statute of limitations question. But there is a long-standing legal doctrine – one which I believe dates back to common law -- which the courts have applied to this situation.

The biological father, however, appealed on the grounds the Paternity Act does not allow lawsuits to be filed after the child turns 23.
But the appeals court said just as murderers who avoid detection for years before they are caught can be sued for wrongful death long after the statute of limitation, so too can a duped man sue for child support from a biological father.

The doctrine of equitable tolling, as it is called, "applies to prevent a statute of limitations from being used as a sword by a defendant whose conduct contributed to the expiration of the statutory period," the decision said.

"Here, not only defendant but also B.E.C., the mother of the child, concealed the true facts of D.C.'s parentage from plaintiff. The duplicity was enhanced by defendant's agreement to serve as godfather for the child," the judges said.

In all honesty, I do not know if I would ever have sued in a case like this, but I respect the plaintiffÂ’s right to do so.

I wonder, though, if the ultimate solution to the problem of paternity fraud might be to require paternity tests at birth. What do you folks think?

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 4 kb.

I’ve heard the charge of “chickenhawk” thrown around frequently by left-wingers who think that it has some sort of meaning. I’ve even heard it used against veterans who did not serve in combat -- in one case against the head of the Ameican Legion, who spent his time in the Army in Germany rather than Vietnam.

The irony is that those using it seek to undermine the moral authority of those who have not served or are not currently serving, while at the same time arguing that those who serve are either evil killers and terrorists or incompetent victims too dim to understand their exploitation. Ultimately, they believe only in the moral authority of themselves and those who are “enlightened” enough to agree with them.

Lately I’ve been asking these folks if they have taken their turn shielding Iraqi civilians from the folks who are setting off car bombs among them. Andrew Cline offers a few more questions for them in a piece in the American Spectator.

Conservatives need to start flipping that coin to its other side by asking the following questions of anyone who levels the "chickenhawk" charge:

* Why are you not in Darfur feeding starving children?

* Why are you not on the Gulf Coast rescuing hurricane survivors?

* Why are you not in China protesting the political detention of dissidents?

* Why are you not in Swaziland teaching people how to prevent the spread of AIDS?

* Why are you not in Latin America training revolutionaries to overthrow corrupt regimes?

* Why are you not providing abortions to teenage girls?

Unfortunately, these sorts of questions don’t do much to shut up the average hardcore Leftist, but it might get through to those who haven’t consumed too much Kool-Aid yet.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ve heard the charge of “chickenhawk” thrown around frequently by left-wingers who think that it has some sort of meaning. I’ve even heard it used against veterans who did not serve in combat -- in one case against the head of the Ameican Legion, who spent his time in the Army in Germany rather than Vietnam.

The irony is that those using it seek to undermine the moral authority of those who have not served or are not currently serving, while at the same time arguing that those who serve are either evil killers and terrorists or incompetent victims too dim to understand their exploitation. Ultimately, they believe only in the moral authority of themselves and those who are “enlightened” enough to agree with them.

Lately IÂ’ve been asking these folks if they have taken their turn shielding Iraqi civilians from the folks who are setting off car bombs among them. Andrew Cline offers a few more questions for them in a piece in the American Spectator.

Conservatives need to start flipping that coin to its other side by asking the following questions of anyone who levels the "chickenhawk" charge:

* Why are you not in Darfur feeding starving children?

* Why are you not on the Gulf Coast rescuing hurricane survivors?

* Why are you not in China protesting the political detention of dissidents?

* Why are you not in Swaziland teaching people how to prevent the spread of AIDS?

* Why are you not in Latin America training revolutionaries to overthrow corrupt regimes?

* Why are you not providing abortions to teenage girls?

Unfortunately, these sorts of questions donÂ’t do much to shut up the average hardcore Leftist, but it might get through to those who havenÂ’t consumed too much Kool-Aid yet.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Get this bit from has-been sex-symbol and Rolling Stone-castoff Bianca Jagger.

A SURVIVOR of a suicide bombing cursed out Bianca Jagger Monday night during a dinner party after the self-styled "human-rights activist" and her friends told him, "American soldiers are raping and killing women and children around the globe."

Jack Baxter, a New York filmmaker who was partially paralyzed in a suicide bombing in an Israeli café two years ago, was in Los Angeles promoting his documentary about Israel, "Blues by the Beach," and decided to stop by a friend's birthday dinner at the Chateau Marmont.

Baxter says there were six people at the table including himself and his friend Cindy Lou Adkins.

"Bianca was there with two guys from Palm Springs," Baxter told PAGE SIX. "She starts talking about Iraq and saying how disgusting it was what the Americans are doing over there, and one of the Palm Springs boys says: 'Americans are knuckle-dragging barbarians.' "

Baxter claims Nicaraguan citizen Jagger, in the middle of an anti-President Bush rant, said: "I despise this country. I would never be an American citizen. The United States should leave Iraq immediately. Saddam Hussein was better for Iraq."

Baxter, shocked, then said: "Well, what about Saddam giving the families of suicide bombers $25,000 as reward for killing people?" — to which he claims Jagger replied, "So what?"

Baxter continued: "Then [Jagger and pals] start talking about Abu Ghraib and how American soldiers are raping and killing women and children around the globe and that's when I said, '[Bleep] you. Cindy, let's get out of here.' We were just about to leave when I went back to the table and said, 'Bianca, you know what? You're talking this anti-American horse[bleep] here while we got guys dying in Iraq — [Bleep] you! [Bleep] all of you!' Then I did leave.

"I used to be a part-time bouncer at Studio 54 and I remember her from those days. This chick used to flash anyone who cared to look and now she's trying to pass herself off as some kind of pseudo-activist? C'mon!"

Hey, this woman is entitled to believe whatever she wants – but since she despises this country so much, I think it is only appropriate that the borders be closed to her. I’m curious – does Prada have a shop in Havana?

As for the Palm Springs boys, they provide proof that there are, indeed some knuckle-dragging Americans out there – and that they are found on the Left. Not only that, but they don’t even have the cojones to stand by their anti-American comments when confronted.

But Jacob Hopkins, one of Jagger's Palm Springs pals who was at the dinner, said he could not "recall" Jagger saying those things, and added: "We were having a political discussion where she may have said that certain countries invaded Iraq because perhaps of natural resources . . . I don't recall her saying anything anti-American. [Baxter] was outraged and very rude to us. We were simply having a private conversation."

Well, buddy, IÂ’ll show you rude if you make those comments around me. As it is, the fact that you were willing to make them in the presence in the victim of terrorists shows exactly what sort of moral cripple you, your friends, and the used-up floozy you were dining with really are.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.

Texas governements can no loner take private property in order to pass it on to private developers in the state of Texas. As such, the worst aspects of the Supreme Courts anti-property rights Kelo decision have been nullified here in Texas.

Texas' governor signed a law Wednesday strictly limiting the power of state and local government to seize private property for economic development.

The measure was in response to a Supreme Court ruling in June that said governments have broad power to bulldoze people's homes to erect shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue.

Gov. Rick Perry added the eminent domain issue to the summer legislative agenda, and the new law was approved by the House and Senate earlier this month.

At least 25 states have considered changes to eminent domain laws this summer.

Under the Constitution, governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Local governments have traditionally used their eminent domain authority to build roads, reservoirs and other public projects. But over decades, the high court has expanded the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New London, Conn., could take homes for a private development project. But the ruling also allowed states to ban the practice.

Mission accomplished.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

I really enjoy reading BaltimoreÂ’s Gregory Kane on virtually any issue. He offers the perfect analogy to explain the relationship between George W. Bush and Vincente Fox on immigration issues.

Mexican President Vicente Fox seems to think of the United States as his country's northern suburb. President George W. Bush doesn't have the guts to correct him.

In fact, the relationship between Fox and Bush can best be explained this way: If Fox and Bush were inmates in the same prison, Fox would be slapping Bush and taking his Christmas packages.

On the matter of illegal immigration, Fox has shown that Bush has a fully nurtured and developed wimp gene.

Yeah, that sums it up quite nicely. It seems that this president is more interested in placating our southern neighbor than telling it to quit encouraging and facilitating the violation of American sovereignty.

Make sure you read the column.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

No, this is not about Bush and Sheehan.

It is a question for the American Left’s new favorite dictator, Hugo Chavez.

A woman who rushed up on a stage to hand President Hugo Chavez a note was pulled away by bodyguards on Tuesday, and the Venezuelan leader urged supporters to remember there have been threats against his life.

The incident occurred while Chavez was addressing thousands of supporters in a Caracas convention center.

"It's dangerous, because I'm threatened with death, so you have to understand that the security team surrounding me is on alert," Chavez told the crowd.

The incident came more than a week after the U.S. religious broadcaster Pat Robertson drew condemnation from Venezuela's government and others for suggesting that Chavez should be assassinated because he poses a threat to the United States.

Come on, Hugo, meet with the poor homeless woman. You claim that the Venezuelan people love you and support you. What have you got to fear?

Or do you only meet with celebrity liberals and fellow dictators now?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

No, this is not about Bush and Sheehan.

It is a question for the American LeftÂ’s new favorite dictator, Hugo Chavez.

A woman who rushed up on a stage to hand President Hugo Chavez a note was pulled away by bodyguards on Tuesday, and the Venezuelan leader urged supporters to remember there have been threats against his life.

The incident occurred while Chavez was addressing thousands of supporters in a Caracas convention center.

"It's dangerous, because I'm threatened with death, so you have to understand that the security team surrounding me is on alert," Chavez told the crowd.

The incident came more than a week after the U.S. religious broadcaster Pat Robertson drew condemnation from Venezuela's government and others for suggesting that Chavez should be assassinated because he poses a threat to the United States.

Come on, Hugo, meet with the poor homeless woman. You claim that the Venezuelan people love you and support you. What have you got to fear?

Or do you only meet with celebrity liberals and fellow dictators now?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at this excuse for the prevalence of fraudulent registrations in NYC.

Mr. [John] Ravitz [the executive director of the NYC Boad of Elections] responded yesterday to the officials' calls for investigations, saying: "If people really think two weeks before a primary that I can now have all my entire staff look throughout the voter rolls and look at an address that might be suspect on the face, it's an unrealistic feat."

He earlier said the board does not independently conduct systematic reviews of the voter rolls but will probe questionable registrations if someone brings specific charges to its attention. He added that it would be nearly impossible to investigate all registrant names that appeared suspicious, lest someone really named "Lou Gehrig," to use Mr. Ravitz's example, be subjected to unfair and undue scrutiny.

Moreover, Mr. Ravitz said, many of the dubious registrants and those who registered at questionable addresses would not be voting in this election, because their failure to cast ballots in the last four years rendered them "inactive" and thus ineligible to vote.

"I don't want anyone to think there are going to be Elmer Fudds voting in the primary," Mr. Ravitz said.

In other words, the city doesnÂ’t look for fraud. More to the point, the board doesnÂ’t want to hurt anyoneÂ’s feelings because they have a name that looks suspicious. Besides, Ravitz explains, it would cost too much money to actually investigate the voting rolls to detect fraudulent registrations and voting.

Elected officials are calling for action.

A candidate for Manhattan borough president and a member of the City Council, Eva Moskowitz, Democrat of the East Side, said the board must be "proactive."

Calling the board's approach "ridiculous" and "government at its worst," Ms. Moskowitz said investigating and rooting out potential irregularities in the voter rolls "is the Board of Elections' job."

"They don't have too much to do other than prepare for elections and make sure the lists are clear and honest," she said.

Mayor Bloomberg and some of the public officials trying to unseat him this year, meanwhile, responded by declaring their affection for the democratic process.
"Voting is a sacred right and responsibility," Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement sent by e-mail. "Abuse of this fundamental right is unacceptable. ..."

One of his Democratic challengers, C. Virginia Fields, the Manhattan borough president, said in an e-mail: "Placing false names and/or addresses on voter registration forms and other documents undermines the city's democratic process. Therefore, the entire election process - from signature collection to the actual act of voting - must be taken very seriously.

"For its part, the Board of Elections must work to improve its efforts to weed out false names and addresses. The board has an important role to play in this process and it cannot afford to be asleep at the wheel," the statement read.

The Democratic mayoral front-runner, Fernando Ferrer, said in a written statement that voting fraud disenfranchises everyone "and must be vigorously prosecuted."

The statement from the former Bronx borough president also said: "We must also be vigilant that efforts to crack down on voter fraud do not result in an illegal purging of legitimate voters from the rolls."

Maybe we will see some action – or is this all window-dressing?

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.

Look at these examples of voter registration fraud in New York City.

Dozens of voters have registered in New York City claiming to reside at addresses that correspond to city, state, and federal office buildings, public and private schools, churches and clerical offices, and major cultural attractions, a review of Board of Elections records conducted by The New York Sun found.

In addition to questionable residences, the search unearthed curious names given by registrants, including "Donald Duck," "Elmer J. Fudd," "Isaac Newton," "Napoleon Bonaparte," "Rhett Butler," and "Jesus Christ."

Searching the Board of Elections database by address yielded four New Yorkers who said their residence is 1 Centre St., site of the city's Municipal Building - and home to, among other city departments, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, the Department of Finance, and offices of the Manhattan borough president, the public advocate, the county clerk, and the mayor.

It is also, apparently, the home of "Valerie D. Cooper," who listed as her "Apt. No." 517 - an office of the city comptroller. Ms. Cooper could not be tracked down for comment, nor could her identity be confirmed by the Sun.

Among the other addresses with multiple registered voters are
· 26 Federal Plaza
· The Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Office Building
· Madison Square Garden
· Radio City Music Hall
· Lincoln Center
· Macy's
· St. Patrick's Cathedral
· The Guggenheim Museum
· Alfred E. Smith School
· Harvey Milk High School
· Edgar Allan Poe Literacy Development School
· The headquarters of the New York County Republican Committee
· The Episcopal Diocese of New York
· The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York

When will the issue of ballot security be taken seriously?

When will we be permitted to purge the voter rolls of the nation and get rid of the fake, the dead, and the foreign?

How widespread is the problem?

And which party is benefiting from this voter fraud?

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

We always hear that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. I guess that makes this moonbat from Americablog one of the most patriotic Americans out there, if one accepts that statement as true.

The best thing bush could do for NO, a city I love, and the rest of the country is go down there ASAP and drown.

But then again, these are the same people who think that the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are freedom fighters and that the US soldiers are murderers.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Why does anyone take Charles Rangel seriously any more? Certainly this comment is sufficiently out of line and not based in reality for the media and his fellow Dems to call him on it.

The dean of New York's congressional delegation suggested in a television interview that Vice President Dick Cheney may not be healthy enough to perform his duties.

Rep. Charles Rangel was being interviewed on NY1, the New York City-based all-news channel, when he was asked Friday night whether he thought President Bush was taking too much vacation time this summer.

"Oh no, it makes the country a lot more safe," the Manhattan Democrat said. "The further Bush is away from Washington, the better it is. And sometimes I don't even think Cheney is awake enough to know what's going on. Rumsfeld is the guy in Washington to watch. He's running the country,"

"Cheney's not awake enough?" reporter Davidson Goldin asked.

"Well, he's a sick man you know," Rangel said. "He's got heart disease, but the disease is not restricted to that part of his body. He grunts a lot, so you never really know what he's thinking."

Asked whether he was suggesting that Cheney was not healthy enough to do his job, Rangel said, "Why do you think people are spending so much time praying for President Bush's health?"

"If he ever leaves and Cheney's in charge, there's not very much to pull together for the rest of our nation," he concluded. "This is a sad state of affair."

The White House declined comment Saturday.

Cheney has had four heart attacks, and a pacemaker was placed in his chest in June 2001.

His most recent annual heart checkup occurred in July and found him in good health.

So Rangel now claims to know more than the Vice PresidentÂ’s cardiologists? And we wonÂ’t get into the fantasy-based notion that the President being outside of Washington DC renders him impotent to run the country.

Hey, Charlie – when are you going to become reality-based?

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

There were a number of principled responses to the Lawrence v. Texas case. One of those, often derided by the pro-sodomy lobby was the position that Lawrence had the effect of opening the door to legal polygamy and incest.

Jeff Jacoby points us to a case that pointedly raises the issue regarding incest laws.

''I BELIEVE severe punishment is required in this case," the judge said at Allen and Pat's sentencing in November 1997. ''I think they have to be separated. It's the only way to prevent them from having intercourse in the future."

Allen and Pat were lovers, but a Wisconsin statute enacted in 1849 made their sexual relationship a felony. The law was sometimes used to nail predators who had molested children, but using it to prosecute consenting adults -- Allen was 45; Pat, 30 -- was virtually unheard of. That didn't deter Milwaukee County Judge David Hansher. Nor did the fact that the couple didn't understand why their relationship should be a crime. Allen and Pat didn't ''have to be bright," the judge growled, to know that having sex with each other was wrong.

He threw the book at them: eight years for Allen, five for Pat, served in separate maximum-security prisons, 25 miles apart.

If this had happened to a gay couple, the case would have become a cause celebre. Hard time as punishment for a private, consensual, adult relationship? Activists would have been outraged. Editorial pages would have thundered.

But Allen and Patricia Muth are not gay. They were convicted of incest. Although they didn't meet until Patricia was 18 -- she had been raised from infancy in foster care -- they were brother and sister, children of the same biological parents. They were also strongly attracted to each other, emotionally and physically. And so, disregarding the taboo against incest, they became a couple and had four children.

When Wisconsin officials learned of the Muths' relationship, they moved to strip them of their parental rights. The state's position, upheld in court, was that their ''fundamentally disordered" lifestyle made them unfit for parenthood by definition. Allen and Patricia's children were taken from them. Then they were prosecuted for incest and sent to prison.

Now tell me -- where does the logic of this law, this prosecution, differ from that in Lawrence v. Texas? After all, we had a pair of consenting adults engaging in a loving and consensual relationship. The state declared their relationship to be disordered and criminalized it. And do not tell me that hte reason is the potential for birth defects -- the courts have long-ago restricted the right of the state to engage in prohibitions of sex or reproduction for eugenic purposes. So what are you left with, other than public disgust and public morals, both of which are ruled out as a basis for legislation under Lawrence and related homosexual rights cases.

And consider what Lawrence actually says. It says that the state cannot regulate ''the most private human conduct, sexual behavior" whenit occurs between consenting adults.

''The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in striking down the Texas law under which John Lawrence and Tyron Garner had been convicted of homosexual sodomy. ''The state cannot by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Does a prosecution for incest between consenting adults respect their private lives, as required by Lawrence?

No, it does not.

Does the prosecution demena their existance?

Arguably it does, in violation of Lawrence.

Does the criminalization of their sexual conduct have the effect of demeaning their existence or controlling their destiny?

It most certainly does.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to overturn the convictions -- but only on procedural grounds, not on the actual merits of the argument that the Lawrence precedent nullifies all consensual sexual activity between adults. But that is really at the heart of the issue here, and will have to be confronted either by the Supreme COurt itself or by lower courts around the country.

Unless, of course, Lawrence established only one constitutionally protected class of sexual conduct -- and, in the process, special rights for homosexuals only.

Regardless, the Supreme Court must clean up the mess that it made by clarifying the scope of Lawrence v. Texas. Are all laws regarding consensual adult sex constitutionally infirm? Is homosexual conduct the only form of sexuality considered deviant by the majority of citizens and their legislators that gets constitutional protection? Or was Lawrence wrongly decided by a court more concerned with political correctness than constitutional correctness?

A nation waits.

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 PM | Comments (107) | Add Comment
Post contains 797 words, total size 5 kb.

I can’t help but be struck by the similarity in these two stories. And I cannot help but be offended by the implicit argument that the dead victim’s presumed wishes should override the safety of others.

The first comes from Australia. A marine biologist was attacked and killed by a great white shark. The parents’ response?

Horrified friends saw Jarrod Stehbens, 23, dragged under by a Great White off Glenelg Beach, South Australia.

His body has not been found, and normally there would be a search for the "killer" shark.

But dad David said: "Jarrod would not have wanted anything killed.
"He was doing exactly what he wanted to do. He loved the sea."

Uh, I’m sorry for your horrible and tragic loss, but I’ve got to tell you that it doesn’t matter what Jarrod would have wanted. Setting aside the fact that he is dead, we have a creature out there that has now attacked and killed a human being. That creature must die to make sure it does not repeat the action. It is about safety for others, not revenge.

And then there is this from Houston. A prominent Hindu community member was robbed and murdered, and his killer has been arrested. That killer now faces the death penalty. The response from some of the victim’s friends? You guessed it.

The arrest is just the beginning of a judicial process that could involve the death penalty if there is a conviction. And that could stir up complex reactions among Chopra's friends.

Vijay Pallod, a friend and co-worker, said Akhil was a nonviolent person who always sought the positive.

"Akhil, I don't think he would ask for the death penalty," Pallod said. "But this is going to be a debate among the community."

Again, I’m sorry, but this is not just about revenge. It is also about the safety of others in the community at large. The individual here has killed once simply to enrich himself. We must render him permanently incapable of doing so, regardless of what the victim would have supported.

Those who support the “do not kill” message here are not bad people – just misguided. They think the victim and his beliefs outweigh the needs of society as a whole. And they are wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

I canÂ’t help but be struck by the similarity in these two stories. And I cannot help but be offended by the implicit argument that the dead victimÂ’s presumed wishes should override the safety of others.

The first comes from Australia. A marine biologist was attacked and killed by a great white shark. The parentsÂ’ response?

Horrified friends saw Jarrod Stehbens, 23, dragged under by a Great White off Glenelg Beach, South Australia.

His body has not been found, and normally there would be a search for the "killer" shark.

But dad David said: "Jarrod would not have wanted anything killed.
"He was doing exactly what he wanted to do. He loved the sea."

Uh, IÂ’m sorry for your horrible and tragic loss, but IÂ’ve got to tell you that it doesnÂ’t matter what Jarrod would have wanted. Setting aside the fact that he is dead, we have a creature out there that has now attacked and killed a human being. That creature must die to make sure it does not repeat the action. It is about safety for others, not revenge.

And then there is this from Houston. A prominent Hindu community member was robbed and murdered, and his killer has been arrested. That killer now faces the death penalty. The response from some of the victimÂ’s friends? You guessed it.

The arrest is just the beginning of a judicial process that could involve the death penalty if there is a conviction. And that could stir up complex reactions among Chopra's friends.

Vijay Pallod, a friend and co-worker, said Akhil was a nonviolent person who always sought the positive.

"Akhil, I don't think he would ask for the death penalty," Pallod said. "But this is going to be a debate among the community."

Again, IÂ’m sorry, but this is not just about revenge. It is also about the safety of others in the community at large. The individual here has killed once simply to enrich himself. We must render him permanently incapable of doing so, regardless of what the victim would have supported.

Those who support the “do not kill” message here are not bad people – just misguided. They think the victim and his beliefs outweigh the needs of society as a whole. And they are wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

Look where Democrat activist Fred Phelps is going next.

The fanatical American Baptist minister, Fred Phelps, is on his way to Sweden.

"We'll hunt down your king," he said ominously to Expressen. "It doesn't make any difference where he tries to hide."

Phelps' hatred of the royal family and all things Swedish is linked directly to his equally virulent hatred of homosexuals. He praises homophobic crimes, including murder. When controversial Swedish minister, Åke Green, was convicted of inciting hatred of homosexuals following an anti-gay sermon, Phelps saw red and turned his attention to Sweden.

"You're doomed to spend eternity in hell," he continued. "All you Swedes and your Swedish king and his family."

The minister and twenty members of his congregation from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, are planning to come to Sweden at the beginning of September. They are bringing plenty of placards in order to spread their message that Sweden is the cradle of all evil and that the king rules a nation of sodomites.

King Carl Gustaf is their primary target.

"Your king represents your doomed country and we'll find him wherever he may be."

A lot of this has to do with the case of Swedish minister Åke Green, whose conviction of a hate crime for preaching a sermon critical of homosexuality was overturned this spring. The Swedish Supreme Court will hear the government’s appeal this fall.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

I own my house. What business, then, does the government (any government, from the federal level down to my city) in regulating who I may or may not sell my house to? That is not a rhetorical question, given the nature of this case in Virginia.

In the first case of its kind, the Alexandria Human Rights Commission unanimously agreed Monday night that Long & Foster Real Estate Co. discriminated against a single gay man who wanted to buy a home in a quiet, tree-lined neighborhood.

Instead, the house went to a young married couple, who continue to own it.
The commission cited the McLean-based real estate company for discriminating against Lawrence Cummings, 52, because of his marital status or his sexual orientation. The basis for its decision won't be made public for 30 days.
Long & Foster could be required to pay up to $5,000 in fines to the city of Alexandria.

Cummings has already paid thousands of dollars in attorney's fees since he learned that his offer on the house in the Beverly Forest area had been rejected in February 2004.

"It is for the cause. For the principle," he said. "I don't believe you can discriminate against someone for their martial status or sexual preference and be able to get away with it."

Actually, Mr. Cummings, you are exactly wrong in every moral sense. You have no right to buy a house if the owner is unwilling to sell it to you. And that is the case even if you are willing to meet the price set by the owner – because the right to determine who one does business with is a matter of fundamental human rights that pre-exists any statute.

LetÂ’s look at the particulars of the case.

In February 2004, Cummings and his partner had already made offers on six houses and were getting tired of looking. When he saw the ranch-style house on Pullman Lane on a Saturday, he thought he had found what he was looking for. "I thought, 'Oooooh, cute,' " he explained. He met the sellers briefly and made an offer for the asking price -- $555,000 -- that same day.
"I thought surely I was going to get this house," he said.

But two days later, his agent called and said the owner had chosen a young married couple who had made an offer of $45,000 less. "She said it was the fact that I'm single and they sensed that I'm gay," Cummings said. And so he filed his complaint.

At the hearing, Cummings's attorney played a tape of a voice-mail message from a Long & Foster agent to a Realtor for McEnearney Associates, who was representing Cummings, describing the seller as a "fuddy-duddy" and explaining who she wanted to own the house:

"She was just extremely concerned that a young family, who would love the house and care for it, just like they did, down to the last curtain, which had been made from a wedding dress from one of their children, [would] love the house as much as they did," Anise Snyder of Long & Foster left in the message to David Howell of McEnearney, according to the case file.

Brien Roche, attorney for Long & Foster, said that the young couple who bought the house had made an equal offer, put down more earnest money and were chosen because they had shown more enthusiasm, even writing a letter about how much they liked the house and the curtains. Cummings, an interior designer, loved the house, too, but not the curtains, he would say later. "Old, dirty drapes? I don't think so," he said.

"There were both business and emotional reasons as to why the seller chose the people," Roche said in the case file. "It had nothing to do with marital status, nothing to do with anything other than the facts I just mentioned."

But ultimately, who cares if it was marital status or sexual orientation – or even race? The ultimate right regarding the conveyance of the home to another individual belongs not to the buyer, but to the seller. The house was hers, and she had every right to decide that she wanted to see a traditional family in that house rather than a childless pair of homosexuals. She had every right to arrange her business affairs in such a way that the house went to such a family – even if the decision made no sense from a purely economic standpoint. The right to make such a decision is essential to any meaningful concept of economic liberty.

More to the point, no one can point to a natural right – as opposed to a government-decreed positive right – to acquire a particular piece of property. That government believes it has any sort of moral right to regulate or penalize the decision of an owner to sell to a preferred buyer is corrosive of the right to own and dispose of property – and with it, the capitalist system.

Now some may argue that I am supporting housing discrimination. They are right. But as long as that discrimination is engaged in by a private party, I don't see a compelling government interest in stopping it that in any way justifies the infringement of property rights stopping it would entail.

Posted by: Greg at 02:12 PM | Comments (86) | Add Comment
Post contains 894 words, total size 5 kb.

Get your red-hot victim rhetoric here!

Black leaders in Dallas and across the country are crying foul as a string of federal corruption investigations have targeted black politicians.

"Our leadership is being attacked all over the country," said Dallas Nation of Islam minister Jeffrey Muhammad. "We need to realize this and come together with a local and national agenda for the betterment of our own community."

Most of the people named so far in the FBI's investigation into corruption at Dallas City Hall and the city's tax-credit housing program are black. They include four black City Council members and three black members of the powerful City Plan Commission.

The predominance of blacks named in the investigation has stunned veteran black politicians.

Yo, J-Mu – quit selecting morally-challenged lowlifes as your leaders and you won’t have this problem. Elect some folks with the moral fiber to say no to bribes, kickbacks, and other schemes designed to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers. If you do that, then there will be no need for your so-called leaders to be prosecuted. Unless, of course, you claim that one must be a felon to be authentically black.

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’m not a big fan of John McCain. That said, I think he pegged this one exactly right regarding the Cindy Sheehan situation.

"It's impossible to put yourself in the position of the president of the United States and say what he should or shouldn't do. If I was president of the United States, I probably wouldn't" meet with her, McCain told the Citizen editorial board.

Sheehan, whose son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year, stood vigil with throngs of protesters outside Bush's Texas ranch last week, demanding the president hear her argument for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Her story spawned similar anti-war protests across the nation, including one in Tucson Aug. 17.

Bush has taken heat from many for avoiding Sheehan, including some congressional Republicans who say the decision makes the White House appear unsympathetic.

McCain said he's seen Bush after meetings with families who lost loved ones - including Sheehan at an earlier meeting.

"He cares. He grieves. He has the greatest compassion and sympathy for these families and anyone who says he doesn't isn't telling the truth," McCain said. "I've seen it with my own eyes."

But giving in to demands for a face-to-face meeting would set a precedent that would potentially have costly implications for the White House, McCain said.

"Perhaps her coming out of a meeting and saying she had berated the president of the United States and that she demanded another meeting and had demanded meetings for other families who have now turned against the war," McCain said. "And should he continue now a dialogue with them? And if he doesn't have a regular dialogue with them, then he's insensitive and blah, blah, blah."

And to all the folks who think McCain is the only good Republican – he believes that we need to increase the presence of US forces in Iraq.

Rather than giving in to public pressure to bring troops home, the White House should be increasing the military presence in Iraq, he said.

"We cannot afford to fail. We cannot lose. If we lose, you will see Iraq factionalize, maybe be broken up," McCain said. "You will see it as a new center for Muslim extremism - slash - terrorism, and it will be sending a message throughout the world that the United States can be beaten."

So, all you folks out there criticizing the war – do you want America to win, or to be beaten? Are you with us or against us?

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Utah is a pretty conservative place. I don’t think I’m betraying any sort of national secret by saying that it is because of the Mormons. I mean, they are as conservative a bunch of pro-family traditionalists as you are likely to find – and they are centered right in Salt Lake City.

That’s why this move by Salt Lake City’s mayor seems sort of dictatorial to me – he’s going to impose domestic partnership benefits on the city by decree, even if the city council rejects them. After all, he has the power.

No lobbying or emotional debate necessary.

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson apparently can extend health benefits to unmarried partners of gay and straight city employees anytime he wants. And he said Tuesday that he will "absolutely" offer the benefits once the city finishes its research on the plan and he gets formal word he can do it without a City Council vote.

Still, Anderson hopes the council passes a symbolic resolution supporting the idea.

"As long as we're going to do this, we should demonstrate unity on this issue," he said. "Providing for equality should not create more division in our community."

Even a symbolic resolution is hardly a sure thing. The city's seven-member council leans conservative, and this is an election year for four of them.

If the council rejects a resolution, Anderson said he would go ahead and offer the benefits anyway. Barring quick action from another city, Salt Lake City would become Utah's first government to offer domestic-partner benefits.

Do you get the arrogance there? The use of what I can only assume to be the royal “We” in the third paragraph? Translated, the mayor is saying “I want a resolution of support, but I’m acting even if you refuse me one – and if that causes division, my opponents are the bad guys.”

I’d like to encourage the members of the City Council out in Salt Lake City to go on record in opposition to these benefits. What’s more, I’d like to encourage the people of Salt lake City to vote out any member of the council who votes for a resolution of support – and eventually Mayor Anderson. His tactics are antithetical to the American system, and he and his supporters need to be righteously slapped down by the vast majority whose values he is trampling upon.

HereÂ’s a link to the email addresses of the members of the Salt Lake City Council. Be respectful, but express your views.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

This is just stupid, and offensive.

Conservative U.S. evangelist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying the leftist leader wanted to turn his country into "the launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

The founder of the Christian Coalition said during the Monday night television broadcast of his religious program, "The 700 Club," that Chavez, one the most vocal critics of President George W. Bush, was a "terrific danger" to the United States.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack condemned Robertson's comments as "inappropriate" and said they were from a private citizen and did not represent the U.S.

While I would not object to seeing the people of Venezuela rise up and give him the Mussolini or Ceaucescu treatment, I donÂ’t want to see our own government get back in this business over one tin-horn dictator.

Shut up, Pat!

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a topic near and dear to my heart, since I’m a member of the local GOP ballot security committee, which trains poll-watchers and election judges how to spot and stop vote fraud. Selwyn Duke reports on some of the means by which fraud is perpetrated in Washington DC.

Experience has taught Deep Vote that it is transiency which provides Democrat political operatives with the most golden of opportunities to steal votes. In depressed urban areas an inordinate number of residents move in and out every year, with some taking up residence for only a brief time.

Stability is less common among the poverty-stricken and others suffering social dysfunctions, and such people are more numerous in large urban areas than elsewhere.

A high rate of transiency inevitably leaves a large number of people who no longer live in an area on the voter rolls. The local authorities, says Deep Vote, “are always somewhat late on removing non-residents.” All the Democrat operatives need do then is ascertain who these people are and vote for them. Deep Vote explains the mechanics of this process.

What we first need to know is that the Democrat operatives who are central to this fraud are known as “block captains” and “apartment captains.” Deep Vote tells us that a captain is a GOTV (Get out the vote) term for a campaign volunteer who knows the territory and is given a list of voters on his block or in his building who are believed to be sympathetic to his candidate. He is then charged with the task of driving these partisans to the polls.

Deep Vote then explains that since captains are usually “local/neighborhood leaders” or in the least have “been there for a while,” they “would know who has moved out.” It is then that the captains examine the voter rolls and “vote those people.”

This problem is not just confined to large urban areas. Yeas ago, as the GOP committeeman for a college campus voting precinct, I found that there were many registered voters who had long since moved on. Take my own dorm room as an example. There were six voters registered to that address – and I was the only one of them who actually lived there. It took me three months to get those voters tracked down and registered at their correct address or purged from the rolls. It never crossed my mind to engage in the mischief that was available to me.

Why are these ineligible voters left on the rolls?

Deep Vote also mentions factors that have exacerbated this problem by enabling these election thieves. First, many states have enacted “Motor Voter” laws, which he says often increase the chances of this type of vote-fraud. The reason for this is that such laws lead to the registration of larger numbers of irresponsible people who live transient lifestyles.

Then, not surprisingly, where there’s the appearance of corruption and turpitude there often lurks the Reverend without a congregation, Jesse Jackson. Some years ago he brought pressure to bear on Washington, DC to stop purging the voter rolls because doing so was “racist.” You see, racism is something on which ol’ Jesse is an authority.

Anyway, such a story is reminiscent of the hue and cry that ensued when Florida purged its voter rolls; back then accusations of racism were hurled as well. Just know, though, that those who use this ploy are scoundrels, scheming to facilitate the vote-fraud that can vault their candidate into office. Such people are to be despised.

Yeah, that’s right – easy registration and difficulty in purging the rolls (where it is done at all) make the casting of votes by these ghost voters that much easier. It doesn’t take much imagination to see the mischief that can be made of the process by these “extra voters”.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 649 words, total size 4 kb.

This is a topic near and dear to my heart, since IÂ’m a member of the local GOP ballot security committee, which trains poll-watchers and election judges how to spot and stop vote fraud. Selwyn Duke reports on some of the means by which fraud is perpetrated in Washington DC.

Experience has taught Deep Vote that it is transiency which provides Democrat political operatives with the most golden of opportunities to steal votes. In depressed urban areas an inordinate number of residents move in and out every year, with some taking up residence for only a brief time.

Stability is less common among the poverty-stricken and others suffering social dysfunctions, and such people are more numerous in large urban areas than elsewhere.

A high rate of transiency inevitably leaves a large number of people who no longer live in an area on the voter rolls. The local authorities, says Deep Vote, “are always somewhat late on removing non-residents.” All the Democrat operatives need do then is ascertain who these people are and vote for them. Deep Vote explains the mechanics of this process.

What we first need to know is that the Democrat operatives who are central to this fraud are known as “block captains” and “apartment captains.” Deep Vote tells us that a captain is a GOTV (Get out the vote) term for a campaign volunteer who knows the territory and is given a list of voters on his block or in his building who are believed to be sympathetic to his candidate. He is then charged with the task of driving these partisans to the polls.

Deep Vote then explains that since captains are usually “local/neighborhood leaders” or in the least have “been there for a while,” they “would know who has moved out.” It is then that the captains examine the voter rolls and “vote those people.”

This problem is not just confined to large urban areas. Yeas ago, as the GOP committeeman for a college campus voting precinct, I found that there were many registered voters who had long since moved on. Take my own dorm room as an example. There were six voters registered to that address – and I was the only one of them who actually lived there. It took me three months to get those voters tracked down and registered at their correct address or purged from the rolls. It never crossed my mind to engage in the mischief that was available to me.

Why are these ineligible voters left on the rolls?

Deep Vote also mentions factors that have exacerbated this problem by enabling these election thieves. First, many states have enacted “Motor Voter” laws, which he says often increase the chances of this type of vote-fraud. The reason for this is that such laws lead to the registration of larger numbers of irresponsible people who live transient lifestyles.

Then, not surprisingly, where there’s the appearance of corruption and turpitude there often lurks the Reverend without a congregation, Jesse Jackson. Some years ago he brought pressure to bear on Washington, DC to stop purging the voter rolls because doing so was “racist.” You see, racism is something on which ol’ Jesse is an authority.

Anyway, such a story is reminiscent of the hue and cry that ensued when Florida purged its voter rolls; back then accusations of racism were hurled as well. Just know, though, that those who use this ploy are scoundrels, scheming to facilitate the vote-fraud that can vault their candidate into office. Such people are to be despised.

Yeah, that’s right – easy registration and difficulty in purging the rolls (where it is done at all) make the casting of votes by these ghost voters that much easier. It doesn’t take much imagination to see the mischief that can be made of the process by these “extra voters”.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 658 words, total size 4 kb.

Thanks to the racial gerrymander required by the Voting Rights Act, Sheila Jackson Lee will be in office making a fool of herself for years. Here is the latest chapter.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee visited the anti-war inspired "Camp Casey" near President Bush's ranch on Monday, lending support and words of encouragement to several families whose loved ones died in Iraq.

"It is time to bring our troops home," Lee said at the demonstration started by Cindy Sheehan, of Vacaville, Calif., on Aug. 6.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son Army Spc. Casey Sheehan died last year in Iraq, is currently in Los Angeles to be with her mother, who had a stroke. But about 60 other people were spread between two anti-war campsites near the ranch on Monday.

"What we want to do is give America a sense that it's OK to speak up and ask questions," said Lee, a Democrat from Houston.

She said that coalition forces of U.S. allies could come in to fill the security gap in Iraq.

Before you get too impressed, remember that this is the same buffoon who complained that the names for hurricanes didn’t sound black enough, and who asked NASA staff if the Mars Rover had taken any pictures of the flag that Neil Armstrong had left behind. She’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer – which is why she is the only member of Congress to associate herself with the group camped out in Crawford.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah – they are just here to work. Tell that to this girl.

An illegal alien, Jose Ramirez, 28, has been arrested and charged with the brutal beating of a 15-year-old girl who allegedly ignored his whistles at a construction site in Spotsylvania County.

Police say the 15 year old girl suffered a broken nose, bone fracture to the right side of her face and received approximately 30 stitches to her face and back of her head.

Police say the 15 year old girl was walking by on a road, when Ramirez, who was working on a construction project at a nearby townhouse, whistled at her.

Witnesses told police the next thing they saw, Ramirez appeared enraged and took off running after the girl. He allegedly began to beat her on her face and head.

Ramirez then fled into a nearby wooded area. Short while later, authorities found Ramirez a few blocks away. Ramirez, an illegal alien from El Salvador, allegedly resisted arrest but was finally subdued.

Ramirez is facing aggravated malicious wounding charges as well as abduction with intent to defile. Both charges carry a possible life sentence.

One more reason to send them all back.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah – they are just here to work. Tell that to this girl.

An illegal alien, Jose Ramirez, 28, has been arrested and charged with the brutal beating of a 15-year-old girl who allegedly ignored his whistles at a construction site in Spotsylvania County.

Police say the 15 year old girl suffered a broken nose, bone fracture to the right side of her face and received approximately 30 stitches to her face and back of her head.

Police say the 15 year old girl was walking by on a road, when Ramirez, who was working on a construction project at a nearby townhouse, whistled at her.

Witnesses told police the next thing they saw, Ramirez appeared enraged and took off running after the girl. He allegedly began to beat her on her face and head.

Ramirez then fled into a nearby wooded area. Short while later, authorities found Ramirez a few blocks away. Ramirez, an illegal alien from El Salvador, allegedly resisted arrest but was finally subdued.

Ramirez is facing aggravated malicious wounding charges as well as abduction with intent to defile. Both charges carry a possible life sentence.

One more reason to send them all back.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.