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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hart says we are moving towards theocracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hart says we are moving towards theocracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combs was not available for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it should be clear after reading this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take his latest column in the Chicago Sun-Times.

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

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

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

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

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

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