One of the arguments against the death penalty is that there is always the possibility of executing a wrongly convicted person. I’ll concede that is true, and may have happened at different times. But what is the cost – in innocent lives – of not executing murderers?

Opponents of capital punishment give us names of innocents who would have been killed by the state had their convictions stood and they been actually executed, and a few executed convicts whom they believe might have been innocent. But proponents can name men and women who really were -- not might have been -- murdered by convicted murderers while in prison. The murdered include prison guards, fellow inmates, and innocent men and women outside of prison.

In 1974, Clarence Ray Allen ordered a 17-year-old young woman, Mary Sue Kitts, murdered because she knew of Allen's involvement in a Fresno, Calif., store burglary.

After his 1977 trial and conviction, Allen was sentenced to life without parole.
According to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, "In Folsom State Prison, Allen cooked up a scheme to kill the witnesses who testified against him so that he could appeal his conviction and then be freed because any witnesses were dead -- or scared into silence." As a result, three more innocent people were murdered -- Bryon Schletewitz, 27, Josephine Rocha, 17, and Douglas White, 18.

This time, a jury sentenced Allen to death, the only death sentence ever handed down by a Glenn County (California) jury. That was in 1982.

Had Ray been executed his three later victims would likely still be alive today. Instead, the creature who coldly initiated their deaths is still alive – his execution repeatedly postponed by a legal system more concerned about possible violations of his rights than about justice for his victims and their families.

Similarly, there is the horrific case of Jack Abbot, freed a killer freed from prison at the behest of the celebrity effete.

Perhaps the most infamous case of a death penalty opponent directly causing the murder of an innocent is that of novelist Norman Mailer. In 1981, Mailer utilized his influence to obtain parole for a bank robber and murderer named Jack Abbott on the grounds that Abbott was a talented writer.

Six weeks after being paroled, Abbott murdered Richard Adan, a 22-year-old newlywed, aspiring actor and playwright who was waiting tables at his father's restaurant.

Mailer's reaction? "Culture is worth a little risk," he told the press. "I'm willing to gamble with a portion of society to save this man's talent."

In other words, for the sake of “art” and “culture”, Mailer is willing to risk the lives of innocent, unimportant victims, men and women who do not make a significant contribution to the world.

I dread the possibility of a wrongful execution. But it is better that we take such a risk than knowingly allowing a rabid dog to run wild, attacking and killing at will.

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

Gotta love this.

Filmmaker Michael Moore weighed in on the GM plant closings by saying "General Motors continues its destruction of cities like Flint and the American middle class," according to USA Today. As though GM doesn't want to sell cars, make money and strengthen communities. But if Moore thinks he can do a better job, he could hire the laid-off workers and build cars.

Ouch!

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

Jonah's mama, Lucianne Goldberg, has this up on her site today. I think it is timely and needs frequent repetition to fend off the cultural attacks that come this time of year.

This is a Christmas tree.
It is not a Hanukkah bush, it is not Allah plant, it is not a Holiday hedge.
It is a Christmas tree.
Say it...Christmas, Christmas, Christmas

Posted by: Greg at 11:18 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Paul Martin's Liberal government fell today in Canada when it failed a no-confidence vote.

The short-lived 38th Parliament met its demise on Monday night, setting the stage for the longest election campaigns in two decades, as the Liberal government was defeated in a no-confidence vote at the hands of all three opposition parties and the country was launched into official election mode.

The Liberals lost the vote in the House of Commons 133 to 171, beginning a series of events that will propel voters toward the ballot boxes, likely on Jan. 23.

Prime Minister Paul Martin will officially call a federal election on Tuesday.

It appears that the new election will be held somewhere around January 23, 2006.

It strikes me that there are two vital questions to ask here, questions that the whole world wants answered.

1) What will be the outcome of the election -- a change in national leadership or a continued Liberal domination of Canadian politics?

2) Ig that funny looking round stuff is called Canadian bacon down here in the states, what do they call our long strips of bacon in Soviet Kanuckistan?

Posted by: Greg at 02:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

I have to wonder, given the polling results on the question of troop morale.

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Dick Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people said criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies.

Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent say criticism hurts morale.
The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic to call attention to what they say are flaws in President Bush's strategy for Iraq. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster, make up the RT in RT Strategies.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three out of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they think this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority think the motive is to "gain a partisan political advantage."

My take? I believe that the American public does not want the war in Iraq to continue one second longer than it needs to – but knows damn well that any exit strategy except victory for the US and a functioning, secure Iraq is unacceptable. That means that Americans are not in bed with MoveOn.Org and Cindy Sheehan, but are much closer to the position advocated by the Bush Administration. And even more importantly, the American people do not see the Surrender Party’s words a s being based upon patriotism – they recognize the newly vocal rhetoric as nothing more than political hackery of the most insidious kind, morale-sapping partisanship that does nothing to help reach the goal of a true peace with honor.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

Having made a plea of guilty to these charges, Cunningham needs to do jail time.

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday morning to conspiring to take bribes in exchange for using his influence to help a defense contractor get business.

He also pleaded guilty to one count of income tax evasion.

U.S. District Larry A. Burns scheduled Cunninghman's sentencing for Feb. 27.

Cunningham, an eight-term Republican congressman, had been under scrutiny for months for his ties to defense contractors and their officials.

Federal officials launched investigations after The San Diego Union-Tribune and Copley News Service reported in June that a defense contractor who won tens of millions of dollars in Pentagon contracts had taken a $700,000 loss after purchasing Cunningham's Del Mar house.

Cunningham sold the house for $1.675 million in November 2003, but the buyer, defense contractor Mitchell Wade, never moved in and almost immediately put it back on the market. Wade sold it 261 days later for $975,000.

Prosecutors contend the overpayment was a bribe.

The congressman, who sits on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, used the proceeds of the sale to buy a $2.55 million house in Rancho Santa Fe, which he has since put up for sale.

Cunningham, a former Navy Top Gun pilot, was first elected to Congress in 1990. The 63-year-old Republican represents a district that stretches from northern San Diego to Escondido and San Marcos and then along the coast from Carlsbad to Del Mar. He has vowed not to seek reelection and plans to retire next year, at the end of his term.

This corrupt politician is a disgrace to the country he once served, before he decided to serve himself instead. He needs to be out of office much sooner than the end of his term -- even if it hurts the GOP.

UPDATE: Cunningham has resigned in disgrace. IÂ’m glad to hear it.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

You have got to love such hypocrisy on the part of those who claim big campaign donors are a source of corruption in politics.

But liberals' abhorrence of political money is selective. Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, recently reported that when Democratic senators met in a Capitol room near the Senate floor to plan strategy, their leader, Harry Reid, permitted Stephen Bing to attend. In 2004, Bing, 40, gave more than $14 million of his inherited wealth to Democratic candidates and liberal groups supporting them.

Was there any appearance of impropriety—say, cash purchasing access? Gosh, no, said Democrats to Roll Call: "Reid's aides and other Senate Democrats said there is nothing wrong with such a big donor attending meetings otherwise open to only senators and a few top aides, because Bing is not a lobbyist and is not seeking any favors from Democrats." Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that Bing is "just really interested in making this country better." Oh, well, in that case...

Well, we now know th eprice of the Left -- $14 million.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

At least there is one Democrat who sees matters correctly regarding Iraq.

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman told Iraq's prime minister Wednesday that U.S. forces will remain in Iraq until their mission is complete, despite growing unease in Congress about the progress of the conflict here.

"We cannot let extremists and terrorists, a small number, here in Iraq deprive the 27 million Iraqis of what they want which is a better freer life, safer life for themselves and their children" Lieberman said after his meeting with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

The Connecticut Democrat, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the cost of success in Iraq would be high "but the cost for America of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic -- for America, for the Iraqi people and I believe for the world."

Exactly right, sir.

Now, if only we can get the GOP to stand firmly with this outstanding, patriotic Democrat.

Posted by: Greg at 04:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like the hate-America-firsters of MoveOn.Org are out to take down Congressmen who disagree with them.

At least two of those attacked are veterans.

And here I thought we were supposed to honor our veterans and their service, and not question their position on the Iraq war.

The MoveOn.org ads are scheduled to begin airing nationally Thanksgiving Day. Local ads targeted to the individual congressmen will run on cable systems in each of the lawmakers' home districts a few days later, said Tom Matzzie, MoveOn.org's Washington director.

Last Thursday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The next day, the Republican-controlled House hastily arranged for a vote on Murtha's resolution. Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure. The final tally was 403 against Murtha's resolution and three in favor of it.

So it seems that the representatives are all within the mainstream -- even Murtha voted for the resolution -- but MoveOn.Org will not show other veterans the same respect they demand for the cut-and-run congressman from Pennsylvania.

It seems like it is high time for the American people to tell MoveOn to EffOff.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

Talk is cheap, so make those who speak against the war take a stand by voting on continuation or withdrawal. That is the strategy of Rep J.D. Heyworth (R-AZ) in response to folks like John Murtha and Dennis Kucinich, who call continue to seek an immediate pull-out of US troops from Iraq.

"If they start this again, we'll call the vote again," said Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, whom members credited with suggesting holding a vote. "As far as I'm concerned, if they haven't learned from this, if they go back to this cheap talk, I would be more than happy to call for another vote."

I don't see any problem here. If opposed to the war, they should have no problem with making a vote consistent with their words -- especially if, as they claim, the American people are with them.

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

They wanted the world to increase the use of bio-fuels, which are replenishable and pollute less. The Kyoto agreement includes compliance with their demands, and world governments are out to increase the use of this resource.

Now the radical environmentalists are changing their minds -- claiming that their favored "environmentally friendly" energy source is not so friendly to the environment after all.

An alternative fuel source once considered more Earth-friendly than petroleum is now being derided by some environmentalists and farming experts for allegedly hastening the destruction of the world's rainforests.

Bio-fuels, fuel made from corn, sugar cane or vegetable oil, can be used to power up everything from sport utility vehicles (SUVs) to diesel engines. Yet in spite of its reputation as a viable alternative to petroleum, this alternative fuel has prompted some environmental groups to point to the potential for environmental damage.

The British government, hard pressed to meet emission restrictions laid out by the greenhouse gas limiting Kyoto Protocol, is being criticized by the environmental group Friends of the Earth (FOE) for proposing to force oil companies to include bio-fuels in five percent of their gas and diesel fuels by 2010.

FOE is concerned that increased production of bio-fuels will cause the destruction of the world's rainforests.

"We live in a global marketplace and the worry is that some of these fuels will be imported," said Roger Higman of FOE, according to the UK Telegraph on Nov. 11. Higman is concerned that much more land will be needed to grow the crops necessary to produce bio-fuels and in turn increase deforestation.

"It could be genetically modified crops or palm oil from freshly cleared rainforests. There is also a concern that British farmers could flatten the countryside in order to grow bio-fuels," Higman added.

Now let me get this straight -- you want bio-fuels, but you don't want an increase in agricultural production to produce them. How did you think we were going to get them in the first place?

I wonder -- how much energy could be produced and how many acres of rainforest could be saved by using environmentalists as a source for bio-fuel?

Posted by: Greg at 08:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

Somehow I doubt that the Left, having conferred infallibility upon John Murtha for his service, will be willing to give the same level of respect to another hero in their midst -- 29-year Air Force veteran and former POW Sam Johnson.

Somehow I doubt it. After all, he is a Texan, a Republican, and a supporter of the war in Iraq.

“Pulling our troops out of Iraq now is unconscionable and irresponsible.

“We’ve got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through.

“I bet Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is high-fiving his buddies and praising Allah after hearing these news reports. Immediate withdrawal- and the conflict sparked by this debate - is just what al-Zarqawi wants.

“I was just in Iraq and our troops told me that they are motivated to spread democracy. They’re fighting for freedom and they mean business.

“We need to get the job done in support of freedom and to eliminate Al-Qaeda terrorists around the world.

“In case people have forgotten, this is the same thing that happened in Vietnam. Peaceniks and people in Congress – and America - started saying bad things about what was going on over there. Let me tell you what it did for troop morale. It’s a real downer.

“I just pray our troops and their families can block this noise out and know that I will fight like mad to make sure our troops have everything they need - for as long as they need - to win the global war on terrorism.”

John Murtha does not speak for all American veterans -- not even a majority of them, based upon my experience. As I pointed out earlier, he does not speak for the men and women serving in Iraq today, or those who have recently returned.

Bravo, Congressman Johnson.

HAT TIP: Generation Why? and Blogs for Bush.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Rep. John Murtha continues his campaign of advocacy for a cut-and -run strategy in Iraq.

Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months, but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops.

Democrats tell us that we cannot question his motives or proposal because he is a veteran and a war hero.

I mean if a three-decades-out-of-uniform partisan hack like Murtha must be given respect becasue of his service, shouldn't the opinions of those coming back from Iraq be worth infinitely more?

While Democrats and Republicans disagree whether American troops should be pulled immediately from Iraq, several returning soldiers from the New York Army National Guard's 29th Personnel Services Detachment on Saturday agree: Continue the mission.

After stepping off the red, white and blue bus that brought them back -- soaking in their first moments with friends and family -- some of the 15 soldiers talked about their support of the war.

Yeah, you read that right -- soldiers returning from Iraq expressing support for the war. Not congresscritters like Rep. Murtha (whose three decades in Congress have earned him solid credentials as an REMF) demanding a repeat of the great skee-daddle from Saigon, and not folks who have been spoon-fed bad news by the liberally biased folks inthe mainstream media.

What do these serving heroes, fresh back from a year of active duty that included service in Iraq, have to say about the war?

Well, there is this opinion.

"I think that if we left now, it wouldn't be a good idea because there's so much left to be done," said Guard member Sarah Spicci, of Mayfield.

And there is this from a soldier who was a sceptic before his deployment.

When Spec. Jason Alexis headed overseas, he wasn't entirely sure why so many people needed to go.

The University at Albany senior from Brooklyn changed his mind once he arrived, though.

"We are really doing a lot of good," Alexis said. Soldiers are helping the country get back on its feet, he said.

And then there is this little tidbit from a soldier who is a member of a family of soldiers.

Sgt. Scott Diange was greeted by a contingent that included his father, who wore a T-shirt with photos of four generations of Diange men -- three of whom have gone to war, and one, Scott's son, who's not yet old enough to go.

He had a message for the civilians back here.

"Keep supporting us," Diange said. "It's going to go on for a long time. I think we're doing good. We should stay over there until the job's done."

Those are good words.

Did you get the message, Americans? "Keep supporting us."

Do you understand that, impatient advocates of withdrawal? "It's going to go on for a long time."

Democrats, are you listening? "I think we're doing good."

John Murtha, heed this message from a soldier fighting THIS war. "We should stay over there until the job's done."

Sgt. Scott Diange -- you have my support, and the support of all patriotic Americans. Let's work to convince the rest.

LINKING TO OPEN TRACKBACK: Stop The ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 03:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

Since the Left seems so upset about Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) daring to quote a serving member of the US military's reaction to Rep. John Murtha's(D-PA) "Surrender Now" approach to Iraq, why is there not at least equivalent outrage over the violent actions of Rep. Harold Ford (D -TN)?

Ms. Schmidt withdrew her words, but not before Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., Tennessee Democrat, seemed to be headed for a fight with Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican. Mr. Tancredo afterward said he had been arguing with another Democrat over some of the charges Democrats had hurled at Republicans during yesterday morning's budget vote, and said Mr. Ford must have thought the argument was about Mr. Murtha.

"Say it to Murtha," Mr. Ford repeatedly shouted at Mr. Tancredo while he was being restrained by other members. Mr. Tancredo said he replied he wasn't talking about Mr. Murtha and told Mr. Ford to go sit down.

Yeah, you read that right.

Harold Ford attempted to make an unprovoked sneak attack upon Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is not a question of whether the words wre appropriate -- this is the takes one back to the cowardly assault upon Republican Senator Charles Sumner by Democrat Congressman Preston Brooks. No doubt he sought to recreate a scene of Democrat glory like is pictured below -- the assault and attempted murder of an elected member of the legislative branch over a perceived insult in a speech.

It appears that Ford, therefore, while unwilling to stand up to the enemies of America, is more than prepared to adopt the methods of the Empire of Japan or al-Qaeda to subdue his unwarned and unwary opponents. Indeed, he has so long been immersed in the fetid fever swamp that is the Democrat Party that he would gladly ape the behavior the supporters of slavery visited upon the friends of freedom.

I urge the House to House of Representatives to take action against the tmember who most truly violated the decorum of the House of Representatives -- Harold Ford must be censured or expelled for his actions this evening.

UPDATE: Decided to do a bit of PhotoShop work on the period depiction of the assault on Sumner.

Also, additional commentary is found at Booker Rising and The Pesky Fly, Is It Just Me, and ReidBlog.

LINKED TO OPEN TRACKBACKS: Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Uncooperative Blogger, MacStansbury, Don Surber, Point Five, Bacon Bits, Cao's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Euphoric Reality, California Conservative, Florida Masochist, Wizbang, The Political Teen, Blue State Conservatives, bRight & Early, Conservative Cat, NIF, Adam's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Something & Half of Something, MVRWC.

Posted by: Greg at 05:41 PM | Comments (69) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 5 kb.

In a disgraceful move this evening, the House Democrats forced the withdrawal of remarks by Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), the least senior member of the body.

Her offense?

Quoting a constituent in her speech -- a Marine colonel.

The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"He asked me to send Congress a message _ stay the course. He also asked me to send U.S. Rep. Murtha a message _ that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said.

The Political Teen has video of the speech.

Ultimately, Schmidt was compelled to withdraw her remarks so that the obstructionist Democrats would allow The People's business to be conducted.

This is not atypical of the Democrats and their contempt for those who serve in uniform.

In 2000, they did their damnedest to make sure their voices were silenced by getting their votes thrown out in Florida.

Today they prevent the words of a Marine from being quoted on the House floor during a debate on the conduct of the war in Iraq.

The Democrat Party's message to our men and women in uniform remains loud and clear -- "Shut up! You and your opinions do not matter to us."

OTHER VOICES: Red State, DannyBoy, Lifelike Pundits, BizzyBlog, Just My Opinion, Face Made 4 Radio, The Baltimore Reporter, Two-Sheds Gomer, Aldaynet, Random Thoughts, Tributaries, Evil Conservative, Texas Native, New England Republican, Sister Toldjah, Political Pit Bull, Thespis, Brutally Honest, Jawa Report, and Vince Aut Morire, Is It Just Me.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | Comments (90) | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 4 kb.

What else can you call it when a Marine urges that the United States surrender to the rag-tag terrorists because he doubts the ability of the American military to defeat them?

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," [Congressman John] Murtha said in a Capitol news conference that left him in tears. Islamic insurgents "are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. ". . . It's time to bring them home."

How else can you interpret that except as a statement that US troops are no match for the forces of Islamist terror and a call to cut-and-run in shame? What else is this except a call to abandon the Iraqi people who we liberated from Saddam so that the forces of al-Zaqawi and bin Laden can take over and oppress them with their “back to the seventh century” creed?

In addition, it is clear that Murtha implicitly called for the destruction of civilian control of the military when his position was challenged by the elected representatives of the American people.

Murtha, asked about the comments, replied sarcastically: "I like guys who got five deferments and [have] never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done." Cheney did not serve in the military, and Bush was an Air National Guardsman who did not leave the United States during the Vietnam War.

Apparently Murtha has a problem with those elected by the American people running the military. He seems to say that only those who have seen combat should be permitted to speak or have opinions on military matters. In short, it appears that he is seeking a military dictatorship antithetical to the system established by our Founding Fathers. I doubt he actually believes this -- but since when has the mere fact that ones words or policies would undermine the US Constitution ever stopped a Democrat from doing what is politically expedient?

And I wonder – when did Murtha speak out against Clinton’s troop deployments? I would bet that the answer is “Never”.

Could it be that Murtha is something significantly less than a patriot speaking his conscience? Might it be that he is simply a partisan whore and a disgrace to the Corps?

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.

Just what Marylanders need during this time of increasing energy costs – higher prices and shorter supply.

Under the clean-air plan, three power plants in Montgomery County and Southern Maryland owned by Mirant Corp. and three in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties owned by Constellation Energy Group will have to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury. The companies no longer will be permitted to purchase credits that enable them to bypass those standards.

Ehrlich said the new regulations come "with a serious price tag" for the two companies, estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Constellation released a statement yesterday saying that could mean higher electric bills for Maryland customers. A spokesman for Atlanta-based Mirant said officials there were studying the proposal.

Interestingly enough, none of the environmentalists quoted seem interested in making it possible for new power plants to be built. The result of this will be shortages in supply as the plants are forced to cut back on production, and higher costs as the companies must expend money to make the plants meet the standards and/or buy on the spot-market.

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

I think that one of their own, on the receiving end of this intolerance, puts it best.

Service is an everyday thing; it means that an individual regularly sacrifices for the good of the whole. Sometimes that sacrifice is trivial (maybe I would like to wear bigger pearl earrings with those Class As, but I don't) and sometimes it is serious, such as complying with the regulations that govern political activity among Army Officers. In both situations, soldiers forgo a privilege in the name of a bigger purpose--serving their fellow citizens.

I never ask that my fellow liberals agree with me, just that they respect my sense of obligation and professional duty. But at Harvard, that's a tough sell. Here, the emphasis is on the individual--the "me", the "I," and the "mine." It is difficult to explain a group obligation to people who idolize the first person singular.

But the most difficult part of the recruiting period has been learning the limits of liberal tolerance. It has been uncomfortable to see that the lessons I learned from the traditional liberal platform appear not to apply to me.

I salute you, First Lieutenant Kate Thornton Buzick. May God bless you for your service to this country

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

My mom is probably related to half of Rhode Island – not a big feat, given the relative size of that state. Her hometown is Cranston, Rhode Island, and much of the family still lives up that way. As a result, I’ve long taken an interest in Rhode Island’s politics, and the lamentable records of the Chafee family as Republican senators.

As a result, I gladly join Captain Ed in endorsing Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey for the GOP nomination for Senate in 2006.

I make this endorsement despite the fact that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is actively opposing Laffey in favor of Chafee.

I make this endorsement because of the fact that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is actively opposing Laffey in favor of Chafee.

Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said it is "ridiculous" that Laffey is running against "the only Republican that can keep the seat in the Senate." The committee is financing the ads and urging Laffey to abandon the race.

In recent years, Laffey endeared himself to the GOP by challenging the state's unions and other public officials; Republicans once courted him for lieutenant governor. Now, he is ignoring their entreaties to step aside.

"This is the story of my life," said Laffey, a 43-year-old former investment banker. "People tell me I shouldn't do things, and I end up doing them. Seems like I do them for spite sometimes."

The son of a toolmaker, Laffey frequently boasts about attending Harvard Business School despite being told he would not get in straight out of college. He scoffs at the Republican argument about the Senate race.

"The national Republican Party has sort of lost its way," he said. "Think about it: The first $200,000 they're spending is against a fellow Republican."

Yeah, that’s right. They are not going after the Democrats. They are not going against Chafee, whose tendency is to oppose the President and the rest of the GOP at every turn. They are spending this cash – raised from conservative sources – to attack the Reagan Republican in the race!

So if you can, send a few bucks LaffeyÂ’s way.

And remember – Not One Dime to the national campaign organizations.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

Just look at the absurdity of this letter, spawned by a recent Houston Chronicle editorial condemning ¾ of Texans for disagreeing with the editorial board.

Common-law status

Kudos to the Chronicle for reminding readers of the shameful discrimination against fellow citizens through Proposition 2.

I missed the discussion about the consequences of Prop 2 on any legal status similar or identical to marriage, such as "common-law marriage." As far as I can see, Proposition 2 is in direct conflict with the state of Texas' recognition of common-law marriages.

I can't believe it is legal to annul this age-old practice on these unions between men and women; I don't believe that was the intention of those drafting and approving Prop 2.

JENS HOUKEN
Houston

Uh, Jens – many states do not recognize common-law marriage at all, so it is clearly legal (and constitutional) for a state to not recognize common-law marriage.

But more to the point, the amendment just passed by the voters of Texas defines marriage as being between one man and one woman – but does not stipulate a form by which marriage occurs. Common-law marriage, therefore, is still legal in Texas, and was never under any threat from Proposition 2.

Except in the rhetoric of dishonest advocates of homosexual marriage, out to frighten voters into rejecting a reasonable amendment to the Texas Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Consider this call to arms for all those liberals out there -- STOP REPRODUCING!.

"We can't be breeding right now," says Les Knight. "It's obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can't be justified today."

Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, an informal network of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth. Knight, whose convictions led him to get a vasectomy in the 1970s, when he was 25, believes that the human race is inherently dangerous to the planet and inevitably creates an unsustainable situation.

"As long as there's one breeding couple," he says cheerfully, "we're in danger of being right back here again. Wherever humans live, not much else lives. It isn't that we're evil and want to kill everything -- it's just how we live."

Let’s get Mr. Knight sterilized right now – there is no time to lose, because every second he remains attached to his testicles provides the opportunity for him to reproduce. Ditto the rest of the pro-extinction movement.

And let’s encourage them to go one step further – the Voluntary Liberal Extermination Movement should urge like-minded opponents of the human blight upon the world to engage in mass suicide. After all, why put off until tomorrow (extinction will take a while) what can and should be done today.

After all, if they really love the planet more than they love the human raceÂ…

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

I was somewhat concerned as I clicked on the link to Mark GreenÂ’s column on Tom DeLay. I had never read him before, and I was anticipating a sharp attack on my congressman.

I was wrong.

Instead I was treated to a defense of DeLay, and DeLayÂ’s own defense of the three rebukes he received from the Ehics Committee for non-violations of the Senateethics rules.

In an interview last month, I asked the former House majority leader to defend the three things that led the House ethics committee to wag its finger at him without finding any outright violation. His answer was a civics lesson in the form of a whiff of modern political coffee.

First, the golf fundraiser with executives of an energy company. The DeLay lesson: No one should be shocked that people with a lot of money will get to hang out with politicians. Ethical issues arise only if money or proximity sparks a dishonest change of position.

Second, the famed attempt to get the FAA to help snag the wayward Texas lawmakers who had bolted the state rather than face a losing vote on redistricting. The DeLay lesson: He sought to learn the whereabouts of these runaways so that the will of the people could be realized through a vote. And the problem with that is precisely what?

Third, the promise he offered to a retiring House colleague to support his son in a primary in return for a vote for the Bush Medicare plan. The DeLay lesson: "Happens all the time – I've traded all kinds of things to get things I wanted from other members of Congress. It's how things get done."

I cannot help but note that two of the defenses are concepts I teach in my government class. Legislators make deals all the time to get support for measures they want passed, even to the point of supporting legislation they dislike. People with money want to be people with influence so they seek to socialize with people of power – it is not a surprise and is not a problem until and unless there is a quid pro quo. And as for the FAA issue, the abandonment of one’s responsibilities as a legislator in order to prevent the will of the people being done is much more unethical than trying to locate those who are on the lam.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 2 kb.

Congressman Tom DeLay wants an early trial if the charges against him are not dismissed at a November 22 hearing.

An attorney for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said Monday that he will request an early December trial date for the former House majority leader, if the case gets that far.

Lawyer Dick DeGuerin said in a letter that "time is of the essence" in the case that has forced DeLay to temporarily step down from his House post.

Judge Pat Priest has set a hearing for next Tuesday to consider requests to drop the charges against DeLay and his co-defendants. Defense attorneys have asked that the charges be dropped for various reasons, including alleged misconduct by a prosecutor.

"Should the indictments survive the hearings of November 22, we will request a trial date in early December," DeGuerin wrote in his letter to Priest.

DeGuerin is also asking that Priest, a visiting judge, move the trial out of liberal-leaning Travis County to DeLay's home county of Fort Bend.

This whole trial could be over quickly if DeLay is given his constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.

The one thing that could throw up a roadblock is his desire to move the trial from Travis County – a county so left-of-center that it was the only county in Texas that rejected Proposition 2, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. I sincerely doubt that DeLay could get an unbiased jury of his peers in that county – but I don’t know that moving it to Fort Bend County, the heart of his power base, will fly. I would suggest Wharton County, or Matagorda County, each of which is outside the 22nd Congressional District but and “neutral ground” for the two parties to the case.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Robert “Sheets” Byrd is the senior Democrat in the US Senate. Tonight he is being honored with a party marking his 88th birthday. It is sponsored by Hillary! Clinton and the rest of the Democrat female senators.

The location of the party for the former Klansman, the serial filibusterer of civil rights legislation, the only senator to vote against the confirmation of both Supreme Court justices, and the spewer of the “N-word” on national television, is particularly outrageous. It is the home of abolitionist, civil rights pioneer, and life-long Republican Frederick Douglass.

Potential Clinton opponent Jeanine Pirro has shined a spotlight upon this outrage.

"It's outrageous and shocking that Senator Clinton and her Democrat colleagues would choose Frederick Douglass' house to honor Senator Robert Byrd who has a history of involvement with hate groups and has used racial slurs publicly," said Pirro spokeswoman Andrea Tantaros.

I wonder – will the former Klan leader and other guests be shuttled to the party in Rosa Parks’ bus?

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

The headline on this Washington Times article is dead wrong.

While he said he opposes such attacks, Howard Dean fell short of condemning them on Monday, for the second time showing that the Democrat Party remains the natural home of racists and race-baiters, as it has been since its birth.

"I oppose any effort to make an issue of a candidate's ethnicity in a political campaign, including in the Maryland Senate race," Mr. Dean said.

He issued the written statement after Maryland Republican Party Chairman John M. Kane prodded him to apologize for remarks he made Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

That really is not much of a disavowal, in my opinion. He opposed racist attacks upon GOP candidates, but he did not condemn them, did not urge that they stop, and did not urge other Democrats to speak out against such racism.

And then Dean, who cannot bring himself to forthrightly condemn real racism, found it necessary to bring up imaginary racism for partisan purposes.

"I also call on Chairman Mehlman to join me in condemning Republican secretaries of state who continue to make it harder for African-Americans around the country to exercise their right to vote," Mr. Dean said.

Unfortunately for Dean, such claims have been debunked in every investigation of alleged voting rights violations.

Perhaps even more pathetic was this complaint.

The DNC also circulated an e-mail that quoted Mr. Kane in May describing Mr. Dean as the "socialist-endorsing party chairman," an apparent reference to Mr. Dean endorsing the Senate run of U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a registered independent and self-described "democratic socialist."

I guess that means that the plain, unvarnished truth is now unacceptable if it paints Dean in a bad light.

What I find particularly interesting is that the so-called “Party of Civil Rights” found the Dean statement to be so unimportant that it did not even add it to its news release page. Ditto Dean’s own political organization, Democracy for America. I guess that they both are too embarrassed by the Screamin’ Deanie to put his words where they might be available to the public at large.

ALSO COMMENTING: Blogs For Bush

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

So says the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Monday a Florida law that generally bars convicted felons from voting, even after they have completed their term of prison, probation and parole.

The high court rejected an appeal which argued that the law could be challenged under a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits voter disqualification based on race.

Every state in the nation, except for Maine and Vermont, prohibit, to one degree or another, felons from voting. Fourteen states, including Florida, generally bar felons from voting even after they have served their sentences and have completed their terms of probation and parole.

Approximately 5 million felons who have been released from prison are legally disenfranchised, civil rights experts have estimated. About 1.4 million black men remain permanently disenfranchised.

The appeal to the Supreme Court involved eight Florida citizens who brought the class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 613,000 Florida felons who are barred from voting even though they have completed their prison sentences and their terms of probation or parole.

Under the law, felons are barred from voting for life unless their civil rights have been restored by Florida's Clemency Board. Attorneys who challenged the law said that Florida, Alabama, Kentucky and Virginia were the only states that disenfranchise first-time offenders for life.

The lawsuit challenged the law, which was initially adopted in 1868 and revised 100 years later, for violating the Voting Rights Act and for disproportionately disenfranchising blacks.

Now we can question the wisdom of such laws, but not their constitutionality. It does not even take much legal scholarship to reach the result announced today. After all, one simply needs to go to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

In other words, the Constitution itself settles this matter, granting the states the right to impose such bans on felon voting. The solution, then, is in the legislatures of the sttes that impose such bans, not the courts.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

Once again, we have proof that the racist apple does not fall far from the DNC tree. Howard Dean will not apologize for or condemn racial attacks upon Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.

The RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman, points to the problem.

"He's had racial epithets thrown at him. He's been derided on a Web site that the Democrats have. And while some Democrats in Maryland have criticized it, there's been utter silence from national Democrats on this important issue," Mr. Mehlman said.

"I would also hope he'd condemn the following: There are a whole bunch of Democratic candidates and Republican candidates around the country. But Charles Schumer and the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] chose one candidate [Mr. Steele] to go after his credit report and engage in identity theft against him," Mr. Mehlman said.

The response to these issues by Dean? Self-centered, self-absorbed complaining, and not a word about the acts of racism coming out of his own party.

Mr. Dean declined to address the statements against Mr. Steele, but said, "I didn't hear Ken condemning the chairman of the Maryland party when he called me an anti-Semite."

The funny thing is that the Maryland GOP Chair has never said any such thing; while there was a controversy about the words of the GOP Chairman in New York, he never made the statements referenced by Howard Dean. I guess this is another one of Howard Dean’s lies – in the service of the traditional racism directed by the Democrat Party against black Republicans, a custom that dates back to Reconstruction in his party.

So much for the leader of the so-called “Party of Civil Rights”.

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Once again, we have proof that the racist apple does not fall far from the DNC tree. Howard Dean will not apologize for or condemn racial attacks upon Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.

The RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman, points to the problem.

"He's had racial epithets thrown at him. He's been derided on a Web site that the Democrats have. And while some Democrats in Maryland have criticized it, there's been utter silence from national Democrats on this important issue," Mr. Mehlman said.

"I would also hope he'd condemn the following: There are a whole bunch of Democratic candidates and Republican candidates around the country. But Charles Schumer and the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] chose one candidate [Mr. Steele] to go after his credit report and engage in identity theft against him," Mr. Mehlman said.

The response to these issues by Dean? Self-centered, self-absorbed complaining, and not a word about the acts of racism coming out of his own party.

Mr. Dean declined to address the statements against Mr. Steele, but said, "I didn't hear Ken condemning the chairman of the Maryland party when he called me an anti-Semite."

The funny thing is that the Maryland GOP Chair has never said any such thing; while there was a controversy about the words of the GOP Chairman in New York, he never made the statements referenced by Howard Dean. I guess this is another one of Howard Dean’s lies – in the service of the traditional racism directed by the Democrat Party against black Republicans, a custom that dates back to Reconstruction in his party.

So much for the leader of the so-called “Party of Civil Rights”.

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Wisconsin is one of the states that is likely to vote on preserving the traditional definition of marriage in 2006.

In the next 12 months, Wisconsin voters should expect to become familiar with what might be the most talked-about two sentences of the 2006 campaign season.

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

That's the language of a proposed constitutional amendment on track to be on statewide ballots by next Nov. 7.

There are likely to be 10 to 12 marriage amendments on state ballots in 2006. Given WisconsinÂ’s traditionally liberal/progressive outlook, expect it to be a battleground state in this important cultural fight.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, I don't know why we should be surprised -- Howard Dean wouldn't know the truth if he found it chewing on his tie.

Dean charged it was hypocritical for conservatives to denounce the possibility of a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster against Alito, a federal appeals judge since 1990.

Dean noted conservatives had helped force President George W. Bush's earlier nominee, White House counsel Harriet Miers, to withdraw without even getting a hearing.

"How dare they have an ad saying we want an up-or-down vote on Judge Alito, when they wouldn't give one to Harriet Miers?" Dean told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Uhhhhh -- wrong, Howard.

I don't know of a single conservative who opposed giving Ms. Miers a vote. We simply warned the White House that we, the members of his base who did the legwork to get him elected, were not supportive of the nomination and that we would be urging GOP senators to vote against Ms. Miers. We reminded him that the defeat of the Miers nomination would weaken him, and suggested that he would do better to act from strength by withdrawing the nominee before she was defeated or confirmed with significant opposition from his own party. There was no one on the GOP side talking about there not being a vote.

on the other hand, the Democrats have regularly taken the opposite position. They seek to prevent any vote, regardless of whether or not the nominee has a majority behind him or her. Where conservatives would have permitted a vote even if they were to lose, liberals don't want a vote at all if they are going to be defeated.

With the possible exception of Hugh Hewitt (who I believe to have been unhinged on the Miers matter), no one on the Right considers a urging the withdrawal of a nominee to be the same as filibustering a nominee.Our method was to urge reconsideration -- the Left's method was an act of obstructionism. That Dean does not recognize the difference is indicative of either dishonesty or dementia.

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

Now I donÂ’t consider this to be a big deal. If Tom DeLay could have made all of this go away via a misdemeanor plea to an obscure violation of campaign finance law, no one other than the most partisan Democrat would have considered it to be a substantial problem.

Lawyers for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) tried unsuccessfully in late September to head off felony criminal indictments against the then-majority leader on charges of violating Texas campaign law by signaling that DeLay might plead guilty to a misdemeanor, according to four sources familiar with the events.

The lawyers' principal aim was to try to preserve DeLay's leadership position under House Republican rules that bar lawmakers accused of felonies from holding such posts. DeLay was forced to step down as leader on Sept. 28 after the first of two grand jury indictments.

The last-minute negotiations between the lawyers and Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle were arranged after DeLay made what Earle considered a seriously damaging admission about his fundraising activities during an Aug. 17 meeting with the prosecutor in Austin.

Now what was the “damaging admission”?

At that session, DeLay acknowledged that in 2002 he was informed about and expressed his support for transfers of $190,000 in mostly corporate funds from his Texas political action committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington and then back to Texas, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition that they not be named.

Those transfers are at the heart of the prosecutor's investigation of the alleged use of corporate funds in the 2002 Texas elections, in violation of state law. In the prosecutor's view, DeLay's admission put him in the middle of a conspiracy not only to violate that law but also to launder money.

Now the problem is that Earle is making a really big leap here – arguing that DeLay’s support for the move after it was underway constitutes a conspiracy.

Asked what his role was in creating TRMPAC, DeLay said it was his vision and his idea, the sources said. But he reiterated that he knew only in general terms about its day-to-day operations. DeLay said he was also generally aware of a plan to shift money between Texas and Washington. It called for pulling together $190,000, sending it up to Washington and getting the same amount sent back to Texas for state election campaigns.

According to matching accounts provided separately by the sources, DeLay was asked whether such a deal happened and responded yes. Asked if he knew beforehand that the deal was going to happen, DeLay said yes. Asked how he knew, DeLay said that his longtime political adviser, Ellis, came into his office, told him it was planned and asked DeLay what he thought. DeLay told Earle that he recalled saying, "Fine." He added that he knew it was corporate money but said it was fine because he thought it was legal.

In other words, DeLay did not conceive the plan, he took no part in implementing the plan, and his only response was to say he thought the plan was fine because he believed that the plan was legal – and based upon the practices of Democratic PACs in the state of Texas, that was a legitimate belief. I’d even be willing to bet that the plan had been thoroughly vetted with the group’s lawyers long before any transfers were made. But most importantly, there is clearly no evidence of intent to violate the law, nor of a desire to violate the law. Even more importantly, one would be hard pressed to make this acknowledgement into a conspiratorial move.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that Ronnie Earle wanted a guilty plea without either party being certain that the actions in question even constituted a crime.

The principal reason the deal foundered was that DeLay's attorneys wanted to postpone his plea until after the Texas appellate courts had ruled on the validity of the state election law provisions at issue, the sources said. Under their proposal, if the courts agreed the law was invalid, then all charges would be dismissed and the promise of a plea forgotten. For the two years it might take to resolve the issue, DeLay would be able to keep his post.

Earle insisted instead that DeLay enter a plea with the court immediately. He was willing only to defer punishment until appeals related to the validity of the law were exhausted; striking any other deal would show undue favoritism to DeLay, several sources said he argued. But DeLay's defense team felt such a decision would gravely damage the majority leader's political standing.

In other words, Earle wanted an admission of criminal conduct without there being a ruling on the proper manner of construing the statute. He was more concerned with getting the plea he wanted than with getting it right. That is clearly a sign of an unethical prosecutor who is out of control.

Linked to: My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Stop the ACLU, wizbang, Bright and Early, The Political Teen, Jo’s Cafe, Stuck on Stupid, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Conservative Cat, MacStansbury, Something and Half of Stomething, Big Dog’s Weblog, Choose Life, Adam’s Blog, Third World County, Uncooperative Blogger, Point Five, Basil’s Blog, NIF, 10ft2ft.

Posted by: Greg at 11:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 886 words, total size 7 kb.

What would happen if a public university tried to set up a set of special program to provide lucrative fellowship to white or male students (or – horrors – exclusively to white males) to the exclusion of women and minorities? There would be howls of outrage, and the courts would shut down the program in a flash. What’s more, minority politicians like Barack Obama would be demanding investigations and criminal charges.

But when programs are set up which apply equally repulsive criteria to exclude whites or males based upon race or sex, these same race-baiters remain mute on the issue of discrimination – and attack those who demand equal treatment in the distribution of government benefits.

President Bush's administration has threatened to sue Southern Illinois University, alleging its fellowship programs for minority and female students violate federal civil rights laws by discriminating against whites, men and others.

In a move Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said "just doesn't make sense," the U.S. Justice Department charged that three SIU programs that aim to increase minority enrollment in graduate school exclude whites, other minorities and males, in violation of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act.

"The University has engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against whites, non-preferred minorities and males,'' says a Justice Department letter sent to the university last week and obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.
The letter demands the university cease the fellowship programs, or the department's civil rights division will sue SIU by Nov. 18.

The university, of course, is fighting – and claiming since there are other programs that allow for white men to get fellowship, the racially and sexually exclusive programs are acceptable. The problem is, though, that the programs that are open to white men are not limited to white men – they also allow the participation of those who are entitled to receive the exclusive awards – meaning that the programs allow those individuals to receive two bites at the apple while white men get only one – based only on race and sex.

Oh, and Obama went a bit further in his comments on the challenge to the program.

A spokesman for the Justice Department's civil rights division declined comment Thursday, but Illinois' junior U.S. senator ridiculed the maneuver as a "cynical" bid to distract public attention from Bush's sagging popularity.

"One of my concerns has been with all the problems the Bush administration is having, that they'll start resorting to what they consider to be wedge issues as a way of helping themselves politically," Obama said.

"If anything, the White House should be doing everything it can to encourage more engineering students and Ph.D.'s. It strikes me as a completely unnecessary and divisive move and one that I think may be pretty cynical in its motive," Obama said.

Hey, I agree – the White House should be encouraging more engineering students and Ph.D.’s. However, it must do so in a way that complies with the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution and the various and sundry civil rights laws of the nation. How, Senator, could you possibly defend these programs when the person in charge of them makes the following definitive statements regarding them?

Pat McNeil, an assistant dean and administrator of the Underrepresented Fellowships Office, said she knows of no white students who have applied for the Bridge or Proactive Recruitment programs.

The Web site describing the Bridge program specifically says it is only open to members of underrepresented minority groups. Several white women who have "overcome hardship" have been awarded the Graduate Dean's Fellowship, even though women outnumber men at the university. White men need not apply, however. "I'll be upfront with you -- no white male will get this award,'' McNeil said.

Got that, sir – “no white male will get this award.” You would be up in arms if the statement were “no black male will get this award.” The difference is, I’m up in arms over racial discrimination regardless of the race of the victim. You, on the other hand, are only concerned if it is your race getting unconstitutionally excluded from participation in government programs. That, sir, is rank hypocrisy.

Oh, yeah, about the comment that no white students had applied for two of the programs – could it be that the cause lies in the explicit exclusion of whites from the program? After all, who is going to apply for a program that states in the application packet that they will not be considered for selection?

MORE ON THIS TOPIC: LaShawn Barber, Discriminations, Infinitely Prolonged, Independent Conservative, Ed Driscoll, Free Will, Sofyst-ication, Smegmaster, Small Town Veteran, In The Agora, Red State, Marked Up, Holy Coast, IndyLaw, Dave Hayes, and Sensible Mom

La Shawn has what I think is the most compelling argument against programs like the one at SIU.

A government with the power to discriminate in favor of blacks also has the power to discriminate against blacks. Remember that.

Amen, my sister.

LINKED TO: My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Stop the ACLU, wizbang, Bright and Early, The Political Teen, Jo’s Cafe, Stuck on Stupid, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Conservative Cat, MacStansbury, Something and Half of Stomething, Big Dog’s Weblog, Choose Life, Adam’s Blog, Third World County, Uncooperative Blogger, Point Five, Basil’s Blog, NIF, and 10ft2ft.

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 898 words, total size 8 kb.

If this had been a conservative event. You know, a pro-life demonstration, a support the troops rally, or a campaign event for a proposition to ban gay marriage.

But it wasn't. It was a rally against the president, against the war, and against the troops, sponsored by a bunch of Communists.

World Can't Wait -- an anti-Bush, anti-war group, recently staged nationwide protests. The organization coordinated rallies in Chicago, Seattle, New York, San Francisco -- and Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Unified School District took things a step further. The district helpfully agreed to provide buses -- that's right, buses -- as well as "adult supervision" to the nearly 800 high school students who walked out of 10 high schools. District officials said they thought it best to provide adults and transportation, since, you know, the kids intended to go to the rally, anyway. "Our issue . . . was safety," said the district's chief operating officer, "and I think we fulfilled our mission, frankly."

But this must have been OK – there were no conservatives in sight, the event supported anti-American values, and its not like LAUSD students learn anything during the school day anyway – after all, roughly 70% of students fall below the national average on standardized tests.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

If this had been a conservative event. You know, a pro-life demonstration, a support the troops rally, or a campaign event for a proposition to ban gay marriage.

But it wasn't. It was a rally against the president, against the war, and against the troops, sponsored by a bunch of Communists.

World Can't Wait -- an anti-Bush, anti-war group, recently staged nationwide protests. The organization coordinated rallies in Chicago, Seattle, New York, San Francisco -- and Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Unified School District took things a step further. The district helpfully agreed to provide buses -- that's right, buses -- as well as "adult supervision" to the nearly 800 high school students who walked out of 10 high schools. District officials said they thought it best to provide adults and transportation, since, you know, the kids intended to go to the rally, anyway. "Our issue . . . was safety," said the district's chief operating officer, "and I think we fulfilled our mission, frankly."

But this must have been OK – there were no conservatives in sight, the event supported anti-American values, and its not like LAUSD students learn anything during the school day anyway – after all, roughly 70% of students fall below the national average on standardized tests.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the pre-eminent “truths” anti-American Leftists have put forward in the Wilson-Plame affair is that a CIA referral to the Justice Department is proof that a crime has been committed – and that someone has committed treason. I’ve argued against this absurd notion on Leftist sites over the last couple years that this is not so, as a request for an investigation proves nothing. Leftists, of course, reject that argument because it is politically convenient for them to do so.

So, without further ado, let us note that a crime has been committed in the leaking of reports of secret prisons abroad, and that the Washington Post cooperated in treason by printing the story.

The Central Intelligence Agency has asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation to determine the source of a Washington Post article that said the agency had set up a covert prison network in Eastern Europe and other countries to hold important terrorism suspects, government officials said on Tuesday.

The C.I.A.'s request, known as a crimes report or criminal referral, means that the Justice Department will undertake a preliminary review to determine if circumstances justify a criminal inquiry into whether any government official unlawfully provided information to the newspaper. The possibility of this new investigation follows by less than two weeks the perjury and obstruction indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., then Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, in a leak case involving other news reporting about a national security issue.

Republican leaders in Congress also jumped into the matter over The Post's article, asking the Intelligence Committees of the House and the Senate on Tuesday to investigate whether classified material had been disclosed. At the same time, the Senate rejected a Democratic call for an independent commission that would conduct an investigation into claims of abuses of detainees in American custody.

Eric C. Grant, a spokesman for the newspaper, said it would have no comment on the new developments concerning its article. A spokesman for the C.I.A. said a crimes report had indeed been sent to the Justice Department but would not otherwise comment.

The front-page article, published last Wednesday, said the agency had set up secret detention centers in as many as eight countries in the last four years.

Surely the Left will now demand the prosecution of all involved Washington Post employees for the crime of disclosing this classified information – and the shutting down of the paper for engaging in treasonous activities.

Or are they just a bunch of hypocrites?

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there is this Australian atrocity.

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 1 – Creating a rail relocation and improvement fund.

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

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

YES – This keeps Texas from becoming Massachusetts.

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

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

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

YES – Duh!

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

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

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

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

Prop 7 – Authorizing reverse mortgages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 1 – Creating a rail relocation and improvement fund.

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

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

YES – This keeps Texas from becoming Massachusetts.

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

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

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

YES – Duh!

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

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

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

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

Prop 7 – Authorizing reverse mortgages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment