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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby today.

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal Racists...

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

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

Captain Ed also offers analysis.

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

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

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

More photog feedback from Brad:

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

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

And Jason R...

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

And reader KC...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A great post from Confederate Yankee)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perjury? Buh-bye, Mrs. Clinton.

I could go on, but you see the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The old teeter totter is in play.

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

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

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

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

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

You know. This one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the current rules at UH are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

online.

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

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

JERRY BERMAN
President
Center for Democracy and Technology
Washington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADAM C. BONIN
Philadelphia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he scammed them all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let's consider this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THe filings also include requests for the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has again said she is not interested in running for President of the United States.

Asked on NBC and on "Fox News Sunday" whether she would run for president in 2008, Rice said she is flattered but would decline.

"I'm not somebody who wants to run for office. I haven't ever run for anything," Rice told NBC. "I think I'm doing what I need to do, which is to try and promote American foreign policy, American interests, the president's democracy agenda at an extraordinary time."

Pressed by host Tim Russert, Rice said, "I don't know how may ways to say no."

"So," asked Russert, "no ...?"

A few seconds of silence followed. "Tim," Rice said, "I don't know how many ways to tell people that I have no interest in being a candidate for anything. ... No."

She told Fox host Chris Wallace, "I'm quite certain that there are going to be really fine candidates for president from our party, and I'm looking forward to seeing them and perhaps supporting them."

Dr. Rice, what you fail to understand is that it is your reluctance that many of us find most attractive. You are not one of those folks who has spent decades creating a public persona and engaging in issue-triangulation to position yourself for a presidential run. You have instead become a cool, competent professional with the sort of expertise and experience that will make you a superb President. That is why we back you, not someone (like John McCain, for example) who long ago divested himself of his immortal soul in pursuit of higher office. That is why your support is strongest down here in the grassroots, not in the halls of power.

Frankly, Madam Secretary, I don't want you to come out and declare yourself a candidate. I want you to stay in your current office, doing what you do so well on behalf of this country. Because ultimately, I believe you when you say that you do not WANT to run for anything.

But what you must realize is that the movement we have here is a Draft Condi movement -- and we will settle for nothing less than a spot for you on the 2008 GOP ticket, preferrably at the top. And I have no doubt that, when you hear the call of your nation to high elected office, you will respond to that call and fulfill your duty to the American people.

It is a call to greatness, Dr. Rice -- and a call that I believe you must, in the end, heed for the sake of America.

Posted by: Greg at 08:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

When a group affiliated with the Minutemen tried to meet in a Chicago suburb yesterday, a protest against them was organized. I've got no problem with that, even though the organizers of the protest spew lies about the Minutemen and their goals.

The problem arose when one group of protesters tried to prevent American citizens from assembling to engage in political speech designed to encourage the government to act against the scourge of border-jumping immigration criminals.

About 500 people marched in Arlington Heights Saturday to protest a group fighting illegal immigration, in what led to five arrests and the shutdown of several streets for hours as 150 riot gear-clad police officers stood by to keep the peace.

Picketers said the Chicago Minuteman Project, a local branch of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps — a private group that patrols the United States-Mexico border — is anti-immigrant and racist because it specifically focuses on Mexican immigrants.

Five protesters were arrested on misdemeanor charges and later released on bond.

Those attending what was billed as the “America First Summit” Saturday at Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., said they’re not racist but that they’re worried about lax border security and the economic impact of illegal immigration.

“We need secure borders; we’re a country at war,” said Rosanna Pulido of Chicago, a co-founder of the Chicago Minuteman Project. “We have a big problem here in Chicago and in Illinois.”

I'm not going to dispute Ms. Pulido at all -- I teach at a school where about 1 in 5 students are either here illegally or the children of illegals. Hospital emergency rooms are overcrowded with illegals, and the cost is absorbed by those of us with insurance -- and by taxpayers who pick up the tab for the unpaid bills. And I will not get into the crime problems that come with the illegals.

But objecting to such problems makes one a hater, according to those who came out to protest.

Khem Nuth, organizing director for the immigrants coalition, which brought about 200 people to the protest, said she is concerned that her groupÂ’s message got lost in the scuffles.

“We were there to protest the racist Minutemen” and ask U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk whether he supports the Minutemen because of his votes in favor of the Patriot Act, Real ID Act, and a law requiring local police departments to fight illegal immigration, Nuth said.

“I don’t know how much of that was lost because of what happened today,” she said. “We wanted to let the community know that we protested the Minutemen being there, and I think that message was sent.”

Yeah, Khem, imagine that -- requiring that the police actually enforce the law. What are these horrible people thinking! I hope your message didn't get lost in the acts of violence that occurred -- I want peole to see how outrageously stupid your folks are and how absurd your position is.

And after all, it is your rhetoric that leads to violent action by some in your coalition -- calling folks racist for daring to hold the opinion that the US shoudl control its borders provokes the extremists on your side. After all, the Left believes that racists should be silenced. That is why you get this sort of activity.

Most of the protesters were peaceful, if loud, shouting slogans through bullhorns and banging on drums. But a small group of “anarchists” came looking for trouble, Arlington Heights Police Sgt. Richard Marcinkowski said.

That trouble began when protesters tried to block people from entering a school door on Walnut Avenue. As officers tried to move them out of the way, protesters linked arms and a scuffle ensued.

Officers retreated and called for reinforcements from the Northern Illinois Police Alarm System, which sent more than 100 officers from Deerfield, Des Plaines, Elk Grove Village, Glencoe, Lake Bluff, Lincolnshire, Palatine, Schaumburg, Skokie and Wheeling.

Police also closed several blocks of Euclid, Ridge and Walnut avenues to traffic and posted camouflage-clothed spotters on the academyÂ’s roof.

Marcinkowski said police planned to arrest the people who were trying to block the school entrance. But when five busloads of people arrived at 11 a.m. for their own protest, “some people learned they were targeted for arrest and tried to leave the area” by blending in with more peaceful marchers, he said.

When police did move in at 11:45 a.m., while the crowd marched west along Euclid Avenue, a riot almost broke out as officers pulled two women out of the crowd while other marchers screamed, “Let them go!” and stepped into the street.

Now I do have one problem with the attitude of the police and their spokesman.

Marcinkowski said some of the Minutemen baited protesters by demanding to use the Walnut Avenue entrance even though several other doors were available. “In my opinion, we had two unreasonable factions here, and we were caught in the middle,” he said.

No, Sgt. Marcinkowski, it is not unreasonable for a peaceful group to demand to be allowed to use the main door to a facility they have rented. It is not unreasonable for them to expect the police to keep order and to arrest those who are attempting to suppress their civil rights. Tell me, sir, would you have told the NAACP they couldn't use the front door if teh Klan had shown up and engaged in the behavior the pro-criminal Left was engaged in yesterday? I didn't think so. You would have engaged in proper police procedure, thrown up a heavy security cordon around the area, arrested anyone who dared to try to block the door, and made sure that the the rights of the NAACP were respected -- as you clearly failed to do yesterday for the Minutemen until the situation got out of control.

Posted by: Greg at 07:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 983 words, total size 6 kb.

I can't help but be struck by the contrast that exists between two events today. They show how some groups are a little more free, a little more equal, and endowed with a few more rights than others.

Our examination begins in Toledo, Ohio. It seems that black gangs have been terrorizing the community -- especially (according to some) the white residents of the community. An outside group decided to protest the seeming impotence of government in handling the problems of the perceived racist activity and went through all the legal hurdles to receive permission to engage in First Amendment protected speech. Unfortunately, the group was the "National Socialist Movement" (AKA the American Nazi Party), a disgusting group of racists and white supremacists who are rejected by all decent people, and which I condemn wholeheartedly.

So what happened when the march and rally were about to happen? Black gang members crawled out of the woodwork, engaged in acts of violence against the police and damage to the property of local business owners. The city's response was to trample the free speech rights of the Nazis, and cancel their event.

One member of the black community made this very frightening argument, one that I'm sure the Nazis will be able to use to make the argument that the rights of white people are in danger from lawless blacks.

Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for initially allowing the march.

"They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.

Mr. White (I won't get into the irony of that name) seems to believe that only the rights of those he agrees with are entitled to respect.

Let's move a bit east, to Washington, DC. Another group of racists rejected by anyone with a hint of moral values, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, sponsored a rally on the Mall to commemorate the not -nearly "Million Man March" held in 1995. The rhetoric heard from the platform of the Millions More Movement included the usual overblown crap about racism in America, and one speaker even referred to those with white skin as the enemy of his people. It was. in short, a racist rally designed to incite hatred and division -- every bit as much as the Nazi rally in Ohio.

Dozens of speakers -- academics, activists and media pundits -- took the microphone at the National Mall for a few minutes each. A speaker from a black gay group, added to the roster at the last minute, also spoke.

Organizers did not speculate on the size of the crowd, and police would not offer an estimate. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority said subway ridership by noon was 152,000. On the day of the march 10 years ago, ridership reached just over 804,000.

Participants said they were inspired by the gathering. Rapper Ryk-A-Shay, 24, joined relatives from North Carolina for the drive to Washington. "Any time we as a people can come together it's a beautiful thing," she said.

Yet there is one notable difference. No mob of whites stepped forward to engage in violence to stop the rally. No one that I am aware of suggests that this black supremacist rally should have been banned or that whites would have been justified in making sure it was shut down by any means necessary. It was, in fact, covered live by white-owned networks, so Farrakhan's message of racial hate would be heard from coast to coast.

Now tell me, friends and family of all races, ethnicities, and religions -- has free speech become a "black thing" reserved for them and denied to whites? Or will some responsible black leader step forward and condemn the suppression of the free speech rights of the Nazis in Toledo by a group of African-unAmerican criminals and the authorities who aided and abetted them?

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 661 words, total size 4 kb.

One would assume that a prosecutor would need to actually have the document that proves his case before he gets an indictment. Not Ronnie Earle -- who is lacking a key document in his case against Tom DeLay and therefore plans on using a similar document that apparently is not connected to the activities for which DeLlay was indicted in an attempt to prove his guilt.

Travis County prosecutors admitted Friday they lack physical proof of a list of Republican candidates that is at the heart of money-laundering indictments against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and two of his associates.

The list is key to prosecutors being able to prove that corporate money that could not be legally spent on Texas candidates was specifically exchanged at the national level for donations that legally could be spent on Republican candidates for the Texas House.

So the only thing that they are lacking in the case is -- proof.

But not to worry, there is this OTHER document that htey will substitute for the one that would actually prove that Delay and his associates committed a crime.

Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a "similar" list and not the one allegedly received by then-RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme.

A lawyer for Ellis said prosecutors' inability to produce the list mentioned in the indictments is on par with the tactics used by U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the communist witch hunts of the 1950s.

I would argue that what we have going on is less like the McCarthy hearings and closer to Stalin's show trials of the 1930s. After all, McCarthy's central premise about Communist infiltration of the government has since been proven essentially correct by records released after the fall of the Soviet Union. Stalin, on the other hand, simply wanted to bring down his political enemies and rivals.

Dick DeGuerin, who is defnding DeLay, makes this observation.

DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin of Houston, was not present in court Friday. But he later said the lack of a list "destroys" District Attorney Ronnie Earle's case against the three men.

"That's astonishing, astonishing that they would get a grand jury to indict and allege there is a list and then they have to admit in open court the first time they appear in open court that there is no list," DeGuerin said.

Thes indictments need to be dismissed, and Ronnie Earle and any lawyer from the Travis County DA's office involved in the case or investigation need to be disbarred or face other serious sanctions. You cannot indict someone based upon evidence you do not have.

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.

Before I was married, turning on the light in the kitchen of my seedy old apartment (in a 125-year-old building that had once served as a saloon and bordello) sent the roaches scurrying.

Well, an article in yesterday's Washington Post (which has the ethics of a saloon and bordello) sent the roaches scurrying over at the DC City Council (which some would argue is the moral equivalent of a saloon and bordello).

D.C. Council members, swamped with irate calls and threats to boycott D.C. bars and restaurants, introduced emergency legislation yesterday that would override the police department's controversial and little-known zero-tolerance policy for drinking and driving.

"We need to remedy this immediately," said council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D), who is running for mayor.

Council member Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4), another mayoral candidate, called the current situation "absurd."

D.C. police have said that District law gives them the authority to arrest drivers with blood alcohol levels above .01.

Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), a sponsor of the emergency legislation, said the measure no longer would allow that unless there was evidence of significant impairment.

"I just want to make sure that we clarify what our intent is. And our intent is certainly to get people who are intoxicated off our roads," she said. "But our intent is not to intimidate people who may have a glass of wine."

So what has been proposed in this legislation?

According to the D.C. Code, a driver with a blood alcohol level of .08 or above is presumed intoxicated and may be arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. Every state has in recent years set the same level -- acting quickly once Congress threatened to withhold highway dollars if they didn't.

In most states, including Maryland and Virginia, a driver with a blood alcohol level of less than .05 is generally presumed not intoxicated. The D.C. Code states, however, that drivers with "less than .03" percent blood alcohol are not presumed not intoxicated -- a provision that makes it easier to prove low blood alcohol cases in court.

The emergency legislation proposed by Schwartz, Cropp and council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) would strike that language from the code. Instead, they propose bringing the District in line with the states and adding language to make clear that drivers with less than .05 blood alcohol are presumed not intoxicated.

Between .05 and .08, is a "neutral zone," Schwartz said, where no presumption about intoxication is made. And blood alcohol content may be considered with other factors to prove a driver's impairment.

Sounds like common sense to me.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

Congressman Melvin Watt wants the Voting Rights Act renewed and strengthened because, he claims, white voters are racist. The North Carolina Democrat bases his position on old data and the new racism espoused by the African-American establishment.

"Race has to be taken into account to factor out the people on the other side" who would refuse to vote for a minority candidate because of their race," Watt said. He added that he thinks much voting is based on race, not partisanship.

Watt told Cybercast News Service that his views are based on a 1980s blind poll of North Carolinians, which he said revealed that 30 percent of whites would not vote for a black candidate under any circumstances.

Watt told the commission that if another poll were conducted today, "there would be a substantial majority of white voters who would say that under no circumstances would they vote for an African American candidate." He later amended his comments, allowing that "some of them would."

So based upon one really old study that showed a minority would not vote for a black candidate, Watt concludes that today a majority would refuse to do so – and points to “the other side” as those who would refuse to vote for minority candidates. This flies in the face of what experience has shown, as the GOP has elected folks like JC Watts in a predominantly white district in Oklahoma and Michael Steele as Lt. Governor of Maryland. Steele is the preferred candidate of the Maryland GOP for Senate in 2006, and many Republicans are excited about the possibility of having Condoleezza Rice on the GOP ticket in 2008. I can only conclude that Watt is incorrect with regard to the Republican Party.

Is Watt perhaps thinking that it is white DEMOCRATS who will refuse to give their vote to an African-American? Does he believe that his own party is made up of unreconstructed white racists? And if he does, why wonÂ’t he come out and say it clearly? Has Watt sold out his own race, becoming an Uncle Tom who whores the votes of his people in return for a crumb of political power?

Or is Watt simply a liar?

Posted by: Greg at 12:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

John Kerry may be pro-choice on abortion and Catholic theology, but he certainly opposes giving public employees a choice on whether or not their union dues can be used for political purposes.

Kerry was the second leading national politician this week to weigh in on California's Prop. 75 ballot initiative, which would require unions to get approval from members before using dues for political causes.
"This represents part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to create an unfair playing field, to change the balance of democracy in America," Kerry said.
"They are willing to try to take away the democratic rights of working Americans," said the Massachusetts senator, who was speaking to reporters at a fire station with Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Kerry, however, lied in that statement. Proposition 75 would simply require that a worker give his permission before his dues were used for politicking rather than negotiation and representation. Unions would still be permitted to give make endorsements and devote resources to campaign for candidates – but the members would have the right to opt out of supporting the political activities of the union while still retaining the right to vote on their contracts. Currently, the only for a public employee to avoid forced contributions to candidates they oppose is for the employee to opt to pay the union an agency fee of about 80% of regular dues and forfeit their right to vote on the union-negotiated contract while still being bound by its terms.

(Move Coverage on the issue of Prop 75 and the California Teachers Assosiation over at Right on the Left Coast -- specific posts are here, here, here and here -- as well as all these others.)

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 3 kb.

John Kerry may be pro-choice on abortion and Catholic theology, but he certainly opposes giving public employees a choice on whether or not their union dues can be used for political purposes.

Kerry was the second leading national politician this week to weigh in on California's Prop. 75 ballot initiative, which would require unions to get approval from members before using dues for political causes.
"This represents part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to create an unfair playing field, to change the balance of democracy in America," Kerry said.
"They are willing to try to take away the democratic rights of working Americans," said the Massachusetts senator, who was speaking to reporters at a fire station with Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Kerry, however, lied in that statement. Proposition 75 would simply require that a worker give his permission before his dues were used for politicking rather than negotiation and representation. Unions would still be permitted to give make endorsements and devote resources to campaign for candidates – but the members would have the right to opt out of supporting the political activities of the union while still retaining the right to vote on their contracts. Currently, the only for a public employee to avoid forced contributions to candidates they oppose is for the employee to opt to pay the union an agency fee of about 80% of regular dues and forfeit their right to vote on the union-negotiated contract while still being bound by its terms.

(Move Coverage on the issue of Prop 75 and the California Teachers Assosiation over at Right on the Left Coast -- specific posts are here, here, here and here -- as well as all these others.)

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 3 kb.

That seems to be the Kennedy family motto – whether they are laws regarding vehicular homicide, security checkpoints at airports, sexual assault, or environmental regulations.

Professed environmentalist Max Kennedy is due in court on the Cape today to answer chargeshe violated town conservation rules by clear-cutting a coastal bank on his Hyannisport property.

Kennedy, son of Ethel and the late Bobby Kennedy, was found responsible for cutting the vegetation in violation of restrictions the town Conservation Commission had set. He was assessed a $150 fine, which he did not pay, and he has to appear today for an arraignment.

``He is supposed to show up,'' said town conservation agent Darcy Karle. ``As a courtesy I contacted his attorney and told him that Mr. Kennedy needed to show up and pay the fine or a warrant for his arrest would be issued.''

Do we need to tell you this is not Kennedy's first run-in with the town conservation types? Kennedy, an avowed tree-hugger who formerly ran the Watershed Institute at Boston College and briefly flirted with a congressional run in 2001, was fined twice in 1998 for clearing brush and trees on his Cape property.

To build a touch-football field. Of course.

Kennedy is also currently in violation of wetlands protection laws for a pier he built off the back of his Maywood Avenue home. Karle said Kennedy constructed the pier without first submitting the proper paperwork, and that lights on the end of the dock are in violation.

Kennedy had asked for a hearing on Sept. 27 to answer to all the charges, then didn't show up.

Kennedy is currently under orders to replant shrubs on the bank and to remove the too-bright lights at the end of his pier. His attorney did not return our call. But do stay tuned . . . .

I guess such rules are only for the common people – but America’s royal family can get away with murder – and raping the land.

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

Fresh off their series of sob stories about teens and young adults sentenced to life without parole for heinous murders, the New York Times laments the harshness of laws that disenfranchise convicted felons – including those still in jail.

The United States has the worst record in the democratic world when it comes to stripping convicted felons of the right to vote. Of the nearly five million people who were barred from participating in the last presidential election, for example, most, if not all, would have been free to vote if they had been citizens of any one of dozens of other nations. Many of those nations cherish the franchise so deeply that they let inmates vote from their prison cells.

The basis for the position taken by the Times? International standards and a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. American constitutional law and history simply are not good enough for them. No doubt the editors of the Times are longing for the day when, as in this last termÂ’s Simmons case, a bare majority of Supreme Court justices remove another policy decision from the hands of the people on the basis of laws which are alien to our tradition but popular among the wwine-and-brie set in the tonier parts of NYC.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

Washington State GOP leasers are concerned about the failure of public officials to address documented voter fraud and double registrations brought to light by the fraud and incompetence laden gubernatorial election.

Just one month before voters decide the future of King County's Democratic executive, Ron Sims, Republican Party leaders yesterday accused his administration of failing to remove thousands of duplicate registrations from the voter rolls.

GOP officials and Republican members of the Metropolitan King County Council said they officially will challenge the registrations of about 2,050 voters Monday.

In all, they said they found nearly 3,400 voters they suspect are registered twice with the county's Elections Office. They say they are challenging only those they can fully document.

As I recall, following the 2000 election debacle, the GOP went to great lengths to correct problems uncovered in Florida. Washington Democrats, on the other hand, are less interested in fair elections than in hanging on to power in an illegitimate fashion.

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Larry Elder makes this observation of George W. Bush and his policies regarding the poor and minorities.

Bottom line, under President Bush, the nation has seen the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted spending since President Lyndon B. Johnson. Indeed, much to the chagrin of fiscal conservatives, President Bush's budgets -- even excluding defense and homeland security spending -- make him the biggest spending president in 30 years.

But, Bush doesn't care about the poor.

There's a saying: We don't care how much you know, until we know how much you care. If one measures compassion by "outreach," the president placed more minorities and women in his government and with power positions than any president before him. If one measures compassion by spending, the president owes no one an apology.

None of this matters, of course, as long as you're a Republican. If "love means never having to say you're sorry," being a Republican means always having to say it.

But facts, of course, are irrelevant when it comes to liberal charges of racism, sexism, and hard-heartedness.

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Under state law, citizens may contribute up to $4950 to mayoral candidates. But under federal law, congresscritters are limited to raising only $2100 for such candidates. Looks like John Kerry may have crossed the line.

A Sept. 15 E-mail from Kerry to potential Ferrer donors failed to note that the former presidential candidate is barred from hitting up Ferrer supporters for more than $2,100. That could violate the federal McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

"Under a reasonable reading of the regulations and the advisory opinion, the lack of a disclaimer violated the rule about soliciting soft money," said Larry Noble, of the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

Kerry's missive had links to a page on Ferrer's Web site that allows donors to select amounts up to $250 - or write in a figure.

In New York, donors to a mayoral candidate may contribute up to $4,950. But as a senator, Kerry's solicitations are limited by federal rules, and according to a Federal Election Commission opinion, he must "expressly qualify or limit" his request with a disclaimer to make it clear he's only soliciting funds that comply with federal law.

This is just one more example of the stupidity of campaign finance laws. He is forbidden from soliciting LEGAL donations. Time to repeal all of the campaign participation restriction laws.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

It must suck to be this guy -- everyone will be gunning for him in 2006.

The son of Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle plans to run for the Texas House.

Jason Earle will campaign for House District 47 in Southwest Travis County.

The district's current representative Terry Keel said he won't run for reelection. Instead, he is seeking a seat on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Earle will formally announce his candidacy at 10 a.m. Tuesday at Pease Elementary School in Central Austin.

Gee -- thanks dad!

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems that producer Stephen Bing has made a small contribution to a group opposing the non-partisan redistricting of California legislative and congressional seats. The measure is designed to stop Democrat gerrymandering of districts that keeps Republicans from coming close to winning the number of seats their voting strength suggests they should hold.

Hollywood producer Stephen L. Bing has donated $4 million to oppose Proposition 77, which would strip legislators of the power to draw the boundaries of their districts.

The donation - the largest, single contribution from an individual in the special election campaign - was given to a committee headed by University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Daniel Lowenstein, a former chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

The committee's backers include Democratic members of California's congressional delegation. Some members' jobs could be in jeopardy if voters approve Proposition 77 on the Nov. 8 ballot. The initiative would authorize a panel of retired judges to determine legislative and congressional boundaries, rather than legislators.

The group had previously raised only $1.4 million -- meaning that Bing's donation is equivalent to nearly triple the amount previously raised by the group.

I'm curious -- if corporate donations, no matter how small, are corrupting of politics, and if unlimited donations to individual candidates are corrupting of politics, what can one say about this sort of contribution to a Democrat front organization?

And what's in it for Bing? What favors will he get in return from the group's supporters among the Democrat legislators?

It seems to me that the money should be returned, in the spirit preserving good government and clean campaigns -- at least if liberals really believe that campaign donations are corrupting of the political process.

Posted by: Greg at 12:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Bill White has said the following regarding Proposition 2 (as set forth in Texas HJR 6), which would insert the traditional definition of marriage overwhelmingly supported by Texans int he state Constitution.

Houston Mayor Bill White took no official stance but suggested the amendment is divisive.

"As mayor, I avoid commenting on state and federal laws and policies I do not influence," White said. "I intend to vote 'no' on the proposed state constitutional amendment to protest its use as a wedge issue."

Gee -- how is it divisive to pass a law that is overwhelmingly supported by virtually every demographic group in the state of Texas? Isn't the division actually being cause by those who would impose their values on the state of Texas through the courts, against the will of the people of Texas? You know, those who seek to force the overwhelming majority of Texans to act contrary to their religious beliefs for the benefit of no more than 5%?

Despite the Chronicle's attempt to paint the issue as divisive, by this time next mont it will be clear that Texans are united in opposition to homosexual marriage. -- and it will be clear who is sowing division.

Oh, and by the way, don't forget that there are nine proposed amendments on the November ballot. You can find them here.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

This time they were in Paris, and their weapon of choice was a cream pie.

French anti-fur activists said they struck Anna Wintour, editor of the U.S. edition of Vogue, in the face with a cream pie on Saturday to protest against her support for the use of animal fur by the fashion industry.

Wintour, dressed in a fur-trimmed black jacket, was hit in the face with a tofu cream pie as she left the Chloe fashion ready-to-wear show at the Tuileries Gardens in central Paris, members of the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said.

It was the second such attack this year on Wintour, an unapologetic fur supporter decried by animal rights groups as a "pelt pusher."

"Wintour is fur-bearing animals' worst enemy because her magazine continues to feature dozens of pages of pro-fur editorials and advertising each year," PETA campaigner Yvonne Taylor told Reuters by phone in Paris.

"She takes big glossy advertisements for fur and she refuses to run any anti-fur ads, even paid ones, so she's a big fur supporter," Taylor said.

Wintour was unavailable for comment on the incident.

I'd like to encourage Ms. Wintour to purchase a firearm, and to make use of it the next time she is so approached. It is time to meet their acts of violence with a response that will catch their attention -- and the attention of their survivors.

Posted by: Greg at 01:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

The DeLay camp is alleging unethical and illegal conduct by Ronnie Earle in securing the second indictment against the Majority Leader after initially securing an indictment for a crime that did not exist.

"During the five-day period of Sept. 29, 2005, to Oct. 3, 2005, Ronnie Earle and his staff engaged in an extraordinarily irregular, and desperate attempt to contrive a viable charge and get a substitute indictment of Tom DeLay before the expiration of the statute of limitations on Oct. 3, 2005," the motion states.

The motion claims that Earle and his staff "attempted to browbeat and coerce" a grand jury to change its decision to no-bill DeLay on a separate money-laundering charge. In addition, the motion says that the prosecutors "unlawfully attempted to cover up and delay public disclosure" of that no-bill.

Richard Bernal of Austin, foreman of the grand jury that didn't indict DeLay, said he had no comment on the allegations in DeLay's motion. He said he had not spoken with DeGuerin or anyone on DeLay's legal team.

On Oct. 3, a newly sworn-in grand jury indicted DeLay on money-laundering and conspiracy charges. Earle said then those indictments were based on "additional information" that had come to his attention.

The motion also accuses the district attorney's office of inciting the foreman of the first grand jury to talk "publicly, and on the record, to the media, in an effort to bias the public and sitting grand jurors."

That foreman, William M. Gibson Jr. of Austin, has given interviews to reporters. He has not discussed the evidence against DeLay but has said that Earle did not pressure the jurors to vote to indict.

On Thursday, Gibson, 76, told Austin radio station KLBJ that Earle's staff said "that we were free to talk to the media if we wanted to, that the media was a very good source of information for everybody."

On Friday, the retired state insurance investigator told the Houston Chronicle that Earle did not incite him to talk.

He said he answered questions when reporters called but didn't divulge any secret information.

"I don't think I did anything wrong," said Gibson.

Now let's look at this very closely. After three years and (if I remember correctly) six grand juries, Ronnie Earle finally got DeLay indicted on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws in 2002. The problem was that the statute did not go into effect for nearly a year after DeLay's actions -- and DeLay's participation in the conspiracy was his failure to attempt to stop a financial transaction that the PAC's lawyers said was legal and commonplace. By the time the flaw was discovered, the grand jury had been dismissed because its term had expired. That grand jury was told it was free to talk to the press about the case, according to its foreman, a partisan Democrat who admits that his decision to indict was based upon press reports and other information that was not (and could not have been) presented to the grand jury.

By the next day, the indictment had been torn to shreds by a great number of commentators and analysts, including many who oppose Tom DeLay. The Travis County DA therefore sought an additional indictment to backstop the first, and presented the same evidence to another grand jury that was about to expire, hoping to get an indictment that the pliant first grand jury refused to give him. Earle expected the second indictment to be forthcoming, because they would not have heard all of the contradictory evidence given to the first grand jury during its term, just the evidence that Earle cherry-picked to make his case. But an indictment wasn't forthcoming, and the grand jurors no-billed the case. Ronnie Earle was visibly angry and attempted to pressure the grand jurors into doing his biddingdespite their conviction that ther ewas no basis for charges. He then instructed them that grand jury secrecy rules applied to them even after their term was up and that they could not speak to the media.

Over the weekend, Earle and his employees called the members of the expired grand jury to discuss the "additional evidence" that was presented to the second grand jury -- which appears to be a violation of grand jury secrecy, since it involved the discussion of the activities decisions and deliberations of that grand jury with individuals who were not a part of that or any other sitting grand jury -- and polled them on whether they would have issued an indictment on specific charges. This action certainly crosses ethical boundaries,and probably legal ones as well.

On October 3, Ronnie Earle presented the same evidence to the a brand new grand jury -- supplemented by the opinions of the members of the defunct grand jury which had indicted on a charge that didn't exist. These opinions were the "new evidence" which constituted the basis for presenting the evidence to the third grand jury in less than a week. The third grand jury was persuaded in a matter of hours to return an indictment on charges that could bring life in prison for one of Ronnie Earle's biggest political targets to date, despite the fact that one grand jury had found no evidence of a crime and the other had only been willing to return an indictment on a much less substantial charge. Why? Because Earle presented material that was not evidence, but rather a statement of opinion of the former grand jurors. Thus the Travis County DA secured an indictment by saying that he and the other grand jury had made a mistake, and here's how we want you to fix it

In short, what we have here is an example of the old saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants it to -- but only if he has access to a sufficient number of grand juries to do so.

(More at Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 6 kb.