Cindy Sheehan's 15 minutes are over. Her protest at Camp Dhimmi (I refuse to defile her son's sacrifice by referring to it by his name) has pretty much exemplified the worst of the anti-war/pro-jihadi movement.

Here are some examples.

Deb Saunders points out that Sheehan's protest is less about principled opposition to the war than it is a cry for attention -- emotion lacking in logic.

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey Sheehan who died in combat in Iraq, became a public figure when she demanded a second visit with President Bush so he could answer her questions: "Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?" She had set up camp near the president's home, until a second tragedy -- her mother's stroke -- caused her to leave Thursday.

By the time that happened, Sheehan, who has made her personal situation the issue and has hurled so many personal insults at others, was complaining that the protests are "not about me," they're about the war.

Not true. Cindy Sheehan never asked Bush to meet with other mothers of those who have died in Iraq. She has never tried to represent those mothers of slain soldiers who support the war. What's more, while many thoughtful critics of the war exist, Sheehan personifies the me-me-me focus of the anti-war movement. And that corner doesn't think.

Similarly, other parents of our honored war dead are speaking out against Sheehan's claims to moral authority superior to those who support continuing to oppose jihadi terrorism. Take this example from Portsmouth, NH.

Exeter's Natalie Healy lost her 36-year-old son Daniel Healy on June 28. Healy was serving as a Navy SEAL in Afghanistan. He died when the MH-47 Chinook helicopter he was riding in was shot down. Fifteen other Americans also perished in the crash.

Healy considered the rally a success. She was pleased with the turnout considering the slightly rainy weather and the short notice — she only started planning the rally on Thursday.

The rally started at noon and ended at about 2 p.m., although some involved with the demonstration stayed longer. The group included both veterans, as well as those who just wanted to show their support for the current conflicts.

***

In Portsmouth, Healy stood on the sidewalk clutching a photo of her son to her chest and an American flag in her other hand. Healy wants the troops to know that not all Americans feel the same way about the war as Sheehan does.

"It angers me and scares me," Healy said, speaking about Cindy Sheehan's protest. "I remember Vietnam. I remember how the protests started out back then. I'm here to do whatever I can."

Dan Healy's sister, Shannon, said support showed by the rally was wonderful. Shannon Healy said she had to take a little time off work, but felt it was important.

"No matter your politics," Shannon Healy said. "Love Bush or hate him. You have to support the men and women. ... I think Mrs. Sheehan is disrespecting the memory of her child. It's disrespectful. Her son made the choice (to be in the military)."

In interviews, some of those who spoke at the rally said that Sheehan's demonstration is aiding the enemy, by providing propaganda for the other side. Mixed with this was some anger that the media is focusing too much on the negative aspects of the war, like body counts or bombings, instead of on the good the soldiers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's moral superiority. This mother recognizes the value of her son's sacrifice and is proud of it. She didn't threaten offer to run her son down with the family car to get him out of combat. She hasn't constantly changed her story about a meeting withthe president or engaged in anti-American tirades. She respects what her son volunteered to do and is proud of it. Natalie healy is the voice of most service parents --not Cindy Sheehan.

And then there is this father, who has started a camp (Fort Qualls, in memory of Marine Lance Cpl. Louis Wayne Qualls, 20, who died in Iraq last fall) in opposition to Sheehan's. He has also had to fight to keep his son's memory and sacrifice from being desecrated by Sheehan's followers at Camp Dhimmi.

In Crawford, Gary Qualls, the father of a slain soldier, explained his reasons for supporting the pro-war camp. "If I have to sacrifice my whole family for the sake of our country and world, other countries that want freedom, I'll do that," said Qualls, who is friends with the local business owner who started the camp. He said his 16-year-old son now wants to enlist, and he supports that decision.

Qualls' frustration with the anti-war demonstrators erupted last week when he removed a cross bearing his son's name that was among hundreds the group had put up along the road to Bush's ranch.

Qualls called the protesters' views disrespectful to soldiers, and said he had to yank out two more crosses after protesters kept replacing them.

So much for the anti-American/pro-jihadi rabble who claim to respect the moral superiority of the parents of dead servicemen and women to speak out on the war. I guess that is only the case if those parents oppose the war -- supporters of the war (the vast majority of family members of Iraq and Afghanistan heroes) may be disregarded as inconsequential by the pro-Islamist Left.

Get this, residents of Camp Dhimmi and your supporters -- America rejects you.

Posted by: Greg at 07:00 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 923 words, total size 6 kb.

It now seems that some of the the Minutemen coming to Houston might actually exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A number have concealed carry permits, and the local organizers will not forbid them to carry their weapons.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the right to keep and bear arms. I won't discuss whether or not these folks should be carrying weapons when legally authorized to do so.

No, what I want to point out is this glaring lie from an HPD spokesman.

Houston police are aware that some of the Minutemen will be armed, and officers will make sure that all laws are obeyed, said Lt. Robert Manzo, an HPD spokesman.

Well, maybe just by the Minutemen. There will be no enforcement of our nation's immigration laws, nor laws against hiring immigration criminals. That means the border jumpers and those who aid and abet them will get a free pass -- as usual in this sanctuary city.

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

The New York Times certainly got a sweetheart deal when it got the city of New York to steal use eminent domain to acquire the land for their new headquarters. Not only did they get to lease the land at significantly less than the open market would have cost them (and eventually buy it for $1.00), but they also got the right to determine who could rent other space in the building. Who gets excluded?

The lease, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also bars renting space in the 52-story building for "a school or classroom or juvenile or adult day care or drop-in center." It forbids "medical uses, including without limitation, hospital, medical, or dental offices, agencies, or clinics." It gives the New York Times Company "the sole and absolute discretion" to reject United Nations or foreign-government offices, including any "considered controversial" or that are potentially the focus of demonstrations. It bans any "employment agency (other than executive-search firms) or job training center" and auction houses, "provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to high-end auction houses specializing in art and historical artifacts." Discount stores are forbidden. And the deal bars "a welfare or social-services office, homeless shelter or homeless assistance center, court or court-related facility."

In fact, any government office is excluded from the building if it would attract people who arrive "without appointment."

But wait -- I thought eminent domain was the taking of land for a "public purpose". If the public is effectively excluded from the property by a private party, how can it be deemed a public use?

I wonder -- would the Times be willing to see a similar bargain given to Halliburton, or to an oil company?

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin, No Land Grab, and The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid)

Posted by: Greg at 03:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

The man is chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- and the Roberts hearings are coming up. Why is Arlen Specter in Cuba meeting with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez?

VENEZUELA'S President Hugo Chavez, a fierce critic of the United States who has threatened to stop oil supplies, has met a US Republican senator, Arlen Specter, who has also been in Cuba this week.
The left wing president met with Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the US ambassador to Caracas, William Brownfield, for two hours on Wednesday night, the Venezuelan leader said in a speech on Thursday.

The meeting came at a sensitive time in relations between the United States and Venezuela, a major supplier of oil to the US markets.

Chavez threatened last weekend to stop oil exports to the United States unless Washington halts what he called its "aggressions".

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has in turn been to Peru and Paraguay this week to lobby against the influence of Venezuela and Cuba.

Media reports quoted Specter as saying he wanted a normalisation in relations.

Before going to Venezuela, the US senator was in Cuba where he had hoped to meet President Fidel Castro but it was not known if he was successful.

I repeat -- Why?

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

ArenÂ’t you liberals proud of your new allies?

Thanks to the internet, SheehanÂ’s popularity among the armband brigades is spreading like fire creeping up a moonlit cross. On the webÂ’s premier hate website, Stormfront.org, Duke supporter James Kelso (whose screen name is "Charles A. Lindbergh") posted a link to a video message from Cindy Sheehan entitled, "Mr. President, you lied to us."

Cindy is also popular at the American Nationalist Union. ANU is run by Don Wassall, former national chairman of the Populist Party, a racist third party organized in 1984 by Willis CartoÂ’s Liberty Lobby; in 1988, the party nominated David Duke for president. ANUÂ’s Nationalist News section links to four articles supporting Cindy Sheehan, including a delightful link to an article on Justin RaimondoÂ’s Hate America Right website Antiwar.com about Christopher Hitchens: "Drink-Soaked Trotskyite Popinjay Slimes Antiwar Mom "

Duke is not the only figure on the White Wing to embrace Sheehan. The explicitly Nazi National Socialist Movement backs her, as well. NSM "Commander" Jeff Schoep entitled one recent radio broadcast "NSM SUPPORTS CINDY SHEEHAN," then devoted a second broadcast to Sheehan the next day.

The racist website Altermedia.info jumped on the bandwagon early, posting multiple articles hailing Cindy Sheehan. One article, written under the pen name "Charles Coughlin," dubbed the menopausal valley girl "The Rosa Parks of the Peace Movement," an awkward metaphor considering the source. Another article, authored by "James Buchanan" (another great Democrat), hinted the "Neo-Cons" had solicited the services of the redneck who fired shots into the air within earshot of Sheehan and her leftist Big Top.

Another article written by the late Fr. CoughlinÂ’s acolyte, "Woman Loses Son in Iraq; Neocons Treat her Like Dirt," also made its way on Stormfront.orgÂ’s discussion forum, inspiring 14 pages of commentary. The very first respondent, neo-Nazi "Reichmann88," [1] wrote:

This lady sounds like a potential WN ["WN" is short for "White Nationalist" – BJ]. I'll bet she has no clue about Israel's involvement in her sons death. Sad indeed!! May God Bless Her!

Reichmann need not worry; it appears Sheehan "knew."

Another Stormfront contributor commented, "If there are any Texas WN units nearby Mrs. Cindy Sheehan they should reach out to hear [sic.]." When another message claimed Sheehan "probably would spit in your face if you approached her with WN," forum member "Messiah" assured:

I've known Cindy for over a year now, and no, she wouldn't spit in anyone's face for what they said....while she's not a WN, sheÂ’s a decent person who resents deeply what Bush has done with his lies in creating this war, and using the US for Israel's interests. I feel like she does about these Neo Con/Israel created wars.

And evidently she reciprocates the sentiments of this racist scumbag.

It has long been a tactic of the Left to tar conservatives with the words or deeds of some obscure supporters. Will the Left recognize that when they receive broad-based support from the Klan and the Neo-Nazis there may be something wrong with their position on the war?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

I find this new law interesting, if it goes into effect.

North Carolina lawmakers have approved a measure that would require courts to give battered spouses something extra when they seek a restraining order - information on how to apply for a concealed weapon.

However, victim's advocates who support efforts to curb domestic violence said the measure could end up causing more problems by bringing guns into already volatile relationships.

"In my experience, if you've got a fire out there, I don't think you put it out by throwing gas on it," said Bart Rick, a Seattle-area sheriff who chairs the National Sheriffs' Association domestic violence committee. "When I read this ... I went 'Whoa.'"

The president of the gun-rights group that pushed for the measure said it's more about helping victims of domestic violence help themselves.

"We're not interested in them shooting their abusers," said Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina. "We're interested in delivering a message: When police can't protect these people, they are capable of protecting themselves."

The measure becomes law Oct. 1 unless Gov. Mike Easley decides to veto it. His office declined Wednesday to comment on his plans.

The bill, which passed overwhelmingly in both houses of the legislature, would also add protective orders to the evidence a sheriff can consider when determining whether to issue an emergency permit to carry a concealed weapon. Normally, an applicant must wait 90 days for such a permit.

I love the fact that the victim disarmament folks – under the guise of protecting the public – what to make sure that crime victims are unable to fight back.

Personally, I only see one flaw with this law – it ought to require that the court issue a Glock and a box of ammunition to the victim when the restraining order is issued.

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Am I the only one who sees these as chickenshit charges?

Gov. Bob Taft was charged with four ethics violations Wednesday for failing to report dozens of gifts that included dinners, golf games and professional hockey tickets, deepening a scandal that has rocked Ohio's Republican Party.

Taft, a Republican and member of a distinguished U.S. political family, becomes the first governor in Ohio history to be charged with a crime. The charges are also an embarrassment for a politician who has pushed for high ethical standards in his office.

Taft, could be fined $1,000 and sentenced to six months in jail on each count if convicted, though time behind bars was considered unlikely.

Taft will respond publicly on Thursday and is not planning to resign, spokesman Mark Rickel said. Prosecutors said they expected the governor to appear in court Thursday but declined to say whether a plea agreement was in the works.

The gifts were worth about $5,800 and given over four years, prosecutors said. Taft earlier had revealed that he failed to report some outings but said the omissions were accidental.

Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said the gifts included two golf outings worth $100 each paid for by embattled coin dealer Tom Noe. Noe is a Republican fundraiser whose $50 million investment of state money in rare coins launched the scandal that led to Taft's revelation that he failed to list golf outings on financial disclosure forms.

State law requires officeholders to report all gifts worth more than $75 if the donor wasn't reimbursed.

O'Brien said the gifts also included meals and tickets for a Columbus Blue Jackets hockey game.

If this is what passes for “corruption” and “unethical conduct” in Ohio, then I think the laws are overly stringent. According to other reports I’ve seen, some of the gifts, meals, and outings come from long-time friends and associates. Given current prices for a meal at an up-scale restaurant, or fees for a round of golf, it is virtually impossible not to cross that threshold in the course of spending time with someone in a purely casual capacity. I took a friend to see the Houston Texans last weekend because my wife was unable to use her ticket. By the time I bought his ticket (and we were in the cheap seats), paid for parking, and grabbed a drink and a bite to eat, we were pushing that $75.00 figure. If such normal human interaction is banned under the law, then the law is an ass.

UPDATE: Taft pleads no contest, and is fined for the offenses.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

Here's an article that you need to be aware of. Ronald R. Griffin has something important to say to you.

I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.

I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.

The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times portrays Mrs. Sheehan as a distraught mom standing heroically outside the guarded gates of the most powerful and inhumane man on earth, President Bush. Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us. How can we all possess "absolute moral authority" when we hold so many different perspectives?

I don't want that title. I haven't earned that title.

Yeah, that's right. Cindy Sheehan is one person with one opinion. It is far from the majority opinion of the families of those who have died in this crusade against jihadi terrorists. Where are the cameras covering those thousands of onther survivors? Why are their views not trumpetted throughout the land? What makes Mrs. Shehan -- a liar whose very words condemn her as hateful of this country and a supporter of terrorists (like Lynne Stewart, for example) -- the one with the moral authority to speak?

Thirty-five years ago, a president faced a similar dilemma in Vietnam. He gave in and we got "peace with honor." To this day, I am still searching for that honor. Today, those who defend our freedom every day do so as volunteers with a clear and certain purpose. Today, they have in their commander in chief someone who will not allow us to sink into self-pity. I will not allow him to. The amazing part about talking to the people left behind is that I did not want them to stop. After speaking to so many I have come away with the certainty of their conviction that in a large measure it's because of the deeds and sacrifices of their fallen heroes that this is a better and safer world we now live in.

Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too.

We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories.

Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did.

May God bless you, sir, and those many survivors whose beliefs parallel yours.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 564 words, total size 3 kb.

The ABA has spoken. Judge John Roberts is "well qualified" for the US Supreme Court. That is, I believe, what the Left used to cal the Gold Standard" for judges.

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts earned a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, clearing one hurdle in his path to joining the high court.

The rating by unanimous vote of an ABA committee was disclosed as the Senate Judiciary Committee announced plans for the start of confirmation hearings on Sept. 6. Roberts will face almost an hour of questioning from each of the 18 senators on the committee.

The committee also will hold one hearing that will be closed to the public.

For more than 50 years, the ABA has evaluated the credentials of nominees for the federal bench, though the nation's largest lawyers' group has no official standing in the process. Supreme Court nominees get the most scrutiny.

This is the fourth time the ABA has rated Roberts. He was designated as well qualified in 2001 when he was nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He earned the same rating in 2003 when he was nominated again for the appeals courts and then confirmed. He was rated as qualified as an appeals court nominee in 1992, but the Senate never took up that nomination.

Of course, you know that being rated "well qualified" will no longer be sufficient since the nominee is a conservative. After all, , the "Gold Standard" is only the "Gold Standard" if they like the nominee.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Senator Patrick Leahy slandered Judge John Roberts in comments designed to pave the way for leftist groups to announce their opposition to his nomination to the US Supreme Court.

Sen. Patrick Leahy says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right.

While stopping short of announcing his opposition to the appointment, the Vermont Democrat's written statement Tuesday was by far the most critical he has made since President Bush nominated Roberts.

Firing his broadside one day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records, Leahy said Roberts' views were "among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy and access to justice."

However, even the AP notes that the recently released documents show nothing of the kind.

In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.

"Those papers that we have paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party, then and now," Leahy said in his statement.

In other words, Senator Leahy has just announced that ANY conservative nominee is unacceptable and outside the mainstream.

No mater what the results of the last several elections show.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Senator Patrick Leahy slandered Judge John Roberts in comments designed to pave the way for leftist groups to announce their opposition to his nomination to the US Supreme Court.

Sen. Patrick Leahy says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right.

While stopping short of announcing his opposition to the appointment, the Vermont Democrat's written statement Tuesday was by far the most critical he has made since President Bush nominated Roberts.

Firing his broadside one day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records, Leahy said Roberts' views were "among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy and access to justice."

However, even the AP notes that the recently released documents show nothing of the kind.

In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.

"Those papers that we have paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party, then and now," Leahy said in his statement.

In other words, Senator Leahy has just announced that ANY conservative nominee is unacceptable and outside the mainstream.

No mater what the results of the last several elections show.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Ward Churchill is taking a one semester sabbatical this spring, to research and write more anti-American bullcrap on the taxpayerÂ’s dime.

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said he plans to take a sabbatical in the spring to finish a book about the repression of the Black Panther party.

Churchill said he needs the one-semester sabbatical to finish his research project, adding that his leave has nothing to do with a CU faculty committee's ongoing inquiry into his writings.

Pauline Hale, a spokeswoman for the university, said CU's regents have not seen the request for the sabbatical and that protocol requires they approve all such leaves.

Churchill said the request was approved at the college level last fall, before controversy erupted in January over an essay he wrote shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, comparing World Trade Center victims with Nazi Adolf Eichmann.

The request was approved by the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Churchill said, and he had assumed it was approved by the regents.

"I have not heard that anything went awry," Churchill said Tuesday "My assumption was that things went in a normal fashion."

Now it is known that Churchill has a history of academic dishonesty, including plagiarism and just plain making stuff up. Does it really take a work-free semester to do that – especially since his fall class load consists of only one course?

Posted by: Greg at 12:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

The CornerÂ’s Tim Graham points out a bit of liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the lives and health of Americans.

The Los Angeles Times reports that state and federal officials are investigating the deaths of (now) four California women who've died after taking the RU-486 abortion-inducing drug cocktail. The first one most media outlets ignored was teenager Holly Patterson in 2003, but the latest is Oriane Shevlin, a 34-year-old mother of two, who died from a blood infection in June. Wendy Wright at Concerned Women for America and others have been on the FDA's case on this one, which was ram-rodded through the regulatory process in the last year of the Clinton administration.

When it comes to the FDA, the networks would rather obsess over less lethal scandals from corporate greedheads, like, I kid you not, Taco Bell taco shells: "The charge is that Taco Bell taco shells sold in grocery stores contain a gene-altered corn specifically banned from food because of the risk of allergies in people," CBS reporter Wyatt Andrews explained. "While there are no known reports of injury, this finding by a coalition of environmental groups is the most serious evidence so far of the potential danger in some gene-altered food."

Yep – we cannot leave taco shells on the market because they contain grain which has never harmed anyone who has eaten them – but four dead women are not grounds for removing the RU-486 feticide drug.

I’m curious, though. Isn’t DEATH the ultimate infringement on “a woman’s right to choose”? Guess not.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Jonah Goldberg makes a point that I have tried to make.

The great irony is that the people who resort to such "arguments" (they're really just insults) are the ones questioning free-speech rights, because they are suggesting the criticism was inappropriate and, in some vague and stupid way, unconstitutional. Right? That is the upshot of what they're saying. I mean, if you immediately assert that someone has the right to say something as a way to rebut criticism, aren't you implying that such criticism violated their rights — which is, by definition, unconstitutional.

The paranoia enters into it when you consider the nature of the accusation. If you immediately assume that criticism from the political Right is tantamount to questioning someone's constitutional right to speak in the first place, what you are really saying (Pace Dan Savage) is that if you scratch a conservative you'll find a Storm Trooper just under the surface. We knuckle draggers may say we're just offering criticism, but what we really mean is that anyone we disagree with has no right to say so. That so many on the Left seem to believe this, says a lot about the intellectual and psychological state of Lefties while saying nothing of interest about conservatives. I don't think it's always a matter of projection — assuming your enemy sees things the same you do — but I do think this knee-jerkery illuminates in a small way the bad faith of the Left. Not only does the "I have the right to speak" tantrum dodge the merits of specific criticisms, it starts from the assumption that as a matter of first principles left-wing protest should never be questioned.

Indeed, that's the reason the Left has rallied so fiercely behind Cindy Sheehan. Wedded to a form of identity-politics logic which says some "authentic" voices cannot be questioned and inauthentic voices need not be listened to, these hardcore left-wing activists love Cindy Sheehan because they think she's above reproach. They immediately resort to the argument "How dare you question a woman who lost her child!" Sheehan's loss is obviously a terrible one. But the death of her son does not make her anymore qualified to rant about Israel and oil tycoons controlling American foreign policy than it would be if her son was alive. But her backers do not care, indeed they don't think anyone has the right to even point this out.

So rant on, Saint Cindy Sheehan of the Ditch, Our Lady of the Martyred Soldier. You have every right to spew your venom towards our president and our country – and even the anti-Semitic rhetoric that has brought Nazi/Klan moron David Duke to your support.

But I have the right to say you are wrong. And the speech-suppressing fascists are those among your supporters who demand silence of those of us who criticize the dishonor you bring to your sonÂ’s name and sacrifice.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

When Houston Mayor Bill White created the Safe-Clear mandatory towing program for local highways, he meant well. The program has been one embarrassment after another for the city, and has exceeded the expected cost. Now it seems to be a source of victims for criminals.

Andrea Anderson broke down along Highway 59 near Collingsworth. A Safe Clear wrecker was dispatched.

"I was hot and sweaty and waiting for a long time," she said. "I was forced to use the Safe Clear program, where I could have used my warranty tow."
A wrecker from Unified Auto Works towed Anderson's car to Humble. She paid the bill with her check card. Several days later, Anderson checked her bank account and found more than $600 worth of unauthorized charges, along with a list of overdraft fees.

Around the time Anderson was trying to figure out who was draining her bank account, a different woman's car broke down along Interstate 10 near Lockwood. Again, a wrecker from Unified Auto Works was dispatched as part of the Safe Clear program.

The woman talked with the Troubleshooters but asked to remain anonymous. She told them she also paid Unified with her credit card. And soon after, she also got hit with hundreds of dollars in unauthorized charges.

These women had no choice of towing company, and were forbidden to call the company of their choice or use AAA. Thanks, City of Houston, for providing criminals with easier access to victims.

(Hat Tip: Lone Star Times)

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

First it was New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Now Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is acting to shore up border security in her state by declaring a state of emergency and setting aside funds to deal with the crisis.

Gov. Janet Napolitano on Monday declared a state of emergency along Arizona's border with Mexico, freeing up $1.5 million in disaster funds to help border counties combat booming illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

Napolitano criticized the federal government for "moving too slow" on border security, evolving into a hot-button, election-year issue in Arizona and across the country.

"This is a federal responsibility, and they're not meeting it," Napolitano said. "I've just come to the conclusion (that) we've got to do what we can at the state level until the federal government picks up the pace."

Napolitano's announcement came three days after New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson issued a similar declaration, complaining that the federal government has failed to stem growing smuggling-related violence to the east of Arizona, an increasingly popular illegal immigration corridor. Both governors are Democrats.

In the mean time, we have the GOP governors of Texas and California doing little or nothing to deal with the crisis along their borders. And we have a GOP president and GOP Congress all talking about amnesty plans and guest workers rather than acting to stem the tide of invading immigration criminals.

WhatÂ’s the deal, Republicans? Do you really want to lose the next few elections?

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

I've talked about this case before. Millionaire businessman and government official patronizeds a Masseuse with a prostitition conviction (like we believe all she was giving him was a massage), dumps his family to carry on a public affair with her, and eventually marries her. Oh, yeah, did I mention she's under a deportation order?

Well now, seeking a better venue for their lawsuit against the US government, Ralph and Nicole Yanhong Hu Isenberg have fled Dallas for New York -- on the very day on which Nicole was required to voluntarily leave the United States under an agreementshe signed with the US government.

The choice was clear: Leave the country voluntarily by Monday or be deported.

Instead of catching an international flight, Nicole Isenberg fled to New York City with her husband, Ralph, a former member of the Dallas City Plan Commission, and started preparing a federal lawsuit against U.S. immigration officials.

"We are still trying so hard to have a judge listen to our case and keep our family together," said Mrs. Isenberg, who has a 6-week-old child with Mr. Isenberg and a teenage daughter from her first marriage whom he adopted.

"We won't give up."

Mr. Isenberg, a Dallas real-estate developer, vowed to continue his fight for his Chinese wife's freedom and her green card.

"There is no better place for me to be than New York," he said Monday.

Mr. Isenberg has been grappling with immigration authorities on his wife's behalf since they met about three years ago.

He recently resigned his position on the City Plan Commission after revealing to the media that his 30-year marriage dissolved when he met and later married Nicole – formerly known as Yanhong Hu, a Dallas massage parlor worker who had once been arrested on a prostitution charge.

The misdemeanor charge was unfounded, the Isenbergs said, and was dismissed after she served five months' probation.

Both sides in the Isenbergs' immigration dispute accuse the other of egregious misdeeds.

Paul Hunker III, chief counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Dallas, has characterized Mrs. Isenberg as one of the worst violators of immigration law he has seen.

She is not eligible to adjust her status in the U.S., he said, because she engaged in prostitution, committed fraud by lying about the prostitution charge, overstayed her visa by more than a year and was ordered deported in absentia when she missed an immigration hearing.

Mr. Hunker, learning that he could possibly be named in the Isenbergs' lawsuit, referred questions Monday to spokesman Carl Rusnok.

"She was supposed to have left the U.S. by today. It looks like she has no intention of meeting that agreement," Mr. Rusnok said Monday.

"We will take whatever enforcement actions we deem appropriate. ... ICE is a federal organization. We have ICE agents in New York as well."

Gee, what part of "not eligible to adjust her status" is so hard to understand? The mere fact that she married a millionaire with lots of good political connections is not a basis for her being allowed to stay in the US. She is a convicted prostitute who overstayed her visa and was ordered deported years ago. On what possible basis could they possibly argue against the order to leave a country where she has no legal right to stay? Especially since she agreed to leave, and was given several extensions.

Well, they are using the kitchen sink strategy. Every possible argument is out there. All of them sound like pure bunk (and not the kind where Mrs. Isenberg used to make her moneu on her back). More offensive is the attempt to play the China card.

Mr. Cox [the Isenberg's lawyer], who speaks fluent Mandarin, said Mrs. Isenberg's case has received widespread coverage in China, where Mr. Isenberg has been called "China's son-in-law."

"I hope our government will do the humane thing, the fair thing," he said. "People in China are watching to see if we are fair to a Chinese citizen."

We4ll, Mr. Isenberg, maybe your in-laws have a spare bedroom for you over at their place. You and your wife need to get on the slow boat (or maybe a chartered jet) to China, where you and she can wait until she is eligble to come back to this country under American law.

Oh, and Mr. Cox, since the article makes it clear that you were an active participant in the violation of this agreement, which includes flight from federal authorities, I look forward to hearing that you face the appropriate criminal charges, serve time, and are disbarred as the unethical scoundrel you are.

Oh, I would like to point to one quote from an ICE representative.

"We will take whatever enforcement actions we deem appropriate. ... ICE is a federal organization. We have ICE agents in New York as well."

Send them in -- throw her out.

Posted by: Greg at 05:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 5 kb.

She's already made antin-Semitic comments in the media. Now Cindy Sheehan has a high-profile backer who agrees with her.

Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and otherÂ’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.

Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel.

I take it that David Duke has therefore gone back to the Democrats -- right where the Klan has traditionally found its home. I wonder if Senator Byrd has welcomed him with open arms?

And given Duke's past Nazi associations, I can't help but remind folks that the name is short for National SOCIALISTS.

MORE FROM Blogs for Bush, Jack Lewis, Conservative Outpost, T. Longren, Wizbang,.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 PM | Comments (99) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Three weeks.

That's how long it took one pregnant Mexican woman to be deported and make it back to her illegal US residence in Arkadelphia, Arkansas.

A pregnant woman who was separated from her husband and two small children and deported to Mexico on July 26 has already returned to Arkadelphia, Hispanic activists say.

The woman's story is just one of several desperate efforts to reunite families by those deported in an immigration raid at an Arkadelphia poultry plant. Cesar Compadre, a physician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and head of the Hispanic aid organization La Casa, said he met the woman Sunday while providing food and medical care to many of the 30 children left unattended in Arkansas.

"It's the most ridiculous thing; it's like the Middle Ages," an exasperated Compadre said after he and three other doctors treated 25 kids and half a dozen adults.

But Marc Raimondi, spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said it should not come as a surprise when the U.S. government enforces its immigration laws. Since incorporating immigration enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security 2 1/2 years ago, expectations have changed, he said.

"It's not like before when the immigration system was considered optional by some," he told The Associated Press on Sunday. "Our goal is to return integrity to our immigration system through vigorous enforcement."

Compadre said his medical team provided the woman with prenatal care. She said she was taken from Arkadelphia less than three weeks ago, detained in Texarkana and Dallas, dropped off in the middle of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico — just across the Rio Grande River from Laredo, Texas — and immediately made her way back to Arkansas.

"She was traumatized to the point that she's almost unresponsive," Compadre said. "She's back in here and we were able to get her proper prenatal care. It's at least stable at this moment."

Raimondi could not comment on the woman's specific case, but in general, he said, returning to the U.S. illegally after being deported is a serious offense. Depending on the terms of deportation, a repeat offender could face up to 20 years in federal prison, he said.

I guess she really wants another anchor baby -- and we will get the entire extended family up here before too long.

And, of course, those enforcing our nation's laws are the bad guys, according to the slanted news coverage here.

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

MoveOn won't tell you ow Iraq is moving forward. Michael Moore won't do any documentaries about the improved lives of Iraqis after the overthrow of Saddam. And the Ditch Bitch (mustn't be as nasty as the Leftists) Cindy Sheehan and her supporters won't mention any of these accomplishments for which soldiers have given their lives.

Deroy Murdock will, though, with a little help from the liberal Brookings Institution.

Most Iraqis actually see the overall security situation improving. A July 12-17 Tips Hotline survey of roughly 1,200 Iraqis in Baghdad, Basra, Diyala, Irbil, Najaf, and Salah Ad-Din found that 75 percent of respondents believe their security forces are beating anti-government fighters. Twenty percent saw the security situation as “somewhat worse” than in April, and 14 percent found it “much worse,” but 46 percent considered it “somewhat better,” and 16 percent described it as “much better.”

The deaths of 54 American troops in July were maddening and painful tragedies, one and all. But these fatalities were considerably below the 137 GI deaths recorded last November, though only 36 were killed last March.

Infrastructure improvements also are encouraging. A new Kirkuk treatment plant began providing clean water to 5,000 people on June 27, the State Department reports. Another 84 U.S.-led waterworks projects are underway in Iraq, while 114 have been completed.

As Saddam Hussein relaxed in his palaces, his subjects in Kamaliya lived without sewers and relied instead on trenches that often overflowed onto the streets. Now, with Coalition assistance, 8,870 of KamaliyaÂ’s homes will receive sewage treatment. Some 600 local workers will be paid to complete this $27 million project. U.S. government-funded projects employed 110,005 Iraqis in early August.

Some 18,000 pupils will study in rehabilitated classrooms when they go back to school in mid-September. According to U.S. and Iraqi officials, 43 more schools were slated for renovation on August 6. So far, 3,211 schools have been refurbished, and another 773 are being repaired.

IraqÂ’s monthly petroleum exports have grown from $200 million in June 2003 to $2.5 billion last month. This is due both to higher oil prices and to fuel supplies having swelled from 23 percent to 97 percent of official production goals in that period. These key improvements also help explain why IraqÂ’s GDP increased from a World Bank estimate of $12.1 billion in 2003 to a projected $21.1 billion in 2004.

Iraqis who endured Baathist censorship now enjoy a vibrant, free press. Commercial TV channels, radio stations, and independent newspapers and magazines have zoomed from zero before Operation Iraqi Freedom to — respectively — 29, 80, and 170 today.

There is more -- so much more. Make sure that you click both links for some illuminating information about how the war in Iraq is chugging along steadily towards success, and towards better lives for the Iraqi people.

Because after all, Oraqis under Saddam didn't get a choice about sleeping in a ditch.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.

Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn [YOUR LAST NAME HERE], Texas Comptroller, wants to be Governor of Texas in the worst way. If she ever gets there, I have no doubt she will be governor in the worst way. But to get the office in 2006, the loopy mother of White House Spokesman Scott McClellan will have to knock off incumbent Governor Rick Perry, who succeeded our previous governor, George W. Bush, when he went on to bigger and better things.

Perry is popular with the generally conservative base of the GOP, and is likely to win the nomination . But Strayhorn has a plan -- get Democrats and Independents to vote in the GOP primary.

he call came from a listener telling Carole Keeton Strayhorn he'd eagerly vote for her for governor in November 2006.

Strayhorn shot back Tuesday on Austin radio station KVET-FM: "November is great, but first I need you to vote on March 7. I want Republicans, Democrats, independents. All are welcome," Strayhorn said.

"And bring all your friends with you."

Strayhorn, the Republican state comptroller who is challenging GOP Gov. Rick Perry, has made few campaign forays since announcing her candidacy June 18, a tack that her office attributes to lawmakers remaining in special session to deal with school funding and tax issues.

But the former Austin mayor is well along in testing an unusual message: The March Republican primary is voters' only real chance to choose the next governor.

Her pitch asks voters to assume that the Democratic nominee will not prove to be a serious fall contender. Neither of the only announced Democratic candidates, former U.S. Rep. Chris Bell of Houston and educator Felix Alvarado of Fort Worth, has run statewide. And no Democrat has won statewide since 1994.

Strayhorn, like Perry, was once a Democrat. She also has won GOP primaries in the past.

Yet, her hunt for voters outside the party's base appears to recognize that the incumbent has the edge among Republican loyalists, who are often more conservative than the general electorate.

Let me tell you, speaking as Republican precinct chair here in Harris County, which is the largest county in Texas, that this strategy does not sit well with most Republicans I know. We have this crazy idea that if you want to use the votes of Democrats to get the nomination for governor, you need to run in the Democrat primary. Given the current candidates for the Democrat nomination, I suspect that the nomination would be hers for the taking. It is time for her to go back to that party and seek the Democrat nomination (which she might not get, having abandoned that party once) so she can face Perry in the fall -- and lose.

I'll make you a prediction right now. I'm sure that the Perry campaign and the GOP on both the state and national levels will make sure that every signature on every Democrat nominating petition (and those for Kinky Friedman) in the state is broken down by local precinct and distributed to the precinct chairs for purposes of challenging cross-over voters. After all, Strayhorn and her supporters are correct in noting that a voter can vote in either primary on election day. However, what needs to be considered is that the same law has a limitation on that choice -- if you have signed a nominating petition for an independent or a candidate for particular party, you forfeit the option of voting in the primary of a different party. Those of us serving as election judges will have some idea of who the outsiders are, and we will be ready for them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.

UPDATE -- 8/15/05, 4:50 PM Central Time

I have just returned from work, and wish to acknowledge that the purported author of the letter to LST is disputing that he wrote it. As of 10:37 this morning, the linked articles have been pulled pending verification of the email's source. While not yet pulling this piece, I want to acknowledge the existance of the controversey and the response of LST. I've heard nothing from either Prudential Gary Greene or Charles Rubio asking me to do so, despite having contacted them regarding the email mentioned below. At such time as a request is made, or upon the presentation of proof that Mr. Rubio has been framed, , I will take appropriate actions in that regard.

*********

Last week, a legal secretary member at an Ogletree Deakins law firm got fired for sending an email to Michelle Malkin from work. The email contained profane slurs directed agains the talented writer for daring to comment negatively on the Cindy Sheehan story. (I've blanked out the more offensive words)

X-Originating-IP: [216.105.154.202]
From: "Mitchell, Patrick" Patrick.Mitchell@ogletreedeakins.com
To: "'malkin@comcast.net'"
Subject:
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:41:22 -0400
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)

YOU STINK you nasty C***! Eat S*** and DIE bitch!!

Within hours, his employer had dealt with the situation.

Dear Ms. Malkin,

I am the Managing Shareholder of the law firm of Ogletree Deakins with offices located across the country. I was very disturbed to learn today that a legal secretary in our Los Angeles office sent you the vile e-mail referenced on your home page. Such remarks are clearly inappropriate in any context and an e-mail such as this certainly should not have been sent during working time using our firm's equipment. The comments of this employee are not reflective of the views or opinions of the firm and are directly in violation of our e-mail policy. As Managing Shareholder, I wanted to extend to you our apologies and let you know that this serious violation of our firm's work rules has resulted in the discharge of this employee.

Once again, let me offer you our deepest apologies for any discomfort that the referenced e-mail has caused. It will not happen again.

Sincerely,

Gray Geddie

The matter was handled properly by the firm within 90 minutes.

I wonder if this item from Lone Star Times will be handled as adroitly by Prudential Gary Greene Realty here in Houston. One of the realtors with the company sent a profane, possibly threatening email to one of the writers for the site, Owen Courrèges.

Name: Charles

Email: carubio@garygreene.com

You guys are a bunch of stupid dumb, very, very dumb F*****. Look me up a****** and meet me face to face. Get in the ring with that facist white trash face of yours. Dare you. In the name of CindyÂ’s virgil [sic] to meet with that war criminal of a human animal come on meet me you stupid f***.

Major mistake, Charles. You don't want to use your professional address to send stuff like that out. I mean you gave Owen and company the ability to find you on your employer's website. It also made it possible to find your company website with its one lonely little listing (Has it been a tough month so far, Charles? I suspect it is going to get worse real quick). They also tracked him down on Houston's IndyMedia affiliate. I also found him in this article in the local throwawy community paper.

I dropped Mr. Rubio a quick note, just to let him know what I think of folks who do stuff like this.

Wow -- I would have thought that someone who thinks he is a professional would have given some thought to using his work email to send a profane letter to a media outlet. Good going, Charles -- now I know not to list my house with Gary Greene or any other company with which you are associated. I wonder if the folks who listed that house with you would feel if they saw your level of professionalism. I wonder how your bosses will feel. Maybe we should find out.

You are welcome to your politics, but your choice to write from work has some consequences. I believe that bad publicity and the destruction of your career qualify as consequences. Do you agree?

I suspect that you will have plenty of free time to go join Ms. Sheehan in her Crawford ditch before too long. My guess is that your letter guarantees that you will need to reside there significantly longer than she does.

I also sent the following to his office manager and several partners in Prudential Gary Greene.

I wonder -- have you folks seen this piece yet from Lone Star Times?

http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?p=1342

I don't think that Mr. Rubio is giving your company a very good image. Since he is using your company domain's email address (and, I would presume, equipment) to send out profane political statement and what could be reasonably seen as a threat against a writer, I think it would be highly appropriate for you to take action.

I know that even though I bought my house through your company and was very happy with the service received, I won't list my house with your company, sell to a buyer who is represented by your company, or buy from a seller represented by your company as long as Rubio remains affiliated with Prudential Gary Greene.

Now let me make this clear -- Rubio is entitled to whatever political beliefs he wants. But when he starts sending out material using his work address, using profane language and seeming to make threats, I think it is important to seek appropriate action from his employer. Charles Rubio made his views a work-related matter when he sent that little message to Owen.

Posted by: Greg at 01:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 981 words, total size 6 kb.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has declared state of emergency in four counties along the states border with Mexico. The government of Mexico is displeased.

Richardson cited "violence directed at law enforcement, damage to property and livestock, increased evidence of drug smuggling and an increase in the number of undocumented immigrants" in declaring the emergency.

He said the border security situation "constitutes an emergency condition with potentially catastrophic consequences."

Imagine that -- agovernor is trying to make sure that law enforcement and other citizens are not killed by human smugglers, drug smugglers. and immigration criminals. He's trying to preserve the private property of individual citizens. he's trying to see to it that there is a decrease in the number of individuals violating the territorial integrity of the state by crosing borders illegally. What could he possibly be thinking?

How did the Mexicans respons?

"The Mexican government considers that some of the New Mexico government's statements are generalizations which don't jibe with the spirit of cooperation and understanding needed to address border problems," Mexico's Foreign Relations Department said in a press statement.

In other words, how dare you explicitly criticize the criminal aliens who cross from our country to your state, and, implicitly, the corrupt governemnt that encourages it in exchange for bribes.

Mexico thinks it can dictate our border policy to its own benefit. Its words and actions have been completely unhelpful in ending the problem.

Vincente, I'll listen to your complaints when some government official declares open season on illegals, with no bag limit. Until then, shut up and keep your people on your side of the border.

Posted by: Greg at 07:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

I thought about asking this question yesterday, in light of the NARAL ad linking John Roberts to abortuary bombings.

After all, the ACLU defended the rights of followers of the genocidal NAZIs to march in Skokie in the 1970s, well-after the perpetration of the Holocaust.

And they have long supported the right of the KKK to spew their hate-filled rhetoric, despite 140 years of racist terror committed by the group.

So if Roberts is responsible for a terorist act committed by one individual years after his intervention in a case in which the future killer was involved, surely the ACLU must be held responsible for prior actions by the groups they defend.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

First it was the disgusting behavior of the state's Lt. Governor. Now it seems that the majority leader of the Pennsylvania state senate has forgotten that he is the servant of the people, not a feudal lord.

Bill McIntyre did not expect many replies when he e-mailed a tongue-in-cheek greeting to members of the state General Assembly on the one-month anniversary of the vote to give themselves a raise.

"I thought they would just ignore it," McIntyre said.

About a half-dozen replied.

One suggested he walk a mile in their shoes and run for office. Another asked if McIntyre had ever supported a legislative pay raise. Still another sent a two-page letter explaining why he voted for the raise.

Then there was the reply from Democratic Senate leader Robert J. Mellow, D-Lackawanna: "Why don't you get a life? Please do not mail my office another e-mail."

Senator -- if hearing from citizens who disagree with you is a problem, resignation is the proper solution. If you lack the integrity to quit now, I sincerely hope that your constituents remember and purge your disrespectful ass from public office.

Posted by: Greg at 05:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

Clearly these folks are not sorry about the content of their ad -- merely that htey have been caught. How else can you explain this non-apology from the pro-abortion lobby group after they withdrew their mendacious ad?

"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America

Misconstrued?

You flat out accused the man of backing the bombing of abortuaries, when his own words in the same documents and oral arguments made it clear that he believed such acts should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. That is a flat-out, full-blown abortion of the truth, not a difference of opinion or the misconstuing of your intent.

If they had any integrity, your board of directors would have fired you by now, Ms. Keenan.

MORE FROM Blogs for Bush, Captain's Quarters, Jawa Report, Conservative Thinking

Posted by: Greg at 04:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 2 kb.

A bunch of liberal exploiters of the masses (they are rich, after all, so their wealth is obviously ill-gotten via the alienation of the sweat and toil of the workers) are promising to donate at least $1 million each to propagandize the proletariat for the Socialist Democrat Party.

The money will be funnelled through an organisation called the Democracy Alliance which, according to a report in the Washington Post, will help fund a network of thinktanks and advocacy groups seeking to halt the shift to the cultural and political right.

The formation of the alliance is a radical rethinking of Democratic strategy and a response to the frustration felt by many liberals at the Republican stranglehold of both the House of Representatives and Senate and the White House.

At last November's elections, President George Bush was returned to office despite the deteriorating situation in Iraq and an uneven economy, leaving many Democrats baffled.

The alliance chairman, Steven Gluckstern, a retired investment banker, told the Post many liberal contributors felt that a dramatic new and more sustained approach was needed, instead of the cash poured into special interest pro-Democrat groups ahead of an election.

"It wasn't only the failure to win, it was the question, 'what does it take to win?'," Mr Gluckstern said. "Among the lessons learned was that to bring back the progressive majority in this country is not just a periodic election investment strategy."

The organisation aims to raise $200m, with more than 80 backers already agreeing to pledge $200,000 a year over five years.

Now hold on. I thought that we needed to get money out of the political process. I thought that think-tanks and interest groups were responsible for corrupting the system by amplifying the voices of the wealthy and rendering the common people irrelevant. You mean such things are noble if they they support liberal causes? Sounds like a hypocritical thing to me.

The alliance is the brainchild of Democratic strategist Rob Stein, who says the left's infrastructure is outdated.

He said there is a big imbalance in the amount of cash that goes into left and rightwing thinktanks. Over the past two years, he said, thinktanks pushing the conservative agenda had received $295m, while leftwing institutions were given just $75m.

Could it be that you folks haven't had an idea since Johnson screwed up Vietnam and the American economy all at the same time? The conservatives have engaged in scholarly research and made serious policy proposals. How much money do you people really need to make false claims of voter fraud, draw magic-marker "No Blood For Oil" signs and test-market the nickname "Chimpy McHalliBusHitler"? I think your donors got ripped off when they wrote that $75 million check.

Posted by: Greg at 02:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm not a hip-hop fan, but I have to admire San Francisco hip-hop station KMEL-FM. They have refused to eject a US Navy recruitment booth from their annual Summer Jam concert, as demanded by anti-American peacenik groups who would have no free speech if not for the protection afforded them by the Navy and the rest of the armed forces.

Clear Channel officials said the Navy and other military recruiters had sponsored the Summer Jam concert for at least 10 of its 19 years. But activists are particularly concerned this year. Only one Bay Area music station has more listeners than KMEL-FM, according to the most recent Arbitron ratings. A Clear Channel official confirmed that roughly 40 percent of the station's audience are people of color.

"For many people in these communities (of color), the military is an escape from the violence they see in their neighborhoods," said Jen Low, an organizer for the protesters. With several branches of the military not reaching recruiting goals and with public opinion polls turning against President Bush's handling of the war, activists see an opportunity to show "the Navy is attempting to use any and all means to meet its goals," according to the activists' letter.

They want KMEL to sever its "ties" with the Navy or grant "counter- recruitment groups equal access to the 2005 KMEL Summer Jam as that granted to the U.S Navy."

Medecki said counter-recruiters were welcome to have a booth at the event at Shoreline Amphitheatre for the same price other sponsors paid -- $5,000 to $10,000.

The aging hippies, trust-fund communists and pro-terrorist anarchists can't come up with that sort of cash -- but plan on buying tickets and distributing literature inside the venue without a booth.

Here's hoping the event and venue have a solicitation policy banning this, and enforce it.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol doesn't know his place in the constitutional order of things. He seems to think he is a little king, immune from criticism by the peasants over whom he rules. As such, he demonstrates the arrogance of the imperial judiciary quite well.

Judge bashing begins with the public, the media and politicians, said Piersol, who is president of the Federal Judges Association. Most mainstream media and politicians are supportive of the judiciary, but some are not, he said.

Judges should expect criticism because their decisions have a direct effect on people's lives, Piersol said. But recent events, such as reported threats against Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, who ruled in the Terri Schiavo case, have caused concerns, he said.

Harsh verbal attacks by elected officials are not productive and can be seen as an invitation to retaliate for judicial decisions, he said.

In the Schiavo case, Greer's rulings faced congressional criticism, Piersol said. Greer reportedly received death threats after he ordered Schiavo's feeding tube be removed and denied a petition from the Florida Department of Children and Families and Gov. Jeb Bush to take Schiavo into state custody.

To confront judge bashing, Piersol said judges should communicate with Congress and their critics to try to temper their positions. In individual cases, where judges can't speak for themselves, they should allow judicial allies to speak on their behalf, he said.

Now I'll concede that death threats are never appropriate -- though I can think of a number of judges who merit a good horse-whipping. But if you cannot handle "harsh criticism", then you do not belong on the bench. If you truly believe that your ruling is in line with the laws and the Constitution of the United States, then your conscience should be clear and any criticism should roll off your back as if you are a duck. But if that criticism gets to you, then you might want to examine the reason why -- and not blame the tone of the critics.

But if, Judge Piersol, you really believe that the harsh criticism of you and your court really do harm to you, then you already have the tool in your possession to put a stop to it. Use your contempt power to imprison those whose contemptuous words impair the dignity and the function of the court. And yes, I am serious -- because after all, that power is there to make sure that the courts and their authority are properly respected. You can then make your case before another judge when the habeas corpus hearing is held to contest the legitimacy of the arrest -- and before the Senate of the United States during the impeachment proceedings. Better yet -- order the arrest of some of these Congressmen and Senators who are issuing "invitation to retaliate for judicial decisions." I mean after all, you are a judge, and they damn well had better respect you and your decisions. Who do they think they are criticizing you?..I particularly love this bit of rhetoric, Judge Piersol.

Mainstream media generally have been supportive of the judiciary, but that doesn't include "virulent talk shows," Piersol said.

"Overheated rhetoric does no good," he said. "(These talk shows) can indirectly do harm."

Come on, judge -- order the arrest of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly. They are a menace, and they do harm by their words. That cannot be permitted, regardless of any purported right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The negative effests of such virulent speech must be stopped, for the good of the courts.

But seriously, judge, how about if I stop being sarcastic for a moment or two, though I do not know that I can restrain my contempt for you long enough to treat you like a man worthy of respect. There is a reason that Article III is the third and least detailed of the three Articles which establish the branched of government. The founders made it clear in their statements about the relative power of those branches. The courts were to have the least power of the three branches. They were to be the least dangerous to liberty, and were expected to be deferential to the elected branches. Somewhere along the way, you and your fellow judges forgot that, and came to believe that the two elected branches were to be subordinate to yours, and the will of the people was to be of little import. When the courts resume their constitutional role and quit usurping the place of Congress, the President, and the several states, then maybe we will quit being so critical -- and will give you the sort of deference your office used to deserve.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 802 words, total size 5 kb.

Is a lawyer legally or morally responsible for the later actions of those whose rights he defends?

That is the key question that has to be asked before analyzing the current NARAL ad attacking Judge John Roberts.

After all, seven years after he filed a brief arguing that a certain law did not apply in a particular case (a position upheld 6-3 by the Supreme Court), one of those peripherally involved in the case committed a different, much more heinous act of the sort which Judge Roberts had condemned in his brief.

During the 1980s, members of Operation Rescue and other groups sought to prevent abortions by shutting down clinics through human blockades. The protesters massed on the sidewalks outside clinics and tried to stop doctors, nurses and patients from entering. Usually, they overwhelmed the police. However, if police came in force to break up the blockades, the protesters moved on to other clinics.

Keenan noted that in the four years before the Bray case was decided, there had been 48 bombings and arsons of abortion clinics in 24 states.

Defenders of abortion rights looked for a legal weapon to counter the blockades, and they thought they had found it in the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 — originally passed to authorize the federal courts to protect newly freed slaves from violence by whites.

The law applies whenever "two or more persons Â… conspire for the purpose of depriving Â… any persons or class of persons" of their equal rights under the Constitution. It permits judges to issue orders that restrain those who have violated the law.

In 1989, the National Organization for Women sued Operation Rescue in federal court in Alexandria, Va., after a series of clinic blockades. A federal judge ruled that the protesters had conspired to prevent women from obtaining legal abortions, and he issued an order making the protesters subject to arrest if they trespassed near abortion clinics. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., upheld that decision.

Operation Rescue lawyers appealed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which was closely watched nationwide.

Starr and Roberts notified the court that they would file a brief on the side of Operation Rescue, and they asked for time to argue the issue before the justices. Under U.S. law, the solicitor general's primary job is to represent the federal government before the high court, but the office is also free to intervene in other cases that involve some aspect of federal law.

Roberts appeared before the court, opening his remarks by saying that he was not defending the acts of the protesters. Instead, he argued that the Ku Klux Klan Act did not apply in the context of abortion. The century-old law applied only to a "discriminatory deprivation of rights, not simply the deprivation of rights," he said.

"Opposition to abortion is [not] the same as discrimination on the basis of gender. That's wrong as a matter of law and logic," he said. Many women as well as men oppose abortion, and it is not because they hate women, he argued.

Now let's be quite blunt here -- the position he took was correct. Assigning him the blame for a later abortion clinic bombing by Eric Rudolph is like blaming Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP for the acts of the Weathermen by "encouraging" political activism against racial discrimination by waging a legal campaign against Jim Crow.

How false is the charge in the ad? Consider this from FactCheck.org.

An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .

The ad is false.

And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.

The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.

In other words, the only two facts that are accurate in the ad are that Roberts submitted the brief and that Rudolph blew up the clinic. Any attempt to draw a connection betwee those two events is completely specious.

Actually, one could make an argument that the reaction to the Supreme Court decision was much more directly responsible for Rudolph's violent acts. Virginia prosecuted the protesters for the non-violent blockades (similar to civil rights sit-ins of the 1960s) and obtained convictions for them. Bill Clinton and his pro-abortion cohorts passed the the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) to authorize the very sort of prosecutions that the pro-abortionists in the Bray case were seeking. Having cut off an effective means of peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience to protest abortion, Rudolph turned to violence. Bill Clinton and company are therefore responsible for the bombing of the Alabama abortuary.

Of course such an argument would be false -- just as false as the NARAL ad. And were we on the pro-life side of the abortion issue to make such an argument, NARAL and its allies would rightly condemn us.

But they are more than willing to lie in the service of their liberal cause.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Sister Toldjah, John Bambenek, All Things Conservative, LyfLines, Jack Lewis, The Unalienable Right, Red State, QandO, bRight & Early, Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers, Secure Liberty.

Posted by: Greg at 06:10 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 993 words, total size 7 kb.

Chari Cohen met Enivaldo Oliveira when he was working illegally in a restaurant after entering the country seeral years before with a forged visa. They dated, married, and had kids, both aware that Envialdo was an immigration criminal who had no right to be in the United States whatsoever and was subject to deportation.

In the spring of 2004, Envialdo went back to his native Brazil voluntarily, in an effort to get permission to legally enter the United States on the grounds that his separation fromhis family was a hardship. Under terms of US immigration laws, he was properly denied a visa.

"We went to them, they didn't come to us," Chari said of their seeking official help. She said their approach was, "'We made a mistake, and we want to fix it,' and Enivaldo said, 'I have a wife and a baby and I want to legalize my status here.'"

Enivaldo went off on the six-month voluntary leave to return home to begin the transition. But, that process came to a halt when U.S. immigration officers in Peru determined the separation of the family did not warrant enough hardship to overrule an eventual denial of his return. The Oliveiras are now appealing Enivaldo's rejection.

Chari said the best opportunities for her family are here in the United States, and scoffs at the prospect of moving to Enivaldo's Brazilian town, which she describes as a tiny farm village, a six-hour ride through the mountains to the closest hospital, without a playground or any adequate resources for her children's upbringing.

"We didn't want to separate our family. We wanted to be together for the rest of our lives," she said. "He didn't leave because he wanted to. He left because that is what he had to do."

Upon arriving back in Brazil after leaving the United States March 8, 2004, he began assembling the paperwork he would need to bring to his appointments with the United States Embassy in Peru, the location where Enivaldo's case was handled. The office, Chari said, was a 16-hour trip away. Each time he has visited, the office has told him he is missing another piece of paperwork, and finally denied the request.

Imagine that -- the laws of the United States are being enforced. Envialdo Oliveiraknowingly broke the law when he came to this country, knowing broke the law when he stayed here and work, and Chari Cohen Oliveira knew what she was doing when she married Envialdo and had children with him. Any hardship in this case is of their own making.

Of course, they don't see it that way.

Meanwhile, charges the family does not face adequate hardship exasperate Chari, who worries about the upbringing of her daughters without Enivaldo to join them for dinners, to play soccer, and the hugs, smiles and attention she said he loves to give.

"I am your everyday mother who just wants the best for her kids. I just want my kids to be with their dad. I want my family to be together," she said.

She said she's lost her energy and personality through the struggle, and feels exhausted.

"I'm like nothing anymore," she said. "We're dying without him. What is enough hardship? Homelessness is not enough hardship?" Chari said that come September, she does not have housing lined up for the family.

Chari describes the early months of her daughters' lives, when Enivaldo would awaken in the middle of the night to help her nurse the babies.

"He's a great father, and a great source of support for me. You couldn't ask for a better family man," she said.

"Are my kids going to grow up on welfare support because it's not enough hardship?" she said. Chari said her scholarship to the University of Massachusetts was revoked when she needed to take more time off from school to spend with her children than the school allowed, and that limits her employment opportunities. "I can't finish school. I can't afford day care," she said.

"My kids need a father. There is no backup plan. He's going to be coming back here," she said resolutely.

"Our life doesn't continue without him. This isn't a game. It's no joke here; it's people's lives," she said. "It's exactly what Enivaldo and I didn't want."

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what you and your immigration criminal husband want. If you want your daughters to be raised in a two-parent household, then there is a simple solution -- take your daughters and move to Brazil. Under terms of our nation's laws, Envialdo will be eligible to get a visa sometime after March of 2014 -- just in time for your oldest child to start college.

I realize, of course, that this is not what you want, but following the law is not optional. Enforcing the laws of the United States in an even-handed manner is not optional, even if it does inconvenience those who break those laws. I'm sure that Envialdo is a good father -- but I suspect the same can be said of many folks currently incarcerated for other crimes. Should we turn loose all the parents in our nation's prisons for the sake of their children? Who else should be exempted from the law?

I feel very badly for your kids. It is a pity that the two of you were irresponsible enough to bring two children into the world who will have to live with the negative impact of the decisions made by their parents before they were born. Yes, they are victims -- but not of an uncaring government, but of a pair of selfish, immature parents who didn't consider the consequences of their decisions.

Now get out of my country.

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 970 words, total size 6 kb.

My Congressman, Tom DeLay, is one of the most maligned men in Washington. I genuinely believe that most of the attacks are based no blind hatred, not actual evidence of substantive wrong-doing. You may disagree.

That said, I would like to remind folks that there is another side to Tom DeLay, one that comes out of what is an undeniably decent part of the this many's character. Tom DeLay has a long-time commitment to the welfare of children in the foster care and adoption system.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay today opened a privately financed project touted as an innovative way of giving abused and neglected children a stable foster home environment.

"There is no other place in the entire country that does what we're trying to do," the Republican said of the project. "And we hope to take this as a model around the country because the foster care system in every state has problems that need to be dealt with."

Some folks, of course, cannot help but find something shady in the project because the facility has been built by Perry Homes, which is owned by Swift Vet's backer Bob Perry. But given that Perry operates one of the largest residential builders in Houston (I believe the largest, but I'm not sure), that should not come as a surprise. It is just one more baseless attack.

Anyway, about the facility.

The first phase of the project, costing about $8 million, consists of eight seven-bedroom homes, a gym and a chapel. Each of the houses will serve as a home for six foster children, plus their foster parents. A second phase will add 24 homes and boost the investment to $25 million, all from private sources, he said.

In other words, nearly fifty kids now have a good foster placement as a result of this project. Another 144 will eventually be a part of the program. This is not something out of the ordinary for Congressman DeLay -- he has been active in adoption and foster care issues for many years on a personal level, and has been a leader on the issue in Congress.

DeLay, though, gives much of the credit to his wife.

DeLay credited his wife, Christine, a former teacher who years ago became a court-appointed special advocate for foster children, with the idea. He said they realized through taking in three foster children that the system needed help.

As you see, this is not some "for public consumption" project for the DeLays. Rather, it is a part of their way of life.

Well Done, Tom and Christine, and all of those involved in this new endeavor.

UPDATE: Well, the Houston Chronicle finally got around to telling us about the facility in a separate article. I guess that some folks at the paper finally realized the the original article was a hit-piece on DeLay that ignored the important story -- the one about the kids and the program.

Christine DeLay said foster children often feel like outsiders in their neighborhoods because they have different names than their foster parents.

"It (Rio Bend) is just like a regular neighborhood, there is one big difference, everybody on the street and the streets to come will be foster parents," she said.

Rio Bend is on the north side of Richmond on 50 acres of land donated by the George Foundation, a philanthropic group.

The foster children, who will attend public schools, will remain in a Rio Bend home from the time a court removes them from their parents until they can return to their parents or are adopted.

DeLay said foster children often are forced to move from home to home, an experience that can leave emotional scars for years.

The first phase of the $7.2 million project consists of eight 4,600-square-foot homes.

Rio Bend administrator Margaret Gow said the second phase will add another 24 houses to the site, which also has playgrounds, athletic fields, a chapel and a swimming pool. When completed, the entire cost of the project will be about $20 million.

Each house has space for six foster children and the foster parents. There is also a room for a nanny and a small apartment for the parents and their biological children.

There are guest quarters on the site for foster children who have turned 18 and are no longer in the care of the state.

The parents will pay $450 a month rent.

Lutheran Social Services of the South will be responsible for administering the day-to-day activities of Rio Bend such as interviewing, training and supervising foster parents.

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 772 words, total size 5 kb.

Doug Forrester is financing his own campaign for governor of New Jersey. He has not made active overtures for funds from private individuals, nor has he sought significant support from the party. Now, having spent $11 million of his own on the race, there is a move afoot to effectively shut down his campaign under terms of an old state law.

The law bars insurance companies and other state-regulated industries doing business in New Jersey - and individuals with majority ownership in the companies - from contributing to candidates or political organizations in the state.

Forrester holds a 51 percent ownership interest in an insurance company that sells most of its policies to governmental clients in New Jersey.

"All of the kinds of things we've done with regard to contributions have been done appropriately and have been examined by appropriate legal counsel," Forrester said in an interview Friday.

Yet the state election law could put into question the contributions that Forrester has made, including those to his own campaign, since he formed his insurance company in 2003. Under the law, designed to prevent undue influence by insurance companies, banks and other state-regulated industries, prohibited contributions might have to be returned.

The Attorney General's Office, which has strictly interpreted the law over three decades to apply to insurance companies and their subsidiaries, declined to comment.

Forrester's company, Heartland Fidelity Insurance Co., was established by him in 2003 to sell health-benefits insurance. Heartland is managed by a second Forrester company - the New Jersey-based BeneCard Services Inc. - which brokers and administers the Heartland contracts. Forrester said he has made more than $50 million from his business, and he is financing his campaign for governor almost exclusively with his own money.

Since forming Heartland, Forrester has spent $11 million to win the GOP gubernatorial nomination and has said he will also personally finance his fall campaign against Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon S. Corzine.

In addition, Forrester has contributed several hundred thousand dollars to various GOP candidates and committees in the state since forming his insurance company.

***

Forrester, after consulting with his attorneys, drew a fine line Friday between the corporate status of the two companies. He said the New Jersey campaign-finance restrictions for insurance companies do not apply to him because he licensed Heartland Fidelity in the District of Columbia.

Heartland "is a D.C. company. It is not regulated by the State of New Jersey," he said through his campaign spokeswoman, Sherry Sylvester. "The statute is not intended to reach beyond the boundaries of New Jersey."

The state law, however, covers companies that "do business" in New Jersey. Heartland's business is produced through BeneCard, a Forrester-owned company with about 100 employees, located in Lawrenceville.

An official at the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance said the issue is where Heartland does business, not where it is licensed and regulated.

"If Heartland is selling insurance to New Jersey entities through BeneCard, they're conducting the business of insurance in New Jersey," said Anne Marie Narcini, ombudsman and manager of consumer protection at the state department.

Now lets look at this for a moment. The goal of the law is to prevent corporate interests from buying influence. However, this is not someone seeking to buy influence -- this is the candidate himself, spending his own cash. Yt is impossible to argue that this is the intent of the law at hand.

There is, of course, another issue. If strictly interpreted, it prohibits the candidate himself from giving anything of value to himself for campaign purposes? Can he buy clothing which he will wear at campaign events? Can he pay for his own dry-cleanting? Heck, can he pay for his own meals or gasoline? To construe this law as applying to expenditures by the candidate himself would result in such logically absurd questions. Furthermore, it would put Forrester and like individuals at a disadvantage relative to other citizens of New Jersey, in that it would prevent him from engaging in political speech activities on his own behalf that are open to every other New Jersey citizen.

I think that any court challenge would have to look at the holding in Buckely v. Valeo, the seminal case on campaign finance law. It held that there can be no limits on a candidate's expenditure of his own funds on behalf of his own candidacy unless the candidate accepted public financing of his campaign. The majority held that such limits infringed upon a First Amendment right "to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election." This is precisely the case here. Furthermore, the court noted that "the use of personal funds reduces a candidate's dependence on outside contributions and thereby counteracts the coercive pressures and attendant risks of abuse to which the contribution limitations are directed." In other words, Forresters expenditures serve the very end sought by the statute.

Ultimately, we have before us a classic example of why political speech limitation laws campaign finance reform laws are unwise and tread dangerously close to infringing on essential liberies -- and probably cross the line.

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 869 words, total size 6 kb.

Rev. Fred Phelps, a long-time Democrat activist, is well known for his hatred of those with whom he disagrees. That makes him typical of members of that party, which equates dissent from their platform with evil. (on the other hand, Democrats view dissent which showers hatred on the US as the ultimate patriotism). That's why they turned out to revile a dead soldier and the country he served at his funeral.

An anti-America protest scheduled to coincide with an Opelika soldierÂ’s funeral Saturday occurred with little confrontation.

However, there were those who turned out to pay tribute to the slain soldier who voiced opposition to the Kansas-based church group’s message summarized by picket signs bearing slogans like “God hates you” and “America is doomed.”

Protected by police border tape that surrounded an area across the street from Greater Peace Baptist Church, where the service for Sgt. Christopher J. Taylor was held, the group of about 15 from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., began what they call a “Love Crusade” with a parody of the song “God Bless America.”

Margie Phelps, daughter of WBC pastor and anti-gay activist Fred Phelps who spearheads the group, loudly chanted anti-gay rhetoric.

Several American flag-waving supporters protested this message by standing in front of the barricade, partially blocking view of the group from Jeter Road where the church is located.

This prompted some members of the church group to step out of the designated area set up by Opelika police.

To ensure a peaceful assembly, police ordered the group to stay within the set boundaries, prompting a complaint from Fred PhelpsÂ’ son Timothy who claimed police were violating their oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

“They have to do everything they can to shut us down,” said Phelps. “This is what you call government taking a side on an issue. This is what you call Nazi America.”

In addition to mocking patriotic songs and waving anti-gay signs, one group member dragged an American flag on the ground with her foot.

Yep -- sounds like the typical tactics of the Leftist anti-war groups. So quit trying to claim that Fred Phelps and his ilk are conservative, because they are nyot. Each and every one of their actions at this funeral are typical of left-wing demonstrations by ActUp, MoveOn, and ANSWER.

Posted by: Greg at 06:18 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

This could be a lot of fin -- Air America has a contest to come up with possible bumper stickers for its listeners (*smirk!*) .

Air America Radio is launching a contest to come up with the most creative and/or funny bumper stickers to get the word out about Air America Radio.

We need ideas for slogans, graphics, concepts — whatever you think best conveys the spirit of Air America Radio's shows, hosts, and our mission to take back the airwaves.

We will pick the top 10 ideas and then we'll invite our loyal fans — that's you — to pick your favorites. The top three winners will get a full set of Air America Radio bumper stickers plus the stylish Air America Radio tote bag!

You know -- I bet that those tote bags would be great for kids headed down to the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club.

Anyone got some good ideas?

(Hat Tip -- GOP Bloggers, Say Anything & Two Babes and a Brain.)

Posted by: Greg at 07:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 2 kb.

You promised the voters that you would put your assets in a blind trust. Five years later, only 1/3 of the assets are in the trust, and it isn't so blind. What's the deal, Senator Corzine?

When multi-millionaire U.S. Sen. Jon S. Corzine ran for his seat six years ago, he promised voters he would place his assets in a blind trust.

The move was to counter critics who charged that his portfolio, especially in a global investment banking and securities firm, could pose a conflict of interest.

But a review of his financial disclosure forms shows that Corzine, a Democrat seeking to become governor, has not put all of his assets in a blind trust. Moreover, the U.S. Senate ethics committee has not approved the trust that he has set up.

And Corzine's blind trust may not be that blind: The Newark mailing address for the trust is the same as his U.S. Senate campaign committee, according to his state financial disclosure form.

Corzine's agreement with the trust manager has not been made public by the candidate. His campaign did not respond to requests Thursday from Gannett New Jersey to release the agreement and identify the managers of the blind trust and Corzine's two other investment companies.

In 2001, Corzine told the Gannett News Service that two former Goldman Sachs partners, Jacob Goldfield and Chris Flowers, and a lawyer, Nancy Dunlap, would manage the blind trust. Dunlap is listed as an official with his U.S. Senate and gubernatorial political campaigns.

No law requires Corzine to put his assets in a blind trust. He also isn't required to submit the trust to the Senate ethics committee for approval. But getting approval means the agreement governing the trust would be a public record, and that Corzine would have to comply with strict Senate rules regulating such funds, including a requirement that the manager be independent, and not related to, the senator.

"Once the ethics committee has approved it, it's truly blind,'' said Pamela Gavin, the Senate's superintendent of public records. "If it's not a qualified blind trust, it has not been blessed by (the) ethics (committee).''

Tell me, Senator, would you accept this sort of ongoing deception from a GOP colleague -- or opponent?

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

It is time we do something about Israeli spying on the US.

Two former employees of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group were indicted yesterday on charges that they illegally received and passed on classified information to foreign officials and reporters over a period of five years, part of a case that has complicated relations between the United States and one of its closest allies.

Although no foreign government is named in the indictment, U.S. government sources have identified Israel as the country at the center of the probe. The Israeli Embassy in Washington also confirmed yesterday that it has been "approached" by investigators in the case.

The 26-page indictment, handed up in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, represents the first formal allegations of criminal wrongdoing against the former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC is widely recognized as one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington and has carefully cultivated close ties to Congress and the Bush administration.

The indictment also recasts the government's allegations against Lawrence A. Franklin, a Defense Department analyst who had already been charged with disclosing secret information about possible attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and other topics. One of six original counts was dropped against Franklin, 58, of Kearneysville, W.Va.

Former AIPAC director of foreign policy issues Steven J. Rosen, 63, of Silver Spring was indicted on two counts related to unlawful disclosure of "national defense information" obtained from Franklin and other unidentified government officials since 1999 on topics including Iran, Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. A former AIPAC analyst, Keith Weissman, 53, of Bethesda, was indicted on one count of conspiracy to illegally communicate classified information.

Let's start by shutting down this unAmerican organization and den of spies.

And let's follow it up by cutting off every red cent of aid to Israel.

Israel is clearly not a friend.

Posted by: Greg at 05:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Would you forgive a half-million dollar personal loan to your ex-girlfriend? How about if she were in a position to help you get an important job -- a job in which you would make decisins to benefit her business?

Would reasonable people with a modicum of ethics find this situation problematic? I think so.

Which is why the Democrat candidate for governor of New Jersey thinks such a conflict of interest is just fine.

Senator and gubernatorial candidate Jon S. Corzine lent the president of New Jersey's largest state workers union $470,000 when the two were romantically involved three years ago, then forgave the debt last year.

Corzine defended the transaction, first described in reports Thursday in the Newark Star-Ledger and the New York Times.

Corzine turned the 10-year mortgage into a gift to Carla Katz last December, according to court documents. The move came a week after he kicked off his campaign for governor and several months after the two stopped dating.

Katz, 46, is president of Local 1034 of the Communications Workers of America. The union local represents 9,000 state workers.

Corzine's involvement with Katz is significant because the two could find themselves on opposite sides of the bargaining table if he wins the November election. Corzine is a Democrat who was elected to the Senate in 2000, and he announced in December that he would run for governor.

The Republican candidate for governor, businessman Doug Forrester, said Corzine's gift to Katz "suggests an all-too-familiar pattern in New Jersey of public officials entangling themselves in relationships that are not private matters but in direct conflict with the public interest."

Speaking after a news conference Thursday on an unrelated matter, Corzine said the loan would not hamper his administration's ability to negotiate with the union.

"I don't think there's a conflict," said Corzine, 58. "The relationship has ended."

I wonder at what point the romance will be rekindled after the election? In the mean time, she will be in charge of dispensing campaign funds in his race -- and he will be offering more "sweetheart deals" to the union.

Posted by: Greg at 05:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey, what's a wasted $2.5 million in taxpayer dollars, right? It was great press.

All 700,000 flu shots ordered from Europe by the state of Illinois last year amid fears of a nationwide shortage have expired and may go to waste at a potential cost to the taxpayers of $2.5 million, officials said Wednesday.

Illinois never even received the vaccine, because the Food and Drug Administration would not approve its import. The shots, which must be used during the year for which they were manufactured, expired Monday, Deputy Gov. Bradley Tusk told The Associated Press.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich ordered the vaccine overseas last October. Illinois agreed to pay about $2.5 million for the 256,000 flu doses earmarked for the state. The rest would have gone to Cleveland, New Mexico and New York City, which were part of the deal.

Yeah, the purchase violated federal law and the vaccine didn't meet US health and safety standards, but since he is a Democrat the purchase simply made it clear that he CARES about the people. On the other hand, if a Republican had tried to fob off unapproved drugs or vaccines on the poor and elderly....

Not to worry, though -- the Democrat Administration is still hoping to use the expired pharaceuticals. What compassion!

Posted by: Greg at 05:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not sure how to react to Judge John Roberts' answer to a question about respecting precedent.

"Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system," Roberts wrote. "A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

I've gone back-and-forth over this one.

On the one hand, the judge is perfectly corrct. Precedent is important, and should not be overturned lightly or because of mere political considerations. To the degree that a precedent has become embedded, it is better to limit the precedent or distinguish cases from it rather than overturn it. After all, stare decisis is important,.

On the other hand, a rigid adherance to stare decisis is not desirable. After all, even though today's judges follow in the footsteps of their predecessors, that does not mean that they must be bound by them. Brown v. Board of Education required teh overturning of a number of decisions dating back some six decades. Should the precedent value of Plessy v. Ferguson have been blindly respected, despite the fact that its holding flew in the face of the clear meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution? Should ANY precedent be held so sacred that preserving it must outweigh getting the decision right?

It is my profound hope and earnest belief that Judge Roberts, in giving this written response, intended to communicate that he would respect precedent with his eyes wide open. Bu if I am wrong, and the statement is meant to communicate that he would uphold a wrong decision for the sake of stability, his confirmation risks continuing the damage done to American constitutional jurisprudence by Kennedy and O'Connor in the Webster case.

I think this would be a fruitful area for conservative senators to look at.

Posted by: Greg at 04:28 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.